Loading...
2011-05-04 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL May 4, 2011 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Bill Cathcart Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session @ 5:10 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she believed all the Committee Members had received an invitation to the OTPA Gala and she had received some information back from the City Attorney's office that they had passed on to the Planning Commission and she wanted to share that information with the DRC regarding what was permitted in terms of receiving gifts. The Committee Members could accept one ticket as the OTPA was a non - profit organization and the gift of a ticket would have no value as long as the cost to the OTPA for the invitation had not exceeded the State gift limit of $420.00. The exception was that the limit was for one ticket only and only the ticket used by the Committee Member. If an additional guest was to attend, that ticket would need to be purchased and the ticket was non - transferable. Committee Member Wheeler asked if Ms. Aranda Roseberry had heard any information regarding a new member being appointed to the DRC? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she had not heard anything; the appointment would be made by the Mayor. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the DRC meeting on April 20, 2011. Changes and corrections were noted. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Cathcart was absent and there was one open position on the DRC. 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 p ublic request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action CONSENT CALENDAR: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 20, 2011 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2011 Design Review Committee meeting with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 3 of 7 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4533 -11 — MERIDIAN ORANGE CENTER • A proposal to modify the existing Sign Program (Orange Town & Country DRB No. 3431; approved 5/5/1999). • 655 -691 S. Main Street • Contract Staff Planner: Lucy Yeager, 714- 744 -7203, lyeager(aDcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, John Godlewski, address on file, stated he had reviewed the conditions and they were a matter of code and he had no problems with the conditions. The original sign program was done back in 1999 when the shopping center and the Meridian Apartments were built as a mixed - used project; subsequent to that there had been some parcel lines drawn with the commercial sections being sold off separately from the apartments. The site had not quite worked anymore as it had been envisioned in 1999. The owner of the commercial portion was Isaac Neches. It was a tough market currently for commercial space. The shops along the northern building area were having a difficult time leasing as it had not been anticipated that they would have sign space. The proposal was an attempt to address that issue and in so doing they were proposing a larger monument sign which was well within the parameters of the code. The code allowed 160 square feet and they were around 100 square feet. The original sign program limited the width of the sign to only 60% and they were proposing an increase to 80 %; the sign code allowed more and they were asking for signage to be placed along the back of the building. There were three signs back there now; the code had allowed the placement of signs there. They wanted to get the tenant spaces leased. Public Comment: None. Vice Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated on exhibit #2 for the monument sign, there was a call -out for plaster columns to match the building pilasters; however, the building columns were shown on the drawings to have some sort of stone finish, but were actually stucco. Applicant, Isaac Neches, address on file, stated they were beautiful and actually it would be more expensive to build them that way. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Committee Member Wheeler stated he had no problem either way. There was not an overall height noted for the sign. Mr. Godlewski stated the overall height would be limited to 15' and he believed the proposed sign was at 12'. There was quite a bit of grade difference where the measurement would be taken from. Vice Chair Woollett stated it would be 15' maximum from the grade to the top. Committee Member Wheeler stated the Staff Report mentioned that the distance between the sign faces could not exceed 20 ". Mr. Godlewski stated he had measured the signs across the street, at the book store, and they were 24 ". Their signs were 22 3 /4 " and were not currently in compliance. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had asked Staff if that referred to just the signage portion or if it applied to the rest of the sign, and he had not heard an answer. He proposed that they condition it to apply only to the sign portion. Mr. Godlewski stated he was surprised with that requirement and thought that 20 degrees made more sense. He had checked with Anaheim and they were 36" and Santa Ana was 24 ". Committee Member Wheeler stated on exhibit #3, item #1, aluminum panel illuminated channel letter sign and internally mounted surface -faced can sign or one set of non - illuminated 1 %" deep letters; they had not allowed can signs for large signs. They would be allowed with a logo, but not as the principal sign. Mr. Godlewski stated those were the tenant signs. He believed all the tenant signs were individual letters. Committee Member Wheeler stated the vitamin store had pseudo channel letters. Vice Chair Woollett stated he would call that a logo sign. Mr. Godlewski stated he was betwixed and between sign programs and the modifications he was proposing to the sign program was in bold, which was just the 80 %. Committee Member Wheeler stated there could be a change that there shall be no internally illuminated signs with the exception of logo signs and that would apply to anything new; and the existing would not require changes until 60% of the signs went that way. In paragraph #2 there was a statement regarding sign height not being greater than 2 /3rds of the vertical dimension and he wanted to clarify that. On the one piece pan channel letters were not allowed; he was not certain what that referred to. Mr. Godlewski stated he had no idea what the statement referred to. Committee Member Wheeler stated in paragraph #5, logo plaques was set forth in `B above" and he could not find any `B" and assumed that notation went back to the original sign program. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Godlewski stated there was no `B above "; it should be No. 2 above, as that statement defined the area for the tenant signs. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could establish what percentage of the area would be suitable for logos. Mr. Godlewski stated it allowed for 1 ' /z' X the width of the tenant space and he was not certain that would be a bad thing. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be a cabinet sign and he suggested that the logo sign be no more than 30 %. Mr. Godlewski stated he would be okay with that. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had some suggested conditions and modifications to some of the existing conditions. He passed out a sheet to the applicant and the Committee Members that listed his suggestions and read through them with the applicant. On the columns he wanted to clarify that they could be stucco to match the building pilasters; to use the pseudo -block texture if they wanted to use that. On his suggested Condition No. 13 it would refer to the depth of the monument sign. He wanted to suggest a modification to Condition No. 7, which was in the Staff Report and it might be simpler if it read "the wall sign width shall be no greater than 80% of the tenant space width." Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it sounded as if he wanted the changes not only in the Staff Report but reflected in the sign program. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was fine. For Condition No. 12, he would want to change that to read "the base and columns." Vice Chair Woollett asked if this was from Committee Member Wheeler's handout, suggested additional Conditions No. 12? Committee Member Wheeler stated that was correct. Committee Member McCormack asked if the monument signs were getting any larger? Mr. Godlewski stated the sign would get taller, not wider. One of their options was to keep the sign the same height and go wider, but in looking at that it pushed so far into the landscape that the new addition could not be seen from southbound traffic. They also tried a pole sign at the northern driveway, but that was a problem. They attempted a monument sign north of the north driveway but with the setbacks, half of that sign would have been lost. The proposed sign was their best option. Committee Member McCormack asked if they were using the same footprint, same sight line? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Godlewski stated they might need to reconstruct or add to, but basically they were using the same sign columns. He had a detail of the sight line that was not in their packet, but was provided to Staff. There was a 25' setback from the corner and it was at 31'. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a very crowded parking lot. Mr. Neches stated it was a very good location; however, the design was not good. Where the fire hydrant was situated, every two weeks he had to replace the bollards and he had spoken with the Fire Department to see what he could do. Mr. Godlewski stated people backed into them constantly. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4533 -11, Meridian Orange Center, subject to the conditions and findings contained in the Staff Report and with the following modifications and additional conditions: 1. Modify Condition No. 6 by the addition of the following requirement: "The allowable depth of the monument sign shall be defined as applying to the signage surface only; and the supporting columns may be deeper so as to be square in plan." 2. Change Condition No. 7 to read: "Wall sign width shall be no greater than 80% of the tenant space width." 3. Add Condition No. 9: "Maximum wall sign height shall be no more than two - thirds of the height of the flat plane on which it is located defined as the space between horizontal cornices, trim bands, or screeds." 4. Add Condition No. 10: "All new signage, with the exception of special logo signs, shall consist of individual channel -style letters attached directly to the face of the building without the use of external raceways." 5. Add Condition No. 11: "The maximum size of the cabinet signs acting as logos shall be no more than 30% of the allowable sign area for the tenant. Note number 5 on Exhibit 3 of the sign program shall be modified to reflect this maximum size." 6. Add Condition No. 12: "The supporting columns and base of the monument sign shall be colored and textured to match the existing pilasters and base of the building as actually constructed and not as shown on the drawings accompanying the sign program. The base and column of the monument sign may be plain or may be designed to simulate the concrete masonry appearance of the building bases." SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2011 Page 7 of 7 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, May 18, 2011. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.