Loading...
02-02-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES February 2, 2005 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Staff in Attendance: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Kimberly Chaffin, Associate Planner Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner Committee Member Absent: None Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. A motion was made by Committee Chairman Jon Califf to approve the January 19, 2005, minutes subject to the following corrections: DRC No.3964-04 Woody Residence page 5, paragraph 3, sentence 1 amended as follows; r^mm~**°° "'~°~'~°r Chairman Califf noted that the master bedroom jogs out such that it is on a different plane than the rest of the rear elevation. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3971-04 -Holt Residence Modifications to the front porch area of a 1909 Hip Roof Cottage (contributing) designed in the Modified Classical Revival style. 334 North Harwood Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Kim Chaffin, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Chairman Califf recused himself from participation in the project at 334 North Harwood Street in order to avoid any conflict of interest insofar as his own residence is in very close proximity to the subject property. Associate Planner Kim Chaffin presented the report regarding the property at 334 North Harwood Street, a 1909 Hip Roof Cottage residence designed in the Modified Classical Revival style and listed as a Contributing Structure in the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The one and a half story approximately 1,450 square foot box plan house has a modified hip roof which results in a gabled dormer at the peak. The main roof extends forward to form afull-width porch supported by slender wood posts. The Historic Resources Inventory notes that the original siding was covered with asbestos shingles; however, the shingles have since been removed to reveal the original lap siding. Ms. Chaffin noted that the property owner is requesting approval of exterior modifications completed without the approval of plans and/or permits) made to the front porch and private sidewalk. 1. The original low wall which was covered with siding to match the house and wrapped around the porch has been removed. 2. The original slender wood support posts were removed, and each was replaced with a double wood post with a decorative cap. 3. Stone veneer has been applied to the column bases, the building's raised foundation, and the front steps. 4. The private sidewalk leading up to the front porch has been widened with stone veneer on each side of the existing concrete. 5. Anew curvilinear raised planter of stone veneer has been constructed in front of the front porch, and attaches to the front stairs and returns back to the ends of the front porch. Ms. Chaffin reviewed the following applicable Old Towne Design Standards: 1. Additions and Alterations to Historic Structures -New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic features that characterize the property. 2. Residential Structures, Facade Elements - In remodeling and restoration of existing buildings, it is recommended that elements such as protruding bays, covered porches, and various off-sets of the facade generally be preserved, and in new construction, contemporary adaptations of such elements maybe appropriate. 3. Residential Structures, Front Entrances and Porches, Detailing -Railings, moldings, the work, carvings and other detailing and architectural decorations on front entrances and porches must be typical of the style and period of the main building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 3 4. Residential Structures, Landscape Standards for Sidewalks, Driveways and Curbing - All private sidewalks and curbing must be constructed of concrete or brick that matches or is compatible in texture, color and style with the surrounding paving materials. 5. Use of Appropriate Materials for Maintenance, Repair and Alteration -The policy is to retain, repair or restore rather than replace historic building materials. Where severely deteriorated or irreparable historic building materials must be replaced, only areas of deterioration shall be replaced with in kind materials matching existing material, design, texture and color. If severely deteriorated historic building materials cannot be repaired or replaced with in kind materials, the repair or replacement material shall exactly match appearance of existing in design, texture and color. Ms. Chaffin indicated that staff's evaluation of the removal of the asbestos shingles on the building elevations to reveal the original lap siding is that it is an appropriate restorative modification. However, staff has concerns that the unauthorized exterior modifications to the front porch and private sidewalk have an adverse effect of diminishing or destroying the qualities that caused the listing of this resource as a contributor to the historic district. The 1909 Hip Roof Cottage designed in the Modified Classical Revival style is unique in that it's transitional in its style. The exterior modifications alter one of the building's defining characteristics, the full width porch with its simple, slender wood posts and wrap around siding. In so doing, the simplistic revival style is compromised with a more elaborate design that is more typical of the late 1920's. Stone accent material did not come into use in this manner until the late teens, and construction of this house in 1909 predates that practice. The materials used in this particular application are a modern stone veneer rather than indigenous materials that were typically used commencing in the late teens, i.e., arroyo stone or brick. Restoration of the front porch and sidewalk to the previous condition is possible and will bring the project into compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the City's Old Towne Design Standards and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. Ms. Chaffin advised that staff recommends that the Design Review Committee request that the applicant bring the project into compliance by restoring the front porch and private sidewalk to its previous condition in the following manner: 1. Restore the low walls that wrapped around the porch, including lap siding material to match the original lap siding on the building elevations. 2. Remove the double wood posts and decorative caps and restore the slender single wood posts to match the previous condition. 3. Remove stone veneer from the raised foundation, front porch and stairs, and restore these surfaces to their previous condition. 4. Remove the stone veneer from each side of the private sidewalk. 5. Replace the stone veneer on the new raised planter with a material that is appropriate and compatible to the main structure. David Holt, the property owner and project applicant, expressed concurrence with the staff recommendation regarding restoration of the front porch, but believed that he should be able to install landscape treatments on his property which are similar to those installed by neighbors. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 4 For example, the landscaping of the front yard of the property across the street includes Mexican stone, and a property around the corner utilizes stone from the Midwest. He indicated that he understood those properties were not constructed in the same time period as his home, nor are they are similar design; however, he believed landscape issues should be left up to the individual property owner rather than regulated by the City. Janet Crenshaw, 280 North Cleveland Street, congratulated Mr. Holt on removal of the asbestos shingles to reveal the original lap siding, and indicated that she agrees with him regarding the landscaping. Jeff Frankel, 384 South Orange Street, President of the Old Towne Preservation Association, also commended the applicant on removal of the asbestos shingles. He agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the restoration of the porch as well as the landscaping, and noted that the masonry materials used for the raised planter are inappropriate for the style and period of the residence. He noted that raised planters were not appropriate for a home built during this time period, but that flat beds of planters were typical. He commented that there are many examples of inappropriate planters in Old Towne, but many of those were constructed prior to the adoption of the Old Towne Design Standards, and still others were built without obtaining the required City approval. Shawn Howell, 385 South Glassell, commented that the house across the street from Mr. Holt's property is a bad example because the materials used are inappropriate. Mr. Holt opined that the standards for landscaping in Old Towne residential quadrants are too restrictive. Committee Member Dewees expressed support for staff recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but did not support recommendation Nos. 4 and 5. Committee Member Wheeler asked if this type of landscaping requires a building permit, to which Ms. Chaffin responded that the concrete flat work on private property and walls lower than 42 inches do not require building permits. However, the Old Towne Design Standards do set forth certain landscape features that require City approval, and walls within the front yard setback and sidewalk materials are covered by the Design Standards. She added that some minor modifications can be approved at the staff level, while others require Design Review Committee approval. Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry pointed out that the City developed the Old Towne Design Standards because many properties were being modified in a manner that compromised the properties' integrity, and the intent is to maintain the property overall, not just the structure. Committee Member Woollett was concerned about setting a precedent by imposing restrictions regarding landscaping. Ms. Chafin clarified that some, but not all, landscape features are addressed by the Old Towne Design Standards, and sidewalks and walls for contributing properties within the residential quadrants are addressed, so the Committee is being asked to make a determination on whether or not the work that has been done is in compliance with those standards. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Holt noted that the original concrete sidewalk has been replaced with concrete material which is identical to the original, and that the new stone added to either side of the sidewalk is merely an accent material, and shouldn't be considered part of the sidewalk. Committee Member Dewees agreed with Mr. Holt's characterization of the stone material on either side of the concrete sidewalk as an accent rather than part of the sidewalk, and therefore, did not believe the stone material must be removed. Mr. Frankel noted that there is a different between hardscape and softscape, and the intent of the Standards is to avoid use of stone as a paving material. Committee Member Wheeler commented that, due to the fact a building permit is not required for this type of landscape modification, he could understand how someone may innocently make a change to their property without realizing that a different type of City approval is required. However, he noted that because the new planter wall is attached to the house, it could be considered part of the structure. Mr. Howell noted that a building permit is not required to construct a fence, but certain types of fence materials are not allowed. Committee Member Woollett acknowledged that if a building permit is not required, then one might reasonably assume City approval is not required. He suggested that if the Design Standards require City approval for certain modifications, then those modifications should also require building permits. Committee Member Wheeler agreed that may be a good idea and suggested that the City Attorney be consulted at some point in the future regarding that possibility. Ms. Chaffin reviewed the entire section of the Old Towne Design Standards for Residential Quadrants regarding Landscaping. 1. General In contrast to the formal patterns in the Plaza Historic District and Spoke Street Corridors, the character of the residential landscape is established with a variety of plant materials. 2. Fences. a. Fences must be constructed and maintained in a vertical position. b. The top edge of a fence must be along a line that is either horizontal, or substantially parallel to the ground. c. Fences and walls located within the front yard setback area shall not exceed 42" in height. Fences and walls located in side and rear yards shall not exceed six feet in height. Where there is a difference in grade between adjacent properties, the maximum fence height shall be six feet as measured from the high grade side and eight feet as measured from the low grade side. d. The color, texture, pattern and dimensions of masonry columns and bases, and the color, width, type and elevation of mortar joints in a fence column or base must match the masonry and mortar joints of the main building as nearly as practicable. All exposed brick in a fence column or base must be fired brick as defined by the American Standard Testing Materials Designation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 6 e. Wrought iron and metal fences must be compatible with the style and period of the main building. If a wrought iron or metal fence is painted or colored, the color must complement the color of the main building. f. Wooden fences must have structural posts at least four inches in diameter nominal size). The side of a wooden fence facing a public street must be the finished side. Wooden fences may be painted or stained a color that is complementary to the main building. 3. Sidewalks, Driveways and Curbing a. Materials. All private sidewalks and curbing must be constructed of concrete or brick that matches or is compatible in the texture, color and style with the surrounding paving materials. b. Width, Style and Spacing i. In new developments of four units or fewer, the minimum permitted width of a driveway in the front yard is nine feet, and the maximum width is 12 feet. ii. Ribbon driveways are encouraged for new residential projects to break up the expanse of paving and to provide increased landscaping. When used, the ribbon must cover 75% of the length of the driveway, and have a minimum internal grass width of 18 inches. iii. A driveway constructed in the front yard must be spaced a minimum of one foot from an existing driveway on an adjacent lot. 4. Parkway/Street Trees. All plantings must comply with City Standards regarding spacing, utility and vision clearance and maintenance. A permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all plantings in the parkway area. A "Designated Parkway Tree List" is available from the Public Works Department. Committee Member Wheeler agreed that modifications addressed by the Standards should require a building permit, with which Mr. Frankel concurred and asked how the City could go about making such a change. Ms. Roseberry acknowledged that there are several sections of the Standards which staff would like to tighten up, and to add a requirement for a building permit for any modification addressed by the Standards could be incorporated into an update of the Standards; however, there are currently no funds budgeted to update the Standards. Committee Member Wheeler commented that he supports the staff recommendation with the possible exception of No. 4 regarding the sidewalk. Mr. Holt believed that the porch wall materials that were removed were not original, because they did not match the exterior walls on the residence. Mr. Frankel commented that this particular style of architectural commonly had porch walls, so he has no doubt that the original porch did indeed have walls, and it is possible the original materials were possibly replaced with something different by one of the property owners. Mr. Holt opined that the City is becoming like a Gestapo because its regulations regarding what one can place in one's yard are too restrictive. Committee Member Woollett stated that it is the duty of the Committee to enforce the Standards, and added that he now has a better understanding of the Standards as a result of this project. He City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 7 considered that the stone material alongside the sidewalk to be part of the sidewalk because it is flush with the sidewalk. Committee Member Dewees remarked that he would support allowing the stone material alongside the sidewalk to remain, as he considers it an accent material rather than part of the sidewalk. He further commented he would support removal of the stone veneer from the planter wall. Mr. Holt indicated that beneath the stone veneer of the planter wall is scored concrete similar to that of the raised foundation, and the consensus of the Committee was that scored concrete would be appropriate for the planter wall. A motion was made by Committee Member Woollett to approve the staff recommendation to require that the applicant bring the project into compliance by restoring the front porch and private sidewalk to its previous condition in the following manner: 1. Restore the low walls that wrapped around the porch, including lap siding material to match the original lap siding on the building elevations. 2. Remove the double wood posts and decorative caps and restore the slender single wood posts to match the previous condition. 3. Remove stone veneer from the raised foundation, front porch and stairs, and restore these surfaces to their previous condition. 4. Remove the stone veneer from each side of the private sidewalk. 5. Replace the stone veneer on the new raised planter with a material that is appropriate and compatible to the main structure. The motion died for lack of a second. Committee Member Wheeler moved to approve the staff recommendation to require that the applicant bring the project into compliance by restoring the front porch and private sidewalk to its previous condition in the following manner: 1. Restore the low walls that wrapped around the porch, including lap siding material to match the original lap siding on the building elevations. 2. Remove the double wood posts and decorative caps and restore the slender single wood posts to match the previous condition. 3. Remove stone veneer from the raised foundation, front porch and stairs, and restore these surfaces to their previous condition. 4. Replace the stone veneer on the new raised planter with a material that is appropriate and compatible to the main structure. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Jon Califf MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2005 Page 8 2. DRC No. 3973-04 -Horton Residence Addition onto a residential structure (non-contributing) in the Old Towne District 730 W. Washington Street Staff Contact: Christopher Carnes, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Project Planner, Chris Carnes, explained that the project was an addition to the rear of a single- family residence so as to enlarge a family room. The existing residence was built in the 1960s and the project was before the DRC because the project site is located in the Old Towne Orange Historical District. Staff's review of the proposal found that the project complies with the City's development standards and the proposed addition would not have an impact on the City's Historical District because the existing residence is not an historical structure and the area surrounding the project site is not developed with historical structures. Based on the above, staff recommended approval of the project subject to the condition that the addition be built per plans reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. The applicants displayed a picture of the proposed bricks for the walls. Their concept was to have the existing brick on the fireplace treated to soften the bricks edges and to create variation in the bricks colors. The applicant explained that they were in future going to replace the rock time in front of the residence with the same type of brick being used on the addition. The DRC members reviewed the building details for the addition to the existing building and had concerns that the window trim, building eves, and brick were not similar to the existing. The DRC members and applicant reviewed the specifics of the project and resolved to revise the window trim to match the existing window trim, the new brick and the existing brick are to be matched as much as possible, and the building eaves will be revised to vertical cut similar to the existing residence. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project subject to the following conditions: 1. The window trim shall be redesigned to have squared corners to match the trim on the existing structure. 2. The building eaves shall have vertical cut to match the eves on the existing structure. 3. The bricks on the existing fireplace shall be treated to match the brick proposed for the building addition. SECOND: Jon Califf AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: None MOTION CARRIED N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 02-02-05 drem.DOC