2015-10-21 DRC Final MinutesI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES — FINAL
Committee Members Present:
Tim McCormack - Chair
Carol Fox — Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Anne McDermott
Craig Wheeler
October 21, 2015
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m.
Chair McCormack inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia,
Senior Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, followed up on a discussion from the
previous meeting about study sessions regarding alternate materials. She thought it would be useful
to have a couple of study sessions to discuss topics related to the Design Standards. She was putting
together a schedule and list of topics that she would bring to the Committee at the next
Administrative Session. She asked the Committee to be thinking about topics they would like to
discuss.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for October 7, 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, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 2 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
''2
-3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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: October 7, 2015
Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meeting of October 7, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 3 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
'2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
A
45
46
AGENDA ITEMS
New Agenda Items:
(2) DRC No. 4777 -14 — University Food Mart & Gas
• The applicant proposes to remodel an existing service station and convenience store in the
Old Towne Historic District. On September 2, 2015, the DRC approved the building, canopy
and hardscape designs with the condition that the landscape design for the planting material,
the building, canopy and awning color scheme, and the lighting design return to the DRC for
final determination prior to issuance of a building permit.
• 480 N. Glassell Street, 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. She explained that the project was returning for approval of the landscape
design; building, canopy, and awning color schemes; and lighting design prior to the issuance of the
building permit. She described the proposed changes.
The applicants who were present for this project were Fred Cohen and Ali Yeganeh.
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:
• Questioned what lights were replacing the gooseneck light fixtures. Mr. Cohen said there
would be LED lights underneath the building eaves.
• Liked the gray awning material.
• Asked that it be clarified on the arches on the side elevations that the color change occurs at
the inside corner.
• Questioned the spear tip style of the brackets and thought it was out of place. Mr. Cohen said
they could make it a ball tip.
• Preferred the light fixtures be painted black.
• Concerned with how the LED light locations under the eaves would coordinate with the
arches and wanted to see them relate to the awnings.
• Questioned how the lights were mounted under the eaves. Mr. Cohen drew on the plans how
the lights would be mounted.
• Questioned the illumination and material of the signage. Mr. Cohen said they preferred
bronze but were using aluminum to comply with the conditions of approval.
• Suggested using continuous lighting mounted under the fascia so there would be no hot spots
on the awnings.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 4 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
• Concerned with the freestanding lights because they were not consistent with the building
and they were not historic. Suggested making them black and choosing another light style.
The Committee chose a light fixture called Constitution.
• Concerned with the trim color and wanted it changed to gray. The Committee chose
Requisite Gray SW7023.
• Concerned that the landscaping plans still showed Rhaphiolepis `Pinkie' which stays very
small. Preferred the Rhaphiolepis `Clara' which gets bigger.
• Suggested rearranging the Sedge grass around the parking spaces.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4777 -14, University Food Mart &
Gas, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional
conditions:
1. The Sedge that was shown at the head of the parking spaces on the west property line shall be
moved to the side of the parallel spaces on the South.
2. The trim color shall be Requisite Gray SW7023.
3. The color change between the body and the trim color on the arches shall take place on the
interior corner and not the exterior corner.
4. Strip lights shown under the barge on the front elevation shall be either continuous or if not
continuous, they shall be symmetrical around the ridge. The fixtures shall be mounted on the
back of the fascia or as close as possible.
5. The spear ends shown on the awning supports shall be removed or replaced by balls.
6. The freestanding light fixtures shall be black and changed from the selection shown to the
style described as Constitution.
7. On the north elevation the lights shall be centered over the arches.
SECOND: Carol Fox
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 5 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
45
46
47
(3) DRC No. 4820 -15 — Brawley Residence
• The applicant proposes to demolish a 305 square foot rear addition to a historic single family
residence and to construct a new 613 square foot addition in its place. The applicant also
proposes to construct a new two car garage at the rear of the property.
• 327 S. Cambridge Street
• 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 explained that based on the evaluation in the City's Historic Resources
Survey, the property was eligible for and received a Mills Act Contract in 2005. This project was
before the Design Review Committee because the property has a Mills Act Contract even though the
property was outside the Old Towne historic district. She stated the applicant had provided
information that shows that the one story portion of the building was not a contributing feature and
staff was not in agreement with that assessment.
The applicants who were present for this project were Ester Brawley, John Roehl, Michael Williams,
and Daniel Ryan.
Ms. Brawley talked about her motivation and what her goals were. She described the restoration
work needed and how she inherited the Mills Act contract when she bought the home. She said the
motivation for the addition was to have an accessible bedroom and bathroom downstairs. She
preferred not to modify the farmhouse.
Mr. Ryan explained in July that Anna Pehoushek recommended taking the project to the DRC for
preliminary review. At that time he had found another project almost identical outside the historic
district on South Cambridge that was four times bigger and was only subject to the residential infill
guidelines and was approved in a day. He was told by staff that the addition had historical
significance and the project had to be redesigned or hire a historic consultant to determine the
historical significance of the addition.
Ms. Brawley stated she had tried to submit her application in January and the City refused to accept
her application and once again in September.
Mr. Williams, who would be doing the construction on the project, read an email he had received
from Anna Pehoushek. He explained how he had looked at the addition to determine if it was a
historic structure. He thought the addition was built after the structure was moved.
Mr. Ryan wanted to understand how the City made their decision to deny the project. He explained
how it had taken 9 months for the application to be accepted for a simple expansion. Mr. Ryan
distributed written materials to the committee. He made the following additional comments:
• Property was not eligible to be a local landmark.
• He had responded to staff s opinion against the facts that the addition was constructed in
1950.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 6 of 9
1 • The addition was not historically contributing.
2 • The CDD Director had determined that any Mills Act property including additions and
3 accessory structures on the site are deemed historically significant.
4 • Wanted to address the issues as to the design.
5 • Discussed the National Park Service technical information as the basis for determining that
6 the 1950s addition could not be considered significant.
7 * Indicated the project meets the infill design standards outside the historic district and the
8 expansion did not exceed 20% of the size of the existing house.
9 • City received a full analysis in February as to what was contributing and non - contributing on
10 the building along with a complete environmental analysis.
11 • To expedite the project, Mr. Ryan had drafted a staff report.
12 • Wanted to focus on the National Park Service information.
13 • Understood, according to the residential infill guidelines, City staff has the authority for
14 projects located outside of Old Towne to make a full determination of additions.
15 • He had provided information why the proposed addition should not be denied and why it
16 meets all the requirements.
17 • He explained the design details.
18 • He explained that the closest historical building was 500 feet away and that this new addition
19 was in the back.
20
21 Committee Member Imboden stated they would like to hear only about the assessment of when this
_2 addition was built. He questioned Mr. Ryan's statements on the eligibility of the property for a Mills
23 Act Contract and Mr. Ryan indicated it appeared it would be eligible for a contract.
24
25 Ms. Brawley asked if they had to clarify why the structure was not significant and what was needed
26 from them. Ms. Moshier stated the findings the applicant was requesting the DRC make were first
27 that the rear portion of the building was a non - contributing element and that demolition of that
28 portion would not have a negative impact to the historic resource; and second, that the new addition
29 was in conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and the Old Towne Design
30 Standards.
31
32 The Committee asked the applicant why they felt the addition was not historic. Ms. Brawley
33 discussed the 1950s permit that showed when the building was moved. Mr. Ryan thought there was
34 evidence to show that the addition was added after the building was moved. The Committee
35 Members stated they could not make that assessment with the information provided, and having a
36 preliminary review would have been a big help months ago. A historical report was needed to
37 support the applicant's claim.
38
39 It was noted that Mr. Ryan had contacted Committee Members Fox and Imboden prior to this
40 meeting.
41
42 Mr. Ryan reviewed the information he had just given the Committee regarding the "Standards for
43 Evaluating Additions to Historic Properties" by Linda McClelland. Committee Member Imboden
4 asked if Mr. Ryan had a period of significance that he would like to assert that would help the
45 Committee evaluate the claim that he was making. Committee Member Fox was concerned that they
46 did not have proof as to when the addition was built and it could have been from the period of
47 significance.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 7 of 9
1
2 Ms. Brawley questioned her options. Does she do an assessment showing the addition was not built
3 before 1940 or does she have to alter her plans? Ms. Moshier explained that she has two options: 1)
4 a historic resource assessment was needed from a qualified historic preservation consultant that
5 would establish the period of significance for this property and would evaluate the contributing
6 elements; or 2) redesign the addition to get the square footage they are looking for while retaining
7 the hip roof portion of the building. Staff had suggested one option of placing a light transparent
8 hyphen between the structures.
9
10 Mr. Ryan stated the question concerned whether the structure had integrity. He was concerned that
11 the City had redesignated this property without authorization and they were putting it on the owners
12 to determine the age of the addition.
13
14 Committee Member Fox thought Mr. Ryan was trying to discredit the property as historic but that
15 would invalidate the Mills Act.
16
17 Mr. Roehl voiced his frustration and thought if the Committee could see the little portion they are
18 talking about they would be convinced it was only 40 or 50 years old. They just wanted to improve
19 the structure. Mr. Williams added they wanted to restore contributing structures if they are
20 contributing and he had no doubt that this was not even built close to 1940. He wanted to help the
21 applicants move forward.
''2
-3 Public Comments
24
25 Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
26
27 Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
28
29 The DRC had the following comments:
30 • Questioned the foundation of the new and old structures and thought this was the kind of
31 information that should be in an assessment report.
32 • Concerned that the Committee could not make an assessment and determination as to when
33 the addition was built with the information provided.
34 • Noted that there was a permit issued in 1954 for siding but the report on the siding of the hip
35 roof addition was very similar to the siding on the original house. Ms. Brawley explained
36 that the original owner died in 1952 and the new owners put the asbestos siding on in 1954.
37 • Questioned that there was a permit for moving it and for the asbestos siding but no permit for
38 the construction of the addition which could indicate it was done much earlier.
39 • There was a real question that this structure was built earlier than 1950.
40 • Questioned if the age was unknown would you err on the side of historic significance. Ms.
41 Moshier said there should be enough information for a professional to analyze, and come to a
42 determination on the contributing elements.
43 • Noted the other option would be to keep the structure and do the addition around it.
'4 • Noted there was no time to evaluate all the information just given to the Committee and they
45 need clear information that there was evidence to support because they have a compelling
46 report from staff.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 8 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
• Noted the property was outside the Historic District by a few feet but has the Mills Act which
was why they are before the DRC.
• Suggested a direction the applicant might go, assuming the hip roof was historic, by making
a narrow connection between the existing addition and the new addition. Also there could be
a possibility of an attached garage with a 2 nd story. Ms. Moshier said that would have to be
looked at in terms of mass and location on the lot and would still need to meet the same
findings that would be made in Old Towne.
• More information was needed in order to tear the structure down and if it was found to not be
significant then the doors would be open. If they wanted to save money, the Committee
suggested keeping the hip roof and tie into it. The Committee was not opposed to coming
closer to the alley.
• Explained the importance of getting a truly qualified firm or individual to evaluate the
property.
• If the rear were found significant, the applicants could still do a reasonable addition.
• It was the applicant's responsibility to provide the DRC with evidence as to the lack of
historical significance of the addition.
• Have to accept the blessing and burden of the Mills Act.
• Recommended taking a step back and looking at the project with a fresh set of eyes.
Consider if it was worth doing the assessment or look at an addition that follows the
guidelines.
• Mentioned that it would be important for the DRC to see on the future plans where existing
windows are to remain or to be changed out. Also there needs to be differentiation between
old and new on the plans to comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
Mr. Williams asked if there needed to be a height difference between the existing addition and the
new one. Committee Member Wheeler noted the shed roof was not historic so that height could be
taken into consideration for a new design.
William Crouch, Community Development Director, stated that the information given to the
applicants at this meeting was the same information staff had provided previously.
The Committee suggested the applicants propose some different options for an addition and come
back to the DRC for preliminary review.
Committee Member Fox made a motion to continue DRC No. 4820 -15, Brawley Residence, based
on the discussion to a date uncertain:
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2015
Page 9 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on November 4, 2015.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.