Loading...
2012-06-06 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL June 6, 2012 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:12 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. He asked the Committee Members to disclose at the start of the meeting if there were any conflicts on any of the agenda items. The Committee Members discussed upcoming meetings and which members would be absent from those meetings. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of May 16, 2012. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:24 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Imboden was absent. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 2 of 33 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) Approval of Minutes: May 16, 2012 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled meeting of the Design Review Committee on May 16, 2012, with changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 3 of 33 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4541 -11 - NORRED RESIDENCE • A proposal to install new landscaping, including a new contemporary gate and fence, on a recent expansion of a non - conforming single - family residence and accessory unit. • 623 -627 E. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, daan(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Matt Norred, stated a mow edge was mentioned by Staff. Mr. Ryan stated it would be a grass strip that went down the center of the driveway. Mr. Norred stated he felt the landscape treatments complimented the period of 1957. Mr. Ryan was correct in that there had not been a hardscape or softscape plan. With the design it helped to soften the stucco structure. They tried to keep it in the period and he was within the required hardscape and softscape requirements in the front yard. The driveway had not had bisected stone. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the development was way out of context with the neighborhood. They had received many complaints from the neighbors for the bulk and mass. Also there was the 50% rule that applied to the project and that was why they were very creative and had gotten around that. The removal of the 50% cap had been discussed in great length by the City Council and language would be introduced in the ordinance to keep the intent of the ordinance, and prevent or strongly discourage that type of development. The paint colors softened the street presence and adding more softscape would accomplish that as well. The OTPA agreed with Staff that the stone, fence, and gate material was much too contemporary for the 50's era building. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Woollett asked when the project had come before the DRC previously, was the applicant informed that landscaping would need to be brought back to the DRC? Mr. Ryan stated he had not thought so. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 4 of 33 Chair Woollett stated the reason for review was that as the work was installed that the additions would not be appropriate. Mr. Ryan stated it was due to a code complaint and some issues between the neighbors and the masonry wall. From conversations and what had been proposed it had been brought back to the DRC. Committee Member Fox asked when the revised addition for the property was brought forward had the intent been to maintain the landscape or was that not mentioned? Mr. Norred stated there had not been a discussion about landscape. Chair Woollett stated he graduated from architectural school in 1957 and there was a lot of trash being produced and a lot of good work too. The projects that he liked the most had some of the same qualities as the proposal before them. He was speaking from his own experience and architectural students were looking for the best work that was being done; and usually not much of the best work was being done. This application could be a precedent setting project as it asked whether the Old Towne area was to preserve the building styles of an era prior to 1930 or what period were they looking for? He stated that 1957 was more than 50 years ago and asked if the ordinance intended to represent a particular period in time or should the changes reflect a style that stood the test of time and were in excess of 50 years? Mr. Ryan stated one of the examples of that had been the Eichler tracts, and they stood out on their own. One of the issues that they had were with buildings built before 1940, and they had not received direction from City Council on those. They reviewed and required buildings that were in the Historic District to maintain their architectural significance. Committee Member Fox stated she re -read the whole code, due to the project before them. The code stated that non - historic structures that were not registry listed needed to hold to the era in which they were built and putting historic landscape on the project would be completely inappropriate. The landscape should be from 1957 and work with the neighborhood. She was a big fan of the mid - century in architecture and she had numerous books and had done extensive research on the project before them. She found numerous examples of 1950's landscaping that actually looked as the proposed landscaping before them. She presented a book and stated Buff & Hensman in 1965 in case study house No. 28 crossed the driveway with a paving pattern that was different. In case study house No. 21 it was also done. Killingsworth & Brady started looking like it in 1959 in case study house No. 23, Craig Elwood courtyard in 1953 had irregular spaced pads floating in the landscape and there were others that had similar treatment. She stated that the elements themselves were rooted to the 1950's. Being in the National Historic District the project also needed to be compatible with the District. On the concrete part they could cut the mow strip and maintain the slate across the driveway, it was completely appropriate. If she had reviewed the landscape plan without viewing construction she would have thought the pads in the front lawn would be smaller. The smaller pads were more in keeping with the research she had done. She reviewed the landscape with the applicants and suggested where the mow strip could be placed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 5 of 33 Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit uncomfortable suggesting changes when the DRC had not initially requested a landscape plan. It seemed to be a bit second guessing and he agreed that the plan was in keeping with the period. Applicant, David Grondona, address on file, stated they could keep the soldier pattern and in looking at it, they could move an area over without losing the principal design. Committee Member Fox stated she had not disliked the staggered pattern; it was just that the pads had been too large. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not thought there was anything wrong with the design. It was not a formal layout of plants, but more of a cottage design. The only change he would make was in the 1950's the pads were not all the same size; most often they were different sizes but compatible. He pointed out an area they could cut back to achieve that. The stone would disappear with the proposed landscape; it mitigated the vertical element and would appear as just a seasoning of stonework. The plant types were 1950's in nature and the arrangement was appropriate. He may or may not agree with the tree choices, the Little Gem would remain little. It would not embrace the scale of the architecture. He liked the cut through of stone. Mr. Norred stated the neighbor's trees were much larger and he had not wanted to overwhelm the area. The Committee Members discussed the ribbon driveway and gave the applicant suggestions of where it should be placed. They agreed that a bit of green would help and it would be a nice gesture to the neighborhood. Mr. Norred stated the original was all concrete and there was difficulty cutting into the existing concrete. Committee Member Fox stated there was a lot of hardscape introduced to the front of the house and almost a commercial feel to it. She would be okay with the change to the driveway and leaving everything else as it was. If the ribbon driveway was not done, she would want the applicant to reduce the amount of walkway. Mr. Grondona asked if they could add grass in the planting space? The neighbors had a large hedge in that area. Committee Member McCormack stated part of garden design was to gain unification of the whole project. He understood the difficulty of removing concrete. Chair Woollett stated the DRC wanted to talk about it and have it be the best project it could be, but their job on the DRC was not to require the applicant to have the project be the best it could be; they had an ordinance to administer. They had to be a bit careful with that and he felt the applicant was open to suggestions. The Committee could agree on what was appropriate and they had not gone along with Staff's recommendations. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be comfortable making suggestions rather than conditions. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 6 of 33 Committee Member Fox stated she was confused as to why the project had been brought before them; and would landscape have been a requirement if it was a duplex? The first submittal was silent on landscape. Committee Member McCormack stated the landscape was to reduce the bulk and mass of the building. Committee Member Fox stated if it had just been brought to them prior to construction they would be making the same recommendations. Chair Woollett stated the issue was more of a compatibility issue with the neighborhood. Committee Member Fox stated she was completely fine with the style of it and she was thinking the massing was harsher than it needed to be. Committee Member McCormack stated the pads should be at 8' and the ones that were installed were 10'. Committee Member Fox stated the way to reduce the bulk and mass would be to cut the ribbon in the driveway. It would be a nice gesture for a tie -in with the historical context. Mr. Grondona stated he would be more agreeable to giving up some mass in other areas rather than cutting into the driveway. Mr. Norred stated there was curb and steel and it was done to keep any run off from going into the neighboring property. Committee Member Fox suggested to reduce the hardscape. To reduce the pad area or cut a ribbon driveway. The pads could be staggered and more irregular. The Committee Members reviewed the photos with the applicant and discussed the hardscape areas. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4541 -11, Norred Fencing and Landscaping, as conditioned, with the additional condition of reducing the hardscape mass in the front yard in the stepping stones approaching the front porch. Committee Member Fox and Chair Woollett discussed changing staff recommended conditions and selecting conditions for deletion. Conditions 2 and 3 were identified for removal. Chair Woollett inquired if Condition 4 is also proposed for deletion. Committee Member Fox asked if that condition would be for the mow strip. Chair Woollett informed Committee Member Fox that the decision was hers to decide and informed her that the applicant asked not to do the mow strip but they're willing to modify the pads. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 7 of 33 Committee Member Fox indicated that she was okay with pad modification since it would also provide additional lawn area and planting and made a revised motion. VERBATIM TEXT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4541 -11, Norred Fencing and Landscaping, in accordance with the conditions and findings in the Staff Report. • Except to remove Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 3 from the Report. • Clarify that Condition No. 5 which is regarding the realignment of existing random placed stone in a more traditional pattern and to -it would actually result in a reduction of the area by 25% on those pads. END OF VERBATIM TEXT Chair Woollett asked if there should be a recommendation that the trees be larger. Committee Member McCormack stated it would just be a recommendation. Committee Member McCormack asked for reiteration of the motion such that it was his understanding that both Conditions 2 and 3 are proposed for removal. Chair Woollett and Committee Member Fox responded in the affirmative. Committee Member McCormack stated that Condition 3 should remain and noted that he agreed that Condition 2 should be deleted. Chair Woollett understood that Committee Member Fox was seeking to further clarify Condition No. 5 to reduce the size of the pads by about 25% in lieu of the mow strip. Committee Member McCormack stated that it would cause cutting an arbitrary line. Committee Member Fox stated that the applicant would need to figure out how to get 25% out somehow and asked the applicant if that was understood? Mr. Grondona responded that they should be fine, since they're 10' long reducing them by.....they are 16" stones, trimmed off a course of 16s, that would reduce it 10' to a little bit over 9 1 . Committee Member Fox responded that she doesn't think that's 25 %. The Committee discussed the math involved. Committee Member Fox concluded that the applicant could still make the stones irregular if the applicant looked to some great examples by some great landscapes that might create a more irregular pattern. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 8 of 33 Committee Member McCormack stated that his only issue was the 12' wide driveway and does not think most driveways in Old Towne are 12' wide. If they are, they're kind of broken up with a strip. He looked at it as a precedent though he knew how difficult it was to cut through concrete. He stated that he understood it may not be everyone's preference but in Old Towne it's a gesture to reduce the bulk and mass. Chair Woollett suggested that the motion stay the way it is, that a second to the motion be sought and, that a substitute motion be brought forward if necessary after a vote on the motion at hand. The Committee Members discussed which motion would the subject of the vote. The motion to be voted on was Committee Member Fox's original motion. Committee Member Wheeler seconded the motion. VERBATIM TEXT: Committee Member McCormack: I'd like to change the motion to include Item 3 in the Conditions. Chair Woollett: OK, is there a second to that? Committee Member Wheeler: I'll second it. Chair Woollett: All right. Now are you ready to vote on this revised motion? Committee Member Fox: With 3 added in? Chair Woollett: Yeah. All those in favor say `aye.' Committee Member McCormack: Aye. Chair Woollett: All those opposed? Chair Woollett, Committee Members Wheeler and Fox: Opposed. Chair Woollett: All right, so we're back to the original motion. Is there any need for discussion on that? All right, all those in favor say `aye.' Committee Members Fox, Wheeler, Chair Woollett: Aye. Committee Member McCormack: Opposed. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Tim McCormack ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 9 of 33 END OF VERBATIM TEXT Chair Woollett noted compromise between the DRC and applicant for the project. Applicant -Mr. Grondona stated they will make the project nice. Chair Woollett noted the hard work and careful thought that has gone into the project. Mr. Grondona and Mr. Ryan discussed the next steps for them to proceed in processing the project with staff. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 10 of 33 (3) DRC No. 4594 -11 — ARCHITECTS ORANGE • A proposal to review front and rear facade materials and finishes on a non - contributing commercial office building. • 321 W. Chapman Avenue, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a)cityoforangeorg • Planning Commission approved concept plan on May 7, 2012 • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jack Selman, address on file, stated he had a couple of comments. The last time they appeared before the DRC they wanted to pull permits so they could do this work on the building immediately. They thought they had a condition of approval if they did the things that were shown, but then Mr. Ryan said no, they had to come back to the DRC. There was the condition to the rear area to install a combination of block or steel to enclose the front. They had a sandblasted concrete block wall flanking the entry. The awning was added and the pavers were as discussed. The comments that were mentioned for the front, from Staff, were new comments that he was just hearing. The door had been recessed with the angle and now the request was for the angle on both sides; he felt that was overkill and every time he returned to the DRC there was a new request which was not right. As he mentioned, they were going to complete the building in phases and all he needed to do was to approve the wall and they would return for the other modifications. Public Comment Mr. Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, clarified with Staff and the DRC Members that the south elevation would be completed sometime in the future. He also commented that it would be great if there was photo documentation. Regarding the south elevation, he stated that he didn't think it would take too much to bring this building back to a contributing status and they should try to bring this facade back closer to how it was originally designed. He agreed with Staff that the rendering he had reviewed looked a little contemporary for the front. For the rear area, he was glad that they were replacing the aluminum windows. The rear lighting didn't seem to be historically accurate. The rear lighting and metal awning seem very contemporary. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee Members for discussion. Chair Woollett asked what information they had about the original building? Mr. Ryan stated they had no information. Mr. Selman stated they had one photo that showed the side, but that was it. Black's -? thought the building had been similar to their building. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 11 of 33 Chair Woollett stated he questioned if the building they were working with was from the 1950's. It was not contributing. Mr. Selman stated it was not contributing. Committee Member Fox stated on the recommendation for the store front from Staff, she asked if Mr. Ryan would point out the area and provide an explanation? Mr. Ryan stated he was referring to the front windows and typically the store fronts would have had a square entrance or an angled entrance or a combination. Chair Woollett asked for what time period was he referring to? Mr. Ryan stated those would have been from down town. Chair Woollett asked if that would have been from the 1920's? Mr. Selman stated or a 1950's building, the building across the street had the bulkhead. Committee Member Fox stated the building in the proposed project was built in 1923, then modernized. For the awning that was out there now, was that what was being replaced? Mr. Selman stated yes. Committee Member Fox stated she had not been present for the previous submittal with the discussion for the back of the building, and the back looked good to her. Committee Member Wheeler asked how the windows would be framed? Mr. Selman stated if they looked at the building across the street one window was old and one was new and they had 2" x 4" wood stops. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would provide for a little more width. Committee Member Fox asked if there would be a 4" x 4" frame at the door? Committee Member Wheeler stated the applicant would probably want that. Mr. Selman stated he had not agreed with that and agreed with Mr. Ryan that the door needed to be thick. A 4" x 4" would be too bulky. Mr. Ryan stated the base of the door was generally the same as the bulkhead. Committee Member Wheeler stated many of the doors were 12 ". As far as having only one angle on the entry, there was the building across the street that had exactly that same detail of one angle and one square. It was not historic. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 12 of 33 Chair Woollett stated if they could come up with some satisfactory agreements for the south side of the building, he asked Mr. Selman if he would be comfortable with that? Mr. Selman stated yes, he preferred one angle for the door and it was not appropriate to take the building back to the 1920's. There was an existing bulkhead and it was a certain height and they wanted to leave that alone. Committee Member McCormack stated he thought the proposal was fine, and there had been a comment about the lighting and he thought it looked fine. It was the jewelry of the building. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was not a contributing building. The Committee Members reviewed the photos and discussed the door heights. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4594 -11, Architects Orange, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: • Remove Conditions No. 3 and 4. • Modify Condition No. 7, that the bulkhead or kick plate be changed from 20" to 12" minimum. • The mullions used in the store front be a minimum of a 2" nominal width with wood stops of 3 /4" to more closely resemble the traditional window framing techniques. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 13 of 33 (4) DRC No. 4606 -11 — KAULARD RESIDENCE • A proposal to convert a 640 sq. ft. area of an existing 1913 Bungalow for use as an accessory second unit and construct a new one -car 238 sq. ft. garage (project includes an Administrative Adjustment - parking dimensions). • 363 S. Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, drvan(&,,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Woollett stated he understood that the code had not allowed parking that served more than three units to back onto the street, therefore, if there were more than three units there needed to be enough room for the car to exit front first. Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. The other issues were installing of another garage that had not met the street scape and disrupted the side yard set back. There were several issues of concern. Applicant, Liz Kaulard, address on file, stated she bought the house in 1981 and they lived there until 1993. All three of her children were born there and when they moved she had not wanted to sell the house and they turned it into a rental property. The plan was to keep the home in the family. She was adding onto the house as a place for her son, he was 26 years old and could not afford a place of his own. It was a large house and she wanted to divide it up to add living space for her son. Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated he was present for questions. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he owned a home on the block of the proposed project. He commended Staff for the most comprehensive Staff Report that he had read. Many projects never made it to the DRC with ordinance violation issues. After reading the Staff Report he was amazed that it was before the DRC. The issues associated with the project were many. There were adverse issues to historic resources, historic resource and preservation issues, false historic appearance, inappropriate development on the site that diminished the character of the site, introduction of out -of -scale buildings destroying relationships in a historic setting, circulation problems, and the ordinance that prohibited backing into the street. Having an inadequate turning range would make it highly unlikely that the tenants would park there. There appeared to be public safety issues. The applicant was requesting an Administrative Adjustment for a garage reduction. It was apparent that the applicant was trying to squeeze too much on the lot. The eave distance appeared to be inadequate. There were required findings that could not be made by the DRC and even the few options provided by Staff were not viable. On the 1985 project there was a two car garage that was never constructed and he asked if that project was still open and had the project before them conflicted with that previously approved project? Additionally, the property was historically significant and had been developed by City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 14 of 33 Pioneers, who moved from the east in 1875; the property was eligible for historic listing on its own merit. The OTPA was concerned with the impacts on a historical resource. There were so many things wrong with the project. There were so many things wrong with it that a continuance would not be a solution to the many problems. The OTPA recommended denial of the project. Diana Zdenek, address on file, stated she and her husband lived in the home directly to the south of the subject site. Last year the landlords divided the house and the property owners were told to undo it. In the twelve years that she had lived next door she had not known the owners. The property was not very well maintained. Recently there were improvements. There had been bricks that were falling off and the tenant in the front duplex stated she had no heat in her unit for years. She suggested that the tenant contact the landlord, which she stated she had already done and it would not get fixed. Neither the owner or architect had contacted them to let them know what was going on and the proposed project had a direct impact, especially if a walkway went up on the south side. Having a garage 2' from their property line concerned her. A more sensitive design would be appreciated and she supported Staff's recommendation. Gary Zdenek, address on file, stated he was sympathetic to the owners and having children and wanting to provide the best was what families did. However, it infringed on them on a personal level. He was in agreement with the findings that the project should be denied. The report of the project was very thorough and straight forward and addressed the breech of historic standards. He had seen Orange Street go from a clean open street to having dense parking and congestion. As the next door neighbor, he could state that the parking space at the subject site had never been used. He was hard pressed to think the proposal would assist in maintaining the historic nature of the area, the home itself, and the overall quality and safety of life in Old Towne. He appreciated the DRC's careful consideration of the findings. Robert Blanc, address on file, stated he lived across the street from the proposed project and had lived in Orange for 28 years. His main concern was parking. There was always off -site parking at that property and no one used their garages. When cars were all gone it was a beautiful project. The proposal had not worked, the turn around had not worked, the access had not worked. He was recommending denial of the project. He had submitted an email to Staff of his concerns. Chair Woollett stated the scope of the DRC's review was design. Jonathan Neal, address on file, stated he was just a few doors down from the proposed project and he agreed with the Staff Report. He agreed with the comments made about the parking. Christina Neal, address on file, stated she had the same concerns that her neighbors had and it seemed that the issues of parking and no defined entrance for the second unit were well addressed and she agreed with the Staff Report and that the project would not be approved. Brian Parrott, address on file, stated he agreed that the project should be denied based on the historic considerations of the project and area that it was in. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 15 of 33 Chair Woollett stated the project would go before the Planning Commission, including many of the items addressed related to parking and existing conditions. If the project was denied the existing issues would still exist. Denying the project would not make anything better. He asked if there were violations that affected the project? Mr. Ryan stated the question was raised by the Planning Director, that the project was not in compliance with what was constructed on site for the 500 square foot addition to provide parking for two cars and part of that discussion was providing enclosed parking for two cars. Chair Woollett asked if the project should not have been approved? Mr. Ryan stated they could not understand why the garage had not been constructed and why it had been crossed off of the permit. Committee Member Fox asked the applicant why the garage had not been constructed? Ms. Kaulard stated they had run out of money and they asked if it could be taken off of the plans and they received the sign off for that. Mr. Ryan stated it had been signed off by the Building Department. Chair Woollett stated it was accepted and now it was an existing non - compliant situation. Mr. Ryan stated the inspection was related to what had been constructed. The main issue was that the ordinance required for three or more units there could not be backing into the street. The requirement would change the design of the project, irrespective of all the issues related to the standards. One of the concerns was that there was not a functioning parking situation. Chair Woollett stated the code allowed one duplex on each property; he asked if that was correct? Mr. Ryan stated he was reviewing R -1 -6. Mr. Califf stated several months after the submittal, in December, before the Planning Commission had approved R -2 -6 to R -1 -6. It had been several months after that. Mr. Ryan stated the project had to go through the permit stage. Chair Woollett stated an R -2 -6 would allow two separate units. Mr. Ryan stated single family requires two spaces. For a duplex it is four spaces, two enclosed and two open. On the proposal before them, it was for an accessory unit which required one additional space. Committee Member Fox asked if that was why it was not a duplex and worked under R -1 -6? Mr. Ryan stated yes. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 16 of 33 Chair Woollett stated there were two units, an accessory and the single family, with each requiring two covered spaces. Committee Member Wheeler stated two covered and one uncovered. Chair Woollett stated they were at two cars which would allow backing onto the street. Mr. Ryan stated the units on the lot were counted and placed them within the requirement for no backing onto the street. Mr. Califf stated he could save them all some time; and turning templates had not always shown the real situation, and they had set up a test of that situation. Ms. Kaulard presented a short film on her Laptop computer of a vehicle turning in the area they were discussing. Mr. Califf stated the presentation provided a visual of how a vehicle was able to get into the parking area that was being discussed. He had a conversation with Mr. Ryan, where he had stated the parking had not appeared to work, but he had taken the information over to Doug in the City's Traffic Division and he had stated it was tight, but it had met code. Mr. Ryan stated there were no codes for residential properties, there was not standard for that and it was a planning issue. Mr. Califf stated he was just restating what he had been told. Chair Woollett stated it appeared they had a situation where the code could not be met. Mr. Califf stated the code required no backing out, and he had proved it could work. The historic garage was the key to the street scape, it was a pattern to look down a driveway and view the garage; it was not a pattern to look all the way down someone's side yard and see another backyard. The pattern was that people had landscaping and fences. They decided to leave the garage there and the open parking had been in use since the addition had been built. The decision to place the garage as proposed had not changed the view; and it was useable with a car going out forward and it seemed to work. The fact that the other area was not utilized was due to the fact that the tenant only had one car. He had driven by yesterday, which was trash day, and the street was pretty open. Ms. Kaulard stated the rental agreement required one car to be parked in the back. At maximum there would be one car out front. Mr. Frankel's home always had a car parked out front. Chair Woollett stated there were cars parked on the street all over the City. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Fox stated she had visited the site and was able to park right in front; she walked down the driveway and thought it was crazy that someone could get out of that space. She had the feeling that if she lived there, she would not attempt to park in the back. It seemed City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 17 of 33 impossible. Mr. Califf had proved that it was possible. The biggest issue she had with the project was not that the parking worked or not, but that it was a development pattern that had not fit with the historic nature of the property, it was a historic property. It created an undesirable relationship with the back of the home and the yard. If the proposal had been brought forward as an accessory unit, she would have all kinds of problems and agreed with all the Staff Report comments. The pitch of the roof was alien and the pop -out on the side had not fit and the relationship of the roof line with the roof line of the house was not approvable. Committee Member McCormack stated he had just been shown a " Lexus commercial" and there was usually a disclosure "trained driver" on the screen. To him if there was a car parked in the space and a structure built there, he would be challenged, and he was a pretty good driver. If there was a structure there it would be a challenge. The applicants had proved it could be done. The Lexus commercials showed weird things. It was an odd situation that had not had to happen. It would not bode well for quality of life for whoever made that maneuver, and it was not a good design. Coming from Design Review it was just not right. He agreed that the laundry structure was odd, a scab, that was just put onto the building. Those were his issues. He understood about the need for the applicant's son, but come up with other architectural changes inside, as it was all existing. The deal breaker was the parking. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with the Orange Police Department's comments that the entry should be more defined. As a practical matter, they had shown that a car was able to get in and out of the space, however, there was an Administrative Adjustment being required for the garage and he felt that would be difficult to obtain. He wondered if it wouldn't be better to come up with a design that could work without the Administrative Adjustment, and a design that took into account a defined entry for the other unit. Also, to come up with a design which would allow for easier access. He had played around with it a bit. He shared his drawing and it would require moving the historic garage. Mr. Califf stated he agreed with the entry and he would have done it ahead of the meeting, but it had never come up in all of his discussions with Mr. Ryan. That was an easy fix. They had looked at moving the garage, but that changed the street scape. Historically, there had been an empty parking space on site; the Staff Report mentioned the space was under - utilized but that was because there were less cars on the site than the code anticipated. It was not an ongoing problem; there was ample parking. Chair Woollett asked why were they adding more space? Mr. Califf stated Ms. Kaulard's son could stay there, but what the code prohibited was closing off of the residence from the back. It was permissible for her son to live there, but created a privacy issue with the tenant up front. Committee Member Wheeler stated the second kitchen would require it to be a second unit. Mr. Califf stated it was the closing off that would do it. Chair Woollett stated he was having difficulty understanding why having a separate entrance would provide for a worse situation than what already existed; the current situation was bad and it would not be any worse with the proposed plan. In regard to how the units were used and had City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 18 of 33 been used, the parking would not be any more difficult than it had been and it would provide for another covered space. Committee Member Fox stated it was adding an additional unit. Chair Woollett stated that was a technical issue, and it required a second covered parking space. Committee Member Wheeler stated the requirement was for enclosed parking and with an accessory unit there was the need for one uncovered space. Chair Woollett stated he was not with all the rest of them and the public that had commented; he had not seen that it would be any worse than it currently was and in fact that it would be better than what currently existed. What they had was a situation that they often looked for; a single drive that served two pieces of property and it was less paving. Most of the homes in Old Towne had not had that and there was more paving. The proposal had the single drive with limited paving and that paving served more cars. The garage that was viewed from the street was typical and that was not bad. Because there were a lot of cars parked on that street, had not had anything to do with the project before them at all. There were too many cars on his own street. The code acknowledged that it occurred. He failed to see why what the applicant was asking for was so extraordinary, he was having trouble with that. The fact that they wanted to add a covered space that had not complied was a legitimate issue; they had not just arbitrarily allowed people to build what had not met the minimum requirements. State law was quite clear on variances. Mr. Califf stated a variance was not the same as an Administrative Adjustment. They could have made the garage a proper depth, but with an extra 1 ' / 2 ' would be a good trade off. Chair Woollett stated a denial of the proposed project would not make the neighborhood any better; and approving it would not make it any worse. Committee Member Fox asked if Chair Woollett had not thought that adding another unit would impact the neighborhood? Chair Woollett stated that was correct. Mr. Califf stated the code allowed for it in the R -1 district. It was not necessarily bad, the City Council made it clear. Chair Woollett stated they added accessory units all the time and allowed additional parking garages all of the time. Mr. Califf stated many things had been approved. Chair Woollett stated they had a situation in an Old Towne neighborhood and for whatever reason there were a lot of cars on the street and it was annoying people. That happened, but to him unless they were not following the regulations properly he had not seen a problem. Committee Member McCormack asked if there needed to be a 5' setback? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 19 of 33 Mr. Califf stated code allowed for less than 5', the eave overhang could not extend past the property line and that had to be a one hour wall. Contrary to the Staff Report, the exterior material would not need to be different. It could be board and batt siding. Mr. Ryan stated with the issue of matching the roof pitch and height, it would require a 5' side yard setback. Committee Member Fox stated there were a lot of compromises being made to shoehorn something in there. On other proposals they had asked that the accessory unit be compatible with the main structure, the roof pitch was 3 and 12. Mr. Califf stated there were flat roofs all over town that went with Bungalows. Committee Member Fox stated the property before them had a historic garage with a high pitched roof and they were proposing a modern garage with a 3 and 12 pitched roof. It was arbitrary to her. Mr. Califf stated it was a modern garage, regardless, but the exterior materials were compatible. Having more than one slope was common on an accessory unit. Committee Member Fox stated it was not integrated in the roof forms. There was an L shape to it that was wrapping the corners of the house and there were so many things to it that were patterns and even if there was not the parking issue to negotiate, she would be concerned with finding the proposal an approvable home addition. Mr. Califf stated the use of a pattern in the Staff Report was a little misleading because it implied that the pattern was a house with a wide setback on one side that could be viewed all the way back. In regard to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, if they were doing an addition, the preferred location would be at the back or the side; they had approved additions that were back 10' or 20' as it had not affected the pattern of the street scape. Committee Member Wheeler asked for the depth of the parking space. Mr. Califf stated whatever was required, and they had more than what was required and it could be the full depth of the garage and that was about 23'. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the space with the applicant and Staff. He asked what would happen if the garage was placed in another area? Mr. Califf stated he had not thought the garage could be located in that area as there was not enough of a setback. At least with the proposed arrangement there was still useable open space. If they relocated the structure there would need maneuvering space and the addition of more hardscape. Chair Woollett stated it was a challenging project. He stated they would not have to solve it tonight, or maybe the Committee was ready to take an action. He had not heard any solutions. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 20 of 33 Mr. Califf stated the Staff Report had some options, and he was not certain if those were approvable options. Mr. Ryan stated he was providing information on issues that could be solved, such as the visible entrance. His biggest concern was that when reviewing the overall project and the Design Standards that required each individual project in its relationship to its surrounding, which included site planning, rhythm, spacing of buildings on the street, entrances and approaches and overall design quality; findings could not be made to meet the criteria. They could review it piece -meal, but one of the new paragraphs in the new Standards was to look at the overall surroundings and to complete a quality project. Certainly the issues were derived from the site restraints, the fact that there was a shared driveway and people parked their cars where they should not and he was reviewing the project as a whole. He was pretty good at finding solutions, but he was stuck. Chair Woollett asked if the project would get any better if they denied it? Committee Member Wheeler stated he disagreed with that, Chair Woollett had stated that the site would not get any worse; but technically they were adding a new dwelling unit and in doing that they had to add another parking space. In doing that they would be messing up the backyard. Committee Member Fox stated there was not another example of a property that had two separate garages in the backyard. She reviewed the aerial. There were other properties that had small charming units, but not two garages. She felt the proposal was what she would view in a run -down neighborhood; it was feeling like a run -down neighborhood solution to provide parking and not a solution for one of the nicest streets in Orange. Chair Woollett stated what he was hearing was that the Committee Members felt by creating an accessory unit it would have potential to impact the neighborhood. Committee Member Wheeler stated he disagreed with the Staff Report comment that the construction of the two -car garage, if completed by the City, could not be approved today. If the property had not had a historic garage they would not be dealing with the situation before them. Chair Woollett stated because it was not desirable to destroy a historic garage, it had become an issue in the past. They had approved other projects without the requirement for another covered parking unit. Mr. Ryan stated there had only been one time where the Planning Commission had made that determination and the garage was pristine and had some very nice architectural features; it became evident that providing one more space would be adverse to the historic preservation. Mr. Califf stated they had done that on East Maple. Chair Woollett asked if the Committee was not willing to approve the project, would the applicant prefer a denial or a continuation? Mr. Califf stated they would be satisfied to not build the additional garage, but it would require a determination by Staff to not require the second garage and two open spaces. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 21 of 33 Committee Member Fox stated that would still be additional density on the lot, with the accessory unit; and that was allowed with adequate parking on the site. Mr. Califf stated just because they were asking for that had not made it a bad thing. Committee Member Fox stated if the project was denied, the site would be a single family residence with a historic garage that had not met the parking requirement. Mr. Ryan stated there had been some discussion by the Director that it should be required. Committee Member Fox stated the prior approved project had not been built and the property owner was using that as an excuse for the current proposal. The same owner was attempting to intensify the density on their property after they had not completed a permitted building. If that had been completed there would be a different configuration. Mr. Califf stated the permit was approved to leave the garage the way it was and it could not be held against the property owner. Chair Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4606 -11, Kaulard Residence. Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt they would need to provide more guidance on what they were looking for. Chair Woollett stated he felt that the applicant wanted to propose an alternate project that could be considered, without the second garage. With the second unit, conceivably there could be two people living there instead of one. Committee Member Fox stated the parking ordinance existed because a second accessory unit had generally required more parking. Committee Member Wheeler stated the new garage was a very alien form and the back yard was getting so cluttered with things that had not gone well together. He suggested that the new garage not be a garage but instead, an arbor -like carport, something that could be parked in. Mr. Ryan stated the code required a garage. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would add to the motion for the applicant to explore other forms that were not so different from what existed and was more simple, possibly a flat roof structure. He wondered how "enclosed" was defined. Committee Member Fox stated the applicant deserved some guidance on what would be acceptable. Ms. Kaulard stated she would prefer to continue the item. She asked if they made another parking space would that be okay? Mr. Ryan stated there were many issues, and if the findings could not be met was the issue. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 22 of 33 Committee Member Wheeler suggested placing the new garage next to the historic garage. Mr. Califf stated that had been the initial proposal, but he had gotten immediate negative feedback from Staff. It could be set back a bit and would help a lot. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be open to that option. Committee Member Fox stated that would be a better plan. Committee Member McCormack stated there could be turf block and a shed roof, it was something to explore. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had done a similar project in Old Towne and it had been approved. The suggestion was for a tool shed added onto the garage. Chair Woollett asked in doing that would it assist with providing for a visible entry to the unit? Mr. Califf presented an alternate plan. They reviewed the parking situation with an alternate arrangement. There were not too many existing residential garages with a 25' straight back. Committee Member Fox stated if the applicant was willing to accept a continuance and came back with an alternate solution that could work. There would need to be some drastic changes to facilitate proper circulation. Accessory units were allowed in Old Towne, but the required parking needed to be met. It was a challenge. Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4606 -11, Kaulard Residence, based on the comments provided during their discussion and to emphasize the maneuverability of the parking and to meet the findings from the Staff Report. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 23 of 33 (5) DRC No. 4618 -12 - BIRD CLINIC • A proposal to modify an existing sign program for an existing building. • 200 S. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler stated he suggested the item could be an item that was moved without a presentation or discussion. The Committee Members agreed. Public Comment None. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4618 -12, Bird Clinic, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 24 of 33 (6) DRC No. 4622 -12 - DOLLAR TREE • A proposal for fagade changes and signage for a new tenant at an existing center. • 780 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler suggested the item could be an item that was moved without a presentation or discussion. The Committee Members agreed. Public Comment None. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4622 -12, Dollar Tree, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 25 of 33 (7) DRC No. 4615 -12 - AMERICA'S TIRE • A proposal to modify the existing north elevation of an 8,382 sq. ft. building by adding five bay doors where glazing currently exists, adding on- building signage to the north and east elevations, eliminating 11 parking spaces for bay door access, and installing four tree wells and a landscape finger in place of removed parking spaces with the intent to partially obscure the bay doors from Chapman Avenue view. • 1542 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714- 744 -7237, cortlieb(a�,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Dan Wainwright, address on file, stated they enjoyed working with Chad and his team. The use was not automotive repair use; they sold and installed tires. There were no repairs made on site. Cars that came in the bay were lifted up, new tires were installed, and then they would leave. Mr. Ortlieb stated once an entitlement was issued for minor auto repair, as defined by the code, it would allow for a future heavier use to transfer to that site under that entitlement. Public Comment Margrit Allen, address on file, stated she lived directly across from the proposed use. The recently constructed center was really nice and they were pleased to have the lovely facades. The center was very visible at the entry to the City and the repair bays would be very visible from Chapman and Tustin. She reviewed the General Plan and the street the proposed use was on was the Gateway to the City. It was the new General Plan that identified that area as the gateway to Old Towne and the City of Orange. She was not opposed to the project, but she had concerns with the industrial character of the use that could carry on. There was Midas right near the freeway, there was Tire Depot just two blocks down and they had open bays with pneumatic tools going all the time. The CUP would run with the land and it could have implications for a future use. Trees may soften the view, but there had not been a type of tree specified or a landscape plan submitted. Perhaps a landscape plan would come back to the DRC. She asked that the use be looked at very carefully. It was a brand new General Plan and they should be looking to implement it; and she was concerned that the use could be a precedent- setting situation. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated when they had approved the Walgreen's project and additional buildings, the building for the proposed use was going to be individual shops; it was a drastic difference from the original proposal. The proposed project had done a good job of melding their doors into the existing fagade, but it was a whole different aspect for that building. The second concern were the open doors and he doubted that even Committee Member McCormack would be able to suggest a tree that would both hide the open doors and make it City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 26 of 33 possible to drive in and out of the area. He was concerned with the open doors and it was similar to the Midas store down the street. Generally tire stores had bays that were accessible from the side. It was a less than appropriate use for the building. The third thing that concerned him was noise. He had been at Costco the other day and had visited the tire installation area, and it was a noisy facility. There was residential across the street and residential behind the building. There were problems. Committee Member McCormack stated the tree thing was a glossing over and there would not be a tree that would work. The ground space was not appropriate and they were asking for a large tree, a screen tree, a tree with some mass. He saw Midas, American Tire, Firestone, and another tire store just up Tustin; those all faced the street with the bays facing off of the street. He felt uncomfortable trying to shoehorn the use in there and his thought was the location was the Gateway to the City. There were signs that directed people to Old Towne. The trees would not work and he thought possibly they could have the bays in the back. Mr. Wainwright stated it just would not work. They had completed a noise study. Committee Member McCormack stated he could hear Selman's loud speaker from his home. He understood Chapman and Tustin were noisy, a constant almost level sound. The sound of the installation equipment was analogous to a bird that could not chirp correctly; it was not melodic and would be annoying. It was not the right use for the Gateway to the City. It would not be able to be screened properly. Mr. Wainwright stated the trees were a recommendation from Staff. The Applicant stated the proposed project could not be compared to a Midas tire store as that location was much closer to Chapman. Mr. Wainwright stated the doors of Midas were much closer to the street. The Applicant stated there was much more landscaping up front. Committee Member McCormack stated it was an industrial use at the gateway of the City as the speaker had stated during Public Comment. The General Plan had identified the area as the Gateway to the City. Committee Member Fox stated with the adjacent restaurant uses, then to propose an industrial use was a strange match. Pep Boys had restaurants next to it that had not done well. Committee Member McCormack stated that he had not reviewed the new General Plan to understand the specifics, but it was the Gateway. Committee Member Wheeler stated when they had approved the Best Buy store they had a bay to install car stereos and such, and that site had a requirement to have the bays closed during an installation and only to have them open when cars were moving in and out. Al Hatfield, address on file, stated he was the Regional Vice President for America's Tire and he had the job of seeking out locations for new retail businesses. When it was complete he would City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 27 of 33 get the keys to the store and he was responsible for the store. He understood the industrial nature of the site, but they referred to their stores as boutiques, it was just installation of tires and repair of tires. There were no cars sitting on jacks or engines lying around; the location would be viewed just as it was presented in the drawings. They were a very friendly neighborhood tire store. The noise issue was non - existent. Any noise that was made was drowned out before it left the bay. They stocked the tires inside and the noise was absorbed in the tires. As far as the landscape, they turned a car in 15 minutes and could complete four cars in an hour, and to ask that the bay doors be closed, the doors would be opened just as long as they would be closed and that would complicate things for them. It was strictly tires. As far as the mixed use, restaurants loved them; because while waiting for your tire installation patrons would go to get a bite to eat or shop at Walgreen's. They closed at 6:00 p.m. and were closed on Sunday. As far as all the individual businesses at the location, they took up less parking and less than individual stores would take up. Even with employee parking they used less parking. Cars parked in front would shield the repair bays. America's Tire intended to be at the location for a long time; they would not be loud. It was locally run and it was not an industrial use. Committee Member Fox stated the permitted use would be for all future tenants that might not be as nice. Mr. Hatfield stated the business was privately held and they would not be going anywhere. For the CUP, they could place a requirement that the CUP could not be sub - leased to anyone else. Chair Woollett stated it was the same zone, what changed on the building? Mr. Ortlieb stated it had a final inspection and had never been assigned a specific occupancy as it stood. All they were looking at were bay doors and the addition of tree wells and a sign. Chair Woollett stated it would not be put into a different category other than retail. Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain of that. Mr. Wainwright stated the code would not change from retail. Committee Member McCormack asked about deliveries and things like that. Chair Woollett stated the view of the open bays, based on the location from the street, would be minimal. Mr. Wainwright stated the bays were 60' -70' from the street and the cars in the bay would appear as parked cars in the parking lot. Committee Member Fox stated she was mixed on this, the use before them was clean and not oil changes which was fine, however, under the CUP it could be different. Mr. Wainwright stated he had worked with CUPs and he had worked on an old Burger King that was being converted to a Louisiana Chicken restaurant. He had to go back to Planning because the CUP was not tied to the property, it was tied to the use. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 28 of 33 Committee Member Fox stated possibly it was an expired CUP. Mr. Ortlieb stated they had run into situations where a CUP stated the site must be a Chinese restaurant, it was not enforceable. There was not a City code that stated tire installation; the codes were for minor and major auto repair. Major auto repair is heavy industrial. Minor auto repair could be various uses. Unless there was some creative language that could be added at the Planning Commission level, it would be a land use issue. Committee Member Woollett stated they were not dealing with the use, but the aesthetics of the project. Committee Member McCormack asked Mr. Ortlieb if he had the General Plan information? Mr. Ortlieb stated he would do his best to paraphrase that information, as it was the number one thing that came from Advanced Planning. It was very close to how Ms. Allen had stated in her comments. The General Plan had a goal and a policy of creating nodes with a certain type of appearance for those nodes; and Advance Planning had not envisioned the type of use that was before them for that location. With General Plan conformity, there were proposals that would not fit and there were other factors such as economic development, housing and such. It was not the same as a zoning code that stated specific uses; the General Plan was an overall goal or policy. They were in a gray area and they were posed with the design aspects of the proposal before them. Chair Woollett stated the project would move to Planning Commission and they would be providing information to the Planning Commission on what their thoughts were. He asked if their recommendation to the PC could be more than just an approval or disapproval? Mr. Ortlieb stated they could provide any information to the Planning Commission. Chair Woollett stated they could recommend approval as long as the project was in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Ortlieb stated the project could be contingent upon Staff providing a full analysis of the General Plan information. Committee Member Fox stated "or if the CUP could be tied with that specific tire store." Committee Member McCormack stated when viewing Chapman, and with all due respect to America's Tire, the use was so foreign to the Gateway of the City. Mr. Hatfield asked would moving some of the landscaping closer to the street be a better alternative? With vehicles driving by the visibility was not clear. Chair Woollett stated there had been many uses at that site that had not done well, one of the things that they had not wanted for that site was to restrict visibility for the businesses at that center. He suspected that Walgreen's would not want too much screening. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 29 of 33 Mr. Wainwright asked if they could have a condition that the location would be just for tire changes only? Chair Woollett stated he was not certain that could be done. Committee Member Wheeler pointed to the unfortunate swale situation, and asked would it be possible to plant trees there? Committee Member McCormack stated no, because when it got inundated, and what it was trying to do, there would be no room for the roots. Willow trees would be the only tree that would work, but they would get too large. Landscaping would not be the solution. He needed to study the General Plan; it was just a big decision. He personally thought the type of use should not be there at the entry to the City. All the other tire stores he looked at had the bays that were on the side or the back of the buildings. Committee Member Wheeler stated perhaps they could continue the item to allow the applicant to investigate if the CUP could be drafted in a manner that it would not extend beyond their use. Applicant, Matthew Richardson, address on file, stated he was legal council for America's Tire Company. He dealt with CUPS running with the land frequently and it was possible to draft conditions of approval on CUPs that would remain with the specific applicant. It was enforceable. They could work on that and work with the attorney of the City of Orange to work that out. It was a permissible condition on a CUP that was used throughout California. As far as the General Plan, that was one of the findings that the Planning Commission would make, that the project was compatible with the General Plan. They would look at that as well and that was a requirement by State law. Committee Member Fox stated Land Use was not what the DRC looked at; however, in the project before them it had aesthetic impacts. She asked if the bays could work if placed in the back? Mr. Wainwright stated the noise would project toward the residential uses. Mr. Hatfield stated to do it right they would need more storage and that would require another building back there. Committee Member McCormack stated they were attempting to find a solution that would work in that area, the Gateway to the City. Committee Member Wheeler suggested a drive - through, and not a drive -in; it would certainly be worth investigating. Mr. Hatfield stated with a drive - through, that could impact the Walgreen's pharmacy drive -up line. Applicant, Chris Peterson, address on file, stated he wanted to respond to the query about the trees in the wells. Could they place something else in the wells? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 30 of 33 Committee Member McCormack stated it would get to a point where it was like putting bushes around a transformer; it looked funny and would not meld with the fabric of the site. To disguise a use that needed to be disguised because it was not what they wanted in a specific location; landscape was always told to screen. He suggested using another method for the vehicle entry. Mr. Peterson stated the other thing they could do was to extend the building back into the parking spaces in the back and to increase their storage space and that might allow a drive through situation. They had other locations that had that situation. Mr. Wainwright stated they just finished one in Corona. Committee Member Fox asked if an increase in the building size would trigger the need for more parking. Mr. Hatfield stated the site was over parked. Chair Woollett stated he was hearing that if they continued the item the applicant could explore the CUP issue and consider other designs for the building. Mr. Ortlieb stated it appeared that the DRC had landed on General Plan consistency as the issue on the proposal and that was a legitimate component of the project. With regard to the noise aspect, the applicant's noise analysis had shown there was static noise, but there were no high peaks and twangs in the analysis. Staff had sat at another tire store and the sound projected out the bay doors but never projected far out, and that might be due to the tires absorbing the sound. If the DRC wanted to make a recommendation on design they could address that as well. Chair Woollett stated they could condition that the CUP be only tied to the application before them. Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct. Mr. Peterson stated they planned on being at the site for a long time. Chair Woollett stated the application was going to the Planning Commission. The City would not benefit from having empty buildings, and that site had been empty for a long time. Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if they had looked at adding onto the building as an option. Mr. Ortlieb stated they had not explored that option. The Committee Members discussed options for the repair bays with the applicant and reviewed the plans. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4615 -12, America's Tire, to allow the applicant to provide an alternate proposal with the comments and suggestions provided during the DRC discussion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 31 of 33 Mr. Peterson asked what that would do for the timeline of the project? Mr. Ortlieb stated the project would need to come back to Staff and then he would analyze that with a new Staff Report being prepared with distribution to the Design Review Committee Members; realistically, it looked like it could be more than a month. Mr. Peterson stated the reason he asked was that they were running out of due diligence with Walgreen's. They had someone else in mind for the space, that they would not want that use either; it was an auto parts store. The big difference for them was that all the repairs would be inside, with an auto parts store the patrons could be doing repairs in the parking lot, and it was an approved use, being retail. Committee Member Wheeler stated the proposal would need to come back to the DRC. Mr. Wainwright asked if they could go to plan check, get the CUP tied to the tenant, with what was currently proposed. Moving the doors was a long shot and they still had to go through their own approvals. Chair Woollett stated they could recommend the project to the Planning Commission with the condition for the CUP. Committee Member Fox stated that would leave it up to the Planning Commission to see if the use was compatible with the General Plan, the DRC would need to be okay with the aesthetics. Committee Member McCormack stated it was a continuance, approval, or denial. The continuance was the best option. Mr. Wainwright asked if they proceeded with what they had currently and worked with the City Attorney on the CUP could they move forward? Mr. Hatfield stated he understood that they were not opposed to a tire store; it was very simplistic as the view would be just a parked car, and it was no different than cars in a parking lot. Committee Member Fox stated people could look through the bays and view all the industrial stuff. They were wanting the approval with the change in the CUP, but leaving everything else as presented. Committee Member McCormack stated he thought they would get the CUP no matter what, the CUP was not the issue, the issue was aesthetics. Chair Woollett stated there was a motion on the floor for continuance. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 32 of 33 SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2012 Page 33 of 33 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on June 20, 2012. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.