Loading...
RES-10131 Denying Appeal 509-09 Cafe LuccaRESOLUTION NO. 10131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL NO. 509-06 - CAFE LUCCA APPLICANT: RICHARD COLEMAN - CAFE LUCCA WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council heard Appeal No. 509-06, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny design approval for changes made to Cafe Lucca that were inconsistent with previously approved plans; and WHEREAS, this project is located within the old Campbell Opera House in the City's Old Towne Historic District, a building which is listed on the National Register as a contributing structure; and WHEREAS, as such, the project is subject to Secretary ofInterior's Standards and Old Towne Design Standards, which pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 17.17.060, must be considered in addition to base zoning standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the administrative record, which included the staff report and accompanying documents, including documents delivered by the Applicant just prior to the hearing, as well as the testimony of the Applicants, the public and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that Appeal No. 509-06 be denied and that the Planning Commissions decision of June 19,2006, be upheld in its majority with only minor modifications as set forth below.SECTION 1 - FINDINGS A. The Proposed Proiect is Not Consistent With Previouslv Approved Plans The subject site is located at 106 N. Glassell Street and houses a beauty school, retail stores and lodge facilities for the Masonic Temple (the site is hereafter referred to as the Masonic Building). It is located in the Old Towne Historic District and is listed as a contributing structure on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 17.17.060, the project is subject to Design Review, which includes a determination as to whether or not the proposed modifications are consistent with the Old Towne Design Standards (hereafter, Design Standards) and Secretary ofInterior's Standards for Rehabilitation (hereafter, Interior Standards). Normally the project would have been initially reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee. However, several members of the Design Review Committee had to abstain from the decision in accordance with state law due to conflicts of interest arising out of leasehold interests within 500 feet of the Masonic Building. As such, review was forwarded to the next highest reviewing body, the Planning Commission, which heard the matter on October 17,2005. Based on plans submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Commission approved Design Review Committee No. 4019-05 subject to six conditions that are set forth in the October 10, 2006, staff report to the City Council.The Applicant submitted plans in accordance with the Planning Commission' s October 17, 2005, action and the City approved the plans (hereafter, the Approved Plans). The Applicant went forward with construction and completed work on Cafe Lucca, but the completed work was not consistent with the approved plans ( hereafter,the As-Built). The City directed the Applicant to either conform to the Approved Plans or return to the Planning Commission to request approval of the As-Built modifications. The Applicant returned to the Planning Commission on June 19,2006,and his requested approval of the As-Built. For the most part, the Planning Commission denied the request, re-affirming their decision on October 17, 2005, and added several recommendations. The Applicant was allowed to open Cafe Lucca under a 90-day temporary occupancy permit after acknowledging in writing Attachment 6 to the City Council Staff Report of October 10, 2006) that the Applicant understood that any "unpermitted changes require City approval" and that should the appeal be denied... the required changes must be made and may require closing your business while the improvements/changes are made."In his testimony, the Applicant admitted that the As-Built was inconsistent with the Approved Plans. The Applicant testified that changes were made in the field for various reasons, but admitted that these changes were not approved or reviewed by City staff. He requested approval of the As-Built.The As-Built is not consistent with the Approved Plans and such inconsistencies include, but are not limited to, the following:The Approved Plans did not include an awning. An awning was installed.The Approved Plans included a wooden Cafe Lucca sign to be placed on the stucco area flush with the building above the front entry doors. The As-Built has no wooden sign, but rather, large signage on the awning, which in addition to not conforming to the Approved Plans, exceeds the allowable signage area,permitted under the Orange Municipal Code.The As- Built has an arched window above the entry door. The Approved Plans show three new glass transoms rectangular in shape.The As-Built has entry doors that are recessed. The Approved Plans show them flush with the front facade.The As- Built has a tin ceiling on the exterior and two Spanish styled carriage B. The As-Built Is Not Consistent With the Secretary of Interior's Standards For Rehabilitation.Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 17.17.060, the Applicant was required to comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Two applicable Interior Standards are as follows:1. Designing new work that is compatible with the architectural character of the historic setting in terms of size,scale, design, material, color and texture.2. Specific Guidelines for Historic Storefronts -- Including creating a false historical appearance because the replaced storefront is based on insufficient historical, pictorial and physical documentation. The As-Built did not comply with the Interior Standards for the following reasons:The arched window, exterior tin ceiling and Spanish carriage lights are not consistent with the style elements of the period storefront. Spanish carriage lights were not historic architectural features of the Masonic Building and/ or the 1920's commercial period.While there are arched windows on other buildings in the Old Towne Historic District, no such arched windows reflect the historical architecture of the Masonic Building and/or the 1920's commercial period and there are not any other arched windows on the Masonic Building. Windows in the transom area were typically square or rectangular in shape. Arched windows were typically used on Spanish Colonial commercial buildings.The tin ceiling is not reminiscent of any historical period of the Masonic Building or the 1920's commercial period. Stucco ceilings were typical of these periods.B. The As-Built Is Not Consistent With Old Towne Design Standards And The Sign Does Not Comply With Base Zoning.Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 17.17.060, the Applicant was required to comply with Old Towne Design Standards. Applicable Design Standards include:I. Building design, colors and material shall be compatible with the character of the existing structure and surrounding area.2. Entryways, doors, windows, transoms, and storefronts shall be consistent and regularly modulated throughout the facade, not haphazardly placed, and consistent with the dominant historic style of the District.3. Wall signs shall be located in logical signable areas such as continuous flat surfaces that are void of windows, doors or architectural details. For many older buildings the most appropriate place for signs may be on the lintel strips above storefronts or on transom panels above display windows. 4. Lighting at display windows and entrances shall be incandescent and concealed from direct view. Outdoor lighting fixtures must be compatible with the style and period of the building. 5. All decorative elements such as awnings, signage, or lighting shall be symmetrically integrated. The As-Built does not comply with the Design Standards for the following reasons:The tin ceiling is not a material that is compatible with the historical architecture of the Masonic Building or the 1920's period. A stucco ceiling would be consistent.The entryway is recessed from the front facade, which is not consistent with the historical architecture of the Masonic Building or the 1920's period.The Spanish style light fixtures are not concealed from direct view and are not compatible with the historical architecture of the Masonic Building or the 1920' s period.The arched window is not consistent with the dominant historic style of the Masonic Building or the 1920's period, which was marked by square or rectangular windows.The awning is not integrated. It is not of the same height or size of the adjoining awning, going both above and below the adjoining awning on the same building. It goes above the stucco where the approved wooden sign was supposed to be placed. It has signage on it, which adjoining awnings on the same building do not. The signage area exceeds code requirements in any event and would require a variance.For the above reasons, the City Council upholds the Planning Commission action of June 19, 2006, which is to re-affirm the findings made by the Planning Commission in its action on October 17, 2005, with the additional recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission on June 19,2006, with the following proviso.The City Council directed staff to review whether or not the front entry doors needed to be recessed to comply with ADA requirements as was represented by the Applicant at the October 10, 2006, meeting. It has been determined that the ADA does not require the doors to be recessed and as such, the front door needs to be moved forward per the Planning Commission direction of June 19,2006.SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Under the Approved Plans the project was found not to have a significant effect on any historical resource. However, the As-Built does not enhance or preserye the historical resource and does not further the purposes of the Design Standards which, among include: (I) to protect the desirable and unique feature of the historic neighborhoods; (2) the long- term stabilization of property values; (3) ensure that compatible rehabilitation will occur; and (4) to insure that new construction will be contextual and architecturally compatible with the historic neighborhood. The As-Built may be found to have a significant effect on an historical resource and thus, under the California Environmental Quality Act, could trigger the requirement that an Environmental Impact Report be done. The City Council is not, at this time, finding that to be the case since the action is to modify the As-Built to conform to the Approved Plans, which will eliminate the need to do an EIR.ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2006.1ijAtM1 Mark A. Murphy, Mayor,ATTEST: l~@ Mary E.c~City Clerk, City 0 Orange I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT:ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith, Murphy, Cavecche COUNCILMEMBERS: Dumitru COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mary E.City Clerk, City 0