Loading...
2013-03-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL March 20, 2013 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Carol Fox Staff in Attendance: David Khorram, Chief Building Official Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Historic Preservation Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Anna Pehoushek, Principal Planner Lucy Yeager, Contract Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Vice Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the California Preservation Conference was being held in Orange County. She passed out a copy of the brochure and asked that the Committee Members take a quick look at it and a follow up email would be sent out with a link to review. If any Committee Member was interested, please notify her as there was training money available for DRC and PC members. The OTPA had also put aside money to sponsor some Staff members. She asked the Committee Members to let her know if they were interested in attending. Committee Member Woollett stated he was leading the Eichler tour and they had wanted $70.00 from him. He asked if that would be eligible for reimbursement? Ms. Roseberry stated he would need to turn in a receipt. The conference would be held May 1, 2, and 3. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the March 6, 2013 Design Review Committee meeting. Changes and corrections were noted. Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 2 of 27 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Fox was absent. 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: March 6, 2013 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of March 6, 2013, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: Tim McCormack ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 3 of 27 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4574 -11 — P. J. MEAD — CRUSTY'S SANDWICH CAFE • A proposal for modification of exterior screening and bulkhead features that were a field change for a non - contributing multi- tenant commercial building located within the spoke street area of Old Towne District. • 642 W. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@cityoforange.org • Previous DRC Approval: November 2, 2011 • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Gary Mead, address on file, stated he had nothing further to add. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated he had met with the applicant at the site and he was shown the changes that would be made and he was comfortable with the proposal. Committee Members McCormack and Wheeler stated they were both comfortable with the proposal. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4574 -11, P.J. Mead - Crusty's Sandwich Cafe, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 4 of 27 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4584 -11 - BONHAM GARAGE • A proposal to modify and reduce an existing 687 sq. ft. two -car unpermitted garage into a smaller 250 sq. ft. one -car garage. • 575 E. Van Bibber Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, 714 - 744 -7224, dryan@a,cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Historic Preservation Planner, Dan Ryan made a presentation. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated in discussion with the Department's acting director, there had been discussion about a different type of roof form. The Staff Report was a result of that discussion. Thinking about the gable roof form should not be the same as the primary residence; generally the secondary residence should have a secondary roof form. The proposed garage could have a shed roof rather than a gable roof. When visiting the site, the structure was visible from the alley, but difficult to see from the street as far as being able to discern the roof forms from the street. On the Agenda and the Staff Report the request for the DRC was a final determination, which gave them a lot of leeway and the Committee could approve, deny, continue, or approve with conditions as opposed to a preliminary review. Applicant, Efrom Kalsman, address on file, stated just to clarify in regard to the visibility of the structure, it was not at all visible from the street and the only thing visible was the original garage. Applicant, Karl Bonham, address on file, stated the slab had existed and he had put up the wall a few years ago. He could have built a two -car garage and eliminated a bunch of problems. He lived in his backyard. One of the things he loved about living in Orange was all the unique properties that had lots of character and he moved to Orange for that reason. The houses on both sides of him, he wished they would have been kept nice with ordinances that were in place. His home was totally original from the front and when he repaired lumber he bought 3 x 6's and cut them to actual 2 x 4's so he could keep the home historic. He had a dinky kitchen and the house was built in 1922. He primarily loved living outside and when he came home he went out into his garden, picked some stuff, and barbequed. On weekends he had friends over and he cooked outside. He had plenty of sun and loved that. The covered area protected him from the rain; he could cook under there and enjoy the area without being in direct sunlight. He chose the flat roof as there were seven other roofs in his neighborhood that had the same flat roof. The slab was there and he had an old garage on a property line. There was a wall up at one time and he put it up again. It was the wrong thing to do and that was why he was before them. He would like for the design to be approved. It was narrow enough to have a nice little yard. It was paradise and that was important to him. 250 square feet was not much room, but if he could have his over hang, he could be out there an enjoy life and be a happy man. Public Comment City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 5 of 27 Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated he represented the OTPA. He had met with the applicant to discuss the project. He had also had a number of phone conversations and they had discussed all the aspects of the project. He was pleased to see that there had been a compromise that was acceptable. The project met the standards as far as in -kind materials and he agreed with Staff in their recommendation that all doors and windows shall be wood in an appropriate style. Also, the project would not impact the street scape and was not visible from Van Bibber. With that being said, the project could benefit from being a free - standing garage without the breezeway; but it was not visible from the street or the alley. The project was a step in the right direction. Mr. Kalsman stated as far as the eave not being objectionable, the fact that it was weather protection over the garage door and would keep water from spilling directly over the door opening. The visual from the yard of the completed structure would be one top line and it would all appear as having a front parapet. He reviewed the plans with the Committee Members. It all looked the same from his yard. From the alley it looked 95% the same and from the neighboring yard it was barely visible. Mr. Bonham stated it would appear as a period piece. Mr. Kalsman stated he acknowledged that it looked long but it offered shelter from the elements and offered storage. There was a benefit to the breezeway and all similar materials would be used. Siding, roofing materials, and the windows would be replicated to what was on the house. The trim would match and there would be no visual elements that would be different with the exception of the roof line. Vice Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion Committee Member Woollett asked if the building met Building Code? Mr. Bonham stated absolutely. Committee Member Woollett asked if the building had been reviewed by the City's Building Division? Mr. Kalsman stated the structural plans had not yet been submitted; that was the next step. Committee Member Woollett asked if the walls were raised up on a curb? Mr. Kalsman stated yes. Mr. Bonham stated a new curb and footing would be put in. Vice Chair Imboden asked on the existing walls that would not be relocated, had those included a footing? Mr. Bonham stated when he decided he was going to build he had put a footing in and stem walls. It had just been a slab when he purchased the home. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 6 of 27 Vice Chair Imboden stated in the Staff Report there was information about doors and windows being required to match; however, that had not been included in the plans. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was additional information that had been added as those details had not been included on the plans. Mr. Kalsman stated all those details would be included in the building plans. Vice Chair Imboden asked, referring to the proposed north elevation, if that was the front garage? Mr. Kalsman stated yes. He reviewed the plans with the Committee and explained the layout of the garage. Vice Chair Imboden stated on the west elevation the siding would run all the way up including the cantilever. Mr. Kalsman stated the floor plans noted the front section was 2' wider. Vice Chair Imboden stated the existing site plan showed a bathroom attached to the historic garage and the proposed plan had not shown that. Mr. Bonham stated he would prefer to keep it. It came from the Old Biltmore Hotel and it was from 1908. It was a stall and it was 1 -1/4 inches Florentine marble with wood on the outside. It was like an old out house. Vice Chair Imboden asked if that component had been reviewed by Building? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Code Enforcement had reviewed the illegal work, but the remainder would be reviewed in plan check. Mr. Bonham stated if he could, he would love to keep it. In the old house there was one little bathroom and postage stamp closets. Committee Member Wheeler asked what the roofing material over that bathroom was? Mr. Bonham stated it was a corrugated product. Green fiber glass in white and open on the top, it was just totally fresh air. It was a bathroom stall. Vice Chair Imboden stated he struggled on a couple of levels. The drawings were not at a level where it was clearly defined what the project would appear as an end project. He was a bit troubled there. He was also troubled by the unorthodox concept of the proposal. He felt that the overhang with all of its inconsistencies and the manner in which it was applied to the existing building was lacking a sense of cohesion, both historically and what was being proposed. The window troubled him on the elevation and appeared out of proportion. He asked if it was a pair of double -hung windows? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 7 of 27 Mr. Kalsman stated it was double -hung and it would be noted correctly on the construction plans. Vice Chair Imboden stated they were not reviewing construction plans. He was troubled with a lot of the detailing. The siding going up on the cantilever appeared very unorthodox for an Old Towne project and he had not understood the basis. He had not known how to comment on the bathroom it was not part of the proposal before them. The proposal showed no bathroom and it should have been something that was shown to the Building Division before it even came to the DRC if they were seeking an approval on it. The drawings left much to be extrapolated. He had not opposed the flat roof; it was more the irregularity of it, the cantilever, which he understood the applicant's desire for that, but it was not architecturally compatible. There was a way to provide a cover or canopy for the barbeque area and perhaps it would come from the side of the garage instead of from the roof. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had the applicant's partial list of other properties in the neighborhood with flat roofs and each one he had seen had wood siding that went to the parapet or roof, not one had an overhang. The overhang was the big problem and was non - historic and had not been done anywhere else. He could support the proposal without the overhang. He agreed with Vice Chair Imboden that a cover or canopy could come out from the garage and would provide cover. The overhang that was visible from the alley was totally out of place with Old Towne. He would support no overhang and he probably felt the breezeway could remain. The overhang with the big cantilever had not fit in. Mr. Kalsman asked if the Committee would like the improved drawings to include something over the equipment area? It could be an aftermarket awning. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to review what would be proposed and something that agreed with other aspects of Old Towne. Vice Chair Imboden stated he concurred with the comments made by Committee Member Wheeler. Mr. Bonham stated he thought he had to go with all the historic events if what he was doing was visible from the street. That was not the case with his situation. Vice Chair Imboden stated the Secretary of the Interior's Standards were very clear that in most cases the most public facade of a building was considered the primary facade. There was a tendency to hold that facade to a higher level and have changes occur elsewhere. That had not meant that only what was visible to the public was the areas that mattered. If all three sides of a building were changed except the side that was visible to the public and it might or might not be a historic resource at the time. The DRC looked at the building as a whole and that the design be consistent throughout. That meant that the secondary elevations or facades could afford more change, but within reason. Mr. Bonham stated he could put up awnings, and asked if those would appear better or worse? Vice Chair Imboden stated it was not the place of the DRC to state what would work best. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 8 of 27 Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the breezeway wall be set in a bit, to have a line of demarcation between old and new. There would be a header and it could be done on both sides. Mr. Kalsman stated it was that way. Vice Chair Imboden stated the east elevation the way it was drawn, appeared to have one continuous facade. The original historic building should read as such and the new as an addition. An offset would work. The Committee discussed their suggestions with the applicant and pointed out where the separation could occur. The plans were reviewed. Committee Member Wheeler stated there could still be a breezeway between the buildings covered with a roof; it would not have the cantilevered roof out at the end. Mr. Kalsman asked what elevation had the Committee Member referred to in discussing the objectionable eave overhang? Committee Member Wheeler stated that would go away with removal of the overhang. He reviewed that situation on the plans with the applicant. Committee Member Woollett stated the west elevation breezeway would change also; the siding would not extend to the south. Mr. Kalsman stated not the siding part, but below the siding. Committee Member Woollett stated it would not be flush. Committee Member Wheeler stated they would also need to call out what the materials would be for the doors, windows, and siding; show everything on the outside. If the applicant wanted to keep the other bathroom they could come back to the DRC after speaking to the Building Division to ensure it was okay. Mr. Ryan stated he could help the applicant through the process. Vice Chair Imboden stated on the flared skirt at the bottom it needed to be called out and the sash along the windows, they needed that level of detail. Committee Member McCormack stated there had been a comment about the gate. Mr. Ryan stated Staff was recommending automatic gates to the driveway, in the alley. It was suggested to avoid blocking the alley when driving into the driveway. Vice Chair Imboden asked as opposed to just getting out of the car and opening the gate? Mr. Ryan stated yes. Vice Chair Imboden asked if Staff was suggesting a rolling gate? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 9 of 27 Mr. Ryan stated yes. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated since the gate was not part of the proposal, it may be something the DRC would add as a suggestion when they got to a recommendation. Vice Chair Imboden asked if it was not something the applicant proposed? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated correct. Vice Chair Imboden stated if they intended to add the gate, it needed to be included in the drawings. Anything that was proposed for the site should be on the drawings. Mr. Kalsman stated they were not speaking about a rolling gate at the alley. Mr. Ryan stated Staff was suggesting that. Mr. Kalsman asked what that had to do with the Old Towne requirements? Vice Chair Imboden stated it was only a recommendation. When a person had to get out of their car to open the gate the vehicle blocked the alley. It was entirely up to the applicant to do or not do that, and a consideration. Mr. Kalsman asked if they had not wanted to add the gate, would it play into the decision of the DRC? Vice Chair Imboden stated it would not be a deciding factor for them as it was just a recommendation. Mr. Ryan stated there were two Administrative Adjustments that were in the proposal. Vice Chair Imboden stated it appeared that the DRC was not able to approve the proposal as presented and he asked the applicants if they would want to continue the project to return at a later date with more detailed drawings? The applicants agreed. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4584 -11, Bonham Garage. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 10 of 27 (4) DRC No. 4674 -13 - CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY - HUTTON SPORTS CENTER • A proposal for the exterior renovation to a portion of the Hutton Sports Center, an existing building on the Chapman University campus. • 219 E. University Drive • Staff Contact: Lucy Yeager, 714 - 744 -7239. lyeager@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination to the Community Development Director Vice Chair Imboden stated he would recuse himself from the item's presentation. He was on a scholarship committee supported by Chapman University. Contract Planner, Lucy Yeager, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Kris Olsen, Chapman University, address on file, was present for questions. Applicant, Troy Aday, address on file, stated the building was the last in the courtyard to be addressed and all the other buildings in the area had the brick veneer. Beckman just had it put on last year. The facades for the entry would be the appropriate places to add the veneer and it would be wrapped around to appear as true brick, and not just a thin brick. He had samples for the Committee Members to review. Mr. Olsen stated there were some areas where a full brick was used. In looking at the images there was a grove of Sycamore trees that had been removed for the photo shop image, however, the trees would remain. Public Comment None. Committee Member Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a hint of a red line and he wasn't sure if the brick would wrap around that area or not. Mr. Aday stated it would. Committee Member Wheeler stated on one of the drawings the canopy was shown as "dotted," but for some reason it stopped at a line on the plans and he wasn't sure why it stopped there. Mr. Aday stated it would continue and would be visible in the elevation on the plans. He provided a photo and reviewed the plans with Committee Member Wheeler. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the section for a corner there was an L shaped brick, but then there was stucco in that corner. Mr. Aday stated there would be a little schluter, a little metal piece. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 11 of 27 Committee Member Wheeler stated that was not the area he was referring to and pointed out the section. Mr. Aday stated that would be brick and carried around; it would be at a 90 degree. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the corners and where the brick would terminate. He asked if there should be a stepping soldier course at the bottom, and if that was the best solution? Mr. Aday stated they looked at using an angle at the ramp, but it had not looked quite right and everything was straight on campus. After drawing it three to four ways, that seemed to be the best solution. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they had thought about not using the soldier course? Mr. Aday stated it was that treatment in other areas of the campus. Committee Member McCormack stated he liked what was presented. On the `B" view of the plans where the hedge was being taken out, he suggested that the same treatment from the other area across the promenade to be repeated for that side. Committee Member Wheeler recommended approval to the Community Development Director, DRC No. 4674 -13, Chapman University- Hutton Sports Center, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report, with the additional strong suggestion: • Replace the hedge on the west side of the building with a grass treatment to match the existing grass treatment on the other side of the promenade, to frame the area. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox RECUSED: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 12 of 27 (5) DRC No. 4650 -12 — CAMBRIDGE MEDICAL PLAZA • A proposal to enclose a breezeway and facade remodel. • 1038 -1040 E. Chapman Avenue • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, dnguyen @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vice Chair Imboden asked Ms. Nguyen to elaborate on the concerns Staff had with the proposed building style changes. Ms. Nguyen stated the style was a ranch or minimal traditional style and had a specific look with boxed -in eaves and had both hip and Dutch gable roof forms. Craftsman details were being suggested with the twin wood elephant style columns and an open gable, an open breezeway, and exposed rafters and such. The building that was to the west had no proposed changes to that building. A new window element was being added with radius glass and was a completely different element to the facade. Applicant, Randy Jepson, address on file, stated the architectural style depicted in the proposal was purely a preference of his client. They had a strong affinity to the style and realized the building was not located in the historic district. The applicant was cognoscente of the architecture around them and appreciated the details that they recognized from other surrounding buildings. His client had asked that some of those details be incorporated in their building. He understood that the building, as existed, was a minimalist style and he was wanting to enhance the building. The buildings around the area had neglected architectural styles. There was a mixed bag of architectural styles in the immediate area. As far as the other building not being addressed was due to a business decision. He would be happy to prepare a proposal for that building to be deferred to a more economically feasible time frame. Public Comment None. Vice Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked where the trash enclosure would be located? Mr. Jepson stated there was a rolling dumpster with bollards that provided protection. Committee Member Wheeler asked if that situation made a parking space not useable? Mr. Jepson stated that was typically parked by one of the physicians and they were going for a Zoning Administrative Adjustment and they should be okay with parking. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the Palm trees would be removed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 13 of 27 Mr. Jepson stated he was not prepared with a full landscape plan, and the two Palm trees would be removed. There were some changes that would be introduced for ADA and compliance. Committee Member Wheeler stated as far as the design he had similar worries as were stated by Staff. The curved wall was something that would be seen in streamline moderne and it was sitting on a fieldstone bulkhead with a slight hint of Craftsman overlay at the front. He had been a fan of working with the styles and forms of what existed rather than introduce new styles and forms. He would want to see a proposal where there was more sympathy for 1960's architecture and use the vocabulary of that period. Mr. Jepson stated he appreciated the comments. Vice Chair Imboden stated if one more parking spot was removed would it still work within the Administrative Adjustment? Ms. Nguyen stated yes. Committee Member McCormack stated what he was looking at was the front entry which showed a walkway that found its way behind the columns and eased its way through there. It seemed that the front entry was not very detailed. He was not certain what could be done. It was so confining. Mr. Jepson stated the true entry was at the rear of the building and the handicap access was at the rear of the building. It met the code requirement for public and ADA access, but the front entry was not the primary point of entrance. With the comments being provided today, there was a possibility that the front columns would go away or at least be restudied. Committee Member McCormack stated if he was parked at the front he was less likely to walk through and he would probably park on Chapman and walk around. There were buildings along Chapman that had areas that appeared to be entries, but were not; there were non - doors. Committee Member Wheeler stated some of those oddities were requirements of past Design Review Committees, to have those appear as entrances. Committee Member McCormack stated if someone parked at the front he would think they would use that entry. Mr. Jepson stated generally the doctors and staff would use that entrance. The site had a one way circuit. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought they needed to speak about how to make the most of the style of the existing building. The building was a challenge. The building looked like the architects had done everything wrong when constructing the building. There was nothing inherently wrong with glass block during that period and glass block was used; one of the important things was the ground plane treatment. The focus for that time period was space and today it was all about surfaces. He suggested painting the base of the building a dark color. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 14 of 27 Mr. Jepson asked what about a ledge stone bulkhead? Committee Member Woollett stated that could work. Mr. Jepson asked if there were examples in the City that he could refer to? Committee Member Woollett stated the building that came to mind was in Pasadena on Fair Oaks, just north of Huntington, and where there were several architectural firms. Committee Member Wheeler stated Smith & Williams. Committee Member Woollett stated the buildings were very plain and nothing wrong with that and there was a strong landscape treatment. Mr. Jepson asked if conceptually the Committee Members found a problem with the breezeway as proposed? Committee Member Woollett stated he thought it was a good idea. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member McCormack asked if there were skylights? Mr. Jepson stated yes, they wanted to lighten up the area and there was a very low soffet and they wanted to open up the rear area with natural light. Committee Member Woollett stated the interior courtyard space should relate to areas around the other building. Mr. Jepson stated there were no plans to change any of the office space and the waiting rooms were so small. With a revision of the exterior courtyard it would allow that area to be utilized for waiting areas, for rooms on either side of the building. There would be some changes to some interior walls, but no change in the footprint. Vice Chair Imboden stated the plans had noted no additions and that should be corrected on the plans. Committee Member Wheeler stated another thing was there was square cut fascia on the building and the plans showed plumb cut fascia. Committee Member McCormack asked if he could take a look at the detail of the enclosed soffet? There was not a landscape plan and Committee Members Woollett and Wheeler's comments were well taken. Committee Member Woollett asked how the edge treatment would be handled? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 15 of 27 Mr. Jepson stated the site was so tight that there might be elevations that they could just not change due to the proximity of the parking lot to the building's edge. There were places that an edge treatment could be added. Vice Chair Imboden stated he felt the building would have a much better approach if the current style would be enhanced, rather than mimicking Craftsman architecture. He agreed that the glass block was very appropriate for the existing building style. One thing that was not a determination of the approval, he found it both interesting and confusing that when the National Registered District was laid out the building to the west was included, however, not as a contributing structure and why the line was drawn between the two buildings. The Staff Report noted the buildings being built in 1959 and he believed that to be more accurate than the 1965 date on the survey. The reason he felt that was important was that the building was 50 years old when the building was surveyed. It would have no impact on the DRC's decision and the building was not a contributing resource. It was a building that reflected a very specific period of time and they were concerned in maintaining that whenever possible. At some time the buildings around Old Towne fell out of style at one point and luckily they were not all given the finish dejure, so to speak. Committee Member McCormack reviewed the walkway areas and driveway and suggested using a different color paving. Ms. Nguyen asked if the Committee Members wanted to see a change to the building at 1026 and those to be the same as the building before them? The Committee Members stated they would not include that in their suggestion. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to continue DRC No. 4650 -12, Cambridge Medical Plaza, with the suggestions provided. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 16 of 27 (6) DRC No. 4675 -13 — METROLINK PARKING STRUCTURE • A proposal to construct a new 611 space Metrolink parking structure and two commercial buildings, with 53 surface parking spaces provided as an interim use for commercial building sites. • 130 N. Lemon Street (Lemon Street Public Parking Lot) and 123 -129 N. Cypress Street (Old Towne Historic District) • Staff Contact: Anna Pehoushek, 714 - 744 -7228, apehoushek @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicants present and available for questions, addresses on file, were: Jim Wirick, Susan Secoy, Gary Chubb, Richard D'Amato. From the City's Economic Development Division: Barbara Messick. The applicants set up several boards that depicted the proposal and a model was set on the table for the Committee Members to review. Public Comment Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he was familiar with the parking structure and he had attended the workshop and all meetings that the City had presented. The structure would change the street scape and definitely had an impact on the resources on Lemon. There were height issues and considering the recent Depot Specific Plan and the height limit in that zone being 32', he questioned why the limit was not accommodated. The height was 1.8% of the footprint, but on the Chapman elevation it really stuck out with both towers on the elevation and created a height issue. He was not certain how that met the Depot Specific Plan with regard to height and there had been a lot of discussions regarding height limits and they questioned that height. He understood the elevator tower required the height. The OTPA preferred alternative No. 1. There was an issue with the billboards and he was not certain how the billboards met the Standards for signage; they technically were signs. In the Plaza District they would not meet the Standards. They were out of character and out of place for a Nationally Registered District; they appeared "Disney" and mimicked "California Adventure." They were not at California Adventure. In the town of Exeter there were billboards of the same type plastered on every building, although not a historic district; those had not enhanced the buildings. He felt other property owners in the District would then not be prohibited from putting their own crate label mural on their walls. The City could end up with a town such as Exeter. They were inappropriate and the building should stand on its own merit. The building had not needed crate label art or billboards. It set an inappropriate precedent for the Plaza District. Stephen Bennett, address on file, representing the OTPA, stated he concurred with Mr. Frankel's comments. He wanted to address the design side of the project and felt there was room to play with on the height of the photovoltaic panels. He suggested that those could be done more City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 17 of 27 artistically to have them appear better. He suggested instead of the billboards to install something similar to a photo he presented, and let the brick talk. Vice Chair Imboden asked Staff to respond to the comments made about the height limit and the reference to the Depot Specific Plan as well as the billboards in relationship to signage. Ms. Pehoushek stated the bulk of the structure fell below the limits established for the District. Certainly the mechanical towers and elevator shafts had certain operational requirements and that was what had driven the height and building elements. It was the reality of what they were looking at and the main portions of the building met the Specific Plan. In terms of the billboard or crate label signage, they had some examples in Old Towne, with the Depot walk project that had the same type of mural treatments and were looked at as signage. There was not a very well defined way of dealing with public art in the community. It was something that they needed to have discussion about and if it should be considered signage, architectural features, or public art. Vice Chair Imboden questioned whether the art at Depot Walk was counted as signage? Ms. Pehoushek stated she would need to research that. Vice Chair Imboden stated there was not the name of the complex and there was no benefactor on the signage. Out of curiosity, was there any sense to the relationship of the proposed billboards to the size of the billboards that were at Depot Walk? Mr. Frankel stated the Depot Walk signage was not approved, but it was done anyway. The District Lounge was not approved and they were told to take it off. Vice Chair Imboden stated there were different ways to look at it. Clearly at the District Lounge that advertised a business located inside a building was a stronger argument for signage with a direct benefactor. He was not creating policy, but those were his thoughts. Committee Member McCormack stated the parking structure spaces were for Metrolink patrons. He asked if Metrolink had a component that would advertise for their use, or would the general public think that they had 600+ spaces to use for parking? That went beyond what they would discuss; however, he was concerned with the management. With today's technology there were reader boards and asked if there would be different ones for the Metrolink patrons and the general public, and where would that go on the streetscape? He also asked if they should just be looking at the parking structure today and management protocol would come later? Ms. Messick stated a parking management plan had not been developed. The OCTA would have some input in the signage, but there had not been that discussion yet. A signage program would be developed at a later date. Metrolink had stated it would not be exclusive parking and it would be shared parking. There may be segregation for overnight or extended parking for Metrolink use. The signage would be developed accordingly. Vice Chair Imboden stated the neighboring Metrolink stops that had parking structures had not had large Metrolink signage presence and there was more directional signage for vehicles getting to the lots; there were not large amounts of signage dedicated to train advertisements. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 18 of 27 Committee Member Woollett stated the point -of -view of the DRC in reference to signage was important and he clearly viewed the billboards as art and something he would want around the town. Just because there was art in a specific area had not meant that the same art should be placed in another area. When it was decided how art should be distributed around the City it had to be done carefully and not used as an icon that had to be used everywhere. There was a lot of merit to what was being presented and it made a statement. The billboards related to the railroad and the fruit that had been distributed via rail. It was not signage; it was art, in the City of Orange where there was a lot of fruit. In regards to the height he had not had an issue with a small mass going above the height limit. There needed to be that situation, and having a limit of 32' all over Orange made no sense. There needed to be some elements to penetrate that limit to break up the mass; there needed to be exceptions. The elevator could be held down to another level and people could walk up a level. Having a little element above the limit made sense. On the solar panels there was the study on the visual impacts and he wondered why they were so high. Mr. Wirick stated they were put at that height to support the lighting at the top deck of the parking structure. The lights could be mounted along them and prevented lights along the edge. The canopy was set far enough back and omitted the need for light standards along the edge. Committee Member Woollett asked why there could not be lights in the middle without the photovoltaic panels going up so high; why couldn't the lights just be at that height without the PV panels going up with them? Mr. Wirick stated they wanted to use the width of the PV panels to use for lights at either end and they could achieve the amount of light needed. The throw of the light ended at the corner of the parapet of the structure and reduced the glare from the lights. Committee Member Woollett stated the lights would be mounted along the edge. Committee Member McCormack asked how they would deal with the light pollution that would be visible to the residents on the other side of Lemon Street. Mr. Wirick stated the light was actually angling down. Vice Chair Imboden stated he would not be in support Alternative No. 1. He would be more in support of the other layout. He found the photovoltaic panels very high in terms of the aesthetics. To state that they only became visible at 65' away, that was not very far away, about '/ a residential lot. There was a lot of visibility of the building and his concern was that he would not want to see lights being thrown out at the perimeter of the structure. He would want a more creative approach to lighting the upper deck without doing it the way it was being currently proposed. He was pleased with the overall design. The photovoltaic panels, although an excellent component of the project, he would want to see a bit more work with those. Mr. Wirick stated they had spoken about some more details going into those. Vice Chair Imboden stated he would not want to see it being too "cutesified." It was what it was, but a bit out of place. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 19 of 27 Committee Member Wheeler stated he viewed the project as a repurposed industrial building. In that line the treatment of things should be more of an industrial nature and a lighting system that would also include a more industrial feel. Committee Member McCormack stated those details could also be a connecting item on the future retail buildings. He liked the photovoltaics as he felt they needed those. Ms. Secoy stated the technology was changing on a daily basis and everyone was on board with further study. She heard they liked it but there needed some more work on it. Committee Member Woollett stated his experience with PV panels was a parking structure in Chico at the Nevada Brewery and the structure had been covered with PV panels. He had worked on a project and he realized that he could have used a lot of smaller fixtures to light the area adequately without a lot of high fixtures and the bigger fixtures were more costly; he was not sure what the better use was. Mr. Wirick stated the width of the structure was the reason they went with the PV panels. Committee Member Woollett stated they needed to get light between every car and what was the cost of a small fixture between every car. Mr. Wirick stated the issue was the lighting of the deck with a certain level of light. Ms. Pehoushek stated there was a structure with perimeter lighting for dormitory parking and the Police Department had not wanted the same treatment repeated as they felt the lighting at that structure was not adequate with a perimeter treatment at the top of the parapet. Vice Chair Imboden stated he understood the challenge they were asking from the applicant, but he wanted the project to be the best top level parking surface that they had ever lit. If there was an opportunity to bring the panels down that was his preference. He referred to the project model and asked that a few pieces of the layout be moved. He reviewed the buildings and parking structure models with the applicants. Ms. Secoy stated in the defense of the Specific Plan and it was difficult to incorporate every aspect of that plan, but if they could imagine a community without any church steeples or bell towers, there needed to be some exceptions. Vice Chair Imboden stated an important point was brought up. In looking at St. John's church, he felt there was not anyone that would be in opposition of that architecture and at the same time that would not be thought of as the maximum building height in Old Towne Orange; it was an exception to a rule. The parking structure tower was an exception in constraint. It was a big long shot of a building and he felt the structure needed the relief. He had no problems with the steeples. Committee Member McCormack stated in terms of design, the fact that the tech lighting was not dissimilar to the acorn lighting that would be overlaid on the project and he had not wanted a lot of clutter. It was nice to have unifying elements that disappeared and to let the lights be functional and how would they address the high tech lighting and the Old Towne acorn lighting City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 20 of 27 and the landscape lighting and how would they address all of those issues. It was a safety issue, and half the day was dark. It was an important element. Vice Chair Imboden stated the project before them was an opportunity to straddle that fine line between a new building that addressed the next century in the City vs. the historic context it was set into. When he first reviewed the light standards to be set on top of piers it struck him as odd and then when talking about the paseo, he referenced the art installation in front of LACMA that was nothing but historic light fixtures of Los Angeles; not that he was proposing that, but he could accept a little "out -of -the -box" thinking on the project and to reference history but not duplicate history. It was a fine line and there would be opposition to that and he would not mind a little of that with the proposal. He had not needed to see Old Towne acorn fixtures set up in the old fashioned way, but there needed to be thought with inconsistencies and to have a reason for it. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit nervous of putting the acorn fixtures on plinths or whatever they wanted to call those as it had not referenced anything. Committee Member McCormack stated it appeared as an after thought. Vice Chair Imboden stated if they wanted to vary away from historic they should own it and do it and go big. He stated they were also asked to comment on brick colors and over all design. Committee Member Wheeler stated he preferred the rectangular openings in Alternative No. 2, not particularly in that arrangement. The industrial buildings in that quadrant had rectangular openings and he had not recalled any with arched openings. There were arched openings in the commercial buildings along the Plaza court. He presented photos with all rectangular openings on the original industrial buildings of that quadrant. He liked the combination of solid masses with some openings. Vice Chair Imboden stated there was one alternative that had more openings than the other and he asked if there was a specific requirement for that arrangement? Mr. Wirick stated two of the solid panels were shear panels. Vice Chair Imboden stated he would want more solid than open panels. He wanted the variation as it was such a long building. Ms. Messick stated Vice Chair Imboden was describing a third alternative that had been presented to the community, but the two alternatives that were brought to the DRC were the two that were found most pleasing to the community. It was not a large sample, it was a small group and not attended as well as it could have been and there had not been a heated debate. Vice Chair Imboden stated in Alternative No. 1 he liked the variation of solid to open; however, he liked the rectilinear quality of Alternative No. 2 and if they could marry those together he would be very pleased. He asked what the panel in front of the cars was for? Mr. Wirick stated it was concrete behind, with a series of the mulleins in front of that; the mulleins would be aluminum. They needed ventilation. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 21 of 27 Vice Chair Imboden asked for comments on the west side. Committee Member McCormack stated the west side had to be completely enclosed. Ms. Messick stated the property owners were in agreement with the proposed project and she understood that a brick treatment would make the wall more attractive and create more visual interest. The two neighbors had attended the community meetings. Vice Chair Imboden stated on the left side it was open and asked if there was the opportunity for headlights to shine onto the residential properties? Mr. Wirick stated the height of the walls would block the headlights. Committee Member Wheeler reviewed the plans with the applicant in reference to the parking lot ramps. He asked about the pedestrian flow. Ms. Messick stated they still needed to dedicate specific pedestrian walkways. Committee Member Wheeler asked what could they do to enhance the pedestrian flow from the parking, and could there be a covered walkway from the parking structure to the Metrolink station? Ms. Messick stated they needed to keep some of the areas open for the water quality situation. Ms. Secoy stated they could study that and find an interesting solution for the pedestrian walkways. Committee Member McCormack stated the connection would be another alley and not a paseo. If nothing was done there, people would empty out to Cypress. If it was dedicated properly it could become a pedestrian promenade and it would be a very important area. There would be obvious implications for lighting and landscape. Ms. Secoy stated at one point they were designing a market with open air fruit vendors along that paseo. The applicants reviewed the drawings and model to explain the retail area plans and explained how that area would work in reference to the parking structure. Committee Member Wheeler stated he presumed the parking structure would have fewer demands on the weekend and perhaps the parking structure could be a location for a weekend farmers market. Committee Member Woollett stated the open area was important, and although set for parking it could read as a plaza. The Committee Members reviewed the layout on the model and pointed out the area they were speaking to. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 22 of 27 Committee Member McCormack stated he actually liked it better pushed out, as a street wall all the way to Lemon, and if the design team decided to pull it back it was seven parking spaces. Those seven spaces would probably become handicap spots, and how many of those spots would really be used. If it was used as parking it would conflict with the parking structure entrance. Basically the nexus of everyone going to the parking structure would arrive at that point and he was thinking about the entry off of Lemon to be more generous and not have a seven space parking lot, but to have more lanes coming from southbound Lemon. He used to take the train to Los Angeles and he would run to catch the train. That being stated it was a good opportunity to provide a green space and a "people place" and something that could anchor the paseo at that eastern end; it was a huge opportunity. Committee Member Woollett stated cities that regulated and the architects that designed had gotten fixed on specific diagrams for handicapped spaces. Everyone saw those as asphalt, blue, and striped, and the code had not actually dictated that situation. He had worked years ago with a California council to provide accessibility without being right in your face; to have it be more subtle. It would appear that the opportunity was before them to meet the requirements in a gracious way and if the handicap spaces were there they would likely not be filled; however, there could be another way to design them. Committee Member McCormack asked if seven parking spaces were as important as "people space ?" There were 600 parking spaces and he felt it was a silly response to that area. On the 7' deep in regard to landscape he was not certain what that meant. He asked if it was deep in a horizontal fashion or deep in a vertical fashion? Mr. Wirick stated vertically there was about 20' to the footing. Committee Member McCormack stated there was 20' of soil in a 7' planting area. He had done his homework and 7' was equivalent to two of the tables in front of them. On the landscaping along Maple and Lemon, he always got somewhat frustrated that the landscaping was wanting to be used for the heavy lifting to screen such large items. If that was the case there needed to be a larger landscape area. There were two places in Orange that had parking structures; one was the Chapman University Law School parking structure, and he was not stating there should be a 24' setback, but that was the issue before them. He provided photos of various parking structure landscape screens. He probably would not want to propose that much landscape, as in the Law School situation it had been conditioned to be screened in such a manner for the residential screening. It was not too dissimilar to what was occurring in the proposal before them with the residential properties. Unfortunately for the residents, they could not have large trees on their side of the street due to the power lines. The other example he had was from the Chapman University parking structure and there was a 17' cross section for landscaping and sidewalk. He was trying to get his hands around how landscaping should be approached on the Metrolink parking structure. On the Chapman University Film School edge there was a double layered approach; he presented a photo to the Committee Members and applicants. The intent of the Depot Specific Plan was to mirror that type of treatment, if he was not mistaken. Vice Chair Imboden asked, based on the parking stall depth and drive aisles, how much narrower could the building get? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 23 of 27 Mr. Wirick stated it could not get any narrower. Committee Member McCormack stated with the landscape and the street scape plan there was 8' from curb to back of the sidewalk and 7' of planting. What they had been attempting to do in areas of Old Towne was to place the tree at the back of the curb with a tree grate. That situation occurred in Old Towne all the time, rather than an Irvine 8' sidewalk with landscape beyond that had a different feel. He proposed to have the trees in a more urban situation, in the sidewalk, in tree grates and with trees against the parking structure. If the intent was to provide screening, and he left that to the design team, but the street tree should have a cadence for the Depot Specific Plan and what occurred in that 7' should have a combination of openness and screening. He put on the landscape plan the Depot Specific Plan requirements and how that would appear; he presented a drawing to the applicants. Committee Member Wheeler stated as he saw it, with the industrial quadrant of the City, there could be a case for less screening to be appropriate. Less than for other areas of the City. Committee Member McCormack stated that was true when there were other industrial buildings adjacent, with the situation before them it was residential. The pedestrian experience along Lemon against the parking structure wanted to have a cadence of 30' on center street tree spacing. Committee Member Woollett stated what was his experience in varying the ground plan on such a long expanse to break it up? Committee Member McCormack stated no, he would want it flat. There would be a lot of people along that area and there would be a lot of mingling across that street. He would want a double layering of landscape and with 7' it might be two small shrubs. Unless the sidewalk was cut down to 6' with the use of trees, they had done that on a recent project, AMLI, where they had the tree well as part of the walking surface. Vice Chair Imboden asked if the sidewalk width was part of the Depot Specific Plan? Ms. Pehoushek stated Lemon was identified as a primary pedestrian corridor. Committee Member McCormack stated all the sidewalks along that area were 6'. Ms. Pehoushek stated there were sidewalks in that area that were painfully narrow and they were wanting to get a wider sidewalk. Committee Member McCormack stated if they wanted trees to survive in that area they would want trees in a "structural soil" that was underneath the sidewalk and frankly it would not go out to the street, but to the parking structure and the sidewalk would move. They would want to treat that planting strip carefully. The applicant stated that was the reason the trees were in the planting area of 7' and 20' deep to be well irrigated and well drained, that was the reasoning. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 24 of 27 Committee Member McCormack stated the City was involved in putting together a street tree master plan and finding that 8' was not enough for trees that were already planted. They were not talking Ficus trees, that were culprits, but about Magnolia, Liquid Amber and those types of trees in an 8' zone had completely destroyed parking lots and it occurred in a 15' zone. Committee Member Woollett stated maybe they could create some walls or different levels for planting to create some movement along that long line. Committee Member McCormack stated the Magnolia tree that was proposed along Maple and Lemon was a controllable tree. If it was surface watered it would get surface roots. He suggested enlarging the root zone a bit more. Vice Chair Imboden asked for the street scape were there acorn fixtures in front of what would be the parking structure along Lemon? Committee Member McCormack stated they were there along the sidewalk. Vice Chair Imboden stated they spoke about a different approach to lighting and he would not be opposed to having a different approach to the lighting to be carried along the block, architectural features with landscape. He would not be opposed to something different; to treat it as a regular street with poles going down the street may not be the right approach. Ms. Pehoushek stated the Depot Specific Plan called for installation of the standard Old Towne street lighting; if the money were available there would be a more systematic installation of the acorn lamps in areas north of Chapman. One thing they had not totally flushed out with Metrolink and OCTA was there was a component of the project that could address street scape improvements that would help with the link to the Metrolink station and there would be more discussion at a later date for that component. Was Vice Chair Imboden speaking about the public right of way lights? Vice Chair Imboden stated yes. Ms. Pehoushek stated they would need to look at how placing a different treatment there would jive with the whole Old Towne street light master plan. Committee Member Wheeler stated he could agree with some type of a more industrial type lighting coming off of the building. Vice Chair Imboden stated Ms. Pehoushek had also asked for their input on the 2 story building. Ms. Pehoushek stated she was referring to the larger retail building and the corner building and if the Committee had any particular reaction to what was being proposed. She referred to the model. Vice Chair Imboden stated it would not be a make it or break it for him. If it was articulated properly he would not be opposed to a 2 story structure at that location. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 25 of 27 Committee Member Wheeler stated it was a bit massive. He moved the model in a different direction and stated it might be better set in that manner. Ms. Secoy stated the reason that building was set in that direction with the cut out, was that the intent was for a small outdoor dining area. Committee Member Wheeler stated could they speak to the security screens and those seemed a bit contemporary, he suggested something maybe with wire mesh a bit more traditional. The Committee Members and applicant reviewed that component. He stated there were some on the Anaconda building that were round, and he was not suggesting duplicating those, but to use something with that type of material. Vice Chair Imboden asked if they were feeling buff or red? He preferred buff brick. Committee Member Wheeler stated he preferred buff as well, it was more compatible. Committee Member McCormack stated red would be a lot of red; the buff was compatible. Ms. Secoy asked what their thought was on changing the brick color when they arrived at the commercial buildings? Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be against it. Maybe there could be some accents. The applicant stated there would be more accents at the retail areas with glass and other accents. Vice Chair Imboden stated those would not need to match 100 %, but just be within the same thought. Ms. Pehoushek stated they had covered a lot of issues. Committee Member Wheeler stated it was all about pedestrian traffic. Ms. Secoy stated there were two languages there and how to deal with the pedestrian traffic and the vehicle traffic and dealing with the industrial /manufacturer language and how to deal with it all to tie it together with the Plaza. Committee Member McCormack asked if there would be restrooms at the parking structure? Ms. Messick stated they had spoken with OCTA about restrooms. The OCTA generally doesn't have restrooms available in parking structures at their train stations. They would not have a problem if the City chose to do that, however, it was a maintenance issue and there were safety issues as well and they opted not to add that. Committee Member McCormack stated he had been to various structures that had restrooms. Ms. Messick stated she wanted to recap. The brick choice would be buff, the alternative No. 2 with less open areas, and as far as the retail building's location, had she heard that they were generally pleased with the location? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 26 of 27 Vice Chair Imboden stated that was correct. Ms. Messick stated for that space with the parking stalls, as she pointed to the area on the model, to have some enhanced paving or other treatment. Committee Member McCormack stated he would not want it to be parking. Vice Chair Imboden stated he would want to see it be something other than parking. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with those comments. The Committee Members reviewed the model with the applicant and the Committee agreed that a two story retail structure would be okay. Ms. Messick asked if they had come to a consensus regarding the billboards? Committee Member Wheeler stated the orange crate graphic had been done so much and were there other ideas. Mr. Wirick stated the intent was not for a traditional orange crate graphic but for some type of an artistic rendition of an orange crate label. Committee Member Wheeler suggested having a graphic that remembered some of the industrial uses that were in Old Towne Orange; a sign or such to bring back the memory of those lost buildings. Ms. Messick asked what their thoughts were on full brick vs. brick veneer? Vice Chair Imboden stated he was less sensitive to that. At the end of the day, the thin veneers were made to appear so good that he was not opposed to that treatment. Ms. Secoy stated it was an opportunity to speak about what they would not want to see, and areas such as the corners should read as a real brick. Vice Chair Imboden stated he had no problem with brick veneer as long as it had not appeared as a veneer. Committee Member McCormack suggested the bike area to be covered. Ms. Pehoushek stated she believed they had received the feedback they were seeking. Ms. Messick stated she had looked at the train station in Fullerton and their signage was minimal. No motion was needed as the item was provided for preliminary review. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2013 Page 27 of 27 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on April 3, 2013. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.