Loading...
2013-05-01 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL May 1, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: David Khorram, Chief Building Official Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee Meeting of April 17, 2013. Changes and corrections were noted. Chair Fox stated she would recuse herself from Item No.9 as her firm was the architect on the project. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would recuse himself from Item No. 4, due to the proximity of his office. Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated there were two projects, Items No. 6 and 7, which would be continued. On Kona Cleaners the owner was not available to be at the meeting and he had asked for a continuance. For the Marywood Pump Station, the item would be continued due to a City redesign that impacted the project. Chair Fox asked when the items came up in the Agenda would she just state that the items would be heard at a later date? Mr. Khorram stated that was correct. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the Marywood Pump Station he wanted to suggest the use of slump stone instead of split -face block. There was a lot of slump stone in the neighborhood. Chair Fox stated she totally resented slump stone and was not certain why it was ever invented and on a pump station she felt it would not be very nice. Committee Member Wheeler stated slump stone would be neighborhood compatible. Mr. Khorram stated there were two items on the consent calendar and if the Committee was okay with them, those items could be moved as consent items. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 2 of 32 Chair Fox stated they would want to open both items for discussion, however, waive the reading of the Staff Report. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Imboden absent. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 17, 2013 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee Meeting of April 17, 2013, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Joe Woollett ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Items No. 2 and 3 were moved from the Consent Calendar and opened for discussion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 3 of 32 (2) DRC No. 4681 -13 — SEVEN GABLES REAL ESTATE • A proposal to install a new monument sign for a real estate office. • 229 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination The reading of the Staff Report was waived. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 2 of the Staff Report the proposed sign was noted as a wood sign; however, in reviewing the drawing further, the sign was called out as 2" thick HDU double -sided sandblasted sign. He understood that HDU stood for high density polyurethane. For clarity the letters were raised above the surrounding area. In the past the DRC had approved HDU signs, and he was perfectly happy with the proposed sign, but wanted clarification. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated when they had read the Staff Report the OTPA had read it as a wood sign. There had not been any objection to the sign if it was sandblasted wood. If it was polyurethane that would be a problem. The Committee Members reviewed the proposal. Chair Fox asked if the letters were raised? Committee Member Wheeler stated the letters were raised due to the surrounding area being sandblasted out. Applicant, Ted Howard, address on file, stated he was from the sign company. The sign was a high density urethane and sandblasted. It was a product that was made to simulate wood and was much better than wood. Wood would crack, split, and warp. High density urethane would not crack, split, or warp. In the drawing the white area would be sandblasted and the black area was raised, not that it was raised off of the sign; it was flush with the white area blasted away at 3/8" deep. It was a typical sandblasted sign. Committee Member McCormack stated the sign was stuck in the middle of a turf area and that posed problems with irrigation and mowing. It had not appeared to be designed for the area and almost looked like a campaign sign and not a finished sign. It was just a post in the lawn. When the lawn grew the maintenance person would not be able to cut the grass close to the post and the sign would take more wear and tear than it should have. Mr. Howard stated the pole would be aluminum. • City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 4 of 32 Committee Member McCormack stated the grass would grow high against the post. He suggested that the irrigation be adjusted accordingly and a gravel rectangle be installed around the post. He recommended a more finished look to the sign base. Chair Fox asked if a condition could be added would that be something the applicant would be amenable to doing? Mr. Howard stated he could not speak for Seven Gables Real Estate, but he would suggest the upkeep of the area around the sign with a weed eater. Committee Member McCormack stated that would just chip the pole. He recommended a rectangular 12" x "however long" the sign was, and to fill that with gravel and there could be mowing around that. He would not want the sign to become an eyesore. Chair Fox asked if the foot had some sort of a concrete base would that accomplish the same thing? Mr. Howard stated he was open to raise the portion of concrete that would surround the base? Committee Member McCormack stated no, as the mower would not be able to get close to the vertical surface. The concrete should be the same level as the grass. A concrete mow strip or gravel around it. Chair Fox stated a motion could be made with a condition. Committee Member Woollett asked how the Committee felt about the material? Committee Member Wheeler stated in the past they had agreed that with a painted sign, painted with a latex paint would provide for a plastic finish; if it was wood it would also be painted with a latex paint with the same finished result. The end result would not be any different whether the sign material was wood or plastic. It was a free - standing sign and not attached to a historic structure. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4681 -13, Seven Gables Real Estate, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report, with the additional condition: • To construct a base for the sign that was level with the turf and post. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden 4 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 5 of 32 Mr. Howard asked if they were requiring a base at just the posts or the perimeter of the sign? Committee Member McCormack stated a base that was continuous under the entire sign. MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 6 of 32 (3) DRC No. 4686 -13 — GREVILLE RESIDENCE • A proposal to construct a new attached rear patio cover on a 1921 Bungalow. • 357 S. Center Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler stated he would recommend the reading of the Staff Report be waived. Chair Fox stated the project was a bit more complicated and she asked for a Staff Report reading. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the plans were reviewed and they were in support of the proposed project. Applicant, Lee Greville, address on file, stated it was basically as Mr. Ryan had stated. It was wooden and in kit form from Gannall Lumber. It would be painted white and match the house trim. Mr. Ryan had recommended 1 x's to cover up any hangers or supports and the only other thing was that in the picture there was wood that had been tacked on and it would be taken back off. There would be a "z flashing" that would go up and over the ledger. Chair Fox stated there were two diagrams and she asked which of the two would be constructed? Mr. Greville stated the top one, the trellis. Chair Fox stated in the front the columns were round with the main beam and the rafters and lattice members and she asked if all three of those elements would be carried to the back patio cover? Mr. Greville stated yes, it would match. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be 2 x 6's on each side? Mr. Greville stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler stated those were called "grabs" and more of a 1960's style treatment. He suggested on the 4 x 4 post, instead of using a 2 x 6, to use a 1 x, something wide enough to cover the flange. He also suggested adding 1 x's on the other two sides. On the post coming up to the beam to place a metal strap on each side and nail that in with the grab covering that. He suggested on the post base to use the type that could be screwed or nailed in, rather than City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 7 of 32 bolted. On the ledger on the wall an approach would be to use a freeze block, a block between each rafter, and then come in with a piece of trim, maybe a 1x. The Committee Members discussed the suggestions with the applicant. Committee Member McCormack stated in viewing a structure of the size proposed with only two 4 x 4's holding it up it appeared weak and he suggested using 6 x 6's. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would require 6x beams and the structure would then get really heavy. Chair Fox stated with the grabs it was essentially a 6 x 6. Mr. Greville stated hopefully a 4 x 4 would be okay. Chair Fox stated it was okay. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4686 -13, Greville Residence, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the recommendations as presented to the applicant. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 8 of 32 Continued Items: (4) DRC No. 4680 -13 — MASSARO— FACADE REMODEL • A proposal to remodel the front and rear facades of a contributing one -story 1922 Western Falsefront industrial building. • 145 N. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler stated he would recuse himself from the project's presentation due to the proximity of his work place. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Anthony Massaro, address on file, stated he had agreed with all the suggestions, however, he had received some push back from the owner regarding the paint colors. The business owner really liked the proposed color scheme and he asked if there was a color palette that he should be working with? Mr. Ryan stated in the Plaza area there was a palette that businesses could choose from, but that was in the Plaza and had not included the proposal before them. If an applicant chose to use a different color or present a color palette, that was what the DRC looked at. City Staff had not looked at themselves as the "paint police," as the next owner could repaint the building and the applicant could propose their color choices. Mr. Massaro stated he had discussed with the owner the paint color situation and he had wanted to go with the two contrasting colors as initially presented. Committee Member Woollett asked what action had been taken regarding the paint colors? Chair Fox stated the feedback was that for a Western Falsefront, one of the character - defining features was the flatness of the front facade and the hugeness of it. The DRC had suggested that the front facade be one shade of color and not two colors as proposed. Committee Member McCormack stated to have it appear bigger and not broken up. Mr. Ryan provided a photo of the proposed color scheme, Chair Fox stated the DRC member who had brought up the paint color concern was not present, but it was not a big issue for her. titsp The Committee Members reviewed the plans and the paint proposal. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 9 of 32 Committee Member McCormack stated he thought the discussion was that with the starker contrast the building appeared smaller, visually, it broke it up. Mr. Massaro asked if the Committee would be open to two colors, but colors with not such a contrast. To use two colors that were more similar. Committee Member McCormack stated that would be a better suggestion, to not have the stark black and white situation. Mr. Massaro stated he would hope for an approval and work through the color choices. Chair Fox stated another thought would be to use one color, but to have the barn doors be the alternate color. That would eliminate such a contrast. Mr. Ryan stated that would be a more typical situation. Committee Member McCormack agreed with that suggestion. Chair Fox asked if the Committee would want to review the color choices? Mr. Ryan stated he had not known of a project that had come back for color choices. Chair Fox stated they could provide their suggestions and Staff could review colors with the applicant. Mr. Massaro stated the owner wanted to move forward as they had to go through the seismic and had just gotten Title 24 even though it was seismic. His thought was to do all the seismic, do the doors, and then provide the colors. Chair Fox stated the color choice would be a condition that Staff could review. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing OTPA, stated it was a nice project. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4680 -13, Massaro - Facade Remodel, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional condition: • The paint scheme to be altered to create a design that created less contrast from what was originally presented; and the final color design to be reviewed by Staff to meet the criteria discussed during the proposed project presentation. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 10 of 32 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 11 of 32 New Agenda Items: (5) DRC No. 4569 -11 — DARIUS EQUITIES- APARTMENTS • A proposal to demolish six units on an existing site and build eight units in two buildings. • 1213 and 1221 W. Palmyra Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Fox stated that there were issue items had been addressed and with the comment regarding additional pavers, those were in addition to what was being presented or had the plans reflected the additional pavers? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was reflective of the additional pavers. Applicant, Harold Clift, address on file, stated he had been working with Mr. Ortlieb for some time and they were ready to move the project along. Public Comment None. Applicant, James Brennan, address on file, stated there was a minor change in color from the ground floor to the second floor. The ground floor areas would be a bit darker tan with a divider at the color change. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit surprised that the plans were carried to such an extent before coming to the DRC. Mr. Brennan stated it was a tough site and they had brought in another architect that had been recommended to them. He was working with people who had built other buildings in the City of Orange and they built class projects, nothing cheap. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was pleased that the issues with the design had been resolved; architecturally, he felt the proposed project was very well articulated and it was a riff on mid - century modern residential architecture and was a lot of fun. He had a few questions. On page Al there was a note 25 that he had thought should be the railing wall, but it was called out as a shear wall across the top. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 12 of 32 Mr. Clift stated it was a floor to ceiling wall, and both sides of the stairwell had floor to ceiling walls and on one side of the shear wall on the stairwell side, that had the handrail and they needed that to stabilize the roof tresses above. Committee Member Wheeler stated he disagreed with a change of material on the same plane; he pointed out the area on the plans. He suggested running the same material all the way to the roof and having the whole mass be siding. Mr. Clift stated on the garage side it would be quite feasible to do, as they were in line, but on the entrance it was a lot wider. They could take the siding all the way up on just the entry side. Chair Fox stated there was a change in plane, where there was a material change and the siding was wrapping a form and returning back with stucco, except for one area. She asked if there was a recessed area? Mr. Clift stated yes and he pointed out the recessed areas. Chair Fox stated she was not certain if another horizontal band would be a good stopping point. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would be too foreign. Mr. Clift stated they could continue the siding to the eaves. Chair Fox stated then it would not return around the corners. Committee Member Woollett stated the one element could read as a mass, a setting within the other mass. What was done in the joints and with the material was really important. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the one side there would be a mass intersection another mass and putting siding all the way around. He suggested furring the mass out 6" or so and it would align with the window on the entry side. Chair Fox stated it was symmetrical on both sides with the entire shed roof on top having siding on it and it would wrap around to the side. The side that was next to the wide driveway was very visible. The other side was less visible and there was a lot of screening. Mr. Clift stated they could wrap the corner and go that first foot. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would not agree with that as it would be a whole new vocabulary. If they would go with the siding on that area it should wrap all the way around and the one side was less visible. Mr. Clift stated he could agree with that. Chair Fox asked what type of siding would they use? Committee Member Woollett asked if the face of the material would be vertical or sloped? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 13 of 32 Mr. Clift stated it would be sloped and looked like wood siding with the wood grain molded into it and it was a concrete base. Committee Member Woollett asked how the corners would be handled? Mr. Clift stated the manufacturer had a detail for that, he could provide that. The corners could be woven together, there would be one that over lapped in one direction and the other over lapped in the other direction and everything would be waterproof. Committee Member Wheeler stated there would be an exposed end of the panel. Mr. Clift stated there would not be an exposed end. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant to draw what he was referring to. Mr. Clift drew a picture of how the corner would be constructed. The corner would be mitered. Chair Fox stated she understood that Hardie board could not be mitered. They could use a trim board. The corners could be trimmed out and still be part of the design vocabulary. There were different sizes. Mr. Clift stated there was PVC trim. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was a corner trim piece for that material? Committee Member Wheeler suggested a reglet that could be used to have the boards die into. It could be a metal corner, but very subtle. Chair Fox stated that would be a clean way to deal with the corners. Mr. Clift stated they could do that and it would be less expensive to install as there would not be as much labor. They could use a PVC piece at the corner, cut to a 1 x 1. Committee Member Wheeler stated if they chose to use PVC he suggested square instead of rectangular, to create an even corner. Committee Member Woollett asked if there was plywood under there or drywall? Mr. Clift stated it was plywood. All the exterior walls would be sheeted with 15/32 structural plywood for the seismic requirements and all the exterior walls were shear walls. Committee Member Woollett stated the corners related to what was going on underneath. Mr. Clift stated in the areas with stucco there would be two layers of paper. Chair Fox stated she felt a condition could be added to ensure that the raw edge of the panel would not be visible. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 14 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler stated on the question of open space, the ordinance for useable open space requirement stated the space would be open to the living area of the unit. The living area that the space was accessible from was the bedroom. Mr. Clift stated it was the hallway. It was an oversized landing area and large enough to use as an open room. There was room for a desk, table, and chair. Committee Member Wheeler stated if a resident wanted to have a picnic on their private open space they would need to carry everything upstairs. Mr. Clift stated the other consideration was that at the ground level there was open space off the front entry door. A fixed stone bench would be provided for residents. Chair Fox stated she had only two real areas of concern and one was having a very nice open space area, separated by the Palm tree, however, it was polluted by the placement of the A/C units. Mr. Clift stated they had looked at other areas, but there A/C units were lined up with the bedrooms and laundry room and on the ground floor there was a window that had been added as a Police Department request. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the A/C units could be moved closer together toward the common wall of the garages? Mr. Clift stated they could, but there would be horizontal lines run there. Chair Fox stated the functionality as open space would not be very nice for residents with the placement of the A/C. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the A/C be placed behind one another. Mr. Clift stated they had researched placing the units on the roof, however, due to the screening requirements that was not an option. Committee Member McCormack suggested placement on the second floor deck. Mr. Clift stated that would create less useable space in that area. He had considered using the one piece units and placing the unit in the attic. The units were not very quiet and putting the A/C units at the area proposed would be less noise for the residents. Chair Fox stated with the walls, concrete, and everything in that area the noise would echo a lot in that area and she suggested pulling the units away from the livable areas of the units. Mr. Clift stated that was the garage and ground floor there. The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicants and areas where the A/C units could be moved to. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 15 of 32 Mr. Brennan asked how big a deal would it be to move them? Mr. Clift stated the pipes could be moved at the second floor wall and it would be completely hidden. Mr. Brennan asked the Committee Members if the A/C units were moved would that resolve their concerns? Chair Fox stated her issue with the area was that it was not a friendly place to hang out, it was a desolate place and they had not probably wanted to move the utilities. To move the A/C units and to remove the bench to allow residents to put their own furniture there would be better. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the use of pavers to define the space. Mr. Clift stated the A/C units could be moved to act as more of a divider. The open space requirement had been met. Committee Member McCormack stated there could be some landscape used for screening. The Committee discussed the A/C unit placement and screening while reviewing the plans. Chair Fox stated it appeared that screening would be desired with the respect that the A/C units still needed to function and to have the right airflow. Committee Member McCormack stated plant material would green it up. Mr. Clift stated a foot would need to be left for air circulation, but a trellis and narrow planter could be added. Chair Fox stated when driving down the driveway there was a common open space barbeque area and she suggested to push the common space to the center and it would provide more to look at instead of just cars. Mr. Clift stated there needed to be a fire hydrant back there. Chair Fox stated by shifting the parking there would need to be less striping. Mr. Clift stated there needed to be 4' wide planters on each side and 8' for handicap access and a 10' wide minimum to provide for open space. Chair Fox stated the site would be over parked. Mr. Clift stated the property owner requested one guest parking space per unit. Chair Fox pointed out the handicap accessible unit on the plans and stated there was 4' of planter that could be absorbed into the open space requirement. Mr. Brennan stated the concept of having that area more toward the corner was to allow for more privacy; in moving it over to the center it would destroy that concept. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 16 of 32 Chair Fox stated possibly people would not go there if it was in the corner, hemmed in by cars. Mr. Clift stated there was also a light pole that had been added per a request by the Police Department. Chair Fox stated she thought it could all remain and she was suggesting a mitigation of the paving that went all the way out. The project scale and massing worked well with the neighborhood, especially with what existed across the street. The fact that there were other apartments in the area would also lend to a huge improvement of that area. Mr. Brennan stated the project would provide housing for employees of the hospital. Chair Fox stated it was a great improvement to that street, she welcomed the project. Mr. Brennan stated much of how the site was laid out was to be in compliance with some of the other City of Orange departments. He asked if moving the barbeque area over would conflict with any of their other requirements? Mr. Clift stated they might need to put two light poles in, one for each half of the parking area. Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated if the gathering place was brought into the center it would need to be handicap accessible. Plus, there would need to be striping behind the cars and it would create functional issues. He advised the Committee Members to be aware of that situation. Chair Fox stated they could not stripe behind the cars. Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed a Building Official could provide for an exception. Committee Member McCormack asked how the handicap accessibility would work with a 6" curb? Chair Fox stated they could take her comments as a suggestion and if it would not work due to accessibility issues, then it was just a suggestion. Committee Member McCormack stated his issue had been the A/C units. There was a Palm tree that was too close to the building and he always suggested having trees be at least 2' away from buildings. Mr. Brennan stated the design guideline was 36' on center and the trees were at 38' currently. If they were moved a bit further apart they would be at 40'. Committee Member McCormack stated in the wind the trees might hit the building and often times when a mature tree was that close to a building it appeared odd; and when the trunk got big it was a problem. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 17 of 32 Mr. Brennan stated the placement was to satisfy the 36' on center guideline, and to get it as close as they could. If he had his choice he would move them 1 or 2 feet away from the building. The Committee Members reviewed the tree placement. Mr. Brennan asked if the spacing requirement could be waived if it was a detriment to the proj ect? Mr. Clift stated an administrative adjustment could be made. The tree spacing was only a problem at those two areas. Committee Member McCormack stated also in moving the trees they would be closer together and create a denser shade canopy. With the A/C units moved and screened it was beginning to be a better quality space. Mr. Clift asked if they would want the benches as proposed? The Committee Members agreed the benches were not necessary. Committee Member Wheeler suggested pavers in that area. Committee Member McCormack asked instead of the handicap ramp could a zero curb be put in that spot? Committee Member Wheeler stated they could recommend an administrative adjustment. Chair Fox asked if the applicants had met the tree requirement? Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a provision in the Design Standards that called for 36' and it was linked to the code and if going beyond that, an administrative adjustment could be requested to go up to 10 %, but if going further than that it would be a variance and that would be difficult to obtain. Mr. Clift stated if they went with the 10 %, they would be at 40' on center. Committee Member McCormack stated if handicap access was being provided to the barbeque area that was flagstone, he suggested instead of a ramp to have it be a zero curb. Mr. Clift stated he would agree with that. Mr. Brennan stated that would mean that the whole barbeque area would be 6" lower. Committee Member McCormack stated the area could be raised a little higher if they wanted that. The area would appear larger with the zero curb. There would also be flagstone with striping on it. Mr. Clift stated the area had originally been 5' wide, but the State's requirements called for an 8' wide area with every 8 spaces after that. The space needed to be handicap van accessible. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 18 of 32 The Committee discussed the parking area and suggested the use of pavers for the area. Mr. Brennan asked if they were speaking about the 8' area? Chair Fox stated yes, the loading zone. Mr. Brennan asked if that created a striping issue? Mr. Khorram stated it would make the area appear much bigger and much better. Committee Member McCormack stated it would help make the area more inviting. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could create a pattern with the pavers. Mr. Clift stated the only issue with the color choice for pavers was an area that required permeable pavers and the manufacturer of the permeable pavers they proposed to use came in one standard color. Committee Member McCormack asked if the sub -base was conducive to accepting the permeable material? Mr. Brennan stated they had a geologist that ran filtration test and the whole area historically was Santa Ana River. Mr. Ortlieb stated for the landscape area on the side it would be possible to put a meandering sidewalk that jutted out a bit if there was a desire to pull the tree back a bit, the trees had been strategically placed for Fire Department laddering purposes. Chair Fox stated if they moved the trees toward the property line and reduced the planter area. Mr. Clift stated there needed to be 5' clear on the walkway. If they went with a 4' walkway that would be okay as long as there was no plant material intruding onto it. Chair Fox stated the planter could be moved back. Committee Member McCormack stated there was not enough room to create a meandering path. Mr. Clift referred the Committee to sheet T4B to review the landscape and planter areas. Committee Member McCormack stated on the garage units they could continue the pavers through that area. He asked if anyone else had that thought? Chair Fox stated the manner in which the paving pattern was provided complimented the architectural style of the building. It was blocks and masses. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 19 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4569 -11, Darius Equities- Apartments, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: • Horizontal siding be used all the way around the raised shed roof elements, up to the roof overhang. • To relocate the exterior A/ C units to the center of the common open space and to screen the units with green screen or other similar material. • The siding corners to be treated with a minimum corner trim or a metal reglet. • Relocate the entry Palm trees at the front of the building, away from the building and recommend that an administrative adjustment for the project be provided. • Add pavers in the common open space areas. • To use zero curb around the barbeque area. • To add pavers at the handicap off loading area next to the barbeque, and to the accessible path adjacent to the barbeque area. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 20 of 32 (6) DRC No. 4612 -12 — KONA CLEANERS • A proposal to modify a facade remodel originally approved for the building by the Design Review Committee on April 4, 2012. Modifications have already been conducted. • 821 W. Taft Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated the applicant for the project was not available to attend the presentation and had asked to reschedule their presentation. The item would be heard on May 15, 2013. c 0 H . City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 21 of 32 (7) DRC No. 4665 -12 — MARYWOOD PUMP STATION • A proposal to demolish the existing Marywood Pump Station and construct a new pump station building, emergency generator /enclosure, and an electrical transformer /enclosure on a 5,228 sq. ft. City easement (currently a landscaped hillslope). • 1815 E. Villa Real Drive • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238, jle @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the City Council Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated per Staff, the item's presentation was moved to July 17, 2013. L City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 22 of 32 (8) DRC No. 4679 -13 — THE FILLING STATION • A proposal to install new wall signs for an existing restaurant. • 201 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, John Blake, address on file, stated he was available for questions. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, stated the OTPA was fine with the project, but there was a bit of confusion with the lighting and whether internal lighting was proposed, as it was not allowed in Old Towne or if there was incandescent lighting? He asked for clarification of that issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated his first reaction was "frumpy;" it was a bit dull for that part of Orange and Old Towne. ° Mr. Blake stated he was not involved with the original design, but the proposed sign was close to the original in the font style and in the same color. The sign would have Halo illumination. Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt that the applicant might be over the two - thirds rule on the fascia. Mr. Ryan stated to meet the minimum letter height and also to stay within the two - thirds area there would be a problem. The canopy was an odd size and had been used in the original gas station. There were restraints of the two - thirds of the architecture of the building and also the minimum height of the lettering and the proposal for the signage on the awning was a solution to the issues. The letters were 11". Chair Fox asked how high the fascia was? The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member Woollett asked where the wire would go into the letters? Mr. Blake stated in the back and then letter to letter, and behind the fascia where it would not be visible. The letters would be totally individual just as they currently appeared, and just a bit more dimensional for the lighting to be installed. Committee Member Woollett asked how each individual letter would be serviced? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 23 of 32 Mr. Blake stated the shell of the letter would come off, an aluminum shell with counter sunk screws. Committee Member Woollett asked what would occur over time to the polycarbonate covers, would it get dirty over time and rusty around the edges? Mr. Blake stated he would imagine the material would get a bit foggy over the years, but the light would still be able to pass through. Committee Member McCormack asked what would the light color be and he suggested that more of an incandescent light be used. Mr. Blake stated the color could be more of a warm light. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4679 -13, The Filling Station, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional condition: • to make the LED lights a warm incandescent color. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. 1 City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 24 of 32 (9) DRC No. 4685 -13 — RICK FOX —PALM AVENUE HOUSING • An in -fill housing proposal and barn relocation on a site that contains an existing 1914 Bungalow. • 730 W. Palm Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Chair Fox stated she would recuse herself from the item's presentation as her firm was the architect on the proposed project. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Rick Fox, architect, address on file, stated there was a lot of information provided and he wanted to summarize some of the basic issues that they were facing; and to review both options. There was a bit of confusion on the site plan; Palm Avenue was on the left and the architectural drawings had it on the right. No one doubted that the home was a contributing structure, the lot itself was zoned a multi- family residential property, but with the impending zone change the area of town where the property was located would be more dense in terms of the multi- family zoning. The current owners were the 14th owners of the home, since it was built in 1914. The owners had done a tremendous amount of work in terms of the home restoration. He presented before and after photos. He pointed out a photograph that would view the location of where they were proposing to move the barn. The neighborhood was multi - family residential and there were a couple of things on the property that needed attention; one was that there was not a garage for the residents. There was the main house and the barn. They needed to address a new in -fill project, being the garage. The other aspect of the project was that there was the potential to access the property from Clark Street, which was quite unique. In both options the access from Clark Street was included, and would create a front on Palm and a front on Clark Street. The Palm Street would be dominated by the existing residence and new proposed 2 -car garage and on the southern half of the property, on Clark Street, that would be the main entrance to the barn or any new in -fill construction that would be completed on the Southern portion of the property. As Mr. Ryan had mentioned, he needed to know where the Committee stood in respect to their recommendation on the relocation of the barn. Option B would be based on the relocation of the barn a bit further east so it would be closer to the cul -de -sac on Clark Street. The two characters that the barn had were the design and the feeling, specifically the architectural features and how those features were reminiscent of how the barn was originally constructed. The record was ambiguous on when the barn was constructed and presented some of the dilemmas that they were facing. One of the merits of Option B would retain the main features that identified the barn as what it was, an agricultural barn, and in relocating the barn on the site it would provide for visual prominence on both Clark and Palm Street, rather than being hidden behind a garage. Opinions may vary on the relocation. He felt it would be a good thing to relocate the barn, as it would bring the barn into a part of the living fabric of the community. The barn was a bit shallow for a garage and would not allow for water proofing as it sat in its present location for human habitation. Moving the structure enhanced the barn's position on the property and viability. The compass direction of the barn would not change, or the fenestration pattern, the size of the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 25 of 32 addition to bring it to minimum size would be a relatively small addition. The addition could be differentiated to have a visual of old and new. He was looking for feedback about the barn, on the relocation and its adaptive reuse. Committee Member Wheeler opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he was having a hard time finding the barn. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could continue after they heard Public Comment. Public Comment Steve Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, asked if the Committee Members had read the letter from Mr. Frankel? (A letter from Jeff Frankel, representing OTPA, was entered into the record.) The Committee Members had read the letter. Mr. Bennett stated although they generally would not encourage a barn relocation, in the case before them moving the barn was probably the best option. Committee Member Woollett stated in looking at the barn he was trying to figure out what the essence of the barn would be, what would it be used for, what was it about the barn that was reusable, and what would be part of the future building. Mr. Fox stated there was approximately 40% of the barn material that was deteriorating and could not be reused. There was approximately 60% of the siding that could be reused. Committee Member Woollett stated if a wall was saved, would the boards be taken off and nailed on another framework or would an entire wall be saved? The wall would have been built in such a way that was so different and there would be structural issues to deal with, and not to mention moisture and those things. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a project on Pixley that was single wall construction and the walls were rebuilt inside the structure. Mr. Fox stated that was what they were proposing, to build a new structural frame on a new foundation at the proposed location. Wall panels would be taken from the barn and relocate to the new structure. The new frame would be a newly constructed water - proofed structure. Committee Member Woollett stated he was having problems visualizing that. Would the new structure have studs and drywall in the inside? Committee Member Wheeler stated he had constructed a similar project with studs against the old siding. The stud would go against the inside face of the siding and the siding would be nailed from the exterior to the studs. On the inside face of the studs would be the shear diaphragm, plywood and on top of that the interior finish and the infiltration and vapor barrier membranes would be wherever it would be needed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 26 of 32 The Committee discussed the application of materials. Mr. Fox stated the manner in which the barn was initially constructed was without exterior battens and someone had come along and in a few places stapled lath in the inside of the barn to keep water out. One of the things that he assumed was to add batten to the barn exterior as it would change the character completely. They had a massive water - proofing problem and they would need to build a solid structure, along the lines of what Committee Member Wheeler had described. There would be a cladding system, instead of brick or tile stuck on, there would be a fairly complicated facade that would need to be moved and reattached. The interior of the existing barn was very dilapidated with evidence of various remodels and construction on the inside of the barn. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the Pixley structure he had referred to, there was roofing paper on the exterior instead of battens. He asked what would occur with the interior battens? Mr. Fox stated there was only one wall that had that treatment. There was 3/8" lathe and he was not certain when that had been applied. There was an area with waterproof paper stapled to the inside of the walls. Committee Member Woollett asked if the barn reconstruction was a problem or an opportunity? Mr. Fox stated the reality was in building a garage for the residents. To do nothing to the barn, then the barn would probably cease to exist within three years. Instead of having a demolition by neglect they might find themselves in deep trouble because they allowed that to occur; they now found themselves in a place to do something. Committee Member Woollett asked what was the liability issue? Mr. Fox stated the barn was not fit for human habitation; the question was what could be done with it. It could be structurally stabilized and used for garden tools. If they wanted to use it for a garage the building would needed to be enlarged. By stabilizing the barn in place it would not provide the owners with an opportunity to add a new in -fill secondary unit at the back of the property. By relocation of the barn, the barn's architectural features would be preserved and placed in a more