Loading...
1995-11-21 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board M I N U T E S for Tuesday, November 21, 1995 Board Members Present: Board Members Absent Steven G. McHarris Steven C. Prothero (Chair) Beau Shigetomi Erika C. Wolfe None Staff in attendance: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner /Historic Preservation Joan Wolff, Senior Project Planner The board met for an administrative session beginning at 4:30 P.M. This meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M. Mr. Prothero asked if there were any comments from board members about the meeting minutes. He had the following changes: Item No. 4 DRB 3092; The Taco Co. (page 5) Paragraph 7 encourages the use of Pygmy Date palms, but they should only be used to supplement palms within existing "finger" planters, as shown on the plan. All three palms proposed within the back planter should be King Palms. Condition No. I should be modified accordingly. Also, paragraph 9 is an incomplete sentence that should probably be eliminated. (Staff agreed) Item No. 6 DRB 3098; Tract 15210 (page 71 3rd paragraph, the word "won't" should be changed to "would". Item No. 7 DRB 3106; Casa Teresa (page 10) Regarding the 3rd condition of approval, a belt line was only recommended if the lower half of the building was to be finished in stucco. Otherwise, it should not be required. There were no other comments or clarifications. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the meeting minutes with those corrections. SECOND: Steven McHarris AYES: Steven McHarris, Steven Prothero & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Beau Shigetomi MOTI O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 1995 Page 2 Regular' Session -Consent Calendar Mr. Prothero (Chair) asked whether there were any items that may be approved as proposed. Mr. Shigetomi: The proposal for Nohl Ranch Auto Spa looks adequate (Item No. 2, DRB 2838), except that the variety of Larissa that is proposed is too low. It doesn't make a good enough hedge material to screen the parking area. It should be changed from "green carpet" to "grandiflora" across the front of the property. He will make a motion to approve the plan if that change is made. The applicant was represented by Wesley Okamoto, Architect. He agreed that the plan would be modified. MOTION by Beau Shigetomi to approve the proposal if the (28) Larissa shrubs be changed to "grandiflora" in the front yard. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven McHarris, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 1995 Page 3 (Item No. 1) DRB 3106 Recommendation to the Planning Commission Casa Teresa Architectural proposal for a group home 213 N. Olive Street General Business District (C-2) James Richeson, Exec. Director Old Towne District The review is continued from November 8, 1995. A revised proposal was presented by Clark Butts (Architect) and James Richeson. The plan was not available for distribution to board members before this meeting, so Mr. Butts lead discussion to explain what has changed. The building would be fully sheathed in wood siding, and the front elevation and chimney location have been changed according to prior discussion. Plans also include detail to show approximate window locations of the adjacent building. He also brought a preliminary landscape plan. He has received the meeting minutes, and a second letter from Dan Ryan (staff). There is one comment in the meeting minutes that he did not recall as a condition or requirement, coming out of the last meeting. That was to relocate the stairs. He did not consider this feasible, and would have discussed it more fully at the meeting, if he was aware that it was of concern. The floor plan is pretty well fixed according the applicant's needs, and the locations of those stairs will satisfy building code requirements best, given classification of this structure as an institutional building. Finally, he feels that he and Mr. Ryan simply have different opinions about the Craftsman style, and his take as a designer is perhaps more eclectic. The basic shape of this building is rectangular. If the building site was different, he may have the latitude to be a little more inventive, but the building must remain simple because the footprint has such a great influence upon its form. Mr. Prothero: The board's ability to influence bulk and mass are quite limited at this point in the process of review. (Staff pointed out that these plans will be made available for the Planning Commission by the end of the next business day.) He agreed with Mr. Butts that the Craftsman style is not so rigidly defined as to preclude this particular proposal. It is proportionately similar to the "Craftsman Bungalow," rather than a traditional Craftsman style residence. He made several suggestions intended to improve upon the design: (1) Window configurations on the front of the upper level might be changed from the horizontal to a vertical orientation. (Mr. Butts agreed that the window on the right side, over the stairwell will be changed, but the other, to the left, is a bedroom window and building code requirements will have to be considered.) A two- or three-over-one arrangement of window "lights" should be used for a larger window, if provided. (2) The shutters on the front porch do not fit into the overall design scheme. This feature should be eliminated, and filled in with siding just like the rest of the building. (Mr. Butts agreed, and suggested that it would be a good location for a bench or porch swing.) (3) The fascia should be removed from the eaveline on side elevations, so that rafter tails are left exposed. (Mr. Butts preferred to leave the eaves concealed behind the fascia, but did not want to go so far as to oppose such a requirement, if the project gets approved.) Mr. Shigetomi: Concerning the landscaping plan, the side yard could use more trees to provide some privacy in between this project and the adjacent building. He marked three locations where additional trees should be added. (Continued on the following page) City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 1995 Page 4 (Continued from a previous page) Mr. McHarris and Mr. Prothero asked questions about fencing along interior property lines. At this time no change is proposed (according to Mr. Richeson). Staff reported that there is no requirement to build a division wall between properties, since the use of this property is not commercial. There are apartments that share pedestrian access along the eastern property line, so a fence would not be practical there. Mr. Prothero expressed some concern about the integration of two more items: the breezeway connection to the main building, and the northern profile of the building, where the upper level has a cantilever that extends beyond the front wall. Each looks somewhat awkward. The solid wall on the breezeway might be pushed back, to create a recess from the front elevation. At this point, both are on same plane and the eave overhang on the breezeway extends into the front elevation. A flat roof might make the connection less obvious, and soften the transition between the two architectural styles. (Mr. Butts agreed to restudy the breezeway; there is room to off-set the wall from the front elevation). Mr. Prothero had no specific recommendation about the integration of the cantilever on the north elevation, but felt that this too should be studied. Ms. Wolfe: With those comments, can we make a positive recommendation? (Agreed) MOTION by Erika. Wolfe to approve the proposal subject to architectural revisions that were suggested in discussion, including: • Changes to window arrangements in the front of the building • Elimination of shutters on the front elevation • Removal of the fascia on side elevations, so that rafter tails are left exposed • Redesign of the breezeway connection between buildings, to lessen its visibility • Reconfiguration of trim or more substantial architectural improvements that will resolve the design issue where the upper level is off-set from the front porch, at the northwest corner of the building Relocate one tree in the northern side yard from the parking area west to the side of the building, and add two trees in the same side yard, as a privacy screen. SECOND: Steven Prothero AYES: Steven McHams, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None M O T I O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 1995 Page S (Item No. 3) DRB 3113 Red Lundquist 133 S. Shaffer Street Olson-Lenahan Construction Co. Construction of a residential garage Residential Duplex District (R-2-6) Old Towne District The property owner was present with Pat Lenahan, Contractor. Various board members asked whether this proposal included a workshop or a de facto second residential unit. There is no kitchen, but the building does include a toilet, sink and shower stall. Mr. Prothero stated that this is probably an issue for the staffto consider, rather than the board. Jim Donovan (staff): The staff sometimes requires a deed restriction to clarify the use of such an addition, primarily when there is a vague use such as "bonus" or "recreation" room identified, with a wet bar or other area that is easily adapted to food preparation. This is quite a small space, and the approved use would be sufficiently documented by the applicant's plan. Mr. Lundquist introduced himself and explained the proposal. The house is a rental, and it is quite small. The proposed garage would include a "workshop" only if he ever moves back into the house, which is a possibility. Otherwise, it would probably be used for storage. Right now, the house is only about 1,100 square feet, and has no storage room. Mr. Prothero: There is one issue that is paramount in review of each residential project in Old Towne. The architectural style must be self-evident. The house appears to be Victorian, but the style of the new structure is not so well defined. He has some concern about the difference between the roof pitch on the garage when compared to the house, and an awkward marriage between the gable vent and the low profile of the building. Mr. Shigetomi: Should windows located at the northwest corner be pulled in toward the center of the building ? (Board members agreed) Mr. Prothero sketched a detail on the plan to illustrate this point to the applicant. Mr. Lenahan asked whether the intent was to move the window enough to get some horizontal siding displayed in between the window and the corner. Mr. Prothero: Yes; 6 or 8 inches. What type of siding is proposed ? (Masonite composite, with a 4-inch overlap.) Over plywood ? (Yes) MOTION by Mr. Prothero to approve the proposal subject to some modification or clarification to plans: (1) The garage shall have a minimum 4:12 pitch to the slope of the roof. (It may actually be proposed this way now.) (2) Windows at the northwest corner of the building will be inset, according to discussion. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven McHarris, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None M O T I O N C A R R I E D City of Orange • Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 1995 Page 6 (Item No. 4) DRB 31 14 Union Ba n k Sq uare Addition to monument sign for an office building 550 S. Main St. (S.W.C. at LaVeta) General Business District (C-2) Stacy Dukes Design Southwest Redevelopment Project Area The board was concerned that this proposal amounts to greater number of signs than what should be permitted. Alternatively, if the site is large enough to allow more signs, they should be spaced apart, and not jumbled together here at the street intersection. Jim Donovan (staff) agreed that the code does have a limit of one sign per 400 feet of property frontage, but this proposal is somewhat unique and the staff was looking for an interpretation as to whether this qualified as an "integrated" proposal. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dukes. He was involved in the comprehensive identification plan when this office project was remodeled (about 6 years ago). The leasing agent is trying to accommodate some tenants that specifically requested a freestanding sign identification. Ms. Wolfe: This proposal has too many elements to be considered as one sign. Mr. Prothero felt that the street intersection was particularly cluttered with signs. This is not a solution that should be encouraged. Ordinarily, the board is looking for simplicity. There is so little display area between the building and the sidewalk. Special consideration should be given to make the sign fit within the landscape. Alternative designs were recommended according to sign code criteria, including the upward extension of the existing monument (which is now approximately 4 feet high, but may be increased to 15 feet), or the replication of the existing "Union Bank Square" sign, to be placed elsewhere along the rights of way, treated as a sculptural element throughout the project. Mr. Prothero added that if the latter option is pursued by the applicant, plans should be detailed to include the entire project. Mr. Dukes said that he would discuss these options with the client, and return next December 6. MOTION by Steven Prothero to continue the review of this item until a revised proposal is submitted by the applicant. SECOND: Erika Wolfe AYES: Steven McHarris, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi & Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: None M O T I O N C A R R I E D