04-04-2007 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
Committee Members Present
Committee Members Absent:
Jon Califf
Donnie DeWees
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Bill Cathcart
4 April 2007
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator
Mari Burke, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
The Committee holds an Administrative Session to receive general information from the staff
and to conduct an initial review of Minutes of prior meetings. The session is open to the public;
however, no public testimony is taken and no decisions are made. Following the Administrative
Session, the regular meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting on Wednesday,
April 18, 2007.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 2 of 19
REORGANIZATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 18, 2007:
Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Chair Califf made a motion nominating Craig Wheeler as Chairperson.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Califf made a motion nominating Donnie DeWees as Vice-Chairperson.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
No public attendees addressed the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the
Agenda.
NOTICE:
Due to the conflict of two Committee Members (their business relationship with Chuck Yaghi)
and absenteeism of another, Chair Califf made an announcement that there was a lack of a
quorum; therefore Item 7, DRC No. 4210-07 - EVANS SECOND-STORY ADDITION would
be heard at the next meeting.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 3 of 19
CONSENT ITEMS:
All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the
Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, Staff or the
public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items for separate action.
The following item was moved to Consent:
5. DRC No. 4197-07 - HODGE RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a 1,448 square foot detached accessory garage for a car, RV, and
workshop.
394 North Rancho Santiago
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dngu en ,cityoforan~e.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4197-07 by consent subject to
the conditions in the Staff Report and an additional condition added by Associate Planner Doris
Nguyen:
Any new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system.
Chair Califf stated the requirement for an automatic irrigation system should be a standard
condition.
There was no public comment provided on this item.
The applicant was asked if she was amenable to approval of the project subject to the conditions
in the Staff Report. She responded affirmatively.
SECOND: Jon Califf
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 4 of 19
1. DRC No. 4124-06 - NOONAN RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a new second story, as well as an addition to the first floor, to an
existing single-family residence. Continued from the March 7, 2007 DRC Meeting.
2338 East Altura Avenue
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthalalr(c~cityoforange•org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Mr. Noonan stated:
He put horizontal siding on his home as four of the other ranch houses in the neighborhood also
have horizontal siding.
He has now labeled everything (existing and proposed materials).
He brought a catalog of different roofing materials.
He addressed everything the Committee had requested at the last meeting.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he recalled and verified from the minutes that the use of
small gables was a suggestion only, it was not a requirement. Mr. Noonan responded that he just
matched what was there; furthermore, a lot of houses in the neighborhood have only one very
small Dutch gable (4') and his opinion was they look like a small bird house. Mr. Noonan stated
there are more houses with hip roofs than Dutch gables.
Chair Califf asked Mr. Noonan if he had any problem using brick rather than siding on his
chimney. Mr. Noonan responded that he could make it look like brick if they want but there is
no way to put brick on a zero clearance metal fireplace. Chair Califf stated he was thinking
along the lines of a thin brick that could be applied to stucco. Committee Member Wheeler
suggested using only stucco and Mr. Noonan replied he would rather do that as most of the house
is stucco anyway.
Committee Member Wheeler commented that he thought there was significant improvement
from where they started.
Chair Califf stated that the corners of the siding should be wrapped back so they both end in the
same place. Mr. Noonan asked Chair Califf to mark on the drawings where it should be stopped.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that a couple of the Committee Members have serious
concerns over whether the stairway will work as configured. Mr. Noonan was told that if it
doesn't work and impacts the exterior of the project he would need to come back. Mr. Noonan
responded "there is no problem with the stairs."
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4124-06 subject to:
I) The conditions contained in the Staff Report.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 5 of 19
2) The chimney should be finished in stucco rather than lap siding.
3) The siding on the west elevation of the first level should carry back to the same line as the
siding above.
4) Should changes be required to the design of the stairs that influence the exterior of the
building, the project would need to come back to the DRC for review.
5) All new landscaping should have an automatic irrigation system.
SECOND: Jon Califf
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 6 of 19
2. DRC No. 4127-06 & CUP No. 2605-06 -CLAYTON NEW INFILL RESIDENTIAL
A proposal to demolish anon-contributing, single-family residence, a second unit and
garage, and construct a new 1-1/2 story single-family residence and accessory unit over
a new 2-car garage. Continued from the March 21, 2007 DRC Meeting.
376 South Center Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District)
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dryan~cityoforange.ot•g
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Chair Jon Califf recused himself as he is the architect of record for this project.
Senior Planner Historic Preservation Dan Ryan provided a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
The applicant's representative, John Yvon, spoke to each of the DRC recommendations from the
March 21, 2007 meeting stating:
1) There is a slight slope but a notation has been added to all elevations that the maximum
height from finish floor to grade for the main residence is 30".
2) The screening/protection of basement wells was highlighted on the drawings for the
Committee by the applicant's representative and Mr. Ryan interjected that the security
screens are recessed so they will not be seen from the elevations.
3) The bathroom was out further (location was pointed out on the drawings for the Committee)
and the position of the closet was changed by turning it in closer to the ridge (change was
pointed out on the drawings for the Committee).
4) Reduction to the overall height was one and one-half foot and that was with keeping the same
pitch. They did not think it would look good with two different pitches (change was pointed
out on the drawings for the Committee).
5) Shots were done at ctilrb and roof height and copies provided to the Committee.
6) A notation was made on the plans of the requirement for a final landscape and irrigation plan.
The applicant's representative was asked if there was a change in the window configuration as a
result of lowering the roof. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Mr. Ryan asked the applicant what other buildings were similar in height and over/above the
proposed project. The applicant's representative pointed out which were similar and that the
structure across the street is about a one and one-half foot bigger. He conchided stating there are
3) that are technically higher than this proposal.
Public input was provided as follows:
Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated:
None of the pictures shared with the Committee were available in the library for this project
and it made it difficult to comment on something she had never seen.
Looking at the figures, she is not unhappy with tearing down the two boxes that are existing.
What is already a big FAR is being increased.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 Apri12007
Page 7 of 19
The roof height is only being reduced by 2.5% which is really not very much even though it
compares favorably to the rest of the block.
Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated:
He thought that even with the height reduction this would still be the tallest building on the
west side of the block. The applicant responded that was correct.
Inasmuch as the other structure on the further end (the original historic one) has the height on
the addition, this project is being compared to the height of an inappropriate development.
At the last meeting he thought the suggestion of the DRC was to bring the height down by 2.5'-
3' but the actual reduction was only 1'.
The proposed 1' reduction only decreases the FAR by a fraction.
The bulk and massing has not really been decreased much at all.
He would hope that when the DRC recommends that an applicant bring down the height, they
would try to meet the recommendation, especially when it's brought forward by another DRC
member.
The overall design looks good except the rear porch is very elaborate.
He's disappointed with the lack of movement to reduce the FAR as it really didn't get reduced
as much as he thought it would be.
Everything else looks good.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that even though the height was brought down only by 1',
his opinion was the visual height would be down even more than that because they pushed the
ridge back. He added that the fact they did a double pitch on the front roof will cut down the
mass of the front plane--both are an advantage to the design of the house. He stated he was quite
surprised that this project was not that much bigger than others in the neighborhood.
Committee Member Woollett stated he thought the applicant was responsive to the comments
made previously by the DRC; the City was very fortunate to have this project; it sets a very good
precedent and he supported the project.
Committee Member Woollett stated changes made based on his earlier assumptions would have
potentially compromised the design to an extent not justified. Committee Member Wheeler
stated they certainly did reconfigure the second floor based on the suggestions he had made.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission of DRC No. 4127-06 & CUP No. 2605-06 subject to:
1) The recommendations in the Staff Report.
2) Any new landscaping shall have an automatic irrigation system and this requirement will be
noted on Sheet T-1 and the Site Plan.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 8 of 19
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Jon Califf
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 9 of 19
3. DRC No. 4148-06 -WANG RETAIL CENTER
A proposal to construct a new retail building. Continued from the February 7, 2007
DRC Meeting.
130 East Taft Avenue
Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(a~cityororange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
Associate Planner Sonal Thakur provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Committee Member DeWees stated he thought it was much better, a simpler design. He asked if
there was going to be turn buckle and steel rod detail or solid supports. The applicant responded
they will probably have solid and some turn buckle but if the Committee would prefer just solid
if they could do that. He also stated he forgot to indicate the cornice will be precast concrete.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if they were still going to have steel trusses and if an
engineer had been consulted. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Committee Member DeWees stated he ran into an issue where the Code would not recognize a
turn buckle, but it would a clevis.
As Star Jasmine would not attach itself to the trash enclosure wall, the applicant was instnicted
to include trellises for the material to grow on or change the plant material. Suggestions offered
were Boston Ivy or Creeping Fig. The applicant stated they would probably change to Boston
Icy.
Mr. Morris, Senior Landscape District Coordinator stated that the applicant should provide for
linear root barriers five feet on each side of the tree trunk in the parking lot fingers.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4148-06 subject to:
1) The conditions in the Staff Report.
2) The applicant study alternate methods for attaching the vines on the trash enclosure,
including potentially changing to Boston Ivy or Creeping Fig.
3) Linear root barriers are to be used in the parking finger as described.
4) The truss feature over the entry is a steel truss.
5) The coi-~lice is shown as precast concrete.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 10 of 19
4. DRC No. 4164-06 - ARTEMIO HOUSE REMODEL
A proposal to expand the first floor and garage of an existing single-family residence
and add a new 912 square foot second story.
904 West Acacia Avenue
Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Associate Planner Robert Garcia provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants architect added that the house sits on a corner and on Batavia it backs up to an R3
two-story apartment complex; consequently, they tried to keep the addition next to it with the
front maintaining a single story appearance. There is another single story house on the same
block at the other corner. He tried to retain the same architecture that was represented and just
expand the materials and the roof type which has a little bit of a Dutch roof.
No public comment was provided on this item.
Chair Califf stated he had a couple of roof plan issues where there were things sloping back
towards the wall (these were pinpointed on the drawings).
Chair Califf stated he thought they made a good attempt at dealing with the issues of the single
story; however, he had a few questions with respect to the windows being used. Specifying the
locations on the drawings the applicant pointed out where they would be single, double hung and
probably casement. Chair Califf asked what window materials were being proposed. The
applicant responded they had not yet decided; his preference would be wood but he wasn't sure
they were affordable. Chair Califf asked if they would have a sill of any sort. The applicant
responded they have a very small wood trim so his preference would be to retain the same.
Chair Califf stated he thought it was a stLicco mold. The applicant stated they would just
replicate what exists.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the windows are presently being shown longer than the trim
and he asked if that was intentional (A sketch was drawn by Committee Member Wheeler.)
Committee Member Wheeler stated it might mean some window changes but he thought if they
could do it they shoLild look at picking up the same motif on the second floor. The applicant
agreed stating he thought that would bring it all together.
Committee Member Wheeler stated one of his big concerns is accuracy of the drawings. He
pointed out where he couldn't see much of what was there and also where it was questionable as
to the number of windows. The applicant responded it was his intent to keep it as it exists.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he was confused by the lines that made it appear that the first
and second floor were lining up. He reiterated the necessity to have the elevations be consistent
with the floor plans and have the drawings cleaned up.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 1 l of 19
Committee Member Wheeler also pointed out that:
1) The roof plan needs to show the Dutch gables.
2) The ridges extend much further than shown.
3) The fascia cuts need to be consistent.
Committee Member DeWees suggested lowering the stair tower and balancing the window
which appears to be up too high.
Chair Califf suggested lowering the plate to continue the roof slope down so it didn't create a
little hat.
Committee Member DeWees stated they should look at the thickness of the trim (exact location
was pinpointed on the drawings) and stressed it was important to call out the windows and other
features so it was very clear on the drawings. Chair Califf added that it was particularly
important if their intent was to retain all the existing windows.
Committee Member Wheeler asked that they specify what the setback is to the stair tower.
Committee Member Wheeler stated that although every attempt should be made to lower the
height it didn't bother him much as it was evident they had set it back as much as they could. He
added he would be happy to leave the mass as it is with whatever could be done to lower it. He
commented that lowering the stair tower was a great idea. He reiterated they should be as
consistent as possible with keeping the same window form that exists and the drawings should be
as accurate as possible.
Chair Califf stated when it comes to the mass issue, their situation is different from many in that
they have quite an adequate setback which ensures privacy.
Committee Member Woollett stated he didn't have any objection to the second floor; he thought
it worked on the street.
Chair Califf concluded stating when the project comes back the applicant should specify which
windows they intend to keep and match with the new ones or if they will all be changed out so
they all match.
Chair Califf made a motion to continue DRC 4164-06 with advisory comments provided.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page l2 of 19
5. DRC No. 4197-07 HODGE RESIDENCE
A proposal to construct a 1,448 square foot detached accessory garage for a car, RV, and
workshop.
394 North Rancho Santiago
Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714-744-7223, dnguyen cr,cit o~~~
DRC Action: Final Determination
This item was moved to consent.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 13 of 19
6. DRC No. 4198-07 - PJ' S ABBEY RESTAURANT SIGN PROGRAM
A proposal for approval of new restaurant signage.
182 South Orange Street (Plaza Historic District)
Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Final Determination
A project overview consistent with the Staff Report was provided by Senior Planner Historic
Preservation, Dan Ryan. The applicant added that he had received a lot of good comments on
the new signage and he added there were very few photographs available of the old signs so he
grabbed a couple of far away shots so the Committee could see where they were placed.
Chair Califf asked if there was a sign permit issued in error. Mr. Ryan responded "no, this came
in as a result of a Code action."
The applicant stated:
The signs they have put in place were based on the existing signs.
They changed their logo.
The other signs (after 10 years) had deteriorated from weather and rot.
He designed the new logo based on two inspirations: stain glass windows that he wanted to
pull elements from and Sunkist oranges as they sell them and like them.
He had in the back of his mind the orange crate labels everyone sees.
He duplicated his logo on to the front of the building.
He was trying to blend the orange crate and stain glass to illuminate the business that lies
within the beautiful old building.
He was trying to bring attention to their business so it would grow and flourish.
Public input was provided as follows:
Janet Crenshaw, OTPA stated:
The signs are shockingly out of place.
They don't look right.
She understands what the applicant is aiming for with the orange crates and stained glass but
she still thinks they stick out.
They don't look like they belong on an old building.
She doesn't like the style of the lettering.
Jeff Frankel, OTPA stated:
He realized the applicant has good intentions.
He really likes the food at the restaurant.
He agrees with Staff, they don't meet the Design Standards with regard to materials, color,
lettering and design.
Although the applicant had good intentions, they still need to meet the Standards and the
Standards need to be enforced.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 Apri12007
Page 14 of 19
It's not fair to everyone else that does adhere to the Standards and comply with the signage
requirements.
He thinks the sign isn't appropriate considering the structure itself and its proximity to the
District.
Chair Califf stated he liked the creativity the applicant put into it and he thought had the
applicant come in first, he could have created something really nice that was within the
requirements. He added that the stained glass effect was perfect.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought the logo was very appropriate; however, he
thought it was very unfortunate there were many facets of the signage so far out of line with the
Standards that he could not support it.
The applicant stated he walked around and looked at all the different types of signage with neon
lights and then saw the Masonic Temple with all stained glass and really liked it. With Old
Towne as eclectic as it is he was hoping there would be a way to salvage or just slightly redesign
so they could be part of the eclecticness of Old Towne. Chair Califf stated if it was strictly a
matter of the materials he thought they would have a good argument for why they went for the
materials, stained glass design etc. It is the sum total of everything being out of context. He
added he didn't want to discourage the applicant from sticking with the stained glass effect as in
their particular building it is very appropriate.
Committee Member DeWees stated from an idea and concept stand point it is really well done;
however, they are not the concept review Committee. He asked the applicant why they
proceeded with doing the whole project without checking with the City and also why didn't their
sign company know there are City approvals required. The applicant responded they made the
signs and delivered them; they didn't do any installation. The applicant accepted full
responsibility and stated he did use almost the exact footprint of the signs replaced.
Furthermore, he had the logo designed and the text and lettering are part of it.
Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Ryan questions on the format and configurations of the
parking lot sign and the sign at the front of the restaurant as it related to conformity to the
Standards. The discussions ensued further with respect to colors and specifically if black and
white were considered colors. Mr. Ryan responded that in the past he did not think that either
had been considered a color. Committee Member Woollett stated that absent the black and white
there would possibly be 5 colors remaining in the palette. Mr. Ryan offered explanation of
combining hues and it was agreed if the lavender and grey were considered to be in the same hue
then they would also not be considered. This would bring the color count down to 3 (blue, green
and orange).
Mr. Ryan stated he thought the Committee could certainly comment on the colors and the range
of colors i.e. the issue of hues (grey vs. black and white) as that would be within their purview.
Committee Member DeWees quoted the standard saying "no sign shall have more than 3 colors,
excluding logos" and he added that his interpretation is the whole sign is P.J.'s Abbey logo with
the colors depicted in the square frame.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Mimites for 4 April 2007
Page 15 of 19
Committee Member DeWees stated that even though it would be okay to extend the frame to the
outer edge to grab the outside letters, it still wouldn't accomplish anything because the materials
are still inappropriate. Mr. Ryan responded that another option would be to look at substances
that have the same appearance and quality. The applicant interjected that the reason they didn't
go with glass was the safety factor and the longevity of the sign as glass could easily be broken.
He added that instead they went with an acrylic glass that is sprayed with a translucent ink and
that is how they tried to get the stained glass effect. He confirmed that the whole thing is the
logo including the restaurant part.
Committee Member Woollett asked Staff what the ordinance was trying to get at when it referred
to acrylic. Mr. Ryan responded since he wasn't there when it was written, it was difficult to
comment; however, he thought they were referring to plastic, high gloss that is really reflective.
The applicant stated the neon signs are very bright and shiny and his sign is lit by small, low
voltage lights that are basically set into the ground. Committee Member Woollett stated what he
was trying to get to was clarity around what the undesirable effect is that the Standard was
addressing. He elaborated that in his opinion the criticism one would normally have of an
acrylic sign does not apply in the case of P.J.'s Abbey. Mr. Ryan asked if he would be more
inclined to look at it as a substitute material for stained glass that has qualities that are more
related to stained glass than plastic. Committee Member Woollett responded affirmatively. Mr.
Frankel interjected that the Standard specifically states "no plastic" and his opinion is that it
states that because it is inappropriate material. He added that this DRC has denied signage
because it was plastic and he asked that they maintain consistency.
Chair Califf stated there are neon signs in the District that are bright and shiny and obviously not
a historical material. Mr. Frankel interjected that they had a collaborative and were focusing on
a period which was the 1930's. Chair Califf responded that the Standard doesn't state that so the
Committee shouldn't assume that, in his opinion. Committee Member Woollett added "that is
the problem."
The applicant asked who writes and approves the Standards. Chair Califf responded that it is up
to the City Council to change it. Committee Member Woollett stated if they have problems like
this that repeatedly arise, then it is incumbent on the Committee to point it out as it is difficult for
them to implement a Standard when there is confusion or contradiction. Mr. Frankel interjected
that they have been trying to get the City to update the Standard for five years. Planning
Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry responded that the City does intend to look at the Standards
after the General Plan update is complete and in fact it is something they will look at with the
next budget.
Mr. Ryan stated Staff would be more than happy to work with the applicant further to get the
signs to conform to Code. The applicant stated he would go direct to the Planning Department.
Chair Califf stated they could continue the project to give him an opportunity to work with Staff
and bring back something the Committee could approve or he pointed out that the applicant has
an option to appeal the Committee's decision and go direct to the Planning Commission.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 16 of 19
Committee Member Woollett stated he was looking for a portion of the project that could be
salvaged; however, in terms of the logo itself and the lettering he didn't see how there was
anything they could do to change it and make it comply. The applicant responded it would be
very difficult to do as the sign is laser cut from one consistent piece. The colors could be
modified because they are sprayed over. Chair Califf pointed out that if they went to metal it
wouldn't have the translucent effect. The applicant and Committee pursued other options
including the use of panels that cover the plastic and are repainted the same colors; inclusion of
tubes (a sketch was drawn to demonstrate how this could be achieved) and other modifications
that were sketched and reviewed.
Committee Member DeWees stated his opinion is that the 3-color scheme was not really an issue
as the number of colors used in a logo is not restricted per the Committee's interpretation of the
Standard.
Chair Califf stated there is nothing they could do with the typeface since it's already cut. The
applicant asked if they are limited to the typefaces in the Standard or if they are only offered as
suggestions. He cited that orange crates have every type of font and lettering style. Committee
Member DeWees stated that in his opinion the typeface is part of the logo so again, it would not
be restricted. Committee Member Wheeler stated that if Dietrichs or Starbucks came into town
they wouldn't look at their logo for conformance to lettering in the Standard. It was agreed that
the colors and lettering are all exempt as they are part of the P.J.'s Abbey logo.
The applicant marked the plans as to what areas they would rework and go back to Staff.
Committee Member Wheeler suggested that as a worst case scenario the applicant could make
new signs for the exterior using something like metal painted with the logo and then take the
existing signs of acrylic, mount them in a box with illumination behind them and use them
somewhere in the interior. The applicant stated he would have to envision where they could be
placed inside.
The applicant asked if he replaced the acrylic with glass if there would be an iss~ie. Committee
Member Wheeler responded that the sign ordinance allows neon which is glass so that would be
permissible. The applicant recalled there was no specific mention of glass, just no use of shiny
materials. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could use a matte finish painted with a matte
paint. Chair Califf stated there are a lot of choices including different glass types or metal. The
applicant sketched ideas that included neon and orange tubing with metal on the back so that it
would shine inward. He stated one of the options would go from a low voltage sign to a bright,
shining sign.
Mr. Frankel interjected quoting the Standard, "All signs shall be externally illuminated with
incandescent lights. Wall signs and projecting signs shall be illuminated with visually concealed
sources or approved ornamental exposed incandescent fixtures." The applicant stated "then a
neon light is not illuminated." Mr. Ryan stated the design collaborative for downtown looked at
historic lighting for the period and neon was used; consequently, based on historical reference it
was permissible.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 Apri12007
Page 17 of 19
The applicant traced his entire logo. Pinpointing the remaining portions, Committee Member
Woollett stated then the sign becomes the stand it comes on and the little element below it, etc.
Chair Califf stated the address could be handled in the same manner. The applicant pointed out
there was something lost in the translation of the parking lot sign and that it could be modified to
read "Restaurant Parking." It was agreed that the number of signs and use of freestanding signs
would be deferred to Staff.
Chair Califf asked the applicant if he had sufficient direction or if he was still confused. The
different styles of glass were once again reviewed and Mr. Ryan suggested the applicant talk
with his sign person to obtain an understanding of what would work most effectively.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC 4198-07 with advisory comments
provided.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
Committee Member DeWees told the applicant that he could talk with any member of the
Committee if he had questions as he was working through the revisions. Ms. Aranda Roseberry
interjected that individual direction was not permissible (per the City Attorney) as one member
could not speak for the entire Committee. She stated any questions would therefore need to be
directed to City Staff. Ms. Roseberry was asked by Chair Califf to request a memo to that effect
from the City Attorney for distribution to the Committee.
The applicant stated he would direct all his comments to Staff and that he thought he had great
direction.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 18 of l 9
7. DRC No. 4210-07 - EVANS SECOND-STORY ADDITION
Proposal fora 547 sq. ft., second-story addition to aone-story, noncontributing single-
family residence located within the Old Towne Historic District.
305 North Clark Street (SEC Clark and Palm Avenue)
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, Bryan@cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
NOTICE:
Due to the conflict of two Committee Members (their business relationship with Chuck Yaghi)
and absenteeism of another, Chair Califf made an announcement that there was a lack of a
quorum; therefore, this item would be heard at the next meeting.
City of Orange Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for 4 April 2007
Page 19 of 19
REVIEW OF MINUTES:
1) March 7, 2007
A motion was made by Committee Member Califf to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2007
meeting with revisions as noted.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Chair Califf to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, April
18, 2007.
SECOND: Donnie DeWees
AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie DeWees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Bill Cathcart
MOTION CARRIED.