Loading...
11-17-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES November 17, 2004 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie Dewees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 2 1. DRC No.3908-04 -SON LIGHT CHRISTIAN CENTER (Orange Theater) Request to approve vinyl replacement windows. 172 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Item Continued from DRC Meetings of May 19, 2004, and October 20, 2004 DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Members Joe Woollett and Craig Wheeler recused themselves from this item. Committee Member Wheeler stayed in the room to maintain a quorum. Senior Planner Daniel Ryan introduced the item, which was continued from the DRC Meetings of May 19, 2004 and October 20, 2004. The DRC's action on this item is a Final Determination. The applicant is requesting approval for vinyl replacement windows that were installed on the Son Light Christian Center building. At the October 20, 2004 DRC Meeting, the applicant's attorney presented a 37-page summary of information discussing their concerns on the use and replacement windows on the Son Light Christian Center building. This item was continued to the DRC Meeting of November 17, 2004, to allow Staff and the DRC Members time to read the applicant's information. Staff has concerns that the work as proposed does not comply with the Old Towne Design Standards, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation/Guidelines in the use of appropriate materials for contributing historic buildings within the City's Historic District. Staff recommends that the DRC deny the request to allow the use of vinyl replacement windows, and that the applicant should remove all vinyl replacement windows and install new true divided light wood windows that match the historic profile, sash dimension, proportion and finish in the original wood period windows. The applicant's attorney, Maryann Cazzell, stated that it would create a hardship for the Son Light Christian Center to have to replace the windows. Mr. Ryan stated that it was up to the applicant to figure out how they were going to perform the work within the required period of time, and Code Enforcement would work with the applicant in that regard, but typically the DRC does not get involved with hardship issues. Ms. Cazzell asked if there were a reason for this and were they prohibited from doing so? And Mr. Ryan stated that it just was not one of their charges, that the DRC reviewed the design aesthetics of the project as they relate to the Old Town Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and ensure that those guidelines and standards are interpreted correctly. The timeframes for completion of the re-work were discussed. Committee member Dewees asked if the DRC's job was to make a recommendation as to what would be a reasonable time to accomplish the changes, and Mr. Ryan said that it was. Chair Califf stated that once an application was received for a building permit, the applicant has, typically, 180 days to pull a permit, and you can receive a 180-day extension. Once a permit is pulled, you would have two years to complete the work under the permit. He asked to have this fact confirmed, but he believes that's the case as set forth in the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Ryan stated that this was correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 3 Chair Califf stated that he was inclined to move that the applicant be required to apply, within 90 days, for a building permit to replace the windows with wood casement windows matching to the greatest degree possible the original windows which were true divided light, and complete the construction within the time prescribed by the Uniform Building Code. He noted that this would effectively give the Son Light Christian Center approximately three years to complete the work, and he further noted that this would be the same time period that would be given to anyone under the same circumstances. Mr. Dewees asked that the applicant return with an actual proposal of what work would be done. Ms. Cazzell asked for specifics on the time allowed to complete the work, once the permit was received. Chair Califf emphasized that it would be per the time specified in the Uniform Building Code, and would not be a grant of special privilege to Son Light Christian Center. Chair Califf stated, again, that the DRC would not consider overriding the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. That does not prevent the applicant from coming back before the DRC with the request for a change. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf that the applicant be conditioned to replace the existing vinyl sliding windows with wood casement windows matching as nearly as possible the original units that were in the building. The applicant shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The specific window manufacturer, when it is determined, should be submitted to Staff and potentially to the DRC at Staff's discretion for review and approval prior to a building permit being issued. 2. The applicant shall apply for the building permit to restore the windows within 90 days of DRC approval, and complete the permit application process, pull the permit and complete the work within the time period allowed by the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Orange. 3. If the applicant puts the property in escrow prior to the above time period, the work must be completed prior to the close of escrow. Chair Califf asked if there was any discussion. There was none by the DRC members. Ms. Cazzell stated that, for the record, Sun Light Christian Center is reserving all its rights. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED Ms. Roseberry advised the applicant that final determination by the DRC may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The information on how to do this, she noted, is on the back of the agenda for this meeting. She stated that, for the record, the appeal must be filed within 1 S calendar days of the action, and Day 1 would be tomorrow (November 18, 2004). There is a deposit of $1,000. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 4 2. DRC No. 3957-04 -PAIN DUMONDE @ SALON GALLERY Request to enclose an exterior building walkway for use as an outdoor patio and waiting area for a beauty salon and coffee shop 3443 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Chris Carnes gave the staff overview of this project. The applicant is proposing the removal of existing walkways and landscaping in front of a commercial building so as to create an enclosed patio for a waiting area for the salon and outdoor seating for a coffee counter. Mr. Carnes noted that staff felt that it appeared to be more of an addition, as it does not bear any of the design features of the existing building. Staff recommended removing the black awning that is proposed, and perhaps adding some brick trim to the faux stucco wall. Jeff Rabbit, designer, represented the applicant at the DRC meeting. He noted that he and the owner, who could not be present, had read Staff's recommendations and really did not find any objections to the elimination of the awning. He noted that the building face would be covered, eventually, with some type of vine and that would soften the appearance. He noted that there were some contemporary elements on the existing building that they tried to replicate, and also to propose neutral tones for the colors. He further noted that they were open to adding some sort of a brick element to the building if that is what the DRC wants, and he offered several suggestions where this could be accomplished. Committee Member Woollett stated that he was not concerned about making the new patio area look like the building behind it, as he felt it was important for each of the businesses to establish a unique look for their property. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he would very much like to see something in the patio area that related back to the building so that it did not appear as an isolated element. He didn't, however, feel strongly about the idea of just the brick trim. What would appeal most to him, he felt, was if the panels below the laths were brick to match the building. Then the new forms could be accomplished (the vertical stucco elements) but the base, if made of brick, would show the relationship between the two. Committee Member Dewees felt the same, however he would reverse the two, making the pilasters of brick, and the base would be stucco. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The awning shall be removed from building elevations. 2. That either the wall pilasters of the lower horizontal portions of the wall shall use brick of a type similar to the existing building. 3. The landscape design be restudied to see if there isn't a better alternative for the horseshoe bamboo that is specified. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 5 4. A final landscape and irrigation plan be submitted for Staff review. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 6 3. DRC No. 3958-04 -STEVEN AND CAROL YOSHIZUMI Request to construct an addition that exceeds 20% of the existing floor area 131 N. Waverly Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, gave the staff overview. He noted that the applicant proposes to expand the living area of their one-story residence with a new addition to the rear of their building. The 713 sq. ft. addition will include two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a 174 sq. ft. covered porch to be added to the rear of the new addition. According to the Old Town Design standards as the addition exceeds 20% of the existing floor area; the project requires approval by the Planning Commission. The layout of the project has an existing 2-car garage that is a bit difficult to get into. The area between the existing house and the garage is approximately 16 feet, with about 10 feet between the face of the stoop and the face of the garage. The north edge of the garage has about a four foot return, and Staff is recommending that they put a strong wall or a shortened return there, and restore the garage to some kind of carriage style doors. Staff applied a turning template to the project, and if the garage were to remain where it is, basically the car would hit the stoop. One possibility may be to close off the door in the kitchen (as there is another exit), which would also give more counter space in the kitchen. In lieu of that choice, 499 sq. ft. are allowed to be built without requiring a performing 2-car garage. Mr. Ryan said the addition is well designed, the streetscape pattern is well maintained, the architectural style fits the building. Staff is recommending approval on the size of the addition, even if it does go to the Planning Commission, because it cannot be seen from the street, the roof height is not more than the existing roof height, etc. It meets all the criteria, with the exception of being able to classify the garage as a working two-car garage because of the allowance is less than the back-up required. Douglas Ely, DSE Architecture, introduced himself as the architect on the project. He noted that the comments made by Mr. Ryan do not show up in the staff report they were given, so he wanted to qualify the remarks. Chair Califf stated that the requirements were code requirements. Mr. Ely noted the comment in the staff report that they increase the size of the garage doors. He stated that the applicants were currently able to park two cars in the garage without the increase in the garage door size. The applicant, Carol Yoshizumi stated that while it was a bit difficult to park the cars, but the original doors were old, and to change it would be a shame. Mr. Ely had prepared and presented a response to the request by Staff to change the garage doors. The request from Staff was to look into increasing the width of the garage doors. In order to accomplish they would have to move the existing water heater, and structurally, in order to widen the door a new 4 x 14 foot header. He believed the building department would also require them to put in a strong wall, and it is not known if the footing is deep enough to handle the anchor bolts, etc. So, basically the entire facade would have to be redone. The applicant and the architect stated their preference to leave the existing garage door as it is, noting that it still has notes on it from previous owners. The other concern is that once the garage door is off, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 7 trying to put it back on would be extremely difficult and might not ever function properly. The extra foot of the opening, they felt, did not justify the rework. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 464 N. Shaffer, stated that she felt the garage was historic, and admired the existing structure. She noted that was 16-foot back-up space from the garage, and she had difficulty at her own home with 20 feet. However, there is precedent that has been set, there was a house on North Orange that had asingle-car garage and they were allowed to keep it. Committee Member Wheeler asked how that was accomplished, had they been required to obtain a variance, and Ms. Crenshaw stated that she was not sure. Mr. Ryan stated that he believed this was allowed because that particular residence had an additional open parking space. Mr. Ely stated that perhaps the two bottom steps on the stoop could be removed, and there would be an additional two feet. Mr. Yoshizumi felt the back door was essential because of carrying in groceries to the kitchen from the garage, etc. Chair Califf felt that the spirit of the historic building code had been met, and it was designed so that historic structures as the garage would not have to meet the code exactly, and could remain intact. He felt this issue was more of a zoning issue. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 382 S. Orange Street, stated that he also felt everything should be done to keep the existing garage just as it is, as well as keeping the original garage doors. Mr. Frankel did feel that the addition is quite large. Committee Member Dewees also felt that the design was quite good, and had been accomplished while keeping the addition out of sight of the street. Committee Member Wheeler asked how the design of the rear porch came about. Mr. Ely, the architect, stated that they wanted to have the open porch in front, and the applicant wanted to have acovered/enclosed porch in back (the applicant noted that they have a 3-year old child). Mr. Wheeler asked if any windows were planned on the back porch, noting that it was unusual not to have them. Ms. Yoshizumi felt that for privacy, her child's napping, etc., they would not have them. She stated that they were not opposed to have them. Mr. Ely stated that they had discussed framing in a window so that one could be added in the future, but for now did not want to have one. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission subject to the following conditions: 1. Specify the new window treatment as wood to as closely match the existing windows as possible, including new window trim to match the existing house window trim. 2. It is the DRC's recommendation that the garage be allowed to remain, as is, without widening the garage door, but noting it is a matter for the Planning Commission to consider as a variance item. The suggestion is changing the steps in back to reduce the stoop is one that the DRC endorses. 3. Change the plane of the eave so as to make it a pop-out, or do so by extending the barges. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 8 SECOND: Donnie Deweees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 9 4. DRC No. 3965-04 -FIRE STATION NO. 8 (Capital Improvement Project No. 2681) Request for preliminary review of conceptual plans for the construction of a new 7,800 square foot fire station (Fire Station No. 8). 5725 East Carver Lane (northeast corner of Cannon Avenue and Carver Lane) Staff Contact: Jennifer McDonald, Associate Planner/ Environmental Review Coordinator DRC Action: Preliminary Review (detailed plans will be submitted to DRC for review at a later date). The item was introduced by Jennifer McDonald, Association Planner. She noted that it is a City Capital Improvement Project. She introduced Jim Nicoloff, the Project Architect, as well as Jack Thomas from the Fire Department. The project consists of the construction of a new fire station to replace the existing temporary fire station located on the site. The project also includes relocation of an existing water utility and enclosing the utility. The architecture is contemporary Spanish style with a hip the roof and a stucco finish. Ms. McDonald noted that Staff did receive a cost estimate for the project that was very much over budget, and that they will be reviewing the design and materials over the next few months in order to get within the project budget. As a result, the DRC will be presented with several options for the roof and fencing. An overview of the project was given, noting that the area was predominately single-family residential housing, and the predominant design is Spanish-style. Only two houses actually face the proposed site. The overall site is 3.3 acres, and only 1.1 acres are being focused on, due to budget constraints. It was noted that there is a Metropolitan Water Department (MWD) easement of 50 feet that goes through the back of the site, and it ultimately does have an impact on the landscape design. MWD has agreed to allow the driveway pavement across the easement, but the fire department is precluded from building or planting trees across that easement area. So there is a "hole" in the landscaping in that area. It was noted that the original budget for the project was developed approximately 5 years ago, with costs estimated at $240/square foot. Costs today are running at about $300/square foot and so the design team is faced with a number of challenges on how to accomplish their task and remain within budget. It was also noted that chain link fencing with a dark vinyl coating would be used. Committee Member Wheeler asked that instead of chain link which is not allowed by the City), had they looked into any of the rectilinear mesh fences? They have been looked at for other projects, and may work well with this one, and may be considered. Ms. McDonald stated that the landscape plan, per code, would require approximately 56 trees. The current plan shows only about 25, and it was noted that the plan addressed (as stated above) only about 1.5 of the acres on the site. One of the issues is that there are currently several trees existing on the site, and they appear not to be growing well due to the soil. This needs to be look into further with the landscape architect, as well as the area where the MWD has their easement this area can only have ground cover, no trees). City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 10 Staff recommends considering some additional detailing to the building to break up the considerable massing on the front of the building. Mr. Dewees felt that the break in the roofline, the entry tower, the clearstory windows, etc., helped greatly to break up the mass. Mr. Wheeler asked that a roof plan be brought back to the DRC when they bring the plans back for final review. Mr. Dewees felt that the windows should be enlarged a little bit, and all agreed. Ms. McDonald noted that the final plans, once completed, for the trash enclosure and the pump station would also be brought back to the DRC for review. There was discussion regarding the screening wall for headlights. Jack Thomas from the Fire Department noted that they had been occupying that property for the past eight years and there had not been a problem. Still, it would be looked into to avoid any headlamp fall-off into the adjoining residential neighborhood. No action -review only. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 11 5. DRC No. 3962-04 -HOME DEPOT Request to demolish 114,883 square foot commercial building and construct a new 102,000 square foot commercial building with a 31,000 square foot garden center within an existing shopping center. Parking lot, landscape improvements and signage are also proposed. 1855 North Tustin Street (northeast corner of Tustin Street and Taft Avenue) Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission The project was introduced by Anne Fox, a contract planner with the city. She noted that the existing commercial structure would be demolished, and the footprint would be reconfigured to incorporate a 31,000 square foot garden center along with the new 102,000 square foot commercial building for Home Depot. Additionally, the existing parking lot area, which serves the entire shopping center, would be upgraded to current City Code requirements in terms of number of required spaces, and for striping, lighting and landscaping development standards. Ms. Fox noted that Home Depot has gone to a point distribution system, thus consolidating the deliveries to the site and eliminating the need for multiple deliveries from each of the separate good being sold at the site. Committee Member Wheeler asked about loudspeakers at the site, and would there be paging of people, etc? Ms. Fox noted that this had been a concern, as Home Depot typically does this. As it moves forward through the environmental process, the Planning Commission could require certain restrictions on a conditional use permit to mitigate the noise to the surrounding neighborhoods (i.e., quiet hours, dark times, etc.) It was noted that this was not a typical prototype Home Depot Building, but had been designed specifically for this site. Committee Member Wheeler questioned the raised parapets on Katella, stating that they read as a mass, not as a fin. There was consensus with the Committee Members that the fin parapets be wrapped. Two different color schemes for the building were presented, and the Committee Members discussed their preferences. It was agreed that the first color scheme was preferred over the second. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project subject to the following conditions: 1. Every effort should be made to mitigate problems with neighbors. 2. Color scheme 1 is preferred over color scheme 2. 3. Final landscape plans to be submitted for approval. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2004 Page 12 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 11-17-04 drem.DOC