Loading...
2016-02-03 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack - Chair Carol Fox — Vice Chair Robert Imboden Anne McDermott Craig Wheeler February 3, 2016 Staff in Attendance: Robert Garcia, Senior Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:17 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. Mr. Garcia asked the Committee Members if they would be available for a special DRC meeting on February 24th to discuss the Santiago Hills II project. The Committee indicated they would be available. Mr. Garcia said an email would be sent to the Committee Members to follow up and verify the Committee Members' availability. Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for December 16, 2015. Committee Member McDermott asked about the railing installed at Watson's, which was not what the DRC had approved; questioned the revisions seen at the Victory Diner; and stated that her husband had been nominated and elected to serve on the OTPA Board. Committee Member Imboden had been contacted by Doug Ely regarding the railing on 615 East Chapman. Ms. Moshier was aware of the revised railing proposal and she said a mockup of the railing would be returning to the DRC for approval. 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 MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Regular Session — 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present. COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Committee Member Imboden made a motion to elect Committee Member Fox as the Chair: AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Carol Fox Committee Member Fox made a motion to elect Committee Member Wheeler as the Vice Chair: AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott NOES: None ABSTAIN: Craig Wheeler 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: December 16, 2015 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of December 16, 2015 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Carol Fox MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 3 of 9 AGENDA ITEMS Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4798 -15 Raising Cane's • Final review of landscape and lighting plans. • 2249 N. Tustin Street • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714- 744 -7223, kribuffoAcityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. The project was returning to the DRC for approval of updated landscape, lighting and planting plans. She stated the proposed blue dog artwork had been withdrawn by the applicant. The applicants who were present for this project were Phil Schanberger, Jack Kiesel, and Mario Tutino. 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: • Asked what was currently installed on the project site. • Questioned the difference between the two plans because the lighting analysis on the landscape plan was not coordinated with the other plan. • Noted the applicant did not have an approved photometric based on the field install. • Concerned with the placement of the tree and lights on the SW corner of the property. • Did not understand the use of black concrete when the point was to have white concrete so the drivers could see that that was a place for pedestrians to cross. Did not make sense to have the concrete and asphalt the same color. • Questioned the striping on the driveway. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve DRC No. 4798 -15, Raising Cane's, based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. The walkway from the public right -of -way crossing the asphalt drive aisle shall be changed to natural concrete in the area that crosses the drive aisle to match in color and finish the concrete that is connecting the walkway to the drive aisle. 2. The walkway access from the north parking area across the queuing lane shall be changed to natural concrete to match color and finish of the back patio per the original approved landscape plans. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 4 of 9 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to a Study Session regarding the South Grand Street Study: 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 February 3, 2016 Page 5 of 9 STUDY SESSION; (3) Review, discuss and receive comments on the recommendations of the South Grand Street Study. • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, mmoshier(ir),cityoforange.org (714) 744 -7243 • DRC Action: No action. Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented an overview consistent with the Staff Report. She explained that staff was asking for the DRC's comments on what the best format would be to incorporate 6 issues from the South Grand Street Study into the updated Design Standards. The issues included Old Towne Site and Context Assessment Form /Historic District Project Database, Floor Area Ratio and Compatible New Development; Bulk Angle; Parking; Building Separation; and Design Standards Related to New Residential Construction. Chair McCormack opened the Study Session for discussion. Old Towne Site and Context Assessment Form /Historic District Project Database • The Old Towne Site and Context Assessment Form looked like a very helpful form. • Asked if applicants currently fill the form out. • Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, asked if this was in line with a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Moshier explained that the form was for viewing information on the street scene and what might be appropriate for compatible new construction within the streetscape. • Asked if a Certificate of Appropriateness was to be used that it be included in the DRC staff report. • Ms. Moshier explained that under the current Design Standards there are levels of design review where some items automatically go to the DRC and others are delegated to staff for review. At the staff level, there is currently no application process and the updated Design Standards would include an application process, similar to a Certificate of Appropriateness in other cities. • Not sure if all the information on the form was necessary on every project. • Thought all the information being requested on the form should be in the Design Standards or somewhere accessible to the public. • Thought the "Good Neighbor Considerations" section was a good idea on the form. • Proposed having a separate application packet for Old Towne and the form would be included in it. • Thought the form would help the staff to do their job by having the applicants acknowledge some of the potential issues from the beginning. • The form would make it easier for the architects to design projects. • Asked how often the "DRC Approved Development in Old Towne" map was updated. Floor Area Ratio and Compatible New Development and Bulk Angle • Against the idea of using the lot coverage because the applicant might want 35% on upper and lower floors and it would look like a box. The FAR does a better job of addressing the overall site. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 6 of 9 • The Committee has been looking at 0.42 FAR as a recommendation overall FAR but that number is not included in the code or the recommendations of the Grand Street Study. • Asked what the objection was for having an overall FAR limit. Ms. Moshier said there is an overall limit for all zoning districts in the municipal code. She explained that the study did not cover R3 or R4 zones in the Historic District and staff had concerns about applying the FAR number to zones that have not been studied. • Suggested for the R1 and R2 zones to have an overall FAR and not just lot coverage. • Mr. Frankel thought the result of the Grand Street Study data was a 0.42 FAR. • Noted that 0.42 FAR was potentially the threshold where anything above that threatened the historic development pattern. • Thought the bulk angle was based on an arbitrary height and angle. • Asked whether the bulk angle was going to be taken from 6' or 10' above grade. • Objected to the bulk angle because many existing historic homes in Orange would not meet that requirement. It would discourage people from having raised foundations and roof overhangs. • Objected to using bulk angle because it was a very prescriptive approach. • Bulk angle is inappropriate for almost all historic styles and the recommendations should go back to the FAR because FAR is more flexible. • Discussed the possibility of using FAR as a recommendation. • Concerned that the end result of the bulk angle would be to reduce the desire for raised floors by using slab floors instead which was not the direction they wanted to go. • Mr. Frankel thought 0.40 FAR was a good number for Old Towne. • Ms. Moshier voiced her concern for an overall FAR number. Staff does not have the data for analysis of overall FAR averages for the district as a whole and it is unknown how this would impact development potential, especially in the multifamily zones. • Suggested making .42 not a hard, fast requirement but make it clear in the documents that it was a recommendation or guideline. Ms. Moshier explained it is a challenge because it is a development standard that is codified in the zoning code. Ms. Roseberry explained the need for a good analysis by a consultant and the tools that would be needed to meet the preservation goals. Is FAR the only way to meet those goals or are there other ways? • Suggested using the words "should be a 0.42 FAR ". Ms. Roseberry said using "should" would contradict the required maximum of the zoning code. • It is difficult using a fixed maximum number because there are times it may be possible to design a compatible project outside of that maximum. • If the FAR number is not used, where does that leave them? Ms. Moshier said it leaves them with the revised design standard that more clearly addresses the issues of mass, scale, compatible design for additions and new construction. • Did not want to forget that Council had directed staff to incorporate 35% lot coverage maximum into the design standards once before, so it is not impossible. • Did not want to lose track of the objective that they are trying to preserve streetscape and historic buildings. • Ms. Roseberry wants to be sure they have all the tools and not just the FAR as the tool. The design standards are being rewritten, rather than amended. • Mr. Frankel thought in the past staff has compared the proposed project to a context study of the surrounding area and recommended that you can't compare inappropriate past development to new projects on historic properties. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 7 of 9 • Found it different in working with properties with alleys where you could get more density. • Asked if an encouraged number could be set. Ms. Roseberry recommended that it should be within the realm of the average for the context. • Would prefer a theoretical threshold that is based on the context or averages of an area instead of a fixed maximum. • Concerned with the amount of pavement on some of the historic properties that have alleys. • Concerned with open space and lot coverage in which some properties have so much lot coverage there is no open space even though it may not affect the streetscape. • Another tool could be by determining open space. Ms. Moshier said they can talk about appropriate side yard and front yard setbacks; and appropriate landscaping for the streetscape. • Ms. Moshier said that front and side yard recommendations related to landscape and paving could be worked into the Design Standards in sections that cover open space by saying it shall be appropriately landscaped in a palette that is compatible with the Historic District. • Suggested having a maximum percentage of hardscape used for vehicles. • Suggested getting more wording into the tools so that open space can be more viable since the usage of numbers is hitting a roadblock. • Asked if there was a 35% lot coverage maximum, could the design standards not include a percentage of open space that isn't hardscape and put some parameters on landscape? Ms. Moshier said it would still end up as an amendment to the zoning code. • With a maximum lot coverage of 35 %, it would require more open space at ground level which is not going to change the area of the second story and won't solve the bulk and mass. • Another thought was where a wall plane does not exceed a certain length with a break would there be a way to get that worded so it could apply vertically as well. • Did not like arbitrary setback requirements. • Did not want second stories to exceed first story floor area. • Would like applicants to come forward knowing their project is out of context and having them explain why it should be allowed. • With the 35% lot coverage maximum, which is justified by the study, recommended have wording in the design standards about the FAR compared to the context for a proposed project. • Should be made clear that Old Towne is special and the FARs that are applied everywhere else in the City do not apply in Old Towne. Parking • Asked what the difference was between a carport and trellis. Ms. Moshier said a trellis could be a carport but a carport was not always a trellis. • Carport designs have to be appropriate and compatible with the historic district. • Not opposed to adding a carport to an existing garage that is designed correctly which would allow keeping the historic garage and would not encourage storage in the enclosed garage. • Have to define what the appropriate carport would be in materials and location. • This would be a place to define acceptable carports. If they are anchored in place they would be considered a structure. • Questioned attaching garages to a historic residence. Mr. Frankel felt this was inappropriate. • Carports, if designed well, could be attached to a historic structure. • Concerned with increased pavement on projects. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 8 of 9 • Discussed landscaping requirements on the side yard and the large number of ribbon driveways in the historic district. • Suggested saying that driveways cannot touch the side yard fence. • Would like to see in the future that side yards do not count for open space or landscape area. • Thought the side yard should have the 10' minimum. Mr. Garcia said this would require a code amendment to the zoning code. • Ms. Moshier explained that what they are looking for in the Design Standards are standards and guidelines that are going to protect the character of the historic district. • Suggested requiring a certain size planter between the side yard property line and the driveway and not allow paving the driveway to the property line. Ms. Moshier indicated there could be language put in the Design Standards about planting the side yard to help break up the paving from the driveway. • Concerned with new additions and larger garages in the back of residences which require more paving. • Concerned when the driveway is running to the back of the house that it is not right along the side of the house the entire length. • Questioned #7 which states "Parking areas should be located at the rear of the site and should be screened from public view by appropriate fencing or planting strips ". Wanted that worded differently because of the potential use of a vast sea of concrete in the backyard. Ms. Moshier said this was where the Design Standards come in with language that states that rear and side yards shall be appropriately landscaped to match the character of Old Towne and the style of the structure. • Suggested limiting the driveway to 12' and with a minimum backup space. Building Separation • Wanted existing conditions having less than 10' separation to be grandfathered and an exception should be made to existing garages which would not have to comply for additions to that structure. • Would prefer to limit the bulk and mass of the buildings as opposed to the building separation. • Concerned with the overdeveloped lots. • Wanted to leave the requirements for building separation to the existing building and zoning codes. • Suggested having a minimum 10' open space in the Old Towne R1 zone which would encourage a bigger separation. Ms. Moshier said it was only the R1 zone that did not have a minimum dimension for usable open space and this most likely would not be an issue in the R1 zone. Design Standards Related to New Residential Construction • Second story additions to one story buildings are inappropriate. It should be considered that there would be conversion of existing attic space in a 1 1 /2 story building. • If something is new then there is the rule that the half story can be no more than 60% of the square footage of the ground floor for 1'/2 story buildings but there shouldn't be a limit on how much attic space in a historic house can be converted. • Ms. Moshier stated from the zoning code that within Old Towne the habitable space of a 1 1 /2 story building for the expansion of existing structures or new construction shall not exceed 60% of the gross floor area of the floor below. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2016 Page 9 of 9 • Questioned the infill construction definition. • Suggested this would be a good place to talk about attached garages in the design standards • Suggested saying driveways should not be widened beyond what is minimally required. • Questioned if all required parking has to be paved as opposed to DG or gravel. Ms. Moshier said she would have a conversation with Public Works to see what the options are. • Questioned the ordinance that triggers two -car garages with an addition. Ms. Moshier said the ordinance for single family houses has an exemption for up to a 500 sq. ft. addition. A variance would be required if adding more than 500 sq. ft. • Concerned that people in Old Towne have to jump thru a hoop to save an old garage. Ms. Moshier explained that with the 500 sq. ft. limit there is a built -in incentive for people to remain below the 500 sq. ft. and not have to go through the variance process for a two -car garage. Ms. Moshier announced the study session on accessory structures which was scheduled for March 2" has been moved to March 16 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 17, 2016. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.