Loading...
11-05-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 5 November 2008 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 Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:12 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the discussion with a review of the Agenda. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the October 15, 2008 meeting. Changes/corrections were noted. Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, thanked the members of the Committee who were in attendance at the Planning Department's open house. Chair Wheeler stated he would be recusing himself from participation in the last Agenda item due to the location of his business. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m. SECOND: Joe Woollett 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 November 5, 2008 Page 2 of 17 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. There was none. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 15, 2008 Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 15, 2008 Design Review Committee Meeting with corrections as noted. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. 2) DRC No. 4348-08 - NOHL PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER PYLON SIGN A proposal to paint and reface an existing freestanding shopping center identification/individual tenant identification sign facing Tustin Street. 2634-2756 North Tustin Street and 1440-1628 East Lincoln Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(a,cityoforan~e.org DRC Action: Final Determination City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 3 of 17 The item was approved without discussion through consent. Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to approve DRC No. 4348-08, Nohl Plaza Shopping Center Pylon Sign, through consent, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report. 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 November 5, 2008 Page 4 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS: New Agenda Items: 3) DRC No. 4353-08 and CUP No. 2715-08 - VERIZON WIRELESS "BRONSON" A proposal to replace three existing light standards on the top floor of an existing parking structure with three new light standards equipped with flush-mounted panel antennas. Four new equipment cabinets and associated equipment are also proposed to be located on the west side of the parking structure. 1235 West Town and Country Road Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur(a~cityouforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Eric Meurs, address on file, stated the parking structure was a 5-story structure and the equipment would not be visible from any of the surrounding apartments. The only visible spot that they were able to see the site from was the Garden Grove freeway. The visual impact would be minimal. They had chosen a corrugated steel enclosure vs. a block wall, which was generally preferred, as the structure was apost-tension parking structure; there was not a way to place a foundation that would support a block wall. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked if the light standards were being replaced with essentially the same type of pole, and if so why were they being replaced? Mr. Meurs stated the existing light standards were of a very light gage steel and the project required a thicker product to support their installation. Committee Member Woollett asked if the cable would extend from the enclosure to the poles? Mr. Meurs stated there would be an enclosed cable tray that would run along the inside of the wall that would lead to the light standards. The light standards were located next to railings and a wall. Committee Member Woollett stated he had no problems with the metal enclosure and it would probably be difficult to add any type of a graffiti coating to it. Graffiti could be easily removed from a metal surface. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 5 of 17 Mr. Meurs stated they had not anticipated a graffiti problem. The parking structure and surrounding areas had no graffiti problems. The parking structure was within a locked and gated apartment complex. Committee Member Gladson asked if there would need to be a condition regarding the removal of graffiti? Mr. Meurs stated it was a standard requirement that graffiti be removed. Committee Member Woollett stated the site was visible from Main Street. Chair Wheeler stated there were two conduits that would run along the building then they would bore through floors 4 and 5; he suggested having the conduit run through floors 2 and 3 also. Mr. Meurs stated they had chosen not to do that as he understood there was a sound wall that existed where the cable run would need to be. The cable run would run along an existing cable run. They could explore an alternative; the intent was to minimize having to bore through the structure as it was apost-tension structure and they wanted to avoid problems in running into anything through the structure. Chair Wheeler asked how large were the proposed antennas? Mr. Meurs stated they were 4' in height and 8" wide. Chair Wheeler stated he had not recalled approving any type of cell antenna that had not included some type of casing or enclosure. He felt the poles would look a bit cluttered and asked if they had considered some type of plastic enclosure? Mr. Meurs stated a plastic enclosure actually made the installation much wider and more visible. He presented photos of another installation that existed off of the 55 freeway; it was one of those things that unless you were looking for the site it would not be apparent. They had used three poles rather than two, to minimize the scale and clutter of the equipment. Chair Wheeler asked how deep was the cable tray? Mr. Meurs stated it was 12". Chair Wheeler asked how they went from the cable tray to the concrete pedestal? Mr. Meurs stated there would be a small enclosure, a box that would house the equipment as it would make its turn in that area. The box would be painted to match the existing equipment. Chair Wheeler stated the corrugated metal enclosure had a lot of negative aesthetic elements. Mr. Meurs stated corrugated metal came in all types of shapes and designs. There were newer designs, a flat design with texture and a horizontal design could be used. It was not their intent to use a corrugated design that was unsightly. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 6 of 17 Committee Member Woollett stated the enclosure was 8' in height with the equipment being 5'. Mr. Meurs stated there would be a GPS antenna that would be higher, and the intent was to screen all of their equipment. Committee Member Woollett clarified if the light standards were 7" or 5" squared? Mr. Meurs stated they were 5". Committee Member Gladson asked if the site would be available for co-location? Mr. Meurs stated yes that would be considered. T-Mobile had expressed their desire to locate at the site. Committee Member McCormack stated there was an existing parking space next to the proposed corrugated metal enclosure and potentially someone could hit that enclosure and suggested the addition of bollards. He asked how had they proposed to install the enclosure with the concrete walls in that area? Mr. Meurs stated the enclosure would be mounted directly on top of the extensions. Committee Member McCormack asked for details on the gate. Mr. Meurs stated the gate would have a locking hasp. Committee Member McCormack asked if a frame would be used with the corrugated metal with the top exposed? Mr. Meurs stated it would have a frame with an expanded metal roof. Committee Member McCormack stated on the civil plan there was a 3/10 of a grade change with 8" on the other side and pointed out an area on the plans that the applicant might consider moving over 4" to the high side. He reiterated his concern with the metal structure being unprotected from vehicle damage. Mr. Meurs stated he had been on the top floor of the structure several times, and had not seen a vehicle parked on that floor of the parking structure. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve recommendation to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4353-08 and CUP No. 2715-08, Verizon Wireless "Bronson," subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. The corrugated metal presented be replaced with a horizontal metal siding design. 2. The conduit from the ground coming up the side of the building go only. as far as the ceiling of the 1St level, where at which point the conduit would bore through the four levels of concrete. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 7 of 17 3. The bottom of the metal siding around the enclosure be 4" on the high side to account for the slope of the floor. And with the additional suggestion that a barrier be added to protect the side of the enclosure from vehicle damage. 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 November 5, 2008 Page 8 of 17 4) DRC No. 4375-08 - 7-ELEVEN FUEL CANOPY AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS A proposal to remove and replace a fuel canopy, relocate underground fuel storage tanks, install a California Air Resource Board mandated vapor recovery system, and reconfigure on-site parking and landscaping. 290 South Main Street Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb(~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Susan Cabral, address on file, stated what had initiated the project was the Healy tank requirement which had a testing failure. 7-Eleven decided to take a very proactive approach to remove and replace the fuel tanks and piping along with replacement of the Healy tank. The notice of the street dedication resulted in additional site changes. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item to discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Cathcart asked if the intent was to keep the existing landscape and to change to the new landscape arrangement when the street construction took place? Applicant, Georgina Davila, address on file, stated the existing landscape would remain wherever possible, and if it was disrupted due to the construction activity those areas would be replaced. All new landscaping would be installed to be consistent with what existed at the site. Committee Member McCormack clarified that the plan was to install new landscape as per the plans or to keep what existed? Ms. Davila stated the street construction would not occur until 2010; the landscape areas would be added with the changes at the site. When the street construction began it would potentially reduce the landscaping on their site. Ms. Cabral stated the landscape areas would be reduced, but no less than what currently existed at the site. Once the street was widened, the front planter would be reduced in width, however, would not be reduced to what currently existed in terms of landscape. Committee Member McCormack asked if it would make more sense to place the hedge row in a place where it would not be disturbed and to place the sign back and not have the need to move it when the street construction began? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 9 of 17 Ms. Davila stated they had not wanted to move the sign as it would not be visible; they would stub it out for movement at a later date. The City agreed that they could leave the sign in place and when construction began they would use the existing sign that would be moved back to accommodate the street construction. Ms. Cabral stated the planter was a hedge row and they had planned to extend the hedge row far enough that when the street widening occurred there would still be a hedge row with sod on the other side. Mr. Ortlieb pointed out on the plans what existed and what would occur in the future. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. Ms. Davila clarified she was hearing from the Committee Members that it was being suggested that all the existing landscape be left intact and not changed until after the construction occurred and then to work with the City to modify their plans. Committee Member McCormack stated often times with street widening projects there would be an urban design or street scape element proposed, although there was a break between the City's right-of--way and the private properties. It could benefit the applicant to wait and prepare a plan after the City's construction was complete. Ms. Davila stated she had no problem in leaving the site landscape in its current state and when the City made their changes in 2010 they could approach the landscape issue at that time. Ms. Cabral stated if the irrigation and street front planting was left for a future date, there would be some down time at the site during that