Loading...
03-07-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 7 March 2007 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Bill Cathcart Donnie DeWees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda-Roseberry, Planning Manager Anne Fox, Staff Contact Doris Nguyen, Staff Contact Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Mari Burke, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 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. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. CONSENT ITEMS: 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. The following items were moved to Consent: 5. DRC No. 4180-07 - RIVERBEND RECREATION CENTER A proposal for a recreation center in the Riverbend (Del Rio) Community. North Glassell/Lincoln Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4180-07 by consent. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. 6. DRC No. 4190-07 - ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH SYSTEMS AND MEDICAL TOWER A proposal for the configuration & architectural finishes for rooftop mechanical screen. 1000 West La Veta Ave. Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4180-07 by consent. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None i5~ ! \[ti: ~i~it~ 1~1~a"t~~[~O: 13111 Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 3 of 18 1. DRC No. 4054-OS -TOYOTA OF ORANGE 52-BAY SERVICE FACILITY A proposal to consider modifications to a previously reviewed Site Plan, Building Elevations, and Landscape Plan for an expansion of the existing Toyota of Orange business placing its service facilities on a parcel directly east across Tustin Street. 1485 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714-744-7229, afox(cr~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Califf asked if the package included landscape plans. Staff Contact Anne Fox responded there were minimal changes made to the landscape plans and she could pull out the previous approved set. Ms. Fox provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Califf stated the reason he asked for the landscape plan was there was a comment made previously about two ficus trees missing on the last plan and he wanted to know where they would be going. Ms. Fox responded that she believed they were still missing at this time. Chair Califf asked Ms. Fox to walk them through the changes that had been made and why. Ms. Fox responded as follows: there had been an original proposal to have a night drop (location was pinpointed on drawings for Committee); however, at the time the project came to the DRC the comment was made that perhaps they wouldn't do that, they may just keep it at the old facility. Consequently, that matter wasn't completely answered for the DRC and it wasn't even raised at the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting there were a lot of environmental issues raised. As a result, one of the items the environmental consultant looked at is what the impacts would be if the night drop was retained where proposed. The outcome was it would be too close to residential so it was moved to a new location (location was pinpointed on drawings for Committee). The interior floor plan was rearranged as a result of the change and the exterior change was a roll up door had to be relocated to the southerly elevation with a ramp to provide access. One other change was an access drive was going to be completely removed and closed and now it will be gated and not used during business hours. The City's Traffic Department has approved this change. The bed liners will be moved inside the building. The trash enclosure that faces the rear has been enlarged. A couple more parking spaces are now available (location was pinpointed on drawings for Committee) as a result of moving the trash enclosures. Committee Member Woollett asked Ms. Fox to explain how the movement of the cars from the main facility to the service bays will take place. Ms. Fox responded there would be porters. Committee Member Woollett asked if there would consequently be traffic impact. Ms. Fox responded that was actually one of the complaints; however, a traffic analysis was conducted with the result being that the impact would be minimal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 4 of 18 No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had an extremely minor suggestion and that was Condition #3 be modified to read "The applicant is prohibited from using a public address system on the subject site." The applicant acknowledged and accepted this change. Chair Califf asked Committee Member Cathcart if he wanted Condition #5 revised to include only the most important element, which is the tree brown trunk height of 8'-10'. Senior Landscape Coordinator Howard Morris stated that generally that trunk size comes in a 36" box. Committee Member Cathcart stated he would prefer to have the container size deleted and the 8'-10' trunk size remain in the condition. Ms. Fox asked if the Committee wanted to include all of the conditions that were documented in the last minutes. Chair Califf responded affirmatively. Ms. Fox stated some of them were intentionally omitted, as they were items that were to be completed before it went to the Planning Commission and the applicant had taken care of those. Chair Califf suggested making a statement that all applicable conditions from the minutes at the last meeting should be carried over. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend DRC No. 4054-OS to the Planning Commission subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report with modifications as follows: 1) Condition 3 shall be modified to read: "The applicant is prohibited from using a public address system on the subject site." 2) Condition 5 shall be modified to read: "The applicant shall provide for palms as noted that have between an eight to ten foot Brown Trunk Height (BTH). 3) A11 applicable conditions as noted in the minutes from the last meeting will be carried over. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 5 of 18 2. DRC No. 4106-06 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS, ELK' S BUILDING A proposal to install (stealth) cellular roof mounted antennas on the Elk's Building, including removal of a utility room. 211 East Chapman Avenue (located within the Old Towne Orange District) Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, (714) 744-7224, dryanncit, o~ forange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart recused himself. As the applicant was not present and there was no representation from OTPA available for the hearing of this item Chair Califf asked Staff if this item was appropriately posted and noticed. Staff Contact Dan Ryan responded he assumed there was a package at the library. The applicant arrived and Mr. Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Califf asked Mr. Ryan if it is the element that is closest to the north that is still visible in the photo sims (Scheme 2). The applicant stated the one on the south edge is not visible as it adjacent to the elevator shaft. No public comment was provided on this item. Chair Califf asked the applicant and his engineer to explain why the antenna couldn't be combined with another. The applicant responded they could do it but it is a function of shadowing off the roof and their engineer calculated how tall the structure would have to be. She stated that the way the signal comes off of the antenna you could look at it as similar to the sun's rays, and if something obstructed it you would have shadowing. The problem with a long roof is the signal has to clear the roof edge so in order to clear it you would need to go up higher. Her estimate was from the center of the roof it is approximately 72' to clear (without down tilt) or about 10' about the existing obstructions. On the south side there is a facade element so it would be about 16' to clear it on that side. Committee Member Wheeler stated the advantage would be you would only require one tower and you wouldn't have to add to the existing elevator tower or create two towers. The engineer responded that where the problem comes in is during construction and architecture as they determine how big the footing has to be to support a 16' tower under various weather conditions. Using photo simulations the applicant reviewed the original proposal in contrast to the revised proposal and pointed out the tradeoff on the option with one box on the north end and the extension of the elevator shaft is about 511 cubic feet of mass versus the removal of the shed, which represents 2500 cubic feet. The advantage he asserted in this option wouldn't be really recognizable to the naked eye of the average passerby. The one on the north end would be as it would be the same height as the Nextel box. The applicant noted that Committee Member Wheeler had commented at the last meeting that he was disappointed about how that installation wasn't neatly finished. Although they don't often like to clean up another company's mistakes, the applicant offered to do that finish cleanup work as a condition of this project approval. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page6of18 The applicant stated there is no way to embed the antennas into the existing elevator shaft. The applicant asked the DRC if they were inclined to work with them on this project would they want one structure in the middle that is 16' or 17' tall or one definitely visible structure in the back versus what he thinks the public won't even notice which is a 2'6" extension of the elevator shaft. The applicant stated if they are denied they would have a huge coverage hole in a major activity center in Orange County and he didn't know what their alternative would be. The Son Light Activity Center has been approached and they don't want to do a deal. There are no other structures tall enough minus going a free standing, which he thought would never get approved in Old Towne. Committee Member Woollett stated the idea of increasing the width of the elevator shaft and cleaning up the Nextel installation is an idea that he liked; however, he found the proposal confusing to evaluate because there were pictures left off and the shed on the elevation wasn't drawn to scale. Committee Member Wheeler asked about a black object on the middle of the north side and asked if it was mock up. The applicant stated the mock up had been removed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought it was some sort of vent. It was inconclusive as to what the object was. The applicant stated they could probably stucco over the seams on the fiberglass box where it meets the elevator shaft to give it a cleaner finish. Mr. Ryan advised the Committee a variance would be required if they decided to approve the 16' stealth option. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be any problem with cleaning up the clutter around the meter panel. The applicant stated that SCE has involvement with that. Chair Califf stated that the Committee would make it a condition, expecting them to do it unless SCE says no and then they would expect them to come back. Mr. Ryan asked if there was something they could do to make sure it is possible to make the seam line go away. Chair Califf stated that even if they couldn't make it go completely away, some consistency in the texture would be an improvement. The applicant stated that minimally on the south face existing Verizon installation they are going to build up fiberglass to the top so the seam wouldn't be on the frontage of the building. Committee Member Woollett pointed out the gap that should be filled in and color matched. Committee Member Wheeler stated it seemed the Committee was in favor of the original proposal with some additional conditions. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend DRC No. 4106-06 subject to: 1) Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 6 as written in the Staff Report. 2) Condition 5 from the Staff Report re-written to read, "If a GPS antenna is proposed, it should City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 7 of 18 be a freestanding antenna located at approximately center, out of public view and be subject to Staff approval. 3) Clean up of the Nextel installation by extending wall surface materials below parapet height. 4) Refinishing of the existing elevator building. 5) Group new Meter Panels together. 6) Eliminate visible seams and provide a uniform texture for the elevator extension. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Bill Cathcart ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 8 of 18 3. DRC No. 4124-06 - NOONAN RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new second story, as well as an addition to the first floor, of an existing single-family residence. 2338 East Altura Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.or~ DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Wheeler stated the accuracy of the drawings needs to be addressed and he noted this was the second request. Committee Member Wheeler stated what has been done with the massing is a huge improvement. Mr. Noonan stated that the removal of the Dutch gables contributed to the look in reduction of the massing. Committee Member Wheeler stated his personal preference would be to stay with the existing style siding on both the first and second levels. Mr. Noonan responded that it was a bunch of cheap looking siding and he would rather spend a little more money and put a nice siding on that was much more dimensional and more ranch style. Committee Member DeWees stated he agreed with Committee Member Wheeler that the change in the floor plan helped with the reduction in the massing but he would like to see the Dutch gables put back. Chair Califf stated they could be smaller if the applicant wanted. Committee Member Wheeler stated he suggested they keep the existing ones and put the smaller ones on the second floor. Mr. Noonan responded that he didn't think that would look very good; however, if the Committee wanted the gables, he'd put them back on, it didn't matter to him. No public comment was provided on this item. Committee Member Wheeler recalled at the last meeting they discussed it would be appropriate to put hips in the back. Mr. Noonan agreed. Mr. Noonan asked what the Committee wanted him to do with the Dutch gables. Chair Califf provided illustrative guidance as to how much smaller the Dutch gables could be. Chair Califf stated horizontal siding is fine but the width or lap needs to be called. Mr. Noonan responded it was going to be 9" totem and he drew an example of what it would look like. Committee Member Wheeler stated the same siding should be used in the Dutch gable area. Chair Califf told Mr. Noonan he didn't know of any circumstance under which he would like the Spanish or barrel roof tiles with his style house. Mr. Noonan replied that a house down the street from him put up a red S the and it is also a ranch style home. Committee Member DeWees stated he agreed with Chair Califf. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page9of18 Committee Member DeWees reiterated the necessity to address the accuracy of the drawings and added that it appeared to him that the stairs may be a little short and therefore many not work. Mr. Noonan responded that he thought the Committee was only concerned with the exterior. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was correct to the degree that the interior changes didn't impact the exterior. Mr. Noonan responded that if it did he was aware he would have to come back to the Committee. Chair Califf added that all materials needed to be called out on the drawings and the specifics on the siding i.e. 9" lap siding. Chair Califf stated the kind of roof the proposed would fight with ranch style. Mr. Noonan replied that flat the always weighs more (he estimated 8.5) and his sample one was only 5.5. Chair Califf asked if there was a problem with obtaining the lightweight the in flat. Mr. Noonan stated he didn't want anything more than his neighbors have and he also didn't want anything less---he stated he just wanted the same rights. Committee Member Woollett stated he wondered if there would be a conflict with the roof since the applicant no longer has the Dutch gables. Mr. Noonan stated he would put the gables back on but he originally removed them as he thought it made the house look lower. Committee Member Woollett agreed and stated it appeared to him it is becoming less and less of a ranch style home. Committee Member Wheeler stated if that was the direction the Committee wanted to take; he would want to go back into the neighborhood and take another look as he was operating under the basis that they would retain the Dutch gables and the low flat style roof. Mr. Noonan stated he agreed with everything presented except the roof. His displeasure was that five of his neighbors have the same style roof he is proposing and he didn't understand why he couldn't use it. Chair Califf responded that a re-roofing project did not have to come before the Committee; however, he assured the applicant that if any of his neighbors had combined a remodel with a re-roof, they would be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Mr. Noonan stated so I could put a new roof on this week and then change it next week?" and then concluded by stating he didn't agree but he would come up with some different roof styles. Committee Member Wheeler asked Mr. Noonan if he could move one of the windows over so it would stack directly over another. Mr. Noonan responded affirmatively. Mr. Noonan summarized his intentions as follows: 1) He would label all siding on the drawings. 2) He would add the Dutch gables and hips on the back. 3) He would carryover the siding onto the Dutch gable area. 4) He would call out all materials on the drawings. 5) He would use a different style roof and bring in new samples. 6) All windows are going to be dual glazed vinyl and he will call that out on the drawings. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4124-06 with the suggestions provided. SECOND: Donnie DeWees City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 10 of 18 AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 11 of 18 4. DRC No. 4132-06 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to add 6 panel antennas and one 2' diameter parabolic antenna on SCE tower and installation of 4 equipment cabinets, power and telephone panels. End of cul-de-sac at Shadow Ridge Lane Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Staff Contact Doris Nguyen provided a project overview during which she noted the Staff Report incorrectly stated the highest portion of the antenna would be 54'8" in height and instead it will be 43'9" in height. The applicant stated he had some concerns with the conditions of approval; specifically: Condition 7: SCE would not permit landscaping. He will provide a copy of a letter from them. Condition 4: SCE controls the site so the antenna positioning may be an issue. Ms. Nguyen stated Staff prefers the antennas be located attached as closely as possible to the beams if not right in line with the beams. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought it might be better to match the existing antennas so his preference was to have the wording of the condition remain as stated and leave it up to Edison to determine what is possible. The applicant noted he was in agreement with the vinyl coated fencing to screen the equipment and also with the gravel for 100 feet from the driveway apron. Condition 3: Underground coax cables: there is concern with them running on top of the ground. It is standard procedure to go under ground; however, SCE may not want them to dig and if that is the case they will cover up any coax cables. Ms. Nguyen stated Staff prefers any exterior cables be enclosed with some sort of raceway so they are less apt to be vandalized. Chair Califf made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC 4132- 06 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report as modified: 1) Condition #7 shall be stricken. 2) Condition #3 shall be expanded to indicate that if locating the wires or cables underground were impossible, they would be enclosed in a raceway or similar device. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 12 of 18 DRC No. 4193-07 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS A proposal to add 6 panel antennas on SCE tower, installation of 4 equipmentcabinets, power, telephone, GPS and microwave antennas. NE Corner of Riverdale Ave/Orange-Olive Ave. Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Staff Contact Doris Nguyen provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and noted the applicant had issues with some of the conditions of approvals. The applicant stated she had some concerns with the conditions of approval; specifically: Condition 7: SCE would not permit landscaping and if landscaping is planted they have a right to remove it without prior notification. In support of the request to remove this condition the applicant presented a letter from SCE. Committee Member Woollett stated he didn't see a point in discussing this application further as it carries the same conditions of approval as the previous Royal Street project. Ms. Nguyen stated the applicant did provide a different set of plans for this installation where the antennas are stacked. The applicant interjected they could use the stacked array as indicated on the plans or they would prefer the option of attaching them to the tower as closely as possible as it is presently stated in Condition 4. The Committee responded they were okay with the Condition as written. Chair Califf made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC 4193- 07 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report as modified: 1) Condition #7 shall be stricken. 