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.