Loading...
2012-02-01 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL February 1, 2012 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Carol Fox Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Cathcart opened the Administrative Session at 5:18 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, thanked the DRC Members for adding the timing element onto the conditions of approval; it assisted with the motion and with the final conditions. Mr. Ortlieb asked if the Chairperson could ask the applicant's names when they come up for their application as it would assist with getting the names into the minutes correctly. With regard to changes to the motion in the minutes, there was a request for a change during the last DRC meeting. He had met with the Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, and in the instance of the last minutes they were okay with the change as requested, as it was a clarification item and a small change. In going forward, if changes in a motion were requested during a review of the minutes it could cause the entire item to return to the DRC to have the entire motion changed in a formal setting. When a motion was being formulated he suggested that they take their time in the wording and Staff was available to assist the DRC members through that process. Things could happen and Staff would do their best to fix that. Committee Member Woollett stated it would be helpful to have a visual of the motion that was being formulated. Some cities had that procedure. Mr. Ortlieb stated he had reviewed the process with his supervisory Staff and he had been directed to assist the DRC members with the formulation of their motions. This Agenda had not contained a set of minutes for review as Staff had been discussing the process and the next DRC meeting Agenda would contain two sets of minutes. Chair Cathcart stated when the Administrative Session of the DRC meeting was adjourned and off the record he would tell them a story. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 2 of 18 SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2012: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to nominate Committee Member Woollett to take the position of Chair for the Design Review Committee with an effective date of February 15, 2012. Committee Member Woollett accepted the nomination. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to nominate Committee Member Wheeler to take the position of Vice -Chair for the Design Review Committee with an effective date of February 15, 2012. Committee Member Wheeler accepted the nomination. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 3 of 18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There was none. All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff, or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4525 -10 —THE PACKINGHOUSE • A modification to the awning for an approved proposal for a small deli and exterior facade changes to an existing building. • 964 N. Batavia Street, Unit C • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, r ag r�(iDcityoforange_org • Previous DRC Project Review: June 1, 2011 • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Mike Christian, address on file, stated it looked nicer with a post, the applicant had brought in a sample of the materials. They would use ornamental hardware and the material would be thicker than what was being presented and the finish would be distressed. The wood and metal would be hand - distressed and sealed. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was Cor -ten? Mr. Christian stated it was rusted with a vinegar mixture; it would be washed off in a couple of days, and then sealed to stop the process. Committee Member Woollett asked if the applicant knew what Cor -ten was? Mr. Christian stated no. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 4 of 18 Committee Member Woollett stated it was steel that was designed to rust and it sealed itself. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a terrible example of how not to use Cor -ten at the combined use project on Main Street, across from the Main Place. Cor -ten had a habit of staining everything with rusty water that dripped from it. The rusty water had run down the wood siding and streaked it with rust. Mr. Christian stated he had found the product at a company in Phoenix that built homes and buildings and he had been guaranteed that it would not leak. He had driven out and looked at all the products and he had to purchase all his materials from them to get the warranty. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member McCormack asked if one of the alternatives was to tie the overhang back to the building with cable? Mr. Christian stated the original submittal was not an engineered drawing; it was just a mock up. The contractor he was using had not wanted to build the overhang as originally submitted due to engineering problems. The contractor had come back to him with the proposal for the posts and had it engineered correctly with the weight and so on. Committee Member McCormack referred to another area on the drawings and asked for clarification? Mr. Garcia stated that was another entrance that Committee Member McCormack was looking at; that was the entrance to the shop that was towards the back to the manufacturing area. Mr. Christian stated he distributed product and that was the office area. He was attempting to separate the two entrances as two separate business areas. Committee Member Wheeler handed out a list of his concerns /questions to the applicant and Committee Members. He stated on the elevation drawing the posts were irregular, not evenly spaced. He wanted to ensure that the posts were not placed directly in front of the door. Mr. Christian stated they were not. Committee Member Fox stated she had seen the post bases when she had driven by the property. Committee Member Wheeler stated the plans showed 42" for the roof and the posts were 14" apart, but in multiplying 14" by 3 it was 42" and would not allow for proper spacing. Mr. Christian stated he would check that. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 5 of 18 Committee Member Wheeler stated the hardware called out was different. Mr. Christian presented photos of the proposed hardware. Committee Member Wheeler stated what was called out was more appropriate than the photos; it was heavy duty and something they could discuss. He assumed the 6 x beam would need to be spliced and in doing that the engineer would probably want a tension tie of some sort. If that happened the column caps were not designed to carry that and they would probably want a strap. He would suggest that the strap would go on top and not be visible. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the roof section for the roof to wall flashing, it could get really messy and he was not certain how that would be done. He suggested a saw cut in the concrete and they could caulk it into that. Mr. Christian stated that made sense and it would be a better water barrier. Committee Member Wheeler stated the overhang was not shown and he assumed it was 2 x or so. The height of the column was not shown. Mr. Christian stated the height was 1'. There were planters around them. Committee Member Wheeler stated his big issue was that the sample he had brought in was not the typical method of installing corrugated metal. Normally corrugated metal was installed perpendicular to the framing, and not parallel; if someone placed a ladder up against it, it would sag. Committee Member Fox stated there was blocking noted in the details. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was not blocking there and it would span 5'. It could be done with heavier material. Mr. Christian stated the actual material was much heavier. Committee Member Wheeler stated he could use sheathing under it, but they would need to be cautious to ensure that the screws would not pop through the sheathing. He recommended a more traditional installation with the use of nailers on top, 24" on center, or whatever the engineer preferred. It would be more interesting in looking at it underneath. He presented a sample drawing of the installation he spoke of. They could use 2" x 4" or 3" x 4 ", typically they were detailed 24" on center and it would depend on the corrugated metal. It would make more sense as corrugated metal generally would not run parallel to the framing members that supported it. The example that was presented would make him feel uncomfortable every time he visited the site for a sandwich. He stated that the proposal had not included any signage. Committee Member Fox stated she was new and had not seen the initial submittal; she asked if the same corrugated metal would go on the base of the building? Mr. Christian stated no, it would be a traditional corrugated metal. It was tight against the wall and much smaller, installed vertically. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 6 of 18 Committee Member Fox stated the color was called out as anodized bronze. Mr. Christian stated it was rust, he had not known what else to call it. The roof would match the walls. The thick gauge of the overhang was much stronger. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the Committee Members wanted to discuss the hardware. Committee Member Fox stated she felt the proposed hardware was fairly contrived hardware and the proposed construction had more of a historic packing house feel; the off -the -shelf CB66 hardware painted black would look great. It would look better. The Committee Members reviewed the proposed hardware and the hardware on the sample boards. Committee Member Fox suggested using the thicker hardware and to forego using the ornamental hardware. Committee Member McCormack stated on the mock -up it was receded in and the vertical one was not. He asked if that was the finish? Mr. Christian stated he had made the mock up. He was not a contractor and was using some of the same materials just to provide examples of materials and to provide the character to the proposal. Committee Member McCormack stated two of the areas were notched back and was the intent to have one stick out and one side recede in? Committee Member Wheeler stated they would sit on the surface and not recede in. Mr. Christian stated he had just made the sample fit; it was not what the finished product would look like. He sold bologna and he was not a contractor. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4525 in accordance with the findings and according to the conditions in the Staff Report, with the following additional conditions to be completed before submittal to the Building Department; to be shown on the drawings before submittal to the Building Department. That the dimensions be checked on the structure to be sure that they agree. That the hardware for the post to beam and the post to footing be as specified on the drawings and not the........ Committee Member Fox stated "ornamental." Committee Member Wheeler stated and not the ornamental hardware presented to the Committee and using the devices, which are column bases and column caps rather than post bases and post caps. Another condition that if the 6' x 12' beam needs to be spliced that any tension tie strapping be applied to the top if at all possible, not to be visible. Another condition that the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 7 of 18 flashing for the roof to wall connection be installed in a saw cut in the concrete wall. Another condition that the corrugated roofing be installed over 2" x 4" or 3" x 4" nailers or whatever size the engineer selects; nailers installed perpendicular to the rafters so as to give support to the corrugated metal. Committee Member Woollett asked if he could make a suggestion? Committee Member Wheeler stated sure. Committee Member Woollett stated he mentioned the dimensioning; and he asked if he would want to set a dimension for the extension beyond the last post? Committee Member Wheeler stated yes; he would specify that the barge extension should be no more than 3'. Committee Member Woollett stated his concern was that it would be out on the end. Committee Member Wheeler stated no less than 1' and no less than 3', would that be comfortable? Committee Member Woollett stated yes. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 8 of 18 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4527 -11 — 7- ELEVEN • A proposal to demolish an existing service repair station and construction of a new 7- Eleven with gas dispensing. • 615 S. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, r arcia(&cityoforan e.or • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Joseph Karaki, address on file, thanked the Committee for having him before them to present his project and stated the existing building had been there for almost 34 years and the property owner was anxious to demo the building and start with something new and improve the site. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Cathcart stated the way the landscape was drawn gave him the heebee jeebees; the way the plants were drawn much smaller than they would be; for example, the planting material for the 2' planter would get much larger for the space. There was a mixing and matching of plants with different water needs. He pointed out the areas he was speaking to on the drawings. He was not certain that the person who drew up the planting plans had the knowledge of what the mature specimens would end up as. He wanted the planting materials chosen to fit the spaces. In the planter on Tustin, at the entry, the plant material that was suggested would get huge and the space was small. He suggested that the plant material needed to be placed according to hydrozones and the plant numbers needed to be reduced. The plant material needed to be changed to smaller versions or smaller plant types. The plants were drawn all the same size, but they were not all the same size. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with the comments by Chair Cathcart. He believed a lot of the plant choices were put together incorrectly. Chair Cathcart stated there was not a plant that was drought resistant and the terminology should be changed to drought tolerant. Committee Member McCormack stated he had the same issues with the plants that Chair Cathcart spoke of; but more importantly there was an issue with the look of the site landscape and especially around the outer perimeter. There was a plant shown that was a type of grass that actually was okay as a lawn substitute, but not as a ground cover. Typically in California a ground cover was a planting that would not need mowing, but the choice that was being City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 9 of 18 proposed was a type of ground cover that would need to be mowed and would appear as a weed patch. The area that was proposed for planting could not be mowed as it was in with other plant materials. There was an area called out with sod turf in a raised planter; those areas would not be accessible for mowing; there was a curb and a building wall. Typically turf would not be used as ground cover under plants. It was just a mess. The person who put the plantings together had not had a clear thought process and in adding to what Chair Cathcart had presented, he felt it needed to be completely redone. There was a plant that was not listed on the legend. The Committee Members reviewed the plans to locate the plant name. Committee Member McCormack suggested that the applicant come up with a concept, whether that was drought tolerant or other concept. Mr. Karaki stated he would want some guidance from the DRC Members so he would know what they wanted to see and he could speak with his landscape architect. Committee Member McCormack stated they could almost do anything they wanted. Chair Cathcart stated they could use a more bullet -proof landscaping palette. Committee Member McCormack stated the plants were too large for the spaces and that was a maintenance issue. The turf as a ground cover was also a maintenance issue and would create problems later. He suggested a plan that had in mind maintenance and water use. He had not seen an irrigation plan. Chair Cathcart stated one of the things they could do was to remove the grassy turf and use a more typical ground cover. Committee Member McCormack stated they could use a grass that was not intended for mowing. It would need to be totally rethought. The trees were okay, but to go from there and figure it out. Chair Cathcart stated the applicant could pick up from the library a botanical book regarding the plant sizes at maturity and to draw them in that manner. Committee Member McCormack stated there were many ways to approach the landscape. He looked at it as to what would be problematic when it was finished? Chair Cathcart stated it would be quite difficult to maintain the grasses under the plant materials and the plant sizes would be too large. Committee Member McCormack stated aside from that and Chair Cathcart re- designing it for the applicant, which they would not do during the meeting, he suggested that the applicant go back and come up with a different concept. He asked if there was a setback on the rear left and right property lines? Mr. Garcia stated on commercial property there was not a requirement for a setback. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 10 of 18 Committee Member Wheeler passed out a list of his concerns /questions. He asked if a photometric study was required? Mr. Garcia stated that was not a requirement from Crime Prevention or during the SRC Review. However, with that said, as the project moved along there would be requirements for compliance with the Building Safety Ordinances. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was concerned with the extra lighting hitting the windows of the adjacent residences. Mr. Garcia stated Crime Prevention would look at that during their final review. Committee Member Wheeler stated the propane tank was being moved and he wanted to ensure there would be adequate lighting there; it appeared that it may be a bit dark in that area. There was an electrical transformer shown on the plans and he asked if a screen was required? Mr. Karaki stated there would be plant screens and they were not allowed to place fixed screening. Mr. Garcia stated Southern California Edison would not allow an enclosed screen. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the trash enclosure it showed chain link with redwood diagonal slats on the detail and was also shown on the standard detail; but the Zoning ordinance noted that chain link should not be used. Mr. Karaki stated the enclosure would be solid corrugated metal. Committee Member Wheeler stated the rendering showed that the helium tank enclosure was higher than the other enclosure. Mr. Karaki stated that was a requirement by the State. Committee Member Fox stated the detail needed to match the design drawings. There was also a trellis, but it was not shown on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a trellis? Mr. Karaki stated above the trash enclosure there would be a trellis. It would be a cover and also be a deterrent from having people come and dump their trash in it. Committee Member Fox stated the detail sheet needed to be updated. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Sheet 3.0, keynote no. 12 calling for wood accent, he could not find that anywhere. There was keynote no. 14 that called for a pass- through drawer and he asked what that was for? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 11 of 18 Mr. Karaki stated in the event that the store was closed for safety, patrons could pay at the pass through window to the attendant inside. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a light fixture noted, but it was pointing to a wall and they would want to check that. There was stone noted that was pointing to stucco. More importantly there were exposed rafter tails shown, but no detail for spacing or size. Mr. Karaki stated he wanted to wait until the structural engineer made that determination. They would be no less than 2" x 6" or 2" x 4 ". They would all be no less than 4 bys and all wood. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the canopy area there were no dimensions for the stone and one of his pet peeves was to take the small stone column and have it appear too heavy. As long as the columns were the same width it would be okay. Mr. Karaki stated the columns were 12" x 12 "; and the island wrapped around the columns and he could only go 6" on each side to prevent spill over. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would also want to note that any approvals would not include signage. Committee Member Woollett asked what the ledge stone was? Mr. Karaki stated cultured stone, a pre -cast cultural stone. Committee Member Woollett reviewed the plans; he stated around the top there was stucco and he asked if it was foam with stucco over it? Mr. Karaki stated he wanted to compliment it with wood or foam painted brown to have a detail. Committee Member Woollett stated over the years a lot of foam was used and the size was not always appropriate. If it got much bigger he would worry about it and wanted a dimension to be placed on it. He asked if Mr. Garcia was comfortable with the scaling on the drawings? The way it was drawn, it looked like wood with sharp edges that would fit with the rest of the design. However, often with the use of stucco over foam it would not come out very square and it would be more rounded. Mr. Karaki stated if using 4" x 6" for example, the edge would be straight. He could wrap it with stucco or use the foam with a corner bead. He could use rigid foam with sheet metal over the foam. Committee Member Woollett stated he could use rigid foam. Committee Member McCormack stated it was called out as 2" x 6" trim. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Mr. Karaki asked what the concern was? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 12 of 18 Committee Member Woollett stated his concern was that the intent be carried through so that when it was built the intent of what the applicant wanted to do was carried out. The only way to ensure that was to define it. Mr. Karaki stated Mr. Garcia was very detail- oriented and he had gone through everything with him. Committee Member Wheeler asked if he would be comfortable with just using a 2" x 6" wood trim? Mr. Karaki stated yes. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not wanted that detail to get away as there was a lot that could occur between the design and the built product. Committee Member Fox asked if the filling station island was remaining white, gray, and red? Mr. Karaki stated that area would remain in those colors as the 76 station colors. Committee Member Fox stated that the new building had all earth tones and the canopy and filling station had such a contrast in colors. She had not minded the separation; however, when the stone was introduced to the very white columns she had a problem with that. Mr. Karaki stated the columns could be painted. Committee Member Fox stated she was concerned at the level of warmth in the colors and she thought the building was a very well designed building, but the colors between the two areas were such a contrast. She wondered if the applicant might need to consider a color scheme that would not clash so much with the cooler colors of red, white, and gray. The building could have some cooler colors; the warm colors went with the wood, but there was such a difference. Chair Cathcart stated the building could incorporate a shade of gray with some white accents. Committee Member McCormack stated what color should the columns be? Committee Member Fox stated she was not in favor of having the stone on the columns under the canopy as the stone was such a warm color. If the stone was removed the canopy area could stand alone as its own element in the front and it was far enough away from the building. Committee Member McCormack stated for him it would be brown to match the trim. Committee Member Fox asked even though the other areas were so white? Committee Member McCormack stated if they could not incorporate the colors then just take the stone off. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 13 of 18 Committee Member Fox stated that would be fine and both businesses were separate brands; there was the building that would be the 7- Eleven store and the 76 Station. Mr. Karaki stated he respected the suggestion and he would remove the stone from the columns. Chair Cathcart recommended bifurcating the project to pass the building through and then to have the landscape come back with a new planting plan. Mr. Karaki asked if he would be delayed in going before the Planning Commission? Committee Member Wheeler stated no, he would need to return to the DRC with the landscape plans before he pulled building permits. Verbatim text. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4527 -11, 7- Eleven store, in accordance with the conditions and findings in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions as follows; that the landscape portion of the project be bifurcated and that the landscape return to this Committee prior to the issuance of Building Permits for review and approval. Additional conditions, that the trash enclosure be screened as shown on the rendered elevations rather than the detail in the submittal, rather than the detail shown on sheet AS -2.0; that the difference being the surround for the enclosure shall be a solid metal door and the height of the door in front of the heli tank be taller to conceal the tank. That the wood trim wood members used in the trellis be a minimum of a 4" width, 4 by material. That the cornice trim be 2" x 6" wood trim, exposed. That the stone veneer be deleted or removed from the columns supporting the pump canopy and that the approval or recommendation of approval does not apply to the sign program. Committee Member McCormack asked "Craig, how about the trellis and trash enclosure ?" Committee Member Wheeler stated that is true, that the trash enclosure be covered with a trellis similar to that shown on the rendering. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 14 of 18 (4) DRC No. 4598 -11 — ASIANA GRILL • A proposal to construct exterior fagade modifications and new tenant signage. • 1273 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714- 744 -7237, cortlieb(a,cit ofbrange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Cathcart stated he had an administrative question. On the initial sheets it read DRC final determination, however, on the agenda item it read recommend DRC approval and approval first review. Mr. Ortlieb stated that information was to advise that the item had not been reviewed by the DRC previously. Applicant, William Fancher, address on file, stated he was all right with all the conditions. When he had submitted the application it was so conceptual. It had been decided at one point that the project would not be completed, and then he convinced the owners that he would get it approved. He would get the signs to fit; the project before them was the first of its kind. The Yoshinoya concept was going through some revisions. Committee Member Fox asked if the proposed project would be the re -brand of the restaurant? Mr. Fancher stated yes, it would be the first one. Then it was decided that they were also putting one up along the 57 freeway. Committee Member Wheeler asked on Staff Report, page no. 6, Condition No. 12, he was not certain what the first condition was for and he could not figure out what it was stating. Mr. Ortlieb stated it was actually a condition; they had created a boilerplate from all the department conditions and that condition was pulled out and it was not as clear as it should be. There could not be an exposed raceway for the sign. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could clear that up a bit to have it easier to understand. Public Comment None. Chair Cathcart opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member McCormack asked on the sign, he had not seen a detail for the signage? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 15 of 18 Mr. Fancher stated the idea was so conceptual that the signs had not been completed yet. They were waiting to see what the DRC had thought. He would work with his design guy to come up with the signage. They would be channel letters. Committee Member McCormack asked about the components of the sign. He stated there was a hand brushed piece of wheat; and he asked if that was a blade of wheat and how would that appear on the sign? Mr. Fancher stated he was not certain; it was just conceptual and he would be surprised due to costs if that would even appear on the signs. It would be a sculptured box. Committee Member Woollett asked if it would be lit? Mr. Fancher stated yes. Committee Member McCormack asked if it would be internally lit? Mr. Fancher stated yes, it would not be a square box. It would be shaped, and his guess would be that they would use vinyl. Committee Member Fox asked if the signs were within the size dimensions for compliance? If they approved something now and it came out much smaller, she was not certain they could approve something that was so vague. Committee Member Wheeler suggested bifurcating the signage. Mr. Fancher stated that would be fine, as that would be the last thing that would be done. Committee Member Fox stated the green panels in the recessed areas made sense as they were in little shadow boxes, but the other areas had not made sense and there was some conflict with the signage overlapping that area. She wondered if they even would need the green panels on the non - recessed areas? Mr. Fancher stated they would not need to be on those areas. They were attempting to improve the site and to draw attention to the restaurant. Committee Member Fox stated she agreed with the re- branding effort. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was one step from just painting a small portion of a building in a strip mall a different color. Committee Member Fox stated without the green on the fascia it would just separate the building better. Mr. Fancher stated they were attempting to liven it up. Committee Member McCormack stated the color of the glass was dark, almost a tinted brown. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 16 of 18 Mr. Fancher stated it was clear glass with appliques on the glass. He would do a specific sign plan when they got further along and they intended to have alcohol sales and he would need to go through that process too. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member McCormack stated it was just so dark and unattractive out there right now. Committee Member Woollett stated his concerns were the same in regards to the signage. There were no color samples to review, and he wondered what the actual colors would appear as. When the signage returned he would want to see some actual color samples. The colors presented were almost tints and he suggested that the colors be more intense. Mr. Fancher stated he would provide color samples for the signage. Committee Member McCormack suggested replacing the plant material with something light and bright. An Asian - themed planting. Committee Member Woollett stated he drove by the site and wondered how the cars parked at that location? Mr. Fancher stated parking was actually at the front of the building with entry on the side. Committee Member Wheeler stated it appeared that two new pieces of mechanical equipment were being added to the roof, but he had not seen the height of the parapets? Mr. Fancher stated it was a deep well up there and there would be adequate screening. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4598 -11, Asiana Grill, subject to the conditions and findings in the Staff Report with the additional conditions that the green metal banding on the east and north sides be deleted and that the only green banding be in the recessed areas around the 45 degree corner elements. Another condition that the signage portion of the project be bifurcated to return to this Committee prior to Building Department approval. Committee Member Fox stated and that the units on the roof be screened. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the height of the units installed on the roof be less than the parapet that was there now, any units installed would be lower than the height of the parapets. Committee Member Woollett asked "did you include samples of the signage?" Committee Member Wheeler stated he did not know if they could make that a condition, and that it could be a recommendation. Chair Cathcart stated Staff could put that together. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 17 of 18 Mr. Fancher stated he would make sure he had that as he would be the one bringing it back. Committee Member McCormack asked was it the north and west, he said east? Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought it was east. Committee Member Fox stated it was east. She reviewed the plans and stated it was facing Michaels. Committee Member McCormack stated there was nothing on the west side, this one. Committee Member Fox stated that's north, facing Katella. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2012 Page 18 of 18 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on February 15, 2012. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.