Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-1998 PC MinutesCa9Ji~ C!- C).!J-OcJ . 6-. ~. 3 MINlJrES Planning Commission City of Orange December 21, 1998 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vern Jones, Planning Manager/Secretary,John Godlewski, Senior Planner,Mary Binning, Assistant City Attorney,Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2261-98 - DANBERG DEVELOPMENT (CHAPMAN STORAGE)A proposal allowing the construction of a 123,000 square foot self-storage facility. The site is located onthenortheastcornerofChapmanAvenueandWayfieldStreet. NOTE:Negative Declaration 1584-98 has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impactsofthis project.Applicant requests to continue this item to January 4, 1999. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Conditional UsePermit2261-98 to the meeting of January 4, 1999. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2, Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of December 7, 1998.MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero. seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve theMinutesofDecember 7, 1998. AYES: NOES:ABSTAINED:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1998 IN RE:NEW HEARING 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2263-98 - DON MIGUEL MARKET A proposal to allow the off-site sale of beer and wine within an existing market. The site is located at1095NorthGlassell Street.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California EnvironmentalQualityAct, per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.There was no opposition to this item; therefore, the full reading the staff report was waived. And, the public hearing was opened.Aoolicant. Mike AIL 19105 Beachcrest Lane, Huntinqton Beach, requests permission to sell beerandwineattheDonMiguelMarket. He recently purchased the store and is making improvements totheexteriorofthebuildingtoupgradethe property.The public hearing was closed.It was noted the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. MOTION Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to approve ConditionalUsePermit2263-98, with conditions 1 through 7 listed in the staff report, finding that theconditionalusepermitisgranteduponsoundprinciplesoflanduseandinresponsetoservicesrequiredbythecommunity. It will not cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for theareainwhichitislocated. It has been considered in relationship to its effect on thecommunityandneighborhood, and it is made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the generalwelfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED IN RE:MISCELLANEOUS 4. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPEAL NO. 05-98 (RE: ORB NO. 3383 - LEMAR LUNDQUIST)The applicant is appealing the Design Review Board's denial of replacement exterior siding foranexistingresidenceinOldTowne, The site is located at 133 South Shaffer Street.Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a memorandum dated December 21, 1998fromTomMatuzakwithregardto this item.Mr. Jones presented the full staff report as there was opposition. The property fronts onShafferStreet,with garage access from the adjoining alley. The site contains an approximately 1,100squarefoothistoricallycontributinghouseanddetachedgarage. The original garage was approved bytheDesignReviewBoardin1995fordemolitionandreconstructionwithmasonitesiding. Theapplicanthasproposedtore-side the house by placing new masonite siding over the original woodsiding. This task has been initiated and plywood has been installed over the original siding.A citizen complaint about this action brought this matter to staff's attention. It appearstheapplicantrelieduponsomeinformationreceivedfromPlanningstaffandmovedforwardwiththeirplanstousemasonitesidingtomatchthegaragestructure. Staff is authorized to approve exterioralterationssuchasreplacementsiding; however, when projects come in which request new materials that don' Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1998 match the original materials on contributing structures, as a matter of practice, staff forwards the projects to the Design Review Board for a determination of conformance to the Old Towne Design Standards. And, that didn't initially happen in this case. When the complaint was received, a stop work order was placed on the property, and staff directed the applicant to apply to the Design Review Board for a determination on his substitute material request. The DRB reviewed the request at their November 18 meeting and determined that the proposed use of masonite siding does not meet the intent of the Old Towne Design Standards for a contributing structure. The applicant is appealing this decision to the Planning Commission, citing the prior approval of wood composite siding on the garage, and prior consultation with staff. The public hearing was opened. Applicant/Appellant. LeMar (Red) Lundquist. 627 East Barklev, asked questions of Planning staff before starting his project. The contractor talked with staff and got the necessary approvals over the counter, after looking at the old plans. This is not the time to rectify a mistake by the City. This task of having to remove the siding will be costly. He brought in a piece of the masonite siding to show the Commission. It is the same material that was used for a replacement garage that the DRB approved in 1995. The new shear wall siding is nailed onto the house and he would like to proceed, The original siding cannot be bought because it is not made any more. Pat Lenahan of Lenahan Construction Company, was hired to replace the siding on the house. To match the original siding, it would need to be a custom job. The south side of the entire house was deteriorated to the pOint where it would be very difficult to bring it back to an acceptable condition, The deterioration of the wood is in the finish; it does not have dry rot or termite damage, Other areas required the seams to be taken out and replaced. He stated the DRB was concerned about the seams and corners on the house. All corners have corner boards and they do not intend to change the original design of the house, He explained the different layers of materials that will be added to the house. Commissioner Smith feels bad for what has happened. She first heard Mr. Lenahan say they had to replace the entire side of the house, but then she heard that there was nothing structurally wrong with the siding. She thought the cost of replacing a few pieces of redwood siding would be less than what they are proposing to do. She wanted to know if they planned to landscape the south side of the house with trees or shrubs to protect the paint. She asked what the advantage is in putting on the new siding rather than replacing the redwood siding as both need to be painted and maintained, Mr, Lenahan said the entire south side is a considerable quantity (1/4 of the home). Maintenance is considerable (painting every couple of years), The other issue is the integrity of the house. Shear panels will give the building some structural rigidity. There is a brick and mortar foundation. Mr. Lundquist talked about his foundation, He also said there is not a lot of room on the south side of the property for landscaping. Mr. Lenahan explained the masonite is factory primed and it is a more stable product, which does not absorb moisture or move to the extent that redwood does. And, paint adheres to the masonite product very well. Natural wood takes more paint and will require more maintenance than masonite, Commissioner Smith asked why they continued to put up the masonite siding after a stop work notice was issued. Mr. Lenahan said the Building Official visited the site, He did not believe any more work was done after that notice was posted. 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1998 Chairman Bosch was curious as to what has been done about tying the building to the foundation andaskedifanyworkbeendonebelowthefloorlevelforseismicretrofit. He stated shear walls are worthless ifitisn't continuous to a connection pOint that ties it to the ground. Mr, Lenahan responded they have not done any work at this time on the foundation. Chairman Bosch wanted to reaffirm that the existing redwood siding was not individual boards. It was 12inchsectionsthatweremilledtoappeartobethreeboards, as shown in the photos. Mr. Lundquist statedthatwascorrect. The Commission and contractor talked about the depth of the reveals in the siding, window treatment,trim, eaves and jambs to maintain the design integrity of the house. Public comments: Joan Crawford, 394 South Oranoe, spoke in opposition to the appeal. In looking at the ORB notes, theyseemtobelievethattheydidnotapprovethesidingthatwasusedonthegarage, She personallyquestionedwhytheredwoodhastobecoveredatall. The actual redwood could be used with theappropriatetreatment. She thought the DRB gave the applicant some options in using substitute materialthathadthesameprofile. Applicant's response: Mr. Lenahan stated the siding that was approved for the garage at the ORB meeting is on the blueprints;they didn't change manufacturers or material. Chairman Bosch asked what can be done to secure the siding so that it doesn't show the joints. Mr, Lenahan said the joints need to be minimized. The manufacturer's recommendations allows for an1/8" gap in-between the joints to allow for movement. A nailing pattern is required. What telegraphsthemostattheseamsistheshadowlineunderneathanditcanbecaulkedandpaintedtogiveamoreuniform blend.The public hearing was closed.Commissioner Smith was distressed by this project because of the process. It's another tragicprocessinvolvinghousesregardingsiding. A siding request in the 400 block of South Orange led tothedemolitionoftheentirebuilding; a lack of a request in the 300 block of South Center led to avirtualdemolitionofthatbuilding; the 800 block of East Palmyra - another one that was approved to be builtturnedouttobeanentiredemolition, down to the foundation; now, this is the fourth one, which is truly asidingissue, But, this is the loss of four (4) original contributing structures in the neighborhood. If thiskeepsup, they won't have to worry about the National Register qualification. She thinks a mistake wasmadeatthecounterandtheCityneedstostandbehindthattoseewhatcanbedonetoworkforboththeapplicantandretainingthearchitecturalintegrityofthebuilding. She is not in favor of synthetic sidings,especially on contributing structures. She would not have approved the masonite structure behind thishouse. This Victorian cottage was built in the early 1900's. She would have called for wood siding on thegarage. It is not okay to cover up redwood siding with synthetic masonite. What she doesn't like is that itdoesn't look like the original siding. The seams are a non-issue to her. All houses have seams. That'sasmallconcerncomparedtochangingtheoverallfacadeoftheentirebuilding. If this siding were tobeapproved, she would insist the fascia, window mouldings, the cornices, doors and everything beexactlyasthatoftheoriginalbuilding. She hopes that the metal screen door can be removed as amitigatingfactor, and that the wood screen door be installed to soften the front of the house. She is not able tovotefavorablyonthisproject. The best thing to do would be to take off the plywood, spackle the holes, peel off the paper, prep it for paint and put on a good solid coat of paint, and landscape the south side with Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1998 something that would offer some shade. She also agreed that the foundation needs to be tied into the building. The issue for her is trying to keep the house as a contributing structure, The other concern is the confusion at the front counter. She suggested that at least the labor involved in removing the plywood and going back to the start would somehow be deleted from the building fee or returned by the placement of trees, maybe even the landscaping, to the side, to help mitigate this for the applicant. Chairman Bosch had a problem with the advice received at the counter in this regard. He differentiates greatly between when there is a replacement of an accessory building, such as a garage, than the primary structure. The Commission does not have the authority to look at recourse, but they do have the responsibility to look at whether two wrongs make a right, or whether they are causing something to occur that is further damaging of the fabric of the City. He wished masonite made a siding that did what they claimed it would do, and replicated the profiles of the historic boards. There aren't many companies that make a product that is as dimensionally stable and has the finish characteristics that masonite does. The profile is a real challenge in what it does. The bigger challenge in this regard is the impact on the contributing structure, and what precedent does with other people. He would like to say it is close and the applicant is going to do the right thing with the trim, and that the house is going to be beautiful when completed. The trouble is what this does to the historic resource. He's a little worried about how one repairs some thousands of nail holes in the redwood siding underneath. It's no longer a matter of necessarily just replacing some of the boards. It may be a larger scale project. He doesn't think it is the right siding though. He thinks there is a better approach to utilizing some replacement of the redwood siding, including where unfortunate patching had occurred in the past. Commissioner Carlton commented the staff report stated alternative materials will be considered; however, the traditional detailing and intent shall be maintained. It goes on to say that the Design Review Board explained that it may consider the use of a wood comp product if it were installed as individual strips. That is what bothers her, That material does not look anything like the original lap siding. She is not in favor of approving the project at this meeting. Commissioner Pruett's concern is with the material that is used. It needs to be more similar to the original wood siding. He was not sure that some other material exists that is closer to what is actually on the building. Given what is proposed, he is concerned as to what it might do in terms of a precedent as it relates to the Old Towne Design Standards. Chairman Bosch wanted a material that is much closer to the profile. That would be a great mitigation and limits his concern about setting a precedent that could be damaging elsewhere. He's worried when they take off the plywood, they will have a house that still is not seismically stable and there will be redwood siding that is full of holes with a lot of damage. The Commission would be willing to continue this item if the applicant were willing to investigate if there is a more similar product to the existing redwood siding. Mr. Lundquist is willing to continue this discussion, but is concerned about the difference in materials on his garage and house. The Commission also requested a sample of the alternative product be brought in for their review prior to installation, MOTION Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Carlton, to continue Design Review Board Appeal No. 5-98 (ORB Application No. 3384) to the meeting of January 18, 1999. AYES: NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Mr. Jones stated Dan Ryan will be able to work with the applicant to help resolve this situation. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 1998 IN RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Carlton, Pruett, Romero, Smith None MOTION CARRIED Isld 6