09-02-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
September 2, 2009
Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart
Adrienne Gladson
Tim McCormack
Craig Wheeler
Joe Woollett
Committee Members Absent: None
Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M.
Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda.
The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the regular scheduled DRC meeting of
August 19, 2009. Changes and corrections were noted.
Chair McCormack stated he had visited the Walgreens. Anytime he had done a landscape swale
it could not be any less than 2% and in fact it should have been 3%, to flow in landscape. On
paving it could be 1 %. There were some issues as there was standing water and turf. There were
basins ready to accept water, however, there was floatable mulch that would be all over the
parking lot and clog the slot drain along the sidewalk. All the roof drainage would come down
with pipes on the side. He asked what the City would do when the area was all blown out?
Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the applicant would have completed a full
Water Quality Management Plan, due to the size of the area.
Committee Member Woollett stated it was required by Public Works, in order for the water to go
into the ground.
Chair McCormack stated it was summer and the water was not going into the ground. The issue
he was making was that the swale was not sloped enough to get water to move.
Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the water should percolate.
Committee Member Gladson asked if it would sheet flow eventually to the street?
Chair McCormack stated in Walgreens' situation there should have been a more granulated soil.
Committee Member Woollett stated it needed to be not so compacted in order for the water to
percolate.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 2 of 16
Chair McCormack stated a perforated drain would work.
Committee Member Woollett stated he felt developers and even design professionals were
sheepishly following the instructions of Public Works in the City and it had not worked.
Chair McCormack stated they needed to have the gradient be more than 2%.
Committee Member Woollett stated the engineers had not wanted that as they wanted the water
to stand and percolate. There was no enforcement procedure that provided for that situation. He
had the same situation on another project where soil would not take the water. He had contacted
the City and told them the Soils Engineer had determined the soil would not percolate, and if
there would be damage to his client's property or the property next door the City could be liable
for damages, and the City backed off.
Chair McCormack stated he had wanted to achieve that percolation at the Nature Center in
Newport Beach. A prime example to show how water could percolate on a parking lot, however,
they could not do it due to the soil. The soil in that area would not accept that.
Committee Member Gladson stated on another subject, if they had not visited the Train Depot
undercrossing, it was worth a peek.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he wondered why, when it had come to the DRC, that they
had not attempted to get more trees on the east side of the tracks. There was the turn-around area
and a huge expanse of pavement which could use more shade. Landscaping had come up.
Committee Member Gladson stated she had looked for drainage and the skateboarders would
have fun there. Those needing to get a north or south bound train would not need to walk all the
way over to Chapman.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would probably change parking patterns.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, 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 September 2, 2009
Page 3 of 16
Regular Session - 5:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
All members of the Design Review Committee were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on
matters not listed on the Agenda.
There was none.
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
1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 19, 2009
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Design
Review Meeting of August 19, 2009, with the changes and corrections noted during the
Administrative Session.
SECOND: Bill Cathcart
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 4 of 16
AGENDA ITEMS:
Continued Items: None
New Agenda Items:
2) DRC No. 4434-09 -CASEY GARAGE RELOCATION
A proposal to relocate and reorient anon-contributing garage to provide access
off of an alley.
528 E. Palmyra Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr an cityoforange.org
DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicant, Caroline Casey, address on file, stated she had the answer to why there was a shared
driveway. She wanted to bring up the recommendation for removing the front approach; it was a
big concern, they shared that with their next door neighbor and her neighbor used the approach a
lot to bring in plants and dirt. Ms. Casey stated she used it now on street sweeping day. She was
concerned that her neighbor would not be acceptable to that and it would create a whole host of
challenges for her. She was not certain the reason for the request to remove the driveway, but
aesthetically the front of the house had two neat patches of same size lawn area with a cement
walkway to the porch. If they increased the grass to take out the cement there would be a huge
square and one tiny square of lawn and she was not certain if aesthetically that made a
difference.
Mr. Ryan stated the City could not require the applicant to remove the neighbor's driveway,
however, they could require that the applicant's portion be removed. The curb and apron
belonged to the City as public property. If the neighbor would want paving it was up to the
neighbor; the City would not want it to become parking.
Applicant, Michael Williams, address on file, stated what he was hearing was that the City would
want half of an approach and half of a driveway and it would aesthetically look good in Old
Towne.
Mr. Ryan stated they were dealing with the City requirement of not allowing parking on a front
setback.
Mr. Williams stated the applicant's home would be the only one on the block with that type of
driveway.
Committee Member Woollett stated it was his understanding that there would not be half of an
approach, that it would be removed entirely.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 5 of 16
Mr. Williams stated they could not force the neighbor to do that.
Mr. Ryan stated the approach was City-owned and the City could ask for that requirement.
Mr. Williams asked if the City could require the neighbor to make that change?
Chair McCormack stated the City could put in a new curb and take the approach out.
Mr. Ryan stated the manner in which the City worked out those details would be part of the
project.
Mr. Williams stated that would be a sticking point with the neighbor. The neighbor would have
a major complaint in moving the driveway.
Mr. Ryan stated they were not asking the applicant to remove the neighbor's driveway.
Basically, the applicant only had control over her driveway. With the proposed application there
would be access to the garage from the rear and to keep the front driveway it would violate the
City Ordinance of no parking on the front setback and the existing driveway had not led to a
garage. The driveway could be saw-cut down the middle and vegetation could be planted, or
whatever the applicant wanted to do on her side to eliminate the potential for parking there.
They could work with the City to restore the curb and parkway.
Ms. Casey stated the issue was having a parking space in front that had not lead to a garage.
Mr. Ryan stated the issue was with parking in the front setback.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was anything that stated if the City property was
changed to eliminate the approach and there was still concrete in the front of the house that was
not accessible, was there anything that stated the applicant could not have concrete in the front
yard?
Mr. Ryan stated there was the 60% rule of hadscape to landscape in the front setback.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt they would not have a problem meeting that
requirement.
Mr. Williams stated the approach was going to be a sticking point on the project.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated the DRC had to consider the
approach. It was a historic approach, there was rounded curbing which was original. The City,
he believed, required that the rounded curb was required. The approach appeared to be the
original driveway approach and that had to be considered in relationship to the street scape.
Possibly through the years a number of those properties had abandoned the driveways to the rear
and now used the alleys. There were some remaining driveways with approaches similar to that
and it should be a consideration in maintaining that feature. He felt it was original. In regard to
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 6 of 16
the garage, he had not had a problem with the orientation of the garage. There was
documentation that the garage was built in 1971 with permits that were on record. He was
confused with the easement; he asked who granted the easement and how was it dissolved? If
each neighbor had no rights to the easement he had not understood that whole thing. He was not
certain about the whole idea that ordinance dictated that ther~° could not be a driveway that would
not lead to a garage. He was not certain it related to the historic district.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion by the Committee.
Committee Member Woollett stated as it sat, there was a drive approach and a driveway and he
noticed there was a fence with two gates. Even though there was a garage with a door, it was not
accessible due to the fence. He asked if the fence was illegal.?
Mr. Ryan stated no.
Committee Member Woollett stated the property had to have a garage, and if the resident could
not access the garage because there was a fence, would that not make it illegal?
Mr. Ryan stated he was speaking of the property's present condition, and that condition was not
known to the City until the applicant came in, and the reason why they were making the change
was to have garage access. There was aquit-claim easement to each others property.
Committee Member Woollett stated the reason he was asking was that it could be a crucial point.
Mr. Ryan asked if Committee Member Woollett was thinking that the possibility should remain
with the approach and curb and have each property give up their lease to the other neighbor and
provide access to the garage from the existing approach?
Committee Member Woollett stated he was attempting to sort it all out. Suppose the owner
decided that they would move the garage and not rotate it and place another opening on the south
side, and there would be two openings to get a car in. The front opening would allow them to
maintain the driveway for access from the street and the other opening would allow access from
the alley. If the only justification for removing the drive and apron was due to the access from
the front, that would go away.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the problem would still exist of having to drive across the
neighbor's property to gain access to the garage.
Chair McCormack stated that was the way it had always been.
Committee Member Gladson stated regarding the wall/fence that went down the existing
driveway, at one point in time when that went up, it could be historic.
Ms. Casey stated the reason they wanted to change the garage was that they had decided to sell
their home and it was an obstacle to selling, and they had every reason to create the alley access.
Everyone seemed to love the house, with the one exception, which was the garage access. They
needed a real garage. The next door neighbor had access to her garage from the alley and they
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 7 of 16
needed to move their garage. She purchased the home in 1998, and Dan Slater was their agent,
they were new home buyers and there was no fence on the property. The neighbor had a fence
further in from her property line. It was suggested to them, if they agreed with the neighbor, to
do a quit-claim deed and place a fence down the middle of~ the property. They could both gain
privacy and a bit more yard and they had not cared about the garage access. That was the
reasoning behind it and that had not been an issue until they attempted to sell the house.
Chair McCormack asked if she used the driveway?
Ms. Casey stated she used it on street sweeping days, and the neighbor used it to unload flowers
for her garden, but it was not used for permanent parking. The neighbor had a garage and she
parked out front.
Committee Member Woollett stated neither Ms. Casey nor the neighbor would provide real
access to the garage from the front. That made Mr. Ryan's recommendations more acceptable.
Ms. Casey asked if the recommendation was for removing the driveway?
Committee Member Woollett stated there was no parking allowed in the front yard without a
drive access.
Ms. Casey stated her neighbors parked vehicles on the sides of their homes and she asked what
made that acceptable?
Mr. Ryan stated it was the 25' setback issue.
Mr. Williams stated in driving in any neighborhood there would not be an approach that was in
the middle of two property lines, one that had existed in the middle.
Committee Member Woollett stated the other issue he saw was the historic driveway and he felt
that needed to be considered as a separate issue. The driveway and apron would not be used, but
would remain as a historic element to provide history that a driveway had once existed. It would
not need to be used for anything, but remain as a historic monument. People could theoretically
drive up it, and people would do that anyway.
Mr. Williams stated the idea of not relocating the garage and bringing a door in the back and
having apass-way through the back would create a setback issue.
Committee Member Woollett stated it would also be an issue of leaving a door on the north side
that had no access to it. The current situation was illegal and now that they knew there was no
accessibility to the garage it was non-conforming and would not work anymore.
Chair McCormack stated they needed to do what was proposed and he suggested leaving the
approach, as it was historic. He had thought that possibly taking out the driveway and adding a
ribbon driveway as two walkways would work, but that was not a solution.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 8 of 16
Committee Member Wheeler stated the applicant could leave the apron and remove their section
of the driveway and place planting to suggest that a driveway had existed. He was not certain
that it would be acceptable to the City.
Chair McCormack stated from the aerial view it appeared that all the front setbacks were similar
to his neighborhood and they were all lawns. That was the character of the neighborhood,
parkway and grass and not a lot of people had planting to the sidewalk. Neighborhoods evolved
and they could go with Committee Member Wheeler's suggestion. It would ruin the existing
character of the iconic front lawn. He felt Mr. Frankel made a good point, if it was 1914 historic
it was worth saving.
Mr. Williams stated they could saw-cut the current slab to give it a ribbon driveway appearance
and to provide separation and plant grass in the ribbon.
Committee Member Gladson stated the parking access was a big issue from an ordinance
perspective.
Chair McCormack stated they could place a lower perpendicular fence that went to the sidewalk
and plant on both sides of the fence, take the concrete out and place decomposed granite where
the old driveway was and leave the apron.
Mr. Ryan stated he would wonder if Public Works would want the curb restored. Even if they
could drive up it they could not go any further.
Chair McCormack stated with a fence perpendicular to it, it would eliminate anyone driving onto
the property.
Mr. Ryan stated there were properties in Old Towne that had driveways that had not led to
anything.
Committee Member Gladson stated the applicant's background information was helpful to her.
It was good to hear that the purpose of the project was to establish a useable two car garage and
that they wanted to be able to sell their property. She wanted to ensure the applicant was
exploring all the options to get the most in relocating the garage. She had some concerns with
moving the garage and essentially only achieving 13' adjacent to the garage, assuming a car
could park there.
Ms. Casey stated they were just interested in gaining an access to the garage.
Mr. Williams stated the property owner wanted to maintain their backyard.
Committee Member Gladson stated the alley was narrow; it appeared to her that there was not
enough room for backing and maneuverability. It could still be an obstacle. If she had three cars
she could not park a third car there.
Committee Member Wheeler stated a third car could be parked parallel to the garage door.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 9 of 16
Committee Member Gladson stated that was her concern and it was more of a design thing and a
purpose thing. She concurred with Committee Member Woollett, in that relocating the garage
entrance that the driveway no longer had a purpose for existing and she would support the
recommendation for removing it. She would support maintaining the approach for the historical
components. She felt there were other avenues to explore. If the fence had not existed there
would be access. There were other properties in Old Towne that shared an approach.
Ms. Casey stated if they took down the fence and allowed access it was a privacy situation and
made it a negative selling point. Kids would tend to ride their skateboards past her kitchen and it
was the reality of what it would bring. Bringing down the fence and running into the challenge
of dealing with their neighbor presented a problem and there were also the financial aspects to
consider. The home was for sale, and they would be able to recoup their expenses with the
proposed project. Moving the garage was the path of least resistance.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he felt the proposed project was a good solution and would
give them a much better back yard. It had made sense and was a good solution and he was open
on the front driveway. He suggested keeping the apron. He had some other issues, if he had just
been given the site plan he would not have any problems, but when he started looking at the
drawings that accompanied the plans, it had appeared that the garage was being reconstructed
and not moved. He asked if it was a relocation or a demo and rebuild?
Mr. Ryan stated he had questioned that as well.
Mr. Williams stated he had not taken the time to sort of out the drawings; there were a lot of
details added and he had wanted to present the project to obtain some sort of an approval. The
garage would be relocated.
Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be a little tricky to move it; they would need to
move the garage and turn it, then move it back. He asked Mr. Williams if he could actually
move the garage?
Mr. Williams stated he had moved a home and the garage was cake.
Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to add a condition to the project if the garage
could not be moved that the applicant would be returning to the DRC with an alternate project.
Mr. Williams stated he was 100% certain that he could move the garage, he had no doubts.
Committee Member Wheeler stated the drawing had a lot of discrepancies. The overhang
showed as a 12" barge, and reviewing sheet F0, it showed an 18" barge and 12" eaves. If it
would be relocated it would remain exactly as it was with the new location. There was acall-out
for a wood door and then also a notation for an aluminum door; there were a lot of things that
needed to be clarified. The plans seemed to be showing a ceiling with an attic feature.
Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the drawings with the applicant.
Mr. Williams stated a portion of the drawings had been borrowed, to keep the architectural costs
down, and they had been borrowed from 523 Orange Street. Some of the elevations were easier
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 10 of 16
to draw up from those plans, rather than start from scratch. He understood the discrepancies and
in his experience of relocating houses the project was easier than others he had done.
Committee Member Gladson stated they had not wanted any surprises in the field and the
applicant wanted to have accurate plans.
Ms. Casey stated if for any reason they were not able to move the garage, they would look into
another alternative.
Committee Member Woollett asked if a sheet could be removed?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted to make a suggestion that they only approve what
was on sheet A1.
Chair McCormack stated it was just a move and they had not needed the other plans and the
other sheets were not needed.
Committee Member Woollett stated they had pictures for their reference as well.
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning
Commission, DRC No. 4434-09, Casey Garage Relocation, subject to the conditions contained in
the Staff Report, and with the exception that the removal of the approach not be required and that
removal of the driveway on the applicant's side of the property only, shall be removed.
Mr. Ryan asked if there would be a condition that the project would be subject to the approval of
Public Works?
Committee Member Woollett stated no. If Public Works wanted to get involved in the project
they should speak to the DRC; they were subject to historic guidelines and that had occurred
before where they had approved or denied something. He would not want that added.
Mr. Ryan stated it would be important that Public Works understood the historic aspects of the
project.
Committee Member Woollett stated if Public Works had any strong feelings or changes to the
project he would want to have a meeting with them to iron it out.
Mr. Ryan stated it would be important to craft into the motion the reasons for maintaining the
unique approach.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had made a motion with a couple of exceptions and he
would add that the DRC had retained the drive approach as it was an important historic feature.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if he could add his condition that if it was not feasible to
move the existing garage that the project return to the DRC for review of an alternate plan?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 11 of 16
Committee Member Woollett stated he would want that condition added to his motion.
SECOND:Tim McCormack
AYES:Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 12 of 16
3) DRC No. 4435-09 - ST. MARY MAGDALENE CHURCH
A proposal for new wall and free-standing monument signs.
205 S. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District
Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr an ,cit o~nge.or~
DRC Action: Final Determination
Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Applicants, Neil and Sharon Edlin, address on file, were present and stated they had nothing
further to add.
Public Comment
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he hated to sound like a broken
record, but the OTPA had an issue with the material proposed. There was an argument at a
previous meeting that the material proposed was urethane and that it was not plastic. The
Standards had been referred to and they had been adopted in 1995. Urethane was developed
prior to 1995 and it was a type of plastic. He had to go over the verbiage from the Standards, as
they were often misquoted, it was not shiny plastic material, the standards read signs shall be of
wood material, or metal, or utilize material that simulated wood or metal. There was a comma
after the word "shiny". Plastic, high gloss, or shiny meant all three of those were prohibited.
The Standards read plastic, high gloss, or shiny surfaces are prohibited -grammatically it meant
all three were prohibited. The material presented was plastic and should be prohibited. If the
material was approved it would not meet the Standards, and the required findings were to meet
the Standards. At a City Council meeting a couple of weeks ago the subject of plastic had come
up, regarding artificial turf. Community Development Director, Alice Angus, was asked in
relation to artificial turf, if plastic fences were allowed in Old Towne? One of the City Council
Members had asked her that, and she had stated that plastic fences were not allowed in Old
Towne. Even though they popped up all over the place they were not allowed. Ms. Angus also
continued that plastic was an inappropriate material to use in Old Towne. That was why there
was a Mitigated Negative Declaration needed for artificial turf. The fact that she had brought
that up and had stated that plastic was an inappropriate material for Old Towne; he felt had merit
with the proposed project as well. It was the same old thing, and urethane was plastic and plastic
was not allowed for signage and even for the lettering. Some of the lettering for the proposed
project presented in the samples were shiny. Again the Standard was misquoted as shiny plastic,
but basically all three materials were prohibited and he wanted to drive that point home again.
Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion.
Chair McCormack stated he had a question on the recommendations from Staff, which basically
stated provide details for the ground lighting fixtures and to basically look for the termination for
the use of the high density urethane. He asked if the posts that were of high density urethane
would be painted?
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 13 of 16
Mr. Ryan stated the posts on the sides were wood. Referring to the plans, he pointed out which
area would be urethane and what would be wood.
Committee Member Gladson stated the 12" base would be good for the irrigation.
Chair McCormack stated he had not understood why they allowed plastic signs in Old Towne
and he had not understood the lighting. He personally had not liked anything glossy, if it was
outside it would take water spots and would not look good over time and that could be in a
month or six months.
Committee Member Woollett stated he had read that the lettering would be routed out in the
urethane.
Mr. Ryan stated the lettering would be routed out and gold leaf would be installed.
Committee Member Woollett, referring to the color samples, asked how the gray color was
created. He asked if the gray area would be routed out?
Mr. Ryan stated he was not certain the gray would be routed out. He was hoping the sign person
would have been present. He believed that the machine would take one large piece of urethane
and mill it on a flat mill, where there was nothing glued on, it would be just one piece that was
machine tooled.
Committee Member Woollett stated the samples could be misleading as it appeared that the
strips of plastic would be applied to the sign, and if that was true it would not be acceptable to
him under the guidelines that Mr. Frankel had reminded them of. He had not considered the
urethane to be plastic. The term plastic could be applied to almost anything. To his way of
thinking the high density urethane was no different than wood. Paint would cover it and it would
be a better material than wood. If that was routed and painted he had no problem with that. The
Committee Members had discussed the issue previously and they had approved similar
applications and he had no reason to change his mind on the proposed project. The plastic could
not be applied. The sign guy was very unwise to submit the samples on a plastic board.
Mr. Edlin stated the colored squares were color swatches. The samples presented would be the
colors of the text; it was presented just for sample purposes. Maroon and gray were the colors of
the building and the sign would match.
Committee Member Woollett stated with original signage it would be routed and painted with
the gold leaf.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if it would be acceptable if there was a condition for the
lettering to be routed out and painted, or just painted on the surface.
Mr. Edlin stated that was how the sign would be created.
Chair McCormack reviewed the materials with the applicant, what areas would be urethane, and
what would be wood and painted to match the color samples.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 14 of 16
Ms. Edlin stated the samples provided were for color presentation only, they were not material
swatches.
Committee Member Gladson stated she supported Committee Member Wheeler's
recommendation for a condition moving in that direction. She would also want to ensure that the
gray and the maroon colors were not shiny and it was a matte finish.
Mr. Ryan stated it was his understanding that the painted areas would be a matte finish.
Committee Member Gladson stated the manner in which the evaluation criteria presented itself
to her was that utilizing materials that accurately simulated wood or metal when it was painted
was acceptable. It would appear as if it was wood. If the correct material was not used, there
could be problems. It was the shiny surface that would be the issue.
Chair McCormack stated the area on the sign appeared much larger than what had been
submitted on the drawings.
Mr. Edlin explained the proportions and where the sign would be in relationship to the sidewalk.
Chair McCormack reviewed the plans with the applicant.
Chair McCormack stated with the proposed samples he felt he could not make a good decision.
He had not known what was on the back of the sign.
Mr. Ryan stated it was just blank.
Ms. Edlin stated behind it were shrubs, it was the existing landscape.
Committee Member Wheeler asked if the back of the sign would be maroon?
Mr. Edlin stated if they would like it to be, it could. There would not be any wording on the
back of the sign.
Chair McCormack asked if a form on the sign would be routed out too?
Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed the form was a Broken Pediment.
Chair McCormack asked historically what would that be made of?
Committee Member Wheeler stated wood, metal, or wrought iron.
Ms. Edlin stated many East Coast churches used it. The church was on a spoke street and not
very historic. It was the same design that was on the breezeway.
Chair McCormack stated someone could just break it off and then the sign would start to
deteriorate.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 15 of 16
Mr. Edlin stated it was an English cross; they were an English Church.
Chair McCormack stated if someone knocked if off what would they do?
Ms. Edlin stated replace the sign.
Committee Member Woollett stated regardless of what the material was it could be broken off,
unless it was metal.
Mr. Ryan stated many of the sign features would be gold leaf and appear metal.
Committee Member Gladson asked if the cross was on Almond?
Mr. Edlin stated yes, it was.
Committee Member Gladson stated that cross had not been mutilated. It was a maintenance
thing and she was not too worried about it.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4435-09, St. Mary Magdalene
Church, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional
conditions:
1. The lettering on the sign shall be routed and painted or painted directly and that the
backside of the sign be painted the same burgundy color as the front of the sign.
2. The finish to be a matte finish.
SECOND: Joe Woollett
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange -Design Review Committee
Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2009
Page 16 of 16
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on
September 16, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.