Loading...
10-05-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES October 5, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Planner Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 4031-OS- MILLER AUTOSPORTS A request to convert an idle service station site into a Used Vehicle Sales establishment through certain site improvements and related signage. Property located at 135 East Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Ms. Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner, mentioned this item would be moving on to the Planning Commission so they are looking for a recommendation relating to the aesthetic issues as well as any conditions that might be appropriate to the design portion of the project. She then provided a detailed reading of the Staff Report to the Committee. Chair Califf asked if there were any public members that wished to speak to this item. There were none. Committee member Wheeler asked about Page Four of the Staff Report, 2°d paragraph that spoke of a connection between two landscape planters be consistent with current City regulations. Ms. Fox replied that there is a break where the curb stops on the site presently. She explained that there needed to be a continuation of curbing to bring these two curbs together. She mentioned the Public Works Department had addressed this and did not want any draining problems so suggested this small area would be improved and corrected. The applicant stated he planned to put a curb there. He stated the possibility of moving the curb forward. Committee member Woollett asked about the west side of the plan where there is an easement area, and who controls that area. Ms. Fox replied that both sides of the property are owned by the self-storage owner. She explained that this was not under Mr. Miller's control to do any landscaping improvements in this area. Mr. Woollett asked why there was no landscaping done when the self-storage business was started. Ms. Fox replied that she did not know, but this could be reported to Code Enforcement. Mr. Miller stated this area was maintained by the Mobil Station, and it was perhaps under a Gentlemen's Agreement for Mobil to maintain it. Mr. Woollett was concerned with the incomplete landscaping drawings. He said there were some trees shown on the drawing, but that was all. He further stated the Committee needed to know exactly what type of plants would be in the planters. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Miller stated that they were using all the existing planters that are in place in addition to a 10 foot strip along the front. He said that turf would be planted, and would even plant grass to the other person's property. Mr. Woollett stated that he wanted to see a landscape plan on the drawings, and if there are existing plants, etc. Chair Califf stated it was typical to have a landscape plan for a commercial project. Mr. Wheeler stated that normally they require the brown trunk height for the palm trees. He also mentioned if the plan was for turf to be planted across the front, it seemed there might be a lot of foot traffic. Mr. Miller stated there would be no foot traffic because Chapman would be closed off at the City's request. Mr. Woollett mentioned the planting would have to be shown on the Plan. Chair Califf agreed, and he said it was unclear what the final result would be. Mr. Miller replied there were two island areas four feet by 20 feet. The concrete slab would stay. Mr. Wheeler asked about the gate and how it would operate. He asked if the gate would open r out to the easement. He wondered if it wouldn't block some of the parking spaces. Mr. Miller answered it wouldn't block the parking spaces, but would go along the side of it. He said if they were allowed to, it would open onto the easement area, if not, the gate would be swung around in the morning before they opened. Mr. Wheeler stated there would be a problem with the palm tree shown on the plan. Chair Califf stated he was unclear about what was being proposed on the signage. He asked the applicant if he was proposing a monument sign, and Mr. Miller answered yes. Ms. Fox explained that the applicant was proposing two freestanding signs, one being a reuse of the abandoned pole and foundation. She said both freestanding signs are triggering a Variance. Chair Califf stated that they were interested in the height. Ms. Fox stated the pole was ultimately about 27 feet high including the signage. Chair Califf asked if there would be a sign company drawing at some point. Ms. Fox stated in order to obtain the permit, yes. She also added there would need to be calculations as well. There is a question about the proposed size of the sign. They are not sure it can be supported on the pole. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Miller stated that DONOCO is the company that did the demo as well as have the safety fence around the property. They have the sign in storage, but it's the original Mobil sign. Committee member Woollett asked if there was some question whether the Planning Commission would approve this. He asked this because there seemed to be a lot of incomplete documents and if that's because it's intended for the Planning Commission to make their fundamental decision, then the DRC should see this after the Commission. Ms. Fox responded that the City's code requires a recommendation to the Planning Commission on some of the other entitlement issues from the design perspective. She asked if it could be sent to the Planning Commission with a condition to come back to the DRC. Mr. Woollett stated that this had been done before. Chair Califf asked what the proposed lighting plan was. He said that if this was a new car sales lot, there would be a lot of light. If the five lights are all he'll have, it will be very dark. Mr. Miller answered that he had met with Mr. Brad Byers. He is working with Edison to get the lights turned back on. He said they will probably need flood lights to adequately light the lot. He stated Mr. Byers would have to sign off on that. Chair Califf explained that enough for security lighting is typically not enough for merchandise. He continued from a design standpoint, that anything the applicant mounted to have the light facing the street was objectionable. He needed to have light from the perimeter. Mr. Miller stated that he had looked at Selman and how their lighting works. He said they have lights mounted on the side of their building and there were some flood lighting. But, ultimately at some point he would like to put more light poles up in the front. Mr. Wheeler mentioned the security gates and if the applicant could match what Selman has, it would make a nice group form feeling on the street. Mr. Miller stated that his security gates don't face Chapman. He also said that Selman's gate is too low, and he was looking at a rounded corners type of gate. Chair Califf said it works if you have the trees and the light poles set, they are unobtrusive, but you can keep them high enough that they can't pop open. What Mr. Wheeler is referring to is the three inch pipes with the chain between them. They don't like to see this type of gate. Mr. Dewees said he was concerned about the checkerboard. In essence, this was really signage. He also asked if the building was painted or if this was material because it was not clear on the drawing. Mr. Miller stated it would be painted and there would be foam lettering on the top. He said that along the perimeter of the building, there is fluorescent lighting, and under the eaves, the spillage City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 5 should be fine for the sign on the building. Mr. Wheeler said he would not object to having the checkerboard on the triangle area like on the west side, but the columns are very arbitrary, and he hated to see something that looked like it was painted on a column. Mr. Miller that it was unfortunate that one part was four feet, another part was five feet, another area was six feet, and perhaps they could come up with a continuity of three feet. Mr. Wheeler suggested to put the checkerboard pattern behind the sign. Mr. Miller stated they had tried it in PhotoShop, and it did not look good. Ms. Fox added that if it's behind the signage, and its reflective of what he has going on with the cabinet and the monument sign, then it gets into the area of it being a sign, and it would be too large. She thought it should remain anon-descript background on the lettering. Mr. Wheeler stated another thought was to paint on the thick panels below the windows on the south side. Mr. Miller replied that this was all bullet-proof glass. He added that although you could paint on it, there would be cars in front, and the lettering would not be seen. He said it wasn't that busy in comparison to other places like the gas stations. He stated he would adjust those to be as i~r., consistent in size as he could. Mr. Woollett commented that he heard the same thoughts coming from Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Dewees; that they both were trying to find consistency with the building, and even the way the document is prepared indicates that there is little concern with the building as opposed to the sign. He continued that he has serious concerns that the building itself is ignored; it's a background for the signage with its red fascias, the checkerboard area, and the sign itself. He mentioned the pictures and how they show everything which leads him to think what will happen to the trash area, and he believes there are many uncertainties about the plan. Mr. Miller replied that the trash enclosures will be conditioned to be screened on the AC unit. The trash area is inside the building with swinging doors and completely hide the trashcans. Mr. Woollett responded that the drawing was not sufficient, he was not getting the picture he needed. He continued there was too little information. Mr. Miller showed how it looked previously and what it looks like now. Mr. Woollett stated that if this was how it would look, he would not approve it. Mr. Califf stated on the site plan the columns looked more the same size than on another drawing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Dan Ryan stated when he visited Japan, the gas stations are very competitive with their pricing. He said they use a fabric material like a flag that is large with a checkerboard pattern as an accessory to the building. Although the building is non-descript, what catches the public's attention is the checkerboard pattern that has a lot of movement and color. It's almost like a very large banner. He thought the issue of separating the sign from the building could be accomplished in this manner as well as getting the public's attention. Chair Califf stated in order to give the applicant adequate direction for the landscape, site plan, exterior elevations, and other things discussed, the Committee needs the documents to be more specific about the things he's going to do. He mentioned showing it on a photo is good for the sense of what the applicant is doing, but to approve it, the Committee needs an elevation or some other drawing that says an item is going to be painted, assuming that it is, what the materials are, and what will be done to the building. Mr. Miller responded that Ms. Fox had stated this in the Report. Chair Califf stated the information had to be on the drawings. This is how he would get his building permit, and reiterated that what the applicant was going to do had to appear on the drawings. He continued that since the Committee is tied to making a recommendation to the Planning Commission with the possible exception of the landscape plan come back later, the Committee needs to see the information in order to act on it. Mr. Miller stated he was amenable to return back on the Landscape Plan, but he did not know what more he could do on the drawings. He listed all the changes to be made. Mr. Dewees responded that all the things the applicant had stated did not appear on any of the documents. He stated this was why he asked about the black and white, because it states it, but when he looks on the drawing, it is not there. Mr. Miller again stated he did not know what more to put on the drawing since he was reusing everything on the site and not building anything new. Mr. Dewees replied that there were examples on file that the applicant could refer to show the elevations, a color key, things like that that address this sufficiently. Mr. Wheeler stated there was a visual disconnect between the drawing they looked at and the floor plan as far as the width of the panels. He stated there needed to be clarification between the drawings and the rendering. He explained this type of thing needed to be clarified to get a feeling of what was happening. He stated they normally see a set of floor plans, a set of elevations, and a landscape plan. Mr. Miller responded that he thought he would go in there and clean up the lot, and put a high line car lot on there, and make the City entrance nice. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 7 Chair Califf stated the Committee was not taking issue with any of that. Mr. Califf stated what the applicant intends to do needs to be on what they're approving. He said they liked the idea of the bamers he was going to put, but all they have is the applicant telling them that. There is no detail or indication of what this is going to be. He continued that for the Committee to make a recommendation or a final determination, they need to have the information on the drawing. He mentioned he had an issue with the fencing. He would like to see the bollard continued or even fence the entire property. He did not think it was a deterrent to have fencing on two sides. Mr. Woollett explained to the applicant how an item was processed through the DRC. He said a full landscape plan, a detailed site plan, where the fencing will be, what kind of fencing will be used, etc. was required information. He stated the Committee was very concerned about all the details because they have found if it's not on the drawing, there is no way for the City to enforce it. So, if it's not important to the DRC, it doesn't have to be on the drawing, but if it is important to them, then it has to be on the drawing. Mr. Miller answered that nothing was being built. He said the fence was one of the conditions by Staff that the applicant will have to screen. He stated the asphalt would be exactly the way it was, except it would be repaved. He said that literally the only difference is the paint. Chair Califf stated that in order to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, there will need to be more specific information of what the applicant intends to do. He mentioned that the applicant really needed to indicate everything he intends to do and show the exterior elevations. Mr. Wheeler stated there should be some accurate drawings of the signs, the size and height. Ms. Fox said that the applicant would have to propose the type of sign; a pole or monument sign. She said that the Planning Commission would want to see the signage details, particularly related to the Variance issues. Mr. Miller asked if the address would have to be on the sign on the pole. Ms. Fox stated yes, all free standing signs required the address on the signs. Mr. Wheeler strongly recommended that the applicant find another way for the checkerboard to appear other than be a painted surface that arbitrarily stops when it gets around the corner. He found this highly objectionable. Chair Califf moved to continue this item to allow the applicant to address the concerns of the Committee, specifically need for sign drawings, exterior elevations, and more specific information on the plans in general, and to provide a landscape plan, and information on what is actually being proposed for the lighting. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 8 SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 9 2. DRC No. 3998-OS -METRO COURT REMODEL This item was continued from the DRC meeting of September 7, 2005. A request to remodel an existing commerciaUindustrial site by modifying the building facade and colors. Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Ron Underwood, Architect, provided the presentation to the Committee. He explained that his firm`s philosophy was there were certain architectural features and design effects such as warmer color-schemes, parapet cornices, and other design features that create a more inviting feel for the patrons and tenants. He conveyed that their revised drawing package was much more complete along with keeping the decorative walls with the cut-out circles in the design scheme as suggested by DRC during the previous meeting of September 7, 2005. Mr. Underwood continued that they had stayed with the same color scheme and texture as previously presented. He also presented the circular features as highlighted (as suggested by DRC) in the revised drawing package. The applicant, Mr. Rinker, stated that they had endeavored to meet every one of the recommendations made by the DRC in the previous meeting of September 7, 2005. Mr. Underwood stated an erroneous statement had been made in the last meeting. It was said the buildings would be plaster, but are actually concrete tilt-up, and are proposing atexture-coat. He stated it has aplaster-effect that will be achieved with the texture coat. Mr. Dewees asked if all the concrete would be texture-coated. Mr. Underwood replied that all the concrete that is visible to the main public areas would be, and prefer to leave the rear access ways with the existing concrete tilt-up, but paint it to match the balance of the center. Mr. Dewees spoke of a band running through the middle on the elevations which shows stippling above it, but no stippling below. Mr. Underwood stated that they were proposing to put texture coat on all the surfaces. Mr. Woollett asked what type of coating it was, and Mr. Underwood stated it was elastomat. Mr. Woollett asked if even the new stucco would have a final elastomat coating. Mr. Underwood responded yes. He explained it was a paint with a texture in it, and when it goes on the wall, it will dry as a texture. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Woollett stated the reason he was asking is because of the way it will react with expansion and contractions. Mr. Underwood explained there was a large building on the site that has different detailing than the balance of the buildings. He stated that in the initial submittal, it was not depicted very accurately, and in the current submittal, it is much more accurate. Mr. Woollett suggested they look at the drawings instead of the presentation. Mr. Underwood proceeded to explain the layout of Building Five. He said there was a feature out in front, and pointed to it on the drawing. He continued that set back from that was a glass area, and that also where the proposed additional structure is located. Mr. Wheeler stated that one of his comments last time was the applicant needed consistency throughout the project, and the applicant had come a long way in their improvements. One thing that still concerned him was the buildings in the back. Even though he did not like foam moldings, there was a secondary horizontal molding on the drawing, but it did not show on other parts. He said it should be consistent. He also mentioned he did not like the idea as one goes farther away from the front, it gets cheaper, He feels this tells the tenants that they don't matter as much. Mr. Underwood stated he thought this was a good suggestion and the expense would be minimal, and Mr. Rinker agreed. Mr. Woollett said they would have to address the sign program, and Mr. Wheeler stated they would have to come back in 90 days for this. Mr. Wheeler stated he was glad to see that the applicant was keeping the circular elements, and felt they were an important part of the original design. Mr. Dewees commented that he still had some of the same concerns as he had before. He referred to the foam cornice and it was not necessarily something the Committee likes to see. Mr. Underwood stated that their design had become its own architectural style whether or not it's supported historically, and cited The Block as an example. Mr. Dewees stated it was different from The Block in that it is internally consistent. He continued it was different than being on Katella, and this was a different contextual approach. He also used Downtown Disney as an example, and said it was internally consistent, and was a destination place as opposed to the DRC being responsible for trying to maintain a community aesthetic through the use of internally consistent integrated design forms. Mr. Underwood said he thought that meant internally to the particular project, not necessarily consistent with the whole Katella front. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 11 C Mr. Wheeler stated their suggestion last time was to incorporate some of the motifs that are already there. He said to make it so you can see the reference back to what was there before. Mr. Ken Rinker stated that they had taken the DRC's suggestions seriously, and tried to implement them as best they could. They hoped this was a good compromise, and would be glad to incorporate the new suggestions. Mr. Woollett moved for approval of the project presented with the following conditions: 1. The portion that extends above the existing parapet shall extend behind the parapet a minimum return of 24 inches. 2. The intermediate molding, which extends above the glass, be included on Buildings Two, and Four. Also, on the rear elevation, it terminates at a roll-up door. 3. All the keystones be removed. 4. The color schemes be alternate which provides the accent color on the circle elements. 5. A comprehensive sign program be for the entire site be submitted. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: Donnie Dewees ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 12 3. DRC No. 4017-OS -CHRISTIAN RESIDENCE A request to construct an addition on the southwest portion of an existing single family residence that adds a partial second story and an attached accessory housing unit. 2538 East Larkstone Drive Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Anne Fox presented the Staff Report to the Committee. Mr. Christian explained that the reason they were adding to their home was to add a place for his mother-in-law. He stated since she had some health concerns, they decided it would be best for her to have a place to stay close by. Ms. Fox added they were able to accommodate the additional parking space that is required and is beyond the setback. Mr. Christian stated he had spoke with Public Works about the curb and they had also spoken to their neighbors. Mr. Woollett stated that although their request was reasonable, his interpretation of the Ordinance was what this was the Ordinance intended to prohibit. When he drives through the neighborhood, he noticed that there are two or three units that have had additions to their homes. He said these units are much larger and they have a lot more mass to them. He said what would happen if everyone did this, and believes it would be a very crowded neighborhood. He didn't think it was consistent with the fundamental pattern with the neighborhood. He stated it is significantly larger due to the 2"d floor primarily. He felt that this was something the DRC was trying not to do, even though it has been done in the past, it was done before the Ordinance went into effect. Mrs. Christian said that many of the lot sizes were not as big as theirs and could not accommodate these changes, so she did not agree that everyone in their neighborhood could do this. She cited some examples in their neighborhood that had larger lots than they had. She also mentioned the smaller homes in their neighborhood, and they could not accommodate the extra parking space. Ms. Fox stated that the applicant have followed the guidelines. Mr. Wheeler stated the drawing showed the roof sloping up to the 2"d floor wall. He asked if this was at the same pitch as the remainder of the roof or at a lower pitch. He said it would drain down, and require some type of cricket to get the water around it. Chair Califf stated it probably could not be because the windowsill is there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Wheeler added that this would be an egress problem, but whether it could be sloped as a quarter inch per foot or put some different roofing on it. He mentioned if both windows are too tall, the sill heights are too high to qualify for egress or exit window. Mr. Wheeler had a question about the aesthetics of the building. He said it needed to be consistent throughout. Such things as having the overhang smaller than the existing looks like they are trying to save money and it will cheapen the effect. Mrs. Christian stated that this was an error and would be corrected. Mr. Wheeler also mentioned the window trim. He said to match the window trim throughout the house. Mr. Christian stated that they will pull the stucco off the entire house, as well as putting new windows throughout so that everything will be the same. Mr. Wheeler stated there were some box outs on the drawings which he didn't see anywhere else. Again, he mentioned consistency. Mrs. Christian stated this needed to be corrected. Mr. Dewees commented on the fascia shown on the elevations. He said it wasn't clear what was happening. Again, it wasn't consistent throughout. Mr. Christian said that their existing fascia was bad, and they were looking at covering the metal so that it looks nice and clean. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4017-05, the Christian residence, with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report, and the additional conditions as follows: 1. The roof overhang and fascia match the existing house. 2. All window trim match the existing house. 3. Check with the Building Department to make sure the egress is not a problem. If the design has to be modified in order to make egress work, and the changes are significant, the Planning Commission should return the project to DRC for further review. 4. The box out on the window be eliminated. 5. Recommendation to study the cricket rather than a roof slope to solve the drainage problem in the back. SECOND:Donnie Dewees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler NOES:Joe Woollett ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 14 4. DRC No. 4021-OS - FEATHERHILL TERRACE A request to construct a new 4,047 square foot, single-family residence with a 1,025 square foot attached garage. 2421 Feather hill Drive Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Final Determination THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT DRC MEETING AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 15 DRC No. 4026-OS -CHUCK E. CHEESE A request to establish a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant within an existing tenant space including a facade remodel and signage. 1875 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Ms. Anne Fox provided the Staff Report to the Committee. Mr. Steve Hale of NCA Architecture introduced himself to the Committee. Ms. Alice Winters, applicant, stated they really tried to create building elements and identifying features to create a high quality project with visual interests in an architectural style. She explained that her business was a family restaurant and entertainment center. They want to look like a fun restaurant that they are without changing the concept of the building. They have added awnings and their logos. In essence, they have a basic building, and are only painting the building, and have kept in line with the colors in the center. She could not state that the colors were absolutely accurate on the rendering. She explained that the light produced from the awning is a safety factor for their guests. She showed the Committee the color board. Mr. Wheeler asked how the color scheme agreed with the rest of the shopping center to the right. He said it looked a little darker. Ms. Winters replied that the color appears to be a pink/beige, and the rest of the center is a little bit lighter. Ms. Fox stated that Chuck E. Cheese as well as the in-line tenants are under the same ownership. In speaking with the tenants, they are willing to upgrade their colors to reflect the same. They are not ready to present these changes yet. Mr. Wheeler commented that he was in agreement with the Staff Report if the colors could blend in some way with the existing colors and so it doesn't stand out. Ms. Winters said the other tenant was willing to change the color. Chair Califf mentioned he has always perceived this building as a free standing building. He wasn't sure why that was. Ms. Winters replied this was because it was built much later. Mr. Wheeler questioned if the applicant was proposing to change the cornice. Ms. Winters replied that they were not. C City of Orange -Design Review Cortunittee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 16 Mr. Wheeler stated he was concerned that there would be a lot of things done to the cornice; the color change and lighting change, and he did not think there was enough room. Ms. Winters provided photographs to the Committee. There was some discussion about the awning, and the colors, and everyone seemed to be in agreement with this. Ms. Winters commented that they wanted to keep the LED border, to keep the awnings backlit, they are willing to change them to the barrel shape. She mentioned they did not show a use for the existing monument sign. Ms. Fox mentioned that since the sign is not part of the proposal they have included a condition for its removal. They may have to return to DRC to address the sign issue, and the property owner is interested in the sign since they lost signage with the Home Depot project. Since it's not part of Chuck E. Cheese's proposal for their signage, this is why it's conditioned as such. Mr. Wheeler asked if the LED light was a continuous light or did it move. Ms. Winters replied that is was a continuous light. Mr. Woollett moved for approval on DRC No. 4026-05, Chuck E. Cheese Restaurant, with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report, except eliminating Conditions Two and Three. In lieu of the recommended Condition Three, the bell shaped awning as presented on the drawings is acceptable. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 17 6. DRC No. 3981-OS - KIZZIAR RESIDENCE The applicant is requesting that the DRC evaluate a replacement structure for a contributing accessory structure (garage) that was demolished without permits. The applicant is also proposing a 640 sq. ft. accessory second housing unit. 481 South Center Street, Old Towne Orange Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission for the demolition and replacement of a contributing structure Mr. Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report to the Committee. Chair Califf asked for Public Comments. Andrea McCullough, OTPA. She observed the pitch of the roof does not match. She did not know if there was a penalty for demolishing a structure without a permit. She is asking for the building permit for the new garage be obtained before any other permits are acquired. She asked that the garage be modified to conform with the Secretary of Interior Standards. She stated she was not aware that this was a Final Determination on the accessory structure. Chair Califf stated this was typical that an accessory structure does not require Planning Commission approval on its own. Mr. Ryan said the issue is with the demolition without going through the process. Ms. McCullough stated she would like to address the issue for wood windows, and commented that the living room would be very dark since there was no window on the south side. Mr. Ryan mentioned he could not find the pictures of the garage when it was being demolished. Mr. Kizziar stated he did not have them. He addressed the garage demolition that when he purchased the house, it was uninhabitable, and was not part of the purchase agreement. He further stated he owned a termite company, and he does a lot of business in Old Towne and that about 90% of the houses have garages that are ready to fall down. He went on to explain that when he removed the doors of his garage, it fell down. He stated although he did not know a permit was required to take a structure down, he stated this was his fault. He said the demolition was not done over the 4th of July weekend, and he was here to pay the penalties due in order to move on. Chair Califf asked Staff if it was correct that all the actions were included in one; will the DRC consider the two recommendations and one determination individually. Mr. Ryan replied that the understanding is if there is a Environmental Report to be prepared, the question on how the building meets the Standards if it's revised. If the project cannot be exempted, then we'll have to go to the Planning Commission for a Negative Declaration or some kind of environmental document. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 18 Mr. Woollett stated it seemed reasonable to him to recommend to the Planning Commission that the contributing accessory structure demolition be permitted. Also, that Mr. Ryan's recommendation are very good for that building in order to bring it into compliance in terms of what the DRC would have accepted had it been brought to them originally. He referenced the comment about the trim around the door that Mr. Ryan mentioned, and that he would want that included in the report, and also the window, that these items should be changed to match the house. He continued that one of the things the DRC would require would be to use exposed rafters instead of a fascia. Chair Califf said that it would be a condition to remove the fascia. Mr. Wheeler added that the rafters would be smaller than the barge board. He assumed there were two by sixes there presently, and it might be a compromise to go to a two by eight barge board so there would still be a proportional change. Chair Califf stated that based on his experience that a two by six size could be cut. He showed the applicant how this could be done on the drawing. Mr. Wheeler added that the barge board was the end piece on the drawing, and traditionally this was always bigger. The applicant stated he understood what the Committee wanted to see. Chair Califf stated if possible, it might be easier if it was a two by six. He said that everything in Old Towne was a two by four so if he had to use two by six as the rafters, when they come out and are exposed that they be cut to two by fours, but, it is the preference of the builder. Mr. Wheeler spoke of the garage door and the main door trim previously mentioned by Mr. Woollett. He said it should match the house trim with a two by four on the sides. Mr. Ryan asked the Committee if they wanted the rafters sized up or only the barge board. Mr. Wheeler answered that they wanted to cut down the rafter tails, and leave the barge board where it was. Chair Califf commented that although two by eight was a fairly common barge board size, but on a smaller project, they would approve a two by six. Chair Califf also stated that the applicant would be assessed double permit fees if he had already built the structure. Mr. Wheeler stated he had a lot of suggestions for the new building. First of all, he would put the ridge half way between the front beam way in the back. He told the applicant not to split the ridge. Chair Califf said this way, the ridge ends up lower because the roof symmetrical. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 19 Mr. Wheeler also mentioned the porch columns on the front would be taller. He further stated they would need to clarify what the porch columns would be. On the drawings, they appeared to be tapered a square base with tapered plywood. Chair Califf said he had the impression four porch columns might be more than what one would see on a tiny structure such as this. It's almost as though it was a ranch house with big craftsman pillars. He mentioned this was not what you would typically see. He wants to see something different with the plane of the roof if this is what the applicant is going to do. Mr. Wheeler said he might want to do a smaller porch and have a gable roof with two posts. He said he liked the full length porch, he thought it added a nice end to it. The applicant stated he did this because this is how the house was supposed to look like. Mr. Dewees stated that he would like to see a smaller porch and not have it full length so it's secondary to the house. Chair Califf said there were different ways this could be done. He had driven around town to get some ideas, but many of them have a gable mixed in. It did not bother him to the extent that he would not approve it, but it just didn't feel right. Chair Califf said he was just suggesting the porch be smaller. Chair Califf also said the horizontal sliders shown needed to be vertical ones. Mr. Wheeler felt that DRC ought to be able to see the accessory structure again once the applicant had made some changes and see the garage to see what changes were made. Chair Califf asked if this was a raised foundation, and Mr. Kizziar answered yes. Chair Califf asked if the applicant intended to put the vents in the concrete foundation. He said this was typically done, but it is an awful lot of work. The applicant replied he would do whatever the Committee wanted. Chair Califf said it was fine as it was. Mr. Dewees asked if the siding would match the house, and Mr. Kizziar stated yes. Chair Califf mentioned the side elevation of the porch. Typically, the beam would return, and not stick out, and it would be open. He said the siding that would continue, and the beam would return to the wall. Mr. Wheeler wanted to see what materials would be used for the columns. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 20 Mr. Kizziar answered he would be using all wood with six by six posts, and boxing them in. Mr. Wheeler said he should have siding on the bases. Mr. Woollett made a motion to continue. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2005 Page 21 Mr. Dewees made a motion that the meeting be adjourned SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. C