Loading...
09-02-2020 DRC MinutesAPPROVED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 Page 1 of 6 FINAL MINUTES CITY OF ORANGE September 2, 2020 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 5:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT VIA GO MEETING TELECONFERENCE: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Jessica Wang, Administrative Specialist Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1. OPENING: 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Skorpanich called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Committee Member McDermott led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Committee Members McDermott, McCormack, Skorpanich, Fox, and Imboden. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee (DRC) on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 19, 2020 A motion was made to approve the August 19, 2020 minutes as emended to staff. MOTION: Dermott SECOND: Fox AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2020 Page 2 of 6 3. AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: 3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4973-19 – PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE  A proposal to demolish an existing restaurant building and surface parking lot and construct a new two-story, 30,113 square foot memory care facility.  574 S. Glassell Street  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Gladys Bowen, project architect, and Christy Cuba, arborist, spoke on behalf of the project. The following project team members were also available to answer questions: Michael Green, Kerrie Nicholson, Axel Guerra, Paulo Ayala, and Daniel Pham. Chair Skorpanich asked staff if any public comment was received for this item. Jessica Wang, Administrative Specialist, read an email from Megan Penn in support of the project but with concerns on the preservation of the Moreton Bay Fig tree. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Is the existing asphalt road used as fire access?  What processes will the City use if mitigation measures cannot be feasibly implemented?  Will the church be involved in right-of-way modifications?  Has the Moreton Bay Fig tree reached its maximum height and what impacts would the project have on the tree if it continues to grow.  What mitigations have been implemented to ensure preservation of the tree roots?  What is the maximum depth of cut for excavation?  Additional water is an unnecessary disturbance for the tree; the added planter at the end of the property and the paver system will create a more pervious situation.  All pavers use spacers/lugs for an interlocking system and the joint is not exactly flush; therefore pavers cannot be considered impermeable.  The 15% area of root disturbance described by the project arborist does not take into account Public Works' improvements for the planned curb and sidewalk realignment; it only includes the private property under review.  Is the proposed landscaping necessary in order to meet the landscape requirements and is there a mechanism in the Code that could allow it to be waived in order to protect the historic tree?  Clarification on the tree protection zone versus root zone; are the terms interchangeable?  Purpose of a tree risk assessment report.  How does staff interpret what work can be done pursuant to the mitigation measure that states tilling, ripping or compaction in the tree protection zone should be avoided; what does that mean to the applicant's team? DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2020 Page 3 of 6  What is the depth and where will the water go from the swale that is proposed in the middle of the driveway?  There is no definitive response on what the maximum depth below grade will be excavated. The depth of the 9-inch slope from the edge of the driveway to the center has not been added to the calculations cited.  How important is the paver driveway entrance? There is no functional value in removing the existing asphalt that has been there for 30 years. Is the applicant willing to leave the existing asphalt in place and slurry coat to avoid root disturbance?  The construction access should go through the southern entry of the building next door which already includes a reciprocal agreement.  There are contradictions between arborist reports regarding the chain link fence to be used for protection of the tree during construction.  A recommendation was made to replace the Italian Cypress with London Plane trees or similar for more shading.  A recommendation was made to place the valve manifolds at mid-building to avoid going to the root zone.  Diligent care for the heritage tree’s root zone is recommended for Public Works' project to reconfigure the sidewalk, curb, and gutter adjacent to this project. Ms. Bowen stated the team is amenable to retaining the existing paving and all other recommendations made by the Committee. A motion was made to recommend approval of Design Review No. 4973-19 – Park Plaza Memory Care to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows:  No new paving shall be installed underneath the heritage tree and asphalt shall remain as is in the Tree Protection Zone.  Construction traffic shall use the south side of the project and there shall be no construction traffic underneath the tree.  A chain link fence shall be used around the tree in the Tree Protection Zone for the duration of construction.  Planters and irrigation shall be eliminated from the plans inside the drip line of the heritage tree.  The mainline shall be re-configured and routed out of the Tree Protection Zone.  The Italian Cypresses shall be replaced with a shade tree species of the landscape architect's choice. MOTION: McCormack SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED RECESS: 7:49 – 7:55 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2020 Page 4 of 6 3.2 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4933-17 – NORTHERN GATEWAY COMMERCIAL CENTER  A proposal to construct a new 1,872 square foot commercial building and relocate a 122 square foot historic gas station to a vacant property.  887 N. Glassell Street  Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, (714) 744-7223, kribuffo@cityoforange.org  DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. Leason Pomeroy, project architect and co-owner of the property, spoke on behalf of the project. He advised the Committee that members from consultant LSA were not available to answer any questions this evening. Committee members had questions and comments on the following:  Clarification on the zoning, parking requirements and setbacks.  Placement of trees on the property line, as well as adjoining property.  Loss of eligibility for the National and State Registers of Historic Places if the historic building is moved.  The Historic Resource Assessment report states that the building has undergone significant changes from its original design based on the removal of the rear enclosure shown in the 1970s photo. However, no evidence such as Sanborn maps was provided that the rear portion of the gas station was an original part of it.  The integrity of the resource is solid enough that it still conveys time, place and original use; the plaster, although apparently not original, still reads very clearly that it was a late 1920s roadside gas station.  Three previous reports concluded that the historic building is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This report’s assertion that is not eligible lacks any credible documentation to support it. Furthermore, the stucco is identified as a character-defining feature in the report yet that element is used to discount it for eligibility from the National Register.  The Historic Resource Assessment report is not persuasive that the proposed project meets the preservation criteria that is being provided in the report; the orientation is being changed, the building does not address the streets in the same manner as it did, and the setting is being changed as it now has a large building behind it.  LSA's assessment glosses over the historic use of the property and its site.  On the new site, the gas pump pavement under the roof overhangs will be lost replaced with landscaping, diminishing the building’s ability to convey its historic use.  Is it possible that the plaster proposed for removal may have historic significance of its own even though it is not original?  As proposed, the building would not be able to convey its functional use as a gas station once it is moved due to the loss of its ingress and egress; consider removal of one parking space to accommodate a usable outdoor area for a future tenant.  The wheel stops are redundant and dangerous. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2020 Page 5 of 6  Pros and cons of rotating the building on the new site to retain the original orientation to the street and corner.  The historic display sign is likely too high, making it difficult to read.  Changes to the roof structure once the fascia is rebuilt.  The report makes a statement about original doors but no photos are provided.  In the 1970s photo, the doorway of the rear enclosure is inconsistent with other doorways and architectural details on the remainder of the building. This suggests that the rear enclosure is likely not original construction, contrary to the assertions in the Historic Resources Assessment. Al Ricci, property co-owner, asked if they could bifurcate the project and return with the building relocation at a later date in order to proceed with the remainder of the project. Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, stated no, this item has been agendized as a comprehensive project and the environmental documents deal with the relocation of the building.  The Committee needs justification from LSA regarding the National Register eligibility of the building and LSA team members need to be present to respond to all their questions. The applicant team and/or City staff might consult with the State Office of Historic Preservation for confirmation.  Too much landscaping takes away from the historic setting; staff should consider relaxing the landscape requirements to preserve the historic building setting.  Consider bollards to protect the historic structure instead of constructing concrete column bases for the roof posts.  Stucco or restoration of the wood siding is acceptable and will not change the eligibility of the building.  Simplicity of the new building is well done.  Is there evidence that the historic building was originally all wood and later covered with plaster?  Consider a dutch door in lieu of a new window for walk-up customer service.  Consider removing the curbs around the historic building to improve access and create a building setting more like its original. Mr. Pomeroy asked the Committee for a continuance. A motion was made to continue Design Review No. 4933-17 – Northern Gateway Commercial Center in order for the applicant to provide responses to the Committee's questions and concerns. MOTION: Fox SECOND: McCormack AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Imboden, and Fox NOES: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2020 Page 6 of 6 4. ADJOURNMENT: 9:37 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. via various teleconference locations.