2015-08-05 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES -FINAL
Committee Members Present:
Tim McCormack - Chair
Carol Fox —Vice Chair
Robert Irrmboden
Arnie McDermott
Craig Wheeler
August 5, 20 ] 5
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marisa Mushier, Associate Planner Historic Preservation
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5 =00
Vice Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5 :12 p.m.
Vice Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information_ Robert Garcia, Senior
Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information_ However, Mr_ Garcia did update
the Committee, letting them know the next two DRC meetings on August 19 and September 2 will
be lengthy_
Committee Member Fox asked if St_ John's Lutheran Church ramp project being tentatively set for
August 19th was the same ramp the DRC had previously reviewed_ Ms. Mushier indicated this ramp
would be at the sanctuary as part of the rehabilitation o£the building_ It is the ramp on the south side
of the building facing Almond Avenue_ Committee Member Fox wanted clari t3cation as to whether
ADA requirements apply to religious facilities_ Ms. Mushier will check to see if there is an
exemption for religious facilities_
Committee Member Imboden expressed the challenge of discussing public art that comes before the
Committee_ He felt the quality of the art makes a difference as to whether it is art or not_ He wanted
to know if there is a way for the applicant to bring the Committee something that closely resembles
the product and what it is made of, what it is going to look like, and how it will age_ Mr_ Garcia
stated that staff is looking into this issue and will get back to the Committee_
Committee Member Imboden had noticed the Sports Grill at 149 N_ Glassell Street has changed the
approved exterior paint color and other Committee Members noticed the unapproved signage on the
building. Ms_ Mushier was aware of the issue and is working with the restaurant owner_
Committee Member Wheeler announced he would be recusirng himself from the third item, Yaghi
Accessory Second Unit, on the agenda at this meeting.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for July 15, 201
5.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 2 of 15
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:28 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 3 of 15
Regular Session — 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not
listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 15, 2015
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meetings of July 15, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Carol Fox
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 4 of 15
AGENDA ITEMS
Continued Item:
(2) DRC No. 4734 -14 — Eleven 10 West (Final Design)
A condition of the June 2, 2014 Planning Commission approval requires the applicant return
to the DRC for review and approval of the final plans and colors among other details. The
project consists of a 5- level, approximately 226,511 square -foot residential building
containing 260 units with a maximum building height of 63 feet, 6 inches. The project
building would be designed around three interior courtyards, one of which would contain a
pool.
1110 W. Town and Country Road
Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231
DRC Action: Final Approval
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Brad Perozzi, from The Picerne Group, Inc.;
Irwin Yau, architect; and Matt Jackson, landscape architect.
Mr. Pezo�.zi indicated they had addressed the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee
at the May 7, 2014 DRC meeting.
Public Comments:
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
The Design Review Committee previously conditioned the project to return to them for final
approval of eight conditions and four recommendations. The Committee had comments and
questions on these as follows:
Comments on Conditions:
1. A roof top mechanical screening plan.
• DRC did not see where the screening was going. Mr. Yau explained that behind the
parapet the screening would not be visible from ground level.
• Questioned where the screening goes on the roof plan. Requested staff verify that the
mechanical equipment is fully screened on the roof plan on all four sides.
• Requested the architect draw on Sheet Al -4 indicating where the screening would be
located on the roof.
2. A color and material board and final color elevations.
• This was provided to the Committee on the applicant's submittal.
3. A lighting plan and lighting fixture cut sheet package.
• Applicant provided this on Pages 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the plans.
• Concerned with the stair lighting. Mr. Yau explained what the color of the stair lights
would be.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 5 of 15
• Questioned the use of landscape lighting including up- lighting trees. Mr. Jackson
stated they had just given it to the electrical engineer to put into his construction set.
They have up -lit the key trees to give it a decorative component and the street trees are
not in their control.
• Questioned up- lighting on the west property line. Mr. Jackson showed how the pole
lights are in between the palm trees and was based on required photometrics.
4. A landscape plan that provides a more detailed concept and creative solution for addressing
the east and west elevations.
• Mr. Perozzi pointed out that Pages 13 -20 addressed this concern.
• Concerned that the concept on the west side was borrowed landscape. Mr. Jackson
directed the DRC to look at Page 13 that showed the proposed design.
5. The elevation offsets for the top floor of the north elevation, and the vertical offset over the
guest parking entry.
• Questioned the dimension of the offset on Sheet 12. Mr. Yau answered 2 ".
6. The horizontal fiber cement concern detail.
• Mr. Perozzi directed the Committee to Page 9B which showed what the DRC had
envisioned.
7. The coordination of small dimensional transitions with the corner detail of the horizontal
fiber cement siding.
T This detail was shown on 9C.
8. he use of more color in the courtyard and the entry to the guest parking garage to animate
the architecture.
• Mr. Perozzi stated during the previous DRC meeting there was some back and forth on
the color treatment. Mr. Yau directed the Committee to Pages 7 -9 showing the
courtyard elevations and he explained the new design.
Comments on Recommendations:
1. That some of the edge condition plant material and green screen on the main drive into the
project on the main drive into the project be echoed onto the opposite side of the road.
• Mr. Jackson said they are going to be introducing quite a bit of mature plant material.
• Questioned incorporating landscaping on the east side of the driveway. Mr. Jackson
stated they did where they could but issues such as fire truck turnarounds had to be
addressed.
That Concerned with the imbalance of landscaping since it was still a view corridor.
2. important trees be bigger than 24" box container size.
The Mr. Jackson stated they did increase them to at least 36" box trees.
3. e roof treatment as viewed from the office tower should be given more thought and to be
made more playful.
That It was given more thought but were unable to do anything different.
4. special attention be given to maintaining the horizontal railing elements during the
building permit plan check process, as vertical railing elements would result in a very
different project appearance.
• Mr. Perozzi indicated all the railings would remain horizontal.
Committee Member McCormack addressed the issue of the aesthetics of the planting plans and
the exposures that are chosen specifically on the north side. He recommended using the
Platamus Columbia tree.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 6 of 15
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4734 -14, Eleven 10 West, based on
the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions:
1. Mechanical screens on the roof be per the plans submitted during the meeting red marked on
Sheet Al -4.
2. The color is to match the roofing material to the color of the mechanical screens.
3. That the pole lights on the west edge need to be coordinated with the Italian cypress and
palms.
4. The temperature of the lights inside the stairwells are to match the leasing office lighting.
With the following recommendation:
1. Columbia cultivar or the Platamus be used.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 7 of 15
New Agenda Items:
(3) DRC No. 4475 -10 — Yaghi Accessory Second Unit
• A proposal to relocate a historic single family dwelling and garage; remove non - contributing
additions and construct a new rear addition to the historic building; and construct a 483
square foot accessory second unit at the rear of the property. The single family dwelling is a
contributing building with several non - contributing additions in the Old Towne Historic
District.
• 812 E. Washington Avenue, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714 - 744 -7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Committee Member Wheeler recused himself because he was the architect for this project.
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report. She explained that projects associated with this property had been before the
Design Review Committee several times since 2010. Previous projects involved constructing a new
accessory second unit in front of the existing historic building. The project before the DRC this
evening proposes relocating the existing building to the 20 foot front yard setback and constructing a
new accessory second unit behind it. She corrected a FAR calculation in the plans, stating the correct
FAR was .34 for the proposed project.
Jon Califf, representing the applicant on behalf of Craig Wheeler, and Shucri Yaghi, property owner,
were available for questions.
Public Comments
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, address on file, made
the following comments:
• Mentioned the long history of the project.
• Property went from contributing to noncontributing and back to contributing.
• Applicant had hired an unqualified preservation consultant in the past.
• Property is currently listed online as a 6Z.
• DPR form included in the current packet is conflicting as it lists the property as a 1 D on the
first page and 6Z on the second page.
• Current staff report states that the building was not evaluated as a historic resource in 1991
but in fact it was evaluated then.
• Questions as to when some of the additions were added to the house and garage.
• In the past, a few efforts have been allowed to relocate accessory structures, at a minimal
distance, to accommodate an accessory living unit.
• Never has a primary structure been relocated along with a garage.
• This will alter the spatial relationship between the buildings on the site.
• The proposal is to relocate the home a distance of 47' to the front of the lot and this is
unacceptable and changes the character of the entire property.
• There is insufficient justification for the relocation of the structures.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 8 of 15
• The proposal as currently submitted does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
and OTPA encourages the DRC to find that the project does not meet the standards.
• If approved, this would set a dangerous precedent when future proposals can reference this
project.
• OTPA is adamantly opposed to this proposal.
• The original setback is described in the nomination for the National Register Historic
District as a defining feature of this lot.
• OTPA was not opposed to adding an addition to the house if it remains in the current
location.
• As proposed, the additions to the house appear to alter many windows and door openings
as well as including an attached garage which is inappropriate for the structure.
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
Site Layout
• The majority of the Committee considered the existing front yard setback to be a character
defining feature of the property.
o Moving the resource 40' closer to the street and moving the garage in the opposite
direction made it hard to argue that the project maintained the relationship of
buildings on the site.
o Commented that it was very difficult to argue that this deep setback is not a character
defining feature of this property. The Committee asked if the applicant explored all
the possibilities without so drastically altering the character of the defining feature.
o Did not want to see the front yard being lost. Moving the structure slightly and
maintaining the deep setback would make it compliant with the standards.
• Committee Member Fox expressed that she did not object to relocation of the structures as
proposed because these houses were not going to be viable for future users without some
changes.
• Recommended exploring possible options to maintain as much setback as possible.
Suggested moving the structure forward a smaller distance. Noted that garages have been
moved before as accessory contributing structures.
Design Alternatives
• The Committee did not object to the amount of development being proposed, but questioned
how the relocations impacted the property. Questioned if the project could be achieved
without causing so much change on the site.
• The Committee discussed alternatives to relocating the historic building to the 20 foot front
yard setback.
• Questioned if there was anything that requires an accessory living structure be
detached. Ms. Moshier said that the accessory unit could be attached or detached. It
just needs to meet the minimum size requirement of 450 sq. ft. with 1 additional
parking pad.
• The applicant should explore proposing only the minimally required parking spaces.
• Questioned whether it was possible to get an addition all the way to the back. Ms.
Moshier indicated there is a 10' rear yard setback requirement.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 9 of 15
• Questioned whether an attached accessory unit could help achieve a bigger front
setback and avoid a parking space in the front of the house.
• Concerned with locking out any further development on the property
• The Committee briefly discussed the design of the addition to the historic building and the
detached accessory unit.
• Concerned with the design of the addition on the west elevation which only has 1
window and seems incompatible with the rest of the building.
• Questioned which of the two doors was the front door to the existing historic
building. It is shown in the wrong location on the elevations.
• The Committee had issues with some of the elements on the accessory unit.
• Recommended not starting by asking how much of the front yard needs to remain but asking
how far can the buildings be expanded to the rear and how can the interior layout change?
Explore other parking alternatives, administrative adjustments on setbacks, and look at
setbacks working from the back forward.
• The Committee requested exploration of parking alternatives, including variances or
administrative adjustments for parking locations, parking space dimensions, and back up
area.
• There is room to explore parking alternatives that don't require completely
eliminating the character defining front setback of the property.
• Questioned if there was a way to meet parking requirements in the front that would be
screened by some landscaping or potentially moving the garage and not the house or
providing drive space between the house and the garage.
• Committee Member Fox expressed opposition to parking in the front yard.
• Questioned whether the front area may have been used for agriculture purposes and
asked if there was any significance to the tree. Ms. Moshier said the tree is old but
probably does not date to the period significant to the historic district.
• Ms. Moshier stated that staff would work with the applicant and explore parking alternatives.
• Mr. Califf made a suggestion on how the structures could be located with alternative setbacks
and separations of the buildings, including front yard setbacks at approximately 35 and 50
feet.
• The Committee discussed the unique nature of the property, the difficulty in developing the
property, and providing the applicant with direction on a tolerable amount of change.
o The Committee suggested bringing two site plans forward at a future meeting so that
the Committee can provide feedback on options that include a larger front yard
setback.
For preliminary review only — no action is required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 10 of 15
(4) DRC No. 4748 -14 - La Russa Residence
• A proposal for an addition to a single f;
building in the Old Towne Historic District.
item on May 6, 2015.
mily dwelling. The dwelling is a contributing
The DRC completed a preliminary review of this
• 125 N. Cleveland Street, Old Towne Historic District
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714 - 744 -7223, kribuffo rtyoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The only thing that was not correct on the site plan was the new driveway which now has a curb cut
onto Cleveland Street. It was confirmed that this is before the DRC as a final determination and not
a preliminary review.
Frank La Russa, property owner, and Terry Booth Newland, contractor, were available for questions.
Public Comments
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Clarified that the color palette is not being presented. Mr. La Russa indicated he is not
changing the colors and it will match the existing color.
• Asked about using a ribbon of grass along the driveway to distinguish it as a driveway and
not an alley. Ms. Ribuffo stated it is a recommendation but not a requirement and noted the
driveway is narrower than a standard one.
