Loading...
12-19-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 19 December 2007 Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett None Staff in Attendance: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:10 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the November 21, 2007 meeting. Committee Members noted changes and corrections needed. Chair Wheeler stated he had a concern regarding a T-Mobile cell site on Meats. It was a project that was approved in January. He reviewed the drawings and could not find what the tower was to be sheathed in, but it was to be covered and in driving by it was not. He asked if it had been finalized and if Staff could look into it. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 2 of 27 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 16, 2008. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. CONSENT ITEM5: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 21, 2007 Committee Member Califf made a motion to approve the minutes of November 21, 2007 with changes as noted. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Joe Woollett ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 3 of 27 CONSENT ITEMS-cont'd: 2) DRC No. 4239-07 - ARCHSTONE GATEWAY SIGN PROGRAM A proposal to permit an entry monument sign and a sign program for the residential development. 291 State College Boulevard Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakurncit of~ge.org DRC Action: Final Determination The item was initially placed on the consent calendar, however per Committee discussion was moved to the Agenda. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, was present for any questions or clarification from the Staff Report. The reading of the Staff Report was waived. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a recommendation for the background color of the signs in the City of Orange that would be a different color from the background color of the signs in Anaheim. He asked for clarification on the signage colors. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, stated Staff was recommending two conditions, one that the background of the directional signs, entry signs and the signs in the residential hallways of building A be a different color with verbiage that designated City of Orange. This would assist in way finding. Applicant, Cynthia Eppeldauer, address on file, stated under the logo, the City name would be designated. Committee Member Woollett asked about the sign colors and would it be subject to Staff's review? Ms. Eppeldauer stated they had come up with two color schemes. They complimented the exterior colors. They had two color schemes that were distinctively different, but still complimented each other. She presented the color palettes to the Committee and where the City limit lines began there would be two directional signs one for Anaheim and one for Orange. Ms. Thakur stated Staff was requesting the changes be reflected in the sign program. Public Comment None Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve, DRC No.4239-07 Archstone Gateway Sign Program with the conditions contained in the Staff report. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 4 of 27 SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 5 of 27 CONSENT ITEMS-cont'd: 3) DRC No. 4255-07 & CUP No. 2666-07 -FRESH & EASY (TESCO MARKETS) A proposal for tenant improvements for a new grocery store. The improvements include painting the exterior of the building. 1803 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r~arcia cr,cit. o~n~e.com DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission The item was initially placed on the consent calendar, however per Committee discussion was moved to the Agenda. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, was present for any questions or clarification from the Staff Report. The reading of the Staff Report was waived. Committee Member DeWees had a concern about the amount of green being used. In looking at the rest of the center it would stand out too much. He asked the applicant if he would consider keeping the cornice the existing color as it would blend in better? Mr. Garcia stated the colors were supposed to match what was currently on the building; the green they were looking at was a little too dark. He provided an exhibit from the other project that had been previously approved by the Committee. The color he provided on the exhibit was more reflective of what would be used. The previous application for the expansion was approved on November 7, 2007. Committee Member DeWees stated if it had been previously approved then he was O.K. with the color. Committee Member Woollett asked if the color, that was previously approved, was more of an avocado green color? Mr. Garcia stated yes, it would not be the darker green, but more of an avocado green and match the existing building. Applicant, Chris Winen, address on file, stated it was hard to get the colors to match from a colored printer. The color would match the exiting green that was used in the rest of the center. Mr. Garcia stated initially Fresh & Easy wanted to go with a darker color with a yellow facade, however, Staff requested they modify the colors to what was being presented to match the existing colors on the other buildings. Public Comment None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 6 of 27 Committee Member DeWees made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4255-07 -Fresh & Easy (Tesco Markets). SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 7 of 27 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 4) DRC No. 4262-07 -JACOB RESIDENCE A proposal to add a secondary accessory dwelling unit that is 640 sq. ft. 792 N. Grand Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do uyen a,cityoforange.org Project previously reviewed on August 15, 2007 DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Keith Messick, address on file, stated they took the comments from the Committee and changed the roof form, window type, took care of the mass/square footage issues and added some details that matched the existing structure. Applicant, Nora Jacob, address on file, stated she heard the word stucco box last time and in terms of the context of the neighborhood. She was back with a dwelling that was more in context with the neighborhood. Ms. Nguyen stated she had copies of the old plan available for review. Public Comment None Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member DeWees stated on the change to the plate heights, typically they encouraged everybody to keep them down as much as they can. Mr. Messick stated there was lost volume and to make that up the plate height was raised to get a little more volume. On the slab they were already 1 '/2' below the other structures. It had 10 feet on the bottom and 9' on top in such a small space. Committee Member DeWees asked what was the height? Ms. Nguyen stated 32'. Committee Member DeWees had a concern with the roof pitch. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 8 of 27 Mr. Messick stated the fascia would wrap up and around it. It was not a pretty detail. The plate was lowered as it looked worse if it was raised as a protruding element. He tried to soften the porch roof. The plate height was 7'. Chair Wheeler was concerned about the 10' plate downstairs. He suggested making the downstairs 9' plate; it would put the new roof at the same level as the existing house. When you had a small room with a tall ceiling it was sometimes counter productive. Committee Member Califf stated he was not sure the bedroom benefited from a 9' ceiling. 10' down below did not concern him. Chair Wheeler suggested dropping the plate upstairs to 8' and raising the porch roof to tie in to one level. Mr. Messick stated they did look at that option; however, they did not like how it looked. Chair Wheeler stated he was concerned with the 4' diameter pipe columns. When the applicant got into the lateral analysis he did not think they would work. He suggested having a fall back position in the event those would not work. Committee Member Califf stated the stairs negated a sheer wall. Chair Wheeler stated there was not a sheer wall on the first floor that would line up with a shear wall on the second floor. He asked for suggestions on what would work. The Committee reviewed the plans and clarified where on the plans they had concerns for Ms. Jacob. Chair Wheeler suggested two Strongwalls. Mr. Messick stated Strongwalls would be his preference and possibly 3 would be required. Chair Wheeler stated that they would make a condition if the pipe columns did not work the applicant would replace them with Strongwalls, which was a premanufactured wall panel. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the 2"d level was not appropriate for the neighborhood. He was not supportive of the project and there were no other residences in the area that were two-story. Ms. Nguyen stated there was atwo-story residence across the street on the corner and another on the neighboring street, just three doors down. When you stood on Lomita, where the new driveway would be, the other two-story residences were visible. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve, DRC No. 4262-007-Jacob Residence, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and the following conditions: 1. If the steel pipe columns were not found to be structurally sufficient that they be replaced by premanufactured sheer elements 2' in width. 2. Suggested plate height on the first level be reduced to 9' and the plate level on the 2°d level be reduced to 8' and the porch balcony roof be tied in to match the height of the remaining roof. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 9 of 27 SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: Joe Woollett ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 10 of 27 5) DRC No. 4189-07, CUP No. 2677-07, VAR No. 2180-07, VAR No. 2185-07, VAR No. 2186-07, and MJSP No. 0491-07 - WALGREENS A proposal to demolish the existing 26,228 sq. ft. Drug Emporium and construct two new buildings totaling 23,220 sq. ft. One building would be a 24-hour Walgreens with a drive-thru window and the second building would contain retail and restaurants. 1538 E. Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r arcia ,cit oy forange.org Project previously reviewed on September 5, 2007 DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Amy Ciolek, address on file, stated they retooled the plan. She wanted to highlight how some of the concerns were addressed. The drive through window was not visible and it had been relocated. Residents had raised concerns about the drive through window being near their properties and the relocation would resolve the issue. There had been a concern about removing the building, that it would open the residents to traffic noise, with the drive through relocated it would give the neighbors a buffer. The height of the wall would be 15 'h feet and it had been reviewed with the neighbors with their approval. The retooled plan kept the architectural elements which were favorably received and provided solutions to the concerns that had been presented. The internal layout had changed, and was very different from anything they had ever done, the door was changed and the towers had been adjusted. John Peruzzi, address on file, presented drawings of the previously submitted plans as a comparison to the new plans. Committee Member Califf asked if there was a canopy over the drive up? Mr. Peruzzi stated there was a canopy, however, in the elevation they were reviewing it was not visible. Public Comment Jim Faydock, address on file, asked if the item would go back to the Planning Commission? He also stated he appreciated the new design and the applicant taking in the concerns of the neighbors. Chair Wheeler stated the item was being heard for recommendation to the Planning Commission. Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Califf asked if the applicant was happy with the circulation for the drive through and would there be directional signage? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 11 of 27 Ms. Ciolek stated they would be coming back with a signage package for review and they wanted to add directional signage for the drive through. Committee Member Califf asked how the lighting would be handled? Ms. Ciolek stated they would have both free standing and building lighting. Mr. Garcia stated a photometric survey would be submitted to the Crime Prevention Department for their approval. Committee Member Califf stated Crime Prevention would not be overly concerned with cut off and light spillage. He was concerned with light spillage and how it would affect the neighbors. Mr. Peruzzi stated, pointing out on the drawings, where the lights on the wall would be located and how the cut off would be handled. Chair Wheeler asked if the existing walls from the existing building could be saved? Ms. Ciolek stated they had considered that, however, in testing the wall it was not a viable option. Mr. Peruzzi added it was a tilt up wall and it was not structurally sound. One of the neighbors did have a small retaining wall that would be kept. Chair Wheeler asked for clarification on the drawings in reference to the Tower structure and the recessed area on the plan. Mr. Peruzzi stated it matched the other tower and reviewed the drawing with the Committee. The recess was a thickness of block recess. Chair Wheeler stated he felt the overhang for the drive through was not drawn correctly, as it looked too narrow. There were problems if it did not match what was constructed. They had run into problems when an item was presented one way and constructed in another way. Mr. Peruzzi stated they had completed the wine cantilever overhang that was 6' deep and 18' in length. Chair Wheeler asked if the angle would not be at 45 degrees it would require a different pitch. Mr. Peruzzi stated the front and back were at one pitch and the side was at a steeper pitch. Chair Wheeler stated he thought they had suggested more tree wells. Mr. Garcia stated they could not add more tree wells as the area was used as part of a bioswale. Committee Member Cathcart stated the trees could not obstruct the bioswale and there were very few trees that would grow in that environment. The numbers the applicant had in plantings was as good as it could be expected. Ms. Ciolek showed the Committee on the drawing the way the water flowed through the site and where it would drain. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 12 of 27 Kevin Garrity, address on file, passed out a copy of the grading plan. He stated the system consisted of a treatment drain that was requested by the City that included a number of infiltration planters. They were taking out as much water through the infiltration planters in the locations that would have a problem growing trees in. Every time it rained it would go to that location. Unfortunately they were unable to get enough to meet the WQMP requirements; they ended up with the infiltration planters and a linear grass swale. With Mr. Peruzzi's help and Walgreen's acceptance they had directed the water to various locations. The City was concerned with the WQMP requirement to take as much of the roof drainage and direct them into bioswales and infiltration planters. He pointed out on the plans where the drainage would come from and flow to. By virtue of design at the site, the front area was too high to accept drainage, and consequently the drainage would gather in one zone. Committee Member Cathcart stated that the landscape inspection notes should be included on the plans. The landscape and irrigation plan needed to be submitted to the City prior to final approval. There should be continued coordination with the engineer on the WQMP and the VMP. Committee Member Califf asked if there would be a photometric plan submitted prior to the submission to the Planning Commission? Mr. Garcia stated they would be completed prior to obtaining building permits. Committee Member Califf made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission DRC No. 4189-07, CUP No. 2677-07, VAR No. 2180-07, VAR No. 2185-07, VAR No. 2186-07, and MJSP No. 0491-07, Walgreens, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. The photometric lighting plan be a part of the submittal to the Planning Commission. 2. The required wheel stops be shown on the site plan. 3. Elevation on the plans and adjustments should agree, including the location of the tower elements. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 13 of 27 6) DRC No. 4119-06 - BHALLA TRIPLEX A proposal to demolish a 1,482 sq. ft. non-contributing one-story duplex and construct a new two-story 3,057 sq. ft. three-unit apartment, including covered and enclosed garages. 438-440 S. Olive Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforange.org Prior Preliminary DRC Review on September 18, 2007 DRC Action: Preliminary Review Only Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Wheeler stated this was a preliminary hearing. Applicant, Shiv Talwar, address on file stated they had gone back and forth on the project to take into consideration the recommendations from Staff and the DRC. They had made modifications to meet City requirements. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she reviewed the plans at the library. There were three requirements, reducing the FAR, recessing the door and changing the trees and none of those had been quite addressed. Mr. Ryan made a recommendation of recessing the door 6' and that would just about do it. It was just such a massive project and did not fit in with the whole historic district. Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he realized the FAR was reduced a little bit. It was a very bulky project and had more of a negative impact than the existing structures in their current condition. Looking at the whole picture you had a block with seven existing apartment buildings on it, and when it is stated that the project was within the context of the block, the context was already a negative impact. The project would have a negative impact on the street scape. He felt the second story should be at the rear of the lot. The cumulative impact needed to be addressed and at some point, the decision would have to be made that the block no longer was considered a contributing block to the district. It was not a positive development for the block. Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Califf stated the north, south, east and west elevations were wrong. On the 2"d sheet of the elevations there was an east elevation that was incorrect. He agreed with Mr. Ryan in creating a porch or recessing the door, creating a vestibule. If the applicant wanted to inset the door they would need to make it wider. Mr. Ryan stated it could be an arched entry. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 14 of 27 Chair Wheeler stated it was the 3ra time they had pointed out that the north arrows were wrong and he did not agree with the area calculations. The garage calculations were incorrect, and based on his numbers the FAR was 44%. The applicant needed an accurate area calculation. The floor plan showed the 2°d floor line 2 %Z `off of the line, and on the drawing it showed it lined up with some sort of a one story roof below. The changes were not picked up in the drawing and there was now a ridge that should be in a different location. He reviewed the drawings with the applicant and stated that the plans and drawings needed to be accurate. Committee Member DeWees reiterated, the Committee was not present to correct plans and drawings for the applicant. Committee Member Califf stated once everything was corrected the applicant needed to be very clear with all materials and have them called out on the plans. The stair and balcony looked like a floating mass. Chair Wheeler stated they could enclose the area below the stairs. Mr. Talwar stated they could enclose the area, but he did not want to be over on the FAR. He had wanted to add a nice entry porch, but did not want to go over on the FAR. Committee Member Califf stated the porch was not always included in the FAR. They would not count an exterior porch. Committee Member Cathcart stated the Eucalyptus tree should be removed and there should be two more trees planted. The vine pockets needed to be placed every 20'. He gave the applicant a copy of the landscape requirements. Mr. Talwar asked if the two trees should be planted in the City parkway? Committee Member Cathcart stated the trees were to be added in the front yard. There was another tree in the parkway. The suggestion from the City was for replacement of the parkway tree if anything should happen to the existing tree during construction. Committee Member Woollett stated the decorative elements needed to be defined. The type of finish and colors should be listed. He asked Mr. Ryan if they were in the ballpark on the mass issue? Mr. Ryan stated from the Grant Street Study that established a .42 FAR threshold, Staff looked at the relationship of the first and second story. They tried to look at a project that had a good relationship between both floors. Anything that exceeded the recommended FAR was looked at in its relationship to the other buildings on the block and the cumulative effect of the project. Committee Member Califf stated, regarding the cumulative effect, what they were looking at, for example, when something with a huge FAR was redeveloped, the project would be looked at in the context of what the replacement would be. The block over time would get less dense as buildings were replaced and redeveloped. He was looking at the project as an example of what City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 15 of 27 the rest of the block might look like in the future. It would be emulated, not necessarily for design, but for density and what would be acceptable for the block. Mr. Ryan stated as they developed revised zoning standards the matrix adopted from Grant Street would be more succinct, and applicants would know what type of buildings they could arrive at, taking in the context of the block and the cumulative effect of their building. Mr. Ryan stated there was no action to be taken, as the item was a preliminary review. The recommendations would be noted and the plan would now proceed through the regular application process. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 16 of 27 7) DRC No. 4263-07 - MATTHEWS RESIDENCE A proposal to install an electrical solar system on a contributing residence. 182 N. Cambridge Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr~cr,cit. ofYorange.org Applicant is requesting a final determination on the same proposal as submitted on October 17, 2007 (no change in proposal) Item continued from December 5, 2007 DRC Meeting DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Sean Doak, address on file, stated at the last meeting he had not looked at the patio cover as a solution for the solar panel install. In looking at the patio cover there were some homemade guy wires holding the patio cover up and that would not make it suitable for a solar installation. To the extent that they could install more efficient panels, they could reduce the number of panels from 24 to 18 and enable them to keep the same number of watts. In reducing the number of panels, however, it would not take the panels off of the first 50% of the property. In the original Staff Report the Old Towne Design Standards, CEQA, and Old Towne Guidelines were sighted, he asked if the standard for historical property was definitive law as the solar law was? In the CA Civil Code Section 714 it stated: Any covenant, restriction or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument or other instrument affecting the sale or transfer of any interest, real property that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable. It was clear State Law and in Ca Government Code Section 65850.5 which stated: The implementation of consistent state wide standards to achieve the timely cost effective installation of solar energy systems is not a municipal affair. The term was used in section 5, of article 11 of the Ca Constitution: In the matter of statewide concern it is the intent of the legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, included but not limited to design review for aesthetic purposes and not unreasonably restrict homeowners and agricultural and business concerns to install solar energy system. It is the policy of the state to promote and encourage use of solar energy systems and limit obstacles to their use. It is the intent of the legislature that local agencies comply, not only with the language of the section, but also with the legislative intent to encourage installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles and minimizing costs of permitting such systems. He went back to the attorneys and asked if they had taken this information into account, and they stated there was national law that trumped state law. Committee Member Califf asked the applicant to read the first part again, keeping in mind the reference was to a deed restriction on sale of a property and that was not what was occurring with the application. Mr. Doak read from his information: It was any municipal code; any covenant, condition or code contained in any deed, contract, security, or instrument affecting the sale where any interest in real property effectively prohibits or restricts the installation of solar energy. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 17 of 27 Committee Member Califf stated it was a different category, a deed restriction or CC&R. Mr. Doak stated he was not an attorney, but the other section spoke about the legislative intent of the law and he thought it was pretty straight forward. Solar energy was being promoted. The information came from a write up on the entire package and sweep of solar energy that was done in California. He was not trying to be adversarial; he was just trying to do his best for the customer. He was trying to do right by the customer. He wanted this information entered into the record. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he supported solar energy and if it was feasible to install solar panels on historic properties they would be in support of that. In this case they were unable to. The number one required finding was the project needed to meet the design standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards. The Secretary of Interior Standards was a federal document. If the panels could not be installed in the rear 50% of the structure and there was not a way to meet the standards he would encourage the Committee to deny the project. Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she had copied something down for the last meeting that was part of the submission at the library: Whenever approval is required for the installation or use of a solar energy system an application for approval shall be processed and approved by the appropriate approving entity in the same manner as an application for an architectural modification for the property. It shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Califf asked the city attorney if he wished to elaborate on any of the information presented. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated the application had raised some interesting issues. The passage that Ms. Crenshaw read into the record, oddly enough came from Civil Code Section 714 as well. The civil code sections were enacted at the same time, however, they seemed to conflict. One stated that it was not a matter for municipal affairs. In reading closer it talked about enacting ordinances that created unreasonable barriers or limitations for the installation of solar, which was not what was being done. If the applicant had come in with a plan that showed the installation of the solar panels in an area where the City noted that they complied with the Old Towne Design Guidelines or met an objective standard, a permit could have been issued over the counter. It did not happen in that manner. The Secretary of Interior Guidelines triggered a review of the project. Staff did feel confident in the Secretary of Interior Guidelines that it would trump the information in the State Law, when they were dealing with historic structures in a nationally registered historic district. There was confusion in the two statutes that had been adopted, as they seemed diametrically opposed to each other. In reading the intent of the legislation it was initially drafted to apply to homeowner associations. As it went further through the legislative process they added the portion of ordinances not being created by a City to try to create laws or limitations that were unreasonable to their installation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 18 of 27 He felt they did not do that in this case and it had been looked at rather objectively, which was a requirement. The sole interest of the City was to protect the historic district. Mr. Doak stated it was not that the solar energy system would not work on the property. It would, but not on only half of the property. He felt that was the unreasonable restriction. Half of all homes in the historic district could not have solar energy systems on them, was that an unreasonable restriction or not. Committee Member DeWees stated half meaning the 50%, you would loose another 25% based on the property facing north and could be interpreted as unreasonable. Mr. Sheatz stated it maybe an issue that required examination. It could be a problem. In looking at what state law said it had to be objective. How do you get around that, and the applicant brought up a good point. What if the system could be placed somewhere on the property that would encroach into the front 50%, yet still not be visible, and would that still be an issue. Mr. Doak stated if the carport was available and no one could see it from any level it could work, however, it was still on the front 50% of the residence. Chair Wheeler stated the Committee had authority to adjust the rules based on an aesthetic basis. Committee Member DeWees stated in looking at just the front 50%, it had nothing to do with the real science. The 50% was just arbitrarily chosen. Mr. Sheatz stated that was where the objectivity came into play; while you could meet the element that was required it may not serve the purpose. He was at the previous meeting and heard from the Committee suggestions to perhaps allow the solar energy system on a portion of the front 50%. It would need to meet the criteria of the established guidelines. Chair Wheeler stated the most important issue for him was whether the system would be visible from the front of the house and the street. He felt the Committee could adjust the guidelines as long as it was not visible. If it was visible it would be very detrimental to the neighborhood. Committee Member Califf asked if it was feasible to rebuild the patio cover? Mr. Ryan stated he did not believe they had a 5' clearance from the post to the property line. Mr. Doak stated to rebuild just for the sole purpose of the solar energy system installation would be cost prohibited. Committee Member Woollett stated the key factor was the question of reasonableness or not. In his experience with solar installations it would become a matter of dollars and cents. Many times they could supply a lot of power, but in order to do it, the cost invo]ved would be too great. Mr. Doak stated there would be some unintended consequences with the decision in the sense that they would not plan on advertising in Orange with the possibility that the advertisements would go to residents of the historic district. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 19 of 27 Committee Member Woollett stated he felt there were residences in the historic district that would accept solar panels very well. Mr. Doak stated it would be a case of diminishing returns if half of the property would not be available, where in another City it would not be the case. Chair Wheeler stated it appeared the consensus was to deny the project. In a case like this the Committee could offer the applicant a choice to not deny the project and continue the project. Changes could be made and the applicant could return for a decision. Mr. Doak stated if it was his decision he would continue and come back, however, the home owner wanted a final decision. Mr. Ryan stated possibly they could look at the issue in reference to the Old Towne Standards to ensure that the 50% rule was workable. The language could be changed to whether the system was visible. Bringing the item to Staff's attention was important, and going in a green direction if there were historic resources that could accommodate a solar energy system, Staff would want to explore that. Mr. Doak stated if it came back around again they could advise the home owner. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to deny DRC No. 4263-07, Matthews Residence SECOND: Chair Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 20 of 27 New Agenda Items: 8) DRC No. 4155-06 and MNSP No. 0474-06 -NATIONAL WOOD PRODUCTS INC. A proposal for a new loading area and a 2,856 sq. ft. modular building and associated site improvements. 314 W. Freedom Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r ag rcia(c~cityoforan eg com DRC Action: Recommendation to the Community Development Director Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant Ken Agharok, address on file, stated there was an existing modular building. The site was a facility that stored lumber products and sold it from the site. They would be improving the site with a new building that would be a ground level type building. By adding the canopy they wanted to add some interest. The warehouses were corrugated steel and nothing to look at; by adding the different materials with wood and trusses they were trying to improve the whole site. He pointed out the landscaping, on the drawings, which would also be added. Public Comment None Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated in reference to the plant palette, there were several alternatives, given for each symbol. He suggested the use of the Coral tree on the first symbol, rather than the Jacaranda, with use of the Camphor tree on the second symbol that root barriers be added, and with the Liquidambar trees the applicant should use Liquidambar Rotundiloba not Styraciflua. Also the size and location of the trees should be clearly noted. Mr. Agharok stated they would give the information to their landscape architect with the suggestions made by the DRC. Chair Wheeler asked for clarification on the building floor. Mr. Agharok stated it was a modular building, prefabricated and it came from the factory in three different sections, it had the floor and the roof installed from the factory. They would be adding a foundation where the modular building would go. There would be a ramp and canopy coming up to the door. Chair Wheeler asked if they had received the specifications for the foundation? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 21 of 27 Mr. Agharok stated the foundation would be the same as a foundation of a conventional building. They would draw it up, design it and have the Building Department review it. The ventilation would be on the side of the modular unit. Chair Wheeler suggested moving the windows to have more symmetry on the building. Mr. Agharok agreed that they could accept that. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt it was inappropriate to make the building look like a residence. He was concerned with how it related to the other commercial buildings in the area. Mr. Agharok stated there was another building that had the same type of design as the one they would propose. They followed the same scheme of that building. Committee Member Califf stated maybe they did not need the residential type shutters and trim. If the building was the store front a simpler design could work. Mr. Agharok stated they were trying to take it from just being a rectangle, adding some openings for a more interesting building. Chair Wheeler stated there was a tradition of a more residential looking office in front of the larger steel building. He was not opposed to the design and it did appear to follow a trend. Committee Member Cathcart stated many of the industrial buildings had a showroom in front and a warehouse in the back. Both with different architectural styles. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend to Community Development Department, DRC No. 4155-06 and MNSP No. 0474-06 -National Wood Products Inc. with the following conditions: 1. Front elevation to be balanced with regard to the window placement. 2. The trees would have root barriers and the sizes and placement of the trees be approved by the Community Development Director and Landscape Coordinator. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler NOES: Joe Woollett ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 22 of 27 9) DRC No. 4233-07 -AMERICAN HERITAGE (SOUTHSIDE MARKET) A proposal to remove an unpermitted addition and restore a non-contributing commercial building to its prior state. 391 S. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr an ,cityoforan~e.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, stated the applicant or applicant representatives were not present and they would be present at a later date as a continued item. The item was not heard, and a motion was not made on the item. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 23 of 27 10) DRC No. 4254-07, GPA No. 2007-0002, ZC No. 1245-07, MJSP No. 0521-07, AA No. 0156-07, CUP No. 2685-07, and MND No. 1796-07 - HOBBS MEDICAL OFFICE A proposal to construct a 29,000 sq. ft. three-story medical office building and parking lot with landscaping. 164 Water Street Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb a,cityoforang_e.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review and Suggestions Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Robert Howard, address on file, stated the project had a campus feeling and they tried to tie it into the existing building. The planned use was a medical building. They had a great deal of interest with doctors and dentists in the existing building and they would continue with that in the new building. The idea of a campus type building would include cooperative parking between the parcels. Applicant, Jeff Kim, address on file, stated they were making it an office/campus type building with the parking set up to work for both buildings, with easy access. The building would be kept as far away from the residential zone. There would' be some architectural projections above the height limit to add variety to the building. The 32' for their type of building was the bare minimum to make parapets hide the mechanical equipment. Applicant, James Dietze, address on file, stated they had worked through a WQMD program and Mr. Cathcart had designed the landscape plan with that in mind. There were some revisions with the photometric plan. They were looking for comments on the architectural style so they could move forward with the utilities and power. Mr. Howard stated the project was a redevelopment project. Mr. Ortlieb stated through ownership the project was part of redevelopment. Public Comment None Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion Committee Member DeWees stated he felt the lighting was too decorative. Mr. Kim stated they tried to duplicate the style of lighting that was found in the downtown area. In a previous building they installed a decorative pole that received a lot of comments. They went with a new type of fixture that helped with the light down pour. They liked the design of the decorative light pole that would tie it into the downtown elements. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 24 of 27 Committee Member DeWees stated the architecture did not relate to anything that was going on downtown. Mr. Kim stated it was a feature that was tried on another building and it worked. When looking at a standard light pole it looked very commercial, they were going for more of a campus look and a welcoming environment. There would be co-activity between the two buildings and they wanted to install something a bit nicer than just the standard. Mr. Dietze stated it had a good pedestrian feel. Committee Member DeWees stated it was not so much the fixture as it was the pole and base. The fixture was nice; however, it looked like two different ideas. He would not hold the project up for a change and if the applicants felt strongly they could keep the proposed light fixtures. Mr. Howard stated it would be less expensive to do something different. Committee Member Woollett stated one of the problems they had in Orange was the preservation of the Old Towne area, the project had nothing to do with Old Towne Orange and to suggest that it did, diminished the Old Towne area. He agreed with Committee Member DeWees' comments. Mr. Howard clarified he was referring to the lighting fixtures. Committee Member Woollett stated yes. Mr. Dietze stated they were trying to match the existing light fixtures of the other building. They could look at other fixtures. The applicant showed the Committee photos of the existing light fixtures. Committee Member DeWees stated the building was not designed to exactly match each other and the lighting did not have to match. He felt the fixture was fine; they needed to simplify the pole and the base. Chair Wheeler stated he had a concern with the Oak trees being removed, and asked if they had given any other thoughts to alternative parking to preserve the trees? Mr. Ortlieb stated one of the issues that Staff was still working on was the matter of Water Street which required 3 more feet to be widened to the ultimate right of way. If that would occur those trees would be threatened by that as well. Mr. Kim stated there was a possibility of driving between the trees. The circulation worked well for the fire trucks. In light of what Staff just stated they may not have a choice. Committee Member Califf stated they could give the direction if the street was not widened they could consider retaining the trees. Mr. Kim stated they were still working on what type of aprons they could have; they would be working with a civil engineer to get that completed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 25 of 27 Chair Wheeler stated the building complimented the existing building and the stone work was well designed and was carried up without an arbitrary stop line. Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated if they did remove the trees it would require two permits, one from Community Services for removal of the trees on private property and another permit from Public Works for the removal of trees in the right of way. Chair Wheeler stated the project was a preliminary review and no action was needed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 26 of 27 11) DRC No. 4289-07 - ST. NORBERT SCHOOL FACADE A proposal for a new facade on the north elevation of an existing school. 300 E. Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur cr,cit of~ge.org DRC Action: Final Determination Chair Wheeler suggested that the item might be approved without any discussion. He opened the item to the Committee for discussion. There was none. Public Comment None Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve, DRC No. 4289-07, St. Norbert School Facade. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart RECUSED:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2007 Page 27 of 27 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to adjourn to the next regular meeting on January 16, 2008. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart RECUSED:None MOTION CARRIED.