Loading...
03-15-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL March 15, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. G C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4023-OS - CINGULAR WIRELESS Proposed installation of a wireless communication antenna facility on the grounds of the Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church of Orange. 800 N. Cambridge Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chair Califf mentioned this item was continued from a previous DRC meeting. Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, provided a reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. He added the applicant had provided all the Conditions per the DRC's previous direction. Chair Califf asked the applicant if the photo simulation was accurate, and he replied that it was. Mr. Jim Todaro, 19252 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 240, Irvine. He replied that it was accurate. He stated he had taken the photos from a major corner and streets and were per Code. Mr. Carnes explained this was a different antenna configuration than previously presented. He said the applicant explained why this configuration was spaced apart. He added these were about 10 feet across where the ones in the past were six feet across so the tree had a more natural taper. He said these branches went from 18 feet to 12 feet so there was not a lot of difference. He also pointed out where the branches went out from 10 feet to eight feet and went down to four feet. Chair Califf asked if this was an accurate depiction of the tree. Mr. Todaro answered that it was. Chair Califf commented it was a decent looking tree. Mr. Wheeler clarified that on Page Two of the Staff Report should read "...building with a shingle roof 'versus "...building with a the roof'. He also mentioned that it should state the new building was characterized being in the shape of an "L". Mr. Todaro thought most of the old buildings would be kept, and would do a complete face-lift. Chair Califf thought the 36" box Canary Island tree would be sufficient. Mr. Cathcart wanted to make sure the applicant had the correct notes from the Landscape Department on the irrigation system. Mr. Todaro asked if the Landscape Plan would be included in the Building or Zoning permits of the Plan. Mr. Carnes told him it would go with the Building permits. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Woollett moved for approval of DRC No. 4023-05, Cingular Wireless. 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 15, 2006 Page 4 2. DRC No. 4064-06 - FRANCO ADDITION The applicant is requesting to add a second story onto an existing residence, as well as construct an accessory second housing unit. 186 North Eckhoff Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner, provided a reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. She mentioned that although Staff was recommending denial of the project based upon the infill design of the residence and that it did not comply with the Design Standards, the applicant and Staff were seeking comments from the Design Review Committee to help the applicant obtain approval. Mr. Ramon Franco, 186 N. Eckhoff Street, Orange. Mr. Franco explained his family needed more space to accommodate his large family, especially at the holidays. He also mentioned that he did not speak English very well, and had his daughter interpret on his behalf. He also mentioned that he had spoken to his neighbors, and they had no complaints. Chair Califf mentioned this was a difficult situation with the Infill Design Guidelines, and understood Staff's concerns. Mr. Cathcart stated he had visited the site, and it was obvious to him the mass and scale before them was different than what was actually there. He added when you looked at the age of the site, and the resident wanted to improve his area, if this was anyplace else, it would not be a problem. Mr. Wheeler also mentioned that the DRC was responsible for interpreting the Infill Guidelines. He stated that almost every item on the plan did not comply with the guidelines. He thought the best thing to do was to provide suggestions to the applicant on how his project could be approved. Mr. Wheeler suggested to eliminate the two-story volume and allow the roof start as a one-story plate and move back so that the two-story is in the rear. He also suggested getting rid of the modern features such as the towers, etc, and stay with the forms that already exist in the neighborhood. Mr. DeWees agreed and thought this would help the overstated entry that he felt it was out of proportion to the rest of the house. He added the scale was huge and thought this was a problem. He addressed the gentleman who did the plans. Mr. Carlos Escobedo, 163 E. 23rd St. Long Beach, CA. He commented that it was a big house and the plans were proportional to a big house. Mr. Wheeler stated this was the problem and suggested the applicant make it look less like a big house. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 5 Mr. DeWees explained to Mr. Escobedo the three-dimension aspect made the house look very large and if he dropped the plate, it would look better. Mr. Escobedo stated this was part of the design, and he could make the changes they were suggesting. He wanted to know how much. Mr. DeWees explained to Mr. Escobedo they were speaking of two different things; the Committee was talking about the scale of the house. He wanted the applicant to consider to look at elements on the plan on how to keep the same physical size, but find a way to mitigate the overwhelming scale particularly in the front. He also suggested eliminating the balcony. He explained this would keep the design simple. He stated what was happening, in terms of the scale, was there were too many things fighting for importance. He also stated the applicant might consider putting a true porch in the front so that it would raise the whole structure up. This would introduce more of a horizontal line to make an understated entry. He said he should have the importance of the house be about the porch in the front and the people that share the house, and not the entry which he felt was an improper emphasis. He mentioned that some of the styles in Old Towne that stood out were the ones with a porch area. He again mentioned bringing the scale of the house down. Mr. Wheeler added the applicant should keep the style of the house similar to what was in the neighborhood. Mr. Franco stated he had spent a lot of money, and he liked the bigger style of the house with a big ceiling. Chair Califf thought this was representative of the applicant's identity and some of the features they had a problem with were important to the applicant. Mr. Woollett replied that at the same time, the identity that the applicant was trying to convey was inconsistent with the Ordinance. Mr. DeWees asked the applicant what is was about the large entry that he liked. Mr. Franco thought that it looked elegant, and also wanted to put a large chandelier in the entryway. He also stated that it did not matter that he had spent a lot of money because this was his dream and his family's dream. Chair Califf asked if there was any public comment and there was not. Mr. DeWees commented that there were many examples of simple large houses of various architectural styles that the applicant could draw from as opposed to borrowing from the south Orange County-type of housing. He suggested that the applicant could do something that was more authentic type of detailing in terms of treating volumes. He saw the residence as being copied from an area from other parts of the county that don't fit into the City of Orange. He cited the Spanish-style of houses and hacienda type of houses that he believed was a more rich reference. He thought these things were done to try to make reference to the architectural City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 6 heritage that was here in Orange. He thought the applicant could make this very unique about him and his family, and treat volume in terms of interesting volumes for living space. He also thought if the applicant simplified some of the details and roof forms that the cost-savings would pay for the soft costs for the drawings by simplifying the language and pulling down the scale a bit. Mr. Cathcart thought there was a language issue with the applicant, but if the architect understood, then he could help the applicant. Mr. Escobedo stated that they could make the adjustments, but his applicant wanted this size of house. He then explained to the applicant what had been discussed. Chair Califf again stated he was not sure the precedent was bad, but the changes run against the guidelines. He asked if the front yard setback was typical. Staff answered that this was consistent with the prevailing setback. Chair Califf wondered if increasing the setback would reduce the imposing nature of the residence. Mr. Wheeler suggested to push more of the house to the back to show more of the first floor than the second floor. Based on his calculation, it should be about .62 FAR, and it was actually about 7. Ms. Thakur stated she would have to check on this. She thought they needed about 900 feet of open space. Mr. Woollett looked in the Guidelines and he thought this project gave the Committee a reason to consider whether this was appropriate for all neighborhoods. He referenced Page One, Paragraph Three of the Guidelines, and interpreted this to mean that the building should be complimentary to the neighborhood and not stand out as different so that it looked like it belonged there. He said this was their community, and people should be complimentary with one another. He thought this was the part that was most important to him. He thought this project could be more complimentary and not quite so strong. He thought this could be achieved by taking another try with some changes. Mr. Franco stated that his family lived in Orange, and that his home was old and needed to have some upgrades made. He wondered if the Committee wanted his home to stay old, and keep the neighborhood the same. Mr. Woollett stated that the DRC wanted to help the applicant to achieve his changes within the Guidelines of the City. Chair Califf thought there were two things to consider. He wondered if there was a way to reduce the mass or the apparent mass by stepping back the roof a bit more. He agreed with Mr. Wheeler's suggestion of dropping the plate a bit to lower the roof a little to diminish the mass of City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 7 the new structure. He also referenced Mr. DeWees' suggestion of eliminating some of the detailing and design. He said this style was typical of Mission Viejo or South County, and were not great fans of this style in Orange. He suggested the applicant to pick up something from the post-war style and translate so it will work. He understood what the applicant was trying to achieve with his residence, and thought it would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood, but it must fit within the Guidelines. Mr. DeWees said they were saying that simpler is better. Chair Califf emphasized to the applicant if he thought he was on to something to bring those changes back to Staff or the Committee for feedback purposes. Mr. DeWees also explained to the applicant that he could contact the DRC individually to consult with them. Chair Califf moved to continue DRC 4064-06, to allow the applicant to address the Committee's comments. SECOND:Joe Woollett 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 15, 2006 Page 8 3. DRC No. 4079-06 - CENTEX HOMES Proposed 135 dwelling unit residential development. The applicant has revised site and building plans per DRC members comments made March 1, 2006. 