2012-01-04 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
January 4, 2012
Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. with a review of the Agenda.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated he had a request to move Item No. 5 to the top of the
Agenda.
Committee Member Woollett asked if that was a request by Staff?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was a request by Staff.
There were no objections from the Committee Members for that change. Chair Cathcart stated
he would take it under advisement.
Mr. Ortlieb stated he would be taking the Planning Manager's place for approximately four
months, then switch off with Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, and after that to the Building
Official, David Khorram.
Chair Cathcart asked if Jim Reichert was leaving?
Mr. Ortlieb stated his retirement party was next week.
Chair Cathcart asked who would be moving into his position, and if it would be Lisa Kim?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain and imagined there would be some reorganization in the
near future.
The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting of December 7, 2011. Corrections and changes were noted.
Committee Member McCormack stated he would be recused from Item No. 4, as he was the
landscape architect on the proposed project.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 2 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they needed to discuss the change in the order of items on
the Agenda before they adjourned?
Chair Cathcart asked for a motion.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to move Item No. 5 to the top of the Agenda, to be
heard as the first item.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had driven up and down Santiago Canyon Road and he
could not find the building for Item No. 5, Khan Residence.
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, stated the residence was higher than street level and it was
difficult to find. She had driven to the site two /three times and had driven past it. Ms. Nguyen
presented an aerial map of the property's location.
Chair Cathcart stated they were adjourned.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present and there was one open seat on the Design Review
Committee.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
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
p ublic request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 3 of 24
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 7, 2011
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee Meeting of December 7, 2011, with the changes and corrections noted during the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Cathcart stated the order of the Agenda items had been changed and Item No. 5 would be
heard first.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 4 of 24
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items:
(2) DRC No. 4588 -11 — WATERS IN -FILL GARAGE & ART STUDIO
• A proposal to construct a new 464 sq. ft. detached two -car garage and 112 sq. ft. art
studio, at the rear of a 1921 Craftsman Bungalow.
• 140 N. Cleveland Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(d)cit o�forange.org
• Preliminary Review at November 2, 2011 DRC Meeting
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Brian Arii, address on file, stated he wanted to mention a couple of Staff Report
conditions. One condition was the modification of an existing driveway and the other condition
was a rear yard setback issue. With the rear yard setback, during an initial discussion the rear
yard setback had been set at 3 '/2 feet. After the preliminary review by the DRC the eaves had
been moved to a zero eave line with the structure remaining in the same location. He was not
certain if it would be approved by Building. If they went to 5' for the adjacent property to the
south and the property to the west, which both had structures, it would then create two dead
areas. He believed the issue was a flame spread issue.
Mr. Ryan stated the new building code required a 5' separation from the edge of the eave
extension, wherever the eave ended to the property line; and with an eave it would need to be
wrapped with something, which would then be an aesthetics issue. The Building Division was
trying to work with them on the situation, but they were currently stuck at that issue and it was
something that had come up during the past two weeks.
Mr. Arii stated in regards to an aesthetics issue, on the adjacent property to the west the property
was built on a zero lot line and there would be no direct view from the street. The two eaves
they were speaking to were the eaves at the southern and westerly exposures. From a
construction standpoint the eave could be pulled back to the outside siding of the building and it
would not disrupt the architecture or that it would ever be visible from either property line. It
would create a dead zone if they pulled the structure back, the space would be unusable. The
property was limited to begin with, at 50'x 100' and the location of the structure was not dictated
by the size of the lot. They had attempted to abide by the minimum setback and still propose a
building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was an issue that the Design Review Committee would not
have any authority over, it was a Building Division issue.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 5 of 24
Mr. Arii stated he would want to submit the proposal to the Building Division and if they would
not approve the project as proposed he would then submit a revision.
Committee Member Woollett stated as he understood it, if it was less than 5' the structure
required a one -hour wall, it would not matter what it was. It would need to be one -hour fire
rated.
Mr. Arii stated he would not want to do that as it would require going beyond the ridge as well.
Committee Member Woollett stated it would not just be the eave, but the whole wall. There
were various ways to get a one -hour wall. Some extra dry wall would be required and Type "X"
dry wall that could be underneath the siding to qualify as a one -hour wall. The problem was at
the overhang; it would appear to him that it would become a DRC issue. He asked if the code
would allow projections?
Mr. Ryan stated it was that way in the past; however, the code had changed.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that would have a big impact in Old Towne.
Mr. Ryan stated Staff was investigating options to minimize or find solutions, things that were
aesthetically pleasing or solutions that would work.
Committee Member Woollett asked if the code required a parapet. The whole wall would need
to be one -hour rated without any projection into the setback.
Mr. Ryan stated it would need to be 5' clear or the construction would need to be changed.
Mr. Arii stated they could have a stucco finish.
Committee Member Woollett stated it would just need to be a one -hour wall, fire rated.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he had read in the Staff Report that
the exterior columns were going away and the entrance would be simplified. That had been the
only issue the OTPA would have had and overall the proposed project was very sympathetic.
The project was not visible from the street and the studio was of minimum size. The project
looked good. He agreed with Staff that if the driveway required demolition a ribbon driveway
would look better in its place.
Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Mr. Arii stated they would work with the Building Division on the rear yard setback situation.
The other issue was the driveway. The minutes from the previous review asked that the
driveway be extended to a 12' wide driveway. There was an existing condition.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 6 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler stated they had spoken about a ribbon driveway, however, after it
had been pointed out that there was an existing driveway, it had been his recall that there was not
a requirement to change the driveway.
Applicant, Ryan Ward, address on file, stated he had photos of what existed at the site. He
shared the photos with the Committee Members.
Chair Cathcart stated if the driveway needed to be replaced they had suggested a ribbon
driveway, however, it was not a requirement to change what existed.
Mr. Ryan stated only if the existing driveway was demolished.
Committee Member McCormack stated he had made the comment regarding whether the
driveway needed to be 12' wide. He asked if the driveway was currently 12' wide?
Mr. Arii stated no, it was not.
Committee Member McCormack stated all the driveways in Old Towne Orange looked
"designed" and to just add another 4' onto the end would appear as a bad room addition.
Because it was not drawn and he had not wanted to draw it for the applicant, the discussion
would be to have the driveway addition appear as if it had been there from day one and have it
designed very well. How would they do that to ensure a positive appearance for the site?
Committee Member Wheeler stated his understanding was that the site would require a 12' wide
clearance, but not a 12' driveway.
Committee Member Woollett stated it was an existing driveway and the applicant would not be
required to bring that up to code if they were not changing it.
Mr. Ryan stated the driveway was approximately 8' 6 ".
Mr. Arii stated the existing driveway would go from 81' deep from sidewalk to the point of the
new construction and at the end of the driveway there was an existing slab that would go away.
A new foundation would then be poured for the new construction. The existing driveway would
remain as it currently existed.
The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicants and discussed the placement of
the proposed construction in relationship to the existing driveway.
Mr. Arii stated the property had been previously sold with non - conforming conditions. The
previous owner had pulled the garage down without a permit and the site had been sold without a
garage. There had been a garage in the area where the concrete change appeared.
Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted the project to be well designed and just not
appear added onto.
Mr. Arii stated there was no intention to change the driveway.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 7 of 24
Mr. Ryan stated if the driveway was demolished they had recommended replacement with a
ribbon driveway.
Mr. Arii stated the driveway was not part of the project.
Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification of placement of the new addition on the
plans. The applicants reviewed the plans with Committee Member McCormack.
Mr. Ward stated the proposed project would be placed at the end of the existing driveway.
Mr. Arii stated the existing driveway would not be demolished and therefore it would not be a
point of discussion. They were willing to accept the previously requested conditions on the
project as proposed.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was an existing driveway and there was an existing
concrete slab that would be a driveway.
Mr. Arii stated the concrete slab of the former garage would be removed and the new concrete
slab for the new project would be poured.
Committee Member McCormack stated what he would normally view on the plans would be the
dimensions of what would be demolished, and all of that would be on the sketch.
Mr. Arii stated the driveway was not part of the submittal; the submittal was for the architectural
design and integrity of the garage and would have no impact on the driveway, the curb, gutter, or
sidewalk and landscape.
