Loading...
06-01-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL June 1, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Rick Otto, Acting Planning Manager Sherman Jones, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Historic Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Acting Planning Manager Rick Otto who announced that Item 2 would be heard first; however the minutes are presented in the same chronology as the agenda. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3921-04 (Revised) -THOMAS WALSH Dormer addition and fire repair to a 1910 Bungalow Revised height modifications to DRC approval of September 1, 2004 390 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Historic Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission An overview was provided by Senior Historic Planner, Dan Ryan, during which he indicated this applicant had received a Stop Work Order during construction as it was noticed that the plan had been modified in the field. When discussing the options with the applicant it was suggested that the work be stopped until a determination could be made as to what they wanted to do about proceeding with the project. Mr. Ryan pointed out that during this time they did discover a few things that were important: 1) The original drawing (copy provided) indicated that between the grade and first floor elevation, is 2 feet 6 inches on the plan that was approved. The building inspector along with Planner Ryan walked around the complete perimeter of the building and determined that the grade in fact was quite a bit higher (3'6" or so, in that proximity). 2) Additionally, when you have an older building, one of the concerns is the lumber sizes were not what they are today, and building codes in spans and loads require the use of dimensional. lumber that is considerably larger in size and dimension. Considering that, there is also increased height to the building due to today's construction methods. 3) In duplicating the appearance of the building, it was noticed that the original rafter tails were of unusual design. The original pattern was duplicated with the new rafters. 4) Also, during the walk through it was noticed that on the plan that was approved the original house had fish scale shingles on the gable end, which didn't seem to get carried over but got lost in the transition some place. They were looking at trying to correct that concern as well. He added that a determination was made that there was a problem as far as the grade was concerned which would have an affect on the height relationship of the building. Most of the ceiling was replaced all the way through the house. They lowered the ceiling from 9'3" on the original construction to about 8' 1" which would make up for some of the height difference. In addition, the ceiling and floor joist were a larger dimension as well as the rafters. Staff wants to have the project resemble the exact building as it was before the fire which was the recommendation of the DRC. It was Mr. Ryan's opinion that they were taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is now using lumber of a larger dimension, to meet code, so there is some added dimension that would have to be there anyway. He also expressed that he thought the applicant had tried to adjust the plan in regards to the first floor height, to make up for the height difference because the fire damage had to be replaced anyway. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 3 The additional square footage on the second floor (maybe 40 square feet), because a cripple wall was added to the edge, is still under the amount requiring any other approvals; however, the height of the building overall was increased. Planner Ryan restated Staff's position is adherence to the previous recommendation as far as the typical eve construction and brackets and also the fish scale shingles, and to allow additional height as to the required lumber size, but not to the cripple wall. The discussion continued touching on head height between the window and banding with the applicant providing his inputs regarding intent. He produced photographs of other dwellings in the District and reiterated that he was not attempting to set precedence; instead, just keep the house of the era that it is. He elaborated that he believed that was being accomplished by adding 1-1/2 courses of clapboard siding and he could add banding if it was really an issue. Further, to have to dismantle the entire roof at this point would cause significant delay in project completion and consequently incur additional cost. Planner Ryan stated he thought the direction the applicant intended is different than what exists on the site and that it was essential the DRC understand how the applicant wanted to finish this. They then produced photographs of the current condition of the project and Planner Ryan stated that due to the increase in height this would have to go before the Planning Commission. Chair Califf then asked for clarification in the size increase of the second floor. Planner Ryan responded it increased from 439 to 492 (53 feet). Chair Califf then inquired of the applicant why they would go to the trouble of building a cripple wall and instead lower the ceiling? The applicant responded that the cripple wall was part of the original approved plan. Again Chair Califf asked for clarification, "when you say approved plan do you mean building permit or what we actually approved"? Mr. Walsh responded he thought they were the same but he meant the building permit. Both parties reviewed the dimensions acknowledging the approved plan was approximately 2 feet shorter than what is now being called out. Once again, how this occurred was discussed with the applicant ultimately acknowledging a statement made by Committee Member Woollett that it was as a result of the plate height being higher above the finished second floor than was originally anticipated. Public Comment: Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, offered apologies to the applicant that they built to something that was not approved and questioned if there had not been a fire and they wanted to make the attic into living quarters, would it be acceptable for the roof to be raised up as per the example? She then asked for further explanation about the new materials being bigger than the older ones. Chair Califf provided clarification on the sizing of the building materials and Committee Member Wheeler explained how the attic extension could be accomplished without changing the outside appearance. Jeff Frankel, OTPA, then commented about the use of different materials and that he thought the rafters were really not wide enough as they didn't match the dimension of the original rafters. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Frankel then summarized what, in his opinion, appeared to have happened. "It appears to us, what has happened here, is the project was approved by this Committee, the project that was submitted, and the project that was approved, it looks like the applicant went back to more closely to the project that was submitted originally and built it the way he wanted to in the first place. Not only did the applicant do that, but he added more square footage that was not approved and as we all know, if you change the design in any way, you have to come for re- review. If somebody hadn't noticed what was going on here in the neighborhood and actually reported it to the City, then he would have been able to build it the way he wanted to. I think that everyone remembers what we discussed at the original meeting. Raising the plate was out of the question - we all remember that. It changes the dimensions, it changes the proportions, there were in-depth discussions about that. I am sure that the applicant knows that if he changes the plans he has to come back for re-review or at least get them signed off by somebody in the Planning Department which did not happen." The applicant interjected that they did not change the plans; they built it to the approved, signed plan. Mr. Frankel countered with "Not to the approved plan from the DRC that we saw". The applicant disagreed with Mr. Frankel's statement and Chair Califf stated they should move forward with any public questions. Mr. Frankel concluding with stating strong opposition to raising the plate on this structure and wanted it lowered to where it was originally approved. Planner Ryan then commented there was also a request from the applicant to put a shed roof on in the rear. The applicant concurred. The discussion then returned to the plate height while all parties attempted to understand what caused the disparity and what would be the best approach to move forward. A fair amount of discussion evolved around the existence of a cripple wall in the current plans that was not present in the original DRC approved plans. Ultimately Chair Califf pointed that whether they do or don't have a cripple wall is immaterial to the DRC. The concern is the applicant has raised the building. There were ways to frame the floor, dozens of ways other than the exact original way that it could have been framed, with modern framing lumber and they could also have incorporated a cripple wall (other houses have them). He reiterated they were looking for something that would match the roof height they had approved and unfortunately, it wasn't what is now being built. Committee Member Wheeler then discussed the compromises that had been given in three previous meetings with the objective being to get the profile to be consistent with the house as it was without a tall space that is not normally seen. The owner/applicant then addressed the group with his opinions which included his belief the OTPA's intentions were to prevent this project from ever being completed. He then apologized for the differences in the plans and asked if there was any room for negotiation. Committee Member Woollett commented they were well aware there were some neighbors that had concerns about the house; however, their comments had nothing to do with the DRC decisions. The DRC was to enforce the design guidelines of the City. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 5 Planner Ryan pointed out that with an increase in height this project would have to go before the Planning Commission. He then reviewed the different options available to the applicant: basically, construct as is, modify what is here to get some positive recommendation, or appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. He then asked if the group wanted to discuss the other recommendations contained in the Staff Report: 1) The shed roof on the rear transition to the stucco building. 2) The fish scale shingles and the previous recommendation. Committee Member Wheeler then recalled previous discussions about the shingles on the dormers stating he thought the shingles on the dormers were to be removed and the earlier recommendation was to maintain the fish scale as proposed on the original proposal. He also added one of the conditions on the approval was to maintain the original historic barge framing treatment. Specifics in terms of materials and how it should be built were provided to the applicant. Once again the discussion returned to the major concern of the plate height and how to achieve the reduction with the applicant asking for concessions to maintain what they've already got. Committee Member Woollett responded that he could not find justification for changing the earlier decision. Committee Member Wheeler then offered another suggestion to lower the building height to bring it within tolerance. Planner Ryan then stated to the applicant they could take this up with the Planning Commission on appeal as the DRC had reviewed the issue numerous times and was very firm about the position they wanted to take. He added he wanted to be able to leave the meeting with them knowing they could lower the roof and here is a solution to the height issue so they wouldn't need to go to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that would save them time and offset some of the issues. The other points he made were if they decided they wanted to modify it and wanted to go higher than what was approved, it was going to go to the Planning Commission. Again, he reiterated they would also have the opportunity, if it goes to the Planning Commission, to appeal the DRC's decision. Committee Member Woollett then made a motion to deny the request to raise the roof height and accept the request to put a sloped shed roof at the rear of the building. Committee Member Wheeler seconded the motion. AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:Donnie DeWees (excused for family emergency just prior to motion) ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 6 2. DRC No. 4002-OS - HBIZCTR ORANGE New Signage Program for a multiple tenant industrial complex. 313 West Grove Avenue Staff Contact: Sherman Jones, Associate Planner DRC action: Final Determination Sherman Jones, Associate Planner, stated the applicant was proposing to establish a new sign program fora 79,640 square foot multi-tenant industrial complex, consisting of six buildings that are currently under construction. The applicant was asked to bring color samples of the proposed sign colors and some clarification on the placement of the sign at the top of the parapet, specifically, the relationship between the edge of the top of the parapet and the top of the sign. The proposal meets the Sign Ordinance as far as the letter height, building numbers, and sign locations. Applicant Ken Hansen explained that what they had done in the past is designate a color and then paint the panel; however, the panel color didn't quite look like they thought it would against the sign. The DRC has already approved the color palette on the panels themselves and the accent colors. He explained that typically they have the architect come back to the sign company, and dictate the color that he wants so that it doesn't clash, or depending on the edging and depending on the lettering, it ends up being a compatible color to the panel and to the accent strip itself. Since they still don't have the color in there, it was labeled in the Sign Program as to be determined". The color of the buildings was submitted with the palette originally to Design Review, before it went to the Planning Commission. He clarified that the only thing that would be allowed for color would be their logo, everything else would be black. Committee Member Woollett stated that it can't be too different because the individual logos are going to have different colors. Mr. Hansen said it will be a very neutral background. They have to take the logo sign to the Association Architectural Review Committee and get it approved before they submit it to the City. He explained that from the top of the parapet to the first major reveal is 5 feet 6 inches. Further, they used the identical sized signs in Irvine and it came out very well. They have good signage so from the street you could still identify even the furthest back building. Committee Member Woollett wanted to know what he was proposing in terms of this final color. He would be comfortable with the applicant bringing it back to Staff, and if Staff has any concern at all they can bring it back to the DRC; otherwise, they could just approve it. A motion was made by Committee Member Woollett to approve DRC No. 4002-OS sign program as submitted and that when the background color is available that it be reviewed by Staff and only be brought to Design Review Committee again if Staff feels it is necessary. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Wheeler. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 7 AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June O1, 2005 Page 8 Committee Member Woollett moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Chair Califf. AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, Donnie DeWees, and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.