Loading...
2010-01-06 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL January 6, 2010 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes and noted corrections and changes. Committee Member Gladson stated with Item No. 2 she had some thoughts, on the criteria on a contributing structure in what was a contributing structure to the Historic District and what was a non-contributing structure. Since she was still kind of new, there might be value in agendizing that discussion if her colleagues concurred and if they had the same interest as her. She brought it up as she was wrestling with the situation that there would be more non-contributing structures potentially coming to the DRC and the Committee could be asked if a structure could become contributing. She was wrestling with that. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the first thing they looked at was the survey and whether or not the property was in the survey. Committee Member Gladson stated the survey stated if it was not contributing back in 1980 when the nominations took place. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, could go through that explanation with them. There were a number of things that were looked at besides the age of the property, such as what had been done and was there anything left from original architectural features and was there anything significant about it, or had a property been remodeled and re- done over the years to an extent where one would not know unless they peeled back the layers. Mr. Ryan stated on the particular building Committee Member Gladson spoke of, the northern portion had some of the original facade, the prismatic glass and transoms, the southern half closest to Glassell had seismic retrofitting done, with a movement frame and other features. At the moment he was not certain if the applicant had an opportunity to look at the dropped ceiling City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 2 of 17 area behind the facade to check if any of the original fabric of the building remained. Part of that discussion with Jack Selman was that there might be sufficient evidence that there might be something significant existing that might be uncovered; the building could be a contributing building. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated if an area could be restored it could be contributing and not to speak specifically about a project, when a project came forward that could be the determination. Mr. Ryan stated hypothetically that was the case, if non-historic or inappropriate features could be removed and a building could be restored to its contributing status the survey process could occur to document the classification of a building. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the question would be where had they done that recently? Mr. Ryan stated yes, that had been done. Committee Member Gladson stated that was how she viewed it, when something was deemed non-contributing there was generally something inappropriate, and that was one of the criteria. When they looked at all that stuff and listed Downtown on the register in the 1980's, that was a time frame that they were 20 years beyond and she saw the potential, now that there was interest in restoration of properties, they might have buildings moving back to a contributing status. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated if the buildings were built during the period of significance that would be the first call, there were buildings in Old Towne that were not. Unless they expanded the criteria those buildings never would be, but there could always be a possibility. One of the things they looked at when someone was making changes or additions to a property was what would occur if someone wanted to take a building back to the way it was and would it all work together. Committee Member Woollett stated that raised an interesting question; because if changes were made to a building and those changes gave the appearance of how the building once was and it looked like a contributing building, would that building really be contributing if the changes were non-historic? In other words changes would be made presently and could present a false sense of history; if a building was made a contributing building, it would in affect be aiding and abetting a false sense of history. Chair McCormack stated maybe not if the building was being restored. Mr. Ryan stated it was a question of reconstruction; based on original fabric and if there was still a portion of a building standing that would have a physical record of what was there. If that portion would be restored, was it appropriate to restore the remainder of the building to match existing to bring a property back to a contributing status? It was an interesting question. It would depend on the documentation and how much historic fabric was left in place. . Committee Member Gladson stated the reason she brought it up was for the Committee's discussion to see if they wanted to study the subject further. She wanted to be a bit less objective and come up with a sense that there was a level of or a threshold to look at, and maybe it could City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 3 of 17 not be that way and it was a more subjective process with each individual building and application. Mr. Ryan stated the standards stated that if original fabric was found to maintain that and it was appropriate to remove non-historic features. Committee Member Gladson stated if she was remembering correctly one of the goals of the new General Plan, that was in the pipeline, was an idea out there for the City Council's consideration of a Certified Local Government, which would give the entity the ability, if established in Orange and the DRC was that body, they would have the ability to change the status of a building. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were certain prerogatives if there was a Certified Local Government and she was not certain what was occurring with that. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt there was a lot involved in that and there were many buildings out there that folks were looking at to strip off all of the non-contributing stuff and that was exciting and there could be the potential for more contributing buildings. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a concern in a generic sense, and he could not speak of any particular project, when non-historic material was removed from a facade he wondered if there could be more control in light of accidents that had occurred in the past; such as Gabby's and the Old Towne Grinder, where people had gone too far. They might be thinking about the situation more, like a huge grading project where there would be a paleontologist and archeologist available to monitor what was occurring. Mr. Ryan stated they had taken note of that particular happenstance and in the revision of the Old Towne Standards those would include items that would monitor potential situations such as if a historic sign was uncovered, and to have procedures in place. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they might want to do something very basic and they had not spoken about it before, but to have a standard Old Towne/Plaza condition that would state that if during work a property owner uncovered something such as a painted-on wall sign, work should be stopped and the City's Historic Planner contacted. Mr. Ryan stated they had included that as a condition in some of the later Staff Reports as they had realized that there could be potential situations. Chair McCormack asked if there was a defined threshold for that; if one layer was not historic would that layer be removed until a historic layer was found? He assumed the Grinder got to the core of the onion. Mr. Ryan stated not necessarily as that project had sign over sign and the idea was not to remove anything. They had stopped the work there and neutralized any paint remover that was on the building and left what was in place. Based on photographs and research they could determine what had been there and what tenants had occupied the building. Not all exterior surfaces came off at the same rate; that was when a conservator would get involved to determine what City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 4 of 17 methodology to use and what period to take the building back to. It was similar to the restoration of historic signs. Committee Member Cathcart stated didn't they have an obligation to have the process be easier rather than more difficult. If he owned a building downtown and he had to go through what the Grinder had done he would not peel off anything. He would not do it because what if he found a mess underneath something and how would they guard against that occurring? Committee Member Woollett asked what if an applicant found something they had not wanted? Chair McCormack stated it was the same situation as the paleontologist who found the whale bone. Would it be the applicant's prerogative or would the City be able to come in and dictate the direction? Mr. Ryan stated the issue with the Grinder was that the work was stopped until a determination was made that there would be no further damage to a historic sign and how important the sign might or might not be. It also had a bearing on what signs were put up in the future to balance those with what existed. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated in theory the Grinder could have gone in with just a business license without having to re-do the space; they had a real interest and a want to take the building back to something that was more appropriate and more interesting for them. It was not discovered until they began peeling things off. Chair McCormack stated they could not be stopped from doing that; it was like a leap of faith on the property owner's part. Committee Member Gladson stated there was Code Enforcement that could step in at some point and that was the balance of it all. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was also based on the knowledge of the people working on a project; the care they took on a building and there were many people who were very diligent in what they did. Then there were others that were not as diligent that had not expected anything to be there. There were buildings with plaster and they might want to just rip off the plaster to expose brick, thinking that would be it. It was acase-by-case basis and they worked with what they could and that was what kept Mr. Ryan so busy. Chair McCormack stated that was the case with Francoli and the diagonal siding. Mr. Ryan stated they knew that and they were still wondering about Felix's now and what was behind that. Committee Member Gladson stated it was something she would like to learn more about and maybe it was just one-on-one as they saw individual projects; she wanted to be careful. Committee Member Cathcart asked what part of history would be stopped at considering a situation such as the Grinder? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 5 of 17 Mr. Ryan stated that was why people saved things from each period of history and it was important to document such things. Committee Member Gladson stated it was important to have the research, but that also took a lot of time and the patience to wait and find the best solution. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the photographs were also important. They had photos of Old Towne but it was never enough. That was part of what they ran up against. Committee Member Wheeler asked if Ms. Aranda Roseberry knew when El Camino Real Park would reopen? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated soon. She would make a note and find out about that as they had just spoken of it recently. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not remembered the submittal that well but it was a suggestion on that project to have them upgrade the color scheme and it appeared that they might have done that. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she was not certain about that and they may have used some colors that were not originally proposed on the trash enclosure and she could find out more about that. There was no further discussion. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND; Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All DRC 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. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 6 of 17 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: December 16, 2009 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from December 16, 2009, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 7 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4450-09 -BROWN RESIDENCE • A proposal for installation of a 240 sq. ft., 20' X 12", gable-roofed storage shed, to be located at the rear of a commercially zoned property with contributing residential structure. • 186 S. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-447-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org • DRC ACTION: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler stated that in February 2008 he had prepared a proposal for architectural services for the project, but he had not been selected for the work and he had no further involvement with the project. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Brian Brown, address on file, stated that in addition to the Staff Report information, the rear west residence had a shed. He pointed to a photo as to the visibility to the neighbor it would be a shed behind a shed. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she had no objection to the proposed project. She had a question about the Mills Act and the front doors of the property that were not historic. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no problem with the proposed project, with the exception that on the drawing that was provided it appeared that the deck was part of the project and he wanted it to be clear that they were only looking at the shed. Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. Chair McCormack stated the proposed project was within Old Towne and zoned C-2. Mr. Ryan stated that was correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 8 of 17 Chair McCormack stated his only concern would be in setting precedence on apre-fabricated structure in Old Towne. He had not necessarily had a problem with it in C-2, and would it be acceptable in an R-1 zone? Mr. Ryan stated that was not necessarily correct. In R-1 a garage and an accessory structure were permitted. The standards dealt with the lot coverage, building separation and set backs and the area of review would be materials and how it would fit in with the property. Chair McCormack stated on an accessory structure that was not a garage the proposed project would be acceptable in Old Towne, apre-fabricated structure that was not historic or contributing. Mr. Ryan stated it was an accessory structure that was compatible with the main structure and its placement and setting were appropriate as far as the zoning standards and setbacks were concerned. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had designed pre-fabricated structures for years and he would not want to discriminate against that type of a structure. Because it was built elsewhere should not be a determining factor, and he knew where there was a manufactured home in Old Towne. Chair McCormack stated he could see that, but some of the pre-fabricated homes were more efficient to build and probably more sustainable and he brought it up to ask the question whether there were issues in bringing anon-historic pre-fabricated home to the Old Towne District? Mr. Ryan stated there were some pre-fabricated homes and he believed there had been two in the last 20 years and of those they had looked at the proposals and recommended similar materials be used such as exposed rafter tails and the correct type of siding and it was part of the process that the applicant choose something that worked aesthetically for the District. Chair McCormack asked if someone came in later with apre-fabricated structure could they state it was non-contributing? Committee Member Woollett stated it would not be contributing unless it had been built 30 years ago. He asked if the proposed project had been a garage and not a shed would Staff s recommendation have changed? Mr. Ryan stated there would be a few things that they would have wanted to be added onto it, such as exposed rafters that would make it appropriate for the location. Committee Member Woollett stated something that had been discovered over the years was that garages quite often were not built with the same materials as the main house; any new structure would be accepted using a different material and they could not request that details such as siding would need to match the house. Mr. Ryan stated they had seen in some cases where the front might have horizontal clapboard siding and the back had board and batten and it depended on the age and date of the structures. The proposed project had a little more latitude as an accessory structure. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 9 of 17 Chair McCormack asked if there was a limit of how large it could be? Mr. Ryan stated the site was commercial property and it was anon-conforming property; it could be repaired and restored as the applicant had been doing. As he recalled, the original doors that were replaced were not historic. Mr. Brown stated the doors were not originally historic and now they were. He was somewhat confused by the question raised by the Public Speaker. The doors were wood. Mr. Ryan stated there was an outstanding issue on the windows that needed to be changed out. Committee Member Gladson asked on the Mills Act Contract that was in place, if it covered just the main structure or was it for the entire site? Mr. Ryan stated it was interesting enough that the Mills Act required that the Secretary of Interior's Standards were followed and any development that took place on the site would require Design Review. Committee Member Gladson stated on the site plan the structure was a portable storage shed and it had the potential for going away. If someone else bought the property in 15 years they could remove it easily. Her only admonition was that the applicant should have been more forthright with what he was thinking with the size of the shed and it had been done without any initial review. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4450-09, Brown Residence, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the additional condition that the approval applied only to the storage shed. 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 January 6, 2010 Page 10 of 17 (3) DRC No. 4452-09 -HENRY'S GRILL • A proposal to combine and convert an existing 1,145 sq. ft. office and 873 sq. ft. retail space into a 2,018 sq. ft. restaurant. Proposal includes a new outdoor 400 sq. ft. patio at the rear of the building. Anew facade and single entry is proposed for the storefront. The subject property is anon-contributing building. • 149 N. Glassell Street, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-447-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org • DRC ACTION: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Wheeler recused himself from the presentation due to the proximity of his office to the proposed project. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jack Selman, address on file, stated he was excited to get the building back to its original shape. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated she was not too excited about another restaurant in town, but she loved the idea that the applicant was going to be careful and watch for the transoms and to check for any signs above that. She urged the City to keep track of what went on at the site. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated in reviewing the plans where the recess for the door was, the glass was taken all the way down to the floor level, instead of leaving it up and it seemed a bit strange to him from a traditional approach. Mr. Ryan stated typically the wainscoting on a store front was wrapped. Committee Member Woollett stated it would be more appropriate to have it wrapped. Mr. Selman stated there was a moment frame that it would hit. From the front it would not be noticeable, but from the inside they would need to work around it. Committee Member Woollett stated what the applicant was considering was that it would stand alone in the inside. Mr. Selman stated what was being suggested was that from the outside it was more in line with keeping it traditional. The steel moment frame was currently encased in drywall and they would be taking the drywall off to see if it was built out. They were not certain what they would find. He had no problem with attempting to get the bulk head in there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 11 of 17 Committee Member Woollett stated there was one aspect of the proposed project that bothered him and the applicant may have spent a lot of time on it. They were placing a transformer where a tree was and the tree looked great and tied in with the other tree. He reviewed the pictures and stated it would add to the eating area. He was wondering if the transformer could be placed in another area. It seemed to him that a better place for it might be to the south, on the south side of the hedge. He pointed to the area on the plans. Mr. Selman stated it would not be accessible to Edison. Committee Member Woollett stated he had battles with the Edison Company over the years also and sometimes they were more agreeable. Chair McCormack pointed to another area where he suggested the transformer could be placed. Mr. Selman stated he had not put a lot of importance on the tree. All the trees were not healthy and he pointed out one that would not provide shade due to its placement and another tree that was dead. He was constantly trimming the trees from the neighboring roof as it created a nuisance to the neighbor. The tree had been there 20 years and as much as he wanted to preserve the tree he had not thought of the importance in placing the transformer. He would think about it. Chair McCormack stated there were three choices for placement. Mr. Selman stated there was also a walkway. Committee Member Woollett stated on the paving, it appeared on the drawings that the paving would all be the same level, but the concrete pad was higher and if they attempted to put the paving at that level there would be a conflict. Mr. Selman stated all the paving was at grade level and he pointed out which area was raised. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was currently raised? Mr. Selman stated it was. The Committee reviewed the plans with the applicant. Chair McCormack asked for clarification on the handicap access that he pointed to on the drawings. Mr. Selman stated there was not a handicap access in that area as it was the entry to the upstairs. Chair McCormack asked on the rear door had it required handicap access? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 12 of 17 Mr. Ryan stated yes, and pointed out the access at the rear. Mr. Selman stated there was a handicap stall and he pointed out how a person would maneuver through the area. Chair McCormack stated he brought it up only because if there was new construction the applicant might be required to fix the handicap access. Mr. Selman stated it had not been brought up as there would be no changes to the parking. If there was a change to the parking for handicap access they would lose a space and he felt the City would not want them to lose parking. Committee Member Woollett stated the handicap access could occur next to a vehicle and he pointed to an area that could work. The Committee discussed placement of a ramp on the drawings. Chair McCormack stated he agreed with Committee Member Woollett and the loss of the tree would change the space and he was a bit biased. Since moving the transformer would buy them a tree. Committee Member Woollett stated the tree would give them summer time shade as the sun would be directly overhead. Committee Member Gladson stated on the rear facade, the Staff Report noted it was a painted stucco finish, and she asked if it had originally been brick and had the applicant thought of the potential to change that back? Mr. Selman stated when stucco had been removed from other brick areas it pulled away from the mortar and became a project on its own and he had not wanted to do that. The base tied in with the building as it went across. Committee Member Gladson stated she had a question about the transformer and the tree, which her colleagues had already covered. Committee Member Cathcart asked what type of tree grates would be used? Mr. Selman stated there would be 4' x 4' openings with pebbles around them. Chair McCormack pointed out a better location for the transformer. Mr. Selman stated that area he pointed to was the main entrance to his office. Committee Member Woollett asked where the meter was? Mr. Selman pointed out the meter on the plans. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 13 of 17 Chair McCormack stated on the stone veneer it was shown on section 1 as an existing condition, and he asked what other element would be used? Mr. Selman stated they would be using a slate tile. Committee Member Gladson asked on area she pointed to was brick? Mr. Selman stated it was stucco on top of something and he wasn't sure what it was. Committee Member Woollett stated it looked like painted brick. Mr. Ryan stated brick veneer. Mr. Selman stated it was not brick veneer, he thought it was painted stucco. There was also a portion that had been patched and they would look at that. Committee Member Gladson stated she was a bit concerned with the use of tile. Mr. Selman stated it was a slate tile. Mr. Ryan stated there were some bulkheads in the Plaza that had some very unique original tile. Mr. Selman stated if there was brick or some other material underneath and if it was something everyone liked they could match it. He was not 100% set on that if there was an alternative, he had thought about using a glazed tile. There were no historic references for that feature when he had looked through old photos. Mr. Ryan stated on Francoli's the original photos which had the polished stone that was on the jewelry store was the same stuff they recycled and used on the barber shop. There were different materials that were used. Mr. Selman stated his initial idea was that they would use something neutral to offset some of the more historic features and the glass and awnings would be the real focal point. If there was something else they wanted to use he could look into that. Mr. Ryan stated there were a couple of different solutions other applicants had taken from a wood detail store front recess and the bulkheads, there had been other materials used. The panels on the bottom he thought were painted stucco. Mr~ Selman stated with the building as brick being the main feature he could use painted stucco that would just lie back, because the brick was the most historic part of it. Committee Member Gladson asked on the columns would they restore them to brick? Mr. Selman stated they would chip the stucco off and find out what was underneath. On the building next door there was a glazed brick on the front and the bulkhead was a rough red brick. They could leave that detail open and bring it back once they discovered what was underneath. Chair McCormack stated he liked it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 14 of 17 Mr. Selman presented a photo and stated they would be bringing back the awnings. Committee Member Cathcart asked what type of food would Henry's serve? Applicant, Scott Jones, address on file, stated he had emailed a menu to Mr. Selman. Committee Member Gladson stated on the sign next door she understood they would not be messing with that and she wanted that to be noted in the record. They had spoken of preservation of painted signs and she wanted to ensure that if they would be installing a new A/C unit that there would be not harm to the sign. Mr. Selman stated what would harm the sign was graffiti and he had to take care of that previously and it had cost him $4,000.00 as required by the City. Graffiti was happening all over town and he worried about the historic elements. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4452-09, Henry's Grill, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. When historic materials were uncovered that the City be notified of those findings. 2. The existing tree in the northeast corner of the patio area shall be retained and an alternate location for the transformer be found 3. The wainscot on the door inset to match the wainscot on the west side of the building. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 15 of 17 (4) DRC No. 4460-09 - CIBOLA WAREHOUSE MODIFICATIONS • A proposal to remove a 12-foot building bay (approximately 1,111 sq. ft. section) of a non-contributing warehouse building that currently encroaches six feet into railroad right-of--way. • 527 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org • Prior DRC Review: July 15, 2009 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Wheeler rejoined the meeting. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Susan Secoy Jensen, address on file, stated basically when the project had been in the works in July they were in discussion with the railroad and most clients would want the additional 6' of space that would go to the property line, but due to the architectural integrity they would keep the rhythm of the building and push it back; it would not change that much. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked what would occur in the space between the building and the west property line? Ms. Secoy Jensen stated there would be similar landscape, trees and plantings. Chair McCormack asked if the existing trees would be removed. Ms. Secoy Jensen stated those would be on the railroad property. Committee Member Woollett asked if a fence would be installed? Ms. Secoy Jensen stated no, they had not wanted to create a dead zone on that side. There would be a fence where it had been proposed initially. They had the same problem with graffiti and had not wanted to create a space for that. Chair McCormack stated the trees would hide a visible canvas. Committee Member Gladson stated she thought the railroad would not keep the trees. They might want to add additional trees behind those. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2010 Page 16 of 17 Ms. Secoy Jensen stated she felt it was a good idea. Committee Member Cathcart stated that was what had been done at the dance studio on Chapman, they had planted trees. Committee Member Woollett stated he had worked on a project that had installed sprinkler heads that were connected to a sensor. Chair McCormack stated he had also used that system. Ms. Secoy Jensen stated she generally used light sensors, but she also liked the sprinkler idea. Committee Member Wheeler stated he hoped the intent was to reuse as much of the material from the west wall. Ms. Secoy Jensen stated that was correct; they would be applying for LEED Certification and would be recycling as much as possible. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4460-09, Cibola Warehouse Modifications, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Landscape on the west side of the building to be retained, understanding some of the landscaping would fall on the railroad property. 2. Existing material to be recycled as much as possible. 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 January 6, 2010 Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.