Loading...
07-18-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 18 July 2007 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie DeWees Committee Members Absent: Jon Califf Staff in Attendance: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Le, Senior Planner/Env. Review Coordinator Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Sr. Landscape/Assessment District Coordinator Diane Perry, 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 7:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 2 of 28 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. REVIEW OF MINUTES: There were no minutes available for review at this meeting. 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. 4. DRC No. 4226-07 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS LA2658A A proposal to construct wireless telecommunications antennas and associated equipment on a SCE tower. 1511 N. Main Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to PC No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4226-07 by consent subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 3 of 28 5. DRC No. 4247-07 - DURAND RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a room addition/remodel totaling approximately 1,250 square feet and a new detached two-car garage. 1323 E. Maple Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4247-07 by consent subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and with the following additional suggestion: 1) To review the roof plan and the west elevation in the area over the family room because there appears to be a discrepancy between the two; with one showing a hip roof and the other one showing a Dutch gable. Either one is acceptable but just make sure they are compatible. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 4 of 28 AGENDA ITEMS: 1. DRC No. 4261-07 & TUP No. 0523-07 -CITY OF ORANGE FIRE STATION TRAILER A proposal to locate a temporary modular trailer on the northwest corner of the subject property. 176 S. Grand Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a-,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report, providing details of the size and location of a relocated temporary modular unit onto Fire Headquarters property. Ms. Thakur explained the desire is to consolidate fire personnel into one location until the new Fire Headquarters are completed within approximately five years so the temporary modular unit would be used for a conference room, storage, and break room during the construction and design of the new station. If an extension is required beyond the standard one year Temporary Use Permit requirement, the Fire Department would need to reapply with the City and the Community Development Department would review the request. Fire Chief Bart Lewis stated there would be one small modification in that the building would actually be located up against the western wall. Chair Wheeler commented that the site plan was difficult to read, but it appeared that the setback from the side yard was 6 inches as opposed to 6 feet as mentioned in the Staff Report. Chief Lewis replied it was originally going to be 3' out to allow access for maintenance but this was not needed and this way it allowed the Fire Department to maintain additional visitor parking. Committee Member Cathcart commented on the west wall between the Fire Department and the Church. Chief Lewis stated they have contacted the Methodist Church to inform them of their intentions and they had no problems with it. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, asked how long is "temporary?" She stated Staff indicates just a year but maybe two or three years. She also stated modular buildings have been behind City Hall for as long as she's been here. Chief Lewis replied the intention of City Council is to construct the new Fire Headquarters on Water Street as soon as possible. The City owns the old Orange County Fire Authority land and the portion where the new Fire Headquarters will be is budgeted this current fiscal year for the demolition of two buildings and doing site remediation as well as beginning the hiring of City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 5 of 28 architectural firms in doing the site planning and the preliminary designs. Although he's not sure whether the budget will follow through, but the intent is to have it constructed within that five- year mark and more likely in a three-year mark. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Cathcart stated they would be losing six spaces. Chief Lewis replied they've put together a plan for moving the parking back on a parallel basis and that would be sufficient. Currently the fire apparatus is able to transition all the way around. That won't be the case any longer. When they have to come back to this area they'll be backing in like they do at other stations. Committee Member DeWees asked if they would be parking on the hose-drying rack. Chief Lewis replied it's no longer there. Chair Wheeler stated it appeared there's been an addition since this drawing was done. Chief Lewis agreed. Chair Wheeler asked if this would have any impact on backing-up. Chief Lewis replied, "No, they would just come straight across; the wall had been punched out to be straight across." Chair Wheeler commented that it looked like it popped out about 6' beyond. Chief Lewis replied the wall doesn't but the overhang does. Chair Wheeler and Chief Lewis discussed the skirting around the manufactured unit. Chief Lewis stated the skirting would be attached when the modular unit was moved to the location. The pictures show some of it already taken off and being prepared for movement. Committee Member DeWees asked where the unit was coming from. Chief Lewis replied it was the old temporary Fire Station 8 on Cannon Street where the new facility was just built and it's been at that station for about seven years. Committee Member Woollett asked if any consideration was given to putting the unit west of the building itself. Chief Lewis replied, "No." The reason is because it's parking for the firefighters/on-duty crews so if it's put there it would eliminate their ability to park the on-duty crews plus the apparatus is washed there so water goes into sanitary drains. Committee Member Woollett commented that the building would be quite visible because it's part of people's circulation route, whereas over in another area it's up against the building and would hardly be seen (referring to the plans). Committee Member DeWees commented that the Fire Department probably does training back in that area. Chief Lewis replied, "Yes." The apparatus is washed and ladder training is done back in that area. Chair Wheeler questioned since certain parking spaces were no longer in that area, was the parking count taken into consideration. Chief Lewis replied, "Yes." He explained which spaces are used and the location of other Department spaces. The current parking arrangement plan enables the Department to have existing parking for all of the staff vehicles and all of the on-duty City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 6 of 28 personnel as well as two visitor-designated parking spaces. Chair Wheeler suggested that the engineer consult the set-up manual to avoid problems with settlement. Public Works Senior Civil Engineer Majid Farhat stated both sides of the trailer would be supported on jacks on the rear transporter beams and anchored to the parking lot. Chair Wheeler reiterated his point stating that on double-wide units the marriage line would have some reaction points down from the roof beam. The set-up manual would have instructions where the supports must be. Mr. Farhat agreed. Committee Member Woollett asked Staff why the permit wasn't approved for three years since the project will take approximately that long. Ms. Thakur replied the Orange Municipal Code states Temporary Permits are only allowed on a one-year, non-recurring basis but applicants can request an extension. The Community Development Director could make a determination regarding time extension plus add additional conditions stating the permit could be approved until construction is complete. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Ms. Thakur that this wouldn't need to come back for a vote if the permit needed an extension. Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4261-07, City of Orange Fire Station Trailer, subject to Staff recommendations. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 7 of 28 2. DRC No. 4014-07 - GRIJALVA PARK GYMNASIUM CONSTRUCTION PLANS A proposal to construct a new 26,200 square foot public gymnasium and associated site improvements on vacant City property. Vacant property at the northeast corner of McPherson Avenue and Spring Street Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714-744-7238, jle@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Substantial Conformance Determination Senior Planner/Environmental Review Coordinator Jennifer Le provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Le stated that plan changes had been made as summarized in the Staff Report and these changes were based on comments received in the previous DRC meeting of February 21, 2007 in which the Committee Members requested additional conditions and design recommendations for the architect to consider. Ms. Le introduced Michael Morrell, Architect, and Bonnie Hagan, Community Services Manager. Public Comment No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Cathcart thanked the architect and landscape architect for picking up a lot of the things that the Committee Members mentioned last time, like the greenscreen actually adding vines. He then questioned a missing item on the architect's plans regarding a new bicycle rack and asked the architect if he knew what the bicycle rack would look like. Architect Morrell replied the City's Park Superintendent gave him information regarding the park standard for the bicycle racks. Community Services Manager Bonnie Hagan stated it's typical park standard bike rack. Committee Member Cathcart commented that the plant material was a nice palette. Chair Wheeler stated he was still concerned about the trellises. He recognized they were detailed out quite a bit more but it's 2 x 8s trellis rafters spanning 11-12 feet and he's afraid over a few years this will start to warp and look tacky. Chair Wheeler asked the architect if other options were explored and suggested if artificial material would be better for spanning/stability. Mr. Morrell replied that some of the considerations came down to cost. Some options discussed before was blocking in between. One option that may be in between that is to have a member on the top mimicking how that goes and then attaching to the bottom of that so it's basically resting on that and it's only purpose is to keep them from twisting. He stated this could definitely be a possibility. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 8 of 28 Chair Wheeler encouraged Mr. Morrell to study it a bit more to make sure it's stable. He also asked if something would be growing out of the trellises. Mr. Morrell replied nothing was planned to be up there. Chair Wheeler asked about the trellis elevations and referred to page 7 of the plans which call out for the 2 x 6 blocking typical but stated it doesn't really make it clear, although the other detail infers it, but it doesn't seem that clear that it occurs at each beam location. Chair Wheeler referred to Sheet A 2.7, Item C-Trellis section, and Detail Number 23 on Sheet A 2.5, it does show blocking but one could infer that might only occur at the splice locations. He said it might be better to make it clear that the blocking occurs at each beam. Mr. Morrell agreed. Chair Wheeler also stated that he was pleased that the plans showed all the "stuff' on the ceiling in the main room to make sure everything fits. Committee Member Woollett asked what Coronado Stone means. Mr. Morrell replied it was an engineered stone and explained that before this they had a tumbled ledge which was a ledge stone with rounded corners and it was discussed to just use the square cornered veneer. This is just basically a change in the shape of the stone. Chair Wheeler wondered if it might be so rough that little kids would try to climb up it. Mr. Morrell replied they hoped not. Ms. Le referred to an attachment that was a conceptual sign plan for a monument sign at the corner of Walnut and the park road. The river rock was called out on that sign to match the existing rock on the sign at the Prospect/Spring Street entrance. Also, there is a different kind of rock proposed on the gym building. Ms. Le then asked the Committee Members if they had any feedback related to that detail. Chair Wheeler asked for an explanation of where the sign would be located. Mr. Morrell pointed out the exact corner of the existing sign and then said a sign at the Walnut cul-de-sac entrance was discussed. There was further discussion between Chair Wheeler and Mr. Morrell about the sign. Mr. Morrell stated that when it was discussed with Staff it was to match existing, but now looking at it maybe that stone goes to the ledge stone or something different since the stone that's here sort of relates to the gym building and the stone that's over here relates to the Grijalva concession building. Chair Wheeler stated he personally agreed that the two signs should match with each other and that it sets a theme for the entrance. Committee Member Cathcart stated it should read that the exterior entrance points should all match. All were in agreement with this. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 9 of 28 Committee Member Woollett asked if the previous stone on the building was this river rock stone. Mr. Morrell stated it wasn't. It was very similar to this as far as it looked like a ledge stone, however, the edges were rounded, more of a rounded/tumbled edge so it was not the river rock. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was any consideration to using the same river rock on the building. Mr. Morrell replied the reason was that it just didn't seem to match the style of the building. He also stated they did some studies with that stone on this building and it just didn't look good. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4014-07, Grijalva Park, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and with the additional comment: 1) The new sign at the cul-de-sac location should match the materials of the existing sign on Spring Street. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 10 of 28 3. DRC No. 4213-07 - KARLOVICH RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new two-car detached garage. 468 N. Olive Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Staff stated it was determined the property/residence was a contributing structure. The applicant currently has no garage. Staff has been working with the applicant to design a garage that would typify those characteristics of the Craftsman style. Oscar Mora Senior Designer, RAM BD Designs, address on file, stated he could answer any questions the Committee Members had. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file, referred to the Standards and stated detached garages on historic structures and the replacement of historic detached garages shall be generally in the same location, replicate existing garage and architectural style roof shape, and utilize in-kind materials matching in material, design, appearance, texture, and color. He stated whether they agreed or not, the structure/home is contributing at this point so building a garage in the Craftsman style to match a future structure that's going to be built there tentatively, and that's only if there's a demolition permit issued for a contributing structure which is "up-in-the-air," would be totally inappropriate at this point. He went on to state that it's hard to make a decision on something like this when no one is sure what's going to happen to the contributing structure. He mentioned that maybe the structure was deemed contributing in error but no one knows this and believes there must be a reason why it was listed as contributing, like acharacter-finding feature of that structure. Mr. Frankel thinks this can't be a total mistake so until the house is really accessed by somebody, he doesn't see how something can be built to match something that we don't know is even going to be built. If a garage is going to be built or approved at this location now, it should somewhat match what's there. He went on to say that the in-kind material should be utilized for this structure and this was OTPA's position. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, stated if a garage was going to be built in Old Towne on a contributing building it needs to be in-kind material and Hardi-Plank doesn't do it. Chair Wheeler confirmed with the applicant, Terry Karlovich, that the demolition is of the storage only, not the main house, and they would be adding on going forward 15' and going back 15'. Chair Wheeler questioned if the storage was contributing. Mr. Ryan replied, "No." Mr. Ryan confirmed with the applicant that they wanted to add on to the front and the rear of the existing house and he also questioned what kind of siding was proposed since now it looked like the building had quite a few layers of stucco on it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 11 of 28 Mr. Mora replied, even though they have done some research, they still don't know if the original exterior was stucco, siding, or brick. Chair Wheeler commented it looked like brick from the front. Mr. Mora agreed but stated it looked like stucco on the sides. He stated when filling out the form regarding the style of the house, nothing seemed to match so they are trying to think outside of the box. In thinking ahead they want to make aBungalow-style garage and then match the existing house to the garage. The house needs a garage and if they try to do a garage to match the existing house then that means they wouldn't be able to do a Bungalow-style to the existing house. Mr. Ryan confirmed 12 of the houses on the street are Bungalow-style. Committee Member DeWees asked why the urgency for building the garage now. Mr. Mora replied (1) there is currently no garage for car parking; and (2) it will be used for storage once they start construction of the house. Committee Member Woollett stated he was confused about the contributing structure issue because the building certainly appeared to be old enough to be built during a period that would make it contributing, except that it doesn't seem to have a recognizable style. Mr. Ryan agreed and stated that the original integrity probably is what caused the original listing whenever that may have been. He said further research would be necessary to make a determination. He agreed that Mr. Frankel had a good point regarding materials for the accessory structure in relationship to materials that are covered up or original to the front of the house, and having some evidence as to which direction to go in would be important. Looking at the block context of the majority of the buildings being Bungalows, then that could be evidence that this house was constructed around the same period so they are looking at that as a style that would be appropriate. Without doing some interior or exterior demolition, no one knows all the attributes of what was originally sided on the building. Committee Member Woollett questioned if the building was classified as a contributing structure, what could be done to the building in the front since it sounded like the intent was to basically tear it down and replace it. Mr. Ryan replied the question is whether or not there is enough evidence that would indicate the building should still be classified as a contributing building. Without evidence, if looking at the rear elevation of the building and looking at all the different roof forms, it would appear that the original building could be even smaller and hidden within that building itself. There hasn't been enough time for Staff or the applicant to thoroughly investigate the building to make a determination or do a necessary historical research to determine whether or not the new survey update classified all those attributes or even considered the building. In some cases, the survey update does not look at the full property as far as the rear of the property and all the attributes; it's basically a "windshield" survey. Mr. Ryan's concern is that he can see from this building, based on the configuration of the roof design, that there are probably several buildings out there that have been added on or grouped together and maybe that building is the smaller building within this one. It could be one of the original buildings and may have been added on to the front; it's hard to say without more investigation. The hopes were that the applicant could research the house further during the interim while still submitting an application to build the garage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 12 of 28 Committee Member Woollett stated it's not spelled out clearly in that the project is being approached as if the building is not a contributing structure and that if it's anything, it would be a cottage-style which is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. If they are going to start rebuilding this site, starting with the garage, they need to make it a Bungalow because then that would determine the style of the building that would replace the house itself. So in a sense they are determining a style at this point. He questioned the applicant's time schedule and if the DRC's approval could be contingent upon a decision that the building would not be contributing. He stated, although not an expert, that it could be very likely that the building is not contributing. Mr. Ryan agreed that it appears the evidence to date is swinging in the direction of non- contributing. He questioned if the Committee would be more comfortable requiring wood siding rather than Hardi-Plank and would that meet the Guidelines for using appropriate materials for a new secondary structure on a site. Committee Member Woollett replied the issue is what to do with new structures in the Old Towne area. He stated if structures are built now as if they were built back then, we are mitigating the whole concept of historic structures because of trying to make it look like a historic structure and it really isn't. Even though we would want it compatible with the neighborhood we wouldn't want anyone to be fooled into thinking it's a historic structure. Mr. Ryan replied the standards are very clear that for an accessory structure on a contributing site matching materials would be appropriate. The question here is there's no existing garage to guide the architectural elements so in a sense we're taking an option to look at what would be appropriate for an infill construction and doing it in the style that fits with the neighborhood. Committee Member Woollett stated it would need to be something compatible with the neighborhood and not try to fool anybody into thinking that it was a historic structure. Mr. Ryan agreed and stated this was a similar project issue that came to the DRC in the past regarding an addition to the front of the house on Cambridge Street. This project is difficult because there isn't enough information to know which direction to go in. Committee Member Woollett commented that if there isn't enough direction, then how can it be called a contributing structure. Mr. Ryan agreed this would be much more easy for the DRC to make a determination based on facts if they knew this building was anon-contributing building. There was additional discussion between Staff and Committee Member Woollett regarding contributing and non-contributing structures. Committee Member Woollett questioned if from either a City standpoint or an owner standpoint would this site be a candidate fora "move on" for another historical building, but then stated there aren't many sites left. Mr. Ryan said there are no sites left to his knowledge. Committee Member DeWees stated there wasn't enough information for the Committee to act on to make a determination on the garage until more research was done and he didn't see the urgency of building a garage. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant would be spending money and wanted something of value. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 13 of 28 Mr. Ryan, referring to the plans, explained how they started out with the project and the process they followed for the concept/idea for adding on to the front of the building and the garage. The reason they can't move forward with this now is because a determination needs to be made regarding the building status and additional investigation as to exterior materials. Committee Member DeWees stated if they have to hold off waiting for additional information then they might as well hold off on doing anything to the garage until such determinations are made. Chair Wheeler questioned the history behind the brick wall in front of the house. Mr. Karlovich replied the house was originally his mother-in-law's house that she purchased 35 years ago. He then introduced his wife, Mrs. Karlovich, who was born and raised in the house. He doesn't know any facts about the brick wall, but it's leaning and is top-heavy. The house itself is in poor condition and they want to bring it up to par. Mrs. Karlovich stated she's been in the house for 30 years and the brick wall has been there forever. Committee Member DeWees questioned if Mrs. Karlovich would have pictures of the family on the porch to see what it looked like. Mrs. Karlovich replied, "Yes, it's the same wall." Mr. Karlovich stated there are probably pictures but the house has passed hands three or four times in the last 40 years. Also, stucco became big in the late sixties/early seventies so it could have been red brick or standard clay; they just don't know as the wall has been painted on six/seven different times. Mr. Mora commented that the front part of house is on a raised foundation and it's slab on the back part of the house. Chair Wheeler questioned if there was any other brick to be seen other than the front wall. The applicant replied, "No, it stops at the edge." It's a safety concern as he has three children and doesn't want a 400-pound wall falling down on his children. Committee Member Woollett questioned what it takes to reevaluate if a structure is a contributing structure. Mr. Ryan stated most of the surveys taken from a view from the street have not had the opportunity to access the other attributes. Staff recently did a presentation on determining contributing and non-contributing structures and explained how they make a determination for secondary and primary buildings; how they come up with an evaluation form to look at several things including the building in relationship to its site, the building in relationship to other buildings in the same site, relationship of that building to the neighborhood, looking at features that are character-defining features, and the level of change towards significance - if changes are appropriate or reversible. All of this information is looked at and then based on either insufficient or inaccurate information it's possible to reclassify a building based on a thorough survey evaluation. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a research part, then a recommendation is made, but then questioned what action is actually taken that is the final determination. Mr. Ryan explained they take the original survey and any updated information, based on the survey results that might also include any cultural information as to person, events, or activities that took place at the site as well as the architecture. This information is presented to the DRC, which would confirm the information, and at such point Staff would make an amendment to the application City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 14 of 28 based on the historic survey. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Mr. Ryan that the DRC would take an action and then Staff would update the survey to make sure the record is placed in archives here and at the State office. Chair Wheeler stated there are two paths this project could take: If it's determined that the building is a contributing structure, then the structure should probably remain and the garage should be more in tune with how the structure is now. Committee Member Woollett added that it should be at least the contributing elements. Mr. Ryan stated after any investigation the question then becomes when were certain other materials applied on the original structure and has it gained any significance over time, although he doubts if that's the case but it would be part of the investigation. If it's determined it's not a contributing structure, the sky's the limit and just about anything could be done. Mr. Ryan stated the issue would then transfer to the infill-kind rules based on context material, etc. Chair Wheeler stated he'd be more comfortable if they knew which way it would go, contributing or non-contributing, and needed to know more about the project as a whole. Then there could be a plan based on that direction; it wouldn't mean they have to build the front part first but at least everyone would know the garage would be compatible with whatever direction is decided. At that point they could go ahead and construct the garage based on the findings. Mr. Mora asked if it was because of the exterior architectural look of the existing house contributing to the garage. Mr. Ryan explained the DRC needed to know more about the front structure, its architectural design, and what materials are original to it, then they would have more focus and direction as to what would be appropriate for a secondary building treatment of the garage. A determination and investigation must first be made on the front building in order to make a decision for what would be appropriate for the site. Committee Member Woollett stated the DRC is charged to uphold the Guidelines of the City and it's hard to do so if they don't know which Guidelines apply. Mr. Ryan replied that now Staff has established a process for determining/understanding what is contributing and non- contributing for secondary residences. Mr. Karlovich asked if they were waiting for the survey to be released. Mr. Ryan replied the timing is something that is happening now. Staff recently has done investigations; for example, a structure over on Jefferson (the Mink residence) and anything on Grand Street that's been before the DRC. More recently Staff has looked at projects that are in the pipeline as far as making determinations on buildings that are secondary non-contributing buildings. Mr. Ryan doesn't think they have to wait for the survey as there's a process they have in order to amend existing determinations based on new information. Committee Member Woollett stated he was interested in the survey as well as the applicant and questioned the time schedule. Mr. Ryan replied he had done a presentation and part of it was a quiz for the audience about what's contributing or not. It generated quite a few questions and was a good opportunity to present information to lay people so they could understand what Staff City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 15 of 28 looked at and how the process worked. Staff explained in the final part of the presentation how the Standards were applied, and looked at integrity and context, materials, cultural significance, then how all this information was taken together and able to produce a finding which is based on all this information in relationship between the different buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Ryan offered to present this discussion to the DRC at a future date, maybe as part of this project. He stated if this project was continued and brought back, the applicant could do some investigation on the existing building. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant could gather information in two areas: (1) what the physical conditions of the building are, based on some investigation of looking underneath the stucco or other places like a crawl space; and (2) the history of the building and the use over time to see if there is any other historical documentation that may bring clues. Mr. Mora stated it sounded like an outside consultant would be needed. Mr. Ryan replied Staff has been working on this. Planning has talked with an outside consultant to look at determinations of how to make those findings. This was part of the presentation to put all of this together to find a way in which there's amethodology/a checklist, to look at all the attributes and findings on the property. Once this is done, the relationships are apparent as to what's out there and how it contributes. Chair Wheeler stated it might be helpful to investigate if there was any more brick masonry that's been concealed under stucco. Mr. Karlovich replied there definitely wasn't any because he put up some drywall and when up in the attic he was able to see that even when he had the panel wall off and there was just drywall, stucco, and 3 x 3 rough-cut lumber. Chair Wheeler confirmed with the applicant that it's just single-wall Mr. Mora added they did put in a new electric meter panel. Chair Wheeler stated it would also be helpful if they would indicate on the plans which portions of it are raised floor and which portions are slab. Also, another item to investigate in the attic is to find out what the actual dimensions are of the framing lumber in different areas of the house. If it's older, it will be a full 2 x 4. Mr. Karlovich confirmed it's all been replaced with 2 x 4s. There was additional discussion between the applicant, designer, and Committee Members regarding the replacement of the majority of the lumber in the ceiling. Chair Wheeler mentioned to also check what the actual dimensions are of the floor joists. The same goes for the areas that have probably been added to try and get an idea if any of it is new. Mr. Karlovich stated it's flat from the shingles of the roof and the ceiling of the portion of the house where the bedroom is. He said the house was basically put together in a weekend and there wasn't much thought put into the process of the rear bedrooms. He discussed the attic crawl space, various dimensions, and stated the bedroom and family room are not original. Chair Wheeler confirmed with the applicant the location of the slab portion and that it includes a step that walks into the bedroom. Mr. Karlovich stated the original building would be the living room and the front room. Mr. Karlovich commented that this house has been torn apart and he knows every inch of that front room as well as the back room. Floors were bending and creaking so new wood floors were put in, as well as new ceiling and drywall, and the electrical panel was updated. That's City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 16 of 28 another reason why they are trying to proceed with the garage and then move forward with the house; it's contingent upon having the garage built so they can use it for storage during construction of the house. They would also like to bring out their property to be flush with the rest of the people on the block because currently his house has a setback of 20'-35'. Everyone else has about a 15'-20' setback. He would like to be able to utilize his property since he has two teenage daughters that need their own room. Chair Wheeler stated the DRC needed to see comprehensive plans in order to see what's going to happen to the whole property so that it can be determined what is most appropriate for the garage. The applicant could still build the garage first and build the rest later. He stated if it turns out that the front porch is historic and contributing, then they would need to know how it's going to be worked into the fabric of how the construction will continue which is very important. Mr. Ryan asked the Committee if they would like Staff to present the report on the findings of the investigation, survey, and research on the building as part of the submission in the direction the applicant wants to go. Chair Wheeler said to do it all at once would be fine. Committee Member Woollett commented that as long as there's some confidence that they're not going to proceed right away. Chair Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4213-07, Karlovich Residence. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 17 of 28 4. DRC No. 4226-07 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS LA2658A A proposal to construct wireless telecommunications antennas and associated equipment on a SCE tower. 1511 N. Main Street Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to PC No public comment was provided on this item. Approved by consent. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 18 of 28 5. DRC No. 4247-07 - DURAND RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a room addition/remodel totaling approximately 1.250 square feet and a new detached two-car garage. 1323 E. Maple Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination No public comment was provided on this item. Approved by consent. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 19 of 28 6. DRC No. 4249-07 -LAW RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a 304 sq. ft. addition to the rear of a 1924 Mediterranean Revival residence. 585 E. Culver Avenue, Old Town Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Staff brought up some concerns about the windows. The current existing residence has sliding aluminum windows and they are still trying to find out when the windows were installed. The applicant is proposing to install matching aluminum windows on the new addition. Staff is taking the position that the building is still a contributing building so some of the changes could be covered under the Mills Act to help defray costs. Michael Miller, Architect, address on file, stated that a closet would be taken out and made into a sitting room for the bedroom. Chair Wheeler commented it could be called a family room if they like. Mr. David Law, applicant/owner, address on file, stated he purchased the house in March and for some time it had been utilized as a rental. He plans on living there with his family and they need more space in order to make it usable. He stated his intentions were to change some of the items, like the windows, back to the way they're supposed to be historically but costs are an issue so they have to do projects in stages. Mr. Ryan, referring to the plans, pointed out to the Committee the dash lines around the garage and explained Staff is trying to pay more attention on projects when adding onto a house with a one-car garage in order to allow for future use to comply with the parking ordinance if it's decided to add more than 500 square feet or make the addition within afive-year period because then they have to go to a two-car garage. By doing it this way, the space is left available on the lot, including setbacks, which will help avoid problems in the future when someone else comes in and wants to add on. Committee Member DeWees questioned if this was a requirement. Mr. Ryan stated it would be violating the City's own ordinance by approving a project where they couldn't comply with off- street future parking requirements and that's why Staff is now starting to draw "envelopes" around that area. Chair Wheeler confirmed with Staff that the "envelope" includes required setbacks although backing-up could be an issue. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 20 of 28 Public Comment Jeff Frankel, OTPA, address on file, stated the addition looks fine; it's sympathetic, awell- planned addition, and will work well with the structure. However, he agreed with Staff about the aluminum windows in not wanting to go backwards on the window issue. He referred to Staff's examples where this body has ruled to go the other way. Mr. Frankel stated that since the applicant already commented that he would like to replace the aluminum windows on the existing structure to wood windows sometime in the future, then it's a good idea to install wood windows on the addition now and later replace the windows on the existing house plus some of the costs would be defrayed by the Mills Act. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, stated there had been occasions when people haven't been required to have the two-car garage when it's a historic garage so they've been allowed to leave it when they've added on to the back of the house. She also stated she agreed with having the wood windows. Ms. Crenshaw then questioned the north, south, east, and west elevations/directions shown on the plans and the Committee Members agreed with her that the directions were incorrect as shown on the plans. Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Mr. Ryan again discussed the replacement of the aluminum windows with wood windows. Chair Wheeler commented the trim looked odd and questioned if it was done when some windows were replaced. Mr. Ryan replied that could be a possibility. Committee Member Woollett questioned what would the original trim have been. There was some general discussion among the Committee Members, Staff, and applicant but with no conclusive answer. Chair Wheeler stated he had some technical questions/concerns: Regarding the question if one bedroom could access another one, he couldn't find anything in the Code except for the egress situation, which there's not an adequate amount of room. He stated, although he could be wrong, it's an "old kind of wisdom" that they probably aren't supposed to do it but again, he couldn't find it in the Code. Regarding the removal of some of the existing windows in one of the rooms, he stated the applicant needs to double-check with the Building Department if they will be required to bring the room up to current requirements for light, air, and egress. Mr. Miller replied it was satisfactory for egress with the two windows. Chair Wheeler stated to still double- check as it could be interpreted as a sleeping room. Depending on the reply, if that's the case, they could perhaps have larger casement windows. Regarding the roof drainage, the only downspout that he could see from the house to the street was one just for the porch so it looked like the current roof drains to the rear. Mr. Law replied when looking through the attic they could see the outside through the vents. There was additional discussion and looking at photos among the Committee, Staff, and applicant. Chair Wheeler asked them to check just to make sure which way it's going to drain so they'll know what will happen in the back. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 21 of 28 Regarding the elevations in the section, he stated they don't seem to match because the new drain is about a foot down from the top of the parapet but the plans seem to show very little height so he questioned how they would work the drain into the little parapet although it may be they wouldn't need that much parapet. Mr. Miller confirmed the roofing center would be that close to the parapet at the high end. Chair Wheeler questioned why they decided to do it through the attic. Mr. Miller replied it has an existing attic for the new construction. Chair Wheeler suggested if that's the case they probably could have done a higher ceiling if they wanted to keep the same parapet. Mr. Law replied they would look into it and Mr. Miller commented that it also keeps the ceiling flat. Chair Wheeler went on to suggest other alternatives they could explore, but stated it's not a concern for the Committee as long as it comes close to what they are currently showing on the plans. Regarding the window trim, he suggested they make sure the window trim matches the existing windows. Mr. Miller replied he wasn't clear what Chair Wheeler was showing him and went on to state that the windows on the side will not be good for egress so they will need to address that. Chair Wheeler commented to check with the Building Department and maybe they would waive it if they didn't call it a bedroom and inquired what size the windows were now. Mr. Miller replied the existing windows were 3' x 4'. Chair Wheeler said if you turned it into a casement that would make it. He went on to suggest and probably would condition it, that if they have to bring the windows up to be casement, that they replace the existing windows with new casement windows to match the style and those should also be done in wood. That way, they wouldn't be going backwards. Regarding the vents, he questioned what kind of material would be used. Mr. Miller replied they were not drawn to match the existing; the vents would look similar to stucco around two by fours. There was further discussion about different treatments and materials among the Committee Members, Staff, and Mr. Miller. Chair Wheeler stated they should match existing. Regarding the flat roof, he stated to check with the Building Department to see if they are going to require scuppers as an alternate drain, just the downspout. Chair Wheeler questioned if they had a good line of demarcation. Mr. Miller replied it's not visible from the street. Chair Wheeler said the Committee likes to see it shown clearly where the addition is. He also asked how the applicant felt about the Staff's recommendation to remove the existing back greenhouse-type of window and replacing it with wood. Mr. Law commented he didn't plan on that greenhouse-type of window remaining there and there's another one in the kitchen that will also be replaced. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4249-07, the Law Residence, subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1) The windows be changed to wood casement windows to match the style of the others as closely as possible if the Building Department requires the windows, in what's currently called on the plans the "existing bedroom," to be suitable for egress. 2) The window trim of the new construction match the window trim of the existing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 22 of 28 3) The windows in the new addition be wood construction (as already stated in the Staff Report). 4) The vents to match the existing. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 23 of 28 7. DRC No. 4256-07 - WHITAKER RESIDENCE A proposal to modify the design and material of porch piers from existing brick piers to brick and stone designed piers on a 1924 Bungalow. 631 E. Jefferson Avenue, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry confirmed with Chair Wheeler that Committee Member Cathcart recused himself because he owns property within the 300' radius of the subject property. Staff Senior Planner Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Mr. Ryan gave details of the exterior changes that had been made over the years and added this was a contributing structure. He stated in Old Towne Orange he hasn't been able to find any examples of this type of residence, Bungalow-style, where a stone and brick combination on porch piers had been used during this period, although it could have been used. Brad Dudley1 Architect, address on file, stated that following the DRC approval of the original schematic design in leading up to submitting the construction documents for permitting, it was discovered that the front piers were not structural in nature; they were simply boxed pilaster elements sitting on brick bases. Knowing they needed to rectify the situation to put a structural post within the piers and the column above, they revisited the issue of the character of the piers. The homeowner had a preference for the combination of brick and stone pier that was constructed and that was the style depicted and illustrated in the permit set of drawings submitted to the City. They felt there was a strong Craftsman Bungalow influence for the home and this would be an appropriate pier design for the structure. He pointed out that although they didn't find any older examples of this pier style in Orange, regionally it's not an uncommon treatment for this type of application. Referring to the discovery of the "Pepsi-can" during the demolition, he stated the neighbors recalled when the brick wainscoting was installed which was around the early 70's. The brick wainscoting matched the existing piers in identical construction and so they felt those piers were not original to the home. That was another reason why they felt it would be acceptable to deviate somewhat from the piers that were demolished. There was additional discussion among the Committee Members, applicant, architect, and Staff about brick and stone piers that appear around the City. Mr. Ryan stated it was difficult using stone from the original site and that there may be examples of a combination of materials, the most common is "Clinker-brick". Mr. Dudley stated he found one additional example of that treatment, a home on Almond, so he assumed since it was a new home it would have been approved by the DRC. He went on to state it was not their intention to have done the work without prior DRC or City approval and noted it had been on their permit set of drawings. They now regret being in the position of haV~ing to retroactively ask for approval and stated the applicantlhomeowner would incur a substantial cost City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 24 of 28 if they would have to remove any of the stones, particularly from the piers in the rear yard because the stone that's incorporated into the piers is at the base and integrated into the pool deck. Mr. Ryan confirmed with the applicant, Mrs. Whitaker, that the fireplace drawing included stonework but this hadn't been done yet. Mrs. Whitaker went on to show some examples/documentation and stated her neighbors who were present at this meeting, Mr. & Mrs. Hasson, substantiated the fact that when they moved into the neighborhood in 1977 there were no piers, just two-by-fours holding up the porch. Mrs. Whitaker again tied the date of when the piers were built to the "Pepsi can" discovery, around the early seventies. Mr. Dudley stated they have a couple of photos of a brick and stone pier, however, it's not in the City of Orange, it's regionally instead. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, OTPA, address on file, stated the houses on Shaffer and Almond Streets are not good examples and there really aren't any good examples within Orange. She went on to state that removing the brick across the front and adding the wood siding looked great but she was opposed to the current design of the piers as she thinks they are too elaborate. Jeff Frankel OTPA, address on file, stated the new piers on the front porch, as well as the rear because they were not approved either, were inappropriate and too elaborate. In referencing some photos, he said by looking at the photo it discounted the fact that the piers were built in 1977. He then referenced another photo from 1991 that he believed reflected the original piers and columns because they would have been appropriate for this style of house. Mr. Frankel stated there were many examples around Old Towne of a brick pier with an identical column as shown in the example photo. Referring to the "Pepsi-can" photo again and the second photo before the applicants purchased the house, he stated the tapered columns had been changed although the piers were the same. If the column had been demolished and a new one put in, anything could have dropped inside the column. Mrs. Whitaker replied that the column was sealed and brick-capped all the way over the top. Mr. Frankel went on to state the 1991 photo depicts a style appropriate to the Bungalow and the number one finding of this body was to make sure the project meets the Old Towne Design Standards but it currently conflicts with nine of the Standards. He went on to discuss and read verbatim some of the Old Towne Design Standards from pages 29, 36, and Appendix B relating to new additions/alterations, columns, scale, character, and use of appropriate material. Mr. Frankel continued to read verbatim and discuss some of the Secretary of Interior's Standards regarding maintaining the historic character of the property, removal of historic material or alterations, property recognized in a physical record of time (pointing out that in this location and period of time they wouldn't find this style of pier), changes that create a false sense of historical development shall not be undertaken, features/construction techniques, examples of craftsmanship that characterize historical property shall be preserved, historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, in-kind materials, and new additions/exterior alterations shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. He stated there's a conflict in the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 25 of 28 Standards and that the original piers were probably brick. Even if not brick, the combination of stone and brick in the style that the current ones were built are inappropriate for this house, location, and district. Mr. Frankel stated that OTPA's position is that the piers must meet the Standards and mentioned that the porch was not part of the original project/plan. OTPA would like to see the front piers/columns go back to an appropriate style and material like brick with the original tapered columns. Also, although inappropriate, the piers in the rear should be built as approved by the DRC since the demolition of those piers could be a hardship. He mentioned a compromise in this area would be appropriate since the piers are out of public view and the design of the whole pool area matched the columns. Alain & Lila Hasson, address on file, stated they moved into the neighborhood in November 1977, and the applicant's house was then owned by Kent Beasley and most of the construction had been done by his father, Grover Beasley. Mrs. Hasson confirmed that 2 x 4s held up the front porch and there were no bricks at all, nothing but the wood posts. They both commented to go back to that would be an unsafe situation and what the applicants have done now looks natural. Mr. Hasson stated the fundamental style of Old Towne is an eclectic style which is based on the concept that many of the people who lived here had limited budgets and used whatever materials were available to them. Some of the houses in Old Towne are not conforming and that's what makes the Towne unique, not "cookie-cutter". Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion. Committee Member Woollett questioned if the DRC had any discussion about the material/steps for the porch when they looked at it before. Mr. Ryan replied there was an informal encouragement from the Committee regarding removing the wainscoting and restoring the siding. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with the applicant that the porch had not been changed, that it's still the same cement with cut joints as when they moved in and it's still the same as when the Beasley's lived there. He went on to state that the original porch must have been removed. Mrs. Whitaker confirmed they aren't saw-cut, they are grouted joints. Committee Member Woollett replied grouted joints probably wouldn't be historic. Committee Member Woollett stated that it was difficult to try and go back since they didn't know what was there before. He commented that Mr. Frankel was speculating about brick being there before, but there is evidence that it wasn't. He went on to question what would be consistent with the style of this building since styles do differ in different regions and just because a particular design, detail, or element didn't occur in Orange didn't mean it couldn't have occurred here. He stated there are some unique features in old buildings around Orange that only occur once and so the fact that this occurs once doesn't bother him. He agreed the examples of pictures were overdone and not what he would expect to see in Orange although still not sure what they were seeing here was not something that might not have occurred here in Orange. Mrs. Whitaker replied they tried to be sensitive to the massing and scale, keeping it more vertical, and stay away from being extremely overdone. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 26 of 28 Committee Member Woollett stated they really didn't have a choice of holding on to something that was there before. Mrs. Whitaker replied she did some research and if it would have been wood sidings and wood piers, they would have gone to that. Committee Member Woollett said the problem is that whenever someone tries to build something like it was or might have been before, it's new construction and at some point in 40/50 years from now it may not be clear if it was built in 2007, 1967, or 1897. The bottom line is that although this could be questionable, he didn't have any strong feelings that it's inappropriate. Chair Wheeler recalled a similar situation at a workshop around 10 years ago regarding street lights in Orange and although some of the workshop members suggested very decorative/elaborate street lights that other cities were using, his comment was that Orange was a very humble community of farmers and small businessmen with simple-built houses, and the lighting should be simple. Regarding the piers on this project, Chair Wheeler stated he was troubled with these piers although he had no problem with the brick bases and the wooden piers. However, the two things that disturb him are (1) the taper of the brick because he doesn't recall any tapered brick bases in Orange; and (2) the mixture of brick and stone is not appropriate here because Orange is a simple place. He doesn't want this to set a precedent that we would have more of the Shaffer Street-type of houses although there's a good argument that the Committee did approve a house with the stone and brick but doesn't want to start down the road of people saying if other people did it because it was approved then they can do it also, making it more elaborate, etc. Chair Wheeler stated his position is that there should be a compromise as Mr. Frankel suggested and ask the applicant to replace the ones in front with straight brick bases but let the ones in back remain as is. Committee Member DeWees stated it's the "cumulative effect" of what the Committee does and what happens is that they try to be consistent because there have been cases where people tear out entire areas of flatwork and the cumulative effect is that if one little portion is left here, then what's going to happen with the street if eight houses this way do the same thing and so on, then there's the cumulative effect and so he feels what the applicant is doing would contribute to the cumulative effect. Mrs. Whitaker replied if they hadn't submitted the plans during permitting process, it's obvious they would have been over the line but they did submit the plans and were acting in good faith. Committee Member DeWees stated that's the reason he agrees with Chair Wheeler as far as the compromise aspect to change the ones in front. Mrs. Whitaker stated they still have piles of rock from the pool dig and asked what if they used rock all the way up in the front if they were able to chisel down the brick. She said the massing is better with the brick because if they take the rock straight up the massing will change. They would need to refinance but they need to get their permits approved in order to refinance. Chair Wheeler replied that was fine and if doing it with the stone they could then taper the bases because they have seen tapered stone piers, but can't recall ever seeing any tapered brick pier bases. Committee Member DeWees stated that would certainly be less expensive and the applicant agreed since they already have the material. Committee Member DeWees asked Chair Wheeler if they could get OTPA's opinion. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 27 of 28 Chair Wheeler restated for Mr. Frankel that the proposal was to change the front pier bases from brick to natural stone. Mr. Frankel replied that OTPA would rather see brick but agreed all stone with a slight taper would be better than the combination of the two. In looking around Old Towne, there were a lot of examples of untapered arroyo stone more so than tapered but there were examples of both. Chair Wheeler also stated he disagreed with Mr. Frankel's earlier opinion about the 1991 picture showing the original piers since they have evidence that they weren't there in the eighties so there's not any real requirement that the applicant should try and recreate brick piers since no one knows if brick piers were there. There was additional discussion between Chair Wheeler and Mr. Frankel about whether the evidence presented this evening was testimony of the brick piers, the "Pepsi-can" discovery, and the discussion from the current neighbors who live across the street. Mr. Frankel said OTPA's concern is that it's appropriate material and style that fits the structure. He also stated there are more examples of brick on little Bungalows but he agreed for this project that since it's all one material and consistent with the style that's found in the District then OTPA wouldn't have a problem with it. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC 4256-07, the Whitaker Residence, subject to the following additional condition: 1) The bases for the piers/columns in the front elevation only be replaced with one of two options at the owner's option: (a) non-tapered brick bases; or (b) tapered natural stone bases. Also, Chair Wheeler read and agreed with Staff's recommendations as shown in the Staff Report: 1) Approve the design of the rear patio doors. 2) Approve the removal and replacement of the brick wainscoting and its replacement of matching wood siding. 3) All construction shall conform in substance, etc. shall be included. 4) The code provisions mentioned in the Staff Report shall be included. SECOND: Donnie DeWees AYES: Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf RECUSED: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 18 July 2007 Page 28 of 28 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2007. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.