08-01-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL O1 August 2007
Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Donnie DeWees
Jon Califf
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager
Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner Historic Preservation
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate 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 7:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday,
August 15, 2007.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 2 of 24
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.
There were no items moved to consent at this meeting.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. DRC No. 4008-OS - TUSKATELLA CENTER
A proposal to modify previously approved plans for the exterior facade remodel.
1301 E. Katella Avenue
Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(u~cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
In the absence of Staff Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb, Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry
provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report, explaining that this project had
come before the Committee once in October 2006 and again in January 2007 when it was
approved. However, the remodeling did not take place and now there have been significant
changes to the plans that Staff felt warranted the Committee's review for another final
determination.
Applicant Kevin Anderson Liljenquist Properties address on file, explained the colors on the
color/material board were not exact due to the computer not being able to reproduce exact color
renderings. Smart & Final (S & F) did an expansion on their space and asked for a more
simplified design. Based on S & F's request, that precipitated some of the other changes which
he thinks made a better representation.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 3 of 24
Architect Ken Manssouri MCG Architects, address on file, reiterated some of the changes
regarding the S & F building/spacing and how it allowed them to clean up the design which
meant distinguishing the shop area as a smaller tenant and giving it a cleaner character that flows
in terms of its pedestrian level through the use of canopies and other elements yet a simple
character that stands out vs. the repetitious and layering of the building entry. There's still the
two-story element that creates a focal point and gives it a centerpiece for the entire development.
Referring the Committee to the plans and color boards, the architect briefly discussed the
cornices, massing, and colors, confirming that the white-looking color was indeed a cream color.
He commented this was a much more consistent scheme and character than what was originally
proposed as it comes closer to the true character of what may be termed as a Mediterranean-type
architectural vocabulary and they tried to use the color, material, and massing of the project to
create a fresh balance and consistency for the development as a remodel.
Public Comment
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member Woollett questioned the unoccupied smaller tenant spaces signage, stating a
future tenant may want another color combination. The architect stated they would submit a sign
package for DRC approval in the future and this being an existing center they would of course
comply with the existing codes. The intentions and standards of the development is to use
channel lettering or back-lit type of letters and allow for a little bit of finesse in terms of giving it
a bit of dynamic look in terms of the signage. They will obviously look at the tenant's national
logos and also commented that some tenants are remaining, others are moving away or to
another space as a result of the remodel so they will look at the combination of colors at such
time. The applicant and architect welcome any DRC suggestions to take into consideration.
The applicant commented the signage was discussed at the last meeting and it was determined
this could be addressed at a later time with the DRC if there was a tenant signage concern.
Committee Member Woollett replied there's always a tenant signage concern in shopping
centers.
Committee Member DeWees, referring to the plans/design, asked for clarification of several
items:
Regarding the columns, concrete/stone, and massing, he drew an example and the
applicant confirmed that the example was correct; that the stone was in the back as an
accent. Committee Member DeWees commented if done that way it all started to look
too thin. The architect pointed out that's the frame that holds the whole base together.
They could try to reduce the size of the stone and make it heavier if preferred by the
Committee.
Regarding two lines on a very subtle curve, he asked what this represented. The architect
replied it was an arch within the interior of the building or on the surface of the entry
feature made out of stucco. There was further discussion about what part was recessed
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 4 of 24
and how the cornice would work on this design. Committee Member DeWees
commented this wouldn't look good and there's so much applied cornice but the
applicant replied they liked it this way.
Committee Member DeWees stated it didn't work from a proportion standpoint. The thin and
intermediate cornice and then a heavy cornice seemed to make sense proportionately but then in
another area there's a huge middle cornice and then the top is thin. Regarding just the base, top,
and middle, his opinion is that it didn't work on one-story linear buildings like this as it barely
works with tower elements. He doesn't understand trying to do base, top, and middle with aone-
story that's 300' long.
Committee Member DeWees suggested other alternatives regarding the cornices. The applicant
interjected that some of the mouldings were copied from Huntington Beach's Bella Terra
Shopping Center with similar height and layered-type mouldings with some buildings as high as
30-35 ft. tall. That shopping center has beautiful staggered terraced mouldings and that's what
they have tried to accomplish by giving their project the same Mediterranean-kind of look.
Committee Member DeWees replied Bella Terra's buildings are twice the size of this project and
from a proportion standpoint, these are huge, heavy cornices sitting on small building masses.
The architect replied some of the items brought up were the reflection of the existing center and
the structural problems that they have, for example, the columns. Regarding the cornices, some
of the topping elements were added based on previous comments from past DRC meetings. The
emphasis was the top of the building. Committee Member DeWees questioned if that's in fact
where the top of the building is, then why was there a tower at the end. The architect replied the
tower was added as a DRC request from the initial meeting. The applicant commented they
originally didn't have a tower, but the DRC requested it in order to make things symmetrical
since there was a tower on the other end.
The applicant then asked Committee Member DeWees about the cornice moulding issue. He
explained that they are removing a massive overhang, bringing the building up taller, and adding
a smaller cornice moulding compared to what's there so he doesn't understand why this would
be an issue. Committee Member DeWees replied that he just doesn't think it works yet and
again discussed the size of the cornices and which ones worked and which one didn't. The
applicant commented it was his design/style preference for the Mediterranean look.
Committee Member DeWees said he understood but thinks they should study it more. His big
comment would be that this is Orange, not Huntington Beach/Bella Terra. The applicant replied
they have taken several elements from the Mediterranean look plus elements from other centers
and incorporated them into their design plan.
The architect commented that these are all existing shops and in an existing retail remodel it is
difficult dealing with existing tenants. Committee Member DeWees replied that the study of
proportion and scale has nothing to do with the existing tenant base. He stated the cornice design
has been around for 15-20 years now, it's getting old, and there are so many better projects being
done out there. The applicant replied they are paying for it and they liked it.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 5 of 24
Chair Wheeler had a few questions/concerns:
Regarding different scales/areas, he didn't understand how each item related to another
item. The architect explained that one was a study of the roofline and they were printed
using a different scale. Chair Wheeler said he recalled from a previous meeting that the
DRC asked for a roof plan so the Committee could tell how far the parapets went back
but this was less than helpful and confusing. The architect confirmed the roof plans are
going back about 12' on all the returns and this was a typical condition agreed upon at a
previous DRC meeting.
Regarding color palettes, he recalled that in a previous meeting Committee Member
DeWees stated that the bright colors would tend to fade, especially on the top facing
elevations and it appeared this was brighter than before.
Regarding a stone element, he questioned something that looked like stone floating up in
the air. The architect replied it's just stone. Chair Wheeler stated he didn't think it was
historical and confirmed with the architect that it was just veneer. The architect replied
they were looking at different elements and this was one of the solutions but it could be
deleted or they could look at a different type of material.
Regarding stone caps, he stated that in most of the instances the stone had some sort of
cap to terminate it but questioned one of the areas where it just seemed to fade away.
The architect replied it was a fixture and would be like stone panels that could have a
different design on it like a pineapple or more of an old look to it. There was further
discussion about the stone and caps. Chair Wheeler suggested a firm cap that the upper
mass sits on if it's something like a decorative stone element or light fixture plus
articulate it separately. The applicant and architect replied that wouldn't be a problem.
Committee Member DeWees and Chair Wheeler questioned if they had anything to show what
the stone element or light fixture would look like as they were still unclear what this was. Chair
Wheeler finally confirmed with the architect that it was just a rectangular stone element, not a
light fixture, and it could be any size plus it's supposed to represent some sort of historical
replica that used to be on old buildings, like a pineapple.
Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with Committee Member DeWees that they should at least set
some sort of priority of sequence of cornices as jumping from small to large and then back again
doesn't seem to have any logic.
The architect asked if the Committee preferred that they eliminate the top portion of the tower.
Chair Wheeler stated the tower was fine and it gave it a nice termination. The architect replied
he meant to say the upper portion of the mustard column. Chair Wheeler replied that didn't
bother him and then again mentioned the small and large cornices.
Chair Wheeler stated concerns about the clock tower because there appears to be an important
clock and an unimportant clock so they're not treated equally plus it looks like from the drawings
that the clock isn't centered.
Committee Member DeWees again discussed the cornices with the architect and suggested they
have some sense of rules/some sort of idea about the proportion of the bases/cornices, and don't
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 01 August 2007
Page 6 of 24
treat it like "frosting." He also questioned a white corner on the plans and what it was made of.
The architect replied it was trim around the building made of EIFS over stucco and that the
owners wanted the edges to be defined, not for any particular reason. Committee Member
DeWees commented there should be more reasons for doing this kind of decorative stuff.
Committee Member Cathcart commented that he wasn't as concerned about the cornice issues as
the other Committee Members. He did have a concern regarding the two stone panels on the
CVS store as it appeared they shouldn't be there because in all the other places the stone is used
as part of a column but here it's like a framed element that doesn't mean anything. He would
like to see those removed and see a consistent color of the building. He also agreed with Chair
Wheeler regarding the clock plus his preference would be the clock sitting with the dark
background and see it all the way around plus stated the stone and the background behind the
clock is unnecessary. The applicant replied it was meant to be a mosaic-kind of look and was
meant to accent it. Committee Member Cathcart stated they need to do it on all four sides or not
at all.
The applicant replied to the concern about the stone that was added to CVS and stated this was
done at the suggestion of the DRC from a prior meeting because they wanted to see more stone
so that element was added to tie in the stone with the other stone in order to bring in some
continuity. He stated they could do something different if that made more sense. Committee
Member Cathcart replied they need to make it look like part of the structure and not a "plant-on."
Committee Member DeWees stated they are approaching this as base, top, and middle.
Regardless of the fact that he completely disagrees with this but now they come to something
else that doesn't work so he would just like to see them put more thought into it and go back to
some small bit of historicism. The applicant referred back to the last meeting and said there had
been a comment made by the Committee that they wanted them to go away from common things
and create something that looked new and different. So they have added some elements that
have gone away from the historical architectural design and added new things based on the
DRC's suggestions, like adding more rock, so now the question is how do they do what the DRC
suggested and still accomplish a couple of those things.
