Loading...
2010-12-15 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE x w� MINUTES - FINAL December 15, 2010 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. Planning Manger, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. She stated that she would be presenting the Ayres project as Ms. Nguyen had delivered a baby girl. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the regular Design Review Committee Meeting of December 1, 2010. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 2 of 28 There was none. CONSENT CALENDAR: 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. (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 1, 2010 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Design Review Committee Meeting on December 1, 2010, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 3 of 28 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4508 -10 - WESTENHOFER RESIDENCE • A proposal for a new 464 sq. ft. single -story addition to a contributing Bungalow. • 626 W. Culver Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryanAcit oy forange org • Item Continued from December 1, 2010 & October 20, 2010 DRC Meetings • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member McCormack stated he would be recused from the item's presentation as his wife was a consultant to the architect on the project. Chair Cathcart stated that the Design Review Committee members had received an email from Doug Ely, the architect on the proposed project. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Doug Ely, he was the architect on the proposed project and his goal was not to pp g Y, P P p J g belabor the point on a lot of the issues and he wanted to pick up on where they had left off two weeks ago and not re -hash some of the things that had already been discussed. The reason for his email was that after receiving the Staff Report he had attempted to reach Mr. Ryan and was unable to receive a return call and his perception was that the way the Staff Report read was that plan 3 and plan 6 were options. He had initially prepared plan 3 to show what would fit on the site and the configuration within the dwelling were substandard and would not accommodate standard size bedrooms. To help in understanding where his clients were coming from he had prepared a matrix, which he passed out to the Committee Members. He had listed plans 4, 5, and 6. Plan 1 had been the initial plan that had been revised and was plan 4 with a sensitively- designed roof form and the plan that they were requesting approval on. Plan 5 was a revision of former plan 2; this plan had not been presented previously as it had not fit the open space requirements and had been designed around a potential 2 -car garage. What had been requested at the last meeting was that other options be explored, with the removal of the 2 -car garage option, and unfortunately, it had not provided for a floor plan that his clients would want to proceed with. The matrix showed the preferred plan 4 was the smallest addition of the three proposed. He had not included plan 3, but had listed the reasons why that plan had not worked. The amenities for the average bedroom size were 90 square feet and the storage allowed for only 13 ' / 2 linear feet of storage and a lot of space was chewed up with circulation space. That plan had forced the design to be pushed to the rear of the property and there would need to be extended hallway space back to the living quarters. Mr. Ely continued, stating that going back to the other options and plan 4 which had the lowest FAR of .25, the lowest lot coverage of 34 %, and the largest amount of rear yard usable open space of 800 square feet. The plan also allowed four large fruit trees to remain, which the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 4 of 28 property owner, Heather Westenhofer, used in her culinary arts profession. During the previous discussions he had been asked to see if there were ways to minimize the amount of exterior wall and roof that would be affected. Plan 4 had the most amount of wall that was being affected; however, he maintained it was not destroying character - defining features that would be removed from the residence that would be visible. Any time an addition was done to the rear of the residence the wall that was being tied into would be affected. If there was a feature that existed that could not be found on any other part of the house, that feature should be taken care of, however, they were planning on expanding to the south and west and to a greater extent than plan option 5. Plan option 5 had a little more than average bedroom sizes, the same amount of storage, and was a larger project at 495 square feet; being larger it would cost his clients an additional $12,000 to construct which was in excess of their budget. Plan 6 required the relocation of an existing restroom and reconstructing an amenity that already existed; not only was it more expensive because there was additional square footage, but the reconstruction of the restroom would be costly in the amount of another $18,000 to $20,000. It had a larger footprint with 35% lot coverage. Mr. Ely stated he had sent the email to the DRC Members as he was concerned that the Committee Members might be evaluating the proposal with the wrong perception. In reading the Staff Report it recommended plan option 3, but plan 3 would not work and was not an option his clients would proceed with. He also wanted to bring up the issue regarding comparisons with other projects, projects that the DRC had approved in the past. There was a neighboring property to the east; he presented photos of that home and stated it was almost the same square footage as the project site, and in 2005 a 495 square foot addition was approved. The roof addition was taller than the existing roof form. The home was located at 618 West Culver. In addition to that he had a project approved on Harwood and Maple that allowed adding on to the east and south facades of the home and the addition had been approximately 330 square feet. The site had a roof form that had been tied into the existing roof form and was not taller than the existing roof. The project turned out to be a great project; it was not visible from the street and it was a corner lot. It was an addition that had been made on a corner lot. There were a few issues in the Staff Report; on page 4 there was a statement that read all of the larger additions and 2 °a units on the 600 block of West Culver were constructed prior to the adoption of the City's Old Towne Design Standards. However, that was incorrect based on the addition that was just next door to the project site. The Staff Report listed the average FAR as .25 and he had done his own study of the block and concurred that .25 was the average; however, FAR had not taken into account garages and in reviewing lot coverage, which had not been mentioned in the Staff Report, the lot coverage was .35. His proposed project brought the home up to a FAR of .25, which was in line with the average for the block, and the lot coverage of .34, which was just under the average based on his calculations. In reviewing the additions on other properties, he was in alignment with them. Mr. Ely stated the main issue that had continued to be brought up was how the proposed project was evaluated. He could review the Old Towne Design Standards; those that Staff had reviewed and that Staff had stated were not in compliance. When he read through them he found that they had complied and he could go through them to state his case as to compliance. Committee Member Gladson stated for her benefit there would be value in Mr. Ely explaining why he felt he was in compliance. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 5 of 28 Mr. Ely stated that all Staff had noted in reviewing the Staff Report was that the project had not met Standards; they had not given any reason or noted why the Standards had not been met. The Old Towne Design Standards read that in -fill construction and additions shall be complimentary in historic features as other historic buildings on the street, in terms of massing, scale, and proportion, etc. His proposal would not be visible from the street; in reviewing other additions on the street they were definitely visible. The argument he made was that the scale was comparable and actually more sympathetic than what was found on the street. As far as scale, the roof forms matched or had not exceeded the existing roof form scale. In looking at other developments it was definitely more sympathetic. On point 2; additions shall be compatible with other buildings on the block and included compatibility with the streetscape, open space, height, mass, and bulk. Again, in reviewing the proposal in its completed form the appearance of the home would not change on the street. It was sympathetic to the streetscape, the massing, and in looking at all the buildings on the south side of the street those were much more massive. On point 3; in -kind materials were required when constructing secondary replacement buildings on a historic site -done. Point 4; maintaining secondary roof heights on additions to maintain bulk and massing, the roof form was not any taller than the existing roof form. In going through CEQA one of the issues was partial demolitions involving removal of an existing floor area or exterior wall that contained character - defining historical features and would be a condition for an adverse change. His question was that in adding on just to the rear elevation they would just be affecting the same type of features as were being affected on the south and west elevations. In looking at the home from the street, what were the character - defining features? There was one gable in front of the existing, it was a bungalow style home, there was horizontal wood siding, and it was very small in those features. What he was proposing was not anything that would change from the public view, from the street. No character - defining features would be removed. Yes, they were affecting the features on the east and west fagade and the real question was how much was too much, and the DRC was the body that was able to determine that. What he was proposing was not anything different from what had been done with other projects in Old Towne. Due to the small nature of the site and the restrictive nature of the site it was difficult to develop a viable option that would work for the Westenhofers and any future occupant of the residence. He had stated before there was the need for economic viability and what he was proposing was the most viable alternative for the residence; any other options chopped up the site and had not created a site layout that was as conducive as the option presented before them. He had reviewed the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and read: roof and roof slope; recommended alterations to a historic roof should be confined to portions of the building not visible from the public right -of- way -done. Retain and preserve the roof shape as it was an integral part of the building's design and often helped define the architectural style. He could go through the design product and evaluate the roof form to see if that had been accomplished. If the DRC continued to have issues where the area was being expanded onto, then there was not a solution he could find except for the one presented before them. Mr. Ely stated on the design that he had proposed, preferred plan 4, he had added the transition to a break pitched roof over the fagade addition on the west elevation. tea; Committee Member Woollett stated his recollection was that there had not been a break pitch roof on the design. Mr. Ely stated he had presented it as an alternative. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 6 of 28 Committee Member Woollett stated what that had done was to bring the ridge down to match the ridge of the existing building. Mr. Ely stated actually the ridge of the addition was lower than the ridge of the existing residence. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. Referring to page 6, he noted there were 3- dimensional views of that option that showed the shed roof and he also had an alternate to that design, which he shared with the Committee. If the break pitch roof was an issue, he could set the break pitch roof below the existing roof form. The only part of the existing roof that would be affected was the small corner and the majority of the existing roof would not be affected. Mr. Ryan, referring to an area on the drawings, asked if the roof continued? Mr. Ely stated there was a break and pointed that area out on the drawings. It caused a lower ceiling in the bedroom and the plate height was at 6' and the window would be lowered with the fagade treatment being a bit different between the two wings, which was the line of demarcation between the original and new construction. They had been requested to review plan 6, but the problem with that version was that it drastically reduced the amount of open space. There was 500 square feet of useable space in that area and the Westenhofer's spa and gazebo was in the back corner. The addition that he was proposing opened the space to 800 square feet and made for much more useable open space. In plan 6 there would be a courtyard and there were nice features with that courtyard, but it was primarily circulation space. The Westenhofers wanted to start a family and plan 6 had not provided for playground space for their future family. Plan 6 also required the removal of three mature fruit trees. He had reviewed the roof options on plan 6 and the reason that plan had not been initially submitted was because it was not a plan that the Westenhofers wanted to proceed with; he had not wanted to present that plan for review by the DRC if it was something that would not work for them. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated instead of comparing the project to other projects they needed to review the proposed project on its own merit. There were probably other projects that had been approved that had not really met the Standards; they should not compare those projects to the current proposed project. In reading the Staff Report the submitted proposals had not met the Standards or required findings. The only acceptable proposal that met the Standards was rejected by the applicant and there were limited options in adding to the home. The OTPA found it difficult to sympathize with the applicant; the applicant made the choice to purchase a small home and to participate in the Mills program. The applicant signed a contract stating they would preserve the property, which included all character - defining features, and that meant all facades and the roof of the structure. All features: architectural forms, style, materials, design, scale, details, mass, roof line, and other aspects of the appearance of the historic property. Putting all Standards aside, that was verbiage from the contract the property owner signed and agreed to adhere to the contract. He had not known why anyone would want to risk violation of the contract and incur stiff penalties. The OTPA opposed any proposal that altered the character - defining features of the structure or removing of any historic fabric or floor area of the historic structure. Every project must comply with the Standards and if the applicant refused to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Old Towne Design Standards City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 7 of 28 and local CEQA, then he urged the DRC to deny the project. There appeared to be no willingness to compromise and sometimes there was not a sympathetic acceptable solution for an addition to such a small historic structure. Tim Lamberth, 618 West Culver, Orange, stated he lived next door to the proposed project site and he had completed an addition to his home in 2005. He felt the way their home had been completed with the roof line a bit higher at the back where the addition was done, but the effect of that was so negligible to the effects of what was visible; it had the appearance that it was tall but was only visible from across the street and it was so far back that it was not noticeable. It was undesirable for the Westenhofers to have to go through all the difficulty when it would be something that was not visible. He understood Mr. Ryan's point of view in wanting to maintain the Standards in Old Towne and he wanted to keep those and appreciated that the policies were in place. There were certain things, such as the proposal having such a negligible factor, that to force the property owners to do something that they had not wanted to do or could not afford was placing an undo hardship upon them. He asked the DRC to consider that and to consider comparing the home to others in the neighborhood that had gone through the review process as well. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the architect continued to be very creative in meeting the Standards and to challenge the DRC to interpret the Standards. Their primary concern previously had been that the ridge was higher and that had been eliminated. A different pitch roof had been developed which was not unusual. A low space was created in the bedroom and that was not unheard of either. By preserving the open space, and not just open space in square footage but the perceived open space that made the space appear larger, was a retention of the quality of the original layout of the property. Plan 6 that they were not even submitting was not a better solution as the open space was an important factor and how the open space was perceived was important. The applicant tried very hard to respond to the DRC suggestions and to come up with a solution that took into account the elimination of the need for a future 2 -car garage. He was satisfied that there was not a better solution. Committee Member Wheeler stated his DRC Packet had two versions of plan 6 and he asked for an explanation of the other plan? Mr. Ely stated there was another option, but it was a plan that would not work for the property owners and that plan should not have been included in the Packets. Committee Member Wheeler stated after the last meeting when he had suggested that a plan be prepared with the idea that a future 2 -car garage was not needed and he had played around with the plans and found that he could not come up with a better solution using the space or to come up with a better arrangement. For him it came down to a very subjective decision or analysis and the only thing that he could come up with that might be a violation of the Standards would be in how much of the character - defining features would be removed. Plan 4 certainly removed more than plan 3 had, and there was not a fixed percentage that they allowed property owners to add and there was not a number that he could find that would hold them to an amount that needed to be maintained. The exterior surfaces that would be lost would not be visible from the street. One character - defining feature that would be lost was the basement access, but it was a feature City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 8 of 28 that was not visible from the street and he was not certain how important that was. He had recently done a project where they had removed that feature. He was leaning toward the idea that plan 4 would be a solution with the shed roof arrangement and he suggested going to a "2 and 12" roof pitch and that might get them some extra head room. Personally, he felt plan 4 was a solution that would work. Who was to state it was too much? The FAR was compatible with the neighborhood. Committee Member Gladson stated as shown on the matrix from Staff, she asked was plan 4 referring to the same plan that was in the applicant's matrix? She was still not comfortable with any of the options when it came to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Old Towne Standards were where a well qualified and gifted architect could design an addition that was not visibly seen by the public. Like materials could be used and it could fit. The harder nut to crack was getting around the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and the need to create the least amount of change and the least amount of adverse change. For her it was the thing that had not been achieved with any of the proposals and even plan 4 had not met them. She could be won over by option 3, as recommended by Staff, or the modifications to option 6. The bigger question for her was that if the DRC approved the applicant's plan 4, and they should take action on the plan that was wanted by the applicant, she felt the applicant would be in violation of the Mills Act contract; and they could potentially be putting the applicant in violation of the contract. Council could potentially deem a violation and it was not a good place for them to be in and she could not support the proposed project of plan 4. The Old Towne Standards were easier to achieve and she had that minimal issue and not harming the existing contract. The potential of the applicant having to pay back for their contract and potential penalty was not something she would want to push back on anyone. Applicant, Peter Westenhofer, stated from the City of Orange's Mills Act program that was available on the City's website it actually stated that the only requirements were subject to the discretion of the local government and the contract may provide for the restoration or rehabilitation of properties according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for rehabilitation. He imagined that it therefore applied as they were providing for such. Committee Member Gladson stated to paraphrase Staff and the legal experts had advised the DRC, as a body, that with the matrix that if they approved any other option other than option 3 or possibly option 6, that the applicant could be out of compliance and she trusted the legal experts in the City Attorney office and they had provided them with their best professional information. Mr. Ryan stated the focus was that in a project that increased the FAR by more than 20% the project had to go to the Planning Commission and he was not certain where the 20% had come from, but that he interpreted as having some effect on the site and he assumed that the impact or purpose of the Mills program was for the rehabilitation of the structure and anything that was contrary to that would not be in compliance with the goals and conditions of the Mills Act. He wanted to clarify the proposals 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 had a statement as to why those had not met the Standards and it was pretty clear. A question had come up as to whether properties should be treated the same and he felt they should err on the side of the Standards where there were recommendations or not recommendations and that was the ruling that he looked at. He had spoken with others that handled Mills Act projects in other cities and they had agreed with him and had not allowed large additions as it was contrary to the program. He always thought there should be some solution; Mr. Ely and he had stated that there had to be a solution with the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 9 of 28 proposed project. The modification of the roof met the Old Towne Design Standards and sometimes they could not get what they wanted; he had grown up with bunk beds as there was not much space and sometimes an applicant had to work with what they had. The goal of the program was not to prohibit additions but to respect the building and to have the least amount of loss to historic fabric. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the DRC had several plans in front of them; however, there was only one that the applicant wanted to have reviewed and it would get to a point where the Committee Members would need to vote on that project. If it was the desire of the applicant that the other proposals had not worked for them, and they wanted the DRC to review a specific project, it was up to the Committee Members to make a recommendation on the proposed project brought before them. From the applicant's representative it appeared that plan 4 was the preferred option and the plan that the DRC needed to consider. Chair Cathcart stated plan 4 was what they should be addressing. He agreed with his colleague Committee Member Wheeler; he thought that what had been presented could not be seen from the street. The FAR was consistent with what existed on the street; the applicant had gone round and round and he felt comfortable giving the applicant the opportunity to go before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was another level of review and if in- between there and whenever the legal department came up with concerns, then that was their business. They were the DRC and he thought the design was very nice. It met the Old Towne Design Standards and he had not known how much was too much when someone removed a fagade. There were no ' specifics and he was ready to entertain a motion. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the egress requirement had been looked at? Mr. Ely stated for the bedrooms, yes, they were proposing some casement windows that appeared as double hung windows; he pointed out the areas on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit torn between the original plan version with the shed roof tying directly into the original roof and the new version with the drop. The advantage of the drop was it would have less interference with the rafters and it might be the preferable solution. Mr. Ely stated as he was hearing the comments regarding the Mills Act, it came down to a subjective evaluation. He was not certain who would make that evaluation, but he felt that he had demonstrated everything they could do to preserve the existing roof. By implementing the dropped roof the entire existing roof would be untouched except for the area where it met the transverse gable. He had seen many historic projects that had more re -work done to them and changes in the roof. Committee Member Wheeler suggested changing the siding exposure to all of the additions slightly such as to a 5 -inch, to emphasize the line of demarcation and to keep the 6 -inch for the shed. It might be something that would encourage getting away from the false sense of history. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission for DRC No. 4508 -10, Westenhofer Residence, approving the submittal noted as City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 10 of 28 plan 4, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Use of dropped shed roof over bedroom 1. 2. Siding on the new construction to be slightly different than the existing siding and the siding on the shed roof portion be wider. 3. The extended barge be constructed in the traditional method. And with the strong suggestion that the applicant research the implications of the construction on their existing Mills Act contract. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Adrienne Gladson ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 11 of 28 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4274 -07 — AYRES HOTEL • A proposal to construct a new 93,452 sq. ft. hotel building with 142 rooms on 2.64 acres of land. An additional two - story, 211 -stall parking structure and 63 at -grade parking stalls would also be constructed along with a swimming pool, trash enclosure, and landscaping. • Vacant lot and surface parking lot north of 3737 W. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dng_uyen(iDcit, oy forange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission • Previous DRC Review: October 20, 2010 Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Don Ayres, address on file, stated they had been before the DRC in October. They had reviewed all of the 14 points that were recommended or requested and he was able to accommodate all of the suggestions. Regarding the screen for the parking structure, the Orange Police Department had not allowed them to add that due to safety and security issues. Regarding adding the traffic bump, the Fire Department had recommended that they not have that. The parking structure had been moved into the corner and they had brought with them the layout which showed the buildings next to each other. The other changes were included in the Staff Report. They improved the visual entrance to the hotel. Chair Cathcart asked if the Committee wanted the applicant to go through the changes point by point or had they been satisfied with the information presented in the Staff Report? The Committee Members stated they were fine with what had been presented in the Staff Report. Committee Member Gladson asked for clarification on the green screen and why had the Police Department not approved that? Applicant, Jana Beekman, stated the Police Department had wanted to be able to see completely through the area and the screen would impede their view. For the developer it was better to soften the area with green, but it was something that they would not be able to do. There would be shrubs along the edges, however, nothing to block the view. Applicant, Cyril Chok, stated the other thing that they addressed was the stair issue, which had been moved to the inside. Committee Member McCormack asked if the Police Department had acted on a proposed view of the screens or just on the concept of the screens. Ms. Beekman stated it was the Police Department's general policy to not have green screens on parking structures. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 12 of 28 Chair Cathcart stated in his experience where there was an open space it had not been wanted; however, on a panel it would be allowed. Ms. Beekman stated there was landscaping wherever it was possible. Chair Cathcart stated there were material boards and he asked if any of the Committee Members wanted to review them? The Committee Members had not needed to review them. Mr. Ayres stated they were the same boards that had been reviewed at the previous presentation. Public Comment None. Committee Member Wheeler stated it had appeared that they had taken the suggestions from the previous presentation. There was Mission tile being called out in the roofing plans and that needed to be corrected. There was foam cornice being called out and in some areas it would be fairly accessible to people and he wanted to make sure that was a durable enough material. Mr. Chok stated what they had used before was a plywood cap to secure the flashing, and it would function well. Ms. Beekman stated they also used a wire mesh to strengthen the actual foam. Committee Member McCormack stated the hump had been his suggestion for the connection between the two buildings and also to deal with handicap accessibility; now they had to deal with the dishpan ramp at the entry and he had not seen that shown anywhere. He asked what would be done for ADA access? Mr. Chok stated the path of travel was from the parking lot to the entrance; between the buildings it was not a requirement, but they could add a ramp to make that connection. Mr. Ayres stated the trellis connected the walkway. Ms. Beekman stated one of the concerns from the Fire Department was that they had not wanted people walking across a driveway. There was not a reason to have the two sites connected. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4274 -07, Ayres Hotel, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 13 of 28 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 14 of 28 (4) DRC No. 4504 -10, GPA No. 2010 -0002, ZC No. 1257 -10, CUP No. 2803 -10, MJSP No. 0639 -10, TPM 0027 -10, and MND No. 1824 -10 — SERRANO WOODS • A proposal to construct 63 affordable rental apartments and associated site improvements. The proposal includes a CUP to allow a church to remain on a portion of the site. • 1820 E. Meats Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforan e.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Chair Cathcart stated he was recused from the item's consideration since his company worked on the project. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett stated on the photos there were residences across from the proposed project that appeared to be single family units and he asked what those were? Applicant, Barry Cottle, address on file, stated they were the older Covington 4- plexes and they had an alley behind them and had that residential look. Vice Chair Gladson asked if the proposed parcel had an overlay? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes, that was correct. Committee Member McCormack asked if any noticing had gone to the adjacent neighbors? Mr. Ortlieb stated no, noticing was not required as it was a preliminary review but it would be noticed before the next DRC meeting. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated it would have noticing as there was an environmental document attached to the project. Applicant, Todd Cottle, address on file, stated they appreciated getting the feedback from the DRC and they were present to take in the suggestions from the Committee Members. Public Comment None. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was going to be a higher fence? Mr. Todd Cottle stated when projects were developed they looked at the long term and from a management perspective if would there be traffic cutting through the property and then there would need to be access control to the property. He pointed out where the vehicle and pedestrian City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 15 of 28 entries would be located on the plans. The main point of entry would come from the north side of the property; he reviewed the drawings with Committee Member Woollett. Committee Member Woollett stated he liked what they were proposing and it was in line with the other projects they had completed. The wall was nice with the landscaping complimentary to that; it was an important area and had value. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were fences along the other side of the street? Mr. Todd Cottle stated there were trees in front yards but not along the street. Committee Member McCormack stated the fence was set about 8' back and the thought was to enclose the whole project. Mr. Barry Cottle stated this project had a lot of similarities to the Citrus Grove project and with every project they had learned something; they offered manager -owned properties. Committee Member Woollett stated the area was a pedestrian area as people went into the shopping areas and many times the residents had not driven. He had done a project in South Central L.A. where cutting across was a big deal and it was a rougher neighborhood, but in the proposed project they could get the access and landscape to work. Mr. Ortlieb explained to Committee Member McCormack what sat behind the proposed site and how the site related to others in the area. Vice Chair Gladson stated a result of the environmental document was that they would get a new perspective and the project would get a further assessment with that layout. She had wanted to understand the relationship to the channel before they brought it forth at the next meeting. The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicants. Committee Member McCormack pointed to a fence and asked if it was chain link or block? Mr. Ortlieb stated it appeared to be tubular steel and he pointed out a diagram in the plans that would give them a better idea of how that would look. Committee Member McCormack asked where amenities were located and where the rolling turf existed? Mr. Todd Cottle, referencing the plans, pointed out the barbeque area. Mr. Barry Cottle stated on their other projects they had learning centers and they would be working with the church on the proposed project and also the Friendly Center; they had already met with the church and they would want to run a community room. It was a good connection as they already knew so many people in the area and they knew the children. Committee Member Wheeler suggested using plan reductions as they would be easier to review. On sheet A1.3 he pointed out the tower element was depicted differently on the different pages City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 16 of 28 of the plan and he was not certain what the rectangular forms represented. On the roof plan the tower element had not seemed to have shown up. He pointed to the drawings and stated on one sheet there was a tower element, and the plan also showed that it was off - centered, on the same elevation they had a gable form, but somewhere else it appeared as a shed form. Applicant, Barry Adnams, address on file, reviewed the drawings with Committee Member Wheeler. Committee Member Wheeler stated the detail of the out - lookers was not consistent and he had the dislike of cheap craftsmanship; if they proposed to do something, they should put some gusto into it. On sheet A.2.3, the treatment had not seemed to have been reflected on the floor plan and the hip had not seemed to be reflected in the roof plans; they needed to clean it up. They had needed to tie down where the stone was and to ensure, like on Citrus Grove, the stone wrapped around the corner. On building B, sheet A.2.4, he had not seen an entrance in the floor pans. On building B, the floor plan had not appeared to have shown the windows. On sheet AAA, there were a lot of details that had not been depicted in the floor plans; he wanted to know if they were faux windows? Mr. Adnams stated they would be faux and those windows would be in closets and bathrooms. Committee Member Wheeler suggested just having closed shutters on the faux window and if they proposed to have pop -outs to give those more dimension. Mr. Adnams asked how would those affect the setback? Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not aware of any setback issues. Mr. Adnams stated they could treat it as a projection and allow the remainder of the building to be at 10'. Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain what type of a projection they would be looking at. Mr. Adnams stated they were currently between 6" and 8 ", but if he was hearing that they needed to do something different, they could come out about 1'. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a notation for a dry stream and utility access. He had not seen any utility access on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were only shutters on the first floor windows; and on the laundry room he asked if the stone should be carried all the way around so they would not be turning a blind side on the neighbors across the wash. Mr. Barry Cottle stated they were also attempting to block the view from coming the other way. .,,..- Committee Member Wheeler asked that they supply the roof plans for the carports with their next submission. The carport sheet showed both gable and hip ends and he assumed they would be using hip ends as they had used on Citrus Grove. They had wanted to know how nail penetration would be handled. He had suggested thickening of the thin walls; he pointed out City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 17 of 28 which walls he was referring to on the plans. Add a symbol on the plans to identify where the stone went and to add the detail for the window sills so they would have an idea of what was being done. He asked if there would be an intercom at the gate and suggested they look at that to ensure it would not be a noise disturbance. On the existing trees he would be in strong favor of keeping them; years ago when the neighbors across the way from his own home had chopped down Sycamore trees it was almost a traumatic experience where suddenly there was exposure and their privacy was lost. Mr. Barry Cottle stated they were on the church property and were put in years ago to protect the school. Committee Member Woollett stated they were protection from the western sun. Committee Member McCormack stated once the resident's air conditioning bills went up they would miss the trees. Vice Chair