Loading...
02-01-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL February 1, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee reviewed the Minutes of the October 19, 2005, November 2, 2005, and November 16, 2005 Meetings. C Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 2 DRC No. 4013-OS -KAISER PERMANENTE REHAB PAVILION C A request fora 7,800 square foot, single-story, medical building addition, modifications to the existing parking lot and landscaping, and new parking lot and landscaping improvements to an undeveloped portion of the property. 4201 West Chapman Avenue and 200 North. Lewis Street Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, 714-744-7229, afox@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Ms. Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner, provided a reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. Mr. Mike Swain, 8 Festivo, Irvine. The applicant stated they had matched all the existing materials and colors to the existing building. He pointed out where they would enhance the parking and would replace the entire parking area in the back. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if what was shown is what he intended to be exactly on the building, and the applicant stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawing made it look like as though the material on the existing building is the same as what was shown as examples, but it was actually a ceramic tile, and if the applicant would place this the anywhere else on the new building Mr. Swain stated it was a tile, and they did not intend to place the ceramic the anywhere else. He added they did not intend to have that many replacement materials on the building. The masonry, glass, and metal would all match. He explained the main entry would remain the same. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the applicant would be able to replicate the unique wall sconces that were on the original building, and the applicant stated no. Committee Member Woollett asked if this meant there would be no lighting on the building. Mr. Swain replied they would have lighting at the entries as required in the canopies, and have site lighting around the building. Committee Member Cathcart should be addressed i.e. 25% thought the point raised by Mr. Morris, Landscape Coordinator, of the new trees added should be 24 inch box trees, and on the legend on the drawing, it did not state quantities. He thought this should be a part of the Conditions. One of the other Conditions mentioned in the Ordinance was on the perimeter of the parking lot that the trees be within 36 feet on center, and he stated there was a lot of space there that if there were enough parking spaces, they may want to consider using some of the parking stalls to instead add more islands to place more trees in the perimeter. He asked about the lack of consistency at the entrance where existing jacaranda trees were and then bottle trees were added. Mr. Swain stated that it was a maintenance issue because the jacaranda was not their favorite tree, and also there could be a drainage problem if they started adding more trees. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator wanted to know what types of trees they were planting, and suggested something with a big canopy. Mr. Swain mentioned that Kaiser had several facilities so they've developed their own hierarchy of trees that they like. Mr. Morris stated there were some city required landscaping inspection notices that will have to be added to the plan. Committee Member Cathcart asked if there were any empty tree wells along Lewis. Mr. Swain thought there were trees at the entry, but they had been taken out. Mr. Woollett moved that DRC No. 4013-OS be recommended to the Planning Commission for approval with the following conditions: Items One through Four in the Staff Report Items in the Recommendation Report by Howard Morris Any missing street trees will be replaced SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 4 2. DRC No. 4049-OS - MAGLAUGHLIN RESIDENCE A request to permit the use of vinyl windows on a 1919 Bungalow residence. Property is located at 511 Van Bibber Avenue, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner read the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He stated that Staff has looked at the Design Standards, and is recommending that the applicant replace the vinyl windows having the same characteristics (profile, sash, and design) as the Bungalow windows of the same period. He added at the last meeting, there was a brief discussion with the applicant regarding the direction he wanted to take with the design of the window screen, and to cover up some of the appearance of the vinyl window, encouraged the applicant to explain how he came to this particular point. Mr. Alan Maglaughlin 2930 Imperial Hwy, Suite 2002, Inglewood. He explained he did not know there was a problem until he received a notice and he had put the windows up two years ago. He further explained the screen design was originally from the panel design of their front door, and it wasn't necessary to just match the window, but it was for design purposes. He realized that in Old Towne they try to keep a certain look, and that was another reason to match the screen rather than just a vinyl window with the screen it came with. Ms. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange. She stated as much as she liked the window screens, and she realized how much work was involved in them, there was no reason for the vinyl windows, and she agreed with the report. Mr. Jeff Frankel, address on file. He also liked the screens, but the vinyl windows were inappropriate. If the windows were deteriorated beyond repair, they should have been replaced with a like window, and similar materials and design. He continued they did not meet Secretary of Interior Standards, CEQA, or the City's Design Standards so it is OTPA's position they need to be replaced with a window that is similar or as close to the original design of the old window. Chair Califf commented that this was a difficult situation. Although the applicant had done a well crafted job on the screen work, but puts the DRC in a bad position because the screen is not a permanent part of the house and they could not control whether or not the screen stayed if the house changed ownership whereas the window is a much more permanent part of the house, and the window is considered part of the historic fabric and one of the character defining features of the house. He was concerned about the precedent that would proceed going forward with this. Mr. Maglaughlin replied in his defense that there were vinyl windows across the street from him as well as the house on the corner of Almond and Orange. Chair Califf stated there were many examples of the things that the DRC does not allow people to do. Unfortunately, it makes their job a little harder. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Ryan mentioned that some of the residents that had these vinyl windows were in Code Enforcement presently. He stated that sometimes it is an issue of enforcement. Committee Member Woollett stated after he had seen the vinyl windows, he wondered whether there was any legitimacy considering that the window was no longer an exterior element if it had a decorative screen on it. He pointed out that the picture that was shown to the Committee did show the window through the screen. He added that he liked his house and the attractiveness of the screens, and everything seemed to be in keeping with the Craftsman style, but that he had lost the argument and conceded. Committee Member Dewees commented that it had to do with intent. He thought the intent of the City Standards were not to lose Historic fabric and from this Committee's standpoint, they struggle for consistency all the time, and in order to be consistent, he would have to concur with Staff and ask that they be replaced. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed although he had done a beautiful job with his house. He liked the fencing and trellis area. He thought it was a slippery slope if they say some can have the vinyl windows and they have told other people they could not. Ms. Crenshaw asked if the applicant had obtained a permit to replace the windows, and the applicant stated he did not know he needed one beforehand. Ms. Crenshaw mentioned that OTPA would be meeting with Mrs. Angus to discuss some of these issues and talk about a brochure to provide information so residents will know what is required. Chair Califf stated he had seen previous brochures, but the problem remains. There was some discussion about the possibilities of who, how, when, and where these brochures could be sent out so that residents know when permits are required. Mr. Maglaughlin asked what the timeframe would be to get the windows replaced. Chair Califf commented they had been down this road before. He continued this required a permit, and the process of obtaining a building permit, and the Building Code delineates the permit is good for a certain amount of time, and he could get an extension. He said the permit process provides at minimum one year and up to two years for the permit to be good. He mentioned they would condition that he obtain a Building Permit. Mr. Ryan stated that it takes about six to eight weeks to order a window, and Sierra Pacific makes a window closest to this. He discussed all the things that would replicate his original window, and knew it would take some time to get them replaced. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Woollett moved that DRC 4049-05, Maglaughlin Residence, be denied in accordance with the Staff recommendations. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 7 DRC No. 4062-06 - MAYORGA RESIDENCE A proposal to remodel/reconstruct a 1910 Bungalow residence. Property is located at: 178 S. Pixley Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler recused himself from this item. Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, mentioned if the project looked familiar to the DRC, it was because it was reviewed by the DRC on May 4, 2005. At that time, the consideration was to look at it as a reconstruction due to the severe deterioration and damage to the property. He said since this time, the property had been sold. Mr. Ryan then read the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He ended by stating that to tackle a building in this condition and return it to its original building form was great for the neighborhood, and thought it would be a great asset. Ms. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange_She had a question about the railing around the front porch. She asked what was there originally. Mr. Ryan thought there was nothing around the front porch. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated he had driven by the house, and was glad to see the applicant was going to rehabilitate the original structure, and keeping as much historic fabric as possible. He said they appreciated she was keeping the board mat, and style siding and keeping it as original as possible. He stated it appeared as though the house had been altered quite a bit. He wasn't sure the board would have been fascia on the front elevation, and probably would have had rafter tails. He wanted to know what style the front door would be. Mr. Ryan stated it was a very plain house, and thought the door would match the style. Chair Califf mentioned the wood vehicle gate and wood walk way gate on the Drawing Notes. He saw where it specified a height of 72 inches in the back with 42 inches at the front. He thought this should be sufficient. He asked about the traffic flow through the alley. Mr. Ryan stated there was access to other properties. Chair Califf wanted the applicant to try to match the width of the board and bats to what it was originally. He also wanted to Condition that they not use a fascia board unless it had one originally. Committee Member Cathcart asked if the front elevation of a six panel door was reasonable or did they want to simplify it. Chair Califf stated it would be difficult to find something as simple as what was there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Woollett moved for approval of DRC 4062-06, Mayorga Residence, with the following conditions: Include the Conditions in the Staff Report. And with the following Recommendations: The rafters be exposed at the eaves The style of the front door be simplified from a six panel door as shown on plans The front gate not exceed 43 inches high The wood bats be as close to the original width as reasonably possible SECOND:Donnie Dewees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:Craig Wheeler ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 9 4. DRC No. 4065-06 -SMITH PORCH REMODEL A request to approve the construction of remodeled porch, new entry doors, and landscape planter on a 1913 Modified Post Victorian residence. Property is located at: 605 E. Maple Avenue, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner stated the applicant had left before the Item was presented. He then read the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He mentioned the issue had come before Staff because of Code Enforcement. As he looked back, he said this project had been on- going for some time. He added that Code Enforcement had sent a notice on the project but the applicant did not want to proceed with the approvals and wanted to finish the work. Staff had asked the applicant if there were any historical photographs or photographs of the work in progress. He pointed out the issue was with the modern materials that distract from the harmony of the building. He said the fact that some of it is a built-in planter, it is integrated into the porch which was not typical of the period. He stated it doesn't reflect the historical pattern with landscape features like this and the porch design. Chair Califf commented that the walk is typically a landscape feature. But, then the steps and the porch is generally considered a part of the building. Mr. Dewees mentioned there had been recent cases where the DRC had not considered the walkway to be a part of the landscaping. Chair Califf recalled that they had not required an applicant to change anything, but they have made recommendations. Mr. Ryan agreed this was true, but thought that gradually over the past four years there was more concern with historical landscape features being compatible with the property. He stated they had looked at the guidelines, but there were no specific standards. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange. She stated the fake brick the applicant used didn't look good. She looked at photos of the original house, and thought it was so simple, and pleasing. She thought the original posts had been changed, and the door did not match it. She would like to see it changed back to something simpler. She wasn't sure what materials could be used to make the flag stone and used brick look go away. Mr. Ryan commented that one of recent houses on South Orange Street in the Nutwood tract had replaced the cast stone fireplace. They were able to replicate the individual cast concrete stones and came out fantastic. Chair Califf stated the concrete blocks from the original Victorian period could be purchased via the Internet. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 10 Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He said he agreed with Staff, and thought the doors were totally inappropriate. He hoped the applicant still had the original doors as they needed to be replaced with a simpler style to that period. He also mentioned the tiles or brick veneer needed to be removed. He thought it should be required that the porch be restored to its original material or as close to it using appropriate materials. He thought the landscape issue should be redone with an appropriate material such as concrete. He recommended the porches be replaced if the material is available. Mr. Dewees asked what triggered the enforcement action. He asked if it was the work in the parkway. Chair Califf said that although people do put walkways in, it's not typical to be so elaborate. Mr. Frankel thought there might be an Ordinance. Ms. Roseberry commented that it was not in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moms said as long as it doesn't present a liability, Public Works is pretty flexible. Mr. Woollett asked when the surfacing on the porch was done. Chair Califf said he noticed this around 2004. Mr. Ryan stated it was pretty new material. Mr. Woollett asked when the driveway was installed. He added the driveway was not in the recommendations in the Staff Report. Mr. Ryan explained in the letter from the applicant in January 2006, she mentions the driveway as not being replaced yet. Mr. Woollett asked Mr. Ryan in his review of the project, it didn't seem appropriate to include the driveway in his recommendations. Mr. Ryan responded it was his approach to get rid of all of the modern paving that was in the landscape areas that distracts historically, and not include anything else. He said the driveways were small one-car, short driveway. He'd rather give up a ribbon driveway and take out the brick work to make it tie together. Mr. Woollett also mentioned that the walkway was not addressed either. Mr. Ryan pointed out his previous comment that the material was distracting enough that it was hard to make the differentiation between the planter because it's built into the porch, but if the Committee wanted to take this to include all the flatwork match the original materials, he thought this would be an excellent idea. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 11 c Mr. Frankel asked if the Standards addressed sidewalks and walkways, and Mr. Ryan stated yes. Mr. Dewees commented that the project they saw before was they left the concrete, but put trim on the side. Chair Califf said that typically if it's a concrete walk, they haven't quibbled whether it's connected to the concrete, but this is incredibly distracting, and if it was concrete and flared out there, we probably wouldn't care. Mr. Woollett moved for approval of the project DRC 4065-06, Smith Porch Remodel, in accordance with the conditions in the Staff Report and with the following recommendations: 1. The walkway from the porch to the sidewalk (in the public right-of--way) be removed and replaced with concrete in accordance with the historic manner. 2. The driveway from Maple Street to be replaced with a traditional ribbon driveway. 3. Applicant consider replacing or restoring the work originally on the gable-end of the house that can be seen in the historic survey photograph. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 12 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 2005 as corrected. Committee Member Cathcart left as he would have abstained anyway. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Joe Woollett ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 2005 and November 16, 2005 as corrected. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2006 Page 13 Chair Califf made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 7:08 pm. C