2017-05-17 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair May 17, 2017
Tim McCormack
Carol Fox
Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Anne Fox, Contract Planner
Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session—5:00
Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:22 p.m.
Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior
Planner, indicated there was none.
Committee Members requested an update on the Swift and Swift sign status. Staff informed the
Committee that the hardware on top of the sign was corrected per the approved plan and confirmed
that the sheen of the sign matched the paint sample.
Committee Member Fox requested that staff look into whether the real estate advertisement placards
in the windows of the establishment next to Woody's are internally lit or just bright white painted
signs.
Committee and staff inembers discussed if there would be a meeting on July Sth, 2017 due to the
holiday. Chair Imboden and Committee Members Fox and McDermott all agreed they would be in
approval of moving that meeting to the following week, July 12th, 2017. Committee Member
McCormack was not in attendance of the Administrative Session and therefore was unable to give his
input. Staff inembers said they would evaluate if this move would also work well for staff and revisit
the discussion at a later time.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for May 3, 2017.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
Committee meeting.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:36 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17,2017
Page 2 of 8
Regular Session—5:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee member McCormack was not present during roll call but did arrive during the regular
session; all other 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: May 3,2017
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of May 3, 2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
ABSTAIN: None
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes far May 17, 2017
Page 3 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS
Continued Items:
(2) DRC No. 4836-15—Orange Art of Dentistry
• A proposal to demolish an existing 2,000 square foot building and site improvements to
construct a 2,565 square foot office building including related site improvements to establish
a dental office
• 2006 West Chapman Avenue
• Staff Contact: Anne Fox, (714) 744-7220, afoxna,cityoforan�e org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to Zoning Administrator
Anne Fox, Contract Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were James Lee and Vinh-Hai Ngo.
Public Comments:
Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC had the following comments:
• Clarification was requested as to the sizes of the Crape Mrytle trees due to the fact that the
legend doesn't reflect that there are two different sizes of the same tree.
• The rigid symmetry with the much taller portion in the middle of the building is still not
working well for the program of the building.
• Clarification was requested on elevation sheet A.3-1 with regards to what material was being
used at the base of the windows and whether it was a different color and/or opaque.
• Concern was expressed about the windows on the north elevation because several of them are
a direct view into patient treatment rooms from the parking lot.
• Although previously addressed, there still seemed to be a problem with symmetry/asymmetry
on the building elevations, particularly the Chapman Avenue orientation.
• The entry door could be accentuated better, perhaps with a canopy element, and by changing
the windows located on eastern portion of the north elevation from a storefront type to a
raised sill and office type window.
• Concern was expressed with the choice of color palette because it combined a cool grey with
a warm beige which seems to clash, and the Committee requested a better representation on
the rendering of the proposed colors.
• The Committee suggested that the two rooms on the floor plan without windows may serve
better as patient rooms instead of a lunch and conference room due to privacy issues with the
floor to ceiling windows proposed on the north elevation.
• The Committee was not in favor of the fact that the planters were not centered on the rigidly
symmetrical front of the building and the paving was not centered either.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2017
Page 4 of 8
• The Committee requested a civil plan and inquired as to whether the parking lot was concrete
or asphalt and needed a cross section for the drain swale that appeared to be running uphill.
• The enhanced paving against the front of the building seemed out of place given that it did
not identify an actual walkway. The Committee requested explanation of what the concept of
doing this was, and inquired if it was necessary for traffic turnaround.
• It was suggested that the applicant could put tall plants in front of the windows to try to
provide privacy, but that did not require maintenance that would leave an ugly edge when
viewed from inside the patient rooms.
• There did not appear to be enough room to get layering with the landscape, so making a
statement in the front with one plant type as a focus that would be able to tolerate shade
would look more simplistic to match the structure; and the Committee suggested Kangaroo
Paws, Cast Iron plants, or some type of grass.
• The Committee did not think it would look balanced to have trees on the east side being
larger than on the west side of the parking lot area and recommended the use of a single tree
size even if that meant reducing the number of trees or reducing the size of the trees. A
Platanus Racemosa tree was suggested instead of a Strawberry Tree in the front planter.
• Clarification from Staff was requested on whether there were Queen Palms or King Palms on
West Chapman Avenue.
• Clarification was requested on the vertical panels noted as Bardeaux because they were
called out as decorative molding but their purpose was unclear. Clarification was also
requested on how it wrapped around the corner or if it is just painted on the building surface.
• It was suggested that the applicant treat the center block of the building as one color and the
other two side pieces as another color instead of the false columns.
• Concern remained with the "build-ability" of the structure given that there was quite a bit of
slope in the roof from the front to back, and the thirty-six inch parapet would decrease
resulting in visibility of the compressor.
• The idea of using an internal drainage system was supported but the Committee needed
clarification as to how the overflow drainage would show on the building.
• The lighting choices seemed contradictory as the light for the parking lot was modern but the
building lighting was very traditional.
� There seemed to be an extensive run of stucco throughout the entire building and the
Committee wanted the applicant to indicate how they would space the reveals if they decided
to break it up. It was suggested that the applicant should, in fact, provide breaks in the stucco.
• The trash enclosure was an area of concern because the proposal included a three-sided
enclosure with a gate and trellis which was presumably wood but this did not integrate with
the building architecture. The Committee wanted to make sure the trash enclosure was
architecturally connected to the building somehow and made sure to note that the
conventional approach with ivy and a trellis would not be approved unless the trellis was
metal and more modern.
• To help alleviate the problems with the windows, it was suggested that the applicant raise the
windowsill up instead of having a separate glass color at the bottom. This would also
emphasize the entry more.
• It was noted that the proposed header heights of the windows would likely be above the
ceiling and there should be more of a transom window above the regular windows rather than
another full-size window.
• The landscape architect needed to show where the light poles were on his plan because it
appeared that the planting conflicts with the locations being proposed.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17,2017
Page 5 of 8
Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No.4836-15,Orange Art of Dentistry,based
on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2017
Page 6 of 8
New Agenda Items•
(3) DRC No. 4902-17—Urth Caffe Signage
• A proposal to install new signs on a contributing historic building in the Plaza Historic District.
• 100 W. Chapman Avenue, Plaza Historic District
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�citvoforan e or�
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Marissa Moshier,Historic Preservation Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Walter Jones, Stephen Jones, Chris DeRuyter,
and Breck Wilson.
Public Comments:
Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments.
Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association,expressed support for the project,noting that it was
one of the best he has seen in the Plaza. With regard to the proposed signage, Mr. Frankel found the
blade and window signage acceptable, however, he objected to the painted wall signage and felt that
it was not in alignment with the Old Towne Design Standards. He suggested an alternative of having
the wall painting applied on an interior wall instead.
Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion and clarified that the Committee's
purpose with this item was to determine whether the text related to "historically referenced signs" in
the Design Standards could apply to the applicant's request for a larger blade sign and a wall sign
painted directly on the building, which is a type of sign that is not permitted under the Design
Standards. Chair Imboden requested that staff read the text of the Old Towne Design Standards related
to historically referenced signs for the record. The standard stated that "historically referenced signs
as documented from original building photographs may exceed permitted standards".
The DRC had the following comments:
• The Committee Members expressed differing opinions regarding the painted wall sign:
• Committee Member Fox stated that signs painted on buildings were not permitted in the
Design Standards. The "historically referenced signs"text should not be used to approve types
of signs that are not permitted at all. Since there was no exact "Urth Caffe" signage in the
historical photos provided, the proposed sign would create a false sense of history.
• Although the Committee expressed concern for setting a precedent for painted brick signs, the
members discussed the importance of the specifics of this application. The series of painted
signs that were on the building during the plaza's period of significance were considered
unique to this project.
• The Committee Members did not find the proposed figurative, mural-like agricultural scene to
be appropriately historically referenced.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2017
Page 7 of 8
• The sign painted directly on the brick would also need to be reversible. The Committee
Members expressed that they would want to see a plan from a conservator for a treatment to
go under the sign that would allow it to be removed without damage.
• The Committee referenced the NPS Preservation Brief#25 which notes that guidance on
historic signs with too much signage control in historical districts could create blandness and
discourage diversity.
• The size of the blade sign on Chapman Avenue (sign#1) was also discussed as a historically
referenced sign. The size of the sign requested by the applicant was based on historic
photographs of a blade sign in the same location. The Committee discussed whether to
approve the sign as it was proposed at the permitted 15 square foot size, or if the content was
historically referenced and could therefore be approved at the larger proposed size.
• There was a desire for the blade sign to more closely resemble the historic photograph by
saying simply "coffee" or"tea"without the logo, because the logo may not be historically
referenced.
• Clarification was requested as to what types of materials were proposed far sign#l. The
patina of the sign as a whole was not preferred by the Committee.
• The applicant explained the materials and patina finishes as part of the Urth Caffe brand.
• The Committee discussed the size of the sign and came to a consensus that the larger size was
appropriate for the scale of the building.
• Clarification was requested if the sign in the transom window was part of the approval. Staff
indicated that it was part of the sign package submitted to the DRC for final determination.
• Clarification was requested if the historical wall exhibit(sign#4) was part of the Committee's
approval. Staff replied that the historical wall exhibit was provided for the DRC's information
only and was not included in the project determination. The Committee commented that the
exhibit was a good use for the wall that would be visible at one of the storefronts on
Chapman.
• Clarification was requested that the alley sign(sign#2) had lights on both sides that extended
far enough down to avoid glare. The applicant clarified that the fixtures are adjustable and
would be positioned to avoid that problem.
• The Committee indicated that the sign#2 could be approved as long as it had fasteners
connected through the mortar joints.
Staff and the Committee discussed the Committee's potential options for making a motion on the
project.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to approve signs number one, two, and five in the
sign plans for DRC No. 4902-17, Urth Caffe Signage, based on the findings and conditions listed in
the Staff Report, and with the additional condition:
1. The applicant may return at a later date to submit a revised painted wall sign (sign number
three) for the DRC's consideration.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
NOES: Carol Fox
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2017
Page 8 of 8
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on June 7, 2017.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.