Loading...
2018-08-29 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE _ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE �� MINUTES -FINAL August 29, 2018 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack- Chair Anne McDermott—Vice Chair Mary Anne Skorpanich Committee Members Absent: Robert Imboden Carol Fox Staff in Attendance: Bill Crouch, Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary Regular Session—5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich 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. AGENDA ITEMS: Study Session #2 on Orange Eichler Design Standards - A second draft of the Orange Eichler Design Standards (OEDS) was released on August 17, 2018 with revisions based on comments from the Design Review Committee (DRC)and the community. The OEDS have been developed to accompany designation of the three Orange Eichler tracts as local historic districts. RECOMMENDED ACTION-REVIEW AND COMMENT Staff requests the DRC provide comments on the draft Orange Eichler Design Standards. DISCUSSION: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner explained the purpose of this special meeting is to review the revised draft of the Orange Eichler Design Standards (OEDS) based on comments � - and recommendations obtained from the August 1, 2018 DRC study session. Over 200 � comments from the DRC and community have been responded to and consolidated in the revision. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Special Meeting Minutes for August 29,2018 Page 2 of 6 She provided an explanation of how they responded to the comments consistent with the staff report. Ms. Moshier stated the Committee expressed that they would like to see more standards related to landscaping, particularly encouraging Modern landscape principles. Eichler residents do not necessarily want landscape requirements because everyone has their own personal taste for landscaping. The landscape section has been maintained as recommendations and staff has taken out some of the language related to specific landscape styles in order to allow the residents to choose their own style. Some Modern landscape references have been added to the appendix at the recommendation of the DRC Chair. Flora Chou, Architectural Historian from Page & Turnbull provided an overview of some of the changes that were made in the revised draft. Ms. Moshier stated the design standards have been in development for approximately 6 months. Staff anticipates revising the document based on the comments this evening and presenting it to the DRC for a recommendation to the Planning Commission on September 19. On October 15 staff would like to obtain a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. On November 13 they would like to present it to the City Council for adoption with the historic district designation. The Committee provided the following comments and recommendations: - • Committee Members are impressed with the document and the revisions that were made; it is more readable and usable. • More emphasis could be made about what people do not have to do, and what is given as information for people who would like to restore their home versus what people need to know to make a repair. On page 4, there is a paragraph on the purpose of the design standards; this paragraph should be emphasized to provide more clarity. • Cladding material should be called fiber cement board based on the manufacturer's product description. � . • Minor design review is important to keep as is. The review is for the people who do not really understand what the right thing is or who have a contractor who does not understand what is appropriate. The review is for the residents' protection and to avoid future problems. • The Committee would like to see more in the document that explicitly says the standards are to preserve the historical integrity of the neighborhoods. • Page 6 refers to the OEDS being consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards; will it cause complications when the Committee needs to make findings for projects that meet local standards? • Include a parcel level map on which properties are or are not covered. • The treatment hierarchy diagram on page 21 should probably have a solid line instead of a dotted line where it points to "consider restoring to the original". • Page 22 indicates that contributing structures may require an associated environmental review under CEQA; would all projects have some level of CEQA review? ,'- • On page 25 under Minor Design Review it may be helpful to include a statement that says building permits may be required for some projects. • The word "should" under the design standards for roofs on page 50, 4.l.l.c could be replaced with "shall". City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Special Meeting Minutes for August 29,2018 Page 3 of 6 � • Page 94 should include a reference in the appendix to important publications that were written about west coast landscape and how it evolved. • The theme of the Eichler landscape section is to have a low landscape in order to see the home from the street and create an open neighborhood. Chair McCormack opened the public hearing. Douglas Wade spoke about the importance of sticking to the schedule because some residents are making inappropriate changes and are in the process of doing things that will be prohibited once the standards are approved. John Butler expressed his concerns about two-story homes and asked the Committee to restrict them. Hanh Bannister voiced the following concerns: • The document states that atrium covers require an MDR; however she feels it should only be required if it is a permanent cover or if it can be seen from the street. She inquired about detachable shades. • The landscape standards indicate that most of the yard should be covered with lush landscaping. She feels this should not be encouraged due to the drought that California is experiencing. - • The garage section, section 4.4.3 shows a photograph of an acceptable garage door ' _ replacement with a green checkmark, but the garage door is not appropriate because it is white and stands out. • Section 6.3.2, Fencing, states materials for walls and fence design should be simple in appearance to reflect minimal characteristics of the house; however 6.6.3 contradicts that because it makes reference to corner homes which should use multiple types of materials. This section also discusses vertical wall fencing, but horizontal fencing would also be appropriate and better than a poorly maintained vertical fence. • Front door hardware should look like the original and keep to similar aesthetics. Tim (no last name provided) referred to the parkway on page 99. He stated trees have a major impact on the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and should be collective in the Eichler historic districts. Sidewalks are breaking and utility lines are being impaired due to some of the old trees. Ms. Moshier responded that staff has asked Public Works to narrow the palette of trees for the Eichler tracts in the City's Street Tree Master Plan. Staff is proposing a limited palette of replacement trees that have a similar canopy and appearance to the Liquidambar and do not cause sidewalk issues. Carol Fox made the following comments: • She is strongly against two-story additions and feels they should be banned. Page 84 - needs more clarity on their construction or should be replaced with a ban on two stories. ` - • On page 7, "supplementary review" should read "Design Review Committee review." • The paragraph in the landscape section on heat-island effect was deleted according to comment 162 in the comment log; however, she feels language should still be provided to City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Special Meeting Minutes for August 29,2018 Page 4 of 6 discourage increasing the heat island effect with too much hardscape and gravel. It was addressed in the deleted paragraph. • In the comment log, comment 76 on page 11, address tiles were not shown on the diagram in the secondary features discussion and staff commented that they are not within review of the scope. However, they are listed on page 18 as a secondary feature; therefore,they should be taken off the list on page 18 or added to the diagram. • She stated some of the previous speakers asked that paint colors be regulated; however if paint is regulated, it means a permit would be required to paint your home and she strongly urged the Committee to keep the document as is. Joyce Proteau stated the Liquidambar in front of her home died because it had a disease and the Gas Company will not allow the City to replace the tree due to the gas lines. This will change the dynamics of the street. � Heidi Toplanski, a realtor, she is concerned about restrictions on two-story homes because of future economic impacts it could have. She discouraged the Committee from restricting two- story additions. Brian Cantley, an architect, encourage the Committee to restrict the two story additions because if they are allowed,they will happen and could change the character of the neighborhoods. Chair McCormack closed the public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the Committee for further comments and responses: • The Committee understands that the residents do not want two-story additions; the Committee always considers noise and view implications and whether or not there are privacy impacts from windows. Even if that option remained in the document, it is doubtful that any would be approved. A second story is not the highest and best use to retain the historic integrity and can actually lessen the value; residents can add on to the home without it being a second-story. • The makeup of the Eichler homes includes a lot of glass with privacy impacts if second stories are allowed. • Door handle styles need to be flexible in order to accommodate accessibility issues. • Minor design reviews on the addition of atrium covers should include shade cloths unless it is below the roofline where it is not visible. • There is a large selection of groundcover that does �not require a lot of water and irrigation; the language in the draft is to avoid a barren landscape. The word "lush" related to landscaping should probably be reevaluated. • Residents can call Public Works and ask for a new street tree even though it can ta.ke some time to obtain one. • Mistakes were made by graveling front yards; now there are several plant options available that do not require much watering. • Palm Springs style landscaping falls in line with the mid-century aesthetics. • The spirit of the document is not to police, but to inspire and guide. �' • Fencing is a key issue and it has been the Committee's direction to get away from putting � fences on the edge of the sidewalk. • Residents need education on caring for their landscape. Education is important for the heat island effect. The Committee Members stated the University of California, City of Orange—Design Review Committee ' Final Special Meeting Minutes for August 29,2018 Page 5 of 6 ' Cooperative Extension, has a lot of research on new turf replacements and they suggested it be placed in the Appendix for informational purposes. There is also a demonstration garden at Santiago Canyon College featuring low water landscapes. The Chair reopened the discussion for additional public comment. RoxAnn Johnson asked where artificial turf is allowed and Ms. Mosher responded it is not appropriate when it is visible from the street. Ms. Bannister suggested defining the terminology "low" for landscaping and fences in terms of inches because it can mean different heights to different people. Chair McCormack stated anything above eye level is high and, typically, low is defined by where your knee and foot hits the ground, usually approximately 18 inches. He added that grade does play into it and is a site-specific design issue. Mr. Wade recommended using a range of dimensions instead of just stating low, medium or high inclusive of the word sightlines to address some of the issues of perspective. Committee Member Skorpanich stated there is no strict regulation on landscaping. She added -_ that the document has many photographs to try to illustrate what low means without saying it is a 1 maximum height of so many inches. Ms. Moshier stated the landscape section is intended to be�recommendations and hesitates to put specific dimensions on plants. There are dimensions that are called out related to fences and walls to address some of the concerns with walls, planters, and solid barriers that can happen in the front yard. Tracy Ettinger stated drawing a line from the eave to the property line helps define where low, medium and high are; the closer to the sidewalk the lower it would be. Ms. Moshier responded that in terms of the walls and planters, that was the basis of how the dimensions were determined. That specific graphic did not make it into the Design Standaxds, but it maybe it would be helpful. Ms. Chou stated she does not think there should be too much emphasis on landscape given the content is all recommendations, considerations and encouragement rather than requirements. Creating graphics like that give a sense that it is a requirement. Ms. Moshier stated the overarching objective is that the view of the house should not be obstructed from the street or sidewalks. Mr. Wade recommended incorporating a reference to the walls in the landscaping guidelines and ; suggested that the limitations on height for walls in front of the house be voluntarily applied by - the homeowner to landscaping. This way, the same sightlines are accomplished and obstruction to the house and property itself is avoided while giving the most amount of potential flexibility for planting. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Special Meeting Minutes for August 29,2018 Page 6 of 6 �� Chair McCormack stated proper tree selection and maintenance is the key. Ms. Johnson asked the Committee how they felt about monument signs for the neighborhoods. The Committee Members all agreed it was something worth reviewing and it would be a community action because the sign would have to be on private property. Ms. Mosher responded that the existing sign code has provisions for freestanding signs in residential tracts; however, they would need to be on private property. She stated another possibility would be toppers on street name signs. , Chair McCormack stated lighting also needs to be reviewed and considered. Ms. Moshier thanked the Committee and the residents for their comments and stated if there are any other comments they can contact staff. They will come back to the Committee in three weeks with the revised draft. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director reminded everyone that there will be other opportunities to provide comments at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The Commission and Council welcome community attendance at the meetings and ongoing involvement is encouraged. , ` ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn the Special Study Session meeting at 7:25 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 5,2018 MOTION: McDermott SECOND: Skorpanich AYES: McCormack, McDermott, Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: Imboden and Fox MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. 1