Loading...
1995-02-08 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES CONFERENCE Room "C" WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 8, 1995 Board Members Present Board Members Absent: David Kent (through 6:00 P.M.) Steven Prothero Beau Shigetomi Erika Wolfe Robert Hornacek Staff Attendants: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Chuck Lau, Associate Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner -Historic Preservation Administrative Session - 4: 30 P.M. 1~ Review minutes for January 18, 1995; preview applications listed on this agenda. MOTION by Mr. Prothero, to approve the meeting minutes as recorded. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Regular Session - S: 00 P.M. Continued Reviews - Ciry of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 3020 - PROPROFSKYAND JAMES (R. C. COLIN CO.) 261 S. OLIVE ST. Second residential dwelling unit and garage addition to a house in R-4 (Residential Maximum Multiple Family) and Old Towne Districts. Robert C. Colin: an overview of modifications to the plans. The new unit was redesigned according to comments made during prior review. The applicant would like to keep the garage proposed in front (attached to the side of the building). The applicant is also proposing to eliminate the chimney, since the existing house will become a "rental." An enclosed garage is more important an amenity. Dan Ryan (Staff) has evaluated the proposal and expressed a concern that the second unit is actually larger than originally proposed, despite the fact that the applicant was directed to reduce the volume of the two- story structure. Rather than reduce the size of the upper story, the ground floor area has been increased. Mr. Colin: Why is size a problem? He understood the issue to be one of proportion. Ms. Wolfe indicated that she does not necessarily object to an increase in the floor area (145 sq. feet bigger now) so long as the more fundamental design issues are resolved, such as the location of the garage. Mr. Shigetomi: The essential problem remains the location of the garage. If the client does not want to use a carport or an open parking stall, the architect was instructed to slide the garage back toward the rear of the lot. Mr. Ryan also questioned whether the (external) water heater cabinet (with louvered doors) was an appropriate feature on the west elevation. This is a feature that did not appear on the original elevations. Ms. Wolfe added that the water heater cabinet was tucked under a building cantilever. Is it appropriate to have either feature so predominant? Mr. Shigetomi didn't think either one was a problem. Mr. Prothero agreed. He thought that the basic design issues were fairly well identified in the last meeting, and resolved by the architect's revisions, except for the placement of the garage. Has the architect discussed the possibility of a building a carport with the client, rather than a garage? Mr. Colin: He doesn't think a carport will be provide the level of security that a garage will. Even if the carport was hidden behind a garden fence, automobiles could still be burglarized. If the garage is moved toward the rear of the site, it would also block a large window opening in the existing residence. Egress, light and ventilation requirements will dictate whether this window can be reduced or eliminated. He and the client have already discussed the window, and the board's suggestion that the garage be relocated to the rear, but the client doesn't want to lose the window. Mr. Kent: Any window that is lost to construction of the garage can be added within the same room, to the same wall, in front of the garage. As the garage is moved toward the back of the building, more room becomes available in front. The architect may be able to retain half of the existing window opening, and City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 199.5 Page 3 split the difference with a second window near the front. It is difficult to make any more specific a recommendation without a floor plan. Mr. Ryan directed attention to proposed windows. The width of each window opening is somewhat longer on a horizontal axis. Traditionally, before the advent of modern architecture, windows were characterized by a vertical orientation. If greater width is desired, individual windows may be "ganged" together (in groups of 2 or 3). Mr. Colin asked whether the board might allow the garage to remain in the location where it is now proposed. His client would like to keep the new garage at the front of the building. Mr. Shigetomi: Given the other components of the site plan (the second unit, detached two-car garage, applicant's desire to retain open space outside the north side window), arrangement of planned development on site has been fixed by other architectural choices, so the applicant may have no other alternative but to appeal the board's decision. Mr. Kent agreed, adding that even a minimal level of attention to detail command respect for the historic context of development. Both the architect and