Committee Member McCormack stated to Mr. Ryan that they would normally review more.
Mr. Ryan stated generally there would be the backup area layout and such.
Committee Member McCormack asked if that was required for the plan before them?
Mr. Ryan stated it would be submitted in the construction documents and would be reviewed in
plan check.
Committee Member Wheeler stated from the previous review he had thought that the
Elephantine columns were not appropriate as the house had not had those type of columns. The
suggestion had been for clean straight posts.
Mr. Ward stated the area Committee Member Wheeler spoke to was for an area that was not
visible from the street.
Mr. Arii stated that was the recommendation during the preliminary hearing. All columns that
had any view from the street had been eliminated.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 8 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler stated the columns were noted as being 2' up from the front wall,
but somewhere along the way it had been realized that the front door would hit one of them, so
the area was drawn larger in one place but smaller in another. He asked if the 2' was accurate?
The scale appeared to be 3'.
Mr. Arii reviewed the plans with the applicant. He stated he believed they had relocated a door.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there could be a column at the extended roof if they wanted
the door to open onto a column that was something they wanted to look at. He wanted more
information on the materials of the windows, doors, whether there would be rafter tails, normal
window surrounds and such. There was a lot of information missing and he believed they had
asked to have more details included in the drawings. He was not certain why there was
horizontal trim in an area he pointed to on the plans, and there was one of the elevations that had
been drawn backwards. If reviewing it from the west side, the porch would be on the left. There
was an unusual beam situation, where the beam extended past the Gable, but on the east
elevation there was a beam that cantilevered past the column and on the north elevation it was
shown as passing the column, but the beams were on the same plane. He asked if they passed
through each other, but it was not drawn as such and it would seem that one beam would die into
each other. If the beams crossed they would need to have the same end treatment. The plans had
not contained enough detail and he was not certain if the proposed project could be approved as
submitted.
Chair Cathcart stated there had been some remaining questions with the setback and additional
concerns that had been brought up by Committee Member Wheeler and he wondered if it would
be best to continue the item?
Mr. Arii stated after the first submittal they had gone through the laundry list of what was
requested and had made those corrections based on that.
Mr. Ward asked if they could go over the specific materials that needed to be listed?
Committee Member Wheeler stated materials for windows, doors, including trim, whether there
would be rafter tails, the roof pitch and clarification on the material for the Gable ends on the
west elevation. He strongly suggested redrawing the west elevation, as it was currently
backwards. Clarification on how the beams would be assembled was also an issue. There was
also a corner board that was not called -out as to the material and design, whether it would be
mitered or not. Clarification of where the column placement would be in reference to the front
door was also needed. With the cantilevered beam that appeared more whimsical, typically the
beam would be carried to raise the roof. It was unclear why the beam was there and it appeared
to be just floating in space.
Mr. Arii stated the beam was not floating and it tied into the garage area and he was attempting
to create a shade structure, it carried back to the trellis work. It was an art studio and they
wanted some standout space outside of the structure. He reviewed the drawings with Committee
Member Wheeler.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawings required some more clarification.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 9 of 24
Committee Member McCormack stated the Building Division may require that the turn- around
for the driveway area be clarified, whether there was turf block used, it needed to be noted.
Mr. Ryan stated the turn- around situation was not a requirement. What was required was a 25'
clearance.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4588 -11, Waters In -Fill
Garage & Art Studio, with the comments and recommendations provided.
Mr. Ryan provided Mr. Arii with contact information for the Building Division.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 10 of 24
New Agenda Items:
(3) DRC No. 4534 -11 - ALLEN RESIDENCE
• A proposal to demolish a rear 376 sq. ft. addition and 103 sq. ft. basement, construct a
new rear 376 sq. ft. one -story addition with second -story deck, and convert an existing
attic to living area on an 1895 Victorian residence.
• 202 N. Cambridge Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan(a,cit of�ge.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Kwin Allen, was available for questions.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the best way to create living space on
a historic property was to utilize attic space or below grade basement space. One of the issues,
as far as creating space in the attic on the proposed project, was the window was not
proportioned to the Gable, it seemed too large. The vents were character - defining features and
he was not certain how to get around that loss. It was nice to see that all the aluminum windows
would be replaced. The property was very visible and it appeared the deck would not be visible.
Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that maybe he misunderstood, but what he understood as
being proposed was a demolition of a portion of the historic fabric of the home. It was original;
it was a partial demolition of a contributing property.
Mr. Allen stated the issue was placing the basement under that area. They were attempting to
add square footage to the residence.
Committee Member Wheeler stated as long as he had been a member of the Design Review
Committee he could not remember being asked to approve something that required such a large
partial demolition of a contributing structure. In reading the historic Standards a partial
demolition would require an Environmental Impact Report with the item being recommended for
review by the City Council. He would certainly argue that because of the property's visibility,
the change to the residence would have a significant impact to the neighborhood.
Mr. Allen asked even if they were replacing with like materials?
Committee Member Wheeler stated the issue was a demolition and no replacement of that
portion with a similar form; it was not a repair, but a change. He asked Staff if he was
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 11 of 24
misunderstanding the submittal? The siding appeared original and a service porch area that was
most likely a part of the original house.
Mr. Ryan stated one issue could be if there was a way to retain the wall.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would recommend another approach that would not
require removal of the service porch.
The Committee Members reviewed the plans.
Committee Member Woollett stated the area of the service porch would not be going away.
Committee Member Wheeler stated, no, but there was something being built over the top and
according to the drawings they were replacing it to add the basement. It would be all new
construction if he was reading the drawings correctly.
Chair Cathcart asked what if they removed the non - historic pop -out window and left the outside
alone and worked from the inside of the structure?
Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared that the proposal called for a demolition of a
portion of the structure. Normally they would approve additions where a wall or portion of a
wall was removed or added onto.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was a stairway going up to a porch.
Mr. Allen stated the stairs actually went down to the basement. If it was a problem with a wall
portion he would be agreeable to work with a change in order to get the basement under that
portion of the home. The window would be modified as the kitchen would be taking over the
service porch area.
Committee Member Woollett asked if there was a reason the wall could not remain?
Mr. Allen stated from a construction standpoint it was easier to get rid of it all, but it would not
be an issue to attempt to keep more of the structure intact, and he could work around the wall
situation.
Committee Member Woollett stated it was an attempt to sustain the old house. It was a case of
where the building was being saved. They were adapting to what was there.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the roof was being removed.
Committee Member Woollett stated they had approved changes to roofs many times in Old
Towne. They had applicants before them that added dormers, and all that sort of thing and the
proposal before them was not very different from the other submittals, in terms of what was
occurring on the roof. They were concerned about the exterior of the building. The only thing
that he saw that was of significance on the exterior that needed to be addressed was the exterior
wall.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 12 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler stated assuming the other walls would not be very visible from the
street or there was significant damage to those areas, the only other areas was that of the existing
roof and they had approved roofs being built on top of other roofs. What worried him was that
he was such a fan of the original service porch; they were a big part of a home.
Committee Member Woollett stated whether or not a house had a service porch or whether it
would get modified to something else was not a part of a City Ordinance.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it struck him as an iconic feature of the house. He would
waive his objection if they were not violating the spirit of Old Towne.
Mr. Ryan stated it was always best to save historic materials. The next best thing was to replace
materials with like for like. If the two walls could be saved that would be better.
Committee Member Woollett asked what the roof material was?
Mr. Allen stated it was composition.
Chair Cathcart stated the window bothered him. He suggested keeping it in place and working
around it.
Mr. Allen stated that was not a problem.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there would be a line of demarcation, or would they
just be working with a new window and leaving it alone?
Mr. Allen stated that was another issue, when year after year there were modifications made to a
structure and it was clear where the additions were. He was not certain if they wanted to see that
and he would be happy to add that. It would not be an aesthetically pleasing element to the
outside of the house.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was not clear about what they were referring to.
Mr. Ryan stated they were speaking about having a line of demarcation between the original
construction and the new construction. Where the windows lined up in the kitchen would be
where the line of demarcation would need to be placed.
The Committee Members reviewed the drawings and where the placement of the line of
demarcation would need to be placed.
Committee Member Woollett asked what would occur at the base of the building?
Mr. Allen stated the entire base of the building would be replaced as the brick and mortar that
existed was falling apart.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 13 of 24
Committee Member Woollett acknowledged that structurally it needed to be replaced. They had
faced situations before where there was a building that had substantial deterioration. He had not
believed the intent of the ordinance was served well if they would not prevent a building from
falling down; particularly if the changes were consistent with the way the building had originally
appeared. In order to comply with the provisions of the regulation, the foundation needed to be
replaced.
Committee Member McCormack asked for some details on the deck area.
Mr. Allen stated there was a deck on the second story and pointed out the area on the drawings.
Committee Member McCormack stated the pitch of the roof changed.
Mr. Allen stated the roof matched the existing.
Committee Member McCormack stated generally there would be a railing there.
Mr. Allen stated there was a recommendation to add flashing to it.
Mr. Ryan stated the recommendation was to add a wood finish or flashing at that area.
Mr. Allen stated the original plan was to duplicate the front porch details, however, it would then
be too visible and they had not wanted to advertise the deck.
Committee Member McCormack stated it would be boxed out in the inside.
Mr. Allen stated that was correct.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission for DRC No. 4534 -11, Allen Residence, subject to the conditions and findings
contained in the Staff Report with the additional conditions as follows:
1. The removal and replacement of the foundation be clearly described in the
documentation, including the exterior surface of the foundation to be consistent with the
surface of the original foundation.
2. The line of demarcation between the exterior wall, between new and existing
construction, be clearly denoted.
3. The documentation clarifies the coping around the balcony railing in relationship to the
roof.
Mr. Ryan asked on the size of the window on the front elevation, would that be a casement?
Mr. Allen stated they were suggesting casement.
Committee Member Woollett added to his motion:
4. That the front window be designated as casement. It would also look smaller.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 14 of 24
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett
NOES: Craig Wheeler
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 15 of 24
(4) DRC No. 4554 -11 — GLOS —BARN RELOCATION & ACCESSORY 2 ND UNIT
• A proposal to relocate a 1,224 sq. ft., two -story barn within the existing property and
convert a portion of the barn to a new accessory second unit.
• 816 E. Culver Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan ,cit oY foran eg_.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Committee Member McCormack recused himself from the item's presentation, as he was the
landscape architect on the proposed project.
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Chris Glos, address on file, stated he would be happy to adjust the awning roof as
long as he could walk under it. He was okay on the window size. He wanted to scale them
down as small as possible, but there was a lighting issue and the reason for the sky lights in the
rear.
Applicant, Michael Williams, address on file, stated they also needed a fire escape and they
could go with a double -hung window that was casement.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the site was the only existing barn of
its type in Old Towne, a big red barn. It was important to retain the structure. The Secretary of
the Interior's Standards did not recommend relocation of a structure or changes to the elevations.
Sometimes to save or retain a viable structure it might be necessary to do that; at minimum it
would be the best solution, although they would prefer that it not be moved at all. He was
having a difficult time understanding why the structure needed to be raised over a foot and why
the same height was not being retained. With garage rehabilitations in Old Towne the structure
was just jacked up with the new foundation being poured and then set back down on it and the
building remained on the same elevation. In reviewing the plans all windows and doors
appeared to be in -kind materials. Saving a structure of that type was important. He suggested
keeping the changes to the structure minimal, the smaller the better in regard to openings and
windows. The least amount of impact on the structure was always best.
Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Chair Cathcart asked for further information on the elevation height.
Mr. Ryan stated the site required a stem wall and at least 1' clearance from grade.
Committee Member Woollett stated he believed the new code required 8" or 9 ".
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 16 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler believed the City of Orange was not enforcing that and staying
with 6 ".
Committee Member Woollett asked what the south side opening was for?
Mr. Glos stated it was an existing opening and they were only changing the doors. All the door
locations remained the same. He presented a photograph of the structure. It was a sliding door.
They would be removing a 2nd floor window that was not original. There would be windows
added at the east and west elevations due to the need for additional lighting, egress, and fire
escape. The sky light was being added for additional light.
Mr. Williams stated the windows were cut into the barn and were aluminum and were not part of
the original structure. They were restoring the barn closer to its original form.
Committee Member Wheeler asked how they had calculated the second floor area. The plans
called out for the exterior dimensions of 20' x 30' which was 600 square feet for the second
floor.
Mr. Williams stated they calculated the 6' 8" where someone could stand and it was calculated
as useable space.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they provide a section.
Mr. Ryan stated anything over 50% of the area had to be 7' 1 ".
Committee Member Wheeler asked why the structure was growing in height. The original
structure was 2 '' /z" above the grade and the new structure was 6" above grade, but the difference
in height was 20' -2" to 21' -10 ".
Mr. Williams stated that was incorrect. They were only changing to a 6" above grade situation.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on the east and west elevations, Sheet A21, noted splicing on
the second floor.
Mr. Williams stated the project had been taken from another architect and there had been some
changes to the existing plans and that appeared to be an oversight. They used the original plans
and added to them. The original plan was to increase the plate height and that was no longer a
part of their plans.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if it would be a slab or stem wall?
Mr. Williams stated he was always a proponent of a stem wall. There was a downstairs
bathroom that required a 6" variance between the floors.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 17 of 24
Committee Member Wheeler stated they would not need a stem wall, it would just be a slab.
The house portion foundation would be at a 6" height above grade and the garage would have a
6" curb. The line remained constant and the same height for the sill.
Mr. Williams stated that was how it was drawn, the portion for the restroom and stairs would be
on slab and the garage would be on a stem wall.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that was not a stem wall, but a curb wall.
Committee Member Woollett stated the back side appeared to be weathered wood.
Mr. Glos stated the south side was blasted by the sun, as well as the west side. Before he
purchased the home there was T1 -11 siding that had been applied to it. He had removed the T1-
11 siding and the existing siding was what was found under that. They would be restoring the
back of it to appear similar to the north side. There had been some damage to that area, but they
would be able to maintain most of it. The T1 -11 for a number of years protected it.
Mr. Williams stated there were a few boards that they would need to replace.
Mr. Glos stated it would remain red. The back would have an awning that would protect the
lower area and it was an original element that had existed out there.
Committee Member Wheeler stated a good coat of paint would add protection. He suggested
that they speak to the Building Division to assure there was not an issue with the 5' separation
from the barge overhang and that the barge would not require fire proofing. He asked what the
window material was?
Mr. Williams stated they would be wood frame, double -hung windows, and most likely with
restoration glass.
Mr. Glos stated the garage door was currently aluminum and would be replaced with wood doors
that opened like a barn door.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission for DRC No. 4554 -11, Glos Barn Relocation & Accessory 2 nd Unit, subject to the
conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions that
contrary to the drawings the height of the structure would not change from the existing other than
the difference in height from the finished slab floor of the new house and the existing floor of the
current house and the wall height and plate height would be relevant to the floor to remain
constant. Another condition that the second floor 2 x plate (ribbon board) shown on the east and
west facing elevations be removed.
Mr. Williams asked if there was a request to calculate as the area on the sections?
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be nice to have a section, but if he had worked it
out and everyone was happy with that, it was not necessary.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 18 of 24
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 19 of 24
(5) DRC No. 4589 -11 — KHAN RESIDENCE
• A proposal to remodel an existing residence by adding 2,594 sq. ft. to an existing 6,011
sq. ft. house.
• 7628 E. Santiago Canyon Road
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dng_uyen_(a),cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Lane Curtis, address on file, stated they were not attempting to change the house, but
mimic the existing house and clarify the addition. Although the scale was quite large they
wanted to keep it as compact as they could.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no problems with the proposal and what was
proposed would be quite compatible with what existed. He stated for the first floor area, an area
he pointed to on the plans, that there might be a slight problem. It was a Building Division issue
and unless there was a drastic change to the exterior it would not be a design issue.
Mr. Curtis stated he knew exactly the area Committee Wheeler spoke about and he would be
making corrections. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had no additional comments.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was cross hatching on the plans that appeared
different from what existed. He asked if that was just artistic license or would they all be the
same?
Mr. Curtis stated they would all be the same.
Ms. Nguyen asked if Committee Member McCormack would want to propose a condition that
they all be the same?
Committee Member McCormack stated he would want to condition that the mullions and
muntins all be the same size.
Mr. Curtis stated it would all be leaded glass.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 20 of 24
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4589 -11, Khan Residence,
subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report, with the additional condition
that the leaded glass shall be consistent with the existing glass.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 21 of 24
(6) DRC No. 4599 -11 - KEEGAN RESIDENCE
• A proposal to change a roof form and add a new porch addition on a 1904 single- family
Victorian residence.
• 225 W. Culver Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, d
Zan(&,ci1yof6range.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Michael Keegan, address on file, stated they were just cleaning it up and _tying it all
together to have it be a nice corner house.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated it was a small addition and generally
additions on Old Towne structures should not be visible from the street and the proposal before
them was very visible. Also, the materials would be in -kind, siding and windows, but his
question was what had occurred with the garage? He was curious about that structure. The
parking in that area of town was horrendous and he wondered if the garage had been turned into
livable space with permits and such and when had that occurred. Historic garages should be
retained for vehicle use and many times he turned on that corner and there were cars there that
blocked views of oncoming traffic. It was a very small addition. He wondered how the garage
conversion had come about.
Mr. Keegan stated he had completed a lot of research in his five years of ownership in the home.
He could not locate the original floor plans. He drove the street and could not find another home
that looked like his. There had been a lot of mold in the home and areas of the house that had to
be repaired. He had found letters from the 1920's and 1930's and there was an old ice box that
needed to be removed. The original carport was permitted in 1972 and part of the property that
sat behind lot was split, during a land split in the 1980's. Half of the home and duplex was split.
There were two homes that were built in 1986 that were not part of the original lot.
Mr. Ryan stated the applicant had a change regarding parking.
Mr. Keegan stated there was a lemon tree that could be removed and the fence could be pushed
back to accommodate three cars instead of two cars.
Chair Cathcart reviewed the plans to gain information on what had been split and what currently
existed.
Mr. Keegan stated he had spoken with a neighbor who had grown up in the home next door and
there had been orange trees and a women's shelter when the property was being split. He had
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 22 of 24
gone to the duplex on Van Bibber that had a front porch look and that property was the only one
that was similar.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there were materials listed to match existing, but those
materials were not noted anywhere on the drawings. He could not find those on the plans.
Applicant, Paul Mitchell, address on file, stated he would clean that up. It was such a simple
addition, all material would match existing.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they had a project that appeared to have been a hip roof
service porch that would be covered with a new form.
Mr. Mitchell stated they would match the existing pitch and it was the only idea he had come up
with to clean it up.
Committee Member Wheeler presented a drawing with an alternative. He stated the eave could
be brought back, to keep the original hip line and to remember that there was a hip roof. Instead
of a Gable end to have a hip form that originally existed.
Mr. Mitchell stated that was workable and they could incorporate that change.
Committee Member Wheeler and Mr. Mitchell reviewed the drawing. Committee Member
Wheeler shared the drawing with the Committee Members.
Mr. Mitchell stated he was attempting to keep costs down and it was such a small change. He
had put a Gable there as there had been that form on the existing home and it was consistent. It
would be more expensive.
Mr. Keegan stated he was working on the project for several years and was already $150,000.00
into the property and $300,000.00 upside down. He had tried so hard to make the property work,
and if they had seen the condition the property had been in when he had gotten it; he was
surprised the OTPA had not held an "Occupy" on his corner. The last owner had ruined the
integrity of the home and it could not be pieced back together.
Chair Cathcart stated he spoke for the Committee in that they were pleased that Mr. Keegan was
taking the time and energy, and suffering the slings and arrows of past wrongs to improve the
property.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had nothing additional to add.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4599 -11, Keegan Residence,
subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following
additional conditions: that the roof form for the rear portion be changed to match the suggestion
provided by the Committee; to incorporate a hip form that preserved the hip of the original hip
roof form of the back porch and that the exterior materials for the construction be as shown on
the elevation key notes on Sheet A2, irrespective of the fact that they were not noted on the
drawings.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 23 of 24
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2012
Page 24 of 24
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on January 18, 2012.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.