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, ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Christopher Carnes mentioned the applicant had revised their plan to the previous comments by the DRC at the previous meeting. He also stated the applicant had narrowed the list down to 12 items, and the only item not addressed was the landscaping and the DRC's concern about the placement of the garages. Ms. Harris stated she had incorporated the comments by Mr. Wheeler. The first comment was in regards to similar architectural styles in each cluster. Ms. Harris provided the DRC with elevation plottings to show there were two architectural styles in each cluster as suggested. She explained that it would still create a different street scene because all three architectural styles can be seen, and it elevated very nicely. She presented a colored Site Plan so the Committee could see the different architectural styles. She pointed out the model with the Craftsman style tucked in the back of Plan Two with another model with the Spanish style. She also stated they could put the elevation plotting on the second sheet of the architectural plan along with the Site Plan so that Staff could sign off on it. The second comment addressed was the staggered placement of the second story windows for the privacy of future residents. She stated the only location where there were windows facing each other was on the stairwell. Mr. Wheeler asked the applicant about the window height, and wondered if they could not make all the windows 2'0" x 2'0". He also mentioned on Plan Three, it did not state what size the windows were on the family room. Ms. Harris stated they could use high glass for these windows. The Committee suggested the windows be higher and wider. Ms. Harris stated they would use high glass and not have to move the windows. The third comment addressed was to provide a useable front porch. Ms. Harris explained they had blown up an exhibit to show they still had five feet clear in the furnishing areas. Mr. DeWees asked if there was any railing there, and she stated no. Ms. Harris mentioned there would be enough room for a furniture area, and the DRC said this was fine. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 9 The fourth comment addressed was the enhancement of the side and rear elevations if they could be seen from the street. Ms. Harris provided an exhibit with all the enhanced elevation locations on all the corner lots. She again stated they could put the chart in the front sheet of the architectural plan. She mentioned they had sequence sheets made by the project management team, and it provided every specific enhancement each unit had, and they would build from this sheet. The fifth comment addressed was to have a varied front building setback to create an interesting streetscape. She felt this had been demonstrated on the elevation plotting. She pointed this out to the Committee on the elevation for each style and the different setbacks. Mr. Wheeler asked if the side elevations were enhanced as you would drive in. Ms. Hams stated no, but that much of it was masked with landscaping. There was a row of trees, etc. The sixth comment addressed was to ensure all shutters were made to scale with adjacent window. She stated they had made the adjustments. She provided a blow up of the front elevation to show it was more to scale. They made them as close to scale as possible. Chair Califf stated the concept was correct and they were half the width of the windows. The seventh comment addressed was to replace driveway strips with pavers attached to the courtyard. Ms. Harris stated this had been done. The eighth comment addressed was to add a paver band at the entries. Ms. Harris stated they had decided to pave the whole courtyard because it was more aesthetically pleasing. She also mentioned previous questions about the paver selection and presented some samples they had used at their Casita development. They stated they would use the same paver at each courtyard. The ninth comment addressed was the revision of the Craftsman Elevation B to be more character specific; the third story did not go with the architectural style. Ms. Harris explained they had gone through and pre-plotted all their third story elements to make sure none of them were an approximate elevation and eliminated it. Mr. Joseph Abravano explained in regard to the Craftsman style, they had taken the DRC's suggestions and went with the character that was specified in the Guidelines from the granite stone to the Plan Three elevation at the base as well as the taper columns for the Plan Three porch. He stated they added more rafter tails and removed the shutters and added some character to the Plan One elevation Craftsman. They added a column at the entry to give it a nicer overhang. The tenth comment addressed was for the Plan Two Craftsman elevation. Ms. Harris stated the entry needed more massing, and they revised the tower-looking element as the traditional massing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Abravano stated this had been done due to Mr. DeWees' previous comment. He said they used a mass that captured the window. The eleventh comment addressed was for the Plan One Monterey elevation needed to be more character specific. Mr. Abravano explained they had added a balcony over the garage which helped soften the view of the garage and added the distinct Monterey character with the balcony. He said they had added three post rails and an optional door from Bedroom three as well. Ms. Harris stated this was shown in the colored Site Plan. She mentioned it looked nice as you entered the courtyard. Mr. Wheeler recalled he had made a previous suggestion for the applicant to study the balcony on the Spanish elevation for that plan, also because this would help enhance the garage door. Mr. Abravano explained the Spanish elevation had a sculpted element which is also a softening element. He thought the balcony could be accentuated, and the spring where the arch is underneath the mass over the garage was one of their first attempts to soften up the edge over the garage. Mr. Wheeler suggested they carry the window trim all the way across to provide more shadowing. Mr. Abravano stated the elevation before the Committee did not show the shadow underneath the cantilever which went out about two feet, and Mr. Wheeler stated this was fine. The twelfth comment addressed was the proposed plant palette was revised based on Mr. Howard Morris and Mr. Bill Cathcart's comments. Ms. Harris stated the only issue not addressed was the garage locations. She pointed out a typical pod they had implemented at the Casita location. She continued this would not work because there were driveways. She said because people would be backing out of their driveways so they had to flip the garages in. Ms. Harris replied that although she had not addressed this issue, this had been done. Mr. Carnes also mentioned a recommendation about flat roof vents. Chair Califf stated this was only an advisory because they looked better. He said if this was a style that uses the barrel type of concrete tile, it was very effective. Chair Califf asked Staff what the action was for this item. Mr. Carnes replied this would be a finding that these changes were in compliance with the Del Rio design guidelines and was the final review. He also mentioned that Staff had recommended approval. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 11 Chair Califf moved in regard to DRC 4079-06 that the proposed Del Rio planned community, Areas 1B and 2B, the design presented by Centex are consistent with the Del Rio guidelines. 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 March 15, 2006 Page 12 4. DRC No. 4080-06 - DRENNER RESIDENCE Proposal to demolish an existing garage (non-contributing structure) and construct atwo- story, accessory dwelling unit over a garage. 424 S. Grand Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Mr. Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner, commented the applicant was back before the DRC after the item was continued to allow the DRC time to visit the site, review the neighborhood, and to physically check the detached accessory structure to determine whether it was a non- contributing structure. Mr. Mark Drenner, 424 S. Grand St., Orange_The applicant stated while it may come up in the discussion, there were questions raised in the previous DRC meeting regarding the parameters in which the downzone on Grand St. that only single-family residences were permitted even though the Ordinance stated that by down zoning, it was not permissible to have a second unit, but permissible to have an accessory second-unit. He continued that the Ordinance stated the floor area ratio was permissible up to .60 which was down zoned from .70. He thought the DRC was going to look into this. The other issue was whether the garage was considered historic or not. He said the one question that comes up when he does these projects was if a structure was built prior to 1940, it's considered historic, and after 1940, it's not. Mr. Carnes stated this was defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Drenner stated he had brought the Sanborn Map, dated 1939, and updated in 1950. He pointed out his address where it showed a structure which was no longer there. Chair Califf asked Staff if they knew the update of the map. Mr. Carnes believed there was an attachment to a report. He said the map came from the Grand Street Study, and identified as 1950 which showed a structure was back in the northwest corner of the property, and the other structure was not there in 1950, so by definition, this would not be a contributing structure. Mr. Woollett believed this map was in error. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated it was difficult to comment on this item as he was not sure it was appropriate for the DRC to determine whether it was a contributing structure. He stated unless someone was qualified within the City to determine whether the building was contributing/non-contributing. He said he knew a number of properties that the Sanborn Maps do not accurately depict what was there at that time. He also mentioned during the process of the re-zone, there were some building guidelines that were developed, and were utilized for awhile and some are still used today. He stated one of the things incorporated in these guidelines was to lower the F.A.R. to solve some of the density and development problems. He continued that when projects come before the DRC, the general rule of thumb in Old Towne is to be below the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 13 average in the low 4s. He said this was the highest F.A.R. on a block that was already determined to be overbuilt and has surpassed the density level limits. He believed there was a conflict outlined in the General Plan. He explained one of the reasons they studied these two blocks was because there was a conflict in densities on this southeast quadrant. He mentioned what sparked this issue was the neighbors were upset about a similar project and got together to oppose it. He thinks there are still bulk and mass issues as well as streetscape issue on the block. He said it was OTPA's opinion that this was still a contributing structure. He mentioned that City individuals made comments this was an old building and was built pre-1940. He said the condition of the building was not a reason to demolish it, and believed it could be rehabilitated. He believes there are not many of these historic type of garages left, and the impact of losing these structures is something that should be looked at. He thought if the recent CEQA updates were applied, there would be problems with this item, specifically with the density level and this would add to the density levels. He believes this would add to the parking problems that currently exist. He wondered if demolishing a contributing structure would mitigate it by building atwo-story, three-car garage unit. He believes the CEQA issues should be resolved before going forward with this, and that this is a candidate for an EIR. He was especially concerned with the cumulative effect especially the loss of accessory structures especially on this street. He thought it seemed like a waste of time of everyone's time to address the design of a structure that may not be able to be built. Ms Janet Crenshaw 280 N. Cleveland, Orange, CA 92866. She stated her main arguments were the bulk and mass and loss of privacy on both sides between the windows and balconies. She mentioned it was not required to have three indoor parking spots so this could be a two-car garage with a smaller bulk and mass. She believed the garage was historic. She agreed with everything Mr. Frankel said regarding the density of the block. Chair Califf commented the Committee had discussed in the previous meeting how a determination was made, whether something is contributing or not. He said the Sanborn Map would appear to say one thing, but in his opinion what is built there is older than 1940. He posed the question who was able to make this determination. Ms. Leslie Roseberry stated the Old Towne Design Guidelines and Standards do not have a process by which they can either de-list something as contributing or list something as contributing. She explained this was one of the tasks they wanted to take care of after the General Plan Update is completed and get back into the Standards that they've had for some years and correct what didn't work. She stated what they've done was to have a Building Official go out to the site as well as the Planner that was originally on the project. She said the determination recommended to the Director was that it was not likely to be a contributing structure, and she agreed. She stated since there was no process set in stone, this was the most reasonable process to go to the Director of the department who is responsible for the planning in Old Towne which gave her the ability to make this determination. She mentioned this project would go on to the Planning Commission with a recommendation by the Design Review Committee. She added they have not done an Environmental work on this project, and it was not completed before it came to the DRC because it was not a part of their purview. She stated that all the environmental documents would go to the Planning Commissions. She also mentioned there were many types of environmental documents that can be prepared for a project, one which City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 14 was could be exempt from further review by definition from CEQA at one level, and the second would be a Negative Declaration which was an analysis on a number of different topics such as cultural resources, population & housing, etc. She said if it was a Mitigated Negative Declaration and they find there is an impact and in order to lessen the impact, they would have to find mitigation measures. If there is an impact that cannot be mitigated, to a level that is less than significant, the Environmental Impact would be prepared and would go to the City Council. The City Council would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the project could move forward. Mr. Woollett thought the building was built prior to 1940 or at least portions of it. He added it was conceivable old materials were assembled after the building was built, but it was highly unlikely. He could not imagine anyone using knob & tube wiring in after 1940. He said if this building were to be rehabilitated, it would have to be destroyed. He stated since this was only a Recommendation to the Planning Commission, that the applicant be permitted to demolish the building. He stated he had looked carefully at the building, and the wood disappears into ground below the surrounding concrete. He said it was a blighted building and would continue to be until it was torn down and rebuilt. He stated it did not make any sense to not permit the building to be torn down, and this determination had to be made by the Planning Commission. He favored a recommendation that