Loading...
03-01-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL March 1, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. C C City of ©range -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4048-OS - MARTELLI ADDITION Proposal fora 446 sq. ft. addition to a 1916 Bungalow 495 N. Olive Street, Old Towne Orange Historical District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Mr. Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, mentioned Staff had been working on the project with the applicant since November 2005. Prior to this timeframe, there had been numerous discussions with the applicant in that he originally wanted to construct atwo-story structure on the property. The issues were the demolition of an existing garage, and having enough parking. He then provided a reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. Mr. Joseph Martelli, 1225 W. Lincoln No. B, Anaheim. The applicant stated he wanted to re-do the siding, plumbing, and electrical of the other structure, but did not want to do any additions to it. He added he would be using the correct materials. Mr. Jeff Frankel Old Town Preservation Association, address on file. He agreed with the Staff recommendations concerning the door, gable vents, and the rafter tails, etc. He asked if there were any plans to improve the garage. Mr. Martelli replied he was going to re-side the garage. Mr. Frankel stated he noticed a fence, and could not see the back. He asked what the plans were regarding this. Mr. Martelli answered he did not know what he planned to do yet, but basically he would re- landscape the whole back yard. Mr. Frankel then asked why the location of the bathroom couldn't be switched to the other side. Mr. Martelli stated he could not go further due to setback limitations set by the City Code. He also stated this is why he could not touch the garage. Additionally, he wanted to stay in line with the same setback, but the City would not allow this. Mr. Ryan stated this was a 10-foot setback because it was on a corner. Mr. Frankel wondered if an Administrative Adjustment couldn't have been granted. Mr. Martelli thought that aesthetically it shouldn't look like a room addition, but it did. He also mentioned he had wasted space with the eight unit apartments that were up against his fence, and said it looked very unattractive. He also mentioned this would show in the appearance inside the house the way it was laid out. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 3 Chair Califf asked Staff to clarify if there was a 10-foot setback on a corner lot. If the building height has less than 10 feet, they go to five feet setback. If the eave was currently eight and a half feet high, the applicant could push the building another couple of feet closer. Mr. Ryan replied Staff had determined that the addressing and whether the setbacks, as far as which way the building was running was how they based the setback. Mr. Ryan said there was a determination made in relationship to where the front edge of the property was. Mr. Martelli asked if a Variance could be obtained to keep it in line. Chair Califf replied that typically on a corner lot, the side yard is 10 feet, but you can go to five if you're less than 10 feet in height or maybe he was thinking of an accessory structure. Mr. Ryan explained to the applicant that he could include this in his Administrative Adjustment to go to eight feet. He further stated this would not change the design, but would affect the set back issue. Mr. Martelli stated this hurt the value of the property because it would not lay out as nice on the inside, and from the exterior, it did not look right. He wondered if there was anything he could do to get it adjusted. Chair Califf explained this would be a Variance rather than an Administrative Adjustment. He told the applicant he would have to go through the Planning Commission and would cost additional money. Mr. Sony Nguyen asked if they could move the setback back about four feet. Mr. Ryan again explained that up to 20% could be included in an Administrative Adjustment, and anything beyond that would have to be a Variance. Mr. Martelli asked if he would just apply for the Variance. Mr. Ryan explained that the applicant would have to provide the grounds for the Variance under State law. He explained there were certain requirements where he could apply for a Variance. He stated the applicant would have to prove that the topography or the shape of the lot that denied him the same right and use on other adjoining property of the same zoning. He said if the applicant could not prove this, then typically a Variance would not be approved. He explained that Variances were difficult to obtain unless there was a situation beyond his control that affected the use of his property. He thought the best the applicant could do was a 20% reduction for the set back. He commented that he could add one more Administrative Adjustment that would provide an additional two feet and pointed this out in the plan. He agreed that it did not add much room. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 4 Chair Califf asked Staff about the proximity of the property. He asked whether the adjacent structure had a permissible setback. He thought this diminished the usability of this yard. Committee Member Cathcart stated that this was a possible special condition that might meet the Variance justification. Mr. Ryan added that because of the massing and the lack of privacy for the property, this option would not be acceptable. Ms. Janet Crenshaw OTPA address on file. She hoped there was some way the applicant could get around the Variance, because the small chunk of land in the back was useless. She said there was no access to it. She asked if there was a parking problem because there were only two spaces. Committee Member Wheeler replied that the rule was if one is adding less than 500 square feet, it doesn't have come up to current Standards. Mr. Martelli said he would like to make adouble-car garage, but he was not allowed by the City. There was a general discussion on what was the side yard and rear yard. Mr. Ryan stated the issue was the building was on one parcel, but at one time, it was divided up. He added originally the plots were laid out differently. He pointed out where the front was established as well as the side and corner setbacks. Mr. Martelli asked why the records showed the front area being different because he had an Olive address, and not a Walnut address. He said the County records showed the address on Olive, and he believed the front area was different than what was shown. Chair Califf stated at this point, it did not help the applicant. Committee Member Woollett asked for clarification on the roof that was shown on the drawings. Mr. Nguyen explained the roof line on the drawing plans. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was a valley, and Mr. Nguyen replied yes it was. Mr. Nguyen then stated he would have to bring it out and then went down about six inches. Committee Member Woollett did not believe it worked they way it was shown, and the elevation did not show it as a valley. He said the drawings were not consistent, and the roof would end up lower. Committee Member Wheeler wanted it noted he had sent in a proposal to Mr. Martelli for design services. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 5 Committee Member Woollett commented that on the west elevation, it shows where it meets the facia, and it wouldn't happen unless it was lower than shown. He added that something was not right on the elevation. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant how far a certain distance was in regard to the roof. Mr. Nguyen replied it was four feet. Committee Member Woollett asked if the distance was four feet, would it slope 16 inches, and Mr. Nguyen replied yes. Mr. Martelli commented it would be very low on the one side. Committee Member Wheeler pointed out on the elevation where the applicant could make some adjustments, and Mr. Nguyen stated they could do this. Chair Califf stated that the roofing issues needed to be solved so it was consistent. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if he was making any repairs in the front. Mr. Martelli responded that he was replacing the roof and the siding. Chair Califf asked the applicant about the replacement of the siding. Mr. Martelli replied that he would be replacing all of the siding, but it would depend on how much of it was salvageable. He did not know exactly how much he would replace. Committee Member Woollett stated that under the guidelines, the siding could not be replaced. Mr. Martelli answered that he would then repair it. Chair Califf said he had seen a siding proposal, and the Building Department stated that if more than 20% was replaced on any wall, they would want them to put plywood on it and bring it up to Code. He advised the applicant that he would not want to do this. Mr. Nguyen thought they would need to pour concrete for the carport. Mr. Martelli stated he did not want to pour concrete unless he had to. He thought this would be unnecessary being that he was under the 500 square feet guidelines. Committee Member Wheeler asked if it was possible to have the garage closer than six feet to the residence or would that lead into fire separation problems. He also mentioned the windows being too wide, and would have to be repaired. He did not think this was a Planning issue, but a Building Department issue. He thought the applicant would not be allowed to have the windows he had. He thought the roofing would have to be replaced and/or repaired. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Martelli said the roof was flat with a peak on it. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the brackets on the existing house carry on around the addition, and also continue the vent detail from the existing house. Committee Member DeWees asked about the single facias on the double gable on the existing house and were single on the newer portion. Mr. Nguyen replied that they followed what was on the existing house. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was recommended in the Staff Report that the facias be removed. He also mentioned the bargeboard be larger than the exposed rafter tails. The exposed rafter tails should be a similar size, perhaps two by three. Chair Califf wanted to clarify when the Committee states the exposed rafter tails should be the same size and cut as the other one, they mean the depth. They don't expect the applicant to make a fatter rafter tail because the old one was. Chair Califf asked the applicant if he was inclined to adjust the setback for an additional two feet. Mr. Martelli wanted to know what this would involve as far as time wise. Mr. Ryan explained this would involve a third Administrative Adjustment request, and would not cost any additional money. He also said this would not affect anything else. It was decided that the applicant would make the necessary changes and come back to the DRC before going to the Planning Commission. Chair Califf thought it would be safer for the applicant to come back to the DRC. Mr. Martelli also thought they could look at the other two feet. He said to be honest, he was not very excited about the whole structure. Committee Member Cathcart suggested the Site Plan, A-6 be more clarified, and add the Landscaping note that any change in irrigation system would be an automatic system. Mr. Nguyen asked if he could have one foot more to accommodate the door. Chair Califf stated this would be an Administrative Adjustment. Mr. Martelli asked if any windows were allowed on the one side of the house, and he was told to check with the Building Department. He said the structure looked so bad, he did not think it was worth it to build. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 7 Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant contact the Building Department and discuss this with them over the counter. He also wanted it clarified where the fences and/or gates would be on the elevation. Mr. Martelli stated he would fence the property in with a gate access. Committee Member Woollett moved that DRC No. 4048-OS be continued. Chair Califf asked the applicant if all the Conditions and/or suggestions were clear, and he replied yes. 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 March 1, 2006 Page 8 2. DRC No. 4071-06 - EIMER RESIDENCE Applicant is proposing to reconstruct asecond-story front porch, restore the front porch landing and steps, and add a rear porch and railing to a 1909 two-story Transitional Classic Box residence. 232 N. Cleveland Street, Old Towne Orange Historical 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, stated this was an exciting project, and the Eimer's had entered into a Mills Act Contract. He then provided a reading of the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He mentioned that during the process of removing the stucco, there was some type of porch treatment on the front of the building. He stated this set the process of trying to determine what the window layout, what the porch element looked like. He also said the applicant was not able to find any photographs, but based on the study of other buildings in the District, they came up with an idea of what it may have looked like. He stated that Staff is recommending that DRC approve the project with the recommendations listed in the Staff Report. He added he had watched the project from the beginning and had received many positive comments from the neighbors. Mr. Mark Eimer, 232 N. Cleveland St., Orange. He concurred with Mr. Ryan, and said it was exciting to take something that wasn't contributing and make it so. He also mentioned he had the siding already so that what he has to replace, he can. He explained when the previous owners made it a duplex, they removed and cut through a lot of siding. He stated he had a rafter tail issue to deal with because of the stucco being soffeted. He said they used a lot of the existing dimensional lumber to make the supports for the soffetts, and he had saved this lumber for tagging pieces onto the rafter tails. Ms. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file. She said she had been watching this project from the beginning and the applicant had done a great job so far. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He commended the applicant on the job he had done thus far. He was curious whether the original house was atwo-story because the siding on the second level did not match the lower level. He asked Staff what the process was to re-establish the structure as contributing. Mr. Ryan explained the survey process the City has would identify any inappropriate changes, and if those changes were easily reversed, then the building could be re-classified so they did this during the Survey Update. He added the timing of this was more important because at the same time, there was a consultant that was updating their survey, and so he included a list of things that had changed since the last survey, and these were updated in November 2005. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Eimer mentioned there was a house on Olive that had similar siding with the structure being smaller on the bottom and bigger on the top visually. His house was actually bigger on the bottom and had three boards per plank, but it was balloon-framed. So it had to have been like that originally. Chair Califf asked Staff the process to arrive at the pitch and design of the porch roof. He asked if Staff had looked at examples of other houses. Mr. Ryan thought the Designer of Record reflected this as well as other historical books. Chair Califf mentioned this is what had struck him on the elevation. He said because of the width of the house from the front, it made the porch appear like it was half. He could not recall a second-story porch. Committee Member DeWees asked Staff how they determined the 13 feet 6 inch width. He asked if this was based on the support shows there was some framing up there that indicated it was 13 feet 6. Mr. Eimer replied yes. He pointed out in a picture where work was being done, it showed on the left side there was evidence of a wall that stuck out, and this is where they obtained the width dimension. Mr. Ryan mentioned it would be difficult to determine what the roof shape looked like. Mr. Eimer assumed the roof to be similar to the back gable, but per his architect's recommendation, he would be decreasing the mass. Committee Member DeWees stated if the roof was tightened up in width to make it smaller, it would provide more depth on the roof, but this was just a suggestion. His concern was there was such a tiny bit of roof. Chair Califf asked if there was evidence a small wall was framed in or perhaps a wing wall coming out from the house on the side. He asked if a stud channel that went full height and brought a wing wall out. Mr. Eimer stated yes. He said it appeared to be a channel. Chair Califf thought the porch was enclosed due the usage of bead board. Committee Member Woollett moved that the project be accepted in accordance with the recommendations of Staff. Chair Califf wanted to include an advisory comment that the applicant explore the possibility of lowering the roof slope. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 10 Committee Member Woollett recommended in accordance with the recommendations of Staff with the following suggestion: 1. The applicant consider reducing the slope of the roof of the addition, and the possibility of making the balcony more narrow. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Craig Wheeler ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 11 3. DRC No. 4076-06 - GROSSENBACHER RESIDENCE Applicant is requesting approval for the use of an alternate material (flagstone) for a front porch, walkway, and driveway area for a contributing 1929 Provincial residence. 482 N. Shaffer Street, Old Towne Orange Historical 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 DRC. Mr. Ryan stated that Staff had spelled out the recommendations in the Staff Report. He also mentioned that since the work had already been done, the applicant was present to discuss why he assembled the project like he did. Mr. Peter Grossenbacher, 482 N. Shaffer Street, Orange. He stated his kids drove the design of the project. He said this had started many years ago to provide a fenced in area where the children could play. He explained there were three rental units next to his property. He tried to provide a protective area where they could ride their bikes, etc. He said over the years, it developed into installing more driveway into a cramped driveway. He presented a drawing of what existed before. He further explained how all the changes came into being, and how the design gradually changed. He had recently added some steps off the front wanting to open the front entry to make it inviting. He stated that becoming a homeowner in Orange in the past five years, he was able to afford using the flagstone. He thought he was using a natural product. He ice,, said there were various surfaces used for the porch, and the ribbon driveway, and he wanted to blend everything together and this was another reason he used the flagstone. He stated he wanted to cooperate and in the 90 days that had passed, he had learned much. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He said this was an unfortunate situation, but the OTPA felt the porch should be restored to its original material and configuration. He continued that flagstone was a contemporary material and was inappropriate for a driveway, porch, and landscaping elements on the style of the applicant's home. He stated they agreed with Staff's recommendation. He also mentioned the flagstone added to the foundation, and believed this should also be removed. Additionally, he believed the ribbon driveway should be restored. Mr. Grossenbacher stated he was confused about the contemporary use of the flagstone. Chair Califf explained what was typically used historically was river rock; rock from the local river or a variety of brick could be used. He said in this region other types of stones were not readily available so what was appropriate to the historic districts for the homes is limited in terms of the pallet that is commercially available today. Mr. Grossenbacher replied when he searched the Internet for flagstone, he found it was used in 1929. He also did a search for the style of his home, and found some justification for using the flagstone based on designs that were popular during this timeframe. He stated he could not find other examples of a provincial style home in Orange other than a new home on Culver. He used historical examples of flagstone use. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 12 Chair Califf responded this made sense because this was the type of material they had in that particular area or era. Committee Member Woollett mentioned that aside from the issues of the Guidelines, he thought the applicant showed sensitivity to what he did, and thought it was quite attractive. But, the issue was the Guidelines. Committee Member DeWees commented on the safety issue the applicant had previously mentioned. He thought people would be apt to spill over into the driveway since the material didn't change and there were more steps there. He stated that what was there before would have been much safer than what is presently there. Committee Member Woollett asked what the area would look like if Staffls recommendations were followed. Mr. Ryan thought the issue was that the landscape features should reflect the historical period for landscape features of that time. He also thought replacing the flagstone with concrete was the main recommendation, including treatment to the driveway and steps and the porch. He found the dual-step entrance change as an objectionable position. He also thought the landscape features went hand in hand with this, but did not want to get into the landscape details. Committee Member Cathcart stated the historical relevance of the previous design with the planter and brick did not fit either, but the authentic way would be to have a raised porch and plant hedge material along the edge of the porch. He added the actual planter was not typical of the time period. Committee Member Woollett asked if the side entrance was typical and Staff replied yes. He then asked if a railing would have been a part of this. Mr. Ryan stated there would have been plant material in the front. Mr. Grossenbacher asked if the ribbon driveway would have to be restored to its original length. Mr. Ryan replied "No". He explained it was typically installed three feet from the sidewalk or some people took it to the end. There was some general discussion that the ribbon driveway would only have to be from the front of the house forward. Committee Member Wheeler commented that the applicant's porch and driveway did not fit in with historic Orange where the majority of homes had simple concrete porches and simple concrete driveways. Committee Member Woollett moved for approval of DRC 4076-06, with conditions and recommendations of Staff. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 13 Committee Member Cathcart asked if the reinstallation of the ribbon driveway would only go back to where the flagstone was now, and the concrete would go all the way back. Committee Member Woollett asked that this be added to the recommendations. Mr. Grossenbacher stated that one of the conditions was to remove the planter. The Committee discussed what would be there after this was done. Mr. Grossenbacher explained how he tried to make a 90 degree arch. Chair Califf asked what the Committee's thoughts were to keep the planter as is. He and Mr. Ryan believed this was more of a landscape feature. It was decided to keep the planter, but replace the flagstone with the concrete. SECOND: Craig Wheeler Mr. Ryan suggested changing Item No. Four of the Conditions to read: "Remove the curved raised flagstone on planter and seating platform." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett None None None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 14 4. DRC No. 4078-06 -DAMS PORCH REBUILD Applicant is requesting approval for design modifications to rebuild a porch and walkout deck on a 1899 Victorian residence. 477 S. Center Street, 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 made a full reading of the Staff Report to the DRC. He added that Staff is recommending approval of the Project with the conditions as stated in the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett asked about the 4 by 4 posts used. He thought they were very small. Mr. Ryan stated the records indicated these were not original to the building. Don and Ada Davis, 477 S. Center Street, Orange. Mrs. Davis stated they had lived at the residence for 44 years. She also mentioned she had been raised in the house next door, and the porch was just like it was today with very plain features. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated since there was no photo documentation, they could not tell what the original configuration of the porch was. He thought some simple brackets might be appropriate. He had a difficult time understanding some of the plans. Mrs. Davis commented she had a hard time believing the upper porch was added later since the upper door was the original door. Mr. Ryan stated the reason this item was before the DRC was to see if their proposal was appropriate and also replacing the fret work that was removed. Committee Member DeWees asked if the engineering plans had gone through the Building Department. Mrs. Davis responded no because these drawings were done presently, and were just replacing some posts. Mr. Ryan explained it appeared the columns from the original design were to be repaired exactly in the same way, but they discovered it may not be strong enough. He told the applicants they would have to check with the City's Plan Checker. Committee Member DeWees stated he did not know what the corbels were doing from a structural standpoint. Mr. Davis replied they were holding up the 4 by 6 headers between the posts which the 2 by 6 floor joys are hung from the house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 15 Committee Member Wheeler suggested when the applicant replaced the fretwork with the 2 by 2 thickness to add a 2 by 4 on each side of the post and put the through-bolts through this. He believed he could get enough bearing for the beams because the load would be light. The applicants agreed to this, but did mention they were trying to keep it as close as it was to the original, but give it support because the way it was before was not safe. Committee Member Wheeler moved for approval of DRC 4078-05, Davis Porch Rebuild with the following conditions: 1. That the original corbels, fretwork, railings and balustrades be reinstalled. If any deteriorated items are found, they shall be duplicated in the same material, profile and finish. 2. Provide porch columns and any required supporting brackets that are of sufficient size and replace what was there originally. 3. Incorporate a more concealed bearing detail as suggested in the detail provided in lieu of the 4 by 4 bracket. SECOND:Bill Cathcart 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 March 1, 2006 Page 16 5. DRC No. 4079-06 - CENTEX HOMES Proposed 135 dwelling unit residential development. Planning Areas 1B and 2B of the Del Rio Planned Community (located west of Glassell Street and north of Lincoln Avenue) Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225 or ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He reviewed the proposed residential structures for Planning Areas 1B and 2B of the Del Rio Planned Community and the project's compliance with the Del Rio Planned Community. Speakers: Ms. Stephanie Fabbri-Carter, Project Manager, Centex Homes, 250 Commerce, Irvine. Ms. Charla Harris, Project Manager, BGB Landscape Architects, 10251 S. Randall, Orange. Ms. Mandi Bayless, Centex Homes, 250 Commerce, Suite 100, Irvine. Mr. Joseph Abravano, Architect, Bassenian Lagoni Architects, Newport Beach. Mr. Abravano reviewed the variety of architecture and mix of types within the project. Ms. Carter added this was a similar project to the Casita Project that was built by Centex in Serrano Heights, with minor modifications. The Committee Members reviewed the design guidelines in the Del Rio Planned Community text and made the following comments: 1. To provide privacy, the second-story windows need to be staggered so as not to look directly into another window. 2. To improve the appearance of structures, the roof vents need to be designed and/or grouped. 3. Front porches should have a minimum 5' dimension. 4. All building elevations visible from public spaces shall be fully enhanced in the architectural features. 5. To create an interesting streetscape, building setbacks and/or massing should be varied. 6. Craftsman home should have exposed rafters, front porches, and additional use of bricks or rocks. 7. The rear garages should be reviewed to reduce the visual impact when seen from the street. 8. Three-story unit shall not have a Craftsman design. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 17 9. The first 8' of the entry drive should have colored concrete or pavers. 10. Landscaping materials should be revised to reflect the micro climate for the area. 11. Landscaping plans need to be revised to eliminate tree varieties that would outgrow small planters. Chair Califf asked if they were proposing ribbon driveways, and Ms. Carter stated this was correct. Ms. Carter proposed carrying out the paver concept in the individual courtyard. Chair Califf commented there should be sufficient contrast with the concrete. Committee Members reviewed Design requirements contained in the Del Rio Planned Community. Committee Member Wheeler moved to continue DRC 4079-06, with concurrence with the applicant, to allow time to revise the project as noted above. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN: NT None NABSE one MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 18 6. DRC No. 4080-06 - DRENNER RESIDENCE Proposed to demolish an existing garage (non-contributing structure) and construct a two-story, accessory dwelling unit over a garage. 424 S. Grand Street, Old Towne Orange Historical District Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225 or ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner provided a full reading of the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. Staff has recommended that the DRC make a recommendation to approve this project with the intent of moving forward to the Planning Commission. Speakers: Mr. Mark Drenner 424 S. Grand Street, Orange. Mr Doug Ely D S E Architecture 112 E. Chapman Ave., Suite E, Orange. He thanked Mr. Carnes for correcting the previous Staff Report that occurred a year ago. He provided a historical overview of the previous project that was referred to the Planning Commission with the understanding that the garage was a historically contributing structure. He added that Staff had gone out and looked at the garage to determine it was not a historically contributing structure. He stated Mr. Carnes had also looked this up on the Sanborn Map that dated back to 1950, and the existing garage did not occur on this map. He said it was constructed as a part of the original residence and was in marginal to poor condition. Chair Califf asked the applicant to describe the construction elements that could be observed from the inside that indicated to Staff what the age of the garage was. Mr. Drenner stated he had no idea. Mr. Ely asked the DRC to look at some of the pictures he had provided of the garage. He pointed out aclose-up of the garage. He said the interior of the garage showed no flooring. Mr. Drenner explained that the concrete had been poured inside at a later date. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had measured the size of the studs, and if they were exposed. Mr. Ely stated he did not measure them, but there were exposed studs. Chair Califf asked the applicant if he knew what it was that caused Staff and the Building Department to conclude the garage was not a contributing structure. He said you could usually tell if something had been built after the 1940s. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 19 Mr. Ely replied that the current condition of the garage was poor and the Building Department determined that it was something that could not be salvaged. He stated they had been through a long process, and it was before the DRC because it was different concept due to the removal of the garage. He said the existing garage was 17 feet on the inside and was not considered atwo- car garage. They would like to replace it with atwo-car garage, and this would be an accessory second unit. This requires an additional parking space as well as required to be between 450 square feet to 640 square feet. He said they wanted to put this over the top of the garage. He provided some 3-D drawings of this structure for the committee. He also stated this proposal complied with the all the ordinance development criteria for an R1 property which fit in with the rezoning of this property. He mentioned the other residences on the street with second units. He said they had taken some of the comments to incorporate the design elements from the primary residence which he felt they had done. He then explained how they had done this. He stated when they were referred to the Planning Commission for the previous issue, they were informed they needed an Environment Impact Report, and this is what started the City evaluating it, but now that this has been deemed anon-historic contributing structure, this would remove the requirement for the Environment Report, and now they would be required to obtain a Negative Declaration. He said they were at .5 in terms of floor area ratio. He wanted to see his client have the same opportunity as the other residents on the street. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file. She stated this was the type of contract that initiated the R1 zoning to avoid. It reminded her of a residence across the street. She had an issue with the brick paving. She thought this project did have an adverse effect. She pointed out how this affected the privacy of the neighbors around them by mentioning a residence two doors down and how she could see them and they could see her. She stated it was extremely visible from the street. She said the balcony facing the street would look down on the neighbors. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated the OTPA was adamantly opposed to this project. He continued that it was specifically this type of development that triggered the movement to rezone this area, and this area had surpassed the threshold of development, and this just added more to the density of this area. He pointed out that their previous plan to use the garage conveniently made it a contributing garage, and now that they wanted to demolish it, it was a non-contributing garage. He stated it was a contributing garage, and he did not see any documentation or anyone with any background or authority that had determined it was a non- contributing garage. He mentioned that he had looked up his own residence on a Sanborn Map, the mid 1920s Edition, and his residence did not show up on the 1920 or 1950 Edition of the Sanborn Map, so he did not take this as evidence that this garage was non-contributing. He said the bulk and mass was out of line, and this had been addressed in the South Grand Street Study. He continued that the contributing status of the garage should be determined by a reliable consultant. He stressed the upcoming CEQA updates would be scrutinizing contributing accessory structures, and cited what it said in regard to structures of this type. He agreed that a Granny unit with a single story and no covered parking spot would have been acceptable, but this project drives a larger unit over athree-car garage. He encouraged the applicant to go back and read the study that showed all this information was there. He commented this had a negative impact on the streetscape due to the bulk and mass, and the changing of the driveway to the rear. Although there were about five properties on this block that used the alley, most of them had driveways. He said it would be a huge alley area. He again stated they were opposed to this City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 20 specific type of project in this specific neighborhood, and this had been discussed for two and a half years by the City Council. He believed this project was a slap in the face to the whole process. He referenced Code 17.14.050, Special Use Regulations stating secondary housing units were not allowed in the City defined by City Council resolution as being impacted by insufficient capacity for infrastructure needs. He thought the City Council determined this by their decision on this zoning, and this area could not handle any more impact from development, so he did not see how the City could approve any development on this street like this. He again mentioned they would not be opposed to a Granny unit if there was even room on the lot. He stressed OTPA considered this a contributing garage until someone could prove otherwise. He thought things were being done in reverse, and the Environmental Study should be done first, and save everyone a lot of time. He did not think this complied with CEQA. He also had an issue with this project not being included on pending land use. He stated it should be included on this list if it was an active project. He said it was an unacceptable development especially on these two lots that were focused on two and a half years ago. He did not understand how the City could go forward with a project like this, and he did not think it conformed to Old Towne Design Standards. He stated there were bulk and mass issues, privacy issues, streetscape issues, and it was just a bad project. Mr. Carnes stated this was similar to another project where the exterior material was a mismatch of modern and old materials. He said this had been approved by the DRC a few months ago located on Shaffer where there was an old building in the back and some of the material was salvaged and some of the material was new. He also stated there was a modern roof construction and design, and this roof had nothing compatible with the existing structure. He stated this was why the recommendation was this was non-contributing and there was nothing historical about it except some building material. Committee Member Woollett pointed out the old garages did not necessarily look like the building at all. Committee Member DeWees added this happened many times where the garages were built differently from the main structure. Mr. Carnes stated this could also be used to say this was a contributing structure, but this building was not designed in any way compatible with the existing structure and most the roof structure was modern construction and materials. Committee Member DeWees stated that he would personally like to go to the residence and see the inside of the garage. Chair Califf thought the DRC could make a fairly conclusive determination from reviewing the building. Mr. Ely wanted to clear up a distortion made by Mr. Frankel. He said they had only proposed the structure was contributing at the DRC meeting (about a year ago) because they were required to at that time. Their initial proposal was to demolish the structure. He stated they were told it was historically contributing so even though they disagreed, they came in to that previous City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 21 meeting, they came in with a proposal to save the structure. He thought they had come up with a creative solution, and the Committee deferred it to the Planning Commission. This is why they requested the City to send representatives to the residence to evaluate the structure. The City determined that it was not historically contributing. He said this had been a long and difficult process. Chair Califf said the City representatives could tell whether the building was about to fall, but not necessarily provide a judgment whether it was originally there or not. But since he was not sure who visited the residence, he was speculating. He believes the DRC could determine whether the structure was contributing or not, but he was not sure this would stand up to the Planning Commission. Committee Member DeWees thought the public's concern was whether this was contributing or not. He believes the Commission would be the best group to determine this since it was a design review and architectural issue. Mr. Carnes stated whether this was a contributing structure or not did not affect the proposal to build an accessory unit with a garage in back. He said this was how it was processed. He added the DRC could continue this item, do an on-site evaluation and allow Staff to prepare a response whether it's a contributing structure or Staff could get a specialist out there to look at the property. He continued the DRC could also comment on what's being proposed in back at this time. Chair Califf commented they did not know whether it would be a replacement structure or be as it's been presented. Committee Member Woollett stated that what they were looking at required that it be development, and this is what was before them. Committee Member DeWees stated he wanted to see the CEQA updates previously mentioned as well as the specific documentation that City Council did on the project so he could make his own determination. Mr. Carnes stated he could provide the reports and the minutes when it was approved. He stated the City Council were trying to reinforce the single-family characteristics on this block. Committee Member Woollett said that even though this was zoned as R-1, what is proposed, met the requirements. Mr. Carnes replied that State Law said if the requirements are met, then an accessory second unit must be allowed. Committee Member DeWees argued that this project was in Old Towne, and there were other issues to consider. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 22 Mr. Frankel said this project could not be assessed on its own merit because it impacted the rest of the surrounding area. He said this was the reason for the study because the two-block area was the most dense two blocks in the district. He believes this is why this area was chosen. Mr. Drenner commented when the down zoning was processed through the Council, OTPA made the point that this down zoning would help the community and would not stop someone from building an accessory second unit under the State Guidelines. He said now when it was presented, their argument was this was too bulky or had too much mass, etc. when he followed the State Guidelines which the City of Orange filed the resolution that they would comply with the State mandate and provisions, and although he has followed the proper procedures, there still seems to be a big problem. He added it also