Loading...
2012-10-03 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL October 3, 2012 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack Carol Fox Robert Imboden Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes of September 5, 2012 and September 19, 2012. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Imboden stated that they had heard during the last meeting that one of the applicants had opposition to what was contained in the draft meeting minutes. He asked if those changes had been received, as he recalled that Chair Woollett had asked the applicant to submit that request and changes in writing? Ms. Pehoushek stated she was not certain if anything had been submitted. Committee Member Imboden stated it should be stated for the record that those changes had not been received. Committee Member Fox stated they could confirm with Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, if those changes had been received. Committee Member McCormack asked if the changes were to the minutes that were before them? Committee Member Imboden stated the minutes had not been before them last week and that any requested changes should be submitted in writing for their consideration. Committee Member McCormack stated that had not been received. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 2 of 24 Ms. Pehoushek stated Staff had discussed the situation and it was determined that if the applicant submitted a request for changes, that would be forwarded to the Planning Commission with the DRC minutes along with any appeal of the DRC action. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he disagreed with that and felt the DRC Members should have the opportunity to challenge any changes requested. Committee Member Fox stated it was not as if the applicant could just change what was stated. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Tim McCormack, Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Chair Woollett was absent. 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: (a) September 5, 2012 (b) September 19, 2012 (2) DRC No. 4636 -12 — NORTH TUSTIN PLAZA • A proposal to modify an existing sign program in order to allow tenants some flexibility in color of signage and letter font. • 1836 -1882 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, r arciaAcityoforan e.or • DRC Action: Final Determination City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 3 of 24 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve: (1) The DRC meeting minutes of September 5, 2012 and September 19, 2012, with the corrections and changes made during the Administrative Session; and (2) DRC No. 4636 -12, North Tustin Plaza, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 4 of 24 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items (3) DRC No. 4639 -12 — DE VONE RESIDENCE • A proposal to construct a 285 sq. ft. one -story addition to the rear of a contributing 1923 Bungalow. The addition exceeds 20% of existing floor area requiring Planning Commission review. • 174 N. Cambridge Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org • Continued from DRC meeting: September 5, 2012 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Adam De Vone, address on file, stated he had come back with the correct measurements added to the plans and the only other point of contention was that the house had already been painted and with respect to the asbestos siding he wanted to discuss the removal. He was proposing to remove 50% of that from the house and remove the rest at a later date. He had come up with a plan for the overhang that was complimentary and if the DRC had not liked what was presented he was open to their suggestions. There was a makeshift sump pump that was put in that was in a five- gallon bucket in a hole in the ground, with a 2" drain line that went from the front of the garage to the street. There had been a flooding issue there and it would also cause the water to go into the neighbor's yard. He had placed a standard gutter across the front of the garage and he excavated a hole that would catch the water. He wanted to install a sump pump to catch the water in that area. The water could then be pumped to the front of the house and he wanted to handle that in a more professional manner. He hoped to not have any more of a water issue, but would not know until there was a good rain. He pointed out the area on the plans that he was speaking to. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he was in agreement with the project in keeping with the Staff's recommendations. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Imboden stated before they got into the details there was something on the plans identified under the scope of work that stated "add something to the pool" and he wanted clarification for that notation. Applicant, Thomas Drummond, address on file, stated it was "add powder room" for pool. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 5 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted some clarification, and possibly from Staff; and also, he was not entirely sure how the eave area would be handled and the rafter tail issue. Mr. Ryan asked if he meant in reference to the built -in gutter detail? Committee Member Imboden stated yes, and was that detail part of the plans? Mr. Ryan stated no, it was part of the conditions if that was installed. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he would personally be very wary of that detail as it was drawn for a rolled roof and if one of the drains was plugged up, the water could back up under some of the shingles. He would personally like to distance himself from that detail. Also, there were some annotation errors on the drawings, but mainly he would worry that it was not appropriate. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the house probably had concealed gutters originally, and in all his experience in Old Towne he had not come across a home of that sort that had any indication of concealed gutters. He personally felt that houses similar to the proposed project before them had no gutters. There were some homes where if the rafter tails extended beyond the edge of the roofing there was a scalloped cut into the extended rafter where a gutter could be placed; there were homes on Maple Street just east of Glassell. One of them had a gutter in place and the other had no gutter at all. He would be doubtful if the home before them ever had gutters. Committee Member Imboden stated he would not endorse the detail in and of itself, but he thought they should come to a consensus and the bigger issue, whether the home had concealed gutters or not; during the last discussion he had not felt the house needed to be completely renovated to have a concealed gutter. There was no doubt that there would have been exposed rafter tails on that home. He was not sure that the assertion that it was not common in Old Towne was correct, as he thought it was. But he could not state that there was evidence for the home before them. As a group, the DRC needed to come to a conclusion on how to approach that part of the project. There were a number of places on the home with exposed rafter tails. He was not suggesting that the owner should remove the roof and replace all the rafters as it was not something they could ask of him. However, he would be opposed to the removal of existing rafter tails unless they would be replaced. He would also be opposed to the addition of fascia to the home and it would not fit the style of eave treatment for the house and was not consistent with the style of the house. It was clear in the photos to see where the added fascia existed and again he would not state that the existing fascia needed to be removed as part of the application before them, but there needed to be some consistency. The roof was one thing they needed to come to a consensus on in terms of what would make sense. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with Committee Member Imboden on the exposed rafter tails and the fascia. His only objection was to impose a concealed gutter. Committee Member Imboden stated that would require a new rolled roof and was not an easy thing to do. Committee Member Fox stated the rest of the home had not had that and to create that condition to that area was not right. The extension of the rafter past the roofing was a very stylistic thing that there was no evidence that had existed; it was another style of home to have those rafter tales City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 6 of 24 extend. With those extended rafter tails there was the potential for deterioration to those rafter tails and she would hate to ask someone without those to introduce that feature. Committee Member Imboden stated it was apparent and had existed on the house. Mr. De Vone stated he had not changed any of the rafter tails. On one side of the house they were deteriorated and he would keep them in that format, all the ones that were extended were deteriorated. The overhang for the garage had rafter tails. To take away the stress from the DRC Members, he had no issue in extending the rafter tails on the new construction. Some of the home had fascia board and some areas had none; it could blend. Having extended rafter tails probably wasn't the best thing over a 30 -year period, but if they were maintaining the historic integrity of the structure he was okay with that. Vice Chair Wheeler raised an issue that he needed to think about and that was the gutter detail, because that would drive a lot of that and with the open rafters the gutter detail would make a difference in the historic appearance. He thought about putting the gutter in the rafter detail or the gutter could be attached to the rafter tail with the gutter behind that. He stated he was willing to work with them to get what they wanted. Committee Member Imboden stated he appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with them. However, his position was the detail that Vice Chair Wheeler spoke of; that the homes were of an earlier era. There was no evidence that it was used in the home before them and it would be inappropriate to suddenly add that detail. Committee Member Fox stated there were four areas near the garage that showed some modification. Committee Member Imboden pointed out where the extended rafters existed on the home. He had not seen a home where some of the rafters extended and some had not. Vice Chair Wheeler asked could that be due to the fact that some of the sheathing had fallen off? Committee Member Imboden stated that was a very typical detail for that type of home and now they were arguing that it was a roofing error. Vice Chair Wheeler stated to him there had not been any evidence that could not be explained that there had been a sheathing board that had rotted away and had been removed. It had been modified. Committee Member Imboden stated he was not stating that it had to be duplicated, but he was concerned as to how they moved forward. Vice Chair Wheeler stated his solution would be to have the exposed rafter tails where there were rafter tails now, but that they would not need to extend beyond the roofing; and that the applicant be able to hang a gutter on the end of the rafter tails for the drainage situation. Committee Member Fox stated that she would suggest the same, exposed rafter tails with rain gutters and no fascia. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 7 of 24 Committee Member McCormack stated it would be a modified fascia. Vice Chair Wheeler stated it happened so often around Old Towne that it would be appropriate. Committee Member Imboden stated that would be an appropriate treatment and he would want to add that no existing rafter tails were to be cut off. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he could agree with that. Committee Member McCormack asked with that requirement would the roof need to be extended in some areas? Vice Chair Wheeler stated the roof would need to build out in some areas to prevent rotting. Committee Member Imboden stated he thought they were speaking to the addition, not everywhere. Vice Chair Wheeler stated where there were rafters, exposed rafter tails, those would remain with no new fascia added, and where a gutter was needed the gutter could be added at the rafter tails. Committee Member Imboden stated again that he thought they were looking at just the addition. Committee Member Fox stated there were areas that were not part of the addition, but of remodel work that needed gutters. Committee Member McCormack stated the rafter tails needed to be added back at the roof. Mr. Ryan stated in many cases they could be added back about 2 /3rds and `sistered' in. Committee Member Imboden stated what Vice Chair Wheeler was trying to do was to accommodate gutters for the entire house. Vice Chair Wheeler stated no, just where they were needed. There were areas that gutters were not needed. Mr. De Vone stated there were certain areas that needed gutters. The section that was being removed would need gutters. Committee Member Fox stated if you were standing across the street the gutter would appear as a fascia, but in the case of the project before them the gutter would be over the rafter and it would not cover them all of the way. Committee Member Imboden stated he had not wanted to imply that the roof needed to be extended everywhere in order to provide gutters everywhere. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 8 of 24 Vice Chair Wheeler stated his thought was that homes such as the one in the project before them, in Old Towne, never had gutters. People came to California to get out of the rain and that they had not needed rain gutters. Mr. De Vone stated what drove the gutter situation was the neighbor who had wanted a solution to the flooding situation. Committee Member Fox stated historically homes had not had as much paving and there was a place for water to soak into. Mr. De Vone stated he had excavated and installed a French drain and it was working much better to have a place for the water to drain. Committee Member Imboden stated there was an area that had not been addressed yet; his guess was that the rafters were single pieces and portions would require `sistering' to hold the eaves. It would create a bit of a project there. Mr. De Vone stated they were currently resting on the garage. The Committee Members reviewed the rafter details with the applicants. Committee Member Fox stated she felt it was appropriate to match the overhang of the front of the house or the length of the rafters at the back of the house. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he felt they had a consensus on the rafters. Committee Member Fox asked if the rafters should extend past the drip edge or end behind the drip edge? Committee Member Imboden stated he had no preference of how it was done; his concern was that none of the historic ones be cut off. Committee Member McCormack stated that would mean the roof would need to extend over the edge. Committee Member Imboden stated he was under the assertion that the home had extended rafter tails. He was not asking that all the rafters be replaced and if there was a deviation on the new construction he was okay with that. The roof would come to the end of the rafters and the gutter would be applied to the ends of the rafters, rather than having a fascia. But he would not want the rest of the home to be made consistent and for historic fabric to be removed. Vice Chair Wheeler stated another issue was how much of the asbestos siding should be removed. Committee Member Imboden stated there had been projects that had come before them where siding was allowed to be removed at a later date and in many of those cases had been Mills Act situations. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 9 of 24 Mr. Ryan stated one project had been and another had not. Mr. De Vone stated he had removed some areas and thought to maintain the historic fabric as much as possible and he had already painted over those areas. The Committee Members reviewed the plans to ascertain what was wood and what was asbestos siding. Committee Member Fox stated where the addition and where the remodeling was taking place was wood; it was only a 20% addition and it was hard to request that the entire home be re- sided. Committee Member Imboden stated it was a complicated issue and he tended to agree with Committee Member Fox and not require that all the asbestos be removed. He would strongly recommend that it should be done at a future date and it would make for a much nicer home. Committee Member Fox stated the rhythm of the siding on the home was just great. Mr. Ryan stated he agreed. Committee Member Imboden stated a vertical strip was not an appropriate line of demarcation. Committee Member Fox stated the corridor was very tight and to create a pop -out would not be appropriate. She still felt a change in the direction of the ridge would make for a better design. Committee Member Imboden stated the project would be more palatable for him if the roof ran in the other direction; there would be a visible change in what was new. Mr. Drummond stated he had not wanted to make that change as he was unsure of what the foundation was and had not wanted to add any additional load. Vice Chair Wheeler stated it could be headered off with a girder. In a similar situation he had used a steel channel. Mr. Drummond stated he had wanted to keep the new roof in the same plane as the old roof and keep a gable end to match the front of the house. Committee Member Imboden stated the DRC tended to discourage that. To just extrude the house out would then make it difficult to tell what was historic and what was new. That was one of the standards required for the project. Mr. Drummond stated what they wanted him to do was turn the ridge 90 degrees and California over the existing and he would still be putting load over the existing rafters. Committee Member Fox stated no, the California would be over the new. There would be a new footing and another new footing, and not that big of a span. There would be a very clear distinction between what was old and what was new. Mr. De Vone asked what about lowering the roof? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 10 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated in doing that, the roof would need to be so much lower that it would create other issues. Committee Member Fox stated it would be such a small load. Committee Member Imboden stated making that change would go a long way in making the project more appealing. There would be a clear line of demarcation. Mr. De Vone discussed the changes in the roof and how that would appear with the Committee Members. He stated he would be okay with that change. Vice Chair Wheeler stated they had come to a consensus on the rafters, siding, and an agreement to the roof change. Committee Member Fox stated she was ready to make a motion. Committee Member Imboden stated there was no notation for foundation material and the existing house had stucco. Mr. Drummond stated the new would have stucco to match existing. Vice Chair Wheeler stated on the barge boards would that construction be in the traditional style without flat -out lookers? Mr. Drummond stated in the traditional style. Committee Member Imboden stated on the portion of the roof that was over the door that had been removed, and it appeared that the door was being lost in the renovation; the request was to shear off that part of the roof. Committee Member Fox stated that part of the home was not part of the original home. Mr. De Vone stated when he bought the home there was not a door there. There had been plywood over that area. He had not touched anything in that area. There had not been any work done for over 30 years to the home. Vice Chair Wheeler stated they would not want to cut back that overhang and he would suggest the roof remain extended in memory of where the door was. Committee Member Imboden stated the door could be put back in to make sense of that area. Mr. De Vone stated he was bringing up a point that he was thinking about, if the door was not put back or put back the overhang would remain as it currently existed. Committee Member Fox stated the roof that the Committee Members just asked to have rotated would go directly into that extended roof, and to keep the extended roof it would not work; it would need to be cut back. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 11 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed with Committee Member Fox and that part would need to be cut off. The Committee Members agreed that the overhang should be cut off. Committee Member Imboden stated there were siding flares on the existing home and there was a water table. They had not discussed differentiation yet and would that come into play with differentiation. Committee Member Fox stated to install the new without the flare would be a form of differentiation and it would appear less historic. Committee Member Imboden stated the addition that it was attaching to had no flare. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he was comfortable having no flare. The Committee Members agreed that the new would not need to flare. Committee Member Imboden stated there was another detail that had not been picked up regarding the sills. It could be a detail that could be added to the new. Mr. De Vone stated all the windows had been repaired and were working. Committee Member Fox stated they were discussing the window sills. Committee Member Imboden stated there was a close -up picture at the rear and it showed that the ears of the window sills had been cut off and they typically extended. When the siding was installed those had been cut off. He reviewed the photo with the applicant and that detail was more visible at the back of the garage. He suggested that the detail be added on the new construction. Mr. De Vone agreed with that detail. Committee Member McCormack asked where the existing sump pump was located? Mr. De Vone located the photo and reviewed the current situation with Committee Member McCormack on how the water was being handled. The water was going into the neighbor's yard. A 2" pipe had been run to the street underground. He installed a bigger sump pump, but the problem was that the pipe was almost level and when the pump was turned off the water ran back in. He needed to add a pool valve type system so the water would not run back in. Committee Member McCormack stated the only way to solve that with a pipe that was level was to have a solid pipe that switched to a perforated pipe that was wrapped, and at every 5' increments it was augured down 6' to 8'. With gravel added, the water would go down into that area, but he would need to go 20' out. The only alternative would be to have solid pipe to get the water away from the sump pump location, transition to a perforated line, and then start the filtration. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 12 of 24 Mr. De Vone stated he was not certain where the pipe ran and he would not want to tear out the historic driveway. Committee Member McCormack stated he would not want to condition that, but just as a suggestion. Vice Chair Wheeler stated that it appeared they were modifying Condition Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the Staff Report. Regarding Condition No. 2 on the eave overhang, he would want to replace that condition with information as discussed; and also Condition Nos. 3 and 4. Committee Member Fox stated she would delete Condition Nos. 3 and 4, and modify Condition No. 2. She would try to craft a motion. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4639 -12, De Vone Residence, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report, with the exception of striking Conditions 3 and 4, and to modify Condition 2 to read: • The applicant shall maintain the eave overhangs at the existing eave width, using an open rafter design with no fascia, and install gutters at the exposed rafter tails to resolve the drainage problem where needed. And to add the following conditions: • Rotate the ridge over the addition 90 degrees. • Foundation to be stucco to match existing. • Barge rafters to be supported by out lookers, constructed in the traditional fashion. • Extend window trim and sill for new windows. And with the following recommendations: • To add drainage lines as discussed along the driveway to the street. • For cement fiber siding to be removed. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 13 of 24 New Agenda Items: (4) DRC No. 4633 -12 — PANDA EXPRESS • A proposal to square off the NE corner cut off by adding 40 SF, add 2 awnings on the north elevation, repaint the exterior, and replace a tree. • 2318 N. Tustin Street, Suite C • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, do ug yen(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Michelle Soliman, address on file, stated she was available for questions. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Fox asked where on the site plans was the existing tree that was being removed? Ms. Soliman pointed out where the tree existed and it was being removed in order to install a new awning. Committee Member Fox asked which door was the main door for patrons? Mr. Soliman pointed out the main door on the plans. Committee Member Fox reviewed the plans and where the parking would be located. Vice Chair Wheeler stated there might be a problem with the ADA parking and it may be something that the applicant might want to discuss with the Building Department. Ms. Nguyen pointed out where the parking existed. Committee Member Fox stated she was fine with the "boxing -out" at the corner. Committee Member Imboden asked if the "boxing -out" had been looked at in terms of why those buildings were built that way originally in reference to the street and visibility at that corner? He was not certain that was in the DRC's purview. Otherwise, he was fine with the proposal from an aesthetic point of view. Ms. Nguyen stated they had not looked at that issue. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 14 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated all the buildings at that corner were stepped back and he had wanted to raise that issue in the event there could be a potential problem. Ms. Nguyen stated if it was considered a corner, they would require a corner cutoff. They were out of the 25' radius. Even the column would not be allowed if it was within that 25' cutoff. The driveway width, plus the parking spaces and the landscape made it more than 25' and outside of the corner. Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to raise that as a potential issue. Aesthetically, he had no issues with the proposal. Vice Chair Wheeler asked Committee Member McCormack if there were any issues with the landscape? Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on where the new tree would be planted. He reviewed the plans with the applicant. Ms. Nguyen stated it was easier to view in the photo. Committee Member Fox stated she was okay with the new location for the tree. Committee Member Imboden stated he was okay with it as well. The Committee Members reviewed the plans and the placement of the tree and the planter areas. Committee Member McCormack stated he would recommend a larger tree, a 24" box tree would be better. He recommended a Chinese lantern tree for that space; it would be perfect for Panda Express. The fall back tree would be a Silver dollar gum tree in a 24" box, which would be the other matching tree on the other side. Vice Chair Wheeler stated they were adding a post on the existing column and it would seem to fit in better if it was a stucco form instead of the store front. Committee Member Fox stated on A4.0 there was a strip of stucco but it was not visible on the elevation. Committee Member McCormack stated it would probably be painted metal and part of the store front system. Vice Chair Wheeler stated he would suggest stucco to blend in better. Committee Member McCormack asked wouldn't it look better if the cadence was just continued all the way? Vice Chair Wheeler stated it might look better if it was all store front and they got rid of the stucco members; he would go for that. Committee Member Fox stated unless there was a structural reason for the posts. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 15 of 24 Ms. Soliman stated she had not thought those were needed. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member Imboden stated they could just wrap it all as store front. Committee Member McCormack stated it would appear nicer. Ms. Nguyen asked if it was a necessary structural component and it was required, did they want those to be stucco? Vice Chair Wheeler suggested that they could condition it to be all store front with a stucco replacement approved by staff if it was structurally necessary. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4633 -12, Panda Express, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report with the following conditions: • For the build -out to be a store front treatment if structurally feasible; but if not, to have stucco structural members as shown on the submittal. • To allow removal of the slender Eucalyptus tree and replace it with a 24" box Chinese Lantern tree as a standard rather than a multi, with the second choice tree to be a 24" box Eucalyptus Silver gum tree to match the tree on the north corner of the building, and with the tree location to be added to the plans. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 16 of 24 (5) DRC No. 4644 -12 — NV PROPERTIES • A proposal to upgrade existing landscaping, reconstruct a front entry courtyard, install a water feature, and provide new walkways for a contributing commercial office building. • 1015 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a�cit o�nge.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Dominic Masielio, address on file, stated he had brought some stone samples with him and the material was flagstone that was cut. The intent would be for installation of those in a random modular pattern. The Committee Members looked at the samples. Mr. Masielio stated the stone would be earth tones. They would all fit together. He originally had stamped concrete in the plan at the request of the property owner, but that was prohibited and that was one of the major issues, the hardscape. The original intent was to remove the concrete from the raised porch, but that had been changed to leave the porch as existing. Committee Member Imboden stated there had been comment that the building would not be touched, but the renderings showed a lot of touching such as the windows, roof, and brackets all being different and was that not the intent? Mr. Masielio stated that was just conceptually to paint a pretty picture. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated that since it was just clarified that there would be no changes made to the building, that clarification took away a number of his concerns. He would want to emphasize that whatever materials being used should be consistent with the Design Standards and that the materials fit into the feeling of Old Towne. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Imboden stated the renderings showed stone on the porch and the porch steps and that would not occur, he wanted to clarify that. Mr. Masielio stated that was correct, the porch and porch stairs would remain as existing. Committee Member Imboden stated the hand rails were not noted on the drawings and he believed those were required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 17 of 24 Mr. Masielio stated the hand rails were existing and they were just tube railings. He would want to change those with the DRC's recommendations, and to possibly use iron for the railing. Committee Member McCormack asked for a presentation with an overview of what the landscape concept was. Mr. Masielio stated the pedestrian entry from the sidewalk was purely functional. There was a shared parking area to the back with the business next door. As folks would park there, they would walk up the narrow alley way; it could possibly be dangerous. They could take walk -ins from the front and a side entry. The plant materials were drought tolerant and he wanted to have a more curvilinear natural feel. He had seen Spanish revival go both ways, very rectilinear with formal hedges and landscape and some that pointed more toward a Southwestern feel; and the proposal was a happy medium with the plant materials proposed. The existing courtyard was too small to function as a courtyard and there was currently a very narrow walkway through that area, which was difficult to tell from the satellite images. The courtyard was not really a courtyard; the main intent of the design was to provide a relaxation and client entertainment area in front. The new ownership was a real estate owner /investor and he wanted to use the location as his store front. Committee Member McCormack asked if the proposal was to extend to that area? Mr. Masielio stated yes, to make the area larger and functional, and to boost the area with a water feature and a small patio space. Committee Member Fox commented that there was the detail for the vine trellis, and asked if the vine trellis would flank the water feature? Mr. Masielio stated yes. Committee Member McCormack stated the drawings showed an angled piece of concrete and existing sign. He asked for clarification as to what was actually occurring there. He was a bit confused as the demo plan showed a straight line and in the photo it was a slanted line. Mr. Masielio stated from his visits to the site it was not that slanted, it was somewhere in the middle. Committee Member Fox asked if he wanted that to be straightened out? Committee Member McCormack stated yes, if it was straightened out it appeared that the sign was being relocated. Mr. Masielio stated the sign was an existing sign. Committee Member McCormack stated from the depiction the sign would be in a different place. Mr. Masielio stated that he would want to saw cut that area, under the condition that the apron was narrower. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 18 of 24 Committee Member McCormack stated his first thought was that there were two ways to approach the design; a residential -type way and a business -type way, and in designing it the concept had to be clear. To be bold, with the bold finding its identity with bold plant material in large expanses. To compare that to a residential application with a wide variety of different plants in a large varietal display which stated residential. The place next door stated residential. Was it a business or a residence? The landscape would announce that. Along Chapman there were mostly all businesses. In looking at the style of the house, and in losing the Ficus trees, he had not had a problem with that. He would want to simplify the design a bit more. He didn't want to redesign someone's proposal, but he would want to make some comments on how to simplify it and take away some of the distractions. Committee Member McCormack continued, stating that all the different movements created distractions, sometimes there were possibilities to have accents, but it was not big enough to do that. The broader bold approach to landscape should be happening. The sign was crimping on this thing, and he hadn't minded the circular element. When he talked about simplifying it, there were square planters and a round pot and trying to create some consistency with the amenities or "jewelry." He had not had a problem that those were square and that was round, but his biggest thing was that in simplifying the design he would give the planting areas a bit more room to become a buffer and there was only a 2 '/2 -foot width and the Lavender that was in there would enter some of the use space, if there was the ability to expand and create the space to fit the furniture. The fountain was great and the two plants that were chosen. He would have simplified it and created an open path. The distance had not provided a deeper area and he would suggest making the space bigger. The curb had not added much. Committee Member Fox stated the curb was a more modern interpretation of how walkways met sidewalks. In the 1938 aerial there was a curving path. If there was foot traffic being picked up from downtown it would be more of an organic shape to that entry. The 1947 photo showed a pergola or something between that little path and the sidewalk. There could still be the little stepping stones that linked that path to the driveway and to introduce a curvy element to go back to the historic landscape. Committee Member Imboden stated he had not wanted them to lose site that the property was a contributor to the National Register. In his recollection on more than one occasion the DRC had required property owners to remove cobblestone sidewalks that they had installed without prior approval and in the project before them they were entertaining the idea. In the discussion of whether it was a business or residence, it was to be used as a business, but he was not certain the landscape should reflect more of a business than a residence because that was what it was historically. The argument to maintain somewhat of a residential landscape was not more historically accurate but more appropriate for the block it was on. He had an issue with the material proposed. What was before them would be beautiful, but it strayed far from Old Towne. The removal of the courtyard wall also disturbed him. The courtyard that was there was very poorly planned; it was wider than a sidewalk, but not wide enough to be used as a patio space. Committee Member Fox stated they needed to address that and were they in agreement that the applicant could have some type of courtyard that was larger than what existed? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 19 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated he had no issue with the addition of a courtyard as there were residential structures in Old Towne with courtyards. But the approach to the landscape needed to be discussed further. Committee Member McCormack stated he could explain it simpler, that the landscape would not need to look like a business, but a stately residential landscape because it was historic. The way that the landscape was presented, as historical in the Spanish Colonial revival, it was very simple with a rolling lawn, a shrub edge, and big trees; that was basically it. If he was designing it, that was where he would take his cue as opposed to making it a cottage garden. Things would get picked up that were more of an English garden as opposed to a Spanish Colonial garden vs. a more modern garden. He would recommend something that would go with the architecture. Committee Member Imboden stated he was fine with that, but he would not want to limit the applicant to that. The houses were not furnished with Spanish Colonial furnishings and the architecture inside the homes were not Spanish Colonial, and he believed that the original gardens more often than not had not reflected the architecture. Committee Member Fox stated the treatment at the front of the wall was very historic and where she would land on that was that the proportion of the courtyard was elegant and not overbearing with the yard. It was now a useable courtyard and made the whole yard more inviting and comfortable. She would want the shape of the walkway to recall the historic walkways with the more "S" shaped walkways and there would not be the conflict with the sign. Committee Member Imboden stated he was not sure the Code would allow that as the street had widened. Committee Member Fox stated a trellis might not be needed. Form -wise and hardscape -wise, with a little tweak it would be more approvable. Mr. Masielio stated from the aerials there were more curved walkways and there were some very direct straight walkways. With the stone that was more modular by default it wanted to be straight, but if he used an irregularly shaped flagstone that was dry set with decomposed granite for the grout joints which would lend to a looser feel. Committee Member Fox stated historically all that stuff was concrete. She would prefer to see concrete out in front of the wall and in the courtyard, the more modular material. Even the stepping stones off to the side could be concrete. Vice Chair Wheeler asked, with that type of architecture, would a tile be more appropriate? Mr. Masielio stated he had begun with that, but it was not something the property owner was open to. Committee Member Imboden stated it seemed that the DRC members were more apt to accept or encourage the applicant to use a more curved approach for the walkway and to pay homage to the elements that had been removed. Committee Member McCormack stated he would just love to saw cut into that concrete. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 20 of 24 Mr. Masielio stated without losing the lawn element they could still keep the flanking plant element. Committee Member McCormack stated the concrete could come along that way with some saw cutting. Committee Member Imboden stated many historic sidewalks had railroading in the concrete. Vice Chair Wheeler asked if the concrete would be the specific concrete mix that was recommended for Old Towne? Mr. Ryan stated that was only used for sidewalks and they had not required that for residential sidewalks. Committee Member McCormack stated the City used a broom finish and at the library they used a top cast finish with a thin saw cut joint. There was a whole expansion and saw cut system without big joints. He was concerned that the buffer was not big enough and to choose a feature plant and make that planting space work for it and to layer with the planting area being 5' with 3 and 2. There were all different ways to do it. Committee Member Imboden stated he was more likely to suggest that the driveway area should be left alone, and in order to make it work he would not want that to change as it was a narrow driveway and that little piece could prevent an accident. Committee Member McCormack stated on another project he had done a 4' access point, where it could be a double saw cut going in there and maybe staining the concrete. Committee Member Imboden stated there were bollards there. Committee Member McCormack stated on another project there was a front area that needed access from the parking area and the concrete had been stained to define it as a walkway. Vice Chair Wheeler stated no change in plane, just a change in color to get the feeling that cars should not drive over it. Committee Member Fox asked the applicant if his scope of work included redoing the drive? Mr. Masielio stated no, it was not in the scope of work and that was all existing. They were thinking of just re- striping some of the spots for handicap access. Committee Member Imboden stated they would lose two spaces for the project. Mr. Masielio stated one for the ramp and the landing took away one spot. Committee Member Imboden stated he was not opposed to that and the historic buildings needed to be viable for businesses and the requirements could not always be met. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 21 of 24 Committee Member McCormack stated that was not an expensive element to give that a sandblasted wash or to just stain it. It was not a red vs. white, but to use a color that was already there and to add some saw cutting to make the statement that it was a walkway. Mr. Masielio stated he would propose that to the client. Committee Member Fox stated that was also way - finding when parking in the back. Mr. Masielio stated if he did go with something as suggested by Committee Member McCormack he would still want a secondary path that would come through there (an area he pointed to on the plans). He suggested the use of irregular shaped flagstone through the lawn space as a possibility. Vice Chair Wheeler stated they were talking about using concrete for everything outside of the courtyard. Committee Member Fox stated the use of concrete stepping stones would be acceptable. Having stone out in front of a historic structure, they would generally not allow that, but because the stone would be behind the wall and a sort of area rug, it would be okay. Mr. Masielio stated what would the recommendation be for a secondary walkway? Committee Member Fox stated concrete stepping stones. Committee Member Imboden stated he would be careful to not have the stone appear too contemporary, just plain old simple ones. Committee Member McCormack stated he would want the grass to blend in there and to "pop" that up (an area he pointed to on the plans) as a path to that. He drew an example and showed it to the applicant as one way to do it. Mr. Masielio stated he liked that example. He stated there would be a gate across there, and asked if it would be acceptable to stop the concrete with the new proposed material up to the steps? Committee Member Fox stated that would work. Committee Member Imboden stated it was a smaller area and aesthetically it would work. On the materials he had seen a note for pre -cast concrete cap and he would prefer no cap. Vice Chair Wheeler stated the existing wall had a brick cap. Mr. Masielio stated it was a really funky brick cap. Committee Member Imboden stated he would want to propose no cap. Committee Member Fox asked would he want just stucco going across the top? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 22 of 24 Committee Member Imboden stated most of them were that way; he had a problem with that vintage of home using a more modern material. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked a cantilevered cap on the wall. He would go with something that was thin and use a pour -in -place cap. He saw the wall as a top cast concrete wall. Committee Member Fox asked if they would need a continuance? She was not certain if the applicant needed to get it all vetted out with his client. Mr. Masielio stated his client would go with what he suggested. Committee Member McCormack asked if the Committee Members would want to see it back with the changes? The suggested changes gave some more room and the grade would need to be determined, as he assumed it was flat. Mr. Masielio stated he would love it if there was any possible way to get the approval settled, rather than coming back for another meeting. If the DRC could find a way to move it along and he was confident with the comments made with the walkway, he would like to take the project into fruition. Committee Member McCormack stated typically the DRC Members would want to see it come back with the changes. Committee Member Fox stated if it was just a material change Staff could review the proposal, however, there were changes to the plant material, location, and hardscape materials. Committee Member McCormack stated when a structural engineer took a look at the footings, and there could be a potential problem at the plant edge. The angle of the footing needed to be looked at and some additional soil would be needed to make the planting area work. Committee Member Fox stated there was ample room on both sides of the wall. Committee Member McCormack stated the Lavender would grow into that space and it could grow to 4' wide and it was not a plant that could be hedged. Depending on the size and space, plants needed to be chosen for the specific areas. Committee Member Fox stated there were no 12" strips against wall footings that would limit the planting space. Mr. Masielio stated the wall was stopped there, as when he reviewed the design with Mr. Ryan they were under the assumption of not pushing anything out past the adjacent structure; the porch of the adjacent structure was in line with that wall. If they were okay in buying another foot he would be fine with that. Committee Member Imboden stated another foot would be acceptable and Mr. Masielio had done a good job with the proportion of lot to building to courtyard. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 23 of 24 Vice Chair Wheeler stated if the proposal was for stucco on the walls he strongly recommended that the stucco remain above grade. He asked if the applicant had ever done the vine trellis detail as proposed? Mr. Masielio stated yes, it was treated wood posts in a footing with wire, with a bit of tension to hold the vine. Vice Chair Wheeler stated the post bases were not that good for resisting any type of bending and he might want to look into something that would hold the tension and something that would give more moment resistance. Committee Member Imboden stated he would love to see it not be all one plane, to set that in 1" to 2 ". Vice Chair Wheeler stated he thought the overhead beam at the gate was obsolete as it was not in the drawings. Mr. Masielio stated yes, he had taken that out. Committee Member McCormack stated on the planting palette the Dogwood would not grow there. Aside from the Dogwood, he liked that the applicant had not gone overboard with the tree varieties and he would like to see a main tree and one accent tree. He would need to work around the hardscape. Most of the plant choices were good; however, there were a few that would get too big. On the Rosemary, he should pick a type as some were very low and some were very vertical. He went through the plant palette with the applicant and made suggestions for size and specie of plants. On the sod he suggested the use of Marathon. Committee Member Imboden stated he would want to see the handrail design as well, maybe something in iron. Committee Member McCormack stated Building Code may have something to say about that in keeping it 12" from the step and other details. Vice Chair Wheeler asked if they were ready for a motion. Committee Member Imboden stated he appreciated the detail in the drawings that had been provided. Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4644 -12, NV Properties, based on the comments made during the item's discussion. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2012 Page 24 of 24 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.