• Agreed with the reuse of the corbels.
• Suggested inching up the pitch of the service porch.
• Concerned with the header height above the window. Mr. La Russa stated the ceiling height
would be 7' and he could go up a couple more inches.
• The Committee was happy to see the siding is different and offset which followed the
guidance given by the DRC.
• Questioned the style of the kitchen windows.
• Commented that a service porch usually has more glass on it, with a different window type.
• Suggested using a hip roof on the service porch to get more volume but could not go as high
as the corbel.
• Questioned the underside of the eaves on Page A4. The Committee prefers they use a
traditional framing method where the barge board supports the starter board.
• Questioned the note on Page A5 about what the siding was going to be. Ms. Ribuffo clarified
the wider siding would not match.
• Questioned whether the plans indicated it would be wood siding.
• Questioned how the attic ventilation was going to be handled. Mr. La Russa stated they may
need some louvers on the end.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 11 of 15
• Would want to see the type of vents being used.
• Asked for clarification if the tiny offset on the north side of the roof plane would continue up.
• Questioned if they could get a finished designation for the foundation on the drawings. Mr.
La Russa stated it would be a poured concrete.
• Asked for poured in -place concrete on the new addition and the new stem walls be painted
the same as the existing and with a smooth finish.
• Questioned the two small windows on the north side being sliders. The Committee preferred
a hopper window in or an awning window out.
• Asked why they are not matching the window trim and wanted detail on what it was.
• Commented that there was no header trim on the addition but there was on the existing
windows and it seemed to be oversimplified. Mr. La Russa said it had been vinyl windows
and now they are wood windows.
• Some of the Committee Members were ok with the window trim not matching and suggested
making a slight variation.
• Commented that the french side doors looked modern and did not like the light fixture.
• Concerned that there was no door on the service porch and suggested putting a door where
there was a window.
• Questioned if there were miter corners on the siding. Mr. La Russa confirmed they would be.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4748 -14, La Russa Residence, based
on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions:
1. The exposed flat 2' x 4' outriggers at the gable ends be removed from the design and frame
the barge rafter in the traditional way.
2. The new siding is to be wood.
3. Any attic ventilation in the new addition is to utilize a similar vent to the existing ones and /or
use low profile vents in the roofing field.
4. New stem walls be of a smooth finish.
5. The high windows in the master bedroom and the new bathroom #2 are to be changed from
sliding to either awning or hopper.
With the following recommendations:
1. Additional windows in the service porch would be encouraged.
2. If desired by the owner, the window trim could be made more similar to the existing.
3. Cut a grass strip down the center of the driveway.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 12 of 15
(5) DRC No. 4797 -15 The Village at Orange Master Sign Program
• A proposal for adoption of a new master sign program for the Village at Orange shopping
center.
• 1500 E. Village Way
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714 - 744 -7223, kribuffokcityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She
indicated staff had concerns with the number of existing signs, and the number of proposed
secondary signs for certain tenant types. She pointed out on Page 11 of the sign program that P5 on
the upper left corner should have been labeled a monument sign and not a tall pylon sign.
Matt DeRuyter, from Signs & Services Co., stated that there are no pylon or monument signs on
Tustin Avenue that advertise any of the anchors at the center.
Ms. Ribuffo brought the approved plans for the fagade if the DRC wanted to see them.
Public Comments
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
• Questioned whether the lantern style lights on Tustin Street were being removed. Mr.
DeRuyter said yes.
• Commented that the directional signs that seem to echo the roof of the existing entry that is
being torn down.
• Ms. Ribuffo clarified that the DRC was giving a recommendation to the Planning
Commission based on the aesthetics of the program.
• Questioned whether D4 should be there and concerned with the design of that sign which
appears too big. Also the effectiveness was questioned if a car was in front of it, you
would maybe only see the tenant on top. Commented that D4 was not necessary.
• Site plan shown on Sheet 11 doesn't match the site plan that is in the proposed plan near
the main entrance.
• Commented that the monuments signs at street level are fine but it was the directional signs
that did not appear to fit.
• Ms. Ribuffo stated the monument signs along Tustin Street has to be maintained by a
minimum 10' setback from the street and the pylon signs required a minimum amount of
landscaping per code.
• Commented that it was not in line with the landscaping and lighting programs.
• Would like to see the monument signs laid out on the site plan with the size that they will
be.
• Concerned that the plants will grow and cover the address.
• Concerned the signs will take up existing parking spaces. Need to see how this fits in with
the existing planters or whatever is planned and need to see the site plan version.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 13 of 15
• Concerned with the electrical /telephone lines interfering with the signs.
• Concerned the directional signs would block the view of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
• Suggested rethinking the arching /swooping because it may not meet the applicant's
objectives.
• Questioned the copy on the signs and not clear on the lettering. Is it all on a consistent font
and color as shown or can it be in the company font? The font and color needs to be
included in the package. Mr. Ruyter stated the directional signs would have the same font.
• Questioned how a long business name would fit.
• Questioned the letter size of the directional signs.
• On Page 8 showing the sign area, it doesn't include the descenders.
• Not sure how the pylon sign with the letters "The Village" on Page 12 works. Mr.
DeRuyter said they are self - contained letters. Committee would like to see that worked out
on both Page 12 and 13.
• Questioned how the address on Page 12 would be illuminated. That needs to be called out.
• Concerned on Page 13 that the address could be hidden by the shrubbery.
• Questioned what kind of stone was being used on Page 14. Mr. DeRuyter said it was the
same as the existing stone on the property.
• It was noted that staff was recommending the signs mounted on the buildings be more
limited than the applicant's proposal. The applicants want the Super- Anchor tenants to
have 1 primary sign and 4 secondary signs per facade and staff was recommending 1
primary and up to 2 secondary signs per facade with other deviations on the other tenant
signs.
• Questioned if 4 signs would ever be necessary on the rear of the building.
• Commented that maybe 4 may be needed on one side sometimes.
• Suggested allowing 1 primary and 1 secondary sign per elevation and staff would have the
authority to approve additional secondary signs if conditions warranted it. Mr. Garcia
stated it would be nice to have the criteria spelled out because staff would not want to be in
the position to decide what is appropriate or not.
• Suggested using a total of 6 secondary signs spread around the three facades.
• Would be nice to understand the need for a number of secondary signs and maybe limit it
to two facades.
• Suggested having 6 secondary signs on a Super- Anchor tenant with no more than 4 on one
facade to avoid clutter. Did not want to see 12 secondary signs with 4 on the three facades.
• 1 primary and 2 secondary signs on one facade are acceptable for the Anchor tenants.
• 1 primary and 2 secondary signs (logo would be considered a secondary sign) are
acceptable for the Restaurant tenants.
• Staff was recommending for the Pad /Shared tenant 1 primary and 1 secondary sign. DRC
was in agreement with this recommendation.
• Suggested allowing blade signs. Mr. DeRuyter indicated they did not want them.
• Ms. Ribuffo explained that Exhibit 10 and 11 referred to signage shown as red dots on the
site plan and these were previously approved by the DRC.
• Questioned how this dealt with existing signage and as tenants change. Ms. Ribuffo stated
when a tenant leaves they are required to remove their signage at their expense. The new
tenant has to design the sign and get the mall's approval before installation and before a
permit is issued. The sign program guidelines states after 60% of the signs have switched
over to the new standards, all the others are to be brought up to compliance.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 14 of 15
• Questioned if existing sign size would be grandfathered in for a new tenant. Mr. Garcia
stated all new signage would have to comply with the new sign program.
• Ms. Ribuffo explained that the miscellaneous signage deals with window and door signage
which would be the 25% standard per the sign code.
• Wall mounted address numbers on the outside of the buildings would be in compliance
with the Fire and Police Department requirements.
• Needed clarification as to the location of the wall mounted address numbers on the
buildings.
The DRC summarized their recommendations made during the meeting as follows:
1. The site plan is to show the actual layout of the signs to scale and integrate the design with
planters, planting, and lighting.
2. Consider the blocking of visibility at intersections checking for sight lines.
3. Clarify how the letter lighting works and how they are attached on the signs.
4. Clarify the materials and colors because some are not called out.
5. Show a side view of the directional signs.
6. The Super- Anchor tenant should have a maximum of 6 secondary signs with a maximum of
4 on one side.
7. The Pad /Shared tenant should have 1 primary sign and 1 secondary sign.
8. Suggested the use of blade signs and the use should be spelled out as an option. If applicant
decides to allow blade signs, standards are needed for size and illumination.
9. Revise site plan to use the current parking layout.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4797 -15, The Village at Orange
Master Sign Program, based on the comments made at this meeting, to a date uncertain:
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
G'ity of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2015
Page 15 0£ 15
ADJOURNMENT
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on August 19, 2015.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED_
Meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.