Loading...
2010-01-20 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL January 20, 2010 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Gladson opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated she understood that Committee Member Wheeler would need to recuse himself from two of the Agenda items and she asked him which Agenda items would he be recused from? Committee Member Wheeler stated it was Agenda Item No. 2, Haven Gastropub and Agenda Item No. 5, Cuddeback, due to their locations. Vice Chair Gladson stated they would still have a quorum on those items. Chair McCormack joined the meeting. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they would have a quorum and the Chair might consider asking the applicants if they would not mind having the Agenda rearranged. Committee Member Gladson stated Items No. 3 & 4 could move, if the applicants were amenable, to be heard earlier and Items No. 2 & 5 heard last. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was if the Committee anticipated Item No. 2 having a more lengthy discussion, but it was entirely up to the Chair. Chair McCormack stated moving Items No. 2 & 5 would be fine with him. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it would be with the concurrence of the applicant. Once the Regular Session began he could check with the applicants as a courtesy. The Committee Members agreed to a change in the order of the Agenda. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 2 of 25 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated at the next meeting they would consider reorganization and it would be placed on the Agenda and she believed that would occur with the first meeting in February. It would be a reorganization of Chair and Vice Chair. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes and noted corrections and changes. There was no further discussion. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Cathcart was absent. 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: January 6, 2010 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from January 6, 2010, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 3 of 25 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 4 of 25 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None Chair McCormack stated during the Administrative Session that the Committee had discussed rearranging of the Agenda and it would impact Agenda Items No. 2 and 5. He asked the applicants if they had an opposition to a change in the Agenda. There was no opposition. The Agenda was heard in the following order: Item No. 3, 4, 2, & 5. New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4445-09 -HAVEN GASTROPUB • A proposal to construct a new outdoor patio dining area on the Glassell Street elevation, install aEuropean-style wood entry door, and window signage. • 190 S. Glassell Street, Units C & D, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be recused from Items No. 2 and 5 due to the location of his office within 500' of the project sites. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Ace Patel, address on file, stated he was available for questions. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he was involved in the Jensen building at that review process and the design of the windows and doors for the building had been hashed out over months and months of review. The doors that were chosen fit the style of the building. He felt a medieval style; European door would not fit on the brick commercial- style building. It was not appropriate for the facade's street scape. That type of door would not be found anywhere else in Old Towne on any of the buildings. He reviewed the photo that was being submitted by the applicant. There had been requirements for double-hung windows that would be consistent with the existing streetscape and he had not believed that the proposed door was consistent. As far as the outdoor dining, it was not a preservation issue; however, some areas such as Gabbi's had encroached onto the sidewalk not allowing pedestrian traffic and he had not wanted that to occur with Haven Gastropub. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 5 of 25 Chair McCormack stated he had visited the site and one of his concerns was where would the railing go? Overall he had no problems with it; his biggest issue would be the details. One of the details he focused on was how would the ground plane be treated where the post would come down. With a 2" post, he assumed it would have a 6" core drill, and that the existing sidewallc would be core drilled. He could not tell where that would be. There would be a post that would be stuck in with a concrete footing and the footing would be visible and he would not want that to be visible. He would want to have an escutcheon, with a piece on the bottom to cover the non- consistent footing finish and color. It would probably be matched gray. The bigger issue was would it hit that area? He wanted to know where the fence would be installed. Mr. Patel pointed out the area on the plans and stated it would go just to the inside of the line, and 4' to 5' would remain at the narrowest part of the sidewalk. Chair McCormack asked if the core drills would go right on a line he pointed to on the plans? Mr. Patel stated it would go straight. Chair McCormack stated he would want some type of cover. Mr. Patel stated they would match the escutcheon plate with the wrought iron and it would look nice. Chair McCormack stated it would be nice to reduce the footing as much as possible so the escutcheon would not be standing out in the walkable surface. Sometimes footings would not need to be as deep and he would not want to create a tripping hazard. Mr. Patel stated they might be able to obtain a plate that would just fit the post itself and would come out ahalf--inch or so. Chair McCormack stated at Citrus City, although their situation was different, their fence was mounted on the columns. He had visited all the restaurants on the Plaza and the applicant's restaurant would be the only one with that particular situation. He asked for the information on the drink rail? Mr. Patel stated it would be a type of metal that would match the rail and appear as one piece. They were in the process of finding historical railing to fit in. Chair McCormack suggested moving the drink rail down. If they would attach the drink rail as presented there would be a weld bead