stated there should be no undue burden for the homeowner to obtain approval for an accessory secondary unit. Committee Member DeWees stated the applicant was not being prohibited from putting in an accessory second unit. He pointed out where there was a problem with the massing. There was discussion on what constituted a typical Granny flat, and the issue of having a two-car garage for parking came up. Mr. Ely stated the existing garage was not considered atwo-car garage so they would have to remove the garage and provide atwo-car garage. He added the size of the accessory unit had to be between 450 square feet to 640 square feet. He did not know how this could fit on the property unless the accessory second unit could be above the garage and the garage would have to be able to support it. Chair Califf stated while this was true, nowhere did it state they would be allowed to tear down a contributing garage. Speaking hypothetically, they just might have enough site space to put a two-car garage and a Granny flat and leave the old garage alone. Committee Member Woollett understood if the unit was not over 500 square feet, the applicant would need two parking spaces. Mr. Carnes stated this was incorrect. He explained if the applicant was building an accessory second unit, they would have to bring the property up to Code. He pointed out there was a section of the Code that stated if an addition onto a house was less than 500 square feet, the parking would not have to be brought to compliance. He said it would be different for an accessory second unit. Everything had to be brought up to Code. There was discussion of the different schemes or scenarios of what could be built. Mr. Carnes said if they wanted to minimize the construction, the applicant could build two garage spaces to comply with the Code, and have the third space open. They could then tweak the size of the accessory second unit down to the minimum to 450 square feet, and reduce it in size, reducing the bulk of the building by about a third. Committee Member Woollett asked if there could be a 450 square foot unit, and if it was on the second level, a two car garage would be about the same square footage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 23 Mr. Ely stated if there would be a problem architecturally if there was a 450 square foot mass on top of another 450 square foot building. He said what they have now, they could cut roof forms back and creating some positive space. Mr. Frankel asked if the decks were included in the floor ratio area. Mr. Ely replied no. Committee Member Woollett's concern was the property owner's rights were provided. Mr. Carnes thought there were two issues; one was about the existing structure, and two was the bulk and mass of the building with the building materials and its configuration. Committee Member DeWees thought the DRC should visit the residence as expeditiously as possible in consideration of the applicant. Committee Member Cathcart wanted to know what the Council's communication when they voted for the rezoning. He wanted to know what comments were made that were germane to their decision. Mr. Carnes stated he would provide the report along with the minutes to the DRC. Mr. Frankel asked the DRC to address the accessory Granny units, 17.14.050.8 of the Zoning Code on if this area was impacted. Committee Member Woollett said this was from the Special Use Regulations, 17.14.050, Orange Zoning Code. He wanted everyone to have a copy of this. Mr. Carnes stated this did not apply to this property. He continued the City Council had not determined any area was insufficient regarding parking, traffic, etc. Mr. Frankel suggested that Staff read the Grant Street Study where these issues were addressed. Mr. Carnes explained the City Council had to specifically identify that there would not be accessory second units in this area because of these reasons, but this is not what was stated in the Minutes when the City Council approved the Zone changes. Committee Member Woollett asked if the City Council specifically allowed secondary units in this area. Mr. Carnes replied yes. Mr. Frankel responded that he did not understand it in this way. He said they had to remember this was a National Registered District so this would change everything in regard to accessory structures. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 24 Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant make some changes in regard to the fish scale shingles on the gable of the existing residence. He thought they should be continued on the new structure for continuity. He suggested the brackets in front spring from freeze board rather than dying into the siding as showing on the addition. He suggested adding a new frieze board on the new construction similar to what's on the original structure. Mr. Ely stated the fish scales were not original, and architecturally speaking he did not want to add more fish scale. He agreed to add the decorative element. He said it was his intention to match the same detail as the primary residence. Committee Member Woollett asked about the brick paving in the back. Mr. Ely replied they were thinking of using bond brick, but they were open to suggestion. He said it would be embellished paving. Committee Member Woollett stated there were detail issues on the building that could be addressed. There was not complete satisfaction regarding the historic nature of the garage. The primary issue seemed to be the bulk and mass. He said he would need to study this, and look at the neighborhood. He mentioned this would not be the first time they had to consider a project of this type. Mr. Carnes wanted to note the property did not have a driveway approach coming in off of Grand Street. Committee Member Woollett moved to continue DRC 4080-06, Drenner Residence, for two weeks. Chair Califf stated the DRC would visit the residence and do their own investigation, with no more than two members visiting the site at a time. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2006 Page 25 Chair Califf made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. SECOND:Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.