2018-11-28 DRC Final Minutes CITY IS OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES — FINAL
November 28, 2018
Committee Members Present: Tim McConnack - 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
Special Session — 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, Skoipanich, McDennott, and Fox were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportuniry for Members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not
listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS: None
CONTINUED ITEMS:
(1) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4864-16—999 TOWN & COUNTRY MIXED USE SIGN PROGRAM
• A requcst to approve a sign prograin 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 sitc. The project was approved by the Design Review
Committee on June 7, 2017. Final sign program review was continued by the Design Review
Committee on Septenlber 5 and October 17, 2018.
• 999 W. Town and Country Road
• Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, apchoushel:<«��cit,y��toran��r.or�
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Committee Member Fox motioned to approve the progam as written; however, other Committce
members had questions before the vote.
Chair McCorinack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; seeing no speakers
approach, he closed the public comments.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 2 of 9
A representative of Western Sign, Tiffany Del Gatto, approached and provided samples of the
painted white aluminum, acrylic, and other materials. She explained the process of the aluminum
cut out letters, lighting, and attachments.
Committee Member questions and comments:
Chair McCormack commented that the plants in front of the sign will develop foliage 5 feet tall;
they may not want to put those particular plants in front of the sign. It was recommended to use
Blue Chalksticks instead. Committee Members agreed to condition the type of plant that shall be
used in that location.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4864-16 - 999 based on the findings
and conditions in the staff report as submitted with the additional condition that the Agave
attenuata in front of the monument sign faces shall be replaced with the Senecio serpens (Blue
Chalksticks) plant.
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 November 28, 2018
Page 3 of 9
NEW AGENDA ITEMS:
(2) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4957-18 —240 WEST CHAPMAN AVENUE SIGN PROGRAM
• A request for a sign program for a non-contributing building in the Old Towne Historic District.
The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on November 15, 2017.
• 240 W. Chapman Avenue
• StaffContact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, nunushier�cr��citvoforan�e.or�
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the West Chapman
Avenue sign program consistent with the staff report.
Chair McCormack asked the applicant if they wanted to add anything else to the Ms. Moshier's
report.
Chris De Ruyter with Signage Solutions stated this program will maintain the same design and
lighting standards as the rest of the Plaza.
Chair McCormack opened the meeting for public comment; seeing no one approach, he closed the
public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the Committee.
Committee Member questions and cominents:
• The Cominittee commented that this application is unique and is coming to the DRC as a
conceptual sign program, where, typically, signs come to the DRC for approval. Ms.
Mosllier responded that for t11e many multi-tenant buildings in the Plaza, if there is an
individual tenant that is changing out in a building that does not have a sign program; staff
will bring that individual sign to the DRC for approval. In this case, t11is is a new building
with all new tenants and this is an opportunity to provide consistency through a sign
prograin.
• A Committee Member stated they noticed a particular business in the Plaza that has their
display window covered with photographic advertising and asked if that is allowed. Ms.
Moshier responded that window signage is permitted. Lettering is limited to no more than
20% of the size of the glazing and a logo with a solid background is limited to no more
than 10%.
• The Committee and staff discussed the differeut types of per�iiitted window signs and
maximum allowable percentages.
• The Committee stated they would like to see inore specific language restricting imagery in
a window. Mr. De Ruyter responded that they can strike the wording rclated to window
displays on page 4 for the sign program; the only thing that will be allowed for window
signage is what is detailed in E 1 and E2 on page 9. The Committee also discussed adding
a condition that there shall be no interior signs within 3 to 5 feet of a window. The
Committee Members agreed 3 feet is sufficient.
• The Coinmittee Members agreed that the word "thick" should be used to clarify the
dimensions of the letters for wall signs. The applicant stated they will change all of the
corresponding pages.
City of Orange—Design Review Committce
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 4 of 9
• The Committee discussed adding a note on the details to require that all electrical conduit
shall be placed at the mortar joints in order to avoid it going through the face of the bricks.
The applicant stated that is very difficult to do because the bricks only have a 1/4" grout
joint. Committee Members stated it is better to place it in the grout joint rather than put a
hole in the face of the brick which is historical material.
• The Committee agreed it is not acceptable to drill holes through the bricks and the applicant
needs to find another solution to get wiring to the light source. The Committee does not
want to damage the historic material. A limited use of conduit on the building exterior
would be preferable to damaging historic material.
• The Committee continued to discuss the wording of a condition stating that all fasteners
and electrical conduit shall penetrate or be centered on the mortar joints. This condition
should apply to wall signs and blade signs.
• The Committee also discussed provisions to allow limited exposed conduit on the building
exterior, up to 18 inches, if it is necessary to preserve histaric material.
• The Committee noted typos on page 3, item 5, second column, "meal" should be changed
to "metal" and on page 9.0 - E.2, the word "side" should be added between "same" and
"door handle".
• The Committee discussed sign light temperature and asked to change the maximum color
temperature to 3500 K on page 4.0 — B.
• The Committee requested that the applicant label the areas that have the ghost sign on the
elevations on page 6.0.
• The Committee feels the blade sign locations should be called out on the elevations on page
6.0. The applicant stated they are called out with the number reference of 2.0 which is
defined in the docuinent. The Committec stated the nu�nbers arc confusing because there
are no keynotes. The Committee recommended putting a keynote or legend on the page.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve Design Review No. 4957-18 based on the
findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows:
• The following text shall be addcd to the sign program: "Any interior signs visible from the
sidewalk within 3 feet of the storefront glazing shall be considered part of the signage and
is subject to the rules of the sign program".
• On Page 3.0 under Fabrication Requircinents, number seven, first bullet shall be amended
to state "mo�urti»g brackets, hardware and electrical conduit shall be installed centered on
mortar joints onlv and not on the f'ace of masoizry units"
• On Page 4.0 I11u�i1ination, number four shall be revised to state "warm LED required
(maximurn 3500 k)".
• Letter "F" shall be oinitted on page 4.0.
• On Page 4.0, under Prohibited Sign Types, nuniber 8, a sentence shall be added that states
"if exposecl conduit is required in order to preserve historic material, up to 18 ifiches wortild
be allow�ed with City staff approval"
• A legend shall be added on Page 6.0 iudicating that sign 1.0 is a wall sign and sign 2.0 is a
blade sign.
• On Page 7.0, under Approved Sign Types, the sentence that begins with "Because" shall
be struck.
• On Page 7.0 and 7.1, Sign Type C shall be changed from "1/4 inch to 1 inch" to "1 inch to
3 inches" and the word "thick" to the dimensions.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 5 of 9
• On Page 7.1, the asterisk note at the base of the detail shall be changed to "all penetratiof�s
into masonry shall ce�iter o» a grout joint"
• On Page 9.0, E1, second bullet, the word "black" shall be changed to "back".
• On Page 9.0, E2, fifth bullet, the word "side"shall be added after the word "same".
SECOND: Skorpanich
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Mecting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 6 of 9
(3) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4855-16—ORANGE SKY VII.LAS
• A proposal to demolish an existing single-family residence and related accessory structures in
order to construct a 23-unit senior apartment building.
• 180 N. Tustin Street
• Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, (714) 744-7228, apeh�ushek(cu,cit oty oran�c.or�
• DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission
Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director provided an overview of the
project consistent with the staff report.
Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he had anything ro add.
Darren Radac, project architect provided a history of the project and explained various
modifications they made to the project since its inception.
Chair McCormack opened the public coinment portion of the meeting; seeing no one approach, he
closed the public comment portion and brought it back to the Committee for deliberation.
Committee Members comments and questions:
• The Committee Members asked if there was a minimum tree count required for the project.
Ms. Pehoushek responded that because this is a senior ]lousing project being constructed
in a co�ninercial zone, staff applies the development standards that go along with the
Ncighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning which have more flexibility on the subject of tree count
than in other zones.
• A Committee Member asked why this project did not trigger a public notice to the residents.
Ms. Pehoushek responded it will be noticed when it goes to the Planning Commission for
the Conditional Use Permit.
• The Coinmittee Members expressed concerns about public notification to residents only
after the Design Review Co�n�nittee provided its approval.
• The Committec Members asked if a WQMP report is required. Ms. Pchoushek stated that
the WQMP will be addressed in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Radac stated the
WQMP has been initiated.
• The Committee Members asked about the views looking into the adjacent residential
properties from the second level. Mr. Radac stated that the second floor deck with
landscaping to provide a buffer. There is also a buffer from the ground level.
• The Committee and the applicant discussed various ways of providing a buffer for niore
privacy to the residential area.
• Committec Membcrs asked why the vehicular opening is so wide on Tustin Street. The
applicant stated Public Works required a certain width for the driveway and proper access
for the loading dock. Ms. Pehoushek added there is a specific requirement for driveways
when they are off of arterial streets and this particular loading zone situation adds to the
complexity.
• The Coinmittee Members understand that a loading zone is needed and there are parking
issues; but it is peculiar that the driveway is so large and will expose the underbelly of the
building, especially at night.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 7 of 9
• The projecting part of the building is also cantilevered over the large driveway opening; it
is an unusual architectural language when an element projects forward and has no support
underneath. The cantilever does not fit the architectural language of the more traditional
design.
• The Committee feels it is mostly a very well designed building but they are concerned
about the back of the building and its exposure to single-family residences. It is not
sympathetically designed to the single-family use that is next to it and the landscaping will
not do much to reduce the privacy impacts.
• The Committee does not like to see the use of stone on the upper floors over a more
lightweight material because it is obvious that the stone is not real.
• The Committee would like to see more screening and articulation at the back.
• The Committee asked if a screen/rolling door could be used to close the opening of the
loading dock after business hours. At night it will look like a large gaping hole due to the
lighting in the parking structure.
• The Committee is concerned that the foliage of the Black Peppermint trees will not be seen
against the dark eleinents of the building.
• A Committee Member noted that in the floor plan, it does not appear that the stairs are
correctly aligned with respect to the elevator on the upper levels.
• The Committee questioned whether or not the air-conditioners will be below the parapets.
• The Committee members expressed their concerns about the large opening. The applicant
stated Public Works required this opening due to the trash service and the loading dock.
The Committee disagreed with the applicant. How projects look is not Public Works'
responsibility it is the applicant who designs the project. The size of the project also drives
the number of required spaces and circulation.
• The Committee discussed various options for camouflaging the large opening especially
after ]lours. Ms. Pehoushek added this area will also be used for moving vans and
UPS/Amazon delivery which may arrive at various hours of the day or night. She also noted
that the Public Works Department is concerned about vehicles queuing out on Tustin Street
because there is no on-street parking.
• The Cominittee would like to see sightlines from the third floor residential windows facing
north. They would also like to know if there are any vicws into the residential windows
from thc office building located south of thc project.
• A Con�mittee Member feels this project has not been designed to the site and in terms of
architecture; it is nlaxed out on the site. Ms Pehoushek stated the floor area ratio is allowed
by the General Plan in the Commercial Zone.
• The Committee Members feel it is odd that the roof deck on top of the garage is considered
as open space and a Committee Member cominented that the articulation on the parking
garage is not cognizant of what is going on above it.
• Thc landscaping plan does not match the bulk and mass of the building.
• The Committee expressed that they would like to see a context study as part of the project.
• The Committee feels that the building will not look like the rendering that has been
subnlitted.
• The Coininittee would like inore clarity on the maxiinuul height of the building.
Chair McCormack asked the applicant if he would like to have a continuance in order to come
back with some solutions to the Committee's concerns or if he prefer a vote this evening.
City of Orangc—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 8 of 9
Simonne Jurjis, property owner stated he only expected to receive comments this evening; he will
take the recommendations, revise plans based on the Committee's coinments and bring it back for
another review.
The Committee urged the applicant to conduct a context study and to reach out to the surrounding
residents for their comments.
Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to continue DRC NO. 4855-16, in order to give the
applicant an opporiunity to revise the plans based on the Committee's comments and recoinmendations.
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
The Committee Members requested an opportunity to discuss the previously approved senior
housing projects on Prospect and Hewes and the lessons learned from those projects. They also
stated it would be helpful for other departments in the City to be present at the DRC meetings in
order to see how the Committee's comments interact with other departmental requirements.
Anna Pehoushek agreed to impleinent the request and stated that these projects are the result of a
decision to allow senior housing on commercial corridors with a Conditional Use Pennit. There
are challenges that come from using mixed-use development standards on these commercial
corridors.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for November 28, 2018
Page 9 of 9
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made to adjourn at 8:29 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on
Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:30 p.m.
MOTION: Skorpanich
SECOND: McDermott
AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, Imboden, McDennott, and Fox
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.