prominent point of the site and allow for the balancing of the site with a small secondary unit. A use for the barn was being created. Committee Member Woollett asked what statement was being made with the barn? Mr. Fox stated he was not certain what Committee Member Woollett was asking? Committee Member Woollett stated there would be a barn, looking like a barn, and was it a statement about the history of Orange or was it, when they were all finished there was the barn which was not like anything else there, and calling attention to itself, what was that? Mr. Fox stated he was not sure if the question was about adaptive reuse. He had not seen anything wrong with adaptive reuse. The idea that a building was once a church that was now a restaurant or an ice house that was now an office, the fact that buildings were rehabilitated and City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 27 of 32 reused was not a foreign concept. The idea that the barn would now have a better function for today's present needs was not a bad idea. If there was a concern that in moving the barn the feeling of an agricultural function was being changed, it seemed to him that the location and setting of the property was changed a long time ago by others. The intent was to respect the intent of the barn and to also be able to develop a secondary unit on the site, which in his view, created a very interesting improvement to the end of Clark Street. The statement was that they recognized that there was a building and adaptive reuse was not a bad idea. Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared there were a few things that could occur; to let the barn rot away, to tear the barn down completely, to relocate and restore the barn as was being proposed, and lastly, the barn could be left at its present location and restored. Mr. Fox stated those were the four options and they had presented two. Committee Member Wheeler stated the best option to him would be to leave the barn in its present location and restore it for a reusable structure. He understood why the relocation was being sought and he did not have an issue or objection to that. He had not agreed with proposal A to tear the structure down. The solution that was being presented would be the best practical solution. Another thought would be to keep the barn, enlarge it, and use it as a present day garage. He was comfortable with either moving the barn or keeping it in place and having the structure be a habitable unit. It would not be difficult to do. The other option would be to build in place and then move it. Mr. Fox stated they had come to a fork in the road and they needed a direction to proceed in. If they received positive feedback for Option B, they would return to the Committee with more information. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be interested, at a later date, to find out what would be done with the apple that existed or had been painted on the barn. Mr. Fox stated he was not certain if it was an apple, a deflated tomato, or a strawberry. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was any thought to rotating the barn 180 degrees so that element would be visible from the street? Mr. Fox stated he had not; he felt that relocating the barn in its current north orientation would be the most respectful way to treat the barn. Applicant, Sherry Alexander, address on file, stated it might be visible from the side. It was art. Committee Member Wheeler asked how would the new structure relate to the barn architecturally? Mr. Fox stated given that the house and garage would be the primary structures from Palm Street, the two -car garage would be constructed with compatibility to the existing residence. The secondary unit would be architecturally compatible with the barn and perhaps a differently oriented ridge and with exterior battens to differentiate it from the non - batten exterior of the barn. A board and batten approach to the secondary unit with a simple gable would be the best City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 28 of 32 approach. From the front of Palm Street the barn would be visible with not much visibility of the secondary unit due to the placement of the garage. The site where the garage would sit was also a consideration. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not seen a plate height for the barn, but had noticed a loft was proposed. He asked if it would be possible to create a larger loft and not add the 26 square feet to get the floor area to the minimum? Mr. Fox stated the head height in the barn was rather limited and he was not certain if the floor area of the loft would count toward the floor area for the studio unit or if it was the 450 on the ground. Mr. Ryan stated if it covered 20% or 30% of the first floor area it might work. Mr. Fox stated the roof was being held up by 2 x 4's. Committee Member Wheeler stated with the relocation to the new foundation they would want to get a bit more wood to earth separation and he assumed it would be built on a curb and add a bit of height. Had there been any cross sections completed to determine usable space on the second floor? Mr. Fox stated he had not completed anything concrete, other than the concept of creating a partial loft. They had to respect the doors on the south side and the openings he suspected had been cut in over the past 20 to 30 years as the frame for that door was different than the rest of the framing and had not appeared original. The door that appeared original, there had been a stair stringer with an elf size door cut into the siding with what appeared to be original hinges. The loft had been added but the collar ties had been cut and the reason the roof was sagging. The roof was shored up and the planks were cracked. There had been space sheathing on the roof; most of it was gone on the north side. On the south side of the gable there was sheathing still there with shakes and plywood over that and then asphalt shingles. On the north side the plywood was nailed to the rafters with asphalt singles on the plywood. Committee Member Wheeler stated the roof was not a truss roof. Mr. Fox stated one of the things they were working toward was to get some of the documents in front of the Committee, as with the impending zone change to R -3 it would have a potential greater negative impact to the barn to go from a 450 square foot structure to one that was 550 square feet to comply with the new zoning codes, to add another 100 square feet to the barn to him was a negative. Committee Member Wheeler stated with the new zoning the minimum for an accessory unit would go up. Mr. Ryan stated in R -3 the minimum would go to 550, in R -2 it could be a studio at 450. Committee Member Wheeler asked what the minimum for an accessory unit was? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 29 of 32 Mr. Ryan stated 450 and with two units already on the property they could not use the accessory unit rule. Committee Member Woollett asked how had that area gotten caught up in the zone change? Mr. Ryan stated due to the density of the surrounding area, and to comply with the General Plan and changes to existing zoning, at some point they needed to catch up to the existing zoning. They were viewing the project for the impacts for size of the structure and for parking. Committee Member McCormack asked what was the added square footage and how would it be treated? Mr. Ryan stated it was 26 square feet and was proposed as an entrance or covered porch area. Mr. Fox stated the plate height was pretty high and they would not need the porch area to be that high. He would propose a differentiating material to clarify that the new construction was not part of the original structure. Committee Member Wheeler stated it could be a tool shed attached to the side of the building. Committee Member Woollett asked what would the final finish of the barn exterior be? Mr. Fox stated probably exterior siding painted in a blue gray tone. The barn was white washed in various places and weathered. Ms. Alexander stated the appearance could be a weathered look. Mr. Fox stated his concern was that if the wood that was preserved and reattached was not treated it could eventually deteriorate at the new site; it would deteriorate under its own power. He was not certain if the wood was cedar or possibly redwood. He imagined if it was not cedar or redwood it probably would have been gone. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be fun to clean the wood off and put some sort of a clear coat over it. Coming back to the relationship between the buildings on the site would be a tricky problem; the residence would need to be the more finished superior structure on the site. The new structure could have vertical siding that was not associated with the battens and a more subtle contrast to show that the barn was older and more of a utilitarian structure. On the new garage on the Palm side, it appeared very close to the street and he wondered if it could go back a bit further, to be placed more typical. Ms. Alexander stated it was in line with the house next door and it allowed visibility of the yard from the house without obstructing the view with the garage, that would be the compromise and she would not want the garage pushed all the way back she had wanted to have a usable yard. The driveway was very long to the face of the house, 4 cars could be parked in front of the garage without being out on the sidewalk. Mr. Fox stated Option A had the set back at 31' 10" and Option B would have a similar situation. The garage would be 20' deep. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 30 of 32 The Committee Members reviewed the plans with the applicants. Committee Member Woollett stated he was just wondering where cars would be parked. Committee Member Wheeler asked if a ribbon driveway would be appropriate? Committee Member McCormack stated he had a similar view of pushing the garage back, but in reviewing the site situation he had a feel that to save the view and yard space the location was pretty good and the space would be usable. A ribbon driveway would be a must and it would be four walkways to the garage. There would be four ribbons. Ms. Alexander stated in going so far back some people could not back up very well and there was a long way to back up there. She would not want people driving on the lawn; it was a great distance to back out. Committee Member McCormack stated 2' turf was about right and it would provide walkways. Committee Member Wheeler stated it might not be appropriate for a ribbon driveway on Clark, but possibly use an alternate paving material. Committee Member Woollett asked what district was the property in? Mr. Ryan stated the local district. Committee Member Woollett stated there was an old building sitting in a local district and he was having a hard time figuring out how they were applying the historic standards. Mr. Ryan stated in prior surveys no secondary units were identified, including barns or garages. Committee Member Woollett asked why a survey was done in that part of the City? Mr. Ryan stated the building was identified in an earlier survey and it was recognized as a historic building. The context of the area was mixed north of Palm and there were contributing buildings that related to the local district within the period of significance up to 1940. The building being a 1914 Craftsman was identified as being a contributing building. Keeping that province in that area the building should not be demolished or de- listed and the City viewed it as a contributor, even though it existed in a mixed use area and had not met the National Registry criteria for the district, due the difference in Standards, which were different from the National Registry and the Historic District. The building was isolated, surrounded by newer construction and had not had the context of a National Registered properties. In looking at the site there was another structure on it and the merits of how a building was established as a local resource, the seven aspects of the criteria were looked at and had it met most of them, any of them, or none of them and how had the resource added to the existing site in setting, feeling, association, workmanship, and so forth. In looking at all of that it was determined that the barn only met two of the aspects and that the barn was not a contributing building, however, the City supported the reuse of the structure as the best use for the barn as it had community value and it had material City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 31 of 32 on the structure that was original to the period of construction. In looking at other barns in the City, moving the barn was not a huge impact. Committee Member McCormack stated he supported that approach. Committee Member Wheeler stated he assumed Option A had been discarded. Mr. Fox stated it would be a longer, more difficult road to get there; and part of what they were concerned about was the impending zone change and it was the right time to move forward with their best option. Committee Member Wheeler stated he hoped they had provided enough input and direction. Mr. Ryan stated when they looked at a possible demolition and what the other options were, he felt the applicant had found a way to incorporate the existing structure on the site and make it work. He had worked with the applicants for quite a while and there was excitement about where the project was headed, it was a good solution and made everything work. There was always the independent decision of whether three aspects, two or four were met; but the end result was that it was not perfect and the choice to incorporate what existed at the site was the best solution. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was an acceptable way to approach the situation. Committee Member McCormack suggested keeping the rural design with no fences. When he viewed a large barn he thought large space and on that note he would not want to see a fence, and he understood the reason for the fences. He suggested more of a low hedge or something else to use for separation. With an adaptive reuse the openness would add to the appeal of the barn. Ms. Alexander it could be a low picket, for protection of a child or containment of a pet. Committee Member Wheeler stated something low would work. Committee Member McCormack stated there could be a fence built inside a shrub. Mr. Ryan stated there were also the agricultural wire fences that might work. The item was presented for preliminary review; therefore, no action was taken. trk City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for May 1, 2013 Page 32 of 32 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting May 15, 2013. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m.