Loading...
11-15-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Bill Cathcart Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, December 6, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 2 of 17 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. The following items were moved to consent: 1. DRC No. 4140-06 - ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL SEISMIC RETROFIT A proposal to remodel the exterior of building as part of seismic retrofit. 1100 West Stuart Drive Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent subject to the Staff recommendations was made by Craig Wheeler. No public comment was provided on this item. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 3 of 17 4. DRC No. 4142-06 -TOWER ORANGE RE-IMAGING (76 GAS STATION SIGNS) A proposal for new sign program for an existing 76 gas station. 684 S. Glassell Street Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent subject to the Staff recommendations especially those relevant to the sign height and placement was made by Craig Wheeler. No public comment was provided on this item. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. 5. DRC No.4152-06 - SWENSON RESIDENCE -SECOND-STORY PATIO DECK A proposal to construct asecond-story patio deck. 6916 E. Hidden Oaks Lane Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(c~cityoforan~e.org DRC Action: Final Determination A motion to approve this item by consent was made by Craig Wheeler, subject to the following conditions: 1) The recommendations in the Staff Report. 2) Any new landscaping will require an automatic irrigation system. No public comment was provided on this item. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 4 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS 6. DRC No. 4153-06 - ST. MARY'S CHURCH SITE AND FACADE MODIFICATIONS A proposal to consider as built landscape, parking, window and fagade modifications to the church expansion. 1515 E. Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr an c ,cityoforanPe.org Previous DRC Application No. 3699-02 DRC Action: Final Determination Staff advised the plans for this item were not received in sufficient time to prepare for this agenda; therefore, a continuance was recommended. A motion to continue this item was made by Chair Califf. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 5 of 17 2. DRC No. 4121-06 - CASA TERESA DECK REMODEL REVISION A proposal to construct a new exterior deck, landing, and stairs on a contributing apartment building. 123 W. Maple Avenue (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan~a~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: It appears to be well designed. The materials are the same as last time --- all wood. He was hoping the vinyl fence that is on the property would become part of this project as OTPA feels it needs to be addressed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was glad to see there are now visible means of support to the landings and his only concern is minor and is that the deck seems to be rather close to the windows of rooms, which may affect privacy and have noise implications to the residents. The applicant responded that the window in question is to the Director's office so there is no resident impact. Chair Califf stated he had no issues. Committee Member DeWees stated he had no issues. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4121-06 subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ryan asked if the DRC would like to provide input to a discussion with the Director regarding the vinyl fence, specifically, requesting it be converted to wood. The applicant stated he had already spoken with her and shared the concerns of the OTPA. Further, for the information of the attendees he wanted it known the fence was a donated item from Home Depot and Home Depot also did the installation. Mr. Tardiff said he would speak to the Applicant on changing out the vinyl fence. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 6 of 17 3. DRC No. 4124-06 - NOONAN RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a second story to an existing residence, in a predominantly single story neighborhood. 2338 Altura Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Califf asked for clarification of the disposition of this item insofar as the agenda states Final Determination" while the Staff Report states "Initial Review". Senior Planner Dan Ryan responded that during a discussion with Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur he learned that she designated preliminary review as she felt there were sufficient details in the project that needed to be resolved before the project meets the Infill Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant interjected that he's been working on this for 5 months now. Mr. Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report prepared by Ms. Thakur. No public comment was provided on this item. Mr. Noonan advised: Contrary to what is stated in the Staff Report, there are no cantilevers on the job. (Chair Califf agreed). He did not want to go straight up with the addition, so he set it back 9'. He put an entryway that Senior Planner Chris Carnes told him would look better. He has to complete the remodel before moving in as his son has asthma. He has been working on this project for 5 months now. He's been a remodeling contractor in the City for 34 years and he's never had a problem until he started on his own home. He would be more than happy to do what the Committee wants as long as he has ample room to live. The comments made by Staff regarding the neighborhood were addressed with photographs provided by the applicant. The photographs included: 1) the l lt" house on Denise Avenue which is still under construction and has a roof over the front door that Mr. Noonan felt appeared to look like a bell tower, 2) the 2-story home located 4 doors down from the applicant's residence (also on Denise Avenue). When he spoke with the Senior Planner, Mr. Carnes didn't like the second story running across the entire front so he set the two sides in and ran the roof up to kill the height of the two-story. He is almost up to the ridge now and cannot set it back any further without impacting the window size. Chair Califf stated the setback certainly helps and is one of the strategies that can be used when you're trying to take something that is definitely a ranch style and not change it into something else. Furthermore, one of the things Ms. Thakur had an issue with is the fact that the applicant City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 7 of 17 went from a hip roof to something with gables everywhere. The applicant responded that the house is all gabled now and he advised Staff he would go hip. Committee Member DeWees stated that what currently exists is Dutch gables. Committee Member DeWees stated: The entry should be eliminated. The roof should be converted to Dutch gable which is more appropriate. The applicant agreed to make these changes. Committee Member DeWees asked how many iterations the applicant has gone through in the past five months. The applicant responded that he shuffled between Mr. Carnes and Mr. Ryan and finally was assigned to Ms. Thakur. He stated that although he didn't want to complain he felt 5 months was a bit excessive for a design review. Committee Member Wheeler acknowledged that some work had been done to push the second floor back; however, he suggested the applicant do what was possible to push it back further. The applicant responded he was already back 9' and the problem encountered with pushing it back further was that he would end up with irregular sized windows. Committee Member Wheeler stated his preference would be to not touch anything on the front plane of the roof in front of the existing ridge but do all construction behind the existing ridge. The applicant responded that he wanted a vaulted ceiling in the family room. Committee Member Wheeler stated the size of the house is being more than doubled and that is exactly the reason the City enacted the Infill Residential Guidelines. The applicant interjected that the home 11 doors away is much larger than what he is proposing. Committee Member Wheeler responded that the home referenced did not come before the Design Review Committee (DRC) since the Guidelines were passed and that a major change has to be made to cut down the mass of this house and push it more to the rear even if it means compromising some of the rooms. The applicant responded he needs 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms to accommodate his family and if the DRC wants to deny it, he will go to the City Council. Committee Member Wheeler responded that is certainly an option if there is no desire to make any suggested changes. The applicant replied he would make changes but he doesn't want his children living in 10'x10' rooms and if he pushed it back much further he would end up with 1 bedroom and 1 bath. Committee Member DeWees stated he had the exact same comments as Committee Member Wheeler and asked if it was really necessary to have two (2) utility rooms. The applicant responded that the second one was really a storeroom (an extension of the garage) for storing the lawn mowers and things of that nature that he prefers to not put in the garage with his cars. Committee Member Wheeler suggested an outside door to that room. The applicant replied he had an outside door there and Mr. Carnes didn't like it so he removed it. Committee Member DeWees stated that there is the potential for keeping everything behind the existing first floor ridgeline and with the leftover space there is plenty of room to have a sizeable master suite upstairs, two-three additional bedrooms and still having plenty of room for a City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 8 of 17 Jack/Jill restroom. Committee Member DeWees questioned the necessity for two bathrooms in the master suite. The applicant responded that one is a steam room and the other is a bathroom. Committee Member DeWees pointed out there is also an excessive amount of circulation space upstairs, which is pretty inefficient and the closets are also very large. The applicant responded he wanted the children's rooms to have walk-in closets. Committee Member DeWees suggested there might be a problem with the stairs as they don't seem to work. The applicant interjected he's a stair builder and they work. Committee Member DeWees responded there are presently only 12 risers and that won't work so he suggested the applicant rethink the vertical circulation and try to get the whole addition moved back. The applicant responded the stairs are no problem and although he doesn't mind moving it back somewhat, he will not move it back to the ridge. Committee Member DeWees concluded stating he thought it was overbuilt and not consistent with the neighborhood. Committee Member Wheeler stated if the applicant does come back to the DRC again, he would like to have a roof plan provided as it makes it much easier to understand what is going on. The applicant interjected "well, I had a roof plan and they didn't want it". Committee Member Wheeler indicated he believed there were some errors on the drawings that would be easier to identify with a roof plan. The applicant stated there are several ridges and asked which one he had to go by. Committee Member Wheeler replied "the original, existing ridge of the house," which means you may not be able to have windows facing the front of the house. The applicant replied that would make it appear to be a 60's or 70's building and although he didn't want to be harsh, he wanted windows out to the front of the house. Committee Member DeWees provided a suggestion (utilizing one of the diagrams available) whereby the applicant could have the front facing windows while staying behind the ridge and raising the plates. The applicant responded that the windows would have to be 12' high and he wants to sit down on the existing plates. The discussion continued with the applicant illustrating that the window height would increase in proportion to the plate height and stating his opinion was that if the plate height were raised, the house would be appear even more monstrous. Chair Califf stated there needs to be a hip roof and that what the committee is looking for is less departure from the ranch style characteristics (long, low forms). Ways to achieve that i.e. staggering the wall and/or pushing back the ridgeline were reiterated. Chair stated that in his view this would result in something he could approve. The applicant stated that sounded good to him. Committee Member Wheeler told the applicant he should familiarize himself with the Residential Infill Guidelines and build something that is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Committee Member Wheeler encouraged the applicant to make sure they maintained the existing siding that is on the front of the house. The applicant interjected he City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 9 of 17 didn't think he was going to get anywhere so he would go to City Council. Chair Califf stated the next step would be the Planning Commission and added that if that was the applicant's decision the options would be to continue the project or deny it and it could be appealed to the Planning Commission. The applicant interrupted stating that he wants windows in the front of his house and he would not go with a damn 30' roof in the front of his house as he thought that would look hideous. Chair Califf stated if the applicant would play around with the design the DRC would continue the item or if he wanted the fast track to an appeal they could turn him down. Leaving the decision up to the applicant, the applicant asked what would be the next steps if turned down and he went to an appeal. Mr. Ryan reviewed the process along with the fees associated with the appeal. The applicant stated he would continue if he could have windows in the front of the house. Chair Califf responded he felt there was something he could support and it could be done but he couldn't speak for the other committee members. The applicant asked if the committee wanted him to do away with the two decks on the front. Committee Member Wheeler responded they were out of place with the rest of the architecture in the community. The applicant ultimately decided to have the project continued. It was agreed to continue to the first meeting in January to coincide with the applicant's availability. Mr. Ryan stated the plans would be required in advance to give ample time for review by Staff and have the item included on the agenda. Committee Member Wheeler reminded the applicant to provide a roof plan. Chair Califf made a motion to continue the project. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 10 of 17 7. DRC No. 4162-06 -ARABIA RESIDENCE -WINDOW MODIFICATIONS Proposal for deleting and moving existing windows on a 1913 Craftsman Residence. 230 S. Orange Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The applicant advised the home is in escrow and the existing bedrooms don't have closets. He has consequently put together a plan to reconfigure the interior spaces in the back of the house in order to redo the bathroom and install closets. To accomplish this he would need to move the window over in the rear left bedroom and also delete one window. Further, where he has planned a shower he would want to delete that window (also in the rear of the home). Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview and highlighted that the Fire Department had been consulted on the proposed modifications and they had no issues. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: He didn't have much of an issue with the movement of the south-facing window. They are opposed to the removal of the other two windows. Design standards were quoted as it relates to retention and preservation of windows. The option of blocking the windows from the inside would be acceptable. Many closets have windows. He has seen a number of different treatments for windows in a shower. Blocking them in with a screen on the outside was one suggestion. If the windows were to be removed there would be no documentation of their existence and therefore they could not be restored in the future. He encouraged the committee to follow the design standards. Chair Califf echoed the comments of Mr. Frankel, particularly in the closet area. He suggested boxing it in (in some fashion) including boxing in the interior trim as well to preserve the entirety of the window. Further, he advised a wood frame could be attached with screws and the location shouldn't interfere with a hanging rod. The applicant responded they currently have an 11' closet and they had to put in a floor to ceiling closet system to accommodate all their things. It shouldn't be an issue. Committee Member Wheeler suggested they could save a lot of money and trouble if they shortened the closet and put in a built in a dresser under the window. Committee Member Wheeler stated one of his problems with it is the aesthetics, as the symmetry would be thrown off. His suggestion would eliminate the need to relocate the window and remove another; however, they would end up with a little less closet space that perhaps they could make up someplace else in the house. The applicant stated he has already scouted every square inch of the house for closet space. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 11 of 17 Another suggestion offered by Committee Member Wheeler was installation of some sort of shower and moving the water closet, which would eliminate moving the window. The applicant responded it was possible, perhaps by moving the toilet under the window and he wanted to retain the existing claw foot tub. Committee Member DeWees stated a pedestal sink would give more space as well. The applicant stated he currently has double poles in three areas and drawers in two areas and he would end up with a lot more useable closet space if he could move the window. Committee Member Wheeler stated throwing off the symmetry isn't a huge issue as there are many homes in Orange that don't have symmetry. The applicant stated he is fine with keeping the front facing window. Committee Member Wheeler stated if he doesn't reconfigure the bathroom, the window should be kept where it is and blocked off from the inside. Chair Califf stated if they do install a shower there are ways of incorporating it into the shower and measures would need to be taken to preserve it. Although he had not seen it done, Committee Member Wheeler suggested if they were doing a tiled shower, they incorporate a piece of tempered glass as part of the tile. It would be caulked in with the the from the inside. The applicant stated privacy wasn't his concern (due to the height of the window) but water damage was a concern due to water getting on the sill. Committee Member DeWees stated that is why you would want to be able to open it to get airflow through. The applicant stated he would prefer to block it off. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4162-06 subject to: 1) the recommendations listed in the Staff Report 2) the front facing window in the bedroom be retained; either blocked off from the inside or not, at the owner's option 3) the south facing window in the bedroom may be moved 4) the west facing window in the bathroom will be retained, blocked off from the interior, or the bathroom would be reconfigured, at the owner's option SECOND: Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 12 of 17 8. DRC No. 4165-06 - DAUGS RESIDENCE Request to approve the use of an alternate material in the construction of a vinyl fence. 230 S. Orange Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan cr,cityoforan~e.or~ DRC Action: Final Determination The applicant Tom Daugs stated: He felt it was important at this meeting to present some facts regarding the fencing. He feels like he had already gotten approval for this fence in the past. He has a prospective buyer for the house and his fear is the City would hold this fence over his head. They purchased the home in September 2004. In November 2004 he asked the City Planning Department about fencing and was told they had nothing to do with fencing. There were several updates made to the residence, all with City approvals. He has consistently followed the City processes to obtain approvals. By August 2005 the chain link fence looked terrible and the wood was deteriorating. He called the Building Department to ascertain if there were any requirements or restrictions now in place in Old Towne regarding fencing. He asked if vinyl could replace chain link and wood. He was told no permit was required. The only restriction was not to exceed 72" and vinyl could replace wood. He walked around Old Towne and viewed 20+ vinyl fence styles. They chose a style and scheduled installation for September 2005. On September 27, 2005 they received a complaint about the fence from the Code Enforcement Department. He followed up with the Planning Department and thought the issue was resolved as he never heard another word until the prospective buyer was told there was a Code violation. This was in October 2006. Why would he follow the process for all other improvements and not the fence? He feels like the victim in this situation. How many other code violations have been issued for fencing? The approximate cost of the fence was $14,000.00. The lineal footage visible from the street is approximately 24' (from the north and south sides). The layout of the fence matches the previous fence, including the return along the north side of the house. It is the same footprint as the previous fence. The gate on the south is mostly hidden by landscaping. The north side fence is 64' from the street and the south side fence is 47' from the street. The neighbors love the fence and several came to the meeting in support of the project. It never needs painting or maintenance. The Historic Guidelines are very vague and do not specify that vinyl cannot be used. The reason for being at the meeting was to ask for dismissal of the Code violation. Following the presentation made by Mr. Daugs, Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview during which he highlighted that fences are regulated as far as height, location and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 13 of 17 materials; however, a building permit is not required. It was Mr. Ryan's opinion that there are some areas where the City process could be improved upon as to the use of alternate materials and that the fence around the Daugs residence is one of the better vinyl fences he has seen. Chair Califf commented that Mr. Daugs could not have replaced the fence in a like manner as chain link would no longer be allowed. Mr. Ryan agreed. Public comment was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: Vinyl fencing is in the same category as vinyl windows, it is inappropriate material for the Old Towne District. OTPA supports the use of appropriate materials that do meet the Standards. Vinyl fences are visible a mile away. He agrees with Staff that the fence should be replaced with a fence of the appropriate material - most likely a wood fence. He commended the applicant on the job done in rehabilitation of the property stating it looks really good. Jane Hudson, address on file stated: She lives next door. Everything done to the home was done very meticulously. The owners have had conversations with the other neighbors and went through the City process to receive approval to move ahead with the fence. The owner cannot be faulted for installing the fence. The cost of the fence was $14,000.00 and the owner's would not have spent that much money without receiving approval. Jill Hatfield address on file stated; She lives next door so consequently the fence is hers also (on one side). She is thankful the Daugs replaced the fence that was falling apart. She had two fences already that had been eaten by termites. Al Ricci, address on file stated: Vinyl fences are all over Old Towne. Touring Old Towne today he counted 43. No one has been hiding the fences, they have been visible for years. In 1993 he installed a vinyl fence in front of one of the properties he owns and it is still there today. The Planning and Building Departments have never had a guideline for fencing that restricted the use of vinyl. The only regulation was that it couldn't be more than 42" high in the front of the house and 6' high around the perimeter. Wood fences are ridiculous as they rot in the ground and attract termites. Mr. Frankel is dead wrong in his statement about vinyl windows in Old Towne. Right across from this house is a home @ 205 So. Orange that received DRC approval to install vinyl windows. He has seen 27 chain link fences and a whole host of illegal fences. The solution is not to penalize Mr. Daugs; the solution is if the City and OTPA want to control City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 14 of 17 fences they need to make a fence ordinance. The City of Santa Ana had the same issue and the City Council passed an ordinance that all fences must be permitted and they must be cleared through Design Review and the Planning Commission. Vinyl fences do exist, they look great and Mr. Daugs should not have to take down his fence. Lisa Switzer, address on file stated: She resides at 536 Maple. She was in attendance to support the applicant. She also has a home with a vinyl fence. She moved in to her home in 2001. The home had a wood fence that was rotting and falling apart. She spent approximately $15,000.00 to install a vinyl fence. She has visitors weekly complimenting the fence and asking where she purchased it. She sells real estate and understands why people want to live in a historic area and are concerned with property values. She is also concerned with property values and when she drives around she sees wood fencing broken down and not maintained and that negatively impacts property values. She did a huge amount of remodeling to her home (everything permitted) and asked the City at that time about the fence and if vinyl fencing was okay. She was told the only restriction was with the height; otherwise, she wouldn't have invested 15,000.00 either. Mike Arabia, address on file stated: He and his wife were walking by the home at 230 So. Orange in early October and his wife commented on how cute it was and how it had been restored. Part of the appeal from the street is the fence. They both like the Craftsman style of the house. They probably wouldn't have put an offer on the home if it wasn't in as good condition as it is. Part of what attracted them to the house and the area in general is it does have charm. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a little confused on the arguments against the vinyl contained in the Staff Report as they seem to relate to the policy to retain, repair or restore, rather than replace historic building materials. Committee Member Wheeler's opinion was they are not talking about replacing any historic building materials; they are talking about replacing anon- historic block wall/chain link fence with alternate materials. Furthermore, since alternate materials are allowed for Infill projects, the fence is not attached to the house and the applicant is not replacing any historic fabric he questioned why this would be any different. Committee Member Wheeler stated his issue with this is they need guidelines as to what could or could not be done. Mr. Ryan responded that was what was meant in Section 4(d) of the Staff Report, material substitutes will be considered during project review; however, traditional detailing and intent shall be maintained". His opinion was whether or not the style of fence reflects the traditional detailing is questionable and when there is a historic house on the site, typically you want to maintain the historic materials and features both in landscaping and on the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 15 of 17 Chair Califf stated Mr. Wheeler's point of view is "what are you maintaining; there was not a historic fence there." Mr. Ryan responded that is the point made in the Staff Report and certainly by the applicant. If dealing with chain link and asked if they could install chain link or vinyl and which one would have more characteristics of the original Craftsman period, it would be an easy decision. He pointed out they are back to the central question "does it have the traditional detailing" which is part of the dilemma. Committee Member DeWees stated there were no fences anywhere when these residences were originally built. There isn't a Craftsman style fence that could be drawn from. Chair Califf stated absent deception on the part of the applicant; the applicant did not go do something without a permit where he was required to obtain one; the owner has not tried to pull something over the City; to him it was simple, absent an ordinance that tells the property owner what to do, he could not see asking the applicant to pull the fence down and replace it. Committee Member DeWees stated that although he doesn't particularly like vinyl for a number of reasons, he agreed with Chair Califf that absent a Standard to refer to, the applicant should not be requested to replace the fence. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that although it would be difficult, if the fence was painted to match the house trim, it wouldn't stand out so much. Mr. Ryan interjected that there are paints now for use on vinyl that could be used. The applicant responded that frankly he thought that the white color was part of the appeal. Chair Califf stated that if this fence were before the DRC prior to being constructed, they might make a different decision and the City needs to adopt something very specific for fencing to prevent recurrence of this type of issue. Committee Member DeWees stated that he would like to put something in the motion that compels the City to take an action regarding fencing. The decision revolved around fencing and if it was part of the landscape or architecture. Mr. Ryan stated there could be a workshop or study session specifically related to this topic where public input could be solicited. Mr. Frankel interjected that OTPA has had many meetings with City Staff wherein they have continually brought up the need to address landscape guidelines or standards and the use of vinyl fencing. He added that one of the problems may be miscommunication on the part of an uneducated Staff member working at the front counter. He encouraged training sessions for front counter Staff and reiterated the position of others on the DRC that guidelines need to be put in place. Committee Member Wheeler asked if it would require an ordinance to change the rules to make it a requirement to obtain a Building Permit for the installation of a fence. Mr. Ryan and Chair Califf responded affirmatively and that it would require an action on the part of City Council. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 16 of 17 Chair Califf made a motion to approve the use of an alternate material in the construction of the fence and gate as presented by the applicant. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 15 November 2006 Page 17 of 17 REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chair Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2006 meeting with one revision as noted. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:Donnie DeWees (due to absenteeism) ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, December 6, 2006. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED.