Loading...
06-18-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 18 June 2008 Committee Members Present Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:10 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. No changes were noted. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there was no new business to report. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:12 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 2 of 19 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Committee Member Cathcart absent. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 3 of 19 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 2) DRC No. 4119-06 - BHALLA TRIPLEX A proposal to demolish an existing non-contributing duplex and construct a new two- story, three-unit apartment building. 438-440 S. Olive Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr an ,cityoforangeorg DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Item continued from the April 16, 2008 DRC Meeting Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Shiv Talwar, stated the drawings had been revised to reflect the changes in the garage doors, from steel to wood and they called out the stucco with more precise color and finish information; the finish would be a sand finish, La Habra sand finish No. X-97. On the issue of reducing the FAR 50 square feet on the second floor would, perceptually, not make a difference on the massing of the project. Applicant, Dave Bhalla, stated they had included the garages in the floor area. Mr. Talwar stated they had already reduced the FAR and requested that the proposed projects current FAR be considered. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the project had been presented 5 or 6 times and that there were a number of Cities that had a limit to the number of times a project could be reviewed before it was denied; Laguna Beach had 3. He felt the applicant should be given the opportunity to correct the inconsistencies in the plan; however, 6 times was too much. The bulk and mass issue had not been addressed. The block where the proposed project sat already had 7 apartment buildings and he felt the block could not support another one and cumulative impacts had not been addressed on the proposed project. Mr. Frankel stated the applicant had not complied with all of the recommendations, especially the FAR. The existing development had less of a negative impact than the proposed project, even in its current state of disrepair and they were concerned what the proposed project would look like in the future. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Gladson asked Chair Wheeler for a copy of the previous plans to review. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 4 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated he agreed with the Staff Report not to exceed .42 FAR. An additional 50 square feet would not be visible or would it affect the development, however, the issue was allowing an FAR of more than .42 and he felt they should not set a precedent for allowing that. On page 4, drawing No. 2 he was confused with the roof as it appeared the lower roof went to the middle of the building and there should be a break. He asked for clarification on that area. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Talwar and Committee Member Woollett reviewed the drawings for clarification. Chair Wheeler stated that it appeared the area had been reduced since the last submittal and the area calculations also appeared to be correct. It was certainly smaller. On page A4, Elevation No. 2 the trim was still noted and had not appeared on any of the other elevations and he asked that it be removed. On drawing No. 1 of the same sheet he was confused whether there was a wall that surrounded the porch or a column? Mr. Talwar stated there was an arch opening on the side and he reviewed the floor plans with Chair Wheeler. Chair Wheeler stated there were posts left on the plans from a previous drawing. There was an odd line on sheet AS that should be removed. On drawing No. 3 of AS there was a reference to Note 22 that did not appear, and on drawing No. 2 under the stairs Note 15 should be 14. On the whole he felt it was much improved. On the rear unit there was what appeared to be a 9" cantilever over the first floor/east side it would be a structural headache for such a small area and that would be an area where square footage could be taken out and there would be cost savings in removing it. Mr. Talwar stated he could look into that suggestion. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Staff's recommendations. He had reviewed the parking and site plan in reference to reducing the square footage. He had noted the center parking stalls were larger. He felt the stall next to the building, which would result in someone hitting their door on the wall each time they entered their vehicle could be moved around to have the larger stall next to the wall. Mr. Talwar stated that was not the case, as the center parking stalls were smaller. Committee Member McCormack stated he had measured the stalls with a scale. Mr. Talwar stated the stalls were 9' and 10'7". Committee Member McCormack reviewed the drawings with the applicants to gain clarification on the drawings and the dimensions of the parking stalls. Committee Member McCormack suggested having a curb against the wall to protect the building. Mr. Talwar stated they had intentionally increased the spacing for the parking that would be against the wall. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 5 of 19 Chair Wheeler suggested the addition of a landscape element. Mr. Talwar stated he would review the landscape plans with his landscape architect. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on the landscape plans as they did not appear on the drawings? Mr. Talwar stated they had not finalized the landscape plans and that would be added at a later date. Committee Member McCormack asked for the thickness of the decorative stamped concrete? Mr. Talwar stated those details would be added at a later date. Committee Member McCormack stated in previous meeting minutes it was noted that the owner would be responsible for landscape maintenance and he asked for clarification. He suggested that the landscape irrigation components be located on a separate meter with one controller. Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris, stated the applicant might not want to do that as it might require tapping off of one of the units with one control for the common areas. Committee Member McCormack stated there was solid wrought iron called out on the plans and asked for clarification. Mr. Talwar stated the area Committee Member McCormack spoke about was a wood fence. Committee Member McCormack stated placing two different types of trees in a very small space was not recommended; the goal would be to gain shade and recommended that all the trees in the parking area be Tabebuia. He suggested adding trees at each unit. He stated he had brought up the issue at a previous presentation regarding the trash receptacles and the plans showed 2 receptacles. The City of Orange had a 3 can program, even without the yard waste can, it would equate to 22' along the street on trash day -and asked how they proposed to deal with the receptacles and parking? Mr. Bhalla stated they would not require street parking as there was parking for each unit on site. Committee Member McCormack stated the parking would be an issue. Mr. Ryan stated the trash receptacle issue could be dealt with through zoning. Committee Member McCormack stated the planting underneath a tree, which he pointed out on the drawings, needed to be called out. He reviewed the drawings with the applicant. On the wall vines he suggested the plans for the wall include footings that would be pushed down 12" minimum to allow soil for the vine to grow and suggested 16-18" footings. On drawing A4 the unit had no call out for a street address, and suggested it be placed on the east elevation of Unit 1 which faced the street. He also pointed out a door on the drawings that had not matched all the other doors and asked for that to be corrected, and on A4, detail 2, to add a garage light. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 6 of 19 Mr. Talwar stated the areas Committee Member McCormack was referring to would have lighting. It would be included on the detail drawings. Committee Member McCormack stated there was no landscaping around the south side of elevation No. 2 and he suggested the addition of a tree to that space. Chair Wheeler stated the landscape plans could be submitted to Staff prior to submission to the Building Department. Mr. Morris stated there were quite a few details and it may require review by the DRC. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the Planning Commission would require a clean project without various conditions and the expectation was to provide them with a clean set of plans for the proposed project. Committee Member Woollett stated on the area suggested to have the footings at a depth to allow plant rooting, from a practical standpoint, how would they ensure that when the project was submitted for a building permit that the detail would be caught? Mr. Ryan stated it would be carried over to the wall detail and it could be added as a condition to ensure the detail would not be missed. Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred with Committee Member Woollett that the FAR should remain within the threshold that had been suggested by Staff and she was supportive of the other recommendations made by Staff. She was generally supportive of the project. She was not sure how they could craft a motion to ensure all the recommendations and conditions would be addressed. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could condition that the applicant submit a clean set of drawings incorporating each and every condition. If the conditions were not incorporated it would be made clear to the Planning Commission in the Staff Report that the recommendation for approval required the implementation of the conditions. It would be noted in the Staff Report, for the Planning Commission's review, if the applicant had not complied with any of the conditions. Chair Wheeler suggested they go through and restate the conditions. Committee Member McCormack stated the site plan and landscape plans were not consistent, and there was not a Civil Plan, which would address drainage and sheet flow. He was concerned that the builder would not have clear direction. Mr. Talwar stated the proposed plans that had been presented were conceptual; they intended to submit a Civil Plan. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they had run into similar problems where the Civil Plan included WQMD requirements and the landscaper landscaped over it as they had built to the plans, conditions would require that they work together and the plans match prior to the issuance of building permits. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 7 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated in working with recent guidelines that stated when a project was not approved or required re-submittal the DRC needed to be very specific regarding the expectations for the project. It would be much more expedient if they listed all the items which were important and condition an approval with the requirement for the landscape and Civil Plan to be submitted after the Planning Commission approval. He felt it was somewhat unreasonable to require the applicant to produce a completed Civil Plan and a completed landscape plan as the Planning Commission could deny the project. Chair Wheeler stated they could not ask for construction drawings on the proposed project at its current stage. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend DRC 4119-06, Bhalla Triplex, to the Planning Commission with the conditions contained in the Staff Report, and with the following recommendations: 1. 9" cantilever be removed. 