Committee Member Califf stated that historic may be using what we would consider an overly
broad definition. The fact that the heavy part is in the bottom supporting the rest is not strictly
historic, it's just an order in design. There's nothing particularly wrong with this but they need
to treat the other arch and tower elements with a base or column using the stone and that's
consistent throughout but the other one is not. Whether historic, new, or different, it just makes
sense to be more consistent. The stone is fine but they could take it all the way and wrap it
around.
Committee Member Cathcart asked the Committee if they concurred that the (stone) panels on
the outside are unnecessary.
Chair Wheeler stated that he recalled from the previous DRC's comments that they wanted to see
more variety in the heights of the stone and pulled up on some of the elements. But instead
they've come up with a whole new vocabulary for the stone and it's no longer the same
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 7 of 24
structural material but a decorative element sitting in a panel. Plus there's that other stone
floating in mid-air.
The applicant asked about using a different element rather than the stone panels and keeping it
recessed. Committee Member DeWees commented it could be a nice spot to do a metal trellis
with some landscaping. The applicant replied they liked something different and liked the
recessed look although it didn't have to be the stone element. He asked if the Committee was
looking to see all of it changed.
Committee Member Califf stated they weren't looking for one thing or the other; the objection
was more about how the stone was used in an inconsistent manner when it got down to CVS.
Chair Wheeler made some suggestions where they wouldn't be introducing something totally
new but they're not saying it's doing asemi-pseudo-structural thing in one place and a
decorative one in another place.
Chair Wheeler stated another concern about codes on the set of drawings and suggested they
have a set of drawings that becomes the record set and describes all the materials, stones, etc.
like the one they had before that had a legend on it. The architect agreed.
Committee Member Woollett commented that he agrees with most of the comments made by the
Committee tonight but wanted to clarify that although it may sound like it's what the Committee
likes," that's not what it's about. They are really struggling to find some consistency and that's
what the DRC is charged to do. It could be argued that even if someone is totally inconsistent, at
least they are consistently inconsistent. He's in agreement with what he hears his colleagues
saying and it's that they all see a lack of consistency as they look over this project.
Chair Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4008-05, Tuskatella Center, with the
following instructions to the applicant:
1) To bring back an accurate set of drawings relative to the floor, roof, and elevation plans
that clearly shows what materials will be used/where they will be used and that doesn't
rely on a separate color board.
2) To study some of the ideas discussed tonight about more consistency in design in using
materials in a consistent way, including any new materials they may want to introduce.
Committee Member DeWees also asked that they consider some of the comments made tonight
about cornices.
SECOND; Jon Califf
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 8 of 24
NOTE: Assistant City Attorney Ted Reynolds asked Chair Wheeler for clarification if this
Committee acts in a similar manner as the Planning Commission when they continue an item.
The Planning Commission asks the applicant how long they will need to respond to the request
and then the project actually gets continued to a specific date.
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry replied sometimes the DRC does this but since the
DRC meetings are not noticed Public Hearings, there's no noticing issue. Sometimes with the
design element the projects tend to go back and forth a bit. In such instances, unless the
applicant has a date in mind to come back, Staff schedules it when the applicant notifies Staff
that they are ready.
The applicant commented that they would like to come back at the next available opportunity
because they can't wait any longer.
Committee Member Califf stated in this instance the instruction to an applicant would be to work
with the Planner so they know the exact deadline. Ms. Roseberry said the next date would
probably be Wednesday, September 5`h
The architect commented that the proposed changes were fairly easy to do. Chair Wheeler stated
they have in the past allowed applicants to come back with drawings that have not been included
in their packets and asked Ms. Roseberry if that could be allowed in this case. Ms. Roseberry
replied there's a lot of detail so from a Staff and implementation point-of--view Staff would
prefer to have detailed drawings.
The applicant inquired if these were the types of changes that they could just bring to the front
counter and have them signed off. Committee Member DeWees replied the DRC would want to
see the plans one more time.
Ms. Roseberry stated that Staff would prefer to do another comparison for the Staff Report,
based on the comments made tonight.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 9 of 24
2. DRC No. 4225-07 - McCAUSLAND RESIDENCE
A proposal for asecond-story addition to an existing single-story residence.
1021 E. Rose Avenue
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Staff Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Ms. Thakur explained the new second-story addition would be 477 square feet and
would be the first second-story addition on Rose Street.
The applicant Drew McCausland address on file, stated they needed to expand and add some
rooms,
The designer Alan McCausland, address on file, stated he could answer questions regarding the
style and design of the exterior.
Public Comment
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart questioned the location of the motorhome that appears in the
pictures and how they drive it out of the location. He suggested in the gravel area that they put
plantings in this area instead since that space doesn't disrupt their flow of the motorhome
parking. The applicant agreed and said they could put in plantings.
Committee Member Woollett stated he would be very reluctant about voting in favor of a new
second-story on this building. He went on to explain that applicants say that their justification
for adding asecond-story is because there are others in/around the neighborhoods. However, in
such instances, the Committee would be more reluctant to not approve asecond-story in a
neighborhood that's otherwise all single-story because someone has already done it. However,
when it does happen, the Committee must still be cautious about the way it's done so the
addition doesn't overpower the house. He doesn't think this project is done very well and even if
it were, he would still be reluctant to approve it simply because of the second-story. He did state
it was a good idea to have the addition positioned towards the backside/north side of the roof and
certainly pushed back from the south view. Also, he really doesn't want to make suggestions
about how the addition could be made better since he doesn't think the second-story should be
added.
There was additional discussion between Committee Member Woollett and the applicant
regarding how would they then go about adding bedrooms, plus the square footage of the
existing house and accessory second housing unit were brought into the discussion. The
applicant mentioned there were other two-story houses in the area. Committee Member Woollett
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Ol August 2007
Page 10 of 24
commented that the city he grew up in had been destroyed by this type of building because
people have built up/pushed out and it's no longer a decent neighborhood because it's pushed to
the limits. He then commented where do they stop in Orange to maintain the community that's
currently here. He stated Rose Street is a lovely street the way it is. He doesn't think this project
is consistent with the ordinance to allow second-stories in this area.
The designer stated he thought that was the reason for the development of the Infill Design
Guidelines; that's the reason they took so much time to work with the Planning Department and
this is their third design. They wanted to focus as close as possible to the Infill Guidelines. They
understand the concerns about the neighborhood/town with rampant changes and room
additions/gaudy room additions that are put on top of garages in front of the house, but that's not
their intent. They have followed the Guidelines as closely as possible to accommodate the
Committee's concerns and feel they've put together a good plan. It flows nice with the whole
floor plan of the existing home, it's in the backyard/back of the house and they are also adding a
stairwell at the front entry of the living room with wood steps/railings and oak wood floors in the
style of the older home which will enhance the front entry of the existing home. He stated they
have followed the Guidelines exactly.
Committee Member Woollett replied that he's sure Staff has tried to be as helpful as possible and
would make suggestions that the Committee might go along with. He stated he could tell that
guidance had been provided to lessen the impact of the second-story. The applicant said it was
his understanding that the Infill Guidelines are what applicants follow in order to add on to any
home in the city of Orange. The designer commented that the Guidelines tell them what they
need to do in order to add a second story; it doesn't say they aren't allowed to add asecond-
story. The Guidelines have all the recommendations regarding pushing it back, etc. which
they've followed.
Committee Member DeWees questioned the open oak stairs. The designer replied the stairs
would be wood tred risers with an oak railing. Committee Member DeWees confirmed with the
designer that there were shear walls around the stairs. There was further discussion regarding
shear walls and engineering among the Committee and the designer.
Committee Member DeWees stated he understood and agreed on a certain level with Committee
Member Woollett and said one of the biggest struggles that the Committee has is trying to be
consistent from project to project, area to area, street to street, and with the Design Infill
Guidelines. But in terms of being consistent, lower the height and second-story mass using eight
foot plates on the ground floor and eight foot plates on the second floor. They've adjusted roof
slopes before but he assumes the existing is 5:12 so provide a 5:12 roof slope. By taking it two
feet out significantly helps with the scale and it's consistent with a lot of other ones that the
Committee has looked at and asked applicants to do.
The designer confirmed for the Committee that the existing house has a raised foundation.
Committee Member Califf stated there was a concrete stoop but then a raised floor. There was
further discussion among the Committee and the designer about foundations, slabs, elevations,
the three-car garage on the existing house, and the accessory unit as they looked at the plans.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 11 of 24
Committee Member DeWees stated that the Committee has asked other applicants/projects in the
past to put eight foot plate down and eight foot plate up as it drops the roofline and helps the
mass which is a very specific issue about the Infill Design standards. The designer said they
could do this for the second story. There was additional discussion about some unusual space,
the slope of the roof, and the floor area.
Committee Member Califf questioned if they've considered rotating the roof 90 degrees which
would reduce the apparent mass -gable to a side gable. The designer confirmed with the
Committee exactly what they wanted them to do: to rotate the roof so that the front slope of the
second floor falls in line with the front slope of the existing house.
Chair Wheeler stated he disagreed with Committee Member Woollett in that he's not totally
against a second floor addition as long as it's done well. His emphasis would be to cut the height
down as much as possible. He realizes it's a problem for them to get rid of the higher plate on
the first floor because they are using the post and beam method and they want to leave some
utility space.
Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with Committee Member Califf regarding turning the ridge and
even if it doesn't match the exact roof it can at least be a little higher. It wouldn't be that far off
from the other high attic that they already have. The designer agreed and said that wouldn't be a
problem. He already has an elevation that shows it but didn't bring it.
Chair Wheeler suggested that they don't do things to change the look of the house as it is. Don't
introduce new materials and features to the home. Instead, utilize and mimic what is there by
using things like octagonal vents and shingles. Keeping the brick and mimic it as best they can
so everything is the same (like the window trims), plus don't introduce some new element that's
not in the neighborhood. The designer replied they are close to the historical area of Orange and
the Circle where a lot of the shingles are used and everyone likes them. In their neighborhood it
doesn't have any shingles so they could eliminate them.