it be allowed to be torn down. He added there were two other issues in his mind. One was whether the neighborhood was too dense, and whether the accessory unit should not be built any more. He did not think these were issues for the DRC to approve. What was the issue whether the DRC believes the building added in the back was in violation because of its mass and size, is detrimental to the historic character of the building and the street. In his judgment, the DRC had permitted buildings of this scale before. He did. not think it was appropriate to deny this applicant what they had not denied others because of the scale. Mr. Wheeler mentioned two things to consider. He thought the garage was pre 1940, but he could not prove it. He added the knob & tube wiring was still used in California into the 40s according to what he had read. He also thought the roof sheeting had been recycled from something, but could not see evidence the roof rafters had been. He did not think the building was in too dire of shape structurally. He thought it could be rehabilitated. He did not think it was as bad as the garage that Mr. Woollett had mentioned. He agreed with what Mr. Woollett stated. Mr. DeWees believed the garage was constructed before 1940. He thought there was more evidence showing that it was prior than that. He also mentioned the issue of the stud sizes. His opinion was that it was not the DRC's determination to make whether the structure was contributing or non-contributing. He was inclined to agree with Mr. Woollett. He stated that until the study was completed, it was vague, and he did not think they could make a decision on something this vague. He encouraged the applicant to go with something smaller, but he did not think it was the DRC's place to make this decision. He thought the applicant had made a number of efforts to attempt to compromise. He said the DRC must be consistent, and they struggled with this. Mr. Wheeler mentioned that they wanted a note added to the drawings to make it clear that wood windows would be used in the rear. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 15 Mr. Drenner stated no other modifications had been made, and would add ornamentation at the gable. He did not think the scales were historic and may have been added later. Mr. DeWees did not think the fish scales were added because they were historic, but it had to do with being consistent with the existing house. Mr. Drenner thought the fish scales were added about 20 years ago. Mr. DeWees said the scales were on the existing house whether they were historic or not, and since they wanted consistency between the two buildings, it would be a recommendation. Mr. Drenner stated it was his intent to match the brackets as close as possible to the house. There was discussion of the frieze board and how it should be integrated with the head of the windows. Mr. Drenner commented that he looked at the structure again, and could not determine whether the structure was pre 1940. He stated he had done some research on the wiring. He said the wiring was used until the late 1950s. He said if you looked at the garage closely, there was different siding, different detailing, etc. Chair Califf stated some of this was obviously added. What he looked for was consistency in the rafter tails, and the way they were notched for the bracket. He thought it seemed to be consistent. He said you could not necessarily peg a specific year or time period. Mr. Wheeler pointed out he used the same source as the applicant, and pointed out the different dates used throughout the U.S. Mr. Drenner mentioned the public comment about the access to the garage's changing and altering the streetscapes, and how people did not park in their garages. He said the reason for this was because the cars did not fit in the garages anymore. He presented a picture of the streetscape and how it would be. He said his cars would be housed in the garage. Chair Califf pointed out in the Drawings where it stated "Wood Sectional Doors". He wanted the applicant to understand these doors were quite heavy, and the maintenance was costly. What they wanted to avoid was for the applicant to decide during construction he wanted to use a different garage door. His point being it did not have to be a sectional wood door, but it did have to be a wood door. He said this had happened in the past. Mr. Woollett moved to recommend Approval to the Planning Commission DRC 4080-06 in accordance with the following Conditions and three Recommendations in the Staff Report. He accepts No. One as it stands. Number Two should have the following sentence added: In light of the difficulty in determining the historic nature of the building, the applicant be permitted to demolish the building because of the historic identification of the building is questionable and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 16 because it is in such poor condition, and would have to be completely rebuilt to meet current Codes. Item Number Three should also have a sentence added that states: Similar in appearance to the existing residence. The garage door will be wood and may be sectional or a slab door. Item Number Four should state: The frieze board under the roof match the style and construction of the existing dwelling. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2006 Page 17 Chair Califf moved to approve the minutes of the 2/1/06 DRC Meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Chair Califf moved to approve the minutes of the 2/15/06 DRC Meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C