Loading...
2011-06-15 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES — FINAL June 15, 2011 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:15 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. On Item No. 6, The Blue Frog, with one Committee Member absent and Committee Member Wheeler conflicted out of the item, there would not be a quorum to hear the item. Chair Cathcart stated the next item on the Agenda was "Policy & Procedural Information" and he asked Ms. Roseberry if there was anything to discuss. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, was present to provide a Brown Act 101 overview as there had been a few instances where people wanted to speak to the DRC members when their items were not agendized and had not taken "no" for an answer. She wanted to provide the Committee with a bit more knowledge in the event a similar situation came up. Mr. Sheatz handed out a pamphlet to the Committee Members. He stated there were two main things that he wanted to go over. The Brown Act was problematic with the DRC, as the meetings were held in an informal setting and there was a lot going on. Applicants came before them multiple times for direction and there was a lot of give and take. The Brown Act was not conducive to give and take; it was unfortunate and it was not a City law, but State law. The two things he wanted to hit on, was for agendized items, the Brown Act required that anything the Committee Members discussed in their meetings needed to be on the Agenda with a brief summary of what the item was. The purpose of that listing was to allow others to review the agenda and be present to hear the item. A problem was presented when a person came into the meeting to gain random feedback. Mr. Sheatz stated if the item was not on the agenda the DRC members could not participate in a discussion about the item. The best thing to do if that situation would arise, and Ms. Aranda Roseberry had dealt with the last situation, but they could explain and apologize to the person that based on State law the DRC members were not allowed to discuss non - agendized items. It was a very sterile, cold, and unfeeling type of answer. People City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 2 of 26 got upset, asking how could anything get done in government; but the people who wrote the Brown Act were not interested in those situations. It was one of the unintended consequences of the Brown Act. It was just a hard thing to enforce in the setting of a DRC meeting. It had been discussed at one time of moving the DRC meetings into the City Council Chambers to give it a more formal feel and possibly avoid having people just drop in for discussions. That was dismissed very quickly as it was not the right environment for the DRC and enabling them to get done what needed to get done. The Committee Members would need to focus only on those items that were on the agenda; they could blame their inability to speak on non - agendized items on the City Attorney's office and tell them to call. Mr. Sheatz stated the other subject he wanted to touch on was what constituted a meeting. Sometimes there were informal conversations that occurred and it might be Committee Member Cathcart and Committee Member Wheeler at Starbucks and they talked about a project and was that okay? The answer was "yes." They discuss the project and agree to support the project and on the way out of Starbucks, Committee Member Wheeler runs into Committee Member McCormack and he tells Committee Member McCormack that he had discussed the project with Committee Member Cathcart and provides him with the information that they would support the project. That discussion would be a Brown Act violation. Any discussion, comments, or information that was passed on in that manner would constitute a quorum; a quorum being the three members. Any discussion of that manner would need to be conducted in front of an audience. In Old Towne Orange, sweet, sweet Orange and everyone knew each other, and Committee Members ran into each other at the grocery store or Starbucks and that was where things became complicated. Mr. Sheatz stated that his earlier comment of "many things could be solved over a pint ", the minute three members became engaged in a conversation and it would not need to occur at that time, but even after would constitute a serial meeting. Any time information was exchanged and a subsequent discussion occurred that was a violation of the Brown Act. Chair Cathcart asked what would happen if he stood up at Starbucks and stated there would be a meeting there, tomorrow, and asked people to be there? Mr. Sheatz stated an agenda would need to be posted 72 hours in advance in a common public place. The City kiosks were used and the meetings were also posted on the internet. The meetings used to be posted at the Library until their hours became more limited and any time there was a limitation somewhere, the notices were posted elsewhere. There was a court case that stated on -line advertisements were not enough as internet access was not available for everyone. The notice needed to be posted where people could see them while walking by on their way to Sunday church, to take a peek at the kiosk, and see if there would be a meeting on Monday and be able to see what items were being posted on the agenda. Chair Cathcart asked inside the glass or outside the glass? Mr. Sheatz stated preferably inside the glass, as the notification needed to be protected. He stated that there had been an issue of three Committee Members in the restroom and would that constitute a meeting? Yes it would, as strange as that might be. They had not run across many issues at the DRC level and at the Planning Commission level it came up occasionally. He had one instance where two Planning Commissioners had a discussion regarding a project and they were discussing it via email; and he was copied on one of the emails. Mr. Sheatz stated that he pointed out to the two members that they should not be discussing a project via email and one City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 3 of 26 Commissioner had responded with the comment that he had been only emailing one other Planning Commissioner. At the current time there were only four Planning Commissioners on the Commission, and what if one of those had been conflicted out on the project and could they hear the item with only three Commissioners present, yes that would be a quorum, however, if two of those Commissioners had a previous project discussion would that constitute a Brown Act violation? The answer was "yes" as the majority of the quorum had engaged in a discussion. Even the one -on -one discussions could still be dangerous. Committee Member Wheeler stated in the paper last week there had been an article about a Supreme Court decision regarding a City Council member who had claimed that his vote was a freedom