2. Explore the feasibility to plant a tree on the patio of unit #1. And with the following conditions: 1. FAR not to exceed .42. 2. Drawings to clarify the roof return extension on drawing 1-A4, and break in lower roof on 2-A4. 3. Trim surrounding the arch opening on drawing 2-A4 be removed. 4. Conflict between the arched wall and column wall on 1-A4 be corrected. 5. Note 15 on 2-A4 be Note 14, and Note 22 on 3-AS be Note 2. 6. Vertical line element to right of entry door on 1-AS be removed. 7. Unit #1 on A4, detail #1 -door to match all other doors on proposed plans and add address next to porch light. 8. On detail 2-A4, add light adjacent to the garage. 9. Show fencing and gate treatment materials. 10. On detail 1-A5, show addresses of both Units #2 and #3. 11. On detail 2-A5, remove address adjacent to the garage. The following landscape/hardscape conditions shall be submitted to DRC for review prior to submittal to the Building Department: 1. Show vine plantings on plans, with 12" of soil above footings minimum (recommended 16"-18"). 2. Add curb return on covered parking. 3. Trees in the parking area to be Tabebuia. 4. Add trees to the SW corner of the property and show plantings of the parking area on the plans. 5. Show planting under the stairway to Unit #3. 6. Landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Staff review. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 8 of 19 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 9 of 19 New Agenda Items: 3) DRC No. 4323-08 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY NORTH QUAD A proposal to construct an approximately 6,500 sq. ft. North Quad. It would include benches, four seat walls, international flag display, infinity pool, stainless steel sphere, accent lighting, trash receptacles, landscaping, and an entrance pedestal. Main campus between the Athletic Complex/Aquatic Center and the Orange Street parking lot. Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, do ug yen(c~,cityoforan~e.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Matt Durham, address on file, presented several display boards to the Committee. He stated the master landscape plan for the Quad space was approved in 2003; the proposed project was similar in size to the Quad that existed to the south and had some of the same components in it. The design was centered around a water feature which was a 17" deep infinity pool and followed all the City requirements. The area had a flag display around it. The design represented the students that attended Chapman University and their geographic regions. The flags would center around the pool; the pool had a center sculpture that represented the world - many countries, one world. The proposed design would allow the flags to reflect on the rotating sphere, which would have longitude and latitude lines representing the world. Water would flow over the sphere and be very calm in nature; the water would flow over into a thin trough. The surrounding area would include four granite seat walls allowing people to view in or out of the infinity pool. The hardscape was an enhanced pattern of jointing; it included a campus standard of natural colored concrete with banding that was highlighted with mica. The surrounding space included the athletic complex that continued into the North Quad. The landscape would include nine accent trees, which were the campus standard Crape Myrtle trees which would be up-lit at night. The flags would also be up-lit and the intention was that the flags would not be taken down each day. The flags would be rotated annually. There was donor signage planned for the space and for the water feature. The seat walls and flag poles would be potential donor opportunities as well. Public Comment Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the only downside of the proposed project was the loss of parking spaces. She felt the project was beautiful and she trusted Chapman University as their landscape plans were always gorgeous. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked if the infinity pool name referred to the design of the water as it ran over the edge? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 10 of 19 Mr. Durham stated yes, that was correct. Committee Member Woollett stated it appeared that Chapman University was continually working on the parking issue and it was difficult to believe that the parking lot in front of the proposed Quad area would remain parking and was there the possibility that in the future that space would be developed? Applicant, Kris Olsen, address on file, stated it was always a possibility. Ms. Nguyen stated the parking structure was underutilized by quite a large quantity, even if the parking lot was eventually used for an alternate purpose there would still be adequate parking. Mr. Durham stated they kept the same amount of accessible spaces that were located in the area prior to the Quad development. Chair Wheeler asked if the sphere would rotate? Mr. Durham stated the sphere rotated via a pump that would have speed regulators. The sphere had an internal post and sat on a turntable which was constructed as part of the base itself. The water feed would be through a latitude line on the sphere. Committee Member McCormack asked if the sphere would tilt? Mr. Durham stated it would not tilt. The water would not rush out of the sphere it would be almost just sweating over the ball. The ball was an 8' diameter stainless steel ball. The infinity pool had a 20' diameter, which kept the ball basically unreachable from the edge. Chair Wheeler asked if there would be flags on all the poles or only flags to represent the currently enrolled students? Mr. Olsen stated there were currently 47 countries represented by the student body. They were encouraging through the international program a more diverse student enrollment. They would carefully space the poles that would not have flags on them. Chair Wheeler stated he noticed each pole would have a plaque labeled with the flags country, in the event there were no more students enrolled from that country, as they would graduate, would the plaques be removed? Mr. Durham stated they were removable plaques that could be moved or removed. Committee Member Woollett asked if the purpose of the proposed project was for Chapman University to facilitate its image as a University of the World? Mr. Olsen stated yes, that was one of the goals. They were opening up, for the first time in the University's history, overseas campuses in the fall. The present vision was to have an international outlook to the school. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 11 of 19 Committee Member Gladson asked on the western edge of the Quad, would there be a full height curb in that area? Mr. Durham stated yes, there would be a full height curb. Committee Member Gladson asked for further vision for the programming for the space? Mr. Olson stated with the film school the University was attracting more interest from international students. They wanted to solidify the concept that the University had an international flair to it, with the flags representing various countries it would help to establish the vision. The site would be used for special events such as International Days. Committee Member McCormack asked for clarification on the lighting. Mr. Durham stated the area would include in-ground light fixtures that would light four flag poles; the lights would have a lower wattage which would reduce surface heat with opaque lenses. The lenses would also reduce glare. Committee Member McCormack asked if the lighting would be consistent with the lighting that already existed in the area? Ms. Nguyen stated the lighting was consistent with the other lighting on campus and the lighting that illuminated many of the sculptures on campus. Committee Member McCormack stated he had visited the site and asked if the fabric screen that separated the project from the aquatic complex would be a permanent fixture? Mr. Olson stated no, that would be removed once the ground had been stabilized. Committee Member McCormack asked if the fire lane would include any signage? Ms. Nguyen stated the fire lane had the appearance of a regular walk way; it was not for general traffic and would be used exclusively for emergency services. Mr. Durham stated the only sign notating the fire lane was a 36" blade sign. Committee Member McCormack stated that flag protocol called for the American flag to fly higher than any other flag in the arrangement, the pole would need to be higher or flown higher and how would the applicant address that issue? Mr. Durham stated there were other American flags being flown on campus that were installed on very high poles. They would follow the flag protocol for the American flag being positioned in a specific direction; however, they would be keeping the flags at the same height. Committee Member McCormack stated he had to address the situation specifically on a project he had been involved with and wanted the applicants to be aware of the potential problem. Committee Member Gladson suggested they consult an expert in the area of flag protocol. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 12 of 19 Mr. Olsen stated they were aware of the issues involved and one of the University's Trustees was very knowledgeable and had sent them information on the issue. He stated that they could look into having a flag pole higher or adding a small limiter on the other countries flag poles which would limit the height that the flags could be raised. Chair Wheeler complimented the applicants on a great presentation. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve DRC No. 4323-08, Chapman University North Quad, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 13 of 19 4) DRC No. 4347-08 - BARKSDALE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A request to legalize an existing two-story, 495 square foot accessory second housing unit and attached two-car garage. In association with the accessory second housing unit, the applicant is proposing to construct several additional one-story accessory structures potting room, workshop, trash enclosure, storage and workout room). 7677 Diane Drive Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur@cityoforange.com DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jerry Roteman, address on file, stated the accessory structures that Ms. Thakur mentioned were actually structurally, from building and planning, approved prior to the current situation. The fact that they did not possess any previous records was what brought them to the DRC. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated basically the proposed project was fine; it was a very private site and he agreed with Staff s recommendations. He asked for clarification on the extent of how the stone would be used? Mr. Roteman presented drawings and stated the stone would return at the corner and showed where the stone elements would be installed on the proposed project. He stated there was stone on the primary residence that was limited to the retaining walls and planters and was not applied to the house. The intent was to tie the two structures together. Mr. Roteman explained that the steps followed the natural grade of the property and pointed out the areas for split face stone and stone application. He reviewed the areas of stone application with the Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett suggested the use of split face all the way around for consistency. Chair Wheeler stated they could use all stone or all split face. Committee Member McCormack discussed how the stone would return at the corner and suggested they use either all split face or all stone. Mr. Roteman stated on the planter boxes and the steps the stone would die into the split face stone, he pointed out on the drawing, how the design would work and clarified the area where stone would be used for Committee Member McCormack. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 14 of 19 Committee Member Gladson stated the use of River Rock was bringing in the element from the main structure to tie them together. Applicant, Ty Barksdale, address on file, stated he liked the look of the River Rock and wanted to use it as more of an accent element. They found brown tone split face, and he had looked for a color closely matching the dirt as he had not wanted the retaining walls to stand out. He was looking for a natural stone look. Mr. Roteman stated they had sent soil samples to the stone manufacturer to assist them with matching the color. Committee Member McCormack suggested the use of stone with the steps to tie the areas together, rather than introducing a new element of the split face stone. Mr. Roteman stated the steps would be a tan concrete and would match the stone. Chair Wheeler suggested using a gable roof rather than a hip roof. Mr. Roteman stated the main house had a hip roof, however; the wind that came over the hill and rolled down the valley facing north could blow a small child away and the structural engineer had suggested the use of a hip roof to avoid any wind damage to the house. Mr. Barksdale stated he had liked the idea of a gable roof better, however; due to the wind factor he went with the suggestion of a hip roof. Chair Wheeler asked if the picket fence design was used anywhere else on the property? Mr. Roteman stated he had discussed that with Staff, and had added the pickets to specify that there was a railing there. The intent was to match the existing railing that was on the house which consisted of rebar with horse shoes welded onto it. Mr. Barksdale stated they had obtained the rail idea from the OC Mining Company which used a similar railing. It was rustic and they would match all the railings. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4347-08, Barksdale Accessory Structures, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. Stone on south elevation to carry all the way back on the structure back wall. 2. New railings to match existing railings of the main structure as closely as possible. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 15 of 19 5) DRC No. 4358-08 - DR. KENT MONUMENT SIGN A proposal for afree-standing monument sign. 368 S. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryanna,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Moira Boynton, address on file, stated the material they proposed to use for the monument sign was a great substitute for wood. It was a closed cell expanded resin and was a non-porous material. It would not absorb water and the longevity was fantastic in comparison to wood. It could be produced with any type of finish. She presented a sample of the proposed sign to the Committee Members which consisted of a smooth border with a rough background. The colors would match the trim of the house. The block that would be used as a base was the same texture of the block that was on house and Ms. Boynton stated she was interested in maintaining the standards of the area. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated they had no problem with the design, however; the polyurethane was plastic and citing from the Old Towne Standards, Mr. Frankel stated that there was an allowance for the use of an alternate material that simulated wood or metal, and he noted under materials (b) plastic was prohibited. Urethane was a plastic and therefore was prohibited from use. He suggested the use of an alternate material that would meet the standards. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated Mr. Ryan had made a reference to the standards; that the sign should be wood or metal or utilize materials that accurately simulated wood or metal. Under (b) plastic, high gloss or shiny surfaces were prohibited, and he asked if that meant high gloss or shiny plastic surfaces or would it mean plastic or any other high gloss or shiny surface was prohibited? Chair Wheeler stated what if it was metal with a high gloss finish? Mr. Ryan stated they had determined that the shiny plastic was the issue. The material being proposed was different than acrylic, it was urethane, a foam product, and the question then was it shiny looking? They could suggest the use of a matte finish to make it more similar to a wood finish. He felt the question was the use of an alternate material and had the proposed material simulated wood? Chair Wheeler stated the proposed material looked very much like it could be metal. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 16 of 19 Committee Member Gladson stated the background finish was sand blasted and would not look like plastic. Committee Member Woollett stated they needed to look at what type of precedent they would be setting and if they would be opening the door to the use of plastics. Chair Wheeler stated in looking at the standards and the use of high gloss plastic they would be looking at standard plastic signage that appeared along Chapman which was generally internally illuminated. Ms. Boynton pointed out the various textures the proposed sign would have. The background would be a sandblasted finish. The entire sign would be painted white, and then the letters would be hand painted. The material had an extensive preparation process that allowed the paint, which would be oil base, to adhere better. Chair Wheeler asked what the cabinet would be made of? Ms. Boynton stated it would be made of urethane; the sign would be boxed over two pipes. Committee Member McCormack asked if the ends would be cut and glued with the bottom caulked? Ms. Boynton stated that was correct and she explained how the installation would be completed. Committee Member Gladson stated she was agreeable to the proposed project and there would have been a struggle if the sign was a traditional plastic product. Alternative methods would evolve in the sign making industry; the sign was a new element to the property and looked like wood not plastic. Chair Wheeler stated the two sections of the standards contradicted each other, they could authorize alternate materials that simulated wood or metal and the finish appeared to him to be metal. They could use a matte finish. Ms. Boynton stated they could use either a matte or a gloss finish. Committee Member McCormack stated everything about the sign was fake; when Dr. Kent moved away the sign would get thrown away as the face could not be changed and would end up in a landfill. Committee Member Woollett stated the same thing would occur with a wood sign and he had no problem with the proposed sign. Chair Wheeler stated with the base, made of concrete, it matched the house. Committee Member McCormack asked why the sign was 15' from the driveway? Ms. Boynton stated the 15' distance was a City standard. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 17 of 19 Committee Member McCormack asked why was the sign not placed in the center of the property? Ms. Boynton stated she liked the look of an offset sign. If the sign was moved it would be heavily weighted with the tree and the area it was placed in was more balanced. Committee Member McCormack stated the irrigation lines would need to be changed to accommodate the sign and a mow strip should be added. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt they would be setting a good precedent to clarify what the plastic issue was about. It was a clarification of what was meant by a shiny plastic sign, and that would be the use of a cabinet sign with sheet plastic lettering. Committee Member McCormack asked if the sign was damaged how would it be replaced? Ms. Boynton stated they could cut an area in and it would be undetectable as having been replaced. It was repairable, much easier than other materials. Committee Member McCormack stated if the sign appeared to be wood it needed a joint in it. Committee Member Woollett stated he did not feel that would be a good idea. Ms. Boynton stated the sign was 4' x 6' and it would not require a joint. Committee Member Woollett stated the discussion was not about the sign specifically, but more about defining the rules and setting a precedent. Chair Wheeler stated the shiny surface appeared to be enamel-painted metal. Committee Member McCormack suggested a satin finish. Mr. Ryan stated if they were looking to get the finish of a more traditional material the sandblasted finish would be more appropriate. Mr. Frankel stated the issue was in the use of a comma in a sentence which indicated the word and" or "or". With the use of a comma after the word plastic, the standards read and or or grammatically. As it was written, plastic was prohibited. Chair Wheeler stated a comma also separated adjectives. Mr. Frankel stated in his view the standard did not read the prohibited use of shiny plastics; he felt the sentence was separating plastic from shiny surfaces. He had no problem with alternative materials, however; plastic was prohibited with windows, siding and fencing. He felt the standard was not specifying the use of plastic as an alternate material. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 18 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated plastic had become a very difficult term as there were plastics being created that were more like cement or metal and the range of plastics was huge. In viewing materials from an OTPA standpoint he would ask if the material changed size over a day as those materials would be more true to the historical fabric of the City. Mr. Frankel stated natural materials required more maintenance. Being in a historic district and looking at the written developed standards, which were being updated, possibly the sentence needed to be rephrased. The way the standard was written indicated that the use of plastic was prohibited. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were many issues with the standards as they were currently written. What may have made sense at the time they were written would not necessarily make sense once the standards were implemented. There had been previous interpretation problems with the standards. She felt they were at a point where the Committee needed to make a policy call; either plastic meant all plastic or they could determine that based on how the standard was written they would make a determination that the use of an alternate material which adequately represented metal or wood could be used. Chair Wheeler stated their position was to clarify how the standard should be interpreted. He would not want to see any alternative material that was a plastic product be excluded from use if the material could comply with the standard that it simulated metal or wood, and they were not looking at the type of plastic that they associated with cheap plastic signs. Committee Member McCormack stated it could be wood or metal -plastic wood or plastic metal and which equated to not being plastic. For the size of the proposed sign how could it simulate wood and could it simulate metal. He felt plastic was more prone to being a disguised metal. The wood and plastic scenario was not working for him. The finish could have a more flat finish. Ms. Boynton stated she could construct an aluminum sign, however; she felt the proposed sign had a more organic feel that the neighborhood required. Chair Wheeler stated the use of the proposed material would last longer and look better longer. He discussed the Committee's recommendation on the finish whether it should be a shiny or a matte finish. The Committee Members concurred with the use of a matte finish. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4358-08, Dr. Kent Monument Sign, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following conditions: 1. Add a 4" mow strip at the sign base, to be flush with the ground. 2. Adjust irrigation system to accommodate sign placement. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for June 18, 2008 Page 19 of 19 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Committee Member Gladson to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. SECOND:Craig Wheeler AYES:Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.