Loading...
10-15-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 15 October 2008 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Robert Garcia, Associate Planner 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 discussion with a review of the Agenda. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the September 17, 2008 and October 1, 2008 meetings. Changes/corrections were noted. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated she had asked the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, to attend the meeting in order to offer a legal perspective regarding public comment and how to deal with issues relating to responses to those comments. Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated he was not present at the meeting that had brought about the discussion regarding public comment. He had spoken with Ms. Aranda Roseberry regarding some of the comments made regarding whether the members of the DRC owed a response, rather that be a point-by-point response, or any type of response to the commenting public on a specific project. Many times a comment would be made that a project had not met the standards without referencing specifics and he recognized the fact that it would be difficult to offer a response to a comment such as that. Mr. Sheatz stated the person who had due process rights was the applicant; they were the person that the Committee owed the full hearing to and if there was something found to be wrong with the project, the DRC owed them the information as to the reason their project had issues, and by and large the Committee offered that. If a person offered public comment on a project, the Committee Members were not obligated to engage them in a debate, if they chose not to, and they had been encouraged not to. Issues could spin out of control quickly if they were to engage in such dialogue. There was a fine line, as the DRC would not want to convey the appearance that they were above it all and that they would not owe City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 2 of 19 the public speaker apoint-by-point response, and they wanted to avoid that. Generally, it would be best to acknowledge the comment from the public that the issue had been brought up that the project had not met standards, and the Committee Members could respond that they had reviewed the project, Staff had reviewed the project which Staff had recommended and to state that they agreed with Staff's recommendation that the project met the standards. It was O.K. to agree to disagree, rather than engaging in a debate. Mr. Sheatz stated that Ms. Aranda Roseberry had asked if the applicants were entitled to a thumbs up or thumbs down on projects presented, rather than finding themselves in a situation where they were forced to redesign their project? The answer was yes, it was their project, and they were entitled to due process. When a project was presented and the Committee found it to be disagreeable for whatever reason, they encouraged the DRC to review the project to ensure it met the standard requirements. Many times the projects were looked at in terms of how a Committee Member might have approached the project and designed it; however, that was not the intent of the review by the DRC. Projects were presented to the DRC for their review and compliance with the City Standards. The project belonged to the applicant that had designed it based on many factors that could include economic factors and design preference. The applicant could consider the suggestions made by the DRC and decide to move forward with their project as presented to the Planning Commission and further if necessary. The applicant had the ability to follow the process. Mr. Sheatz stated he encouraged the Design Review Committee Members to discuss the issue amongst themselves and if they had additional questions or concerns they could meet again. Committee Member Cathcart stated one of the issues that would be addressed frequently was CEQA, with regard to whether the project met the guidelines or not. The person making the public comment often' brought that issue up although the Staff Report read categorically exempt from CEQA. They would be basically ignoring that issue if they would not reiterate what was contained in the Staff Report. Mr. Sheatz stated it was acceptable to make the comment that the Committee agreed with the Staff Report. Staff had gone through the analysis when preparing the report and thoroughly had reviewed the project prior to it being brought to the DRC. The process was not perfect, however, it had been vetted pretty well before it was presented. If the DRC found that there was a conflict with CEQA, the item could be continued to allow further investigation and a request to Staff regarding the specifics of that investigation related to the categorical exemption. The Committee had the ability to request that information from Staff. A comment could also be made to a public speaker who had made the comment of CEQA not being applicable, that the Committee disagreed with the comment based on the Staff analysis. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated at times during a meeting after the Chair had taken in the public input and brought the item back to the Committee for discussion, on occasion a member of the public would speak again and want to engage in a conversation. She asked Mr. Sheatz to discuss the situation and offer the proper protocol to the Committee Members in that type of situation. Mr. Sheatz stated it was dependent on the style of the Chair; the Chair was not obligated to respond and was discouraged from engaging in conversation with a member of the public after the item had been brought back to the Committee for discussion. Once the item was brought City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 3 of 19 back to the Committee, that type of dialogue should cease as it could lead to problems. If a member of the public asked to comment they could be told that the public input session of the meeting had been closed. Chair Wheeler asked if there should be a bit more formality when the public comment session ended? Mr. Sheatz stated that would be helpful as it would present a clear message to the public present. If there was a situation where the public comment was important in the discussion, the Chair could reopen the public comment session and accept further comments. Chair Wheeler stated there had been an occasion where the opinion of the public speaker had been asked for on a specific issue. Mr. Sheatz stated in that situation the public comment session could be re-opened by the Chair, with the need for further clarification on a point that had been brought up, with the indulgence of the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated they had a unique situation with the Old Towne ordinances and the active participation of the OTPA. The OTPA Members were better students of the standards and what occurred from project to project was that they gained further knowledge and opinions of those standards. He felt if the OTPA was disappointed that was O.K., when they had not responded the Committee Members had an ongoing review and analysis of who looked at what and how. Many times a member of the public brought up a point that was not included in the Staff Report and that could be a case, if it was a point that was fairly significant, to continue the project. Mr. Sheatz stated that would be a correct response to acknowledge that an issue that had been presented had some merit. He had spoken with representatives from OTPA and they were advocates for following the guidelines. The Committee Members would form their own opinions and many times not agree with the opinions of the OTPA. Chair Wheeler stated when a question was brought up through public comment he would be more apt to ask the Staff to respond to the question. It was also important to .have a copy of the standards in the room in order to reference an unfamiliar standard that was being addressed. Mr. Sheatz stated commonly in Planning Commission meetings the planners would be taking down notes on the testimony being presented, realizing at any moment they might be asked to offer clarification on a specific point and how the standards had been met. It would be important to have documentation available. Committee Member Gladson asked if Staff was comfortable on how the decision process was rendered for the record? She was concerned based on potential litigation that could occur beyond the DRC. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 4 of 19 Mr. Sheatz stated given past practice they had not had problems. Whether the record reflected they agreed or had not agreed with the public comment given, it had not presented an issue. There had been court decisions based on the review of a discretionary action and it was not necessary to state every reason for their decision. If a Committee Member read through the findings and there was a point that had been left out that was part of the decision-making process, that item could be added in the motion as part of the reason for making the finding. Mr. Sheatz stated that if anything additional came up regarding the topic discussed or any further matter, he was a phone call away or Ms. Aranda Roseberry could be contacted to have him return to a future meeting. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was National Planning Month and an Open House would be held Friday, October 24, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Chair Wheeler had accepted the proclamation by the City Council to declare the National Planning Month. They were pleased to acknowledge the planners. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:36 p.m. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 5 of 19 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Committee Member Cathcart was absent from the Regular Session of the Design Review Committee Meeting. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. None. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a) September 17, 2008 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 17, 2008, Design Review Committee meeting with corrections as noted. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Tim McCormack ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. b) October 1, 2008 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 1, 2008, Design Review Committee meeting with corrections as noted. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Adrienne Gladson ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 6 of 19 AGENDA ITEMS: New Agenda Items: 2) DRC No. 4260-07 -CHILI'S RESTAURANT A proposal to remodel the exterior elevations of an existing restaurant. 1411 West Katella Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityoforange.org, DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Brooke Bowers, address on file, stated she was available for questions. Applicant, Aaron Howell, address on file, stated the landlord representative, Robert Spehn, was present and the landlord was in agreement with the Chili's signage. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked for clarification on why the chili (chili pepper) was not acceptable by Staff? Ms. Thakur stated it was considered signage, and if Chili's were to exit the building and a new tenant were to come in it could present a problem. It was not an architectural feature that was part of the building and per section 17.36.040 the Municipal Code read that roof signs proposed above a roof line that was not integrated architecturally was prohibited. It was Staff's interpretation that the chili was not architecturally integrated, rather tacked on to the top of the gable at the restaurant entrance. Committee Member Woollett stated it could be argued that it was an architectural feature of the wall and not part of the roof. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the bigger concern was that as it was an icon that it was signage, and the signs were separate from the application before them. It was depicted as part of the building. The project had been in the process for some time and she felt the chili had been more prominent in previous renderings. Staff was firm in their finding that it was not an architectural feature. Committee Member McCormack asked if that feature, the chili, could come back in a sign program? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 7 of 19 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the applicant would not have a sign program; however, the overall center where the restaurant was located was in the process of preparing a sign program. The restaurant could propose the use of the chili through that program. The center was in the process and had not completed their program and she was not certain the restaurant would wait for that. It was something that Chili's restaurant would need to discuss with the property owner. Ms. Thakur stated there was a difference of opinion between Staff and the applicant. Although the signage was not part of the proposal, it had been brought to the DRC to obtain their feedback on how it related to the building and the center. Chair Wheeler stated he really liked the chili and was trying to find a reason to justify it. It was not actually a roof sign as it was mounted on a pole that extended to the roof, and that would make it a pole sign. It was an icon and a sign. It could be mounted on brackets attached to the wall; however, it would project more than 12" from the wall which would not comply. He asked if it qualified as a major commercial development? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the entire center was working on that qualification as a major commercial development and if that would be the case it could qualify through that sign program. Chair Wheeler stated he understood if the restaurant qualified, the Planning Commission would have the authority to approve signage that extended beyond the roof or the building. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated with DRC being the recommending body, the Planning Commission could approve the CUP that would go with the sign program. Chair Wheeler asked if the DRC found the chili to not be appropriate, could the applicant file for a CUP to be taken to the Planning Commission? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could do that as part of a sign program. Committee Member Gladson stated it was the type of signage that the Block of Orange had with there extensive signage. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they had a very extensive sign program and they were always looking to the centers in the City that wanted to update their signage and encouraged them to do that. Committee Member Gladson stated the chili was whimsical and playful and many of the historic signs were of the same type of signs. She would not want to encourage non-compliance with the code. She suggested a blade idea with brackets on the wall which would mean a smaller pepper. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they would suggest to the property owner to look at parameters for icons in the center and their use. Applicant, Robert Spehn, address on file, stated as the property manager he was very enthusiastic with what Chili's Restaurant was proposing. They had made the architectural changes and incorporated the chili on their other properties in northern California and had been very well City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 8 of 19 received by the community. It added a lot of fun to the building and they wanted to ensure that the steps were followed to ensure that there were no obstacles for the installation of that piece. The center was in its completion stages of the sign program and they were looking forward to having the project move forward. Chair Wheeler stated he could not support the chili as presented based on the Staff Report and encouraged the applicant to submit the chili through the sign program. He suggested that the sign be mounted lower to the ground as a monument sign. Ms. Bowers stated that had been tried at other locations and children would crawl on it and fall off and it presented a liability and they were not allowed to do that. Chair Wheeler stated on the aspect of the building itself, he asked how the roof beams at the porch would be held up? Mr. Howell stated it had been structurally designed to be held up and he could ask the structural engineer to provide them with the specifics. The design had been used at several of their locations. There was a strap that went over the top of the ridge beam that connected the rafters. Chair Wheeler stated there were many forms and colors and suggested simplification in carrying the same color across the bricks. There was a separate awning form used for each of the separate design styles of the buildings; however, on one side of the brick building there were two types of awnings and suggested that it be changed to a shingled awning to remain consistent. He pointed out a line that had been left out on the rear elevation and pointed out the discrepancy to the applicants. He suggested use of the same material and color in that area. Committee Member McCormack asked if the proposal was to paint the brick? Ms. Bowers stated they had the same painted brick on their restaurants across the country and it looked very good. Committee Member McCormack stated he was on the Committee when the project had been presented initially and he asked for clarification on how the edges of the building would be treated along Katella. Mr. Howell stated they proposed to carry the color of the tower over the back portion. There would be metal flashings added and painted to match with the same color, which was Kentucky blue. Committee Member McCormack stated when the top of the building returned back on the ends it looked cut off. Mr. Howell stated they could look at alternatives for dealing with that area. Committee Member Gladson asked for clarification on the drawings of the rear elevation and suggested adding detailed information to that drawing to notate the treatment of that area. Chair Wheeler stated the cornice treatment could be carried all the way around the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 9 of 19 Committee Member McCormack asked about the lighting for the building? Mr. Howell stated the light forms from the photos would be removed and replaced with new fixtures. The Committee Members reviewed the drawings with the applicants. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4260-07, Chili's Restaurant, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, including Condition No. 2 that the fiberglass chili was a prohibited sign and should be considered in a future sign program and with the additional conditions: 1. The rear of the parapet at the corner that housed the main entrance would have the same treatment all the way around. 2. All the brick portion of the building to have the same color treatment and have no change of color at the corner. 3. The arched awning on the right elevation attached to the brick portion of the building be changed to a shingled awning to match the awning on the front elevation. 4. The left elevation (which should be labeled rear elevation) that the far right corner portion which had the ladder access to the roof have the same material carried around the corner to remain consistent with the rest of the building. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 10 of 19 3) DRC No. 4366-08 -JOHNSON RESIDENCE A proposal to expand the first floor of an existing single-family residence and construct a new second story. 5028 East Glen Arran Lane Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, David Johnson, address on file, stated if the Committee Members visited the neighborhood the second-story would not be an issue at all. There were larger homes directly across the street and there was one directly behind his back fence. There was a giant yellow structure that was located directly across from his front door that looked like a beach house. His property sat very low, basically in a hole. Mr. Johnson stated his home was built on natural soil vs. other surrounding homes that were built on fill dirt and he felt the proposed project would look good and not dominate other properties. It was designed very softly and fit in with the neighborhood. He passed out photos to the Committee Member, for their review, of the homes in the neighborhood. Applicant, Darshan Shah, address on file, stated the property was ranch size; however, the home was a standard single-story home and they were trying to make it into a nice custom home. They were incorporating existing ledge stone to accent the home and based on Staff's August 1, 2008 comments there had been changes made to the elevations per their recommendation. There had been five columns at the front of the home and they had reduced the number and made them thicker. The columns supported the second floor. There was a 6' cantilever above the existing first floor wall; he pointed out the area on the drawings. There was a curved architectural feature on the soffit that Staff had not liked and he had taken that out. Staff had commented that the house should not look like a box and the windows should be of the same size. He had not wanted to design all the windows the same as he felt the home would look like a hotel. The smaller windows were for a bathroom and they had added a curved window and wrapped the stone all the way around. Mr. Shah felt the home would add value to the neighborhood and the owners really wanted to add the second-story. They were not expanding, as they had used the original footprint of the existing home. Mr. Johnson stated he had not wanted to expand the single-story home out as he had three young athletic children and his yard was set up as an athletic field. He wanted to maintain the yard. They had looked at other properties before they had decided to build and they had found very nice homes, however, they had no yards. Mr. Shah stated the yellow box house had not belonged in the neighborhood and he questioned why that home had been approved? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 11 of 19 Ms. Thakur stated the In-fill Residential Guidelines had gone into effect in 2004 and it was possible that the yellow home they were referencing had been approved prior to the Guidelines being revised. The intent of the Guidelines were to prevent homes of that type from being built. Mr. Shah stated they tried to adhere to the Design Review Guidelines and adding the eyebrow roof element was used to break up the mass. They had not agreed with the requirement for same size windows in the front. Ms. Thakur stated that the information regarding the windows may have been misinterpreted. The windows had not needed to be the same size. The requirement was for the same type and shape windows to be used throughout the project. Mr. Johnson stated they had attempted to maintain the same look of the existing structure, just adding asecond-story. The color scheme and rock on the front would remain the same and they would be adding a new roof. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he was very familiar with the area as he lived in the area. There was no question that it was a maverick neighborhood and may have been County land before it became City property. In that neighborhood maverick people lived there, and the character of the neighborhood reflected individuality and people valued that quality. He found the project very difficult to evaluate. The area was very hilly and there were some large forms and many of the homes had been built into the hillside. He was interested to review how the roof would look. He stated on that particular end of the street the proposed project would appear to have a lot of mass. There were other homes in the general area that appeared very large, and the yellow home appeared larger due to its color and position on a hill. The question in his mind was because they had examples in the neighborhood that pushed the envelope should they necessarily accept the project. He felt the proposed project was a project that pushed the envelope in its appearance and mass. Committee Member Gladson stated she was of the same general opinion as Committee Member Woollett. The predominant styles of homes in the neighborhood were single-story, low profile, ranch properties and adding atwo-story element was troubling. The task of adding asecond- story so it would not stand out was the challenge. She would ignore the yellow home as that was water under the bridge and what they were looking at was the proposed project before them. She struggled with not taking advantage of the property for the addition and adding another 2,000 square feet to the top at 30' high was an issue of massing. Mr. Shah stated there were several other homes in the neighborhood with the same type of massing. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 12 of 19 Mr. Johnson stated with the way his home sat in adding asecond-story they would only be level with the single-story home across the street due to the nature of the property. Committee Member Woollett stated with his home being the same height as the single story home across the street proved just how massive the home would be. It would be a two-story home at a lower elevation and there was a big difference between that and asingle-story on a hill. Mr. Johnson stated his lot was 36,000 square feet and the home would not appear larger than adjacent single story homes. Chair Wheeler stated there were many two-story homes in the immediate area and under the In- fill Design Guidelines the applicant would have a bit more leeway to add the two-story element. He felt that there was work to be done on the design. The design was full of many forms, shapes and sizes. There was a 6 and 12 roof that popped up with a sheet metal vent, off the shelf material and he suggested designing that differently. Around the back there was one hip roof and all the other roof elements were gable. He felt a good design had more consistency. There were some full semi-circular arches on some windows and basket handle arches on others. There were too many forms. He pointed out an area that had no definition of a beam that would be present in a craftsman design and there was another form that appeared to be Queen Anne out- lookers. There was mass that projected out from the current wall plane and there should be some consideration for the other single-stories adjacent the proposed project property and to push the second-story back to give the appearance of one-story plates. He suggested moving the second floor back, and pointed out the area on the drawing he was referencing. He also suggested moving some of the massing to the back to get the second floor as far back as they could. Committee Member Gladson stated that the back plane of the second-story on the proposed project appeared to have less of a profile instead of the front elevation. Chair Wheeler clarified a wall support and questioned the placement of the windows. He suggested that the stone element should be used closer to the ground. The ledger stone with Craftsman columns was like eating pickles with chocolate and they would not go together. He suggested pushing the second story back and designing better vents. Consistency was important. Chair Wheeler suggested having the stone trim line up at the sill level. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the suggestions made by Chair Wheeler would help to overcome many of the concerns he had with the proposed project. Committee Member McCormack stated he had similar comments as those made by Chair Wheeler. He had an issue with the second-story overhang. He agreed with the maverick statements about the neighborhood which opened up the project for more creativity. There was too much and suggested setting the roof back with the addition of balconies that could add more outdoor roof space that would be a unique amenity. The massing was too much. He felt the neighborhood would not prohibit asecond-story structure; however, moving the mass back with the use of a consistent style could lend itself to a very nice project. Committee Member Gladson stated there were findings that read the architectural features shall reflect similar design styles or period, and what she was hearing was that the features were not City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 13 of 19 meeting the requirements. There were Craftsman and Queen Anne elements, they needed to ensure that the requirements were met and as the project was presented she could not make those findings. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been in the Floral Park area of Santa Ana and in that area there were single-story ranch style homes with a Queen Victoria home next door, and in taking in the entirety of the neighborhood each piece was beautiful in and of itself. It was worth exploring alternate design ideas. Chair Wheeler stated the applicant should be able to build atwo-story; however, he suggested pushing the second-story element back to maintain asingle-story feel on the front of the home and to utilize forms that were complimentary to each other. Mr. Shah stated he felt that they could incorporate the suggestions presented. The survival of the project was that the applicant be allowed to build atwo-story home. Committee Member Gladson stated the lot was big and the street was private. They were not dealing with a tract home which afforded the applicant a benefit. She liked the Ranch elements of the home and suggested incorporating that style into the project. The neighborhood was eclectic and referred to as maverick and she was not opposed to a two-story home that would incorporate a good design. Committee Member McCormack stated there were opportunities to create space and not have the second-story cantilever out over the first. Mr. Shah stated they could re-work the design and change the floor plan. Mr. Johnson stated they wanted to ensure that atwo-story remained an option as it was important for him to maintain his yard. He would much rather have his children play at home than anywhere else. Mr. Shah stated the current home had the bedrooms at the front of the house and it was not safe for the children with the bedrooms in that area. Mr. Johnson stated people tended to drive faster on the private street and he wanted his children to be safe. Chair Wheeler stated a more conventional design was to place the master bedroom at the rear of the home. Mr. Shah stated if the design flowed well he was not opposed to placing the bedroom at the rear. Committee Member McCormack stated he had an issue with the roof cantilever and he suggested having the eaves protrude out more. He stated the applicant should also be cognizant of how the facade was treated in regard to south, east, and west elevations. The glazing should be added on the north side to pull in light. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 14 of 19 Chair Wheeler stated that was a good suggestion and it was also an energy saver as the eaves would provide for more shade. He stated cone-story roof appearance on the front would be his suggestion and also a consideration for the neighbors. Committee Member Woollett asked if the applicants were clear on the comments that had been made and the suggestions presented. Mr. Johnson stated he felt they were clear on the information presented. Chair Wheeler suggested square pillars on the front if they were to remain with a Ranch style design. Mr. Shah confirmed that the Committee was not opposed to a second story and that the second story should be pushed back with more consistency in the design. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4366-08, Johnson Residence, to allow the applicant to incorporate the suggestions made by the Committee Members. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 15 of 19 4) DRC No. 4374-08 - WALGREENS A proposal for a new sign program for Walgreens center. 1538 East Chapman Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, r~arcia a cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Sharon Douglas, Ph.D., address on file, had no further information to add. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair Wheeler stated he was concerned with the use of raceways and the DRC typically had not approved of that use. He had looked at signs while driving down Chapman and he had only located one sign, which was the WAMU building that used raceways. Committee Member McCormack stated as the property was adrive-thru he was concerned that the placement of one of the signs, which he pointed out on the plans, created asite-line issue. He understood they needed that sign; however, felt there could be a better placement of the sign. If a large car or SUV parked in that space it would hide the sign. He suggested the possibility of placing a blade sign or a wall sign that would state drive-thru. The sign was for way finding and he suggested a more useful place to put the sign, in a more visible spot. Chair Wheeler suggested some form of pavement painting. Committee Member McCormack stated most people would come in from an entrance he pointed out on the drawings and felt unless there was an additional sign or another placement for the sign it would be difficult for someone new entering the parking lot to locate the drive-thru. Dr. Douglas stated it was important to have a sign that identified the drive-thru as it was tucked away in the back of the building. She suspected the sign was placed in that area for people entering in a direction she pointed out on the plans. Chair Wheeler asked if blade signs could be used? Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated they would need to explore the code. Chair Wheeler reviewed the plans with the applicant and the Committee Members for suggestions on an alternate placement of the sign. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 16 of 19 Committee Member McCormack asked if there was a 4' height limit for the sign? Committee Member Gladson asked if he was suggesting that they raise the sign? Committee Member McCormack stated he felt the sign was too big and too close for someone getting out of their car in its present location. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were limitations on the size of directional signage. Chair Wheeler asked if they could utilize a pole sign? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there was a height limit. Mr. Garcia stated the height limit was 42" and 6 square feet. Committee Member McCormack suggested the directional sign being added to a light post or hanging banners on them. Chair Wheeler suggested exploring painted directional signage on the pavement or the use of temporary signage when they opened. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the suggestion for painted pavement signage had been used as directional signage on other properties. There could be temporary sign devices used for the grand opening for those patrons coming to the center for the first time. She asked Mr. Garcia if there was a limitation on directional signage? Mr. Garcia stated there was not a limitation on number, just on size and height. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not reviewed the landscape plan and they would need to take into consideration landscape plantings and lighting in the placement of signs. He suggested the sign could be mounted to the wall or to use the corner of the wall for signage. He pointed out the area on the plans that he was referring to. Committee Member Woollett stated there was a Walgreens on the corner of Prospect and Chapman. When he had first entered off of Chapman, he had not needed a sign in order to tell him how to get to the drive-thru window and it was the same situation on the building that they were reviewing. Chair Wheeler stated he had not felt it was that big of an issue and suggested that the applicant find creative ways to assist patrons in locating the drive-thru. Committee Member Woollett stated he had no objection to the signage on the walls. Committee Member McCormack stated they could incorporate signage on the architecture of the building to state drive-thru rather than the clutter of signage. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 17 of 19 Committee Member Woollett stated he was bothered that the Committee Members were trying to solve a sign problem and he felt it was not a good idea. The proposed project was being presented for their approval or disapproval and not for resolution of how the applicant dealt with the directional signage. Chair Wheeler stated the only issue he had was with the raceways. Committee Member McCormack stated there was not enough information on the material or depth of the signs. Mr. Garcia stated it had been included in the sign specifications. The Committee Members reviewed the sign specifications that were included in the presentation. Dr. Douglas stated the sign specifications were written by the sign company and included a lot of detail. Committee Member McCormack pointed out a sign and stated he felt it was the runt, and had not taken into account any of the architectural features of the building. Sometimes architectural elements were integrated in the signage. He felt the sign was not successful in its placement or design. Chair Wheeler stated he could accept the sign as presented and he felt the applicant was aware that they may need to add additional directional signage. Committee Member Gladson stated that the applicant wanted four signs, rather than two allowed by code, and she had no issue with that request and wondered if the Committee had any thoughts on the issue. Dr. Douglas stated typically the signs were spread out more, however, due to the location the signs were all on one side. Mr. Garcia stated the signage met the code requirements as it took into consideration the overall square footage of the building. Committee Member Gladson stated she was generally okay with the project. She had hoped that Walgreens would have attempted to clean up the pylons. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated they could not change those, once they chose to change the design the pylons would need to come down. Mr. Garcia stated the applicant would have liked to have done something to the pylons, however, the minute they touch those there were code restrictions and it became very complicated in regard to the other tenants in the area. Chair Wheeler asked if the Committee Members had any objection to asking the applicant to remove the raceways? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 18 of 19 The Committee Members agreed with his suggestion. Dr. Douglas clarified that the raceway would be removed and the signage would be changed to a direct mount. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to approve DRC No. 4374-08, Walgreens, with the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following condition: 1. Raceways would not be incorporated into the fabrication of the wall signs. And with the following suggestion: 1. Walgreens to explore alternatives for additional directional signage. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 15, 2008 Page 19 of 19 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, November 5, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.