Loading...
12-15-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES December 15, 2004 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 2 1. DRC No. 391.7-04 - MELINDA BROWN Reconsideration to determine if project constitutes a demolition and whether the existing garage was a contributing structure. 403 E. Palmyra Avenue (Old Towne) No Staff Report Committee Member Craig Wheeler recused himself from the discussion, as he is the Architect on the project. An overview of the project was given by Alice Angus, Community Development Director. She reviewed the project as it had been presented to date. In July, plans were brought to the City focusing on new garage doors, re-roofing, and adding on a workroom, trash/storage/potting shed areas, with materials to match the existing house. Plans were submitted and approved for the construction. The applicant proceeded with the project, and the city received a complaint. Upon inspection, staff determined that it was primarily a demolition with just one wall remaining along the property line. A Stop Work order was issued, and staff met with the applicant to discuss processing and what steps would be needed to resolve the issue. Ms. Angus reminded the DRC members as she passed out copies of the City's Code, and also the Old Towne Design Standards, that because there were different definitions, and depending on how the DRC chose to categorize the project, that will decide whether or not the DRC can remain the approving body, or whether it needs to be treated as a demolition of a contributing structure, which requires additional work and Planning Commission determination. Ms. Angus stated that she would like Melinda Brown to also give an overview of her project and intentions. Ms. Angus stated there was an inconsistency in definitions between the Municipal Zoning Code and the Old Towne Design Standards that state, basically that a demolition is "an act or process that destroys, moves or razes in whole or in part a building, structure or site, or permanently impairs the structural or architectural integrity." She advised the DRC that one question they would need to contemplate is whether or not what has happened, and what the applicant intends, is a demolition. If it is a demolition (looking at the Old Towne Design Review Standards), there are times when it goes to the Planning Commission and there are times when it goes to the DRC for review. Basically, the DRC can act on a demolition as it is worded in the standards demolition of anon-contributing accessory structure greater than 120 sq. ft. when the replacement structure is similar in function and size." If it is a contributing accessory structure, then it requires Planning Commission review. Ms. Angus refers to the original historic survey that talks about the house, and there is no mention of the accessory structure, so that does not define it as contributing or non-contributing. The Municipal Zoning Code defines contributing structure as all pre-1940 buildings and structures so identified on the City's historic building inventory. Again, this structure is not identified, so it leaves the department unable to reach a firm conclusion. Ms. Angus also identified a definition under the section of non-contributing buildings that are within the Old Towne square-mile historic district, which do not contribute to the district because the buildings City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 3 are contemporary in architectural style and are less than 50 years old. The Old Towne Design Standards, page 41, defines a contributing building or structure as used in the document, as all pre-1940 buildings and structures located within the established historic district, whether individually designated historic or not, provided they retain their architectural integrity. There is also a definition of anon-historic resource; a resource within a historic district that does not contribute to the character of the district because the resource is either contemporary or no longer retains architectural integrity. The last two definitions, she states, may be relevant (reminding the DRC that at the staff level this was presented as a repair or a restoration), repair is not defined anywhere, but rehabilitation (alterations to historic buildings which retain a significant architectural style of the building while meeting the needs of current uses), and restoration is defined as careful and meticulous return of a resource to an appearance at a particular time period, usually on it's original site, by removal or later work or replacement of earlier work. She summarized by saying that upon staff review of this project, it appeared to be a demolition, and the question revolved around whether it is a contributing or non-contributing accessory structure. If it is found to be non-contributing, then she is very comfortable in the understanding that it is a demolition, and the record will be reflected as such. If it is found to be a contributing structure, then the project would be on hold while some additional processing is done to move it forward to the Planning Commission. Melinda Brown, the applicant, introduced Kevin Hockenberry, noting that he lives in Old Towne Tustin and has worked in Old Towne Orange before doing construction. She discussed her timeline for the project. In Spring 2003, she spoke to Daniel Ryan, looking for an architect, he recommended a couple, she interviewed some, Craig Wheeler was one that she really liked. Originally, she renovated her home in 1996 to take it back to the character of what a 1901 house should be. They noted that the garage needed to be repaired, and they decided to add a workroom. She noted that Mr. Wheeler stated that her garage was very close to the property line and she should probably have it surveyed. It was surveyed in August 2003. In the survey, it was discovered that her garage is 3 inches on her neighbor's property. So that was an issue. She then told Craig that she wanted to have trash can storage, needed to have a place to store her garden things, and also wanted a workroom for her husband with extra storage. With that the plans were drawn up. She then went through the various stages of the garage development, from slab to floor, etc. She said there was no foundation for the garage, just the slab, and then some wood was put down which was the shed part of the garage. The garage on one side, according to Kevin Hockenberry, has a board and batten siding, like 10-12 inch redwood boards. The opposite side basically has the T1-11 (the north side). The south side has T1-11 that someone put on, probably because the old stuff rotted away. Ms. Brown stated that the problem was, the wall was not connected to anything, you could lift it up, in fact raccoons, etc., had gotten in the garage that way. She also stated that nine years ago when she was doing renovation on the house, she was told not to waste her money putting a new roof on the structure, because it was in such poor shape, it was not worth it, as the wood was rotting on the structure, etc. She noted that she purchased a book of historic structures, her house was in it, and her garage was not. She also noted that the garage had poor construction from the beginning, and even shoddier repairs and additions to it since then, with no foundation, etc. It also does not match the house (no hip roof), and is not the same construction or same style as Classical Revival Home. She noted that she had used the word "repair" after a discussion with Dan Ryan, knowing that they would not be City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 4 able to salvage the entire garage. But when construction began, the termite rot was so extensive, that it could not be repaired. The applicant was asked if they thought they were going to be able to retain the remaining wall; Kevin Hockenberry replied that it was a shear wall, with a 4 x 4 every six or seven feet, and then there's a 4 x 4 across the top. He stated his plan was to lift the wall, replace the bottom with treated material, and hang the anchor bolts so as to set the wall on the new foundation because the wall has to move (i.e., it needs to be on Melinda Brown's property; it currently is not). Mr. Hockenberry stated that in his opinion the building was non-repairable, because it would be impossible to restack a roof, turn a building, and move it six inches, and re-do all the sheer panel walls, and still make it structurally sound. They noted that the plans actually showed siding on the driveway-side wall, but if the original wall is retained, it would make the walls different. Ms. Brown and Mr. Hockenberry stated that this was an issue they hoped the DRC would decide. She stated that she even questioned Craig Wheeler (her architect) as to whether she had to do all of the work in the final plans (i.e., reinforced concrete footings, new slab, etc.). She felt that she was progressing in the correct direction throughout the project because of Craig Wheeler's meticulous attention to detail. The public was invited to speak. Opposed: Janet Crenshaw/OTPA -She stated she was upset about this because it sounded like a matter of definition. What would have happened, had it been labeled a demolition, would have been that it would go the Planning Commission, so it would be just one more step to save this building. Chair Califf clarified that it would only have gone to Planning Commission had it been a demotion of a contributing structure.) She believed that any structure built pre-1940 would have been a contributing structure, and garages are typically not listed in the book. She asked if there were any reason, now, to retain the wall. Mr. Hockenberry explained it would be easier for him to take it down. Jeff Frankel/OTPA -Questioned why, when the survey was done, they knew the garage had to be moved so that was part of the original project? He does not recall that being part of the original project. (Ms. Brown stated that it was not discussed.) He recalls the word "restoration" used extensively, and adding on a potting shed. He believes the structure is contributing, and you won't find any garages listed in the inventory of historic structures. He stated that you would not have to pour a new footing if you were just repairing a structure. You would need to follow the code requirements if you were building a new structure, but not for simply repairing a structure. Mr. Hockenberry stated that the plans showed a whole new foundation; and Mr. Frankel stated that that was the problem, these plans were not brought before the DRC. Mr. Frankel also noted that he did not understand how the Building Department could approve plans without bringing them before the DRC. Shawn Howell, 385 S. Glassell Avenue - Mr. Howell stated that he was actually at the DRC meeting when this project was presented. He was given the impression at that meeting that the existing garage was going to remain in place, and additions would be added on to it (the potting City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 5 shed, etc.). He noted that the project was even praised for keeping the existing garage, and that's what the public was led to believe. Alice Angus, Community Development Director, re-summarized what the department was asking the DRC to determine. Are the plans as they stand now what it was when the DRC originally made their decision on the project? And, if not, do you consider the work done to date to be a demolition? If it's considered to be a demolition, then the question is, given the information that there were some add-ons to the project (that, perhaps deteriorated it architectural integrity), do you find that the structure was or was not a contributing accessory structure? If these questions are answered, then the next steps can be determined as to the process to be followed. If these questions are answered, then the next steps can be determined as to the process to be followed. If it is found to be a demolition or partial demolition, then it can be determined what is to happen to the one existing wall. If it is found to be non-contributing because of the alterations that were made some time in the past 20-30 years, then the DRC has the ability to approve the demolition and the new project. If it is found to be a contributing accessory structure and demolition, then it does need to move on to the Planning Commission, and the Stop Work that is in place needs to stay until a final determination is made. A neighbor of Ms. Brown's came forward to voice her support of the project. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the item based on: 1) Even though the garage was considered to be contributing at the time of the original determination, further investigative work by the architect and contractor have revealed that it was compromised, therefore it was no longer appropriate to consider the structure contributing; and 2) Even though work originally was considered a repair, demolition was required and none of the building need be retained if the owner wishes. The DRC voted 2-1 (Committee Member DeWees dissenting) that the garage was not contributing and could be demolished. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Joe Woollett NOES:Donnie Dewees ABSENT:None RECUSED:Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 6 2. DRC No. 3889-04 -PALM CENTER REPLACEMENT BUILDING Proposal to construct a 5,945 square foot commercial building. 970 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Kim Chaffin, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination The project overview was given by Associate Planner Kim Chaffin. The project site is the northwest corner of Tustin and Collins within the shopping center occupied by Albertson's grocery store and adjacent strip commercial center. The proposal is to construct a 5,945 square foot commercial building adjacent to the existing multi-tenant commercial strip building. The building will include two tenant spaces. The southerly space is designed to accommodate a bank, including an outdoor ATM, while a tenant for the northern space has not yet been identified. The initial proposal was reviewed by the DRC on September 15, 2004. At that time, the DRC made the following comments: 1. Need to see how the proposed building relates to the existing building, how it connects to the existing building, and how the walking path connects to the existing building. 2. Need to see how the colors of the proposed building relate to the existing building. 3. The DRC is not convinced the design is acceptable, as the colonnades alone are not sufficient to relate the proposed building to the existing building. 4. Building height is important, so either match the height of the existing building or make it significantly different. 5. Delete the cornices. Differences between the revised plans and the initial design include: 1. Stairs connecting the proposed building to the original building are replaced with an accessible ramp. The ramp connects to the existing walkway which serves the existing building. 2. Colors are the same as originally proposal, but the the accents are removed in keeping with the simplicity of the existing building. Stucco color is the same as the existing building, with the exception of the corners, which have a slightly warmer tone. 3. The columns are changed by the addition of capitals. The column shape is changed from tapered to non-tapered and the diameter of the columns is decreased to be more aesthetically pleasing and more in scale with both the existing building and the addition. 4. The height of the opening between the floor and ceiling is slightly increased. 5. The height of the proposed building is changed to match that of the existing building. 6. Cornices are removed. 7. Added massing to the roof screen as a way to articulate the new addition. 8. The ATM is relocated from the south elevation to the east elevation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 7 Klaus Barre of Keller Barre Associates, the project architect, presented a scale model of the proposed building and the existing strip commercial center to which the proposed building would be attached. Committee Member Wheeler commented that the revised building design has addressed the DRC's concerns, with which Members Califf and Woollett concurred. Committee Member Dewees noted the textured and smooth sidewalk pattern and suggested that the minor adjustments be made to the placement of the textured surface so that it relates more appropriately to the doorways. Mr. Barre indicated such a change could be accommodated. Kim Talley of C.B. Richard Ellis, the applicant's representative, asked for clarification regarding the Rookies Restaurant sign. Ms. Chaffin explained that the City's Sign Ordinance requires removal of any abandoned sign that advertises goods or services which have not been available for a period of 90 days or more, and the Rookies Restaurant building was demolished over two years ago. Ms. Talley asked about the possibility of constructing a monument sign on the property, to which Ms. Chaffin replied that signage was not included in this application; however, the portions of the building fascia which are unobstructed by palm trees are logical locations for wall signage. A motion was made by Committee Member Jon Califf to approve the project, including the five conditions listed in the staff report: SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 8 3. DRC No. 3963 -MOBILE SERVICE STATION Proposal for new wall signs and exterior neon lighting. 2504 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Approved on Consent Calendar) A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project as submitted. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 9 4. DRC No. 3947-04 -DREW McCAUSLAND Proposal for an accessory second unit. 1021 E. Rose Avenue Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Chris Carnes introduced the item. The applicant is proposing to build an attached accessory unit onto the rear of the single-story residence. The required parking will be behind that in a 3-car garage. The addition is of a similar roof design, colors and materials of the existing residence. The existing 2-car garage will be demolished. Staff's review of the project did not find any concerns and recommended approval. Committee Member Joe Woollett noted that there was brick siding along the front, and wondered if this was continued on the accessory second unit. The answer was no, as the addition was out of sight in the back. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the DRC usually asks that the window trim on the addition match the existing window trim, and he had noticed several different window trims on the existing structure. The applicant stated that they had just planned on using vinyl windows, but they could add wood trim around the outside. Mr. Wheeler felt that the original style was most probably on the east side of the existing structure, and it would be helpful if the new trim matched that. Chair Califf asked the applicant if he planned to replace the windows throughout, and the response was yes at some point. Mr. Wheeler asked that the eave barge trim also be made to match the existing. The applicant agreed to change out the wood windows on the existing house at the same time as the ones are put on the new house so as to have them match. Regarding the roofing material, Mr. Woollett asked that the applicant check back with the building department if, upon initial installation, it is found that it does not match closely (due to age, weathering, etc., of the original). The applicant agreed to provide a sample to Chris Carnes to review. A motion was made by Committee Chair Jon Califf to approve the project subject to those within the Staff Report and the following additional conditions: 1. If applicant cannot closely match the color and material of the existing roof, that sample of the alternative be provided to Staff. 2. The windows in the existing residence be replaced to match the new windows in the addition. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2004 Page 10 5. DRC No. 3960-04 - GUTHRIE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Proposal for amulti-building industrial development South side of Meats Avenue approximately 900 feet west of Glassell Street Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission The item was introduced by Senior Planner Chris Carnes. Representing the applicant were John O'Brian, 3185 Airway Avenue #F, Costa Mesa and William Skinner of the same address. Mr. Carnes noted that the subject property is in the middle of an industrial area. It has limited frontage on Meats Avenue. The proposal includes building design and landscaping plans. Staff has found that the buildings were compatible with the existing industrial developments in the City, and the landscaping was more than adequate to provide partial screening for the larger blank walls of the complex. Staff is recommending approval. Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator, has reviewed the project and made several recommendations. The existing parking is being relocated. The Committee Members discussed the colors being used in the project. The applicant noted that there would be subtle changes to the color throughout the project. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to recommend approval of the project, as submitted, to the Planning Commission. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 12-15-04 drem.DOC