Gladson stated it would be something that they would want the applicant to study. Committee Member McCormack stated it was so hard to get mature trees that were actually doing something; they were actually shading and pushing down utility costs. The way to handle trees that were too big was to bring them back a bit; and he was looking at skeptical eyes as he understood the applicant wanted to take the trees out. If the trees were unsafe he would suggest removing them; but if they were doing a good job, deal with them and it was his personal attitude and he had not felt they would be able to repeat the resource. They would not plant Ficus with the new project as that had been a mistake whenever they were planted. They were giving a gift to someone by lowering utility bills and if they took the trees out he suggested that they notify the residents that they were going to be placed in a financial hardship. There were Italian Cypress trees; he could not understand why the applicant wanted to remove those. The photos were compelling as to the amount of shade that was being provided by the trees. There would be more cost, as with loss of shade trees they would need to water more. If there was a drought - tolerant landscape in a shaded environment it would need even less water. Mr. Todd Cottle stated their thinking in taking the trees out was to provide a landscape palette that was consistent throughout the project; they were going toward Pines and a different feel. Committee Member McCormack stated he understood why they wanted the trees out, but in today's environment they really needed to think hard about what the result of their actions was; the Italian Cypress and Pines were in the same family and design -wise it could work. They could actually repeat the Italian Cypress elsewhere; they were being used all over. The Irvine Company was putting them in like crazy; they were very popular. If they took the trees out it would be an expense and on -going maintenance to deal with more water. The Italian Cypress was one of the cleanest trees they would ever get; the Italian Cypress was not a maintenance issue. He felt the residents should be notified if the trees were being taken out and that their view would then be a three -story building; it would be a good neighbor policy. Mr. Barry Cottle stated there was the alley, the flood control, and the units; he had not thought there were any windows that faced that area. He felt they needed to visit some of those issues. He had not wanted to state just keep the trees; and he was not so tied to them, but it was City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 18 of 28 something they needed to review. The trees that were on the plant palette were not going to be able to do the heaving lifting that the Ficus and Italian Cypress could do; maybe 25 years from now the tree choices might have a chance, however, they would not be able to repeat what they had there. Mr. Todd Cottle asked how quickly would the Italian Cypress grow, as in looking at the area there were some gaps. Committee Member McCormack stated the nurseries were growing them in 48" boxes and they could grow three stories tall. They were a very low maintenance plant and they had not needed a lot of water. He suggested having an open forum for the neighbors. He had marked up a plan to give them his suggestions. He looked at both civil and landscape together; he focused on the civil plan and the area was really very flat. There was a call -out for permeable paving and he had not known if the soils report would allow that. Mr. Todd Cottle stated it was favorable and they had needed additional permeable area on the site in going back with Water Quality Management, they had added a filtration system at the southwest corner. The site as it stood currently sheet -flowed to the back into the gutter. Committee Member McCormack stated everything was surface - drained to the retention basin. The one thing that caught his eye was that all the drainage that was pushing up, pushed up on a curb. He referenced the plans, stating all that water would go to the curb and he had not noticed ` a storm drain. There was a flooding point if that was the only area to drain to. They could only use a 4" pipe. Vice Chair Gladson stated the Water Quality Plan would be part of the environmental document. Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be referenced and components would be mentioned in the document; he was not certain if it would be included in the addendum. Committee Member McCormack suggested the use of pervious asphalt as he had used on a project, and when it rained it just went through to the subsurface and there was not an issue. That could mitigate the amount of water that needed to pass through there. Mr. Todd Cottle stated he would check with the civil engineers. Committee Member McCormack stated they needed to check where they had placed zero curbs on the plans as they had landscape noted in those areas. There was a large generous parkway and he asked Staff if there was any intention to plant street trees in that area; it was just a suggestion and it would give them a chance to have a pedestrian walkway with trees on both sides. There were AC units on the plan, but there was another large box and he was not certain what that was. Mr. Adnams stated he had not known what that was. It was on top of the parking unit, and he was not certain what the box represented and it could just be a symbol that got carried over. Committee Member McCormack stated on page 3 of the Staff Report there was reference to parking lots abutting the westerly apartment buildings, but it appeared to abut to a parking lot. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 19 of 28 Mr. Ortlieb stated he meant easterly. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a tree count required for the southerly property line that was noted as being lined densely with trees? He asked because that would be 112 trees, in areas he pointed to on the plans, he had counted the trees in various areas. Mr. Ortlieb stated the number for the whole entire site had added up to approximately 120 trees; it was not tree line to tree line, but the trees on the site. The shrubs were not counted. Committee Member McCormack stated the thing that was important was the sun/shade planting concept. He had not seen a specific plant palette that addressed constant shade and there were areas that needed some thought. Mr. Todd Cottle asked if he wanted specific plants noted? Committee Member McCormack stated it would be important so they had the right types of plants. He had a rule of thumb that he never placed trees closer than 8' to a structure or 5' from paving areas, and if they had chosen a very large tree they would want to ensure their placement was right. Those little nuances of dealing with trees needed to be looked at. Landscape grew and they needed to pick a tree that had enough ground area and to choose the right tree for the right place. He could not assess it any further until there was a sun/shade study completed and the complete plant orchestration was completed. Depending on their theme they would choose accordingly. Another word of caution would be to really understand what the grasses would do, because deciduous grasses sometimes looked dead and some grasses had to be cut down to the ground; if they were using them as a major part of the landscape palette they would be gone from January to March. The other thing was the re- seeding grasses as they would blow and sprout all over the landscape areas and that could create a maintenance nightmare. There were a lot of choices and maybe a little less fussy would be his suggestion. Vice Chair Gladson stated on the Citrus Grove project the DRC had challenged the applicant to look at some green elements; we knew the proposed project would need to comply with the new green building codes and she suggested that the applicant explore things that would move them in that direction. Mr. Todd Cottle stated on any new project that was brought forward, their attempt was to be LEED Certified. The Citrus Grove would be LEED Silver and they could be gold. They had done integrated PV on the tiles and the carports had come out very nice. Vice Chair Gladson stated she was looking at the other side of the street and she wondered what would occur with the little dirt patch across the street. If there was an opportunity for the applicant to step up and assist with that area it would make their edge appear nicer. She saw that as a weakness. Mr. Barry Cottle stated Caltrans owned that area and it had taken them a while to figure that out. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 20 of 28 Vice Chair Gladson stated she would want to understand how the church would work into the project and it sounded as if the church school was being eliminated and she would want to also understand the circulation on site and with the church. She was in favor of affordable housing. The fencing she generally liked, but the main draw was going to be Target, and the mall, and making the edges connect better would be strength to the project. The applicants thanked the Committee Members for their input. The project was presented for preliminary review and no motion was needed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 21 of 28 (5) DRC No. 4519 -10 - MARSHALLS • A proposal to make storefront fagade revisions, add wall signs, and replace freestanding sign panels for a clothing retailer occupying a 28,230 square foot tenant space. • 1407 W. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforan e.or • DRC Action: Final Determination Vice Chair Gladson waived the reading of the Staff Report and opened the item for discussion to the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated the only question he had was on page 2 of the Staff Report that spoke about the Main Street wall sign, and he could not find that sign in the package. Applicant, Dave Terrack, address on file, stated it was left off the last generation of sign plans that had been sent in. The first set of plans that had been received from their sign contractor had left a sign out; when that was called out the sign was added, but the wall sign was left off. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they still intended to have the sign on Main Street? Mr. Terrack stated they would want that, but he needed to speak with the folks back at corporate to find out if they wanted to install a non - illuminated sign. Circuit City had not had a sign there and if it was a major issue they could discuss that. Committee Member Wheeler stated the problem was that they had not had anything on the proposal for that sign. Mr. Terrack stated that could be remedied and he could send it over to Staff. It would not be illuminated and it was something that they needed to discuss. Committee Member McCormack asked if the Staff presentation had been waived? Mr. Ortlieb stated it had been waived, but he was available for questions. Committee Member McCormack stated he had an issue with the tree. If the sign was placed in the right place and no one remained in the same spot and claimed they couldn't see the sign, if the sign was low enough it would work and he had not wanted to lose a tree for a sign. They could have both. Mr. Ortlieb stated there were gaps and there was enough room for a sign and the tree. In walking or moving by, it would be readable. The illumination was an issue as it would be intrusive to the residents. Committee Member McCormack stated Circuit City had not had an illuminated sign, but they had gone out of business. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 22 of 28 Committee Member Wheeler stated the store would have a huge exposure in coming from Main Street. Committee Member McCormack stated the sign could be moved to behind the building, on the back side of the building on Maple. Mr. Terrack asked if the sign could be illuminated at that location? Committee Member McCormack stated he was not certain, as there were still residences that would be affected. Vice Chair Gladson stated the Code allowed for a number of wall signs and so many free standing signs and whatever the Code allowed they could have. Staff had a concern with the removal of the trees on Main Street and the sign illumination. She agreed with Staff's recommendations. Committee Member McCormack suggested they use the sign as a monument sign and to have it lit from the exterior. The light would not reflect back to the neighbors and it would provide signage for that area. Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain they had room for that sign. Vice Chair Gladson stated the site would have a wall sign. There was a big gigantic sign, which she detested; it was a pylon sign that looked like a scene from Star Wars. They also had the sign on the Ralph's shared signage and she felt there would not be a problem with people finding the store. Marshalls would have lots of customers. She remembered that the site had originally been an Akron store and that was where the pylon sign probably came from. She would not want to see the tree removed. Mr. Terrack liked the idea of putting the sign at the north side of the building or to place it as a monument sign. Mr. Ortlieb stated the area he spoke of was limited and the light source might need to be off the wall; if they moved it, a monument sign could work. He was not certain if they could call it a street frontage sign. Vice Chair Gladson asked if Staff could review the monument sign, and in reading the Staff Report there was no sign program due to the age of the center and there were no real sign guidelines or directions. Mr. Ortlieb stated it was a fragmented center and one part of the center participated in a sign program and the other side had not. Mr. Terrack asked if they could get approval of the other signs presented, then return to the DRC after the first of the year and to bring back the other sign option if they felt it was something that would work. Staff might recommend a better spot for the sign. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 23 of 28 Applicant, Chris Kighler, address on file, stated he thought that would work. They still had to get through the Building Division and their target for opening the store was in the spring. Committee Member Woollett stated he was concerned with the project and he asked if the doors were going to be left as presented. When presenting the two views of the store frontage, were they suggesting that the doors would be moved? Mr. Kighler stated there was another view, another drawing and as he understood it the doors would remain on the same plane that they were currently in. The "blue" on the plans took care of the existing walls that came out a little bit. Committee Member Woollett stated above that it appeared that they were proposing a major change to the roof of the building. It was not clear if it would extend further out from the fascia of the existing roof. Mr. Kighler stated it would come off the front edge of the existing mansard; he reviewed the plans and stated they had discovered the Circuit City's existing structure had some damage to it, the mansard was deflecting outward and downward 6" to 8" and there was a bunch of remedial work that needed to be done. Committee Member Woollett stated the proposed project was not only for the signage but also for the building changes and he was concerned with how that was being done as it appeared very arbitrary to him. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would be furring out to the wall, so it went past the eve? Committee Member Woollett stated a soffit would be brought out to the same level that the soffit currently existed along the bottom edge of the mansard. They would come out further and then turn upwards so it would be in front of the fascia of the mansard, but it was not noted how much. There could be drainage issues and with going up to the same height of the mansard that seemed a bit strange. They were approving a sign, but also the building changes. He reviewed the plans with the applicants. Committee Member McCormack asked if the applicant had drawings that showed how the changes would be constructed? Mr. Kigher stated no, they were not at that level yet. Mr. Terrack stated once they received the City's approval then they would get the drawings on how the areas would be attached. They needed to get the DRC's approval on the signs. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not had a problem with the signs, but he had a problem with what the signs would be mounted to. Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding a new column or pilaster on each side that would come out flush with the other form and there would be a square archway, if there was room on the ground. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 24 of 28 Mr. Kighler reviewed his suggestion on the drawing of the building with Committee Member Wheeler; he stated he thought it would not be a problem. Committee Member Woollett stated that might present a problem with the area needed on the sidewalk. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings and the suggestions with the applicants. Committee Member Woollett stated the sign would be coming back and they could also bring back more information on construction. Vice Chair Gladson stated she was leaning more toward approving the project. Mr. Kighler stated there was a very large bump out in front with concrete and sidewalk. Committee Member Wheeler stated it should come back with the details on how that would be treated and also on how they would deal with the drainage. Mr. Kighler stated unfortunately he was the pinch- hitter tonight as the construction person was back east; his concern was that it was a timing issue and if the approvals were delayed he would not meet the spring opening of the store. Vice Chair Gladson stated the reality from what she was hearing from the Committee Members was that they needed more detail to ensure it would be built properly and findings had to be made on the consistency of the project. They had provided some suggestions on what needed to be fixed and she was hearing that they would probably need to continue the proposed project. Committee Member Wheeler stated the project could be bifurcated to approve some of the signage. Mr. Terrack asked if they could get a contingency on what was still needed for the build -out? He understood the concerns and those would be addressed. Vice Chair Gladson stated unfortunately they could not approve a project in that manner. Committee Member Woollett stated they were okay with the signs, but they were not comfortable with the building. Mr. Terrack understood that they would need to complete the project in steps and that more detail was needed for the store entrance. Committee Member McCormack stated they needed to supply information on how the drainage would be handled. Vice Chair Gladson stated there was a side view on the drawings, but there was not any construction detail provided. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 25 of 28 Committee Member Wheeler stated they needed some more information. Mr. Ortlieb stated he could check at his desk as there was a plan check occurring currently and those plans might provide the information they needed. He returned with plans that he laid out for the Committee Members and the applicants to review. The Committee Members discussed the plans and commented on various areas of the plans and if what was being provided was sufficient for them to make a determination on the proposed project. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the signs as submitted on DRC No. 4519 -10, Marshalls, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report; and the changes to the building be resubmitted to the DRC and the re- submittal may show an additional sign. Mr. Terrack stated what they were stating was that the signs were approved; however, before a permit could be secured they would need to return with the details on the design change to the building. Mr. Kighler asked how quickly could they get back to the DRC for the re- submittal. Mr. Ortlieb stated January 19, 2011, and with the appeal period it would take them to February 5, 2011. Mr. Kighler stated with that information they would not get the store opened until the fall. Committee Member McCormack asked why they had not seen the building details? Mr. Ortlieb stated the whole project had been shot - gunned straight over to the DRC, and literally they were still within the 30 day time frame of when the application was submitted. The proposal was a City Economic Development Department push. Vice Chair Gladson stated there was a motion on the table to approve the signs and to withhold the approval on the building changes. Committee Member McCormack stated he would second the motion. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Ortlieb if the plans he had just presented would be the plans that would go to the Building Division? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes. Committee Member Woollett stated that would be one of the items that would be picked up on by the review by the Building Division. Time -wise, the applicant would need to resubmit to Building and the applicant might have already met with the DRC again. Vice Chair Gladson stated the proposal was submitted at risk, taking the risk that there could be problems. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 26 of 28 Committee Member Woollett stated no one seemed to realize it was a building change. The Committee Members reviewed the plans further and discussed the changes to the building frontage and how the framing and roof would work. They pointed out different features and discussed the changes with the applicants. Committee Member Wheeler stated they were doing a whole new form that would carry onto the existing roof and the inside form would die into it. It would come up and kick out and he felt that it would not be a problem and there would not be the drainage problem with the parapet that they thought might occur. It would not be a thin thing in reading the plans. Committee Member Woollett stated the other direction they could go in was to note the changes they wanted to see in a motion and the applicant would need to make those changes before going to the Building Division. The Committee Members reviewed the plans again and discussed what they were reviewing, speaking about the dimensions, the manner of construction, and how the construction met the roof. Vice Chair Gladson asked what was the determination of the Committee? Committee Member Wheeler stated from the plans he was reviewing it appeared to have been handled and was an acceptable treatment. Committee Member Woollett asked if someone wanted to amend his motion? Vice Chair Gladson stated the motion could be withdrawn. Committee Member McCormack asked if they should be reviewing lighting? Vice Chair Gladson stated the proposal was for signage and some building changes. Committee Member Woollett stated Staff had the problem as the changes were not submitted to Building. Mr. Ortlieb stated the Staff Report had discussed the changes that were happening at the roof level and what needed to be done structurally. What they had been reviewing had a different appearance and although it was not a direct link in the Staff Report it was certainly implied. Committee Member Woollett stated he withdrew his motion. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4519 -10, Marshalls, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, approving the three signs submitted: the wall, pylon, and free - standing sign. The applicant would have the opportunity to return to the DRC for additional sign approvals. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 27 of 28 ..-0 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2010 Page 28 of 28 °wr ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee Meeting on Wednesday, January 5, 2011. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.