2018-10-17 DRC Final Minutes CITY IS OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES—FINAL {
October 17, 2018
Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack- Chair
Anne McDermott—Vice Chair
Mary Anne Skorpanich
Carol Fox
Robert Imboden
Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Director
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session—5:14
1. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:14 p.m. and inquired about the
Policy/Procedural Information.
• Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated that the November 21 meeting
has been cancelled.
• Ms. Moshier discussed moving the DRC meetings to the Council Chambers
beginning in January 2019 and asked the Committee Members to arrive at 4 p.m. on
December 5 in order to obtain training on the Council Chambers technology.
Committee Members provided edits to the October 3, 2018 minutes.
Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the
Design Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott, and Fox
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
� MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17,2018
Page 2 of 7
, Regular Session—5:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott and Fox 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: OCTOBER 3, 2018.
Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the October 3, 2018 minutes as
emended in the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Skorpanich
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17,2018
Page 3 of 7
AGENDA ITEMS:
New A�enda Items:
(2) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4864-16 — 999 TOWN & COLTNTRY MIXED USE SIGN
PROGRAM
• A request to approve a sign program and related freestanding entry and directional
signage in association with a horizontal mixed-use development that also includes a new
five-story residential apartment building. The proposed signage pertains to the office
building component of the larger development site. The project was approved by the
DRC on June 7, 2017. Sign program review was continued by the DRC on September 5,
2018.
• 999 W. Town and Country Road
• Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, �ehoushek(a�citvoforan�g
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Chair McCormack disclosed he met with the applicant.
Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director provided an overview of the sign
program consistent with the staff report.
Committee Member questions and comments: �
• Committee Members asked if any other signage elements for the remainder of the
development will return to the DRC for approval. Ms. Pehoushek responded that the
signage for the apartment, landscape and lighting plans will return for approval. �
• For improved visibility, Committee Members encouraged white lettering or something
similar to brushed aluminum or more reflective letters. The metallic quality of the
lettering of the other metal elements should be emulated.
• Committee Members are concerned about the visibility of the letters at night. Ryan
Childs, applicant, stated the soft wash light should help them stand out. The interior LED
lights with a sunset/sunrise affect gives it an orange glow.
• Committee Members asked if the long wall would be externally lit. Mr. Childs stated the
long wood wall would not have any external floodlights. The Committee Members
recommended that the longwall/fence have external lighting like the monument sign.
• The Committee Members felt there needs to be external lighting so the letters can be seen
and not just be a silhouette effect.
• Committee Members expressed their concerns about headlights capturing the entire sign
on the very large screen wall and suggested that the sign have the same type of LED
lighting that is mounted under the monument sign.
• The wood slats provide high contrast (only at night) to the orange acrylic and the letters
do not have sufficient contrast to be legible; a ground mounted floodlight on the screen
wall would help.
• Some portions of the letters are on the illuminated orange glow and other portions are on
the wood. The Committee recommended placing all of the letters on the back lit
illuminated glow to provide consistency. There is an inherent issue of legibility with
floating letters in different sizes over stripes.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17,2018
Page 4 of 7
• Committee Members asked if narrower slats could be added to the fence to reduce the
void and make it look more solid; the wide gap is part of the problem. Nick Marcos,
applicant, stated they originally had the large cabinet on the wood wall because they were
having difficulty with the spacing between the wood slats and the back lighting. He
would rather go back to that type of application rather than having to modify what they
have already built.
• A Committee Member stated the fence that was in their package was designed as a screen
wall and it was never implied that there would be signage on it. Now the Committee is
setting precedence for the next signs to match this one and now the design flaw will carry
forward. It should have been designed as a signage wall from the beginning.
• Some Committee Members stated the sign may be more legible if the letters were on
backer panels.
• Committee Members felt there is a lot going on and it is not clear how it will function as
a sign when it is illuminated. The design appears forced and does not serve the function
, of what is intended to do. The overall design is wrong for the property.
• The Committee Members all agreed that they do not typically approve things without
samples and that the applicant should have brought a sample of the silver lettering.
• Committee Members discussed the color of the glow. Mr. Childs stated the approved
plans for the 52 foot fence had LEDs at the bottom and they were trying to match it to the
monument sign. Committee Members stated for the record that the LED lighting on the
previous detail had not been approved by the DRC.
• Committee Members asked staff if they could add a condition to provide exterior
illumination to match the illumination of the monument sign.
• If approved this evening, the Committee was comfortable with delegating the evaluation
of the level of illumination to staff to ensure that the sign is visible at night. Ms.
Pehoushek stated staff could monitor the legibility and the intensity of the internal
illumination and contrast.
• The Committee Members all agreed it is difficult to speculate what the effect will be if
the lighting is changed. Mr. Childs stated they could turn the internal lights off and have
them soft lit; however he did not think dimming them is going to change the fact that
there will be an element of wood slats going across. The sign designer and landscape
architect strongly believe that the letters will be seen with soft lighting at night.
• Committee Members noted that they had concerns with the original application and the
applicant has now resubmitted the same thing. They suggested that the applicant provide
a mockup to prove that the signage works.
The Committee Members stated the monument sign could possibly have a solid middle with a
glow at the top and bottom, and then there would be no competition of the letters on the slats.
Conceptually, that has more relationship to the mass of the building. Ms. Pehoushek asked the
Committee if they felt that the fundamental problem of the wood slats and illumination was
never going to work, or if it could work and was simply a matter of getting the letters and
illumination in line. She stated the applicant could also consider a lettering element set on posts
in front of the wall.
Committee Member Imboden suggested that staff rethink the language on the required findings
because the on-site office building is a brutalist solid plastic form and the sign is built out of
sticks which is not modern or brutalist. This was shown as a preliminary design to the DRC
when they approved it; it was a slat wall and was not delineated the way it is now. At the last
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17,2018
, Page 5 of 7
meeting he opined that the slats were too small and spaces too wide to be a slat wall; it was a
fence and now it had come back with even bigger gaps. He suggested that the applicant infill
some of the existing gaps on the fence to have smaller breaks in it as it would create a monolithic
slab look that would still have fine stripes of light in it, but the applicant did not want to move in
that direction. Mr. Imboden would approve it if they could make it work; but felt it was not the
right thing to do and they did not previously approve the design as stated.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it was originally approved as a screen wall with no reference to signage.
The Committee, staff and the applicant agreed that the applicant would prepare a mockup sign to
allow staff and the Committee to conduct a site visit to provide feedback. The applicant would
prepare an alternative design for the subsequent meeting in the event that the mockup is not
acceptable to the Committee.
Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to continue Design Review No. 4864-16 to an
unspecified date.
SECOND: Fox
AYES: Skorpanich,McCormack, McDermott, Fox and Imboden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17,2018
Page 6 of 7
(3) DRC NO. 4919-17—SKY PALM MOTEL
• A proposal for a renovation and an addition of 475 SF for a manager's office, to an
existing Googie-style motel.
• 210 N. Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231,rgarcia@cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Imboden recused himself, stating that he had a professional relationship to
the historic preservation consultant, Page &Turnbull.
Robert Garcia, Senior Planner provided an overview.of the motel renovation consistent with the
staff report. He pointed out the staff report has an error in the square footage of the manager's
office; it should be 475 SF and not for 425 SF.
Darian Radac, architect for the project stated they want to bring the building back to its historic
quality. He responded to questions regarding the freestanding (pylon) sign, Hardie Board
paneling,proposed roofing, and trees.
Committee comments:
• All of the Committee Members stated they were very pleased with the renovation and
restoration plans.
• The Committee Members stated that they were pleased that the applicant had retained the
services of Page & Turnbull, a historic consultant and were pleased to learn of the
applicant's desire to restore the motel to its original condition.
• Committee Members asked the applicant if the owners intend to bring the neon sign back.
Mr. Radac stated it is their intention to do so.
• The Committee liked the landscaping in the small perimeter side yard.
• The Committee stated they would like to see a materials board, railing materials, and
more elaborate callouts on where the materials will go on the plans.
• One of the Members would prefer to see plaster instead of the Hardie Board that is
proposed on the back wall of the A-frame building component. Mr. Radac agreed to
change it.
• The Committee would like to see creative lighting incorporated into the landscape.
• The Committee would like to see the applicant think about ways to enhance places where
people put their hands and feet such as unique doormats, stencils or sandblasting.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4919-17 based on the findings and
conditions in the staff report with the additional condition that the colors and material board,
lighting plan, pylon sign and architectural feature details shall returned to the DRC for review
prior to building permit issuance:
MOTION: Fox
SECOND: Skorpanich
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott and Fox
NOES: None '
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2018
Page 7 of 7
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on
Wednesday,November 7,2018 at 5:30 p.m.
MOTION: Skorpanich
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, and Fox
NOES: None
ABSENT: Imboden
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.