2012-05-02 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
May 2, 2012
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Lucy Yeager, Contract Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M.
Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:12 p.m. with a review of the Agenda.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. He had received a
phone call from Jeff Frankel noting an error in the Staff Report for the Chapman University item.
There was a notation that Chapman University was not within the boundaries of Old Towne; that
would be corrected and the Staff Planner would point that out during the presentation of the item.
Mr. Ortlieb provided a handout to the Committee Members with information on formulating a
motion. The Committee Members reviewed the information provided.
Committee Member Fox stated she would recuse herself from Item No. 4, due to the applicant
having a current project being worked on in her office and Committee Member Imboden stated
he would recuse himself from Item No. 2 due to a conflict of interest.
The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of
April 4, 2012. Corrections and changes were noted.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 2 of 22
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS:
(1) Approval of Minutes: April 4, 2012
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular scheduled
meeting of the Design Review Committee on April 4, 2012 with changes and corrections noted
during the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 3 of 22
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items None
New Agenda Items:
(2) DRC No. 4627 -12 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY— BECKMAN HALL
• A proposal for the exterior renovation of Beckman Hall, an existing classroom building
on the Chapman University campus.
• 393 N. Glassell Street
• Staff Contact: Lucy Yeager, 714 - 744 -7239, lyeager@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination to the Community Development Director
Committee Member Imboden recused himself from the item's presentation due to his
involvement as the Director of a Chapman University supported scholarship.
Contract Planner, Lucy Yeager, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
She stated there was a correction to the Staff Report on page 5, finding No. 2; there was verbiage
that was incorrectly stated that Chapman was not in the Historic District, but that was incorrect
and Chapman was in the Historic District and a non - contributing structure. Ms. Yeager wanted
that point clarified for the record.
Applicant, Kris Olsen, address on file, stated the project was something that he had been waiting
10 years to do and finally had the opportunity and funding to be able to move forward with the
proposed project. The building was at the front door step of Chapman University and the
building had not fit with the rest of the campus vocabulary of color and material.
Applicant, Bob Murrin, address on file, stated the law school was the impetus for introducing the
brick blend. They took a sampling of the brick and began with the Chapel and many campuses
across the country had a brick theme. They added a brick blend to the library and music building
with an attempt to bring that continuity to the campus. It was the thread that tied the campus
together. Beckman Hall was mostly a stucco building with accents of limestone at the base. The
limestone was removed and replaced with brick, in a thin set application. Additionally the
stucco palette that was used throughout the campus would be used with the proposed exterior
renovation. He presented photos and drawings of the building. They were sensitive to the
detailing of the thin brick and where corners were turned, in most cases there would be a thin
stainless steel reveal at the corners and where that would not occur they would be cutting L-
shaped bricks.
Mr. Olsen stated they had to use thin bricks, as the replacement for the limestone had to be
thinner than a full brick. They would be taking full bricks and having them cut, and it was
costing them more to use thin bricks instead of full bricks.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 4 of 22
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated his main concern was how the corners would be handled.
There was one situation on the west side where a recessed form had not gone all the way up to
the horizontal channel. There would be a corner horizontally and a corner horizontal to vertical;
he suggested a soldier course above the opening to allow the bricks to wrap down or since they
were cutting them, they could be cut the other way. On the drawings brick was shown above the
windows on the tower, but on the existing exterior there was a channel. He thought it would
appear odd to bring the bricks over that space.
Mr. Olsen stated he believed that was an error as they would be keeping the channel.
Mr. Murrin stated they would only be replacing the limestone with brick and the channel would
remain in tact.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Community
Development Direct of DRC No. 4627 -12, Chapman University Beckman Hall, subject to the
conditions and revised findings contained in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Robert Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 5 of 22
(3) DRC No. 4580 -11 — RYDER LNG & CNG REFUELING FACILITY
• A proposal for a CNG and LNG refueling station proposed at an existing Ryder truck
facility.
• 1440 N. Main Street
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, r arcia(a,cityoforan e.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Community Development Director
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Elisa Sohn, address on file, introduced her team and stated it was an innovative
project and the first of its kind for a commercial leasing truck operation in North America. They
identified Orange as a city that they wanted to bring their program to. The project was being
funded through Federal grant money and the Department of Energy.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. He stated visually it was a very
positive addition to the industrial area and it was great looking. It added to the aesthetic of the
area and that was his reaction to the proposed project.
Committee Member Fox stated she was excited about the function of the project. On some of the
visual graphics there was an area that appeared to go to the street, however, the site plan had not
shown a driveway access.
Mr. Garcia stated the Google photos had been an earlier version and the current version only had
one driveway access.
Committee Member Fox asked if the cars would then need to go all the way down to the other
driveway for access?
Mr. Garcia stated yes, they would go to the existing driveway and there would not be any
additional drive cuts to the site.
Committee Member Fox stated the public could use the site as a public fueling station, but they
would need to drive through the private Ryder parking lot.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct.
Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted an overview of the various simulations that
were presented, just a brief overview.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 6 of 22
Applicant, Ken Gillette, address on file, stated the first three were an expanded existing site view
of the facility and the others were simulations from Google Earth plotting the station on those
maps. The area would be 34' x 34' with a containment structure, in the event of any potential
leaks; the containment structure would encapsulate the product to avoid any leaks to storm drains
or to avoid any other potential hazard. The three spheres that were to the south were the CNG
storage vessels and inside the containment area there would be an LNG high pressure pump that
would compress liquid and send it through a heat exchanger turning it into gas; it then would be
stored in containers for delivery to dispensaries. That was the basis for the on -site operation.
There would be an on -site CNG dispenser for Ryder truck fueling and an off -site in the front
would be the public accessible CNG dispenser. He presented different photos and views of the
proposed facility to the Committee Members and explained the entrance for public access to the
facility.
Chair Woollett asked for clarification of how the traffic would flow through the site?
Mr. Garcia stated there would be loss of some landscaping in areas he pointed out on the plans,
but there would be additional landscaping added in the back to meet the water quality and filtera
system requirements.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the Staff Report called out the tank as 10' in diameter,
however, it was not noted on the drawings and he was not clear where the tank was located.
Mr. Gillette stated it was mis- labeled. There was a fire hydrant that would be relocated.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on the elevations there was a vaporizer that was listed at 29'-
plus tall, but he had not seen that on the photo samples.
Mr. Gillette stated it was there, the zoom was not enough to show that, the drawings had it.
Committee Member Wheeler asked shouldn't it appear much taller?
Mr. Gillette provided photos and explained where the vaporizer would be located. He stated at
the Ryder facility the containment area would be behind security gates and not accessible to the
public.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the smaller vertical tank was what they were referring to?
Mr. Gillette stated yes, it was a vaporizer.
The Committee Members reviewed the plans.
Committee Member Imboden stated CNG storage containers were being shown as 5' 7" in height
on the elevations, but the Staff Report stated they would be 8'.
Mr. Garcia stated the applicant had indicated they would be 5' 7" in height and he would look to
the applicant for confirmation.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 7 of 22
Mr. Gillette stated they would be 5' 7" in height.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest that a condition be made to have the
drawings clarified a bit and something that could go to Staff for review. There were things such
as the tank diameter, the height of the storage spheres, the height of the vaporizers and such.
Committee Member Imboden asked where the high pressure vaporizers occurred according to
the plans?
Mr. Gillette stated there were actually two high pressure vaporizers and a saturation vaporizer.
He pointed out on the plans where they would be located. There was a difference in heights of
the two vaporizers and he would need to get that information.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a serious lack of information on the drawings.
Committee Member McCormack stated he was reviewing the site plans and basically it was a
natural gas dispensary for vehicles and he asked if there was a limitation on which vehicles could
get natural gas; he was alluding to the size of vehicles they might anticipate. Fed Ex trucks used
natural gas and he was concerned with height limits.
Ms. Sohn stated she believed there would be only certain size vehicles that would be allowed use
of the public dispensers.
Applicant, Karen Mann, address on file, stated in general the difference between liquefied and
compressed natural gas was once it got to a vehicle's motor it was all the same and it was a
matter of how the gas was carried aboard a vehicle. Liquefied natural gas was used for heavy
duty vehicles, for example, such as tractor trailers, and those types of vehicles would be going
behind the gates; they were the Ryder vehicles. The largest vehicle that would use compressed
gas would be just a straight truck, which would use the public access.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there would be something to limit access to those
larger vehicles, to avoid those vehicles from entering the public access area by mistake?
Ms. Mann stated there would be signage that would direct the vehicles.
Ms. Sohn stated the truckers would be well aware that the inside yard would be used for larger
truck and tractor access.
Committee Member McCormack stated both sides could be double loaded and there was a
double entry, but a single out and it had not made sense to him. He was not certain how the
traffic would be handled and it would make more sense to have a double out.
Committee Member Fox stated she disagreed, if that was the parking lot for the Ryder employees
they would not need to wait in line behind the CNG patrons that were gassing up to get to their
parking spots.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 8 of 22
Committee Member Imboden asked, would they not run into a problem as a truck or vehicle was
pulling out with another vehicle pulling in?
Committee Member McCormack stated he brought it up, as there could be one person who had
not understood the flow and could wreak havoc in the circulation plan. The first -time user might
just want to sneak in and not want to drive all the way across.
Mr. Garcia suggested they could discuss the circulation issue with the Traffic Division.
Committee Member Imboden stated the signage they were referring to was not called out on the
plans.
Mr. Gillette stated it was not a full set of plans and there was a full signage plan.
Committee Member Imboden stated he was not certain how the other Committee Members felt,
but the problem he was having was that there were things that they, the DRC, were being asked
to review and approve that were not included or not clear in the plans. There were
inconsistencies between the Google Earth images and what was on the plans. He would not feel
comfortable making a decision on items that were speculative with what was being presented.
He was excited about the project, however, the review was futile. He would not want to
condition the entire project. It appeared the proposed project had been brought before the DRC
first and foremost for the height, but he had not been able to find in the Staff Report information
on maximum height limitations.
Mr. Garcia stated the maximum height was 45'. The height could be higher as the site was
located away from residential zones.
Committee Member Wheeler stated because the proposed project was in an industrial area with
lots of other things going on and various types of equipment all over the place, he was not that
concerned, and although the drawings were not very complete, he would be willing to suggest
that the applicant clarify the drawings and it be left to Staff to review.
Committee Member Fox stated the least clarity was with the element in the back, which she had
been fine with, even given with the other conditions that there might be taller things. She agreed
that clarification was needed and that Staff could manage that. Signage was lacking but she was
not certain that was within their purview for the zone the site was located in.
Mr. Garcia stated it would be only internal directional signage.
Committee Member Fox stated she agreed with Committee Member Wheeler and that the item
would not need to be continued due to the location of the site and the industrial area it was
located within. As long as the heights would not exceed what was called out on the existing
plans she was okay with it.
Committee Member McCormack stated on the site access there was no left -hand turn access due
to the median; he pointed out on the plans the area he was speaking to. Possibly the Traffic
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 9 of 22
Division could review that and he had not wanted to approve a design flaw when they had a
chance to correct it.
Mr. Garcia stated the Traffic Division had reviewed the proposal and had objected to any type of
change at the site. The applicant had proposed another drive cut, but the Public Works
Department opposed that. When the facility had been originally approved through a Major Site
Plan Review there were components that controlled the egress and ingress to the site and other
drives were not approved to restrict movement.
Chair Woollett stated he could understand that, but he agreed with Committee Member
McCormack that the circulation situation had not been solved.
The Committee Members reviewed and discussed the circulation situation at the site.
Mr. Garcia stated Public Works had wanted to maintain the current circulation situation. Their
biggest concern was vehicles making a left -hand turn as the railroad tracks were just north of the
site.
Committee Member Imboden asked if the other proposal had been considered?
Mr. Garcia stated they had gone two or three rounds through SRC and Staff was not willing to
modify their stance on that.
Chair Woollett stated that was not a Design Review issue and the circulation and traffic issues
were not within their purview; they would just be addressing the visual aspects of the proposal
and not the functional aspects of it. Traffic was not a DRC issue unless it had an aesthetic or
visual impact.
Committee Members Wheeler and Fox stated they agreed.
Chair Woollett stated Committee Member Imboden was right on target in stating there was not a
very accurate representation of what was going to occur, but on the other hand, there were
worthy comments made about "so what."
Committee Member Wheeler stated if it turned out to be a problem they could come up with a
better solution.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to recommend approval to the Community Development
Director, DRC No. 4580 -I1, Ryder LNG & CNG Refueling Facility, subject to the findings and
conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions as follows:
Verbatim Text:
• Site plan be modified to include more explicit descriptions of the tanks and the accessory
elements that were associated with those tanks to understand their location within the
containment perimeter walls.
• Staff to receive evidence of those drawings being clearly done prior to Community
Development approval.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 10 of 22
• Applicant and Staff to work together to resolve any circulation issues that might arise to
resolve those conflicts.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: Robert Imboden
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 11 of 22
(4) DRC No. 4602 -11 — NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO
• A proposal for the renovation of an existing industrial site, removal of multiple storage
buildings, and construction of two industrial buildings resulting in 27,500 additional
square feet.
• 748 N. Poplar Street
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, rgarcia(&cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Committee Member Fox recused herself from the item's presentation, as her firm was involved
with the applicant on another project.
Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Colleen River, address on file, introduced her team and stated National Oilwell Varco
not only had the two pieces of property, but also had the adjacent property which was their
primary hub. They leased other buildings in the area and were a very robust company. There
was a lot of work going on and they needed the building as soon as they could get it. She
thanked Staff for getting them to the DRC quickly. The building had the same elements as the
adjacent building and it was the main reason they used the color palettes. It was a metal building
and they would put in another building that had not needed the height of the other buildings. She
reviewed the drawings with the Committee Members.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. He asked if the building to the
west was the same as the building they were proposing to renovate?
Ms. River stated yes, it was the same, it had the same canopy and blue fascia trim all the way
around the building.
Committee Member Wheeler stated in the early 80's he owned stock in Varco and he was
pleased to have done that, and he had not done that for over 15 years so he thought it was okay
for him to hear the item's presentation. He had not had any problems with the proposal and there
were just a few very minor drafting comments.
Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Garcia if he would send them two Staff Reports in one
evening that would not include the maximum height limits?
Mr. Garcia stated yes he had and he would correct that. The height of the proposed building was
50', and in an industrial district the maximum height was 45' if placed away from residential
properties. In the item before them, due to the existing lot lines, the building would not have met
the distance requirements for a 50' height building. The property line was 30' away and in order
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 12 of 22
to be within the height requirements the adjacent parcel had been incorporated into their plan and
therefore the lot line adjustment was required.
Committee Member McCormack asked if there were three existing trees, as they were not shown
on the conceptual planting plan?
Ms. River stated she had thought there were trees there. She reviewed the plans with Mr. Garcia
and stated there were no trees in the location indicated by Committee Member McCormack.
Committee Member McCormack stated there was a smaller tree indicated, in an area he pointed
to on the plans. He stated that to place a small lollypop tree in a large parking lot where there
were such large buildings seemed very odd, and the tree seemed destined to die. It would never
get a running chance to survive. A medium tree would be better. He was not suggesting that
they plant a Sequoia tree or big huge Oak tree, but that the selection should be more appropriate
and to use a tree that would provide shade. He would not choose a lollypop tree as it would not
do anything. The reason for the diamonds in the parking lot was to have trees that would shade
the expanse of parking lot. He suggested using a tree with a little meat to it, but not a bully, he
would not want to see a tree there that would turn the parking lot into shreds. The applicant's
landscape architect could select an appropriate tree. He suggested the use of an Evergreen Elm
tree or the Tipuana tree, a tree that was larger would be more appropriate and he had not had any
problems with the shrubs that were suggested. He suggested that they have three trees in the
missing T's. There was also a percentage of 24- gallon and 15- gallon, and if they could find a
tree that would survive in a 15- gallon he would suggest they use all 15's. He suggested
consistency to use the same size tree throughout the project.
Committee Member Wheeler stated there were a few drafting issues, on page Al. 1, note No. 3
the gutters were stated as being connected to the sewer and he thought they meant to state the
storm drain. There was a roof hatch shown on the first floor and he thought that they meant to
show that on the second floor. The ladder should be above the roof hatch.
Ms. River stated it was a layering issue and would be corrected.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission, DRC No. 4602 -11, National Oilwell Varco, subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the Staff Report with the following conditions:
Verbatim text:
• Concerning the landscape plans as submitted, to add three additional 15- gallon trees to
fill in the three vacant half - diamonds in the parking lot along the strip planting areas.
• To propose an alternative tree selection to be of medium size to be submitted for Staff
approval.
Chair Woollett stated medium size had more meaning to Committee Member McCormack than
to anyone else and he asked if he wanted to provide a suggested tree specie?
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 13 of 22
Committee Member McCormack stated to use a tree such as an Elm tree, Podocarpus or a
Tipuana; something that would gain the normal status of a medium size tree that would
potentially meet a spread of 25' to 30' and of the same height.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 14 of 22
(5) DRC No. 4613 -12 — GOODWILL OF ORANGE COUNTY
• A proposal to place an attended donation trailer on the southeast corner of the property.
• 2045 N. Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen(&cit o� forange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Daniel Michels, address on file, stated he was present for questions.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 8 of the Staff Report there was reference in
Condition No. 21 to portable restrooms. He asked if the site could have a portable restroom if
they so chose to have one?
Ms. Nguyen stated that was a condition requested by the Public Works Department. It was not
shown on the site plan.
Mr. Michels stated they had not anticipated having one.
Committee Member Wheeler asked what if the applicant had an agreement with the restaurant
that the person attending the trailer would be able to use the restaurant facility?
Mr. Michels stated they could, the person at the donation site would have a regular lunch break
and have their own vehicle.
Committee Member Wheeler stated possibly they could condition that the applicant have a letter
from the restaurant agreeing that sanitary facilities would be available to the donation trailer
attendant.
Committee Member McCormack asked if the Goodwill facility had a restroom?
Ms. Nguyen stated there was not a location nearby.
Chair Woollett stated the facility was on South Tustin.
Committee Member Imboden asked if they knew the hours of operation of the restaurant?
Ms. Nguyen stated she was not certain.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 15 of 22
Chair Woollett asked if they met the parking requirements?
Ms. Nguyen stated there was excess parking at the site.
Committee Member Imboden stated when the donation trailer was full, another truck would
arrive to deliver an empty truck and then take the full trailer. For a period of time there would be
a free - standing full truck and a free - standing empty truck and he asked what would that duration
be when two trucks would be on site?
Ms. Nguyen stated that information was also in the conditions and it would be for a very short
time. The applicant had stated to Staff that the exchange would occur during a period when the
restaurant was not open. The duration was not stated, but they had mentioned the exchange was
fairly quick.
Committee Member Imboden stated if it was not specified, the restaurant could turn into a
breakfast restaurant next week and then the exchange could interfere with their business.
Ms. Nguyen stated yes that could occur. They could specify the time frame.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the skirting had been done before with the Velcro
attachments?
Mr. Michels stated they had used a few design features, and one had been a vinyl fence, but the
vinyl skirt could be easily removed, rolled up, and stored in the trailer.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had been used during Santa Ana wind conditions?
Mr. Michels stated not that he was aware of.
Committee Member Fox asked what precipitated the need for the skirt?
Ms. Nguyen stated during the Staff review, there was a concern with the look of the wheels and
the posts that held up the trailer and Staff wanted screening during the day time hours and the
Police Department wanted visibility during the evening hours. Previously the trailer had been
proposed with a gap from the trailer to the fence and Staff had requested that the trailer be
pushed back to eliminate the gap for security reasons.
Committee Member McCormack stated the skirt had signage on it.
Committee Member Fox stated there were some confusing elements on the skirt. Part of the
signage stated do not leave donations after hours, but after hours the sign on the skirt would be
gone; she had wondered what the effectiveness of that signage would be. Why was the signage
on the skirt and not on the truck, she asked if that had been a Staff request?
Ms. Nguyen stated no, she was not certain why it was placed there.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 16 of 22
Mr. Michels stated it was a last minute change. The trucks had a logo and had previously had
the other information on them, and they were told that their signage was too large for the City's
signage criteria, therefore, some of the signage was removed.
Committee Member Fox asked if the donation information could be placed on the truck?
Mr. Michels stated yes, they could add that.
Committee Member Imboden stated the sign was essentially a banner sign which was not
allowed in that zone.
Ms. Nguyen stated they called it a screen.
Committee Member Imboden stated it was a banner hanging under a trailer. Was there a
problem with having the signage added to the trailer?
Ms. Nguyen stated that could be done. The skirt was a screen to hide the wheels and trailer
posts. There was no reason that the applicant couldn't add the additional signage to the trailer.
Goodwill was dedicating two trailers to the site that would meet the City of Orange's sign
requirements.
Chair Woollett stated the Design Review Committee was the official body that was assigned to
address visual issues appointed by the City Council to do that; and he asked if they were
concerned with the tires showing and was the skirt necessary?
Mr. Michels presented a photo of what had been initially submitted without the skirt.
Committee Member McCormack stated they could use artificial turf material for the skirt and
then it would appear as a hedge. At the Design Center in Costa Mesa it was used on a wall and it
was easy to use on a wall, it was light weight and they had just tacked it to the wall.
Committee Member Imboden asked after six months would it still look nice?
Committee Member McCormack stated it was UV resistant.
Committee Member Imboden stated the Staff Report indicated that one -half of the truck was
behind the building and in reviewing the plans it was not.
Ms. Nguyen stated in reviewing the plans it was pretty dead on. In elevation view it was one -
half behind.
Committee Member Imboden stated the entire truck was completely visible from North Tustin,
the restaurant was not in front of the truck. Was there any reason that the truck was not
positioned behind the restaurant? He was concerned with the same type of application coming
through in the future; he wanted to discuss the aesthetics. There had been nothing mentioned
about set backs and they were discussing placing it 11" from the back wall. It was a CUP that
would run in perpetuity with the land; a truck parked there. He had some concern with the
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 17 of 22
neighbors that were directly behind the trailer; 8" or more of the truck would be visible above the
neighboring residential wall. If he was a neighbor and the truck situation had been conditioned
in perpetuity he would want to know about it. He asked if the residential properties would be
noticed?
Ms. Nguyen stated yes. In regard to the visibility issue, Staff had wanted to allow some visibility
and if they had wanted to add further signage they would have had to work with King Lobster
restaurant and incorporate their signage on the monument sign with the restaurant signage.
Because of the standards the applicant would not be allowed to place an A frame sign more than
10' from their location and that would place the sign in the parking lot and not on Tustin. The
truck was allowed to peek out in order to have some visibility from the street.
Committee Member Fox stated the discrepancy was from the aerial photos it had appeared that
there was something that would block the trailer's visibility, but it appeared to be landscaping.
Mr. Michels stated the site was heavily landscaped and it had obscured the trailer's view.
Committee Member Fox stated the site plan had not placed the trailer behind the building at all.
Committee Member Imboden stated they were looking at the edge of the driveway and it was
closer to the building then perceived.
Mr. Michels stated the Police Department had made a comment about having visibility of the
trailer when the skirt was off and to allow light to get to it.
Ms. Nguyen stated there had initially been a gap between the property wall and the trailer and
Staff had asked that the trailer be pushed back.
Chair Woollett stated the artificial turf for a screen would not be as flexible to fold up and put
away.
Mr. Michels stated the vinyl would be the material of a banner sign.
Committee Member McCormack stated if it was vinyl it could be green.
The Committee Members discussed ideas for the skirt material and signage.
Chair Woollett suggested that artificial turf be recommended.
Ms. Nguyen stated the item was going to the Zoning Administrator for final determination.
Committee Member Fox suggested a color that matched the restaurant.
Committee Member Imboden stated he agreed as they were reviewing the project for the
aesthetics. Having the signage on the truck would provide for better way - finding.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 18 of 22
Committee Member Fox stated it was important for the restaurant as well, that patrons
understood what the truck was for.
Committee Member McCormack stated he would rather have the skirt match the field of the sign
logo and it would be more consistent with the Goodwill logo.
Chair Woollett stated he agreed and that would provide for better visibility of what the truck was
for.
Committee Member Fox stated she would want the signage that was moved to the trailer to be
permanently affixed to the trailer.
Ms. Nguyen asked if they wanted to discuss the exchange of trailers?
Chair Woollett stated no.
Committee Member Wheeler stated they had the same situation with the aluminum recycling
centers and he was not aware of any problems.
The Committee Members discussed a motion.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Zoning
Administrator, DRC No. 4613 -12, Goodwill of Orange County, subject to the findings and
conditions contained in the Staff Report and that Condition No. 21 be revised to read that a
portable restroom was not to be used and with the following suggestion:
Verbatim Text:
• A letter from the restaurant stating there would be access to the restroom facilities for the
person manning the donation facility.
And additional conditions:
• A permanent sign of the same size as shown in the drawings on the skirt be moved to the
lower edge of the trailer.
• That the skirting color to be blue to match the sign or the use of synthetic turf be
considered for the trailer skirt.
Committee Member Imboden asked if they should modify the time frame that was stated in
Condition No. 28 on page 8 of 9. Since they already knew that the issuance of a building permit
was not needed.
Ms. Nguyen stated if the permit was not needed none of those things were required, and it was
not needed.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 19 of 22
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 20 of 22
(6) DRC No. 4625 -12 — ORANGE TOWN & COUNTRY CENTER
• A proposal to modify the existing sign program to add General Requirements
and allow two lines of copy instead of one line of copy.
• 745 -791 S. Main Street
• Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, dnguyen(a,cit oy forange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Applicant, Hector Haget, address on file, stated he wanted to use a two line copy for their logo
and there were existing tenants with two line logos at the site.
Public Comment
None.
Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a suggested change to the sign criteria. No. 1, to be
more consistent with what was out there and to be consistent with other approvals that had come
through the DRC; rather than keep the old stipulation that each tenant shall have an aluminum
pan channel letter sign and internally illuminated can sign, they had not been in the practice of
supporting can signs except for logos. That appeared to be what was going on there that the
logos were the only can signs. He would suggest a change that read acrylic face can signs for the
logo portion of the sign only. He asked the applicant if there was a problem with his suggestion?
Mr. Haget stated no, the Jersey Mike's Subs was their logo and their brand and it would not be
an issue for them.
Ms. Nguyen stated she wanted to make it clear that Mr. Haget was only representing one tenant,
the Jersey Mike's tenant. The landlord signed the affidavit to allow him to present the proposal
before them to modify his sign.
Committee Member Imboden stated it was nothing outside of the standards; and it had been an
isolated situation out at that shopping center.
Ms. Nguyen stated it had been a situation of the original development, from the DRB.
Committee Member Fox asked if Committee Member Wheeler's suggestion was not appropriate
as the landlord was not present to defend that change?
Ms. Nguyen stated it was up to the DRC to make that determination.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 21 of 22
Committee Member Fox stated they would be changing something that was in a previously
approved sign program.
Committee Member Wheeler stated his suggestion was consistent with what was out there
currently.
Ms. Nguyen stated it was within the purview of the DRC to make modifications to the sign
program and the affidavit was signed by the landlord allowing Mr. Haget to represent him.
Committee Member Imboden stated the signs that already had two lines of copy would comply
with what they would be approving with the item before them.
Ms. Nguyen stated the other tenants actually had permits to allow those signs.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4625 -12, Orange Town &
Country Center, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the
additional condition as follows:
Verbatim Text.
• That page No. 3 of the sign program, paragraph 1, the first sentence be changed to read:
each tenant shall be permitted an illuminated pan channel letter sign, and internally
illuminated surface mounted acrylic faced can sign for logo portions of the sign only or
one set of non - illuminated, etc.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012
Page 22 of 22
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review
Committee meeting on May 16, 2012.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.