Loading...
09-21-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 21, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 2 DRC No. 3994-OS -Tsotsis Residence This item was continued from the DRC meeting of June 15, 2005 Property Location: 247 North Grand Street Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission on Minor Site Plan Review No. 399-OS and Negative Declaration No. 1752-OS regarding a proposal to add a second story to an existing single-family residence. Chair Jon Califf, announced that no Staff Planners were in attendance, so the applicants would be providing their presentations. Dr. Thomas Tsotsis highlighted the change in the gables and windows on the drawings. He mentioned the rest of the notations were included in the letters and the drawings. Chair Califf asked if there were any public members that wished to speak to this item. Ms. Janet Crenshaw, address on file. She stated she had spoke out at the previous meeting on the vents. She did not think that the changes on the drawing solved the problem and stated she had not seen anything like this in Old Towne. She believed that the height of the roof took away from the historic fabric from the house, and was concerned about the view that would be seen from the street. Mr. Jeff Frankel, address on file, OTPA. He stated that removing the rear roof was a violation of both the Secretary of Interior Standards and the Old Towne Design Standards. He said that one could not remove that much historic fabric. In fact, he stated, it was acceptable to create a living space within the existing roof, but to change the roof height and creating a higher ridge line from the front elevation would throw off the proportions and design of the house. He stated the applicant could add to the rear of the house or add dormers to create more living space, but could not tear off the whole rear of the roof. He stated after reading the Staff Report, it was apparent to him that Staff had not read the Secretary of Interior Standards and Design Review Standards. Otherwise, he continued, the Staff Report would not have been written the way it was. He cited the Standards concerning distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques, etc. He continued the historic material and features had to be protected, and these changes did not do that. He cited one of the main Standards regarding additions that cannot be removed in the future without an impairment on the original structure. He stated it would be very difficult to recreate the bungalow after this addition was added to it. He also referred to the rear porch, and how the Standards addressed secondary entrances that were incompatible in size and scale with the historic building. He said this porch was out of line with the front entrance because it was larger, and the scale was too big, and should not be copying the columns from the front of the house. He said that before anything is considered that the removal of the roof should be addressed since this is a character defining feature of the house. He concluded that there were so many problems with the project as far as non-conformance with the Standards, the OTPA feels it needs to be redesigned. Mr. Frankel then made a comment about the past minutes of the DRC Meetings. He said that City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 3 they needed to be more complete and state the names of the speakers. Mr. Frankel asked how the Staff Report could say the project complied with CEQA when there was no review or Negative Dec. Chair Califf responded that the Staff Report stated, "it will be evaluated based on our determination in a Negative Declaration which will be prepared." Mr. Frankel asked if this project had gone before Staff Review, and Chair Califf replied that he did not believe so. Mr. Frankel again stated that a proj ect of this nature should have gone before SRC before it comes before the DRC. He felt these issues should have been addressed at the preliminary meeting because there were Standard violations. Chair Califf pointed out a paragraph that explained the SRC and he did recall that Chris Carnes, Senior Planner had explained at the previous review of this project why the SRC would not review this until the DRC had acted on it, and the Environmental document had been prepared. Mr. Frankel asked if this should have gone to SRC before the DRC reviews this project. Chair Califf stated that if the Environmental document is prepared first, (and if it is going before the Planning Commission), then yes, the SRC will review it first. Mr. Frankel asked why the Staff Report would state this does comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards when it does not. Chair Califf replied that in the opinion of the Staff member that wrote the report, it does. Since the planner was not in attendance, they could not question him at this time. Committee Member Wheeler commented that the two biggest problem (that was mentioned last time) was the Committee had been firm with past applicants in requiring any shed dormer not come to the ridge of the roof. Mr. Tsotsis stated that as was mentioned in his letter, if he were to extend it out, it would affect access to the garage. Additionally, three houses from him, there was a house that had a front visible shed dormer that met at the ridgeline. Mr. Wheeler replied that there were other houses on his street that did not. He continued that the other problem he had that had been discussed at the previous June meeting was the change to the gable vents. He was against having the shed roof come to the ridge, and the changes to the gable vents. Dr. Tsotsis asked what the Committee recommended. He stated if he moves this, it makes it impractical. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Wheeler replied that the Committee could not approve something just because the applicant wanted to do something the way he wanted to do it. He suggested the applicant take another approach if there was not room to make these changes. Perhaps the applicant could add aone- story addition in the back. Dr. Tsotsis answered this would take up his entire backyard which he preferred not to do. He added just because there was a precedent did not mean it's historically accurate, and again cited the house down his street with the front dormer, but is not visible from the street, the original dormer does meet at the ridgeline. Committee Member Woollett stated that this has come up many times. He explained that there is not a simple answer to this dilemma. He added that the Committee's decision last time was based on a certain style of building, and they have remained consistent on this issue not just in the last few months, but for several years. He was not anxious to change this precedent. He also said the applicant was stating (in so many words) that he had to push the envelope, including the one design adjustment the Committee asked him to make, because it was not convenient for the applicant to do so. Dr. Tsotsis asked what the rationale was for not allowing the dormer to be at the original ridge line. Mr. Woollett stated it was because the Committee did not feel it was consistent with the style of the building. Committee Member Dewees added there are other cases on the street where there are anomalies, but the Committee would tend to stay away from these types of anomalies, and go with buildings that have more consistent historic fabric in the City. Mr. Dewees also mentioned the massing and scale of the building. He stated he was in a quandary because in the Minutes, we had stated, "in summary, the DRC members believe the additional height of both building materials were consistent with the existing bungalow architecture and the proposed structure was compatible in scale with existing structures in the vicinity of the project site." Since then, there have been some cases where the DRC has specifically stated that massing and proportions specifically has to do with styles. He did not know if this could be retracted. Mr. Woollett commented that although the DRC had made this statement, he felt that the Committee was somewhat generous in doing this. However, the DRG had made an issue on the ridge line in the June meeting. He continued that although the DRC was aware of the ridge line issue, some adjustments would have to be made one way or the other. He stated that he did not take quite as strong a position on all the issues that OTPA had mentioned. Mr. Dewees agreed, and stated that at this point, it would be unfair to backtrack. He added that the Commission struggles for consistency. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Woollett mentioned that the applicant has the right to appeal (via the Planning Commission) the Committee's decision to disapprove this motion, and they would not prevent him from going to the Planning Commission. But, he was disinclined to approve this item as it was presented. Mr. Wheeler commented on another item previously mentioned was the front porch column detail used in the back was inappropriate. It should be more simple. Chair Califf stated that many of the compatibility issues such as additional height making a building out of character with the original structure, take a subjective decision. The biggest issue he had is typically when the DRC approves an addition or an expansion, there is a sense that it is possible to remove it and restore it. He believes they were getting into the area of renovation, and stated the DRC had crossed the line, and thought this was not possible. He continued it was difficult enough to know where an existing and a new addition go, but you could break it up with a vertical member. He said when you add on the top as well as going two directions in the same plane, it's a problem. He commented that although these changes were in the back, this still affected the front elevation with the additional height, and crosses the line between a straight addition and a renovation. He did not think everything was incompatible. He agreed the porch columns were an unusual feature for the bungalow, and understood why they were there, but he did not think this was appropriate. Mr. Wheeler stated that they were all in agreement to find a way to bring the shed roof dormer down. Mr. Wheeler said the three things to be changed are the shed roof dormer, gabled vents, and the columns in back. Mr. Woollett asked how high the ceiling was by the window. Chair Califf replied it was seven foot. The Committee discussed moving the wardrobes, and make it easier to make a work window. They also discussed the size of the windows with the applicant. Mr. Woollett said that one of the reasons the Committee wanted a section was to better evaluate what the options were. Mr. Woollett stated the Committee had come up with some possibilities. They were still holding the applicant to lowering the connection point at the ridge. It appears there are some opportunities to get something out of that. The other one is a general agreement on the columns in the back, and the owner is open to that. Dr. Tsotsis added the vent gable with the window option was fine also. Chair Califf cautioned the applicant when he meets with the architect, the manner and the extent to which the addition modifies the back and sides will be an issue if not with the DRC, then with City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 6 the Planning Commission. So, if there is a possible way to change this, he recommended the applicant do it. Dr. Tsotsis stated the height was not sufficient, and he had discussed this with his architect. Mr. Woollett stated DRC was giving him an option to move the exterior east wall back, and perhaps make the bedrooms shallower. This allows the applicant to reduce the area, and allows him to get more height. There was a general discussion of what could be moved or adjusted. Mr. Woollett moved that the item be continued. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED G C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 7 2. DRC No. 4001-OS -Grace Church of Orange A proposal to add a 3,200 square feet ministry building, two playgrounds, and a shade structure. Property Location: 2201 East Fairhaven Avenue Staff Contact: Sherman Jones, Associate Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission for site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations. The applicants, Darin Schoolmeester, Cindy Teaze, architect, and Chris Krebs were in attendance to provide the proposal on the Site Plan to the Committee. They stated the need to improve the campus and the need to create new facilities. Chair Califf asked how the church was set for parking for the plan build-out. Mr. Schoolmeester replied that they exceed their parking requirement which is generated by the multi-purpose facility with 30 square feet per stall. Part of the parking requirement will be to add another parking bay on the southwest corner. He stated that presently they do not use their parking capacity. He continued they calculated their parking need based on their current use. They perform their own statistical analysis of people per car. Mr. Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator, asked if the applicant was proposing to use Leland Cypress, and the applicant stated yes. Mr. Morris strongly suggested they use something else because it's susceptible to a canker blight, and the City stopped using it about 15 years ago. Mr. Wheeler wanted it made clear that all the fascias, roofing, everything would matching the existing items. The applicants stated that it would. The applicants further stated the overhang, windows would be the same. Also, the roofs would be brought together. Mr. Woollett asked if there was a time limit on the structures that were being moved. He also asked what the time limit would be. The applicants stated they hoped it would be another five year limit. Mr. Woollett stated that although they did not deal with this, but his concern was that these temporary buildings were in a prominent area. Mr. Woollett stated he would want to state if the buildings were going to remain there more that a certain amount of time, that a Landscape Plan should be presented that hides the view of those buildings. He said anything longer than three years should have landscaping around it. He said if the buildings were not there too long, then the planting would not mature in the time the building is there. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 8 C Ms. Teaze explained there was no road view from offsite because of the freeway wall. Mr. Woollett stated if someone entered through the west, the view could be seen. Mr. Wheeler agreed and said he would like to see a screen there also. Ms. Krebs replied that they had some planter boxes they could use. Mr. Schoolmeester added that they had the same concern, and the reason the buildings were moved there was because this was the only place left where they could be moved. They wanted it to be an attractive view. He stated that they would want to put pots as well as a screen. Mr. Woollett asked about the classrooms on the plan. He noticed on the Master Plan, it stated classrooms. He asked if the classrooms in the temporary buildings would eventually move over to the new classrooms to be built. Mr. Schoolmeester answered that there was a sequence on how each temporary building would be moved to the new classrooms. He stated the biggest need was classrooms. Ms. Krebs also mentioned there would some future plans on how to upgrade one of the buildings. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of this project with the following conditions: Conditions One and Three as shown on the Staff Report. Condition Two is to submit Landscape and Irrigation Plans to Staff for final approval. Provide City required Inspection Notes on Irrigation and Landscape Plans. All new materials, finishes, ministrations, fascias, roofing shall match the existing ones. Effort be made to provide landscape or other screening around the portable structures to be relocated. SECOND: Donnie Dewees AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Toe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 9 3. DRC No. 4023-OS - Cingular Wireless A proposal to install 12 antennae, divided equally into three sectors located on top of a 55 foot monopine, a proposed shelter to house required telecommunications equipment, and two proposed GPS antennas for E911 services. Property Location: Our Savior Evangelical Luther Church of Orange at 800 North Cambridge Street Staff Contact: Sherman Jones, Associate Planner DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission on the proposed installation of wireless communications antenna facilities on an existing church site. The applicant, Jim Todaro representing Cingular Wireless explained that he took pictures based on where Staff told him. He provided the presentation to the Committee and explained each picture he took. Chair Califf asked the applicant if the branch count was defined anywhere and could he address the issue of whether what's proposed on the plans is sufficiently dense to match the photos. Mr. Todaro replied that he did