The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-09-18 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL September 18, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Marissa Moshier, Contract Staff Planner Mark Schwartz, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:02 p.m. Chair Fox asked if there were any changes to issues on the agenda. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, said there weren't any changes. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, mentioned that fewer items will be coming to the Design Review Committee as part of a streamlined Design Review process. This is mostly for new buildings outside Old Towne, and things not visible from public right of way. There is an attached memo that presents all the specifics on the amendment. Committee Member Woollett asked about the homes in the Eichler tracts. Ms. Pehoushek said these have been surveyed, and even though they are not specifically mentioned in the amendment, they are a sensitive resource, and they are flagged in the building permit tracking system so they will be looked at separately. Committee Member McCormack said he thought the minutes were really well done. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 7, 2013, and revisions were provided. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 21, 2013, and revisions were provided. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 2 of 37 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chair Fox called the meeting to order at 5:28 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) August 7, 2013 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 7, 2013. Corrections were noted. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. (b) August 21, 2013 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 21, 2013. Corrections were noted. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 3 of 37 SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 4 of 37 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4660 -12 — McDONALD'S REMODEL • A proposal to demolish and rebuild the restaurant. The DRC requested that the landscape and site plan return prior to the issuance of a building permit. • 606 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen @cityoforange.org • Previous DRC Meeting: April 3, 2013 • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Charles Trowbridge, applicant, address on file, said he has done his best to make the Committee happy. Committee Member McCormack verified that three pine trees were not being removed. He said he wasn't able to find the San Marino Magnolia. He wondered if that was going to be big enough, like a majestic beauty. Mr. Trowbridge said he didn't want something as big as a Majestic Beauty. Committee Member McCormack asked if it was going to be bigger than a Little Gem. Mr. Trowbridge said absolutely. Committee Member McCormack asked if it was going to be the same size as a Russet. Mr. Trowbridge said it would be a little bit smaller, since the client had some concern about the neighbors, who were used to a particular height, and a tree that got too big could impact them. Committee Member McCormack explained that the Russets were about 18 -20 feet tall. Committee Member Imboden asked if there was a grade change between the existing residence and the proposed residences. Ms. Nguyen confirmed that there would be. Committee Member Imboden said the trees were likely to be a little bit taller as a result of the grade change. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 5 of 37 Committee Member McCormack said he still didn't agree with the drive -thru, but the Planning Commission has already approved it. All the other changes seemed agreeable. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the bicycle storage locker color, which was proposed as mesa tan. He wondered if that was the best choice. Mr. Trowbridge said it was a pre- finished powder coated item, which would last a long time. Committee Member Wheeler said he just wanted to make sure that the color choice was appropriate to go with the colors of the buildings. Committee Member McCormack suggested adding a crosswalk to connect the bike parking to the entrance. Ms. Nguyen explained that that was the motorcycle parking, which has been moved since the last approved site plan. The motorcycle and bicycle parking are now placed in the southeast corner. Chair Fox asked why that change was made. Ms. Nguyen explained that Planning Commissioner Gladson suggested it. Chair Fox asked if there were any issues on the LED lighting. Committee Member McCormack asked about the colored lens, which would make the LED lights look more like incandescent lights. The LED light is really a bleached white, almost a surgical white, which is a really bright light, and a colored lens might help tone it down a bit. Jim Bickel, address on file, said that particular fixture is a national standard at McDonald's, and the color tones make the building look like the company wants to make it look on a uniform national level. Committee Member Imboden asked about bike locker location. He wondered if there was any consideration of moving the bike locker back to the rear of the property. Kelly Johnson, address on file, explained that the idea was to make the accessible and open as soon as someone comes on the property. They are supposed to be a certain distance from the opening of the building. Committee Member Imboden said if there was an option, they might not want to put that out in front where it might complicate traffic. Mr. Bickel said the California Green Code mandates some of the decision making of the design. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 6 of 37 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the landscape and site plans for DRC No. 4660 -12, McDonald's Remodel, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 7 of 37 (3) DRC No. 4687 -13 — AVONTI SALON • A proposal to adaptively reuse a 2 -story historic residential structure as a beauty salon. The project includes removal of an existing 702 sq. ft. contemporary addition at the rear of the historic structure, and construction of a new 1,451 sq. ft. addition at the rear of the structure. Site improvements to be undertaken as part of the project include establishment of a parking lot for the property and landscaping. • 206 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, 714 - 744 -7228, apehoushek @cityoforange.org • Continued From DRC Meeting: August 21, 2013 • DRC Action: Final Determination Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report, stating that staff believed the new design met the Design Review Committee's concerns from last time. Doug Ely, the applicant's representative, address on file, said he was retained by Raymond Gall, applicant, to provide some design recommendations since the last Design Review Committee review of the project. The applicant has reduced the size of the building, and has reduced the number of parking stalls from 17 to 16. This extra space has allowed for the relocation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible ramp to the landscape finger with landscaping around it. That provides the ADA access needed. The existing arroyo stone is allowed to be retained with full visibility. The applicant needs a fairly large patio area, which is provided and conceals some of the arroyo stone, but most of it is kept visible. The height has been dropped down to be consistent with the existing structure. There are dormer roofs proposed, and the building has been set back a little further than it was in the last proposal. Guy Pizzarello, architect, address on file, also explained some things about the plans, including that the glazing has been reduced in height. The applicant would like to retain light and volume, so the doors and windows have been kept. The dormers were also proposed to help retain the light. The glass in the back of the building (the west side) has been scaled back to under the 15% allowed. The eaves have been concealed on all sides. The homes on the corners of the street had setbacks that were 18 feet 6 inches, and 9 feet 6 inches. Public Comment: Jeff Frankel, representing Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), address on file, stated he was glad this project was taking place, and that the columns were being restored on the balcony. The square footage has been reduced, but the Olive Street setback still wasn't far enough to be consistent with the average on the west side of the streetscape. The roof design, with the same number of dormers, even though they are scaled back, is also still very busy. More of the arroyo stone foundation will be exposed with this plan, but the OTPA feels the entire foundation should be exposed, and both landings should be preserved. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 8 of 37 Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he was impressed with the changes. Lowering the building was a very smart thing to do, and the handling of the handicapped ramp was a stroke of genius. He still wishes the roof were a little simpler, but that isn't a deal- breaker for him. The setback is fine, breaking up the connection between residential and commercial. He doesn't have any objections to the new design. Committee Member Wheeler said he wasn't at the last meeting where this was discussed, but agreed with what the other Members had said in that meeting as recorded in the minutes. He also liked dropping the height of the building. The eaves should match the existing conditions exactly. The building code says that when the offset is 3 -5 feet, non- sprinklered buildings cannot have any glazing (i.e. the south side), so the windows on the drawing would not be permitted unless the setback is increased or sprinklers are added to the building. Mr. Ely said he reads the code as saying the glass needs to be protected (i.e. fire- rated), not that it isn't permitted. Committee Member Wheeler said it looks like there are side - lights on each side of the door in the hyphen area, and they aren't on the floor plan. Mr. Ely said they are still there, but the detail is much more pronounced in the other drawing. Mr. Ely mentioned the provision in the building code allowing for 15% glass if it is protected glass when the setback is 3 -5 feet. Ms. Pehoushek said she didn't have any staff, including the building official, mention previously that the glass wasn't going to be permitted. Committee Member Imboden asked about the roof and what happens on the hyphen. Mr. Pizzarello said it was a flat roof with a parapet. Chair Fox said the opening of the hyphen looks like a larger than 3 foot opening, almost like it was supposed to be a door, and that there would be a 3 foot door in a 5 foot space, so there should be a foot on either side of it. Mr. Ely said what he recommended was that if there has to be a door there, the door should be put to one side, so there's a larger side -light area right next to it. With the door in the middle, there wouldn't be enough lighting coming through. The door should be shoved to a side, so an 18 inch side -light can be used. Committee Member Wheeler wondered if there wasn't something that could be done to carry the same door trim feeling around the transom. It looks currently like the plan is to have them different from one another, but it might look better if they were the same. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 9 of 37 Committee Member Imboden said he thought it was difficult to tell what was planned for the roof. Mr. Pizzarello said he was duplicating what was in the front of the building, and this new proposal is just a carry off from that. He said he was open to suggestions on changing it. Committee Member Wheeler said the elevations don't show the railings on the second floor balconies, so he assumes they won't be changed. Mr. Ely said the rail was in the drawings. Committee Member Wheeler said there was nothing shown below it. He would like make it clear that that should stay. He also wanted to know what the material would be for the new columns. Mr. Pizzarello said they would be painted wood. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there had been a consideration of shaping the main roof to make the bell cast that's similar to the one on the existing house. He said he could see a case being made either way. He also pled for allowing the exposed rafter tails in the new addition if the Building Division would allow it. Mr. Ely said he evaluated that option, but the addition shouldn't be adorned with a lot of detail elements, since that causes it to compete with the existing building. He respected Committee Member Wheeler's opinion, but stated it is rather subjective, and he favors it the way the plans show it now. Committee Member Imboden said he agreed with Mr. Ely. At the last Design Review Committee meeting where this plan was discussed, the Committee recommended simplifying the building, and a heavy boxed eave may not be the best thing to do here. He is also not sure that matching the roof would get the design to be any simpler. Committee Member Imboden asked about the roof, and said he agreed with the idea of a simpler roof. Mr. Ely said it would have to have a slope to it, and perhaps an internal drain. It hasn't been decided yet. Committee Member Wheeler suggested pitching it from the middle and letting it drain to the sides. Committee Member Imboden said he wanted to make it a condition that it would be internally drained since it's pretty flat. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 10 of 37 Mr. Ely said he thinks there is a way to do it without a scupper, and will look into it further. Chair Fox said the condition might be no visible scuppers. Committee Member Imboden mentioned that there are 2 -story downspouts that are falling to the ground, which results in some backsplash on the building. He would want to make certain that gutters and downspouts used have something metal that's period- appropriate as that gets fixed. Committee Member Imboden said he appreciates bringing back the columns on the front of the home. He wanted to be sure wood - framed screens were used for any operable windows that have screens being added. Mr. Ely said there wouldn't be any operable windows on the new addition. He also mentioned that there would be custom -built wood framed screens used where needed. Committee Member Imboden said the upstairs balcony rails probably don't meet current code, and if there are any issues, there should be a solution other than that rail being removed and a higher rail being put up. Putting a higher rail behind it and painting it dark is one option. The basement vents are in pretty bad shape right now, and he wants to be sure that the openings will be maintained. Committee Member Imboden asked if the setback was to the corner plane of the building, rather than the side. He asked if the bay would project beyond the story poles. Mr. Pizzarello said the projection of the bay would be in a plane with the setback. Mr. Ely said the 16 feet is to the face of the building, not the corners. The setback has gone from 12 to 16 feet. Committee Member Imboden said there is a partial remaining curb adjacent to the property line. He wanted to know if there was a plan to restore the sidewalk along the front curb. Whatever is worth keeping should be kept, but the overall plan needs to have more detail about what will be done. The handrail /guardrail curb for the handicapped ramp is also much better, but should be planned in more detail as well. Committee Member Imboden said the setback and the dormers were the big issues: the amount that the setback has been increased was very helpful, and seems compatible with the neighborhood. He feels it is an acceptable setback, as it doesn't upset the streetscape. The dormers have been simplified, but they are not as simple as they should be yet. He would have liked to see the shed dormer to visualize why the applicants thought it wouldn't work. He thinks the Committee was clear about what they were looking for in that area, but the response on the dormers is not as good as it is in the other areas. Committee Member McCormack said he pretty much agreed with everyone else so far. The handicapped ramp is a good treatment. The base of the building on A -4.1 doesn't show the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 11 of 37 planting plan, but it looks like there is the possibility of some exposed footing concrete on the facade. He wondered if the arroyo stone couldn't be more visible, so exposed concrete footing wasn't on the facade. Mr. Ely offered his options, including a parget work type of relief on the foundation wall, where it would be covered with about an inch of plaster and then scored, so it was can painted an accent color. That at least gives it a base. It's not arroyo stone, but it simplifies the appearance a bit. Chair Fox said it sounded like a good idea. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the existing stoop is being retained, that might not work. Committee Member Imboden said it's not uncommon to see simple concrete foundations exposed in this area. Putting on a less busy adornment might be better. If there isn't a reveal to take it back to, the parget might end up taking on water and peeling off over time. If there was a reveal created, it might work. He would also be fine with concrete. The Committee recommended bringing this back with the landscape plan later. Committee Member McCormack suggested that some trees on the patio area would be needed to create some shade, although he admitted there isn't a lot of room for trees in the plan. He also stated his biggest issue is the setback. He thinks it should go to 20 feet (rather than 16). The building was placed where it is in response to the setback of the streetscape. In order to keep it consistent and retain the fabric of the neighborhood, the setback for the addition shouldn't be any smaller than 20 feet. If this was a more urban, modern style, this could be a gateway to the street, but since it's the same style, it should be the same setback of 20 feet. If it matches the existing building, it would be 19. It should match the fabric of the neighborhood. Chair Fox said the dormer and setback are related. The dormer is adding to the sense of mass coming forward. If the dormer weren't there, it would be a lot less mass, and the setback could be smaller. If the dormer is there, the setback should be 20 feet. She recommends removing the east dormer to reduce bulk, and then the setback wouldn't be a problem. The bell roof eave could perhaps be inverted and be on the roof rather than on the dormers. The complexity of the dormers is adding to the complexity of the roof and the appearance of a massing problem. Eliminating the east and west dormers would help fix both of those problems, and the north and south dormers could be kept. The south dormer provides glass at the south setback, so it should have been included in the glazing ratio calculation. Mr. Ely said it was. Chair Fox said she could vote in favor of a project that kept that setback if the dormers were simpl ified. Committee Member Woollett said he thinks that's a good suggestion. He suggested having two dormers each on the south and north sides, and no dormers on the east or west, since the building City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 12 of 37 is pretty long. This would allow for just as many dormers, without direct east and west sun coming in to the building, and allow for a lot of indirect natural light coming in to the building. Committee Member Wheeler liked that, since from the street you would only see two dormers. He thinks that would be better light and make things look simpler. He would be able to accept the current setback if the east and west dormers were removed. Committee Member Imboden asked if the hip roof ridge would get higher with two dormers. The other Committee Members clarified that there would be two separate dormers. Committee Member Imboden cautioned that two dormers would have to share the 15% glazing, since that's already the max. Committee Member Imboden also said he thought the east and west dormers would force the applicants to fight off direct sunlight at certain times of day. Committee Member McCormack mentioned the issue of precedent for this decision. He asked if this setback selection was going to be the smallest existing or the average for the neighborhood. Whichever is decided on, it could set a precedent for future projects. The average for the neighborhood is skewed due to landscaping and an apartment complex at the other end of the street with a 15 foot 4 inch setback. Mr. Ely said this is zoned as mixed -use, so the setback could really be 0 feet, even though the other residential properties on the street require a 20 foot setback. Chair Fox said this is a historic property originally built as a residence, so the setback would be more than what would normally apply to a mixed -use property. Committee Member Imboden said that what was an average would be one thing on one street and something else on another street. Deciding on an appropriate setback is not a prescriptive thing —it needs to be set for each situation individually. With a 16 foot setback, it felt like this would be an appropriate setback when looking down the streetscape. He doesn't want to get into a position where the committee automatically decides to use the average setback for future projects, because it may or may not work in each situation. Committee Member McCormack said there has to be some precedent regarding what the decision is based on. Committee Member Wheeler said this structure looks much more compatible with the neighborhood than the buildings on the north side on Olive. Committee Member Woollett said he doesn't think the entire Committee needs to agree. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4687 -13 – Avonti Salon, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the following additional conditions: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 13 of 37 • New 2 story columns shall be wood. • Trim of the transoms in the new addition will match trim in doors & windows below. • No visible scupper shall be placed at the hyphen. • Any new screens, if used, shall be wood framed. • If the downspouts need to be replaced, they shall be replaced with appropriate materials rather than plastic. • If 2 story railing needs to be higher, existing railings shall not be removed and the higher railings added shall be painted out as well as possible. • Basement vents are to remain and be repaired as needed. • New roof fascia height is to be noted on the plan that it matches the existing fascia height. • 2 dormers shall be equally spaced on north and south sides, and none on east or west. • The belled roof eaves should be kept the way they are. • Setback should remain as shown. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Tim McCormack ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Chair Fox called a 10 minute break City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 14 of 37 New Agenda Items: (4) DRC No. 4683 -13 - CASA TERESA • A proposal to demolish an existing non - contributing single -story duplex and replace it with a two -story multifamily structure. Staff is seeking DRC feedback on the proposal. • 815 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mark Murrell, the applicant's representative, address on file, stated that Casa Teresa provides housing to expectant mothers with nowhere to live. Casa Teresa purchased this building and opened it in January 2013, and it has been full ever since. They want to expand to be able to provide spaces for more of the expectant mothers who are on the wait list. The architect is at the meeting, and while this is a preliminary meeting, the applicants would like to get the Committee's thoughts. They feel they have complied with all aspects of the applicable building code. They are open to suggestions and input. Public Comments: Jeff Frankel, representing Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), address on file, stated that this was one complete site. He said there were two contributing structures, but also asked about the two garages on the site, and wondered if they were contributing as well. Mr. Garcia said they weren't on the inventory, but he would check. Mr. Frankel said there are numerous contributing structures on this site, and he didn't see the floor area ratio (FAR) on the site, but the maximum is 0.6. He assumes it doesn't exceed that. It is much larger than the Spanish colonial house next door. It should be subordinate to the larger structure that's on this lot. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards apply regarding the bulk and massing of the project in comparison with existing structures. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Imboden spoke regarding the massing. In historic terms, this lot would have been three lots with three homes on it. The proposed building looks very large and out of context with the neighborhood and the lot sizes of the properties around it. The other issue is the setback in relation to the historic structure that sits on the corner. Mr. Murrell said he looked at surrounding buildings, many of which are 2 story buildings and are equivalent in size or larger. The plan looked at the area and utilized the site for the uses needed. The building is at the same height as the contributing structure on the corner. The setback is a City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 15 of 37 little bit less than the contributing structure, but does meet building code. The separation between the buildings is greater than it was originally. These are the steps taken to mitigate the massing, and they comply with code and don't require a curb cut on Chapman or other intrusive steps. Ali Rezaei, architect, address on file, said there was parking on the first floor that necessitated some of the placement decisions. The first floor footprint is small compared to the second floor, since a lot of that space is used for parking. Committee Member Imboden said he wasn't warming up to the plans in front of him. The other commercial buildings don't necessarily work as comparables, since there are several contributing historic structures on this lot. He thought the residential character of this parcel is being changed by the current design. The new building is so much wider across the front facade than the historic building, and isn't any shorter. This means it competes with the historic building. There could be some articulation that might break up the bulky look of the proposed building from the front. The style is similar to the house next to it, and this design works in other areas of Orange, but doesn't really fit Old Towne and doesn't have a sensitive relationship to what's next to it. The architecture, with the offset of the second floor from the first, is the program getting ahead of the architecture and the architecture not catching up. The sheer bulk and mass of it is a challenge, and it should be designed in such a way to break up that mass and provide an internally consistent design project. To put this much square footage here will take a more creative and sensitive design. Committee Member Wheeler said he disputes the term Spanish colonial to describe the architecture. He sees it as "little mission on the prairie" as though someone combined the prairie style with a mission treatment. The existing building on the corner has two -story elements that move in and out, while the new proposed building has single story elements that step back to second - story. The new building has a whole different way of composing than that existing one does. He thinks it would be good if it were more similar to the existing building. This design doesn't speak to what's next to it, and looks like the newer developments in South County like Rancho Santa Margarita. It shouldn't mimic what's next to it, but it needs to appreciate it, understand it, and say it belongs there. Visually, this proposed building doesn't belong with the other one. He would like to see some hint of the parapet treatment, perhaps, since it's on the existing property. Committee Member Woollett said there was a long discussion when the library was designed, including recommendations to the City Council that were not accepted. One of the things that the architect recommended was to keep the Spanish flavor by keeping a flat roof. The City Council decided they wanted a sloping roof. To try to mimic the building next door is the wrong way to go. The building to the west can stand just fine on its own. It could well be smarter to make this building simpler and avoid symmetry so it's not taking prominence away from the historic property. Getting the building low, including flat roof solutions, and avoid symmetry, is a good way to go. The materials and color can link the new building to the old, but the Design Review Committee should remember that this is a commercial area. Seeing how it fits with the whole street is more important than just how it relates to the neighboring properties. Also, City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 16 of 37 remembering what happened when the library was built could help as well in terms of avoiding a sloping roof. Committee Member McCormack says the building composition is the key, just like some musical ideas should work together. He used the example of the Bonaventure hotel in Los Angeles, which was created with a street frontage that was very foreboding. If you look at the face that is here on the plans, and compare it to the library, you can see that the library has a little more articulation to it, and it's more inviting. The front entry of this project should be inviting, but the architecture is stark and foreboding from the front. The articulation should make it more inviting through the use of architectural elements, including a flat roof, a parapet, etc. The goal is to make the people who enter the building more comfortable, but the use and the architecture need to match each other. He understands there needs to be parking, but the building design will look like something that will dwarf the existing structure, rather than being subordinate to it. He would also like to clarify whether the setback should be based on the neighboring buildings or on the view of the entire street. The setback as currently designed sort of forces the other elements to be very weak, which weakens the historic structure. Chair Fox echoed some of those sentiments, suggesting the hip and gable roofs were not in keeping with the historic neighborhood. If the roof were flat and below the level of the historic structure, that would look much better. There should be more respect shown for the historic structure. If the back structures parapet were at 24 foot 6 inches, and the front part were a little lower but had its necessary mechanical elements sitting back behind the parapet, that would help to diminish the overall bulk, and make the project workable. Asymmetrical planning, including having the southwest corner of the proposed building to be in line with the historic structure, would be good. Re- allocating some of the mass of the building would allow it to be as big, but not have it look so bulky. The 2 " story over the parking in the rear should shift over and be on top of the columns. Mr. Rezaei said that was done to break down the length, so it didn't look like a really long unbroken stretch. Chair Fox said it feels like a modern thing that's trying to look like a Spanish thing. It is a lot of building, which is a concern. If the applicants can play with the incredibly wide street frontage, there would be some good ways to mitigate the mass. Mr. Rezaei said he was even thinking of going to two buildings, but that would take up just about the whole width of frontage. The footprint is that big in order to accommodate as many beds as possible. Chair Fox questioned the wide hallways, which eat up more space as well. Mr. Rezaei said that was just to allow for gurneys to be able to move through the hallways. Stacey Proctor, address on file, pointed out that the properties should feel like a home rather than an institution, which a lot of the women wouldn't want to be a part of —they would rather be on City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 17 of 37 the street than in an institution. The design was based on maximizing height and giving it a more open, spacious feel, so the women feel less like they are in an official program. Mr. Rezaei said the setback Chair Fox suggested in the front is definitely doable, even though it may result in some loss of square footage. Chair Fox said instead of pushing back, the top floor could be pushed out, so the square footage may not be affected. Mr. Murrell said the historical society didn't want two buildings that were copies of each other, so perhaps there was an overcorrection that brought the two buildings too far apart in their styles. Chair Fox said dropping the building height down even 2 feet would really help show respect for the historic structure. The mechanical equipment could be pushed back to the rear of the building, which would lessen the bulky look as well. Committee Member Wheeler suggested using square columns rather than circular columns, as the circular ones don't fit the neighborhood style. Committee Member Imboden responded, saying he doesn't want a building that matches the historic property. His concern is that this building could go anywhere, and it isn't specific to this location and doesn't acknowledge where it is. In an office park, this design would work well, but on a historic lot next to a historic property, it doesn't seem to work. The tallest corner of the roof could have a flat roof, for example, so it looks more articulated and less bulky. This would be a start toward making the designs compatible but not the same. He doesn't insist that the building be smaller, or a copy of the historical building, but that it fits the neighborhood a little better, with a more creative approach. A big house next to another big house is fine, but a big office building next to a historic house is not so good. Committee Member Wheeler said setting things back on the left side would be in line with the historic building, and bringing it out on the right side would be in line with the office buildings in that area as well. Chair Fox said this is a preliminary review, and she asked if that was sufficient feedback to take the next step. Mr. Murrell said he thinks so. Committee Member Wheeler said that the back building should be centered over the columns. Mr. Rezaei said he could do that. Committee Member Imboden said he didn't care if the style was somewhat different, as long as it breaks up the mass a bit. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 18 of 37 Mr. Murrell asked about the modernism wrapping around the back, and whether that would be fine. He wondered if the modern theme should be kept for going around the building. Chair Fox said that would help the pieces feel more connected. It's a modern building, but there can't be a fully modern style on a historic property. Committee Member Wheeler suggested getting rid of the shed roof forms that are there now and going to a little eyebrow type roof forms for effect to suggest the historic building being in place. Committee Member McCormack said there are three separate sites here, and he suggested making it look like a campus with the different structures, like Orange County used to look like before block walls separated people's houses. There can be separations, but perhaps not at eye level. He recommended being creative with the exterior spaces that can be used as importantly as the interior spaces. The parking lot can also be softened so it doesn't look as large. Committee Member Woollett suggested moving the parking over so that both lanes of parking can use the same backup space, so some space could be saved. He doesn't know if that's possible, but it would be more efficient if that could be done. Mr. Murrell says the courtyard is a big amenity, and pushing the parking over would adversely affect that. Committee Member Wheeler also suggested getting rid of a non - contributing accessory structure to gain some space with the flexibility to move some parking around. Chair Fox asked for a specific recommendation. Committee Member Woollett said putting parking under a building will reduce the effective space to use, and putting the parking along the alley and allowing the building to be useable space might help with managing the overall size of the building, and allowing the two parking spots to share a backup space. Committee Member Imboden suggested a hyphen between the historic garage and historic home. This could be a way to add more space without adding another building. Mr. Garcia asked if the Committee liked the treatment and color palette. Committee Member Imboden said it was irrelevant since the building will be redesigned anyway. Chair Fox suggested doing a complimentary color to what's on the corner but a little darker. Since this item was a preliminary review, the item closed without a motion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 19 of 37 (5) DRC No. 4689 -13 - MIGUEL'S JR. • A proposal to construct a 2,868 square foot quick serve restaurant with a drive -thru. • 1325 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chair Fox recused herself from this item because she had a working relationship with one of the consultants that works on the project. Committee Member Imboden served as acting chair. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. He mentioned that there may be a couple of trees still required on the landscape plan. Dann Mikkelsen, landscape architect for the project, address on file, said there were trees required, and that they have been grouped and included on the current plan. Mr. Ortlieb said in that case it is no longer an issue then. Signs and public art panels are included in the proposed plan, and will need to be discussed. There is a monument pole sign that needs to add addressing, and the pole currently exists, and the height is allowable under code, but the project prolongs the use of the pole sign, and that hasn't typically been favored as a type and style of sign in the past. That is a consideration for the Design Review Committee to weigh in on. Regarding the public art panels, Staff feels they may become more of an advertising panel, which is not the objective. Staff would like something more permanent to be in place, and it's possible that approval of these art panels could set a precedent for other businesses to ask for the same thing in the future. The landscape curb is also an issue, as it terminates on the property without additional curbing. The tree spacing issue has been resolved. The final issue is the community service landscaping, with specific items to address listed in the plans. Staff asks that the Design Review Committee make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Javier Vasquez, applicant, address on file, said they have been in business in Corona for 40 years, and he was glad to be in Orange, and looks forward to opening this new store and being long -term tenants of the city. Public Comments: None. Vice Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a roof plan yet. Mr. Ortlieb said there was no roof plan submitted. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 20 of 37 Committee Member Wheeler said it was hard to see exactly what was happening with the roof and the tower elements, including how they return on the back. Mr. George Castaneda, architect for the project, address on file, explained that the front elevation has a picture of the roof, showing an articulated entry tower. It will be a flat roof tower. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the tower up above the roof line had four sides. Mr. Castaneda explained that on the front end the roof has four sides, and on the side tower, which is taller, there are also four sides. Committee Member Wheeler asked how the roof would look, and whether all elements would have the same materials. Mr. Castaneda said the materials would be consistent, and there would be a parapet around the flat roof, which would be open in the back. He also offered to provide the roof plan if needed. Javier Martinez, applicant, address on file, added that the stone element goes all the way around, and there will be no roof materials visible from the side. Committee Member Wheeler mentioned that there were two things the staff wanted input on: the sign's appropriateness, and the proposed public art element. Vice Chair Imboden said he was opposed to the art as well, fearing that it might become advertising. He posed the question of whether the applicants would still want it if it were pictures of pasta or fortune cookies, suggesting that the answer might tell us whether it was art or advertising. Committee Member Wheeler said there was no submitted picture of what that art would be, so it was hard to weigh in on it. He said he was in favor of the idea of art, but wanted it to be permanent enough that it wasn't seen as changing often, like a window sign. He suggested other more permanent materials, but said he wasn't sure what to require without having any picture of what would be placed there. Vice Chair Imboden asked the applicant how they felt about the subject of the art being the product that they sell. Mr. Vasquez said the idea was to use art to communicate that the restaurant uses fresh products, and that this same art was used at other restaurant locations in other cities. Vice Chair Imboden said the concern was about whether the art was advertising the product that was for sale. Mr. Martinez said it was not going to feature 99 cent tacos or other specific products. He said they have considered using a local artist to represent the community as well. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 21 of 37 Mr. Vasquez said they are very complicated structures and won't be changed often. Committee Member Woollett said he didn't have a problem with food being used on the art, but it should be permanent materials. Mr. Vasquez said some other materials are much harder to maintain, and that's the reason for the choice of materials. He added that in other cities the compromise has been an agreement that the art will not use letters or numbers. It is similar to the printing BJ's has on their exterior elevations. The art would be on a metal frame that's attached to the building, with a vinyl paneling. He also added that it's been on other buildings for 2 years without being changed. He said that it's similar to the 3D printing being used for other restaurants. Committee Member McCormack said the definition of art is difficult to make. Because it looks like a vinyl panel that can be easily changed out, it is of concern. He appreciates that changing it out would be necessary as the panel fades and gets older. As an idea, interactive art is interesting and appropriate, but the concern is that this could be advertising. Vice Chair Imboden said he's concerned that something similar to this can be used by, for example, Best Buy with images of stereos, etc. and it counts as art rather than signage, so it could theoretically cover the whole building. When the "art" shows the product that's being sold, it's difficult to think of it as art. Committee Member McCormack said the vinyl panel has been seen as synonymous with advertising, but a sculpture of a chili pepper or something would be seen as more permanent, and would be easier to see as art. Vice Chair Imboden said he wouldn't have a problem with a large avocado sculpture, for example. Mr. Vasquez said there is a landlord, and they wouldn't allow the kinds of changes the Committee fears. The landlord controls what's put on the art, and there is a sign program in place on the lease. Mr. Ortlieb said staff was asking for guidance in forming the signs. Vice Chair Imboden asked if staff was also asking for the Design Review Committee to approve the art, even though they haven't seen it yet. Mr. Vasquez said they were asking for the approval of the concept of the art being a feature of the restaurant, and then they would come back to the Design Review Committee with the specific art design they had in mind. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 22 of 37 Committee Member McCormack said a proposal from Starbuck's showed a creative use of art that was part of the architecture, and suggested that would be a good way to go. That would make it look like an integral part of the architecture, and would make it look permanent. Vice Chair Imboden asked about the pole sign. Committee Member McCormack said he didn't have any suggestions. Committee Member Wheeler said he was fine with the pole sign the way it was being proposed. Mr. Ortlieb said the question was whether the Design Review Committee was fine with a long, rectangular, skinny monument sign that acts in place of a pole sign, or given that the entire center is being re -done, perhaps a pole sign is not complimentary with the new design. Vice Chair Imboden said he would rather the pole sign go away, and it would be in the applicant's benefit to lose it, but he doesn't feel he's in the place where he can tell the applicants that they have to lose it. Committee Member McCormack said it was an opportunity to look more upscale and permanent, rather than keeping someone else's old signs. Mr. Vasquez said there was a similar situation in the Costa Mesa restaurant, and it worked well there. Mr. Martinez said he feels the consistency in branding is an advantage, and he thinks it looks good as it is proposed. Committee Member Wheeler asked about two different stone veneers being used in the vertical elements, and wondered if there were pictures or samples. Mr. Martinez said it was only one veneer on the building. Mr. Castaneda said the Coronado stone is the only one that will be used, and the El Dorado stone mentioned in the plans is part of an older design. Vice Chair Imboden mentioned that the stone needs to be drawn way out of scale on the plans, so the actual stone won't look like those. Committee Member Wheeler asked what the thickness of the parapet would be. Mr. Castaneda said the whole parapet was 12 inches thick. Committee Member Woollett asked about the stone on the vertical wall, and whether there was stone as a decking material as well. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 23 of 37 Mr. Castaneda said the decking would be poured non - colored concrete. Committee Member McCormack lauded the landscape plan, but suggested there isn't space for the quercas agrifolia trees, and suggested virginiana instead. Mr. Mikkelsen defended the choice, saying he has a good pruning plan to keep it within the space, and wanted to provide as much shade as possible. He thought the water requirements would be about the same. Committee Member McCormack said he loved big trees, but they need root space, and he didn't want it to become a problem. The other plants and shrubs are right in line with the overall concept. He also asked if there was too much parking for what was needed. Mr. Vasquez said the parking had to be self - sufficient for customers and employees, since the parking wasn't shared with other businesses. Committee Member McCormack said he thought along the south area with 6, 6, and 3 spots, perhaps one of those spots could go, since it seemed like a long run of parking. Mr. Vasquez said that would be employee parking, which should be away from the building. Mr. Martinez said there needs to be 30 feet allotted for non - parking areas leading to Tustin street. Committee Member McCormack asked about the loading area. Mr. Ortlieb said it was a code requirement. Vice Chair Imboden asked if it had to be striped. Mr. Mikkelsen said it didn't. Vice Chair Imboden said to be sure not to stripe it. Committee Member McCormack asked about the large setback on the sidewalk along the abandoned street and whether that offers a chance to do more creative landscaping. He said the street trees there could be lost, and something more meaningful could be put in that space. Mr. Ortlieb stated that it was a street that was abandoned and reverted by the city back to the original owners. It works like a drive aisle, and it needs to be kept open so owners in the area can access their back properties. The ownership rights to the property come with an easement that restricts what can be done in that area. Committee Member McCormack said if this was started in a new shopping area, this wouldn't be the way to do it, and he would like to have it done in a way that looks better. He also asked about the location of the drive -thru. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 24 of 37 Mr. Vasquez said they studied several different plans, and this was the most workable one. Committee Member McCormack asked about the curb. Mr. Ortlieb said the building on the south was actually a foot or so over the property line with its curb, so he wondered if the curb should be cut along the property line, or along where the existing paving is. Mr. Castaneda said a substantial portion of the property line is on the wall of the adjacent building, so it's hard to know if the curb is the right delineating element. It's also hard to know what the other tenant's future development plan will be, so it's hard to integrate the landscaping into the other tenant's plans. Committee Member McCormack said there's nothing currently on the property to show the demarcation of the property line. Vice Chair Imboden said if the curb was cut at the property line, it wouldn't necessarily be parallel to the edge of the building. Committee Member McCormack said he would cut the curb where it doesn't intersect the building, and leave a small mow strip in between the building and the curb. As long as it's big enough to get the proposed landscaping on the property, it's not a big deal if it comes up to the property line. He also added that he didn't have any problems with the tree spacing or other landscaping. Vice Chair Imboden recapped the three conditions in the staff report: (1) the planter on the east side of the parking lot should eliminate the palo verde as it will be crowding the oaks; (2) the six oaks in the easterly planter should be spaced out; and (3) the irrigation plan will indicate what kind of sprinklers or emitters will be used. Mr. Mikkelsen stated that all three of those conditions have been addressed. Vice Chair Imboden asked if there were any other comments on the site plan. There were none. Committee Member Wheeler asked whether the public art issue had been resolved. Vice Chair Imboden said he isn't against the concept of public art, but isn't convinced that the current proposal constitutes public art. He thinks it opens up the possibility of circumventing the