Loading...
08-20-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 20 August 2008 Committee Members Present Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:15 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. No changes were noted. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the meeting of August 6, 2008. Changes were noted. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented additional information to the Committee Members on Item No. 5, Bullock Residence. He stated the applicant was working with alternate floor plans seeking to increase headroom in the attic and what the design of the dormer should be. One option would be to reconstruct both dormers, or to leave the existing dormer on the north side and duplicate the dormer on the other side. The applicant was open to suggestions and wanted to provide the alternate information to the Committee Members for their review. Chair Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 2 of 24 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 6, 2008 Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2008 Design Review Committee meeting with changes as noted. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES:Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler NOES:None ABSTAIN:Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 3 of 24 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 2) DRC No. 4198-07 - PJ'S ABBEY RESTAURANT SIGN PROGRAM A revised proposal for a new restaurant sign program. 182 South Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforange.org Item Continued from DRC Meeting of April 4, 2007; and from DRC Meeting of August 6, 2008, due to lack of quorum. DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from this item due to the location of his business in proximity to the proposed project. Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Gary Mead, address on file, stated the photos he handed out were of an actual sign that they had made; he explained the lower shot was the sign with the acrylic glass and above that was the sign with the 3/a" wood panel that had been painted and coated with the new colors. There was not much of a difference in the signs. There had been cost and time involved to remove the acrylic glass and install the painted wood; they were the same sign using different materials. He was asking for a variance for the sign height. The old sign had been approved at the height of almost 6'. The old sign had rotted out and after many years of repainting it, the sign needed to be replaced. Public Comment None. Mr. Ryan stated the City was in the process of forming stakeholder groups to review the Old Towne Design Standards and he welcomed Mr. Mead and anyone else to share their input and recommendation on the standards. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been at the restaurant and asked if the sign was already out in front? Mr. Mead stated the sign that was in the front of the location was wood, the other signs were acrylic. Chair Wheeler asked if the sign height situation could be avoided by mounting the signs to the building? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 4 of 24 Mr. Mead stated there was not a flat surface in the parking lot area. Mounting of the signs on the building would require removal of a tree. He had not been aware that free-standing signs required an address on them. Committee Member McCormack asked how the address had to be incorporated in the sign? Mr. Ryan stated, based on the area calculation, the address could be a separate area mounted below the sign or on the frame. Committee Member McCormack pointed out a sign that was at the location that he had not seen and asked if that sign would remain? Mr. Mead stated he had taken down the sign to get a quote on using stain glass and found that it was too expensive, and as he knew the sign had to be changed, he had not reinstalled the sign. Committee Member McCormack stated he was concerned with how the back of the signs would be treated; however, in seeing the signs at the location he felt they were handled quite nicely. The signs had not looked to be historical and he understood there was a guideline for the number of colors that could be used on a sign. Mr. Ryan stated there had been a determination made at the last DRC presentation of the sign and with the unique logo there was not a limit on the use of colors. Committee Member McCormack stated he had a problem with the restaurant font. He suggested stylizing the restaurant font, as it appeared too generic at first glance. With the two lettering styles and the addition of numbers for the address it could be an opportunity to have the font be more consistent. Mr. Mead stated the intent was to be able to identify the restaurant quickly and using stylized print was more difficult to read when driving by. Chair Wheeler suggested adding the number and the street name to the sign and as long it was in the same font it would be fine. One was the logo and the other was informational. Committee Member Gladson asked if the sign was illuminated? Mr. Mead stated no, there was ground lighting. Committee Member McCormack asked if the sign on the north facade would be replaced? Mr. Mead stated no that sign would not be replaced. Committee Member McCormack suggested replacement of all the signs. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the Committee needed to focus on the approval of the change that had been discussed at great length. The proposal was to change the acrylic to wood and in light of all the previous discussion, he would support that change. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 5 of 24 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4198-07, PJ's Abbey Restaurant Sign Program, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following suggestion: 1. Replace all existing signs with the new sign concept. SECOND:Adrienne Gladson AYES:Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 6 of 24 3) DRC No. 4246-07 - T-MOBILE (OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC.) A proposal to install two 60-foot tall stealth flag poles and supporting equipment, on the west side of the Civic Center entrance to City Hall. 300 East Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr.~cr,cityoforange.org Item Continued from DRC Meeting of January 16, 2008 DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Kristin Galardo, address on file, stated the plans had been revised to add lattice to the enclosure, rather than a chain link fence and felt lattice provided a more aesthetically pleasing cover. With regard to alignment of the flag poles, they had placed cones out in front to gain a better perspective of the alignment, and they could either have them line up with the columns or the arches of the building. Applicant, B.P. Hannath, address on file, suggested the poles be lined up with the columns as to not obstruct the view from the inside of the building. Ms. Galardo stated they had also looked at the landscaping and it would be on the footprint of the enclosure. They intended to replace the shrubs and to replace or relocate the plantings. There was a large Bird of Paradise plant that would need to be removed and they could relocate or replace it based on Staff's recommendation. Mr. Hannath stated one of the larger Bird of Paradise plants would need to be taken out and possibly relocated to another area. Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated rather than transplanting he would like to see a replacement 15 gallon shrub. Mr. Hannath stated they had addressed the alignment and he wanted to ensure that the halyard was placed appropriately to ensure that unauthorized people would not be able to get to it; the suggestion would be to have it approximately 8' from the ground and to keep a lock on it. It could also be added to the backside to mitigate the visual impact. Mr. Ryan asked if the enclosure had a gate or door? Ms. Galardo stated it was a corrugated steel gate and that could be changed to tubular steel or wrought iron, per Staff's preference. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he had reviewed the plans and he asked for the diameter of the poles? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 7 of 24 Ms. Galardo stated the diameter was 14" and the poles were non-tapered. Mr. Frankel stated the OTPA's position was that the poles represented a negative visual impact on the Old Towne District. The photo simulations had not covered a complete radius and there were areas in the district that the poles would be seen from. The Plaza area was one. He wanted to clarify that the same photos had been submitted to the SHPO Office. He had discussions with SHPO regarding receipt of a response based on their comments. He had spoken with Tristan Toser, and Mr. Toser was not aware of the comments made by OTPA and felt that they should have received a response to those comments. The notice in the paper was inaccurate and it should have been re-noticed. The initial notice had not included comments regarding the possibility of an impact on historic resources. Mr. Frankel stated he had reviewed the photos and he assumed those were the photos the SHPO office had received. They were under the impression that they were tapered poles similar to what existed in the area. On the plans the poles were not stealth, some of the antenna elements at the top were visible and he was not clear if those elements were depicted outside of the poles for presentation only, and that they would be interior elements. In light of all the issues, Tristan was going to ask for a re-submittal of the project and he wanted that information stated for the record. Mr. Hannath stated the poles were straight; they were not tapered. It was common to have straight flag poles and it was a design choice. The photos that were submitted were the same as what had been presented to the DRC. The antenna elements were shown on the plans as an example of what the poles would contain and they would be interior elements. In regard to the noticing issue, he would leave that to the City Attorney as the noticing had been issued by the City. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair Wheeler stated there had been some items that appeared to be unclear to the State Office and he asked Staff if they were in receipt of any correspondence? Mr. Ryan stated he had not received anything other than the Ordinance 106 finding that had been previously submitted. Mr. Hannath stated the information that had been submitted clearly showed the non-tapered poles. Committee Member Gladson stated she understood in March of 2008 the item was submitted to SHPO and she asked if there was a letter that had been received? Mr. Ryan stated the response from SHPO was included in their packet with the additional information that had been requested from T-Mobile. Ms. Galardo stated they had submitted the additional information as requested and had received a stamp of concurrence from the State, from Susan Stratton, which had been included in the packet presented to the Committee Members. Mr. Hannath stated they were using a very small pole diameter, one that other carriers could not use as their equipment would not fit in a small pole. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 8 of 24 Chair Wheeler stated at the previous DRC meeting a member of the public had presented a photo of an existing flag pole in another City that he had presented as being 14" in diameter. Chair Wheeler stated that he had gone to that location and measured the diameter and he had come up with a measurement of 24.2" in diameter with a number on the pole FP24X48 which he took to be interpreted as Flag Pole 24" in diameter and 48' in height which appeared correct. He had been a bit incensed that they had been led to believe the pole presented in the photo had been 14" in diameter. He also had the photo from McDonald's that had a 16" diameter flag pole which was closer to what was being proposed. Ms. Galardo stated they had offered an attachment, which was the approval stamp from Susan Stratton, as well as an attachment from Tristan Toser with a recommended finding of no adverse effect. Mr. Ryan stated they had received an email from Janet Schultz, State Office, describing the items that required clarification on the application and asked for very specific items under the scope of work evaluation which included proper signatures, proper noticing, written comments, and proofs. They were items that had to be addressed on the return application which Staff was not in receipt of. It would be worth reviewing in light of some of the questions and discussion that had been presented. Ms. Galardo stated in the emails that had been written there was information submitted via PDF, which was T-Mobile's response to SHPO and she could print out that email for their review. Committee Member Gladson stated being relatively new to the Committee she was familiar with CEQA, however, she was not up to speed on State or SHPO guidelines and she asked for clarification on the issue. Mr. Ryan stated anytime there were Federal Funds or Federal Licensing involved, the agency typically received impact information on historic resources. The typical form to file was FCC620, which was the Section 106 Review. They would send information to local organizations, which in their case was the OTPA. Chair Wheeler asked if Staff felt the problem had been resolved with any issues with SHPO and could the item move forward to the Planning Commission? Mr. Ryan stated it appeared the deficiencies had been addressed and the findings met the project in the scope of work that they had presented. As the project would be presented to the Planning Commission, the applicant could provide further information regarding their input and the response from SHPO to clarify any concerns that were presented by the OTPA and it would be important to be contained in the applicant's report. The State had not reopened the issue, they had reviewed the project for any deficiencies and they solicited comments from the OTPA. He felt aesthetically they were reviewing the alignment of the poles, the pole design, and the landscaping. Committee Woollett stated on the equipment layout of the enclosure, from an aesthetic standpoint, it would be better if the gate was not on the north side of the enclosure but rather on the east side where it would not be visible. He suggested the meter and panel box could also be City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 9 of 24 moved to the other side. It appeared that the meter could easily be moved around the corner and still be able to feed the panel. Mr. Hannath clarified that the main objective was to move the door to the east side and to have the meter in a less visible place as well. Chair Wheeler stated they were making such an effort to screen the equipment; however, in looking up at that location there were very visible areas of existing City Hall mechanical equipment on the roof. Committee Member Woollett stated he had a concern with the use of tubular steel or wrought iron for the gate as it could easily be seen through and he suggested the use of corrugated steel in the same color as the block wall. Chair Wheeler asked for details on the finial or globe? Ms. Galardo stated they would use a basic globe to match the globes on the existing flag poles. Committee Member Woollett stated it would make a difference on where the globe was installed. If the globe was installed right onto the flag pole it would not be visible unless it was viewed from quite a distance away and he suggested that the globe be raised. Mr. Hannath asked if the existing flag poles had the globes sufficiently raised? Chair Wheeler stated yes, they were. Mr. Hannath stated they would match not only the globe but also the mounting of the globe. Committee Member McCormack asked if the existing flag poles were tapered? Mr. Ryan stated yes. Committee Member Woollett stated sometimes flag poles were non-tapered; however, he felt the reason for the use of anon-tapered pole was the cost. The reality was that with the use of a pole for the antennae and other equipment, the pole needed to be the same diameter all the way up as a certain amount of space was needed inside the pole to house the equipment. Committee Member McCormack stated he was viewing the design form from a standpoint of what existed at the Civic Center. Those two flag poles set the example. They were introducing a different vocabulary with the proposed poles and that was his big sticking point. He felt strongly that one pole needed to be higher, the one that would fly the U.S. Flag, based on Federal Flag Code. Mr. Hannath stated it would be up to the City to decide what flag was flown where. Committee Member McCormack stated he had recently worked on a project and the flag standard was one that City Council adopted. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 10 of 24 Mr. Hannath stated that was not a guideline it was a civic choice whether to fly the American Flag higher, quite often multiple flags were flown at the same heights. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been given the flag code and it was not a preference, but rather an etiquette issue, it was an unsaid rule that the U.S. Flag was flown higher. For example, the State Flag could not be flown higher or someone would call them on it. He wanted to present it as a design element and as an issue that Staff would need to address. Chair Wheeler stated he understood that the U.S. Flag was going to be flown on both poles. Committee Member Gladson stated she also thought the U.S. Flag was going to be flown on both poles. Committee Member McCormack stated in one of the exhibits there were two poles at the Fire Department, there were another two poles at the Civic Center, and then they proposed to add two more. Mr. Hannath pointed out that the exhibit Committee Member McCormack was reviewing had poles that were 15% larger than the poles that they were proposing to install. Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted to have continuity in the Civic Center area. He had not wanted poles to look like something other than flag poles. Mr. Hannath stated there had been some visual mitigation addressed with sizeable trees. The poles were not in a line and they were not all visible at one time. The Fire Department had trees that consumed a large portion of the visual impact. The flag poles were separated by several hundred feet and the flag poles at the fire station and the ones they proposed would also have trees that obscured the view of the poles. There was a very positive visual issue brought about by the installation of the flag poles. Ms. Galardo stated it was possible to install tapered poles; however, 14" was the minimum that could be used in order to conceal the antennas and tapered poles would actually be much larger at the bottom. Chair Wheeler stated he felt a tapered pole would look far worse. Committee Member Gladson stated they were dealing with a wireless facility, with technology that continued to evolve. There was not the ability to stealth equipment 10 years ago and the reality was that there would most likely be a new form in the future, possibly a graduated pole. They were reviewing the proposal for a wireless facility, and replacing the antenna that was out there now was possibly the best reason that she felt the project was beneficial. Her personal preference was to have the poles as pleasing as possible, and to incorporate the suggestions offered by Committee Member Woollett. The general public would not be aware that the poles existed, even in a historic district and an area that was of importance. She was comfortable with the proposed project. The proposed project called for two flag poles, nothing more. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 11 of 24 Chair Wheeler stated he concurred with Committee Member Gladson. He felt the same way and the mitigation in getting rid of the existing tower made up for a slightly odd flag pole. Committee Member Gladson stated she would not have been agreeable to the initial proposal. Committee Member Cathcart stated he suggested that the Bird of Paradise be saved and moved. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed, since the plant could take abuse, it was difficult to harm the plant. Mr. Morris stated he would agree with the suggestion; however, he wanted to ensure that the applicant hired a certified landscape contractor. Committee Member Cathcart stated in walking around City Hall there was a bodge-podge of design elements; there was a cannon, a fountain, a Fire Station that had not matched the Civic Center, a Civic Center that was not compatible with Old Towne, and a library that looked new and polished, and the fact that they proposed to install slightly different flag poles was anon- issue. He liked the proposed project from the stand point of technical know-how and usability. Many people had a problem in the center of Orange, as it was the "black hole" of wireless networking and he felt the project was a good solution. He agreed with Committee Member Gladson that new technology would come along and the project would be revised. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a reference to slump stone on the masonry wall; it was not slump stone but a split face stone. He stated that the new wall should match the existing wall. If the lattice was being used to protect the equipment it could be installed lower. In clarifying the height of the enclosure with the applicant at 6'6", he felt the lattice would not be needed. In using a flush mounted-up light in the landscape area, the Agapanthus would cover the lights. He suggested the use of light fixtures that were on a can that would extend upward. Mr. Hannath stated if they installed the lighting on a small base it could also assist with the problem. Committee Member McCormack stated he had used small black cans on a recent project which allowed the landscape to grow over and still allow the light to point through. Mr. Hannath stated they generally had not placed a roof or top on the enclosure, unless they were concerned with vandalism or other crime issues. The equipment they proposed would not be attractive as an element to climb on or skateboard on. Committee Member Gladson stated they could use lattice on the top as a deterrent down the road if it was necessary and became an attractive nuisance. Committee Member McCormack asked if the pole was tapered, what would the base measurement be? Ms. Galardo stated 14" would be the minimum for the cable runs and the antennas to be enclosed; anything else outside of that would be based on their recommendation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 12 of 24 Committee Member McCormack asked if it was acustom-ordered pole and could they conceivably order a pole 16" at the base that tapered to 14" at the top? Mr. Hannath stated it would not be noticeable with those measurements on such a tall pole. Ms. Galardo stated generally to get a tapered look the pole would gain too much width at the base. Chair Wheeler stated traditional tapered poles generally gained 2" every 15'. Mr. Hannath stated using that configuration the pole would be 22" at the base. Committee Member McCormack suggested that the stem at the top be thicker to allow the rope to hang correctly. Mr. Hannath stated he had noted that the design should match the existing poles and he now understood that the suggestion by Committee Member McCormack was for a different design and he asked for clarification. Committee Member McCormack stated in wrapping the rope around the front of the pole on a non-tapered pole the rope would not wrap correctly, and he suggested the clasp or holder be made thicker. He also suggested that the exterior finish of the new poles match the existing flag poles. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4246-07, T-Mobile, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. The Bird of Paradise be moved to a new location by a certified landscape contractor. 2. The door of the enclosure be moved to the east side of the enclosure. 3. The new flag pole/antennas shall line up with the columns at City Hall. 4. The enclosure be constructed of split face block to match existing. 5. The up-lighting in the landscape area be installed with can lights on concrete pedestals to match the anticipated height of the Agapanthus. 6. The finial be raised on stems to match the existing flag poles and the connection shaft be larger in diameter to accommodate the larger pole width. 7. The exterior finish of the flag poles to match the existing flag poles at the north side of City Hall. 8. Landscape plans be submitted to Staff. 9. If two American flags were to be flown, they would be at the same height; if not, the American flag to be higher. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 13 of 24 New Agenda Items: 4) DRC No. 4294-07 - COLBURN RESIDENCE A proposal to expand a second floor dormer (400 sq. ft.) on a 1923 Provincial Revival residence. Proposal includes the relocation and expansion of a one-car garage (450 sq. ft.). 205 North Pine Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dtyan(a,cityoforange.org Previous DRC Preliminary Review on June 4, 2008 DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated Mr. Ryan had asked about the slopes as they had not submitted a roof plan. He had an oversimplified answer, as there were at least a dozen different roof slopes ranging from 6 and 12 to 26 and 12, including 25, 21, 10, 9, and so forth. Two sides of the existing dormers were rarely the same pitch on the house. It was not apparent until he had prepared it on paper. In reviewing the second floor plan, the entire area had been rearranged to accommodate head room; in moving the restroom and concentrating on a dormer that was wide enough to accommodate the bedroom, it worked out. They had reviewed the height of the roof connection and it was not where the dormer tied into the ridge and would not be apparent from the ground and had no effect on the reversibility as the ridge would require reinforcement, whether it was below or directly on top. There was no visual advantage to dropping it down and the only place it would be seen was from the elevation which was a very deceptive view. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they had a few issues with the project. The average FAR was .24 and the proposed project of .50 was over twice the size and the OTPA had not subscribed to the book end theory. In driving through Old Towne it would be found more often than not that there were small houses on the corners, there were just a few large homes on corners, but primarily the large homes were mid-block and there was not a pattern. In developing the area he felt there was not a book end theory. The .50 was quite large, especially since there had been a project recently on South Olive, which was an apartment building where the applicants had returned many times to the DRC and each time they were required by the DRC to bring the project down to a FAR of .42 or .43. That was an apartment building and they were now being presented with a single family residence that was quite large. Mr. Frankel stated in the Grant Street Study, the .42 or .43 threshold had been utilized consistently by Staff and he felt a .50 was over the top. The north facing dormer, although had been reduced, was still quite large and they felt it should be dropped down lower than the ridge. The northeast dormer presented issues with the Secretary of Interior's Standards in removing the roof and bracing it, in reviewing the standards it was not within those guidelines. There would not be a way to tell in the future what had occurred there and would impair the entire element. He stated the OTPA had not wanted to see accessory structures moved, in regard to the garage it City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 14 of 24 was much better to relocate than to demolish, and would not present much of an issue on the proposed project. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Mr. Ryan clarified the breakdown on the floor area ratio; Staff examined the increase in both the first and second floor developments and the Grant Street Study referenced the impact of massing being greater on the second floor than on the first floor. A project that had a .60 or .70 on the first floor was hardly noticeable, or for example, the project that was referred to on South Olive where the FAR was .31 on the first floor and .23 on the second floor had the appearance of greater massing on the second floor. Staff reviewed the massing including the garage, and the increase in massing of .39 to .50, the expansion of 370 square feet of attic space and the raising of the existing dormer which increased the second floor area from .10 to .14 FAR, which was a 4 FAR and felt the .4 was minor in regard to building mass. The existing area of the garage added an additional area of .07 and adding that to the .39 they were at .46 without adding the second story and the majority of the massing or additional higher FAR was at the first-story level. There was a minor increase in the roof plane and the attic dormer created the least impact on adding square footage to the structure Chair Wheeler asked if the FAR included the carport? Mr. Ryan stated no. Chair Wheeler stated in considering just that, going from a roof to an enclosed space was less of an impact rather than if it would be added as new space. Mr. Ryan stated typically carports were not counted in the calculation. Chair Wheeler stated he felt the applicant made a big mistake. An email had made it into the report with a plan that referred to a Nantucket dormer; he had fallen in love with that design. Mr. Califf stated it had been offered as a last resort. Applicant, Steve Colburn, address on file, stated he personally had not liked that design as it added enormous construction costs. They had already moved the master bathroom to accommodate the stairs and that had added additional costs. Chair Wheeler stated his justification for the proposed alternate design was that he felt they would not need to memorialize the shed roof dormer. that was there, as it was not historic; the shed roof dormer was somewhat a foreign element. With the alternate design they would have a number of gables and it would be keeping more in line with the feel of the house. Mr. Colburn asked if they chose the alternate design would they be able to raise it to the height of the ridge? Chair Wheeler stated he felt they could. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 15 of 24 Committee Member Woollett asked why the alternate design would be more difficult to construct? Mr. Colburn stated it would be a framing nightmare. It would require structural changes. They would also lose headroom and the proposed sitting area. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked the alternate design that had been submitted. Mr. Califf stated the construction would become more complicated from an engineering standpoint but it was not insurmountable. Committee Member Gladson stated at the preliminary review there had been some discussion regarding the perimeter wall and landscaping and had they agreed to move the wall back? Mr. Califf stated the intent was to move the wall back. The revised fence and landscape plan had not been completed. Committee Member McCormack stated he recalled there had been a question regarding the plant legend. They would require a landscape and hardscape plan that could be reviewed by the DRC. Mr. Califf stated given that the Planning Commission would not get too involved in the landscape aspect, he asked would they be agreeable to have the landscape/hardscape plan brought back to the DRC after Planning Commission? Mr. Ryan stated typically they would not require landscape plans on a single family residence. Mr. Califf stated they would not want to holdup the project from moving forward. Mr. Ryan stated the Design Review Committee (DRC) typically would request a review by Staff of the landscape/hardscape plans before it was submitted to Building. Committee Member McCormack wanted to ensure the wall would be moved back. Chair Wheeler stated that the DRC would like to review the plans in a manner that would not hold up the project. Committee Member Gladson stated in regard to maintaining historical data on the home, it would not be difficult as they could gather photographic data as well as the plans and drawings of the original structure that would be archived for future use. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4294-07, Colburn Residence, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional condition: 1. The shed roof dormer be replaced with the Nantucket dormer that had been provided as an alternate design. 2. A landscape plan be provided to the DRC prior to the issuance of a building permit. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 16 of 24 SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 17 of 24 5) DRC No. 4303-07 -BULLOCK RESIDENCE A proposal to expand the living area of a contributing 1910 Bungalow, including adding a larger dormer, new rear porch, several smaller pop-out additions, and a fully habitable 768 sq. ft. basement with bathroom. 373 South Grand Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(a,cityoforangeorg DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Bill Bullock, address on file, stated he had spent the last three years researching for the project. The house was a transitional house, it had Victorian and Craftsman features. He had spoken with the previous owner and the home had originally been a two bedroom house. The original owner had finished the attic and placed a stairway where the second bedroom was and added two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. Those additions had not appeared to have been permitted. In that construction process many of the original features had been lost, such as moldings, trims, and casings. Mr. Bullock stated he wanted to remove the pine that was currently on the upstairs walls and replace it with drywall. Their goal was to first and foremost provide a safe living space for his family; he had three children and one on the way. He was open to suggestions on the project and he wanted to restore the integrity of the design intent and preserve the features that remained on the house. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he was glad to see that the aluminum windows would be replaced. As there was no photo documentation for the original porch, he felt the design that was proposed fit that style of home. The rear porch was introducing Craftsman elements and the design should be much simpler than the front porch which was discussed in the Secretary of Interior's Design Standards. The OTPA agreed with Staff regarding the dormers; they should be dropped and be of the same style. A shed dormer would not be typical for the style of home. The FAR was a mute point due to the basement and it was nice to have residents build down and maintain the original bulk and mass. Mr. Frankel stated they agreed with the suggestion for the porch that the materials used should be concrete or wood. Chair Wheeler handed a copy of the alternate floor plan to Mr. Frankel. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated Staff had addressed the primary issues and he had mixed feelings about the nature of the dormers. It had been the position of the DRC for sometime that floating dormers should be used, particularly on the style of house in the proposed project. He had no strong feelings on whether a shed dormer or a gable dormer should be used and felt both would be appropriate. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 18 of 24 Chair Wheeler stated he had some technical issues to discuss. The 2007 Code had changed the treatment of stairs and the maximum riser was 7 3/4" with the minimum run being 10", and even at the old standard he foresaw a headroom problem. It was something the applicant should keep in mind with his design. On the configuration of the windows it appeared that there might be an egress issue. If the windows were constructed as double hung style casements, they would probably still be too small. Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with the comments regarding the back porch; it was a Craftsman design and he definitely agreed that it should be simpler. In reference to the water heater, they had allowed metal cabinets in the past and it was an enclosure that had been used in that period that the house was built. Chair Wheeler stated he had reviewed the alternate floor plan that had been submitted during the Administrative Session, and stated that he felt it was a better design. It appeared to work very well and if the applicant wanted to use that design, the DRC would want to see it drawn up formally. As the proposed project required Planning Commission review, the plans would need to be drawn up and it would be nice to see the simplified porch design. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a setback issue with encroachment? Mr. Ryan stated the separation between the rear column and porch approaching the garage had a minimum distance of 6'. The property had alley access and it was anon-issue. Committee Member Gladson asked if the garage had two doors? Mr. Bullock stated no, there was only one. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Chair Wheeler that the alternate proposal was a better design plan. He suggested that the exposed concrete slab should not be colored or stamped. Chair Wheeler stated that he agreed that the foundation wall in the basement should not be split face. Chair Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4303-07, Bullock Residence, to allow the applicant to come back with the following: 1. The drawings to be revised to show the new double gable. 2. Address the window egress problems. 3. Simplify the rear porch. 4. Provide a hardscape plan. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 19 of 24 6) DRC No. 4355-08 - CABRERA RESIDENCE A proposal to add a second story to a single family residence. 133 West Greenway Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Anabelle Cabrera, address on file, stated she had parents that were original owners two blocks away in a residence in Orange and they have reached an age where they no longer were able to live on their own. The intent of adding the second story would be to allow her parents to move in and provide additional living space for her family. Committee Member Gladson clarified that the second floor would not be astand-alone residence. Ms. Cabrera stated it would be all one big house; it was not a second residence, but rather reallocating space downstairs. An area that was a den would be made into a dining area. Applicant, Wil Hosband, address on file, stated with the exception of the stair addition the first floor would remain very much in its present state. The second floor would be primarily bedrooms. In the design they tried to pick up on qualities that were present in Old Towne. They had been working closely with Staff to allow the new home design to engage with the rest of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was primarily one-story. They had incorporated designs, such as moving rooms around to allow the edges to recede and drop down and they had taken quite a bit of square footage away to accommodate that. The maximum height was 25' which was 7' below the allowable height. They had done everything to design the addition with the least visual impact on the street. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the design was well crafted and they had done an excellent job. He had a basic problem with the introduction of a rather large second story to an area that contained primarily one-story residences. He felt it was not in accordance with the ordinance, which was subject to interpretation. It was difficult for him to state that, as he appreciated the reasons for needing the extra space. It was a substantial issue and if they were to accept the design they would open the door to a direction that they would not want to go and it was not appropriate for the City. Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with the comments made by Committee Member Woollett. He stated there were problems with the drawings, and generally it was standard practice that the presentation include an indication of what the existing residence was like along with the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 20 of 24 proposed design. The floor plan should include the existing. The floor plans were not legible as the printing was too light. The elevations appeared to not indicate specifics and they needed plans that were specific to materials and where they were located. Chair Wheeler stated he felt the proposed project had not met the In-fill Guidelines. The key design objective was that the structure should be compatible in scale and height in order to blend with neighboring structures. As he stood on the street he could not see another two-story house in sight and the proposed project was not consistent with the neighborhood and was discouraged in the Guidelines. Chair Wheeler read additional information from the Guidelines and stated the intent of the Guidelines were to prevent mansionization and the project was a perfect example of what the Guidelines were against. Chair Wheeler stated what had occurred in the past was to request a re-design of the second story which could be carried back and popped down with a new ridge to carry a second story plate. Allowing the majority of the new construction to be at the back of the property, it could encroach on the back yard. Structurally it would be more difficult but it could be done. The idea was to maintain the one-story plate of the neighborhood and not have the front so high. They had suggested this to other applicants in the past. It would cause a big change in the floor plan; however, he could not support the current proposal. He was surprised that the Staff Report felt the proposed project met the In-fill Design Guidelines. Another issue he had was that the design was bringing in Old Towne elements; however, the Guidelines stated the materials and feel should match the existing design. The intent to bring in Craftsman qualities was not appropriate. Mr. Hosband stated there was quite a bit of siding and brick treatments on homes in the neighborhood. Committee Member Cathcart concurred that the introduction to Craftsman was inappropriate for the neighborhood. He felt the In-Fill Guidelines had to evolve into something else, as what was happening to the applicant was going to happen to more families. He would not want to see people with the idea of improving the neighborhood moving. He agreed that the proposed project had not conformed to the Guidelines. The proposed project could be looked upon as being an improvement. He understood what they were discussing, however, there had to be some exceptions. Mr. Hosband stated to continue that point there were two other families on the same street that were considering the same situation. Ms. Cabrera stated before they had considered the option of an addition they had looked at numerous homes in the City of Orange and they could not find a residence that would accommodate elderly residents. They would have had to spend over $50,000 to $100,000 in construction with any of the homes they had found. Chair Wheeler stated they could go with a second story, but with a design that had the least impact on the street scape. Ms. Cabrera stated they could not go back much further with the design as there was a swimming pool in the back yard. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 21 of 24 Committee Member McCormack agreed with Committee Member Cathcart and with Chair Wheeler's last comments. It was something that was going to happen and he felt that they had done a great job. Mr. Hosband stated they had discussed alternate designs and the current placement of the stairs was ideal as it had not disrupted much of the ground floor. The ground floor plan had remained almost unchanged. To go with an alternate design would require redesigning the kitchen, remodeling the existing bedroom, and other changes to the ground floor. Committee Member Gladson stated her objection was to the Craftsman elements and she was not particularly bothered by the two-story element. She was convinced that it was compatible. The struggle she had with the Guideline was that she felt the intent was not to deny second story homes. They could be built in single-story neighborhoods with design elements that made them compatible and there were a number of ways to achieve that. The consensus of the Committee was that the applicant needed to take another look at the proposed project and come back to the DRC for review. Perhaps adding more to the ground floor and scaling back the square footage of the second story could be options. It was the topic of today as every community was dealing with mansionization, and everyone was worried with towering second story homes. They had seen some and they were cautious to not allow that to occur. Committee Member Cathcart stated the massing at the front of the house should be left at a lower scale and in removing the bulk and mass away it would become easier to decide that it would be closer to the In-Fill Guidelines. Chair Wheeler reiterated that he felt no one was stating that they should not propose a second story. Committee Member Woollett stated they had an option to either deny the project or if the applicant wished they could continue the proposed project. Chair Wheeler stated if the applicant felt the Planning Commission would be more lenient they could appeal the project to the Planning Commission or they could continue it; the proposed plans could be modified and brought back to the DRC for their review. If the project was denied there was a $1000.00 appeal fee; however, a City Council Member had the authority to waive that fee. Those were the options available. Committee Member Gladson asked if a project such as the proposed project before them was being schedule for review, had that triggered noticing? Mr. Garcia stated it would not have been noticed. Committee Member Gladson stated when presented to the Planning Commission it would trigger noticing. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not comfortable setting a precedent as he felt others in the neighborhood were considering the same type of construction. They faced similar problems in other areas of the City as well and they needed to ensure that their decision making was consistent. The DRC was not present to share their personal feelings, but rather to enforce City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 22 of 24 an ordinance and a policy that had been established in the City. They could be somewhat creative with that and needed to be cautious in their approach. Ms. Cabrera clarified what they were suggesting was a longer roof line. Chair Wheeler stated that was correct; it would go a bit against the In-Fill Guidelines as it stated it should match. Standing from the street it would appear to be the same. The roof could be broken up with some dormers. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4355-08, Cabrera Residence, to allow the applicant to submit an alternate plan. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 23 of 24 7) DRC No. 4367-08 - HUBER RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new porch gable roof and widen an existing front porch of a contributing 1921 Bungalow residence. 355 South Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, drYan(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, stated the applicant was not present. Chair Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4367-08, Huber Residence, to allow the applicant to be present at a future meeting. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2008 Page 24 of 24 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member McCormack to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 3, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.