Loading...
2011-04-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL April 20, 2011 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:13 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda and there was no policy or procedural information to impart. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the April 6, 2011 meeting. Changes and corrections were noted. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she wanted to advise the DRC that there was a project that the DRC had reviewed a few meetings ago, the Jennings project, reorienting a side entry garage to the front with a second story. The DRC had given the applicant a list of things to look at; the applicant spoke with the Planning Director and other Staff, and the applicant was now looking at only doing an addition at the ground floor with no second story. If the project was within the Design Guidelines and since the DRC had been okay with the garage orientation, the project would not need to return to the DRC as it could be signed off over the counter. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the new Staff Report format he was requesting for clarity, to have the recommended action be made clearer. Before the format had been changed it had been very clear as to whether the recommendation was for Planning Commission or a final determination; and on some of the projects they really had to dig. He pointed out it was difficult to locate on Item No. 6. When a motion was being crafted they needed to know if it was a final determination or a recommendation. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if he was looking for that information to be listed before the conditions? Under the conditions there was a recommendation by Staff that DRC approve the project subject to the conditions. Committee Member Wheeler suggested under the recommended action line that information could follow in bold type. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 2 of 21 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated on some items, on occasion, there was not a Staff recommendation for approval, and Staff had not wanted to recommend denial either; those came up rarely and those would note for a final recommendation to be determined by the DRC. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be helpful to have it appear in an area that was easy to locate. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated at an upcoming meeting, there would be a change to the Staff Report in the findings section. During further discussions with the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, it was determined that the findings should be focused on those that were found in the Zoning Ordinance. Findings had been included that fell within the Residential Design Guidelines and the Code itself covered Old Towne and Residential Design Guidelines and they could be utilized as supporting facts for the findings. Changes would be made to focus on the findings from the Code and what they would do was to have all the findings from the Code listed and if they had not applied to a project, they would still be listed with a notation, "does not apply." The Code had findings for properties in Old Towne and those that were specific to the registered district; if a project was outside of Old Towne many of the findings would read "does not apply." She stated all four findings would be looked at each and every time for consistency, and whether they applied or had not applied. The Planners would make changes to the template they used for the Staff Report and the DRC would see changes with upcoming projects. Committee Member McCormack stated with a final recommendation it would be easy to have in parenthesis, from previous continued. He was finding that there were final recommendations on projects that had not been presented previously and those projects were approved or continued. There were projects that had come back that would be a final determination of a project that had been continued. If right up front it was apparent that the DRC had reviewed the proposal four times or however many times it had come back would be helpful. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there was a notation about the previous project review; it was a bit further down. Committee Member McCormack stated it would be easier for him when he saw final determination to understand if it was a final determination on a project that had been continued. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 3 of 21 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Bill 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. 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 6, 2011 Vice Chair Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 6, 2011 Design Review Committee meeting with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 4 of 21 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4449 -09 — AT &T WIRELESS FACILITY • A proposal for conversion of a co- located, non - stealth wireless facility from a monopole to a stealth monopine. The DRC reviewed the plans at the October 20, 2010 meeting and required the applicant return to the DRC prior to the issuance of a Building permit to discuss the exact specifications of the branch width and density. • 595 The City Drive • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a),cityoforange.org • Previous DRC meeting of October 20, 2010 • DRC Action: Final Determination (monopine branch width and density) Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Tom Miller, address on file, stated he had nothing further to add. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated the address was listed as Santa Ana on most of the drawings. It was correct on the first sheet, but elsewhere it was Santa Ana. On sheet S3, detail 2 was listed as "per the City of Santa Ana." His only real issue was that on the simulation drawing there were branches sticking upward from the top, but he could not find on schedule sheet S5 any reference to a TB, or top branch. Mr. Miller stated it was the one branch that went to the top, such as those on a Christmas tree. There was a top bracket that was added and he could get further clarification for that. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet S 1 there were horizontal branches which he assumed were the 4' and 5' pieces. He asked if that was the TB? Mr. Miller stated he would assume that was it, it was the 4' piece. Committee Member Wheeler stated the plans had not appeared to indicate that those were any different than the others. There was a TB on the schedule, which would refer to a top branch, however, there was not one shown. He suggested that be clarified. Mr. Miller stated he apologized for Santa Ana being on the plans. It had been cut and pasted from another submittal and it would be removed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 5 of 21 Committee Member McCormack stated he had reviewed the project description in the analysis and statement of issues and on the last line, in order to make a facility look like a tree, the branches would be conical in shape at the top and in reviewing the structural design specifications Staff was concerned that the final appearance of the monopine would be too uniform. He felt Staff was right, on that issue. He had gone through with a fine tooth comb as if he had been bidding this project and how to have the tree appear as a pine, it looked more like an Italian Cypress tree with a large width. He was not certain if the delta was going to be descriptive enough for anyone to bid as there were not any details on the drawing, he reviewed the plans as a contractor would. He reviewed the simulation that attempted the look of a Pine tree, which was different from the other set of plans, the simulation and the drawings were different. There was a distance vertically, but no distance noted horizontally and on sheet A04 there was a notation of new AT &T panel antennas with pine needle socks typical and three antennas per sector, three sectors per total referencing detail 1 AOA and that was an info signage detail, and there was another reference to an antenna pole signage detail. If he was the branch guy he would be totally confused with the plans, simulation, and drawings. Committee Member Wheeler stated he assumed that the Cell Tree package was the package that governed the project as far as the branches. Mr. Miller stated the Cell Tree Company was the actual manufacturer of the pole and branches. They had done the design and had created the specs and it was the way it would be built. Cell Tree was the tree vendor. Committee Member McCormack stated he was critiquing the vendor's tree type as it had not looked like a Pine tree, it looked more similar to an Italian Cypress tree. He suggested the item be continued to gain more information and to have the appearance of a Pine tree. Mr. Miller stated on the last page of the Cell Tree's submittal there was the information for the top branch and antenna tips. There was the starting point of 10' branches from the bottom that tapered to 8', 6', 5', and 4', and the tree would taper as it went up. The only reason that it appeared more conical was for clarity whenever they showed the distance and it was not the actual end appearance. There were call outs for the branches where they started and to the top. Committee Member Wheeler stated the schedule was what would govern the design and not the illustrations. He was content with the form that the schedule seemed to imply, that the tree would be tapered. At each point there was a notation of branch length and they started out with lots of 10' and 8' branches, then it went to 6' and toward the tops it went to 6' and 4'. Committee Member McCormack reviewed the sheet and stated he would be okay with that. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want it to be clear that the approval would be for the Cell Tree submittal sheet S5. Committee Member McCormack stated he would agree with that and also that the pole design sheet referenced the Cell Tree set of plans as well. That would also take care of Staff's concerns. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 6 of 21 Vice Chair Woollett stated on sheet S3, detail No. 2, on the antenna detail there was a pipe and other components that held the antenna and it was listed as 5' -8 3 /4" from the center of the pole out to where the antenna would be mounted. Then there was another picture of the plan view detail 1 (over to the right) that showed a plan view of the antennas and there appeared to be three sections. On the chart on page S5, there were the arm sizes for the tree and down toward the middle it listed that the arms varied between 6' and 8', and toward the top they would be 6' and 4'. Was he interpreting the design that the branch would only stick out 4" further than the arm that supported the antenna? Mr. Miller stated some of them would. There would be antenna socks with pine needles that would basically cover the flat surface of the antennas and help to blend it in more. The difficult part was that if they attempted to go out 12 ", there would be more of a cut off of the tree and there would not be much of a conical top, it would be more of a buzz cut as they would not be able to achieve the taper. There were varying branch sizes and with the 4" lengths on part of them, it would not cover the 12" of all the levels of the antennas, but it was a much better design. Mr. Garcia stated that would be a modification to the Conditions of Approval and require the item to go to the Planning Commission. Condition No. 2 in the Staff Report, looking at the resolution approved by the Planning Commission, the Condition read, "the branches shall extend at a minimum at 12" beyond the proposed antennas or microwave dishes regardless of the wireless carrier." Mr. Miller stated the difficult part was they were attempting to meet the intent of the condition, but he had not seen a Pine tree that had branches coming out all exactly the same way; the staggering length of the branches gave the tree a more realistic appearance. They were meeting the intent of having the 12" beyond the antennas and on previous designs there had been instances where the antennas came beyond. Vice Chair Woollett stated the longest branch appeared to be 8" shorter than the 1' minimum. Committee Member McCormack asked if the antennas could be shorter? Vice Chair Woollett stated his concern would be that the antennas would be very obvious, and the purpose of the branches was to make the antennas less visible, but if it was sticking out 4" or 8" of the longest branch the antenna would not be concealed. Mr. Miller stated he understood, however, an antenna sock would cover the ends that stuck out. He provided a picture of the monopine and reviewed it with the Committee Members and explained that the antenna sock would blend the antennas in with the tree. Vice Chair Woollett asked what was an antenna sock? Mr. Miller stated it was basically a slipcover that went over the antenna and it was covered with pine needles at the same density that the branches had. Vice Chair Woollett stated on the 5' -8" dimension which was from the center of the pole, whereas the length of the branch was from the surface of the pole and therefore a 6' branch City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 7 of 21 would stick out further than 6'; it would stick out 6' plus the radius of the pole. The pole varied in dimension. He asked how big the pole was at the top? Mr. Miller stated it was 24 ". The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member Wheeler stated to complicate the issue a bit the drawing on S3 called out for the antenna diameter at 11' -6 3/8" and that was from pipe that the antenna was mounted to and the antenna would stick out beyond that point. The other set of drawings showed a totally different mounting system. Vice Chair Woollett stated it was confusing as that set of drawings showed a different type of antenna. Committee Member McCormack asked which set of plans would it be built from? Mr. Miller stated the actual tree would be built from the Cell Tree plans. They would design the actual pole and stealthing. Committee Member McCormack asked what the other set of plans was for? Mr. Miller stated it was the general plans for the equipment mounting to the concrete pad and those were the basic zoning drawings and the standard mounting of the antenna to the bracket arms and coax runs. Committee Member McCormack stated with two sets of plans and having conflict between them, it could create a problem. Mr. Miller stated there was not actual conflict, for the actual pole and manufacturing that was from the Cell Tree plan. The installation of all the equipment and the coax up the tree, the routes for that, and the mounting to the tree was what the other set of plans would cover, that was from Telespan. Committee Member Wheeler stated in comparing the detail on sheet 09 of the Telespan and detail 1 of sheet S3 of the Cell Tree set those were two totally different antenna arrangements. Vice Chair Woollett stated the antenna arrangement was very different. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Mr. Miller stated he agreed with what the Committee Members were stating. Vice Chair Woollett stated he found nothing that gave him the diameter of the pole. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was on the Cell Tree set of plans on sheet S1. Committee Member Wheeler and Vice Chair Woollett reviewed the measurements of the branches and the antennas. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 8 of 21 Committee Member Wheeler stated the antenna installation should be per the details on the Cell Tree set of plans and he asked how much the antenna would stick out from the mounting bracket? Mr. Miller stated the plans had not shown the actual distance. There was a Y -2" separation between the two and each one of those mounting brackets was 9' -6" and he had not had the actual callouts for the detail. Committee Member Wheeler stated he assumed the antenna would stick out beyond the bracket. Mr. Miller stated it would stick out about 8" and they could make some modification to the branches to adjust for that. Mr. Garcia stated the specs were on page 08 of the AT & T plans. The Conditions of Approval from the Planning Commission included that the branches must be 12" longer than the antennas, which was an approved condition. Committee Member McCormack asked how would that problem be solved if that condition was not met? Mr. Garcia stated if the condition was not met, the applicant could ask for a modification to that condition or return to the site to replace the branches with longer branches. Mr. Miller stated all the conditions would be met. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4449 -09, AT &T Wireless Facility, subject to the conditions previously approved by the Planning Commission, and making a specific note of Condition No. 2 that the branches shall extend 12" beyond the antennas at all points and the branch layout of sheet S5 of the Cell Tree submittal may need modification to meet that condition, and subject to the additional conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Design of the antenna mounting be in accordance with the Cell Tree submittal. 2. If the branches require lengthening to satisfy Condition No. 2, the other tree branches shall be modified to maintain the tapering effect on sheet S5. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 9 of 21 (3) DRC No. 4530 -11 - SHANNON ADDITION - REVISION • A proposal to demolish a 107 sq. ft. rear shed porch and construct a new 489 sq. ft. rear addition with a bedroom on a contributing Bungalow. • 238 N. Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, daanna,cit oforange.org • Original proposal approved by DRC on February 16, 2011 • DRC Action: Rescind previous approval and make a Recommendation to the Planning Commission Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Wade Shannon, address on file, stated the previous application had been approved but then went back and looked at everything and decided it was the drop -dead time to either go with another room or remain with the approval for the bathroom, laundry room, and breakfast nook; it was a cost issue. They determined to go forward with what they really needed with a moderate add -on and they also wanted to return the house to its more original form by removing the asbestos and also wanted a more livable and comfortable home for his family. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he had commented on the previous approval and had complimented the applicant on a modest addition that was refreshing. The changes were less modest, however, appropriate to scale and the elevations were lower than the original structure. Removing the asbestos siding was a plus. When asbestos siding was initially applied they generally sheared off the window detail and he suggested that after the asbestos was removed that the window trim could be restored. All in all it was a great project. Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the applicant had gotten as far as the Building Division on the last submittal? Mr. Shannon stated "no." Committee Member Wheeler stated there could be an egress issue with the window removal on the bedroom and it might need to be brought up to current code. Mr. Shannon asked if that was in the bedroom add -on? Committee Member Wheeler stated it was in the existing bedroom where one window was being removed and it might trigger a requirement for current egress code. There might need to be something done other than the double -hung window. Generally they suggested using a casement window that appeared as a double hung window. On the extended barge board he suggested City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 10 of 21 using the traditional framing method and also the exposed rafter tails to be the same size as the exposed rafter tails on the existing structure. Mr. Shannon stated they were being very cognizant of keeping everything original and appropriate. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the idea of extending the eave to cover more was fine, but there might be headroom problems and to leave that as an open option; if it worked that was fine, but if there were problems they could make a modification. Vice Chair Woollett asked what if there was a change in the pitch? Mr. Ryan stated just west of Orange on Culver there was a property that had a side porch and the roof had been cut. The shed became shorter and it tapered into the roof and looked fine. He suggested that same design. Vice Chair Woollett stated his concern would be that there would be a real sun problem there. Mr. Shannon stated they wanted to get light in there. There was a garage directly across from that side. They had wanted more sunlight and that was the goal. Committee Member McCormack stated it looked good. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4530 -11, Shannon Addition- Revision, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report, and with the following additional condition: 1. The barge board of the new work be framed in the traditional manner without flat outlookers and the rafter tails match the size and spacing of the existing rafter tails. And with the following suggestion: 1. To explore treatment of the roof overhang on the back entry. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if the maker of the motion was also including in the motion to rescind the previous approval? Committee Member Wheeler stated his motion would be modified to add that. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 11 of 21 New Agenda Items: (4) DRC No. 4522 -10 — 807 CHAPMAN CAR CARE - EXPANSION • A proposal to construct a new detached garage to house service lifts for an automotive repair business. Project includes shared parking request. • 807 W. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryanAcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Don Anctil, address on file, stated he was the architect for the project. He agreed with the Staff Report and he wanted to clarify that the shed roof had been removed. On the fence screen he had been unaware of that requirement and had looked into that after the plans had been prepared and he was more than willing to comply. They would use some metal screening for the fence, something that would be acceptable to the DRC. It would look nicer from the alley having a solid fence, rather than a chain link fence. Applicant, John Pascal, address on file, stated he had seen one other design idea that he wanted to get feedback on. It looked almost like Pine trees in the slats to give the appearance of an agricultural look; it was the fencing with manufactured artificial Pine tree running through the slats. The Committee Members all agreed they were not aware of such a product. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A3 there was proposed signage shown and he asked if the applicant was proposing to add some new signage? Mr. Anctil stated they wanted to add new signage. Mr. Ryan stated the signage would come through as a separate application. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a little of the shed roof left on sheet A3 on the west elevation there was a call -out for a painted metal column and he assumed that was what would have supported the shed before. He suggested that they condition the proposed project that the stucco finish be applied to all four sides of the building and that the texture and color to match the existing. There was a call -out for a wrought iron fence in the front and he would not object to using chain link fencing in the back. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 12 of 21 Committee Member McCormack stated on the west property line, he asked what the treatment was there. Was it just open or were there wheel stops there? He was confused with the notation of an existing 5' CMU wall. Mr. Anctil stated the wall went out 10' from the front property line all the way to the rear corner. It was a 5' CMU wall all the way down the property line. Committee Member McCormack stated there were rolling gates that would open to enable access to parking spaces 15 and 16. Mr. Anctil stated the gates rolled toward each other and they would open one at a time. They could not be swung into the parking spaces or into the alley. Committee Member McCormack stated the gate was 6' and the wall 5'. Mr. Anctil stated that was correct. The existing fence along the alley was 6' and the existing concrete CMU wall was 5', it went a few feet along the rear property line, he was not certain where it jumped from 5' to 6'. Vice Chair Woollett stated the gate could be 5' to match the wall, unless he was concerned with security. Mr. Anctil stated he was concerned with security. Committee Member McCormack stated on the slats he had experienced previously, that with slats the chain link should be treated with a vinyl coating to match the color of the slats. He would suggest that they do that if they wanted to use the slats. They could choose whatever color they wanted; he suggested using black to match the trim color. Mr. Anctil stated black would also be more graffiti - proof. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was an existing irrigation system? Mr. Anctil stated only in the front and the only landscaping that existed was in the front 10'. The new areas would have new irrigation. Committee Member McCormack asked what they wanted the landscape to do? Had they come up with a theme and intent, and was the landscape drought - tolerant? If the landscape was for screening, the Raphiolepis indica would only grow to about 3' and if that was the intent that was okay, but to use it as a screen they would want to use another plant that would grow a bit higher. Another plant that was noted, Sedum, would not withstand any traffic in that area. He would suggest using a more upright shrub and use the Raphiolepis indica in another area (which he pointed to on the plans). Mr. Anctil stated they had changed the plantings to be more of a ground cover due to the Fire Department's requirement of not having plantings that grew taller in that open area. He had researched and found the plants noted to be very hardy. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 13 of 21 Committee Member McCormack stated the Sedum would not take traffic and he suggested using a low grass that would not require much water. He suggested Pennisetum spathiolatum as a grass that would work well in that area. He stated a vertical shrub that would grow up the wall would work in the other area and he suggested using the Prunus caroliniana, `Bright n Tight'. He stated using the same plantings in the other areas so they would have the same watering needs and not require much care at all. He would not put the Daylilies in as they would not survive the heat from the cars parked there; he suggested using gravel if that complied with the City's requirements. As for the irrigation system, and it was not as detailed as he would want to review, on the thin areas he suggested using side strips instead of /2 round sprinkler heads. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4522 -10, 807 Chapman Car Care - Expansion, subject to the conditions and findings in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. The approval does not include signage. 2. The stucco texture and color to match existing. 3. The chain link fence to be vinyl coated and the slats to match the color of the vinyl, with color choice designated by the applicant, suggested color to match the building trim or stucco. And suggestion: 1. Plant choices as noted on the marked -up plan provided to the applicants. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 14 of 21 (5) DRC No. 4537 -11 - COE RESIDENCE- WINDOW CHANGE -OUT • A proposal to replace existing wood and aluminum windows with all new vinyl windows on a non - contributing residence. • 393 N. Harwood Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan.0)cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Roger Rambo, address on file, stated they wanted to improve the property as much as they could within their financial limitations. Mr. Ryan stated there was an area in the gable that the applicant had wanted to stucco over, that went along with the rest of the treatment. He pointed out the area on the plans. Mr. Rambo pointed out the area on the plans. Mr. Ryan stated it was not a straight - forward application. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he agreed the property was a poor little house that had been abused. It was a 1920's Bungalow and it still exhibited several character - defining features and one of those were the windows, along with the gable vents and the roof itself. Going to a vinyl window would be going in the wrong direction. With past in -fill and non - contributing structure projects that were built in the 1940's and 1950's, the recommendation was never to replace windows with vinyl. The recommendation was to go back to using wood windows that would match the rest of the wood. He agreed that it was a stretch to bring the property back to a contributing status, it would not be impossible. In the future if someone wanted to go to the expense and tear off the stucco, he was certain the siding was still there; whether that occurred or not, moving in the opposite direction of a restoration was something that should not be done. To make the property more uniform, to replace the aluminum windows with wood windows would be his suggestion, it would be uniform and if in the future someone wanted to come along and do a restoration it would be easier. On in -fill projects, and almost all of the projects he could think of, wood windows or wood profile windows were strongly encouraged. Projects that came along for replacement of aluminum windows, and were non - contributing, the recommendation from Staff was to match the existing wood windows. He had gone by and looked at the structure and it had been severely mistreated through the years, but having wood sash windows would give the structure a much better appearance. Vinyl was not a material that was popular with the OTPA or in Old Towne. Within the District it was a resource and introducing vinyl anywhere in the District would not meet the Standards. Although the proposed project was non - contributing the appropriate material would be wood. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 15 of 21 Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Vice Chair Woollett asked if there were some existing wood windows on the property? Mr. Rambo stated there were two. Applicant, Don Coe, address on file, stated the windows were on the side that faced Sycamore. Vice Chair Woollett stated it appeared to him that with the repair work they were doing that the aluminum windows would be removed and not just having a new vinyl window fitted into the existing aluminum frame. Mr. Rambo stated that was correct. Vice Chair Woollett asked if the motivation to do that was because the aluminum windows were looking pretty bad? Mr. Coe stated they were looking bad and also offered little insulation. Committee Member Wheeler stated he hated to see them pull out the wooden windows and having them replaced with vinyl. He was not against replacing the aluminum windows with vinyl as neither of those materials was appropriate. He would not want them to lose the wood windows and he asked if it was possible to keep the wood windows? Mr. Coe stated absolutely, they were attempting to add uniformity. If the DRC felt the proposed project would be better off in keeping the wood windows they could do that. He had wanted to replace the small bathroom window. He was agreeable to restore the wood windows. Unfortunately very little of the original house was still intact. There had been several add -ons over time. He pointed out on the plans which wall was the only original wall that remained on the property. Once they installed a uniform trim around all the windows, it would give the perception of similarity, with the exception of the fact that there was the dimension issue. There were some horizontal vs. the more vertical look of the rest of the house. He was not certain if they should go horizontal everywhere or vertical everywhere. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was rather nervous about the thought of changing the dimensions of the windows as there were so many sizes currently. Mr. Coe stated there was a hodge podge of sizes. Vice Chair Woollett asked how would they do that as vinyl windows came in specific sizes? Mr. Coe stated the windows would be built to size and built to fit the existing openings. He was not certain how that would work with wood windows. Mr. Ryan stated he had not discussed the green house window. Mr. Coe stated in the added -on part of the house they had a pop -out window. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 16 of 21 Mr. Rambo stated it was not a green house window but instead it was framed as a pop -out. Mr. Ryan stated two things occurred to him, if there was a physical line of demarcation between the 1920 Bungalow and the later construction that would assist in identifying the one part of the building that was from an earlier period. That might be one way to maintain a portion that was more conforming than the other side. It would make it more obvious, to define the separate parts the way they wanted to. Vice Chair Woollett stated they could be dealing with a false sense of history if they were to change all the windows to wood, even in the portions that were added on at later dates as those would not have been wood windows during that time. Mr. Ryan stated it might be a way to have the standards work to differentiate the different periods of construction. Committee Member McCormack asked Mr. Ryan if he was suggesting to use vinyl in the more recently constructed areas and to use wood in the historic portions? Mr. Ryan stated that was correct and to also add a physical line of demarcation, it was a concept. Mr. Rambo thought the idea was to have the structure be more uniform. Vice Chair Woollett stated in Old Towne that was not necessarily true. What had been demonstrated over the years was that in a historic district, when in historic parts of the district buildings were preserved it enhanced their value and the standards encouraged the line of demarcation as Mr. Ryan had referred to. Mr. Coe stated he would need Staff to define a way that they would need to do that. Mr. Ryan stated the proposed project was unusual and it was troubling. The applicant was not responsible for what had occurred in the past and they had not wanted to go against the Standards. Vice Chair Woollett stated it was not a contributing building. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the existing vent on the west side should be kept. They should attempt to keep as much of the historic fabric that existed in the event someone in the future wanted to restore the property. Mr. Ryan stated there had been some inappropriate changes to the building, but people could still tell what the original property was and that there had been historic value there. Committee Member Wheeler stated one of the things that really bugged him was the window trim that they had proposed. It was a 1960s window trim and he suggested that they use a pure rectangular and simpler form. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Mr. Frankel and the fact that if a property was in the District and in the past there had been an error made by using aluminum windows, but City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 17 of 21 now they had a chance to make it right. Underneath the skin of the building was a historic structure and he felt the windows should be wood. On the historic portions, the windows should remain wood, and if it was his project he would go all wood, but design -wise the wood and vinyl would not appear much different from the outside. From the inside the wood -look could be kept, but the vinyl had all the new hardware. He looked at it from a pragmatic view that if the property was outside the District he would be saying something totally different. It was a perception of what was Old Towne. Mr. Rambo stated they had thought about wood, but with horizontal sliders they would not match the original windows on the front of the house, as they would be a different style. Committee Member Wheeler stated they certainly would not appear to be historic. They could use a different type of window, one with a fixed panel in the center and casement on both sides, if that would meet the egress and light and air requirements. It might not work code -wise. His feeling would be that as a suggestion to use all wood and explore different shapes that might work; but he had not felt it should be a condition of approval as it was a cost issue. His personal feeling was to save the existing wood windows and not replace those and to just repair and paint them. Mr. Coe stated he would accept that suggestion and keep the wood windows. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest that the vent be kept. Vice Chair Woollett stated differences had not necessarily created a hodge podge appearance. Committee Member Wheeler stated the site had to be looked at for what it was, a property that had been changed over the years, and to change it magically into something that it was not was not appropriate. Mr. Ryan stated with a line of demarcation he felt that would be one way to go. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was already a natural line of demarcation at the re- entrant corner. Committee Member McCormack stated he would look at the project as not being consistent, hodge podge was not necessarily negative. Everyone had a different perception of that. To make a decision based on cost, such as needing to change out all the windows at once, was not a requirement. He suggested the applicant explore a way to make the windows right. Anderson and Pella had many windows. Vice Chair Woollett stated there was a proportion issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not felt comfortable telling the applicant that they needed to replace the windows with wood. The site was not a contributing structure and it could be an additional cost item. Vice Chair Woollett stated they were attempting to enforce an ordinance and not a personal opinion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 18 of 21 Committee Member McCormack stated he would defer to the architects. He saw a property that could be better and it was in Old Towne. Mr. Coe stated there had been two large Cypress trees that covered most of the house and it looked better when they were there, but the trees had created root problems. There had been a fence as well that had come down when the trees came down and they would be looking to enhance the landscape as well. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4537 -11, Coe Residence, subject to the conditions and findings in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. Change to Condition No. 2, that all windows be trimmed with wood in a simple rectangular form similar to the existing trim on the older portion of the house. 2. The existing wood windows to remain. 3. The existing gable vent on the west elevation be maintained, repaired and painted. And suggestion: 1. It would be preferable to replace all the windows with wood vs. vinyl; however, it was at the applicant's discretion to choose the window material. The Committee Members reviewed the plans for the boxed -in area of the electrical equipment. Mr. Coe stated under issue 2, it indicated that the applicant proposed to replace windows with vinyl on both residential units; that was an error as there was no change to the other property. Committee Member Wheeler added to his motion that under issue 2 that it applied only to the Harwood property. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 19 of 21 (6) DRC No. 4545 -11 — MOONLIGHT GRAHAM -SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal for a new sign program including wall and blade signs for a new retail store. • 401 W. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a,ci oforan e.or • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Woollett stated he had a question, not related to the sign; would the garden area remain? Applicant, Bart Silberman, address on file, stated that would remain. Essentially they had taken it over as part of their lease as the land was just sitting there not being used. They were utilizing some of the office space in the back, plus it was a nice place to eat lunch and they had not had plans to change it. They had taken it on a month -to -month basis. Public Comment None. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had the reputation of being the "Committee curmudgeon ", but unusually for him he had found the drawings to be very well done and everything was very clear. He was confused in the Staff Report that mentioned internal white LED lighting and he had not found any of that on the drawings. Applicant, Jimmy Fuller, address on file, stated it was external neon. Applicant, Ted Howard, address on file, stated if there was internal lighting needed on the exterior address area they might need to use LED modules. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit nervous with that, as he was not certain how they would do that. Mr. Ryan stated they could just cut out the numbers. They needed to have a clear address for public safety reasons and when he initially looked at the sign it took a while to find the address. It had not popped out, so his thought was for them to add a clearer address. Vice Chair Woollett stated they could just apply the address to the sign. Mr. Howard stated they could use metal letters in a contrasting color. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would work. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on the use of the neon? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 20 of 21 Mr. Fuller stated the neon would be on the edge. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the blade sign location it was shown as not quite centered over the door and rather than have very accurate dimensions of where the sign would be located to have a note that the sign would be centered over the door. Committee Member McCormack stated, regarding the mounting, was there another piece of trim just above the window? Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a rosette. Committee Member McCormack stated on the connection pieces the other side would punch through the brick to get the power through it and he asked how would they achieve that and not harm the brick, with an obvious mount being directly on a brick? Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared they had taken care of it in the horizontal direction. He read it as the mount would be in the grout between the bricks. What he had not seen was any notation of the vertical separation between the mounts. Mr. Fuller stated unfortunately there would be no way to mount the sign without drilling through two of the inner bricks; they would go through the grout with the first two. - Committee Member Wheeler stated they would want to align it so the upper and lower brackets had the appropriate spacing to allow a vertical joint line on both bricks. Mr. Howard stated they also had to allow for the electrical. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members and explained where the mounts and the electrical components would be located. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member McCormack asked if they would need a bigger plate on the bottom? Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared that it would work the way presented. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4545 -11, Moonlight Graham - Sign Program, subject to the conditions and findings found in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. Metal lettering shall be appropriate for the address numbers on the edge of the blade sign. 2. The drawings shall be modified to show that the blade sign will be centered over the door. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2011 Page 21 of 21 ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chair Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, May 4, 2011. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m.