process. Ms. Davila stated she was okay with that and agreed with Committee Member McCormack that the City could revise the street scape plan and it would benefit them to wait. Committee Member Cathcart asked Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, if the City would want to have a landscape and irrigation plan submitted? Mr. Morris stated in hearing what the intent for landscape was it would not be necessary to submit one with the proposed project. Committee Member Cathcart stated it could be requested at a time in the future with any modified landscape plans. Mr. Morris stated generally with street improvements the City had a policy of protect in place. Committee Member Cathcart suggested the addition of the City required notes that spoke to those general elements. Chair Wheeler asked if there was quite a bit of change being proposed for the area? Mr. Morris stated the site would be impacted in a few years by the street improvement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 10 of 17 Chair Wheeler stated on Condition No. 7, page 6, which stated prior to issuance of building permit the parking spaces south of the retail building would be shifted 3' to the right. He felt the spaces would not need to be moved that far as the cars could extend over the edge as long as the planting area was somewhat low. Mr. Ortlieb stated the most the Code would allow would be a 2 1/2' overhang, and the proposed project called for only a 1' overhang. Chair Wheeler stated Condition No. 7 could read to have the spaces shifted 1' to the east if necessary. He pointed out an area on the plans that should include the depth of the parking spaces. Committee Member Woollett pointed out a parking space on the plans that was noted with an 18' depth and there was a curb; the overhang of the car could conceivably be 30" and he suggested making the walkway wider. Chair Wheeler stated on sheet G9.3, detail No. 8, he would like to have added that the wall texture around the Healy unit match the wall texture of the main building. Ms. Cabral pointed out that detail No. 2 listed that element. Chair Wheeler stated on detail No. 5, he asked what the bib box looked liked? Ms. Cabral stated it was a typical metal box that would be underground; it was approximately 18" and the only element that could be seen would be the lid. Committee Member Gladson stated she had not understood the complete technology of the Healy tanks and she asked if the Healy tank had to be a specific distance from the tanks and she asked why the specific placement had been chosen? Ms. Davila stated the initial site was to locate it behind the building. Ms. Cobral stated there was a separation requirement and that location had not been approved. Committee Member McCormack pointed out an area on the plans that denoted a raised curb, and stated there should be a transitioning curb in an area he pointed to on the plans. Ms. Davila stated the rail was new based on the changes and the area they were speaking to would be changed. Committee Member McCormack stated there was a problem when they went to a zero curb, as they would be going 6" lower than the glass store front. The design would be exposing foundation, and he had wanted to point it out not knowing if it would be an issue to the applicant. Ms. Davila stated there was an existing curb in that area with stops in front of it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 11 of 17 Ms. Cobral stated she was a civil engineer and she had not found a problem with the design; she would look at it again and they could make changes if they encountered a problem. There was an existing curb that would be removed to gain the 2% they needed for ADA. Committee Member McCormack stated unless there was an additional curb added up next to the building, there was the potential to expose the foundation. Committee Member Woollett stated it was a visual problem not a technical problem, at the lower level against the building the edge of the building foundation would be exposed. Committee Member McCormack suggested adding a small curb against the store front to cover the exposed area. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4375-08, 7-Eleven Fuel Canopy and Site Improvements, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Widen the walkway on the east side of the building to be extended 30" to allow for the overhang of cars. 2. The finish of the enclosure to match one of the treatments of the building. 3. The western edge of the handicap ramp to be a 6" wide curb. 4. The shrubs along the east property line be installed adjacent to the curb of the west side planter. 5. Modify Condition No. 7, to allow for less lengthening of the two parking stalls on the west side to allow for overhang. SECOND: Bill Cathcart 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 November 5, 2008 Page 12 of 17 5) DRC No. 4384-08 -SIR WICKET FACADE RESTORATION A proposal to remove anon-contributing storefront and install a new historically reference storefront. Project includes enlarging an existing window on the Plaza Square elevation to accommodate a new side door for an internal electrical vault. 100 South Glassell Street (Plaza Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryan(a~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Preliminary Review Chair Wheeler recused himself from the item presentation due to the location of his office in proximity to the proposed project. Committee Member Cathcart verified that the presentation of the proposed project was for preliminary review only and no determination would be made. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the proposed project was being presented by the applicant to receive preliminary feedback and at a later date the project would return before the DRC for a recommendation. Committee Member Woollett asked if the DRC would be the final determining body or would the project go before the Planning Commission? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated as the project was within the Old Towne Historic District she believed the Planning Commission would have final action on the project. Applicant, Leason Pomeroy, address on file, stated the intent of the project was to improve the facade and to facilitate tenanting the building. The upper level was currently vacant and they were in the process of carpeting and painting. The lower level was also available and they had been approached by tenants who were interested in providing food service. The biggest issue was the fact that Edison would no longer allow their meters to be located on the second floor and that the meters needed to be accessible from the outside of the building. He had consulted with Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, and proposed that a hole be cut into the building with a room located in the back to house the meters. In speaking with Mr. Ryan he felt that was not an option as the Historic Preservationists would not be in favor of that option. He presented a historical photo to the Committee Members of the building and pointed out what the windows had looked like. The building was glass on most sides and he felt the meter access could be through one of the larger windows. The primary concern was the relocation of the meters. The balance of the building would be very simple; he presented a current photo of the building and reviewed the design with the Committee Members. The intent was to simplify the building with a constant transom; much of the area where transoms would have been was covered with other material that had been installed over time. He pointed out the transom area in the original images. Mr. Pomeroy stated the design would be simplified with a more uniform look and the use of wood with a hard surface wainscot. He proposed using ceramic tile; there would be very little the used and would be located mostly within the recessed areas with the balance to be painted City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 13 of 17 wood. The store fronts would be kept in tact for the two existing tenants. Historic images showed that the original jewelry store had extended outward and they wanted to maintain the character of the building. He pointed out the recessed areas of the building. They had completed their historical research and they had completed their plan to be the same, and the intent was to get the store fronts all in similar vocabulary with a ceramic the wainscot. He proposed that the wall setback area be adjustable to have the entire space available. The benefit of an adjustable wall would be to provide an outdoor dining space to a food tenant. He presented drawings of the proposed design which would include a railing with planters in front with the addition of transoms. They wanted to use obscure glass as there was structure located directly behind where the glass would be installed. Mr. Pomeroy reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett asked if the doors would be hinged doors? Mr. Pomeroy stated if the space became two tenants, there would be three doors on each side with a door in the center. The doors would open and fold back against the wall to open up the space. He had used a similar door system on other projects. Committee Member Gladson asked if there was anon-food use tenant would the doors still be installed. Mr. Pomeroy stated the doors would be installed which would allow for outdoor space. Applicant, Al Ricci, address on file, stated all of the inquiries they had were from food-use tenants. It was one of the highest profile spaces in town and it was a very desirable space. With a restaurant, the tenant would have a sidewalk outdoor dining space. Mr. Pomeroy stated on the use of glass there were many types that could be used. He presented samples of glass that could be considered as options. He presented etched glass and stated the glass would need to be obscured glass. They had considered using a very dark glass as well. Fret glass had a coating on it and they could either use that application or etched glass on the building. Mr. Ryan had suggested the use of textured glass, which there were many to choose from. If they were unable to replicate the glass due to Historic District restrictions they could use some type of obscure glass. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, presented a photo of the original building which showed the transom glass and the configuration of the store fronts. The photo had been obtained from the Library data base. Mr. Pomeroy stated the photo was from a different time period than the photo they had presented. Mr. Frankel stated the Staff Report defined the project as a restoration. The period of restoration would need to be determined, which was stated as 1905 to 1912; the photo he had presented was City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 14 of 17 the building in 1906. The applicant would need to identify the materials and features of the building from the 1906 photo documentation and utilize the 1906 photo in restoration of the store front. He felt changing the setback would be inappropriate. The OTPA was in support of restoration and the removal of the iron and restoration of the facade. They would like to see the building restored using the photos that he had presented. The folding doors would be inappropriate. In comparing the building to Gabbi's, that location had been an open market, and the outdoor space was part of the original make-up; in the proposed project the building never had folding doors and never would have. There was not much of a wainscot and the would be inappropriate. Mr. Pomeroy asked Mr. Frankel what time period had he determined the photos that he had presented to be from? Mr. Pomeroy stated they intended to use the time period from the photos that he had presented. Mr. Frankel stated the Staff Report stated the time period to be 1906-1912 that the restoration would be completed from. The photo documentation clearly showed what would be appropriate or inappropriate. The transom glass was clear glass and typical of the time period. The building was on a prominent corner and the OTPA would like to have the building restored as closely to its original state. There might be a way to add a vault area at the rear of the building, out of public view for the Edison meters. They would prefer that an entrance be added at the rear rather than utilizing a window at the front of the building. They would like the building restored back to the period of significance. Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the photo that was presented had no setback or use of ceramic tile. There was a name of a store on the lower portion of the building which identified that the material was most likely a painted surface. Greg Nutt, address on file, stated he was the senior project manager from DSE Architecture. Potentially by the next DRC they could be presenting a project next door to the proposed project. They had been engaged by the owner to complete historic work and they were in favor of what was being presented on the project. Committee Member Gladson asked if he was referring to the Ehlen and Grote building next door? Mr. Nutt stated that was correct. Committee Member Cathcart stated on the Staff Report there was reference to different dates and asked for clarification. He assumed the dates referenced the different items that were being presented in the Staff Report such as awnings and glass. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated basically the restoration would be based on the documentation and photographs that were available. There were changes to the building that could have occurred early on. She was not certain why the dates differed and it may have been based on the different periods Mr. Ryan had been researching from. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 15 of 17 Committee Member Cathcart stated on the Plaza restoration it had been arbitrarily decided that 1937 was chosen as a reference point for the center plaza and 1973 for the quad. He wondered if there was flexibility in which photo or time period was used? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the period of significance for the Historic District as a whole spanned quite a time frame. They had researched as far back as what was available to find a point of restoration. Mr. Pomeroy stated they had completed their research and the images that he had presented were the images that their design had been based on and the period they had chosen. There were not other images. The other images that had been presented had no relationship to the proposed project. He was not aware if the images were from 1906 or from 1936; however, they were the historic images that had come from the research that they had completed for the project. Another reason the images presented were used was that they included Huff Jewelers as a business; he stated his grandmother was a Huff and it was a significant relationship to the project. Committee Member Woollett stated in reviewing the project he was not certain how an area he pointed out on the plans would be constructed. Mr. Pomeroy stated the area had been a display window and the intent was for the area to be a glass cube. There was a structural element in that area, possibly metal. He reviewed the plans with Committee Member Woollett. Committee Member Woollett stated on the project at Maple and Glassell they found things hidden when they started taking the building apart. Mr. Pomeroy stated they would be interested in finding something of significance. Committee Member McCormack stated if the intent was to match what was there? Mr. Pomeroy stated he was not certain that the same material could be found and they would replicate as closely the material that was there. Committee Member Woollett asked if there were any photos of the north side of the building? Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Frankel both stated they had not been able to obtain any of those photos. Mr. Frankel stated the photos that Mr. Pomeroy presented were from 1920. Committee Member Woollett asked if they had anticipated any structural problems? Mr. Pomeroy stated he had not anticipated that as the building was wood framed, with the skin being scored plaster. Mr. Ricci stated with the Edison requirement there were not many options, and that was the reason Mr. Pomeroy had presented the front door access. Another reason for the meter room addition would be to house a grease trap which was another requirement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 16 of 17 Committee Member Woollett stated that Mr. Ryan had added many comments on recommendations for the project and read from those comments. Committee Member McCormack stated in the comments it had read that no reflective glass be permitted, that maybe an issue with the transom glass. Mr. Pomeroy stated he had discussed that with Mr. Ryan and there was a suggestion for the use of clear glass. He felt the transom needed to be obscure. Committee Member Cathcart suggested that the applicants research any other photographs and pick a period from which to restore from. A review of the Staff Report and those suggestions should also be incorporated into the design. The Edison requirement was a dilemma and it would be a challenge to find an alternate way to accommodate the equipment. Mr. Pomeroy asked Mr. Frankel if they continued in the direction that they had presented would the OTPA have a problem with the use of ceramic tile? Mr. Frankel stated the OTPA would prefer the use of original materials. Mr. Pomeroy asked what type of wainscot would have been used on the original building? Mr. Frankel stated he would look at the digital image to see if he could get a clearer idea of what had been used. It would ultimately be for the approval of the DRC and Planning Commission. Committee Member Gladson stated there might be value in digging deeper and getting further historic information. Mr. Pomeroy stated they had decided on the period to restore from. Committee Member Gladson stated she was concerned that there was not a clear record to gain reference from. Mr. Pomeroy stated the date was 1920 and there was adequate reference. Committee Member McCormack stated the beauty was in the details and in looking at Gabbi's there was a bit of `off-the-shelf Home Depot" look and with Citrus City there was detail brought in from Chapman's logo, and he felt they should incorporate the details from whatever period they ultimately decided on and that the details would not look just tacked on. The lighting would also be an area for historic detail. Committee Member Cathcart asked if there was anything further to discuss and verified that the applicant understood the suggestions given. A motion would not be made as the project had been presented for preliminary review. Mr. Pomeroy stated he appreciated all the comments and suggestions from the Committee Members. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2008 Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 19, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED.