04-05-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
Apri15, 2006
Committee Members Present: Jon Califf
Bill Cathcart
Donnie DeWees
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator
Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary
Committee Member Absent: None
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 2
1. DRC No. 3948-04 -BRIAN AND VASI STRATOULY
Proposed for second-story addition on a one-story 1937 Provincial Revival residence
183 S. Waverly Street, Old Towne Orange Historical District
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Chair Califf stated there had been a request to possible hear one item out of order. He asked if
the applicant for Item Four was present. He was not. He said they would proceed with Item
One.
Chair Califf mentioned the Staff Planner, Mr. Dan Ryan, was on vacation and therefore, Ms.
Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, presented the Staff Report to the Design Review
Committee. She said that originally the applicants had wanted to put an office over the garage,
and Staff had worked through some issues with them. She stated an issue that the applicant and
Staff had not been able to resolve was the proposed demolition of the garage for the following
reasons. She added this had been removed from tonight's discussion point. She explained they
were working with the applicant on how to apply some parts of the State Law in regard to
environmental review. One of the provisions they are working on was how to properly
document the demolition of an Accessory structure that was determined to be contributing. She
said the way they were looking at it now stated they would need to do an Environmental Impact
Report for every one of the contributing structures that was proposed to be demolished. Staff
was not sure this was the best way to go, and before they start telling the public how to do this,
they wanted to be 100% sure of this although this would cause a delay for the applicant, but at
least they would have a definite answer. She stated before it went to the Planning Commission,
Staff would have to have all this clarified. She added for this particular portion of the project,
the Plans will show proposed demolition and a rebuild of the garage, but the DRC's discussion
would focus on the proposed addition of the house, and if there are any revisions, the project will
come back to the DRC. She also mentioned they were also addressing this with a number of
other projects, and wanted to be sure they had a definitive answer on these issues. She continued
Staff was still concerned with the massing of the addition, and with the placement of some of the
dormers, and roof pitches, etc. They thought it was a good idea to bring it before the DRC to
provide some additional guidance.
Mr. Daniel Beauchamp, 470 Wald, Irvine. He stated one of the reasons the demolition issue
came up was that on the original design, they were looking to add an office over the garage.
When this idea was discouraged, they decided to keep the existing garage, and work on the
house. At that point, per the City guidelines, this forced the demolition of the garage because the
project could not move forward unless the garage was rebuilt to current Standards, Variances,
etc. He wanted to go on record to state their original idea was not to demolish the garage at all.
He said they were given a gentle nudge to go this direction.
Chair Califf clarified to Mr. Beauchamp the things that he referred to were part of the City Code
so they needed to comply with these issues.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 3
Mr. Beauchamp hoped to establish whether or not the garage would be demolished tonight. He
asked the applicant if he wanted to go with the newer garage.
Mr. Brian Stratouly, 183 S. Waverly St., Orange. He said he could keep the existing garage.
Ms. Roseberry stated, at that point, the DRC would not be discussing the garage. She explained
that Staff would have to determine environmentally what they would need to do, and focus the
discussion on the addition.
Mr. Beauchamp responded that even if the garage was not scheduled for demo or was to remain
as is, they would still be subjected to an Environmental Impact Report.
Ms. Roseberry said this was not what had been proposed. She explained they were operating
under what had been proposed. She added if they wanted to change this, it was only a
Preliminary Review.
Chair Califf explained to Mr. Beauchamp they could do what he was asking for, i.e., to discuss
the "what ifs". He stated what they were not. prepared to do was to get into detailed discussions
of what they proposed for the garage because the first step of that review had not taken place.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there was to be a second floor on the garage.
The applicant replied no, and the original design had an office space above the garage.
Mr. Beauchamp added the existing garage could remain if approved by the City in its existing
condition.
Chair Califf added if they were able to meet the setback from the main structure and if they were
within 20% of the required two-car garage would be. He said this was one direction they could
go.
Mr. Beauchamp said the other thing was given the existing garage, if this remained the option, in
speaking with Mr. Stratouly, they would look at ways to modify the residence and make it work
with the existing garage. He stated they would do what they had to do; if it meant they had to cut
it back or reduce the square footage in order to have the proper clearances between the existing
garage, this is what they would pursue.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they wouldn't be willing to reduce the addition to 500
square feet so they wouldn't have to change the garage.
Mr. Stratouly did not think it was possible only because they were building out the attic space,
and were not adding to the square footage to the footprint of the original house, the attic adds
more than 500 square feet onto it.
Mr. Jeff Frankel OTPA, address on file. He stated they would definitely be opposed to the
demolition of the historic garage. He saw no justification to the demolition of a contributing
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 4
structure. He said it appeared the garage was in good shape and would accommodate two cars, it
matched the house, and would be sad to demo a garage that was built with the house. He stated
the OTPA considered this a whole contributing property; i.e., the house and the garage. He said
the bulk and mass of the structure was way out of line. He stated the Standards state "additions
should be generally out of public view." He thought altering the roof design, which was a
character-defining feature was inappropriate as well. He believes the required findings that the
work complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards and also the Design Standards, and will
neither adversely affect the significant artificial features of the building. He did not think this
conformed to the Secretary of Interior Standards as well, which called for a minimal change in
defining characteristics of a building. He thought the roof characterized the property. He thought
removing a portion of the roof and changing the style, in the future, that no one could determine
what this looked like originally. He thought this project was unsympathetic to the structure, and
surrounding streetscape, and the district.
Ms. Janet Crenshaw OTPA, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange. She stated beside the massing, her big
issue was all the windows.
Mr. Frankel wanted to add that he hoped the City did not encourage the demolition of a
contributing structure. He said it was alluded that the City was nudging the applicant in that
direction, and he hoped this was not so.
Ms. Roseberry explained to the DRC that when an applicant comes to Staff with a project, they
work with them to get an approval. As she had mentioned many times at the beginning of this
meeting, the garage was not before the Committee at this point, so the discussions with the
applicant had not concluded. She said they did not encourage people to demolish contributing
structures.
Mr. Beauchamp wanted to state in defense of the City, that up until the Staff Report was
prepared, the applicant did not know the garage was a contributing structure at this point. He
said the City never encouraged them to demolish the garage or did they say it was a contributing
structure. He said they had just discovered it was a contributing structure.
Committee Member Woollett shared some of thoughts voiced by OTPA. He hoped there was a
way to figure out if they were to use the attic space, the dormers could echo the roof pitch of the
room and be in keeping with the style of the building. He said he was more concerned about this
than anything.
Mr. Stratouly stated they did have the gable dormers, and Mr. Ryan suggested they change them
to the shed dormers.
Committee Member Wheeler said he was opposed to the idea of the shed dormers because he did
not see those as a form anywhere else. He stated they had a strict policy that shed dormers not
extend as high as the original main roof, and ask they be dropped down. He thought a gable
dormer would be a much better solution for this house. He was also opposed to the glass block.
He mentioned some drafting errors on the drawings, and said the garage was wider than the
house by a foot and a half. He said the dormers appear to be much larger on the drawing. He
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 5
questioned the egress from the bedroom. He said it did not look like it from the windows, and
might have to do some imitation double hung just to have a larger enough egress opening. He
was confused on how they would get from the bedroom to the first floor because there was no
opening for the stair on the first floor. He said the drawings did not show the exposed rafter tails
on the current house, and need to make this clear the addition would match the same rafter tails
as the house. He mentioned one of the things to watch for were the intermediate rafters which
were two by four, and the barge boards were bigger, and to make sure they match the same
pattern with the new construction. He wanted to make sure the window trim matched the
original structure. He agreed there was a lot of mass that would be added in the house. He said
they should look into what to do to reduce the mass, and perhaps consider what Staff had
suggested; a hip on the back, although he personally did not care for this.
The applicant asked on the house or the garage, and was told the garage.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested looking at other possibilities for the garage roof. He
wondered if the applicant could give the impression this was originally built as a short garage,
and the latter part was done in another phase. He said this might help it look nicer.
Mr. Beauchamp noted on the second floor, the applicant was not adding a typical full eight-foot
floor, but were adding asix-foot plate. He said assuming they would use the shed rather than the
gables, the sheds would become a product of coming off the top of the ridge, and would get very
tricky and the shed roofs would look almost flat. He said he could not go down anymore with
the six foot plate and have things like egress. So, the idea was, they would try to artificially hold
the roof down by doing a lower plate using some of the volume that the ridge would provide
based on the existing slope of the roof. He said part of the reason the sheds came off the top had
to do with the lower plate. He thought it worked better with the gable dormers, but even the
gable dormers came off of the ridge originally.
Committee Member Wheeler replied they were not so opposed to have gable dormers coming off
the ridge, it was the shed dormers because in Old Towne the majority of shed roof dormers do
not meet the ridge.
Mr. Beauchamp stated if they went to an eight-foot plate, the shed dormers would get the break
from the ridge to the dormer which he thinks is the better way to do this. He thought the gable
might kill two birds with one stone for this design element.
Chair Califf stated the windows being proposed should be clear, and glass block was not the type
of window to use. He said they would need to know that the windows on the garage were
vertical sliders other than horizontal sliders which were not acceptable. He said the windows and
trim should be clear on the drawings and match the existing residence.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they were particular about how the exposed barge board
were framed. If the boards were hung from a particular bracket, it should match the original
residence.
City ofOrange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 6
Chair Califf mentioned if on the existing house, the starter boards spans the short dimensions
from the house to the barge rather than have two by four flat out lookers and have the starter
boards run up the slope.
Chair Califf shared the opinion of the massing. He said when he drove by the house, the other
houses were quite small. He said he could work out the details. He wondered how to make this
work without fundamentally changing the character of the historic house. He said this was the
tough part. He added the style represented in his neighborhood was fairly small. He said they
were looking to see if the applicant could have the addition without fundamentally changing the
small nature of the house. He said it was not easy to do.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant not count out the idea of holding his
addition to 500 square feet. He did not know if this was possible or if this was subject to a 10%
Staff decrease.
Ms. Roseberry replied from an Administrative Adjustment or a Variance from the Development
Standard was an Option.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if the applicant could do this, they could leave the garage as
it was and would not have any problem with could bring down the mass, and would make
everyone happier.
Mrs. Stratouly stated she did not realize three feet was that significant.
Chair Califf explained this was not an absolute number, but the effect it had on the house. He
continued that everyone's historic home was different. He said this was the challenge they faced
with the small historic houses. He said the challenge is how to alter it or adapt it for the use
without altering the character-defining features.
Mrs. Stratouly did not think the characteristics of the house were defined by size, but by the
characteristics whether it was a mansion or a small house. She was confused by this.
Chair Califf stated by the character defining features, it meant what was it about it that made it
the type of home it was.
Committee Member DeWees stated the essence of the house was more than the details, and was
about the whole idea. He said they were talking about the massing and scale of their home
relative to their neighbors, and to think of the whole picture. This was also a complaint they had
with the planned communities. He said it was more than looking at the details.
Mrs. Stratouly stated this is what they loved about living in Old Towne, but at the same time they
were not living in 1936, but 2006.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicants if they were willing to go back and see if they
could change the dormers, and if they could live with a smaller size house. He said they were
trying to be true to the Guidelines and precedents, but if what they see is important, but not
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 7
acceptable to them, then it would be better to reject this item, and they could always appeal it.
Mrs. Stratouly replied they did not mind this, but did not want to wait two years. She said their
lives had been on hold for two years, and this was frustrating.
Chair Califf stated this was only a Preliminary Review, and this was because of the status of the
garage. He added they were providing feedback, but once the garage issue was settled and they
decided how to deal with this and any input the DRC provided, they could return to the DRC for
an action.
Committee Member Wheeler mentioned another thing to consider was in regard to the 500 foot
addition, this would be living space and there could be an additional storage space that could be
used that wouldn't count against the 500 square feet.
Ms. Roseberry said they would consider this.
Committee Member Woollett thought they could make the addition more efficient and would be
happier with it if it was smaller. He said he would not accept it the way it was.
Mr. Stratouly asked if the issue was raising the ridgeline three feet or the shed dormer.
Committee Member Woollett stated the shed dormer was a big problem.
Committee Member Wheeler said it wasn't so much the three feet, but the length of the mass
they're adding that it moves it away from being a cottage.
Mr. Stratouly asked if the reason the addition had that "barn look" was because of the slope of
the roof. He said they wanted to match the slope in the back to the slope in the front of the gable.
Mr. Beauchamp pointed out the front of the house was the gable roof which was very different
than how it looked in the back, but it was definitely a different pitch.
Chair Califf stated this was common.
Committee Member Wheeler moved to continue the project.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
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 Apri15, 2006
Page 8
2. DRC No. 4028-OS - HEIDARINIA EXTERIOR FACADE REMODEL
Proposal to remodel exterior facade of an existing 2,100 square foot commercial building.
Continued from 2/15/06 DRC meeting.
980 North Tustin 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 the architect had resubmitted plans for the proposed dentist office at 980 North
Tustin, and complied with the comments generated at the DRC Meeting on February 15, 2006.
She stated they had made additions to the plans in regard to proposing two new walls signs and a
new monument sign. Staff recommends focusing attention to the appropriateness of the
proposed signs and to note that according to the Zoning Code, monument signs are not permitted
to have telephone numbers so Staff is requesting this be removed.
Mr. Vinnie Tran, 14522 Goldenwest St., Westminster. He stated they had agreed with the
Committee's suggestion at the last meeting. He said they had gone back to the front area and
made the adjustments the Committee had suggested. He also stated they added the night light on
the wall and added a pole light as well as adding a light in the back. He also stated they had
corrected the parapet. He continued the made the correction to the square column and made it
consistent. He stated they had made all the other suggestions made by the Committee.
Chair Califf mentioned that one of the items was a plant list.
Committee Member Cathcart stated they had reduced the number of plants to keep it to an easy
fashion to maintain. He said the Landscape Coordinator and he agreed that the irrigation head be
12 inch pop ups and not six inch pop ups. He would also provide the applicant with a list of the
notes that were on the Landscape Plan.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant if he was leaving the existing roof on.
Mr. Tran replied they had a gable roof, but were going to build a parapet.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant if he thought it would be a good idea to do a
parapet on the back to hide the little bit of roof.
Mr. Tran stated that after the parapet was built, they wouldn't be able to see the roof.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant wrap around the cornice the length of the
wall so it would not appear to be chopped off.
The applicant said this would be no problem.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 9
Committee Member DeWees stated that last time the Committee had mentioned the square
opening with the round awning, and thought the applicant would fix this with the square awning
or make the opening round because it appeared there was an undefined area behind the awning.
He stated this was just a suggestion.
Mr. Tran replied the reason they wanted to do this was because they wanted the stucco colors to
be different, but have the background contrast between the pop-out column, and the color match
with the mint color. He said they could create something to curve down.
Committee Member DeWees wanted to know what the horizontal lines in the middle of the
cornice were.
Mr. Tran stated the way it was drawn there was a curve not that different, and you could see the
line. He said on the drawing, they wanted to show the actual curve going down, but it was not
visible, but could see the angle.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant to make sure it was okay there was an
easement for the doors to the utility room on the property line, and the applicant said this was
done.
Chair Califf moved to approve DRC 4028-05, Heidarinia Facade Remodel subject to the
recommendations contained in the Staff Report. The change in the Irrigation Plan would be from
the Rainbird 1806 to the Rainbird 1812SP and provide the City an Irrigation Inspection Notice
on the Plan.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding the return of the cornice on the back of the front
parapet.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
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 Apri15; 2006
Page 10
3. DRC No. 4048-OS - MARTELLI ADDITION
Proposed 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 Planning Commission
Item continued from DRC Meeting of March 1, 2006
Ms. Leslie Roseberry stated the applicant made the revisions as requested that were described in
the Staff Report, i.e., the new door, gable vent, rafters, and roof treatments.
Mr. Joseph Martelli 1225 W. Lincoln Av., No. B, Anaheim. He stated he had been at the
residence to give notice to the tenants, and many of the windows in the garage were damaged,
and would have to be replaced. He asked if Ms. Roseberry or Mr. Ryan would provide the
Guidelines to follow all the refurbishments.
Chair Califf stated yes.
Mr. Martelli asked if he ran into problems replacing the window with the correct material, could
he contact Staff or the DRC because he wanted to restore it correctly.
Chair Califf stated they would discuss this.
Mr. Martelli also brought up what materials would be used to replace the siding on the house.
Chair Califf stated that typically he would match the wood already there. He added that if a
window was physically gone, he would try to determine what had been there based on something
else on the house or the garage. He said if it was still there and salvageable, then he would want
to restore it.
Mr. Martelli then asked about the doors, both interior and exterior.
Chair Califf said the same thing applied for the exterior although he could use what he wanted
for the interior.
Ms. Janet Crenshaw 280 N. Cleveland, Orange. She stated she thought the applicant was trying
to make it within the Guidelines, and approved of the project.
Mr. Jeff Frankel, address on file. He stated he thought this was an asset to the neighborhood, and
was a great improvement. He appreciated the applicant being so accommodating in following
the Standards and doing everything the City asked. He suggested getting the siding through the
local home improvement store.
Committee Member Wheeler brought up that separation should be six feet unless the applicant
was going to do something to fireproof it.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 11
Mr. Martelli asked what should be fire proofed.
Committee Member Wheeler replied he had seen a one hour wall inside the garage.
Mr. Martelli stated he would do this.
Chair Califf commented this could affect the eave overhangs, and were harder to fire proof. He
said that a property line was assumed, and if he wanted to have windows in that area, he would
assume the property line was three feet, and the other would have to be solid. He said the
applicant should check with the Building Department.
Committee Member Wheeler wanted to make it clear that the size of the exposed rafter tails
would match the existing house rafter tails, and the size of the new barge boards would match the
existing house barge boards. He mentioned it was shown on the drawing as a detail, but did not
depict it, and showed a much larger rafter tail.
Mr. Martelli stated they would be the same, and would do everything correctly.
Chair Califf mentioned there maybe two by six, and possibly two by eight rafters, but he should
make sure when it came to the outside plate, to cut them down to a two by four to conform with
what was already built.
Committee Member Wheeler also pointed out the exposed barge board was showing the newer
construction that they did not want to see. He said the barge board should not be cantilevered
out with the two by four outlooker.
Mr. Martelli stated he would match everything with the existing, and asked if he should have his
plans changed.
Committee Member Wheeler replied this would be a good idea, otherwise someone could build
to what was currently there.
Chair Califf stated the reason they mention it, as a detail it didn't seem that big of a deal, but it
was much more difficult to work around building it this way because there was a reason they
were able to do this at the time these were built.
Committee Member Wheeler also mentioned he did not notice anything that specifically said the
window trim was to match the existing.
Mr. Martelli again stated he would match everything.
Committee Member Cathcart stated the only concern he had was on Plan A6, it showed the new
irrigation system would have an automatic system.
Mr. Martelli responded that whatever he needed to do, he would. He continued he hadn't even
got that far yet.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 12
Committee Member Cathcart stated if this project is approved that the applicant bring back and
Landscape and Irrigation Plan.
Mr. Martelli asked for some guidelines from Committee Member Cathcart, and Mr. Morris.
Chair Califf asked if this should come back to the DRC.
Committee Member Wheeler moved to approve DRC 4048-OS with the following conditions:
1. The exposed rafter tails, exposed barge boards, and so forth match the existing.
2. The window trim match the existing.
3. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan be prepared and submitted to Staff for review.
Chair Califf asked if these Conditions were included on the revised Plan, and they replied yes.
SECOND: Jon Califf
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 Apri15, 2006
Page 13
4. DRC No. 4069-06 - TUKHI RESIDENCE
Proposed accessory Dwelling Unit.
1060 N. Morada Drive
Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, (714) 744-7225, ccarnes@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Chair Califf stated that the Staff Planner for this project was out sick.
Ms. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, mentioned the applicant was in the midst of
remodeling the principal residence on the site at Morada Drive as well as completing work on an
accessory structure on the same site that is on the side unit within that accessory second wall
within the accessory structure. She continued that the accessory structure did not comprise the
entirety of the second-unit and the storage area or trophy room. She stated the principal house
was quite large so the accessory structure on the site total 50 per cent in size of the principal
structure. She said this was within the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that Staff had begun
working with the applicant some months ago when he began working on the accessory structure
without permits and now they were before the DRC for approval and recommendations on the
accessory second unit. She mentioned she had photos if they were needed.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if he had anything to add.
Mr. J. Tukhi, 1060 Morada Drive, Orange. The applicant stated no, that he fully agreed with the
Staff Report. He explained he was behind with his architect engineers from the get-go with
regards to submitting his plans for permitting and that he was caught up. He continued he had
started some work without submitting the plans, but he submitted the plans, obtained the permits,
and paid the fees. He said everything was now permitted. In terms of design, he stated he had
done everything based on the City's recommendation and the Building and Planning
Department's recommendation and guidance with regard to set backs and the overall design of
the project. He stated that everything before the DRC was a result of him working with the
Building and Planning Department to come to the final scheme. He pointed out the accessory
structure was about 2,200 square feet and he wanted to turn a part of it into his residence where
he was allowed up to 640 square feet. He explained he owned a large collection of antique
bicycles, motorcycles, sports memorabilia, trophies from high school and college basketball, etc.
so he wanted to use the upstairs portion of the structure as a display trophy room and a home
office for himself, and use the downstairs for guests. He also stated he had several thousand
antique collectible items he wanted to display.
Speakers:
Mr Manfred Reissmueller and Mrs. Diane Reismueller 10775 Morada Dr., Orange. He stated
he was a neighbor of the applicant. He said they lived right below the structure, and his house
was adjacent to it. He commented that the plans he had seen did not reflect the surrounding area
of the neighborhood. He said it showed a house on a flat plain. He stated the house was
overwhelming from his side, and when they look up, it is close and his comp level is about 17
feet above, plus the house was another 2 '/z stories high because he has a high roof which is about
42 feet high from their side. He said the house did not meet the Infill Requirements for the City
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 14
of Orange because it did not blend in to the hillside. He continued there were several other
problems; no sewage disposal, no septic tank, and did not know if the applicant had room for
leach lines. He stated another very important point was the easement was 20 feet wide, and the
road leading up to their property was about 14 feet which was below the minimum that the
County required as well as the State. He stated there were too many dwellings on this road and
the State requirements were 20 feet minimum for a private road. He stated this made it difficult
due to the risk involved for an escape route and access for the fire department.
Mrs. Reissmueller stated they were turned down by the Auto Club Homeowners Insurance
because the driveway was too narrow.
Mr. Reissmueller stated that based on these laws, the house on top should never have been
allowed to be built because the road was too narrow. He also said that another dwelling added
down below and this dwelling made a total of five dwellings. He also objected that the storage
building could be part-storage and part-dwelling. His concern was this could easily be converted
to a dwelling area.
Mrs. Reissmueller added that trophies did not need a balcony to look out on. She mentioned the
applicant told them he was planning to live there while he was building the other house which
seemed reasonable to them until they saw the second story being built.
Mr. Reissmueller said the property line was supposed to be surveyed which never happened. He
stated it was built to a fictitious property line and the setback on one corner may not be correct
due to the property line because they do not know where the exact property line is. He continued
the City had asked the applicant to have it surveyed by a professional and have it certified. To
date, this has not been done. He added the wall, which is above six feet in some cases, was
stated on the permit as afree-standing wall which now has dirt in the back from the hillside and
is now a retaining wall. He thought this should be looked at by an engineering company to
ensure its safety. He said they had some knowledge the wall was unsafe. He said the City
Inspector had bought it off. They were concerned about their safety since they lived underneath
the structure.
Mrs. Reissmueller presented some photos to the DRC. She stated the City should have taken care
of these issues when they were first addressed. She explained the pictures and pointed out the
different structures and how they had changed.
Mrs. Reissmueller stated they had asked for a copy of the permit, but they were given the run
around. She stated they addressed the City Clerk, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Planning
Commission and wondered why the project proceeds forward. She hoped, in the beginning,
when they address their concerns, that the applicant would have taken them to heart and done
something about them. She stated they had told the City if a wall or building came down on
them, they would be held liable. She mentioned they did want any bad feelings between them
and Mr. Tukhi. She stated the beautiful view they had was now the structures and reduced their
property value.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 15
Mr. Reissmueller added the little privacy they had from the side, Mr. Tukhi now had total visual
access to all sides of their house. Mrs. Reismueller mentioned that the applicant had 1.9 acres,
but he had to build his house right there. She continued they would not have minded this, but to
take away all their privacy, they thought this was inappropriate. She said other than this, it was a
nice building. When they mentioned this to the applicant, he did not respond, but continued to
build.
Ms. Chris Cormack, 10771 Morada, Orange_She commented she lived in the first house going
up the easement. She stated for similar reasons as the Reismueller's, she opposed having a
second dwelling on the property, mainly because the majority of the road to reach the dwelling,
would go through her easement, and she is responsible for maintaining this. She stated all the
construction vehicles had taken its toll, and with the additional people moving into this dwelling
would be that much more traffic. She explained that traffic could not go both ways at the same
time. She was concerned about the top of the road because emergency vehicles not could access
the road at the top. She stated the second issue was they were not on the City's sewage system,
and each resident had to maintain a septic tank. She mentioned the previous owner of the
applicant's property wanted to expand his residence and couldn't because there was no
perculation and could not get a larger septic facility. She did not know if the DRC was
considering only the home, and since this would be more than a trophy room, she imagined there
would have to be a bathroom. She was concerned whether there would be a tank above ground
that would hold the waste and be pumped once a week, she did not know.
Mr. Tukhi addressed the road not being wide enough. He stated the easement road was actually
24 feet wide exactly. He stated the City, and County fire department, the Planning Department,
the Police Department, and Building Officials had all been up to the site. He said his plans were
stamped and approved by the City Fire Department, Police Department, and the Planning
Department. He explained the specific reason the Police and Fire Departments came up there to
do their inspections was to determine whether the fire and emergency crews could gain access or
not in case of an emergency. He said they determined there was ample space for fire trucks to
get up and down. He also mentioned there was a fire hydrant at the entrance of his property, and
the fire department determined there was plenty of room to park their truck and access the fire
hydrant, and would not have to access down from Morada.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if it was required that he had fire sprinklers.
Mr. Tukhi replied yes this was one of the requirements that he install fire sprinklers in the larger
structure he built, and the fire department came up to his residence about six times to inspect the
private curved road he has on his property that goes to the top of his hill. He further stated they
had deemed it was safe and adequate with regards to emergency vehicles. He mentioned he had
two small children and would not build on a property he thought was unsafe for his family.
Committee Member DeWees questioned whether they were veering into a questionable area.
Chair Califf believed this applied to other issues they would address later. He felt Mr. Tukhi
should be heard.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 16
Mr. Tukhi addressed the wall discussed by the Reissmueller's. He pointed out the wall on a
picture he had. He said was permitted as a retaining/stand-alone wall, and the footings and rebar
as well as the wall had been inspected and approved by the City Inspector. He mentioned these
permits were on file for this. He explained his initial plans were within the 20-foot setback that
was required from the property line. He said a Condition of Approval of his plans were that he
cut his property back to bring it within the setback, and had about five feet of one side of the
dwelling. He said this was also inspected and approved by City Inspectors, and the Building
Department. He stated he had a job card for everything he had done in regard to his
construction. It was permitted, inspected, and signed off, and there was nothing on his property
below Code, without permit, without plans or without approval. He believed the main problem
was the Reismuellers lived below for 30 years and were used to nothing behind them for the last
30 years. He said it could not be helped his property was on a hill, and everything being built
would be above them. He stated he would also be upset if someone built above him and had
views of his property from their property, but this was the nature the land was. He addressed the
surveying comment. He said the property was surveyed when his property was annexed into the
City, and there were survey markers on the four corners of the property. He had a surveyor come
to his property and brought a map when the survey was first recorded. He explained the map
showed the dimensions of the property, measured it, and located all the property corners of the
property. Mr. Tukhi then laid a line with the surveyor specifically on the front corner that the
Reismueller's were concerned with. He said he was sorry he was able to see in the Reismueller's
yard, but was able to see over half of Orange Park Acres because his property sits high up. He
stated, in good faith, he tried many times to work with his neighbors, and had offered, at his
expense, to put some trees to guard their privacy better along the wall. He offered to plant
hedges, and landscape, even on their property so they could have some of their privacy back. He
said because the property was vacant for such a long time, his neighbors had access to it for 30
years. He witnessed Ms. Cormack riding her horses on his property many times, and he believes
she was upset because they no longer have access to his property. Secondly, he stated the
Reismuellers used to access the rear of their property through his property because this was the
only way they could get to the rear property.
Chair Califf explained to Mr. Tukhi that what the Committee was attempting to get at from
hearing the full story was a little sense of what issues the DRC was dealing with. He stated they
were looking at something that had already been built. He further stated one of the difficult
things to look at whether it was an infill or an addition project was their concern for privacy once
the second-story was made. He said the DRC was at a disadvantage because the applicant had
already built this and they were just looking at it right then, so he wanted to get a sense of what
was happening and wanted to understand the dynamics of the applicants and everyone else. He
told applicant that the DRC preferred to see the project before it was done from the start, and it
was difficult to address valid concerns at this point because he was done.
Mr. Tukhi stated everything that had been done on his project was done with the consultation of
Mr. Carnes.
Committee Member Woollett interjected and stated to the applicant that he had not talked to the
City before he started building. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant had stated this.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 17
Mr. Tukhi stated this was not correct. He said he had conversations with the City from the
beginning, but because his plans were not completed, he did not submit his plans.
Committee Member DeWees asked the applicant if he had started building without a permit.
Mr. Tukhi replied yes, he did. He said as far as the Infill was concerned, Staff stated in their
report that it need existing infill and streetscape guidelines, and was similar to everything on the
property. He said it was important to consider the neighbors had secondary units on their
property.
Chair Califf pointed out to Mr. Tukhi the DRC was not trying to decide whether to deprive him
of the right to do this, but the problem was when someone came to the City counter and
described their project to a Planner, the plans sound feasible. When an applicant says they have
two acres and they want to put this little accessory building on their property, they'll be able to
do this somehow, and the Planner will tell them this. But, if the Planner doesn't have something
to look at, he can't flag possible issues, like the close proximity to the property and they're right
above their neighbor. He pointed out the Planner would be unable to address privacy issues
without something to look at.
Mr. Tukhi responded the first day he came to the City, he brought a rough version of his plan
along with all the property lines marked up, and rough measurements where he wanted
everything. He continued that Staff had been involved in his project from Day One. He said he
had dug some footings and poured some foundation per Plan, but not per permit.
Committee Member Woollett read in part "..the City's Infill Residential Design Guidelines
adopted March 23, 2004, requires that new accessory building units be reviewed and approved
by the City's Design Review Committee." He stated this was the first time the DRC had seen
this and Mr. Tukhi had already had it built.
Mr. Tukhi replied the accessory structure was built. He continued he had not built the secondary
unit as yet. He said this is why he was here to ask permission to build it.
Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if this had been an accessory structure and not a
dwelling unit, would it have come before the DRC.
Ms. Roseberry stated no.
Committee Member Wheeler continued that the reason it was before the DRC was because the
applicant had decided to change it from an accessory structure to an accessory second unit, i.e., a
dwelling unit, and this was the reason it was before the DRC now.
Mr. Tukhi stated only a portion of it was an accessory second unit, and yes to his question.
Chair Califf added that the permit was a separate issue, but was in addition to what Committee
Member Wheeler stated.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 18
Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if the Committee cannot come to an agreement on the
design, it would mean that the applicant could not do this as a second unit and it would have to
stay as an accessory structure.
Mr. Tukhi believed the purpose of the Committee was to come to a decision about the design and
to make sure the design fit the existing structure.
Ms. Roseberry explained that typically an accessory structure was not occupied and could have
very limited plumbing facilities which meant a full bathroom could not be permitted unless it
went to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit.
Chair Califf stated his understanding was that it could not be finished inside or insulated.
Ms. Roseberry replied it could not be finished to habitable standards.
Chair Califf added you could not heat or cool it, and Ms. Roseberry replied yes.
Ms. Roseberry noted, as an aside, the DRC had some pictures before them that showed two
stories of framing and this was prior to the permit.
Committee Member Woollett stated when he went to the site, it was difficult to see it because the
gate was locked, and it was a rainy day. He said there appeared to be some discrepancies on the
plans, and the plans did not agree with themselves. He also said there were some discrepancies
between what the plans show and the actual site. He asked the applicant if he was aware of this.
Mr. Tukhi stated he was not aware of this. He asked Committee Member Woollett what specific
discrepancies he was referring to.
Committee Member Woollett stated he did not see any balconies on the plans before the DRC.
Committee Member Wheeler commented that the drawings were totally inconsistent. He
continued that it appeared the applicant had brought a first floor element that was not shown on
the drawings. He pointed out where a door was, but was now a window, and there appeared to
be a dummy balcony just outside.
Mr. Tukhi replied there was a dummy balcony, and there was a door on the drawing and showed
him a picture. He then pointed out on the drawing where the door was and the window.
Committee Member Wheeler asked where the window was on the drawing.
Mr. Tukhi explained when he brought the plans back to the City, he had to cut back an area for
the setback requirements. He said the door did go away and a window was put in.
Committee Member Wheeler stated in the three years he had been on the DRC, these drawings
were the worst he had seen, and were atrocious. He said the plans did not agree with the
elevation whatsoever. He said the elevations were drawn after he decided to make a second unit.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 19
He stated the elevations did not match with what he had built, he did not show the balconies.
Mr. Tukhi pointed out these were submitted by his engineer. He stated this was the set of plans
that was approved by Planning and Building.
Committee Member Wheeler replied he could not fathom how these were approved.
Chair Califf said they may have approved them, then he should have built them this way or
revised the plan and submitted them again.
Committee Member DeWees stated he agreed with Committee Member Wheeler. He continued
that when the plans are at this level of inconsistency, and mistakes, he perceived this as an
attempt to mislead the Committee. He said it was difficult to mislead the Committee because
they all did this for a living. He said it went back to credibility. He stated the applicant had
started building without a permit, and this set the tone. Another question he had was why the
applicant put the structure there when he had two acres to plan with. He added this issue was
within their purview, to look at how a building is sited on anything relative to its neighbors, and
this had to do with the Infill Design Standards.
Mr. Tukhi explained that although he has two acres, it is on a hill, and is on three flat parcels on
the entire property. He continued one was on top of the hill, the second was halfway on the hill,
and the third flat parcel was his current project, and this was the reason he put this structure here.
Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that the DRC needs to see drawings that show what
was really built, not what he thought he might build at some point. They need drawings that are
consistent, that agree with each other. When something is shown on the plans, they should see
elevations that match what is shown on the plans.
Mr. Tukhi pointed out this is what he was told to bring in. He stated he had met with Mr. Carnes
many times over the counter, and he looked at the plans, and took them in. If Mr. Carnes had
told him, at that time, the plans were inadequate or insufficient, he would have done so.
Committee Member Wheeler mentioned, in his opinion, he would not personally be able to
accept the project the way it was drawn.
Committee Member Cathcart stated not only was it not built per plan, but he did not believe
anyone would have looked at the number of windows facing the neighbor that high up and not
had a comment about transparency, opaqueness, and appropriateness of where the windows
were.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the massing was out of place and did not compliment the
neighborhood. He felt the Design and Infill Guidelines prohibit this.
Mr. Tukhi said it sat on top of the hillside so no matter what direction you look at, you're
looking over the neighbors.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 20
Committee Member Wheeler replied it could have been done with more sympathy to their
houses and the neighborhood. He stated it was a massive tall structure that was out of style with
other homes in the immediate area and is so large in comparison to the other properties.
Chair Califf explained to Mr. Tukhi what he did was not the easiest solution. He said it could
require additional land work to get a pad that was further away and could buffer where there was
natural topography, even though it was high, there was more room for trees, etc. He wondered
how this or whatever was permitted as an accessory structure met the definition.
Mr. Tukhi replied the portion of the structure is under this application, which was the downstairs
portion, was setback about 40 feet from the property line, and could not see any of the neighbor's
homes from the downstairs, and this is where his application pertained to; the first floor of the
structure. He said if the DRC was concerned about the windows, nothing could be seen from the
first floor. He continued it was just when you went up to the second floor, you could see. He
said the second floor was not under this application.
Chair Califf stated that it was part of the same building and was unusual that there was a
dwelling unit that was attached to an accessory unit, and it was difficult to separate it.
Mr. Tukhi said he did not understand how he could not overlook his neighbor's property
regardless of what grading he did or what part of his property he built on.
Committee Member DeWees responded that he could have built the accessory unit next to this
instead of on top.
Mr. Tukhi stated this could not have been done because there would not have been enough room.
Also, the Planning Department required the garage, which was not a part of the original design to
be built.
Chair Califf explained this was a requirement for an accessory second unit to have an additional
parking stall, not necessarily a garage, unless the primary dwelling did not have a garage already.
Mr. Tukhi felt that, other than he began some work without permits, when he did get his permits
and began his project, he was camped out at the counter every day. He continued that everything
he had done since that point has been with the knowledge, understanding, and direction of Staff.
He told the DRC not to think that all the building done went up without Staff knowing about it.
He stated they were on the property before it was permitted, when construction started, during
the construction, and have been on the property since. He felt the DRC picked on his plans and
felt everything he did was at the direction of Staff.
Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant when he decided to add the accessory unit.
Mr. Tukhi replied, "months ago". He said this was set to be heard at the last DRC Meeting. He
had decided since August or September 2005. He continued that at a meeting with Ms. Alice
Angus, Chris Carnes, and Mr. Brent Mullins, it was suggested to him to make this unit the main
residence. When he said no to this, they told him he could take up a portion of this and make it a
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 21
secondary structure that he was allowed by Code.
Chair Califf asked Mr. Tukhi if he had a garage with his primary structure, and he replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett explained the reason he asked him about this was because as soon
as he indicated that he wanted to make this a second unit, all work should have stopped.
Mr. Tukhi stated that not only was the work stopped, but Staff suggested he put up a garage.
Committee Member Woollett confirmed with the applicant that he was told to stop work.
Mr. Tukhi replied no. The only time he was told to stop work was when Staff came up to the
site, and he had not applied for his permits, and they told him to stop and to go get the permits.
He said this was the only time a work stoppage was issued to him.
Committee Member Woollett asked if the permit was for an accessory Structure.
Mr. Tukhi replied yes, they were for an accessory Structure.
Committee Member Woollett asked about the second unit, and Mr. Tukhi stated he had not built
the second unit yet. He had not turned the downstairs portion of the accessory structure into the
second unit.
Committee Member Woollett asked Staff for the rules of accessory buildings.
Ms. Roseberry explained that most of the accessory structures that the City sees are quite small
because the majority of the homes in Orange are no more than 3,000 square feet whereas things
are different in Orange Park Acres. They have large lots with substantially larger houses, and the
accessory structures can be up to 50% of the square footage of the houses meaning barns, pool
houses, etc. She continued when you think of the houses in Old Towne are 800 sgaure feet and
might end up with a 400 square feet of an accessory structure which could be a garage or a
workshop. She stated this applied city wide, and therefore, when you have a sizeable house, you
could end up with substantive out-buildings.
Committee Member Woollett asked what the rules were.
Ms. Roseberry mentioned they were looking at anon-habitable building and could not have a
functioning kitchen because this is what creates a dwelling unit, and could not have bathroom
facilities. She explained if this structure was to stay as an accessory structure, and any plumbing
that had been done or heating and cooling, any gas lines, the water heater detail would have to be
removed. She said the process for this project has been inside-out because it started with un-
permitted work. They went out to the site, and the first thing to be done was to button up the
structure for safety purposes so it would not be an attractive nuisance to children in the area and
could not get in because it was not safe. She added they had to work with the applicant to try to
get plans to show what he wanted to do, and this took a lot of effort.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 22
Chair Califf asked Staff if work was stopped during this period, and she replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett asked Staff about height limits on an accessory unit.
Ms. Roseberry responded all structures had to be within the height limit allowed in the Zone.
Committee Member Woollett asked if you're allowed 35 feet theoretically an accessory unit
could be 35 feet.
Ms. Roseberry said she did not think there was anything that required the height limit to be less
than this. She said there were some when it is up against the property line.
Committee Member Woollett stated that as an accessory unit, the building is in compliance.
Ms. Roseberry said it met setback requirements. She pointed out that they see many of these
projects brought to the DRC that meet the setback requirements, meets Code, but doesn't
necessarily meet the intent; doesn't necessarily meet what works for the community. She said
this is what makes it discretionary.
Committee Member Woollett asked, "That if the plans had been completely prepared as a
secondary unit prior to the commencement of construction and during an orderly process,
because it was an accessory unit, would it have come to this Committee."
Ms. Roseberry replied if it was an accessory structure, then no. She continued if Staff finds
when someone comes to the counter, that their project is within Design Guidelines, then they are
able to approve over the counter. She pointed out there were some things the DRC did see, such
as some room additions outside of Old Towne because Staff felt they did not meet the Design
Guidelines.
Committee Member Woollett asked with respect to the Infill Requirements, if they were limited
to living units or do they apply to accessory structures as well.
Ms. Roseberry said she would have to check on this.
Committee Member Woollett asked if this was open to interpretation. He believed this was a
key item to this issue.
Mr. Tukhi again mentioned that he had not built a secondary living unit. He continued the work
done under the permit was for the accessory structure. He said the reason he was before the
DRC was to get a permit to turn a portion of what was there under permit as an accessory
structure into a living structure.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was questioning whether the applicant should have been
permitted to even build an accessory building there they way it was built.
Chair Califf asked the applicant what his plan was for the sewer.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 23
Mr. Tukhi replied he planned on installing agrey-water system, which was two independent
tanks. He explained the clean water would go into one tank, and the sewage would go into
another tank and would get pumped every six months. The grey water goes into a tank and is
then used for irrigation. He said there would be no leach lines. He said the underground tank
would be about five to six feet away from the structure.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if there was plumbing or would he tear it up to install it.
Mr. Tukhi stated he would tear it up to put it in.
Mr. Tukhi pointed out the garage to Committee Member Wheeler and the residential portion of
the building which amounted to about 640 square feet.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant how the door would fit in.
Mr. Tukhi explained these were the plans before he was told to put up a garage. He said there
was a door to access the residential. He was told by Staff he would need a garage if he was
going to have the secondary dwelling unit.
Committee Member Wheeler then confirmed with Mr. Tukhi this is when the garage was built.
Chair Califf stated that agranny-flat did not require a garage. It only required two covered
spaces on site, with one additional space for the 640 square foot unit.
Committee Member Wheeler mentioned that it seemed inconsistent with what Mr. Tukhi stated
earlier when he said he hadn't started building the dwelling unit, but he had already built the
garage for the dwelling unit.
Mr. Tukhi responded that yes because this is what he was told would be required to turn this into
a complete application for a dwelling unit.
Committee Member Wheeler asked the applicant if he had a permit to build the garage, and he
replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett pointed out if there was a garage, this would be part of an
accessory building.
Mr. Tukhi said he was told he needed two additional covered parking spaces, and to him, this
meant a garage.
Chair Califf stated this was not true.
Mr. Tukhi commented that throughout this, either he had been misunderstood or mislead with
this project. He added his only mistake had been to start this without the permits. He apologized
and he was under a bit of stress. He said he had sold his house, had to get this project going, his
architect was running late, he had to fire his architect, and find someone else to finish the project.
City of Orange -Design Review Corrunittee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 24
He said the initial plan was the accessory structure, and they issued permits, he built it, and while
this was happening, he decided to put a secondary living unit. He went to the City, and provided
them with the plans, and they said OK. He asked what he could do.
Chair Califf said that normally, if he had not built anything, they would tell him to come back
with plans that showed what he wanted to do. He believes this is part of what they are interested
in; bring back plans to the DRC to show what he really wants to do.
Committee Member Woollett said there was another issue, and that was if he did bring back
plans showing what he wanted to, he would not accept them. He asked why have the applicant
make updated plans if they were going to turn it down.
Mr. Tukhi asked if it would be okay as an accessory structure, but he couldn't live in it.
Committee Member Cathcart said he would not need to come back for an accessory unit, but for
a living unit, he could not approve this the way it was.
Mr. Tukhi asked what if this was changed to a main residence.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they would have the same problems with this. He added if it
came under the purview of the DRC because it was a dwelling, then they would assess it based
on the Infill Guidelines, and he thought the majority of the DRC thought it would not comply
with these guidelines.
Committee Member DeWees stated if this was a main residence, he would be even more
concerned about the privacy issues.
Mr. Tukhi asked if this would come under the DRC if he changed the structure to a main
residence.
Ms. Roseberry replied yes.
Chair Califf explained to Mr. Tukhi that the DRC was the authority that made the final decision
although nothing was ever final because he could appeal to the Planning Commission or the City
Council.
What bothered Mr. Tukhi, he stated, was the City has been well aware of his project almost a
year ago. He stated he was allowed to proceed, and has spent an enormous amount of money.
He said now that he has spent a lot of money building it with approved permits with the
understanding that he would be allowed to convert a portion of it.
Committee Member DeWees stated he would be allowed to apply to turn a portion of it into
residential.
Mr. Tukhi stated this was a financial hardship for him.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 25
Committee Member DeWees mentioned the neighbors who made a point of stating they had not
wished the applicant to go through with his plans.
Mr. Tukhi stated they had also stated it was a nice building, and was pleasing to the eye. He did
not know what difference it made to sleep one night there or using a bathroom in the building.
Chair Califf stated once you had an approved dwelling, they could not control who lived there.
What the DRC can control is the application before them. He added he was sure the applicant
had not intention of abusing the privileges anal everything associated with this. He pointed out
that anything that was undertaken without the benefit of permits was at risk. He was troubled if
he was led to believe that what he did would be approved.
Mr. Tukhi stated this was absolutely the case. He said he would not have spent the money if
there was the smallest indication given to him from the beginning that he did not have a chance
of getting this approved. He said he had spent over $100,000 to build this, and the money is
gone. He wanted to know who was responsible for this. He said he was acting under the
direction of Staff. He said he had done everything he was asked to do, and was dragged down
this road when he decided to make it a dwelling.
Committee Member Woollett pointed out to Mr. Tukhi that he had gone ahead and made the
changes based on the comments by Staff, and did this without a permit.
Mr. Tukhi replied this was incorrect.
Committee Member Woollett stated if he made any changes to have a living unit without a
permit, he proceeded without authority.
Mr. Tukhi responded this is where Committee Member Woollett was wrong. He stated he had
not made any changes to turn this into a living unit.
The DRC stated to the applicant that he had not lost any money since he had an accessory
building, but just could not be used as a dwelling unit.
Mr. Tukhi said he planned to build a 12,000 square foot home on top of the hill, and his intent
was to live in the accessory unit during the next 1 '/2 while his home was being built.
Chair Califf stated if this was his intent, why didn't he apply for this to begin with.
Mr. Tukhi replied this was not his intent from the beginning. He had planned to put up the
accessory structure and build the 12,000 square foot house. He said he had gone to Staff and
they suggested he turn it into the main residence until he was ready to build the bigger house.
When he said no to this, they told him he could 640 square feet of secondary living space. He
told of the hardships of living in an apartment. He again stated he had done everything he was
told to do by Staff. He requested another meeting with Ms. Alice Angus, Mr. Chris Carnes, and
Mr. Brent Mullins. He believed the reason there was a problem was because of his neighbor's
concern for their privacy if he made the structure a dwelling unit.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 26
Committee Member Woollett responded it would matter if the neighbors were there or not, he
would not approve the project. He said the neighbors had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Tukhi disagreed and wondered how the neighbors found out about the meeting.
The DRC explained these meetings were public and anyone could attend.
Mr. Tukhi stated there was nothing he could do to change the project other than to appeal the
decision. He believed the DRC was against the project and would vote accordingly.
Mr. Tukhi also stated that it was clearly communicated to him that he could have a 640 square
foot unit.
Chair Califf stated this was State law and anyone was entitled to this. However, in Orange, there
were the Infill Guidelines to consider.
Mr. Tukhi believed what the DRC was saying was he could have his accessory Structure, but he
could not sleep there.
Chair Califf said he was not. sure they could prevent him from having an accessory Structure.
Mr. Tukhi stated he had sold his home in Villa Park, with the dream of moving his family into
this big piece of property and building their dream home, raising their children, and staying there
for the rest of their lives. He wanted the DRC to understand they have poured every dime into
this project. He has moved his family into a small apartment temporarily and even though there
would be some tough times, they would get through it and live in the house of their dreams.
He's mortgaged everything he has and even sold some collector cars he loved dearly. He
continued that outside of the fact, that he did not permit this project from the beginning, once he
did get all the permits, he did everything he was told to do and here he is.
Mr.Cathcart stated the Committee felt badly about this, but this was not in their purview.
Mr. Tukhi asked the DRC what they wanted to see for the project to get approved, and he would
do it. He asked if he could landscape it differently, could he make it so when the neighbors
come out to their backyard they don't see the dwelling. He stated he could not see the
neighbor's house, and the neighbors could not see into it from the area of the portion of the
structure that he is requesting to live in. He stated they were more than welcome to come and
see the property.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if he had started the main house.
Mr. Tukhi stated he had started digging the footings and doing some of the forms, but his focus
was to get this current project done in hopes of getting it approved so he could get it done so he
could move into it.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 27
Ms. Roseberry requested to interject. She asked the applicant if there was a main house on the
property now.
Mr. Tukhi replied there was a main house, but it was in the process of being demolished for a
few months. He explained it was not demolished completely, but the portions of it that come
under the plan for remodeling have been torn down.
Ms. Roseberry informed Mr. Tukhi that a new house would require approval by the DRC.
Mr. Tukhi replied that this was not a brand new house, but a remodel.
Ms. Roseberry asked if the applicant had submitted plans, and Mr. Tukhi responded it was
permitted and approved.
Chair Califf mentioned that a remodel over a certain percentage falls under the Infill Guidelines.
He also mentioned to the applicant that he empathized quite strongly of building a home, living
somewhere else, cramped quarters more than he knew. As far as what he did now, he said to
make something approvable, the drawings need to reflect what he actually has or did. He said if
the Applicant had an accessory structure that was permitted a certain way, then his plan should
reflect this. If he wants to remodel this into a accessory second unit, he would like to see a plan
of what it would look like after it's been remodeled. Their concern is the relationship of the
second unit to the neighbors and the privacy.
Committee Member Wheeler stated if he was looking at possible things to change to help it
possibly be accepted, he mentioned elimination of the balconies overlooking the neighbors,
removing some of the large windows and/or moving them to the side. Another thing that would
help was some strong landscaping tall enough that will obscure as much as possible.
Chair Califf stated it was unclear from the plan, the scale is inadequate for them to address
whether this is possible because he can see construction vehicles and don't know whether the
area is available for screen planting.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he could not promise if the applicant did these things, it
would automatically be approved. He said it would help him feel better about it, and he could
change his vote. He said the first thing needed was accurate drawings, do everything he can to
mitigate overlooking the neighbors by moving windows, removing balconies, putting in
landscaping, and other things that can be thought of.
Chair Califf said if this was an exhibition of his collection, he may want to evaluate it with
display lighting.
Mr. Tukhi stated that if he had to remove windows, it would be a huge financial burden for him.
Chair Califf said it would be a remodel job.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 28
Mr. Tukhi asked the DRC if their concern was no matter what window they looked from, they
did not want to be able to see the neighbor's property.
Committee Member Cathcart replied the design of windows should care for the neighbor's
privacy. He said they could not tell him exactly how to do this. He did say that high windows
help to do this. He wanted to make it clear that landscaping alone will not solve the problem.
Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to have access to the site and look around. He
also said the other issue was that this project did not stand alone. He stated if this project was
approved, they would be setting a precedent that they would regret. He said the first precedent
was people could think if they really wanted to do something, just build it without a permit, and
then they won't make you tear it down. He said based on what he had seen so far, he might even
vote to have the applicant tear it down.
Mr. Tukhi asked even if it was already permitted, and Committee Member Woollett replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett stated this did not mean he would have to do this, but this project
strongly violates the rules and sets a horrible precedent. He said this was the biggest problem
because someone would say the DRC had allowed someone else to do it. He said he did not
want to be unfair or prejudicial.
Mr. Tukhi felt the DRC was making a judgment call and taking the neighbor's side. He said if
he had known it would help to bring picture, etc, but he was lead to believe that it was as good as
done.
Committee Member DeWees stated they looked at all sides of a project, and then they make their
own decisions, and this did not mean the Committee always agreed. He said he was not swayed
by a neighbor who presented well or photographs.
Mr. Tukhi asked what he had done wrong.
Chair Califf replied he started without a permit.
Committee Member Cathcart wanted to clarify some of the issues. He mentioned the issue of
having Staff look into whether an accessory building can be permitted and built without the
approval of the DRC. He also mentioned the plans to be provided of exactly what the accessory
building look like. If the applicant wants a portion of this to be habitable, he then will provide
new plans to determine if it conforms to the Infill Guidelines.
Committee Member Wheeler thought the applicant had two choices. He said he could go this
route and provide the requested data if this is Continued or the DRC could deny it and he could
appeal to the Planning Commission. He said this would be his call.
Mr. Tukhi stated the DRC had made up their minds regardless of what changes he will bring to
the project. He also, believes the DRC came into the meeting with their minds already made up.
He thought it was unfair he was led down this road by Staff and spent enormous amounts of
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 29
money, and he said he was going to look into it.
Committee Member DeWees stated if this was the case, this would be something for them to
consider.
Mr. Tukhi stated he would keep this as an accessory structure as its permitted, and would get
consultation from some advisors, and if he feels he should appeal it, he will. If he feels he
should go a different route, then he'll do that.
Chair Califf stated the typical advice they give to people off the record for moving beyond this
Committee, the further up the line, i.e., Planning Commission or City Council, the less apt they
are to consider purely design considerations and the more apt they are to listen to neighbor's
input. He said the DRC was a public meeting and weighs everything that is presented to them,
but concentrate on design. If he went before the Planning Commission, their priorities are
expanded somewhat.
Mr. Tukhi didn't understand how he could mean this when 90% of what he focused on tonight
was anything but design. He said they picked on the fact that he started work without permits,
they picked on whether this was allowed to begin with, they picked on the sewer system, etc.
Chair Califf stated to Mr. Tukhi that the DRC just did not like having something presented to
them that had already been done since that puts them in this very position.
Committee Member DeWees stated he agreed in part with what Mr. Tukhi stated. In fact, he
questioned, at one point, whether they were discussing appropriate topics of discussion.
Committee Member Woollett stated his attitude was based primarily on going up to the site.
Mr. Tukhi asked how he knew he was intruding on the neighbor's privacy if he did not know
what the view was behind his windows.
Chair Califf replied the same way they typically knew when they reviewed a set of plans, they
went on the basis of information provided; the location of the windows, how close to the
property line are the buildings, and the topography. He told the applicant if he wanted to
continue this and is interested in making some modifications that may lead to approval, the DRC
would visit his residence. He concluded by stating they had not made up their minds they would
never approve this. He believed he spoke on behalf of the other members. He said the applicant
had the options of what to do.
Committee Member DeWees stated the applicant could meet with the DRC individually if he
chose. They have done this for other applicants.
Mr. Tukhi asked if there was a solution other than having to tear the structure down.
Committee Member DeWees stated he thought there was. Committee Member Woollett stated
there might be. Committee Member Wheeler stated he doubted it. Committee Member Cathcart
thought the structure might have to be modified, but he did not know.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 30
Mr. Tukhi stated he would get back to the DRC.
Committee Member Cathcart moved to continue DRC 4069-06.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
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 April 5, 2006
Page 31
5. DRC No. 4093-06 - ROSEWALK
Proposed 47 detached town home units
715-793 North Lemon Street
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur (714) 744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Initial Review and Comments
Mr. Toby Walker, 715-793 N. Lemon St., Orange. He explained that he (and his team) were
there to present the project to the DRC and have them look over the project, identify any
problems and opportunities. He continued that he had tried to design a project for a section of
town they believed would be receptive to a price point than less than the average of new homes
without being competitive with the housing in the northeast end of town. He stated it was in an
area that had not had any work in a long period of time, but, at the same time, they wanted to
attract the type of person who would view this as a home rather than as a condominium, and the
whole idea was to keep these structures detached. He said they had presented some of their ideas
to Ms. Angus, and she made some recommendations. They changed their plans per her
recommendations and tried to pull back the verticality of this to the perimeter and place it more
in the center, decreased the density, and the height was a concern to Ms. Angus to come under
the 32 foot requirement. He explained in order to achieve this, they designed a product that had
three floors that included a finished attic where people could live. He and his team thought it
was a great design, and were sensitive to the fact the City wanted some of these units be
affordable. He said they had an agreement with Ms. Angus on what percentage this would be.
He concluded by stating they were there to present the project to the DRC and get their feedback.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if besides Staff if they had any contact with the recent property
owners or was anyone else aware of the project. He was not sure there were any groups in the
area.
Mr. Walker said if they looked at a bird's eye view of the property, on the westf;rn side is
industrial across the street, to the north is an apartment complex with a driveway in front of it, to
the south are tri-plexes occupied by 99% Latino families. He stated judging by the activity there,
it appeared to have a lot of deferred maintenance there, and obviously there were price-conscious
tenants who lived there. He continued that to the east, there was one house that was used as a
yard and home, a duplex, and one single-family house with three that abut it. He said there didn't
seem to be any homeowner's group in the area that he would know to contact.
Chair Califf stated the reason he asked was because they had projects derailed in the past from
unexpected sources, and the typical complaint was they knew nothing about the projects.
Mr. Walker replied that it was a point well taken, and what they were trying to do was to
determine whether they had something the DRC liked, and then they would have something to
show someone if they had questions.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the siding treatment would carry all the around all the
buildings, and they replied yes.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 32
Committee Member Wheeler then asked if the exposed rafter tails would be done throughout the
project, and they replied yes.
Committee Member Wheeler commented that he liked what he saw in the plans. It seemed they
had a quiet side that was friendly to the neighbor, and an active side that looked down to the
patio. He also commented the master bedroom looked over toward the neighbor, and he
recommended some window adjustment for privacy issues. He suggested flipping the master
suite on Plan Two so the master bedroom had more of a view toward the private patio rather than
toward the neighbor's patio.
Committee Member DeWees asked the applicant what the density was before it was reduced to
16.3.
The applicant stated it was at 17.7, and stated there were 51 units before it was revised, and were
down to 47 units and were still under Code.
Ms. Roseberry interjected and stated that a couple of reasons why the project was brought
forward was because of the three-story element. She said this was something Staff was working
on with the applicant because the Code stated two story or 32 feet limit. She mentioned the
applicant had told Staff from the beginning the units were three story, but really looked like two
story. She further stated when she looked at the elevations, the units looked like a three story.
She asked the applicant make adjustments to reduce the profile or plans that would exhibit this.
She stated this was a big concern that Staff had. She pointed out Staff was still working with the
applicant whether they were committed to doing a three story unit, and this was a separate issue.
She asked the Committee if they would be amenable for the applicant to do a Craftsman-type of
look regardless of a two or three story unit when typically this would not be seen. She did not
want the applicant to have moved forward only to be stopped at some point be;cause the
Craftsman style was not in line with their expectation. She asked the DRC to pro vide some
direction on this.
Mr. Stan Olsienski 715-793 N. Lemon St. Orange. He stated the design intent was to
incorporate the Old Towne charm within the architecture and deliver the intent to this area. He
explained on their first attempt, they had the three story unit will become a 2 'h story unit, which
is not atypical of Craftsman on the east coast. He said when you got to the bungalow side of
Southern California, you went away from the basements and moved toward the attic that
normally has the '/2 story of non-livable space. What they tried to do was to maintain the square
footage per the plans and tried to achieve density that would accommodate a home buyer that
would come to this area. He stated they tried to keep the same details as the Craftsman style
with the open eaves, exposed rafter tails, trim around the windows, truncated columns, and
pedestrian scale to achieve a residential feel. He said they had tried to reduce the scale with the
same plans and minimize the roof line to make it look more like a two story structure, and
essentially hiding the '/2 story underneath.
Chair Califf commented in terms of what they had seen in the past and objected to was other
applicants tried to take a basic plan and call it Craftsman. He had less of a feeling with this
insofar as they made it a whole and the detailed material went all around the residences. He said
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 33
it seemed more natural and wasn't trying to match a Craftsman, and did not strike him as odd.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding some shed roof dormers on a few of the units for
variety to break up the big roof plains as they had done on other units.
Chair Califf stated it was typical to have glass in the attic.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they could have it on some and not others for a little more
variety like they did with the colors. He did not object too much to the idea of a three story if the
applicant would do the units as shown.
Chair Califf thought this style drew more on the San Francisco tradition and eastern Craftsman,
but thought there was nothing wrong with this.
Committee Member DeWees stated he struggled with even a two story Craftsman because it was
more about low roof pitch and horizontality. He thought there was too much roof shawing, but
thought this was done better than most. He wondered if the applicant couldn't go on a
completely different interpretive direction on the whole thing instead of everyone focusing on
Craftsman style. He thought focusing on stylistic elements relative to looking at it iri terms of
details, and ignore massing, scale and proportion. He referenced a previous project where they
had mentioned this same thought. He stated the massing was market driven so why couldn't a
new language emerge from the whole idea. He said the verticality worked better with Spanish
towers and Monterey style. He ended by stating if the applicant stuck with a 360 degxee detail,
he would be very supportive of this project.
Committee Member Woollett thought the style was fine. His primary concern was with the Site
Plan. He was concerned about the living environment for people. He asked what the; plan was
for in between the units. He could see it was fenced off, and asked who would own this space.
Mr. Olsienski replied that each unit had a man door with an access to a side yard. He continued
this side yard would be dedicated to their unit., and would use the easement process for access.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there were a property line between each unit so the side
yard is limited half way or are they going over to the wall.
Mr. Olsienski replied the property line would be in between the units, half way between.
Chair Califf confirmed there would be three feet plus athree-foot easement, and the; applicant
replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett asked if the common area was the strip between the buildings and
in front of the building, but the space, the side yard between the building was not a common
area, and the applicant replied this was correct.
Committee Member Wheeler pointed out the homeowner would own the first three feet and
would have access easement to the next three feet.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 34
Committee Member Woollett asked who would be responsible for maintaining the exterior of the
building.
Mr. Walker replied that typically the H.O. had responsibility, but this was not definite yet. He
stated these units would be a detached condominium.
Committee Member DeWees was also concerned about the center space and wondered if there
was a way to eliminate the two units north of it, and do some enriched paving in the middle so
there could be a center green. He thought it would be a nice idea to have a center space in the
complex, but this was just a suggestion.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested increasing the landscape area to give more of a view
down the driveway. He also encouraged them to look at some different texturing to break up the
driveway.
Committee Member DeWees asked if they were maxed out on the guest parking, and they
replied yes.
Committee Member Woollett asked how they would prevent people from driving through the
complex.
Mr. Walker said they would have some type of speed bumps.
Committee Member Cathcart suggested having some type of rumbled-enriched paving. He also
mentioned the landscape should be tied together which stated this was different than everything
else. He also suggested that when the applicant returned to the DRC, they come back with a
Landscape Plan also. He provided some criteria for the landscaping.
Chair Califf stated he did not mind the three-story unit inter-dispersed now and then.
The applicant asked the DRC if they preferred the treatment on the three-story unit over the other
treatment.
The DRC replied they preferred to see both treatments.
Committee Member Woollett stated the design was not the primary issue, but it was the
ownership. He wondered how it would look 40 years from now, and if it would be maintained.
Mr. Walker commented the whole thought was to do a one-off project, and to show the DRC this
was a serious project, and wanted to make sure they were good. He understood the
neighborhood they were in was going to be the first "new" thing, and didn't want to miss. He
wanted to create something special.
Committee Member DeWees stated it would be nice to use the applicant as a model of how a
project should be done, i.e., to use them as a precedent.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2006
Page 35
Chair Califf pointed out what the applicant should take from this review was the DRC was sold
on the design, and would be scrutinizing how the spaces between the units and the driveways
work to try to keep it from being overly sterile.
Committee Member Cathcart suggested that from a landscape perspective, this project should
have sustainability built into it. He continued they should not overload it with a lot of stuff that
they'll have to remove and should be looked at as a sustainable landscape because it is unique
and a tight spot.
Committee Member Woollett thought because of Old Towne and all the care they have given to
the buildings in Old Towne, the DRC had a reputation that really liked the old stuff. He said
they love new stuff, also. He added if this had been presented as contemporary and was good, he
would approve this.
There was no motion made.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Apri15, 2006
Page 36
Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue the minutes for two weeks.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Califf moved to adjourn the meeting.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:None
MOTION CARRIED