not have this information at hand. He continued if the Committee would like to suggest a branch count, the only stipulation would be that from a design stand point it could damage the structural integrity of the pole because if there were too many branches put in, the pole lost its structure stability. Chair Califf replied that he wanted to ensure what was approved would match what was built. Mr. Todaro answered that this could be conditioned that it conforms to the photo. Chair Califf asked if the applicant specified a branch count when this went out for bid. Mr. Todaro replied that he was not involved in the bid process. But, if there was a tree in the City that the Committee liked, then this was something to consider. Mr. Woollett stated the fundamental issue he had was where the tree was planted and how it's sited. He did not think it was appropriate to have a wall, and a fence around the tree in a residential area. Mr. Todaro replied this location was chosen because there was an existing wall with a trash enclosure. He thought the plantings would help break up the trash enclosure, and there is a fall zone and setback requirement that places them in the middle of the yard based on the Zoning requirement. He stated the logical place was to share a common wall with the trash enclosure and help break the trash enclosure with the planting. Mr. Dewees asked what a fall zone was. Mr. Todaro explained this if you took a tree and tipped it over, the overall height of the tree had to be a certain percentage back from the property line in a residential zone. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 10 He stated it was in the Code because it's Mr. Woollett was concerned a tree stored on a church site was very close to the building. Chair Califf mentioned if this was a commercial site, the same setback would not be necessary. Mr. Todaro stated this was correct. But, looking at the property, there is an open space area. There is a big greenbelt and parking lot area, and the same requirements are there as you get closer to the church buildings. If you look at the overall parcel, it would have to be somewhat centered in the parcel to maintain the proper setback. So rather being toward the front, where the daycare center and sanctuary is located, they thought the back was a better location. Mr. Woollett stated if the tree is designed properly, no one will know there is an antenna in it. It could be planted like any tree of this size in a way that was complimentary to the rest of the development. It appears to him that the tree is being placed as far away which puts it in the middle of nothing, and makes it quite obvious, and the focus of attention on this site. Mr. Todaro stated there were no other trees on this parcel that were taller than what there. He asked the Committee where the tree should be placed within the fall zone. Mr. Woollett explained that the applicant was proposing to place the tree in a location that was very obvious. He also stated he did not think any neighborhood wanted an antenna in the middle of it. Nor do they want to see an antenna. Where the applicant wants to place the tree is the worst place it could be. He said they were almost advertising that there was an antenna there. He also stated this was not a good place for a trash enclosure either. Mr. Wheeler cited Paragraph Six in the Municipal Code stating that wireless equipment designed as trees or rocks shall be integrated into the surrounding environment through the planting of trees or shrubs, etc. He continued that in a previous project near Glassell and Collins, it was required that real trees be planted along with the antenna tree so as to make it more believable. Mr. Woollett asked if there was any discussion of putting the antenna in the church tower versus the tree. Mr. Todaro replied this had been discussed, but the building did not lend itself to putting a tower on the structure. The way the building was built, 55 feet would look out of place on the church. He also explained that originally they were trying to put something in the existing residential, but it did not work out. Mr. Woollett mentioned there was a church in Newport Beach that had a tower in the courtyard. Mr. Todaro stated that they have installed many antennas in towers. He also mentioned they have done something within the sanctuary with benches in front of the church, but there are setback issues at Lomita and Cambridge. Mr. Dewees asked how this would work out with the church's master plan. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Todaro stated that there would be expansion in the grass area. He recommended that they go towards the trash enclosure with discussions of removing the trash enclosure, but this was not possible because they were too close in the setback line. Mr. Woollett asked if the applicant knew what their master plan was. Mr. Todaro stated he did not, but he could find out. He also mentioned the church had bought off on this location for the antenna. Mr. Woollett explained he is a church architect and stated that normally churches are short- sighted when it comes to the development of their property. He was concerned about placing a tree in a concrete enclosure because he believed the tree would be so obvious to notice. Mr. Dewees asked if the Committee was perhaps questioning something they had no control of in regard to the church`s master plan. Mr. Todaro said that the tree would be in a concrete block enclosure with a bark base. It would also have an enclosure next to it. He wanted to clarify it was next to a building with awrought- iron fence. Mr. Woollett replied his point was that the tree was not being planted in a place that one would plant a tree. He asked why someone would plant a tree and build a fence around it. Chair Califf stated that absence of a grove of pine trees or some effort to produce some logical arrangement of pine trees, would be more believable with the fake pine tree to be planted. He said it is not a stealth item. It's not something that appears to be logical. Mr. Dewees cited the DRC's philosophy, and stated he had two issues. One, was that if there are cell phones that could do every conceivable thing, and if the phones are as small as they are, no one can improve the technology. He mentioned that the building and tree were some of the biggest he had seen. On the other hand, there is concern for the neighbors in the area while there are probably 1200 cell phones within 100 feet, so we can't have it both ways. Mr. Todaro replied that this antenna was for dual frequency and E911 facility. They are for high frequency, and the higher the frequency, the greater need for the cluster tightens with the antennas. If it's a lower frequency, the wavelength is longer in it, and you can spread the antennas out. They have to be built in a hexagonal hand-shape type pattern that's a mandatory design. There is quite a bit of information disseminated from any one of these facilities. E911 is the next mandate so when someone dials 911, they know which cell tower it's coming from so they can start to pinpoint where people are calling from when they have an emergency. This is why the shelter is as big as it is, it needs to house the necessary computer equipment. Mr. Wheeler asked if there was any other solution for the cable wiring. Mr. Todaro replied it could be run underneath. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Wheeler stated that it looked like a hip roof on the south elevation and a gable roof on the east elevation. Mr. Todaro stated he would have the drawing corrected. Mr. Woollett commented that the tree did not help at all. He said to forget the tree and just place the antenna as is. Mr. Dewees added that he would like to see someone come up with a interesting sculptural piece of antenna and build it that way instead of disguising it as a tree. Chair Califf asked where the 36-inch box trees would go on the drawing or was this a recent recommendation by Staff. Mr. Todaro replied that he had spoken with Mr. Morris earlier in the evening, and he was in agreement with the 36 inch box tree, but the applicant should contact him for the type of tree to be planted. He stated they would plant whatever the City wanted them to plant. Mr. Woollett stated that he did not think the 36 inch box tree would do anything. Chair Califf commented that it would not immediately show any type of screening, and would probably take about five years to take effect. Mr. Woollett stated that the church had handed this over to the cell phone people to integrate this into the design of the property. He thought this was a fatal flaw. He added he would rather have the building connected to the existing buildings than to have it out there by itself. Mr. Dewees suggested that perhaps they could flip the building and have the enclosure with the yard. Mr. Todaro asked if he meant to put the tree between the trash enclosure and the yard. Mr. Dewees answered yes because then you would have building, one side of fence, one side fence, then another building, and it could be landscaped in front and it-would look a little more integrated. Mr. Todaro said they had discussed making an L-shape out of it, but did not want anyone hanging out at this area. They did not want something where someone could hop the fence and hang out. He pointed out that this area was fenced off with a narrow space. Mr. Dewees replied if the applicant was worried about kids hopping the fence and hanging out, this would be a perfect place because they would be hidden. Mr. Todaro stated that the overall dimension across is 20 feet. If they turn it into an L-shape, there is 20 feet on each side. All the homes on one side would see the side of the building, and all the homes on the other side will see the end of the building and the side of the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Dewees said that he would rather have them see the side of the building where it could be landscaped in front than have them see the wrought-iron fence with shrubs up against. Mr. Todaro again mentioned the tree not being able to tuck into it because it would have to maintain its setback. He added wherever the building goes, the tree has to stay where it is to maintain the setback at 100 feet. Mr. Dewees agreed that this would not work because Mr. Todaro would have to move the whole building because the plan was right at 100 feet, and he stated yes. Mr. Todaro stated the layout was an attempt to reduce the broad side. There's already an existing building they are trying to hide. One side was behind the existing building and give the other prominent viewpoint to the north and to the south, the end view versus the side view. Mr. Wheeler asked if the tree could be moved north. Mr. Todaro replied yes, but then it would be pushing it into the church's open grass area or future development if they so desired. Mr. Wheeler wondered if you took the new equipment building and make an L-shape with the trash enclosure and the garage structure, but make the new building on the southern part of the L- shape so the tree is to the north of it. Mr. Todaro explained there wasn't enough space for the width of the building to fit before you start taking out parking spaces. The Committee pointed this out on the drawing, and they thought it was a better solution for the parking lot, and could tie the roofs together. At least, it would be farther away from one side of the houses as well as plant some nice landscaping. Mr. Woollett mentioned the fact that one of the buildings looked like a temporary building with air conditioners hanging off of the end. Mr. Wheeler stated this would be another reason for having a separation between the garage structure and the new building. They could flip the air conditioners units toward the trash enclosure. Mr. Woollett commented if someone had come in with a building like this with no antenna, it would be called a temporary modular unit and would be limited in time just like the building before this because they would not want this type of building on-site for long term. Mr. Todaro stated this was a prefabricated shelter so if the Committee wanted a screen around it, but the whole point of the A/C units is to make it so they're exposed. C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Woollett again mentioned that if this was a classroom, the City would not allow them to keep it on the grounds for more than three years, and they're talking about a permanent installation. Mr. Wheeler suggested that if the applicant does make the L-shape that he separates the pre-fab from the existing and do something with an opaque fence and run a roof over everything that will tie it together so it will look like a whole building. Mr. Todaro asked if this would create a zoning issue or if this would create additional problems. Mr. Woollett stated that although this helped, there was still an island out there, and the landscaping should be integrated into the overall landscaping scheme of the site. The types of trees should be related to the site, and if this cannot be done, then more trees should be added to the rest of the site so it creates a whole picture. Mr. Todaro stated his concern was that if changes were made, he wanted to some guidance on which changes to make so he wouldn't have to go through this again. Mr. Woollett believes that the whole plan needs to be integrated in a complete way, the buildings, roofing, finishes, etc. He doesn't know how they can do this without the Church providing their future planning. Mr. Todaro replied that they are willing to match the texture, roof, or anything else to the existing buildings. Chair Califf commented that the applicant needed to be more responsive to the main building. Since the building was plain, it would not be a big stretch to integrate the applicant's plan with the existing building. Mr. Woollett replied not at that corner unless it was developed by planting more trees, and developing more landscape around it. Mr. Dewees also suggested reconfiguring the buildings. Mr. Woollett told the applicant to bring them a Landscape Plan for the entire site. Chair Califf added that the applicant already had a Landscape Plan that seemed to be fairly accurate. He thought this plan with the existing trees with the heights listed would be agreeable. He stated that to show trees concentrated around their facility is not what the DRC would support. He continued that trees planted around the facility as well as a scattering in the vicinity so it would be as it would naturally occur. Mr. Todaro stated that they chose a Pine tree since there were so many in the area, but if DRC wanted a Palm, they could also do that. Chair Califf stated that in this localized area, that Pine was probably appropriate. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 15 Mr. Todaro mentioned that they would make a Landscape Plan, put the buildings in a L-shaped manner, put trees around the entire facility as well as scatter the trees around the facility to help break it up. He asked the DRC what would happen if the church came back and stated they did not want the trees scattered because they wanted the open grass area due to their sports program or buildings there in the future. Mr. Woollett replied that if he created a rhythm of tall trees, it would be much easier to move or remove some without affecting the overall pattern. Mr. Todaro asked the Committee if it was ok to mix the Pine trees with Ficus trees, and DRC replied yes. Mr. Woollett mentioned when the applicant returned, they would need to know the density as well as the length of the branches with the presentation of the way it tapers. Chair Califf explained it seemed to be a problem in the past with the photo simulation of the Pine, but no one could identify the vendor or model of the tree. Mr. Todaro commented that they did not know who the manufacturer would be, but the challenge would be when it starts to undermine the structural integrity. He also mentioned if he brought a particular manufacturer's information, they may not win the bid. He added it could certainly be conditioned to meet a specific density to hide the antenna. Both Chair Califf and Mr. Woollett made mention of tree on the elevation as well as the requirements to know the density and dimensions to make the tree will hide the antenna. Mr. Todaro reiterated the following conditions: 1. Make a Landscape Plan. 2. Put the building in a L-shaped and share the roof. 3. Trees are on the facility scattered and staggered between Pine and Ficus Trees. 4. Provide a branch count, branch dimensions, and how the tree will taper. 5. Show how the A/C units will be hidden. 6. Indicate the materials to be used on the structures to match the existing structures. Match to stucco white. Mr. Dewees made a motion to continue to include the suggestions made by DRC. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED C City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2005 Page 16 Mr. Dewees moved to adjourn the meeting. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None MOTION CARRIED Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. C