Committee Member Califf stated it's not that they don't like the shingles, it's staying with the
consistency of their style and the style on the street.
Chair Wheeler commented the DRC encourages people to utilize the materials and design of the
existing home rather than introduce new elements that are not included in the original home.
They should try to respect the way it was built and when it was built because someday their
house will be historic also so the Committee doesn't want something that's inappropriate.
Committee Member DeWees stated the Committee tries hard not to lose the historic fabric in the
Cityo
Chair Wheeler commented that they can't tell them not to do it but they just ask that they be
appreciative of what they have so it doesn't stand out as something different.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 12 of 24
There was some discussion among the Committee and Staff regarding FAR. Committee
Member DeWees stated he would like to have this information as to where it falls in line with
other FARs on the rest of the street.
Chair Wheeler stated since they were adding more living space, he would ask them to try and
remove some or all of the paving and do more landscaping in the area they don't need; to trade
off a little bit of green for a little bit of living space.
There was additional discussion among the Committee and the applicant regarding landscaping
and planters. Committee Member Cathcart asked the applicant to rethink and bring back a
landscape plan. The applicant agreed.
Committee Member Califf commented not having everything on the plans made it more difficult
for the Committee to review and make suggestions. The applicant should make sure what they
have on the plans is correct, consistent, and also show how the second unit is attached.
Chair Wheeler strongly suggested, although this Committee doesn't need to see it, that they cut a
section through the stairway.
Committee Member DeWees made a motion to continue DRC No. 4225-07, McCausland
Residence.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Ol August 2007
Page 13 of 24
3. DRC No. 4230-07 - SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a new 160 sq. ft. addition to the rear of a 1915 Bungalow.
130 N. Harwood 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.
Mr. Ryan stated the applicant had applied for the Mills Contract so the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards would apply to this project.
Andre G. Tardif, address on file, didn't have anything else to add at this time.
Public Comment
Janet Crenshaw OTPA, address on file, stated that OTPA liked the addition placed on the back
and agreed with Staff that there should be some sort of demarcation between the old and the new.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he drives by this house twice a day and it's a gorgeous
house. The Committee, the applicant, and the architect all agreed it's a lovely house.
Committee Member DeWees stated this project was nicely done; a great example of
analyzing/studying/looking at it and having it very well done.
Chair Wheeler had a few comments:
Regarding vents, the plans didn't show the current lattice-type vents and he wanted to
make sure nothing was happening to them. Mr. Tardif confirmed that nothing would
happen to the vents and also confirmed with Chair Wheeler that it would be appropriate
to do the same on the addition.
Regarding intermediate rafters, a note should be added that the intermediate rafters are 2
x 4s, or 2 x 3s, which is typical.
Regarding extended barge, don't use the flat modern outlookers that are used nowadays.
Instead, do it by using the braces that are structural to support the bargeboard except the
sheathing runs in the traditional direction and not in the modern direction. Chair Wheeler
explained how it was appropriately done.
Regarding windows, it appeared a window was being taken out of the room so the
Building Department might want them to bring it up to current light, air, and egress.
Chair Wheeler continued that although he hadn't calculated it, the room wasn't that big
so it might be okay for light and air but probably not for egress. He stated that this
Committee doesn't say they have to do it but if the Building Department makes them
bring it up to current light, air, and egress, they should have a plan. Committee Member
Califf stated that the room didn't have a closet so maybe it could be a sitting room or
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 14 of 24
something else. Chair Wheeler stated they normally ask people to put in a casement
window that looks like asingle-hung as much as possible so it's big enough to get their
egress.
Regarding demarcation, he agreed with the line of demarcation, although he doesn't
personally like that.
Regarding the front outlookers, he commented they look like they have a very shallow
angle because of the way they support the column trim and for that reason there may be
some sagging. Chair Wheeler suggested they might want to jack up the front bargeboard
and do a new lag or bolting tail to tie it back in. It's not part of this Committee's project
but just a suggestion that they might want to do.
Chair Wheeler commented they were doing a nice job.
Committee Member DeWees made a motion to approve DRC No. 4230-07, Schmidt Residence,
with the comments given today and subject to the conditions in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for Ol August 2007
Page 15 of 24
4. DRC No. 4237-07 - MEDENAS RESIDENCE
A proposal to remodel and construct a new addition to an existing single-family
residence.
1710 Fireside Street
Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Staff Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Mr. Garcia explained the applicant would like to remodel and expand the existing
single-story home and the proposed addition would be approximately 1,194 sq. ft. He stated the
applicant would not be using the existing Dutch-gable roof treatment but would instead like to
use arched windows and a simple gable roof. However, Staff's recommendation is for the
applicant to modify the roof to Dutch-gable to be consistent with the existing front of the house.
Paul Mitchell applicant, address on file, explained to the Committee why he didn't go with the
Dutch-gable roof: (1) there's a sloped ceiling and it would end up with something more
expensive structurally; and (2) they wouldn't be able to do the high window. He stated he kept
the window high due to privacy and light issues. The high ceiling would make for a much nicer
room, easier to build, and less expensive. However, he did agree with an earlier comment from
the Committee about how some day these houses would be classified as historical also. The
applicant stated the owners are trying to maintain the look of the home.
Public Comment
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member Califf questioned the existing window type and could the new windows
match the existing. The applicant stated the owner did a retrofit a couple of years ago and
installed the dual-glazed vinyl windows so they will be able to match the new windows to the
existing windows.
Committee Member DeWees stated he wasn't that concerned about having aDutch-gable roof.
The applicant replied the proposed roof would be in the back yard and not out front. Committee
Member Califf agreed the Dutch-gable roof was not easy to frame.
Chair Wheeler stated there were houses in Orange with Dutch-gables in the front and straight-
gables in the back. He suggested a few items to the applicant:
Regarding the window, make it a little less different and use the same trim. The applicant
agreed.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 16 of 24
Regarding existing out-lookers on each side of the ridge, pop one in the center. The
applicant agreed this could be done on the front elevation and was an oversight on his
part.
Regarding the porch, it wasn't clear that there was an addition to the porch; clarify this on
the plans. The applicant agreed.
Committee Member Woollett commented he agreed with everything Chair Wheeler had
suggested.
Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4237-07, Medenas Residence, with the
conditions as listed in the Staff Report, except Condition 3 will not apply regarding the Dutch-
gable treatment, and the following additional conditions:
1) Eliminate the wide trim around the window in the bay of the master bedroom.
2) Add a new out-looker beam under the apex of the new secondary gable to match, or at
least to re-member, the existing out-looker beams.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 17 of 24
5. DRC No. 4238-07 -KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN REMODEL
A proposal to remodel the exterior and interior of a KFC restaurant.
708 N. Tustin Avenue
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Staff Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Ms. Nguyen explained the proposed remodel is consistent with the corporate company's
rebranding. She stated the sign program would be processed under a separate permit by a sign
vendor in the future. Ms. Nguyen also added that after the Staff Report was submitted, Staff was
made aware of additional color design possibilities to include less red; instead, there would be
more burgundy and tan tones in order to be more complementary to the neighborhood along
Tustin Avenue.
Applicant Ron Faris Yum Brands/KFC Corporate, address on file, stated Staff had a copy of the
proposed standards and went on to explain about the toned-down color palette, referring to the
City of Westminster's restaurant as an example. Ms. Nguyen interjected that it would be more
along the lines of the Classic Burgundy color instead of the Heritage Red.
Committee Member DeWees questioned the color change. The applicant replied color changes
were chosen based on the city locations throughout California and other parts of the country. He
explained this was a national roll-out for 2007 to re-image all of the existing restaurants
nationwide. Regarding the color palette, the company has certain standards/components and
prefers more red on the towers; however, alternative solutions could include burgundy colors
similar to the Westminster example. Committee Member Califf confirmed with the applicant
that if a particular city didn't like the red color, the company has alternative color palettes.
Architect Justin Kne~per ArcVision Inc. address on file, stated KFC's main goal is to have the
red or burgundy on the tower as the primary color.
Committee Member DeWees questioned the the placement. The architect replied the the is used
underneath a section of the drive-thru window.
Committee Member Woollett questioned the trim material on the bottom. The architect replied
it's only on the rough opening of the drive-thru window.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member DeWees stated that from a company branding/design standpoint, they had
done a good job but he preferred less of the red color. He clarified with the applicant and the
architect, referring to the plans/color palettes, exactly what they had initially proposed vs. what
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 18 of 24
their flexibility/preference was regarding colors. The applicant stated the company preferred the
red towers but at the DRC's direction, the color could be toned down. The architect clarified that
the red towers would be the primary design but they have several options available. He stated
they could carry the beige color all the way up.
Committee Member DeWees thanked them for not installing any fake towers/cornices and
suggested the red band at the top be more tan or less red. Ms. Nguyen confirmed with
Committee Member DeWees that his color preference was red and that he would be in support of
the red tower with the one suggested color change.
Chair Wheeler stated he didn't have any concerns with the red color.
Committee Member Cathcart stated he liked the red instead of the burgundy but agreed with
Committee Member DeWees about the beige color being carried all the way up. Ms. Nguyen
confirmed with Committee Member Cathcart that his preference was to carry the beige all the
way up to the roof, behind the KFC sign, and behind the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign.
Committee Member DeWees interjected that it would be all the way up to the non-foam cornice.
Ms. Nguyen confirmed again with the Committee that the tan color would go all the way up to
the roof and behind the signage but the burgundy color would still go down to the floor, and the
towers would remain red. Chair Wheeler commented that seemed to be the consensus although
not voted on yet.
Chair Wheeler stated he had a few comments/concerns:
Regarding the trash receptacle, although not a DRC concern, it appeared placement was
in the line of travel on the sidewalk and suggested that they double-check this.
Regarding the roof plan, although not provided, he had a good idea of what they were
doing except he questioned a trim line on the opposite side that didn't seem to carry
around. The architect confirmed it shouldn't be there and explained to the Committee
exactly what trim pieces should be there.
Regarding canopies, (a) the plans need to show how far the canopy extends on the south
elevation, and (b) the architect clarified another canopy shown on the plans was a metal
rectangular box canopy over the secondary entrance and would extend out about 24".
Chair Wheeler said that was fine and suggested they show it on the plans.
Regarding tower elements from street-side view, it appeared the backs of the tower
elements didn't come back across and made it look like a false front. Chair Wheeler
confirmed with the applicant and architect that they would carry out the full element
across the back of each parapet, closing it in, and also stated it wasn't necessary to bring
it all the way down but instead they could leave gaps for water flow out, cap it, or do
whatever they preferred, but overall making sure it looked real.
Committee Member DeWees confirmed with the architect that the parapet cap would be framed-
out, 2 x 6, stepped, and painted white.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 19 of 24
Committee Members Califf and Woollett confirmed with the architect that the parapet would
have a metal cap with a slight overhang. Committee Member DeWees further discussed with the
applicant and architect the exact size of the 8" metal cap and overhang.
Committee Member DeWees confirmed with the architect that there was no access ladder issue
on this project.
There was additional discussion about the red color among the Committee, architect, and
applicant.
Committee Member DeWees confirmed with the architect that the mechanical unit would be
raised and screened.
Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4238-07, Kentucky Fried Chicken Remodel,
subject to the conditions in the Staff Report, and additional conditions as follows:
1) Change the red band color to the beige color around the top of the medium-height parapet
to match the line below.
2) The EIFS band be removed and not carry around to the front as might have been
suggested by the drawing.
3) The back of the tower elements be enclosed with a wall that is at least visible down to the
height of the parapet and could be a little below that.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 20 of 24
6. DRC No. 4252-07 - CORTEZ RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a 590 sq. ft. addition to the existing 2°d floor of a two-story
single-family residence.
517 N. Hamlin Street
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Preliminary Comments
Staff Associate Planner Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report. Ms. Nguyen explained the 590 sq. ft. addition would be entirely located on the second
floor, adding a master bedroom and converting attic space to a bedroom. She discussed the
rooflines, massing, and arched windows. Staff is asking the DRC for recommendations to help
the applicant comply with the Infill Residential Design Guidelines.
Alan Eakin architect, address on file, stated he brought in a completed project because the
applicant has a large family and is in need of more space, but then found out about Staff's
concerns. Mr. Eakin stated they could change the circle windows if necessary. He feels the
project looks nice the way it is; he tried to get rid of the mass and bring it down as much as
possible.
Regarding the roofline, they've increased the ridge by approximately 14" overall which is
insignificant. The brick fireplace goes up at an angle on both sides, tapering off at the
top, and is not aesthetically pleasing. He stated the roof on the house goes all the way
across so he personally liked the proposed changes in the roofline and thought it was
complying with the design criteria for the Infill Guidelines. The dormers are there
because there's a loft. There's a game room that serves as a family room. It's very dark
inside as these houses were designed with a front all the way across so there's just a small
amount of light coming into the living room; the design of this plan brightens the area
upstairs. A master bedroom has been added above the garage which is a perfect location,
plus they put TGIs perpendicular to the length of the garage to make sure the spans were
going to work. He agreed there's a little bit of mass out front although they tried to cut it
down, but Planning's suggestion was to move it back. However, if it's moved back they
will run into some complex structural problems; for example, they would end up with a
cantilever in the back, not being able to use strong holds in the garage, and some other
problems including more expense. He went on to explain in detail about the location of
pop-outs on the front of the garage and how the roofline could be extended to get a
horizontal roofline in order to make the whole appearance of the tall vertical mass come
down. He showed the Committee the original concept/plans, before any changes were
made as shown in the current plans, and went on to explain/discuss the original plans in
detail. Referring to the plans, he stated there was no roofline and the garage was already
back 8' from the corner of the living room but rather than have the vertical line all the
way up, he put in some pop-outs in order to get a decent roofline to come up to the roof
to get a horizontal line across. He said if he came up too high then there's a Building
Code situation. The intent was to give the applicant some decoration on the roofline,
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 21 of 24
make it look nice, and many people are enjoying this type of style with a window.
Regarding the floor plans, he discussed the entrance, the sloped roof, and how another
bedroom could be added. He stated he couldn't pop-out in the back or go to the lower
floor because they can't build a master bedroom in back of a garage nor off the kitchen.
He showed them another section on the plans where there was wasted storage space over
the bedroom on the right-hand side so they took advantage of that space to build a
bedroom.
Regarding the elevation and rooflines, he stated this was previously discussed with Ms.
Nguyen and went on to explain his intent to the Committee and welcomed their input.
Regarding the site plan, he discussed the site plan stating there's no place for the
applicant to come back any further to build because there's the existing kitchen, stucco
gazebo, and fountain. There's a low plate line in the back and it's already atwo-story.
He's given them a master bedroom and bath over the garage and another usable bedroom
over the existing wasted attic space.
Joel De La Rosa builder and uncle, address on file, stated he had nothing to add.
Public Comment
Margarita Cortez owner address on file, stated they have happily lived in this house for 19/20
years and since they have a large family they would like to add on and stay in the house.
Chair Wheeler opened the item for Committee discussion.
Committee Member Cathcart confirmed with Chair Wheeler that the applicant was just asking
for preliminary comments. Committee Member Califf commented that sometimes the
Committee approved items that were only "preliminary comments" and continued plenty of other
items that were submitted for "final determinations." The applicant replied that he was hoping to
meet the Committee's requirements.
Committee Member Woollett stated his concern was not the extra height but that they had a
situation about the tapered chimney and he didn't have a problem with taking the taper off the
chimney. The design of the house is quite a massive move and thought it strange the way it
concealed a second story inside. Mr. Eakin agreed it was a strange layout to work with.
Committee Member Woollett stated there's no reason why they have to look like all the other
houses and thought it a good idea to add windows. He agreed with Staff that the large window
does make the second-story seem larger/bigger than it really was but he understood why they
wanted to add the window. Committee Member Woollett hoped they could find a way to
mitigate this during the meeting today. Mr. Eakin replied he first considered running a
continuous roof but it just looked ugly and Committee Member Woollett agreed there was some
advantage to the way it was currently designed.
Committee Member Woollett stated he was concerned about the chimney just hanging on the left
side (north side) and thought Mr. Eakin was concerned about it also. Mr. Eakin replied it
matched the cap but agreed he normally liked to see it run to the ground; however, this is back
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 22 of 24
far enough and in past experiences hasn't had any problems with it. He stated Mr. Cortez plans
on getting an RV and wouldn't be able to get it in there if the chimney is brought all the way
down.
Committee Member Califf commented they would still have an 8' overhang and that wouldn't
clear most RVs so it's a moot point because there's a roof overhang that almost matches that and
most trailers and RVs are going to run about 9' or higher.
Committee Member Woollett suggested the chimney could be pulled more into the house and
made shallower, plus have the fireplace go in rather than out. Committee Member Califf
suggested they could snake the flue. Mr. Eakin agreed he could definitely move it in because
there's adequate width on the bedroom.
Chair Wheeler suggested a corner fireplace as a possibility. Mr. Eakin replied he initially had it
designed that way and turned to explain to Mr. Cortez that the Committee agreed a corner
fireplace would work better, to run the joists out, and make the cantilever if he plans on getting
an RV. Mr. Eakin stated aesthetically it would look better from the interior also.
Committee Member Woollett concluded his remarks by suggesting they use upper square
windows on the west side in front of the house instead of the arched windows. Mr. Eakin replied
that might help the lower profile with the circle out of there and justify aDutch-gable in front.
Chair Wheeler stated that would be introducing a new element. Committee Member Woollett
agreed that would be an entirely new design.
Chair Wheeler stated the mass didn't bother him and it worked fine, it's broken up nicely, and
the two-story element is set back. He suggested they maintain as much as possible the
fabric/feeling of the existing house. The style change bothered him and he stated not to change it
from asixties-style to a more Spanish-style. He further suggested transom windows would be an
improvement and pick up some of the same materials in the trim. Mr. Eakin agreed and stated
they need some trim on the windows.
Committee Member Califf stated the windows need to be consistent. There was further
discussion about windows among Chair Wheeler, Committee Member Califf, and Mr. Eakin.
Chair Wheeler suggested tending to the original builder by using the same vocabulary of parts
but with the new masses; don't introduce a new form but instead use existing things; and don't
change the style of the building because that's stressful. Mr. Eakin said he was open to these
suggestions. He would like to bring the project back and try to comply with the Committee's
comments/suggestions while still giving the Cortez family what they want.
Chair Wheeler reminded Mr. Eakin to show those box-outs that he's doing on the first floor on
each side of the garage. Mr. Eakin agreed.
Chair Wheeler stated it was probably fortunate they wanted to rebuild the chimney because he
believes they will have to go higher. Mr. Eakin replied he would actually have to calculate it out
but thought he was close.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 23 of 24
Chair Wheeler asked if they were going to completely tear out the masonry chimney. Mr. Eakin
replied, "No." He stated it would be a tremendous project because they are stamped brick, not
real brick. Chair Wheeler confirmed with Mr. Eakin that the fireplace was apre-cast unit. There
was further discussion among Chair Wheeler, Committee Member Woollett, and Mr. Eakin
about pre-cast fireplaces.
Committee Member Califf suggested it would be helpful to have the first-floor plan, Sheet 2,
show the pop-outs. Mr. Eakin agreed.
Chair Wheeler confirmed with Mr. Eakin that this would give them some good ideas and
directions.
Ms. Nguyen asked if the Committee had any comments regarding the front elevation being
setback or leaving it where it is. Committee Member Califf replied that "plan-wise" the
Committee says it's fine.
Committee Member Cathcart confirmed with Committee Member Califf that in order to tone
down the second-floor windows, the sills would be taken off because that would have been a
brand new element.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4252-07, Cortez Residence.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for O1 August 2007
Page 24 of 24
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Committee Member DeWees to adjourn to the next regular meeting on
Wednesday, August 15, 2007.
SECOND: Jon Califf
AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.