Loading...
05-21-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 21 May 2008 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:10 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. No changes were noted. Committee Member Woollett asked for clarification of handling an item that the Committee did not feel a discussion was necessary on? Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, stated a Committee Member could move approval without discussion; however, an Agenda item could not be moved to the Consent Calendar. The determination could be made when the item came up in the Agenda. Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney, stated he would not be present for the entire meeting and asked if any of the Committee Members required review of any of the items or had questions for him? Committee Member McCormack clarified that the conflict of interest requirement was within 500 feet of a proposed project. Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that was correct. Committee Member McCormack stated he was clarifying the distance requirement for the Fresh & Easy consent item and realized he did not have a conflict. Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 2 of 26 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 3 of 26 AGENDA ITEMS: 2) DRC No. 4345-08 -FRESH & EASY MARKET A proposal to modify the existing sign program. 1803 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The item was removed from the Consent Calendar as Committee Member McCormack had a question on the item. Chair Wheeler asked Committee Member McCormack if he wished to waive the reading of the Staff Report? Committee Member McCormack stated yes. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated the applicant was present to answer any questions the Committee had. Committee Member McCormack stated in reviewing the package he noticed that there was one sign that did not have the curved edge and was that intentional? Applicant, Maric Coggins, address on file, stated the signs were designed for the area in which they were intended to be installed. The sign without the curved edge was for an area that contained a replaceable panel. Committee Member McCormack stated he had asked the question as the sign did not seem consistent with the other signs, and it appeared to be set in a field. Chair Wheeler stated the sign without the curved edge appeared to be a re-facing for an area that contained a rectangular form. Mr. Coggins stated they were replacement acrylic panels and were a different construction from the other signage. The dedicated monument sign would have the curved edge. In the replacement of panels only the configuration was different. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve, DRC No. 4345-08, Fresh & Easy Market sign program, as presented and with the conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 4 of 26 Continued Items: 3) DRC No. 4299-07 -CITRUS GROVE APARTMENTS A proposal to demolish an RV/Boat storage facility and construct 57 affordable apartments with a community room, tot lot, and surface parking. 1120 N. Lemon Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do uyen cr,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Item continued from Preliminary DRC Review of Apri12, 2008 Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from the proposed project as his architectural firm was the landscape architect for the project. Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated the project showed solar panels as an option; however, the type of solar panel was not noted or the method of attachment and he felt those things were very critical. Applicant, Todd Cottle, address on file, stated they had not engaged a consultant to design a solar panel system for the proposed project. They would be PV panels and the size of the system had not been determined, or any determination on which roof might the panels be mounted to. Committee Member Woollett stated the DRC would want to look at the solar panels as they would need to discuss the design details. He asked how the heating and air conditioning was being handled? Applicant, Barry Adnams, address on file, stated the heating and air conditioning would be placed in a storage room. It was a split system with a fan coil and condenser outside. Committee Member Woollett stated the drawings showed two; however; athree-story building would need three units, with a condenser for each unit. Mr. Adnams stated he was correct. The condensers would be on the ground and the fan coil would be in the unit. Committee Member Woollett stated the only grill that would be needed would be for fresh air. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 5 of 26 Mr. Adnams stated yes, that was correct and pointed out the area on the drawings where the grills would be located. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a concern when the plumbing vents came through the roof randomly and they recommended that the vents were collected and brought up in a more visually and appealing manner. He stated he would want that to be a condition of approval. Mr. Adnams stated that would not be a problem. Committee Member Woollett stated on the carports he had looked at the supporting column and brace and was not clear on the design. Mr. Adnams stated it was a prefabricated design with two columns that cantilevered out. There would be a metal pre-finished decking which typically matched the base color. Committee Member Woollett stated the drawings showed a single column design with a brace and it would not appear to work. Mr. Adnams stated the carport was open in the front and back. He reviewed the carport design and drawings with the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett asked if they were going to obtain bids on the carport package and if so, he felt the Committee should review what the applicant had decided on. Mr. Adnams asked if he wanted to see a shop drawing and were his concerns about the material or structure? Committee Member Woollett stated he was concerned with how they would look, as some were constructed in an attractive manner and some were not. Mr. Adnams stated what they were presenting was apre-finished metal structure. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant was presenting a single post with an angular support structure and what he had stated that the design intent was, was not necessarily what they planned to construct. He felt what the final result would be was important as they could look significantly different. Mr. Adnams stated his experience was limited in the City of Orange and he asked if it meant the project would come back before the DRC for the carport review? Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to see the detail on the solar panels and he would also want to see the design of the carports. Mr. Adnams stated he was interested in the timing of the reviews. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the question was whether Committee Member Woollett wanted to see those things before he could make a final recommendation to the Planning Commission or the proposed project could be conditioned to come back before permits were issued. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 6 of 26 Committee Member Woollett stated he felt it should be reviewed before permits were issued. Mr. Adnams asked if they could continue to move forward? Committee Member Woollett stated that was correct. He asked what the color and finishes were? Mr. Adnams stated the building would be predominantly stucco, there were some accents of stone, the roof was a composition shingle roof, the windows would be vinyl, the doors a fiberglass pre-finished door painted to match the accent color, and they had spoken about the carports. The stone that they proposed to use was an El Dorado Cultured stone, and he had received an email from one of the Committee Members inquiring about the life span/warranty on the stone. It carried a 50-year limited warranty. They proposed to use conventional stucco which would be a float sand finish with an integral color. The roof was a 30 year composition roof. He showed the Committee Members samples of the proposed paint palette and where the colors would be used. Committee Member Woollett pointed out an area on the drawings that he was having difficulty identifying. It appeared to be a column element. Mr. Adnams stated there was a small storage element off of the patio which was shown in the floor plans. The other portion was simply a wall which supported the roof. He reviewed the drawings with the Committee Members and clarified the area for Committee Member Woollett. Committee Member McCormack clarified that a line on the drawings designated a fence. Mr. Adnams stated that was correct and it was an area for the deck and patio. Chair Wheeler stated the front elevation appeared to show three different planes along the wall, and the pop-outs did not appear on the drawing. Mr. Adnams explained how the wall came out with a return at the window and how the windows would be placed. He passed out a larger detail drawing of the area for the Committee Members to review. Chair Wheeler stated he wanted to ensure that the stone wrapped around and he asked how the open space was calculated. Mr. Cottle stated the open space calculation was arrived at by adding all the areas that were designated by diagonal lines on the plans which were 20' x 20' areas and the areas along the back were added in. Additional areas that were able to be calculated in at a 1/3 basis were the diagonal checkered or spotted notations, those were common areas and walkways. Chair Wheeler stated the front elevation showed some 2650 windows on the upper levels. He was concerned with the sill being so low on an upper level window for safety purposes. He suggested the window be a fixed window. He also agreed with Committee Member Woollett regarding grouping the plumbing fixtures together. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 7 of 26 Committee Member McCormack asked if the solar panels would be mounted on the structure or the carports? Mr. Cottle stated they would be mounted on the structure as aroof-mounted panel. Committee Member McCormack pointed out an area that lacked vines and another area that showed vines. There was an area with seating and BBQ units. He stated the landscape notation was for turf and he thought it might be an error as those types of amenities generally were not set in turf and he suggested the use of anon-irrigated product for that area. On the trash enclosure he suggested the footings be lowered 4" to allow aplant-can to fit in the area and grow properly. He was pleased to see the tree sizes bumped up and the changes in the plant palette were good. Committee Member Gladson stated she disagreed on the trowel finish and asked if they had considered other finishes such as light sand? She felt a blown product looked blown and using a different finish would give the structure a more finished appearance. She thanked the applicant for providing her with information on the manufacturer information and warranties on some of the materials they were using. On a mitigation measure contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was in their purview based on aesthetics, it was the issue with train noise for building C to have some type of panel, glass or wall in that area and she asked what were they proposing for that area? Mr. Cottle stated the intention on walls facing that area would be to add a glass wall that would extend to an adequate height above the wall. Committee Member Woollett stated his understanding for those walls was that they would mitigate the sound levels when someone was outside, as they were speaking about a train he felt it would be more important to mitigate the sound one would hear from the inside. He was not sure what the City's regulation was regarding sound transmission. Ms. Nguyen stated there were sound level requirements for interior and exterior sound levels. With the implementation of the mitigation measures the sound would be within the regulated range. Committee Member Gladson stated mitigation measure Number 3 spoke about air conditioning, which would also encourage the units to be closed and mitigate the sound. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission DRC No. 4299-07, Citrus Grove Apartments, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. Show pop outs in the front east elevation on the drawings. 2. Drawings should be clear that the stone and trim wrap around completely. 3. Group the plumbing/mechanical vents through the roof. 4. DRC to review the solar panels, carports and sound glazing before the project goes to the Building Department. 5. Depress the footings around the trash enclosures. 6. Add anon-irrigated surface around the seating area and BBQ areas. 7. Add vines to the trash enclosure areas. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 8 of 26 8. Show the 3rd condenser for the A/C units. 9. Automatic irrigation plan to be submitted to City Staff. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 9 of 26 New Agenda Items: 4) DRC No. 4151-06 - YIMLAMAI RESIDENCE A proposal to demolish a garage, construct a new 399 sq. ft. detached garage and a 637 sq. ft. accessory second-unit. 493 N. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicants, Boon and Somlee Yimlamai, address on file, stated they had nothing additional to add. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated in looking at the garage it appeared that it was constructed not too soon after the home had been constructed. He could not find any 1950's features on the garage. In viewing the 1937-1938 preservation photos it appeared that the garage had been there. He was not stating that it should be preserved, moved or demo'd and he felt that it could be a contributing secondary structure and the mitigation from its loss should be investigated. He felt it was not categorically exempt from CEQA. On the open space adjustment he felt reducing the unit size would be the best way to handle the open space requirement. He asked if any improvements were going to be made to the historic primary property that existed on the property? Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, understood the requirement for differentiation; however, she wanted to understand why they were switching from 3" to 4" siding. The house needed help and she would like to see the chain link fence go away. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked why the new garage structure was not being built to a width of only 20 feet? Mr. Ryan stated there was quite a bit of discussion on the project that the garage may not have been built in the 1950's, although that is when it showed up in documentation. The idea was to get a replacement garage that would be very close to the same size as the existing structure. They decided to reduce the width in order to give the appearance from the street that it was a smaller structure and it would be more conforming. It would be in better proportion in relationship to the house. Committee Member Woollett stated he noticed on the detail sheet several references to 4" wide vinyl siding and vinyl on the corners. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 10 of 26 Mr. Ryan stated that was on the original proposal and had not been changed with the last revision, it appeared to be a mistake as they would be using wood. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood the comments about differentiation between the two buildings and that was the justification for not having a fascia and having simpler columns. With the exception of the exposure of the siding, would the siding be the same type of siding? Mr. Ryan stated yes, that was correct. Committee Member Woollett stated the drawings had not focused on the window detailing. What was drawn on the existing building appeared to be not the same as what currently existed and the drawing for the new building was not the same either and he felt these details needed to match. The garage was drawn to match the existing garage and the windows drawn on the side appeared to be filled with siding. Mr. Ryan stated the recommendations from the previous meeting had been taken literally and he agreed the garage should be all siding without the window openings. Committee Member Woollett stated if they proposed atwo-car garage with sliding doors they would not need to be identical to the existing garage doors. Mr. Ryan stated they could ask the applicant to photo document the building to have a photo record of what had been on the site for future reference. It could be looked at as a request. Committee Member Woollett stated it appeared clear that the building was placed on the site at a time that would indicate it was not a contributing structure by date. Mr. Ryan stated with the material, lumber size and style it was indicative of earlier construction. Committee Member Woollett stated it could have been a building that was moved to the site and would that make it a contributing structure? Mr. Ryan stated typically when a building was looked at for its association with a different site information was gathered about its purpose and orientation. Typically the primary building would be the building of interest and the secondary building for its relationship to that building in time and place. If the garage was built at the same time the house was built the garage would have similar details as the house and that was not indicated in the proposed project. The garage did not reflect the same elements associated with a particular time period as that of the house. When a building was moved the province was lost and could only be gained back by actually reconstructing the building on the site with the same placement, materials and orientation. Generally that was based on documentation. It was difficult to have a building remain contributing when it was moved. He was unable to find any association between the garage and house. Committee Member Woollett stated to treat it as a contributing structure would be giving the property a false sense of history. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 11 of 26 Committee Member Gladson stated there was a lot of gray area in looking at the project. Mr. Ryan stated upon Staff's initial review of the proposed project they felt it was a contributing structure and recommended a reconstruction. After looking into the matter further and designating it as anon-contributing structure it was treated as a new in-fill. Chair Wheeler stated in reviewing an aerial photo from 1947 it was clear that there was a garage on the property. He felt it was a pre 1950's building and he was not convinced that the Sandburg Maps were correct and there was a good chance that the garage had been there for many years. It had large dimension framing for the rafters and everything about it appeared to him to be built in the 1920's or 30's. He suggested looking into moving the garage rather than restoring it in order to save another garage in Old Towne. Mr. Ryan stated the owner and applicant had looked at that option and felt it was not something that would work for them. Chair Wheeler stated they would probably need to build a new structure inside the existing garage and it could be moved based on the Committee's recommendations. He questioned the 10' issue at the ridge as there was only 3' from the property line? Mr. Ryan stated they would need to look at using the California State Historic Building Code and how it related to relocating a historic structure. Chair Wheeler asked if that could be solved with the use of an administrative adjustment? Mr. Ryan stated it would be dependent on the plate height. Chair Wheeler stated the steps would need to be moved. There was a tree that appeared fairly close and would need to be looked at. He agreed with the comment to make a change to the chain link fence. He suggested, on the 2°d dwelling unit to move the roof vent from the front elevation to the back elevation and the garage doors should be operable double doors. He pointed out a bedroom window and stated there may be egress problems with the window. He suggested they also re-check the window measurements as they were different in the plans and on the elevations. He stated the use of a cigar band column might work better for the period. Committee Member Woollett stated if the building was moved as an accessory structure what could be done with the doors? Chair Wheeler stated a modification could be made to the structure to have two sliding doors. Committee Member McCormack asked if the garage would be placed on a 7' setback? Mr. Ryan stated on the accessory unit there would need to be a street dedication. Committee Member Woollett stated the problem that was caused with the setback was due to the City's street widening project. When the City began street widening they would not chop off all the houses that did not have the proper setback, the City was creating a problem and he felt it would be grounds for an exception. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 12 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated the setback on the existing structure was 9' from the 7' take, and there was 8' on the new structure. If the 7' was necessary there were choices, whether to relocate the existing structure or to build new. Chair Wheeler stated he felt relocating would be a good decision and posed the question whether the garage should be relocated if at all possible or should it be removed and recreated as a new structure? In adding the second accessory unit the entire backyard was removed from the first unit and pointed out an area where grass pavers or Turf Crete could be installed and allow for many uses. Committee Member McCormack asked if the area Chair Wheeler was speaking about could be used as a parking space? Chair Wheeler stated it could be used as a parking space; however; they did not need to use it as a parking space. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a chain link fence with no gate and the other fence was a dog eared type design, and suggested the use of another material other than chain link. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt there was a benefit in doing additional research on the existing garage to ascertain a plan for the CEQA question and they needed to decide if there was a benefit to gathering further information. She would be satisfied with either the recreation of the garage or moving of the existing structure. Chair Wheeler stated he felt the applicant should look into the feasibility and cost of moving the garage and investigate that as another option. Committee Member Woollett stated they had an important opportunity to make the most of the site and it would not be in the City's best interest to pick away at the most recondite points of the law and thus prevent the proposed project from happening. The owner wanted to make improvements on their property and it appeared to him that they could look at it in two ways, and the goal should be to go with the plan that produced the best results, and using the hardest interpretation of the code might not be the way to go especially when there appeared to be options. Chair Wheeler stated if the existing garage needed to be moved he would suggest a waiver of the setback requirement. Committee Member Woollett stated it was important to come up with a way to move the project forward. Mr. Ryan stated there might be additional ways to determine the historic significance of the garage by looking at the interior of the structure. Chair Wheeler stated an inspection of the mud sills would be an indication of whether the garage had been moved. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 13 of 26 Committee Member Gladson asked if they had obtained the information on the original owner of the property? Mr. Ryan stated they had reviewed the City directories and ownership chain and he was unable to find any important person or events associated with the property. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt due diligence had already been done and he felt there was nothing wrong with having some uncertainty. The proposed project was a recommendation to the Planning Commission and he was inclined to recommend moving the existing building but not make it a requirement with the proximity to the property line to be waived. The primary residence on the property was only 2' 6" away from the property line. The important thing for the proposed project was to either keep the historic building or to replicate a historic structure. Mr. Ryan clarified that an area they were looking at was a side yard and they could ask for a variance on the front setback. Committee Member Woollett stated the property owner could look into moving the structure or go with the proposed plan for the new structure. Chair Wheeler stated he would like to see the item return one more time before the DRC, to see if the structure could be moved, if it was feasible to move it and if the structure showed signs of a previous move. He felt the structure had been there for a very long time and it was a secondary contributing structure. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the Planning Commission would want to have a definitive project. It was a much different case than just conditioning the proposed project for a minor design change. The project would have to be presented as a move or a demolition. Chair Wheeler stated it would also give the applicant an opportunity to remedy some of the minor things such as the windows to match the floor plans and match the elevations, also it would allow them to verify the garage height. Chair Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4151-06, Yimlamai Residence, with the goals to study the nature of the existing garage to ascertain if it could be moved and to verify if there was any evidence that the garage had been previously moved and with the following conditions: 1. Change floor plans to match the exterior elevations for window size. 2. Have a plan in place in the event windows do not match egress requirements. 3. Change the chain link fence to a more appropriate material. 4. Landscape and irrigation plan be submitted for Staff review. 5. Present fencing plans for the rest of the property. 6. Provide yard elements of a front yard setting to both units. 7. Clarify column material. Mrs. Yimlamai stated she did not know if they would go forward with the proposed project and she and Mr. Yimlamai would think about putting their money somewhere else, as she felt the changes would be too difficult. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 14 of 26 SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 15 of 26 5) DRC No. 4229-07 - HERTFELDER RESIDENCE A proposal to relocate an existing garage within the same property, construct a second detached 864 sq. ft. garage including full bath, and construct a new 673 sq. ft. addition to the rear of a 1925 Provincial Revival residence. 720 E. Culver Avenue, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, d an(cr~,cityoforan e.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Kevin Hertfelder, address on file, stated the home had been in his family since 1963 and he had grown up in it. He wanted his two daughters to have what he had when he was growing up and they liked the location and the City. They were anticipating adding a pool and that was one reason they wanted to add a bathroom in the garage. He owned vintage cars that would be stored in the new garage. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she was delighted that the new garage would not be very visible from the street. She felt there was a lot of cement, however; she did not see another way to get to the garages without it and thought landscaping could help to disguise it. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he supported staff on the recommendation for a wood garage door. The project was sympathetic to the neighborhood and it had been scaled down with minimal visibility from the street. When the garage was moved he suggested that it be shored up properly. He assumed that the pool was not a part of the project. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked if the cars would be driven over the landscaped areas to access the garage? Mr. Hertfelder stated the proposed landscape area would include turf blocks that would allow him to drive or push his cars over it to access the garage. He stated that the cars were not moved very frequently. Committee Member Gladson stated she had made the same observation and agreed a turf block product would work in that area. Committee Member Cathcart stated he would like to see a landscape plan for the area they were speaking about. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 16 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated in terms of design it appeared to be a simple and clear cut design, it had a historic feel and he asked how difficult it would be to move the curb cut to allow a different access and have a more landscaped/less concrete looking area? Architect, Jon Califf, address on file, stated they were preserving the original ribbon driveway and the planter areas were a part of that. There was a tree in the yard. The design concept was to preserve the relationship with the garage at the other end. He reviewed the photos and drawings with the Committee Members. The neighbors approach was virtually on the property line and that would not allow them to move the curb cut. Committee Member McCormack stated he suggested they look at ways to mitigate the concrete areas and make it look less like a motor court and more like a yard. Mr. Hertfelder stated they intended to use pavers to lessen the impact of the paved areas. Chair Wheeler stated in the front area the concrete would be more historical. Mr. Califf stated the drive led to the main entrance of the house. Chair Wheeler asked if there was living space on the 2°d floor and should it be included in the project data? Mr. Califf stated it did not conform to the building code. It had been converted before the 1960's, there had been a fire and the area had been cleared out and converted. The stairs on the floor plan were in the middle of the house and they were just too steep. They had tried to convert the upstairs area to code and legal space, however; they were not able to come up with a legal stair plan. The stairs came over abuilt-in in the living room and through a couple of kitchen cabinets and there was not a way to remedy that. They opted for enlarging the master suite to add more space. Chair Wheeler stated it would be considered attic space. On the pop-out for the lavatory he calculated 4.4 feet from the property line and asked if that was within the guidelines? Mr. Califf stated with the fireplace provision there was wording that would allow apop-out and it was within the guidelines. Chair Wheeler asked if there would be grating over the basement wells? Mr. Califf stated they needed to meet egress requirements and that dictated on one end of the well there would be a three step ladder and there would be a guard rail around the other sides. Chair Wheeler stated he supported Mr. Frankel's position that the garage doors should be wood. Mr. Califf stated the garage was an in-fill structure and the applicant should be allowed to use alternate materials. Mr. Ryan stated with a historic structure it was recommended to have historic elements. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 17 of 26 Mr. Califf stated they were required to have compatible elements, not matching. Specifically the Secretary of Interior's Standards stated it was not appropriate to have a new structure exactly match in material and detail an existing structure. He did agree that residents of the City were persuaded by the DRC to match existing elements and the Planning Commission did not share the same opinion. Chair Wheeler stated the Committee could list it as a condition of approval and Mr. Califf could argue the matter with the Planning Commission. He pointed out a drafting error with the door and window on the rear entry elevation. Mr. Califf stated he did not include them on that drawing as he did not want to draw the front door through the opening. Chair Wheeler stated it could be called out in the plan. He asked if the front vent could be recycled from the back elevation of the house and the material should be called out, and the construction method of the extended barges should also be noted. Committee Member Woollett asked on the barge issue, would Mr. Califf take the same stance as he had on the garage doors? Mr. Califf stated he usually would not as he did not like the look of flat outlookers. There was not a big overhang on the gable. On a historic structure it would cantilever very nicely for a foot and support the barge, the question would be how to apply that to modern construction as there would not be a continuous piece of material cantilevered out. He had completed a previous project with outlookers and fake starter board under it. There was not an elegant solution. Committee Member Gladson stated with the addition to the main house would the A/C be moved onto the roof and asked if the window unit would be removed? She also inquired about the chain link that appeared to be newer, and asked if there were plans to change that? Mr. Hertfelder stated the window unit would be removed. He stated the chain link had been there since he was a child. Committee Member Gladson recommended the chain link be changed to wood. Committee Member McCormack asked if a 12' drive was required? It appeared there was a lot of concrete on the project. Mr. Ryan stated yes, a 12' drive was required. Committee Member Woollett stated the driveway and side entrance access was important to the homeowner and he could not justify asking them to change that. Chair Wheeler stated there was not a motion required as the proposed project had been submitted for preliminary review. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 18 of 26 6) DRC No. 4337-08 -CAL NATIONAL BANK A proposal for a facade remodel and signage for a commercial bank. 216 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforan e.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Tania Soo, address on file, stated she wanted to clarify that although they were bringing out a portion of the front facade it did not extend past the property line. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the awnings looked good and wanted to ensure the wall sconces were an appropriate style in size and scale. He asked what material would be used for the doors? Ms. Soo stated the doors would be aluminum. Mr. Frankel stated the DRC had disallowed foam cornices on other projects and he would like to see this project go in the same direction. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he looked at the proposal as a very difficult project. He resisted in Old Towne, especially in the commercial areas, the use of some traditional forms and materials that were not traditional. In Old Towne it was important to maintain integrity. He would rather see the proposed project be completely contemporary instead of a project that was neither historic or contemporary. When dealing with aluminum doors, there were existing aluminum windows and plaster covered the brick many years ago, the reveals in the plaster and the foam cornices gave an element of Disneyland. Old Towne was not Disneyland; Old Towne was authentic and real. Chair Wheeler stated he had a problem with the cornice and he did not feel the design was that far off from a contemporary design. He reviewed the design with the Committee Members and applicant and noted where the extension from the foam cornice would be. He suggested the parapet be changed to a simple rectangular form that would be an inch or two less in depth than the furred out projection of the front feature. He wanted clarification on the doorway and he would like to see a floor plan that would allow him to see what the intention was. On the cornice it would be difficult to have a return and they would end up with an exposed edge with the current cornice design and he suggested they use a more contemporary design. He suggested that the awnings should be at the same angle and the plans should clarify the pitch of the awnings. Applicant, Diane Stewart, address on file, stated the awnings projected out 4'. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 19 of 26 Chair Wheeler stated that would require a steeper pitch. Ms. Stewart stated they were reusing and re-facing what currently existed on the building. Chair Wheeler stated when a cornice popped up higher than the return they insisted that it return back at a substantial distance as they did not want a small edge and it should read as mass and not just a false front. Committee Member Woollett stated he was delighted to see the location cleaned up. The utility doors appeared to be off of its hinge with a chain around it. He recommended they be replaced with flush paneled steel doors and take the pad lock off to get it up to par with the rest of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with the recommendation of a more contemporary design. Committee Member Gladson stated the building was very contemporary and she did not feel the current approach was a good one. Committee Member McCormack stated they could use another material for the cornice such as metal. Committee Member Gladson stated the drawings for the sign showed a logo of a sunburst on it and the other package presented did not have the logo. Ms. Stewart stated she believed the signs being used would not include the logo. Committee Member Gladson stated she preferred the sign with the logo. Committee Member McCormack suggested the sconces be changed to a more contemporary design. Chair Wheeler stated he would be agreeable to have the applicant provide a floor plan to Staff for their review to verify the front elevation construction, to verify the property line and to clarify where the door would be located. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4337-08, Cal National Bank, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and the findings for CEQA and with the following conditions: 1. The parapet be changed to a simple rectangular form that would be an inch or two less in depth than the furred out projection of the front feature. 2. Extended parapets be returned at least one foot to give the appearance of mass. 3. A floor plan be prepared and submitted to Staff for review that showed the north facade. 4. The sconce fixtures be of a more contemporary design. 5. Repair and replace utility doors on the south elevation. 6. All light fixtures to match. 7. Have consistency of signage to be clear on the plans. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 20 of 26 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 21 of 26 7) DRC No. 4344-08 - DAMPF RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 190 sq. ft. addition to anon-contributing duplex residence. 483-487 N. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(ae,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Bill Dampf, address on file, said the home was built in 1971 and it was not a historical home. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair Wheeler stated the fascia and window trim should match the existing. Mr. Dampf stated the addition would have a standard stucco finish to the exterior and he had changed out the front windows with stucco build-outs to add architectural elements. The fascia had been changed out all the way around with a spruce material. Committee Member Woollett stated the plans showed a 2" x 4" window trim and asked if that was the existing trim or the proposed trim? Mr. Dampf stated that trim had already been completed on the front of the house. The remainder of the home had aluminum windows which were also proposed on the addition. Chair Wheeler stated the new windows should match the side and rear windows and not have the trim that was on the front windows. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4344-08, Dampf Residence, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional condition: 1. Fascia and window trim to match existing. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 22 of 26 8) DRC No. 4346-08 -OFFICE DEPOT A proposal to increase the parapet along the front of an existing building. 1411 N. Tustin Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Stu Clifford, address on file, was present to answer questions from the Committee Members. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair Wheeler stated he wanted to discuss ways to make the building more visible from the street. Committee Member Woollett stated he had visited the site and he failed to understand the reason to raise the front surface, the parapet, which would not make it any more visible. The the was rather attractive and it would be less attractive with a bare wall. The Office Depot sign was readily visible from Tustin Avenue. Mr. Clifford stated the reason they wanted to raise the front area was for a new tenant to be able to display their sign there. Currently there was not area available for a sign. Committee Member Woollett stated when a tenant moved in they could place a sign in a comparable place to where Office Depot had their sign, and asked if he felt the sign would not be visible? Mr. Clifford stated he believed a sign in that area would not be very visible and there was not adequate frontage to allow installation of a sign. The intent was to raise the area to allow a sign to be installed in that area and make the sign more visible to cars turning in. Committee Member Gladson stated the challenge was how to make a building that was located so far back in the center more visible. Mr. Clifford stated they did not currently have a tenant for the location next door and therefore, did not know what type of sign a new tenant might require. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were height limitations on the signage? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 23 of 26 Mr. Garcia stated typically the sign could not exceed 2/3 of the height of the wall it would be installed on. He was not aware of a sign program for the center. Committee Member McCormack stated the sign would be smaller than the Office Depot sign. Mr. Garcia stated without reviewing a potential sign they could not speak to that issue. Committee Member Gladson asked if Office Depot was considering a comprehensive approach as the building changes were just one aspect of it, there were other options such as a change of color, architectural elements or adding a new monument sign. There were other options that would allow them to create more visibility other than just changing the parapet. Committee Member Cathcart stated there was a sign on the street, it was not very big, and asked if it was located in the freeway corridor? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was not located in the freeway corridor. It was located a couple of parcels away. Committee Member Cathcart stated the sign he was referring to was the most visible from Tustin Avenue and it was not a very large sign. Chair Wheeler stated the sign was in bad shape and out of date, as many of the tenants listed on the sign were no longer located in the center. Committee Member Cathcart stated there could be a way to get a larger sign out on Tustin. The building was set back and unless you knew the business was there you would have a hard time finding it. There was also so much concrete out in front and suggested adding a planter for interest; however; that would not add more visibility. Chair Wheeler stated the intent was to not necessarily add more signage, but to increase visibility and make the building more prominent. They could add tall thin elements, such as Palm trees to the front to draw more attention to the building and he felt upgrading the sign on Tustin would be abetter option to add visibility. Mr. Clifford stated the intent was to change the frontage and make Office Depot look less like a grocery store. Committee Member McCormack stated once you added the parapet you could square it up and make it a more contemporary design. It would appear newer and different and people would start to notice it. They could not get away from the location being so far back and a new sign might be what they needed. Even though the store was not visible, he knew it was there and he visited that location for specific needs. He understood the idea of making the business look less like a grocery store. Committee Member Woollett stated it would be in the best interest of the City to have the business be successful and the building owner wanted to make it more attractive to potential tenants. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 24 of 26 Mr. Clifford stated it was Office Depot's responsibility to sub-lease the other buildings. Committee Member Cathcart stated he agreed with Chair Wheeler in regard to adding Palm trees to show off the building from a distance. The signage on Tustin Avenue needed to be improved. Committee Member McCormack stated the issue might be at the entrance of the center and he felt there needed to be better signage. He was not opposed to the parapet, but felt it was just one step and other things needed to be done to increase visibility. Chair Wheeler stated the suggestions they were giving were ideas and not conditions. He asked what the intention was for the screen on the windows? Mr. Clifford stated that was something Office Depot did on all their windows; there was a screen on the inside of the windows. Chair Wheeler stated the only technical issues he had were to clarify the material; he thought it was stucco, the piers should match and the number of window elements was not correct, those were all minor corrections and would not affect the project from moving forward. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4346-08, Office Depot, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. Material to match existing material. 2. Approval does not include any changes to signage. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 25 of 26 9) DRC No. 4352-08 -TGI FRIDAY'S REMODEL A request for changes to the approved exterior remodel plans. The original approval was on June 21, 2006. 3339 Entertainment Avenue Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do ug_yen(c~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart stated he would be recused from the item as his architectural firm and the client had worked together. Committee Member Woollett stated he had no issues with the proposed project and asked the applicant if they would agree to approval without Committee discussion. Applicants, Debra Kerr and Valentina Allen, were available for any questions and agreed to have their proposed project approved without Committee discussion. Public Comment None. Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, stated there was a change to the Staff Report. The applicant had requested to remain with the Gooseneck lamps rather than the wall sconces. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4352-08, TGI Friday's Remodel, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the change to have the wall lighting conform to the previously accepted lighting scheme as per Ms. Nguyen's comments. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES:Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2008 Page 26 of 26 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Gladson to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.