Loading...
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.