Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 - October 18 APPi"..,,,,. ~,= D MINUTES Planning Commission City of Orange October 18, 2004 Monday-7:00 p.m. PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: INRE: IN RE: INRE: (1) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer J erre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 AND OCTOBER 4, 2004. A motion was made by Commissioner Bonina to approve the minutes from September 20, 2004 and October 4, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (2) Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3919-04 - SANTIV ANEZ ADDITION A request to utilize stucco exterior finish on a new addition to a 1934 Bungalow located at 172 S. Pine Street. NOTE: The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1) consisting of additions to existing structures not more than 50% of the floor area or 2,500 feet, whichever is less. The proposed project is consistent with these limitations. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry gave an overview of the project. She stated that Senior Planner Daniel Ryan was present and available to give a complete staff presentation if APPROVED Planning Commission October 18,2004 requested. Chair Pruett noted that he did have cards from the public expressing opposition to the project and therefore requested a full staff presentation. Mr. Ryan noted that the proposed side-facing roof addition would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The residence and one-car garage are classified as contributing buildings to the historic district. A stucco exterior was applied over the existing lap siding sometime in the 1950s. The applicant is proposing to match the existing stucco on the new addition. On September 1, 2004, the Design Review Committee approved the use of a stucco exterior treatment on the new addition. The decision reversed a previous DRC decision of July 21, 2004, approving the use of wood lap siding for the project, as the original residence had wood lap siding under the existing stucco treatment, staff recommended that the applicants use wood lap siding on the new addition and remove the finish on the existing residence. The DRC committee unanimously concurred with the staffs recommendation to use wood lap siding, however, they ruled that if the applicant changed their mind and wanted to have the new addition sided in stucco, that they would have to return and resubmit their plans back to the DRC for approval. He noted that the original and new plans were on the wall behind the Commissioners. He stated that the Old Towne Preservation Association filed an appeal (No. 495) requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the DRC's decision. It has been determined that the Planning Commission has final approval over the project, therefore the appeal is not necessary. The project as proposed would require Planning Commission approval under the design standards for Old Town, Chapter 1, Section C, Subsection D, "Addition to an existing structure when the addition is visible from the street, increase the floor area of the existing structure by more than 20%, or exceeds the height of the existing structure." The project is exempt from the City's CEQA guidelines; however, the guidelines do not explicitly state if the "in-kind materials" mean the existing materials, or the original historic materials (i.e., stucco vs. wood lap siding). Depending upon this determination, the project would either be (a) subject to, or (b) exempt from the City's local CEQA guidelines. Mr. Ryan reviewed the Old Towne design standards that were applicable to this project. He noted that in areas where the materials were severely deteriorated or irreplaceable, only areas of deterioration shall be replaced with in-kind materials matching the existing material in design, color and texture. If materials that are deteriorated or missing are to be replaced, they are to be documented with photographic evidence. Mr. Ryan noted that the DRC had continued the project from the June 16, 2004 meeting in order to allow the applicant's contractor to remove the remaining siding on the north side of the residence and to review the condition of the lap siding underneath. It was found later to be in good condition and repairable. Mr. Ryan felt that, with care, most of the original wood siding could be saved. On September 1, 2004, the applicants returned to the DRC with a proposal to utilize a matching stucco finish on the addition rather than wood lap siding. The DRC discussed OTP A's concerns regarding the placement of the addition within the side yard rather than the rear yard. With a 2-1 vote, the DRC approved the project with stucco siding, providing the projecting barges are framed out the original way. On September 9, 2004, staff received the appeal of the DRC's decision by the OTP A. 2 APPROVED Planning Commission October 18, 2004 The applicant, Peter Santivanez, 172 S. Pine Street, was invited to discuss his project. He stated that he would like the residence to match the new addition with the same stucco finish. He reviewed the steps they had taken to get the plans approved. When the project was originally presented to city staff, it had a stucco exterior on the new addition. Staff informed them that this was an issue, and that the plans should be resubmitted with wood lap siding. They did so. During the DRC meeting, they were told that there was nothing in the standards that stated that they needed to remove the stucco over the original residence, and they would be allowed to do the addition in stucco if they chose to. On September 1, 2004, plans were submitted to the DRC using a stucco exterior on the addition and the plans were approved. He believed that their streetscape better suited the plans as they submitted them with the stucco. Angela Santivanez, 172 S. Pine Street, also spoke to the project. She stated that she believed they had taken the appropriate steps, met the design standards, and received approval from the DRC on their proposed addition. She stated that the exterior material issue was decided by the DRC at the July 21,2004 meeting where they were told they could use stucco on the new addition to match the existing residence if they chose to. She noted that the Old Towne Design Standards stated that in- kind materials should be used, and in-kind materials are those that match the existing in texture, design and color, which on their residence is stucco. The residence was classified as contributing with the stucco exterior, and she felt they should be allowed to continue the stucco on the addition. The mention of the location of the addition was mentioned in the report for this meeting, but was never an issue that was previously discussed or documented. Because of the location of the garage, there is not the option to add to the back of the house. She wanted to point out that the stucco on the north side of the building was probably in the best condition due to its location (it does not get sun damage, etc.) The Santivanez' do not feel that the siding is repairable, and there is a huge gap in a portion of the north side of the house that would have to be replaced. They did consider the wood lap siding, but decided against it because of the enormity of cost. Additionally, they do not feel that just doing the wood siding on the addition is going to be appealing as far as the overall look of their residence. The Commissioners had the following issues/concerns: . To clarify, the applicant and DRC do not agree on the exterior of the building? The applicant is in agreement with the DRC's final decision, which is that the addition could be done in stucco to match the original residence. . What was the thought behind changing the front-facing gable to a side-facing gable? The DRC felt that the front-facing gable would be conflicting with the original facade of the residence, and it would draw too much attention to changing the facade, and it would be more appropriate to have a side-facing gable which would be more typical of some of the additions made during that period, especially if that addition was set back. . The staff report is making a recommendation that is inconsistent with the DRC's recommendation, correct? Yes. The DRC made a recommendation and approval for the addition to be made in stucco. City staff, in bringing this item forward to the Planning Commission is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the placement of the addition, the shape and features of the addition, with the exception of the stucco, they are asked that the new addition be done in siding. The reasoning behind this is that at some 3 APPROVED Planning Commission October 18, 2004 point the front house could be restored at the owners' discretion, and both the addition and front house would be in siding. . Would it still be considered a contributing structure whether or not the addition is stucco or wood? The DRC made the argument that the building retained enough of its original features that it was still considered a contributing building, even though some other buildings in the district that had stucco sidings were considered non-contributing. The issue is one of consistency, where the local CEQA guidelines say that we always want to go in the direction of historic preservation. If the stucco had been removed and there was no siding, this would not be an issue, but there was lap siding beneath the stucco. If the building had been classified as a non-contributor, this would not be an issue. But it is classified as a historic structure. . When the stucco was removed, did someone from the city staff look at it to determine its condition? The condition of the siding on the original house really isn't an issue before the Planning Commission. It is in so far that someday the owner or future owner might want to take off the stucco and rehabilitate the house. The real issue is what type of material is used on the addition. Originally the owners, as they had presented to the DRC, were hoping to do both the house and addition in wood siding. But once they looked at the siding on the north side and they and their architect evaluated it, they were concerned about the cost of rehabilitation and replacement for the siding on all four sides plus the addition. What staff is looking at in regards to the area beneath the stucco on the north side is simply that it was once wood lap siding, and that is why the recommendation has been made as it has to put siding on the addition. . Are there any tax incentives or any other city incentives for helping people make improvements to historic structures? Yes, in fact that was discussed with the applicant, and offered the Mills Act Program, the property tax reduction program, which would offset the cost of the material. It's a 1 a-year contract, renewable each year automatically, and it would reduce their taxes somewhere in the neighborhood of +/- 50%. . Was the proposal originally to add the addition, put the wood siding and do the entire house in wood? Or just do wood on the addition? The first proposal was to do the addition in wood, and remove the stucco on the rest of the building. Did the applicant agree to that after that (July 21,2004) decision? Yes they did. But there was an issue concerning costs, etc. Where did the changing of the architectural features corne in because I do not find that in the DRC minutes? It's in there, not in the July 21st minutes, but before that there was quite a bit of discussion on front facing gable/competition with the original facade, etc. The public hearing was opened. In favor: Monique Navarrete, 184 S. Pine Street. Horne is located 2 houses to the right of the proposed project. Appreciative of the historic district, but homeowners are spending considerable time and significant dollars defending the rights of their property. The City's guidelines seem awfully gray. There was a two-year permit for modular trailers allowed directly across the street from the subject property, and at recent public hearings were told that there is an 8-year extension on that building. The City is responsible to treat each homeowner in a fair and equitable manner. Reviewed Title 4 APPROVED Planning Commission October 18, 2004 XVII of the municipal code, and Section 17.17.20, Historic District's Intent and Purpose. Old Towne Orange became an historic district and was placed in the historic register. At that time the Santivanez home was stucco and listed as such. The City has proposed that they leave the existing stucco and utilize wood siding on the addition. That does not comply with municipal code 17.17.20, Section A that states in part that it must be compatible with existing structures and be of complimentary design. The Santivanez' would have a half-stucco/half-wooden home. How is that compatible or complimentary? The City needs to be aware that the burden of such added costs will lead to deferred maintenance and further deterioration simply because homeowners cannot afford to fix their properties, and they will be tied up in expensive and time-consuming red tape. Carlos Navarrete, 184 S. Pine Street. He agrees with Commissioner Brandman on the issue of "how can you have a house that is half stucco and halfwood siding." The applicant's house is on a street that is 65% stucco, 20% asbestos, and 15% wood siding. You have to take into consideration each individual home in the neighborhood. The materials on the subject house are 54 years old (referring to the stucco). That's pretty old, and could be considered in terms of "replacing the old material of the home." Opposed: Jeff Frankel, OTPA, 384 S. Orange Street. OTPA is not opposed to additions on contributing structures, but they do insist that they be sympathetic to the streetscape and original structure in original structure in design and materials, and conform to historic design standards for Old Towne Orange. This project clearly does neither. It allows for a stucco addition to a contributing 1934 Bungalow. Although the existing exterior is stucco, the home still retains its original redwood clapboard siding that is still in good condition. As can be seen by many structures within the district, the added siding material can be removed and the original siding restored. In-kind and typical materials would the material original to the structure: redwood clapboard siding. If the applicant does not wish to remove this stucco at this time, the OTP A understands that it is their decision. But in the future they may be discouraged to do so if a stucco addition is allowed. Additionally, the location of the addition does not conform to the standards as stated on Page 27, which states the construction is discouraged in yards adjoining public streets and should be confined to side and rear yards which are generally out of public view. This project is very similar to a project before the DRC in December 2003 (No. 3867-03) that was sent back for redesign. The addition setback for that project was exactly the same as for this project. The City must be consistent in their decisions. Applicants in the past have presented projects that included alternate materials previously added to the exteriors and have been told to "see what was underneath" and to either match the material or remove the material on the existing structure. An issue came up before the DRC that the OTPA found quite disturbing. DRC member Woollett wanted to go on record that this building had been improperly classified as a contributor. He wanted his opinion as part of the record. There is no reason whatsoever that this structure should be listed as a non-contributor, as all architectural elements are in tact, including the original siding. If a structure is listed as a contributor, all decisions must be based upon this classification, not a Committee Member's opinion to the contrary. Also, Committee Member Dewees stated that since he was not a member of the committee when these former projects were heard, he did not have to consider these when he made his decision. The OTP A finds this absurd. All previous projects 5 APPROVED Planning Commission October 18,2004 must be considered for consistency. The OTP A encourages the Planning Commission to support staff recommendations on this project. Mr. Frankel also added that at the last DRC meeting, a member was missing who had a medical emergency, and he was in support of the wood siding. Adding a stucco addition could deem this property non-contributing. The applicant, Angela Santivanez, stated that she would like to rebut what Mr. Frankel had stated regarding the contributing/non-contributing issue. It has already been stated by staff that the house would still be contributing, whether it was a stucco addition or a wood siding addition. To answer Commissioner Brandman's earlier query as to what happened when the Santivanez' originally submitted the plans to the City. They were encouraged to go back and redo their plans with wood siding, because the exterior materials would be an issue. She stated that had they known at that time that there was nothing in the guidelines that would force them to propose wood siding, they would not have done so. There was never any original intention to utilize wood siding. She also wanted to stress that the reason they were doing an addition was because they wanted to stay in Orange. There is no intention to sell the property, and don't intend to remove the stucco on the existing house. The public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments/concerns: . Dislikes the fact that applicant was given conflicting decisions. . Faults DRC for this. . Applicant has been put in the middle of this, and this is truly unfortunate. . Mills Act is an incentive; it will not pay for a room addition. A motion was made by Commissioner Smith to Adopt Resolution No. 37-04 approving Design Review Committee No. 3919-04, excluding the use of stucco finish on the addition to the contributing residence at 172 S. Pine Street. The motion was seconded by Chair Pruett. Minute Order: Staff should review the Old Towne Design Standards to address some of the issues brought up at this meeting. The applicants and residents need the ability to receive explicit information from the City on what is required and wanted for the Old Towne District. Staff should seriously explore any financial incentives, not just the Mills Act, for homeowners to make restorations in the Old Towne District area. Also, for the Planning Commission to review that recommendation as a recommendation to Council. Staff should apprise the Santivanez family of the Mills Act and see if they qualify or would be interested in participating in the program as it could help in cutting the cost of the project over time. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Domer, Pruett and Smith Commissioners Brandman and Bonina None None MOTION CARRIED 6 APPROVED Planning Commission October 18,2004 A motion was made by Commissioner Bonina to adjourn the meeting to the meeting of November 15, 2004. (The meeting of November 1, 2004 has been cancelled). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Domer, Pruett and Smith None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. 7