Loading...
2018-09-19 DRC Final Minutes CITY IS OF ORANGE - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE '� � MINUTES—FINAL - September 19, 2018 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack- Chair Anne McDermott—Vice Chair Mary Anne Skorpanich Carol Fox Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: William Crouch, Community Development Director Anna Pehoushek,Assistant Community Development Director Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Kelly RibufFo, Associate Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary Administrative Session—5:15 1. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:15 p.m. and inquired about the Policy/Procedural Information. • Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner stated there were no changes to the agenda. Committee Members provided edits to the August 29, 2018 and September 5, 2018 minutes. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott, and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:35 p.m. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 2 of 10 _ Regular Session—5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott and Fox 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: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 29 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 2018. Committee Member McDermott made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of August 29, 2018 as emended in the Administrative Session. SECOND: Skorpanich - AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: Fox and Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of September 5, 2018 as emended in the Administrative Session. SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich,McDermott, Fox, and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. r City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 3 of 10 " - AGENDA ITEMS: New Agenda Items: (2) ORANGE EICHLER DESIGN STANDARDS • Recommendation to the Planning Commission to adopt the Orange Eichler Design Standards to support designation of three Eichler tracts as local historic districts. - • Orange Eichler Tracts—Fairhaven, Fairhills, and Fairmeadow • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, (714) 744-7243, mmoshier(a�cit of�an�g • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Committee Members Fox and Imboden recused themselves from this item due to the fact that they are both Eichler homeowners, and Committee Member Imboden is a member of the consultant team. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the revisions that were " made to the Orange Eichler Design Standards consistent with the staff report. Chair McCormack opened the meeting for public comment. Harriet Toplansky, 816 S. Woodland Street, stated she supports the Design Standards as proposed, � allowing two story additions, and would be pleased if the Committee supported it. John Butler, 533 S. Woodland Street, spoke in opposition of two-story additions at the prior meeting and reiterated his opposition. He explained the City didn't allow him to add solar panels - on his roof so how could it allow a second story. He is not against accessory dwelling units in the rear or first-floor additions. Douglas Wade,723 E. Palmdale Avenue, stated there are approximately 20 out of 340 Eichler lots that are potentially large enough to support a rear second-story addition. As drafted, the proposal is excellent with respect to protecting the front and existing fa�ade. The appropriate thing to do for lots that the City has already identified,would be to have the Planning Commission determine whether or not two stories could be consistent with the neighborhood; but only for the lots that have been identified and not the rest of the homes. He does not see any problem with having - Design Review Committee review with the possibility of an appeal to the Planning Commission. John Thorne, 1291 N. Linda Vista Street, spoke in opposition of two-story additions. He feels the restrictions are well written and fair, but would be happier if two stories are disallowed. Chair McCormack closed the public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the Committee for discussion. • The Committee asked if the discussion on second-story additions is located anywhere else _ � in the document besides Section 5.1.6 and if the glossary defines the terms of"shall" and "should". Ms. Mosher responded that guidance related to second-story additions is primarily in 5.1.6. � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 4 of 10 Flora Chou, consultant from Page & Turnbull added that the Design Standards contain a glossary and there is wording in the beginning of the chapter that indicates second stories are considered inappropriate. • The Committee asked how findings required for Design Review play into this document. � Ms.Moshier stated that if the Design Standards are adopted,the Design Review Committee will have to make findings that the project is consistent with the Design Standards. If a two-story addition, in the back of an Eichler house, comes before the Design Review Committee, staff and the Committee would use Section 5.1.6 to make a determination as . to whether or not the two-story construction meets the Design Standaxds. • Committee members asked for clarification on where in the document the standards point out that vertical additions cannot be added onto the roof. Ms. Mosher responded that Section 5.1.1 states "The prominence and consistency of one-story forms in the Eichler tracts shall be preserved." � • The Committee asked if the wording is reasonable enough to allow some properties to go through the process of being reviewed to see if they can add a second story or does it allow too much possibility of an inappropriate project getting through. • The Committee all agreed on the following changes: - o The Committee would prefer to see stronger language in 5.1.1 paragraph B on page 84; perhaps replace "inappropriate" with 'prohibited." That wording would be more consistent with the document and speaks to the graphic that is shown on the � � page. � - o On page 13, in the first paragraph, the "s" should be removed from the word ' "outline." o Remove the word "can"in the graphic on page 22. o In the last sentence in the second paragraph on page 22 under Second-Story Additions replace "must"with "shall." . o Replace "should"with "shall"on page 90, 5.1.6 paragraphs A and C. o The words "to ceiling" should be added after the word 'floor" on page 90 under 5.1.6 paragraph B. , • The Committee asked if all of the homes have the same side/rear yard setback requirement. Ms. Moshier stated they follow the single-family residential R-1-8 zoning. One-story ' construction requires a 10 foot rear yard setback and two-story construction requires a 20 foot rear yard setback. The side yards for both one and two stories are 5 foot setbacks. Ms. Moshier advised that any proposal must meet the minimum zoning code requirements related to setbacks; then it would be the Design Review Committee's determination as to _ whether or not it meets the findings for the design standards. • Ms. Moshier also discussed the public notice requirements for any two-story construction in an established historic district. All of the neighbors within a 300 foot radius would receive a mailed notice of the Design Review Committee meeting regarding the construction which would allow all the neighbors to comment. ' • The Committee agreed that it would be difficult to make the findings for a two-story project in terms of the privacy issues. • The Committee inquired whether there is a specific height restriction on additions. Ms. Chou responded that the intent is to match the floor to ceiling height of the current _ buildings, which is usually 10 feet and to ensure additions are not substantially higher. City of Orange—Design Review Committee - Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 5 of 10 • The Committee asked if it would be more beneficial to revise the wording. Rather than say _ two story additions are only allowed if they meet the standards, say they are not allowed, however they can make an exception if certain criteria is met. • Approval of square footage is not under the purview of the Design Review Committee; its responsibility is to determine how it aesthetically fits in with the Historic District. After the Design Review Committee's recommendation on the Design Standards, it will be under - the purview of the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether or not they want to allow the second story. • A single-story addition and a basement with a sunken courtyard would meet the two-story intent and still make the addition in the back possible. _ • Committee members inquired if there is anything in the document regarding floor area ratios. Ms. Mosier responded that the zoning code's maximum floor area ratio still applies. The DRC would look at the design of an addition and how it fits in with the neighborhood aesthetics, rather than the specifics of the floor area ratio. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director stated staff would also like direction on shadow casting which could change the use of the backyard. Chair McCormack reopened the public hearing. Derek Tanja, no address given, expressed he doesn't want the design standards to require him to -� get permission to work on his house, nor does he want to be part of a historic designation. He is � -- afraid that some of the Eichler homeowners really do not understand the meaning and restrictions of the standards and creation of the Historic District. The document should be used as voluntary - tool and not a mandatory standard. John Thorne stated he feels it would be best if two story additions were not allowed at all;however if it results in the design standards not being approved or being delayed, he is agreeable to them staying as is because he feels the document is restrictive enough. - Douglas Wade stated he is in favor of the word "recommended" being changed to "shall" throughout the document. It would be very difficult to draft a standard that has more flexibility in it and still qualify for a Historic District beyond what is in the document. The document as written _ has excellent methods of appeal through the Planning Commission and City Council. Carol Fox, 741 E. Glendale Avenue, supports "replacing "should" with"shall" in regard to second story additions. John Butler stated a boxlike look is not fitting for Eichlers and he does not approve of two stories. Harriet Toplansky explained her home is one of the 20 properties that is an exception that might be able to have a two-story addition. She feels she should also have the same rights as her neighbor _ who already added a second story. She is concerned that somebody is going to take away the right - � to construct a second story that was understood when she bought her house. If someone has a suitable lot for adding on,they should be able to go through the process. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 _ � Page 6 of 10 ' _ Chair McCormack closed the public comment portion of the meeting and brought it back to the committee for final deliberation. • Committee members feel architects are creative but the restrictions in section 5.1.6 for two ' story additions would be difficult to get around. It would be difficult to make the findings necessary for approval for two-story construction. • The Committee explained for the public that if a neighbor were to have a second-story approved, the neighbors could go forwaxd and appeal the decision to the Planning _ Commission. Planning Commission and City Council can overrule the DRC. Ms.Moshier added that the draft as currently proposed with the DRC's recommendations and amendments will be submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration, it will then continue to the City Council for final approval and adoption. • The Committee added that the document is to ensure privacy issues and that the historic - building from the street is intact. Committee Member Skorpanich summarized the recommendations made by the Committee as follows: • On page 22,the word "can" shall be removed from the graphic. • On page 84 under Second Story Additions, third paragraph, the word "must" will be replaced with "shall" in the last sentence. • On page 86, 5.1.1 in paragraph B, the word "inappropriate" shall be replaced with "prohibited." - ;� • On page 90, 5.1.6 A and C, replace the words "should" with "shall." \ • On page 90, 5.1.6 B, add the words "to ceiling" after "floor." Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion for a recommendation to the Planning _ Commission to adopt the Orange Eichler Design Standards with the modifications as previously stated and a recommendation that the Planning Commission impose a complete prohibition on two-story construction. SECOND: McDermott ' AYES: Skorpanich, McCormack and McDermott NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. � � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 7 of 10 (3) DRC NO. 4945-18 -ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR • A proposal to convert an existing historic building into a rental car office and install a vehicle hand wash station in an existing garage building.745 N. Tustin Street. - • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo�u,cit, of� oran e.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner provided an explanation of the project consistent with the staff report. � Chair McCormack invited the applicant to step forward and asked if he had any further comment. Larry Casarez, designer for the project explained they are trying to restore the property back to its - original condition as much as possible. Chair McCormack opened the public comment portion of the meeting; there were no speakers. Committee questions: ' • The Committee inquired about the width of the entry drive. Ms. Ribuffo responded that the standard is a 25' width; however, the applicant is making an existing non-conforming driveway more conforming, therefore the Fire and Police Department are allowing the ;", deviation for a slightly smaller driveway. _ • The Committee asked if the details in the drawings apply to the new windows. Mr. Casarez responded that they intend to repair all the existing windows and any new windows will be replaced to match the others. • The Committee inquired about a patch where a window was to be removed on the front elevation. Mr. Casarez indicated a sign will be going there and the siding will be feathered to match. The Committee indicated they would like to see a note on the plans to that effect. • The Committee wanted to ensure that the new siding will match the profile and the details in the plans should be expanded upon. • The Committee asked if the curb around the parking lot planter will allow the parking lot - to drain into the planting axea. Mr. Casarez responded yes,they are looking into it with the Water Quality Management Plan. • The Committee inquired if the drainage from the garage will be going into the sewer. Mr. Casarez responded it will go into an underground water clarifier and then to the sewer. • The Committee inquired about the wall sconce on the plans and the color temperature of ! lighting. Mr. Casarez stated they had to meet the required photometrics with the light fixtures. • The Committee inquired about the formula staff is using for the tree count. Ms. Ribuffo responded that because they are not proposing to increase or decrease the amount of - hardscape on the property, they were not required to comply with that formula. They are maintaining the existing landscape areas. • The Committee inquired about replacing the cornice. Ms. Ribuffo stated staff included a ; condition of approval to require the applicant to provide additional information prior to the building permit to clarify the extent of any replacement or repair that might be required. • The house is surrounded by very little green foundation planting and the Committee would like to see a thin landscape strip around the building. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 8 of 10 • The Committee advised Mr. Casarez to review the Historical Building Code, which may ' provide more leeway to limit changes to the historic building. • The Committee discussed the circulation and asked if they could make the access one-way only. Ms.Ribuffo responded she would have to check with the Fire Department. The alley easement is for a one-way access, which is why the applicant has designed the site _ circulation this way. • The Committee agreed the circulation should be further evaluated to allow more landscaping around the building. • The Committee agreed they need more details on accessible ramp railings. The ramp looks like a very industrial/commercial railing and is not a compatible aesthetic to the rest of the - project. They suggested exploring other materials for the railing, especially on the front corner. Committee comments: • The Committee is pleased that they are saving the building with a great project. • The plans need more clarity on the front porch railing replacement. • The drawings have errors and omissions and notes need to be tightened up. • Window replacements should be called out on the drawing. • New windows should be indicated as such. • Secretary of Interior's Standards require that materials be repaired if possible. Staff should physically visit the site to determine whether or not it is acceptable to remove the historic ;' materials. � � • The Committee would prefer to see other materials besides pipe rail used on the access - ramp,painting the rail a different color or placing low plants in front of it. In order to allow the applicant to proceed, they agreed to have the applicant return with the ramp detail, potential planter interface and porch rail details for the Committee's approval prior to the issuance of building permit. • The replacement of siding needs to be further defined and should be conditioned to return to the DRC for further review. Mr. Casarez added that they won't know how much of the siding has to be replaced until all of the shingles have been removed. • The Committee will provide direction to the staff to explore additional options for the drive aisle. - • The Committee agreed the lighting should be lowered to a color temperature of 3500 Kelvin. Bill Crouch, Community Development Director stated staff will meet with Public Works,Fire and Police and advocate for more room in the drive aisle. Committee Member Imboden made a motion for a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission in accordance with the findings and conditions included in the staff report with the following additional conditions: - • The applicant shall conduct more field observation to determine the extent of existing material to be replaced and/or repaired with staff and then returned to the DRC for review ; of the materials that are to be removed or replaced. • The plans shall be delineated to be more precise to show the extent of the infill siding which will be applied to the building. The Design Review Committee shall either have a sample City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 9 of 10 ' of the siding or drawings that are specific in what that siding is in dimension,color,texture, etc. • The information for the new windows shall be provided on the drawings. • All exterior lighting shall be no more than 3500 Kelvin, so long as it meets the minimum photometric requirements. • The applicant shall work with various reviewing agencies in the City to increase the amount of landscaping at the entry drive and to reduce the entry drive width as much as possible. � • The details of the railings for the accessibility ramp and existing front porch shall return to the Design Review Committee for review prior to the issuance of building permits. SECOND: Fox _ AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. ;� � City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 19,2018 Page 10 of 10 " ���,_�,� ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn at 8:26 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on _ Wednesday, October 3,2018 at 5:30 p.m. MOTION: Skorpanich SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, and McDermott, Imboden and Fox - NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. `- � -