Loading...
02-21-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 21 February 2007 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda-Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Debbie Ritchey/Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:05 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, March 7, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 2 of 20 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 ITEMS: 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. There were no items moved to consent at this meeting. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 3 of 20 1. DRC No. 4014-07- GRIJALVA PARK EXTENSION GYMNASIUM A proposal to construct a 26,200 square foot public gymnasium and associated site improvements including a 165-stall parking lot, private roadway, utilities, and landscaping on City-owned vacant property. The DRC previously reviewed the Conceptual Master Plan for the site. The plans currently under review are construction plans for Phase I of the Conceptual Master Plan (the Gymnasium). Vacant property at the NWC of McPherson Road and Spring Street, west of Grijalva Park and east of Santiago Creek Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714-744-7238, jle(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to City Council A project overview as provided by Jennifer Le. Committee Member Cathcart asked Staff for clarification of the placement of trees and shrubs. Ms. Lee advised there are shrubs on the north and east sides and there are a few trees located around the trellis areas. Committee Member Cathcart indicated that in order to approve the project a condition will be that a landscape irrigation plan will be provided to Community Services and that the landscape notes will be added to the plans. The applicant stated irrigation plans have been completed, they just weren't submitted. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Cathcart indicated that on Sheet L2 of the plans it calls out for bicycle racks, benches, etc. to be selected and he asked who would select them and when. The applicant responded they are in the process of doing that now and they will be presenting three options with a range of costs and have the City provide direction or perhaps there is a standard bench to be used throughout all the parks. Committee Member Cathcart indicated additional trees would be nice. Committee Member Wheeler expressed concern about the trellises called out on Sheet 2.7 stating there is a pretty good size beam and he recommended increasing the trellis size and also suggested they be blocked. The applicant agreed the size and the connection is an issue and added that the basic design was for an under-mounting and now they will look at mounting them on top. Committee Member Wheeler recommended if they are under-mounted to position the beam higher, put in blocking and then stabilize them with a 2x. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought initially they specified natural stone veneer and now it has changed to a cultured stone. The applicant responded that the reason for the change is the building on the existing park is a round river rock with a ledge stone so they selected a hybrid with a ledge stone with rounded edges as the architecture of the building didn't lend itself to replicating the round river rock. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 4 of 20 Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would consider a trim band of stone since there is very little difference between the stone and stucco shown on the elevations. The applicant responded affirmatively, they would have a cap. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there were lockers. The applicant responded there are none, instead there are cubbies in the gymnasium and dance room. Furthermore, the hope is with the future aquatic center there will be shared facilities i.e. showers, lockers, etc. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the skylights and ducts be shown on the plans. The applicant responded they have done the study and they will be present on another version. Committee Member Wheeler stated a protective shield may be required over the lights to protect them from damage from balls. The applicant agreed some sort of cage or basket would be appropriate. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had brought a green screen for the committee to see. The applicant responded it wasn't easy to obtain a small enough sample so he instead brought a picture highlighting a corner and how it is mounted. Committee Member Wheeler questioned an area of the building where the green screen is now indicated on the plans where it wasn't previously. The applicant responded that various facade options and materials were reviewed and it was agreed that they would limit some of the wood siding to save costs and then minimize the large expanses of concrete tilt ups so the additional green screen was the most viable option. Committee Member Wheeler questioned the visibility of the trusses through one of the windows. The applicant responded that was intentional as there is a lot of exposed ductwork. Committee Member Wheeler stated often times the height of the mechanical equipment is greater than anticipated and the applicant interjected the measurements have already been verified Committee Member Woollett questioned what the trellis is for. The applicant responded it is basically for an entry piece connecting the parking lot to the gym. He also elaborated on the intent to create a walk of fame with donor names on plaques and a seating area. Committee Member Woollett stated that his concern was that the trellis would not provide shade over the seating area and he asked if the City is expecting it would. If so, he suggested perhaps they explore the addition of vegetation. The applicant stated although it was considered an option, it was not proposed due to the maintenance requirement. Another option offered by Committee Member Woollett was some sort of screen. The applicant was asked to have further discussion on this topic with direction to pursue some sort of screen material versus vegetation. Committee Member Cathcart asked about the absence of clinging vines on green screens as specified in the Staff Report. The applicant apologized for the oversight and stated they would be added. Committee Member Cathcart commented that they had otherwise done a fine job on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler agreed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 5 of 20 Committee Member Woollett asked for a summarization of the changes made to the exterior. The applicant commenced the review with the building itself and stated that to cut some of the structural costs they maintained a single plan over the gym. In an attempt to maintain the look of the box over it they achieved it with parapet walls versus a raised roof. The placement of glass was pinpointed on the drawings along with the much needed storage areas. The last major change was the proportion and locations of finishes on the building. Again, where these changes transpired were pinpointed on the drawings for the committee. Committee Member DeWees offered an alternative option for achieving the same simplistic box look while enabling further cost savings. His opinion was the material and how it was executed is what created interest. Committee Members Woollett and Wheeler stated they tended to agree and the discussion ensued as to how the drainage was going to be handled. Committee Members DeWees and Wheeler stated they would prefer to see them retain the ledge stone that was proposed previously. Locations of exits was questioned by Committee Member Woollett and pinpointed on the drawings by the applicant. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC 4014-07 to the Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1) Condition 1 as stated in the Staff Report, 2) Condition 3 as stated in the Staff Report, Committee Member Cathcart asked that this recommendation be enhanced to include shrubs (besides trees) on the north and east elevations and vines be added to the green screen. 3) Conditions 4 and 5 as stated in the Staff Report. 4) A request that the trellis construction be reviewed to ensure stability. 5) A request for the architect to pursue other design ideas for the massing of the popout on the north side of the building. 6) Consideration be given to changing the stone to ledger stone. SECOND: Jon Califf 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 21 February 2007 Page 6 of 20 3. DRC No. 4145-06 - PFAFF SECOND STORY ADDITION A proposal for an addition to asingle-family residence and a new garage. 1116 E. Palmyra Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review NOTE: Due to a potential schedule conflict for the Staff Contact, although this item is #3 on the agenda, it was heard after Item #1. Staff Contact Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Utilizing the Staff Report as a point of reference Mr. Pfaff commented on various sections as follows: Project Description -Page 1: Mr. Pfaff stated he had no problem with making an addition on the east of the building. Evaluation Criteria -Page 2: Mr. Pfaff stated presently the theme is "Alpine" and although he has no problem with changing the theme he noted he found Spanish and Mediterranean repulsive. Evaluation Criteria, Architectural Features: -Page 2: Mr. Pfaff indicated he was in the period of the `90's and he was instructed by Planning to make sure it looks like the neighborhood. When he walked around the neighborhood his opinion is he saw boxes, so he drew boxes. Planning then told him he couldn't draw boxes. He therefore considers he is in the design period. Furthermore, his opinion is none of the creative building elements and identifying features requested would be visible from the street due to the mature trees. Analysis: Mr. Pfaff stated he was doing what he was instructed to do by the Planning Desk but they changed their mind when they saw what he did and he felt it was a waste of time. Chair Califf stated there was obviously a miscommunication. Mr. Pfaff responded there is a communication problem when someone tries to tell him what his dream home is supposed to look like. Chair Califf pointed out that the project should be consistent with the objectives set forth in the Infill Residential Design Guidelines. Mr. Pfaff responded that what he has perceived it that what is actually requested is a copy of the houses the City would like to have built, not want currently exists. Mr. Pfaff stated the Infill Guidelines are not law. Analysis: Mr. Pfaff refuted the lack of consistency within the neighborhood and presented pictures of other homes in the neighborhood pointing out that they too appear to be box-like. He also pointed out where the foliage blocks the visibility of his home from the street. Mr. Pfaff agreed with the comment that the proposed addition results in making the residence appear as a large stucco box and offered to change his trees on the only one side where he has perennials to evergreens so it can't be seen. Chair Califf stated the Committee will not overlook any of his concerns with the Staff Report. No public comment was provided on this item. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Pfaff stated it was not explained to him that the Infill Residential Design Guidelines were supposed to be the law as it says they are "suggestions" and he has verified with his attorney they are not law. Furthermore Mr. Pfaff believes the City has not previously enforced them uniformly although he thinks since Christopher Cox is no longer in office the enforcement is stricter. Chair Califf responded that Mr. Cox doesn't have anything to do with the DRC. Mr. Pfaff interjected that his only point was that complaints directed to Mr. Cox resulted in positive results. Chair Califf stated the forum for appeal from the DRC is the Planning Commission. Mr. Pfaff stated again that the streetscape would not be ruined because it can't be seen due to the trees. Chair Califf stated the trees could be cut down and Mr. Pfaff interjected they can't be cut down because most of them aren't his. Chair Califf pointed out that means utilization of the landscape is not appropriate as it is out of an applicant's control. Mr. Pfaff disagreed stating some of the trees are on easement and it would require more than one homeowner's agreement to have them removed. Committee Member Woollett stated this is an initial review and the purpose is for the committee to provide guidance. Mr. Pfaff stated he wanted to continue with the review of the Staff Report since it took so long to get anything written down. He acknowledged he had received and read the copy of the Infill Guidelines. Chair Califf stated the requirement is to be compatible with the neighborhood and there are less of the straight up two story configurations on his side of the street. Mr. Pfaff interjected there are several and that he was instructed at the front counter to copy his neighbors. Chair Califf stated if those exact words were used, it's unfortunate as the Infill Residential Design Guidelines want new additions, (particularly second story ones) to be compatible with the neighbors. Furthermore, they typically don't operate in tract developments so you won't have a bunch of matching neighbors; instead, you'll have diversity but they will be compatible. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were quite a few errors on the drawings. Mr. Pfaff responded these were just preliminary drawings. Committee Member Wheeler stated when the final drawings are presented they would like to see more accuracy; the windows on the elevations should match the floor plans, etc. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with the Staff Report that it is a large vertical mass and unlike anything else in the neighborhood. It was his opinion that it screams "mansion" and that is what the Infill Guidelines are trying to prevent. He added that the city has decided they don't want the little houses in Orange to be converted to mansions. Mr. Pfaff stated they didn't communicate that in a way that was easy to understand. Committee Member DeWees stated he believed the guidelines were written to give the property owner some flexibility with the design and he hoped that the DRC would be helpful to Mr. Pfaff in working through the details. Committee Member DeWees cited the entry was out of proportion and they would like to see it scaled down. Other specific concerns expressed by Committee Member DeWees were: 1) Issues with the detailing were pinpointed on the drawings -the band and the fake foam keystone; there are too many different ideas going on. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 8 of 20 Mr. Pfaff stated it was all stucco design and he doesn't have a problem with changing it. 2) The placement of the door in the front was questioned. Committee Member DeWees stated to the applicant that he thought it was a little confusing as positioned and suggested he may want to rethink the positioning in the entry. 3) The window configuration does not have structural support to the roof. Mr. Pfaff stated this has already been to an engineer and it's his job to ensure it is done. Committee Member DeWees asked if it's been corrected on the working drawings. Mr. Pfaff responded the corrected drawings are in the Planning Department now or he may have them at his residence. The discussion ensued about what iteration drawings were before the committee, whether or not the applicant understood the necessity to comply with the Infill Guidelines and was receptive to DRC inputs to move the project along. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that when the drawings come back to either the DRC or go to Planning Commission that an attempt is made to keep a one story plate in the front which is similar to the other homes in the neighborhood and shift the ridge back so the house becomes deeper than it currently is and the majority of the second floor faces the back. Mr. Pfaff stated he had that figured out in Styrofoam and he presented a model to the committee. Committee Member DeWees stated "do not add chunks to the side to break up the mass but instead carve into the box a little to pull some of the mass down and push it back". He added that smaller detail added to the large box is not going to bring down the mass; it will only make it worse. Committee Member Woollett offered the suggestions that the first floor be expanded to the back and the master suite be added on the top. Mr. Pfaff responded he wanted his master suite on the first floor and that he thought all the suggestions were extremely expensive. Chair Califf responded that there is nothing more expensive than trying to build a second floor over an existing first floor; it's much cheaper to build a new first floor with the second floor on top so to the extent the second floor is pushed off the first floor, the savings would be greater. Mr. Pfaff commented that there would be expense associated with new engineering drawings. Chair Califf responded that changing the paper is less expensive than changing concrete and the other things that would be involved. Mr. Pfaff stated he hadn't encountered this difficulty in other areas as long as he stayed within the law and that his experience with Orange was that they continually said no. Committee Member DeWees reminded Mr. Pfaff that things are different in each area and offered assurances that the DRC was there to help him. Committee Member Wheeler reminded Mr. Pfaff to bring the most recent drawings to the next meeting and Committee Member DeWees asked him to have a level of quality control done i.e. ensure the windows and the roof match the plans. Since this project is still at the preliminary level, Chair Califf informed Mr. Pfaff to not engineer whatever changes he had made as a result of this meeting until they are approved at the DRC level. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 9 of 20 Committee Member Califf made a motion to continue DRC No. 4145-06. 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 21 February 2007 Page 10 of 20 2. DRC No. 4126-06 -MACMILLAN RESIDENCE A proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and attached garage in order to construct a new single-family residence with an attached and a detached garage. 7736 East Sandberg Lane Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7229, afox(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Staff Contact Anne Fox provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett asked why the project was going on to the Planning Commission. Ms. Fox responded that it has a Conditional Use Permit for the additional plumbing in the garage. The applicant did not choose to add to the presentation made by Ms. Fox as he stated she provided a very thorough review of the project. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf stated that although it's not always a requirement for a new residence, in this particular case, a landscape planting plan will need to come back to the committee as the landscape plan will tell the story of what will be going on in providing horizontal and vertical relief to manufacture slopes. Committee Member Cathcart stated the grading of the new drive is really predicated on the landscape plan and if it is done well he won't have a problem with it. Chair Califf and Committee Member DeWees agreed. Committee Member DeWees asked if any of the retaining walls were higher than 4'. Ms. Fox responded that there is an existing 6' wall but it is beyond the setbacks. The applicant stated they will actually berm dirt up against it so it will drop it down. The applicant stated their original intent (which has changed) was to have a riding arena, which was the reason for the flat roof on the garage. Ms. Fox added that the present iteration is a good departure from what was originally submitted as the arena caused a lot of stepped retaining walls. Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared that they had a very steep grade and he asked what would happen if a portion of the drive was abandoned. The applicant responded that a property owner abutting that portion of the property has an easement with right of access that would preclude him from doing that; however, he is still trying to reduce a bit of the grade. Committee Member Wheeler stated everything pretty much works great except he had a little concern how they would feel with the large round mass that you walk under when you go in to the entry. He indicated, "the form doesn't carry through down to the ground and feels like something is hanging over your head". Committee Member DeWees stated he actually liked that there was a horizontal line, the entry is a bit bigger and there is a large room above, not a big overstated entry. Ms. MacMillan pointed out that the stairs are actually going there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 11 of 20 Committee Member Woollett asked Ms. Fox to explain the recommendation about the roof on the detached garage. Ms. Fox pointed out the portion where it truncates out to being a flat roof after appearing to be a hip configuration that matches the house. Chair Califf stated it made sense to him after he saw how the grade was going to work. Committee Member Wheeler stated his thought was it might be better to come up with something that appears a little less industrial looking for a railing. The applicant interjected that the railing they were planning to use is the pipe railing used on corrals, kind of rustic looking. The architect added that it's more of a guardrail so people don't fall off. Chair Califf stated that alternatively they could raise up a bit of the parapet. Ms. Fox added they are beyond the setback so it wouldn't be a height issue. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend DRC No. 4126-06 to the Planning Commission subject to Conditions 1 and 4 in the Staff Report and adding the requirement to have a final landscape plan submitted to the DRC. SECOND: Jon Califf 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 21 February 2007 Page 12 of 20 4. DRC No. 4150-06 -THE BIRD CLINIC A proposal for a Sign Program for a new multi-tenant office professional building. 200 South Tustin Staff Contact: Cathy Johnson, (714) 744-7225, ciohnson ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Contact Cathy Johnson provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the lighting is around the perimeter and in different colors. The applicant responded affirmatively. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler asked where the monument sign goes as he didn't see it on the plans. The applicant responded it is south of the driveway and pinpointed the location on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler questioned the 127' total dimension for the south elevation stating it is measured from the property line to the base of the building and per his calculation the length is 117' which means they are a little over on the square footage for that elevation. Ms. Johnson stated she would double check it and modify it as may be necessary. The applicant stated that was interesting as they took the figures from an existing site plan. Committee Member Wheeler stated the 50' quoted for the east elevation should be bigger as he would count it all the way over including the electrical room. He added that if he were reading it correctly, this would mean their signage on the front could be bigger if they so desired. Committee Member Wheeler stated he trusted the signs on the elevation are just shown for placement purposes, as they appear larger in dimension than they should be. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they knew anything about the construction of the other wall signs. The applicant responded they would provide guidelines to the tenants, as they want them to use creativity but be within reason. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4150-06 subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and confirmation of the areas and the frontages by the applicant prior to finalizing. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 13 of 20 DRC No. 4179-07 - SARKO GARAGE MODIFICATION A proposal to convert anon-permitted apartment back into aone-car detached garage. 648 E. Palm Avenue (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr~cr,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Craig Wheeler recused himself, as he is the Architect of record for this project. Staff Contact Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant stated they would be converting it back to a garage; however, they wanted to see if they could maintain the existing siding. He brought pictures and stated that the garage is set back from the street, very little would be noticeable from the street and in an attempt to keep the construction costs down they wanted to explore changing out the entire frontage of the garage and not have to rip out the hardboard on the side. Chair Califf asked if it was this applicant that did the construction work and conversion. Mr. Ryan responded it was his understanding it was this applicant that did the addition and conversion but since there are two different types of siding, some of that may have been done by someone else. Public input was provided as follows: Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: He fully agreed with the Staff Report. Based on what he read in the Staff Report he was assuming this was a historic and contributing structure and he asked for confirmation this was accurate. Mr. Ryan responded the survey didn't mention it but in discussions with a realtor that had sold property in the same condition prior to this that the garage did exhibit features which would be considered contributing. They always like to see a garage being converted back to it's original use. If the original siding was under the hardy board he wanted to encourage having it brought back as close as possible to the original material. The applicant responded the original siding was not under the hardy board. Chair Califf stated the reason he posed the question about the siding was if anyone else was inclined to compromise on this type of issue, his opinion is that the front (at the very least), and anything else that is visible from the street should be the same kind of siding. Furthermore, the other sides could be left the way they are; however, if it was the current owner that did the construction, he would be a little less apt to make that compromise. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 14 of 20 Committee Member Woollett stated he noticed on the proposed garage that there is no barge, unlike the house where there is a fairly heavy member that spans and there doesn't appear to be anything like that in the garage. Chair Califf stated that it could have been shorter/smaller based on the size of the garage since it's only spanning 6'. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if the committee decided the windows needed to be replaced with wood windows if they would just take them out and put siding over it. The applicant responded that since they're trying to keep the costs down they probably would just put the siding over it. Committee Member Woollett wondered how the architect came up with the measurements to the property line. The applicant responded there is probably a fence there. Committee Member Woollett stated he was in favor of the Staff Recommendations and that it is essential to be careful about precedence. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4179-07 subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report. SECOND:Jon Califf AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES:Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN:None RECUSED:Craig Wheeler ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. The applicant summarized the work to be done, stating they need to remove the windows and replace the siding. Committee Member Woollett responded "that is basically it". City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 15 of 20 6. DRC No. 4182-07 - HODGES HOUSE RESTORATION A proposal to rehabilitate/restore the exterior of a 1915 Craftsman residence. 406 S. Olive Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, drawn a,cit o~ forang_e.org DRC Action: Final Determination Craig Wheeler recused himself. Staff Contact Dan Ryan commenced a project overview by stating the applicant has proposed a very nice project and from the photographs they have made a lot of progress and he complimented the architect. The applicant stated: The home has been in a state of disrepair with deferred maintenance for approximately 60 years. She has owned it for approximately 9 years. The windows proposed by the architect were based on Mr. Ryan's suggestions to try to save money. Mr. Ryan has asked them to swap out the Living Room window with the Dining Room window on the north side. That is the original window in the Living Room and they are only changing it and the one on the front for the exact same window because the architect recommended to do so for energy efficiency. They will all be double pane, low E glass. The architect advised that to not change out all the windows would not be efficient. They proposed the exact replacement in this case. All other windows are aluminum that were put in about 50 years ago. Chair Califf stated that in a historic structure in Old Towne if you have an existing, single pane window you could forget about the energy standards. The applicant responded the problem is that some time ago a sliding glass door was put in the front of the house, which will have to be replaced with a wood window. Furthermore, due to the deterioration of the window opposite it she doesn't think it will look very good. Chair Califf cautioned that just because a window appears to be in bad shape, it doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be replaced. The applicant asked to have a review of each of the six windows mentioned in the project overview (and in the Staff Report). 1) The front dormer window (on the front elevation): The applicant stated the window opening will remain the same size as the original opening; however, currently there is a smaller one in there with side boards. They are proposing casement for additional ventilation. Chair Califf stated it is more typical, the way they have drawn it, to be double hung. The applicant responded it has a false cross bar to make it look like that and be historically correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 16 of 20 The applicant asked for confirmation that the size of the replacement window will be the size of the original opening. Mr. Ryan stated they should keep the window as close to the original size as possible. 2) The south side gable attic window: The applicant stated she didn't think it was too wide as noted in the Staff Report as the proposed window is much smaller than what is existing. Chair Califf asked if the existing was an original window. The applicant responded "no". The applicant reiterated they like the size of the proposed window. 3) The north side gable window with two double-hung windows and a center fixed window: Chair Califf stated that the proposed pattern is not appropriate to a gable window. The applicant responded they could concede that and will change it to two side by sides that are casement and appear to be double hung. Chair Califf interjected that although that would be preferable, at this point it is not yet cast in stone. 4) The dining room window to be swapped with the living room window on the north elevation: The applicant stated those are original windows so they didn't want to do that. 5) The bath window (on the south side elevation): they don't want to do this as this also is an original window and they want to keep it. Mr. Ryan responded that he was recommending a hopper window. The applicant responded that she had misunderstood. She thought the Staff Report was referring to the first floor versus second. Regarding the second floor window, the applicant stated she would concede on the type of window; however, she feels the existing window is claustrophobically miniscule so while she would concede on the type of window she would like to have it slightly larger. Chair Califf stated they definitely discourage removing an original window to make it larger. The applicant reiterated they like it much better as proposed and added this was not an original window. 6) The kitchen window: The applicant stated this window is over the kitchen sink and to stand at the window while doing dishes and look through wood frames versus out a picture window is really not something she is willing to concede on. Chair Califf stated that casements are generally more convenient as they are easier to open over a kitchen counter. Furthermore, one window right up next to the other, molded as one window is generally a dead giveaway that it is a modern window and around Old Towne you'll see there should be a 3"-4" member between them. The applicant stated she just doesn't want 3 double-hung windows as suggested in the Staff Report as she likes to look out that window and doesn't want her view obstructed by a crossbar. Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated: He thought the plans looked really good. It was exciting to start to see this house change a bit. Their position on all windows is the windows original to the house should be retained unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. He agreed with the applicant that one of the elevations was really a mess. The Staff Report mentioned attic living space, which really isn't a concern of OTPA as long as it doesn't negatively impact the character defining features of the house i.e. the dormer, roof, etc. They agree with all of Staff's comments. There hasn't been discussion on the doors. There is no drawing of the rear elevation existing but in the floor plans it shows what seems like a typical configuration service/laundry porch with City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 17 of 20 stairs and he is questioning the appropriateness of the doors as they seem like they are single pane French doors. The applicant interjected that none of them show from the street. Mr. Frankel asked if there was an original door being removed and the applicant responded "no", and the front door will be retained as it is a beautiful, heavy, nice door. He thought there could be something a little more appropriate done with the rear doors as what is proposed is too contemporary. The applicant responded they are actually high quality, wood, Craftsman style doors. Mr. Frankel added that generally they are multi-paned. The applicant stated she has actually not selected the exact door yet and she is open to any style; she just wants ventilation and light flow. In closing he just wanted to see them retain as much of the historic fabric as possible and it looks like a good project. Chair Califf stated he didn't recall if the detailing on the front porch was still in existence. The applicant responded affirmatively. Chair Califf stated they would definitely want that retained. Chair Califf pointed out that generally the triple window is reserved for the front of the house or for a picture window. The applicant stated she really likes that style of window and there is no evidence there wasn't this style of window originally. Chair Califf added that if they did something with the narrow piece across, it would be more appropriate in the dining room. Chair Califf stated they would really like to see the exact styles on the drawings, as the break ups are important to ensure the window manufacturer understands the requirement. Chair Califf stated all windows need to be wood. The applicant agreed. Chair Califf offered an advisory that generally commercially manufactured wood windows almost always have vinyl runners. Mr. Frankel offered a resource for windows. The applicant stated: There were a few style and ventilation concessions that were really important to her. She had purchased this home as 3-bedroom, 2-bath and some 50 years ago the attic was converted. Now there is question as to whether or not it is permitted. She now has to raise the ceiling height 1" to be able to retain the 1-bedroom, 1-bath upstairs. She is going through the channels to make it legal and the windows are very important to her. Chair Califf stated if there is a window original to the house that she wants to move somewhere, it needs to be retained and used someplace else on the house. The applicant acknowledged she understood. The applicant stated she has spent a lot of time going to the counter and has begged to set up a meeting and was always told no. She added that at the counter you get a lot of different answers and are frequently led down the wrong path. She stated it was like "please don't eat the daisies"; if you don't ask the right questions, you don't get the caveats. She indicated she is trying to fix City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 18 of 20 the house and do the right thing without getting a lot of help from the City, in fact just the opposite. Ms. Roseberry provided insight into the DRC calendar so if the project was continued all parties would know when they could expect to return. Committee Member Woollett indicated he would like to be definitive enough in the motion to enable Staff to review the plans without having to have the project come back before the committee. The applicant stated she and her architect were given the impression in the past that the plans were already okay as drawn and then she received the Staff Report with the objections. For this reason she indicated she was frustrated and wanted assurances there wouldn't be anything left open that could be misinterpreted by Staff and cause her to incur further expense and delay. Committee Members Woollett and Chair Califf responded that their intent would be to provide that concise direction. To that end Chair Califf conducted a review of all existing and proposed windows and provided specific recommendations to the applicant with his hand written notes on the elevations. Chair Califf asked the applicants if they had any questions with the notations provided in support of the previous discussion. The applicants responded "no". Committee Member Woollett pointed out that if an existing window on the north side of the house is removed it needs to be used someplace else. The applicant stated she couldn't think of anyplace else where they could use it and have it match anything else and look consistent with any other window. The applicant pointed out that the trim is all missing. Mr. Frankel interjected that it would be inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the City's own design standards to have that window removed. The applicant responded she doesn't understand how the windows and sliding glass doors (which she indicated are a total affront) have been there for 50 years and no one said anything. Mr. Frankel responded that the district had only become a National Registered District in 1997 so those things were perhaps not fully addressed prior to that time. The applicant agreed to a widening of the original opening and adding one new window to the existing. Chair Califf stated the rear doors must be wood Craftsman style. The applicant agreed to obtain Staff approval of the style. Committee Member DeWees drew an example of what would not be an acceptable rendition of Craftsman. Chair Califf stated if the bedroom window is not complete sawdust when removed it should be wrapped up and put in the attic; it should not be destroyed. The applicant agreed. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4182-07 in accordance with: 1) The plans dated 2-21-07 that have been marked up and initialed by Jon Califf. 2) The retention of Item #3 in the Analysis section of the Staff Report. "The north side gable window with two double-hung windows and a center fixed window is too wide, eliminate the center fixed glass and have two side-by-side double hung windows." 3) Deletion of Items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in the Analysis section of the Staff Report which are superseded by the notations made on the plans. 4). The applicant will maintain all original detailing in the rehab of the kitchen window. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 19 of 20 5) Condition #1 as stated in the Staff Report Recommended Actions shall be revised to read, Modify the window configurations as noted on the marked up plan." 6) Condition #2 as stated in the Staff Report Recommended Actions still applies as written. 7) Condition #3 as stated in the Staff Report Recommended Actions still applies as written. 8) Condition #4 as stated in the Staff Report applies as amended in notations provided. 9) Condition #5 as stated in the Staff Report Recommended Actions still applies as written. 10) Condition #6 will be added requiring the retention of all Craftsman details. The applicant was requested to provide a copy of the original marked up document to Staff Contact Dan Ryan on 2-22-07. SECOND:Donnie DeWees AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES:Donnie DeWees ABSTAIN:None RECUSED:Craig Wheeler ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 21 February 2007 Page 20 of 20 REVIEW OF MINUTES: There were no minutes available for review at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Cathcart to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, March 7, 2007. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED.