Loading...
09-03-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 3 September 2008 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 Howard Morris, Senior Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:09 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, requested a rearrangement of the Agenda to move Item No. 2, DRC 4367-08, to the end of the Agenda. The Planning Commission was meeting and Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, was also presenting an item at that meeting and she wanted to ensure he could be available for questions on his DRC items and be present at the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Committee Member Bill Cathcart made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:12 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 2 of 16 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL All members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated the OTPA appreciated the time and effort the Committee Members put forth, it was a thankless job, and most people had no idea of the time it took to research and review the projects. The OTPA also spent time researching the projects as well. More often than not, when the OTPA commented and sited the standards it would not come up in the discussion by the DRC. It would leave them wondering how the Committee felt about the issue presented. The OTPA was asking when they sited a standard that the project had not complied with they would appreciate a response from the Committee as to why the Committee agreed, disagreed, or there could be discussion regarding the standards. The number one required finding was that the project met the standards and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Frankel stated that it was evident that at the last meeting, with the project on N. Pine, the OTPA had commented that a portion of the project had not met the Secretary of Interior's Standards and there was a comment in the Staff Report that a portion of the project had not met the standards. The matter was never entered into discussion by the DRC. The OTPA would appreciate some acknowledgement that they had made a comment regarding the standards and that the Committee Members could state why they disagreed or why they felt the project met the standards. Chair Wheeler thanked Mr. Frankel for his comments. He stated that the Agenda would be rearranged as a Staff member would also be presenting at the Planning Commission Meeting and the meeting would begin with Item No. 3. 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: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 3 of 16 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 2) DRC No. 4367-08 - HUBER RESIDENCE A proposal to construct a new porch gable roof and widen an existing front porch of a contributing 1921 Bungalow residence. 355 South Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District Staff Contact: Dan Ryan, 714-744-7224, dr„~(a~cityoforange.org Item Continued from DRC Meeting of August 20, 2008 DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Liz Kaulard, address on file, stated the home was their rental property and it was probably the ugliest home on the street; the roof was caving in and it was time to do something. They wanted to improve the home and had decided to maintain the same size but to make the porch a bit more substantial. She had taken photos of other homes in the area and had come across solutions that would work without completely rebuilding the house. The roof needed repair and the interior needed work. Committee Member Gladson asked if the property had always been a rental property? Ms. Kaulard stated they had lived next door to the property and during that time it had been a rental property. Applicant, Ron Huber, address on file, stated he was not in agreement with Staff's recommendation for the step down to the landing. A survey that he had conducted of Old Towne properties had many of the properties with landings of equal height all the way across the front of the structures. He provided samples of that point to review with the Committee. There were railings and pickets which had become part of the design fabric of Old Towne and historically they may not have been there when the residences were originally built. Based on the visual data that they had compiled, the current design of the home was very simple, with the addition of architectural elements to enhance the property they would remain consistent with the true character of Old Towne. The solution was obtained from completing a photographic survey and then taking a few elements and adding them to the facade of the property. Committee Member Gladson asked for an address on the photos that had been compiled? Mr. Huber pointed out the addresses of the properties he presented which were on Grand, N. Chapman, and Cambridge. He stated there were a lot of Gable roofs, railing, and posts. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 4 of 16 Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated there were a number of properties on the street of the proposed project that were in a state of disrepair. They applauded any property owner who would step up to make improvements. The particular structure at 355 S. Orange was very unique as Staff had mentioned. If there was not evidence or documentation to prove otherwise the porch was the original porch and without reciting the Secretary of Interior's Standards in its entirety regarding porches and entrances, he stated the recommendation was to not change or radically redesign, as porches were an important part in defining the historic character of the building. The home was a small little bungalow and the porch, if changed, would diminish the character of the bungalow. There were Craftsman influences, the roof was a rolled roof that at one time had gutters and would need to be retained and restored as it had been required of many other homeowners in town. Adding elements from other buildings and structures would be totally inappropriate. Retention of the character of the structure was important, the side portions of the porch if added would be acceptable with a line of demarcation and a step down would be one way to do that. A neighbor down the street had made the same type of improvement; her 1919 Bungalow porch was about the same and her structure had an original Gable roof. Mr. Frankel stated he had taken a good look at the home, he lived across the street and down the block, and he had seen the home many times. There was no evidence that the porch was not the original porch. To radically change the porch there would need to be some documentation that it had not been original. Any presentation of that information had not existed. The Secretary of Interior's Standards was very clear on the treatment of porches and entrances. To change the porch and entrance they would be creating a false sense of historic appearance which was contrary to the Standards. There would be issues with the removal of historic fabric and any rotted or deteriorated wood, would require the replacement with like materials. He stated they needed to stick with the standards and if there was no evidence that the porch was something other than what it was, it was very unique, it was not unusual to have a flat roof on a porch such as the one in the proposed project. He agreed that the roof was in poor shape and it required restoration. From reviewing the rendering at the library it appeared that the entire home would be rehabbed and he suggested adherence to the standards with the roof included. The samples from other homes in the neighborhood were good examples of that style of home and that specific home; however, they could not introduce foreign elements from other homes to a home that never included those features. The Staff report dialogue was treating the project as an in-fill project and he disagreed it was not an in-fill project. The OTPA would be totally opposed to the removal of the porch and building a porch that would be completely alien to that style of home. Janet Crenshaw, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated her comment on the home was that it was a cute little bungalow with a unique porch. What if she decided to take her Craftsman Bungalow and drove around town took pictures of homes and decided to change the style of her home to an alternate design as there were others in the historic district. She knew it would not work. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. The Committee Members reviewed the photos that had been presented. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 5 of 16 Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the historicity of the building was very important and it was not always understood. The properties in Old Towne needed to relate to themselves and he agreed with the comments presented by the OTPA. The building appeared that it needed repairs and it was an attractive structure. Oftentimes, families came in and the homes were no longer big enough and they looked to add onto their homes; the addition was generally towards the back as the Committee Members were very cautious about changes to the home frontage. Mr. Huber stated his goal was to improve its presentation towards the street as it was currently very underwhelmed. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not looked at it that way; it was a historic gem, it was small and simple. Mr. Huber stated the home had termite damage and the home was ready to collapse. Committee Member Woollett stated that was another issue, and if that was the case they needed to know that. Mr. Huber stated he had not found the home attractive. Committee Member Woollett stated on a replacement of materials it would be required that the replacement be with in-kind materials. Mr. Huber stated he was not concerned with that at this point. They had made an attempt to retain the character that existed in Old Towne. He felt the solution was of borrowing from a design style that was very well integrated in Old Towne and it was part of their solution. Committee Member Woollett stated they could not take details from other buildings that were different in style and apply them to the home. Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred with Committee Member Woollett's comments and a false sense of history would be created with the proposed project. The changes to the porch were not a design that had originally been there. The evidence was clear that the porch was very simple, it was narrow and there was no evidence that it had been any different. She could not find a convincing reason to change the design. The porch in its current state would need to be retained. The challenge would be to look at the home as it was and look at the front facade and the character elements of the home which were very modest. To take a feature from a home on Pine would not be a good thing to do. Chair Wheeler stated he had not reviewed any evidence that would show the porch was not a historic porch. He had a problem with what he called "design creep", in changing one design form to another. What would be the feeling from the Committee if they were to keep the existing porch design and adding some type of side porch? Committee Member Cathcart stated something with railings and a step down would work. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 6 of 16 Committee Member Gladson stated if it was something that could be later removed and it was different it would be something she would be willing to review. Mr. Ryan stated if there was differentiation between the landings and the new porch elements they could almost be treated as part of the landscape design and it would read better. To add covered porches on the side would disturb the simple clean shape of the building. If someone wanted to design a covered porch entry with a Gable it could actually work. To start adding additional side elements it would require supports and other features that would take away from the simple design of the house. Committee Member McCormack stated the home was a historic property and they would not want to lose that. If there was an element that would attach to the historic structure it would be difficult to do that without losing the historic character of the home. He would not be opposed to adding lower side porches which would be definitely different. Committee Member Gladson stated if they wanted to add an outdoor space it was a good concept and possibly there could be another area of the home that would work for that. Ms. Kaulard stated the intent was to improve the look of the home. If the Committee felt the home was of historic significance then they would leave the home as is. They could make repairs and keep the home in its present state. She was not in agreement in adding a lowered porch. There were repairs needed and their intent was for improvement. Chair Wheeler stated that would be a better solution. He stated the project could be continued or denied. Mr. Huber stated they needed to move forward on the repairs. Committee Member Woollett asked if an approval was required for the roof repairs and other upgrades? Mr. Ryan stated the roof had built-in gutters and eave stops which Staff would request be maintained. The repairs would be reviewed at the counter. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to deny DRC No. 4367-08, Huber Residence. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 7 of 16 New Agenda Items: 3) DRC 4283-07 - CARL'S JR. A proposal for a new fast food restaurant. 145 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associated Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Dan Schultz, address on file, stated he was available for any questions. Public Comment None. Committee Member Gladson stated she had reviewed the comments Staff had included regarding the orientation of the building. She asked the applicant why they chose the present orientation rather than a plan that would bring the building closer to the street? Mr. Schultz stated they had gone through several reiterations with Staff and the proposed project was what had seemed to work best. It was the best option to make the building functional in terms of circulation. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the reason they had aligned the building in its present manner was to have more stacking of cars. It would allow 3 sides for stacking in the drive thru aisle. He reviewed the plans with the applicant and stated there were already two entrances and they could not have more than that. Mr. Schultz stated if they had rotated the building in the other direction they would have arrived with the same layout; it would just have been reversed. They had looked at another option with consideration for stacking; with that orientation they would have limited parking. The proposed plan allowed stacking, screening with landscaping and if they had pushed it further back the drive-thru aisle would have been at the front of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Staff that the building should be flipped. The actual front of the building should face Tustin, as it provided for a better presence. He had driven along Tustin and most of the buildings were placed with the front of the building facing Tustin, with everything having a street frontage rather than a back drive-thru arrangement. He felt it was important as a gateway to present the buildings in that manner. Committee Member McCormack stated he had also looked at a three-side stacking arrangement; however, that would block parking spaces. He had sketched something up that had adrive-thru aisle on the other side and it would have a much better look and gave a more urban feel at the bus stop. There was the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 8 of 16 opportunity to make that connection and have that area open to the street with visibility of people dining inside, rather than looking at the back of the building. Mr. Schultz stated if they moved the building it would necessitate moving a row of parking and essentially place all the parking at the front of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated the way he placed the building would move the parking to the back of the building. Mr. Schultz stated that would essentially have patrons walking all the way around to get inside. Committee Member McCormack reviewed what he was recommending with the applicant. He stated the proposed plan would have patrons walking through cars that were stacked at the drive- thru. Mr. Schultz stated to move the building they would not be able to satisfy the parking requirements. Chair Wheeler asked if they would be required to do something with that row of parking as the 15' width was too small? Mr. Schultz stated an entire row of parking could be moved over to create the 19' requirement, as they had a 24' area that they could take from. To orient the building in the manner the Committee was suggesting, they would lose an aisle and they would be required to have two aisles with two rows of parking. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not studied the proposed project to that extent. Mr. Schultz stated that was the reason it would not work. Committee Member Woollett stated if the building was flipped, how would the entrance to the drive-thru work? Committee Member McCormack explained his suggestion while showing what he suggested on the plans. Mr. Garcia stated based on the parking analysis they would need an eight-car stacking area. Mr. Schultz stated in moving the building around they could not meet the parking requirement. He had gone through many reiterations for the building and the proposed plan was the plan that would allow the least constraints within the lease limits of the property. Committee Member Gladson suggested bringing the emphasis to the building on Tustin and to lessen the impact of the drive-thru lane. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Schultz stated they had reviewed that; they had added trellis work and there was more landscaping provided along the front. There would be a screen of the drive-thru aisle. Vines would be added along the center of the building. Committee Member Gladson stated she had seen that prototype at the corner of La Palma and Kraemer that included the same colors and forms. Chair Wheeler stated he was missing an elevation sheet from his package. He stated that the floor plans had not matched the elevations very well. In reviewing the floor plan, there was a door on the north; however, the elevations had a main door on the east side. The window that was relative to the mass was shown on the elevation on the right side; he pointed out the window on Sheet A-4 which had the window on the left side. He stated the plans needed to have more accuracy. The north/south elevations had missed a projection; he pointed out the discrepancy he was discussing. The biggest problem he felt was the trellis; it was such a small and weak element. The way it terminated at the archway was questionable. He was concerned with the trellis height, as patrons might find themselves in the drive thru in an oversized vehicle and it would be too late as they would be in the queue by the time they realized there was a problem. Mr. Schultz stated typically there was a warning bar at the start of the drive-thru with the height restriction. Chair Wheeler stated that would need to be added to the drawings. He suggested a trellis theme along the building rather than having it as a stand alone item and to carry the trellis theme to other areas. Committee Member Gladson suggested that the brickwork could be expanded. Chair Wheeler stated the brick element was only 3" deep and he suggested they use brick at the base of the trellis columns. Committee Member Gladson stated she needed to have more detail on the two filtera systems; she had a cross section of them in the submittal package and as it was relatively new technology. She would be interested in how they looked and the detail for those areas. It would be important as those areas faced Tustin. Committee Member McCormack agreed with Committee Member Gladson's request. He stated that the information shown on the elevation was not correct as far as the plant choices were concerned. The consistent line of landscape would be broken up by the filtera and there would be the "missing tooth" look. The Queen palms that were noted were actually existing King palms. He felt strongly for flipping the building to allow for more of a buffer, as the proposed plan had the street, bus stop, sidewalk, plant buffer, and building. All the drive thru-restaurants along Tustin had the front facing Tustin. He suggested some creative stacking proposals to make it work. Chair Wheeler stated if the building would be flipped could they incorporate a second public entrance on the side to allow access from parking and from the front of the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 10 of 16 Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the proposed project was fundamentally non- approvable. He was not speaking to the details as he could not approve the project and the site might not be the right place for the building. Committee Member Cathcart stated he could not understand why they were tearing it apart when the basic site plan would not work. Mr. Schultz stated he had to disagree as it fit the criteria for design; certainly they could look at alternate designs. He would take the proposed project back to Carl's Jr. and to the architect and have them take a second look at it. He asked if it would be advantages to continue the project and work with Staff to come up with alternatives to make the building work. There was a possibility of rotating the building, although they had gone through it before and they were unable to satisfy the parking requirement. In terms of meeting the parking and stacking criteria, he felt the proposed design was the best layout. They could rework the building placement and landscape. Committee Member Cathcart stated the applicant had to take a good hard look at the plan. If it could not be solved it might not be the place for the building. Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred with her colleagues and the proposed project was in a parking lot that was underutilized. There was a comment in the Staff Report suggesting an increase in pedestrian connections, rather than just trying to get people in from the bus stop to buy a hamburger. It would be an opportunity that was worth exploring. Mr. Schultz stated that was an issue that would need to be discussed with the landlord as they were limited to what they could do based on the easement of the property. Committee Member Woollett asked if there had been any discussion if all the parking at the other side of the lot was required for those businesses? Mr. Garcia stated it was reviewed, and the other businesses in the center needed that parking. The applicant was asking for an Administrative Adjustment for the reduction in parking. Staff concurred that the parking was underutilized with the Fresh & Easy opening and the Nifty After Fifty establishment, which could change over time. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4283-07, Carl's Jr., to allow the applicant to revise the plans. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 11 of 16 4) DRC No. 4369-08 - BRIARDALE PLAZA SIGNAGE PROGRAM A proposal to modify an existing sign program to allow can signs. 1762-1776 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714-744-7231, rgarcia@cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Dave Hall, address on file, stated the canopy had been replaced with all new material. It was fiber cement and their objective was to eliminate tearing it all up when a tenant changed. The owner was willing to install the cans and the individual tenants would provide and apply for the lettering and design. Public Comment None. Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Chair Wheeler asked if each of the signs would be the same size? Mr. Hall stated no, there would be a slight variance in the width of the units and the signs would vary based on the unit size. Mr. Garcia stated the signs, although varied, would not exceed 70% of the frontage of the units and they would not exceed the guidelines. There would be consistency to the signs. Chair Wheeler stated the center to the south had fairly uniform signs and they had consistent colors. Mr. Hall stated they were trying to eliminate the hodge-podge of signs and bring more consistency to the buildings. The background of the signs would be the same color; the same type of signage was used in the two adjacent shopping centers. He reviewed sign photos with the Committee Members. Committee Member McCormack clarified that with the signs being a maximum of 70% of the building frontage, each sign could be slightly different. Mr. Hall stated the sign would be directly proportionate to the unit, some units were a bit wider, there were double units and they would vary. Committee Member McCormack asked if the signs would all be on the same datum, same height and fabrication? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 12 of 16 Mr. Hall stated yes, that was correct. Chair Wheeler stated the suggested signs would cut down on damage to the canopy and allow for ease of change. Committee Member McCormack asked if the conduit would punch through the back? Mr. Hall stated yes, that was correct. The conduit would all be contained within the canopy. Chair Wheeler asked if the overall height for the signs would be 24", with the lettering height of 18". Mr. Hall stated yes. Chair Wheeler stated channel letters had been circled on the submittal. Mr. Garcia stated that was the existing sign program. Committee Member Gladson stated she found the proposed project something she could not support. She liked the current program with the channel letters. It was bothersome to have a cabinet be the main source of communication of signage that would not allow for any creativity and looked boring. She liked the creativity of using channel letters and logos. Committee Member Gladson stated that she would like more detail on the proposed signs and she felt that the proposed signs were not something she would like to see along Tustin. Mr. Schultz stated one of the reasons they had chosen the design and cabinet signage was that there was an issue with tenant turnover. If channel letters were used it would require putting a whole through the fiber cement board of the canopy. The applicant had spent a considerable amount of money to redo that area. With the proposed project the owner was able to provide a consistent sign, which would allow the individual tenants to get as creative as they wanted on the face of the plastic; the tenant still had the opportunity for creativity without damaging the building. Committee Member Gladson stated the Committee would not necessarily see each sign for each tenant; if there was a sign program, the Committee would essentially approve the specifics in the sign program. She would be more comfortable if she was able to see what options tenants would have in creating their signs. Mr. Hall stated he was trying to not limit the tenants on what they could do. There was a liquor store, a barber shop, a furniture store, a vacuum shop, just to name a few and they could get as creative within the face of the plastic. The individual tenants would submit their design to the Committee. Mr. Garcia stated the signs would not require Committee approval; however, they would be reviewed by Staff. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 13 of 16 Committee Member Gladson stated she would like to see the detail of what could be included on a sign. Staff would review the signs. It was just too much ambiguity for her. Ms. Roseberry asked Committee Member Gladson if she was concerned with details such as letter types, or space for logos. Staff would be looking at the proposal with direct regard to the zoning ordinance and what that would permit. Items such as letter height, height of the cabinet, the square footage and those types of details. Staff could not regulate content and she asked if Committee Member Gladson was looking for colors? Committee Member Gladson stated in her mind a sign program would essentially establish something beyond the code minimum and the applicant was establishing their own set of standards. An individual business could come in and propose any type of sign as long as they remained within the height and size limits. A sign program established an applicant's own internal sign criteria on what they wanted. Her concern was that the bar stayed where it was now, and moving to a uniform look without any specific details of how the sign face would be portrayed concerned her. She was just one of five Committee Members. Mr. Hall stated what he had reviewed with the Committee was the current sign situation at the center. He was trying to create something that was more uniform and appealing for the City. Chair Wheeler stated the proposed signage was easier to control. Reviewing one of the examples the applicant submitted, Chair Wheeler stated there was apparently little control with channel letters, painted signs and other designs. The current proposal was a cleaner solution. Committee Member Cathcart stated his concern was over a long period of time with a large turnover of tenants; the channel letters would be patched and appear un-kept and the signage that the applicant proposed would be easier to change out, offered more consistency and looked cleaner. He felt the proposed project was an improvement. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed somewhat with both points of view and felt there was not enough detail with the can signs. In regard to Committee Member Cathcart's comments, he understood the problems created in changing channel letters. He had seen success when the zone for the channel letters was completely replaced. He felt they could get the best of both worlds if the program was a little more global. He was not opposed to the can signs. Mr. Hall stated in using channel letters, each letter was fed with its own power with a hole through the back and they wanted to eliminate that type of installation. Committee Member Gladson stated her objection was with the rectangular box that was the base of the sign; if it could be more stylized it could work. She had seen cabinet signs for shopping centers that had stylized cabinets with letters contained within a specific area. She was struggling with the lack of creativity for the sign program. Mr. Hall stated he was trying to clean up the center and have a more uniform approach. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 14 of 16 Committee Member Gladson stated she totally respected that and it was an important concern for her as a Committee Member. At this point she had difficulty approving the proposed project in its current state. Committee Member Woollett stated his basic problem was that there was not much for him to go by; there was not a visual depiction and personally he felt the proposed signs would be a good solution for those buildings. The structures were very plain and this would be an enhancement. He would like to review a drawing of the building, nothing too elaborate, but a visual of what the signs would look like as the proportion and the details would be everything to the proposed project. He felt the idea was a very satisfactory solution and if the details were right it would work very well. The small items such as the can having a lip on it and what was the proportion of that detail to the rest of the sign was important; he wanted to review details. The colors would be important and a review of those colors would be beneficial. Continuity was important, and allowing each tenant some creativity would work. He suggested a submittal of the frame detail, a color chart, and what the lettering would consist of. Mr. Hall stated he wanted to allow each tenant the option to choose their own lettering and he would provide the solid background. Committee Member Woollett stated that is what they would need to review; the color of the background in relationship to the color of the building and it would be beneficial to see the color of the frame. With those details submitted, they would have adequate information to make a decision. Mr. Hall stated he could present a schematic of the frame. Committee Member Cathcart suggested the submittal of a color chart. Chair Wheeler asked if the lettering would be the same color or would the tenants have an option on choosing a color scheme for the lettering? Mr. Hall stated the tenant would have an option to choose the colors for the lettering. Mr. Garcia stated the lettering would take into consideration trademarks and logos which had not been prominent 20-30 years ago. Committee Member Woollett stated the color choices for those signs that would remain constant would need to be a color choice that would work with the tenant choices. Chair Wheeler suggested a softening of the corners of the cabinet. Committee Member Gladson stated that could work. Personally she had not felt that the signs should have matched the businesses next door. She pointed out signs on a photo and stated those looked much better and looked less like a box. Committee Member McCormack, referring to the photo Committee Member Gladson was reviewing, stated those signs were all the same colors with all the same type of lettering. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 15 of 16 Committee Member Gladson stated different colors and lettering styles appealed more to her; however, the photo she was reviewing was a better concept in terms of the orientation of the signs. Mr. Hall stated they wanted to have a limit and consistency to offer each tenant equality in the signage for their units. Committee Member Gladson stated the applicant could have specific requirements for the signs such as trim caps on the letters, the dimensions could be specific and it could have the feel of channel lettering within a cabinet. Mr. Hall stated they had to keep in mind what they were proposing and where it was. They needed to remain realistic and expenses were an issue. They had to work within their limits and find a solution that would work with the owner and appease the tenants. Chair Wheeler asked if the applicant had spoken to a sign company? Mr. Hall stated he had spoken with Williams Sign Company in Ontario and he had obtained the exact sizing for the units. They had also spoken with the tenants to gain their input. Committee Member Cathcart stated they had sign companies be available to present their ideas and details of the proposed signage to the Committee. Mr. Hall stated they had contracted with a sign company a year and a half ago that they would be working with. Committee Member Cathcart asked the applicant if he understood the direction that the Committee was suggesting if they were to continue the proposed project to come back at a later date? Mr. Hall stated he would want the sign company to provide a schematic of the proposed signs and have a small miniature model with a sample of the materials brought back to them. Chair Wheeler suggested having a box that had softer edges which would set more of a design motif that would make the form different. Mr. Hall stated he could get a lettering sample as well. Committee Member Gladson made a motion to continue DRC No. 4369-08, Briardale Plaza Sign Program. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for September 3, 2008 Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, September 17, 2008. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Tim McCormack, Adrienne Gladson, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.