2017-06-21 DRC Final Minutes 1 CITY OF ORANGE
2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3 MINUTES - FINAL
4 June 21, 2017
5 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair
6 Tim McCormack
7 Carol Fox
g Anne McDermott
9
10 Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner
11 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
12 Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner—Historic Preservation
13 Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
14
15 Administrative Session—5:00
� 16
i 17 Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:16 p.m.
18
� 19 Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Principal
20 Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
� 21
� 22 Kelly Ribuffo,Associate Planner,informed the committee that the Villa Park Orchards Packing House
23 discussion had been scheduled for the July Sth meeting. In this meeting staff would be looking for a
24 recommendation for approval to the Community Development Director.
25
26 Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for June 7, 2017
27
28 Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
� 29 Committee meeting.
; 30
I 31 SECOND: Anne McDermott
32 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
� 33 NOES: None
34 ABSENT: None
i 35
' 36 MOTION CARRIED.
; 37
i 38 Administrative Session adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
39
i
� �; -��
.. F
.����.�
i
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 2 of 9
'�`°�� � 1 Regular Session—5:42 p.m.
2
3 ROLL CALL:
4
5 All Committee Members were present.
6
( 7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
�
� g
i 9 Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed
' 10 on the Agenda.
� 11
; 12 There were no speakers.
13
� 14 CONSENT ITEMS:
� 15
� 16 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 7,2017
17
18 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review
19 Committee meeting of June 7, 2017 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session.
' 20
I 21 SECOND: Tim McCormack
22 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, and Anne McDermott
23 NOES: None
24 ABSENT: None
25 ABSTAIN: None
i 26
I 2� MOTION CARRIED.
�
28
� 29
30
i 31
' 32
� 33
; 34
; 35
' 36
� 37
i 38
; 39
� 40
I 41
E 42 a
; 43
�
44
� 45
46
47
48
I
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2417
Page 3 of 9
1 AGENDA ITEMS
2
3 Continued Items: None
4
5 New Agenda Items:
6
7 (2) Study Session on Draft Update to Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne
8 • A study session to review and discuss the draft update to the Historic Preservation Design
9 Standards for Old Towne. This is the first of multiple meetings with the Design Review
10 Committee to review the draft update. The study session covers the first half of the document
" ll from the introduction through the Standards for Historic Building Features, pages 1-26. The
12 remainder of the document will be reviewed during a separate study session.
13 • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�cityoforan�g
14 • DRC Action: Study Session—No action required
15
16
17 Chair Imboden clarified for the record that the presented standards were a draft and the present meeting
18 would not be a final determination. The format of the meeting would allow for public comment. After
19 each section was covered, the committee planned to take questions and comments. There would also
20 be an opportunity immediately after the staff report to speak if any public speakers had specific
21 comments upfront they would like to address.
� 22
� �`" 23 Marissa Moshier,Historic Preservation Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
�; 24 Report.
' 25
26 Chair Imboden asked staff for clarification on revisions that may need to be made to city ordinances.
27 Staff clarified that City Council had requested that the demolition review ordinance be reviewed with
28 particular attention to review and penalties associated with unpermitted demolitions. Staff was waiting
29 on direction from the City Manager and Council.
30
31 Public Comments:
32
33 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments.
34
35 Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, acknowledged his meeting with Ms. Moshier, a
36 day prior to the Design Review Committee meeting to discuss the draft. Unfortunately the demolition
37 aspect mentioned earlier had been hovering over the standards for a long time and was something that
38 needed to be addressed. Mr. Frankel expressed support for review of the demolition ordinance. He
39 indicated that OTPA was very pleased with initial draft of the design standards, noting that it was a
40 big improvement from the previous format, and simplified enough for applicants to understand the
41 process.
42
43 Carolyn Brodbeck, public speaker, wanted to know if there were special provisions in the design
44 standards for disabled access ramps.
45
i 46 Chair Imboden responded by noting that the adaptability of historic buildings to comply with disability
47 access needs was not new and referenced Secretary of the Interior's Standards which is also
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 4 of 9
1 incorporated into the design standards. The standards provide principles about how to work with a
2 historic resource and guidelines which provided more specific information about different aspects of
3 the changes that would be made to specific historic resources.The standards were not meant to prevent
4 change,they were to manage change.
5
6 Ms. Moshier elaborated on the subject confirming that in such a situation, staff would review
7 accommodations for people with disabilities.
8
9 Richard Turner, public speaker, (address on file) asked if there were any aspects of the document that
10 were intended to encourage more innovative approaches.
11
12 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
13
14 The DRC had the following comments:
.,, 15 • Page 3:
16 0 "Most projects will apply the rehabilitation [treatment] approach". The Committee
17 discussed the other three treatments for historic resources identified in the Secretary
18 of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: preservation,
19 restoration, and reconstruction, and suggested that the text include at least one
20 sentence about each of the four treatments (restoration, rehabilitation, preservation,
21 and reconstruction).
22 o The Committee also suggested on page 2, the approach to a preservation project and
23 discuss the treatments.
24 o The Committee noted that the definition of reconstruction was sometimes
25 misunderstood and suggested that it be clarified in the discussion of the Secretary's
26 Standards.
27 • The Committee noted the issue of deferred maintenance and felt there should be some
28 language added about that as a separate topic.
29 o Carolyn Brodbeck, public speaker, provided comments to encourage water
30 conservation in landscaping.
31 o Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, concurred that property
32 maintenance and landscape treatments should be addressed in the standards.
33 • Page 4:
34 o The Committee noted the term "character defining features" is commonly used in
35 both conversation and staffreports. However, the term and its definition are not _
36 presented verbatim. The Committee felt it should be defined and discussed as a topic
37 in the standards.
38 o The Committee suggested adding "character defining features" either under the
39 "Basic Principles for Applying the HPDS"heading or fitting it in on page 10 by
40 including a step that involved"reviewing character defining features." The definition
41 of"character defining features"would set the framework for reviewing proposed
42 changes, deciding which treatment under the Secretary's Standards was appropriate,
43 and determining the significant or insignificant features of the property.
44 • Page 5:
45 o The last sentence of the first paragraph reads, "contributing buildings are qualified
46 historical properties,"but to this point in the documents the standards haven't yet
47 talked about what"contributing buildings" are.
� w
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 5 of 9
1 o The last paragraph states "contributing buildings are historic." This should be revised
2 to "historically significant," because some buildings were constructed during the
3 historic period but have been altered to not be historically significant.
4 o The discussion about the period of significance was presented in other sections but it
5 was suggested to refer to those page numbers for the dates that apply on page five.
6 • Page 6:
7 o The first paragraph should be changed to simplify the verbiage to read"if you are
8 proposing changes to your historic property"because the average person may be
9 confused with the present phrase of"if you are proposing major alterations to or
10 demolition of a building that is more than 40 years old."
11 o Jeff Frankel noted that there were resources in town more than 40 years of age that
12 needed special consideration that this specification for properties addressed.
13 • Page 8:
14 o The Committee noted that information should be included indicating that approving
15 bodies could either approve, deny, ar continue an item and a continuance would be
16 granted if the applicant was willing to make changes.
17 o The Committee wanted it made clear that there were three voting options and
18 suggested expanding on what a continuance was as applicants were sometimes
19 confused about the differentiation between a continuance and a denial.
20 • Page 9:
21 o The Committee wanted to include a disclaimer that these were the general project
22 types,but that depending on the complexities of the project,there may be additional
23 review required.
24 o The Committee discussed whether landscaping should be exempt from review in the
25 historic district given that it helps to define the district and noted that there might be a
26 need to make a special addition for removal of trees.
27 o Ms. Brodbeck, described an example of a neighborhood conflict involving a large
28 pine tree where a neighbor approached Ms. Brodbeck in an attempt to get her to file a
29 complaint against the pine needles falling from the tree. Ms. Brodbeck used this
30 example to request that if the Committee was going to make a change to the
31 standards, it was not applied retroactively.
32 o The preservation standards for landscaping included language that states residents
33 were expected to maintain trees that they may not want to maintain. The Committee
34 discussed how landscaping in California has been changing drastically related to
35 water conservation and a conversation of what that meant in a historic district is
36 needed, including the potential impacts. The Committee suggested creating booklets
37 about options for landscaping.
38 o Ms. Moshier responded that landscape could be addressed through a separate handout
39 that could provide recommendations and general guidance for front yards. It would
40 not necessarily be part of the standards but would be part of the body of guidance that
41 could be provided to property owners.
42 o Jeff Frankel encouraged there to be some guidance in document about landscape. He
43 noted that there should be a happy medium that would address situations in which
44 there were drought restrictions. Mr. Frankel also suggested a re-inventory of historic
45 trees and guidance on the requirements of the City's ordinances for tree preservation.
46 o Ms. Moshier responded that the City Council had recently directed staff to review the
47 Tree Preservation Ordinance and list of historic trees and that effort was underway
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 6 of 9
1 with the Community Services, Community Development, and Public Works
2 Departments.
3 • Page 10:
4 o Bullet point number 4 should encourage property owners to hire professionals with
5 specific experience with historic resources.
6 o Connie McGuire, address on file, asked if the City would provide referrals for this
7 specification.
8 o On bullet number 2, the Committee suggested using the phrase "character defining
9 features" in place of"specific �lements."
10 o On item number 7 the Committee suggested taking out the specific time and days for
11 the Design Review Committee meeting and recommended and directing the reader to
12 reference the City website for this information.
13 • Page 19:
14 o Referring to the graphics next to the text: the fixed sash label on a double hung
15 window was not correct; the arrow that was supposed to be pointing to the apron was
16 not pointing to the apron, it was pointing to the sill; and, there was a spelling error on
17 the word muntin.
18 o The entry door specifically, but also applicable to any other doors mentioned, should
19 be labeled to show the threshold and connection to the floor below.
20 o The Committee noted that the drawings were intended to show general examples and
21 were not construction details and therefore should be labeled accordingly.
22 o Typical double hung windows should also show horns on the upper sash.
23 • Page 20:
24 o The upper sash should have been shown as operable on the double hung window.
25 o The hopper window was not hinged accurately. It should be hinged from the bottom.
+ 26 o The mullion in the label on the casement window is not correct. This element should
27 be labeled as a horizontal rail.
28 • Page 18:
29 o The Committee recommended that the images should call out the ridges, hips,
30 overhangs, and valleys on the different roof types.
31 • Page 23:
32 o The Committee suggested that the illustrations be made larger or separated them so
33 that the differences between the siding types were more apparent. The arrows also
34 were not pointing to the correct places.
35 o Jeff Frankel commented that he did not see caulking around the windows addressed
36 in the standards.
37 o The Committee commented that if the point of the illustrations was to share
38 terminology it might be better to use photographs from historic buildings and not be
39 overly specific with the labels.
40 • Page 24:
41 o The Committee noted that non-historic building photographs were used and suggested
42 adding something from the Victorian era to round out the types of materials shown.
43 o The two troweled plaster pictures were repetitive. The Committee recommended
44 keeping the top right photo and replacing the other.
45 o The Committee suggested adding the photograph of the foundation material from
46 page 21 to page 24 and adding a photo of wood shingles to page 21 instead.
.��
,�_
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 7 of 9
1 • The Committee asked staff to reassess the light balance of the pictures in order to avoid too
2 much darkness in the prints.
3 • On pages 18 and 19, the ghosted grey backgrounds did not appear to add any value to the
4 written content and were not preferred by the Committee.
5 • The graphics on pages 18 and 19 should have a consistent format for the font and size of each
6 title.
7 • The Committee requested that the arrows used in the graphics be consistently placed at the
8 end of the text and not in the middle.
9 • As a general comment, the Committee noted that when the text of the labels is larger than the
10 graphic,the text should generally be scaled back. The Committee used the images on page 19
11 as an example.
12 • The Committee stated that the craftsman style did not necessarily originate in southern
13 California and did not originate with Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene and
14 requested that staff revise the description in the Craftsman style sheet.
15
16 • Page 25:
17 o Item number 7 needed to specify where the catalogs were found. The Committee
18 suggested referencing the National Trust for historical color palettes.
19 o The Committee discussed the various styles and locations of vents and other varying
2p items that have been installed onto residential roofs. The committee suggested this
21 page might be a good place to include specific standards for roof vents.
22 �
23 ����:
24 • Page 26:
25 o On item letter"d,"the Committee recommended adding that satellite dishes should be
2( placed so that they are the least visible possible,to the text stating that they should
2� not be located on street-facing elevations.
28 o The Committee recommended eliminating the phrase "no other technically feasible
29 location" because it provides too much leeway to place mechanical equipment in
30 incompatible areas. The Committee suggested revising this language to specify
31 equipment should be screened from view.
32 o Where satellite dishes are called out,the standards should add"and similar elements"
33 to allow flexibility in reviewing changing types of technology.
34 o Eduardo Moreno, address on file, said he wanted to add overhead cables to the list of
35 non-permissible roof items. Mr. Moreno asked if there was any way to work with the
36 installers on this. Ms. Moshier noted that some of these elements were controlled by
3� utility companies, which the City had limited ability to regulate. However, the
38 placement of conduit on historic houses could be covered by the Design Standards.
39 o The Committee noted that there was an overarching problem of maintenance and
40 improvements that do not require a permit but that could become a code enforcement
41 issue if there were poor installations.
42 o The Committee suggested the standards could make recommendations for how cables
43 should be managed on properties.
44 • The Committee noted that some pictures had captions,but many were not captioned
45 and questioned what the purpose was of each type of photo.
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 8 of 9
1 • The Committee suggest two image types: one that is specific to the text of the
2 standards and may get a caption and one that contains general views of the historic
3 district that may not get a caption.
4
5 Chair Imboden asked the public if there were any further comments.
6
7 Eduardo Moreno,public speaker, inquired about how the City could create a story that brought all of
8 the landscape pieces together in a vision long term. As an example, he stated that he currently did
9 not see a pattern of trees in the parkways.
10
11 Ms. Moshier briefly discussed the other types of policy documents that create the long-term vision
12 for the city, including the General Plan and Specific Plans for areas of Old Towne.
13
14 The item was a study session only - no action required.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
� �..
_ . �.�:
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for June 21,2017
Page 9 of 9
1 ADJOURNMENT:
2
3 Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review
4 Committee meeting on July 5, 2017.
5
6 SECOND: Tim McCormack
7 AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne McDermott
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10
11 MOTION CARRIED.
12
13 Meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
14
�
