Loading...
2010-05-05 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL May 5, 2010 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was nothing additional to add or change on the Agenda. She asked if any of the DRC Members were interested in attending the California Preservation Conference being held in Grass Valley, May 12 through May 15, 2010. OTPA had offered a $500.00 sponsorship to the conference that would not include any lodging or travel expenses. If there was interest she would need to know in the next few days. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the Committee Members could accept the tickets offered by the OTPA to their annual banquet? Committee Member Woollett stated he believed it would be a conflict of interest. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated if the Committee Members wanted to attend the banquet they would need to purchase their own tickets. For the Conference the money that was being offered was a sponsorship given directly to the City and not to an individual. Committee Member Gladson stated it was not a direct donation to anyone individually. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought it would be a great idea if they could all go. Committee Member Gladson stated they would be presenting annual awards for outstanding preservation items and it was items that had come through the DRC for review. It was a combination of applauding individuals who had done the work and the process. Committee Member Woollett stated he had done a church in Long Beach that had been built in 1904 and the City had a seismic abatement ordinance and assembly buildings had to be completed first. The engineer had called for stripping of brick and mahogany in the inside and putting shotcrete on it and then putting it all back and it was just impossible to do. They had come up with another solution and the walls were cored with steel and epoxy grout, and they had not needed to remove any of the brick or any of the finishes inside. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 2 of 16 Committee Member McCormack asked how the coring was done? Committee Member Woollett stated with a diamond coring device. They had a lot to work with and he had not invented the system. He had brought in an engineer whom he had worked with previously that had worked at Cal Tech and had basically written the book on reinforced masonry. He analyzed the project from a different point of view. The City engineers had not understood what he was doing. The building had stood up to earthquakes very well. Chair Cathcart stated he remembered when they had to keep the facade on the old Chapman Building. There was a core taken and it was placed in a car on a trip to Los Angeles and it had been so fragile that it broke down and turned to gravel. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was working on an old house in Pasadena when the Sylmar earthquake hit and he ran out into the hallway and the bricks had fallen from the old chimney and there was a big attic; all around the chimney there were piles of sand from the grout that had fallen out of the chimney. Committee Member McCormack stated after the Northridge quake he had gone up to Los Angeles on the west side to an old building that had been built in the 1950's that had large pieces of granite in the lobby. As he drove up all the lights were down on the freeway and when he drove up to the building everyone was standing outside and upon entering the elevator there were all kinds of pyramids of dust near the joint lines of the granite and all through the lobby. The grout had been shaken out. Committee Member Woollett stated one of the things that he had noticed that when they were placing the grout in the long tubes, the epoxy grout was quite thin and if there was absorbent material it migrated to those areas and leaked out through the grout. On a church in Santa Ana there were trusses where large wood members had cracked and epoxy had been injected into the joints and the members were re-built. Chair Cathcart stated there were adhesives that would allow that. There was no further discussion. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:10 p.m. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 3 of 16 Regular Session - 5:30 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 was none. 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 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None (2) DRC No. 4474-10 - TRAILWOOD DEVELOPMENT SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal for a sign program for a small multi-tenant retail building. • 4045 W. Garden Grove Boulevard • Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler asked that the item be removed from the consent calendar as he had questions on the proposed project. Committee Member McCormack stated he had a few questions also. Chair Cathcart removed the item from the consent calendar, and recused himself from the item presentation as he had completed work on the project. The Staff overview was waived and the item was opened for discussion. Public Comment None. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 4 of 16 Vice Chair Gladson opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated page 3 of the sign program, paragraph 2, read "with the exception of the corner tenant on Garden Grove and Lewis Street, one sign was allowed per tenant." He wanted to clarify how many signs the corner tenant was allowed. On the 4th line down it read "the height should be no more than 2/3 of the vertical surface of the plane" which was from the City's sign code; however, it had not noted the height of the plane and it could be open to interpretation. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, pointed to the drawings and stated that they wanted to ensure the distance was not the full length of the wall and explained to the applicant the area Committee Member Wheeler was speaking to. She stated it could read 2/3 of the signable wall area and it could be shown on the elevation. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the same paragraph it was noted that no sign was allowed on the architectural tower, but on the drawings it appeared there was a sign proposed on the tower. He read "all signs must be on the same horizontal level;" however, there were signs on different levels and the building appeared different on the drawings and the paragraph should be revised. On page 5 the next to the last word should be "holes" not "wholes." On the 4th line there was a sentence that read "neatly painted or posed" and he was not clear what "posed" meant. Ms. Thakur stated they might have meant level. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a few concerns. Under No. 2, it reads "illuminated signs unless otherwise provided for in the sub-chapter"; he had not found any reference to that and it should instead reference the City's sign code. Also, under No. 3, there was a reference to "omitting signs"; he was not certain what that meant. On page 7 there were two types of channel lettering shown and in the past the DRC had required the use of only one type of channel lettering per elevation so that all letters on a particular elevation were the same. Either stand-offs with a reverse elevation or flush, so there would not be some that were out or some that were in; they should be consistent in their requirement. Committee Member Woollett asked if that was a City standard? Vice Chair Gladson stated it was something that had been in the DRC's practice to request. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was something that had been required in the past for consistency. Vice Chair Gladson stated they were only speaking about five tenants and the majority of the signs would be on the south elevation. Applicant, Walid Barash, address on file, stated they could do them all reverse. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 5 of 16 Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be perfectly happy with either choice and the applicant could choose. Committee Member Wheeler stated, moving on to page A0, a sign was shown on the tower. The drawing showed split-face block that had not been used and it was stucco. He reviewed the drawings with the applicant. On another area of the building which he pointed out, he stated if a sign was done there it would not work; there was a setback at that area and the sign would need to be moved up or down. Committee Member Woollett stated they could place it further to the west. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was something that needed to be worked out. There was a notation that one of the units was Unit A and if A and B were one tenant it would not be a problem. It would get jumpy to have three different sign heights. Mr. Barash stated they would keep the tower, but there would not be a sign on the tower; he referred to the drawings. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings. Committee Member McCormack stated if there would be a separate tenant in Unit A, it was a very small area for a sign. Mr. Barash stated it would require a very small sign. Committee Member Wheeler asked how had the approval for the 7-Eleven sign been given when there had not been a sign program approval? Ms. Thakur stated 7-Eleven was a trademark image and they had no control over that. Committee Member Wheeler stated there should have been a sign program approval for amulti- tenant building. Ms. Thakur stated they were currently presenting the sign program for the building; because 7- Eleven was a trademark they were allowed to put up their sign. They could not request an alteration of their sign design. The municipal code for their trademark was followed. Vice Chair Gladson stated she understood the logic for the 7-Eleven sign; it was just unfortunate that it could not be tied in with the sign program. Committee Member McCormack stated when he reviewed the proposal it appeared as two different details and he was not certain which one the applicant was proposing. He asked if the new signs were intended to be the same or to compliment the 7-Eleven sign, not in shape and size, but what details would match that sign? ~~,. Vice Chair Gladson stated they would not match. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 6 of 16 Committee Member McCormack stated it would not match. Vice Chair Gladson stated there had been a mention that if 7-Eleven wanted to change their sign in the future that they would need to follow the proposed plan. Ms. Thakur stated that was correct; or if a new tenant took that space the new tenant would be subject to the proposed sign program. Vice Chair Gladson stated she viewed the 7-Eleven sign as a cabinet sign and not a channel sign; unfortunately, it was there and they could not change that. Applicant, Dennis Lee, address on file, stated they had fought hard for 7-Eleven not to put up their sign and they were not successful at the time and they had wanted all the signage to be the same. Vice Chair Gladson stated they missed an opportunity to have their store appear as a more innovative 7-Eleven. Committee Member McCormack asked what detail were they using? Committee Member Wheeler stated the applicant could choose one as long as they were the same detail. Committee Member McCormack stated there was one that was backlit with a halo and the other was flat. Committee Member Wheeler stated no, they were both channel letter designs and the other he was referring to was a cabinet sign, internally lit, with the entire panel being plastic. Committee Member McCormack stated it appeared that it was almost impossible to put a sign on the smaller facade area. Vice Chair Gladson stated they could suggest that the particular tenant of the space he was referring to could not have a sign. Committee Member McCormack suggested the use of a blade sign for that unit. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was not permitted. Mr. Lee stated he had permits to put in a Boost Mobile phone store in that location, which was about 980 square feet and that tenant would need a sign. It would be very tough for that tenant to operate without a sign. They had made an attempt to have a tenant take the entire space based on the parking; however, with the economy that had not worked. - Vice Chair Gladson stated she was not concerned with that unit having a sign as long as it met the sign requirements. The mere fact that there were constraints due to the size of the sign, it would be a very small set of channel letters and she would be comfortable with that. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 7 of 16 Committee Member McCormack stated it was a tough sign challenge. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings with the applicants. Committee Member Wheeler asked how the building had been constructed in a different manner than what the drawings had shown? Mr. Lee stated it had changed from block to stucco. Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawings had not had the change in plane and if it had been built in that manner there would not be a concern. Mr. Barash stated he was mistaken and they had wanted to keep the sign on the tower. Committee Member Woollett suggested a good way to place a sign on Unit A would be to have a square sign at the east end and a bit higher than the other signs. It could be letters like all the other signs or if they had a logo it could be used. In terms of the shape of the forms it could compliment the other signs. Committee Member Wheeler suggested dropping all the signs down right under the shade structures; but the signs would be less visible from the street. Mr. Barash stated they could install the channel letters on the same plane for Unit A if the sign hung below the structure. Vice Chair Gladson stated, in reviewing the photos of the building, she had understood the concern of the sign placement for Building A. Committee Member McCormack suggested they use a smaller sign for the unit and it might just be a logo and they could use a neon sign in the window. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could (1) make a motion with a lot of conditions; (2) continue the item; or (3) approve, with verbiage to include if a sign was needed for Unit A, the applicant would need to return with their design for that unit. Ms. Thakur stated Staff would be more comfortable with reviewing what the signs would look like on the different units rather than the need for the applicant to return if a tenant had a sign on Unit A. Committee Member Wheeler stated according to the sign program he felt they should have the dimensions on the drawings. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4474-10, Trailwood Development Sign Program, to allow the applicant to consider the suggestions made by the DRC and return with a new proposal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 8 of 16 Vice Chair Gladson stated they could discuss the motion a bit further. Committee Member McCormack asked if they should include some specifics in the motion? Committee Member Wheeler stated they had discussed what those specifics were and he had not felt they needed to add anything further. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if they had notes on the issues? Mr. Barash stated he had the information and they all appeared as minor issues with the exception of the clarification on Unit A. He thought it would be great if they could approve the remainder of the sign criteria as they had tenants that wanted their signs. Ms. Thakur stated it would need to be approved, continued, or denied. Vice Chair Gladson stated they would not want to deny the proposal and they would want the applicant to be able to come up with a solution for Unit A. Ms. Thakur stated they were currently using a banner for the new tenant and it was not as if they were unable to advertise that they would be opening. In the interim the applicant could consider the suggestions and return to the DRC. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 9 of 16 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4479-10 & CUP No. 2788-10 -STADIUM PROMENADE REVISED SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal to modify the existing sign program for the Stadium Promenade center, to provide for additional theater signage. • 1701 W. Katella Avenue • Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Don Harton, address on file, stated he was with Cinemark and he was very anxious to maintain the character of the building. He had a lot of respect for the building. Mr. Atkinson was part of the company that had built it and they had not wanted to do anything that would compromise the character of the building and they were very anxious to exhibit the brand that they were trying to establish. It was new technology and it was a digital auditorium that made use of new opportunities digital cinema would provide for larger images. They would be maximizing the picture size in the auditorium; it would be wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling. It would be big sound with a big picture and there would be nice seats and it would be an immersive experience. It was called XD, extreme digital cinema, and the packet included a presentation of what they had done around the country. They were establishing a brand and their prime competitors were Regal Theatres and AMC. The other theatres were trying to catch up as they had been caught off-guard and they would have 40 auditoriums in the works and their competitors were also attempting to establish a brand using the X as well. It was important that their brand would be a clear brand and recognizable such as Century Theatres or Coca Cola that were recognized. They wanted the character on the building and he understood the cabinet sign issue. He was willing to work with the DRC to resolve the issue. They had done that in other places as the Staff Report had noted. They had separated the brand elements from the cabinet sign and the sign company had reviewed other ways to incorporate "deco" elements. He was not pleased with what they had come up with; he felt that had not read "deco" and he presented some examples to the Committee Members. He wanted to introduce some other sign features and he presented them with a sample that had a red outline. If it was needed they could do the same thing on the other side of the blade sign, they had not felt it was necessary, however, if the DRC wanted some of the "deco" elements added to the other sign they could do that. Public Comment None. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 10 of 16 Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not so concerned about the deco style of the building. There were other signs in the shopping center and it was not a historic building. It was an important new technology and they needed to be progressive, not regressive, in the DRC's approach to some of these items. The City of Orange had an Old Towne and they had done a good job to preserve it. He had not seen Orange as a regressive town just because they had Old Towne and the project was not a part of that. There were people who had wanted to design buildings around the town in an Old Towne style and lie questioned that since they were not in Old Towne. Perhaps he had not understood this sign; the City had an important standard that had to do with steering away from plastic box signs that were illuminated from behind. However, this sign was anything but individual letters; it was a total opposite of it. It's a dynamic sign; put anything in there, that's the beauty of it. Mr. Harton stated that wasn't the dynamic image. There were individual letters on the self- contained custom background. The reason they had invented the cabinet sign and the reason it was seen in so many places was that it reduced the number of penetrations to the buildings. Committee Member Woollett stated it was a 30' long sign that was 20' high that appeared exactly like the exhibit the applicant had introduced. It was a cabinet sign. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was huge, and larger than anything they generally approved. Mr. Harton stated it was not a digital sign at all. Committee Member McCormack stated if the sign was tilted it could look like a big screen T.V. Committee Member Woollett asked why had they not used individual letters? The box could be removed and the individual elements could be placed on the building. It was the standard in town and what they liked. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a huge cabinet sign and contrary to the provisions. Committee Member Woollett stated not only was it a cabinet sign, it was "in your face" as far as the standards were concerned. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had three concerns; he disagreed very much that the sign was appropriate and the sign program very clearly stated the sign should be compatible with the building and he had not believed it was. He agreed with Staff that the sign should be more compatible. It was so big, a big lighted rectangle up there. He suggested instead of the cabinet sign they could use a deco frame that was just paint on the wall, or paint on stucco with individual channel letters inside. The other problem he had with it was the building was very symmetrical and to have one asymmetrical element on just one side; it probably would not be seen from the east side of the property. He suggested that if they used a painted frame and some sort of painted search light pattern behind it and an overhead illumination, the channel letter elements could be used and the sign element would be smaller than the rectangular frame. With a smaller sign area, they could use two signs, one on each side. He had looked around and run City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 11 of 16 across a motif that they could have used in an original sign and he presented a photo of the example he spoke of. They might use a sunburst form which would keep more within the building design than the design the applicant presented. Mr. Harton stated he understood they had not had a problem with the content, but with the frame. Just for the record, the huge plastic was not huge or plastic and it was not illuminated; it was an aluminum flat surface that the letters were mounted to. It was made in that manner to minimize penetration. Applicant, Robert Atkinson, address on file, stated it was a background that the letters would be attached to. Committee Member McCormack stated it was a background. Mr. Harton stated the X and the D and the extreme digital cinema were channel letters. Mr. Atkinson stated the letters would be illuminated, but not the background. Committee Member Woollett stated it was areverse-lit sign. Mr. Harton stated the channel letters would be reverse-lit and the background would not be lit at all. The applicants reviewed the sign with the Committee Members. Committee Member Gladson stated she would call it a stylized cabinet sign and she personally thought it was putting lipstick on a pig in a sense. It was just dressing up a cabinet and she concurred with what Committee Member Wheeler had stated. She found it disappointing that the sign program had been amended last summer and they had reviewed the issues with other signs in the shopping center. There were wonderful glowing purpose statements and design objectives in the City's sign program to just dismiss those and go toward a cabinet sign imagery that had not connected to the other signs in the shopping center or the theatre. She had not had a problem with branding or with the wording. She wanted the sign to be compatible. Committee Member McCormack stated they were attempting to advertise big and that was what he saw in it. He agreed with what was stated; if that was what they were attempting to state to people was that it was a huge plasma screen, they could use it as a sculptural item. It really was big. He felt the sign should be on the other side (east side) as most people came from that side. Mr. Atkinson stated when facing the theatre the sign would be on the left side facing the parking field and if it was on the other side it would be facing the patio of Prime Cut Cafe. Committee Member Wheeler stated he proposed they place a sign on both sides. Ms. Thakur stated they might have a problem with that as the sign program limited the applicant to a specific amount of square footage and only four signs. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 12 of 16 Committee Member McCormack stated if he was already in the parking lot and was walking toward the theatre he already knew it was there; but if he was at Prime Cut Cafe and the sign was on the other side, he would suggest having it on that side to advertise that the movie was there. Committee Member Gladson stated she would already know the movie was in 3D if she was going there; the fun part was that now she would see the branding. If she wanted to watch a 3D movie she would go where it was convenient. The branding had not bothered her as long it was executed well. Mr. Harton stated it was not just 3D movies; it was for any movie that was played big. Committee Member Gladson stated it would be an innovative thing in that theatre and demonstrated from a more harkening form of technology of how a sign was done would not do it justice in her opinion. Mr. Harton asked what would they suggest as to what would be a new way to do it? Committee Member Gladson stated the new way to do a sign was not with a cabinet. They could use channel letters with some form of halo or use of neon. It would not be the old way of the 50's and 60's with a box. Mr. Harton asked if she understood that they were not proposing a traditional box? Mr. Atkinson stated it was a mounting surface. Mr. Harton stated in many respects the background could be duplicated on both sides; the search lights which would be a very deco concept could be duplicated on both sides as a new panel that filled the space it would be in keeping with the architecture of the building. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant had wanted the box due to the transformer. Mr. Harton stated it would be easier. Committee Member Woollett stated it could be a very narrow element and the electrical components could be remoted from a separate box and connected by wiring and it could be made to be very un-box like if it was very thin. Mr. Harton commented, in reviewing how the sign was made, they had attempted to play that up by using the red crinkle effect around the edge. It would be a thin piece of metal, illuminated from the back of the panel. They had tried to dissolve the edge. Committee Member Woollett asked what could be done to minimize the distance from points he referred to on the drawings? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Harton stated it was 12" off of the wall. What they had done was to dematerialize the edge to give the appearance of having less there. The idea of having it be remote to the transformers was certainly possible and it would not be too difficult; however, each letter would require a penetration. Committee Member Woollett stated not necessarily; the wires could be very thin and run through a few holes. Mr. Harton stated 12" was not a very deep cabinet sign and would allow them to build something structurally sound and they had attempted to dematerialize the edge. He suggested that they not use the vertical sides and extend the sign to the existing plane and on one side it had gone to the existing blade sign and on the other side it reached the vertical element. They could almost make it appear as if the vertical panel went away and there could be the corrugation at the top and bottom to remind them of the sort of drapery. Committee Member Woollett stated he was attempting to come up with ideas as he had felt there was a strong objection to the box; he was coming up with some ideas that would mitigate that. Chair Cathcart stated there were ways to reduce the 12". Committee Member Wheeler asked how the applicant felt about using a painted frame instead of a box? Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant was concerned with all the penetrations and he felt using a very thin element for wires to run behind it would eliminate the problem and there would not be an apparent box. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could use more of a frame that felt like part of the building with some depth and possibly a few inches of furring out in that area for wiring. Mr. Atkinson stated it was a very large building. The sign would not be visible up close due to the eyebrow of the building; from 75' away they would not be able to differentiate 12" from 24". Mr. Harton stated they would never see the edge. Committee Member Gladson stated the sign was primarily intended for the parking lot field. Mr. Atkinson stated that was correct; it was to gain maximum visibility for the patrons parking on the site. Mr. Harton commented that it was also for the patrons driving by. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had considered having the sign on one of the tower elements? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Harton stated he had seen that as an alternative. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would work for the symmetry and would not appear unbalanced; it was a large area that could be more visible from the parking lot. The Committee Members discussed the location on the tower. Committee Member Gladson stated she was not opposed to a cabinet if used in the concept that it fit and it was not her favorite sign. She had seen so many poorly done signs and it was such a tremendous shopping center. Staff had recommended a continuance in order for recommendations and suggestions to the applicant and she felt that was a good recommendation. Committee Member Wheeler suggested using materials that were more compatible with the building and to not use foreign materials that had not existed on the building. Chair Cathcart stated he was sensing a continuance; he asked Staff what the next date would be for the applicant to return to the DRC? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Staff Reports would go out Friday for the May 19th meeting; they would need to get something together quickly to go to that meeting. As soon as the applicant could get something together they could be placed on the Agenda for the next available meeting date. Ms. Thakur stated she felt the next meeting they could probably present at would be the June 2, 2010 meeting. Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt they would be able to use a banner sign in the interim. Mr. Harton stated he had heard a couple of different directions; one being if they could find a location for the sign away from the entry that a single sign would be acceptable. If they wanted to do something at the center they would need to address both sides. The Committee Members agreed those suggestions would work. Mr. Harton asked if some of their concerns were mitigated by the way the cabinet worked and that it was not one big illuminated cabinet. Committee Member Woollett stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler stated it still felt like a big metal box and that was what he objected to. Committee Member Gladson stated the halo effect was an innovative way of illumination and she liked neon. The proposed sign had appeared foreign to the imagery there and especially in respect to the goals of the sign program. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 15 of 16 Committee Member Wheeler stated neon would be acceptable and it could add some fun deco affects. The Committee reviewed the suggestions for locations of the proposed signs with the applicants. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to continue DRC No. 4479-10, Stadium Promenade Revised Sign Program, with the suggestions discussed with the applicants. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 5, 2010 Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled DRC meeting on Wednesday, May 19, 2010. The meeting adjourned @6:32 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.