05-06-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
May 6, 2009
Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:05 p.m.
Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session with any information from Staff.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda and
there was no new information.
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the. regular Design Review Committee meeting of
April 15, 2009. Changes and corrections were noted.
Chair McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative
Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Member Cathcart was absent.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 2 of 19
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There was none.
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.
1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 15, 2009
Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of
April 15, 2009, with the changes and corrections noted.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 3 of 19
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items: None
New Agenda Items:
2) DRC No. 4368-08, ZC No. 1251-08, ENV No. 1804-08, CUP No. 2724-08, & MJSP
No. 0557-08 -ORANGE GATEWAY
A proposal to develop a new commercial center with a 2,510 sq. ft. stand-alone restaurant
building with adrive-thru, and a 7,200 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial building, on a
vacant parcel.
SE Corner of I-5 and Chapman Avenue
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Steve Schneider, address on file, stated he was available to answer any questions. He
stated he had brought sketches and photos of a similar building that had been completed and
samples of materials they proposed to use and he explained where the different materials would
be used. The photo of the building was a very early concept and although it gave a good
example of what was proposed there were differences. Initially there had been a corrugated
element used and they would not use that in their proposed building; he pointed out the areas on
the photo that would be different. The initial presentation had several marquee-type signs which
were not allowed through the sign program and those had been removed. The front area would
have a window looking into the dining room and they had exhibits which showed the anticipated
roof plans. The sections they were presenting were from the freeway off-ramp to allow them a
visual of what would be seen from that view; the freeway was ultimately higher than the building
themselves. There would be some visibility from the freeway; they were easily screened from
Chapman. He pointed out where the freeway off-ramp was on the plans in reference to the
building. The Committee reviewed the elevations with the applicant.
Committee Member Gladson asked for information on the design concept for the retail building.
Mr. Schneider stated the design concept for the retail building would be a cohesive design with
the Jack In The Box building and it would have similar elements. The design would be related to
the fireplace element and he pointed out where that design element had been carried. The
fireplace was something that was specific to Jack In The Box and what the company was doing
with their new buildings. A fireplace would not be appropriate in a retail building of unknown
use, although they wanted to tie the look together and they used similar colors and elements
throughout the building with the use of similar trim and awning features. The retail building also
had elements of its own; however, the development was tied in together.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 4 of 19
Public Comment
Nonee
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration had mitigation measures
listed in 4 locations, pages 46, 50, 56 and 85, and he wondered if the Committee should consider
adding those mitigation measures to the recommendations.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated when the project reached Planning
Commission and eventually City Council it would all be pulled forward into resolutions. If they
were in accord with the Mitigation Measures they could certainly include them in the
recommendation.
Committee Member Gladson stated the only questions she had was in understanding the roof-
mounted equipment and any measures or recommendations to ensure that the project displayed
the Orange Gateway that it was intended to be. Beautiful projects sometimes ended up not
catching that detail and they kicked themselves in the backside later when one would drive by
and see some unsightly looking roof equipment. She had reviewed the cross section the
applicant spoke about and she had not scaled it out and measured it and it appeared awfully close
to the freeway side. She had no other issues.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he wondered if they should suggest some screening around
the roof top mechanical equipment as he felt it would be visible from the freeway. It would be
important to clean it up by possibly painting it a reasonable color to have it be as aesthetically
pleasing without a huge expense.
Chair McCormack asked if he was proposing some type of architectural screening or a landscape
screen?
Committee Member Wheeler stated not landscaping screening on the roof. He was suggesting a
screen that would possibly mimic the galvanized look of the building and something that would
be close enough to the equipment to screen it; something that would tie into the building.
Committee Member Gladson stated it was a rear elevation and it ran up against the freeway and
would not require a lot of embellishment. It would be nice to have it inviting.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the back of the building had not worried him as much as the
xoof equipment had.
Chair McCormack asked what were some of the options in making the roof more aesthetically
pleasing?
Committee Member Wheeler suggested organizing the mechanical equipment as much as
possible and adding a screen around it. Painting it to match would make it less visible.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 5 of 19
Mr. Schneider stated they could have the units colored the same as the roof. Roofs tended to be
white for energy efficiency. Many times the roof equipment was also light in color for energy
efficiency and they could ensure that happened. They would not want a dark green unit on a
white background. Some of the screening ideas, especially in dealing with a very elevated area,
was a problem as sometimes the screening itself became more visible and obnoxious than the
equipment that was being screened. The difficulty, particularly on a restaurant, was the setbacks
due to the heat exhausts. Jack In The Box was lower on the hill and his intent was to drive by to
get a good idea of what was visible. The freeway with multiple lanes and barriers would not
allow much of a view of the building.
Chair McCormack stated the roof was obviously visible and had a green roof been looked into; it
was an option and although it had costs associated with it, it would be another option. That type
of treatment had a positive visual and would do a lot for the heat and it was something that could
be explored.
Mr. Schneider stated in a retail lease environment where there was the potential for a lot of
change it might not be an application that made sense. Without known or fixed tenants it could
pose some significant issues.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be pleased with a condition that the roof top
equipment be painted to match the roofing.
Mr. Schneider stated they could organize and paint the equipment and have any of the retail
tenants follow that recommendation.
Committee Member Gladson stated the view was not as critical for her as identifying the zone as
people came off the ramp. She understood that the applicant would not be able to screen the
equipment from every angle.
Mr. Schneider stated he wanted the Committee to understand what the view was from the
freeway.
Committee Member Gladson reviewed the plans with the applicant and stated she supported
some sort of screening as well as painting the equipment to match. She also supported the
Chair's recommendation of exploring a green roof which was another option.
Mr. Schneider stated it would not be appropriate for Jack In The Box. Most green roofs he had
been exposed to were designed and placed in areas that were not heavily mechanical.
Committee Member Wheeler asked about signs and art that they proposed for Jack In The Box?
Mr. Schneider asked if window signage was allowed?
Ms. Thakur stated window signage was allowed at 25% of the window area.
Mr. Schneider stated the original design of the building was to get away from that type of
advertising and they had gone to the marquee design to get away from that and have the
windows be windows. With sign ordinances that do not allow exterior mounted signage they
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 6 of 19
would be using some of the window surface for signage. The intent was not to clutter up the
window space.
Committee Member Woollett asked Staff that if they approved the project, what would they be
approving?
Ms. Thakur stated they would be recommending approval to the Planning Commission of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the site plan, and the elevations.
Committee Member Woollett asked if they would be approving the colors of the building?
Ms. Thakur stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration included more of a concept of the colors
to be used.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was satisfied with painting the roof and equipment white
and he was not so worried about the visual from the freeway. The Jack In The Box elevations
worked very well.
Committee Member Wheeler agreed with having the roof and equipment colors match and to
have the equipment organized as much as possible. He was pleased with the building design.
Committee Member Gladson stated there was some concern with the shininess of the metal.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought it was fun and he liked the finish.
Committee Member Gladson stated she thought is was fun also and she liked it.
Mr. Schneider stated essentially every piece of galvanized equipment had a different look to it,
even those that were in the same run.
Committee Member Gladson stated would it have a patina over time and asked if the metal
stayed true to color?
Mr. Schneider stated it would have a slight change over time as it was out in the environment
and would weather and the shininess would not be there forever. Over time it would weather and
it would not look like a shiny piece of metal.
Committee Member Gladson stated in the event a teenager would decide to skateboard up that
area how solid was it?
Mr. Schneider stated the fireplace itself had a raised screen and it was a sealed unit with safety
glass behind it; it would be sealed on both sides. The metal areas would be well reinforced and
solid.
Chair McCormack stated in reviewing the minutes he had not been pleased with the site plan and
had asked the applicant to present an alternate design that proved why the building could not be
located closer to the street. There was afour-story mass apartment complex across the street and
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 7 of 19
people had to travel the entire site to get to the Jack In The Box and he asked if the proposed
presentation was the applicant's only solution without looking at alternatives?
Mr. Schneider stated they had not completed a site plan that had the drive-thru relocated. There
were some site plan iterations that had the retail buildings in another location, however, that had
not worked in regard to visibility and building location. The main reason for the Jack In The
Box to be located as presented was that the rectangular shape of the site worked very well for a
drive-thru in that it allowed them to have a very long drive-thru access. If they moved that use to
the other side they would have difficulty designing adrive-thru lane and they would be left with
un-useable areas of the site.
Chair McCormack stated in reviewing the design and layout he now understood why they had
not altered the location of the Jack In The Box.
Committee Member Gladson pointed out an area on the plans and asked what that space would
be used for?
Mr. Schneider stated that site was reserved for a water well site for the City.
Chair McCormack pointed out an area on the plans where a hedge was created and he could not
tell what type of hedge they proposed. He pointed out an area where the plantings should match.
The Russet Magnolia tree was a very small tree and he suggested using the Majestic Beauty
variety which was a bigger tree that could be used in larger spaces, which they had. The screen
tree they had proposed, the Sweet Bay tree, was a small tree and would not provide any "heavy
lifting" and he suggested that they choose another larger tree that would offer more screening to
the area. All the trees were noted as 15 gallon and the design criteria stated that 25% of the total
trees to be 24" box, with 75% being 15 gallon. Chair McCormack stated he was not certain all
the plants proposed would fit on the site and there were not enough conditions for all of them and
it would be a very busy palette. He understood it was a concept plan; however, it appeared the
proposal included too many plants. He only reviewed a list of plants on the plans and there was
not a design concept included. The concept was not apparent. In the fireplace area, and he had
reviewed the parking count, which was 67 required and total provided 72 spaces. It made sense
to him to remove one or two stalls from in front of the fireplace area and to play up that element.
If they left those spaces, there would probably always be a car parked there as it was the space
closest to the entry. He suggested removing it and they could have it become an outdoor eating
area.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they had spoken about that previously and the applicant
would not necessarily have to turn those spots into an outdoor eating area.
Mr. Schneider stated they had not included outdoor eating areas as those typically became
loitering and security issues.
Chair McCormack suggested removing the parking spaces and have it become a landscape area
or a paved area. He pointed out another area on the plans that was an issue for him.
Mr. Schneider stated there was an area that was a grade issue and if they flattened that area out
they would be adjacent to the sidewalk and had no area to drop down the path to the building.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 8 of 19
Chair McCormack and Mr. Schneider reviewed the section and reviewed the grading issue.
Committee Member Gladson asked if Staff had a question in regard to a Swale or draining issue?
Ms. Thakur stated from the previous presentation there had been a question as to why the site
had not included areas for water to drain before it reached the detention basin.
Chair McCormack stated it almost appeared that all the area was surface and he pointed out the
lowest points and he asked where the drainage would run?
Mr. Schneider stated there would be collection points along that area into the junction box with
diversion in an area he pointed to on the plans. It was slowed down and then placed back into
the storm drain system. The amount coming in would be much more than the amount leaving.
They had proposed some areas of pervious pavement. He discussed those areas that would be
utilized for drainage.
Chair McCormack asked why an area on the plans was pervious pavement and why other areas
had not been pervious pavement and was it a cost issue?
Mr. Schneider stated it was not a cost issue, they had added additional pervious areas to meet
City requirements. The idea of adding that element to some areas presented issues in utilizing
certain types of materials adjacent to buildings. Traditionally they would be used in more remote
areas instead of directly in front of the building. It was a fairly new technology in California and
there was a bit of concern to use areas to collect water directly near building entries. They had
added those areas as additional measures to collect water.
Committee Member Gladson asked if the landscape areas were being treated correctly?
Chair McCormack stated there should be some landscape treatment added to those filtration
areas.
Mr. Schneider stated there was discussion with the civil engineer that the design for those areas
would not support landscaping. There was a volume being dealt with and landscaping would
contribute to a reduction in volume.
Chair McCormack stated he had worked with those types of systems before and typically
flooding material such as willows could be used on the bottom of the slope with a drought
tolerant grass being use in the higher areas. During the summer a drought tolerant plan would be
used in order to maintain the plants at the lower sections.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested using larger gravel as a stream bed.
Chair McCormack stated they could use that method, however, it tended to silt up over time and
the gravel areas would be lost. He also wanted to note on the trash enclosure that vines should
be added.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 9 of 19
Committee Member Gladson asked if she was sensing from the Chair, if the project were to
move forward, that perhaps he would want to review a landscape plan or have one submitted for
Staff review?
Chair McCormack stated he would want to review the landscape plan. In reviewing a section of
the plan it appeared there was a visible concept with gravel and grassy areas, however, in the
other areas there were some pretty old school plant materials included, plants used in the 50's
and 60's which were okay, but the plant choices presented was just a list. The tree choices were
more of accent trees and not for screening. He asked if he was sensing a continuation of the
project?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission with the landscape plan being reviewed later by this Committee.
Committee Member Woollett and Committee Member Gladson agreed with Committee Member
Wheeler.
Chair McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC
No. 4368-08, ZC No. 1251-08, ENV No. 1804-08, CUP No. 2724-08, & MJSP No. 0557-08,
Orange Gateway, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following
conditions:
1. Include the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The roof top equipment to be painted the same color to match the roof material.
3. The two parking spaces in front of the fireplace area be removed and substituted with a
planted area or paved area.
4. Solve the ramping issue along Chapman to allow parking stalls to be screened by shrubs
with the landscape concept at the main entry of the site.
5. Add vines to the trash enclosures.
6. Change the Russet Southern Magnolia tree to the Majestic Beauty Southern Magnolia
tree and to change the Sweet Bay tree to a larger screening Evergreen tree.
7. To ensure that trees were in conformance to meet the 25% of trees to be 24" box and 75%
to be 15 gallon.
8. To submit the landscape plan back to the DRC for review prior to issuance of building
permits.
9. A landscape or gravel treatment to be included in the detention basin.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None ,
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 10 of 19
3) DRC No. 4414-09 & CUP No. 2747-09 - PLATZ GARAGE
A proposal to demolish a 207 sq. ft. shed, construct a new two-car detached garage,
and install a full bath in an existing (recreation room) accessory structure.
456 N. Shaffer Street, Old Towne Historic District
Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr~an(a~ci oforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Daphne Abergel, address on file, stated she was available for questions.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the proposed project looked good, it
had appropriate materials, it was not huge, and there was not a second unit above it. Apparently
there was no photo documentation of what the old garage looked like, and he asked Mr. Ryan if
that was correct?
Mr. Ryan stated there was only a photo of what was left of the garage.
Mr. Frankel asked if the deed restriction was on the recreation room because it was too small to
be an accessory structure?
Mr. Ryan stated typically it was his understanding that the City Attorney asked the applicant to
draft a deed restriction that provided that any accessory structure with a full bath in it would not
morph into something else.
Mr. Frankel stated the OTPA would want to encourage changes to the accessory structure as
well. He suggested adding a bit more detail to the man door. He was not certain it was just the
drawing or had they intended to install a paneled door?
Mr. Ryan stated they had planned on using a panel door.
Mr. Frankel stated thank you, the project looked good.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler asked why the little section showed a regular foundation instead of
a raised curb that would normally be present with a garage and would they be doing a raised
curb?
Ms. Abergel stated it would be a raised curb.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 11 of 19
Committee Member Wheeler stated the section had not shown a finished ceiling and therefore no
need for an attic and the attic vents. If it was to be built as a house with a ceiling, vents would be
required.
Ms. Abergel stated they could take off the vents, they had been added for circulation.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there was just some additional things the DRC generally
required, that the vents match the house, the interior exposed rafter tails be smaller than the barge
board and fascia -generally the barge boards would be 2"x 6" with the rafter tails being 2"x 4".
He suggested on the garage door to beef up the trim to match the house. The main thing he
wanted to point out was that in the past when the DRC had been asked to solve a question of the
maximum height within 10' of the setback, he had proposed an alternate solution that would be
more in keeping with the neighborhood. He presented a drawing with his suggestion.
Applicant, Christy Platz, address on file, asked if there would still be a two car garage?
Committee Member Wheeler stated yes. It would be more in keeping with the garages in Orange
that had been added to; rather than a Gable in front and a Hip in the back. The plate height
would need to be adjusted and the pitch of the shed would need to be cut down.
Chair McCormack asked what roofing material would be used?
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would probably be a rolled roofing put down with a torch
or possibly a hot mop.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was surprised that Committee Member Wheeler had not
mentioned the barge board.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the extended barge board have no flat out lookers to
support it which was common with modern construction, but would be supported by the actual
sheathing, brackets, or out lookers. It would connect to the beam to hold up the over hang. The
over hang was small; probably a foot and the applicant would need to run the starter board the
other way.
Committee Member Gladson stated she would highly encourage the applicant to pursue a plan to
bring up the look of the recreation room; it would not need to be immediate as there was a
financial aspect to any improvements on a property. What it had going for it was that it was not
very visible on Shaffer.
Ms. Platz asked if she had wanted to add siding to the recreation room to match the siding of the
house would she be required to get DRC approval first?
Mr. Ryan stated that was what he was trying to get at. He felt there could be language drafted to
cover future updates to the property.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the City would encourage that.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 12 of 19
Committee Member Woollett asked that in a motion could they state that they would approve
siding, window trim, windows, and doors to match the existing structure and that way it would
be in the record and not require the applicant to return to the DRC. It would not be a required
part of the proposed project, however, it would be covered for the future.
Chair McCormack asked would they want to note specifics such as no aluminum windows?
Mr. Ryan stated they could add language that read modifications to any portion there of per Staff
approval.
Committee Member Gladson stated the property owner probably would not have a Mills
Contract but might look at that in the future and put that into a work plan.
Ms. Platz stated it had already been done.
Chair McCormack asked if the intent was to install a ribbon driveway?
Committee Member Woollett stated they would replace the driveway.
Ms. Abergel stated they would remove and replace the driveway.
Chair McCormack referred to the drawings and asked how far back the driveway would go?
Mr. Ryan stated they had an option to have it go back 10'-20' from the front building line, or 3'
from the front property line and showed him where that would be on the drawing.
Chair McCormack stated he would want the driveway to be 3' pavement, grass ribbon 2' and the
other side of pavement 3'. It would keep vehicles on the ribbon of pavement.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission, DRC No. 4414-09 and CUP No. 2747-09, Platz Garage, subject to the conditions
in the Staff Report and with the following conditions:
1. The ribbon driveway should go at least 25' from the back of the sidewalk.
2. The gable end vents match the vents on the house.
3. The trim around the garage door to match the trim around the windows and doors of the
house.
4. The exposed rafter tails to be 2" X 4".
5. The attic vents be removed, unless required by the Building Division.
6. The extended barge to be framed in the conventional manner without 2" X 4" flat out
lookers.
7. The roof configuration to be changed to agree with the sketch submitted to the applicant,
with the shed roof in the back.
The DRC strongly directed Staff that at a future date if the applicant wished to improve the
recreation building with siding, window trim, and windows to match the existing residence and if
such changes were made the applicant would not be required to return to the DRC. Staff would
review such changes.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 13 of 19
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 14 of 19
4) DRC No. 4417-09 & AA No. 0172-09 -RUST GARAGE
A proposal to construct a new two-car garage to replace an unsafe one-car garage that
was demolished under order of the City's Building Official.
493 S. Grand Street, Old Towne Historic District
Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryanncityoforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Committee Member Woollett asked why the proposed project would go to the Planning
Commission? That seemed confusing as it would appear that the demolition would have had to
have been approved previously.
Mr. Ryan stated with an emergency procedure where a building was in danger of collapse the
City required that the Building Official could order the demolition, when it was a case of danger
to the life, health, and safety of the people on the property. That was the case.
Committee Member Woollett asked why it would require a recommendation to the Planning
Commission if it had already been demolished?
Mr. Ryan stated any demolition required Planning Commission approval.
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated it would be for the re-design of the
replacement structure.
Mr. Ryan stated also the new design of the replacement structure was over 120 square feet and it
was a contributing structure. He stated one of the concerns when there was a property with
deferred maintenance and he had researched the code records which showed that in 2001 there
had been a citation issued for a blue tarp being on the building for a period of two years. The
tarp was removed and the case was closed eight months later. He was not certain whether the
City dropped the ball in that respect. The site had been revisited by Code Enforcement recently
and it re-energized the idea of going back and doing something before the building actually fell
down. In reviewing photos from historic records there was an indication of deferred
maintenance. They would want to get to a point where that could be reviewed for the future.
Mr. Ryan stated that in 1992 he had written a demolition by neglect ordinance which had not
gone anywhere and it would be important to look at to ensure there would be something in the
zoning ordinance. He was pleased with the proposed project and the applicant was ready to
move ahead, he had been to the site and had spoken with the architect to talk about changes to
the front structure, which would not require DRC approval as they were all repairs.
Applicant, Angie Rust, address on file, stated some of the windows had been salvaged from an
antique place in Garden Grove and they would be using those. Some of the siding would also be
salvaged.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 15 of 19
Applicant, Arne Valenti, address on file, stated he was available for questions.
Mr. Ryan stated he had not spoken about the paint and noticed the applicant had brought a paint
palette.
Mr. Valenti stated the house and garage would be painted the same color and they would be
using period paints that would be appropriate.
Ms. Rust stated she had owned the property for 30 years. When the demolition was done the
only thing that had been anchored was the shed, the rest of the building had not been anchored to
the foundation.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they had hated to see a contributing
garage demolished and they were concerned that it was done sort of backwards. He was not
certain that it would have been appropriate to reinforce the garage and follow the standard
procedure of approving the design for its replacement and it might not have been appropriate for
that garage to have shored it up for rehabilitation. He understood the garage was in severe
disrepair. He had seen the garage several times and his question was why had the City not
stepped in sooner to show some concern for the condition of the garage as it was a safety hazard.
He was not encouraging demolition of other garages and there were garages in Orange that were
in much worse shape that the Rust garage and ready to fall over. He wondered why the City was
not addressing those garages, and if the City would go out and post a violation possibly the
owner could rehabilitate the garage. The OTPA hated to see a structure get to the point where it
was ready to fall over and he believed the City needed to take measures to prevent that through
Code Enforcement. There were other Cities that had no historic district but had historic
preservation which Code Enforcement was part of. They required if paint was peeling a
violation was posted, any deterioration of wood siding would also get a violation which would be
followed up with a fine and potentially taking the property owner to court. He would not want
that to happen, but just the threat that it could happen might encourage property owners to step
up and rehabilitate their homes or garages. He agreed with Staff's recommendation on a quasi
reconstruction, they were generally opposed to changing the approach configuration, however,
with the proposed project La Veta was a very busy street and it would present a hazard. He
agreed with that. He noticed that the home was in severe disrepair and he assumed that would be
addressed as well. The house had fascia board and he hoped that would not happen on the
garage. Although it would be a condition, he had seen other projects where a fascia board had
been installed anyway. A specific project came to mind and it had been three years and the
fascia board was still present. That homeowner had been notified, but to date nothing had been
done. As far as the design of the new garage he felt it was appropriate and he agreed with Staff's
recommendation on the design elements, exposed rafters, roof pitch to match the original garage
as well as the house. He agreed with Mr. Ryan and the OTPA had been encouraging it for years,
the City needed a demolition by neglect ordinance, there was one in the State and he was not
certain whether the City would want to piggy back onto that and he was not certain how that
would work. He was pleased to see that the garage was finally being taken care of and he would
have rather seen the garage restored. All in all, the replacement looked good.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 16 of 19
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was kind of sad, as Mr. Frankel was, that the garage was
allowed to be torn down. From the photos he felt it could have been raised up and restored. It
would have been a lot of work and possibly not cost effective. It could have been lifted up and
placed on a new foundation with new roof framing on the inside to take out the sag. The
structure had a scale relative to the house that they would be losing and it was much more of an
accessory structure. It had nice features, rolled up roofing at the barge which was gone. He
wished the City had a procedure that was not quite so "trigger happy" at tearing something down
and that they could have explored other options for repair. He knew of another project where the
owners had been told they would need to tear the structure down and he felt they should not do
that. As far as the proposed drawing the only thing he would mention, that was mentioned in the
Staff Report, was the exposed rafter tails and the traditional framing of the roof barge. He
explained to the applicants what he was speaking of.
Committee Member Woollett asked on the elevations he was comparing the windows to the
windows on the house and he wondered if the intent for the window trim would be the same as
the house?
Mr. Valenti stated they would match the existing house.
Committee Member Woollett asked on the sectional overhead doors if there had been any
discussion about that?
Mr. Ryan stated they discussed a slab door that had a similar pattern; it could be a simple design
or a sectional roll up, just something that matched.
Ms. Rust stated it would need to be wood.
Mr. Ryan stated that was one of the conditions.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had not seen anything about the garage door.
Mr. Ryan stated they would need to add that.
Chair McCormack stated he was okay with the proposed project.
Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred with what Committee Member Wheeler had
stated and she too hated to lose a secondary contributing structure. She was quite familiar with
the house and the garage and had walked past it many times and admired its architecture. It
would be nice to come up with some strategies, which would need to be City Council directed, to
have a demolition by neglect ordinance. The City Council would set the direction and she could
wish for that all she wanted, but it would not go anywhere as a DRC member it would need to
come from Council. She understood the safety issue and the Building Official's call on the
matter. She had no problems with the design. She had a struggle with the change in the
orientation of the structure and the loss of its context to La Veta. After listening to the logic she
was okay with it. There would be a record on the history of the structure and she appreciated
that.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 17 of 19
Mr. Ryan stated there was much deliberation on the issue in regard to the Secretary of Interior's
Standards recommendation, and what were the most important things to maintain. Part of that
was to maintain the separation between the house and the garage and the special relationship and
to get the structure as close to the south property line as possible. Those were all issues they
struggled with. In the last 30 years he had not seen a structure in such poor condition and it was
certainly within the realm of the Building Official's authority to do what he had done. Mr. Ryan
stated in looking at other sites, for Ray's Barber Shop they actually re-built the entire inside and
when it was complete everything had been replaced with the exception of the siding. Sometimes
people went to those lengths to preserve a structure and the item before them was not one of
those candidates.
Committee Member Gladson stated she would not want to remove that authority. She would not
want to see a structure get to that condition in the first place. It was not a good thing when those
things occurred and she would not want to see anymore garages go away as they were an
important element. She was concerned about the house and the house was a major contributor to
the street. She knew historic structures needed a lot of work and she encouraged that the same
thing would not happen to the house.
Mr. Valenti stated all the windows on the house had been taken out and refinished, rebuilt, and
re-installed and there had been quite a bit of restoration being done.
Chair McCormack stated there was a new 6' high fence with a new 6' high gate with it going
down to a 3' high fence, and he asked for clarification.
Mr. Valenti stated the intent was to maintain the visibility in coming down the alley; they had not
wanted a 6' high fence as people approached that area and they had not wanted to block the
view.
Chair McCormack asked was an area on the plans a parking space?
Mr. Valenti stated no, it was not; there was a trash enclosure in that area. They would have some
concrete and plant materials.
Committee Member Wheeler pointed out an area that he suggested could be concrete to allow
easier access to the garage.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission, DRC No. 4417-09, and AA No. 0172-09, Rust Garage, subject to the conditions
contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions:
1. The garage door shall be wood.
2. Addition of the barge board detail.
3. Window trim to match the existing structure.
4. The siding to be mitered at the corners.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 18 of 19
SECOND: Adrienne Gladson
AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2009
Page 19 of 19
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on
May 20, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
SECOND:Joe Woollett
AYES:Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.