2012-10-17 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
October 17, 2012
Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack
Carol Fox
Robert Imboden
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. with a review of the meeting
minutes of October 3, 2012. Changes and corrections were noted.
Committee Member Imboden stated he was missing a portion of the Staff Report on the NV
Property item.
Committee Member Fox stated there was a date error; the sheets appeared to have the October 3
date.
Committee Member Imboden stated they should probably walk through the Staff Report and
verify what each page began with; he had pages that were missing.
Committee Member McCormack stated there were only five pages.
Committee Member Fox stated there was the report from October 3 and the new report for
October 17, 2012.
The Committee Members reviewed the information that was included in their binders and
verified they had the correct and current information for the items on the Agenda before them.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Tim McCormack, Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 2 of 15
Chair Woollett re- opened the Administrative Session.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated there were no changes to the Agenda.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Tim McCormack, Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:32 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Regular Session at 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 3, 2012
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of October 3, 2012, with the changes and corrections noted during the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Tim McCormack, Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Joe Woollett
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 3 of 15
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items
(2) DRC No. 4644 -12 — NV PROPERTIES
• A proposal to upgrade existing landscaping, reconstruct a front entry courtyard, install a
water feature, and provide new walkways for a contributing commercial office building.
• 1015 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryanncit o�ge.org
• Continued from DRC meeting: October 3, 2012
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Dominic Masielio, address on file, stated he had plans to review with the Committee
Members. In the original aerial from 1938 to 1947, the walkway was slightly shifted to the
western side. He was able to make the curve softer and he reviewed the walkway and where it
led. He welcomed suggestions on where to end the planter lines. At the last meeting Committee
Member McCormack had provided him with some sketches and he had reconfigured the plans to
those ideas. The handrail detail was included in the plans. The main porch would be left alone
and the sign was an existing sign. The two Ficus trees would be removed. On page LC -1, the
wall was pushed out another 12" and that provided for more space in the planting area. The
walkway was revised and the modular squares would remain in a concrete top cast finish
material. Page LC -2 had no changes to that plan page. The handrail on page LC -3 was very
basic, just an iron handrail detail; that was one thing that had not been included on the last set of
plans. He reviewed the plant materials and placement for the planting plan. He concluded the
overview and stated he hoped that he had hit on all the suggestions and recommendations from
the previous meeting.
Mr. Ryan asked if the rail was repeated or was it open down the steps? He stated the rail
appeared a bit contemporary and he was thinking wrought iron would be more appropriate.
Mr. Masielio stated he would agree to that. The suggestion from the previous meeting was for
something very basic, and the drawings had a very basic handrail. He could use wrought iron in
place of the tubular steel. There were no rails coming down, it was just open at the steps.
Committee Member Fox stated the elevation change between the porch and the steps was not
more than 30" and would not require a guard rail at the porch.
Committee Member Imboden stated the plans had not reflected an accurate drawing of the porch
detail. There were more steps shown on the plans and it was not what actually occurred on the
site. The porch deck was different.
Mr. Masielio stated there was a third step reflected in the plans.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 4 of 15
Committee Member Imboden stated it appeared to be a standard detail that had just been cut and
pasted to the plans. He asked if the intention was to modify the step area?
Mr. Masielio stated no, the steps and porch remained as existing.
Committee Member Fox stated she believed the drawings were for the rail detail and the plans
noted the steps and porch to remain as existing.
Mr. Ryan stated a steel tube rail currently existed at the site.
Mr. Masielio stated he believed the tubular steel was not the original rail.
Committee Member Fox stated that type of rail was present on many of the historic homes,
however, it was generally not that thick.
Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to share his concerns. He had not thought in
reality that it would be a problem, but the way it was drawn had not reflected the field condition
and because the first set of plans had shown a re -work of the porch area, somehow to move
forward he wanted it indicated for the record that the porch deck remained as existing and it was
not part of the project. He would also recommend that the rail come down to the first step, rather
than coring into the porch deck. He was not certain if the existing rail was anchored into the
deck and he would not want someone to feel the need to clean up the area and put the project
where he had not wanted it to go, in terms of re- finishing the deck. If the applicant was willing
to accept those suggestions, he was not troubled with the rail design.
Committee Member Fox stated she was not clear on the suggestion by Committee Member
Imboden.
Mr. Masielio stated he understood that the suggestion was to dowel into the step and carry that
across instead of anchoring into the actual deck.
Committee Member Imboden stated the porch was not constructed per the detail that was
included in the handrail design.
Mr. Masielio stated he believed the steps were original.
Committee Member Imboden stated he was certain the porch had not existed as per the detail in
the drawings. He believed it was a 3" slab sitting on top of the stem wall.
Committee Member Fox stated which would be able to accept a drill. It sounded, from the
conversation, that it needed to be clear that the concrete elements in the detail were existing and
to remain.
Committee Member Imboden stated what he was getting at was it appeared that the steps were a
solid concrete pour, because they were not very big, and those would accept the detail much
better than going in from the top. The detail only needed to go 12" past the top deck and he
suggested just moving it out to the top tread.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 5 of 15
Committee Member McCormack, referring to the new set of plans, asked if that was the
condition that existed on site?
Committee Member Imboden stated no. He explained how the condition occurred.
Committee Member Imboden and Committee Member McCormack reviewed the plans.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had concerns that the field conditions would not accept
the detail as presented.
Mr. Masielio stated he had no problem doweling into the top deck; that would not change the
design.
Chair Woollett asked if the issue they were discussing was a Building Department issue?
Mr. Ryan stated it was not over 30" and not required.
Committee Member Fox stated a handrail was required, however, a guard rail was not needed.
Committee Member McCormack stated something was sticking in his head about 20" or 24" and
it was a Code issue, and it had not mattered as ADA would govern that and the rail may need to
be constructed completely different than what was being presented.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had not agreed with that statement. If someone was
presenting a vision for a property the detail had to both meet the Code and the design
requirements.
Committee Member McCormack stated that the end result would not match the detail as
presented.
Committee Member Fox stated she believed the Code had changed for the return.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had recalled that.
Chair Woollett asked if the Committee Members could anticipate if there were changes
necessary to meet the ADA requirements that wouldn't jeopardize the design? The handrail
would be designed to meet the ADA requirements and that was how it would be.
Committee Member Fox stated the designer would take the responsibility for meeting Code and
they, as a Committee, do not circumvent the need to meet that responsibility by re- designing that
detail for the applicant. She was also concerned with that.
Chair Woollett stated as long as it was not an aesthetic issue; he believed they should not belabor
the issue.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the Committee had entered into their discussion
period?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 6 of 15
Chair Woollett stated yes, as there had been no one present to speak from the public.
Mr. Ryan stated the Committee could discuss the material and leave the design requirements to
meet Code.
Committee Member McCormack stated he had the same issue with the [City of Orange] library
project regarding the railing; it was designed to match a railing detail inside the library. It met
Code, but also had a bit of detail and design to it. His comment on seeing basically three
different elements, the railing, the gate, and the trellis, was that those three things should have a
common thread and some relationship to each other. They should not appear as three separate
elements that were pulled off three separate projects. There was a pattern in the concrete, so
there was a lot going on.
Committee Member Imboden asked if the existing handrails needed to be replaced?
Mr. Masielio stated aesthetically they were not the greatest and they were not very reachable.
Committee Member Imboden stated aesthetically he had not believed the existing related to a
different language and the existing condition was not a hold up for him.
Committee Member Fox stated she had understood Committee Member Imboden's concern that
the post needed to be borne by the thing that it was anchored into. If the top was cast concrete
with a stem wall under it, if they bored into where indicated that there would be some slab of
concrete and she felt it would appear better coming from the top.
Committee Member Imboden stated where he was coming from was that there was an undefined
treatment of the porch deck. He saw a detail that probably would not work and his concern was
that it would change and then the project would change. If they could come to a level where they
were comfortable with the situation, he had not believed a simple handrail was something they
would need to discuss at length, but he wanted to ensure that a problem would not occur later.
Committee Member McCormack stated with the railing, gate, and trellis, he would like to have
them relate to each other; if those elements were on a larger lot without a visual connection he
would not be making that statement. In looking at the railing and the escutcheon, it seemed
problematic on how to get that around two pipes with a horizontal member, unless it was a two -
piece escutcheon. Unless the escutcheon was mounted on first with the rail to fit into it. That
would be difficult to pull off. There were some details in the construction that could be
opportunities lost. He suggested more of a relationship.
Mr. Masielio stated on the gate detail there were some circles and it mimicked the venting on the
property. There could be more opportunities to match and pick up some other details.
Committee Member McCormack stated he would not want it to appear as if the civil engineer
had done the railing and the landscape architect had done the entry pilasters. It was an
opportunity to have it all appear more crafted together. At the library it could have been a simple
railing painted blue, but they had not done that. It was an opportunity to do something different
and anything that was touched by hand should be well crafted.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 7 of 15
Committee Member Wheeler stated the project was very simple. If it was a bigger project he
would have insisted that the Committee Members have more time to study the drawings. They
were going through something that they had not had time to analyze if the notes were correctly
stated, and all the picky things he liked to look at. If it was not such a simple project he would
be objecting very strongly. Since it was more landscape issues than anything else, he felt
Committee Member McCormack could make the call whether the Committee had been provided
with enough information to make a recommendation.
Committee Member McCormack stated he felt the applicant had done a great job to the point
they were at and he had not yet spoken about the plant materials. It was an opportunity before
them now to capitalize on some of the suggestions made and make for a better project. The
applicant had gone so far and he had not had a problem with the plantings. He agreed with
Committee Member Wheeler that the DRC Members had not had time to study the plans.
Normally he would have looked at the spacing and all of that and comment on all of that, as it
was tough to change the landscaping.
Mr. Masielio stated to be completely honest when they had spoken about the re- design, in
changing the concept he had to go back and from a practicality standpoint, go back and have a
demo plan, lighting and irrigation plan, drainage, and details, and such. The particular rail detail
was a generic detail used as a time - saving measure. They wanted to use that and then add some
fun details to tie into that. He definitely wanted to use more decorative details, such as those in
the gate and to match the other elements. He agreed with the suggestions that had been
provided.
Committee Member Fox asked if the Members felt there could be some recommendations and
conditions or had they thought the item would require a continuance?
Committee Member McCormack stated it sounded as if the applicant was going to change things
and he understood what was being stated, but it was the front entry and it was the bookend of the
gate with a relationship to the gate. It would be remiss not to allow the "off -the- shelf' railing to
be changed. He had done the same thing in his own work, and understood why some of those
details were presented; he felt the DRC should allow the applicant to change the rail.
Mr. Masielio stated the other hat that he had to wear was that of project manager and keeping
things within a respectable time line. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan had gotten the blunt force trauma
of his client when he realized the project was going to have to wait another two weeks and he
would not want to carry the news of a continuance to his client. He would appreciate the trust of
the DRC Members to take the project into completion. The rail was such a small aspect of the
project. He would love for the project to move forward with conditions, knowing he could do
something great with the project.
Chair Woollett asked the Committee Members if the project could move forward with
conditions.
Mr. Ryan stated normally there would not have been a two week turn- around time and that was
what happened with the "off- the - shelf' presentation for the handrail. Typically it would have
been a four week turn- around time, and in pushing it through, his personal feeling was that they
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 8 of 15
would be hearing it two weeks from now and would not have placed the project further out than
it typically would have been. There were some minor details that needed to be corrected. The
landscape plan was fine and they could condition the project to move forward and to have that
one detail return to the DRC for review.
Chair Woollett asked if the project would go to the Building Department?
Mr. Ryan stated yes. If the DRC approved the project it could move forward to plan check.
Chair Woollett stated if it went to the Building Department it would then go back to Mr. Ryan to
ensure the plans agreed with what was approved.
Mr. Ryan stated the Building Department would not approve it until he signed off on it.
Committee Member Fox asked what if the Committee approved the plan with the railing
returning to the DRC; or to condition the project enough to allow the proposal to move forward?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had suggested previously that the stucco not be carried
below grade, but it appeared that it had not been changed.
Committee Member Imboden stated the applicant needed to understand that he was asking for
approval on a plan that they had not seen. He asked for further information on the wall and other
aspects of the project.
Mr. Ryan stated the wall was supposed to come in from the building line.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had not known what the wall looked like.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the building was stucco or plaster?
Chair Woollett stated stucco and plaster were the same thing.
Committee Member McCormack stated stucco would be the finish.
Committee Member Fox stated no, it was the material. Portland cement plaster was stucco.
Committee Member McCormack stated when he specified a plaster wall it was not stucco.
Committee Member Fox stated if he was speaking of a troweled wall vs. a sprayed -on finish,
which was a finish. Stucco was the same; it was Portland cement which was different from
interior plaster which was not Portland cement. Exterior cement plaster was stucco. Finishes
were different.
Committee Member Imboden stated technically stucco was a finish.
Committee Member McCormack stated stucco was a finish.
Committee Member Fox stated no, it was not; trust her, she had taught classes about it.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 9 of 15
Committee Member McCormack stated his father was a plasterer and a brown coat was put on,
then it could be plastered with a trowel or a product with the grains in it that were much bigger
and that was called stucco.
Committee Member Fox stated if they spoke to Omega and Merlax, that was a sprayed on finish
or flow finish; all of those were just finishes and the material was material. Plaster used to not be
Portland cement plaster and stucco was Portland cement plaster. In the old days it could not be
sprayed on as there was not that technology. Old plaster was always troweled on, and it may not
have been Portland cement plaster.
Committee Member McCormack stated "and it was a smooth finish."
Committee Member Fox stated yes, because it had been troweled.
Committee Member McCormack stated the other material was grainy and pebbly.
Chair Woollett stated not necessarily.
Committee Member Fox stated it could be a hard trowel stucco finish; she could bring in a book
next week.
Committee Member McCormack stated it was not specified on the plans what it was.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the notation was for the finish to match the house.
Committee Member Imboden stated he had not believed they needed to argue that point, as long
as the finish was what they were looking for.
Mr. Masielio stated it was a pretty coarse stucco finish.
Committee Member McCormack stated the plans noted "poured -in- place" concrete cap, color
TBS, and in the elevation there was a joint. Typically the "poured -in- place" was not precast as
the wood frame was created on top of the wall. Typically the architect noted where the joints
happened and it would occur at logical places, or there could be no joint or to have just one. It
was a detail element.
Mr. Masielio stated he had seen it done different ways. There could be a joint every 18 "or no
joint or just one.
Committee Member Fox asked if that was the edge band in the concrete or was it the top of the
wall. She realized the joints she was looking at were on the paving pattern and not on the wall.
Chair Woollett asked if they really cared about that joint?
Committee Member McCormack stated that if it were left up to the contractor, if he had a bad
day he could put two joints in one area and not anywhere else.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 10 of 15
Chair Woollett stated he understood his point, but was that really an important issue for the
project before them. He could not ever remember that they had discussed joints and the project
before them was very small.
Mr. Ryan stated generally there were precast caps that already had joints set.
Committee Member McCormack stated the noted treatment was "poured -in- place."
Committee Member Imboden asked if there could be a condition that would resolve the issue?
Committee Member McCormack stated yes, a condition that asked for joints to be evenly spaced.
Mr. Masielio stated obviously the joint would not be placed every 10 ".
Chair Woollett stated the concern was to not have an arbitrary measurement.
Committee Member McCormack stated if a joint had not been drawn on the plans the issue
would not have come up.
Committee Member Fox asked if he wanted joints, or cast in place without joints?
Mr. Masielio stated what he had noted were wall caps without joints and he was open to the
Committee Member's suggestions.
Committee Member Wheeler stated was it a small enough project that joints were not needed to
prevent cracks.
Committee Member McCormack stated he had done it either way. Sometimes he would match
up the joint to another piece of architecture, such as a window.
Committee Member Imboden suggested a condition that the cap would be mitered at the corners
and that the running length of the cap shall have equally spaced control joints, no less than 48"
on center, and asked if a condition such as that would work with a predictable outcome that
would allow the project to move forward?
Chair Woollett stated that would work and it had not seemed that the applicant had a preference
either way.
Committee Member McCormack stated since he had not had an opportunity to review the new
plans, he asked the applicant what had been done?
Mr. Masielio stated it was a complete revamp of the planter lay out. He reviewed the plans with
the Committee Members and pointed out the changes to the placement and species of plants. He
had taken the sketch that Committee Member McCormack had provided at the last meeting and
used those ideas. The lawn space might grow a bit. Some of the plant material was moved back.
Committee Member Imboden asked if there were any changes proposed for the driveway?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 11 of 15
Mr. Masielio stated currently there was a sliver of concrete and they had spoken about leaving
that in place. He had re- visited the site and it was such an ugly sliver of concrete, it was raised
and visually it would be better to take that section out.
Committee Member Imboden asked where the curb cut was located?
Committee Member Wheeler stated the curb cut was a little offset.
Committee Member Imboden stated his concern was with someone making a left hand turn and
not looking too closely they could drive into the sign. It was a narrow drive. The apron was
much wider than the driveway.
The Committee Members reviewed the details of the driveway with the applicant and Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Masielio stated what if he took the concrete out and re- poured it?
Committee Member Imboden stated sure, he had not wanted that portion to be removed.
Committee Member McCormack stated he reviewed the plant material and it all looked okay.
There was a grass, Miscanthus morning light, noted that would grow 4' wide and 7'tall. It was
huge and that plant was shown on the plans as 2 '' /2' wide and it would be better as a background
plant and not a foreground plant as it would not take well to shearing.
Mr. Masielio stated he appreciated the input. He could swap that out for a smaller foreground
shrub.
Committee Member McCormack suggested he look at the plant materials to ensure with the size
of the plantings that they would not become a nuisance to any of the design elements on the
project.
Committee Member Fox stated it appeared that the approach they wanted to take was to approve
the project with conditions and to have the handrail detail come back before them. She wanted
to form a motion, but she was not certain if the grass species change would be a condition or a
recommendation?
Committee Member McCormack stated he had not wanted to change the design of the project; it
would be a recommendation.
Committee Member Imboden stated before they went forward with a motion; he just wanted to
commend the applicant with the manner in which the sidewalk was handled. The applicant had
made an effort to accommodate the recommendation that had been provided. It was tough
enough with architecture and more difficult with landscape. He understood the applicant had
completed a quick turn- around, however, it was just a bit more difficult and cumbersome for the
Committee Members.
Mr. Masielio stated he appreciated that information.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 12 of 15
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4644 -12, NV Properties, subject to
the findings and conditions contained in the staff report and with the following additional
conditions:
• The handrail detail at the step shall return to the DRC for review and approval prior to
issuance of a building permit.
• Remove and replace the triangle of concrete at the intersection of the driveway and
sidewalk.
• The wall cap shall have joints mitered at the corners and joints along the wall spaced
evenly 48" on center maximum.
And with the following recommendations:
• Judicious use of Miscanthus morning light and Salvia clevelandii.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 13 of 15
New Agenda Item:
(3) DRC No. 4654 -12 — SPRINT PCS -ELKS LODGE
• A proposal to replace three (3) existing stealth panel antennas, one (1) GPS antenna with
new stealth antennas on the roof of the Elk's Lodge, including replacement of existing
equipment cabinet and new raceways. No visual changes to the installation and/or
building.
• 211 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dUan(a,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Woollett asked why the application was before the DRC if there were no visual changes to
the site?
Mr. Ryan stated there was not a way to approve it over the counter. There were not that many
stealth elevator towers or vents or things like that and the project before them was the exception.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested a change to Condition No. 7, to add that the replacement
materials shall match the original in size, material, color, and design. It was the only comment
he had.
Committee Member Imboden stated he wanted to ensure the proposal was very clear as he was
not pleased with photos that placed a tree in front of the project site, as they all knew that was
not the reality at the site.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if he was referring to the view from the north?
Committee Member Imboden stated it was virtually all of the views, that a tree was placed in
front of them and stated the cell site was not visible. Clearly it was visible from all over Old
Towne.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed the arrow was wrong on the view from the north
as it was pointing to the wrong object.
Applicant, Alexander Lew, address on file, stated the object that was further to the building
corner was another existing antennae structure that was not the Sprint project.
Committee Member Imboden stated it would have been very easy to photograph what was there;
but that had not been done. He understood there were no visual changes, but he had wanted to
point out that situation. The reason he questioned the visibility was that on Sheet A4 there was a
notation for new Sprint equipment to match new screen frame. He wanted to understand what
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 14 of 15
that meant, as it was speaking to new screen framing, and since he could not see what that was,
he wanted some clarification.
Mr. Lew stated on Sheet A3, the final antennae plan, three units were centered up and those
would be mounted to the framing. There needed to be a small portion of backer board and that
was what was referred to as new screen framing. Nothing would be replaced or demolished; it
was somewhat of a minor retrofit to accommodate the replacement units. It would all be
enclosed with the existing screen.
Committee Member Imboden stated he thought it was a straight line top to bottom and had not
had the profile as shown on the plans. The photos were not correct.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed it had stepped down.
Mr. Lew stated the jogging in from the street view was not visible.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it was visible from Chapman University.
Committee Member Imboden stated from Almond it was very visible, as well as from the Plaza,
and that was the reason he was a bit sensitive to the proposal. He believed it was a harmless
application, however, when the presentation was not up front about the reality of the situation
on -site he became a bit suspicious. His question would be were there changes to the size or form
of the equipment?
Mr. Lew stated the intent was for no modification to what existed.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4654 -12, Sprint PCS -Elks
Lodge, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report and with a change to
Condition No. 7 to read:
• If the existing stealth screening on the chimney is removed and/or replaced, the
replacement material shall match the original in size, color, texture, design, and finish.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2012
Page 15 of 15
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 7, 2012.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.