Loading...
2010-07-21 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL July 21, 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 Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session and asked if there were any changes to the Agenda? There were none. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the regular Design Review Committee Meeting of July 7, 2010. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All members of the Design Review Committee were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on _y matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 2 of 23 All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 7, 2010 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Design Review Committee Meeting of July 7, 2010, with changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson 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 July 21, 2010 Page 3 of 23 (2) DRC No. 4480-10 -KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal to remove and replace the wall signs on the building and the free-standing signs on the lot. • 2469 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do uyen rr,ci , oforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler stated he had questions on the item and asked that the item be removed from Consent and opened for discussion with the reading of the Staff Report waived. Chair Cathcart stated he would remove the item from the Consent Calendar and opened the item for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated in reviewing the plans it would be so much better if the signs on the west and south facing tower were the same size and shape. He had spoken with Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, earlier and suggested that the sign on the west side be as large as the sign on the south side. He understood that would be a very difficult thing to do. Ms. Nguyen stated it would not be in compliance with the Orange Municipal Code. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the sign on the south side be changed to the same size as the sign proposed for the west side; he asked how the applicant felt about that change? Applicant, Angel Alexander, address on file, stated it was a cost issue. Currently, what they had proposed was to change the faces of the sign only. It would be a significant cost issue to change the sign and the corporation would choose not to do that and to remain with the same. sizes as proposed. Committee Member McCormack stated it was just a face change. Committee Member Gladson stated her thought was that it was a sign program; the applicant could essentially agree to what was being suggested in terms of matching the two wall signs and have an approved sign program. They could maintain the non-conforming sign for a period of time until the applicant's budget allowed a change. She asked if that would be an option? Ms. Nguyen stated it was not actually a sign program. All the signs in the C-TR Zone, since they are in the redevelopment area and had never gone before the DRC needed to come before them when there was a sign change; therefore, it was not technically a sign program. It was for permitting purposes only. Committee Member McCormack stated that on the two signs that Committee Member Wheeler spoke about, he asked if it was possible to move the signs? Ms. Nguyen asked if the suggestion was to move the west elevation sign closer to the middle of the building elevation, which is above the door? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 4 of 23 Committee Member McCormack stated yes, he was just suggesting as he had not wanted it to be a cost issue as it was a face change. Ms. Nguyen stated the sign could be moved to the most northern tower. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would work too and it would work in getting rid of the symmetrical tower having an asymmetrical sign. Ms. Alexander stated one of the things that prohibited going with a larger sign on the south west tower facing Tustin Street was that there were address numbers on the building; the west side contained the address and took away from the opportunity to place a larger sign there. They would need to apply for a variance to go with a larger sign. Her thought was that the signs were not symmetrical in two ways; the actual size of the sign and also as far as the shape, one was more of a square and the other a rectangle. She asked if they would consider changing the square sign to a more rectangular form. Committee Member Wheeler stated the signs were not symmetrical and the tower was basically symmetrical on the 45 degree axis. If one sign was just a little bit different it would be worse and he supported moving the sign to one of the other planes. Ms. Nguyen stated on the west building elevation, since the northern tower had a larger vertical plane, perhaps a larger sign could be placed there. Committee Member Wheeler stated possibly they could go with a sign that was the same height as the sign on the south tower. Ms. Nguyen stated they would need to review the measurements. Ms. Alexander stated it would require going through a variance. Ms. Nguyen stated no, on the west side because the vertical surface was only 8'-8 1/2", and they measured from below the cornice to the top of the awning; but on the northern tower the vertical surface was larger and there would be more space. A variance would not be required as there was more space to calculate the 2/3 height requirement. Committee Member Wheeler stated if the applicant stayed with the 7'-1" sign height on the south, the sign on the west could be 4'-6" wide and would comply with the restrictions. Committee Member Gladson stated that would get the applicant out of a need for a variance and was a positive thing from her perspective. Ms. Nguyen stated she imagined there was already electrical on the north tower since there had been an A & W sign there previously. Ms. Alexander stated she believed they had clipped the electrical on that elevation when they had gone in and it would be a possibility to do that. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 5 of 23 Committee Member Wheeler asked if there were any plans for a second canopy and another tenant? Ms. Alexander stated there would be only one tenant. Committee Member Wheeler stated if everyone was in agreement he would propose that a condition be added to move the sign on the west side of the building to the northern tower element and that the sign be the same height as the proposed sign on the south elevation, but of a width to comply with the sign code. Committee Member McCormack asked what area would the sign be more visible from? Ms. Nguyen stated the western side of the building was visible from Tustin Street, however, when driving northbound on Tustin, both signs were visible. Ms. Alexander stated the signs were visible, but there was the building right next door that hid some of the visibility and the sign could not be seen until driving right up on it. That was a concern, but there was also a monument sign. Ms. Nguyen stated Staff would ask the applicant to provide the measurement of the vertical surface and she asked the DRC to clarify whether the vertical surface was from the base of the cornice or from the base of the arched ends? Committee Member Wheeler stated the upper limit of the vertical plane would be measured from the underside of the cornice as measured in line from the side edges of the sign. Committee Member Gladson asked for clarity, if page 6 would be omitted? Ms. Nguyen stated it would be omitted and the rest of the document repaginated. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4480-10, Kentucky Fried Chicken Sign Program, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. That the sign on the western elevation be moved to the northern-most tower and centered on that tower. 2. That the sign on the west elevation be the same height (or 2/3 of the height of the vertical plane as measured from the soffit over the awning to the underside of the cornice) as the proposed new sign on the south side of the building and the width of the sign be adjusted to comply with the Code requirements. SECOND: Tim McCormack 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 July 21, 2010 Page 6 of 23 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4449-09 - AT&T WIRELESS FACILITY • A proposal to convert a monopole to a monopine, increase the height of the structure, add four equipment cabinets, and add one GPS antenna. • 595 The City Drive • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dngu~n(a~cit o~ forange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Scott Longhurst, address on file, stated there were a number of issues they faced with the project; there were four parcels that the project affected, there was a property line that ran along the southern border of the project, and a second property line that ran along the eastern border of the project. They had been working diligently with the County to allow the additional space to allow AT&T to place their equipment there. Currently the site was actually owned by a third party real estate company, Crown Castle, and they leased the space for -the tower and within the compound to the wireless carriers. Metro PCS and Sprint had all the available space taken up with their equipment at that site. AT&T was proposing to lease additional space to the east from the County that would be incorporated into Crown Castle's entire lease area. Additionally there was a proposal to remove the existing mono-pole and replace it with a pine tree pole to screen all the antennas. The proposed AT&T antennas, as well as the Metro PCS and Sprint antennas, would be installed on the new pole. They understood the issues brought forth from Staff regarding screening, however, they were precluded from installing a new CMU block wall and that was primarily due to the existing block wall being a retaining wall that supported the pad and other structures on the east side. There was a 3' to 4' grade separation that sloped from east to west. There were some concerns that the footing of the existing retaining wall would not be sufficient in supporting an additional 8' of block wall. They had not received approval from the County to demo and remove the existing wall and install a new one. Currently there was a 3' to 4' existing chain link fence that was installed on top of that wall. There was also some, for lack of a better description, wreath material at the top of the wall for screening and AT&T's equipment would be housed at the back of that area. He was available to hear the DRC's thoughts and suggestions for enclosing the equipment and he was not certain a CMU wall would work; not known if there was enough space. Along the front side there was a strip for landscaping and it fell within the County's property; the plants had not done well as the County had shut off the water supply to that area. There was an entire myriad of issues they were attempting to overcome. The bottom line was that AT&T was willing to spend a considerable amount of money to remove the existing pole and install a new one and to address the aesthetic impact. One possibility would be to install slats into the fencing or other options, other than the CMU block. Along the animal shelter and along the wall to the prison there was a slat material and they would be happy to match that. He pointed out those areas on the plans. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 7 of 23 Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to clarify where the requirement for a block wall came from? Ms. Nguyen stated in the OMC Section 17.12.025, there was required screening for equipment of a CMU wall or wrought iron with landscaping. Committee Member Woollett asked what would be wrong in extending the wrought iron fence which was 8' high across the east side and installing plants. He liked the idea of having the Bougainvillea there and the entire area would be enclosed and not by an ugly block wall which would invite graffiti. It would be a fence with landscape. Ms. Nguyen stated there was a concern with planting as there was only a 3" area for that. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the fence with the Bougainvillea would be a compromise and he was not hot on stealth equipment, but it would appear better than it currently was. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was another type of fence rather than wrought iron that could be used? Committee Member Woollett stated he thought it should match what already existed out there. Chair Cathcart stated there was the issue with the 3" of planting space. Mr. Longhurst stated there might be additional room there. There needed to be room for the equipment cabinet doors to open, but there was actually a foot or so of space for that door swing. They could place planting all around the enclosure. There was existing Bougainvilleas along the west side, that needed water. Ms. Nguyen stated that area had about 8" of planting space and those had been 1 gallon plants that had been placed there approximately 1'/2 years ago. Chair Cathcart stated the plants needed water. Mr. Longhurst stated here was an irrigation system that fell outside of the lease area and was controlled by the County. It was something they could speak to the County about. Committee Member Wheeler stated they had reviewed other projects where the entire equipment area was enclosed with a metal solid screen wall. They could use powder coated horizontal panels. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 8 of 23 Ms. Nguyen stated there was a concern with the Police Department that if they used a solid structure that it would need some type of roof enclosure. Committee Member Wheeler stated that would get into a height problem. Ms. Nguyen stated the owner of the ice bridge, which was Metro PCS, would be willing to lower their ice bridge from below the current 8' to allow for a roof enclosure. She was not certain how low it could be. The AT & T cabinets were just under 8'. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had a wall with some other material other than CMU, could they use a mesh roof that could have a curve to it that would maintain the height needed in the center and maintain the height at the perimeters so a variance would not be needed? Ms. Nguyen stated if the arched center was higher than 8' it would require a variance. Applying for a variance was not an issue, as they had to go to the Planning Commission anyway, but it was more of what would fit and what materials could be used. Mr. Longhurst stated the pole was approximately 65' to the top of the antennas and the additional height would be for the foliage of the faux tree that would add to the height of the antenna to 70' . ~,, .,; Committee Member Gladson stated if a wireless operator was going to the expense of installing a stealth mono-pole tree and they were quibbling over the installation of an equipment enclosure it was silly to her. Mr. Longhurst stated he agreed; if it was just an AT&T facility there would not be an issue. Committee Member Gladson stated there were many sites that had multiple providers throughout Orange County. Applicant, Beth Broussard, address on file, stated there were constraints due to the leases on the separate parcels. Committee Member Gladson stated they could find another location. Mr. Longhurst stated they could walk away. Committee Member Gladson stated she was in support of having a stealth pole, however, she was in support of a CMU wall. Committee Member Wheeler asked wouldn't a solid metal enclosure be just as good? Committee Member Gladson stated that would be fine, it just needed to be screened. Ms. Broussard stated the problem with a CMU block wall was the additional space needed for the footing and there was just not that space; it placed them within the space of the parking lot and onto another parcel. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 9 of 23 Committee Member Wheeler stated they had issues with the structural elements and the restrictions on the site. Ms. Nguyen asked what had the County stated when the applicant had approached them with their concerns? Ms. Broussard stated the County had not wanted to allow them anymore space and the lease had not yet been signed for the proposed project. The County wanted to see what conditions would be imposed prior to finalizing the lease. They had asked for more space on the other side of the parking lot to allow them to water and landscape; and they were still in negotiations for that space. Committee Member Gladson stated she totally understood that it was all in the dollar amounts connected to the project and figuring where everyone could meet at a happy medium; she was reviewing the project -from a purely aesthetic perspective and compliance with the Orange Municipal Code. Mr. Longhurst stated they were fine with a solid wall as long as they could meet the engineering aspects of one. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they used a solid wall could they move it to the south and fill in that odd triangular area? Mr. Longhurst stated that area was used as a walkway and they used it when they walked the dogs from the animal shelter. It was a concrete pathway along that south side, along the fence and the wall. Committee Member McCormack asked for a clarification of the parcel and the current location of the antenna. Mr. Longhurst reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. Committee Member McCormack stated he came from a different point of view and why he had asked where the parcel lines were, because if it had not been a constraint and now he knew it was, he would suggest just creating planting areas; landscaping was cheaper and to take out some asphalt areas which he pointed to on the plans. Leave the parking, put in a tree well, and start planting. Mr. Longhurst stated there was a high to low grade there and a retaining wall. Committee Member McCormack stated he was not suggesting removing the wall; he was suggesting screening with bamboo or maybe pines in the area of the walkway in front of the existing wall, heavily landscape it. It appeared that there were so many factors in dealing with the fencing, there was already three of them and then there was the Christmas wrap material and it seemed that they could ask to expand the landscape and to have it appear that the stealth antenna had "pups" next it and he was not certain it was even feasible. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 10 of 23 Mr. Longhurst stated currently the County had not given them approval beyond the lease hold area. Ms. Broussard stated they had been attempting for over a year to rent the space the parking lot came up to in order to maintain the landscape that was there. Ms. Nguyen stated the landscaping was dying in that area. The applicant and Committee Members reviewed the plans and the landscape areas. Chair Cathcart stated it appeared to him that there needed to be a meeting to discuss if there would be landscaped areas and they needed to have water to the site. Ms. Broussard stated it was the County's property, water, and landscape. Ms. Nguyen stated when Metro PCS came through with their installation it included an irrigation plan and there had been water to the site; however, it was not being watered enough or the water had been shut off, which they had not confirmed. They knew the plants were stunted; Howard Morris from the City's Community Services Department had visited the site and confirmed the landscape problems were due to lack of water. Committee Member Gladson stated it would seem that Metro PCS would need to take up that matter separately. Committee Member McCormack stated he felt there was a landscape solution, but they needed a better site plan and water. Chair Cathcart stated in his experience with the County if the applicant was willing to do the maintenance they would provide the water. Mr. Longhurst stated it was another issue as they were not leasing directly from the County; they were leasing from a third party who leased from the County. It was Crown Castle who they paid and they were a tenant in the building, so to speak. They were negotiating with Crown and the County to see what they could do. AT&T was willing to pay for the pole and then it would be deeded back to Crown Castle. They would spend $100,000.00 putting in the fake pole and it would not end up being AT&T's property. Ms. Nguyen stated she had been in contact with Crown Castle and they were willing to meet with all parties, but they wanted to understand the direction of the DRC first. Committee Member Gladson stated she was curious when a stealth pine tree antenna was put in, would there need to be input about the other trees in the area needing to match and were they appropriate. In her view the stealth antennas stuck out more than anon-stealth as they had no relationship to a tree it was next to, and was there a way to integrate the new antenna with the area around it. Chair Cathcart stated the task of the DRC was to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and he would be thinking in terms of a continuance of the item to get further City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 11 of 23 ~...:.. clarification on the landscape options. The solution had many factors and input from various agencies. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want the equipment cabinet to have a solid enclosure with landscaping around it. The profile of the faux tree in the drawing was very different from the faux tree in the simulations and he liked the profile in the drawings and would want the measurements of the foliage at the bottom shown. Committee Member Woollett stated all stealth trees were not the same in regard to how far apart the branches were, how thick they were, and other factors; he wanted more information on the tree. Chair Cathcart stated the tree should not appear to be the only tree out there. Mr. Longhurst stated the site had some existing Pine trees. Committee Member Gladson stated she would want to see how the new antenna related to other trees on the site. Chair Cathcart stated he had an aversion to fake trees. If they added other trees with it and it had not stood alone that might allow the fake tree to blend in better. Mr. Longhurst stated the issue was the space constraints and the area they would have to work with whether there would be room for more trees or not. Committee Member McCormack stated his personal feeling was that the wireless antenna towers should become art pieces. They could treat the antenna as a work of art, if it was going to be out there they should attempt to soften it. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were cell towers along the 241 toll road that looked like oil derricks. Chair Cathcart stated he would rather have the antenna look nothing like a tree. Mr. Longhurst stated there was a large radio tower behind the proposed site. Committee Member Gladson stated the area was a commercial corridor and there were public facilities there. Ms. Nguyen stated Staff had pulled some stock photos provided by a stealth provider and AT&T was proposing to install a tree and it would be a tree similar to a photo she provided the Committee. There were gaps between the branches and the tree was denser and the antennas were a bit more hidden and she wanted input from the DRC on which tree they preferred. The Committee Members reviewed the photos and gave Ms. Nguyen their preferences. Committee Member Wheeler stated if they went with a tree he preferred the Santa Barbara example. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 12 of 23 Committee Member Woollett stated if they were to take the suggestion from Committee Member McCormack it would take a few more meetings to review the details and make suggestions. If something like that was undertaken it would set a precedent and reverberate throughout the State. Mr. Longhurst stated there had been a few of those designs done with cell towers. Along the 91 freeway there was a parking lot with a 4-legged tower and a clock at the top and it was adjacent to the freeway and the antennas were strapped to the legs of the tower and they were painted the same color to integrate them. There were many options to consider and also the fact that all the antennas on the tower had not belonged to AT&T. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4449-09, AT&T Wireless Facility, with the suggestions and recommendations made by the Committee Members. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson 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 July 21, 2010 Page 13 of 23 (4) DRC No. 4472-10 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY • A proposal to locate six panel antennas and one GPS antenna on an existing SCE tower, and to locate four equipment cabinets in a CMU enclosure with the roof. • Portico Terrace & Eaton Road (SCE Easement) • Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a,ci oforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Alexander Lew, address on file, stated to echo what Ms. Thakur had stated, his architect in preparing details for a Spanish the topper, because they were going parallel to the legs it appeared a little funny and it was practically vertical and placing tiles on a vertical surface was not aesthetically pleasing. Utilizing smaller equipment cabinets that just got rolled out they were able to modify the site design to shrink in the overall lease area and maintain the 2' stealth appearance that Southern California Edison required. The height of the CMU wall was increased from 6' to 7'-6" to screen the equipment with the addition of a wrought iron topper. He hoped the revised design was a better fit. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted to ask the applicant a favor; to take the architect out and buy him a beer and pat him on the back. He was going to suggest getting rid of the the roof. Ms. Thakur stated that had come about when the applicant initially proposed the design for the enclosure; it was a CMU wall that was just 6' tall and the equipment was still visible and the code required a screen and some type of topper for the enclosure. Committee Member Wheeler stated the proposed design presented was far better and he wanted to suggest on the block that they use split face block; however, he was not certain, but that would be a graffiti issue. If there was a lot of split face block in that neighborhood the enclosure could have two courses of split face block at the top of the wall to appear as a cap or cornice just to tie it in and that should not be a graffiti issue. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4472-10, Royal Street Communications Facility, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Inclusion of the revised design for the equipment enclosure that was presented to the DRC at this July 21, 2010 meeting. 2. Split face block shall be used at the upper top two courses of the enclosure. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 14 of 23 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 July 21, 2010 Page 15 of 23 (5) DRC No. 4484-10 -CITY PLAZA SHADE CANOPY • A proposal to install a shade canopy to cover eight parking spaces at a parking lot for an office building. • 1 City Boulevard West • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r ag rcia(a~cityoforan~e.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicants, Dion Botha and Crystal Wishart, addresses on file, were available to answer any questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member McCormack stated he was curious with the idea behind the proposal and he asked if the shade canopy would be for the employee of the month? Ms. Wishart stated it was for a high profile tenant, for the CEO and his staff. Committee Member Woollett stated it might set a precedent and there may be a request for more. He thought it was a good idea. Committee Member Wheeler stated his feeling was that if others wanted a similar structure they could use the proposed project. as a guideline for others. On the drawing he thought there was a problem and he presented his own drawing. He explained that on the width of the end landscape element with the beams on each end of the form, if they were actually as small as shown compared to the overall 36', it would stick way out into the line of possible travel. His guess was that the landscape element was 30' and a 36' beam was shown, therefore, it would leave 3' sticking out. It was a concern with 8' off of the pavement; if there were no cars parked there the temptation would be to come around and hit it with a truck. Mr. Botha stated the beam Committee Member Wheeler was referring to would be at its lowest point 10'. Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawing showed 8'. Mr. Botha stated it would be 10'; 8' would be too low. The highest they could go was 12', but that would be too high in terms of the shade and the angles coming in. The peak of the roof was another 4' and it would become too high. At 10' it would work and it was engineered for 10'. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 16 of 23 ~..~, Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no other issues with the proposal and he thought it would be a nice addition to the development. His hunch would be that on future proposals they would want to have them be similar. Committee Member Gladson asked if rain would go through the material? Mr. Botha stated due to the pitch of the structure the rain would run off of it, and slowly start misting through it. He presented a sample of the material that would be used for the shade canopy. Committee Member Gladson stated it would be mainly for sun protection. Mr. Botha stated a lot of the rain would run off, but it would slowly mist through and the material was not waterproof. Committee Member Woollett stated he had seen a lot of the enclosure material used extensively where they had very little rain, but a huge amount of sun. Parking lots and such would use it. Mr. Botha stated it was found a lot in Australia. The product came from Australia. Committee Member McCormack asked if the canopy would need lighting? Mr. Garcia stated that was a discussion that Staff had with the Orange Police Department and given the material they felt there would be adequate lighting that would come through the shade cover. There was a condition that stated once the installation was complete Public Safety would visit the site and verify that there was adequate lighting. Committee Member Wheeler asked if it would be wise to wire the structure for lighting? Mr. Botha stated that would not be a bad idea and they could run the conduit on the outside of the columns or internally with a bracket at the top for lighting. There would be a cost for internal cabling. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would need to be internal and it might be a benefit to have that in place in case there was a need for lighting. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked the proposed canopy. Regarding the size of the structure, it was in conflict with the parking lot ordinance as there needed to be one tree for every four parking spaces in a parking lot, and if the beam fell in the end island it could present a problem. He pointed out where the trees in the lot needed to be and stated they could run into some problems with the size of the structure. Chair Cathcart stated it fit the location. Committee Member Gladson stated it was an existing parking lot. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 17 of 23 Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4484-10, City Plaza Shade Canopy, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional condition: 1. Assess the lighting needs and to have that determined prior to construction for installation of internal conduit if lighting was needed. 2. The height of the beam shall be 10' SECOND: Adrienne Gladson 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 July 21, 2010 Page 18 of 23 ... (6) DRC No. 4487-10 - EL CAMINO CENTER SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal for a sign program at an existing center. • 1615-1649 W. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r arcia(a,ci oforange_org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report Applicant, Zachary Sham, address on file, stated Mr. Garcia had done a great job and wanted to thank him for that. He disagreed on the ST3 signs; he would rather sacrifice some internal signs. Those business owners that sat in the breezeway would not be visible without any front signage. The other signs could be eliminated, but those tenants needed signage to identify that they were there. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item for discussion by the Committee Committee Member Wheeler stated he -was a bit confused as the drawings included the parapets that were approved a few years ago and he asked if the intention was that the signs would not be as large as shown and modified when the parapet areas were complete? Mr. Sham stated that was correct; the signs would go in after the parapet completion. Mr. Garcia stated in regard to the facade improvements, the permits were just waiting for the applicant to pull. Committee Member Gladson asked if the sign program retained the ability to have a tenant's sign be channel letters mounted to a raceway? Applicant, David Terrack, address on file, stated yes, that was correct. When tenants changed, there would be only two penetrations in the wall. Committee Member Gladson stated raceways were often where debris and dirt tended to fill up, it was the lesser of two evils, the maintenance or the repair. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not remembered approving a raceway sign since he had been on the Committee. He suggested that the existing raceway signs be allowed to stay as long as needed, but any new signs be surface-mounted. Committee Member Gladson stated she agreed. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 19 of 23 Mr. Sham stated it was one of the options. They had options of standard channel letters, LED- mounted, or mounting on a raceway. As he had understood the requirement, once 60% of the signs were updated, all the remaining signs would also need updating. There were some tenants who had been there for a very long time and to reach 60% could be a long way out and the reason they wanted to have options. Committee Member Wheeler stated on each building elevation all signs would need to be mounted in the same manner, whether that be set off on pegs or flush-mounted. Mr. Sham stated he agreed. Committee Member Gladson stated from the Staff Report she understood that the applicant wanted some feedback on the monument sign and they had presented two details to weigh in on. She had a couple of thoughts and she was referring to options 1 and 2 on pages 14 and 15. Personally, the sign appeared very busy to her as there was a lot of text on it. She would suggest simplifying the sign and she liked option 2 with the reversed-out tenant panels. She was aesthetically bugged by doing the address along the side of the monument sign and she was not certain it was legible in that orientation; she was more inclined to having a base with the address at the bottom. Mr. Garcia stated if they added a base it would be too low, and when cars parked there the wr., . address would lose visibility. Committee Member Gladson stated she understood that logic. Mr. Sham stated he thought the numbers were very legible. Committee Member Gladson stated on the center courtyard area signage she thought it appeared very cluttered and tacky to have three signs. On the ST3 signs that had been suggested for removal on page 11 of the Sign Program, she felt it was very cluttered and created a lot of noise for their particular arrangement. Mr. Terrack stated they had discussed that issue and their feelings were if they needed to give up the little blade signs it would impact those smaller tenants that made their living on a day-to-day basis. They would be stating to those tenants that they were going to put them out of business. The tenants were listed on the monument sign, but the lettering was so small. The monument sign was arranged by major and minor tenants and due to the lease holds the major tenants had more space. They had spoken with the owners and had discussed taking all the other signs off of the project, those signs that were listed on page 13 and were little tenant copy signs. Without the signs up front the barbershop and fashion tailor would have a difficult time; he was concerned with the longevity of those businesses, especially with the current economy. Committee Member Wheeler suggested allowing the ST3 signs to remain, those that were currently on the beam and instead of removing the little hanging signs as shown on page 13, to remove the signs shown on page 12 as those signs were not visible unless a person was in the walkway. Those were the ST4 signs. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 ' Page 20 of 23 Mr. Terrack stated the signs on page 11 had been reduced in size; they were 17" x 46" and within the 6' maximum. He pointed out the existing sign on the drawings and stated they were larger than what they were proposing. They wanted to give the smaller businesses an opportunity to survive. Committee Member Wheeler stated the applicant could make the argument that even though the signs were not on the face of the portion of the building that they occupied, they were on the face of the buildings that lead to those tenants. It was an unusual situation with the breezeway. Mr. Garcia stated that was what they struggled with, whether the breezeway was considered a building face or just an architectural structure. Committee Member McCormack asked if the signs could be spread out a bit? The Committee Members discussed the option of adding space between the signs with the applicants. Mr. Terrack stated they could be spread out to about a 6" to 8" separation. Committee Member McCormack stated they could move the barbershop sign closer to the barbershop. Mr. Terrack stated the barbershop was the draw to that area. They had not wanted to cut their throats by stating the tenant could no longer have their sign. Occasionally people would look for a new barber and occasionally he changed barbers and a barber was different than a hair stylist, and they wanted to give that tenant an opportunity for new business too. Committee Member Gladson stated what she was wrestling with was the fact that they had before them a sign program that was in place for current and future tenants for that little adorable center; it had little niche market going and if the fashion tailor, barbershop, and the water guys were not there in a year she was not certain that she would want new tenants to have a sign out there again. She would be more inclined to come up with a pedestrian sign back there for them to see. She understood the position the owner had and she could probably get comfortable with a compromise if the signs could be designed as more of an upgrade. They were bothersome to her because they were channelized letters and she wanted to ensure that new signs complied with the sign program. Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt that what was proposed was more of an upgrade as the signs would have raised foam letters and the letters would be lit. Mr. Terrack stated there would be down-lighting and they were upgrading from the large fluorescent tubes that were currently there. It was a breezeway that they wanted to maintain for those minor tenants and the tenants also had to pay for the signage. Committee Member Gladson stated she sensed she might be in the minority in her thinking and if she made a motion to delete some of the signs from the site, but it was not a direction she would go in and she could get comfortable with a compromise on the ST4 signs. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 21 of 23 Committee Member Wheeler stated with the new fascia installed it would be a more prominent feature and the signs would not stand out so much. Mr. Terrack stated the signs that were out there now were approximately 3' and the new proposed signs were 17" and he would be speaking to the owners about the letter styles and he was inclined to have the letters be ''/Z" to 1" thick to allow for some dimension. The letters would be clean looking and easily changed out for new tenants. The owners had other shopping centers in the City of Orange and they catered to "mom and pop-type" businesses. Committee Member Gladson stated any new tenants would need to comply with the new sign program. Mr. Terrack stated he was aware of that, and after 60% of the tenants had new signage the remainder of the tenants would need to change. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were a few signs that would need to change once the new parapet went in. Committee Member Gladson stated she was not on the Committee when they had reviewed the other changes for the project and she asked if the monument sign would have the same treatment? Committee Member Wheeler stated that had been a condition. Mr. Garcia stated the top of the monument sign was reflective of the treatment used on the building facade. Committee Member McCormack stated the sign program listed four options; two were raceways and two were channel letters and they were internally-lit LED. The signs in the breezeway were lit differently with overhead bullet-style lighting. The elevation showed three signs with four lights and he would recommend that they be lit by just one light per sign; that way, it would appear a bit more focused. Mr. Terrack stated they would need to work with that as sometimes a spot of light would tend to just place light in the center of the sign. Committee Member McCormack stated there were bulbs that would eliminate that issue. Mr. Terrack stated the new signs that would go in with channel letters would be LED, as it was so green. Committee Member Gladson stated that was the new way and everyone used LED. Committee Member McCormack suggested instead of using MR16 bulbs in the overhead lights to use LED lights in those as well and there were bulbs that were made for that application. It was a nice white light. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2010 Page 22 of 23 Committee Member Gladson stated one of the things that was part of the sign program which she appreciated was the list of prohibited signs and it delineated to the tenants what they could and could not do. Mr. Terrack stated the signs that were installed currently were clean. Chair Cathcart stated he learned to read left to right and not top to bottom and the address was still a bit problematic in its proposed location. Committee Member Wheeler asked if it was possible to have the vertical address remain on the end, but to also add some simple address numbers at the base. They could keep the vertical address to comply with the Police Department requirements and add some vinyl numbers to the base. Mr. Garcia stated as long as it was duplication they would be okay with that. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4487-10, El Camino Center Sign Program, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. On page 7 of the sign program, the raceway option for new signs be eliminated; existing raceway signs may remain until the total of all new tenant signage reaches 60%. 2. On page 11 of the sign program, the ST3 signs be allowed to remain and to be separated by at least 8" vertically between signs and 3" lettering as called out on the plans (the applicant and Committee Members discussed the letter size prior to adding this condition). 3. There shall be only one light per sign. 4. On page 12 of the sign program, the ST4 breezeway signs be omitted. 5. On page 15 of the sign program, option No. 2 monument sign be used and an additional set of address numbers be added to the base of the sign. 6. LED lighting to be used. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson 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 July 21, 2010 Page 23 of 23 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Meeting on Wednesday, August 4, 2010. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. •.a;~: