Loading...
2017-12-20 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES—FINAL December 20, 2017 Committee Members Present: Robert Imboden - Chair Tim McCormack Carol Fox Anne McDermott Mary Anne Skorpanich Staff in Attendance: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary Administrative Session —5:00 Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session at 5:13 p.m. Chair Imboden inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Ms. Moshier indicated that the January 3, 2018 DRC meeting had been canceled due to lack of items and asked that the present meeting be adjourned to January 17, 2018. Ms. Moshier reported that the update to the Historic Preservation Design Standards, with all of the recommended changes from the Committee and the Planning Commission, was adopted by the City Council on December 12. The majority of the Council discussion was about eliminating the Planning Commission review of certain types of projects and the noticing that went along with the review of those projects. Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for notification of Design Review Committee meetings. The ordinance amendment was expected to go to Planning Commission in January,then to City Council in February. Committee Members commended Ms. Moshier on getting the Old Towne Design Standards passed successfully. Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for December 6, 2017. The members discussed the following: • The Shell gas station on the corner of Tustin and Collins has certain design features that may not have been approved by the Committee. Staff advised they would look into it and report back to the Committee. • Members expressed concerns about having more public involvement, especially with repeated preliminary reviews and large developments. When preliminary reviews come to the Committee multiple times, they are concerned about how much review of the project has taken place without public notification. • Members discussed limiting dialogue between the Committee members and the applicant after presentations were completed. When the dialogue occurs at the table, the public cannot see the plans or understand what the discussion is about. • Staff discussed setting up study sessions to look at how neighboring cities conduct design review. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Committee Member McDermott made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: McCormack AYES: Imboden, Fox, McDermott and Skorpanich, McCormack. NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:50 p.m. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Regular Session—5:53 p.m. ROLL CALL: All 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: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 6,2017 Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of December 6, 2017, as emended during the discussion at the Administrative Session. SECOND: McDermott AYES: Fox, Imboden, Skorpanich and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: (2) DRC NO. 4807-15—KILLEFER SQUARE • A proposal to adaptively reuse a historic school building and construct one new building on a former elementary school property for use as multi-family residential units. The Spanish Colonial Revival style school building is listed separately in the National Register of Historic Places. The project has changed substantially from the previous version reviewed by the Design Review Committee in 2015 and 2016. The private student housing of 62 units with 340 beds has been eliminated and replaced with standard multi-family residential development of 24 one- and two-bedroom units. The applicant is requesting an additional preliminary review by the DRC to receive feedback on the revised project. • 541 N. Lemon Street • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a�cityoforan�rg • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and explained that the DRC was only to review and comment on the item. The Committee questioned: • The nature of the two variances; Ms. Moshier described the variances for covered parking and private open space for the units in the historic buildings. • The height of the existing bell tower and single-family residences across the street. • The address of the building during the historic period. The representatives who were present for this project were Leason Pomeroy and Doug DeCinces. Mr. Pomeroy, architect, and Mr. DeCinces, a developer and participant in the project presented a model of the prior design as well as the modified proposal. Mr. Pomeroy pointed out the following changes: • Reduction in density from 80 to 24 units. • Elimination of subterranean parking. • Preservation of all trees on the property. • Reduction of exposure of the building to the neighborhood across the street. Public Comments: Chair Imboden opened the item to the Public for comments. Paul Guzman representing the Orange Barrio Historical Society read a letter from the Society in opposition of the project, and urging preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of the building. Doug Westfall, historian, expressed his preference for the historic building to be used for education and preserved in its historic state. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Jeff Frankel representing the Old Towne Preservation Association expressed objections to: • Construction of a three story building on this block. • The tall height and contemporary building design in relation to the historic building. He also expressed support for preservation of the interior and exterior defining features of the historic building,questioned whether an EIR or Negative Declaration would be prepared, and asked that a Historic Preservation Consultant have oversight on the project to make sure it complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Moshier stated that the historic impacts analysis found that the revised project is not a significant impact on the historic school or the adjacent Old Towne Historic District. Chair Imboden noted that analysis has been done with previous versions of the project that found there were impacts to the historic resource; the findings changed with this proposal. In response to the DRC's initial questions, Mr. Pomeroy stated that the bell tower was about 25 feet and is taller than the elevator tower on the proposed building. Ms. Moshier stated it was addressed as 540 N. Olive in 1950 The DRC had the following questions and comments: • What is the original color on the building? Mr. Pomeroy stated there were three different colors when they looked at the paint layers. They believe the proposed color is the earliest color on the building. The Committee commented that the dark color is unusual for the period and style of building and recommended professional paint analysis to determine the original color. • Would windows be added ar removed? Mr. Pomeroy stated there will be no added doors and all the existing windows will be rehabilitated; there will be two previously removed windows that will be restored. • How many doors and windows will be removed or added on the interior? Mr. Pomeroy stated he didn't have a count, but all the walls and doors in the corridors will remain the same. • The rationale for two fences around the parking lot? Mr. Pomeroy stated they would be happy to eliminate the second fence. • The Committee is concerned about the arientation of the ADA access ramp and thought it could be improved, possibly through use of the Historical Building Code • The Committee is pleased with the reduction of the mass of the new building in relation to the historic school, and that the windows can be kept without many fa�ade changes. • The Committee encouraged the use of a Historic Preservation Consultant to develop details of the ADA access and building colors. • The Committee indicated that the sand volleyball court was not compatible with the historic character of the courtyard and recommended proposing a different recreational amenity for that location. Mr. Pomeroy described the other historical elements of the interior that will remain, such as fire hose cabinets, chalk boards, and chalk holders. The DRC provided the following comments on the proposed new building: • The scaled-down structure is an improvement. • Continued to be concerned about privacy impacts to the nearby residents; suggested reducing impacts by screening balconies on the offending side and installing frosted glass on the bottom part of the windows. • The design does not look residential; it appears too commercial. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 6 of 6 • The building needs to be more of a complement to the historic resource. It does not look like it is on the same property as the historic school. • In may be better to change the massing of the building to reference the Spanish Colonial style,and then modernize the materials,instead of creating a modern building in massing and putting Spanish Colonial details on it. All members found a contemporary new building to be acceptable. • Building looks too bulky,needs softening and variation;the balconies and walkways read like a parking garage. • The building needs some kind of roofline or other changes to the parapet to reduce the box look. This might include adding mare square footage at the ground floor to vary the massing or lowering the plate heights of the upper floors. • In response to the applicant's exhibits which included buildings on Chapman campus, the Committee expressed that the subject property is not comparable because it is not on a college campus. • Saving the historic resource before it deteriorates any further is critical.The Committee expressed that adaptive reuse is encouraged in order to preserve the historic building. Ms. Moshier clarified that the project will return to the Committee with the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and all of the technical reports that relate to the Committee's recommendation before it goes to Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: McDermott AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.