Loading...
06-17-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ON JULY 1, 2020 Page 1 of 5 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE June 17, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT VIA GOTOMEETING TELECONFERENCE: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Wang, Administrative Specialist Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1. OPENING: 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Skorpanich called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Chair Skorpanich led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Committee Members McDermott, McCormack, Skorpanich, Fox and Imboden. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no comments. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 20, 2020 2.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 3, 2020 A motion was made to approve the May 20, 2020 and June 3, 2020 minutes as emended to staff. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: NONE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5 New Agenda Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4890-16 – ORANGE PACKING HOUSE  A proposal for site improvements at a historic packing house property, including demolition of an existing shed, new parking lot circulation, landscaping, and construction of a new deck at the loading dock on the packing house building.  426 W. Almond Avenue, Old Towne Historic District  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Leason Pomeroy, applicant, spoke on behalf of the project. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this project. Ms. Moshier stated public comment was received via email from the Old Towne Preservation Association with comments on the project. The email was forwarded to all Committee members prior to the meeting. The public comment portion of this item was closed. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  Parking requirement for the property.  Intention of comments provided in the LSA historic resource report which states that since the property is not in a historic district, the local criteria are not being applied.  The Committee disagrees with the report that simply because the historic use of the shed was not determined, that this alone does not confirm that the building was not connected to the citrus operation, and that because the building is already located in a historic district, that association to the citrus operation is not required in order for it to have historic significance. The report attempts to evaluate this accessory building as an individual structure in meeting the criteria when it is part of a historic site and a historic district.  There are significant integrity issues which seriously bring into question the designation of the shed.  There are no true elevations of the packing house building in the packet that put the changes into context.  Location of the second entrance to the packing house building is not shown on the plan.  Drawings are not consistent throughout the packet; a range of conflicting materials and finishes are called out for the railings and canopy.  There are different conclusions and analyses regarding the shed in the three reports that were submitted between 2012 and 2019; what justifies the conclusion change?  The criteria used to determine the historic status of ancillary buildings on similar properties.  If the entry onto the site and distance between the shed and the Packing House is acceptable to the Fire Department.  Purpose of the apparatus in the center of the shed. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5  Purpose of the various shaded areas on the site plans and types of proposed paving material.  It appears that there may not be enough head clearance on the stairs underneath the new deck.  Color of the proposed concrete material on the deck.  Replacement of doors and windows or change to any of the brick should return the DRC for review.  Callouts and photometrics for light fixtures need to be submitted.  Intention for the piece of raised concrete in the path of travel on the east elevation.  Seeing as how there is an excess of 20 parking spaces, would it be plausible to leave the southern portion of the shed as a historic element if it was used as part of the packing operation.  Less concern about the proposed demolition of the shed because it is crowding the importance of the brick building.  Wall pack lights above the deck should be changed to something more compatible with the historic property.  The Committee recommended eliminating the English Ivy, Equisetum Horse Tail, and Vinca Major Periwinkle plants in the landscape plan due to their invasiveness.  More information is needed on the plexiglass dome on the proposed lift.  Pare down tree selections to Date Palms and London Plane trees to complement the off-site vertical skyline.  The Committee recommended turning parking spaces 32, 29, 26, 23 and 20 into planting areas; place London Plane trees in the planting area to the south of parking space numbers 17, 11, 10, 8 7, 5 and 4.  Options to replace the asphalt with an alternative paving in order to designate a walking path in the parking lot. A motion was made to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of Design Review No. 4890-16 – Orange Packing House based on the findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows:  The footprint of the existing shed that is to be demolished shall be designated in the pavement through some means such as a concrete ribbon or an alternate paving material for the most historic portion of the shed to be demolished.  The landscape and lighting plans, lighting cut sheets, and proposed materials for the exterior elevations shall return to the DRC for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED RECESS: 7:34 to 7:41 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5 3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 5009-20 – ORANGE PLAZA INN  A proposal to remodel and convert an existing building, formerly used as a mortuary, to a twelve-room hotel with accessory event space. The existing mortuary building is a non-contributor to the Old Towne Historic District.  137 E. Maple Avenue and 230 N. Orange Street, Old Towne Historic District  Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Preliminary Review Committee member Fox recused herself from this item as her firm has provided architectural services for this applicant in the past 12 months. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Hicham Semann, owner, spoke on behalf of the project. Jim Wilson and Chip Gulley, architects, and Bob McMahon, landscape architect, were available to answer questions. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this project. Ms. Moshier stated public comment was received via email from the Old Towne Preservation Association; Brian Lochrie, a neighbor; and Ron Esparza, a resident of Orange, with comments on the project. The emails were forwarded to all Committee members prior to the meeting. The public comment portion of this item was closed. The Committee had questions and comments on the following:  Plans for the neon sign pole on the corner.  Architectural similarity between the 1906 building and 204 N. Batavia Street.  Programming for the Inn involving the structure at 230 N. Orange Street.  Landscape opportunity between sidewalk and fence on the front of the site.  The Committee is concerned that the applicant is trying to erase too much of the appearance of the 1930s addition on the west side of the property.  The Committee is not in favor of so many colors and materials and the approach of separate buildings with separate color schemes and styles all pushed together; the building should be more cohesive.  Consider alternative options such as painted brick for 1930s portion of the building, rather than the board and batten. Other portions can be more hotel-like and can express themselves as part of the larger complex.  The proposed bungalow-style features on the east side of the building appears to be disjointed from the rest of the building.  The Committee is generally in favor of the landscape; however, there could be more landscaping in the paved areas, particularly in the parking lot.  Alternatives are needed for the citrus trees as there are many proposed for the landscape and are currently quarantined from this area.  The buildings can be slightly discernible from one another, but they do not all have to be so different. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5  Concern about the alternate materials that are being proposed because they are never used on historic properties in the Old Towne Historic District. The use of fiber cement board is unacceptable.  Move the fence back from the sidewalk per the Old Towne Design Standards.  The setback on the Orange Street edge should be improved. Agapanthus is too small against the wall of the building on Orange Street. The Committee suggested vertical landscaping on the east edge of the building to provide a gesture of buffering at the back of sidewalk and structure.  The Committee recommended adding three street trees along the parkway.  The Committee recommended using planters as wheel stops in the parking lot and removing asphalt to create planting spaces, possibly with London plane trees.  The Committee recommended adding a paving border at the north driveway to match all the other openings and extending the paving to the swinging gate at the northwest corner of the building.  The Committee recommended eliminating the transition between asphalt and the building at the rear elevation and replacing it with gravel at that edge.  Provide plants with different height materials to make the space appear bigger.  The Committee does not agree with the modifications to the 1930s building, which is in good condition and has a high degree of integrity in its design. The Committee does not support removing the pilasters or adding additional windows on the Maple Street façade. Additional windows could be added on the east elevation of that addition where they are removing part of the existing structure to create the courtyard.  From a design perspective, the flat roof center between the north and south bungalow on the east elevation does not work well.  Sheet A3.1A at the east elevation does not show a change of plane and how the siding and plaster will be interfaced and joined together. A detail should be provided to the Committee. This project was presented for preliminary review. Chair Skorpanich thanked the Committee for their comments and feedback on this project. 4. ADJOURNMENT: 8:27 PM The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 1, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.