Loading...
2012-01-18 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL January 18, 2012 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Carol Fox Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated there had been a new Committee Member appointed. It was Carol Fox and she would join them at a meeting in February. Staff was requesting that when a motion was formulated with additional conditions it would be helpful that some sort of time frame be added to the required conditions; such as prior to Building Permit issuance or C of O, or whatever they felt was appropriate. It would assist Staff. The motion in the meeting minutes was being taken verbatim and the conditions stated in that motion would be the added conditions to the project. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were any parameters on what they would state prior to Building Permit as opposed to C of O? It was a mute point, because if it was not on the plans it would not be built. Mr. Ortlieb stated sometimes it was; and many times they could add to a project. If plans were in plan check and there was something that needed to be added on at that time, they could deal with it at that point. It would not just be a matter of stating that a feature must be shown; but it was a matter of stating that on the plans they were requesting a specific item/change to be listed in order to have it be available for a contractor to see. Committee Member McCormack stated it would seem that the C of O would be too late. It would seem that they would always want to state prior to Building Permit; if they made a condition that was worth being made. Committee Member Wheeler stated everything he spoke to on projects he would want on the plans before it went to the Building Department. There were special circumstances where a project had started and the Building Department had found something being built improperly and a project was brought back to the DRC. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 2 of 24 Committee Member McCormack stated if they asked for prior to C of O that they would need to see something that was written down; which would be a plan. Mr. Ortlieb stated the C of O conditions generally kicked in on other non - Design Review oriented conditions for larger projects, such as a tract of homes. C of O and Building Permit were not the only time frames that could be used in forming a motion. There might be a motion for completion prior to some aspect of the project, such as a type of Landscaping that should be installed '/z way through the construction cycle. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of January 4, 2012. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Fox was absent. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. 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 ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 4, 2012 Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee Meeting of January 4, 2012, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 3 of 24 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 4 of 24 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4340 -08 - WAHOO'S FISH TACOS RESTAURANT 0 A proposal for a new sign program. • 234 -238 W. Chapman Avenue, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714- 744 -7224, dryan(uDcityoforange_org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler recused himself from the item's presentation due to the location of his office. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, John Blake, address on file, stated they had come up with the free standing sign as a result of not having a good location on the front of the building. The building was set back. He presented photos of the location and stated there were photos of the area where their building would not be visible. They worked with Staff to ensure the sign colors were compatible with the buildings. He was available for additional questions. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they agreed that the free standing sign was more appropriate than slapping a sign on the building itself. Neon had been acceptable throughout the Plaza and each building signified a separate time period. The OTPA felt that neon was not appropriate to be associated with a Victorian building. A better option would be incandescent lighting as proposed for the rear of the building. On the retail office signage, the LED back lighting had not met the Old Towne Design Standards; which stated that external incandescent lighting shall be used. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett asked about the comment regarding the neon sign and the Victorian building, and it was not a Victorian building it was a Victorian Revival building. In the period of time the building had been built, it was during a time that neon lighting was used in Orange. Mr. Ryan stated they could review the dates in relationship to an analysis of use and when was neon first used in Orange? On several projects neon had been used to avoid having external illumination and they wanted a sign that was readable during the day and at night. One way to achieve that was to incorporate neon in their signs. The biggest concern was what type of sign could the applicant use? With the building being set back and by the blockage from Country Roads Antiques and Plaza Bible Church, it was a question of what type of sign would work for City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 5 of 24 way finding? The only thing that they had come up with was the use of a pole sign that would extend a bit out into the public right of way; and the other issue was how to keep the sign within the framework of permitted lighting. Neon became an option for lighting and readability. Committee Member Woollett stated the DRC had fallen back on neon as being an acceptable means of lighting signs in Old Towne. Mr. Ryan stated in applying the same reasoning for a Victorian sign, would they require hurricane kerosene lamps out there? What could they use for a period building that would be acceptable in the Down town district? If the DRC felt the sign would have a better appearance without the neon, the sign could be externally illuminated and the sign would be different looking. Committee Member Woollett stated they were also bringing up the LED issue again and they had discussed the use of LED previously. Mr. Ryan stated the reasoning behind that option would be to use the reverse channel letters with LED lighting that would affect a halo or point light and not an internal situation, but created a lighting effect. There was nothing in the sign code that covered that topic. It spoke to fixtures that had non - visible light sources and external lighting and the prohibition of internal lighting. Having channel letters offset with a halo affect met the standards. Committee Member Woollett stated the light source would not need to be LED. The light source would not be visible and the only aspect of the LED that might be objectionable was that it would have a non -neon appearance. Mr. Ryan stated the lighting components of the sign code had not been brought up to today's technological standards and they were still attempting to work within and around that. Committee Member McCormack stated Committee Member Woollett was on to something and he agreed that neon had not fit the Victorian style, in his opinion. On a previous project they had required a change in the color of the LED lights to appear incandescent. The garishness of neon tended to put a period on a project, with the bright Las Vegas type of lighting, if the neon was toned down along with the LED they could create the appearance of incandescent lighting. Mr. Blake stated with their particular sign situation there were many varieties of white light, and there was one that was more of a yellow tint light. Committee Member McCormack stated the goal was to have the appearance of incandescent lighting. Mr. Blake stated the 4500 light was more of an off white light color and it would work well on their project. Committee Member Woollett stated the signage was very good as proposed and responsive to the project. Mr. Frankel's issues were good points and he believed they could make adjustments around them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 6 of 24 Committee Member McCormack stated on the sign placement, he asked the applicant to show him where the applicant was proposing the signs to be placed? Mr. Blake and applicant, Jay Rutter, address on file, reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. The sign was brought in line with the metal railing in the front of the restaurant. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked that and he asked that the sign be lined up with the fire pit feature. He reviewed his recommended location with the applicants. For the square steel posts, he asked if the posts were a nice square mitered post? Mr. Blake stated they could go either way. Committee Member McCormack stated on the Wahoo's fish it was indicated to be the same on both sides and he asked if the finish of the fish and backside of the fish would be finished and what material the red area of the sign was? Mr. Blake stated normally the back would be just black, however, they could digitally finish the fish on both sides. The red was aluminum. Committee Member McCormack stated on the other signs he asked if they would be the same in two different areas that he pointed to on the plans? Mr. Ryan stated the issue was that there were two architecturally different buildings and what sign would be appropriate for each one; to have them read as two different buildings. Mr. Blake stated the Wahoo's sign would be a lot less dimensional from a side perspective; there would not be the mitered channel as there would not be lighting inside of it. The thickness would be considerably smaller. Committee Member McCormack stated what he was reviewing was the dimensional ' / 4 " x '/4" inset boarder, on the detail it appeared to be a whole panel, rather than a bead. Mr. Blake stated that detail would be on the office building and the other signs would be the same to keep continuity. Committee Member McCormack stated on sheet 10 of 16 the details should be noted. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4340 -08, Wahoo's sign program with the findings and conditions in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. That the lighting be neon and the LED be a fixture housing to yield an incandescent light color. 2. That the sign placement as revised in the documents received at the meeting be in line with the fence with the pickets all being equal and adjusted to be on the center line of the fire pit feature. 3. That the square steel posts for the monument sign be square and mitered at the corners rather than rounded to match the fence. 4. That the fish — be the fish on all four sides. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 7 of 24 5. That the plans 10 of 16 to note exactly what the red part of sign will be to be painted aluminum. 6. The profiles of the Wahoo's back fagade signs shall have the same details or similar to the tenant signs on the front of the building. Mr. Ortlieb asked for clarification on the timing of the conditions, and would that be prior to Building Permit? Committee Member McCormack stated that would be prior to Building Permit. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 8 of 24 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4532 -11 — GOMEZ RESIDENCE • A proposal to add a second -story to an existing single -story residence. • 1300 W. Birch Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, r a� rcia(a)cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Franco Jasso, address on file, stated he was available for questions and he had already incorporated the suggestions from the Planning Department. They had already made the changes to the garage. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated in the past he had been the primary Committee Member to challenge second story additions in residential areas that had no second story residences. The proposed project had been done particularly well, it was stepped back from the street and his feeling was that if more people wanted to do that in the neighborhood it would not be harmful and could be helpful. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with those comments and they were certainly very careful about the first two story addition in the neighborhood. It was very well done in that it was pushed back and the hip roof mirrored the roof of the original structure. It was a much better approach than the additions that were a couple of blocks away from the proposed site. They would be removing the ugly shed structure that was behind the house and that was an improvement. He reviewed the plans with the applicant and stated on the lower floor plan the chimney appeared to extend about 9" from the wall plane, but in reviewing the second floor the wall and chimney were separated by about 18" and the elevation showed the walls lined up. He recommended the applicant review that section and make necessary corrections. There was a door noted on the second floor that he believed should be a window. Mr. Jasso stated they had proposed a balcony previously and he would make that correction to a window. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the window trim the 1" x 4" trim was very 1960's and the house was a 1950's home, he assumed, and he strongly suggested that the trim that was used was a trim that was more appropriate to the period of when the home was built. The neighbors had a reference; it was a very narrow trim with a 2" sill projection. The new trim as proposed, jumped out as such a change. They reviewed photos of homes in the neighborhood and Committee City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 9 of 24 Member Wheeler pointed out the trim that he was suggesting with the projecting window sill at the bottom of the window. There was a notation to remove another window trim and he would hate to see that go; it was one of the fun things that had been done on those homes as a type of "story book" home. There was that one piece of trim that said "wheee ", and he would hate to see that go and he suggested they keep that detail. He felt the homes of the 1950's were inspired a bit by Disneyland and there was a bit of fantasy built into them. He would propose that the window trim be a condition. Committee Member McCormack asked on the roof pitch was it 5 and 12? Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared to be 3 or 4 and 12, was it called out as 5 and 12? Committee Member McCormack stated it was called out as 5 and 12 and what struck him when reviewing the elevation and when he had visited the site, that the roof looked very flat and if the pitch was changed it would stand out too much. Committee Member Wheeler stated they should note that the new roof match the existing. Committee Member McCormack stated just as Committee Member Woollett had made comments about the home being the first two story home in the neighborhood and coupled with the fact that he had a real problem with the second story overhanging the first story, he always wanted to see the 2 story stepped back a bit and he asked if there was any way to change that. The proposed project would set the example for others and there would be those massive 2nd story walls. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no problem with the manner in which the 2 Story was proposed; as it fit the period and that was how they had been done. Structurally it was a mess nowadays, but it would add a nice shadow pattern. Committee Member McCormack stated it would be the precedent setting home of the neighborhood and could they explore other ways to step it back? Committee Member Woollett stated he disagreed with Committee Member McCormack and thought the project was better the way it was proposed, as long is it was not too big. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with Committee Member Woollett, it was not a huge overhang and it fit the period. Committee Member Woollett stated it was a more interesting elevation as proposed. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4532 -11, subject to the conditions and findings in the Staff Report with the additional conditions as follows; 1. That the window trim for all new windows and replacement windows be configured to match the prevalent window trim in the neighborhood which uses thin 1 by jam and head trim and projecting 2 by window sill. 2. That the sliding glass door or sliding door shown on the 2 floor master bedroom be changed to a window. 3. The roof pitch of the new work shall match the roof pitch of the existing. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 10 of 24 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 11 of 24 (4) DRC No. 4594 -11 — ARCHITECTS ORANGE • A proposal to modify front and rear facades including new signage for a non- contributing commercial building. • 321 W. Chapman Avenue, Plaza Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jack Selman, stated he had a bit more information to provide, he presented a color and material board, and he stated he had some information on the light fixtures. They had met with Staff and were mostly in agreement, there were two exceptions that he wanted to discuss. 15 years ago when the building was retrofitted the side window areas had been bricked in and rather than attempting to match the brick they were inset and painted. When he purchased the building they had a structural engineer go through the building and added some structural brackets in the inside and he suggested another brick in fill. The side areas that were once windows were now boarded up and painted and he had felt since they would be behind the trash enclosures to leave them recessed with the appearance of an old window that had been filled in, rather than filling them up further. It gave a representation between the old and new. The second comment was with the precision block, all the brick, which would never match and there had not been a trash enclosure at the site previously, that there should be an appearance of old and new and the materials they proposed would provide a nice contrast with the black and gray. Applicant, Scott Jones, address on file, provided a sample of the sign material and stated it would be high density foam, with an acrylic mat finish. Mr. Ryan's comment was that they could not have a gloss finish to the sign, and he presented a glossy vs. mat finish. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated as far as the aluminum framing for the windows that was totally inappropriate and not allowed in the Plaza area. The building was a 1923's building and he was not certain why they would want to reference inappropriate remodels of other buildings in the area. He noticed there were other buildings in the area that had aluminum framed windows, but those were installed before there were Design Standards in place and he felt they would be going backwards to allow an aluminum frame window treatment. The rest of the building had wood frame windows. The project had come forward in 2002 or 2003 and they were required to use all appropriate materials and wood windows. He was not certain if the roll up doors were being installed then, they were doing some type of upgrade and it was not in 1980. He believed all of the treatment of the building as it existed today had appropriate material; the front fagade was all wood frame, the doors were wood and everything else was wood. Although the building had been altered to not be recognized as a contributing building, moving forward with aluminum frame windows was inappropriate and contrary to the standards as well. The building should remain more consistent with the 1923 style and not reference the 1990's in a 1923 building. As far as the signage went; again they were proposing plastic and that City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 12 of 24 material was inconsistent with the Standards and another material should be used, such as metal or aluminum. He noticed that work had already begun on the building and aluminum frame windows had been installed at the rear of the building, which were very visible from the street and parking lot area — it was inappropriate. The large electrical box should be screened from public view, along with the A/C units and other mechanical. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he was concerned with the use of aluminum on the windows and he had found that the steel window sections were still available, they were glazing sections and they were not very expensive and he wondered if the applicant had thought about using those. Mr. Selman stated he was going off of the reference of the materials used on the building next door to his proposed site, that building had aluminum and had been on that building as long as he remembered. The building was noncontributing and was so bastardized from a 1920's or 1930's building and the only thing that remained original were the sides of the building. The in fills had been done and the front had brick that they proposed to keep. He thought the Historic District stopped on Lemon Street. Committee Member Wheeler stated the proposed project site was on a spoke street corridor and the Old Towne Design Standards stated all sashes shall be wood or steel and that was very black and white. Mr. Selman stated he would leave the wood that existed and paint it. He asked for their feelings on the sign material? Committee Member Woollett stated they had an ongoing issue with the use of plastic and the DRC had decided that they would accept thin vinyl lettering on a sign as it was the same as paint, however, in using a plastic sheet there was a problem as it was a slippery slope against what the Standards recommended. Mr. Selman asked if the letters could be aluminum? Committee Member Woollett stated yes. The other issues were the panels in the back, the applicant would be fixing two more and wanted to duplicate the application of materials as existed on the other panels at the site and it was a difficult issue. Mr. Selman stated keep in mind the building was not a historic contributing building. Committee Member Woollett stated it was pretty close. Mr. Selman pointed out the area on a photo of the building what was new and what had not been there originally. . Committee Member Wheeler stated the side and rear were original. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 13 of 24 Committee Member Woollett stated he was thinking about all the good work that Chapman University was doing, just one block up on Maple Street, with the Art Village. Mr. Ryan stated with the Filmmakers Village. Committee Member Woollett stated it was the old Anaconda Warehouse, where they were keeping much of it original. Mr. Selman stated he had looked at that building and it was exactly as it used to be; his building had already been bastardized. Committee Member Woollett stated he was going in a good direction, he wanted to see him go a little bit further. He was concerned about the aluminum. Mr. Selman stated he understood that and he also understood the concerns with the material in the lettering. He asked what other concerns there were? Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with Mr. Frankel on the electrical equipment comments. Mr. Selman stated he had thought about painting it the same color as the brick. If he enclosed it, it would appear the same. Committee Member Wheeler stated they had just reviewed a project that had to be screened. Mr. Selman stated his project, the Plaza 141 Restaurant, had the same electrical and it was approved, the DRC had reviewed it and it was in the Old Towne District. He felt that painting it should be adequate. Were they suggesting an enclosure with doors to get to it? It would be much less of a distraction if they painted it. Historically the building would have had a large outdoor meter and he asked what the difference would be? All the buildings historically had exposed meters. Committee Member Wheeler stated there had been some modifications and there was large conduit there and he wanted to remain consistent in what they were approving. Committee Member Woollett stated the previous project involved a recently built building. Committee Member Wheeler stated part of it was on an older building. It was behind a recently restored building. Committee Member Woollett stated the difference with that project was that the previous project was really an egregious situation and it was very visible. Mr. Selman stated it was a clean gray box and it would appear better to paint it out, to blend it in and not have it stand out. It would be much less obvious than putting an enclosure in front of it. Committee Member McCormack stated that might not work. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 14 of 24 Mr. Selman stated it had not made sense to build a pop out in front of another pop out. The Committee Members reviewed the plans and the electrical equipment location. Committee Member Woollett asked if on the A/C unit would there only be 2 condensers? Mr. Selman stated yes, they would be ground mounted. Everything else was in the inside. They would need to place some type of security on the condensers. There was an old unit that was on the roof. On Henry's grill he had proposed to paint it out, but it was not approved that way. He presented a photo of where the unit was. They removed 2 to 3 pieces off of the roof, and the remaining A/C unit was functioning. Mr. Jones presented the proposed plant material, and stated they would use a Yucca plant that would be planted around the trash enclosure. Committee Member McCormack stated the plants would get larger than 2' and it would have a spike on the end. Mr. Selman asked what would he propose? Committee Member McCormack stated they could make the planter area larger and use the proposed plant or choose something else. Mr. Jones stated they could choose a dwarf version. Committee Member McCormack stated they wanted to make a statement and that was good, but suggested researching how large the plants would get. The two issues, and one being that Staff was recommending matching brick and he could understand that, but he asked if the intent was to just change it. He could not find where the material was called out and they were using a 4 by precision block in a stack bond; and he wanted to clarify if they would be going with a contemporary stacking. He would go with a 4" stack width and 8 ", and it would appear a bit cooler. With the pavers in the back he liked the pattern that was on the plans, rather than mosaic confusion. It was their front statement. Chair Cathcart stated the planter could be wider. Mr. Selman stated they could not because of the location of the trash enclosure. Committee Member McCormack stated they could make in wider in the other direction and just wrap it around with a nice ground cover. Mr. Selman stated he was not sure he was sold on that. Committee Member McCormack reviewed the plans with the applicant and pointed out the areas he was suggesting for planting and widening of the plant space. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the plans with the applicant to get clarification on the electrical box and associated conduit. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 15 of 24 Mr. Selman stated the conduit came up from the alley area and went up, it was just standard conduit. Committee Member Woollett stated over the years the situation in the City had changed and the area behind buildings was very active, people used to just park on the street and now they parked behind the buildings. The back of the building was just as important as a visual urban feature as the front of a building. The problem that he had with many of the buildings was that there was so much junk on the walls and it was really cluttered. He offered the suggestion of instead of placing doors on the trash enclosure to install a fence to screen the view of the electrical, condensers and the trash area, to provide a simple view of the building instead. It would create a visually pleasing appearance, to put something across and he would worry a lot less about the insets in the wall as there would be a very simple appearance with all the junk out of sight. Committee Member Wheeler stated that suggestion made a lot of sense. Chair Cathcart asked how high would it be? Committee Member Wheeler stated it would need to be the height of the trash enclosure, about 6' and just carry the same material all across the back. Committee Member Woollett stated the area was very attractive and most people would enter from that area. The gates would become part of the fence. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could have the gates match the fence material. Committee Member Woollett stated that would clean it all up. Mr. Selman presented photos of the back of the building to the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett stated that was what they had done at the Plaza Bible Church. Mr. Selman stated he would carry out the same material of the gates, a corrugated metal. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was o.k. with the window openings being filled in with block, rather than brick and that was common in Old Towne, where the materials had not matched. He had not felt there was any need to match the masonry with the building. It could be a different size and dimension as it would tell a story about the changes that had occurred over the years. Mr. Selman stated they had been trying to get to the DRC for 3 months and he was trying to get into the building in 2 weeks. He wanted to get the trash enclosure and the fence approved and he needed to get the walkway approved as conditioned. Mr. Ryan stated it depended on how quickly Mr. Selman could get things back to Staff. Mr. Selman asked when was the next meeting? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 16 of 24 Mr. Ryan stated two weeks. Mr. Selman stated they needed to get everything cleaned up and he wanted to do the proposal in phases and he felt they came up with a solution for the enclosure and he wanted to get that approved. He wanted to start the paving as there was dirt back there now. Mr. Ryan stated the project needed to go to the Planning Commission; any external changes to the facade or rear of a building in the Plaza District needed to go to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was not certain how they could approve it; all they were doing was recommending approval to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan stated it was not an accepted practice to bifurcate a project and just take part of it to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Woollett stated it would seem that they could structure a motion that would recommend approval to the Planning Commission with conditions and he understood there needed to be some more work done on some of the project, with final design coming back to the DRC for review. Mr. Selman stated he could withdraw the application and just submit for the rear of the building changes. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4594 -11, in accordance with the Staff's recommendations and findings with additional conditions as included in the discussion that follows: Condition two and three shall be omitted. Committee Member McCormack asked if DRC acceptance of staff Condition 5 was for the letters? Mr. Selman stated they were in agreement with that. Committee Member Woollett stated that the aluminum framing on the south side of the building shall be constructed of wood or steel in conformance of the Old Towne Design Standards with the specifics to be brought to the Design Review Board prior to approval by the Building Department. Committee Member Wheeler inquired if that would include the aluminum on the store front on the north side as well. Committee Member Woollett confirmed in the affirmative that it would include all aluminum store front. Mr. Selman inquired of the DRC if the project had to come back before the DRC. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 17 of 24 Committee Member Woollett stated yes because he wants to see what the applicant will come up with because he wants more time for the review and wants to see wood or steel (for the windows). Mr. Selman questioned how the trash enclosure fit in with the motion. Committee Member Woollett inferred that the answer would be in the conditions. Committee Member McCormack stated that Conditions Numbers 3 and 8 were now related because Condition 3 was modified to go with the brick in a more contemporary manner which then dove tailed in with/was the same as Condition Number 8. Mr. Selman stated it would be a pattern. Committee Member McCormack stated it was different and clarified his position that Condition Number 3 requested an alternate brick and he referenced to the particular type of brick he preferred, not sandblasted precision block, with a 4, 4" stacked pattern, running bond continued all the way over. Committee Member Woollett stated that Committee Member McCormack's position was not necessarily the case. Mr. Selman stated there was metal. Committee Member Woollett added that there are metal gates and that the applicant could construct the enclosure out of metal, if desired. Mr. Selman stated he liked a gray look better and would think about it. Committee Member McCormack stated it was up to Mr. Selman. Committee Member Woollett stated they were not requiring the brick veneer and they were not requiring the brick to go in the window openings. Mr. Selman stated his understanding. Committee Member McCormack stated that Condition Numbers 3 and 8 relate but since metal is now an option, the DRC would look at the relation to Condition 4. . Mr. Selman stated he would look at doing the whole thing as metal and also look at going with block as specified with the rest as metal. Committee Member Woollett added a condition to the motion that the mechanical electrical service area on the north side of the building shall be enclosed with a metal or masonry fence along the property line, close to the north property line to be compatible with the trash enclosure. Committee Member Wheeler inquired if the condition should be for an opaque fence. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 18 of 24 Committee Member Woollett answered in the affirmative. Mr. Selman stated that the DRC could even specify the metal if desired. Committee Member McCormack stated that if metal becomes the return to the building, it would be all metal. It would be the applicant's choice. Committee Member Woollett stated that simple is best if all metal is chosen. Mr. Selman stated he had to think it through the decision and wanted what looked best without cost being the consideration. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was the entrance to the building. Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to leave it open so the applicant could proceed to the Planning Commission with the conditions that the DRC placed on the project and the DRC would to see the final project again. Committee Member McCormack inquired of the applicant what pattern the bricks will be. Mr. Selman replied it was going to be the pattern on their plans with the color he pointed at to the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the area in question could be clarified. Committee Member McCormack stated it is at the north entry into the building. Committee Member Woollett asked if Committee Member McCormack is talking about the pavers. Committee Member McCormack clarified that they are no longer talking about the pavers, and are now discussing the bricks. Mr. Selman stated that he thought they were discussing pavers and concrete with the pattern shown on the plans. Committee Member Woollett stated that he would defer to the applicant as to what is used with regard to the immediately preceding discussion. Chair Cathcart stated that the improvements should match the plans. Committee Member McCormack stated that planning in the proposed narrow planting area may prove difficult. Mr. Selman responded that they could address the landscaping area with the DRC on a return visit. Committee Member McCormack stated that the landscaping affects the entry. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 19 of 24 Mr. Selman stated they were going to move the landscaping back and could demonstrate the change with the plant material. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the signage needed to be addressed such that the letters would be metal. Committee Member Woollett stated that signage was already addressed. Mr. Selman stated his non - opposition to a metal sign. Committee Member Woollett stated that the applicant shall provide painted aluminum, wrought iron or acrylic material. Mr. Selman stated brushed aluminum would be used. Mr. Jones stated a mat finish would be used. Mr. Selman asked if the DRC wants the signs painted? Committee Member McCormack stated that he liked the aluminum sign proposal better. Committee Member Woollett asked what pedestrian meant with regard to Condition 5? Mr. Ryan stated for the signage it referred to pedestrian level or eye level. Mr. Selman stated that the sign at the rear of the building mentioned in Condition 5 could be addressed with the DRC on a return visit. He inquired where the sign could go and noted that the sign at their current location is a 1/4 " metal panel painted black that stated the address. Mr. Selman asked what the comment pertained to and what the Staff Report says? Committee Member Wheeler resonded that he just wanted to clarify what "pedestrian" meant in the Condition and noted that the conditions are recommendations to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the DRC needs to say and clarify what needs to come back to the DRC. Committee Member Woollett responded that the store front needs to return to the DRC. Mr. Selman requested confirmation of his understanding that the whole south side of the store front is what needs to return for DRC review. Chair Cathcart answered affirmatively. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the DRC needs to make it clear that the store front on the north side needs to be changed too. Mr. Selman stated that steel or wood would be used. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 20 of 24 Mr. Ortlieb asked if the Committee would like Staff to try to sum up the conditions proposed by the DRC for the purposes of a motion? Committee Member Woollett stated that he would. Mr. Selman stated he thought they were close to finished. Mr. Ortlieb summed up the motion as follows: The DRC recommends approval of the project subject to Staff recommended findings and conditions to the Planning Commission with the added conditions of: 1. Omit conditions 2 and 3 from the Staff Report. 2. All aluminum store front framing shall be constructed of wood or steel in conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards, specifically page 24. The whole store front shall be brought back to the DRC prior to Building Permit. 3. The mechanical electrical equipment on the service area shall be enclosed with an opaque metal or block fence. 4. That the plant material shall be appropriate to the size of its planting area. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 21 of 24 (5) DRC No. 4601 -11 — CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY— CHURCH CONVERSION • A proposal to restore the former 1923 Mennonite Church, parsonage, and garage structures located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Avenue and Olive Street. The church and parsonage will be converted to residential use. • 145 W. Sycamore Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryankcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the parking was being used at the adjacent lot, would the applicant need to submit any type of a letter to document that? Mr. Ryan stated they would need a reciprocal parking agreement. Chair Cathcart asked if the lot was being leased? Applicant, Kris Olsen, address on file, stated his preference would be to use the parking structure across the street and it was the parking that the Korean Church used, it was covered parking. Committee Member Wheeler stated as he read it they needed to have covered parking. Mr. Olsen stated across the street was covered parking and overall the University had 400 to 500 in excess parking spaces, beyond what the Specific Plan required of them. They could afford to use 4 spaces over there. Committee Member McCormack asked if they had adequate handicapped parking with curb cuts and all of that? Committee Member Wheeler stated it was not required on a residential site. Mr. Olsen stated the church was not accessible due to its historic nature. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the OTPA had met with the University on site; they met with Troy Aday and Kris Olsen and went over every aspect of the project. They met for quite some time. The project met and exceeded all of the standards. The board and batten was being restored on a single wall construction siding, removal of asbestos siding, restoration of the roof, single car garage, and it was an excellent example of adaptive reuse and he wished other applicants would use the University as an example for their projects. If the University had not purchased the property it would have been a long time before someone had invested in the property, there was a lot of money required after the purchase price to City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 22 of 24 develop the property. There was only one thing, and Mr. Olsen had told him it was included in the plans, on the roof structure over the main entrance of the church, currently it depicted fascia, but the historic photo had exposed rafters. Otherwise, it was an excellent project and it was nice to have Chapman University involve the OTPA in their project. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler passed out a list of his concerns and questions to the applicant and Committee Members. On sheet 5 there was a window missing and a gable vent on the west side. Applicant, Troy Aday, stated there should be a window there and they were restoring the vent. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the rafter tails on the west side? Mr. Aday stated they would retain those. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the steeple? Mr. Aday stated it was correct on the plan and not the elevation. Committee Member Wheeler stated some of his other concerns went away with the shared parking and the garage might not be a problem with the covered parking. They could use it for something else. It appeared that on the addition to the north side of the church that it might have been single wall construction. Mr. Aday stated they had opened it up and it was a traditional stud wall. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the barge board, corner to the west side, there was a barge board fascia that had a swooped curve to it. He had sketched it from his visit to the site. He shared his drawing with the applicants. Mr. Aday stated it was between the building and the parsonage. They reviewed the location of that form. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was something they may want to think about restoring. He asked if the existing windows had been checked for egress? Mr. Aday stated yes they had and also for natural light and ventilation. They were big windows and they more than complied. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the applicant provide information to the History Center at the library for historic preservation purposes. His big design issue, he passed out photos of Mennonite Churches, and stated they were almost all white on white; and his big design suggestion was to not add the dark window trim. Mr. Olsen stated they could look at something that was less contrasting. Mr. Ryan stated they could do some paint research too. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 23 of 24 Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a photo with a light gray trim and that might be a good approach. Mr. Aday stated they could paint one window and see what it would look like. Committee Member Woollett stated he was interested in the layout of the residence. Mr. Aday stated because there was no formal dining room the dining area would be in the living room. It was there as a place holder and the furniture would be moved around as needed. Mr. Olsen stated the goal was to keep the sanctuary as pristine as possible, and to keep it wide open, it became a great room, almost like a New York flat. Committee Member Woollett stated it could be a residence for a Professor. Committee Member McCormack stated Huell Howser might do a piece on it. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the University had a Professor of Campanology, that could move into the residence? Mr. Olsen stated he was actually considering it as his own residence. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4601 -11, in accordance with the conditions and findings in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions that: 1. The applicant provide a copy of the submittal with any other information that would be helpful to the Orange History Center at the Public Library. 2. An agreement shall be provided to clarify off - street parking in lieu of parking on -site. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2012 Page 24 of 24 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on February 1, 2012. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m.