Loading...
2011-07-06 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL July 6, 2011 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: One vacant position Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:17 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. There were no minutes to review and minutes would be on the next meeting's Agenda. Committee Member Woollett stated he had been watching the Selman renovation going on for several weeks and he asked why was it on the Agenda? Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if he was referring to the street renovation or the building? The City was in the process of street widening at Tustin and Chapman and she was not certain how far along that project was. She had not thought that any changes had been made to the building. Committee Member Woollett stated no, it was not on the building, but on the walls and maybe some of the things that were on the plans were those that were being done by the City. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated whatever was being done out there now should be in direct conjunction with the street widening and intersection work. Chair Cathcart asked if there was anything further to discuss? There was no further discussion. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 2 of 19 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members present with one open seat on the Committee. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. Leason Pomeroy, address on file, stated he wanted to ask Staff a question. He was working on a fairly good size project and it was the largest private site in Old Towne. He had submitted to SRC and it was currently in that process. He asked if he could bring the project to the Design Review Committee, informally, before it went to the DRC? He wanted input on the project. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, asked Mr. Pomeroy if he had applied for a DRC application? Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, stated it was in the SRC process and a DRC number had not been assigned to it yet. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the proposal could be taken for preliminary review to obtain comments on the proposal and gain direction from the DRC. The applicant could then go on their way with the information/comments provided. The proposal would be agendized; however, there would be no "final determination" on the project. Mr. Pomeroy asked if he would have the opportunity to have his project on the next Agenda? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it would be between Mr. Pomeroy and the Planner. Mr. Ryan stated the Agenda for July 20, 2011 was somewhat full; it might be on the meeting after that. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, stated he had two projects on the following Agenda and they were filling up quickly. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could set a date that worked. Mr. Ryan would prepare a Staff Report and agendize the item to go before the DRC. 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. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 3 of 19 CONSENT ITEMS: (1) Approval of Minutes: None AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4559 -11— BLUE FROG CAFE • A proposal for new projecting blade and way - finding wall signs for a new restaurant within the Courtyard Building. • 154 N. Glassell Street, Units "B" & "C ", Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@cityoforange.org • Continued from DRC Meeting of June 15, 2011 due to lack of quorum • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler recused himself from the item's presentation due to the proximity of his work location to the proposed site. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Cathcart asked if there were any questions for Staff? There were none. Applicant, Leason Pomeroy, address on file, stated the restaurant would occupy two spaces within the southern wing of the Courtyard, right along the passageway that went through the building. There would be some dining indoors, along with the kitchen. The primary dining would be in the open space, in the paseo. The restaurant would have a more European character, where patrons would walk through people dining and it would be interesting and unique to Orange. The signage on the project, which Jim Foster had designed the majority of, from the very beginning during development and with working with the Design Collaborative years ago; it was a kind of philosophy that signage became jewelry to the building and activated a lot of the older buildings. It was almost like organized chaos, the more there was and the brighter and flashier it became the more interesting the site was. It was almost the opposite when signage rules were being developed with signage being softer and more hidden and barely readable. Today to activate Old Towne and with the success that Old Towne had was due to the sign program that had opened up allowing neon and more freedom in design, location, and number of signs. He was pleased with what had been done with the proposed signs and he hoped the restaurant would be really successful. Chair Cathcart asked if that was the location where the cigar shop and Chocolate Factory was? Mr. Leason stated that was correct. The trouble with that location was that it was in the middle and not exposed to the outside and the reason why the signage was really important. The dining portion would be on the eastern side. The restaurant operators were very successful with the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 4 of 19 Blue Frog on the south part of town and they were anxious to be in the new location. The menu would be slightly different. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated the difference in what was being currently done was that the signs being built were quality signs and there were some old signs that existed that were kind of shoddy that would be replaced over time. His only question was that some of the areas appeared hard to serve with electricity. Applicant, Jim Foster, address on file, stated there was the exposed roof that they could run the electrical to from the electrical room. There were hollow spaces as well. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked everything that had been done and he loved blade signs. He asked if they were trying to make the brackets consistent in attaching the signage; in other words, was there a generic bracket for all blade signs in Old Towne? Also, in all the other signs that they have seen was there a standard bracket? Mr. Foster stated on Grand Street on the brick building the brackets were round and at Zito's Pizza they were all different. He had not thought that there was a set style of bracket. Mr. Ryan stated the only consistency was to have a metal painted bracket. Some were more ornate and it was dependent on the signs. Mr. Pomeroy stated on one bracket design, he had used one bracket to support two signs. He discussed how that bracket worked. The sign at O'Hara's was so large and some signs needed guide wires when they got out really far. Mr. Foster stated the signs needed to be engineered to withstand a specific wind load. Mr. Pomeroy stated on Susan Secoy's building, the brick building that Haven was in, the brackets were beautiful and they were all the same with a sign program that was designed for the whole building that were all the same. On his sites, when a new tenant came in, they added a new sign and they had not had a sign program. It was more "helter skelter." Committee Member McCormack stated there were three signs: (1) a wood one; (2) a proposed aluminum box; and (3) a free- standing neon. To not necessarily match anything, and purely from a design point of view, what if the sign was not a box and it was just neon on the nice metallic surface. He was not certain what the thought was there. Mr. Foster stated the Cafe sign was "dimensional hallo lit." One of the concerns on the older buildings was to not damage with penetration. With the sign installation they would need one hole for the pass- through and power and that would be it. If Blue Frog went out and someone new came in they would just need to change the can without damaging the wall. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 5 of 19 Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted to just suggest it. Mr. Pomeroy stated if the sign was painted the same as the plaster, it would not appear as a can sign. If it was just pinned letters on plaster that would be the best. On the Courtyard sign there was actually a can behind it and they could do that with the proposed sign. He would not want to go through a re- design. Mr. Foster stated in reviewing the proposed signage there was nothing mounted directly to the building. There was some sort of can and now to deviate from that for the structure and integrity would not be the best solution. Committee Member Woollett stated what he had heard Mr. Pomeroy state was that there would still be a can, but it would be smaller. The letters would extend beyond the top and bottom. Mr. Pomeroy explained, referencing the plans, what he was suggesting. Committee Member Woollett stated the can could be very thin. Mr. Foster stated it was just another way of looking at it. Committee Member McCormack stated he just brought it up from a design perspective. Mr. Foster stated from an aesthetic and wall integrity point of view, maybe they could paint the can to match the wall. The can could be 10 ". Committee Member Woollett stated 10 ", there were no lights inside. Mr. Foster stated there was exposed neon with the PK housing which was 4 ' /2" of electrical connectors and they needed that away from the wall to prevent "arcing" and there would be a self - contained transformer inside as well. They needed some room for servicing. He could use smaller transformers. Committee Member Woollett stated the arch was an architectural feature of the building that was lost with the application of the big white sign on it. Committee Member McCormack stated that was his point. It would allow the arch to be more visible. Mr. Foster asked if they would be pleased if the whole can was removed? With the hallo lighting of the cafe they would need a solid background; if it was on a raceway the lighting would look bad. On the "Blue Frog" section they could remove the raceway from going all the way across and have the letters a bit deeper and have it self - contained; and then get rid of the can and the exposed neon. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4559 -11, Blue Frog Cafe, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following recommendation: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 6 of 19 1. Modify the interior "Blue Frog" sign on the interior arch; to remove the 15 square foot aluminum case sign and have separate raceways for "Blue" and "Frog" to lessen the mass of the sign with a minimum sign depth to be used. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 7 of 19 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4548 -11 — SELMAN CHEVROLET REMODEL • A proposal for an exterior remodel of an existing new and used car dealership and service porte cochere to modernize the look of the facilities. • 1800 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Cathcart asked if there were any questions for Staff? There were none. Applicant, William Perkins, address on file, stated the changes to the site were part of a nationwide upgrade of the Chevrolet sites. It was a standardization of all their facilities. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A3.0, on the west elevation, there was a new car area and on the west side it appeared blue. But on the north and south sides of the same structure it appeared white. He asked if the color was changing at the corner? Mr. Perkins stated that was an error. It would be blue all the way around. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A2.0, on the new north side portal, he had a design question about the intent. There was a fairly heavy boxed -out frame, but from it there was a thinner fin. The fin projected above the roof and his concern was that visually the thin fin arrangement would appear flimsy. Mr. Perkins stated that was part of the standard and there was no leeway on that design. The concept was to modernize and add a more contemporary appearance with materials such as aluminum and aluminum cladding. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet 3.1, on the truck sales office, the pattern of the metal sheeting appeared similar to what currently existed and he asked if that was the intent or should it match the new building? Mr. Perkins stated it should all match, so it needed to be changed. It would be the same on all the buildings, to match building C. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 8 of 19 Committee Member Wheeler stated on sheet A1.0 there were six trees being removed. They were the only trees on the east side of the property and could they find a new home for the trees? Committee Member McCormack asked if the trees would remain? Mr. Perkins stated there were two Palm trees being relocated on the site. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was referring to the six trees noted as being removed. Committee Member McCormack stated that was due to the new parking layout and re- striping. He asked what were the requirements to meet the code requirements? Mr. Garcia stated they were just re- striping. Committee Member Wheeler stated generally when trees were being removed there would be mitigation. Committee Member McCormack stated with the trees that existed they were probably from a previous submittal and he would not have thought that the dealership would have placed them there. He asked Staff how that would be handled? Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated if landscaping was to be taken out then a landscape plan would need to be submitted. Generally if trees were being removed they would be replaced with something or they would be moved. The DRC could require that the applicant return with a landscape plan to be approved prior to building permits being pulled or the proposed project could be continued for a re- submittal. Committee Member McCormack stated he would want to react to what was proposed and what worked for the applicant. Mr. Perkins stated that was a conversation he would need to have with the property owners as he was not certain of what their intent was. Mr. Garcia stated the project could be bifurcated. Chair Cathcart suggested the item be bifurcated to allow the tree situation to be resolved. Committee Member Woollett stated if the trees were being retained somewhere, that could affect the layout. It was not a change that would affect the elements of the building but it could change the parking layout. Committee Member McCormack stated they had used the same concept that was used at the Library and he showed how that would work on the plans. It could be a solution. Mr. Perkins stated that could work. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 9 of 19 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4548 -11, Selman Chevrolet, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Landscape to be bifurcated with a landscape plan to return to the DRC. 2. New car delivery canopy to be the same color on all sides. 3. The parapet over the entrance glazing on the north, east, and west elevations of building C to use a metal panel more similar to the panels used on the rest of the complex. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 10 of 19 (4) DRC No. 4549 -11 — TOYOTA OF ORANGE REMODEL • A proposal to remodel the exterior walls and windows of the existing car dealership. • 1400 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Cathcart asked if there were any questions for Staff? There were none. Applicant, Franz Nalezny, address on file, stated he agreed with the Staff Report and he was available for questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated it was not clear what the material at the entrance was? Mr. Nalezny stated it was a frosted glazed panel that was glass. It was a glazed frame that was internally illuminated and actually was an entry portal and a standardized entry throughout the United States. Committee Member Woollett asked if the glazed area was set off from the wall? Mr. Nalezny stated it was 3 %2' in thickness and was integrated with the parapet of the building itself. There would be illumination off of the front and side of the frame. The support frame was behind it with the frame against the actual building. There was a filament material that distributed the light and there was not a visible bulb. There was a return on the side to engage with the overhead parapet and to engage back to the store front. It was a thick fin that was luminous. The rest of the entries were ACM clad doorways. He presented color and material samples. Committee Member Woollett stated both of the surfaces, ACM 1 and 2, showed that it would be laminated to plywood. Mr. Nalezny stated the manner in which it would be affixed would be a frame and then the plywood with the material affixed to it and then mounted onto the building. Committee Member Woollett asked what would occur at the top? Mr. Nalezny stated the material would go over the top and would be the capture to the roofing that would come in from behind. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 11 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated it was water proof. Mr. Nalezny stated it was waterproof. The plywood was wrapped in a Tyvek or building -type material. There was a 3 /4" route, return, and reveal with depth and shadow. It was on a framework in a channel and each channel came together and was the water run between those areas. It was a dry rain shield system. Even if it got past the panel and past the framework it would hit the Tyvek. Committee Member McCormack asked how the bulbs were changed? Mr. Nalezny stated there were access panels at the bottom panel of the frame and there was a 3' access space to get someone down inside for any replacements. Committee Member McCormack stated he had seen the Garden Grove site and it appeared to be an even light. Committee Member Woollett asked on the P6 finish what was being painted? Mr. Nalezny stated masonry. On the plaster it would be a sand finish. The paint color would be added to the existing concrete block or door frames. Committee Member Woollett asked if the block had routed joints or were they smooth? Mr. Nalezny stated it was a smooth stacked system, stacked CMU wall. It was a standard clean block wall. Committee Member Woollett asked if there would be any changes to the equipment behind the parapet? Mr. Nalezny stated no, there were no changes to the equipment. There were no square footage increases. Committee Member Woollett stated it seemed to him that they were entering into a slippery slope and he liked the idea of a thin wall and all of that, it was great. It was almost like a sign, it was marginal sign building. Applicant, Frank Lopez, address on file, stated it would be only on the portal. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not saying it was bad, but just sharing his comments with his colleagues. It was becoming harder to define a sign and a limitation of the ordinance as the boundaries were being blurred. Committee Member Wheeler stated a sign could be defined as just the graphic area and in a sense it would not be any different than an illuminated window. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 12 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated on the Courtyard submittal there was signage on a wall and originally it was on a can and the area of the sign was based on the size of the can. When that was eliminated the area should be refigured to become the area of the letters themselves. Committee Member McCormack asked if he had an issue that just happened once? Committee Member Woollett stated he had not had an issue; he was just calling attention to it. Innovation was blurring their decisions. One of the things that the ordinance had not allowed for was an illuminated plastic sign, illuminated from the inside. There was a sign with plastic, with illumination behind it and plastic letters on it and lighted by relief. They had the same thing and it was the whole building and internally illuminated. It was not wrong, but they needed to pay attention to what they were doing. They were setting a precedent. Committee Member McCormack stated if every sign looked that great they wouldn't have any problems. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a hard time figuring out what they were doing. Mr. Nalezny stated basically the building was getting re- skinned. Committee Member Wheeler asked what was occurring with the existing parapet and was it being removed? Mr. Nalezny stated the plaster on the parapet was being removed for weight consideration; they were taking that off and it was being re- skinned. The parapet would be a consistent height along the front, along Tustin. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the parapet was being cut back at the front of the building? Mr. Nalezny stated a portion was being brought back and stepping at the columns. Committee Member Wheeler stated the columns confused him and what plane were they on? Mr. Nalezny stated they lined up a foot back from the pilaster and became a deep column in front of the window. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was an overhang that varied somewhat, and he asked where the column was? Mr. Nalezny reviewed the plans with Committee Member Wheeler and pointed out and explained how the columns worked. Committee Member Wheeler stated his problem was that without a floor plan there was nothing that defined that area on the drawings. There were a lot of things being done that were not illustrated. It was difficult for him to be able to approve the proposal without further drawings. He was certain that what they were doing would be great; however, there were too many vague issues that he would not be able to define in conditions for an approval. Normally they had a floor plan; the site plan had not shown much and he was concerned how the differences in depths City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 13 of 19 of the parapet and face of the building would work. He would want to review a floor plan that clarified it. In addition to that, he would want to review a partial roof plan. Mr. Lopez stated Committee Member Wheeler wanted to see an actual roof plan that showed the front elevation. Committee Member Wheeler stated a floor plan with dotted lines and better yet a floor plan and roof plan would really nail it down. A design section could show how the portal sat up against the building, it was too vague. Committee Member McCormack stated on the 36" deep accessibility path warning surface the truncated domes had a notation pointing to a deviated path of travel to the street; it appeared that it should be flipped. Mr. Nalezny explained on the drawings how the area worked. Committee Member McCormack stated the arrow should point to a symbol that was a path and the other should go to the domes. A wheelchair could not go on the domes and he wanted to clarify that section. If he was the contractor he would place the truncated domes and the path in the wrong places. It was confusing. Mr. Nalezny stated there was room between the domes and the pathway and the walking path to the street was behind the truncated domes. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the item be continued. Chair Cathcart stated he agreed and asked the applicant if he agreed to a continuance? Mr. Nalezny asked how they went about rescheduling? Ms. Nguyen stated a new set of documents could be sent to her for review and to ensure that the concerns had been addressed. A subsequent meeting could be scheduled. Mr. Lopez asked would that be in a month? Ms. Nguyen stated it would depend on how quickly the revisions were made. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4549 -11, Toyota of Orange. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 14 of 19 (5) DRC No. 4564 -11 - VERIZON WIRELESS • A proposal for a wireless facility consisting of a new 51' mono -palm, 12 panel antennas, and associated equipment cabinets. • 809 S. Esplanade Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, rgarcia @,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Carver Chui, address on file, stated he represented Verizon and he would do his best to answer their questions. He knew they were familiar with the type of project he was proposing. He wanted to acknowledge Staff's effort to get the project to where it was and he had reviewed the Staff Report; Verizon was fine with the conditions and the way the Report was worded. Mr. Chui went on to clarify a couple of items: (1) regarding the microwave dish, this was something that Verizon was seeking approval for, but had not intended to install yet. There was a condition if they chose to move forward with installation of a dish that the Palm tree would have some faux dry leaves to provide screening or cover for that. They were seeking approval for a 4' microwave dish for a future use and not something they would necessarily install when they put the facility in place now; and (2) regarding the reference in the Staff Report to a Mexican Fan Palm tree, based on the feedback that they were receiving and real life performance, a Date Palm tree would be much better from an aesthetic standpoint and also from a durability standpoint. The fronds could extend out beyond the antennas and that was also a condition. He wanted to be able to show them the materials, but reference should be made to a Date Palm if they wanted to be that specific in making a recommendation. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a note indicating any visible surfaces would have pseudo bark on it and he wondered what that meant? He was reviewing the photos where the artist had installed the Palm in the pictures in order to see them in relationship to the other existing Palm trees. It would seem to him that if they were to make them look alike that the bark should be the same. The existing Palm trees have not been maintained to the extent that the bark was removed and maybe the landscape experts could explain it to him? Chair Cathcart stated the Palms were Washingtonias and what the applicant was suggesting was Phoenix. One was a Feather Palm and one was a Fan Palm. Committee Member Woollett asked if the bark would be different? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 15 of 19 Committee Member McCormack stated yes. They were mixing a Washingtonia and a Phoenix. He could not say it any more clearly than that. He thought the whole thing was a joke. Mr. Garcia stated there was only one existing Palm tree. The others would be planted and that would give them the opportunity to have the new Palm trees that would be planted to be the same species as the species the faux tree would mimic. Committee Member Woollett stated there was more than one tree out there currently. Mr. Chui stated that was a good point and he was not certain how the design was arrived at; obviously the intent was to simulate a Palm tree but not to replicate. Committee Member McCormack stated it got so fake; it was past fake because it was not even right fake. It got so annoying. They knew it was fake, so let's get it right. Mr. Chui stated the trees came directly from the faux tree manufacturers and he was not certain how they arrived at a bark pattern. Maybe they put the wrong bark in the photo. That was possible. Committee Member McCormack stated it would be difficult to put a Phoenix diamond cut on the bark. Mr. Chui stated the majority of the trees he had seen were thin; the texture would not pop from a distance, as it would with an actual Palm tree. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not wanted to create a big deal about it, because there was nothing they could do about it. The applicant had made a comment about hanging some dead fronds and he thought that was a novel idea. Although from the Phoenix point of view, those were similar to the armature that was in there and a Fan Palm was different. He drew the fronds for the applicant. With the Washingtonia it was flat; it was just a huge thing with needles on the end. To create a dead one it couldn't be done because it could not bend down; and it would appear more fake. Mr. Chui stated he wished he had a photo with dry fronds. Committee Member McCormack stated the Washingtonia Palm fronds were almost like a flat canoe, concave, and it created the area where it had been connected. I guess they were not requiring the dead fronds, so his point was mute, although the applicant might use it in the future. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated they had done that in the past to have the faux tree blend better with the existing Palm trees. Mr. Garcia stated he thought there was that situation at West Chapman. He was not certain if that site was built, but it had dead fronds in the design. Committee Member McCormack stated the Phoenix dead fronds would just hang. The Washingtonia would just fold over. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 16 of 19 Chair Cathcart stated he would rather see a grouping of real live Phoenix Palm trees where the faux tree could hide. It would be hidden in the group and if there was a way to plant other Phoenix Palm trees in the area that would make the faux tree less obvious. Committee Member McCormack stated if that was a condition, the Phoenix Palm tree was triple the cost compared to a Washingtonia Palm tree. They picked a very expensive tree to resemble. Mr. Chui stated it was from an operational standpoint that the Phoenix Palm tree was chosen, it would work in the long term. He appreciated the comments regarding the cluster effect and he believed that had been the intent by showing the other trees at the southern end. Possibly they could add to the west face as well without hindering the church's operation. There were also some shrubs planned for the area by the block wall. Committee Member Wheeler asked if another design had been explored without using a faux tree? Mr. Chui stated he had not been involved since the beginning, but his understanding was that there had been a couple of things for consideration and one was to have some type of architectural element on the church itself, but that was not something the church supported. The concept of adding something structurally was not accepted, so they had pursued a free - standing facility. There had been discussion about moving the site over closer to the nursery, but there were constraints there. The nursery was tucked into the channel at the back of the church and had limited access and parking. To install the site there would have been difficult without affecting the operation of the nursery. The nursery site installation would have required tree removal. The proposal before the DRC accomplished a couple of things. It provided for the least impact on the church and the church activities plus gave separation from the residential areas on all sides. The location was supported by both the church and the school. Committee Member Wheeler stated a church was a place that could be explored for different architectural choices and there would be so many things that could be done. It would be an asset to the church and eliminate the use of a fake tree. He wished that could be explored more. With the tree presented, sheet MP1, on the table in the middle part of the sheet, the Palm tree fronds were listed at approximately 8' long and in doing the math the metal tube at the top that was 18" in diameter and if he took 2 x 96, plus 18 over 12 it came to the ball being only 17 ' /s' in diameter, whereas on the next sheet it showed 19' in diameter. There was some conflict there and it had not accounted for the fact that some of the fronds were pointed up at an angle. On sheet MP2 there was a nice circle on the plan view showing the limits of the beams that held the antennas, but he could not find what the diameter of the circle was. There was a measurement of 5' -3" and maybe that covered it, but that circle had not included the antennas themselves, but only the arms. It would need to be clarified that the City requirement of 4' be maintained. He was curious, there was taper on the column but not very much. He asked if it would be possible to taper it more? Mr. Chui stated he would need to check; he was not certain how much it could taper. Committee Member Wheeler stated the simulation showed a thick trunk, although the Phoenix had a thicker trunk and maybe it was appropriate. Palm trees had not tapered much, but they tapered. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 17 of 19 Mr. Chui stated it was a structural element. Committee Member Wheeler stated at Disneyland's California Adventure they had put in some new street lights where a trolley would be running. The street lights had leaned out slightly and he realized that had been done to accommodate for the future trolley wiring. When the wiring was installed the lights would be brought back to plumb. That was the type of problem structural professors would have loved to have given them. It was the same thing with the taper, the structural engineer needed to calculate that. On sheet L1, there was a tree that looked like a Phoenix Palm tree on detail no. 3, but it might be something that they might be in danger of tripping over, and they might need more definition on that as it was called out as a Mexican Fan Palm tree. Committee Member McCormack stated from a horticultural standpoint typically a Palm tree would not be planted without some sort of drain. Chair Cathcart asked Staff if the City had a detail for Palm tree planting? Mr. Garcia stated not that he was aware of. He would check with the Community Services Department. Committee Member McCormack stated Palm trees would need to be planted in sand with some sort of drain to get the water out or to pump out the water. Standing water would cause the tree to die. The trees were not cheap and if drainage was not planned for they could lose the trees. Mr. Chui stated they could look at adding that if there was not a drain. Committee Member McCormack stated when he was referring to a drain he was referring to the water being pumped out. Best case would be the storm drain but that was expensive. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a tree height suggestion? Chair Cathcart stated it would not need to be exactly the same height, but close. Committee Member McCormack asked how tall was it? Mr. Chui stated it was 51' to the top of the fronds. The top of the microwave dish was intended to be roughly 40'. Maybe another 10 -12'. Committee Member McCormack suggested 30' or above and the only reason he stated that was in the zone of 20' -30' brown trunk height, those Palm trees were priced sky high. Once they got above 30' -35' no one wanted to buy them, so getting them up higher would be less costly. Chair Cathcart suggested 30' -35' brown trunk height, two or three trees. Committee Member McCormack stated they could go to 40' brown trunk height at a lesser cost, because no architect wanted to use an old tree. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 18 of 19 Committee Member Wheeler stated he had seen some of the faux trees with a more reddish brown bark and most Palm trees had more of a gray tone. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to continue DRC No. 4564 -11, Verizon Wireless, with the following recommendations: 1. Use the proper tree type for the mono -palm feature. 2. Add 2 additional Palm trees on the landscape plans to create a grouping with the mono - palm. Trees to be 30' -35' brown trunk height. 3. To provide a bark texture indicative of the Phoenix Palm tree specie. 4. Clarify drawings of how the fronds extending beyond the antennas would work. 5. Explore more taper of the faux tree trunk. Mr. Garcia asked as far as the number of Palm trees on the site, would they want two additional trees? Chair Cathcart stated two new live trees and one faux tree. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 6, 2011 Page 19 of 19 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 20, 2011. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.