Loading...
2015-03-04 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL Committee Members Present= Tim McCormack -Chair Carol Fox —Vice Chair Robert Imboden Craig Wheeler March 4, 2015 Staff in Attendance= Jennifer Le, Senior Planner /Environmental Coordinator Lucy Yeager, Contract Planner Kelly Christensen Ribuffo, Associate Planner Marisa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5 =00 Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5 =05 p.m. Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Senior Plaice tier, indicated there was none. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of February IS, 2015 - Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND. Craig Wheeler AYES. Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES. Nonc MOTION CARRIED_ Administrative Session adjourned at 5.09 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Regular Session — 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: All 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: February 18, 2015 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of February 18, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 3 of 10 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Items: None New Azenda Items: (2) DRC No. 4750 -14 Cookies By Jess • Applicant proposes to construct a 425 square foot addition with wall signage and remodel a 185 square foot area to the existing Quicks Automotive building to provide for a wholesale commercial bakery. • 1237 W. Barkley Ave. • Staff Contact: Lucy Yeager, 714- 744 -7239 • DRC Action: Final Approval Lucy Yeager, Contract Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Shan McNaughton, Jessica Duensing and Jeff Duensing, applicants, were on hand for questions. Mr. McNaughton, architect, stated the idea for the project was to add on as seamlessly as possible to the existing building and make the new addition architecturally compatible. 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 applicants answered questions the Committee asked: • Store front color will be off -white and the roof will be Old Towne gray • Removal of the window on the south elevation will be patched • Canopy will be metal • New siding will be complimentary to the existing siding • Sign will not be illuminated • Some of the landscaping will be removed • Colors will match existing colors • Font on sign will be as shown on the plans • There will be a sub address in accordance with Fire, Police and the County Chair McCormack wanted staff to note the need for irrigation modifications once the hardscape has been installed. Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4750 -14 based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. When the project is submitted to the City, the plans shall include the name of the font for the proposed sign and that font shall match the one shown on the DRC approved plans. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 4 of 10 2. Plans shall include modification to the irrigation systems that are required by this project. 3. Full length siding shall be used at the patching of the existing window so to avoid a horizontal seam. 4. Color of the new siding shall match that of the existing siding. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 5 of 10 (3) DRC 4792 -15 Chapman University Musco Center for the Performing Arts Landscape and Lighting Plans Modification • Chapman University proposed modifications to the approved landscape and lighting plans for the Musco Center for the Performing Arts. Changes include removal of tempietto feature and addition/relocation of hardscape, plantings and lighting across the site. • 415 N. Glassell Street • Staff Contact: Kelly Christensen Ribuffo, 714 - 744 -7223 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Community Development Director Kelly Christensen Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Ken Ryan, Kris Olson, Todd Bennitt and Tom Ruzika were in attendance for the project. Ken Ryan, from KTGY, gave an overview of the project indicating some minor adjustments to the plan. He explained the landscaping and lighting changes. The biggest change will be replacing the tempietto with the labyrinth. 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 questions and concerns on the following: • Design rationale for replacing the tempietto with the labyrinth • Stairs versus the sloping ramps • Proposed landform may result in drainage issues at the bottom of the slope • Material of the labyrinth • Lack of lighting on the labyrinth • Loss of trees due to the utility boxes • Overall loss of 14 trees • The use of the liquidambar rotundiloba and how they perform on campus • Screening along the back side facing residents • The use of prunus caroliniana compacta • Box size of the podocarpus trees • Irregular paving material in the southeast plaza area • Location of the sycamores and the requirement for more space for the root zone • Bollards or area lights on walkway • Street lights on Glassell Street frontage • Mortality rate of star jasmine and size City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Committee Member Imboden made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4792 -15 to the Community Development Director based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. Liquidambars adjacent to the Walnut fagade shall be replaced with minimum 36" box podocarpus. 2. Reduce paving on the west side of the two sycamores at the southeast corner by one paving module in order to increase the planter space. 3. The non -pod bearing variety of liquidambar shall be used along the pedestrian hardscape walkways whereas the pod bearing varieties will be used elsewhere. With the following recommendation: 1. The star jasmine specified in the plans shall be upsized to one gallon containers. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 7 of 10 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the Study Session regarding the City's demolition review process for historic resources: SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. STUDY SESSION: (4) Review, discuss and receive comments on the City's demolition review process for historic resources. • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, mmoshier(akcit o�ange.ora (714) 744 -7243 • DRC Action: No action. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented an overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained the three discussion topics before the Committee tonight. They include structures subject to the demolition review ordinance, the demolition review process, and unpermitted demolition. She stated that two emails were received by staff. The emails encouraged a robust demolition review process and penalties for unpermitted demolitions. The purpose of the study session is to receive the Committee's feedback and forward the feedback to the City Council which will ultimately provide direction on potential revisions to the Municipal Code. Public Comments: Tony Trabucco: • Enforcement should be much stronger including on issues like vinyl windows, solar panels, and lighting violations • Educating the public is important. • Mills Act contract penalties are huge costing 12.5% of the current market value of the property versus the penalty for tearing down the house which could cost $1,000. • Once applicants leave the DRC, there is no enforcement or penalties. There is a need for follow up. Jeff Frankel: • Current demolition ordinance has been ineffective with no consequences. • Current penalties are weak and have not been levied. • Current ordinance has no teeth and needs to be better defined. • Other cities have higher penalties. • Penalties can range from a 1 year stay and a $1,000 fine to an ordinance which requires a 5 year stay plus heavier fines that can include a percentage of the current assessed value of the building as well as multiplying the permit fees. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 8 of 10 • Like to see demolition definitions extend to historic garages and barns, and partial demolitions to porches, service porches and pop outs. • Should include all surveyed historic resources outside the historic district. • Request a reconstruction requirement per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards be put in place, and any relocation of a contributing structure be only considered as a last resort, if at all. • Demolition by neglect should be addressed as part of this ordinance and needs to be enforceable. • Some agencies have a certificate of appropriateness program that addresses demolition. • Any updates should satisfy CEQA requirements. Asked for clarification on whether CEQA addresses unpermitted demolitions. Bob Hitchcock: • Supports the staff recommendations. • Enforcement issue — Under the current code, no one is going to get much of a penalty unless convicted of a criminal misdemeanor. • Need to make people aware of the fact they can't demolish historic structures by making the code very clear and educating everyone to come to Planning before doing any work. • A penalty might deter people. • Ordinance should address potential properties not covered outside the district. • The biggest offenders of unpermitted demolition know the code, and will pay the fine. • Not in the realtors best interest to educate the buyers. Patrick McDermott: • Recommendations from the staff are right. • If this is the largest historic district in California, it should have the most robust penalties. Committee comments: The DRC asked questions of staff and discussed the following: • Structures subject to demolition review: • The DRC discussed applying the existing demolition review process to structures outside of the Old Towne historic districts that have been found eligible as historic resources through survey. These structures are not currently protected by the demolition review ordinance. The DRC recommended adding surveyed historic structures to the demolition review process to protect those known historic resources. • The DRC discussed the provisions of the demolition review ordinance that allow the Chief Building Official or Fire Chief to order a demolition to remedy conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health, or property. The DRC recommended that the code be changed to require the Chief Building Official or Fire Chief to make a determination that the condition of the structure constitutes an "emergency" or "imminent hazard" prior to demolition. • The DRC asked about the intersection of CEQA and demolition review. Ms. Le stated that demolition of structures identified as historic resources through survey (which currently do not undergo "demolition review ") do not automatically require CEQA review. The demolition review process is a discretionary process. If the code specified that structures surveyed as historic would undergo demolition review, they would also be subject to a CEQA review process. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 9 of 10 o Committee Member Imboden asked staff if demolition review would apply to accessory structures on surveyed historic properties outside of Old Towne. Ms. Moshier clarified that demolition review would apply to all structures on the property, including accessory structures. Demolition review process: • The DRC discussed the possibility of changing the review bodies that currently review demolitions in the historic district. Ms. Moshier explained that some types of structures that are proposed for demolition currently go to both the DRC and Planning Commission. The DRC recommended eliminating Planning Commission review for those projects where there is no significant adverse effect or no CEQA document, so that the demolition review process would stop at the DRC level for those projects. • The DRC asked staff if removal of character - defining features of the building would be subject to demolition review. Ms. Moshier clarified that staff considers partial demolition to be the removal of floor area, not removal of architectural features of the building. • The DRC briefly discussed what happens with demolition review after earthquakes or other catastrophic natural disasters. Unpermitted demolition: o The DRC expressed concern about property owners and contractors who do not ask before demolition and discussed opportunities for public education about the process for project review involving historic buildings. • The DRC recommended direct mailing, billboards or video to educate home owners and contractors about demolition review. • Committee Member Fox suggested the opportunity for the City to partner with the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), using OTPA's welcome packages to include educational information on the Old Towne Design Standards and requirements for alterations to historic buildings. • The DRC discussed the possibility of educating realtors and providing information to them to pass on to their clients. • The DRC discussed the possibility of a public access video feature made in collaboration with the City, OTPA, and Chapman University. • The DRC discussed the building permit delay included in the existing demolition review ordinance. The building permit delay might work for complete demolition of stand -alone properties, but it may not be effective for partial demolition. • The DRC discussed that prosecution for criminal penalties described in the existing code is difficult to enforce and recommended that fines should be included directly in the ordinance and should be levied outright, rather than relying on prosecution of criminal penalties. • The DRC discussed the possibility of requiring accurate reconstruction of historic portions of the building after an unpermitted demolition. • The DRC briefly discussed the challenge of reconstruction if there is no photographic evidence of the structure, particularly for partial demolition of the rear portions of a building. • Reconstruction of the structure could be used as an incentive to alleviate fines, if the reconstruction were completed within a set period of time. • The Committee was generally in favor of adding a reconstruction requirement to the demolition review ordinance and asked staff to research the feasibility of enforcing the reconstruction requirement. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 4, 2015 Page 10 of 10 o The DRC discussed the potential for additional penalties associated with unpermitted demolition. ■ The DRC recommended that the penalties be serious and significant to act as a deterrent. • If the fine were associated with the value of the property, it should be based on the appraised value, not the assessed value. • The DRC discussed the possibility of an appeal process for the fines for financial hardship. • The DRC discussed the possibility of different fines for complete versus partial demolition. • Committee Member Fox mentioned that fines could be a percentage increase in building permit fees and that the fines could be used to fund preservation programs including awareness /education programs. • The DRC compared the penalties currently included in the demolition review ordinance with the penalties for noncompliance with a Mills Act Contract which are 12.5% of the fair market value of the property. ■ Committee Member Imboden asked staff whether accidental collapses would be considered unpermitted demolition. Ms. Moshier clarified that an accidental collapse would be considered an unpermitted demolition. The DRC asked staff to consider how to communicate best professional practices to avoid accidental collapses. Committee Member Imboden also discussed the need for additional guidance on protection of historic buildings during relocation. ■ The DRC recommended higher fines for unpermitted demolitions and requested that staff research the specifics of how other cities determine fines for unpermitted demolitions. o The DRC briefly talked about the possibility for a demolition by neglect ordinance and requested a separate study session to discuss the possibility of developing such an ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on March 18, 2015. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.