2017-08-09 DRC Final Minutes _
,,5
1 CITY OF ORANGE
2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
3 MINUTES - FINAL
4 August 9, 2017
�� ' ` ,i 5 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden—Chair
g Tim McCormack
� Carol Fox
g Anne McDermott
g Mary Anne Skorpanich
10
11 Staff in Attendance: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
12 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner
13 Carly Mallon, Recording Secretary
14
15 Regular Session—5:40 p.m.
16
17 ROLL CALL:
18
19 All Committee Members were present.
20
21 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
22
23 Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed
24 on the Agenda.
5
�6 There were no speakers.
27
28 CONSENT ITEMS:
29
30 (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
; 45
� 46
� 17
i r0
� 49
50
�
i;
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 2 of 8
1 AGENDAITEMS
2
3 New Agenda Items:
4
5 (2) Second Study Session on Draft Update to Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old
6 Towne
7 • A second study session to review and discuss the draft update to the Historic Preservation
8 Design Standards for Old Towne. The study session covers the second half of the document
9 from the Standards for Historic Building Features to the Standards for Non-Contributing
10 Buildings in Historic Districts, pages 27-50. It also includes Appendix A (Glossary) and
11 Appendix B(List ofNational Park Service Technical Guidance Documents),pages 51-58. The
12 first half of the document was reviewed during a DRC study session on June 21, 2017.
13 • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�cityoforange.org
14 • DRC Action: Study Session—No action required
15
16
17 Marissa Moshier,Historic Preservation Planner,presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
18 Report.
19
20 Chair Imboden opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
21
?2 The DRC had the following comments:
_3 • Page 27:
24 o The bold sentence under "Setting" should replace the word "unique" with the word
25 "important" or"critical."
26 o The purpose of the diagrams was not clear. The inconsistent shading between the side
2� yards on the upper diagram was unclear. Captions on the graphics to describe their
28 purpose would be helpful.
29 o In the introductory paragraph under "Setting," street lighting and lighting in general
30 should be mentioned in the last two sentences.
31 o The bottom diagram should have the side street labeled to ensure the reader knows it is
32 a corner.
33 o On line 2a, the use of the verbiage "should" was discussed. The Committee debated if
34 the word "should" needed to be something stricter, such as "shall." The Committee
35 ultimately recommended that "should" is appropriate because it incorporates some
36 flexibility to allow for unusual or unexpected circumstances.This is consistent with the
3'7 Secretary of the Interior's Standards approach to guidelines rather than prescriptive
3 g requirements.
39 • Page 28:
40 o On line 3a, "appropriate paving material in Old Towne" should be replaced with
41 "appropriate concrete paving material in Old Towne."The Committee also thought the , . ,.
42 standard should include that"alternative materials need approval."
� 43 o On line 6b, "mow strip" should be replaced with"planting strip."
44 o On line 7,the Committee said the fencing standards should include a recommendation
5 for a planting setback to create a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the fence.
` 46 An 18 —24 inch planting strip was recommended.
��
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 3 of 8
1 o On lines 7b and 7c, the standards do not mention recommendations for fence colors,
2 specifically with regards to wrought iron. The Committee suggested adding the phrase,
3 "The use of a traditional color palette is encouraged" onto number 7.
4 o The Committee preferred that the diagrams be removed and a better photo of a wrought
5 iron fence added.
i 6 o On line 7e, the sentence should read, "Solid masonry walls in the front yard are
I'�I� 7 generally not appropriate," so that historically appropriate low walls, such as arroyo
8 stone retaining walls, can be considered for some properties.
9 o The appropriate percentage of fence transparency was discussed. Opaque fencing and
10 privacy fencing were concerns for corner lots which are allowed six foot tall fences for
11 side yards. Therefore,the Committee recommended that corner properties with six foot
12 high fencing should have a deeper recommended setback at the side corner of the lot.
13 Specifically, the Committee recommended the setback for a tall solid fence be 24
14 inches.
15
16 Craig Wheeler, address on file,recommended that the standards should specify that chain link fencing
17 is not allowed and that wire fences can have steel posts, in addition to wood posts.
18
19 Billy Leigh, address on file, discussed his property in Santa Ana which has synthetic turf which he
20 noted was not allowed in Orange. Leigh owns a business in Orange and wanted to promote the type
21 of turf used at his Santa Ana residence as a possible option in an effort to conserve water and preserve
22 the historic district simultaneously.
3
24 The Committee responded to Leigh's comments by discussing how to maintain landscape and water
25 conservation in historic districts while using alternative materials. The Committee recommended
26 alternative plant materials rather than synthetic turf,because the quality and maintenance standards of
27 synthetic turf are variable.
28
29 Fred Peters, address on file, stated that he highly approved of the design standards draft but there
30 needed to be more in depth public participation. The Committee informed Peters there would be a
31 public forum in the future lead by Marissa Moshier that would allow for more public participation.
32
33 • Page 29:
34 o On line 9,the sentence should read"Vinyl,other plastic materials,and chain link fences
35 are prohibited."
36 o On line 10, the Committee wanted to emphasize that parkway trees must be kept and
3'7 maintained. The Committee noted that although the City maintains the trees,
38 homeowners are encouraged to water them.
39 o In the top photo,the Mexican Feather grass is an invasive plant and is not encouraged.
40 The Committee approved of the ground cover shown in the picture but wanted to see
41 something without the Mexican Feather grass.
' 42 o On line 11, the Committee suggested including alternatives that were "appropriate to
? 43 the Mediterranean climate."
� 44 o On lines 11 and 12, parkways should be specifically mentioned with the front yard
� 5 landscaping.
� �6 o On line 11, the reference to the phrase "green lawn" being used to describe historic
� 47 front yards was debated. The Committee recommended including some flexibility by
48 mentioning cottage gardens with a variety of plantings.
�
I-
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 4 of 8
1 • Page 30:
2 o The bottom center photograph showed a new porch with striped columns. The
3 Committee recommended replacing the photograph with one of a small front porch (a
4 simple roof over a small stoop).
5 o The Committee noted that the introduction portion of the"porches"section on page 29
6 should state that a porch is often a primary character defining feature of the building.
� � ; 7 The Committee also suggested editing the caption on page 30 to state"all of which are
i� 8 character defining features."
9 o An additional line should be added separately that includes a description of service
10 porches. The Committee stated that service parches are also character defining features
11 and should be preserved.
12 • Page 31:
13 o On the diagram of the carriage house door, the cross bracing should be placed the
14 opposite direction, creating an "A" shape instead of a"V" shape.
15 o The formatting of the lines related to the significance of an accessory structure should
16 be modified. The Committee suggested putting a colon after the word "structure"
17 instead of after the word"was"to alleviate confusion.
18 o Line 1 b should read,"a one story addition to the rear or side of an accessory structure."
19 o Line 1 c should read, "an addition of a new second floor or substantial modifications."
20 • Page 32 - Diagram:
21 o The Committee was confused why the maximum ten foot high eave was being called
22 out on the diagram as this was a zoning code requirement,and recommended clarifying
3 the purpose of the figure with a caption.
24 o The planting strip on the driveway is long on the diagram.
25 o A historic one car garage should not be shaded like the addition.
26 o The hip roof on the "existing historic residence" should be modified to ensure the
2� reader did not think it was a flat roof.
28 • Page 33:
2g o On line 3, a bullet point should be added stating that, "no structure should be
30 demolished without a permit"to deter unpermitted demolitions.
31 • Page 34:
32 o The introductory paragraph on the Standards for Historic Commercial Buildings should
33 indicate that both the Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Design Guidelines and the Old
34 Towne Design Standards apply to historic industrial buildings.
35 o The intent of the top diagram was unclear. Successful patterning versus unsuccessful
36 patterning should be labeled to clarify.
3'7 o The Committee noted that, on the diagrams, putting text over lines of the diagram
3 g should be avoided and arrows should be used instead.
39 • Page 35:
40 o The formatting of this section was discussed. The Committee recommended that on
41 page 34 "Plaza" needed to be in bold and the "Downtown Core" and "Spoke Streets"
l 42 should have been added to the map on page 11.
' 43 o The Committee suggested including a link to the Old Towne historic districts map on
! 44 the City website that included more detail.
5 • Page 36:
��
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9,2017
Page 5 of 8
'� � 1 o Not all of the standards under Setting seem to apply to the setting of historic
2 commercial buildings. The Committee suggested renaming the section as Setting and
3 Building Features.
4 o On line Sc, the recommended warm lighting should list a specific number for color
$ temperature.
, � 6 o On line 7a, the Committee suggested the standards should allow some flexibility for
'7 upper floor additions that do not cover the entire footprint of the existing building.
g o The diagram should call out the "bulkhead."
9 • Page 37
10 o The description of important features of historic storefronts to be preserved should
11 include prism glass in transom windows.
12 • Page 38
13 o The Committee recommended adding to line 3b with a reference to using historic
14 evidence to design new storefronts in historic commercial buildings.
15 o Line Sc should replace "historic building" with "historic building materials and/or
16 structure."
1'7 o On line 6, the Committee suggested replacing the word "restoring" with the word
1 g "reconstructing."
19 • Page 39:
20 o On line 1, it should read, "historic signs, including painted wall signs, shall be
21 preserved."
22 o The Committee recommended adding a reference to the use of sign materials in a
3 traditional or"honest"way.
24 • Page 40:
25 o On the "projecting sign" diagram, the example of the blade sign should be called out.
2C o On the"flat sign"diagram,the caption should read"mounted parallel to the face of the
2� building."
28 o On the"ground or monument signs"diagram,there should be a concrete footing shown
29 above the grade. The footing did not necessarily need to be labeled.
30 • Page 42:
31 o The photo should be changed because it included internally lit signs.
32 . Page 43:
33 o On the left"isometric" diagram, the Committee suggested that the garage should have
34 a hip roof to match the house. The Committee suggested the addition should be inset
35 from the sides of the house to show a typical line of demarcation between the historic
36 house and the new construction. The house diagram on the left could be modified to
37 have a gable roof, so that it represented a more common type of addition in the Historic
3 g District.
39 o The line of demarcation between the historic house and the new addition should be
40 highlighted on each example in the diagram.
41 • Page 44:
42 o On line 3, it should include that a line of demarcation or offset in the wall plane is
� 43 recommended, so that it is clear which part of the building is historic and which part is
i
� 44 new."
5 o It was suggested that this section should use more language directly from the
' 46 Secretary's Standards, particularly reference to additions being compatible with but
47 differentiated from the historic building.
I:
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 6 of 8
1 o The photo on page 46 should be added to page 44 to show an appropriate addition.
2 • Page 45:
3 o Craig Wheeler,address on file,suggested that this section should include a requirement
4 that roof overhangs will be framed in the traditional manner.
5 o The Committee suggested adding a line that stated, "the use of flat outlookers is
( discouraged and the use of brackets to support the fly rafters or barge board is
� encouraged."
8 o The Committee also recommended that the section on Historic Building Features -
9 Roofs should prohibit removal of exposed rafters.
10 • Page 46:
11 o The last line of the introductory paragraph under Infill Construction should be revised
12 to specify that contemporary interpretations of historic architectural styles are not
13 discouraged.
14 o The two smaller houses in the upper diagram should be called out as historic houses.
15 o The "new building" in the upper diagram needed to include some articulation, like a
16 front porch, so that it is compatible with the adjacent historic houses.
17 o On the smaller buildings in the upper diagram,the porches and window muntins should
1 g be simplified.
19 o On the lower diagram, the flush wall planes showing a change in materials through
20 shading is not preferred.
21 • Page 47:
�2 o Line 2b should read,"Floor Area Ratio of historic properties on the surrounding street,"
3 instead of block.
24 • Page 48:
25 o A color legend should be added to the diagram to specify the different shades of light
2C grey, medium grey, and dark grey.
27 • Page 49:
28 o On line Sa, the windows and doors should be compatible with the building's
29 predominant architectural style, rather than consistent with the surrounding historic
30 buildings.
31 • Page 50:
32 o The bottom and middle photos should be replaced.
33 • Page 52:
34 o The photograph should be removed as it represented a non-historic porch.
35 o The definition of the term "bracket" should include "often decorative and functional,"
36 rather than"more decorative than functional."
3� • Page 53:
3g o On the definition of the term"eaves,"the word"under" should be removed.
39 • Page 54:
40 o On the definition of the term "exposed rafter tails," the word "decorative" should be
41 removed.
� 42 o On the definition of the term "mansard roof," it should be described as "a hipped roof
� 43 with two slopes."
44
, .5 • Page 55:
' 46 o On the definition of the term "proportion," the phrase "usually expressed as a ratio"
4'7 should be removed.
,
i
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 7 of 8
1 o The definition for the term"mullion" applies to a muntin, not a mullion.
2 • Page 57:
3 o On the definition of the term streetscape, "parkways, fences, and street trees" should
4 be added.
5 o On the definition of"transom window," it should state, "a horizontal window frame
�I ( placed above a picture window, door, or storefront of the same width. Often the glass
� is decorative."
8
9 The item was a study session only- no action required.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
�
City of Orange—Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for August 9, 2017
Page 8 of 8
� � 1 ADJOURNMENT:
2
3 Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Design Review
4 Committee meeting on August 16, 2017.
5
6 SECOND: Tim McCormack
7 AYES: Carol Fox, Mary Anne Skorpanich, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack and Anne
g McDermott
9 NOES: None
10 ABSENT: None
11
12 MOTION CARRIED.
13
14 Meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
�
