Loading...
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.