2) Condition #3 shall be expanded to indicate that if locating the wires or cables underground were impossible, they would be enclosed in a raceway or similar device. 3) The proposal being approved is the original submittal and the antennas shall be attached to the tower as closely as possible. They are not required to be stacked. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 13 of 18 8. DRC No. 4195-07 -DEPOT WALK ART WALL & SIGN PROGRAM A proposal for an entry trellis, two art walls, sign program, revised elevations, and solar panels on the units for the Maple Walk development. 501 West Maple Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur~a,cityoforange.org, DRC Action: Final Determination Staff Contact Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicant stated: It has been some time since they had been before the Committee and had the project approved. They have been studying the project internally, trying to take into account the market changes without compromising the product and impacting the targeted price point. They want to maintain the luxury quality. This isn't a first time homebuyer unit; it's a professional, maybe a move down buyer. They want to maintain the value in this changing market in these units. In some cases mezzanines were a good idea and in others they didn't think there would be value in them. It depends on the floor plan and what other types of amenities were in the unit. They looked closely at each one of the 32 units and figured out what was best for each one respectively. Consequently, every unit has a floor change. There was some question on the translucent glass so they brought a sample. The LEED certification isn't something Olsen was looking at originally; however, they are now looking at it on as many projects as possible. They are trying to get the silver certification. They brought exhibits showing where the solar panels would be visible. They wanted to get inputs on the signage. Their preference is definitely to paint directly on the wall. There is something on the record from the City Council hearing concerning the brass plaque and they were not sure what building was referenced and how to find it. Ms. Thakur stated she spoke to the Director and she recalled the direction was given to pay homage to whatever the first use was. Committee Member Wheeler stated they perhaps were referencing the Film School on the southwest corner of Lemon and Palm. There are window changes to be proposed by the architect. Their goal is to have 12 units delivered by the end of this year. This is an aggressive goal. Public input was provided as follows: Tom Loughrey President of Old Town Preservation Association (OTPA) stated: He was very happy to hear about the LEED certification, this is a commendable thing to do. They have an issue with the signage and they think signage not permitted directly on walls is pretty straightforward in the ordinance and one that they want to retain a fairly rigorous interpretation of. While there may be opportunities in the future, they don't see anything remarkably significant about allowing an exception to the ordinance in this particular case. It is their position that the ordinance should be followed as written. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 14 of 18 They agree with the Staff Report on not using vinyl signage. Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated: Her first notes after going to the library were: No plastic pictures, no pictures at all. She likes the idea of the plaque to give the historic background but has no idea what it should look like. Using Chapman's as an example is probably a good idea. The doors and the side lights should be left the way they were on the original plans. No canopy signs over the doors. She loves that the third story has been reduced somewhat but she still has trouble calling it a mezzanine as a mezzanine is when you walk into a department store and they have a balcony. The pictures of the pillars out front looked like Newport Coast rocks and she prefers brick be utilized. The applicant responded they will look like brick and will match existing. Chair Califf stated they would begin the review by commenting on the elevations. Committee Member Woollett asked what the reason was for the sidelight by the door. The applicant responded it was to give light to the room. Committee Member Woollett asked if the frames around the doorways were always the storefront material. The applicant responded "no". Chair Califf stated there was a window next to the door before and he liked it that way. The applicant stated the reason they initiated this change was to get a better entrance, with more light and more of a sense that you have arrived. Chair Califf asked what type of door they would be using. The applicant responded it is a solid, fiberglass, storefront door. Chair Califf asked if they could put a light in the door itself. Committee Member DeWees asked if there would still be metal covering the doors. The applicant responded they went to the black painted fiberglass doors and the accent was supposed to be the transom and the sidelights. Committee Member Woollett stated his concern is the aluminum frame and that storefront is very much a contemporary thing. He suggested a much narrower steel section would probably be fine or hollow metal would fit in the industrial sense. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wasn't so concerned with the door in the brick on the elevation drawing as he was with the height of the canopy on the blow up being different on the entry door versus what is shown on the elevation (this was pinpointed on the drawings and the gap between the canopy on the transom was noted). The applicant agreed that they should all be the same. Chair Califf stated he didn't like the treatment of brick where it was notched around the head and shouts you are dealing with thin brick. The applicant stated they have a thicker frame and they would abut the brick into the side of the frame where previously they were using the corner brick pieces that were dying into the stucco. Committee Member DeWees stated he was more concerned about the absence of the brick lintel. Committee Member Wheeler stated the frame for the door is going to look very different and City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 15 of 18 will jump out. Committee Member Woollett stated there is a subtle difference between eclectic design and a design that is trying to not be eclectic. He stated there is a problem in Old Towne of wanting to represent designs already here and at the same time of wanting to avoid a more honest expression, which is eclectic and just carries the spirit through. This cannot be done, particularly when you are working with existing buildings and adding to them. He offered the example that the Guidelines were not looking for a modern version of a 50-year old building; they were looking for a building that really looks (in as many details as it possibly can), like a 50-year old building. Chair Califf stated you need to be true to the material whether it is brick or stucco. The applicant responded he understood what they were saying and the comment was well taken. They will maintain the lintels. Chair Califf interjected if it is in the brick they should leave it as it was before. The applicant asked what they could do to the single door---do they maintain the same rhythm with the sidelights and the stucco or go with the transom and the sidelight? Chair Califf responded that the simplest way is to go back to what they had; if they want to pursue the storefront in the stucco then he would want to know if they are really breaking up the sidelight and how would they do it. The applicant stated that would be the intent and the storefront would be a full width piece. The applicant pointed out that the live work units are different than the others and the point there was to create a sense of entry. Committee Member Woollett stated they might be able to do that with a light of some sort in the door. Committee Member DeWees asked for them to clarify if they wanted all dark doors. The applicant responded the windows, doors and frames would all be black. Chair Califf asked about the hardware on the door. The applicant stated they hadn't specified that yet. Chair Califf suggested oil rubbed bronze or it might be appropriate to use brass or brushed aluminum. The applicant interjected that the interiors of the units are more contemporary. Committee Member DeWees stated he wouldn't have a problem with any of the suggestions. Chair Califf stated he would prefer brushed aluminum or oil rubbed bronze to bright brass. The applicant stated there wouldn't be any bright brass. Chair Califf asked the applicant if it was their intent to go back to the doors the way there were originally presented. The applicant responded affirmatively. Committee Member DeWees asked about the windows. The applicant responded they did a lot of changes to the interiors but there were only subtle changes to the windows. Chair Califf stated generally speaking he would go along with the change in the window breakup but he had a little problem where the lights were split on the front elevation. To him industrial is more even sized panels as opposed to what they had before which was more vertical. Committee Member Wheeler stated he slightly preferred the four over one as it had a little more interest. Committee Member DeWees stated he was fine with either option. Chair Califf stated the four over one was appropriate and would save some cost however either option was okay. Committee Member DeWees agreed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 16 of 18 Chair Califf asked the applicant if the solar panels were more or less flat. The applicant responded they are the most attractive ones they could find and they would only occur on the upper mezzanine. Where the panels were situated was pinpointed on the drawings. Committee Member DeWees asked if they were designed to go in between the seams. The applicant responded they clamp on top of the seams and there is a 7/8" reveal. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought they looked very similar to sky lights and Committee Member DeWees remarked that he hoped they looked like solar panels. The discussion ensued about the signs concluding with the Committee being in agreement that the applicant should remove the words "Depot Walk". With respect to painting on the brick, Committee Member Woollett stated the sign code wasn't really written for Old Towne and a lot of stuff that makes Old Towne great violates the sign code so he had no problem with making an exception to the sign code if it is what is traditional for the area. Ms. Thakur stated in the Old Towne standards it specifically states you can't paint on a building elevation. Committee Member Cathcart stated he's sees it every day and cited examples. Committee Member DeWees stated what makes the old historic signs special is they are the only ones painted on. To not create a false sense of history he was inclined to not allow these to be painted on. Committee Member Woollett acknowledged the statement made by Committee Member DeWees regarding not wanting to create a false sense of history but he also acknowledged a point made by Committee Member Wheeler with respect to this being art versus a sign. He thought it was important if they painted on the building that it should be done in a manner that it is apparent to be art versus a sign. When asked by the applicant if they could paint on the building Committee Member DeWees stated he would prefer they not. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was any graffiti advantage. The applicant responded if it was painted on the wall it would begin to have a faded look and vinyl would not, it would stay pretty shiny. Committee Member Cathcart stated that is what he doesn't like, he prefers it to be flat. Committee Member Wheeler stated he liked the idea of it fading as well and he asked again if there was a graffiti advantage one way or the other. The applicant stated they would seal it. Chair Califf stated they would need to seal the whole wall. Chair Califf stated he would prefer to have it painted on the brick. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would agree and Committee Member Woollett stated if he could see it as art it was all right with him to have it painted on the brick. Committee Member Cathcart stated he just didn't want to see vinyl and Committee Member Wheeler agreed. Committee Member DeWees restated his objection to having it painted on the brick. The applicant stated they could explore the use of tile. Committee Member Woollett asked them to expand on what was meant by tile. The applicant stated: they could be 6x6 or 8x 8 tiles; they would be secured to the walls; it wasn't something their sign person brought up but they could pursue it as an option; they want the solution to be as low maintenance as possible for the HOA. Chair Califf stated it might be more subject to damage and maintenance of it would become an issue; however, he asked the applicant to check with their sign person. The applicant stated they would also check with their artist. Committee Member Cathcart stated: He concurred with the February 21st correspondence with respect to changing out the revisions City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 17 of 18 to the landscape construction drawings. Good choices were made in plant materials except the Liquidambar needs to be the Rotundiloba variety. A revised plan needs to be submitted to the Senior Landscape Coordinator. The City required inspection notes needs to be incorporated on the irrigation and landscape plans. The applicant asked for a suggestion for the light fixture right outside the door. Chair Califf stated they might have to pick something a little more industrial as otherwise they will only find cutesy carriage type lights. The applicant asked if he meant a jelly jar. Chair Califf responded those are typically too under scale. Committee Member DeWees stated he would provide them with the name of a catalog that offered a good variety. Ms. Thakur asked if the applicant elects to use the if it would be subject to Staff review or there would be a requirement to come back to the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he would like to have it come back to the Committee. Chair Califf agreed. Chair Califf made a motion to approve DRC No. 4195-07 with the following recommendations: 1) Staff Recommendations 1, and 4 as written. The live/work units could have ahalf--light or something similar in the door. 2) Staff Recommendation 2 shall include a requirement that the Liquidambar needs to be the Rotundiloba variety. 3) Staff Recommendation 3 is stricken; however, an advisory comment was offered that the Committee approved what is proposed and if the applicant chooses to change to a 4 over one configuration that would be acceptable as well. 4) Condition 5 shall read, "The DRC is approving painting the image onto the two art walls. After investigating other methods if the applicant wants to propose an alternative to painting directly on the brick, it shall be brought back to the DRC. The format of the art could be either rectangular or square as long as they are both ultimately the same. 5) The paintings are approved as art rather than signage and consequently, the applicant needs to remove the reference to "Depot Walk". SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for 7 March 2007 Page 18 of 18 REVIEW OF MINUTES: There were no minutes available for review at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Califf to adjourn until the next regular meeting on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Jon Califf, Bill Cathcart, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.