the board need to be especially careful about modifications that would affect the front of an historic building. Mr. Colin: If the client does agree to change the location of the garage, how far back should the face of the garage addition be located from the front of the existing building? Mr. Shigetomi: 9 feet, minimum. MOTION by Mr. Kent, to approve the proposal so long as plans are modified to recess the garage from the front of the building a minimum distance of 9 feet, to ensure that the garage door becomes a less dominant element of the building's facade. Development would therefore resemble a more traditional arrangement that places the garage in the rear half of the parcel, and emphasize the residential qualities of the existing Craftsman-style structure. Building plans may be submitted to staff for final review and approval. In order to achieve intended goals that building materials be compatible with the existing structure, and other historic buildings in the Old Townie District, window specifications will be detailed on plans, and are subject to review and approval by the Senior Planner, Historic Preservation. Landscaping and irrigation plans must be prepared and submitted for review and approval by D.R.B. SECOND by Mr. Prothero AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Ciry of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 4 3) DRB 3022 - MANUEL ESCOBEDO 195 S. PARKER ST. Addition to a single family residence; R-3 (Multi-Family Residential), Old Towne Districts. The applicant was represented by Ruben L. Pena, Scorpio Designs and Services. Mr. Prothero (to staff): Does the R-3 zone have a maximum coverage requirement ? Jim Donovan: Yes; the proposal conforms to that requirement (55 percent limit for asingle-story structure; this proposal amounts to 39 percent). Mr. Shigetomi expressed concern about the minimal amount of usable open space. Access to each of the side yards would be blocked by automobiles in planned parking spaces. Mr. Donovan reported that staff has advised that the applicant consider a site plan arrangement where the parking spaces are grouped together. Mr. Prothero: Is there no garage required ? Mr. Donovan: The parking requirement is satisfied by one open parking stall and one carport per dwelling unit in an R-3 zone. Those are the minimal requirements. Mr. Shigetomi (to Mr. Pena): Would the property owner consider an enclosed garage at the location of one bedroom near the northwest corner of the site ? Parking spaces that are currently proposed in the side and rear yards could then be replaced with landscaping. Mr. Kent: That's a good point; otherwise, the development would contain too much pavement. As a corner lot, either street elevation would have a concrete slab in side yards. It would be better to consolidate the driveways. Mr. Pena: The costs would have to be analyzed, and the homeowner would have to decide whether they are willing to lose a bedroom. Mr. Kent: There is room in the side yard to offset some of the lost living space. (A sketch was made on the plan to demonstrate how the driveway could be designed with a turf strip in the center.) Mr. Prothero agreed that a turf strip in driveway would help mitigate the shortage in landscaping. Misters Kent, Prothero and Shigetomi had a general discussion about how would changes affect building design, floor area, code requirements. At least two feet would be removed from the rear of the building. City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page S Mr. Prothero explained that the project could not be approved in the current form, and that plans should be revised and resubmitted. He asked the applicant whether he needed any more information to proceed with revisions. Mr. Pena: No. MOTION by Mr. Prothero to continue the review until such time as revised plans are submitted, and based upon the content of discussion. SECOND by Mr. Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 6 4) DRB 3024 -ORANGE-OLIVE MINI-MARKET 2101 N. ORANGE-OLIVE RD. Preliminary landscape and irrigation plans for the expansion of a service station; C-1 (Limited Business) District. Mr. Shigetomi announced that he would abstain from review of this item, due to a potential conflict of interest. Robert C. Colin represented the applicant. Mr. Prothero: The landscaping proposal looks to be adequate, given the amount of space wherein landscaping is proposed. Other board members agreed. MOTION by Ms. Wolfe to approve the landscaping and irrigation plans as submitted, finding that the variety, sizes, location and concentration of plant materials, located within proposed landscape planters, constitute an acceptable landscape plan. The board also finds that irrigation plans satisfy established D.R.B. guidelines SECOND by Mr. Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek ABSTAINED: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 7 S) DRB 3027 -BOB SMITH 8 CHUCK EBERT 122 S. GLASSELL ST. Modification to the first floor facade of a building in the Plaza Historic District, to include new belt cornice, window sills, awnings with signage; C-1, Old Towne Districts. Review of this item is continued from January 18, 1995. Rick Anderson, Anderson & Associates: The applicants have considered alternative materials, and the architect has analyzed the costs and complications of the project. Using leaded glass in the transoms would be cost-prohibitive. Mr. Ebert: Added cost is something we just can't afford. Glazing would very expensive, and there are liabilities associated with installation. Mr. Anderson: There are inherent problems with the existing structure. A drawing was prepared to illustrate how sagging has occurred along the top of openings where transoms used to be. A grid of individual panes of glass will be difficult to install properly. Mr. Kent: Won't the sagging be resolved by the seismic retrofit ? Aren't the steel beams being added here? Mr. Anderson: Yes, but steel will not resolve problems that affect finish materials. The steel will only reinforce what now exists, in its present state. Mr. Ebert: Glass transoms would be pointless with I-beams in the way. Dan Ryan (staff): There is a clearance of nearly two inches between the outside edge of the steel and the face of the building. This would allow sufficient clearance to install a transom in front of the steel. Mr. Kent: Smaller units of glass can be used; research would help compare costs. Mr. Ebert: The project is well over budget now. It would cost an extra 25 or 30 thousand dollars to resolve this matter. It's money that the building owners just cannot afford. Mr. Kent: There is still concern about the awnings. The Plaza Design Collaborative has encouraged limited use of awnings, and favors restoration and refurbishment of the original building components. Mr. Ebert implied that the city was applying such a standard unequally -everybody's got awnings around the Plaza. Mr. Shigetomi: Standards may have changed as a result of the work conducted by the Plaza Design Collaborative. The intent was to investigate historic commercial building design and appropriate finish methods. If the Plaza is to be accurately preserved or restored, incremental change will occur through individual attention, building by building. Mr. Ebert: The staff wanted old columns to be exposed as part of the retrofit, which is now complete. City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Prothero: There are really two separate issues here. Restoration of the glass transoms may be viewed as an ideal element toward completion of the building. However, the canopy and the awnings are not an appropriate substitute in the design of the building. The glazed transom was traditional until the 1950's. He would prefer to see the transoms put back in. As part of his interest in the Plaza Design Collaborative, he took an opportunity to walk around Old Town Pasadena, and noted there that the transoms help the buildings to compose a very different atmosphere. It would be nice to see the Plaza re-develop in the same manner. Mr. Ebert surmised that such work has been subsidized by those other cities. Mr. Prothero: The transoms do not necessarily need to be built of wood sashes. What about a steel sash ? Mr. Ryan: The sashes do not necessarily need to be made of wood. Since the original glass transoms were framed in lead, steel could be used as an alternative material, provided that the replacement sash and transoms match the historic period of the building, and are appropriate in appearance, color, texture and finish. Mr. Anderson: If steel transoms were proposed, the framework would have to be fabricated. Mr. Prothero: All steel building components need to be fabricated. Cost is relatively low, compared to leaded glass or custom window construction. Misters Prothero and Anderson discussed elements of design. The size of individual window lights might be increased (from 4 by 4 inches, to 6 or 8 inches square) so that square angles within the transoms are integrated with sagging lintels along the tops of window openings. Opaque (white translucent) glass may be used so as to keep the steel beams invisible. Technical components of the underlying steel frame and structural deterioration were also discussed. Mr. Ebert expressed some frustration and an opinion that more help should be provided to building owners downtown. Mr. Prothero summarized the review: more detail is necessary; awnings should be considered as a secondary application, rather than a primary element of the building design. Mr. Ebert expressed a willingness to consider the board's recommendations, upon estimation of the costs. Would the board allow a solid (plywood) backing, if opaque glass is used within the transoms ? Mr. Prothero: His only concern is a possible "greenhouse effect." Light and heat would be magnified, and perhaps too intense. Mr. Anderson agreed. Some air space would be required. It is doubtful that there is enough room to set the wood far enough back, relative to the steel work. Mr. Ryan recommended that the applicants consider future methods of advertising. Sign details should supplement this application. City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Prothero: Architectural trim pieces and colors are key components of the horizontal trim bands that defined a frieze between the first and the second floors; he would prefer to see this "belt line" re-established. Mr. Ebert noted that building maintenance is another concern. The most prominent elevation of the building faces east, absorbing much sunlight. Mr. Smith drew attention to horizontal elements of the building that have already been retained, and restored. Some of the woodwork has been covered with metal cladding, and painted with a flat finish. Mr. Prothero: There is little else to discuss until the applicants have an opportunity to revise the plans, and provide more detail. The applicants agreed to reconsider the proposal, and discuss the plans at a later date. Mr. Shigetomi: What is status of the north elevation ? Mr. Ryan: Technically, the architectural finish is not permitted, although underlying steel work is. Mr. Kent excused himself from participation during the rest of the meeting. He has another meeting to attend at 6:00 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Prothero to continue the review of this item until detailed plans are prepared and submitted. Particular attention should be given to transoms. Plans should also detail the north elevation. To accomplish the goals inherent to Old Towne Design Standards and Secretary of the Interior standards, the applicant is encouraged to retain or restore the historic elements and order of construction. SECOND by Mr. Shigetomi. AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 10 6) DRB 3028 - HENRYLIM, 1881-1911 N. TUST/N ST. (K-MART CENTER) Facade renovation for retail commercial center; C-TR (Limited Business) District, Tustin St. Redevelopment Project Area. Joe Kitashima, Architect, reported that the client is actually happier with the revised plan. Mr. Prothero was also pleased with revised plans. Sign details have been removed from the plans. How does the owner intend to replace the signs, when construction is complete ? Mr. Kitashima: Mr. Lim will have a sign company prepare a sign program. He is interested in using channel letters for all new signs. Mr. Prothero liked the individual columns (along the walkway) before they were reduced (from approx. 24 to 18 inches). Columns that support the towers might actually be thickened to 30 inches. Ms. Wolfe agreed. The columns look rather spindly in proportion to the rest of the facade. Mr. Prothero asked Mr. Shigetomi whether there were any landscaping concerns. Mr. Shigetomi: There is not much room to work with. He would like to see some trees added to existing planters along the front of the building, subject to staff review and approval. Jim Donovan (staff) explained that most of the parking area in front of this multi-tenant commercial building is actually owned by the corporation that owns the K-Mart building. The city cannot require that the applicant make improvements off-site. Mr. Prothero wanted to ensure that the board is consistent in making decisions where landscaping is required. MOTION by Mr. Prothero to approve the proposal subject to conditions that will ensure a balance in architectural proportions and adequate landscaping materials: (A) Architectural columns will be thickened according to discussion. (B) A tenant sign program is required. No new signs will be permitted or installed until a comprehensive proposal is submitted for review and approval by D.R.B. (C) A modified planting plan shall be prepared to add trees within existing planters. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 11 7) DRB 3029 - J. BAKER, INC. ("BIG & TALL, CASUAL MALE") 1302 N. TUSTIN ST. New sign for retail tenant of an existing bank building; C-TR District, Tustin St. R.P.A. George Kennedy, J. Baker Inc., introduced the proposal. The corporation is well established in other regions of the country, but is just entering the California retail market. They are not committed to a signed lease for this building, as the issue of identification (or advertising) is very important. The corporation's decision to acquire the property will partly depend upon whether this application gets approved. Mr. Shigetomi explained that the board has a responsibility to ensure that standards and regulations are equally applied among all business owners. The sign code limits display area so that a sign is generally limited to 50 percent of the overall width of any building. He has a concern that this sign is simply too big for the building. Although the lettering has been controlled according to limits in the code, the background's dramatic color is wrapped around the entire building. Mr. Kennedy: That is an important component of the advertisement. The corporation strategy is to establish a "field" that is clearly recognizable among its retail outlets. Asa "stand alone" building, the corporation wants the building identified. This is not a high profile building, and visibility is