Loading...
1999-02-17 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES for Wednesday, February 17, 1999 Board Members Present Board Member Absent: Staff in Attendance: Rick Cavecche Tim McCormack Steve Prothero Susan Secoy None Chuck Lau, Associate Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Administrative Session - 4: 30 P.M. The board met for an administrative session beginning at 4:30 p.m.. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:40 p. m. Regular Session - S: 30 P.M. A motion was made by Tim McCormack to approve the February 3, 1999 minutes as submitted. SECOND: Susan Secoy AYES: Richard Cavecche, Timothy McCormack, Steven Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 2 (1) DRB No. 3406 Ralph Zehner Revised plans to add 4 dwelling units on a 630 E. Culver Avenue site that contains an existing single family John Waters Architect residence in Old Towne • R2-6 (Duplex Residential District) • Recommendation to Planning Commission The project was presented by the owner Mr. Ralph Zehner and the project architect Mr. John Waters. This is a new submittal to add two 1 % story duplex units on the property, and to add a detached 6 car garage with a workshop area. The project has been down scaled from the previous 5 unit addition down to 4 units. The floor area ratio (FAR) has been further reduced from .45 down to .428, and the amount of open space has been increased from 5.980 sq.$. up to 6,424 sq.ft. The existing residence in the front and the laundry room/storage shed at the rear of the lot will remain unchanged. The project has been reviewed by the Staff Review Committee (SRC), and was found to be in compliance with applicable code requirements. Steve Prothero: What is the purpose of the wainscot on the detached garage structure? It appears too high and looks rather awkward in relationship to the placement of the windows. Perhaps the wainscot can be lowered slightly to give more space below the window sill. Also of concern is the expansive roof of the garage. Adding a shed dormer along the south side would help to break-up the roof, however, there are also concerns with creating potential boot-leg units. Mr. Waters replied that this is to emulate a traditional raised foundation, and by having the siding higher, it helps to alleviate future maintenance problems. As for the roof, a sight line study drawing shows that the garage roof height is actually lower than any of the other buildings on the site, including the existing front house. Furthermore, the south elevation is the back side of the garage which cannot be seen from the public street. The garages are oversized (25 ft. deep) because it provides valuable storage space for the rental tenants. This in turn, encourages the use of their garages for parking. Mr. Zehner stated that on the previous proposal, the primary concerns were having the units constructed on top of the garage. This problem has already been alleviated. The two duplexes at the rear were approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Rick Cavecche: The revised project is vastly improved over the previous proposal. However, is the floor area ratio (FAR) consistent with the historical context of the neighborhood? The general area consists of large ranch style open lots developed with mostly single family residences. The Old Towne Design Standards require projects to retain the historic relationship between the buildings, landscaping and open space. Does the revised plan meet this criteria? Mr. Zehner replied that the City's Historic Element recognize and addresses this issue in allowing flexibility on developing at the back of the property. The Historic Element states that new related construction shall not destroy historic features that characterize the property. The new work shall be compatible with the old in terms of the massing, size, scale and architectural features. And to protect the historic integrity of the property and its surrounding neighborhood. We've done all of that. The Historic Element also encourages the development of new units towards the back of the property. Some of the more recent developments nearby have a much higher FAR than what is being proposed on the subject property. The proposed .42 FAR and the amount of open space being provided well exceeds code requirements. City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 3 Susan Secoy: Why does the detached garage need to be so tall? These structures are traditionally secondary to the principle residential structures. Can the roof pitch be lowered and still retain the style of the craftsman design? Mr. Waters explained that since the garage is located just behind the existing residence in the middle of the lot, the design should be more consistent with the residential units rather than just having a plain looking garage. The roof height is needed to match the roof pitch and architectural details of the residential units which are craftsman style. The details include corbels, windows, gable end vents, etc. (A study drawing of 9 different roof pitches and various architectural details were presented to the board) Steve Prothero: The high roof pitch adds a lot of bulk and mass to the garage, especially when it is setback only 5 ft. from the (west) property line. Mr. Zehner replied that neighboring structures in the area are larger what is being proposed on his property. The building mass is in scale with the majority of the Old Towne community. Rick Cavecche: The applicant has done a good job of "disguising" the building to look more like a residential unit rather than just a garage. Steve Prothero and Tim McCormack agreed. Steve Prothero: On the issue of windows, unless there is an alternative material (aluminum, vinyl, etc.) that has the exact same profile as a wood window, it would not be acceptable. This is an issue that the board has never made an exception to. (No sample was available) Mr. Zehner replied that aluminum and/or vinyl windows have been used successfully in the past on other projects through out Old Towne. These have similar profiles to the wood windows. In fact, the existing storage shed at the rear of the property was approved with aluminum windows. Rick Cavecche: The exterior finish siding material is masonite? The doors are metal? John Waters: The sidings are individual lap boards with a metal corner cap that emulates the traditional mitered corners. (A color photograph of an existing project at the northwest of Almond and Pine was shown to the board). As for the metal doors, it has a smooth raised panel design, and it was recommended for security purposes. Rick Cavecche asked if there were any comments from the public. Shannon Tucker: The Design Review Board is required to make findings. The rhythm and spacing of the buildings needs to be addressed. The spacing of the two duplex units at the rear is much closer (8 to 10 ft. separation) than any other structures that are on the entire street, most of which are spaced between 30 ft to 50 ft. apart. The project should also have more of a single family characteristic. The "revised" plan is actually very similar to the previous proposal with similar roof pitches and similar F.A.R. Mr. Zehner responded that the issue of spacing has been addressed many times, both by the Planning Commission and the City `Council. The overall site plan layout, including the location and spacing of the buildings has already been reviewed and found to be acceptable. The only remaining unresolved issue was the unit over the garage. Tim McCormack: Given the size and configuration of the site (deep and narrow), trying to create a single family rhythm with the traditional house and garage relationship would be a real challenge. City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 4 Steve Prothero: Agreed that this is not a traditional rhythm. These are not single family units, nor is the zoning single family. The applicant has made an attempt to characterize the basic building block rhythm towards the rear of the site. The units appears bunched-up at the rear because of the driveway width that is required. The overall area of the lot seems adequate to support the four dwelling units, but the down side is that there is no street frontage. Also, one of the problems for this project is the amount of accessory space being used for storage. These storage areas, particularly the existing storage shed, takes up open space and eliminates the opportunity for the rear building to be more centered from the 2 sides of the lot. What is the purpose of the storage shed? There is already extra storage space in each of the new garages. Mr. Zehner replies that the front portion of the shed is the laundry room, and the rear portion is used for storage. There is no intention of removing this structure. He has already lost a unit in trying to be accommodating to the neighbors. Tim McCormack: Applauds the applicant for a much better project than before, but there still seems to be a bit of hang-up with the existing storage shed. As for the landscaping plans, which is still to come later, it should be more in keeping with what the applicant is trying to create. This will be further addressed in a later submittal. Rick Cavecche: Perhaps the garage can be further reduced from 25 ft. to help lower the overall roof height. The minimum code requirement is only 20 ft. John Waters: For security purposes, the garages may be partitioned off with interior walls for individual tenants. This would reduce the size of the garages even further. The additional storage space would be very valuable to the tenants, as their units are not very large to begin with. Ralph Zehner: The project had been re-design over and over again. There seems to be no consistency among the various reviewing bodies in that they all have different suggestions. There is no continuity from the Design Review Board, to the Planning Commission, to the City Council, to the neighbors. Thousands of dollars have already been spend on designing this project. The project that is being submitted in front of the DRB is probably the best plan with the most open space than it has ever been. It fulfills his needs as the property owner, and it fulfills the tenant's needs. It all works. Susan Secoy: She is not disagreeing with the applicant regarding the units, but she is of the opinion that the new garage structure should be reduced in scale and mass. Rick Cavecche: Finds that although the revised project is significantly better, and it is the best plan that has been submitted, that there are still concerns with not fully meeting the requirements of being consistent with the historical context of the existing large lot single family neighborhood. The proposed project significantly alters the site's historical setting, and therefore will create a substantial impact to the existing neighborhood and to a larger extent, the Old Towne District. There are also some minor issues with the architectural aspects of the project such as the aluminum windows. For these reasons, he has difficulties supporting the project. Mr. Zehner requests that if the project were to be turned down ,that the DRB should state specifically what the exact findings are. City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 5 Steve Prothero stated that he would support the proposed use because the large size of the lot can adequately support the four additional units on this property. It is an unfortunate situation that these large lots cannot be consolidated so that there are more options on how these properties can be developed. The proposed plan is not great, but it is a viable alternative. As for the issue of rhythm, based on the overall site area, it is in keeping with most of what are found in Old Towne. The size of the buildings are also in keeping with the characteristics of the residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, the configuration of the site limits the ability to create that traditional single family house and garage relationship. He does not see any viable solutions that would resolve this issue, without deleting two more units. Tim McCormack: As stated earlier, he is comfortable with the architecture. He understands that there are development constraints such as required parking and so on. He also understands the need for workshop and storage space for today's modern living standards. But the issue of the existing storage shed needs to be balanced with the amount of open space provided on site. He would propose to support this project if the storage shed can be eliminated to create more open space and landscape area for the rear units. The existing storage shed is not compatible with the units at the rear of the site. Mr. Waters asked if the laundry room/storage shed is eliminated, can the units be enlarged? The units are very small. Steve Prothero: The rear units maybe modified to take advantage of the additional space created by eliminating the storage shed. This may result in an increase in the size of the units, or maybe tojust re-orient the buildings to make it more desirable. Tim McCormack: The size of the units can probably be increased slightly and not change the overall characteristics of the building. Mr. Zehner stated that he intends to re-side and re-roof the existing laundry room/storage shed to make it more compatible with the new units. Susan Secoy: Finds that the fabric and rhythm of the 2 rear duplex units are very well done. Although she is not in favor of keeping the existing storage shed, she is more concerned with the detached garage structure. She is of the opinion that a living space should look different than an attic or storage space on the second level. She would support changing the roof pitch and lowering the overall height of the garage structure. Steve Prothero: (In regards to rhythm) Finds that the depth of the site and the size of the proposed units are consistent with the floor area ratio and massing of the surrounding community. An effort has been made to equally space the buildings within the site to create the appearance of individual buildings on individual lots. MOTION by Steve Prothero to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission, subject to the following conditions: The existing laundry room/storage shed (Bldg. 4) is encroaching upon potential open space, which affects the rhythm of the buildings on the property. Removal of the laundry room/storage shed allows the opportunity to re-space the rear duplex unit (Bldg. 3) towards the center of the lot. Recommend that the laundry room/storage shed be removed, and that some of the laundry/storage space may be added to the ground floor of the dwelling units, and also possibly re-orienting and shifting Building 3 at least 3 ft. towards the east to create an 8 ft. side yard setback from the west property line. City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 6 2. There is an abundance of storage space in the detached garage (Bldg I), which tends to push the limits in terms of bulk and mass for the building. Recommend that a shed dormer be added along south elevation of the garage to help break-up the roof. 3. Lower the wainscot and/or raise the windows on the detached garage building to provide minimum 12 inches of separation from the bottom of the window sill. 4. Wood windows are required. The DRB will accept alternative materials if it has the exact same profile as a wood window. Submit sample of window to the DRB for approval. 5. Doors may be metal with a 6 raised panel design and smooth finish. (Windows optional) 6. Submit landscape plans to DRB for approval. (Landscape plan to include the location of all above ground utilities, hadscape surfaces, color textures, drainage devices, and other appurtenances) 7. Submit sample of exterior finish material and color palette to DRB for approval. (Asphalt fiberglass shingle roof and individual board masonite lap siding with metal corner trim is acceptable) 8. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be compatible and period in design. Submit sample to DRB for approval. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero NOES: Rick Cavecche, Susan Secoy ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION FAILED NO OTHER MOTION WERE BROUGHT FORWARD City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 7 21 DRB No. 3251 Greystone Development Corporation Tract 15546 -South side of Taft Avenue East of 55 Newport Freeway William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. Revised plans for a new 41 unit Planned Unit Development R-1-8 (Residential -Single Family District) The project was presented by Greg Mendoza with William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. This is a previously approved project (formerly Hearthstone Development Corporation) reviewed back in September 17, 1997. The project has now been revised with a reduced density from 60 dwelling units down to 41 units. This is a review of the architectural plans only, as the landscaping will be submitted at a later date. The DRB expressed the following concerns: • Although the front building elevations are enhanced, the side and rear elevation are rather plain and uninteresting. The side and rear elevations need better articulation to create continuity, especially along the north property line as viewed from Taft Avenue, and any other areas that are visible from public view. The enhancement does not necessarily have to be elaborate, perhaps the addition of some door and window trims, pop-out treatments, and other embellishments would suffice. • The building elevations of the single story units also appears rather plain, and therefore needs better articulation. Also study the possibility of varying the front setback of the single story units along the east property line. This creates apush/pull effect that will help to enhance the streetscape. • Submit fence detail plans to DRB. • Submit landscape plans of all common areas, including paving patterns (hardscape) to DRB. • Submit signage plans to DRB. MOTION by Rick Cavecche to continue the project based on the above discussion. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 8 (3) DRB No. 3404 John Wolberg 138 N. Harwood Street John Wolberg • Addition onto an existing single family residence in Old Towne • R2-6 (Duplex Residential District) The project was presented by the owner Mr. John Wolberg. This is a proposed 417 sq.ft. room addition at the rear of an existing single family residence in Old Towne. The exterior wood siding is custom milled, beveled with a 5 inch lap. The windows are also wood to match the existing. The project has been scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on March 15, 1999. The DRB finds the proposed project with use of wood siding and windows to match the existing residence to be consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards. The project will not adversely affect the character of the historical, architectural, and aesthetic value of the existing building on the site and its surrounding area. MOTION by Susan Secoy to approve the project with the following condition: 1. Modify the roof covering over the rear patio with an open trellis to match the existing trellis at the front of the house. SECOND: Steve Prothero AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 9 (4) DRB No. 3405-A Serrano Heights I "Montage" Tract 14359 Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc. • Architectural plans for an approved 76 unit single family residential development • "Serrano Heights" Planned Community • Recommendation to Planning Commission (Applicant not present) MOTION by Rick Cavecche to continue the project. SECOND: Steve Prothero AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 10 (5) DRB No. 3405-B Serrano Heights II "San Paulo" Tract 15709 Kaufman & Broad Coastal, Inc. • Architectural plans for an approved 63 unit single family residential development • "Serrano Heights" Planned Community • Recommendation to Planning Commission (Applicant not present) MOTION by Rick Cavecche to continue the project. SECOND: Steve Prothero AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 11 DRB No. 3409 Texaco 700 W. Chapman Avenue Harry Mitchell • Renovation of an existing automotive service station in Old Towne • C-2 (General Business District) The project was presented by the new owner Mr. Harry Mitchell. The proposal is to renovate an existing automotive service station and convert it to a Texaco station. The renovation consists of modifying the existing service station building and fuel pump island canopy. Although the project site is located within the 01d Towne Historic District, the existing structures on the property are not listed as historically contributing. The building signage will be submitted separately by Texaco. The DRB raised concerns with the following: • Building elevation plans are rudimentary and lacks information. • The design needs to be further developed, especially when it is located in Old Towne. • Submittal should also include a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. • The proposed cornice detail appears out of context and adds too much mass to the building and to the fuel pump island canopy. Although the DRB is not necessarily opposed to the cornice detail, but it does not appear to be the best solution for this project. • The applicant should consider the historical context of the building, which reads more as a period classic gas station, rather than just taking the architectural design elements of other buildings nearby and applying it to this project. (The applicant was given photocopies of 2 early period service stations for design reference.) • Submit sample of exterior finish material and color palette. • Submit signage plans. MOTION by Rick Cavecche to continue review of the project for the applicant to refine the design based on historic reference and resubmit the plans. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 17, 1999 Page 12 (7) DRB No. 3410 Wells Fargo Bank New paint color palette for an existing 101 E. Chapman Avenue bank/commercial building in Old Towne Lloyd R. Huff C-1 (Limited Business District) The project was presented by Mr. Lloyd Huff, Painting . The proposal is to re-paint the existing Wells Fargo Bank building with a new paint color palette that is different than the approved Color Specifications for Historic Downtown Orange Renovation. The DRB raised concerns with the appropriateness of the proposed new colors applied to such a prominent structure in the Old Towne Historic District. Tim McCormack stated that he would not be in favor of re-painting the building with the proposed colors because it make the building appear too trendy and contemporary. MOTION by Steve Prothero to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The building may be re-painted the exact same identical colors as currently exists. 2. If other colors are proposed, then full elevation drawings of the building are required to illustrate the exact color palette. SECOND: Susan Secoy AYES: Rick Cavecche, Tim McCormack, Steve Prothero, Susan Secoy NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED