Loading...
2011-01-19 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL January 19, 2011 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:04 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda and all Committee Members present would be able to hear all the items. In regard to policy and procedural information, the DRC needed to define the required findings. The findings were listed in the Staff Report and they were the findings that the DRC needed to make in approving projects. What was not occurring through a motion was the language of whether or not the project met the findings and why. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she was currently revising the format of the Staff Report that the DRC would receive and she would now focus in on completing that to include those findings. The Planning Commission had the findings written out in a resolution and they had not wanted the DRC to complete resolutions. The Planners would include the findings in the Staff Report; she referred to the Ruby's item on the Agenda and where the findings were listed and how the DRC would need to use those findings in a motion whether they agreed with the findings, not agreed, or added to them. There would need to be something more concrete, something more obvious than having to go back through the minutes to ensure that the findings had been addressed. Until the Staff Report format was changed she would assist the DRC members in guiding them through their motion and during their discussions to ensure the findings had been met and why. Committee Member Gladson stated for the Ruby's proposal all of the required findings would need to be met and it was not as if they could only use one. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was correct. Ideally there were different points in a project that brought them to the conclusion that it met the findings and they would need to show their work, so to speak. Back in the day, there was not the need to document that the findings were met and why; however, currently it was a requirement as to how the DRC had come to their conclusion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 2 of 22 Chair Cathcart asked for a copy of the 12 -page letter that had been submitted by the OTPA to the Planning Commission on the Westenhofer project. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she would get them a copy. Committee Member Gladson stated the only thing that she would ask of Staff would be for their highly regarded opinions and recommendations. The tricky thing for them was that if the DRC Members had not agreed with the findings or to potentially deny them, it would get tricky to craft the fact and they might be in a position upon a denial they would need to have findings return. On the fly, it was difficult to flip the recommendation and it was not easy to just add the word "not." Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the Planning Commission generally went with Staff's recommendation and, if not, the item would return at a subsequent meeting with a resolution that would be voted on. Chair Cathcart stated when he was on the Planning Commission one of the most difficult things to do was to make a finding on a variance without setting a precedent. Committee Member Gladson stated it was harder on a denial, if they were at a different perspective than Staff. Chair Cathcart stated as Committee Member Wheeler was alluding to, that they had a tendency to work with the applicant to come to a resolution. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated once she worked through the process, the findings would be outlined for the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that a map of all the projects, he shared a sample, could be used for a driving route to be included in their binder. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could do that. She also stated that at an upcoming meeting the Committee would be voting -in a new Chairperson. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the December 15, 2010 and January 5, 2011 Design Review Committee meetings. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 3 of 22 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Joe Woollett and Tim McCormack were absent upon Roll Call. Tim McCormack arrived to the meeting at 5:56 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. 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. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) December 15, 2010, and (b) January 5, 2011 a. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 15, 2010 Design Review Committee meeting with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett, Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. b. The Minutes from the January 5, 2011 Design Review Committee meeting would be held over, as there were not an adequate number of Members present to vote. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 4 of 22 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4478 -10 - RUBY'S RESTAURANT -SIGN MODIFICATION • A proposal to modify an existing sign program for a new restaurant located in the Santa Fe Depot Station. • 186 N. Atchison Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, daan6Dci1yofbranRe.org • Prior DRC Recommendation from September 1, 2010 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Joe Campbell, address on file, stated there was a hoop lamp right above the sign that projected illumination down and if they were able to move it down it would illuminate the sign much better. He had not wanted to open up a can of worms, but wanted to lower that lamp. Applicant, Brian Rice, address on file, stated he wanted to speak to the trash enclosure and there was a fire escape at the rear exit of the building. If the employees rushed out of that back area and there was a trash enclosure located there it would be a safety hazard. They had looked at other locations for the trash enclosure but the placement as presented was the most logical. In response to the Police Department's input to have a top to the enclosure, they wanted to suggest a stained wooden lattice -top, stained to match. Mr. Ryan stated Staff was recommending approval to the Zoning Administrator and as long as the enclosure had the same finish as the building, a sand finish, it would be appropriate. Public Comment: None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no objection to the Streamliner signage and no objection to moving the gooseneck lamp down. He apologized that when the item had been before him that he thought he was familiar with the building and he had not visited the site. He had visited the site earlier and wanted to point out something that they might want to review. On sign F, on page 4 of 6, the illustration showed sign F as though it was close to the trellis, but the drawing showed sign F on the one -story area. Mr. Campbell stated it should be located above the electrical panel and if it was depicted wrong they would correct that. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 5 of 22 Committee Member Wheeler stated the trellis would block the signage from people on the train and he suggested placing the sign in the middle of the gable -end, if it would fit. There was an existing vent, but that placement would be more visible. Mr. Campbell agreed with that change. Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawing for the trash enclosure was incorrect in showing a concrete grade and then a curb, but what he had seen out there was an access road and a big concrete curb with a drain behind it with the wheel stops behind the drain and the drawing showed that the drain would cut across the trash enclosure area. Mr. Rice stated they would get that clarified and he felt the culvert would run behind the enclosure; he had not felt the intent was to have the drain run through that area. Committee Member Wheeler stated the depth would need to be checked. Committee Member Gladson stated on the trash enclosure was there a man door or low part or was the intent to open the gate and lift the lid, as in reality employees sometimes would not do that. Mr. Campbell stated they would need to do that and with the lattice the gate and cover would need to be opened. Chair Cathcart asked if they had explored using wire lattice instead of wood for the cover? Mr. Campbell stated they used wire lattice in many places and they had discussed that earlier and also the use of PVC lattice which would last longer and that would be his preference. He was not certain if he could find that in a wood color. Committee Member Wheeler stated the PVC could be a problem in Old Towne. Mr. Campbell stated he would be happy to do a wire lattice and he had not wanted to create a metal top. Chair Cathcart stated the issue would be maintenance. Mr. Rice stated their desire was to use wood, in good condition, which would look best, but it would be a maintenance issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a wrought iron element used for fencing and he asked if they could use that same detail for the cover? Mr. Campbell stated that could be replicated and used for the cover. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they use that same material for the gate instead of the corrugated metal. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 6 of 22 Mr. Campbell stated they certainly wanted to shield the trash bins. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Zoning Administrator of DRC No. 4478 -10, Ruby's Restaurant -Sign Modification, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the findings that the project holds the community design aesthetics, that the proposed work conforms to the standards and design criteria referenced by the DRC, and the sign shall be compatible with the building materials, colors, design motif, and that the blade sign would be a historical reference and provide visibility to both pedestrians and vehicles; and with the following additional conditions: 1. The Police Department's required trash enclosure cover be constructed of a wrought iron detail similar to what will be used in the fencing material. 2. The goose -neck lamp shall be lowered, no lower than the top of the vents. 3. An updated site plan of the proposed trash enclosure be provided to Staff to ensure consistency with the existing conditions on site. And with the following suggestion: 1. Sign F, shown on page 6, may be relocated on the same elevation of the building to the gable -end opposite the proposed new Streamliner lounge sign on the east gable. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 7 of 22 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4526 -10 - JENNINGS RESIDENCE • A proposal to add 1,275.5 square feet, including a second story, to an existing 1,736 square foot one -story dwelling. • 1402 E. Lomita Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member McCormack arrived during the project overview of the item. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was curious about the history of the project and he asked why it had not been brought before the Committee in a more preliminary stage? Applicant, Andrew Desurra, address on file, stated he had not requested a review as the design was simple and they were staying within all City ordinances. It seemed that the plan was pretty consistent with the neighborhood. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated Planning Staff would work with an applicant over the counter to attempt to get a project in compliance with the in -fill design guidelines. The project before them had gotten to a point where Staff felt it had not met the guidelines and the applicant felt they had; therefore, it was brought before the DRC for their review for a determination. If she remembered correctly the initial plans were much different than what was being presented currently. Mr. Desurra stated they had gone through several revisions with the Planners at the counter to complete a more aesthetic plan that was more in line with the in -fill guidelines. Initially it was a much different plan, but with Staff's assistance they had created a plan that was more palatable to the community. He felt that they had done a pretty good job. To further what had already been stated, all of the address numbers on the grid had forward front - loading garage doors and all of the blue highlighted properties were two -story homes. He wanted to address the issues. Public Comment: None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Mr. Desurra stated they could have asked the neighbors to be present. Chair Cathcart stated they were in receipt of the letters from the neighbors and there were quite a few of them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 8 of 22 Mr. Desurra stated the letters were from every neighbor on the street. Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to understand the vision for the change to the garage orientation. Her general feeling was that the plan was drastically different than what the home looked like. Mr. Desurra stated there were many homes on the street with forward- facing garages. The reason that they chose to have it face that way was to mitigate the existing condition of having a huge driveway and no front lawn and they wanted a cost effective addition to the home. Initially they started with using the garage to build a master bedroom space, to make the home fit the family in its current condition. The Jennings are a family with three children and are bursting at the seams in their current 1,300 square foot home. Adding a master bedroom in the existing garage was an economical way to gain space. To replace the garage as required by the City ordinance they had placed the garage in the only available space. They were losing approximately 2,200 square feet of grass and gaining approximately 400 square feet of garage space and 400 square feet of living space, as well as 100 square feet of living space and cost effectively that was the easiest way to go. When they began looking into the building of the garage it was very cost effective to build a two -story structure over the new part of the home in order to comply with all the building codes for shear and it would not be necessary to bring the remainder of the home up to structural code and it became a no brainer to go in that direction. It was not consistent with the in -fill guidelines and they had since moved the addition and nestled it between the two single roof lines to mitigate the massing and the overwhelming effect of having a two -story structure so close to the street. The addition had been moved way back and way down; it would not look like an eyesore like many of the projects approved by the City. Committee Member Gladson stated the challenge with the project was that many of the homes and those were included in the diagrams the applicant presented (Mr. Desurra began to speak). Mr. Desurra stated he was pointing out the eyesore and they had not wanted to do the same thing and he had spent a lot of time putting together a cohesive design with the neighborhood and a consistent design with the neighborhood. He had not thought that nestled behind a mature magnolia tree that the addition would stand out. He could not help the precedent it might set, but he felt a family living in a City that had no CC &Rs and was not a condominium complex and that a family that contributed to the community should be allowed to live in the community. The only way the family could continue to live in the community would be to add square footage to their home so their children would not burst out of the house. Committee Member Gladson stated the photos of the home and the current condition demonstrated how unique the side entrance garage was and frankly it would have been nice to have a current site plan before them in order to review the current footprint of the home to the proposed project. In reviewing the project it was a significant change to the front of the home and there was no question about that. The manner in which they complied with the requirements was about design and coming up with the best option to get everything that the homeowner and the community wanted. Second stories were not prohibited, there were just guidelines and the fallback position would be to go to the garage and fill that in and then go from there. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 9 of 22 Mr. Desurra stated the in -fill of the garage was an economical decision that allowed the homeowner to comply with the design intent of the regulations set forth by the in -fill guidelines. The garage would look no different to have the master bedroom in that space; however, there would be a garage door that faced the street just like the next door neighbor's home. Committee Member Gladson stated possibly the mix of side and front entrance garages had been done that way for a reason; the developer tried to mix the rhythm. Mr. Desurra stated the mix was by street. Committee Member Gladson stated the exhibit presented had not depicted the fact that there were two -story homes and the Committee had to be sensitive to the precedent that might be set with the second story and the changes in the pattern of the garages. She was struggling with that and she had no problems with the homeowners need for expansion, but it was how they achieved the expansion. She looked at the project as quite a bit of a change and she struggled with the proposal and was not certain that it was in compliance. Mr. Desurra asked if it would help if he reviewed the progression of the project and how they had worked with the City Planners to arrive at their design. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were a number of projects that were of the same type that the DRC had been fairly consistent in asking that the second -story addition be pushed as far back as possible and to have the roof slope up to it. They had done a good job in reducing the height of the project, but if they had seen it early on he would have suggested that the addition be moved back and would have been easier structurally as well. Mr. Desurra stated it had been moved back, as initially the addition had been in line with the garage plane and there was basically a two -story structure all on the same plan as the garage door. It was moved back 5'and he brought the roof up to mitigate the height of the second story. All of it was massed behind a 50 year old Magnolia tree. He presented photos of the tree. The home was really cute, it had been painted and siding had been added, the roof had been done and shutters were added. There were many homes that had not had the care of a family. One of the biggest issues of the property owners was that they wanted to maintain their curb appeal and they wanted to fit. Committee Member Wheeler stated often in similar cases they would suggest a roof line which he drew for the applicant and the second -story would be pushed to the rear as much as possible and the slope would be carried with a de- emphasis on the addition. They would have started with that if the project had come to the DRC earlier. Mr. Desurra stated he had looked at that type of option; he had presented approximately seven different roof line options to the property owners. They were attempting to get away from the Buena Park and Fountain Valley look of huge roof lines. He wanted to de- emphasize that aspect and have two peaks with the addition nestled in. The roof lines were the same pitch and the windows were of consistent design. It was not a lot of square footage on the second floor. They needed that space to accommodate their growing family. There would be a bedroom for each child and a bonus room. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 10 of 22 Committee Member McCormack stated he had been reviewing the project and was in agreement with moving the addition back as far as possible. He had looked through the pictures and there was a home at 835 Lincoln which was the only home approved by the DRC when he was previously on the Board. That addition was pushed very far back and it was built prior to the in- fill design guidelines being established. Mr. Desurra stated they had started with a similar design and he had gone further to add the Dutch gable to continue to carry the theme and that was rejected by the Planners and they were told to nestle the addition into the center. Committee Member McCormack stated he was reviewing everything presented and also looking at a home that had been approved on Cambridge, just north of Chapman. That home had a second -story addition and he would have wanted to have reviewed the project earlier on to have been able to provide input. It had all the principles of setting it back and reducing the massing and all of those design ingredients. If the project had come to them earlier he would have suggested that they looked at that home. He lived in a house just like the applicants with the turn- around driveway. He had thought about going upstairs and he would not mind the straight - in driveway. His initial reaction was the same as Committee Member Wheeler; to move the addition back and of lesser note he wanted to understand the windows on the east and west elevations. In reviewing the side elevations, the proportions were not right. He was not opposed to a second -story addition and the home could be a precedent- setting design in a positive manner in how to deal with a straight -in driveway and how to deal with a second -story that was pushed back enough so it looked like the Cambridge home. Chair Cathcart stated the straight -in driveway had not bothered him, but they had to maintain some level of consistency in dealing with a two -story alone on that block and he agreed with Committee Member Wheeler, to push the addition back further and they had used the roof geometry as a comfort level. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had appreciated the applicant's comment about the long slope that would be foreign to the neighborhood, but if it was broken up with changes in plane it could work. Another option would be to suggest the Dutch gable feeling and to move the addition back and give more of a feel of the roof coming up to it and it would be a better approach and more consistent to what was approved in the past. Chair Cathcart stated it would be much easier for the DRC to state yes, no problem. Mr. Desurra stated when they took the Dutch gable it came back 5' and they came back that same 5' to keep the roof line consistent. The garage had been moved to add interest. If they moved it back more there would be more roof visible and they would lose the window element and de- emphasize the gingerbread on the fascia. He felt matching the details blended the design in more. Committee Member Wheeler suggested incorporating some sort of a dormer with a Dutch gable motif for the back that would be the front wall of the second - story. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 11 of 22 Committee Member McCormack stated they could push the mass back and maintain the line that could be a balcony, which reduced the mass and still created interest. It would break it up enough. The Cambridge home had done that and there were some other examples in Old Towne of the same concept. Chair Cathcart stated what the applicant's had gone through was not without merit, but it just had not followed the in -fill guidelines in a non - precedent setting manner. They could be told all night long how areas had been moved around, but what they were stating was they needed to come to an agreement about how to lower the massing and that could be with a balcony or more roof showing, but that was the sticking point. Applicant, Dean Jennings, address on file, stated he and his wife were opposed to a really long roof and that might be a deal breaker. They liked the plane of the second story and it made sense. He asked if they were suggesting that the addition went back a certain number of feet and away from the front, would that be acceptable. Mr. Desurra stated the addition had been moved back 5' and he asked would the DRC want 7'? Committee Member Wheeler stated they would ask that the addition be moved as far back as possible to the rear. Mr. Jennings asked all the way to the ridge line? Committee Member Wheeler stated as far back as it could go. In moving it back it could be wider. One of the things that worried him about the plan was the unusual drainage situations that had been created and he felt they would be a lot better off if they came up with an alternative. Mr. Desurra stated he agreed and would want it to be wider. Committee Member Wheeler stated if it was pushed back and was wider that could solve the drainage issues and it would blend in more with the existing home. Mr. Desurra stated he would be in complete agreement with those suggestions. He asked how much the DRC would recommend moving it back? Committee Member Wheeler stated as much as possible. Committee Member Gladson stated in the in -fill design guidelines, page no. 6 was the narrative section the applicant needed to focus on. There was not a black and white number to fall on, as in every different case of an in -fill project the number would be different; she read from the guidelines: to achieve a two -story building it should be stepped back from public streets and adjacent smaller buildings. There were also samples provided on some of the elements to review. Chair Cathcart stated the project should have been before them in a preliminary review. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 12 of 22 Mr. Desurra stated they would have probably arrived at the suggested addition if he had initially presented the DRC with the design that had the addition on the same plane as the garage and he would have been told to push it back 5'. Committee Member Wheeler stated no, they would not have; he would have been told to push it back as much as possible. Committee Member Gladson stated the in -fill guidelines stated to move it back as far away as possible. Chair Cathcart stated they would not talk in numbers. Committee Member Gladson stated the lot was 7,000 square feet and every lot size was different. She wanted to throw out for consideration that it appeared with the aerial map that there was not a pool in the backyard and the home had a 44' rear yard area that was out there, but they could take advantage of all the design options to achieve the addition that the homeowners wanted. She was skeptical when she heard there was only one option and she felt there were opportunities for looking at the rear yard space. She could probably be won over on the front- facing garage and filling in the other side of the space with another garage would not be as attractive as placing landscaping in that space. Mr. Desurra stated they could not put landscape there, it was a driveway. Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to finish her thought. The options of design were that the existing garage could be kept and the addition could be in the back, add on a second - story, and get rid of the driveway. Mr. Jennings stated they had the Magnolia tree to consider. Committee Member Gladson asked were they cutting down that tree? Mr. Jennings stated no. Chair Cathcart stated no, he and Committee Member McCormack would not allow that. Mr. Desurra stated the tree would never be taken out. Committee Member Gladson stated she got it and she was losing her patience. Mr. Desurra asked would windows in the front still be an option? Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding a dormer. Mr. Desurra stated the roof pitch would need to change with a dormer as it was only a 4 and 12, which was fairly small. He asked if the pitch of the roof would then be re- oriented? Committee Member Wheeler stated possibly and that could be a better approach. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 13 of 22 Mr. Jennings stated there was a home on Collins, a few blocks over, and that home had a steep roof with a couple of dormers and a horseshoe driveway. It was a very attractive add -on and he wondered if that would be an option. Committee Member McCormack stated the driveway was not an issue, but they needed to minimize the second story; wider was okay and pushing it back. Mr. Desurra stated the suggestion from Planning was that they needed to follow the same roof layout; that they could not have a 6 and 12, and the roof needed to have consistency. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest moving it back, widening it to the existing ridge lines, and try to change the roof pitch with the addition of a dormer and that would lower the profile enormously. Mr. Desurra reviewed the suggestion with the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would not keep the front where it currently was; they were consistent in approving projects that were pushed back as far as possible. Mr. Desurra stated if they changed the roof pitch and widened it and added dormers they would see the entire roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was correct. He would also appreciate having an existing floor plan and existing elevations. He suggested putting the shutters back. The siding on the existing garage had not carried back. Mr. Desurra stated that was correct as there was a 6' block wall next to the garage and stucco was more cost - effective. There was siding added to the second story. He was in agreement with pushing it back and widening the addition, but he was not certain about changing the roof orientation. When he saw a lot of roof on a home it was less pleasing. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was a matter of opinion. He suggested working with it and seeing what they could come up with. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to continue DRC No. 4526 -10, Jennings Residence. Mr. Desurra asked how quickly could they get onto the next agenda? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it would depend on how quickly the plans could be submitted as Mr. Ortlieb needed to have the Staff Report completed 10 days prior to the meeting. She stated the applicant would want to pull their plans from plan check. The DRC met the 1 St and 3rd Wednesdays of every month. Mr. Desurra stated they had not submitted the plans. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 14 of 22 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 15 of 22 (4) DRC No. 4521 -10 -GARNER BUILDING -SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal to modify an existing sign program for the building. • 1409 W. Chapman Avenue * Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(d)ci oforange_org • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jeffrey Garner, address on file, stated he was available for questions. Public Comment: None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated the raceways should be painted to match the roof and he was wondering if the raceways would be allowed on the block walls, as raceways were not generally allowed. He asked if channel letters would work? Mr. Garner stated that would be the same problem with the metal fascia; it would be placing too many holes in the block wall. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the sign program item no. 1, to add language that the color of the raceway to match the roof and on line 5 at the end it was stated that letter styles condensed or with special approval of landlord, he suggested something more specific such as other type faces with special approval and also the same for other colors to have special approval. Committee Member Gladson stated raceways were a device she would prefer not be used, but for their particular application it was appropriate. She was not in support of having the raceway on the block wall. In the Staff Report there was a mention on page 3 of the clean -up items in Condition No. 10 and she felt those items could be a part of the sign program and not just as a listed condition. Mr. Ortlieb agreed with that suggestion. Committee Member McCormack stated he was okay with the raceway on the block wall and he was looking to see if there were other options. Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had not thought about having the raceway on the block wall. Chair Cathcart asked why the raceway would not be allowed on the block wall? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 16 of 22 Committee Member Wheeler stated having the channel letter directly on the base material was just a much cleaner line. Chair Cathcart stated if the sign was changed there would be a lot of holes on the wall. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be up to the tenant or landlord to patch the holes. Committee Member Gladson asked if it was on the west and north elevations of the building? Mr. Garner pointed out where the wall existed. Committee Member McCormack asked would it not be the case when the signs were changed and there were holes on every different place that a sign could not be there at all and it was a reason for the raceway? Mr. Garner asked would they not want consistency on all the signs? Committee Member McCormack stated the raceway was on the metal area and the other was block wall. They had done that in the past with other sign programs. Chair Cathcart asked what was the history of tenants coming and going? Mr. Garner stated they had very little turnover. Committee Member Gladson stated the signage on the north was skewed to the parking lot and she was not certain signage was so necessary for that elevation. Mr. Garner stated that was the elevation to the building. Committee Member McCormack stated the entire west elevation was masonry. He suggested a blade sign; no one wanted the raceway on the block wall and a blade sign was easy to change out. Mr. Garner stated he was not certain what they were speaking of. Committee Member Gladson stated it was a projecting sign. Mr. Garner stated he was the owner and architect and he would not want that. Mr. Ortlieb stated they would not recommend a raceway on the block wall as it would set a precedent. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4521 -10, Garner Building - Sign Program, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the findings that the project and design upheld community aesthetics and the use of an internally consistent design theme and was consistent with all adopted specific plans, design standards, and the required findings and precedent of the DRC. With the following additional conditions: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 17 of 22 1. Condition No. 10 be included as part of the sign program. 2. A raceway shall not be used on concrete masonry. 3. Where raceways were allowed, that they be painted to match the metal siding. 4. Minor corrections be made to the text of the sign program. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 18 of 22 (5) DRC No. 4513 -10 - FREIDMAN RESIDENCE • A proposal to construct a wood frame single - family residence on a vacant lot located at the northwest corner of Taft Avenue and Fern Street. • 1810 Fern Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 7447231, rizarcia(a),ci oforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jonathan Zane, address on file, stated he was the architect and he was available for questions. Public Comment: None. Chair Cathcart opened the item for any questions to Staff. Chair Cathcart asked Staff where was the manufactured home that had come through some years ago? Mr. Garcia stated it was right above them. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A3 there were windows for bedroom no. 4 and he suggested they check the egress for those as they appeared a bit low. On sheet A4 on the right side north elevation, in comparing the second floor windows, they had not matched sheet A2. The cantilever on the back side of the floor plan showed about a foot, the south elevation showed about a foot, but the north elevation showed it as about 2 '/z to 3'. On the south elevation there were roof issues that needed clean up. Overall, however, he agreed with the design. Mr. Garner stated they had gone around the neighborhood and just gave their design a more modern touch. The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicant. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the siding termination in some periods of time the siding ended at the corner, and in the 1960s it wrapped. In driving around that neighborhood he had not found very many homes with siding, except on the gables, and he suggested just using it on the gables to match other homes in the neighborhood. Committee Member Gladson stated she had an affinity to having a false front and not having all the details in the front. She wanted to understand the chimney. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 19 of 22 Applicant, Lance Freidman, address on file, stated they had not yet decided what detail the chimney would have. He had thought of stone or a different color of stucco or a flat brick. Committee Member Wheeler stated the less noticeable would be better and with a lot of stone it would make it stand out. Mr. Garner stated the point of blending it in would be better. Committee Member McCormack stated there were other examples of chimneys on the block that were painted and looked like brick. He had a chimney on the front of his home and it was brick. Committee Member Wheeler stated the chimney appeared free - standing and if it was brick it might be too obvious. Committee Member McCormack stated it was his understanding that the block wall came down on one side and he asked if the other side also came down? Mr. Freidman stated it would be re constructed. Right now it was a low wall and rose on Taft and Fern. Mr. Garcia stated when the property was a double lot that was the front elevation and the wall height could not be higher than 42 ", but since the orientation of the lot had been changed that wall would be reconstructed to a 6' wall. Committee Member Gladson stated in the front area there were a lot of trees. Mr. Garner stated they would be saving those trees. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4513 -10, Freidman Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, with the findings that the project upheld community aesthetics, the use of internally consistent design theme, and was consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and the required findings, with the following additional conditions: 1. The horizontal siding shall be used in the upper gable ends on each elevation. And to suggest: 1. A clean -up of the windows on the north elevation. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 20 of 22 (6) DRC No. 4515 -10 - MARTIN RESIDENCE • A proposal to remodel the front facade to a Mediterranean -style residence. • 2304 E. White Lantern Lane • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 7447231, rggrcia(cDcit oforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Dennis Danahy, address on file, thanked the DRC for meeting with them tonight. Prior to placing pencil to paper they had met with City Staff to gain information on styles and designs for the neighborhood. His client wanted to do a really great job and they had initially developed a Tuscany -style home, but Staff had stated that the design had not reflected the neighborhood and so they went back and developed a Mediterranean -style home. They looked at the neighborhood as a whole and not just the street. Staff had felt the massing and the proportions were not an issue, but that the design might be too intricate for the neighborhood. They wanted to build a really great home and to improve property values with a great piece of architecture. There was an existing porch that was unusable due to the location and the sun beating down on it. They wanted to enclose the porch and add more privacy. Public Comment: None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Cathcart stated he had driven all over the hills of the neighborhood and he felt Staff was over - thinking when they felt the home had to mirror the homes next to them. The neighborhood was a mix of eclectic styles and it would be an inappropriate design if the entire neighborhood was of the same style homes. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with that comment and it was an extremely well - designed proposal. He was concerned with getting the massing on each side of the right garage door and thought they might need a smaller door. Mr. Danahy stated he had worked that out. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was an eclectic neighborhood and when the area was built it was with that in mind and the design was more ornate but that was not a problem. There was the classic Portico down the street and they would never have approved that one, but it was a very mixed neighborhood. Committee Member McCormack stated that he felt they had done a very good job and it was a good thing for the neighborhood. He would suggest that they match the landscape to enhance the architecture. They had done a great job. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 21 of 22 Committee Member Gladson stated there was a home at 2128 with the mixture of columns, a kind of "Gone with the Wind" -type of home, but that was an example of non - compliance with the standards. The project was well done and it fit. She appreciated Staff's concern and they would fall on the side of being conservative and it was not far from the design of the nearby retreat center that had a Mediterranean style. She appreciated the concern that was raised by Staff and she felt the project worked. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4515 -10, Martin Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the findings that the project upheld community aesthetics, the use of internally consistent design theme, and was consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards and the required findings. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2011 Page 22 of 22 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 2, 2011. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.