Loading...
1995-01-18 Final DRC MinutesCity of Orange Design Review Board MINUTES for Wednesday, January 18, 1995 Board Members Present: David Kent Steven Prothero Robert Hornacek (through 7:45 P.M.) Beau Shigetomi, Chair Erika Wolfe Board Members Absent: None Staff Attendance: Jim Donovan, Associate Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Dan Ryan, Senior Planner 1) Administrative Session - MOTION by Mr. Prothero, to approve the minutes of December 21, 1994, as recorded. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Regular Session - Introduction and call to order by the Chair. Continued Reviews - City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 2 2) DRB 2882; FOODMAKER, INC. (,LACK-IN-THE-BOX); 3111 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE Renovation of a fast food restaurant, to include new paint ans signs; C-1 zone. Mike Walterscheid, Construction Project Manager for Foodmaker, Inc.: The project is simply an upgrade of the existing facility. The building would be repainted under a new corporate color scheme (black, red and white), which is intended to provide a unified image for all Jack-in- the-Box restaurants. The only modifications to the building would include neon trim along the upper edge of the roof, and a new (white and red) aluminum trim band along the eaveline. Mr. Hornacek asked whether the neon lighting was proposed on all four sides of the building. There is a residential neighborhood located across the rear property line. Mr. Shigetomi asked whether an opaque background would be provided on all signs. Mr. Walterscheid replied that the neon trim band is proposed on all four sides of the building, but it could be eliminated across the back elevation, and limited to three sides. He also stated that the red background on illuminated signs serves an important purpose in advertising, asking whether an opaque background is required by ordinance. Mr. Shigetomi affirmed that such a requirement does exist (O.M.C. § 17.78.060), and named examples of nearby competitors that were held to the same standard. MOTION by Mr. Hornacek: to approve the proposal on the basis of Orange Municipal Code Section 17.96.110, finding that the proposed colors, materials and signs are compatible with the character of the existing building and the surrounding commercial area, subject to the following two conditions of approval: (A) All replacement panels for existing signs will include an opaque (red) background. (B) The neon trim band shall be installed on west (side), south (front) and east (side) elevations, but excluded from plans on the north (rear) elevation. SECOND by Mr. Prothero. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.Ianuary I8, 1995 Page 3 3) DRB 301 D; ANNA FREITAS; 321 N. OLIVE ST. Landscaping plans for an approved second unit; R-2 zone, Old Towne. Mrs. Freitas was present. Mr. Hornacek indicated that he considered the proposal to be adequate, as presented to the board. MOTION by Mr. Hornacek to approve this planting plan as submitted, fmding that the type, size, and location of landscape materials is compatible with the scale of development. Approval is subject to the following requirements of the city's landscape ordinance: (A) Irrigation legend should list the brand names or specifications to be used. (B) Specify irrigation pressure on main line and indicate locations of lateral lines on plans. (C) Plot locations for sprinklers on plans. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED New Proposals Ciry of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.Ianuary 18, 1995 Page 4 4) DRB 3012; SUE PORTER (NALDO CABAN/LLAS & ASSOCIATES); 600 E. WALNUT ST. Master bedroom addition to asingle-family residence; R-3 zone, Old Towne. The applicants were present for the meeting, and assisted by Mr. Cabanillas. Mrs. Porter explained that previously-approved plans have been modified because she and her husband determined that the project was not feasible, citing concerns that an 11-foot-high ceiling (within the room addition) would result in greater heating requirements and housekeeping demands. Mr. Cabanillas revised the plans to suit their concerns, but the staff later determined that plans were no longer consistent with the D.R.B.'s approval (decision rendered November 2, 1994). Mr. Hornacek asked for clarification, noting that the ceiling remained proposed at a height of 11 feet at the end of the building. He did not understand the desire to eliminate the transition of the roofline between the addition and the existing structure, yet to extend the height of the roofline so much near the end. He felt that the intermediate section of the roof wolud look better if a "scissor truss" was used in the design and construction of the new roof. Mr. Prothero agreed. Other architectural solutions would simplify the framing requirements. The higher roofline does not necessarily dictate anopen-beam interior design. Mrs. Porter replied that the end of the building would contain a small storage loft. She is a school teacher and would like some space to keep books and other instructional materials. She felt that the addition was quite modest a proposal and situated in a manner that is not easily seen from the street. Mr. Hornacek concurred. The applicant has substantially addressed some of the board's prior concerns. Some architectural decisions are best left to the client's personal preferences. MOTION by Ms. Wolfe, to approve the proposal as submitted, finding that the proposed addition is designed and will be constructed as to not significantly change, obscure, damage, or destroy the defining features of the building, nor will it erode or adversely affect the historic context of surrounding development, according to the Old Towne design guidelines. SECOND by Mr. Hornacek. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.Ianuary 18, 1995 Page S 5) DRB 3022; MANUEL ESCOBEDO (RUBEN PENA); 195 $. PARKER ST. Proposed addition to asingle-family residence; R-3 zone, Old Towne District. The applicant was not present at this meeting (and later reported to staff that he was too ill to attend). As such, the board did not discuss the proposal. No motion was made and no action taken. (The applicant has requested that review of this application be continued until February 8, 1995.) Ciry of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.7anuary 18, 1995 Page 6 6) DRB 3023; LUPE HURTADO; 340 N. PINE ST. Installation of a new residential unit, with a detached two-car garage on a parcel in an R-2 zone, Old Towne District. Mrs. Hurtado was present, and represented by Tony Favreau. Mr. Favreau presented photographs of the existing residence, to indicate that the living conditions are poor, and the building cannot be rehabilitated. Mr. Favreau also explained that the proposed building is pre-fabricated, but would be installed on a permanent foundation. Mr. Kent admired some of the qualities of the existing building, and asked for more information about the residence. Mrs. Hurtado explained that her father built the house. It has no foundation, and is propped-up above the ground upon rocks. It also has no heating. A building inspector has examined the building and considers the electrical system to be hazardous, and other conditions to be substandard. Jim Donovan (staff) explained that the D.R.B. is not being asked to rule on the proposed demolition of the building, but will instead consider the architectural merits of the "replacement building," pursuant to O.M.C. § 17.71.040, et seq. Ms. Wolfe called attention to the building plans, noting that window treatment appears to be minimal. Is the applicant proposing wood windows, or aluminum? Mr. Favreau explained that staff had advised that the board requires wood windows for new construction in the Old Towne District, but the applicant is proposing aluminum windows. Construction of these buildings is supervised in the factory and certified according to existing state standards. The manufacturer cannot deviate from those standards (which include window specifications) without prior approval from Sacramento. Mrs. Hurtado could change the windows after the unit is delivered, but the cost would be prohibitive. She is on a limited income. Mr. Prothero asked staffto confirm whether wood windows were required by ordinance. Mr. Donovan replied that the Old Towne design guidelines do not literally require wood windows. The board has required the use of wood windows in an effort to satisfy "Design Review Criteria" (as listed in the guidelines, page 5). Aluminum sliders are generally thinner, and attached at the outer edge of window openings in construction. The result is that building walls often appear flat, and therefore do not satisfy criteria that require "facade fenestration and rhythm - solid to void," or "details and historic character (with respect to) architectural grammar," historic building materials and methods of construction. Mr. Favreau volunteered that the factory will install aluminum double-hung windows, if so desired. This window style would be less tract house like, and perhaps more appropriate. Ciry of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.Ianuary 18, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Prothero asked the staff how other architectural standards (contained within the guidelines) might affect the proposal, in light of the fact that the building is essentially a mobile home. Mr. Donovan provided background information on state regulations concerning "manufactured housing" (Cal. Gov't Code, § 65852.3, et seq.): so long as the zoning will allow construction of a single family residence on a lot, the city may not discriminate against this form of housing solely on the grounds that it is a manufactured unit. There are exceptions made when architectural standards have been adopted, but those exceptions are basically limited to finish building materials. Mr. Favreau stated that (following another recommendations by staff) the manufacturer confirmed that they could build a unit with horizontal wood siding, rather than vertical boards and battens, or T-111 siding. Samples of proposed building materials were presented. Mr. Donovan stated that he did not wish to advocate approval of the project, but pointed out that the review of residential projects in Old Towne is often characterized by design issues of bulk and mass; the proposed use of less appropriate building materials; the integration of historic detail such as a front porch, or the location of a garage. In contrast, the basic form of this building is rather simple and low-profile, such as a Craftsman-style bungalow. A front porch has been proposed in an attempt to further define the building as a Craftsman-style structure, and the garage has been placed toward the rear of the property, which is historically an accurate location on the site. Mr. Hornacek asked the applicant whether she could live with a condition that would require wood windows on the front elevation. The board has been rigorous and persistent in requiring wood windows, and does not want to set a precedent, but certain hardships have been identified here. Mr. Favreau affirmed that it could be done within their budget. Mr. Prothero added that more should be done to characterize the front porch. The columns look rather spindly, and their bases should be made of a different material than wood siding. Additionally, the roof overhang should be extended (on the front porch), or the columns pulled closer together to lend an appearance of an enlarged porch roof. Ms. Wolfe asked if the applicant had provided a detail for the garage door. It should also be made of wood. Mr. Favreau: Not at this time. Mr. Hornacek suggested that a detail be provided to staff, and approval delegated to Dan Ryan. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 8 MOTION by Mr. Hornacek, to approve the proposal on the basis of findings that the building is an appropriate replacement for the existing structure, pursuant to Old Towne Demolition Regulations, and the building is compatible with the architectural styles of surrounding single-story development, including several residences that were constructed after 1940 and represent none of the architectural styles that are defined by Old Towne design guidelines. The proposal is, however, consistent with those guidelines. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (A) The builder will install double-hung windows, on all sides. (B) Wood double-hung windows will be installed in the front of the building. (C) Columns on the front porch will be constructed with a masonry base, such as brick or river rock. (D) Columns will also be repositioned to provide the appearance of a broad landing, and a greater overhang along the eaveline. (E) A detail for the garage door shall be provided with final plans, to be submitted for review and approval by the Senior Planner, Historic Preservation. SECOND by David Kent. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for.7anuary 18, 1995 Page 9 7) DRB 3024; ORANGE-OLIVE MINI-MARKET; 2101 N. ORANGE ST. (N. E.C. MEATS AVE.) Recommendation to the Planning Commission concerning the design of a proposed second story addition to an existing service station; C-1 zone. Mr. Shigetomi announced that he would abstain from review of this item, due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Hornacek assumed the Chair. Robert C. Colin, representing the applicant (I & B Corporation): A brief overview of the plans was presented. The proposal was originally designed to resemble nearby residential development, with a gabled roof and fiberglass shingles. Mr. Colin presented a revised proposal at the meeting. The building is now presented with a cleaner, industrial look to match the existing (ARCO) service station. Ms. Wolfe expressed a preference for the revised proposal; other board members agreed. Ms. Wolfe also noted that the dominant architectural color (used on this illustration) was green. How will this blend into the blue, red and gold color scheme of the ARCO corporation? Mr. Colin explained that the he hadn't necessarily been thinking about those colors as he colored the plan; it was prepared as something of an architectural exercise- a sketch. The point is well taken. Anything colored green on these elevations should probably be the corporate color blue. Mr. Prothero asked about landscaping plans. It appears from the site plan that on-site landscaping is deficient. Mr. Colin stated that the staff has informed him that the amount of landscaped area (including that required within front yards) is not sufficient. A landscaping plan will be prepared in time for the Planning Commission's review. The E.R.B. has identified other problems within the parking area, as currently proposed. He is resolving those concerns with the staff, and will be looking to integrate more landscaping in planters within the parking area. Mr. Kent asked whether any of the board members had a concern about the rounded (southeast) corner of the building. Mr. Colin stated that the building was rounded to provide better visibility for access into the parking area. Mr. Hornacek felt that the proposal was generally adequate, considering the intent to match the utilitarian design of the existing structure. As the plans were presented in a conceptual state, a more detailed proposal should be ultimately be reviewed by the board in final form. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 10 MOTION by Mr. Hornacek, to recommend approval of the proposed building elevations as presented, fmding that the industrial appearance of the building would be more compatible with industrial development on opposite street corners, and is preferable to an alternative approach to integrate the design of this commercial building with nearby residential development. The board also finds that a comprehensive review of building elevations, building colors, signs, and landscaping shall be required prior to final approval. SECOND by Ms. Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSTAINED: Beau Shigetomi MOTION CARRIED Mr. Shigetomi resumed the chair. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 11 8) DRB 3025; SUPER PETS; 1806 E. KATELLA AVE. (S. E. C. TUSTIN ST.) Wall sign; C-TR zone, Tustin Street Redevelopment Project Area. The applicants were represented by their sign company. Mr. Prothero noted a strong similarity between this proposal and the sign next door, which was recently approved for "Michael's." Mr. Hornacek complemented the manner of presentation, but questioned whether the dimensions of the proposed channel letters were accurately represented on the color Xerox. Jim Donovan (staff) said that he compared this proposal to the "Michael's" plans, on file with the Planning Division. The trim caps and returns are the same colors, and the height of lower-case letters is the same. The capital letters are only about 15 percent smaller. MOTION by Mr. Prothero, to approve the proposal as submitted, finding that the proposed sign is compatible with an existing sign on the same building, and it is also compatible with the building's design, architectural colors and materials, and the scale in proportion to the wall upon which it would be installed. SECOND by Mr. Kent AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED ~~ity of Orange .design Review Board .t~IeetingMinutes for.Ianuary 18, 1995 .page 12 ~) DRB 3026; DEL TACO, INC. 2607 N. TUSTIN ST. (BETW. LINCOLN & HE/M AVE.) Recommendation to the Planning Commission for a proposed freeway sign at a fast food restaurant; C-TR zone, Tustin Street R.P.A. .hack Gray represented the applicant, on behalf of Ad-Art, Inc. The board shared photographs of the site i hat were submitted with the application. :Mr. Prothero noted that the building site is substantially lower than the freeway. At an overall height of 40 ::eet, the applicant is not really asking for too much, considering the elevation difference of the freeway. Ms. Wolfe asked whether this was similar to Chevron's proposal that was recently approved. ;fim Donovan (staff) replied that the sign is approximately the same height. Chevron's sign was •ecommended (by D.R.B.) for approval at a maximum height of 40 feet, but Chevron volunteered to keep it ;~t 35 feet because they had a prototype that was close enough. Ms. Wolfe also recalled that Chevron had anon-conforming pole sign that was required to be reduced to a ower height. Del Taco also has a primary freestanding sign (at the street) that is taller than the sign code ,presently allows. Mr. Hornacek also reminded Mr. Gray that the ordinance requires an opaque background for all internally ;Ruminated signs. :MOTION by Mr. Hornacek to recommend approval of the design of this proposed sign, finding the display i.o be relatively clean and simple, and conservative in the amount of display area that is proposed, and is urthermore proposed at an appropriate location on the site. As a condition of approval, the board -ecommends that the height if the existing, non-conforming sign be reduced to a maximum height of 15 feet, ,end that it be upgraded to comply with other current sign code requirements. SECOND by Erika Wolfe. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe vOES: None -MOTION CARRIED ~~ity of Orange .Design Review Board ~I~feetingMinutes for.Ianuary 18, 1995 .page 13 10) DRB 3027; 808 SMITH 8 CHUCK EBERT; 122 S. GLASSELL ST. Modification to the first floor facade of a building in the Plaza Historic District, to include new belt cornice, window sills, awnings with signage; C-1 zone, Old Towne District. The applicants were present, and represented by their architect, Mr. Rick Anderson. The board reviewed photographs of the existing building, and turn-of--the-century photographs of how the old "mercantile" was ~~riginally constructed. :Dan Ryan (staff) led a detailed review of the historic architectural elements, emphasizing the horizontal ~~rientation of building materials, trim bands, glass transoms over storefronts, window spacing and storefront openings. An historic photograph of the building is featured in the Old Towne design guidelines ,vhen it was identified with a sign reading "Ehlen & Grote Company." Mr. Ryan also explained the focus ~f the city's "U.R.M." (unreinforced masonry building) ordinance is twofold: to protect lives and property, and to protect historic buildings listed in the Plaza Historic District. All buildings undergoing seismic work end located in the Plaza district are required to follow special provisions to minimize the effects of earthquake reinforcements to the exterior walls of the building. The city's U.R.M. ordinance requires the D.R.B.'s approval of plans when seismic reinforcements require external changes or facade renovations to contributing historical buildings. The basis of review is to be the Dld Towne design standards, and the Secretary of the Interior standards with special requirements for protecting the exterior appearance of historic structures. This building is an important historic anchor wilding in the Plaza. Mr. Ryan believes that the work that is both completed and proposed does not meet :he design standards, as referenced. As related to health and safety code requirements, such work needs to ~e carefully planned and undertaken so that it does not result in a loss of the defining features and finishes. Mr. Ebert reported that use of the building by multiple tenants now requires an individual identity for entries and an opportunity for advertising. The awnings were considered to aid in that purpose. Ms. Wolfe asked whether the applicants had considered any alternatives that would eliminate the need for awnings, and perhaps restore the glass transoms. Mr. Ebert: The building cannot be restored to the original form because the lower story now has adrop- ceiling that would obscure the space behind transoms. He wouldn't know where to find materials to restore them, and the cost of leaded glass would be cost prohibitive. The building also has a wood canopy that was installed to cover the pedestrian walkway in front of the building. He does not propose to remove this element of the structure, so even if he restored the transoms, they would not be seen from the front of the building. Ms. Wolfe: But the U.R.M. ordinance prohibits the closure of historic openings, unless compatible building materials are approved by D.R.B. She does not consider the proposed plywood panels and trim to be an appropriate replacement. She would rather see some attempt to restore the glass transoms. i ~ i ty of Orange ,design Review Board ~ Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 . gage 14 ]vlr. Kent said that he recently completed a project under the U.R.M. ordinance. Seismic requirements flow some latitude in fitting new steel frames behind the facade, but emphasize restoration of these Transoms. The steel frame can be located as little as 18 inches away from (behind) the glass. Vlr. Ebert said that current plans to retrofit the building require that the steel work be flush with the facade. ,V1r. Ryan has reviewed the same plans. Several other engineers have used other methods that would allow ;treater flexibility in architectural design by keeping the steel and supporting foundation work away from the facade. This would leave sufficient room to allow for work on transoms and other designs for storefronts. VIr. Hornacek called attention to a photograph of the north elevation of the building. It resembles the same architectural detail that is shown on the plans for the Glassell Street elevation. VIr. Ebert intends to match that elevation. He reported that the work was just recently completed. VIr. Hornacek did not recall having reviewed this modification of the building. Did the D.R.B. approve the plan? ~Ir. Ryan replied that a permit was authorized by the Director (of the Community Development Department) while seismic work was being completed. VIr. Ebert explained that he could not complete the work according to plan because, after his awnings were -emoved, the owner of the building next door, which sits at a 90-degree angle to his building, installed new rwnings that project from that facade and into their mutual corner of the Plaza. Otherwise, the wood panels that cover the transoms are directly attached to the underlying steel. VIs. Wolfe asked about the location and dimensions of the steel frames. How are they integrated architecturally? It would be good to see across-section of the building. Other board members agreed. Mr. Anderson tried to explain where the underlying steel would be located in relation to this plan. Mr. Hornacek expanded upon Ms. Wolfe's concerns: Part of the problem is that the only plan submitted with this application is purely illustrative, heavily shaded to show three-dimensional contrast of the proposed awnings, and not enough detail about the building located behind those awnings. 20 to 30 percent ~f the building remains hidden. What about the windows? What materials would be used in construction? Mr. Ebert said they would be plate glass with black anodized aluminum frames. The same windows that have been installed around the corner on the north side of the building. Mr. Hornacek questioned whether this would be an appropriate use of building materials for this project. He is not comfortable with the discussion that keeps leading back to the smaller section of completed work on the north side of the building. He does not consider the wooden panels and trim to be an appropriate ~ ~'i ty of Orange .design Review Board ,Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 . °age 1 S application of finish materials. For now, the board should focus on massing of openings, some attempt to ~eturn the horizontal qualities of the building. Attention to detail will require that the applicant submit ;samples of proposed building materials (such as the window frame) for review at a later date. Vlr. Prothero stressed the importance of knowing more about the underlying steel frame of the building. ' Che applicant should submit the engineer's plans to supplement this application. The board needs to see where the steel work is, relative to the floorline and the face of the building. VIr. Kent agreed. How is the steel lintel affixed? The engineering is clearly related to the architecture, and ~~ne is not necessarily dependent on the other. VIr. Hornacek reiterated that the architectural relationship to seismic work is one that must be clarified, but :he general architectural fmish is not acceptable in its present form. VIr. Ebert replied that such opinions will vary from one person to another; an opinion is just an opinion. VIr. Prothero stated the basic issue of concern: the building remains of a good architectural quality, and is important to the fabric of the Plaza Historic District. The awnings only mask the real building. Ylr. Kent agreed. The building has a richness of detail that should be exhibited. The awnings only lend a duality of heavy massing and monochromatic color that are very different from the building underneath. VIr. Prothero added that the intent of the U.R.M. ordinance is to coordinate engineering with appropriate architectural revisions to the building, rather than vice versa. Without sufficient information about the steel framework, the D.R.B. cannot make specific recommendations. One thing he learned while participating in the Plaza Design Collaborative is that most of these old commercial buildings had a very repetitive order imposed upon basic architectural elements, even though smaller spaces may have been individually characterized. Mr. Hornacek agreed that the tenants would be better served if their identities could be defined within the retail building's openings, rather than stenciled to an awning. Mr. Shigetomi suggested that review of this item be continued until the next meeting. Mr. Ebert said he would discuss these recommendations with Mr. Anderson, and may be receptive to alternative ideas, if the constructions costs could be kept low enough. Mr. Hornacek asked if the applicant needed any further information, or if any of the board members had any other suggestions. Ms. Wolfe stated that the building elevations are not an accurate representation of the project. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Shigetomi and Mr. Prothero agreed, stating that they'd rather see what the building looks like without the awnings. MOTION by Mr. Prothero, to continue the review of this application, as the plans are incomplete. Furthermore, the proposal is not consistent with Old Towne design review criteria, and incompatible with the character of the existing structure and its surroundings, as it is now presented. The proposal is also inconsistent with the intent of the U.R.M. ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior guidelines that prohibit modifications which significantly change, obscure, damage, or destroy the defining features of the historic building, and thereby has the potential to adversely affect an architectural resource, as well as a component of the Plaza, Historic District. In order to provide complete and adequate information, the applicant is requested to submit copies of the existing construction documents related to reinforcement and seismic stabilization of the structure, a section drawing of how the steel frame relates to the building's facade, and detailed building elevations that show proposed finish materials on the building, without being covered by awnings. The applicant is further encouraged to eliminate the canopy and consider alternative treatments to restore the transoms and other architectural openings that exist within the building. SECOND by Robert Hornacek. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Robert Hornacek, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Hornacek announced that he had a prior commitment, and excused himself from the rest of the meeting. City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 17 11) DRB 3028; HENRY LtM; 1881-1911 N. TUSTIN ST. (N. OF TAFT AVE.) Facade renovation for a retail commercial center; C-TR zone, Tustin St. R.P.A. Joe Kitashima, on behalf of the applicant: The D.R.B. recently approved a proposal to modify this shopping center. Mr. Lim has decided to change the design so it is compatible with the new "Country Harvest Buffet," which is located on the same property. The pedestrian overhang is now made of exposed wood, and is proposed to be enclosed by a soffit underneath the roof, along the walkway. Mr. Prothero felt that the tower elements need some attention. The architect should consider increased height, and extend the depth of each toward the rear of the building; especially at the east end. Mr. Kent suggested that individual columns look somewhat heavy and dominate the front elevation. They might be reduced in width. Ms. Wolfe asked about the signs. Will the applicant prepare a sign program? Mr. Kitashima said that Mr. Lim would like to keep the existing sign cabinets, and create a recess within the facade for each of the tenant signs. The plastic faces could be upgraded. Mr. Prothero asked the staff whether the existing signs could be retained. They look rather large, and do not have much space between them. Mr. Donovan said that he can't be sure without dimensions labeled on plans, but agreed that they appear to be larger than what the present sign code allows. Mr. Prothero suggested that the review be continued until plans could be revised. Mr. Kitashima agreed to the continuance. MOTION by Mr. Kent, to continue the review of this item until revised plans are submitted. SECOND by Mr. Prothero. AYES: David Kent, Steven Prothero, Beau Shigetomi and Erika Wolfe NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Hornacek MOTION CARRIED City of Orange Design Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 1995 Page 18 12) DRB 3029; .1. BAKER, INC. ("CASUAL MALE') 1302 N. TUSTIN ST. (N. OF KATELLA) Signs for new retail tenant of an existing bank building; C-TR zone, Tustin St. R.P.A. No one was present to represent this application. No motion was made, and no action taken on this item. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.