of speech issue; and in the article the Supreme Court Justices were questioning things that appeared to be part of the Brown Act and it was something that might need to be reviewed. Mr. Sheatz stated he had seen that article and there was chatter that there may be an overhaul of the Brown Act. In the environment that currently existed, any thought of ratcheting back Government was "D.O.A.," no one would bring it up and it was not going to happen. There was a lawyer that represented about a half -dozen cities and he was with a large public law firm that went on record stating that none of his City clients observed the Brown Act and that nobody paid any attention to it. That was ratcheted back pretty quickly and he had backtracked on his comments. It was his comments and feeling and it was not because the City officials had not wanted to comply, but it seemed to get in their way in trying to get business done. Mr. Sheatz encouraged the Committee Members to review the information he had provided to them and to contact the City Attorney's office if they had further questions. Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, asked if discussions between any DRC member and an applicant outside the meeting were permitted? Mr. Sheatz stated if it was one -on -one it was okay, but there was the chance that they might get into some due process issues if there was a comment made that if an applicant would complete "x, y & z" their project would be supported and that was bad and it would be a Brown Act violation. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the DRC meeting of June 1, 2011. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 4 of 26 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Woollett absent, and one open position. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. 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: June 1, 2011 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 1, 2011 Design Review Committee meeting with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 5 of 26 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4444 -09 — TUSKATELLA CENTER • A proposal to replace a sign program in order to implement conditions of approval into the sign program, add details for proposed monument signs, and provide additional clarification in the sign program. • 1303 -1549 E. Katella Avenue • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb(Jcityoforange.org • Sign Program previously approved at the DRC meeting of June 16, 2010 • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Cathcart opened the item for any questions for Staff or the applicant. Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 3 of the Staff Report, under existing site, it was written "except those in building J that were within 200' of the Katella right -of- way." He thought that was supposed to state more than 200'. Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct. It would be noted and corrected to read: more than 200'. Applicant, Dave Anderson, address on file, thanked Staff and the DRC for taking the time to provide comments to put together a good sign program that they could implement for their tenants. One of the things they wanted to focus on was the addition of the monument signs and to get those approved to allow them to move forward and get the old signs out. Kenny Adams was their sign guy and he had a lot of information on the monument signs and they thought the signs would be a great addition to the Tuskatella Center and with the remodel the new signs would fit in very well. Applicant, Kenny Adams, address on file, stated he had been working with Staff for months and ensuring that they were following along the same guidelines that were implemented into the sign program. Using like materials, he had samples for them to see. They had a sample of the foam pre -cast which would be on the top and lower portions of the monument sign and there would be powder- coated aluminum for the center of the monument. That material would stop the erosion that was occurring with the old sheet metal style. Public Comment None. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 6 of 26 Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had not had much of a chance to review the proposal as the original set of drawings they had received was blurry. He would have liked a little more time to review them. On sample sheet 1.1, on the sign area and sign height, where it listed sign area it stated within 200' of Katella and should read are more than 200' of Katella. He thought that there was a difference between the summary of their discussion and the minutes of that discussion; where sign height was discussed and on the next to the last line of the sign height; where it was stated shall be the vertical distance, it was stated to the top of the projecting element of cornice or trim strip to the bottom projecting element. He suggested it would read more clear if it was stated the distance from the top of the projecting element to the underside of the next projecting element above. That would apply to each sheet. The other thing that was still included, and had been discussed at the previous meeting, was the issue of the ascenders and decenders and whether or not those should be included in the sign height. Currently the sign heights assumed they were not included within the 2/3, but he remembered in their previous discussion that they had come to the conclusion that a strict interpretation of the height requirements would state that they would need to stay within the 2/3 area. Committee Member McCormack and Chair Cathcart agreed with his interpretation. Committee Member Wheeler stated the same comments would apply on sheet 1.2 and 1.3. On the monument sign it would be clearer if the maximum depth of the monument sign read no more than 20 ". That would be the depth from the sign face to the sign face and other projecting elements could exceed that distance. Mr. Adams stated the normal distance was 16" as far as the tenant area. They would not exceed that and stay with what was out there now. They would use a new frame and the existing pole that was in the ground. The ratio that currently existed would be used. Mr. Anderson stated they would replace like- for -like with new cornice and better quality materials. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that it would be nice if the cornice used would reflect other cornices on the project. Mr. Anderson stated they were trying to find a cornice that would fit within the rest of the Center. Mr. Adams stated they had taken photos of the cornice elements that existed and worked with the applicants to find something that would fit. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the description for the monument sign it was mentioned that the tenant cabinet would be powder - coated finish and was there a chance to texture that similar to the building? Mr. Adams stated it would be pre -cast at the top and the bottom. The walls were very smooth. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 7 of 26 Mr. Anderson stated the walls were very smooth and the elements that they were adding had the pre -cast look. The powder- coating of the actual panels themselves would be a bit much if textured, but they could do that on the cornice moldings and bottom piece. They were sticking with the same colors as those existing in the Center to tie everything together. The Committee Members reviewed the samples. Committee Member McCormack asked if the base of the sign was metal? Mr. Adams stated the base would be the same material as the top portion of the sign. Committee Member McCormack asked what the cabinet material would be? Mr. Adams stated it would be the powder- coated metal. Committee Member McCormack asked if there was lighting? Mr. Adams stated there would be lighting on both sides. They reviewed the plans. Committee Member McCormack stated his issue was always around the base of the sign to add some rock or something that would not need to be watered or mowed and it would also add to the general appearance of the sign over time. Mr. Anderson stated he appreciated that comment as one of the reasons they had to re -do the sign was due to the water damage of the sprinklers over time. They could add a buffer and change the direction of the sprinklers in that area. Committee Member McCormack stated he would suggest adding something at the base and have the gravel mulch match the color of the sign. Chair Cathcart stated changing the irrigation system would protect the sign. Committee Member McCormack stated on the landscape between the sign and the sidewalk to not get too fussy and to wash it all the way down. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4444 -09, Tuskatella Center, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Change the text on sheet 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3; of sign area to read: buildings that are more than 200' of the Katella right -of -way, rather than within 200'. To change sign height measurement to include ascending and descending portions of the letters and those to be included in the 2/3 sign requirement. Change the height of the wall sign band to be the vertical distance from the top of the projecting architectural element to the underside of the next projecting element above instead of reading "to the projecting architectural element." City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 8 of 26 2. Add note to the monument sign plan that the maximum depth shall be 20" from face of sign to face of sign. 3. Landscape to include an approximate 12" wide strip of gravel mulch around the sign in a color to match the cornice of the sign. To integrate it with the mow strip. 4. Adjust irrigation to keep water away from the sign. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 9 of 26 (3) DRC No. 4540 -11 - ORANGE CITY SQUARE • A proposal to modify an existing sign program and enhance the existing landscaping at an office /retail complex. • 750, 770, 790, & 840 The City Drive South • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Steve Whalen, address on file, stated they were excited to bring the design to the DRC and their hope was to enhance the project and campus and have it be more pleasing to the existing and future tenants. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated the sign program looked very good. On page 4 of the package if they could be clearer on how the sign area was being calculated. The information stated the sign area was calculated by adding the square footage of the logo of each sign for business face including the blank space between the logo and letter. The City defined the space using two sets of parallel lines and he wondered if they should add that to make it clearer. On page 9 and also on page 9.1 there was a dotted line and he was curious to what that referred to? Applicant, John Bishop, address on file, stated it was the outline for a cor -ten landscape box and that was how the rest of the program worked. It would be a hardscape element. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the face of the sign attached to it. Mr. Bishop stated the letters were in front of that and the letters engaged into it. The cor -ten was a monolithic piece with the sign on it, and in other areas the cor -ten curved and was just a monolithic piece. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was some brick shown for the sign face, but he had not seen any brick on the building. Mr. Bishop stated it was essentially a refurbishment of the existing sign that had a brick cabinet with a sort of pyramid shape that was done years ago and they used the existing brick which matched the three buildings. The cabinet would be repainted with an internally illuminated box with a cor -ten steel element. He reviewed the drawings with the Committee Members. There would be tubes that light went through. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 10 of 26 Committee Member Wheeler stated he had thought the building was stucco and it seemed a bit of a leap to take the brick all the way out to the base of that sign, but if there was existing brick, it was okay. Mr. Bishop stated it was their attempt to tie it all in. Chair Cathcart asked Mr. Garcia if there had been any problems with the tree calculation formula? Mr. Garcia stated no. Chair Cathcart stated it appeared with the parking and the room between the buildings and property lines that it should work. Committee Member McCormack asked for an overview of the landscape and what was there and what changes were they making? Applicant, Jim Ridge, address on file, stated they looked at the entire site and what existed. They had a bit of an aging center where some of the perimeter areas were okay and the parking areas had nothing out of the ordinary. In the people spaces was where they wanted to focus their attention on for phase 1. At the entry there would be the vertical sign as proposed, and taking out some of the Ficus trees that were obscuring the signage. They would use a new drought - tolerant landscape and shrubs in that area. In the central drive and entry area they would re -do the fountain area, where the geometry would not be changed too much, but there was handicap accessibility and they would come in with a new concrete paver that would be light in color and give it a fresh look. Around the water feature there was a step -down and they proposed a small seat wall around that feature. The planting currently on the outside perimeters were skyline Palm trees and everything was happening at a 40' and above level. They would introduce some new tree plantings and some umbrellas, tables, chairs, and plant areas to encourage people to use the outside space. There was a huge slab of brick - banded concrete at the entry that sloped up to the buildings. They wanted to have a more deliberate change and the sign was out in the area with more of a grand step and entry plaza that would allow more landscape to be brought into the sides. Committee Member McCormack stated there was an existing concrete curb that would remain and the handicap access would come off of the offshoots that he referred to on the plans. Mr. Ridge stated that was correct and it was at a zero curb. There would not be anything changed on the existing stamped concrete and there was a zero curb where there would be a crossing. Committee Member McCormack stated there were two types of Olive trees being used. There was the fruitless Olive tree and the others were not and field grown. He asked if they were moving trees that were already on site? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 11 of 26 Mr. Ridge stated no, they were using field grown trees that would come with a 20 x 20 head on them and come from Bakersfield. Those were the trees that they would use in the central area and the other Olive trees would be the fruitless variety used in the other planting areas. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been out to Swan Hill and they had some pretty large fruitless Olive trees. Mr. Ridge stated his past experience had been that the fruitless trees were not available in the size that they wanted. It would be a good thing to weigh out in what was available in a fruitless tree. If he could get a 60" box that would match with what they could get from a field grown Olive tree he would be interested in that. Committee Member McCormack stated he believed Swan Hill in Arizona had the larger fruitless Olive trees. The plan was well thought out and better than what existed. With compliance of the AB 1881 always a big issue. He had not seen any proposed turf in the planting palette. Mr. Ridge stated there would be some turf on the site, but with the new changes they would be coming in with all drought resistant plantings. Chair Cathcart stated he agreed it was a good plan. Mr. Ridge stated they had met with the landscape maintenance contractor who asked why they were proposing Olive trees. They came back with other trees that were drought tolerant, but the Olive tree seemed to be the tree that worked. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4540 -11, Orange City Square, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Correction to page 4 to have the sign area text amplified to include the sign area as described in the City Code. And suggestion to research the use of fruitless Olive trees for all Olive trees on the site. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 12 of 26 (4) DRC No. 4547 -11 — BATAVIA SIGN PROGRAM • A proposal to establish a new sign program at an industrial development. • 586 N. Batavia Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia@a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Norman Kruse, address on file, stated he wanted to explain the size of his ellipses and why they should be the size that he proposed. His family had owned the property for about 45 years and he was not relating to the property as an investment, but as a property he cared for. He was not exploiting it and he wanted a very nice looking sign. The signs would have a retro look to them reminiscent of the 1950's in a style known as Googie. He presented the Committee with a page from a design book of Googie architecture. Googie signs were round, they were not boxes, and he wanted a beautiful sign and not a box. His ellipses evolved from the example he shared with them. He was quite surprised and dismayed that the City would measure his sign with parallel lines. Mr. Kruse prepared a large display that depicted how the City would measure his ellipses and he explained how his sign had been measured. He was being penalized for having a round shape. He had not understood why the City was doing that, the code had two sentences. The sentence for the sign area with individual letters was to apply the parallel lines to arrive at sign area, the second sentence was for the area sign with a border that had a continuous perimeter and that was measured by the continuous perimeter. The sign he proposed would not need another parallel sign put on it. The second sentence had not mentioned that the continuous perimeter should be composed of a box or parallel lines. It was just a perimeter. He had spent quite a few hours in the clerk's office going through old code books. The sentences were as old as he was and they had never been changed and he felt that they went back to the 1950's when all signs were round or an odd architectural shape. People could not be penalized for wanting to have a round shaped sign. He felt that was why the code was stated as it was; a continuous perimeter. In looking at other Citys' codes Chair Cathcart stated they really had not cared about other City's codes. Mr. Kruse stated they would see the opposite of what they thought. For the City of Santa Ana they used the same phrase; continuous perimeter. In their code a single continuous perimeter composed of squares or rectangles was noted and that was absent from the City of Orange's code. It was not intended to penalize someone who wanted a round sign. If you proposed a round sign in the City of Santa Ana, you would be clobbered and have to lose a lot of sign area. There was a consequence to that, everything became a box. Driving around the City everything was a box. He was not asking for an exception, he was not asking for an exclusion. The City had suggested getting a variance. How could he get a variance, he was in compliance and not deviating from the code. It was difficult to understand. It was a design decision and not a policy decision. If the ellipses were reduced the whole sign became a tower and it would not have the same horizontal effect across it. Form and function were related; and it would not function well. His tenants were desperate and hurting; one building was behind another and had been vacant for City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 13 of 26 years. He desperately needed signage. To have to reduce the ellipses would hobble a very expensive sign. The sign was more than he should afford, but was an investment for the property. It was a love affair and he had spent his whole life caring for the site. He had not wanted the project to go wrong. Even if he used the proper size sign that he had applied for he was still handicapped by the fact that it was a round sign. Lettering in a round space lost size. He wanted the Googie look and he was sorry that he should pay yet another penalty for doing that and he hoped the Committee Members would accept the ellipses as proposed. He was not asking for an exception or more space that was allotted to him; he was just asking for his property rights. He had one more request and that was for the Building Division to place parallel lines around his bank account. Applicant, John Myres, address on file, stated the design was Mr. Kruses' design and in going to his property they would see that he took utmost care of his property and cared about what it looked like and he wanted to make it look even better. It was a relatively small industrial property. His wish to have something out there that was beautiful was so strong, you could tell by his emotion. He cared not only for his property, but it was a change that would benefit the area. Industrial areas could look a lot better than they did. Mr. Kruse cared about his property and took time to come up with a design based on the Googie concept. He came to us to make it work and they used the City code to measure the ellipses and the cost was more than twice the cost of a typical pylon sign in an industrial complex. So much was put into it and he felt the code would allow the Committee Members to make the right decision. The code stated continuous perimeter, it had not described exactly what that was and it qualified. He urged the DRC to go against what common practice was, to understand that Mr. Kruse had come up with a beautiful design and had put a lot of money, time, and effort into a site that had four tenants. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a small center. The thing that visually concerned him was on the permitted sign types, there could be individual illuminated or non - illuminated letters, or a logo or a panel painted with brushed aluminum and that seemed like a lot of choices for such a small building. It would be better if they could cut that down a bit and either go with illuminated or non - illuminated letters, but the MDO, the 3/4" thin piece of MDO without any type of border seemed cheap, not well developed and it would not be in keeping with everything else the applicant was trying to do with the pylon sign and so forth. He asked if the MDO was an important option? Mr. Kruse stated that was just to keep the options open. Very likely when the signs were changed he would put in the very best he possibly could and if it would look cheap it would be out of the question. Committee Member Wheeler stated that option would appear as if it was put up hastily. Mr. Kruse stated he had never seen that type of sign and had left it in as an option. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 14 of 26 Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the MDO be dropped. On the question of the sign area on the pylon sign, he asked Mr. Garcia if he wanted to state his case? Mr. Garcia stated it was the method that had been used to measure the same type of signs in the past and it was currently what they used. Chair Cathcart stated that was not good enough. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, asked Mr. Garcia for the code book. Mr. Kruse stated he would not be able to use that argument. If the City found something wrong in his building and he had to respond to a criticism and he stated the staircase or doorway had always been that way for 30 years, it was not an argument. Mr. Garcia stated it appeared in the definitions of the Municipal Codes, on page 3 of 6. He also had placed it in the Staff Report. Committee Member Wheeler read: the sign area was measured by a single continuous perimeter enclosing the exterior limits of the background. That was the second definition, and to him he could not understand why they should not consider the proposed sign as a border. Maybe it was not something that was used a lot, but it was in the code and it seemed to indicate it was an alternate method to calculate the sign area. To him the cabinet perimeter was the border. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the definition looked at two types of signs. The individual lettered signs and the other looked at a can type of sign, such as the one at Denny's. Traditionally they used the two sets of parallel lines and that for the most part worked. In reading the code there were two different sign types and the code took into account the backing. If individual channel letters were placed on a wall or the fascia the measurement was just around the letters themselves. If there was something on a can, the background was measured. That was the difference. The letters would not only be measured on a can, but the background and the reason that they had used the parallel lines. The second type of measurement was stating that the background of the sign had to be measured. Chair Cathcart stated a false number for the area would be arrived at. The area of the sign would be smaller than the parallel lines. It would be smaller. Mr. Garcia stated in a traditional sign, if there was a large and small font it would not be cut out, they would use the parallel lines for the measurement. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they used the parallel letter measurement on a can sign for a sign with individual channel letters, on any type of sign. The background would need to be taken into account. Chair Cathcart stated from a landscape perspective they had to deal with a formula that was totally irrelevant, but still on the books. Now there was a continuous measurement situation that had not fit everything that would come before them. It was not exact. He understood what Ms. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 15 of 26 Aranda Roseberry was stating. The applicant had shown that the manner in which his sign was being used for the type of design he was proposing was not adequate. It would not describe the area correctly. Committee Member Wheeler stated the paragraph in the code read the sign area of an individually lettered sign including the background was measured by enclosing the sign with two sets of parallel lines and that provision applied to signs with individual letters. The code went on in the next sentence to read the sign area of a sign with a border or background was measured by a continuous perimeter. Committee Member McCormack stated that the sign proposed would be measured by the continuous perimeter. Chair Cathcart stated that was how he read it. Mr. Kruse stated that was how he had read it when he designed it. Committee Member McCormack asked if the element was piercing the ellipses? Mr. Myres stated they had not provided a top view. Committee Member McCormack stated the top view would appear the same; it looked like three ellipses on a stick. Mr. Myres presented a top view and explained how the sign was laid out. The design fooled them a bit. The background solid aluminum and the copy was routed out of the background so only the copy would be illuminated. Committee Member McCormack stated the footprint would be visible. Mr. Myres stated there would be two steel square tubes that would run up directly through the sign and the signs would be mounted, the columns would pierce through. Typical of a double pole pylon sign. Committee Member McCormack asked if there would be a dashed line through it. Mr. Myres stated in looking through it in the interior of the sign the column would be visible. Committee Member Wheeler stated the ruby red polished material would stop at the top and bottom. Mr. Myres explained how the design worked with pole covers and how the sign and sections would slide down. Mr. Kruse stated that was why it was costing a fortune. The tiling cost almost as much as the sign. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 16 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated it was an ellipse and then that part was almost straight. Mr. Myres stated that was intentional. The Googie style ellipses were not standard ellipses and the little corner would add to it. Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted to understand how it all went together. Mr. Kruse explained the construction of the sign to the Committee Members. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked the sign and he was thinking how could they pull it off and when they lit it would there be ghosts visible? Mr. Kruse stated no. The sign cabinet had a pipe or square tube that pierced it at 1' increments, so it would be 8' on center. The lamps used internally were also off center and vertical lamps on either side of the pole and every 1' along the way and that light would bleed around and keep from having brown spots on the sign. They really had done some tricky things that were not typical. Committee Member McCormack asked if the maximum height was 17'? Mr. Garcia stated the maximum height was 15', but they were allowed 15% of an architectural element. Committee Member Wheeler stated the definition that they spoke of would need to be interpreted on a case by case basis. As an example if someone would want to use the continuous border (on a sign he showed them), it would not be appropriate. Mr. Garcia stated that was why the parallel line method had always been used, for consistency. Committee Member Wheeler stated on a sign with a geometric form, especially a sign without any re- entrant curves that it would be an entity and the sign area would be the size of that entity. With the proposed sign it would be appropriate to interpret the sign area as the perimeter and to view the code definition for instances such as the one presented. Committee Member McCormack and Chair Cathcart agreed with his statement. Committee Member McCormack pointed to something on the plans and asked if those would be ellipses as well? Mr. Kruse stated the colors would be sufficient and there was something tedious about repeating and he would not want to over do it all over. Committee Member Wheeler stated it might be over doing it. He would suggest keeping down the vocabulary of the signs with only one Googie statement out front and not attempt to carry it through with a "mish mash ". City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 17 of 26 Committee Member McCormack stated he would not be doing the same type of design on the building. Mr. Kruse stated he was not certain if his tenants had not minded that design. Committee Member Wheeler stated they would need to be consistent. They could not have some rectangular and others different. Mr. Kruse stated he agreed. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4547 -11, Batavia Sign Program, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional conditions: 1. Condition No. 2 shall be removed. 2. Condition No. 3, leave the condition in, but add that it was the interpretation of the Design Review Committee that the area of the sign met the current requirements based on what appeared to be an alternate method of using the border of the form to define the sign. 3. Eliminate the MDO as a sign choice for the site. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 18 of 26 (5) DRC No. 4556 -11 — OVESON RESIDENCE • A proposal to replace an existing wood fence with a new cobblestone wall along the south side property line of a contributing 1911 Craftsman Bungalow. • 493 S. Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member McCormack asked Mr. Ryan what he was stating was that the wall needed to be natural and there was an item that was not? Mr. Ryan stated the area between the pilasters was slump stone, rather than cobble stone or Arroyo stone, and it should be all one type of stone. In the past even the issue with stone walls at Hart Park and all of the discussion that was used on that and all the Metro Link stone work there had been a great amount of research and community input as to the color of the grout, color, and placement of the stones and so forth. James Oveson, address on file, stated the rationale was to create a non - tagging surface and ultimately the end product would be a vine covered wall. The wall would be a Ficus repens, a vine trimmed neatly. He wanted it to be clear that they wanted to get the vine on and covered as fast as possible so they would not need to deal with tagging. The other issue was safety; they had a car go through the fence about 18 months ago that ended up in their backyard. The third concern was the cost; the fence was approximately 153' and it needed to be replaced every 10 years. Lastly was the master plan for the county, which ultimately would widen La Veta and encroach onto his property through an eminent domain situation. He had a letter on file in regards to that. In terms of the aesthetics and appearance he moved to Old Towne because he loved Old Towne and had not wanted to do anything to detract from Old Towne. The choice of the River Rock was based on the wall across the street. He wanted to tie that in and he was on the perimeter of Old Towne. It was an exterior wall that was prominent. He wanted to build something that would work. The slump block was to put something up that would look good and would be immediately covered. He could have chosen a cheaper block. In terms of Staff recommendations that it be a continuous wall would be for the Committee to give consideration to costs and to understand it would be a wall that would be immediately covered with a vine. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the issue was the main issue. Slump stone and cinder block were inappropriate for a wall and it had not been approved in Old Towne. What was seen in Old Towne was what occurred before it was a "District." Also he noticed on the plans that the stone was cultured and not authentic material. The DRC had denied projects that had proposed cultured stone in the past and there was not one example of an approval for cultured stone. It was cultured stone that was a veneer. Even if the applicant built the wall and City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 19 of 26 veneered the whole wall with cultured stone it would be inappropriate. The only thing that would be appropriate was what Mr. Ryan proposed and only because there were the same references in that area. There was stone down the street used for a foundation and there was stone on monuments and at Hart Park. The one across the street was totally inappropriate and he was not certain how that got approved. They could not compare that project with the proposed. An Arroyo stone wall would be okay, but he was not certain how that could be accomplished at the proposed height. Even though the wall would be covered with vine that could be done with chain link that was also not appropriate. The site was more of an interior area of Old Towne. It would set a dangerous precedent and he understood the safety issues with using stone vs. wood. Every house on that street or on Glassell was getting a lot of traffic and there was a danger on every busy street. What if one applicant was approved for cinder block or slump stone, then all the way down the street it would begin to appear like Huntington Beach or Fountain Valley tract homes. The only instances that cinder block had been approved was in a rear yard wall continuation or something that was out of public view. The DRC had not approved a cinder block wall. The General Plan Update had not concluded that the area would be an arterial highway as a letter was received from the County stating they would not go through with that. The same thing applied to Glassell. Also during the General Plan Update there was discussion with the Planning Commission that residents on the spoke streets, or adjacent to, could build block walls and that was changed to wood fence in the Update. Block walls were totally inappropriate in the Historic District. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was interested in Mr. Frankel's comment about the call - out in the drawings for cultured stone. He could not find that, it was called out as a veneer. Mr. Frankel stated he thought he had seen cultured stone, but maybe he just saw veneer. Committee Member Wheeler stated he could be picky with the comment about cinder or concrete block not being an appropriate material, but it could have been as it went back to the turn of the century. Slump stone had not come about until the 1950s or late 1940s and was made to simulate adobe and used very nicely in homes and there were gorgeous examples in Santa Barbara. It was inappropriate for Old Towne. On sheet Al there was a description to remove existing wood fence and install CMU block wall with cobble stone veneers every 10' average, but the site plan only had two intermediate pillars on the 93' elevation and the pillars would be about 30' apart. One matter that disagreed with the Staff Report was a concrete cap and he had not seen anything on the drawings that referred to a concrete cap. The question was with the cultured stone. If real stone would be used it would be very expensive. Committee Member McCormack stated he understood the concerns and could understand the design intent and the issue of cars going through the applicant's fence. The pillars needed to be tapered, just like the historic ones on La Veta; he had personally built that type of wall. The issue with building the wall was typically to start with larger stones at the bottom and to create them as if weight was an issue. As the stones were lifted lighter stones were used towards the top. He heard the applicant's issue with traffic and his suggestion would be to do a portion with cobble stone and set back with a wooden fence. He penciled out his idea and explained it to the applicant and stated to have the cobble stone fence and then a wooden fence, which was City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 20 of 26 appropriate and to grow a vine on that. There were solutions to get the look everyone wanted and to get the safety they wanted. The slump stone was not appropriate, although a vine would cover it. Natural rock could be used and to have stone at the bottom that would stop a car. That was what he would do and the applicant could have a beautiful fence. Mr. Oveson stated having to replace the fence every few years would mean removing the vine. Committee Member McCormack stated placing the vines in one - gallons every 4' would cover in one to two growing seasons. Mr. Oveson stated the vine would deteriorate the wood. Chair Cathcart stated the vine would be there long after the fence was gone. He had that situation in his yard. Committee Member McCormack stated he had used the Boston ivy and Ficus repens and it was a strong support and looked beautiful. Vines were the fastest growing plants on earth. He had been in his home in Orange for 22 years and the fence was still there with vines on it and it showed no deterioration at all. Mr. Oveson stated he had his wooden fence up for 10 years, but it got pounded and needed painting and then the tagging came along. The tagging and safety were the two primary issues. Committee Member McCormack stated he could have the stone on the bottom with the wood fence on top. The back form could be created with more grout on top and stone and he had done the same type of stone in Fullerton and it had been there for 30 years and through three earthquakes. Chair Cathcart stated they could put posts in the ground every so often and fill it full of cement; it would not be visible, but it would stop a car. Mr. Oveson asked how high would it need to be? Committee Member McCormack stated 24 ". He had put rebar vertically and horizontally in his fence. His wall looked great after 10 years. It was all in the manner that it was done, more rectangular stone was used. Mr. Oveson asked if the pilasters should be from original stone? It was 153 linear feet and he wondered if he could afford it. Committee Member McCormack stated maybe the pilasters were done more to the plan. Mr. Oveson stated the intent for the pilasters was as presented on the plan. He was not certain what was meant by the back side of the fence? Committee Member McCormack explained how the fence could be laid out. The backside would not be seen from the street, a planter could be created for the vine. There would be a City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 21 of 26 stone seat wall that was set back with a CMU unit and the wooden fence on top of that. That was the idea. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a bit of a problem with the CMU. Committee Member McCormack stated it was out of view; or the vine could be grown from the ground with the fence being built on grade. Chair Cathcart stated the DRC members should vote on what was presented and they had given the applicant their suggestions. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted to suggest that the item be continued and the applicant return with a drawing of what he chose to do? Chair Cathcart asked the applicant if he was amenable to a continuance? Mr. Oveson stated he would have appreciated the suggestions from Staff prior to the meeting. His experience was that he had not gotten a lot of suggestions, but rather to bring in a plan and it would be approved or denied. Committee Member McCormack stated if he had been in a bad mood he probably would not have drawn it out, but he wanted to have some fun with it and it was close to his heart as he had built that type of wall before. He felt that the applicant would be the "go to resident" that others would want to get advice from. Chair Cathcart asked if the applicant was amenable to a continuance? Mr. Oveson stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4556 -11, Oveson Residence, to allow applicant to submit an alternate proposal. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 22 of 26 (6) DRC No. 4559 -11 — BLUE FROG CAFE • A proposal for new projecting blade and way - finding wall signs for a new restaurant within the Courtyard Building. • 154 N. Glassell Street, Units `B" & "C ", Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Due to a recusal on this item by Committee Member Wheeler, and therefore a lack of a quorum, the DRC could not hear the item. The item was continued and not heard. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 23 of 26 (7) DRC No. 4560 -11 — SAMI MEDICAL BUILDING • A proposal for new landscaping, including planters, new fencing, tree removal and replacement, for a non - contributing medical building. • 392 S. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, drvan @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants were present for any questions. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no issues with the proposed project. Chair Cathcart stated it was nice to see that somebody understood that the Indian variety of Crape myrtle was better than the common variety. The choice of plant materials was very nice. He asked if consideration was given to a Smart controller? Applicant, Stormi Weather, address on file, stated yes they had and with respect to the irrigation they used low volume heads where there was turf and they had underground irrigation in the planter areas. There was no run off or over - spray. Committee Member McCormack stated there were four trees that were protected in place. Ms. Weather stated between the time the proposal was submitted and to the current presentation the tree that was at the property line was removed by the City. The intent for the other Camphors and the street trees was to protect them in place. Committee Member McCormack asked where the trees that would be removed were located? Ms. Weather pointed out on the interior space the trees that would be removed. She stated that there were trees planted close to the building and in looking closely the damage to the building was visible, as they had been planted too close to the building and they were large trees. The trees were about 5' away from the base of the wall and for trees that wanted a large canopy it was not good. Committee Member McCormack asked what the planting concept was? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 24 of 26 Ms. Weather stated drought- tolerant with as much color as they could achieve within that parameter. They wanted to ensure that the interior behind the wall had something that was pretty to look out at, but with a barrier from the street area. The design had to be manageable for maintenance personnel, as 18 months down the road they could have something that was all rounded or square and they wanted plants that were appropriate in size to avoid massive amounts of pruning. To beautify the parking lot with some low -level plantings. Chair Cathcart stated too bad they could not have a condition to not topiary the site. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked the plant palette, and then there were roses. Applicant, James McGrade, address on file, stated the owner's mother had placed roses there when they first bought the building and the roses needed to remain, even if it meant boxing them up and taking them to her house. Ms. Weather stated the roses were in good condition and they were in an area that was a bit more formal and they used plants to enhance that and provide for mom's rose requirement. Chair Cathcart stated when the Plaza was being done they had more than enough roses donated by the families and many went to Hart Park and they had not lost any. Committee Member McCormack asked if the curbs would be installed and the wheel stops? Mr. Ryan stated it was just the landscape that would be changing. Mr. McGrade stated there were no wheel stops, just the existing curb. Chair Cathcart stated the overhang bothered him. Committee Member McCormack stated what he had done at the Library was to relocate the trees at the stripe so they were between the front bumpers. He asked why the curb pushed back? Ms. Weather stated it was all existing. Committee Member McCormack suggested lining up the trees with the parking stripes so the trees would not be hit. Chair Cathcart asked if the lot would be re- striped with hairpin stripes? Mr. Ryan stated yes. Mr. McGrade stated, as a property owner, he asked what the opinion of wheels stops was? Without them, cars tended to drive in until they hit something and then the plants were cooked. Chair Cathcart stated he liked the idea of wheel stops, except in the middle of a parking lot where they would become stumblers. At the curb where there were plants he would want them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 25 of 26 Mr. McGrade stated he would be involved in the ongoing maintenance. Committee Member McCormack stated in some cases where there was space he suggested to add gravel mulch where the cars would come over and then plant material behind that. Chair Cathcart stated having some trash behind a wheel stop was not a problem for the guy with a blower. Committee Member McCormack asked what was the plan for lighting? Ms. Weather stated there would be soft lighting to pick up some of the architectural features of the plans. They would use LED lighting and not to have it appear like Disneyland, but to have soft lighting with a wall wash. With the issue of trespassing they would use a higher level of lighting in some areas. Committee Member McCormack suggested a multi -trunk tree for the feature tree. Ms. Weather stated it was depicted that way in their initial rendering. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4560 -11, Sami Medical Building, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following recommendations: 1. To line up the Tristania with the parking stripes to protect them from vehicles. 2. Use a multi -trunk feature tree. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2011 Page 26 of 26 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 6, 2011. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Joe Woollett MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.