that could potentially cut people who ran their hand along it. The beauty was in the detail on a rail that people would grab and have their drinks on. Committee Member Gladson stated in the applicant's letter it was noted that there was historic salvage fencing selected. Mr. Patel stated they had not selected the exact rail. There was a place a few blocks from City Hall that had historic fencing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 6 of 25 Chair McCormack asked if it was Architectural Salvage? Mr. Patel stated it was. Chair McCormack asked if the project would return to the DRC for review of the railing? Mr. Ryan stated it was his call. Committee Member Gladson stated she would be okay with the railing selection being reviewed by Staff. Mr. Patel stated they would not choose something too intricate. Committee Member Gladson stated the pitch point issue that was brought up by Chair McCormack was a good point and it would be something that they could provide input on to ensure the area stayed clear. There were no transformers or equipment in that 5' pitch point of the patio. If there was signage out there or a hostess stanchion it would be a barrier and it would be important to keep pedestrians moving. The door question was the bigger issue. She could go either way and it had not particularly troubled her to have~the door match the restaurant theme. The fact that the building was newer gave her more flexibility in that area. She could be okay with it and would hear her colleagues input on the proposal. She appreciated Staff's recommendation to keep the door for future use. Mr. Frankel stated there was something in the Design Standards that stated buildings with entrances on Glassell and Chapman Avenue shall comply with the Historic Window and Facade Standards. He was not certain the door would comply and it was not noted in the Staff Report. Committee Member Gladson stated it was clearly a wood door. Mr. Ryan stated there were two things, one there had been a long discussion about whether a design was appropriate for in-fill construction. They had a building that was in-fill of a modern design and the materials should reflect that architectural style and period. The Standards related to recessed entrances containing similar materials and designs for the style of the building. Committee Member Woollett stated he clearly heard what Mr. Frankel was stating and there had been much discussion about it. It hit the issue of in-fill, and they would not want to build a new building to make it look like an old building and they had discussed that many times. It seemed to him there was a certain sensibility that the project was in a retail area, it was a restaurant, and Old Towne by its very nature was inconsistent. They had discussed that a great deal and part of the character of Old Towne was its inconsistency. It made it more difficult to decide what was more appropriate. He felt Staff's recommendation to keep the old door was very appropriate. He had no strong objection to the door. It stated something about the restaurant itself and it was almost a sign or trademark and characterized what was inside. He could imagine a brand new building in the downtown commercial district that would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the architecture. He was more concerned with the railing and he realized that they had a sketch that was not what would be installed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 7 of 25 Mr. Patel stated that was correct as they had not chosen the rail. Committee Member Woollett stated with metal that would be sunk into concrete they had to be very careful not to leave a space for water that would lead to rust. It would be important that the concrete would be sloped up a bit so the water would run away from it. If they used a 2" x 2" tube, which they were showing, they could probably get away with a 3" hole. The design was important. There was the issue of compatibility with the street and the District. Mr. Ryan stated the rail should be contemporary enough to fit in with the building and be of an acceptable material. Committee Member Woollett stated the proposal showed tubular rail which would be more consistent with a contemporary building. The building in his judgment, although not historic, was compatible with the District. The railing would not need to match the building. He was concerned that it was a barrier on the sides and that people would run into it and get hurt. That could create a liability issue. Mr. Patel stated it was a wide alley and it would be very difficult to miss when coming from the alley. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not concerned with the alley, but with people approaching along the street. It would be one thing to run into a table, but another thing to run into a rail that was anchored. Chair McCormack suggested moving it in at mid-bay, and possibly adding some plantings or a series of pots that could actually make a statement. Mr. Patel stated they could add herb planters. Chair McCormack stated once they starting choosing pots they could go to titanium, clay, or something that made an Old World statement or something contemporary. Then they had the fence, they would have three very thematic objects and they would want to ensure that they appeared to be blended from the same idea. Mr. Patel stated they would decide on the railing; it would be something appropriate and they would add details to match. Chair McCormack stated the detail was important. How the panels would be spaced, and if they would choose something from Architectural Salvage it would already be a certain size and they would need to see how it all pieced together. It would not be anything they would have input on. He would not want to see the posts misaligned. Anything that a person's hand touched would become a very detailed feature and it would be important to get the details correct. Committee Member Gladson asked if there would be window signage above the door? She was fine with that, she just wanted to be certain as they would potentially be recommending the project to the Planning Commission and would want them to review a tight package. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 8 of 25 Mr. Patel stated yes, it would go above the new doors. Committee Member Woollett asked if the signage was in accordance with the sign ordinance? Mr. Ryan stated the applicant was allowed a certain amount of space. Mr. Patel stated they would not use the full allowable space. Mr. Ryan stated when the applicant had submitted their sign program the window signage was not included and that was the reason it was submitted on the current application. Window signage was allowed. The type face and letter size would be required to be compatible with the applicant's whole concept. Mr. Patel stated they had not wanted to splash signage across the windows. The signage would be very subtle. Mr. Ryan stated previously there was a request to have some signage across the bottom of the windows but they had decided against that. Committee Member Gladson asked if the site was the old Mustard Cafe and was there a blade there? Mr. Ryan stated it was Aldo's. Mr. Patel stated there was a blade sign. Chair McCormack stated one of the items they had not seen were the heaters. Would heaters be going over the windows? Mr. Patel stated the intent would be to place them in the pocket. Chair McCormack stated Francoli's heaters were recessed. Mr. Patel stated Francoli's was able to build a cove for them. Their canopy was already built and they were trying to find a way to install them. Chair McCormack asked if it was something the applicant wanted to explore, to discourage clutter. Mr. Ryan stated the other option would be to use portable heaters. Chair McCormack stated there would be conduit issues. Mr. Ryan stated Felix's had heaters that were. behind their awnings. The awning would be re- installed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 9 of 25 Chair McCormack stated he wanted to address the aesthetics of it. It would be nice to see if the applicant could do that. They would need to punch through for the windows and they could explore the possibility of adding a cove. Committee Member Gladson stated it would appear as a covered light. Mr. Patel stated they were looking at several options. Committee Member Woollett stated he would want to review those details. Committee Member Gladson stated they could review it after it went to the Planning Commission. They could condition it to return, but not impact the project from moving forward. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the project returning would be a good idea in order to allow them to think about the door. He heard Mr. Frankel very clearly. He had made his own statement. Committee Member Woollett sometimes found that the morning after he had more clarity. Committee Member Gladson asked what would they be reviewing after it went to the Planning Commission? Committee Member Woollett stated the idea of having the railing was fine and they would want to see the railing detail and the detail on the heaters. Chair McCormack stated they also had suggested ideas for the safety issues. Chair McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4445-09, Haven Gastropub, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. To have the project return to the DRC for review of the railing and heaters. 2. To place the fence rail according to the scoring on the concrete. 3. Pottery and plants to be added. 4. Escutcheon plates to be added to the bottom of the railing. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 10 of 25 (3) DRC No. 4459-09 - ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN SCHOOL • A request for review and approval of the final landscape plans for Phase II of the approved Master Plan under CUP No. 2410-02. • 901 E. Heim Avenue • Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Terry Jacobson, address on file, stated he was the architect working with the school. He wanted to point out that the plant palette was somewhat established by Architects of Orange with the prior approval and they had maintained that plant palette in the current presentation. He pointed to an area on the plans and stated the Queen Palms were maintained along the loop drop off zone and they were proposing to move the Palms and transplant them. There were a number of existing large trees that would remain; those were Ash trees and the new trees would be along the sloped transitional bank that was between the two levels. There was a 5' drop. He was not certain if the Committee Members were present at the previous presentation and there had been some concern about the building's height, the site was stepped to reduce the height impact of the building. The landscaping in that area was the Magnolia tree. Applicant, Jim Ridge, address on file, stated the only question would be if they could re-use the existing Palms and he was not certain if they were 10', they might be shorter than that. Other than that they were attempting to integrate the landscape into the school site. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair McCormack asked if an area he pointed to on the plans was lower? Mr. Jacobson stated it was lower. Chair McCormack asked if the 5' slope was at a 2:1? Mr. Jacobson stated that was correct and there was a retaining wall at the bottom. It stepped down and the planters were level with the hardscape. Chair McCormack apologized for not having visited the site. He reviewed photos and asked where they had been taken compared to the plans? Mr. Jacobson pointed out the drop off zone, the gymnasium on the lower pad, and where the Palm trees would be replanted. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 11 of 25 Chair McCormack stated the applicant wanted to take the Palm trees out, toe nail them, to take them out and in with no need to re-box them. Mr. Jacobson stated they might need to re-box them from the standpoint of construction timing as they would need to be removed during the grading process. Committee Member Gladson stated the packets contained an aerial view, Attachment No. 2, and she asked if the applicant could point out the trees on the aerial so she was able to get a better perspective. Mr. Jacobson pointed out the area on the aerial view. Chair McCormack asked how would those trees relate to the other trees on site? Mr. Jacobson stated they were all planted at the same time and that was one of the uniformity issues they wanted to maintain. In reviewing the photos they might exceed 10'. Chair McCormack stated the re-use issue was a very good thing. The trees were already acclimated to the site and it would be cost effective. He stated the other issue was the Jacaranda trees and he had been confused on what the conditions stated to re-use the Jacarandas and asked for an explanation of that? Ms. Thakur stated in the first phase of construction for the expansion there were new street trees that had been planted. In 2002 the Planning Commission's desire was to keep as many Jacaranda trees as possible; however, in speaking to the City's Tree Coordinator, the Jacaranda trees were being taken off the City's tree list and they were not being replaced and the Planning Commission had allowed City Staff to recommend what other tree specie would be appropriate on the street frontage. Mr. Jacobson stated those trees were not a part of their application. Chair McCormack asked if the Committee was supposed to act on that? Committee Member Woollett stated he had not thought so as the Jacaranda trees were gone. Ms. Thakur stated that information was included to show compliance with the condition. Chair McCormack stated they could not act on that and asked was it a done deal? Committee Member Gladson stated it was a street tree and it was out of their purview. Chair McCormack asked if the Sour Gum and the Red Buds went in? Ms. Thakur stated they were planted there in 2004. Chair McCormack stated under the Committee's purview they could not have them removed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 12 of 25 Ms. Thakur stated the City's Tree Coordinator had determined the trees appropriateness. Chair McCormack stated he wanted to understand if they were supposed to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to the tree choices. Ms. Thakur stated the tree specie had been included for informational purposes only. Committee Member Gladson stated to go further with that observation, the applicant had noted in review of the minutes that there were other Jacaranda trees on the site that were being maintained. She asked the applicant if there were other Jacaranda trees on the site? Mr. Ridge stated he was not aware if those remained on site. He had walked the site and was aware of some Ash trees on the property. Chair McCormack stated what the DRC was being asked to comment on was the re-use of the Palm trees and the use of Magnolia trees. In his opinion in terms of design, he was a big tree guy, and he had not liked small trees especially in large areas. The small trees were great next to a pool at the Beverly Hilton, in an intimate setting. He liked the Magnolia Little Gem, but used in a more intimate people space. He suggested the use of Magnolia Majestic Beauty. They could replace that in the plans one for one and he had not believed it would present a cost issue. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there were other Magnolia trees at the site, and what variety those were? Mr. Ridge stated he thought grandiflora, but was not certain. The building would be large and he agreed with the use of larger trees. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be in favor of using the grandiflora to match what existed at the site. Chair McCormack stated he suggested Majestic Beauty as he had experience with that tree. Mr. Ridee presented photos of the existing trees on site. Chair McCormack stated he had no problem with the Palm tree relocation and suggested the use of the "Majestic Beauty" or grandiflora Magnolia tree. Committee Member Gladson stated just for clarification, from the June 18, 2003 meeting minutes, Mr. Hatfield in the second paragraph stated although many Jacarandas would be xemoved there would still be some left on site; and it was the reason she brought up the question. She felt the Jacarandas got a bum rap. Mr. Jacobson stated he agreed and had two in his yard. There might be Jacarandas in the children's play area that were not street trees. He was not certain what they were. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt there was some value in considering Jacaranda trees in the plant palette if some still existed on the site. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Jacobson pointed out where the Ash trees were on site. Committee Member Woollett stated he was pleased with the solution that had been presented and had no issues with the proposed project. Committee Member Wheeler stated they had been asked to address the question of the mechanical screening. The mechanical equipment appeared to be well below the parapet. Sometimes mechanical equipment tended to creep up and he wanted to propose a condition that if the mechanical equipment exceeded 18" in height above the surrounding parapet that the project would return to the DRC. Mr. Jacobson stated they were far enough along in the project where they had received the mechanical equipment and it had been reflected in the plans. Committee Member Wheeler suggested on the Queen Palm trees, if the existing trees could not be re-used that the tree that would be used had an equivalent round trunk height equal to the existing trees on site. Chair McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4459-09, St. Paul's Lutheran School, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. To re-use the Queen Palm trees on site; and if that was not possible, to use Queen Palm trees of a 10' minimum round trunk height to match existing trees. 2. Change the Little Gem Magnolia tree to Majestic grandiflora or regular Magnolia. 3. Should the top of the mechanical equipment be 18" above the surrounding parapet the item shall return to the DRC for mitigation measures. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 14 of 25 (4) DRC No. 4462-09 - RANEY RESIDENCE • A proposal to install aroof-mounted solar @otovoltaic) system on anon-contributing residence. • 368 S. Cambridge Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan 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, Dwain Raney, address on file, stated in viewing his roof line he had solar hot water for his home on one side of the garage and there were three panels. He pointed those out on the photos that were presented. In the back there was solar for the pool, there. were two separate units. The area on the back side of the roof contained air vents, a skylight, a chimney for his fireplace, and heating/plumbing vents. That roof was just loaded. Those were some of the things that he looked at when the salesman came to his home. He was a solar person and a green person and he liked all those things. The sales representative told him he had too many obstructions on that part of his roof to install the solar panels that were all joined together. He stated he had researched on-line and found solar tiles, which were fine, if they were on a the roof. In reading some of the information those would be part of a new roof installation. He looked at the discussion regarding the number of panels that were needed and the 2' border that was needed; the panels would fill the roof. In driving by his home it would be a black surface all the way across vs. having a section that would be different. The representative from the solar panel company that he had spoken with could not be present; another representative had come to the meeting at the last minute to answer questions. He had indicated the next level of efficiency would only reduce the number of solar panels by three. It would not be a major reduction in panels. There were not many alternatives for him, from his point of view. Applicant, Alex Norman, address on file, stated on the solar tiles, they had looked into those previously and they were usually only available to residents of new home construction and community developments and were only half as efficient. The roof area would need to be doubled in order to achieve efficiency. He hoped the technology would get better as they would be a great alternative. The modules his company used in solar installation were all black and seamless. In his opinion, they would not adversely affect the visual appearance of the structure. He was not certain of the difference of anon-contributing structure, but he felt as the home was surrounded by homes of the same age and type, that it would not be an issue. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the OTPA had no problem with solar panels as long as they met the standards being at 50% of the rear or on an accessory roof. The problem with the proposed project, although it was anon-contributing structure, it was still located in the District and it was bound by the Old Towne Design Standards and the panels would need to be out of the public view. There were contributing structures across the street and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 15 of 25 all solar panels that he had seen were clearly visible as solar panels. He felt approving the proposed project would set a dangerous precedent. The last application for solar panels in the District had been denied as the applicant could not find an alternative installation location for the panels. He hoped the current applicant would explore the alternatives as presented by Mr. Ryan in order to complete their installation, and that the panels would be out of the public view. He was not familiar with solar shingles and they may be acceptable depending on the style. Mr. Ryan stated he was not aware of the placement of the existing solar panels as they were not on the current submittal. There were several structures in the rear yard, a green house, patio, and other things and he was looking for solutions. He asked if it would be possible to move the pool heating equipment closer to the pool on an accessory structure allowing that area to be open for the location of some of the solar panels. He wondered if the applicant had explored that option. Mr. Raney stated each solar panel needed to be on a 30 to 40 degree angle facing south and each section would be approximately 3 '/2' to 4' wide and 5' long; taking that times 6 would be a large piece. He used his pool from early spring to late fall and he thoroughly enjoyed it and would hate to loose the ability of heating his pool. The next thing he was in the process of was redoing his pool. There was no other place to put the pool heating system and the insulated pipes to be able to heat his pool. Mr. Norman stated from a design standpoint there appeared to be some areas where a solar module could be located; however, with any reduction in size, it would not reduce the usage and cost enough to justify the installation. The margin of cost savings was remarkably thin and they had chosen the system size for its ability to be cost effective. The only other option would be to remove one solar system for another. Chair McCormack asked if an analysis had been done regarding east exposure vs. west exposure? Mr. Norman stated yes, the west received more sun over the course of the summer and in reducing the size by 30-40% to be able to fit them on the roof, would not make up for the production from the west roof. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there had been an analysis done in placing the panels on the west side with the plumbing vents being moved? Mr. Norman stated they might be able to add a module or two in that space if they were removed. The plumbing vents were less of a problem; it was more of the water heater vents. They had moved plumbing vents and re-routed them before to accommodate the modules, but the bigger obstacle was the chimney and the shade from it. Actually just a little bit of shade would knock out an entire string of modules. Committee Member Wheeler stated re-routing plumbing vents was fairly easy and would be something to consider. Mr. Ryan asked for clarification on some items on the site. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 16 of 25 Mr. Raney stated there was a shade cloth with a hot house adjacent to that. There were trees in the back and two other out buildings; one was a storage building and the other a shop. Committee Member Gladson stated the site plan that had been provided in the application had not provided the other buildings that were on site. Mr. Norman stated the other buildings would not be options for solar location as they would require trenching and other work. Mr. Ryan asked about the placement of solar on the other accessory structures. Committee Member Woollett stated he was fairly familiar with solar systems and he was very much pro solar. He felt one of the problems with the proposed project was that the Committee had not been given very much information. It appeared to him that the layout of the roof plan was not as accurate as it should be as he looked at the plan and the building. He for one was very loathe to setting a precedent to place solar panels on the front portion of a building, particularly if he was not certain of the information that had been provided. He knew solar installation had a small cost effectiveness margin and the shingle solar panels were more expensive and probably not feasible for the proposed project. He would want to see solar panels installed, but would also need more information in evaluating the situation. He knew the installers wanted to link the panels all together as the struts that supported them would allow more panels on a strut, but his experience with solar installers was that there were very few of them who knew much more or cared to address much more than the solar equipment itself. From the DRC viewpoint there were other issues, and to say the solar panels would not be very visible because they were the same color as the roof was ridiculous. They would be very apparent. He happened to think that solar could be beautiful, and it was not a matter of nice looking but a matter of compatibility and precedent issues. The fact that there was solar in other areas of the property was laudatory, it was terrific, but he felt they needed more information and the applicant needed to go back to the drawing board and present where the existing equipment was located on the roof. The solar panels would not need to be cheek-by jowl and there were various ways to wire them and it would depend upon the voltage and the inverters used. They had not needed to get into that detail, however, they needed to address the aesthetics of the proposed project and as far as he was concerned they had not been provided enough information. The roof had not appeared to be drawn accurately. From the photos the south facing roof had a better exposure and they would get more sun during the day and he needed more information to understand why some of the panels could not be placed on the south facing roofs. There was other equipment and that was not depicted in the presented material. His position on the proposed project was that more information needed to be provided to allow him to make a fair appraisal. Chair McCormack stated what the applicant was doing was great, however, the issue that Committee Member Woollett hit on was that as much as they would want to have the installation, they had not been provided enough information and it was difficult to analyze. He had experience with solar and in speaking with solar representatives they almost unanimously would not install on a northern plane and almost never on the east. The west and south would be the focus for efficiency and it outweighed the cost of separating them out. It could be a matter of moving some of the obstructions and allowing more panels. He pointed out areas on the plans City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 17 of 25 that he felt would accommodate the panels. Obviously from an installer's perspective the proposed project was easy, but coupled with the ease, was setting a precedent at that location. If the proposed installation was west facing his argument would be different. Mr. Raney stated he would rather have it west facing. Chair McCormack stated from a Committee Member standpoint precedent setting was a big issue, the second statement of placing the equipment on the east side when it could be installed on the remaining south and west exposures meant it was not being done correctly. He felt Staff had done an incredible job in their report. Mr. Norman stated he could provide reasons why it would not work on the south and west roof. It was due to the shade from the chimney and the solar thermal that existed. There needed to be at least 7 or 8 modules in one string in order to get the voltage to 600. They had not needed to be physically side-by-side, but there needed to be a number of them that had the same tilt and azimuth to achieve the desired voltage. Due to the existing roof obstructions, the placement presented was the only viable option to get a system of that size that would produce real power. He agreed the proposed project had not shown existing obstructions and it would not work on those roofs. He pointed out where the chimney was located on the roof. Mr. Raney pointed out the chimney and stated above that was a skylight. Chair McCormack asked if there had been an efficiency calculation on the east with a broken up installation on the south and west? Mr. Norman stated that had not been done. It could be done. Inverters had not worked as efficiently if they had multiple strings at multiple directions. The roof was not ideal, the way they had originally proposed the installation with the reduced size in order to accommodate the obstructions was not feasible. He was not aware of the detail that was needed for the DRC. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to ask for a detailed study of the west side and taking in account the moving of vents to come up with a solution that would take in account a 30% efficiency increase using the west instead of the east. Committee Member Woollett stated instead of using 27 panels they would only need 18. Committee Member Wheeler stated using a more efficient panel could reduce it more. Mr~ Ryan asked if it would be possible to install anything on the patio roof? Mr. Raney stated the patio roof was just sheet metal. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was not a good idea to mix orientations and tilts and more study should be given to what could work on the west side using more efficient panels and moving the plumbing vents and gas vents if needed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 18 of 25 Mr. Norman asked if they came up with a solution on the west elevation would they not need to return to the DRC? They had wanted to come up with a workable solution to avoid Design Review; and they could not come up with a solution which brought them to the DRC. Committee Member Gladson stated because the property was in the Historic District it brought them to the DRC. Mr. Norman asked if the panels were not visible from the street would that not need Design Review? Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be far easier to approve if it was not visible. Committee Member Gladson stated she appreciated her colleagues attempting to come up with alternatives and solutions and Staff had done an awesome job with that effort. The public view elevation was the struggle and if she had to take action on the plans as presented she would find that the proposed project adversely affected the District. She did not have the details and she was struggling with the compatibility issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated the final installation would not appear as it was in the drawings. Committee Member Gladson stated it would be offensive to her if she was a neighbor and had a hodgy podgy look of solar next door to her. Mr. Norman asked if solar panels on a front facing property had ever been approved? Committee Member Woollett stated not in the Historic District. Committee Member Gladson stated until an appropriate installation was presented for the front she would not even want to go there. The applicant had to do some more homework before she could support an installation on the public view. Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted the project to work. Chair McCormack made a motion to continue DRC NO. 4462-09, Raney Residence, to provide the opportunity for the applicant to provide further detail, taking into account the Staff Report and the input provided by the DRC on the precedent setting issues and installation in the public view. Mr~ Ryan stated also for the applicant to consider providing further details on the other structures and landscape on the property, and possibly photos of the site to further provide perspective of the proposed installation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 19 of 25 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 20 of 25 (4) DRC No. 4467-10 - M.C. CUDDEBACK BUILDING • A proposal for a new building/awning sign program for the tenants of the Cuddeback building located on the southwest corner of the Plaza. • 100 S. Glassell Street and 30-36 Plaza Square, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan(c~,cityoforan eg.org • Previous Application: DRC No. 4384-08, Sir Wicket Facade • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler was recused from the item presentation due to the location of his business in proximity to the proposed project Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jim Foster, address on file, stated the effect that they were attempting to present was to maintain the Old Towne theme and the aesthetics of the signage to be pleasing to the Plaza. Applicant, Al Ricci, address on file, stated they would also be restoring the barber pole that had been hidden behind the awning. It would be re-done and have the same character. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated Mr. Ryan had misquoted the Standards. He noticed in the Staff Report that it was stated that all letters were plastic; the Standards stated: plastic, high gloss or shiny surfaces were prohibited. He wanted to remind the DRC that Megans Tickets, which was an example in the package was denied because of plastic letters and she was required to use wood or metal. Also PJ's Abbey restaurant was denied for their use of plastic. Plastic had not met the Standards. Aside from those issues, the signs looked good, the awning looked good, and the only thing was that the letters had not met the Design Standards. The OTPA agreed with Staff that the mounting of the letters on the building should not be anchored onto the building itself but onto the mortar and to use a less invasive method. It was important. The proposed signage looked good and the applicant was doing a very good job on the restoration of the building. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked regarding the lighting, was it necessary that it be incandescent? Mr. Ryan stated yes, the Standards called for that. Committee Member Woollett stated again they had the issue of the use of plastic. He had been to PJ's Abbey restaurant and the owner had grabbed a hold of him and complained that there was a sign on Glassell Street that had used plastic and he was not allowed to use plastic. Committee City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 21 of 25 Member Woollett stated he had looked at the sign that he had spoke of and it was not plastic but metal and neon. He had not liked the Standard regarding plastic; and the sign lettering that was presented should be allowed. They had fluorescent units that appeared the same as incandescent and he had not liked that Standard incandescent either. They had a Standard and a precedent. Chair McCormack stated he agreed that they had a Standard and there would be precedent setting involved. He respectfully disagreed on the lighting issue; he actually felt the incandescent appeared more Old Towne. Committee Member Woollett stated it would appear the same. Chair McCormack stated incandescent and fluorescent would appear different. The incandescent would appear warmer. Committee Member Woollett stated there were fluorescent lights that would appear warmer. There was the issue that the fluorescent lighting was deader, it could be the same color, and a person who knew the difference would notice the difference. Chair McCormack stated Old Towne should have Old Towne lighting, rather than high tech. Old Towne was a special place and having high tech lighting was not appropriate. Committee Member Gladson asked if the lighting was the goose neck type of lighting? Mr. Foster stated that was correct. Committee Member Woollett stated unless the bulbs were clear and the filament was visible it was difficult to tell the difference. Mr. Ricci stated he wanted to comment on the sign lettering. The building was a wood building with a stucco front that was made to appear like brick, and he agreed that they would not want to attach bolts to the building and if the letters would need to be removed they would not want to harm the building. With the painted letters they were lightweight that could be glued onto the building with small stand-offs instead of having to use anything invasive. Committee Member Gladson stated the struggle with the plastic question was because they knew the letters were a plastic or resin letter painted to appear metal, the surface was not shiny, not glossy and had not appeared to be plastic, but if she took it apart she knew the material was plastic. It was a troubling issue and could it be feasible to have the letters in metal or wood that would be as light weight. Mr. Foster stated the problem with wood was that it appeared nice for about six months, but with any breakage in the paint there would be moisture damage. The letter samples that he presented were guaranteed for life not to fade, peel, or crack. As a licensed contractor, with the St. Matthews polyurethane paint used, when the letters were installed on the wall, he could not tell the difference unless he went up close and tapped the letters. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 22 of 25 Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to gain clarification on the materials. If they had to change materials they would need to use some type of stronger attachment which would not be a good thing either. The way the Standards were written was that if the surface was shiny or in walking up to the lettering it appeared to be plastic she could not get comfortable with that. If they were able to take plastic and have it appear to be wood or metal she could accept that. She understood Mr. Frankel's testimony on the question of the use of plastic. Mr. Ryan stated on page #3 it spoke to the use of metal or wood or the use of materials that accurately simulated wood or metal. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the letters presented a metal appearance. Mr. Ryan stated on PJ's Abbey restaurant, the applicant was unable to cast his sign to have it appear to be leaded glass. He could not achieve the look of wood or leaded glass. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not pleased with the Standard. Metal letters were painted and it was not about how it looked. The plastic letters, as far as he was concerned, were a better letter. He was concerned with the Standards and he asked Mr. Ryan to read it again as there seemed to be a conflict with what Mr. Ryan read and what Mr. Frankel stated. Mr. Ryan stated the material shall be wood or metal or utilize materials that would simulate wood or metal. It appeared on page #3; he stated that shiny, high gloss was not permitted. The next part of the question was if it simulated wood or metal. The Standards came from signage and materials for the Plaza District. Mr. Ryan reviewed the Staff Report with Committee Member Woollett. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the proposed sign program was an excellent sign package and she applauded the restoration of the barber sign and concurred with Staff's recommendation on not penetrating the building on installation of the signage. The Committee Members reviewed the material boards that were presented by the applicant. Mr. Foster stated the sample was presented for the proposed colors. Committee Member Gladson asked regarding the brass cabinet of the barber shop sign that would be restored, would the brass cabinet need to be cleaned? Mra Foster stated he had that detail. They had refurbished the imperfections that had occurred over time. They stripped it all down and they would refinish it with graffiti resistant paint. It would be a hard coat of paint. There was soldering that was not seen anymore and they had stripped every bit of the old paint from it to restore it and they would paint the trim on it. He explained how the neon would be restored. On the access panel the transformer was contained with LED lights on the back of the sign, three per foot. It would be halo lit 3" in. Committee Member Gladson asked how would the comb and razor be restored? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 23 of 25 Mr. Foster stated they were damaged and they were wanting to replicate those with an actual antique comb and razor with a clear coat to protect them. Mr. Frankel asked if it would be bolted into a stud? Mr. Foster stated yes. Chair McCormack asked if it was 4" standard? Mr. Foster stated they had wanted to get enough halo lighting and it would be approximately 3". Chair McCormack stated it could actually be unclipped, lifted, the LED lights could be replaced and it could be remounted. Committee Member Gladson stated she had seen some of the dual lighting coming through with the back lighting. Now back to the plastic issue. Committee Member Woollett stated he was reviewing the Standards and just because they had made a decision previously they would not need to repeat that if they found that they were wrong. There had been a sign that appeared to be routed wood but it was plastic and they had signs that had a thin film of plastic. They had determined that such a thin piece of plastic was not different than a thin coat of paint. The phrase; plastic, high gloss or shiny surface, with all due respect to Mr. Frankel, he felt it referred to the surface. On the basis of what he had just reviewed and what was presented he could accept the lettering as they would be painted just as metal would be painted and the lighter material was acceptable. Chair McCormack stated he thought it was a great sign program except for the metal letters; he had a problem with that, was that from the department? Mr. Ryan stated from the Old Towne Design Standards. Chair McCormack asked if that was something that was Council generated? Committee Member Gladson stated it was something that was decided when they looked at the Historic District and came up with criteria. Essentially they had not wanted to have a Kmart looking sign or a Winchell's. - Mr. Frankel stated they wanted authentic materials. Chair McCormack stated that was the key; authentic materials. Committee Member Woollett stated it was materials that would accurately simulate wood or metal. One could state that plastic was not a surface modifier but a separate category and only high gloss and shiny surfaces would be modifiers. Chair McCormack stated if that was the case they could only use authentic materials such as wood and metal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 24 of 25 Committee Member Woollett stated the sentence was simply not clear. Mr. Foster stated he had not agreed with that either. There were acrylics that were impregnated with a color or a gloss and rarely had a matte finish, those were clearly plastic. Chair McCormack asked what would the material they proposed be called? Mr. Foster stated polyurethane. Chair McCormack stated the Standard should be reworded to be a metal surface that would have a plastic coating. Mr. Ricci stated in using a metal letter that would be mounted 30' in the air; they would need to take into account what would happen if a letter fell off. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4467-10, M.C. Cuddeback Building, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. The applicants presented samples of the transom material that would be used on the project. The Committee Members reviewed the samples. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2010 Page 25 of 25 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, February 3, 2010. The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart, Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED.