Loading...
2015-09-02 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL September 2, 2015 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack - Chair Carol Fox — Vice Chair Anne McDermott Craig Wheeler Committee Member Absent: Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner Anne Fox, Contract Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Vice Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:06 p.m. Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. Committee Member Fox noted that on Agenda Item No. 6 there were missing pages in the National Register attachment. Ms. Moshier would make corrected copies after the Administrative Session. Committee Member McDermott mentioned she had attended a drought workshop geared to home gardeners and noted the new regulations that are coming in December. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for August 19, 2015. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 2 of 17 Regular Session — 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Member Imboden was absent. All other Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 19, 2015 Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meetings of August 19, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Tim McCormack ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 3 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Item: 2) DRC No. 4741 -14 - THE LAN LE DUPLEX • A proposal to demolish an existing single family residence in order to construct a duplex development consisting of two detached dwelling units on an existing parcel. • 4520 East Washington Avenue • Staff Contact: Anne Fox, 714 - 744 -7236, afoxkcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Anne Fox, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Vincent Tran, applicant, was available for questions. He clarified he wanted to use gravel in portions of the rear yard of Building B and not turf as shown in Sheet A -1. Public Comments: Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The Committee had a question regarding the color shown on the color board versus the color rendering. They also had comments on Sheet A -7, Plan B — Left Elevation suggesting wrapping the stone around the corner, looking at turf alternatives that require less water, and using a no -mow grass; articulating the shrub areas from the turf areas; and having no problem with the use of gravel in noted areas. Ms. Anne Fox noted the Committee wanted to modify Condition 10 in which the final landscaping and irrigation plan would be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee in lieu of the Community Development Director and Community Services Director. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4741 -14, Lan Le Duplex, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. Condition No. 10 shall be changed to direct the landscape plans come back to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 2. On Plan B, on the left elevation, that the stone wainscot shall be wrapped around to the kitchen wall. With the following recommendations: 1. In refining the landscape plan, to define planter areas for shrubs within the lawn area so there is a mow strip and a definable area for turf. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 4 of 17 2. Consider ground covering alternatives to respond to solar shade access and water consumption. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 5 of 17 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4808 -15 578 N. Lemon Street Garage Reconstruction • 578 N. Lemon Street • A proposal to construct a 423 SF detached garage at the rear of a contributing residence in the Old Towne Historic District. The garage is proposed to replace a detached garage /carriage house building that was demolished without permits. • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714- 744 -7223, kribuffo @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She stated the Community Development Director had addressed the demolition of the garage without permits issue. The applicants who were present for this project were Kris Olsen and Troy Aday. Mr. Aday described the design, materials, and color of the new garage. Public Comments Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated OTPA had met with Kris Olsen and Troy Aday at the site. He explained since Chapman University was recreating the same building, OTPA was supporting the new structure knowing they are good at restoring and rehabilitating garages and carriage houses in the past. The Public Hearing was closed. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Questioned the trim band above the door on the east elevation on Sheets A -3 and A -4 which was not shown on the north and south elevation and expressed a need for a trim header over the door. • Questioned the use of different hinge sizes on the door on Sheet A5. • Noted the existing garage doors are not the original doors. • Did not feel that the use of the "2x4 fascia ties, flat" on historical sites which was shown on Sheet A -7. • Questioned having doors on the north and south sides on Sheet A -3. Mr. Aday clarified that the door was only on the north and not on the south. • Questioned the 4" slab on Sheet A -6 and how the transition occurs from the top of the slab to the finish grade. • Questioned the extra footings in the corners. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 6 of 17 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4808 -15, Lemon Street Garage Reconstruction, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. On Sheet A -7 the "2x4 fascia ties, flat" shall be removed. 2. On Sheets A -3 and A -4 that the horizontal trim above the door on the east elevation shall be raised to match the location of the trim shown on the west elevation. 3. New horizontal trim may be added to fill the space between the door header and the relocated horizontal trim on the east elevation. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 7 of 17 (4) DRC No. 4749 -14 — Orange -Olive Residential (MBK Homes) • 2025 N. Orange -Olive Road • A proposal to construct 25 detached single family residential condominium units on a 2.33 - acre site currently used for RV parking and storage. • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714 - 744 -7238, jle @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She noted that staff included a condition that required the landscaping plans to come back to the DRC with greater detail prior to the issuance of the building permits. She was asking for the Committee's feedback on signage and lighting plans and whether they need to return to the DRC with more detail as well. Ms. Le also explained that the review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ends on September 16, 2015 and the DRC was to review and consider the information in the MND included in their packet in making their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The applicants who were present for this project were Arthur Alvarado, Sunti Kumjim, and Peter A. Duarte. The applicants responded to the DRC's previous design comments. Mr. Kumjim explained the alternative floor plans that addressed the privacy concerns on some of the second story units on Plan 1 and 3. Mr. Kumjim provided a color and materials board which included flat concrete shingle roofing material, wood siding and window color samples. Mr. Duarte described the changes to the landscape plans. Public Comments Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Architecture • Requested the floor plans and elevations for Plan 1 CX and 1 BX be added to the drawings and noted DRC needed to see that. • Concerned that the special sound attenuating glazing on the four homes fronting Orange - Olive Drive was not called out on the drawings and that needed to be added. • Questioned whether all the Plan 3 units on Sheet A1.3.0 were using the alternate Master Bedroom window configuration as shown on Sheet A2.3. Suggested showing on the site plan where the different alternate window configurations occur and adding lot numbers to the drawings. • Questioned the trellis location shown on the Rear Elevation on Sheet A3.1.2., and wanted plans to correctly show where it occurs. • Wanted to be sure the cap on the stucco wall shown on Sheet L -2 is flat. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 8 of 17 • Liked the scoring pattern and noted the need to get the connection point on the pattern exactly right. Street /Streetscape • Questioned why the Tentative Tract Map in the Specific Plan did not show the setback dimensions for the four homes adjacent to Orange -Olive Road. Ms. Le explained it is usually shown on the site plan and not the tract map, but this dimension would be added. • Appreciated the addition of the Concept Street Elevations on Sheet A3.0.1. Privacy Issues • Plan 1BXR on the rear elevation has a large window facing toward the neighbor to the back and questioned whether the alternate window configuration for Plan 1 be used on that unit. Mr. Alvarado said it was intended to be the standard configuration, so the plan should be corrected. • Concerned with the one 2D plan north of Plan 1 BXR where the second floor master bedroom window hovers over the backyard of an adjacent residential unit. Suggested changing it to a Plan 1. As another option, Mr. Alvarado explained that the window could be split using two 30 x 50s, instead of one large window. Committee member Wheeler also stated obscure glass could be used for the lower half of the window. • DRC was satisfied with the window configuration on Plan 3A and 3B on the northeast corner. Color and Materials • Favored a solid finish on the wood siding instead of the pseudo wood grain. • Questioned the locations of the blue and green colors. Discussed that the blue in scheme 6 should not be too cool and the green in Scheme 3 should not be too light. • Suggested switching the colors on Scheme 4 and 6 on Plans 1B and 3A. • Suggested that the colors in Scheme 6 be reconsidered. Landscaping • Suggested adding the landscape drawings to the Sheet Index on Sheet A1.0. • Liked the plant palette on Sheet L -3. • Applicant referred to use of Gingko trees. Committee Member McCormack was concerned that using the ginkgo tree would be an issue since it is a slow growing tree and if used should be a 24" box. Staff noted Liquidambar was shown on the DRC plans, not Gingko. • Looking at the planters between units where the trash cans come out of the rear yards into the trash collection area, the planter width is 6.5' wide and the trash can is 36" wide leaving 1'9" on each side for landscaping. Suggested playing with the pattern by putting paths on one side or the other side creating a bigger contiguous planting area instead of having the path go straight down the center. • Questioned the curbing types. Suggested using the roll curb because it looks nicer, making it a design element. Lighting Plan • Questioned the decorative pole light fixtures on the street lights and clarified that standard cobra style lights would be used on Orange -Olive with the decorative poles used on the private drive aisle. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 9 of 17 Questioned the up lighting on the street sign. Suggested using lights to silhouette the plants along the street wall. Building light fixtures and locations are not currently on the plans. The Applicant showed pictures of building light fixture options and DRC suggested use of the modern styles. The DRC requested the landscaping and lighting plans come back to them. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4749 -14, Orange - Olive Residential, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and noting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered by the DRC. DRC added the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant add the landscape drawings to the sheet index. 2. The applicant provide floor plans and elevations for Plan 1 CX and 1 BX and detail the treatment around the entries. 3. Indicate on the plans where the special glazing required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration for sound attenuation occurs. 4. On the upper floor adjacency study on Sheet A1.3.0, Plan 3A in the northeast corner shall use the alternate plan and Plan 3B in the southeast corner shall use the alternate plan. 5. Clarify the location and design of the trellis to be used on the Plan 1's. 6. Use Plan 1 standard window configuration for Plan 1 BXR at the east end of the property. 7. Plan 21), just north of Plan 1BXR at section line BB, use two 30x50 windows instead of one large window as shown. 8. Use smooth siding without the imitation wood grain where horizontal siding is called out on the drawings. 9. Switch color Scheme No. 6 with color Scheme No. 4. 10. If the applicant wishes to modify the color schemes after considering them further, bring back the new revised color scheme with the landscape plans. 11. Use a flat stucco cap on the three foot six inch walls rather than the rounded cap top shown in the illustration. 12. On Sheet L -2, the scoring patterns shall coordinate to a fine point on the scoring pattern. 13. Analyze the curbing types and use rolled curbs where available. 14. On Sheet L -3, switch the Liquidambar shown with a Tristania. 15. Show that the pathways for moving the trash cans do not have to be in the center of the space if a better location is found. 16. Bring back a lighting plan with the landscape plan. 17. Show how the entry sign is illuminated on the lighting plans. 18. All landscaping lighting fixtures are to be frosted. The above conditions are to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Carol Fox Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler None Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 10 of 17 5) DRC No. 4777 -14 — University Food and Gas Station • 480 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • The applicant proposes to remodel an existing service station and convenience store in the Old Towne Historic District (Historic District). • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714 - 744 -7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She discussed the two issues related to the aluminum storefront and the pole sign. The applicants present for this project were Ali Yeganeh, Fred Cohen, and Mike Glassman. Public Comments Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Color and Materials • Questioned the material of the original storefront aluminum. Ms. Moshier said it was a clear anodized aluminum. • Concerned with the color of the awning and the Arco sign, and the lack of a cohesive color scheme. • Concerned with the color scheme of the entire canopy over the pumps because it felt like a completely different building than the Food Mart. • Concerned with the dark color on the storefront aluminum. • Concerned with the color scheme and style and wanted it all to be unified. • Suggested using a creamy /off white color paint that would work with the Arco color logos. • Suggested not using the burgundy awnings but perhaps using a navy blue denim color or gray or a color that would match the storefront. • Suggested using clear anodized aluminum with a medium gray awning. Lighting Plans • Questioned the lantern lights on the canopy over the pumps and concerned they were not an appropriate fixture for that location as shown on Sheet A2.2. • Gooseneck fixture over the Food Mart lettering on Sheet A2.1 were not on the lighting plan. • Suggested not overdoing the Spanish Colonial lighting. • Suggested using contemporary light fixtures on the building and canopy. • Suggested using more historic lights adjacent to the sidewalks. • Suggested matching the lights above the monument sign with the ones on the monument sign located at Glassell Street and Almond Avenue. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 11 of 17 Signage • Questioned the font of the Food Mart lettering and didn't care for that font because it didn't look Spanish Colonial or compatible with the historic district. • Suggested using recommended fonts for Old Towne and suggested using the Antique Olive Semi -Bold font. • Questioned the material of the sign pole and noted there was no elevation showing how the pole was going to work with the rest of the project. • Mr. Yeganeh wanted the sign to remain because it helped advertise the prices. • Concerned with the height of the pole sign and noted it was not an original fixture. Ms. Moshier explained that the alternative would be a freestanding monument sign no more than 42" tall. • Suggested trying to enhance the existing Historic District brick sign and not compete with it. • Asked that the whole sign pole be put into a drawing along with a side elevation of it. Architecture • Concerned that it was a modern building with a Spanish Colonial motif and questioned if it was appropriate because nothing was reflected in that style with the gas pump canopy. • Questioned the depth of the arches on the north elevation, and asked if they could be removed. • Questioned the Spanish Colonial emblem in the gable, and did not think it should be there. Landscape • Questioned the color of the crape myrtle and concerned that the pink crape myrtle would clash with some of the landscaping, the awning, the building, and the Arco sign. • Liked the northwest corner planting plan. • Concerned with the spacing of the Myoporum. • Did not like the south edge and would like the propane tank screened. Suggested using the Prunus caroliniana as a screen, using the Rhapholepis `pinke' as a mass, using the Anigozanthos Kangaroo Paw as an accent, and replacing the Myoporum with a low grass. The Committee clarified the items on the project they were approving which included the trash enclosure, parking as shown, planter shapes, parking lot layout, the building, and the hardscape. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4777 -14, University Food and Gas Station, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. Aluminum storefront shall be changed to a clear anodized aluminum. 2. Lettering on the signage shall be Antique Olive Semi -Bold. 3. The quatrefoil over the entry door shall be eliminated. The DRC approved the building, canopy, and hardscape designs as shown. The following items shall return to the Committee prior to issuance of the building permit: 1. Landscape design for the planting material. 2. Building, canopy, and awning color schemes. 3. Lighting design. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 12 of 17 SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 13 of 17 (6) DRC No. 4807 -15 — Killefer Square • 541 N. Lemon Street • A proposal to rehabilitate a historic school building, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, for use as dormitory rooms and to construct nine new buildings with 65 units of apartment -style student housing. The proposed student housing use will require approval of a Specific Plan for the development. Prior to embarking on development of the Specific Plan, the applicant is requesting preliminary review by the DRC to receive feedback on the proposed project, including rehabilitation of the historic building and the mass, scale and design of the new construction. • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714- 744 -7243, mmoshier @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ms. Moshier indicated the applicants wanted to receive feedback on the proposed site plan and the design. She noted the property was separately designated in the National Register of Historic Places in April 2015. The applicants who were present for this project were Leason Pomeroy and Doug DeCinces. Mr. Pomeroy indicated he has been involved in developing student housing around the Chapman campus for a long time. He stated he had met with OTPA, the Barrio Historical Society, Chapman University representatives and each of the City Council members. He explained the four major defining features they found on the historic building included the entry /bell tower /weather vane; the courtyard with an arch at the stage; the pentagonal element on the north end of the building; and the roof. They will have a historic display site for the Barrio Historical Society. Mr. Pomeroy explained the five modifications they are proposing to do to the original building. He described the parking, security measures, the properties surrounding the project and the use of solar panels. Mr. DeCinces stated it was a hard site to landscape since most of it was concrete. He explained that parking was taken care of since it would be underground. Public Comments Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated that even though the school is located adjacent to the Historic District, when OTPA found out the building was slated for demolition, they decided to nominate it and they were successful in getting it listed on the National Register of Historic Places. He stated OTPA had met with Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. DeCinces on three occasions. OTPA had the following issues and concerns with the proposal: • The three -story infill development on the site obscures the historic resource from the west since the address of the building now is on Lemon Street. • The west facing elevation has always been highly visible from Lemon Street. • This elevation exhibits many character defining features which include the unique courtyard and center stage area among others. The swimming pool would change this character defining space. • Not only does this impact the historic building but it would have an adverse impact on the modest homes across Lemon Street. • Would create severe traffic issues on Lemon Street and the Historic District. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 14 of 17 • Realized there was a need for student housing but there was no guarantee that this development would remain student housing after the sale. • No oversight of student activity. • Appreciated staff included the Secretary of the Interior's technical bulletins which need to be adhered to and the recommendations followed. • Agreed that not only exterior defining features should be preserved but also indoor spaces and features as recommended in the bulletins. • A number of entrances would be altered with this proposal and would impact defining features. • New construction would not respect the historic character of the site and was out of context to the historic school building as well as the surrounding neighborhood. • The three -story infill development would not be subordinate to the historic building. • The density of the project was inappropriate and lacking open space. • The project did not comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards on many levels considering the bulk, mass, density, and associated adverse impacts to the historic building, surrounding community and adjacent National Register Historic District. • The OTPA Board of Directors voted to oppose this project as it was proposed. The Public Hearing was closed. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Grateful the building is not being demolished and glad it was listed on the National Register. • The site plan appears crowded. • Not concerned with the repurposing of the courtyard into a pool. • Addition of the kitchen on the south elevation on the backside of the south wing was well done. Historic Building • Disappointed that all the classroom walls were being removed and asked if there was a way to house some of the uses in the large classrooms without modifying all the interiors of the classrooms. • Concerned with losing the 12' high ceiling with archways in the classrooms and some built - ins. • Asked applicant when they come back to show where some of the corridor and classroom features are being maintained. • Suggested tucking the loft unit back to keep the special defining aspects of the classroom spaces. • Suggested possible locations for the clerestory, including breaking up the dormer into several sections. • Concerned about changing the character of the walls on the courtyard. Recommended leaving the doorways to keep the character of that space. • Recommended retaining the sense of individual classrooms, particularly where the proposed functions fit in larger spaces. Consider keeping some remnants of the partitions that are being removed. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 15 of 17 • Confused about how the grade of the courtyard relates to the height of the walkway and questioned the steps leading into the pool. • Suggested using a folding or glass door between the theater and meeting room. • The addition works because it clearly states it is an addition. • Questioned if the existing entry would be filled in and assumed that the door would be kept. Mr. Pomeroy explained in one of the bulletins in one of the rehabilitated schools, they left the original doors on the corridor but sheet rocked it on the inside. • Suggested minimizing the elevator tower in the courtyard. • Concerned with too much density and massing in the loft area. Concerned with alterations to the roof line and the amount of demolition, noting that the roof is a defining feature of the building. o Mr. DeCinces talked about having a "continuous" dormer across the top and the Committee suggested breaking it up on the west elevation or eliminating the overhang. Mr. DeCinces suggested individual dormers. o Suggested reconfiguring the units in the historic building to eliminate the interior upper corridor and create loft /mezzanine spaces with a smaller clerestory. o Mr. Pomeroy said the whole thing has to do with revenue and losing 25% of the beds but he was going to study it. • Recommended maintaining the corridor and the historic openings. Compatibility of New Construction • Materials and Color o Liked the white color o Concerned with the compatibility of the metal roofs in this neighborhood. • Did not mind the massing of the 2 % story buildings in the west on Lemon Street. • Voiced a lot of concern with the massing of the building on the north elevation • Suggested eliminating the two -story building to the north of the historic school and moving it to the south side of the site. • Recommended moving the new construction back from the northeast side of the property, so that more of the north elevation of the historic building is visible from the street. May consider adding additional height at the center north side of the property. • Suggested orienting the new buildings the same way as the historic buildings, with a central courtyard or with a view to the historic courtyard from Lemon Street. o Concerned about conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for this property and recommended that it was important to move the height and density away from the historic building, so that the historic building is dominant with the other buildings being subordinate. • Mr. Pomeroy heard the Committee's concerns. He stated that for financial viability of the project, the applicant needed to keep the density and the number of beds, so the idea would be to move the mass around and free up more space around the historic building. • Suggested putting the bikes in an open space on the north side of the historic building and putting the mass of one of the new buildings to the south side of the property. Mr. Pomeroy explained that the material on the windows would be metal and the metal roofs would make it easier to install the solar panels. The Committee suggested possibly making the color of the metal roof match the color of the tile. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 16 of 17 Discussed the streetscape on Lemon Street. Suggested alternatives to an opaque fence, including using vertical posts 6" apart for the security fence to increase visibility between the property and the street. For preliminary review only — no action was required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on September 16, 2015. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.