Loading...
2012-02-15 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL February 15, 2012 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Carol Fox Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated he had no changes to the Agenda. Chair Woollett joined the meeting. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the January 18, 2012 and February 1, 2012 Design Review Committee meetings. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 2 of 18 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 ITEMS: (1) Approval of Minutes: (a) January 18, 2012 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of January 18, 2012, with corrections and changes noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Carol Fox ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. (b) February 1, 2012 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of February 1, 2012, with corrections and changes noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 3 of 18 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items None New Agenda Items (2) DRC No. 4593 -11 — HOLY SEPULCHER CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • A proposal to demolish the existing fence enclosure and construct a larger fence enclosure to screen the electric carts. • 7845 E. Santiago Canyon Road Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, do uyen(a,cit oY forange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Gary Hopkins, address on file, stated there were maintenance issues at the site and there was an aluminum patio cover at the back and the intent was to add a wood carport in that area. They also wanted to add new fencing to protect and avoid vandalism of the electric carts. The proposal was for minor changes for upkeep that the Diocese wanted to do. Public Comment None. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a call out for a roof pitch of 2 and 12 on the cross section, and on the elevation it was 1 '/2 and 12 and drawn as if it was horizontal. Mr. Hopkins stated he apologized for that and it appeared to be a mistake. It should be sloped at 1 ' / 2 and 12, with a cap sheet of roofing to match. It would be dark brown in color. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was confused as there were rafter tails on the ends as well as on the south elevation, with exposed rafter tails in two other areas. Mr. Hopkins stated it was drawn as a hip, and it would not be a hip. There would be rafter tails in only one way. Committee Member Wheeler stated aesthetically he was a little concerned as it looked very well worked out structurally, but he wondered if they could review it more for the aesthetics. One of the things that worried him a bit was the post spacing; it appeared very irregular. There was some sort of a beam going across. He reviewed the drawings with the applicant. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 4 of 18 Mr. Hopkins stated the new roof that would come off of that area created an extra roof load and the beam would cut the load in half. Committee Member Wheeler stated the existing soffit was not shown. He asked if they would need to cut into the cross beam? Mr. Hopkins stated it would go right in and become flush. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the connections, they appeared to be something that would be found on an agricultural use and he suggested the use of something more appropriate that would be found at a memorial park. Mr. Hopkins stated they could use something more decorative. Committee Member Wheeler provided an example of a material he could use and he suggested the use of ST straps. Mr. Hopkins stated if they needed to use ST straps, there was a decorative -type they could use. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the use of a clean, nice, and simple type of strap. Mr. Hopkins stated it would probably be torn down in 10 years. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on what would be removed? Mr. Hopkins reviewed the photos and pointed out the areas that would be removed. Committee Member McCormack stated on the gates, there were two 5 ' / 2' gates without center supports. Mr. Hopkins stated the load was on one side and the corner post on the other side for support of the hinges. Committee Member Wheeler stated the posts would need to be evenly spaced. The bottom of the fence was shown at 12" above the slab and he was thinking that it should be dropped down. Mr. Hopkins stated he agreed with that. Committee Member McCormack asked if it was aluminum on top? Mr. Hopkins stated it would be wood. On the existing eave or soffit it would be T 11 plywood with another plywood on top to match the existing soffits. All the rafter tails would be rough sawn to match the existing fascia. The colors would match the existing building. Committee Member Fox stated she looked at the open covered area and there were some details on the other buildings and those were quite different from the new construction. The proposed project was very different from the other buildings and she wondered why the same roof pitch had not been used. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 5 of 18 Mr. Hopkins stated the more pitch that was added would be better for water run -off; they could take it down to a minimum pitch. They had completed the same type of project at the facility in Huntington Beach and it had not conflicted with the existing buildings as it was situated more towards the back of the property. They had gone as flat as they could with a pitch that would keep the water off. Committee Member Fox stated she respected his reasoning; however, it would be visible from the street. She also felt that not having the rafter tails and having the fascia would tie it in more with the other buildings on the site. She would prefer the columns to be the same too. Mr. Hopkins stated they could run the fascia continuous and take the pitch to a 1 and 12, or 1 '/2. Committee Member Wheeler stated they would need to cut more into the soffit as the beam would be up higher and they would need to take a look at that, but it was no problem to do that. Mr. Hopkins stated they actually had done the same treatment with fascia to match at the Huntington Beach location. Committee Member Fox stated the drawings showed the pitch to be quite a bit more than it would actually be. The Committee Members discussed a potential motion. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4593 -11, in accordance with the conditions and findings in the Staff Report and with additional conditions as follows: That the roof of the new construction be pitched at 1 '/2 and 12 and the posts to be equally spaced and another condition that exposed 4 x brackets to be used in lieu of the plywood gussets shown on the drawings. Another condition that the applicant add a fascia as not to have exposed rafter tails and that such fascia shall be sized proportionately to match the existing fascia, and that all of these conditions are to be submitted at plan check. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 6 of 18 (3) DRC No. 4607 -11— TOYOTA OF ORANGE SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal to demolish the existing wall and freestanding signs to construct new wall and freestanding signs. Variances are required for the signs. • 1400 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, do uyen cr,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Garth Rosenberger, address on file, stated he oversaw dealers around the country that were completing the re- branding. He was speaking on behalf of Toyota of Orange. The program they had in place was an accepted program throughout the country and all of the signs were being converted to an LED use. LED used one -tenth the energy of the previous signs. Toyota of Orange was representing two franchises, as they were adding Scion to their signs. The signs were a minimalist strategy; the sign on Tustin would represent both brands. Public Comment None. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no problem with the wall sign and it was a great improvement over what had been there before. He had a problem with the tall pylon sign. One comment that he had on it was that he had driven on the 55 freeway from Chapman to Lincoln and then from Lincoln to Chapman and he had a fairly small car; going north on the freeway he was not able to see any portion of the building and it appeared that he would not be able to see anything much lower than three stories on the side of the street because of the center K rail being so tall. His feeling was that the sign would not be visible to drivers going northbound. Driving southbound there was the sound wall, that went from Lincoln to Meats, and that blocked the view. Once past the sound wall there was a quick glimpse of the parking lot and building. To him the sign would be very difficult for anyone to see. When driving on the freeway it would be difficult to read anything on the sign and only the logo would be distinguishable. He had reviewed Google maps and had come up with a distance from the southbound freeway lane to the location of the sign of approximately 1,200'; in using the angle of acuity — the human eye would be able read a letter at an angle of approximately 5 /60 of a degree. In multiplying 1,200' by the tangent of 5 /60 he had come up with a height of 21" for the letters in order for someone to be able to read the letters, the letters as proposed on the sign were only 18 ". That would be from a point very close to the sign and someone would not be reading the sign from a closer location as they would be looking at the edge of the sign. The point where the front of the sign was visible would be from a point much further back. He was certain the words "Toyota" would not be readable and he wondered about the logo. Applicant, Joe Ehlert, address on file, stated unfortunately in reviewing the photos of the old building, on top of the old building there had been a 15 -18' wall and when driving down Katella City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 7 of 18 the Toyota of Orange sign that had been painted on that wall was visible. That area of the building had been removed and that area no longer contained signage. It was a false wall that had been removed and the building was not visible. The new sign would be visible from Katella and from the freeway. Before the wall had been torn down he had driven the freeway to ensure that the sign would be visible. It was especially visible going northbound on the 55 freeway. When it had been painted on the wall it had been more visible. Committee Member Fox asked if that area of the building had been visible and the signage had been visible, and the sign ordinance would allow signage on the side of the building, why had they chosen not to have signs on areas of the building that had been visible, and instead to propose a monument sign that far exceeded the code? Mr. Ehlert stated they had gone from seven signs to four signs. The monument sign would replace the three that they had removed. Committee Member Fox stated the zoning code would allow for additional signage on the building, but had not allowed for a monument sign at the height proposed. She was confused as to why they had chosen that route when there had been another option available to the applicants? Committee Member Wheeler stated the other option, and if the bowling alley belonged to Toyota, they could tastefully erect a tower element on that building and place a sign there that would be visible from the freeway. Mr. Rosenberger stated they tried that in 2004 and because of the apartments, they were not able to erect a sign on top of that building. Committee Member Cathcart asked if there was a change in the code due to the Freeway Corridor Sign Program that allowed for a taller sign on Katella where the Howard Johnson was situated? Much taller signs had been erected and his thought was it had been due to the businesses being in the Freeway Corridor Sign Program area. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated he was not aware of such a program, however, from a precedent standpoint they had done that with Best Buy. Due to the lack of visibility off of Tustin they had approved a much taller sign. Committee Member Cathcart stated if the applicant was able to prove that the sign would not be visible at a lower height, the applicant should be granted approval for a sign that was visible. Ms. Nguyen stated Villa Ford was also granted a variance for their signs. Mr. Ehlert stated the Villa Ford sign was 48' tall. Committee Member Fox stated with the examples given for the taller signs, were those signs erected prior to the ordinance? Ms. Nguyen stated some of them were. For example, Selman Chevrolet was a very old sign and the code was very different in 1966 when that sign was erected and just outright permitted due to City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 8 of 18 the distance from residential being a non - issue. Villa Ford was done in 2001 and that site had been afforded a variance for their taller signs. Committee Member Cathcart stated he had no reason for not approving a variance for the signs. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Committee Member Cathcart. Where the sign was located and noting where the trees were located, in driving southbound the sign would not be visible with the trees, which he pointed out in the photos, and he agreed with Committee Member Wheeler that the sign would be more visible across the street. He feared that the trees would be cut down in order to have the sign be more visible. Mr. Rosenberger stated there was a mandate to the dealer that their brand sign must be on the grounds of where their main sales and showroom was located. Mr. Ehlert stated in driving southbound the sign would be picked up in the area of the nursery and when driving east on Katella the sign was also visible from that location. Committee Member McCormack stated he suggested that someone check to see if the canopy of trees blocked the view from southbound visibility. Mr. Rosenberger stated they had walked the area and had completed sight line studies to verify the visibility and with the setback and the angle the sign was visible. Committee Member Cathcart stated if the sign was placed on the other building, when driving south on Tustin, drivers would think that they needed to turn into that location. Mr. Rosenberger stated the proximity of the brand sign was placed closer to the main showroom due to studies they had conducted in driver preference. Chair Woollett stated what he understood from Committee Member Wheeler's comments was that the sign would not be visible from the freeway. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was correct, that only the logo would be readable from the freeway. Mr. Rosenberger stated it was important for them to get their brand out there, but one of the important things was with the new generation signs the logo was much larger and the lettering was much smaller. With studies they had completed people were able to recognize symbols much quicker and from the freeway they would be able to see that logo. Committee Member Fox stated she loved what they were doing with the building, but her biggest concern was with the monument sign. She was pleased to hear that Villa Ford had received a variance and that was a precedence issue; with the sign area limitation being at 160 square feet and with the proposed sign being at 193 square feet, she asked if there was an attempt to meet the code? Mr. Roseberger stated the standard model that was provided to their dealers had a sign that was solid all the way down. When a city had a concern with the overall square footage they would City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 9 of 18 install a more hollowed -out sign with a rounded arch. With the proposed sign for the City of Orange they had taken that to a larger degree and placed the sign on the steel sub - structure itself. Mr. Ehlert stated typically the sign was solid all the way down. Committee Member Fox stated there were local ordinances that would require accommodation of sign design. She was thinking more proportionately and she was having an issue with the fact that there were so many variances issued with signs and she could forgive the situation that they required visibility and that other dealers had that, but had they also exceeded the sign limitations by 30 square feet? Mr. Rosenberger stated they were representing two franchises, Toyota and Scion, and with that allowance it brought the sign down a bit more. The dealer had been operating for approximately eight years without any street representation for the Scion brand and they wanted to allow that consideration. Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if the rule about the sign being encompassed by two sets of parallel lines applied to the proposed signs? Ms. Nguyen stated on the free - standing sign they would look at what was above the columns, and they had deducted for the curve. Chair Woollett stated he had no additional comments and they needed to come to a determination. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had initially been opposed to the pylon sign that was so big, but in understanding that other car dealers had been granted the opportunity of a variance, he would want to provide that opportunity to the applicant. His feeling was that they would not get as much "oomph" out of the sign as the applicants had wanted. Committee Member Fox stated she was fine with the signs on the building and they were justified with service and having the building set so far back; she was not certain if there was a way to have issue with just one of the signs without holding up the project. Chair Woollett asked how would Committee Member Fox request a change? Committee Member Fox stated she would propose that the applicant met the code; it was a big sign and it was quite tall. It exceeded the code and she could not understand the justification for the size of the sign exceeding code. Chair Woollett asked how was the sign designated? Ms. Nguyen stated "free- standing monument." She asked if it was the height of the sign or the sign area that Committee Member Fox was having issue with? Committee Member Fox stated the height she understood, it would be permissible, and she could understand that in the context of other businesses being allowed to have them. Other businesses had not had a sign as large. One of the reasons for the sign ordinance was to keep down the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 10 of 18 visual clutter on Tustin, and the proposed sign was not doing that. If it at least met the code on size it would work. Committee Member Cathcart asked if the project could be bifurcated? Committee Member McCormack asked if the bottom line could be moved up, to decrease the sign? Ms. Nguyen stated the reduction would need to be 21 % to meet code. Chair Woollett stated a condition could be made that the bottom of the sign be raised until it met the square footage requirement for the ordinance. Committee Member Cathcart asked the applicants how they felt about that condition? Mr. Rosenberger stated there was something that they had that was known as the control area that kept the brands from spilling over the edges of things. If they could remove the address number that would work. Ms. Nguyen stated the address must be on the sign; they could not remove the address. Chair Woollett stated the address would need to be raised. Mr. Rosenberger stated if they raised the address it would go right over the logo of one of their franchises. Committee Member McCormack asked if they could move it over? Committee Member Wheeler asked if it could be on the vertical edge of the sign? Ms. Nguyen stated it could be moved over, but it could not be on the vertical edge of the sign. The address needed to be on the face of the sign. The code required that the address must be on the face of the sign. Mr. Rosenberger stated their designer had added the extra panel to add the address to the sign. Committee Member Cathcart stated he hesitated to have them reduce the sign due to the address requirement. Mr. Rosenberger stated if they placed the address too close to one of their sign components it would defeat the purpose of having a clearly visible address for safety reasons. Mr. Ehlert stated Ford of Orange put their sign up in probably 2004; their sign was 59' tall and it had more bulk, or square footage to it, than what they were proposing. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was not so concerned about the size, and if they could do it, he would be more pleased if the panels came all the way down and it was more of a sculptural element. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 11 of IS Mr. Rosenberger stated they could, but there needed to be visibility down Tustin Avenue. Chair Woollett stated he sensed that they had a consensus to accept the proposal as presented. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed. The Committee Members discussed a potential motion. Verbatim text. Chair Woollett made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed project to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the documentation as presented including the findings and conditions. Chair Woollett asked if there was any further discussion on the motion as presented? There was none. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 12 of 18 (4) DRC No. 4609 -11 — 24 -HOUR FITNESS • A proposal to convert 54,462 sq. ft. of the existing Sears department store into a 24 -Hour Fitness Health Club. • 2100 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen u,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Nguyen stated there was additional information from the applicant; they were proposing the addition of kickers to the raised roof and this was something new not included in the plans before them. Applicant, Michael Chen, address on file, was available for any questions they might have. There was information in the Staff Report regarding mechanical screening and he could go into that. Public Comment None. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated the fascia of the overhang would be painted the blue color and he asked what color the soffit would be? Mr. Chen stated the soffit would remain the existing color. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wondered if instead of calling the brackets "kickers," he asked if they could be called "diagonal braces ?" Mr. Chen stated yes, diagonal braces, kickers, those were terms for them. Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawings had not referred to them. He asked if there were specifications included for those elements that could be added to the package. Mr. Chen stated they were in the process of creating final documents. The documents before them were those that had been presented to the City's Staff on Monday. The kickers would be 6" and painted to match. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could designate how high they would extend above the parapet? Mr. Chen stated they were working hand -in -hand with the structural engineers and their initial proposal had them from the top all the way down. They took them down to the minimum. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 13 of 18 Ms. Nguyen stated they were 2' above the parapet. Mr. Chen stated there were three on the north /south configuration and two going east and west. There were another four on the backside. No, there were four on each side. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members and pointed out where the braces were located. Committee Member McCormack stated when he had initially looked at the drawings he thought how great, the roof would be glass and the glow from the lights would be visible. He had gone through that whole thought process and he had been really excited about the whole thing. He had just wanted to throw that concept out to them. Mr. Chen stated the roof bump -ups had been designed to blend in and not to stand out. He understood Committee Member McCormack's idea. Committee Member McCormack stated with his concept it would bring in natural light into that second story space. Applicant, Mike Leonard, address on file, stated the facility would be their Super Sport brand; the "best in class" and a more executive level club. It had to have the amenities of pool, basketball, spin class, and Jacuzzi. With the glazing on the north elevation, that would bring in some natural light and also introduce some of that light to the basement. The pool would be very inviting. Committee Member Wheeler asked regarding the pool, were they worried about someone banging their head into the columns that went into the pool? Mr. Leonard stated there would be two pools, with a wall in the middle. Mr. Chen stated the Health Department would not allow the columns in the pool. Mr. Leonard passed out some brochures to the Committee Members. The design was their class of 2010 -2011 which was their Super Sport brand. The executive locker rooms were very nice and they included towel service. Committee Member McCormack asked if his concept of the roof area was doable? Mr. Chen stated it was set back about 70' and the roof area would not be visible. Committee Member Fox stated the building was visible from all the way across the street, but when in front of the building the roof area would not be visible. Committee Member Wheeler stated there might be some glow from the skylights. He personally agreed with the paint selection in matching the body color of the building. Mr. Leonard stated as a retailer they were making the project more synergistic, as the rest of the center was so nicely done. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 14 of 18 Committee Member Fox stated she loved the colors and it was far superior than the existing soffit and it would be a nice addition. The roof pop -up was in keeping with the shopping center's massing. There were many elements that had angle proportions and she suggested that they make the kickers /diagonal braces more of an architectural feature. Committee Member Wheeler suggested adding some width to them. Mr. Chen stated structurally they were just 6" tubes. Committee Member Fox asked what the material would be? Mr. Chen stated it would be stucco. The other challenge would be to minimize the penetration to the existing roof. They could add something as it left the roof, something that was not attached to the roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could have a bit more width to them. Chair Woollett stated what he was hearing was to suggest that the diagonal braces be 12 ". Committee Member Wheeler stated 12" or 24" maybe as a block or triangular form that came down. The mass element could be stopped above the roof. Mr. Leonard asked if they could suggest a color that would play off the blue? Committee Member Wheeler stated another color might be too much. Committee Member McCormack agreed with their suggestions and stated it would be better as an architectural element as opposed to an architectural decoration. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings and photos with the applicants. Committee Member Wheeler stated the diagonal braces should be evenly spaced, finished with stucco, and painted the same color as the building. A triangular form that came down, a wedge. Ms. Nguyen stated if reviewing a cross - section, would it be an open triangle? Committee Member Wheeler stated a solid triangle. Committee Member Fox stated it reminded her of some of the other elements that were in the mall further down near the food court. There was some play in the other areas with the roof lines. She asked about the mechanical equipment at the back of the building. Mr. Chen stated there was one on the west. He passed out some photos and explained the area was at the west -end of the building. The parapet was 4' -2" as it existed. The mechanical equipment was in line with the break in the building. The parapet was barely visible when looking at it from the loading dock area. The proposed elevation was 50" and it would screen the equipment. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 15 of 18 Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be a screen around it? Mr. Chen stated it would be screened based on the submittal with the enclosure. It would be painted and not visible, even from Canal Street. Committee Member Fox stated the sight study showed half way to Canal Street and that might not be accurate. Mr. Chen stated the photo matched the exhibit and going even further back it was not visible. Mr. Chen reviewed the photos with Committee Member Fox. Committee Member Fox stated she had driven on Canal Street and there were a few ventilation pipes and some equipment from J.C. Penney and Walmart. It was not completely clean back there and it was the back of the building. Mr. Chen stated the area would be painted to match the bump -ups. Committee Member Fox stated adding a mechanical screen would actually add more to it and create a bigger bump -up. Committee Member Cathcart stated every time they tried to add something to screen mechanical equipment it just became more visible. Mr. Chen stated the way the lease worked with Sears they had very limited areas where they could construct a screen. Chair Woollett stated the consensus was to make an adjustment on the kickers. Mr. Chen passed out another drawing and pointed out the vents, they were exhaust vents for the pool equipment. They were small and he pointed out the cross - section. The two smaller vents on the west side would not extend above the parapet. The two on the east side were 14" in diameter and similar to a heating exhaust duct on a roof. Committee Member McCormack stated in venting the fountain at the library there was a requirement for the vent to be 10' above grade. Mr. Chen stated that was mechanical code requirement and that was typical when referring to sidewalk grade, but in their case they were above the roof. It was different on a roof condition vs. a sidewalk condition. They could line them up and take the duct work and run those west and be closer to the bump -up. They were limited to the run length in regard to manufacturer warranties when they attempted to push closer to the parapet. It was a technical engineering piece and one of the things they were faced with in retrofitting an older building. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they might want to condition equipment that might be installed at a later date and were not aware of in reviewing the proposed project? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 16 of 18 Committee Member Cathcart stated they could add some parameters, something that Staff could review. Mr. Chen stated they were still working with the mechanical engineers and the mechanical engineers might come up with options to vent in another area. Based on his experience the venting from the pool area needed to go straight up. Ms. Nguyen stated it would be helpful if the Committee Members could set some parameters that were acceptable to the DRC. Chair Woollett stated if it extended more than 6" above the parapet and was more than 14" in diameter the proposal would need to return to the DRC for review. Mr. Chen stated a majority of the pipes were enclosed in the roof pop -up. The main units and HVAC units were all contained in those. Committee Member Cathcart stated they could have a parameter that anything other than the swimming pool vents could not exceed the dimensions as stated by Chair Woollett. Chair Woollett stated since they were vents, they must be from the boilers that were heating the pool, and anything else would be air ventilation. Plumbing vents were no problem. Committee Member McCormack stated the pool was in the basement and the vents were coming up the wall and going west in the roof cavity. Mr. Chen stated they would go straight up through the main floor, through the retail storage area. Mr. Leonard stated they had done a lot of roof pop -ups on old grocery stores and they worked well for them, it was not a problem. Committee Member McCormack stated if there were more pipes they would want to "gang" them. Mr. Chen stated that was their intent to concentrate them in the enclosure of the bump -up so they were not poking out. Committee Member Cathcart stated the pool vent was the only vent that needed to go straight up. Committee Member Fox stated she agreed with the idea of if more than 6" above the parapet or more than 12" in diameter it would need to return to the DRC. Chair Woollett stated he was understanding that the Committee was pleased with the presentation and they were suggesting a variation on the kickers and placing a limitation on any additional visible items on the roof. The Committee Members discussed a potential motion. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 17 of 18 Mr. Chen asked if the suggestion for the diagonal braces were for the braces only on the front? Committee Member Wheeler stated no, all the way around as they should all be consistent. Mr. Chen stated he assumed they were only discussing the east elevation as the braces on the west elevation would not be visible due to the setback. Committee Member Fox stated they should be on the east and the south walls. Mr. Chen stated east and south walls would be acceptable. Committee Member Wheeler stated east and south, with 6" above parapet. Committee Member Fox pointed to something on the drawings and stated she had not seen those and asked if they were the skylights sticking above? Mr. Chen stated those were louvers on the bump -up to allow fresh air in. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4609 -11, 24 -Hour Fitness, in accordance with the findings and conditions in the Staff Report. With two additional conditions as follows: That the diagonal braces or kickers that were presented for the first time at tonight's meeting be widened to a minimum of 24" in width to form solid triangular blocks with a 45 degree face, manufactured or faced with stucco and those to exist on the east and south elevations of the raised roof portion. Additional condition that any new mechanical devices that are to be added to the roof that have not been presented to this Committee be no more than 12" in diameter and extend no more than 6" above the parapet or that mechanical equipment will be brought back to this Committee for review. SECOND: Bill Cathcart. AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2012 Page 18 of 18 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on March 7, 2012. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.