signage rules. He thinks it's more of an advertisement than art at this point. When it comes back to the Committee, it should be more art than ad. It's hard to know what is art until you see it, but he hopes when it comes back to the Design Review Committee it will be art. Committee Member Wheeler said it should be more permanent than the details provided indicate, and that it should be something more of a cultural or historical nature rather than a City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 25 of 37 graphic representation of something that might be used in the building. Other Committee Members agreed. Committee Member McCormack suggested a 3- dimensional stylized avocado tree or something like it that is one step off of the actual product. Committee Member Wheeler recapped the conditions being discussed, including the removal of a single parking space. Mr. Vasquez was concerned about losing another parking space, since there are currently 30 of them and 52 were originally proposed. With 10 employees per shift, it becomes very important to keep as many parking spaces as possible. Vice Chair Imboden said he thinks the site is well landscaped, and removing some of the parking to accommodate landscaping isn't necessary. Committee Member McCormack said he understands that, and would keep the removal as a recommendation that can be entertained if it's possible. Committee Member Wheeler motioned to recommend approval to the Planning Commission for DRC No. 4689 -13 — Miguel's Jr., subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the following additional conditions: • Tower elements that stand above the perimeter parapet shall be faced on all 4 sides with the same stone veneer. • Only 1 stone veneer shall be used on the vertical faces of the building (not 2). • A Recommendation that staff give further study to landscaping of the entry throat (along the abandoned Villa Park Rd.). • A Recommendation that 4 parking space from west side on south property line be removed and used for landscaping. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Carol Fox ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 26 of 37 (6) DRC No. 4699 -13 — STREETER FOURPLEX • A proposal to rehabilitate a fire damaged contributing building and to reconstruct a rear addition to the building. • 137 -139 E. River Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714 - 744 -7243, mmoshier @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Contract Staff Planner, Marissa Moshier, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Doug Ely, the applicant's representative, address on file, presented an explanation of the history of the building. This property was originally constructed in 1914, and it was converted to a triplex as early as 1940. In 1947 there was a permit to construct a garage and an accessory unit adjacent to the garage. It has essentially been a four -plex since 1947. It is not permitted, but is legal non - conforming. John Streeter bought the property in 1979, and there was a fire that damaged the front unit in December of 2012. There is already a permit to replace like for like in terms of the burned material. As part of that project, there is exterior siding that will need to be replaced. There was siding with asbestos that was placed over the original siding. The plan is to remove that asbestos siding. The staff report states that the existing historic siding is in good condition, and he feels that is the case in some areas, but it is in poor condition in other areas. The plan was to restore the original siding to the best extent possible. There was piping added to the exterior in the 1940's, and the new plan was to remove the siding in that area so that the pipes can be moved to the interior of the building. As a result of the fire, there will need to be new windows put in some places as well. These windows have already been approved by the city. He was looking for approval for the project and advice on the best way to fix the exterior siding. Mr. Ely provided samples of the siding on the original building, and the most likely siding choice to replace it. Robert Streeter, applicant, address on file, explained that the original siding was cut on a table saw, so the new siding won't match the exact texture, but will be as close as possible. The new siding is cedar, since it's not cost - effective to do redwood, but this is very similar. The new siding is actually 1 /4 inch smaller than the existing siding. Mr. Ely said that there are areas of existing siding that will remain in place and not be removed, but when windows need to be changed out, the siding will be removed as delicately as possible and re- installed after the windows are done. The east elevation will be where all the existing siding will be placed, since that side is visible from the street, and the piping on that side will be moved to the interior. Some areas of siding will not be touched, even though the applicants would like to remove it, put a vapor barrier in, and then replace it. The other sides would use the newer siding, since there is not likely to be enough useable existing siding. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 27 of 37 Chair Fox asked how the new and old siding pieces would match up, especially if they are V4 inch different sizes. Mr. Robert Streeter explained that the existing siding would be used on the bottom rows, and new siding would be used after the old siding runs out. He also explained that there will need to be quite a bit of material pulled off in order to fix the electrical system, which needs to be totally replaced as a result of the fire. He also wanted to place a moisture barrier behind the siding when it was off. The asbestos siding, he believes, was likely placed on there because there was moisture underneath in some parts of the original siding. There also has to be some siding pulled off in order to re -roof the building. Committee Member Imboden asked why the siding would have to be taken off to re -roof. Mr. Robert Streeter explained that all the flashing and other features are underneath the siding. Mr. Ely said the choice was either to remove it or pry it out enough to remove the flashing underneath. Mr. Robert Streeter said the plan was to pull off whatever could be pulled off as gently as possible, but it will be difficult to save all of it. Chair Fox said the current plan doesn't reflect that. Mr. Ely said that was the original desire, but the fallback position was to leave as much intact as possible, and remove only when replacing the windows. The overall effort was to minimize the amount of siding that has to be pulled off. The original desire was to remove all of it so it would give a unified look, since there is no modern siding that can match the original exactly. Mr. Ely said the other part of the project was the remodeling of the garage. The bedroom unit added to the back of the garage, which is legal non - conforming, is being transformed back into a garage. This will remove just a little bit of the square footage of the property. The idea is to leave as much of the original roof as possible. Basically it will be an effort to upgrade the property and bring it back up to code. Public Comments: Jeff Frankel, representing Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), address on file, stated that it was great to see the asbestos siding come off of the house. He noted that some of the areas of the house may not be permitted, since Dan Ryan, said there were no permit documents on file with the city for the garage. The unit on the garage is undersized and doesn't meet the current requirements for an accessory structure. He also doesn't understand why so much siding is being removed, when so many of the changes regarding electrical and plumbing could be done from the interior. He has seen many people with wood sided structures replace windows without having to remove any siding. He says the new siding should be redwood and should have dimensions that match the originals exactly. It costs a little more, but it is standard practice in City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 28 of 37 restoring historic homes. The stucco area should be replaced with siding as well, since that was original to the property. He also would like to have the exterior staircase located out of the public view if possible, since the property is being restored. The addition should not obscure the rafters and other features of the historic homes. He wondered if the Old Towne Design Standards included the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, since they were mentioned in the same sentence on the staff report, without separate sections dealing with each one. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Imboden asked if the Committee was supposed to approve the use. Ms. Moshier said no. Committee Member Imboden said he felt compelled to ask about the permit search process, wanting staff to provide additional information in the future. Also, he didn't feel like there are any design changes to the garage, so he's not sure why the committee is weighing in on that. Ms. Moshier said the only change to the garage is interior, but it does need plans, so that's why it's in front of the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler said the project does show a new door, and assumed that was a panel door. John Streeter, applicant, address on file, stated that the only way into the garage now was through the big garage door. Committee Member Imboden asked if there were no other exterior doors into the garage. Mr. John Streeter said there were none. Ms. Moshier stated that Staff did have a discussion with the applicants about permits and the timeline for the property. Based on the research that both the staff and applicants provided, it appeared that there were three existing units starting in the 1940's. Staff is therefore considering this a legal non - conforming property. Chair Fox asked about the garage. Mr. Ely provided a copy of the permit for the garage. Chair Fox asked if the permit specifically stated that there was an additional unit in the garage. Mr. Ely stated that all the different properties were clearly built at the same time in the 1940's, since the framing and other construction indicates that it was all built at the same time. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 29 of 37 Chair Fox said it was possible that the garage was built with a workshop rather than an extra unit, and wondered how that made the permit apply to the unit. The permit itself just says garage, rather than garage and unit. Mr. Ely said the historical record showed that there were four different addresses assigned to the property. Mr. John Streeter added that there were four different gas meters put in. Chair Fox said the utilities and the post office don't necessarily indicate that it was a permitted use. Mr. Ely said the planning staff agreed that there were four legal non - conforming units on the property. This was determined early in the planning process, and all the designs are based on the units being legal non - conforming. He said that what was different was that at some point in the time there was a bedroom added to the garage, and this current project will remove that bedroom and turn the garage back to a 2 -car garage. Committee Member Imboden said there has been some discussion about removing the siding in order to cover up the piping on the side of the house, and it sounds like the interior is being largely re -done. Mr. Ely said the fire in the unit has caused damage in some locations. The kitchen is intact, the bathroom is intact. None of the interior finishes are being removed, and those would have to be removed to do what needs to be done from the inside rather than the outside. There is no desire on the applicant's part to remove those finishes and thus increase the cost of the project. Committee Member Imboden wondered if at some point replacing the fixtures would be cheaper than installing new siding, and therefore it wouldn't be a financial advantage to avoid removing those. Drywall is much cheaper than redwood siding, for example. Committee Member Imboden asked what would happen with the brick foundation: is the project permitted to be re -built on brick? Mr. Ely said there is a new concrete foundation proposed, but some of the brick foundation that exists will be kept. Committee Member Imboden said he thinks there is an old screen porch that has been closed, since the floorboards are visible and there is vertical siding being used. Mr. Ely said there is an existing roofed porch area, and the eave over it is continuous. Committee Member Imboden pointed out that the existing elevation drawing in the plans is not the current condition of the property. He also stated that there is a lot of potentially historic fabric that hasn't been identified in the drawings, and therefore may not be identified in the field. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 30 of 37 He's concerned that that might be planned to be demolished and we might lose some historic material without even knowing it. There have been many discussions about projects planning to demolish and replace screen porches. Also, there are many details on the drawings that don't seem accurate with the field conditions. Fascia is shown everywhere on the house, but it doesn't actually occur on much of the house, for example. In the craftsman style tradition, typically there weren't end fascias used. Whether it had it or not, there should be a determination of what has fascia and what doesn't. It would require some research. Also, there is a chimney that doesn't appear on the drawings, and he wonders if it will be removed. Mr. Robert Streeter said that would be taken out. Committee Member Imboden said the drawings should reflect it then. He also encouraged that he drawings should not use hatches, since sometimes they then don't line up exactly. He also asked whether the stucco will be kept. He says it looked like stucco was being put over drywall. Mr. Robert Streeter said it was a green board. It's been there forever, so the attempt is to keep it intact. Committee Member Imboden said the house diagonally across the street is almost an identical house, and any information needed regarding this house might be obtained by looking at the other house. Committee Member Imboden is concerned about removing so much of the original siding. Chair Fox said this was especially true in light of it being so fragile, and that much of it would probably be destroyed in the process of removing it. Committee Member Imboden said he would try to find another way to do what's being proposed because it would likely be cheaper than re -doing the siding. In some cases, when putting in windows, the siding is simply cut into rather than removed. He would not do what's being proposed if he were the owner. Removing siding to re -roof is not the way things are done typically. All the historic material should be preserved first in the priorities of what to do with the house. He would like to see a different attitude and approach in the plan that looks to preserve as much as possible and accurately restore what can be restored. Committee Member Imboden asked about the front porch, for example, and wondered what would be done with the columns there. Mr. Ely mentioned that the columns will be removed in favor of a cantilevered approach, and said some of those details are on other plans that have already been approved. Committee Member Wheeler said another advantage to working from the inside was that a vapor barrier could be sprayed on from the inside, which would mean the siding wouldn't have to come off. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 31 of 37 Mr. Ely said that works in theory, but he hasn't experienced that working successfully. Chair Fox explained that sometimes adding a vapor barrier works against the house, since the moisture is then retained and there are mold problems. The asbestos added to the outside probably added to the moisture problem in this house. The "drafty" old houses have no mold problems for that reason. She said she also has issues with how much siding has to come off. The asbestos was appalling, and removing it was a good step. She said the applicant doesn't need to upgrade all the other tragedies previous owners have done. The historic siding has been uncovered, and trying to restore that is a good step. She doesn't feel justified in holding these applicants to bring the entire house up to restoration standard. It's an incremental step, and she feels it's a good one, but she has issues with how much has to come off. Mr. Ely said the plan was to use the original siding on the east and south sides that face the street, and use the new siding on the west and north sides that aren't street - facing. Chair Fox said the siding seems to be so fragile it would not survive being pulled off and put back on. Mr. Robert Streeter said he believes he would be able to save enough to do the two proposed sides, including taking existing siding off of the non street- facing sides to place it on the street - facing sides. He also says the plumbing is ugly and they are trying to cover it, which they don't have to do. Since that plumbing goes in several different directions, it's difficult to do. The fixing of the appearance around the plumbing is not a requirement, and it doesn't provide additional income for the property as well. Committee Member Imboden said he can't support taking off all that siding to cover plumbing that could be run on the inside of the house. He doesn't think the standards support that. Chair Fox said she also has a problem with that. Mr. Ely said there's been a fire, and tenants have been displaced, and the applicants are trying to do the best they can and will make it look better than it was before thanks to the removal of the asbestos siding. In a perfect world it would be nice to restore everything to its historical condition. Committee Member Imboden said he didn't want the applicants to think that he was demanding that, but he thought if a vapor barrier was being installed under expensive siding, then it would also be put under cheap stucco. Mr. Ely didn't think that was a fair assessment, since the vapor barrier was something to add in if the walls were already being opened up to fix the electrical damage, which they have to be. Committee Member Imboden said the plans were unclear in some parts, especially on the service porch area. He acknowledged it was very difficult to accurately represent the current state of the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 32 of 37 house in drawings. He said the plans should show where fascia board is going to be used, and where the siding will be removed and why it would make sense to do so. Mr. Ely said he has indicated where the siding will be removed. Committee Member Imboden said he doesn't think siding should be removed to replace the windows and enclose the plumbing. He also said the staff report needs to discuss the legal non- conforming nature of the garage unit, and that extending the eaves will not be a problem with setbacks and other requirements. Ms. Moshier stated that in the plan, the existing encroachment will be allowed to continue. Committee Member Imboden also said there are no designs in the plan for the garage, so he doesn't feel good about approving the plan to put up the new wall. Mr. Ely said the plans show which walls in the garage will be removed and put back the way it was in 1947. Committee Member Imboden said there will be doors added. Mr. Ely clarified that no doors will be added. Committee Member Imboden also said that his vote on the unit would legitimize the unit, and that doesn't seem like it's within the purview of the Design Review Committee. It's more of a use issue. The permit says garage, rather than garage and unit. It's not the Design Review Committee's decision to make regarding the legality of the unit. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, said he would like more time to look into the garage unit discussion as a staff, and be sure that the building is legal before the Design Review Committee has to weigh in on it. Committee Member Wheeler said he didn't want to approve the design on a non - conforming unit. Mr. John Streeter said the garage unit has nothing to do with restoring the house because of the fire. Chair Fox said the garage was then dropped from tonight's discussion. There were four different things the Design Review Committee was being asked to weigh in on: (1) restoration of fire damage, (2) historic siding that's been uncovered, (3) redoing of an addition, and (4) the legal non - conforming garage. The applicants have done a good job of restoring the fire damage, so the siding and the addition were the two issues that remain. She suggested moving on to other Committee Members' comments. Committee Member McCormack said he had nothing to add. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 33 of 37 Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant what they would really like to do with the property if they didn't have to deal with the City at all. Mr. John Streeter said he would like to tear off all the siding and put new siding on. He also said he would have to take care of everything that burned. Committee Member Woollett asked, in the bigger picture, whether the applicant really wanted to bring the house back to its pre -fire condition. He suggested perhaps restoring it to a single - family house and then selling it, which may actually put the applicant further ahead financially than trying to restore it. He said the applicant is jumping through a lot of hoops to solve some issues that maybe don't even have to be there. He suggested that the applicant was primarily concerned with the economics of it. Mr. John Streeter explained that the fire was last December, and this is now 10 months of lost rental income. This income helps provide for him financially in his retirement. With all the delay, he said he considered just putting it back to a regular single - family house, but he realized he needed the rental income from all four units on the property. Restoring it to its historical state would also cost money, which might be as much as restoring it to being a rental property. Committee Member Woollett said he was just asking the question to make sure that had been thought about. The rules state that the property could be taken back to what it was like at any point in its history. Mr. John Streeter said he wanted to put it back, perhaps more modern on the inside, including better bath fixtures, with new siding and a better color, and go back to earning income from the four rental properties. He said he wanted to keep as much of the old siding as possible and place it where people could see it (the east and south sides of the house), and put in new siding on the sides people couldn't see (the west and north sides). Committee Member Woollett explained that there was an ordinance to administer, and it would be easier sometimes if what applicants want to do could be changed. He said in the big picture, the ordinances that exist are to help preserve Old Towne, and what's going on now isn't really helping to protect Old Towne. The ordinance has to be administered because of what the applicant wants to do, which means the applicant has to jump through a lot more hoops than if he went in a different direction. Mr. John Streeter said he wants to make it look like it did when he bought it in 1979, except for removing the asbestos shingles. Committee Member Woollett said that there was a time in the history of the City of Orange where a lot of people lived in garages, and that history can be preserved as well. Chair Fox asked if Committee Member Woollett had anything to add regarding the addition in the back. He said he had nothing to add. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 34 of 37 Committee Member Wheeler said he thought the applicants were planning to do a great deal to improve the property. He recommended re- thinking the idea of taking out siding to replace the flashing around the windows. Mr. John Streeter said that wasn't the primary reason for removing the siding. He needs to remove siding in order to hide the plumbing and get it inside as much as possible. Committee Member Wheeler said the plan to remove siding on the less visible side and keep the original siding on the visible sides was a good one. He also mentioned that if the northwest corner was historically a service porch, it should probably continue to be visible. At any rate, more research into the history of that part of the building is needed. He also said there is at least one window on the drawings that doesn't appear to be on the actual house. Mr. Ely acknowledged that it was a mistake in the drawings. Committee Member Imboden said it was hard to assess the plan without all the little details being accurate. Chair Fox said the Committee needed to offer some clear direction about the addition. The back side, which has existing rafter tails, should be done in a way that leaves the rafter tails exposed. Committee Member Wheeler said the features will still be there, even though they are hidden a little bit. Mr. Ely explained that there is no real way to leave those exposed unless there is a really shallow slope on the roof. Mr. Robert Streeter said only one side of the roof line is exposed. Committee Member Imboden said he doesn't understand why so much of the house is being demolished as part of this plan. Mr. Ely explained that much of it is in very poor condition, and the applicant would like to get it set up for the next hundred years. Mr. Robert Streeter explained that the fire ravaged the electrical, which needs to be totally replaced and upgraded in order to get it up to code. Chair Fox asked about the "weirdness" in the drawings, including several different places being labeled as offices. She wondered why that was the case. Mr. Ely explained that's because that's what it was before the fire. It was supposed to be a one - bedroom residence on both sides, and some rooms were used as an office or den. In the addition, the rooms will be too small to be used as bedrooms. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 35 of 37 Chair Fox said she thought the plan did a nice job of keeping the existing house line clear. She also said she was fine with covering the roof line, since in looking at the pictures again she can see that there is no eave exposed. She said she was fine with the higher plate height. Committee Member Imboden pointed out that in one of the elevations the edge of the roofing showed, and on one of them it didn't. Chair Fox said she was fine with covering that part of the roof, and that on the service porch area that part should still reflect the historical heritage of the service porch by keeping the foundation line and siding. She is not convinced that the gable is necessary in that area, though. Mr. Ely said the other option was to do a hip on the roof, but that didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the project. Mr. John Streeter says the roof line will need to be raised because the bedroom is being moved to the back, and in order to have a door on the outside, the roof line needs to be higher. Mr. Robert Streeter says it would still be a split pitch on the roof. Mr. Ely said he appreciates the options given, but he thinks it would look a little funky with a hip. Chair Fox said that was her opinion. Committee Member Imboden said he didn't think a hip would work well either. There was some disagreement over where the service porch went, and how the roof should be pitched to accommodate it. Chair Fox asked everyone what their opinion was on the roof situation for the addition. Committee Member Imboden asked how he could answer that without knowing what the addition was going to look like. Mr. Ely said he would look at all the options, and pick what he thinks is best, and provide a justification for his choice the next time the plan is before the committee. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that some committee members could arrange a time to come out and see the property with the applicants to get a better feel for what was being proposed. Ms. Moshier stated there couldn't be a quorum of members present at a meeting like that. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 36 of 37 Committee Member Wheeler said it would just be two Committee Members at a time. He also mentioned that the stairway didn't seem to work having a railing with a 4 -inch diameter ball going through it. Mr. Ely said it shouldn't be 4 inches. Committee Member Wheeler said there may need to be a fascia on the stair stringer. Chair Fox brought it back to the siding question, wondering what people thought about it being 1/4 inch shorter and not being redwood. Committee Member Imboden said he didn't have a problem with it being similar but not an exact match, since the redwood siding made today isn't the same quality as the original siding. However, the Secretary of the Interior's Standard is to match as exactly as possible. Chair Fox said it should be the exact same dimensions. The siding on the addition can be the new material and a different size, if need be. Mr. Ely mentioned that if it's going to be too difficult to cover the exterior plumbing, it might get left the way it is. Committee Member Imboden said that was preferable to irreversibly removing the historic fabric. Some future owner may be able to do that while also preserving the historic fabric. Chair Fox said the other issue was to get more photos and accurate drawings regarding the addition. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the piping could be painted to match the new color of the house. Mr. Ely said that was the plan. Committee Member Imboden moved to continue DRC No. 4699 -13, Streeter Fourplex, asking that the applicant return with revised plans that more accurately reflect the existing conditions of the rear and west side of the house where the addition is proposed; also that the drawings be revised to a higher level of accuracy to depict what is in the field and the proposed project; also the city staff should come back with more specific language regarding the garage; also there should be an attempt to have Committee Members visit the site with the architect. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2013 Page 37 of 37 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on October 2, 2013. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.