Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Andrew, would you lead us? Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. We can start with roll call. Certainly. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Before I conduct tonight's roll call, I just want to, for the record, identify that there have been two recusals of sitting DRC members. We've received a request from Michael Lopez, committee member, to no longer participate, and also, more recently, Greg Ledesma. And so I will be coordinating with the clerk's office for, in the future, filling those seats. I'll keep everybody abreast of that. Now, as it stands, that would leave us with a total of five members, and so I'll be calling those five in tonight's roll call just reflecting active status.

Quick question. If on future DRC meetings, and what are the rules for quorum? Do those two count as quorum? To meet quorum?

I, my understanding is that they don't. Connor, would you be able to weigh in on that, please?

Yeah, those two no longer count as quorum. So for us to have a quorum, it would need to be the majority of sitting members. That'd be five right now. Hopefully we'll get that back up to our normal numbers soon, but yeah.

Perfect, thank you. So three. So yeah, yeah, thank you. To Committee Member Gross's point, with five active, the quorum for future meetings until the seats are filled would be three. All right, so for this evening, I will go ahead and start with Member Skorpanich. She is absent. Committee Member Gross. Present. Thank you. Committee Member Gladson.

Present.

Great, thank you. Vice Chair McDermott.

Here.

Thank you. And Chair Farfan. Here. Thank you. With four, we do have a quorum for this evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'd like to call for public comments. It's not regarding the agenda item today. I don't see anybody, but just like to double check. All right. Moving on to new business, we have item number 3.1. It's a request to install a new halo lit canopy mounted wall sign and reface an existing pole sign. On a building located at Woodtown Historical District, located at 202 North Glassell Street, DRC number 25-0120. The recommended action is approval of design review number that I just mentioned, 250120.

If we can start with the staff report. Thank you, Chair. Project Planner Lauren Briggs will present a staff report. Thank you.

Good evening chair and committee members. The project for review is a proposal to install one new halo lit canopy mounted wall sign and reface an existing pole sign for an existing commercial building at 202 North Glassell Street. The site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at North Glassell Street and West Maple Avenue and the project is located in the Old Town Historic District and is a non-contributing property. The canopy-mounted wall sign is proposed to be a reverse halo-lit aluminum channel letter sign on the east elevation facing North LaSalle Street. The pole sign is proposed to be a double-faced illuminated aluminum channel letter sign on the south elevation facing North LaSalle Street and West Maple Avenue. The project includes the removal of an existing neo-canopy-mounted wall sign and double-faced exposed neon poled sign. The proposed signage was installed under review while the applicant is seeking retroactive approval of this project tonight. The project complies with the Orange Municipal Code section 1736 and the historic preservation design standards for Old Town. Staff recommends the DRC approve the project. To date, staff has received one public e-comment and one email public comment as well. That is the conclusion of this report. Staff is available to answer any immediate questions. The applicant is also in attendance this evening for any questions or clarifications.

Thank you. Do you have those? I don't think I received those, that email.

The email comment will be posted either today or tomorrow.

Yeah, don't we need that before tonight's meeting?

It was submitted to staff on Monday. It was to my attention, and so that was kind of lost in a little bit of the traffic, but we can... The commenter is present, so perhaps if that's an ability for her to kind of reiterate, the record will reflect it, and of course, we have taken those into consideration. We're prepared to respond.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant to make a presentation. You don't have to, but if you want, you're welcome to. No? All right. Are there any comments? All right. We know who.

good evening chair parkland members of the drc and staff um hey i think you might have been referring to my email yes ma'am okay um so i'm not understanding exactly why we're here if applicant has already um went ahead and installed the signs in the poll and i don't believe these are uh meet the historic design standards. There is plastic on the sign, which are absolutely prohibited under the historic design preservation standards. So we are absolutely opposed to this. I think this is just my personal opinion, but I feel like this is another case of just go ahead and do it and ask for forgiveness later. This is just not right. I know the city council especially is looking to be business friendly, but you can't just keep ignoring the standards and ordinances and approving things just because somebody wants it. So we strongly hope that you... do something, take action, take the sign down. First of all, it should be neon, which is what they have in their proposal. And it's not all neon. Plastic, like I said, is prohibited. So this doesn't meet the historic design standards. The bigger issue for me is that the photos that are in the packet are old photos. They show what was there, not what's there now. That's it. We oppose this project. Thank you.

Thank you. No more public comments. We'll close that. One more. Oh, there we go.

Well, I do like Phil's coffee. And I do think that the new building looks a lot better than what was there prior to that. The signage, well, they didn't go through the hoops that they should have. So I'm not too supportive of that at all. I do appreciate DRC. and your efforts to keep Orange Old Town especially with great character and charming as it is. My wife and I are lifetime members of OTPA. My wife actually has been in Old Town since 1967, so we've been here for a long time. But in regards to just the charmingness and the character of Old Town, I just want to firmly address that I wish that Chapman University would come into some sort of memorandum of understanding with our city manager due to the excessive partying and just taking over of Old Town streets, drinking, walking down the middle of the street, getting into the fountain. So I appreciate DRC and your trying to maintain the charm and character of Old Town with building. but I'm also pressing the issue that Chapman has no working relationship with the city and they're not trying to have one. I would hope that you could maybe hint to the city manager, he is our CEO, that we can and maybe come to a town and gown relationship with Chapman, a relationship actually means there's some sort of dialogue and agreement of some kind, because we really would appreciate that. I live in a different area of Orange, I don't live in Old Town, but if you could picture where Walnut Avenue is and Collins and Cambridge and Tustin, Walnut, Collins, Cambridge, Tustin, there are 85 college homes in that quadrant. And that's my neighborhood. So it's not a neighborhood anymore. So anything you could do to help me would be great. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah, we were just, we already had open public comments. Now we're talking about item 3.1 regarding the signage.

and the charming character of Orange.

Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Okay, at this time, I'd like to go to the committee. Oops, Mr. Heaton.

Apologies, Chair, I was just motioning to Skyler if she could please share the screen so that we can look at plans. Oh, got it.

So there's no applicant here.

I'm confused. No, there is no applicant here.

We were under the impression the applicant could attend, but there may be a traffic or a travel issue aligned with that, but we were anticipating them being present for this conversation.

I see. Okay, that's why I was confused. Okay. All right. Well, at this time, I'd like to open it to the committee, and who would like to go first?

I'll make my comment first, if that's okay. Yeah, I saw the signs, and I was walking along, and I saw. And my first visceral reaction was, oh, shoot. And I thought that for a number of reasons. My first inclination was, and the gap was not here, is they might have gone through a logo revision. Corporations do that all the time. And I'm familiar with that. And I was wondering if they were going to do more to the building, not being aware of it in general, if this was the beginning of something. having the pole and the sign be the same color made it look like one continuous object instead of the sign with its geometry should be what it is and the pole should be a... So I just looked at it critically from that standpoint. But yeah, I missed the exposed neon. I think it was in character with the building as a prior auto use and it kind of transitioned historically and material-wise. So I was, you know, when I got this for the hearing today, I was, you know, interested in seeing how this would go because of my visceral reaction of just seeing it in place. And I would, you know, I liked what was there before, frankly. So we'll see how that goes. Thank you.

Okay, I have a few comments about the project. First of all, I feel like we don't have our facts straight because the sign on the pole that was installed is not what's drawn. What's drawn and shown in the project plans, they call for reverse halo lit channel letters. That's what they're, it says right there, reversed halo channel letters, but they're not. They're plastic, the whole thing is plastic. And I actually, I went to look at it at night and I'd like to share, I have a couple of photos so that you can see what it looks like at night lit up. It's clearly not, aluminum. It's not metal. It is a plastic sign and on the canopy sign the coffee cup and steam graphic are called out. There's a section right there on the drawings that shows a section through the steam and the cup. Go down a couple of drawings and you can see it. The next one. Right here. And it says right there, three sixteenths inch thick acrylic face. This is plastic facing on the steam and the cup, and it's shown out there. So it's a plastic sign, and it is internally lit. And in the historic preservation design standards, it calls out that new signs should be made of traditional materials such as wood or metal, and that plastic signs are not permitted, and that signs shall be externally lit. Internally illuminated signs are not permitted with the exception of halo lit channel letters and that neon is encouraged for blade or wall signs. So that's what's in the historic preservation design standards that we have to make a finding that this project upholds and it It obviously does not. Also, what's drawn, I mean, if we were to approve the plans that are submitted, it's something different than what is installed. And that's a bit of a problem. I also am not sure why they changed from neon. I get that they wanted a corporate change, but they can still do that in neon. And it was neon. And it was compliant. So to me, this is a non-compliant sign. And I will not be able to make the finding that it meets the historic preservation design standards.

Perfect, thank you.

Adrienne?

Yeah, Committee Member McDermott, I didn't go do what you did with these, but I took a look at the standards as well as I was reviewing this, particularly since the findings are essential. And I came to the same conclusion. It's pretty black and white. Unfortunately, the applicant isn't here, so we can't ask some of those questions, but I can't make the findings either. And we've seen it executed. As you politely and kindly said, it's been executed with neon. I'm all for them upgrading and doing a refresh. Those are typical with signs, but yeah, this is not there.

Okay, I think with applicant not being here, would someone like to make a motion and then we can vote or something? I have a couple more.

I apologize. I have a couple questions. So when I saw it and I see your photos, is this an act? Because they've changed other things on the building too, right? This is not just signs.

This is just for the wall and the pole sign.

So they didn't repaint parts of the building, the yellow and stuff? There's not other things going on there? They're not here to say. Is this it, or are they doing more stuff?

Per the plans, the canopy, the aluminum canopy wall underneath the sign was requested to be painted. But besides that, there is nothing else.

And is the post going to be painted? I mean, is it?

The pole, yes. The pole is to be painted as well.

So things, you're right. There are things on the plan that are not here, but things that are proposed to be changed as well. Right? Like the pole is going to be painted the Benjamin Moore yellow? Right now it's not.

I believe they've already made the paint change. They've already made the paint change. If you look at what they call the existing drawings, you'll see that it's a different color.

The canopy yellow is different.

And also the pole. They've changed.

This pole right now is the orange. It's now yellow.

And the whole thing.

So if I may, just for context and how we got here, Lauren has been working with this applicant for a number of months on this. And yes, to confirm an earlier comment, Phil's Coffee is going through a rebrand. So this effort is to reflect some continuity between the different franchise locations. We do understand that they had an existing sign configuration that was more in line with the Old Town standards. That was staff's request from the beginning when this application was originally filed, I believe back in December. We have been working with the applicant toward that goal. That has not been something that was supported by the applicant, and they wanted to request the review and consideration by the DRC of what you see in the plans. I say that because we're also aware that in the interim between filing the application and tonight's hearing, they did install noncompliant signage. They did that independent of any approval, of any review, of any issuance of a building permit. And so that has not been something that was reviewed or blessed by the city in any capacity. So I don't want that to reflect what we could, in theory, still wind up with for this item and for the ultimate outcome. The reason that staff elected to schedule this for the DRC is that we are finding ourselves in a position of relying on your discretionary authority. as well as your experience as to the applicability of the standards when it comes to new signage. We are trying to kind of balance the interests of Phil's Coffee, which is a successful downtown operator, their need for commercial signage. They had an interim need, and we decided we're going to work with them, ultimately with the understanding that you have to abide by whichever action that DRC will take. And so that was a conversation that we had had with them previously. I bring that up just in light of there being a possibility, if there is a possibility, if there is an appetite by this DRC to consider the plans as presented as a baseline of the proposal. If there is room for improvement, I think staff would certainly entertain potentially adding conditions that ultimately may modify the plan or the proposal so that it's a better fit that's fully in the scope of the DRC. SO I JUST PRESENT THAT AS AN OPTION FOR ACTION, CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO MAKE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATION OTHER THAN WHAT WAS FILED AND WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PLANS IS THE RESULT OF WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TOWARD THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME, AND THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THIS SIGN THAT ARE, IT'S MOSTLY ALUMINUM, ONE COULD ARGUE, AND SO WE FELT THAT THAT WAS consistent enough for it to be noticed and presented to the DRC. Ultimately, the decision lies with you.

Chair Farfan, too, if I can jump in, and Mr. Beckman, we have a lot of options, obviously, and maybe I can just kind of outline, because We have the ability to deny. We have the ability to continue it with some direction. And I think that may be where you're going, potentially, because there's plans here that we could leap off of. I believe so. And those probably are maybe the two ideas or two options. And then that could go to the applicant for their consideration. They would look at our meeting and know what we struggled with. Is that helpful for what we might do?

It certainly is. A third option, just administratively speaking, would be approval with conditions. But I realize that that may not be the best option for the DRC tonight. But yes, that's...

Now the challenge with that option is that we need a predictable outcome of what the plans are going to deliver. So there's a lot of looseness to that. So I get where you're coming from, but that's my feedback. But I'll let my other colleagues speak.

I have a quick question. If that's the case, then why does the staff report recommend this for approval?

It's a recommendation of approval based on the plans. This is the level of design and commitment that we were able to get when working with the applicant. Got it.

Okay. Well, I would just say, I mean, I've thought of that too. How could we condition this to make it acceptable? Obviously, the halo-lit channel litters are not as good as neon, but they are permitted. But the coffee cup is an internally lit plastic sign and is definitely not acceptable. not something that I would be able to approve. And I think that most of us would agree with that. So I would actually like to hear from the applicant. Do they have any suggestions of how they could make that out of aluminum or remove it or do something to it? Could they alter the sign to make it approvable? I kind of need their feedback, and they're not here.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, TO THAT POINT, I DID WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT THE EXISTING SIGN ON THE POLE FACE IS MOSTLY HALO-LIT PLASTIC, BUT THE PLANS SHOW MORE OF THE ALUMINUM RETURN, AND IT WOULD BE A REVERSE HALO-LIT Per the plan. And so I think there'd be more consistency based on this plan set with the photo you took at night of the halo lit. It would appear more in line on the pull sign. That is what the plans show. And I know that it's challenging because it doesn't match what's out there.

Right, but what they have out there now is not what's shown on their drawing. They're proposing the halo lit letters on the pole sign on the drawing, but they did it all in plastic. So that's difficult.

I think they're not here. We spent our time coming here, sorry, to help them and to advise, which is disappointing. I was trying... I was trying to diagnose what the original one was and where the change was. Over the entry area, was that cup fully neon at the time? I know the one on the pulsing was. So they're not here to help us. For that reason, I would, I'm sorry, I would say that we need to extend this to another meeting. That would be my advice.

If I could add, we know they're not here and And honestly, I don't know how we can fix something that doesn't meet the standards and go through this, you know, standard conditions of approval that might get in conformance. I just don't, you know, without them being here and being able to speak on their behalf, I don't, you know, I'm not favoring that option because for us to do conditions of approval, I'm not a sign maker. You know, I just see the standards and like to follow them. It's what we all do in our careers. And if it's not following that, then, you know, it just is what it is. To go through and make conditions and maybe they can do this, maybe they can do that, I have no idea. That's not what I do. But, you know, the committee wants to do that and that's great, but for For what I see right now, if this would go to vote, I would probably not approve it, but we can set that as an option and motion.

Chair Farfan and my colleagues, in listening to our deliberation and the complications with this, I think the suggestion I would do, and I would be happy to make a motion that we continue this to a date uncertain so that staff can take our comments, has heard the concerns we have, particularly since the findings are the critical piece. We have a number of inconsistencies here. We have plant signs that have been installed. I think the canopy signs are a little less worrisome, except for the coffee cup. We've got details here that do talk about aluminum. And if we can get those details correct, if we can go back and have them really hone in on the... freestanding poll sign and really get to the fact that we do not have a sign that complies with the standards and work towards that and bring it back to us and come talk to us. I think then we're in a position that we can take some action. That would kind of be the basis for my motion and we could also make the findings for CEQA because that's another part of our action. I mean, we're very sensitive to applicants wanting to move through, and our staff is diligent in knowing what we have to do, too, and they rely on us for our expertise. So I think that's probably the best solution, because, Chair Fairfan, if we tried to condition this to be approvable, I don't think we're going to be able to get there. Yeah. So that would be a verbal motion, long way.

Well, I have a question. Because usually when we continue a project, it's with the consent of the applicant. I'm going to ask our legal advice on this one.

Yeah, you guys are able to take an action, which includes continuing the item. Getting the consent of the applicant, I think, is more so to ensure either they're not looking to appeal that choice or to make sure that we're not running into any deadlines or statutory timelines. I don't think that's the case here. I don't think we're running into any statutory issues with this sign. And if you guys need more time, you are in your right to continue it.

And City Attorney, too, as I think I heard Ms. Briggs, she's been working on this since December. So I think there's some time.

Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? Are we ready? Can I have your... Thanks.

I move to... Request an extension to item number 3.1, request to install new halo lit canopy, mounted wall sign, and reface an existing pole sign on a building located in the Old Town Historic District at 202 North Glassell Street, DRC number 250120.

And I second that motion with what I previously went on and on about, so.

Thank you, please vote. Okay, we have unanimous approval to continue. At this time, I'd like to adjourn this meeting. The next regular meeting is Wednesday, July.

Real quick, Chair, before we finish hearing, I just want to clarify something I said earlier, because I don't want to lose anybody else. For quorum, we do need all four of you, at least. But once we have that, three is enough to make a decision. I want to make sure that's clear so we don't lose anybody else, because we do all need four of you. So we have to take our vitamin? Whatever it takes. I'm not checking anybody's polls or anything, but just get here to vote. Definitely.

Thank you. All right, we'll see you July 1st. No vacation for us. No vacation. Nothing. Thank you and good evening.