Loading...
01-18-2006 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL January 18, 2006 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Design Review Committee reviewed the September 21, 2005 Minutes and part of the October 5, 2005 Minutes. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chair Califf began the meeting by introducing their fifth DRC member, Mr. Bill Cathcart. He clarified that since he was not involved in the first three items on the Agenda, he would be abstaining from these items. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 2 C 1. DRC No. 4024-OS - WENDY'S RESTAURANT Review of proposed light fixture method of attachment in conformance with prior condition of approval. 1237 North Tustin Avenue Staff Contact: Anne E. Fox, 714-744-7229, afox@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, explained this item had been approved by the DRC a few months ago with one of the Conditions being the lighting on the building. She said while Staff was plan checking the project while reviewing the design, they weren't sure this is what the DRC had in mind. She stated the Condition came from DRC being concerned about having the lights set on the building itself instead of having it stick out over the parapet. It was mentioned if the lights were set on the parapet did it need to be such a spindly looking support. The applicant's response was that they could have something more decorative. Committee Member Woollett asked what type of fixture it was before. The applicant stated it was an unattractive pole-mounted old style box flood light angled toward the parking lot. He stated in attempting to improve the design, perhaps it wasn't as incorporated into the building as it should have been. He suggested the solution might be to wall mount (on a vertical pole) the shoe box fixture so that it is horizontal at the parapet line. His only concern was the projection of light across the property line, i.e., would it satisfy their security needs. He explained the whole idea was to get the lights up high enough. The applicant explained if they were comfortable with the four inch square post at the designated locations, the fixture would go two feet above the parapet and put the shoe box fixture horizontal with the parapet and use a lens that would project light out as far as possible. Committee Member Wheeler requested that the support be the same color as the light fixture. Committee Member Dewees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4024-05, Wendy's Remodel, changing from the proposed sign to a square fixture that extends to two and a half feet above the parapet, on horizontally mounted light fixtures, and the light fixture and the pole be painted the same color. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 3 2. DRC No. 4040-OS - BROWN RESIDENCE (CONTN'D FROM DECEMBER 7, 2005) Applicant is proposing to construct a 4,657 sq. ft., single-story home. Property is located at 6915 East Hidden Oaks Lane Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Ms. Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner, mentioned the applicant, Michelle Brown had resubmitted the plans, and had addressed some of the concerns and comments generated from the DRC Meeting on December 7, 2005. She added the revised plans were submitted as well as a new design for the front facade and elevation of the home. The elevations of the sides of the home were not submitted. Therefore, Staff assumed the elevations were unchanged. Chair Califf asked why the full package was not submitted to Staff so that DRC could review it beforehand. The applicant explained they had submitted everything, except the back and side elevations because he did not think it was necessary since they had only changed the front and they had provided the front elevation. Chair Califf added that the applicant should comment on the roofing and the stone, and if they had different manufacturers. The applicant stated the house would be painted a smooth stucco finish and the shutters and trim would be done in another color. There was some general discussion between the architect and the Committee about what would be painted which colors as well as the window frame being a white vinyl. It was mentioned that the roof material would be a 30/70 Concord blend manufactured by Eagle. Chair Califf asked for any Public Comment, and there was none. Committee Member Dewees asked what type of window it would be, and the applicant replied the window grid would be inside between the two panes. Chair Califf commented that one of the things he wanted to note was the material andlor manufacturer of the stucco texture, roofing, stone, and windows needed to be corrected on the drawings so they represented what the applicant actually intended on using. He added they had no problem on what they planned to use, but there could be a potential problem when Staff back checks the approval and there's a difference between the drawing and what was actually used. Committee Member Woollett asked if the drawings before them would be the record drawings, and the applicant stated yes. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Woollett moved that DRC No. 4040-05, New Brown Residence, be approved in accordance with the documents and samples presented with the following conditions: 1. The Notes on Sheet A-5 be revised to include the actual materials and color examples that were presented. It was asked if the DRC wanted a new sheet or a new legend. Chair Califf stated they did not necessarily need this submitted, but when the applicant submits the drawing package for the Plan Check, Staff will review them, and it will need to be in there at that time. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:Bill Cathcart ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED G C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 5 3. DRC No. 3949-04 - LOVE RESIDENCE A request for exterior modifications and materials for new single-family residence (this in-fill project was previously approved by DRC on October 20, 2004). Property is located at: 491 N. Cypress Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, presented the project. He added the plans were approved, and Staff made an inspection and found several items that did not pass inspection because they did not match the plans so the project is back before the DRC. He stated the applicant is requesting revisions and approval as stated in the Staff Report. Mr Franklin Love applicant 2930 W. Imperial Hwy., Suite 2002, Inglewood. He stated he had constructed the residence in a Mediterranean style. He believed the residence made a positive contribution to the feel and look of the neighborhood. He noted that the house was surrounded by older apartment buildings, and he could have constructed a duplex, but decided to build a single-family residence. He thought the revisions should be evaluated in the context of the surrounding structures on the block as well as the apartment buildings which were not constructed in the Old Towne style that is now desired. Mr. Love then addressed the concerns of the Committee as discussed by Mr. Dan Ryan. He explained Mr. Ryan had told him in 2005 that he would need to secure the Committee's acceptance of some perceived deviations from the plans that were onginally approved by the Design Review Committee. He stated the Committee had asked for a smooth sand finish, and he provided a smooth trowel sand finish. He presented pictures of stucco finish in the area that matched his residence. He stated the Committee had requested a wooden garage door. He installed a metal wood-simulated roll up door. He noted that time has shown that aging wood garage doors are being replaced with metal roll-up doors throughout the historic area in Old Towne. The metal roll-up doors were chosen as a superior substitute for anold-fashion wood door because of its longer life, easy maintenance, and safety factors. He stated the Committee similarly requested the side garage door be made of wood. Due to the reasons he just mentioned, he used a metal door which was not visible from the street, therefore, it did not interfere with the aesthetics of the Old Towne feel. He stated in regard to the rear exterior doors, he installed a wooden sliding door with a metal cladding on the outside. He mentioned these doors were not visible from the street, and with the current fencing, they could not be seen by the neighborhood, and therefore do not alter the aesthetic feel of the neighborhood. He spoke of the recessed chimney and explained the Committee had requested a tapered chimney with a recessed spark arrestor, and he installed a tapered chimney with a raised spark arrestor. He stated he made this choice because it was consistent with current industry standards and subsequent to agreeing to the stipulation, he was informed by the sub-contractor that a recessed spark arrestor was not doable. He concluded by stating the changes he made were not in exact conformity with the Committee's desires, but he believed he had kept within the spirit of their goals of maintaining an Old Town appeal for the City of Orange Historic Area. He thought he had constructed a family-oriented home that was a positive addition to the immediate block and surrounding community. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 6 Chair Califf asked Staff what the issue was on the rafter sizes. Mr. Ryan replied there was a question originally on the drawings what size they were, and this was to be clarified which it was. Mrs. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 250 N. Cleveland, Orange. She stated they were present at the first meeting, and she sympathized with the stucco as she had the same problem with the plaster on the inside of her house. She also mentioned that the metal doors should be replaced. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated they agreed with Staff's recommendations. OTPA did have a problem with the the on the porch because many of the Mediterranean style homes do have concrete porches. He believes the wrong message is being sent when there are Conditions set by the DRC, and then the applicant changes those Conditions and installs alternate material. He said the message is you bring your project to DRC and then go do what you want, and if you come back and the DRC say this is fine, then basically there would be no impact on anyone. He thought the big issue was the agreement to install wood windows, the wood garage door, etc. He said the original Conditions should be upheld. He did mention the sand finish was not a big problem. Mr. Love commented that the windows were wood, and the only thing that was metal and wood was the slider. Mr. Frankel stated they were opposed to any type of clad windows. A local realtor commented that he met Mr. Love when he wanted some help to sell this residence. He stated it was a very nice home that merited special consideration. He said that compared to the homes on either side, the home was a shining star on the block. He felt the exterior stucco was appropriate, and was confused about what was originally asked for. Chair Califf stated that one of the issues on past projects was there was not a consistency of stucco finish even on Spanish style homes, and they were not the same. He said there were some with a rough, wavy texture to them, some with a flat stucco, and then there are those that have been painted so many times that they are smooth. So, he stated this was something the DRC struggled with, and it made it difficult to tell an applicant exactly what to do because there was no right answer. He commented that the metal doors were something they would typically approve on brand new construction. He pointed out when there is a wood sectional door, it's because the DRC had asked if the applicant would be willing to do that, and the applicant has agreed to it. He stated the sliders were something they would not typically approve because it is the same as a horizontal sliding window; not the material, but the function was not typical of any of the historic styles. He said the front porch was something they have seen both ways. They would be happy to have it done with the red-clay, but if the applicant chose not to do this, it wouldn't be a problem. Committee Member Woollett commented that the door issue was an item previously discussed at length because he recommended the applicant be permitted to use metal doors, but has since changed his view on this. He stated since the Committee had decided to go with the wood doors, City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 7 then he agreed this is what they have to be because it was a very considered decision. He agreed with opinions of Chair Califf and Mr. Frankel regarding the stucco and did not want to make an issue of this. He wanted a further explanation of the chimney. He recalled that the suggestion of the tapered chimney was made because it was consistent with the style, and now it was not clear why there was not one. Chair Califf asked if this was a Class B vent or could it have a regular spark arrestor. Mr. Love replied he was not sure, but he could find out. He added that when he spoke to his contractor who dealt only in fireplaces, he was told the recessed spark arrestor was not doable. Committee Member Woollett did not agree with this, and thought it was possible to put the decorative element around it, and it could still function. Something he was very concerned about that had not been cited in the inspection was how narrow the post was in the front entrance in the northwest corner. When he looked at the drawing, he said there was a much more substantial column there, and this made a huge difference. He said it didn't work the way it had been built. Committee Member Wheeler added that it had previously been discussed about the arches. He explained to the applicant that he had drawn a 12-inch wide column, but what was built was a five-inch column because there was a four by four post and put stucco on it. The DRC pointed out on the drawing how the applicant could make some changes to the arch, wall, and the porch as they originally agreed. Committee Member Wheeler also pointed out the vents shown on one part of the plan, but not shown on another part, and he thought they should be shown on the drawing. Chair Califf said that typically ridge vents don't work because of the framing in the ridge, but there can be decorative vents by taking the pipe and slice it, and then plaster, and stucco it in there. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was so much importance in the details, and every time a detail is skipped or changed, it cheapens everything and something that should have been very nice became something that wasn't as good as it could have been. Committee Member Wheeler responded that the issue was once the drawings were approved, the items should have been done to what the drawing stated. Committee Member Dewees concurred with Mr. Wheeler. He said the approvals were based on the discussions held on October 6, 2004. He said this was the time to present other samples. He recalled having the conversation about the true divided lights as well as the front door, and the chimney with the spark arrestor. He agreed with the others that the stucco issue was not a big concern, but he thought the rest of the items were. He also mentioned at the previous meeting the DRC tried to work with the applicant because at that time, the surrounding neighborhood was an issue, so they were going to give the applicant some leeway because this would be an improvement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 8 Chair Califf stated the main thing he struggled with was the tapered chimney. He thought there was a solution to it and no reason not to change it. He remembered the discussion about the garage door. But, his struggle was with the garage door and whether the windows were true divided light or not were items they could have approved back in October 2004, so he wonders if they should make the applicant adhere to the true divided light when he said he would do this. He added he was not comfortable forcing the applicant to change something they would have approved had he presented it in October 2004. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was Chair CalifPs opinion that the style would not require a divided light at all. Chair Califf responded that he has seen examples of both styles throughout Old Towne. Committee Member Wheeler stated what was more important to him at the time was if they were divided lights, they would be true divided lights, but what disturbed him was the fact that the true divided lights were mentioned, and then not done. Committee Member Woollett stated the way the arch was handled was more important than the divided light. Committee Member Woollett asked whether the edge of the concrete porch was stucco. The applicant replied yes. He said this was to match so it would be continuous. Chair Califf asked the Committee what they thought about the sliders as a function as opposed to swing doors. He stated this was something they would not have originally approved. Committee Member Woollett asked Staff if the drawings the DRC approved were construction drawings or preliminary drawings. He wondered if it was possible with the arch if the construction drawings did not agree with the preliminary drawings. Mr. Ryan replied they were the same. Chair Califf noticed in the previous discussions, it was suggested not to use a wood door on the south side of the garage. He stated they had wanted to see a picture of what the actual garage door would look like, and was trying to recall if this was because they were talking about a metal door or whether it was what the actual wood door would look like. Committee Member Woollett recalled they were of the opinion that there were some metal garage doors that were a close approximation of the wood ones. He thought it was important what the record stated in spite of what action was taken. He asked Staff if it was on record that the action taken would be to have wood doors, i.e., was there a motion recorded. Mr. Ryan replied yes. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 9 Committee Member Woollett moved that DRC No. 3949-04, Herbert Love, that the applicant be required to comply with the original actions of the Committee of October 6, 2004 with the following exceptions: 1. The stucco as constructed will be acceptable. 2. The clay paver surfacing for the entrance porch maybe omitted if the stucco facing on the concrete sides of the existing concrete porch is removed. 3. The sheet metal vent cap of the chimney may remain as long as it is concealed by a sheet metal tapered section flush with the edge of the chimney or a similar device acceptable to Staff. 4. The true divided light windows maybe omitted. Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to add another paragraph to the exception statement: Of particular note, the arched forms and design of the supporting elements shall be corrected to follow the approved exterior elevations. Committee Member Wheeler commented that his understanding was that the garage door should be wood, and Mr. Woolett answered yes. Committee Wheeler also commented that he had not mentioned the sliding doors, but they should be as per the drawings. Mr. Ryan asked if the main door should be wood. Mr. Love asked what type of wood did they want. Chair Califf stated there was some confusion between the discussion of this item and the motion. Mr. Ryan stated it was mentioned in the motion under No. 11 of the Conditions. Committee Member Woollett stated they should state this particularly after all the discussion they had. SECOND: Donnie Dewees Before the voting took place, Committee Member Woollett stated these types of decisions were very hard to make, particularly since the DRC was sympathetic to what the applicant had done to his residence considering the surrounding neighborhood. He continued that when they do set precedence, they lived to regret them, in particular, precedence having to do with what they require within them, and as much as he would like to make exceptions, he could not do it. Mr. Love stated that it seemed as though the precedence had already been set throughout the neighborhood. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 10 Committee Member Woollett replied that these were not due to actions taken by the DRC. He pointed out the neighborhood was filled with things that should not be there, but it did not relate to actions taken by the DRC. Committee Member Wheeler stated that much of what was done in the neighborhood had been done long before there was a DRC. AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 11 4. DRC No. 4034-OS - SCHAFFER RESIDENCE A proposal for a new 499 sq. ft. one-story addition to a 1923 Bungalow. Property is located at: 261 N. Pine Street, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Ryan presented the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. He commented that the applicant had put together an excellent detailed, well put-together plan. It was mentioned by the Committee that the fireplace was an usual feature because it was an outside fireplace. Mr. Ryan stated the style was somewhat more modern than the typical design of the Craftsman Bungalow home. If it was a detached fireplace, it would be part of the structure and the style is not an issue, it would become a landscape issue. If it became part of the bungalow addition, then the chimney should reflect that style of elements to be integrated. Mr. David Schaffer, 261 N. Pine Street, Orange. He stated he had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Wheeler to discuss the fireplace. He stated the Committee was correct that the drawings were wrong, and that it showed 10 feet when it should be two feet above the ridge. He added they wanted to put an outdoor living room so that .it's useable space for entertaining and the family. He thought it was a great idea was to scale down the elements so that it's smaller and not as bulky, and actually put a window in the bedroom as suggested by Mr. Wheeler. He commented the idea would be to match the window, and move the fireplace down or maybe just eliminate the fireplace altogether and deal with it somewhere else. Mrs. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, 250 N. Cleveland, Orange. She thought the basement was an excellent idea. She mentioned the north side of the house, and how there were so many different gables at different heights, and different angles. She said it looked very busy and took away from the simplicity of a Craftsman Bungalow style home. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He thought the project was swell-designed addition, and was sympathetic to the original structure. He commented that he didn't think the addition could be seen from the street, and he was glad the applicant decided to go with wood windows. Mr. Schaffer wanted to clarify that he had never requested anything other than wood windows. Committee Member Woollett stated the fireplace facing the outside was a novel kind of thing in any type of style, anywhere and anytime. But, he did not have difficulty with the concept, and as long as they built the fireplace within the style of the bungalow, then this would be okay. Committee Member Wheeler submitted a list of eight iterhs to the applicant that he believed were minor issues to be considered. Drawings show exposed rafter tails are the same size as the barge boards. Typically City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 12 these are two by three or two by fours and the barge boards would be two by eights. Existing house has cantilevered outlooker beams, but are not shown on the addition drawings, and need to be added. Construction of extended barge should be traditional style. Corner trim of addition should match the rounded corner trim on the house. Doors and windows should be specified as wood construction. Exterior fireplace-as long as it's simplified like the neighbor's will be fine where it was. More information on construction of garage cover whether it's wood, concrete, etc. More information on construction of new chimney. Chair Califf stated it would also create an egress problem, and the applicant agreed. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they should discuss the railing or if there was something else that would be more appropriate. Chair Califf stated from a Code standpoint, technically it would be a guard rail, although if the applicant came up with something solid for a few feet, he could minimize the effect of the rail. Mr. Shaffer asked if he would have to have an interior handrail on the wall going down, and the Committee replied yes. Chair Califf stated the rail should be on the house wall, and it was mentioned that the railing had to be so that someone could not fall through it. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the applicant consider a wood railing with a two by two vertical picket, four by four posts, two by four top rail, and hold it up six inches above the ground. Mr. Schaffer clarified that all the windows on the home were single-hung, and the Staff Report required double-hung windows. Committee Member Wheeler moved to approve DRC No. 4034-05, Schaffer Residence, with the following conditions: 1. The drawings show exposed rafter tails as being two by three or two by four rather than the size they are shown now, with the barge boards being approximately two by eight to match the existing house. 2. The drawings be changed to show added outlooker beams to match the existing house. 3. The construction of the extended barge area should be a traditional design without the flat out lookers. 4. The corner trim on the addition should match the rounded corner trim of the existing house. 5. The doors and windows on the addition should be specified as wood construction. 6. The exterior fireplace as used should be simplified to match other fireplaces in the neighborhood with the same style and period of construction. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 13 In addition to the above Conditions, also Conditions Number Three and Four in the Staff Report, but excluding Conditions One and Two. He also clarified Condition No. Six that the fireplace maybe moved if the applicant desires. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 14 5. DRC No. 4038-OS -SANTA MONROY RESIDENCE Proposed accessory dwelling unit. Property is located at: 621 N. Orange Street Staff Contact: Chris Carnes, Senior Planner, 714-744-7225, ccarnes@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination This item was temporarily withdrawn by the applicant and will return to the DRC at a later date. C C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 15 6. DRC No. 4039-OS - WHITAKER RESIDENCE A proposal for a new 285 sq. ft. one-story addition, and rear porch remodel fora 1924 Bungalow. Property is located at: 631 E. Jefferson Avenue, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination C C Mr. Cathcart recused himself from this item. Mr. Ryan presented the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. Mr. Brad Dudley, 200 Brooks St., Laguna Beach. He spoke of the French doors and how there was an existing pair of French doors in another location on the property, and as a result of the remodel, he pointed out where the family room came into existence so it was fairly critical that the family room have access to the yard. He stated he agreed with Mr. Ryan regarding the trellis element. He stated in some cases, the homeowner had an affinity for this type of window and thought it enhanced the aesthetic of the house. Mrs. Janet Crenshaw OTPA, 250 N. Cleveland, Orange. She believed that the windows should match the rest of the house. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated that he was not so concerned with the windows, and they could change on the same elevation. His concern was the elaborate secondary entrance with the columns that were mimicked from the front elevation. He suggested the columns could be simplified as well as the porch area so it is not so elaborate. He also stated that from the street, you could not see the addition. Committee Member Woollett thought that while some of the comments had validity, the project was well done and would accept the project as it is. Committee Member Wheeler stated that they should specify somewhere about the extended barges of the house not have the two by four out lookers. He agreed with the Staff Report on divided light windows. He thought what the applicant was doing was what they really wish the rest of the house was, but weren't going to do the rest of the house with the windows they had in front. He would be more comfortable if they kept the same windows throughout, and thought it would be more cost-effective. He did not object to the French Doors in the back, and since they were in back, they did not bother him. He agreed with Mr. Frankel's suggestion that the columns in back could be simplified and not copy the front columns. He also mentioned the different types of corners on the original house. Mr. Dudley explained there was some discussion combination of river rock and brick, and there was Whitaker stated the front piers were not original to pictures of the original house. pith the Craftsman piers where there is a some thought that they reflect that. Mrs. the house, and they were trying to locate City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 16 Committee Member Woollett stated if they didn't put the brick in at all, it would be a simpler post, and could save money toward their future plans. He said if the posts were simplified, they could be a wood column, an eight by eight and set it in there with a base. Mrs. Whitaker pointed out that she preferred the sticking in the casement windows and she did a fair amount of research and discovered that mixing the plain sash windows with divided light casements is not that unusual. She had examples where this occurred throughout Old Towne. She wanted to use the casements in the kitchen because of air flow and that it kept with the Craftsman style. She mentioned the existing French Doors on the plan and showed where they wanted to place the new ones and would replace the old ones. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve DRC No. 4039-05, Whitaker Residence with the following conditions: 1. The extended barges be constructed in the traditional manner. 2. Conditions No. Four and Five in the Staff Report be omitted as Conditions to this. Mr. Woollett asked if the applicant would be allowed to change the plan. Mr. Wheeler suggested the following options: 1. The applicant could go either way with the window styles. 2. The porch columns could be simplified in the back. Perhaps use an eight by eight tapered post. The applicant asked if the motion was the items be left to their discretion, and Mr. Wheeler stated these were just suggestions. SECOND: Jon Califf Before the voting, Chair Califf wanted to be sure the applicant was clear on the extended barge, the crucial element was an outlooker that was actually structural, the barge is supported by that and another element, and the starter board spans from the wall to the barge which is opposite of the way modern construction would be. There would be a flat two by four out lookers and the barge would span up; the starter board would go up. Their stipulation was that the applicant do this, and this will require a special treatment otherwise, it will look wrong. AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 17 7. DRC No. 4042-OS - DR. PECCHIA MONUMENT SIGN A proposal for a new monument sign for a medical office building. Property is located at: 600 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Mr. Ryan presented the Staff Report to the Design Review Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked if the sign would be on both sides. Mrs. Cathleen Pecchia, 600 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange. She replied yes. She explained the cutout was too small to put a sign in the center, so they would put the board sign on both sides using the existing monument. There would not be a top, but there are pilaster caps. Mr. Woollett said his concern was for the two sign boards, and that stuff would go in there, water could build up causing the wood to deteriorate. Mr. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file. He stated he was fine with the way the sign was, and it seemed to meet the standards. He had a question about the top structure. Mrs. Pecchia stated there was an electric light box on top at one time, and had been removed at the request of their insurance company. She stated they were concerned about the size of the sign, and spelling out the complete address. She asked if there was a way to request an exception. Mr. Ryan stated they could run it by Public Safety. Mrs. Pecchia stated the sign was much smaller that they were actually entitled to request. Committee Member Cathcart asked Staff if there was a size the letters had to be. Mr. Ryan replied they had to be 10 inches in height. Committee Member Wheeler said if the applicant could be allowed to just have the number on the sign, this should be sufficient. He suggested having the number at the bottom. His problem was the construction of the sign. He mentioned the top edge being exposed to the weather, and supported on two sides, and as Mr. Woollett stated, it may only last a couple of years. He thought they should put a stiffener behind it like a two by two around the edge, but design the bottom so any water could get out easily, and then place a cap that went around it. Mrs. Pecchia pointed out where there was a planter so the water build-up issue wouldn't be a problem. Mr. Wheeler still thought it would be a good idea to leave some leeway. He also mentioned an extending sill on it so he suggested holding the sign above the sill; otherwise, she might have to box the whole thing up. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 18 Committee Member Woollett stated his concern about the water was what it would do to the sign over a period of time. Chair Califf said if the applicant was going to leave the sign open on top to put concrete in the planter so if water is hitting in there, and splashing dirt up, it would make it better. Committee Member Dewees asked if the sign was going to be below with the caps as stated on the drawing or like another elevation. He stated he would rather see it on the other drawing. Mrs. Pecchia stated they would go by the drawing suggested by Mr. Dewees. Committee Member Wheeler stated if the applicant did have a frame around it, perhaps she would consider painting the frame black to match the black trim of the building and make sure the white of the sign matches the white paint on the building. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant about a photo in the report. He said the edges were clipped off; did the applicant mean to have 90 degree corners or what. Mrs. Pecchia explained that since this was one of two streamlined modern buildings in town, she thought it would be fun to have rounded edges to go with this look. Committee Member Cathcart agreed with the Committee that the planter should be concrete to keep weeds from growing and the concrete should be sloped so the water flows to either side. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve DRC No. 4042-05, Dr. Pecchia Monument Sign with the following conditions: 1. The existing planter area of the sign base be filled in with concrete, and the concrete be sloped to drain. 2. The sign be constructed with a reinforcing frame and edge bending. 3. The white color of the sign match the color of the building, and the black color of the lettering and the possible edge banding match the black of the building. Options would be: 1. The corners could be rounded or left rectangular as desired. 2. The top of the sign should stay below the caps on the columns of the side. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 19 8. DRC No. 4049-OS - MAGLAUGHLIN RESIDENCE A request to permit the use of vinyl replacement windows rather than wood double-hung windows on a 1919 Bungalow residence. Property is located at: 511 E. Van Bibber Avenue, Old Towne Orange Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The applicant did not attend. Ms. Roseberry stated there wasn't anything that prevented the Committee from making a decision on this item, but OTPA had left as they thought the item would not be heard. Committee Member Woollett asked if an exterior element was concealed so that it does not appear to be an exterior element, would it be a concern of the DRC. In other words, if the windows are concealed by the screens the way these are, the screens are the exterior element, and not the window. Chair Califf stated this was an unusual situation insofar as the remedy to anon-conforming situation was so expertly done. His worry was the precedent they would set. Committee Member Woollett asked what would be wrong with them. Chair Califf thought the DRC might be cast in a position of deciding whose remedy is acceptable and whose is not. He recalled their famous Sonshine discussion where they had windows ~so high up that from the ground, they appeared to look okay, but they weren't. Committee Member Woollett stated if they had been more knowledgeable, they may have suggested something to fit over them and would have complied with the style of the building. Chair Califf asked how this item came to the DRC. Mr. Ryan replied it was through Code Enforcement, and it was after the fact. Committee Member Woollett stated that someone had to somehow see through the screens. Committee Member Wheeler replied that if you could see through the screen, then you could see the vinyl in there. He also mentioned that the windows were required, but the screens weren't so someone remove the screens. Mr. Ryan mentioned that this could be considered as the in kind of material issue of replacement windows. He said you couldn't really tell from a photograph the design of the window. He thought the screens were really great, and he did not know if he designed the screens to obscure the windows, but it seemed like this was his focus at the time because he wanted the windows to appear more historic and distract itself from the vinyl window. He said if this was the remedy that came from the original process, then this could have been handled in a different way, and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 20 now it is after the fact. Committee Member Woollett agreed with Mr. Ryan's statements, but he stated there was no decision by the DRC regarding these windows. Chair Califf stated in a typical situation, the applicant would have been turned down. Committee Member Woollett stated they would have been turned down because this would have been an exterior element, but if something is put in front of it, it would not be an exterior element. He continued the DRC doesn't have anything to do with what they do inside. He then spoke of an infamous past project involving a resident who built his garage and replaced the siding of his garage with fiber cement siding, and after it was blessed by the City, he decided to put plywood around the house and was going to proceed with the same fiber cement and was stopped. It then went to the Council and the Council mandated him to remove the plywood and re-use the wood underneath, and it became very complicated because the trim around the windows did not match, etc. He used this as an example because he said some people went beyond the exterior appearance and materials to the way the building was constructed which was not the issue. He stated it became a very expensive solution. He commented in this case, the screen would be a required element if they approve the windows because of the screen. Chair Califf stated no that typically everywhere in the Standards, it refers to the windows, and doesn't mention the screen everywhere so would you get around the fact that you have a vinyl window when the windows are by definition a character defining element. Committee Member Woollett replied they were not acharacter-defining element when there was a screen like the one for the item. Committee Member Cathcart believed that it went to how the homeowner was required to keep a hidden element hidden. He commented the screen could be removed to clean the windows and forget to put the screen up, and the next person who owned the house could say they like it without the screens, and then you've lost it. Chair Califf believed the Secretary of Interior Standards recognizes the value in the window portion of exterior fabric and if this solution, no matter how architecturally acceptable it appears, if this is a precedent, then it's a simple way for many people to put in replacement windows which many people would want to do because the old windows are leaky, etc. Mr. Ryan referenced the Building and Exterior Standards under the windows section and it talked about altering window features, and changing historic appearance of windows, he wasn't sure if this fit in the category they were discussing. Committee Member Woollett thought when Mr. Ryan had read implied that obscuring the window with something that is inappropriate and not in accordance with the style and building. Committee Member Wheeler that this might also be referring to the screens, and the design of the screen might not be appropriate for Old Towne. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 21 Committee Member Woollett asked if Mr. Wheeler was suggesting that the screen wasn't right. Committee Member Wheeler replied it was a little more intricate than what you would see in Old Towne for screens. He said there might be a frame or a horizontal band, but to have it divided up so much was not okay. Chair Califf stated it was obviously designed to mimic the window. Committee Member Woollett asked if a proper screen would be one with four sides and nothing in the middle with one horizontal band in the middle. He asked if it would conceal the window sufficiently that the window would not be considered a visually exterior element. Chair Califf commented that if you look at them, they don't have the structure or the plainer sense of a window. He stated what is difficult is that the effect overall is very well-maintained and the detailed treatment is sharp. Committee Member Wheeler stated he saw a slippery slope when they start to integrate a vinyl window with something to hide it. He added they were beautifully done. Chair Califf commented that they became aware at some point there was a problem, and the solution they came up with seemed to indicate a need to hide the modern window. Committee Member Wheeler said another motivation may have been to paint the wood windows with the red trim. Committee Member Woollett moved to continue DRC No. 4049-05, Maglaughlin Residence until the owner appeared before the DRC. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 22 Chair Califf moved to approve the minutes of September 21, 2005 Meeting as amended. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Chair Califf moved to approve the Minutes of October 5, 2005 Meeting as amended. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C c City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2006 Page 23 Committee Member Woollett moved to adjourn. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. C