2015-12-02 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
December 2, 2015
Committee Members Present:
Committee Member Absent:
Carol Fox — Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Anne McDermott
Craig Wheeler
Tim McCormack - Chairi
Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Vice Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:07 p.m.
Vice Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Robert Garcia, Senior
Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for November 18, 2015.
Committee Member McDermott asked for an update on the Watson's project since an appeal of the
Conditional Use Permit was going to be heard by the City Council and she wanted to know if the
appeal would affect any of the exterior changes the DRC had previously approved. Marissa
Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, explained that it would not because it was a City
Council appeal that was brought against the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Type 47
alcohol license, which was processed separately from the DRC project.
Committee Member Fox announced she would not be attending the next DRC meeting on December
16, 2015.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 2 of 9
Regular Session — 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Member McCormack 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: November 18, 2015
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
Committee meeting of November 18, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND:
Robert Imboden
AYES:
Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Tim McCormack
Note: Committee Member Wheeler had recused himself from The Wall Signage item heard at the
November 18, 2015 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 3 of 9
AGENDA ITEM
New Agenda Item:
(2) DRC No. 4819 -15 — 338 N. Glassell Street
• A proposal to demolish a non - contributing shed at the rear of the property.
• 338 N. Glassell Street
• Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714 - 744 -7223, kribuffo(a,cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Final Determination
Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She
explained the only additional item staff recommended was that there be a little more significant
landscaping around the picnic area.
The applicant who was present for this project was Kris Olsen. He described the poor construction
of the shed. He stated he was not in agreement with Condition 2 of the staff report which would
require additional landscaping where the proposed picnic bench would be located. He explained the
location of the decomposed granite pad was under a significant ficus tree which would hinder the
growth of plants as well as being mindful of the drought.
Public Comments
Vice Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. Jeff Frankel, address on file, stated he
had met with Mr. Olsen on the site and agreed with the proposal to demolish the detached garage
since it appeared it was built outside the period of significance.
Vice Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The Committee agreed that the
ficus tree was a significant size and did not see the need for more landscaping. Also it did not
appear that there was any historic significance with the structure and it was within the City
Ordinance to demolish it.
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4819 -15, 338 N. Glassell Street
project, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the exception that
Condition #2 in the staff report, concerning additional landscaping, be deleted:
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 4 of 9
Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to a Study Session regarding policies on the
use of alternate materials in the City's historic districts:
SECOND:
Craig Wheeler
AYES:
Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 5 of 9
STUDY SESSION:
(3) Review, discuss and receive comments on policies related to the use of alternate materials on
historic buildings, additions to historic buildings, and new construction in the City's historic
districts.
• Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, mmoshiergcityoforange.ora (714) 744 -7243
• DRC Action: No action.
Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, explained that public comments made
during the study session could be in the same format as those heard during regular meetings.
Ms. Moshier presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained the 3
discussion topics she would be covering during the study session. She discussed the suggested
preliminary language for the update to the Design Standards for consideration and was requesting
input from the Design Review Committee.
Vice Chair Fox opened the Study Session for discussion.
Issue 1: Use of Alternate Materials for Repairs to Historic Building
Historic materials shall be repaired, rather than replaced. If the historic material is too
deteriorated to be repaired, it shall be replaced in -kind. The in -kind replacement shall match the
material, design, profile, texture and color of the historic feature.
Replacement of a historic material with an alternate material may be considered in limited
circumstances. The proposed alternate material will be evaluated using the criteria described in
National Park Service Preservation Brief 16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building
Exteriors. The applicant will provide justification for the use of an alternate material, including
information on the availability and performance of an in -kind replacement material. The applicant
will also provide samples and specifications of the proposed alternate material, including
information on performance and durability.
The following comments were made on Issue 1 by the Committee:
• Suggested discriminating between residential and other uses such as commercial and
industrial because residential properties may have historic materials that are easier to replace
in -kind than other types of buildings.
• Another suggestion was to not distinguish between residential and other uses because historic
significance of the materials is divorced from the use of the property. The use of alternate
materials would be the last resort.
• Noted that certain types of historic materials, such as millwork, are still readily available.
• Every effort should be made to use the in -kind materials on historic properties.
• Ms. Moshier explained the addition of the National Park Service Preservation Brief 16 in
considering the use of alternate materials.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 6 of 9
• Alternate materials can only be used when in -kind materials are not available. The brief also
mentions using alternate materials when the craftsmanship is not available and if in -kind
materials would cause deterioration to adjacent historic materials.
• Would like to see more Preservation Briefs incorporated into the design standards.
• Alternate materials have to match the attributes of the historic materials.
• Suggested adding the terms "reflectivity" and "durability" to the description of the in -kind
material.
• Glad to see the addition that the applicant would provide samples and specifications. The
drawings have to be very specific in the product that is being used for the DRC to make a
decision on compatibility.
Public Comment by Jeff Frankel; Old Towne Preservation Association:
• Said it was a good idea to include the NPS Preservation Brief.
• Agreed with the Committee's comments that historic structures must use in -kind materials
unless they are unavailable.
• If someone is replacing a wood window, it has to match.
Issue 2: Use of Alternate Materials on Additions to Historic Buildinis
Additions to historic buildings shall use traditional building materials that are present on the
existing historic building and comparable historic buildings in the Historic District. New building
materials may differ from the historic materials in size, scale, or profile; however, the texture color
and detailing of new building materials on an addition should match the historic building, in order
to be considered compatible.
The following comments were made on Issue 2 by the Committee:
• Concerned with the statement that the materials of additions should match and thought it
could go either way. Could use a different material for an addition but it still would need to
be compatible.
• Committee has taken a different direction from the Secretary of Interior's Standards in that
the Secretary's Standards considers that a more contemporary style may also be compatible
with the historic building.
• Suggested a building with wood siding could have an addition with wood shingles that would
not read as contemporary. There are opportunities to use a slightly different material that is
still compatible.
• Properties on the Mills Act have the obligation of following the Secretary of Interior's
Standards along with Old Towne Design Standards.
• Suggested, in the updated paragraph, getting rid of the word "match" and just have it say
"compatible ".
• Ms. Moshier explained it would be helpful when helping customers at the counter to provide
them with some guidance of the kinds of materials they should consider when they are
constructing an addition. Staff recommends using materials that were available when the
structure was first constructed with the understanding that there needs to be some
differentiation between the historic building and the addition. It would be helpful if the
design standards could let people know the options that are available to them and there are
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 7 of 9
different ways to put in -kind materials together to make them compatible. Staff needs
guidance in directing people away from the use of alternate materials on additions.
• Suggested instead of saying new building material should match the historic building, it
should say that new materials on additions should be of the period or style of the historic
building.
• Questioned why the Design Standards prohibited wood shingles.
• Concerned with uninformed applicants and the need for competent consultants. Recommend
informational workshops for designers and contractors working in Old Towne.
Public Comment by Jeff Frankel:
• Additions should not match and the "must match" language should be changed.
• There should be consistency between the Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior's
Standards.
• The materials on additions of historic structure should be authentic materials.
Issue 3: Use of Alternate Materials on Non- Contributine Buildings and New Infill
Construction.
The use of traditional building materials found on historic buildings in the Historic District is
encouraged for non - contributing buildings and new construction. Proposed exterior materials shall
be compatible with the size, scale, design, texture and color of historic materials used on
comparable buildings in the Historic District. Alternates to traditional building materials may be
considered, if the alternate material is compatible with the design and appearance of comparable
features on historic buildings.
The following comments were made on Issue 3 by the Committee:
• In terms of detached structures, it does not have to be the same material as long as it is
compatible.
• New construction did not have to match the design of the primary structure.
• Mass, scale and design are separate issues from use of materials.
• In some cases, use of alternate material, such as hardie board, may be appropriate.
• Concerned with using materials that are not durable in the long term. For example, not using
custom milled redwood siding and having deteriorating problems within a few years with an
alternate material.
• Thought the proposed language of this issue was worded well.
• Questioned Appendix B which has been a part of the current Design Standards. Ms. Moshier
explained those items will be written into the body of the revised Design Standards.
Public Comment by Jeff Frankel:
• Noted the materials listed in the staff report on decks, windows, and doors. Wants to stay
away from vinyl, composite decking on historic resources, and plastic materials.
• Should not separate in -fill buildings that are on historic lots versus a new stand -alone
building and should be reviewed the same way as far as materials are concerned.
• Not appropriate to put a steel door on a historic structure just because it was on the rear
elevation.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 8 of 9
• Fencing needs to be further defined than it currently is.
Additional Committee comments:
• Discussed Committee Member Wheeler's list of materials as a starting point.
• Considered changes in technology that may produce alternate materials that are acceptable in
the future.
• Concerned with the deterioration of alternate materials, such as vinyl fences versus wood or
brick materials that could be repaired.
• Ms. Moshier said staff would recommend against trying to create a complete matrix of
materials for applicants because it would be difficult to implement at the front counter if a
new material became available. She thought a list could be used as a guideline and not an
ordinance so it may be updated regularly.
• A simplified version of Committee Member Wheeler's list would be helpful.
• The Committee Members had a general consensus that vinyl fences should not be allowed.
• Discussed what some communities outlaw, such as vinyl fences.
• Mr. Garcia suggested that the Committee Members provide feedback to Ms. Moshier on
Committee Member Wheeler's list.
• Recommended addressing the following issues in the Design Standards update:
• Paving alternates, such as brick or pavers on sidewalks and driveways.
• Treatment of historic hardscape features.
• Other features such as use of brick or cultured stone on porch stairs.
• Addressed the treatment of parkways especially with the drought conditions. Ms. Moshier
has been discussing this issue with the City's landscape coordinator as to what can be done in
these areas in the historic district.
Additional Public Comment by Mr. Frankel:
• Wanted the materials of garage doors addressed.
• Thought vinyl fences are never appropriate on historic properties.
• Replacement of existing walkways should be addressed and the original design and material
should be maintained.
Ms. Moshier stated the next study session would be addressing the Grand Street Study at the first
DRC meeting in February.
No action required
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2015
Page 9 of 9
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design
Review Committee meeting on December 16, 2015.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: Tim McCormack
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m.