Loading...
2016-04-06 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL April 6, 2016 Committee Members Present: Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair Robert Imboden Tim McCormack Anne McDermott Committee Member Absent: Carol Fox - Chair Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Vice Chair Wheeler opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. Vice Chair Wheeler inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information. Mr. Garcia indicated that Vice Chair Wheeler would be recusing himself from 2 agenda items, Burger Parlor Signage and Orange Event Center. He also stated that at the end of the regular session they would be adjourning to a special meeting for next Thursday, April 14, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Garcia introduced the new Associate Planner, Monique Schwartz. She described her previous work experience with the City of Placentia and the City of Buena Park. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for March 16, 2016. Committee Member McDermott requested that addresses be placed on all agenda items. She stated this was her first year anniversary of being on the Design Review Committee. Vice Chair Wheeler noted the numbering on the agenda should match the tabs in the DRC binders. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, indicated a new justification letter from the Orange Event Center had been emailed to the Committee. She also explained the design changes to the railings on the Eidenmuller Medical Center Building and distributed the latest photos of what had actually been constructed. Committee Member Imboden announced that representatives from the 3 Eichler communities were going to City Council next week with petitions to ask for the creation of historic districts. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 2 of 17 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox and Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:21 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 3 of 17 Regular Session — 5:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Fox 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: March 16, 2016 Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meetings of March 16, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. (2) DRC No. 4837 -15 JR Motel Lighting • The applicant is returning to the Design Review Committee (DRC) with a lighting plan for a recently- approved 28 -room motel pursuant to a required condition. • 428 E. Lincoln Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4837 -15, JR Motel Lighting, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report: SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 4 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS New Agenda Items: (1) DRC No. 4833 -15 Burger Parlor Signage • A proposal for a new projecting wall sign and window signage. • 149 N. Glassell Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo • DRC Action: Final Determination Vice Chair Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the room. Kelly Ribuffo, Associater Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She shared the sample boards with the vinyl graphics and the painted aluminum for the cabinet. The applicants who were present for this project were Tammy Egan and Joseph Mahon. Public Comments Committee Member Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, stated that on the whole the signage looked good but did bring up the issue with the vinyl on the sign which was prohibited by the Design Standards. Committee Member Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Concerned with the 1/2" bolt and wanted to know how wide the joint was and if the 2 bolts would go through the bricks. • Confirmed that the sign would be metal and the color graphics would be a vinyl overlay. • Noted the drawing did not show masonry and asked what the backing would be. Ms. Moshier stated when the back fagade was restored there were portions of brick that were missing that were replaced with a veneer. The upper portion of the building at the parapet above the store fronts did appear to be an original brick. • Noted there were a lot of existing bolts on the building and almost none of them were going through the joints. Verified all the proposed bolt locations would be new. • Wanted the drawing to be revised to show masonry anchorage. Ms. Ribuffo said it would have to be updated at the time of building permit to show the correct anchorage. • Questioned if the sign should be painted as opposed to the use of vinyl. • Confirmed it was vinyl window graphics and the black indicated the glass window. • Disappointed that the stainless steel anchors on this masonry building were not addressed and the sign had not been designed to accommodate the grout lines. Ms. Ribuffo stated this was the reason she included the stainless steel anchors in the conditions of approval and gave the Community Development Director the ability to review the details of the anchoring of the sign. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 5 of 17 • Wanted to know what would happen to the existing holes in the building. Ms. Ribuffo indicated the existing holes were not within the scope of this approval and Ms. Moshier was working with the property owner on the current restoration of the building and could be addressed during the restoration. • Found this application to be incomplete and wanted it to come back to the Committee because the proposal in front of them did not relate to the field conditions. • Noted that generally signs are painted as opposed to the use of vinyl. Indicated a preference for painted but would leave it up to the applicant. Suggested a matte vinyl finish. • Mr. Mahon, applicant, requested clear communication on what was needed to complete the project. • Mr. Garcia indicated if all the conditions were met, it could come back as a Consent Item. • Asked if the '/2 stainless steel anchor was too big for the grout joint and should it be smaller. Ms. Ribuffo summarized the items the Committee wanted addressed: 1. Call out the stainless steel mounting hardware on the drawings. 2. Show the customized mounting detail specific to how they propose to do it on the building being sensitive to the masonry mortar joints and the substrate because it was not shown properly on the drawing. 3. Good with this type of vinyl graphic. 4. Good with this being a consent item. 5. Wanted the drawings to accurately reflect the field conditions. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to continue DRC No. 4833 -15, Burger Parlor Signage, to a date uncertain: SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox RECUSED: Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 6 of 17 (2) DRC No. 4771 -14 Bonham Residence • A proposal to construct a 605 square foot accessory second unit and 441 square foot two car garage behind an existing single family residence in the Old Towne Historic District. The single family residence is a contributor to the Historic District. The project includes demolition of a 390 square foot, non - contributing studio at the rear of the property. • 428 S. Pixley Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744 -7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Jon Califf, Karl Bonham, and Efroim Kalsman. Public Comments Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, stated it was a sympathetic project; the garage design was appropriate; questioned the roof of the accessory structure being taller than the main structure; Design Standards strongly encourage in -kind materials for infill; would like to see wood siding versus Hardie board; and it would be nice to remove the stucco on the historic building and restore the wood siding. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Questioned what appears to be a roof overlap on the proposed elevations for the accessory second unit and garage. Received clarification from applicant that the roofs do not overlap. • Verified on the rear elevation of the garage that there was no parapet. The parapet was on 3 sides and the roof sloped down toward back. • Questioned the proximity of the garage to the property line. Received clarification from staff that the garage could be at a zero setback, provided it was under 10 feet tall. • Mr. Califf provided a sample of the Hardie board being proposed. • Had no opposition to the metal corners with the Hardie board. • Asked why the garage had a flat roof and not a shed roof. Mr. Califf stated they wanted to keep the mass as low as possible and it was a common design for garages in the historic district. • Did not mind the flat roof on the garage since it added a variation to the other two structures which have pitch roofs. • Appreciated the use of decomposed granite for the uncovered parking space. • Noted there was a lot of parking and concerned with the loss of existing landscaping. • Questioned what was currently at the back of the driveway and was told there were storage containers. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 7 of 17 • Noted the drawing did not show the gable and vents on the existing house and asked if the vertical element on the porch of the rear unit could be designed to match the pattern of the existing gable on the front house. • Liked the way the window trim on the accessory second unit was slightly different from the house. • Ms. Moshier confirmed that one additional parking space was required for the proposed accessory structure. • Asked if the drawings stated the Hardie board siding would be smooth and was told no. • Questioned the eave framing and Mr. Califf said that framing with flat outriggers would provide a subtle hint that it was a new structure. Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4771 -14, Bonham Residence, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. The Hardie board siding being used on the new structures shall be a smooth finish. 2. The roof overhangs on the new accessory second unit shall be constructed in the traditional manner with no flat outriggers. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 8 of 17 (3) DRC No. 4824 -15 Andersen Residence • A proposal to add windows to the gable ends of an existing residence to allow for a habitable attic space. The property is a contributing historic resource within the Old Towne Historic District. • 175 S. Waverly Street • 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. The applicants who were present for this project were John Mechling, Robert Mechling, and Cristopher Andersen. Public Comments Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, noted this was the most sympathetic method to add additional space to an existing structure; wanted to minimize the number of windows; noted the new window openings would not be visible from the front; and it was difficult to see the relationship of the windows to the interior layout. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Noted the drawings were very basic and was concerned with the quality of the drawings. Could not tell how the windows were located and assumed they were drawn to scale. • Did not see where the previous louvers had been located and if they would be patched. Mr. J. Mechling said the louvers would be going away, would be patched and would match the existing stucco. The Committee wanted to see on the drawing how that would be addressed. • Wanted new windows to be called out on the drawing along with the existing windows. • Noted it was not written on how the window would be set or patched. • Questioned if that could be provisioned by stating the windows were centered under the ridges. • Without any dimensions on the drawings, it did not show how far it was above the floor. • Noted it was harder to solve the vertical dimensions as shown on the drawing. • Suggested using the term "joggle" instead of "lamb's tongue ". • Worried about second story attic conversions and how something could change during construction. Wanted staff to verify that everything submitted for construction permits looked like what was on the drawings. Ms. Ribuffo indicated the windows shown had been drawn to quarter scale and the tops of all the proposed windows were 3 feet below the peak of the inside of the gable. • Questioned if the structural ramifications had been taken into account with the second story. Noted it usually means complete destruction of either the interior or exterior of the home and asked if the applicant was anticipating that. Applicant said no. • Commended the applicant on trying to work within the structure of the home. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 9 of 17 • If additional visible portions of the foundation would be required, it would come back to the DRC for approval. Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4824 -15, Anderson Residence, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. The infill patching at the exterior of the removed items, such as louvers, vents, etc., shall be finished in an exterior plaster that matches the texture of the existing residence. 2. The new windows located at the second level shall be aligned with the centerline of the ridgeline above. 3. The tops of the new windows shall be positioned at 3' below the apex of the underside of the roof eave. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 10 of 17 (4) DRC No. 4761 -14 Koll Center Parking Structure #2 • A proposal to construct a new three level parking structure on an existing surface parking lot. • 420 N. State College Road • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714- 744 -7223, kribuffo @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were Chris Peterson and Craig Morrison. The Committee questioned staff about the landscape calculations. Ms. Ribuffo indicated the City's Landscape Coordinator, Don Equitz, reviewed the landscaping and parking requirements and he found them to be appropriate for the site. Public Comments Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Asked if there were any other color materials other than what was shown on the plans. Ms. Ribuffo said there were only the ones included in the plans. • Questioned the material and dimensions of the security chain link fence and asked if there was a sample of it. Mr. Peterson said it was a wire mesh and they did not bring a sample. • Questioned the interior lighting of the building. Ms. Ribuffo stated Brad Beyer, Crime Prevention, would approve the interior lighting as part of his plan check. • Concerned with the aesthetics of the interior lighting and would like to see the lighting plan. • Questioned the color match between the new parking structure and the existing structure. Mr. Peterson said they would match. The Committee suggested switching the colors between the 2 structures on the bodies and other special areas. • Verified the steel frames on the lower level would be white painted steel and the stairway railings would be black. Mr. Morrison said the security screens would be galvanized. • Mr. Morrison said the client would be open to revising the color scheme. • Noted the Committee had 2 choices: the project be continued or recommend approval to the Planning Commission and ask for the paint color, lighting plan, and mesh material come back before the issuance of a building permit. • Concerned with the planting design because within 5 years only one plant would not be hedged and the others would have a cut vertical face of brown. Suggested using a bigger planting area and rethink the planting plan. • Concerned the most with the use of the Lantana and the Myoporum. Was not worried about the use of the Ligustrum and the Star Jasmine. • Mr. Morrison indicated the Police Department did not want anyone getting in between the 2 parking structures so they decided to use landscaping to deter access to that area. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 11 of 17 Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4761 -14, Koll Center Parking Structure #2, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions coming back to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of the building permit: 1. A revised color scheme shall explore the possibility of using the colors that are the same as the existing parking structure but in a way that emphasizes that the proposed structure is a different structure, and providing real color samples and not printed colors. 2. The applicant shall bring in a sample of the security mesh to show both the color and the construction of the mesh. 3. The landscape plan shall be restudied and resubmitted to address the issues of security and long term maintenance. 4. The lighting plan of the interior of the structure shall come back. 5. Provide photographs of plant materials that shall be used. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 12 of 17 (5) DRC No. 4669 -13 Eidenmuller Medical Office Building • A proposal to revise the design of a previously approved railing on a new exterior stair /elevator tower on a contributing building in the Old Towne Historic District. • Associated Application: VAR No. 2229 -13 • 615 E. Chapman Avenue, Old Towne 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. The applicant was revising the previously approved proposal. The applicant who was present for this project was Gerald R. Eidenmuller. He explained that the 18 individual glass panes would provide maximum visibility to the historic structure. He stated he would be using collected rain water to keep the glass panes clean and it would have a zero impact on the environment. He described the new gates which would not have glass but would be constructed with 2x2s. Public Comments Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Vice Chair Wheeler opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Questioned all the gates and if they had changed from the first proposal. Dr. Eidenmuller said one gate had been modified from the photos in the DRC packet with the additional 2x2s. • Verified that all the gates would be different. • Verified the glass railing had no top rail and only the posts would be wood. • Asked who would be using the stairs. Dr. Eidenmuller said patients going to the second floor. • Concerned the transparent glass without a solid horizontal element might feel insecure and bother some users. • Questioned the thickness of the glass. Dr. Eidenmuller stated the glass would be 1 /2 " thick and beveled /rounded on the top. He said the posts would be grooved to accommodate the glass and sealed with caulking. The post tops would be beveled. • Questioned the height of the glass and the posts. Dr. Eidenmuller said the post would be 1" higher than the glass. • Suggested an alternative by using a wood railing design instead of glass. Dr. Eidenmuller was concerned with the maintenance of all the wood. • Noted the DRC's previous comment that the posts line up with the railings and that had not been done. • Committee Member Imboden had met with the owner and architect on site to discuss the project and had suggested making mock ups of what was being proposed. Did not understand why the glass would not include a top and bottom rail. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 13 of 17 • Concerned with the prominence of the posts on the back of the building without any horizontal elements. • Concerned with the introduction of all the other gates and wood railings that lack consistency. • Thought the post and cap could be designed so it looked well- crafted and looked like an element with the glass. • Suggested using horizontal rails on the top and bottom of the glass so it would look finished. • Dr. Eidenmuller asked if the Committee would consider a top rail of wood and no bottom rail so the water would run off easily. • Suggested making the top rails 4x4s to match the posts with no bottom rail or using 2 rails across the top instead of one large one. • Noted the Committee was uncomfortable with a series of posts with only glass between them. Aesthetically it did not look finished. • Noted the post element needed to look like it had been designed and more articulated. • Noted that all the gates were not part of the approved design. • Mr. Garcia stated the Committee had given the applicant plenty of feedback. The Committee's options were to continue the item, to approve the project, or deny the project and go back to what was originally approved. • Dr. Eidenmuller thought the one gate was imperative to be there to provide access to the roof. • Thought the design would be more palatable if all the different panels and gates were more similar and not different. • Needed to mitigate the effect of the posts without any visible means of support and a top rail might help that. • Suggested submitting drawings with a top rail and a double top rail that could have different thicknesses. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to continue DRC No. 4669 -13, Eidenmuller Medical Office Building, to a date uncertain: SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 14 of 17 (6) DRC No. 4841 -16 Orange Event Center • A proposal for exterior modifications to remodel two existing building in the Old Towne Historic District. The former church building at 240 W. Chapman will be reused as an event center. The former church office and classroom building at 135 S. Lemon will accommodate a mix of office and retail uses. Both buildings are non - contributors to the Historic District and are within the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Area. • Associated Application: CUP No. 2998 -16 • 240 W. Chapman Avenue and 135 S. Lemon Street, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744 -7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Vice Chair Wheeler recused himself due to the proximity to his office and left the building. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The applicants who were present for this project were James Wilson, architect; Chip Gulley, architect; Adam D. Chez, owner; Robert McMahon, landscape architect; and Jon Newman, owner. Mr. Chez explained his background and the vision for this event center. Committee Member McCormack had a question for staff about the Santa Fe Depot pedestrian element. Ms. Moshier explained that both properties were in the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan area and there are recommendations within the Specific Plan document that talk about pedestrian oriented design on major elevations for commercial streets. Mr. Wilson explained how he had examined the Chapman Avenue building and the prospect of removing the exterior stucco. He described how some of the exterior stucco had been removed exposing the brick under the stucco and they would be bringing back the western false front fagade and going back to the original fenestration of the entry. There was a desire to have an outdoor area and wanted to add a horizontal steel trellis on the front of the building and over the outdoor dining area. Mr. Gulley shared the material board and explained the proposed colors and materials including the mechanical screen and stem lights, and how the event space on Chapman Avenue would be festive with steel outriggers laced with wires. The outdoor dining area would have removable planters. Mr. McMahon described the landscaping including the location of the raised planters. Mr. Wilson then described the history of the buildings on Lemon Street and shared aerial photos from the early 1950s and 1970s. He explained how the building was plaster on plaster and they were trying to go for something different by introducing some different materials. They were proposing to go to a traditional store front on Lemon Street and he described the different materials being proposed for the 3 sections of the building including the rear next to the city parking lot and the courtyard. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 15 of 17 Mr. Gulley shared the material and color board for the Lemon Street building. Mr. McMahon explained the site plan for the landscape on Lemon Street including the textured concrete paving material and reclaimed wood. He talked about the existing trees on the site. In the parkway they are proposing to remove the grass panel, making it concrete. In the existing planters they would use succulents which require less water and the utility building would be covered with a green screen. They plan to warm up the courtyard area with landscaping, benches, and a small fountain. Public Comments Committee Member Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, indicated they had met with the applicant. They were excited with the proposed removal of the stucco on the Chapman Avenue facade and bringing it back to a contributing status. Thought the proposal for Lemon Street was great and it would restore the streetscape, and the proposed materials and design were appropriate. Committee Member Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: • Wanted the drawings to include adjacent buildings for additional context. • Concerned with wedding events and the catering trucks and access. Mr. Chez explained the catering business and that half of the events would be for corporate/business clients and half for weddings. They have been working with the City regarding the parking. • Excited to see the stucco removed on the main building. • Wanted the applicant to think about how the brick would wrap around the Lemon Street corner and that there might be an opportunity to get away from the long linearity along Lemon Street by breaking up the facade. • Suggested the use of vertical signage to break up the long wall. Ms. Moshier explained there might be an opportunity for that above 8'. • Found the initial direction interesting. • Liked the way the back piece was broken up but disliked Building B on the west elevation. Encouraged the applicant to play with the back building. • Difficult to be too specific until it was known what the next chapter would be but it was starting in the right direction. • Appreciated the inclusion of landscape imagery in the plans. • Wanted to see how to make the Chapman facade even better and suggested activating it with a people space by opening up the interior to the street. • Liked the treatment of lighting on Lemon Street. • Suggested exploring the driveway /vehicle entrance by framing it but also have a separate pedestrian entrance. • Suggested playing with the paving in the parking lot to make it more celebrated as a pedestrian place. • Thought the plant palette was going in the right direction. • Suggested making bigger areas for larger trees to provide more shade in the parking area. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 16 of 17 • Wanted a conversation started with the City to make the area on Chapman Avenue more pedestrian friendly. • Wanted the applicants to consider a window treatment on Chapman Avenue like the Pizza Press in Orange and Houston's in Fashion Island. Mr. Wilson explained that on the side of the building they were trying to be true to what they saw originally. They are not anticipating the back as a major place for pedestrians to come in but there would be more pedestrian interaction on on Lemon Street. Ms. Moshier summarized the additional information the Committee would need to make a final determination: • Need more information on the existing condition of the brick on the Chapman building. Does the brown brick truly wrap the corner, to what extent, and confirm what the sizes of the original openings were on the Chapman elevation. • Emphasize the openings on Chapman and Lemon elevations with the horizontal element that was being proposed. Consider breaking it up and responding to the various elements of the building. • Recommended that the applicant consider greater interaction with the street through an indoor /outdoor storefront composition. • Had positive comments on the materials and design of the Lemon Street building. Wanted more details on the drawings of the windows and storefront and materials samples. • Additional exploration of the paving and landscape in the parking lot area — the interaction between the City Olive Street parking lot, the back parking lot, and the entrance from the Lemon Street side The Committee wanted the more interesting finishes and materials provided in a sample board in order to approve the project. Mr. Wilson voiced concern with the suggestions on the windows on the Chapman facade because of the removal of the bulkhead. Ms. Moshier stated the Pizza Press did retain the bulkhead. The Committee suggested studying the possible window options on the facade. For Preliminary Review only — no action required. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2016 Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the special Design Review Committee meeting on Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. SECOND: Anne McDermott AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: Carol Fox and Craig Wheeler MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.