obscured by development on adjacent parcels. If the color combination is a problem, can the color scheme be reversed to a yellow image on a black background ? Mr. Prothero: He sees another problem in the integration of the sign with a subtle design of the wood and brick building. This material and method of installation is simply not compatible. Ms. Wolfe: The building used to be a bank. It has a subtle design that is not readily adapted to retail use. Mr. Prothero: Lately, the board has considered a number of proposals to mask a building with awnings. The applicant is essentially proposing to cover the building with a billboard. Generally, he is reluctant to approve anything that alters the basic design of the building. John Rix, Architect representing the property owner, made sketches to suggest alternative designs. None were determined to be acceptable to the board. Mr. Shigetomi concluded that the proposal is essentially a roof sign. Applicants disagreed. Jim Donovan (staff) reported that he has expressed the same opinion, but the applicants have challenged - as ambiguous -wording in the code that prohibits a sign that is "erected (or) attached upon or above a roof of a building or structure," despite the fact that such terms are more specifically defined in Uniform Building Code. Mr. Kennedy: The corporation is prepared to invest a great deal into the project. On the other hand, he must report back to a board, and the corporation has advertising standards that he must respect. He showed photographs of other buildings with awnings and non-conforming roof signs that he considered similar enough to merit approval of this project. City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Shigetomi and Ms. Wolfe explained that standards change every time the code is amended. Several of Mr. Kennedy's proposals pre-date adoption of current standards. Mr. Prothero pointed out that the building has an existing fascia that is quite broad. He would rather see something done that is affixed to (or below) that part of the building, something that suits the existing architecture. He asked Mr. Kennedy if he was the sign designer ? Mr. Kennedy: Sign designer and site selector. Mr. Rix: A number of architectural solutions should exist. We are changing the use of the building (sketching). Mr. Kennedy: If the proposal does not resemble a canopy, there are not many alternatives that the corporation will accept. They are partly depending on the canopy to floodlight the walkways around the building. Mr. Prothero asked other board members whether there was any flexibility or latitude to allow the sign face to go above the eaveline. He thought the applicant could take advantage of the broad fascia to apply the corporate identification. Ms. Wolfe expressed uncertainty. She would have to see a proposal. Mr. Shigetomi agreed. Detail is important- he wants to see across-section of whatever gets proposed. Mr. Prothero concluded that not much can be accomplished this evening. He asked the applicant to prepare some plans and submit them for review at a later date. MOTION by Ms. Wolfe to continue review of this item until such time as plans are revised and submitted to staff. The board finds that this particular proposal is not compatible with the existing building's design, the scale, colors and building materials. SECOND by Mr. Prothero. AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Ciry of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 13 New Proposals - 8) DRB 3030 - CARLOS GALLEGOS BARBER SHOP, 30 PLAZA SQUARE New awning; C-1 zone, Old Towne, Plaza Historic Districts. Mr. Carlos Gallegos was present, and introduced himself to the board. Mr. Prothero thought it was unusual to install awnings (as a sunshade) on north side of the building. Mr. Shigetomi: The proposal is unusual in that it is striped in three different colors. He is especially concerned that red and white stripes are vertical, while the horizontal valance is blue. Mr. Gallegos explained the tradition behind the colors that are used to identify barbers, typically on a barber pole. It dates back to the middle ages, and medieval blood-letting practices. Ms. Wolfe was also concerned about the composition of the awning. Maybe t`NO colors would be enough, but the contrasting blue valance should be eliminated. Most awnings within the Plaza are only one color. Mr. Gallegos: Striped awnings are not so unusual. "Colleen O'Hara's" beauty school building has a striped awning. Monochromatic awnings make it difficult to distinguish the business. Dan Ryan (staff): (To Mr. Gallegos) Do you foresee any problems with the white material ? Will it stay clean, or can it be discolored by bird droppings ? Mr. Gallegos: The fabric is typically treated with "Scotchguard." It can be washed occasionally. Mr. Prothero would rather see a more traditional arrangement of striping. He noted that the beauty school awnings are composed of a pinstripe, as are many others shown on illustrations by the Plaza Design Collaborative. Perhaps the composition of color is the key to what is appropriate. While making a sketch of an alternative striping detail, he suggested that Mr. Gallegos eliminate blue valance and continue red and white panels to the lower edge of the valance. Mr. Gallegos was reluctant to change the width of the stripes. He was concerned that more stripes meant more labor, and added cost. He noted that when awnings deteriorate, it is usually along the seams. He was concerned that more seams would hasten deterioration of the awning. Ms. Wolfe: Actually, one color will most likely be affixed to the other. The entire awning can be made from one piece of fabric, with a second color sewn directly to the base material. Mr. Gallegos agreed. He asked if he could make the end panels blue? Mr. Prothero and Ms. Wolfe agreed. The ends are located on a different plane, and would not detract from the basic compositional problems that were discussed earlier. City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 14 MOTION by Mr. Prothero, to approve the awning subject to modifications discussed within review. SECOND by Mr. Shigetomi. AYES: Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: David Kent and Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 1 S 9) DRB 3031 - DR. BRIAN W/KOFF, 1609 E. CHAPMAN AVE. New freestanding sign for an existing chiropractic office; O-P zone (Office Professional District). Ms. Wolfe: The proposal looks adequate, so long as the background is opaque. Other board members agreed. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to approve the proposal as submitted, finding that the proposed sign is compatible with the existing building design, and the scale, colors and material are appropriate within the 0-P zone. SECOND by Mr. Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 16 10) DRB 3032 - ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH, 171 S. CENTER ST. Recommendation concerning proposed construction of a classroom and conference room; O-P, Old Towne Districts. The Planning Commission will consider the proposal on March 20, 1995. (C.U.P. 2069-94 -Modification) Darrel Hebenstreit, Architects Orange, was present to discuss this item. Board members reviewed photographs of existing development on the site. Mr. Shigetomi felt that the design of the proposal was appropriate when compared to the adjacent building (the music conservatory). As chairman, he asked other board members whether they had any concerns about the proposal. Mr. Prothero stated that his only concern is that building materials match those of the historic residential building. MOTION by Erika Wolfe to recommend approval of the building elevations as submitted, finding that proposed development is consistent with the size, scale and in context with surrounding development. To ensure that development remains compatible, architectural colors and finish materials shall match the adjacent music conservatory. SECOND by Mr. Prothero. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Ciry of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 17 11) DRB 3033 -SCOTT 8 JODIE SCHINNERER, LOT 13, TR. 12299 (HIDDEN CREEK) Proposed development of asingle-family residence; R-1-20 (Single Family Residential) District. Dean Burke, designer, represented the property owners. Howard Morris (staff): Conditions of approval for this residential tract require the preservation of mature native species of trees. He visited the site and finds no trees upon this particular lot. MOTION by Mr. Kent to approve the proposal as submitted. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange, Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 8, 1995 Page 18 12) DRB 3035 - JOHN K BUDD, 465 N. CYPRESS ST. Proposed 2 car garage, with accessory functions; R-2-6 (Residential Duplex), Old Towne Districts. John Budd, property owner, was present for the meeting. The staff notes that the proposed used of the building is somewhat vague. Although the property is located an R-2 zone, the building cannot be permitted as a second unit unless adequate parking is provided. Since the applicant is proposing plumbing connections to the building, the building should not be permitted until the property owner (1) clarifies the use of the building through a detailed floorplan and (2) records a deed restriction on the grant deed, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The board reviewed photographs of the property. Mr. Shigetomi felt that the design of the proposal was appropriate when compared to the existing residential building. As chairman, he asked other board members whether they had any concerns about the proposal. No concerns were identified, with respect to the design of the structure. MOTION by Mr. Kent to approve the proposal as submitted, subject to a requirement that use of the building be clarified according to guidelines provided by staff. A detail for the garage door shall also be provided. Roof pitch, roofing materials and siding shall also match the existing residence. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED Adjournment: 7:50