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.