Loading...
07-21-2004 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 21, 2004 Committee Members Present: Jon Califf (Chair) Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Donnie Dewees Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Dan Ryan, Senior Historic 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 8:00 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3919-04 -PETER AND ANGELA SANTIVANEZ Proposal to add a 493 sq. ft. addition on to a one-story 1934 Bungalow 172 South Pine Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner -Historic Preservation DRC Action: Final Determination Continued from 6-16-04 Meeting for decision on siding. The project was introduced by Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation. The DRC, at the June 16, 2004 meeting had asked the applicant to further explore the type and condition of original siding that existed beneath the stucco on the residence, as well as to come back with further ideas for siding on the addition to the structure. The original material is one-piece, three- lap milled redwood plank with each lap having a three and one-half inch exposure. There were no issues with the design of the addition, there was just discussion regarding the materials to be used on the new siding. John Turner, the architect of record, represented the applicant. He stated that in reviewing the overall cost of removing the entire stucco and finding an appropriate siding to replace it with, it appeared to be an option that was unnecessary. In noting the other houses on the street and other houses in the City of about the same period, the owners felt that retaining the stucco exterior and continuing it on the addition was appropriate. Janet Crenshaw, representing OTPA, spoke to the addition. She mentioned there was a project on N. Cleveland that had been denied (with an addition out to the side, similar to this proposal) because it made the home look more of aranch-style. She noted that the design of the house was not in question tonight (simply the siding) but she wanted to bring this issue up to the DRC. She stated that her preference on the siding would be for the wood siding. Jeff Frankel, also representing OTPA, stated that his comments strictly dealt with the standards, and the standards state that all additions should be in the side or rear-yard, out of view from the public and not altering the streetscape. He noted that this had quite an impact on the streetscape. He stated that he would rather see the DRC adhere to the standards on this issue. He also stated that the standards dictate that you must use the same materials (i.e., wood siding) as the original structure, and it is really irrelevant what was added on later. In adding on a new addition, it must be in the same material as the existing building. Jeff Frankel again added that he is still opposed to the double-gable face to the street, which alters the streetscape, and is not in the original condition. It was further discussed that perhaps just the addition could be done in the wood siding, with the hope that in the future the original home could have the stucco removed and the original siding could be replaced. Also as part of the discussion, was the fact that the house may have been improperly listed as a contributing structure to the historical district, when other buildings that have been covered by City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 3 stucco (and thus so altered from their original design) have been classified as No Longer Significant. Joe Woollett stated that he believed that it was clear that the home was no longer a contributing structure, and the DRC could not demand that the owners put up the wood siding, which is a significant cost burden to the owners. John Turner stated that the owners would also prefer the wood siding, but that it was too costly. Jon Califf stated that there was nothing in the standards that dictated that the owners remove the original stucco, and they were allowed to do the addition in stucco if they so chose. He still believes that there is a tangible financial benefit to be seen to adding the wood siding to the home in the long term. He believes the design features of the original bungalow are still there, so there are reasons why this particular bungalow may have stayed on the contributing structure list and others have not. Craig Wheeler stated he would strongly prefer that the original structure and the new addition be done in wood siding, and he would be strongly opposed to having just the front facade (as had been previously discussed) done in the wood siding. If it is the consideration of the Committee that they cannot require wood siding, then it was his position that it would be very much preferred. Further, if it was indeed to be a stucco addition, he would like to see a new set of drawings indicating how that would be done in stucco (the plans before the DRC currently show the wood siding). Jon Califf noted that it had been determined that the original siding was not 3-up, but was single plank, thereby making it off-the-shelf and much less costly to do. Angela Santivanez told the Committee that their preference would be to have the addition be stucco. Joe Woollett wanted it to be a part of the record that the building had been improperly classified as a Contributing Structure. Jon Califf stated that he does not believe that the building had been improperly classified. Joe Woollett stated that he wanted his opinion as a part of the record, because if it was properly classified, then the Committee was bound to standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior. There was further discussion that regardless of the stucco finish, there were still many other elements to the bungalow style that would have warranted it to be a contributing structure. Peter Santivanez asked the Committee the question that if they had removed the stucco on the existing structure and had found there was nothing beneath it, would they still be bound by the standards? Jon Califf stated that if there had been nothing found but bare studs, then the owner could choose a type of siding that would be appropriate for that type of structure. If it was going to be taken completely off, and there was original siding there, they would be obligated to do it in the original design. What is the issue before the Committee, Califf further clarified, is that they are not obligated to remove the stucco. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 4 Craig Wheeler brought up an additional point that if the new addition had been finished in a style appropriate to the original design (i.e., wood siding), then it could be considered an improvement and would be considered as such. If, however, as the owners are suggesting, the addition be made in stucco, then it would not be considered an improvement according to Old Towne design standards, and this issue should be further discussed. Donnie Dewees asked that the Committee be more specific in giving advice to the owners, should they decide to come back with a stucco design. Discussions centered around the fact that the double gable (as proposed) clearly was in conflict with the design standards, and that the Committee would prefer something that did not have the double gable and was therefore more in keeping with and not detracting from, the existing streetscape and altering the original design of the bungalow style house. The intent would be to keep it a more subdued addition and not stand out so much from the street. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project as originally submitted (entire wood siding composition, with the following conditions), allowing that the wood siding does not have to exactly match the original siding of the house so that it comes as close as possible using a real wood material rather a synthetic. However, should the applicant wish to resubmit the project in stucco that would be considered at a future meeting. 1) Windows in the front bedroom should meet egress requirements. 2) The extended barges be constructed without the outlookers that are normally employed in modern construction. 3) The exposed rafter tails in the new addition should be 2x4's. 4) More specificity on what is being used on the window and doorframes. SECOND: JoeWoollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 5 2. DRC No.3921-04 -THOMAS WALSH Half-story addition and fire repair to a 1910 Bungalow 390 N. Shaffer Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Senior Planner Daniel Ryan gave the project overview. There was considerable structural damage to the original structure due to a fire in November 2003. Attached to the structure is a stucco non-contributing addition in the back, which was not damaged by the fire. The original structure is identified by the City's Historic Building Survey as a contributing 1910 Bungalow. The applicant stated that his desire was to raise the attic roof by 4' and utilize the area as a half- story addition. The windows would be custom-made to match the existing window styles, and the structure would closely resemble another structure on the property so as not to stand out on the streetscape. Janet Crenshaw, 464 N. Shaffer, OTPA, spoke and indicated that she was also commenting as a neighbor of this project. She complimented the existing front structure as beautiful with wonderful landscaping, but stated that the rest of the property was cemented in or with plaster buildings that had been added on and rented out in the back separately. Parking has always been a problem. She believes that raising the roof will ruin the look of the front (and in her opinion the back is already ruined). Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange, OTPA, stated that he appreciated the attention to details on windows, etc. The problem, as he sees it, is raising the roof by four feet. If it is raised by four feet it is no longer a story and a half, it is a two-story residence. Standards state that if you add onto a contributing structure, it must be added to in such a manner that if you remove it in the future, the historic property is left unimpaired. That is not the case here. He also noted that it stated that this was the final review, but he said that standards state that if you change the height of any contributing structure it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Andrea McCullough, 325 N. Shaffer, also a member of OTPA and a neighbor, would like to see it restored or reconstructed to the National Register guidelines. There is documentation on what the house used to look like, and it should be restored to that. Phil Bennett, 12361 Baja Panorama, Santa Ana, the architect on the project, noted that on the front, the roof pitch is not changing, it is just being elevated by 4 feet. Donnie Dewees stated that he agreed with the members of the OTPA, that raising the roof by four feet profoundly affected the character of the 1910 Bungalow style. It's not just about the details, it's about massing and scale - to raise it higher profoundly affects the scale. He questioned the Hopper windows, and asked if they were appropriate. It was confirmed that they are original. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 6 A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to continue the project with the following recommendations. 1. Restudy the elevations and find ways to reduce the overall height increase of the home. Possible approaches might be to replace the existing 10-foot high ceiling with an 8-foot ceiling. 2. Carefully study the attic space to ensure that it is kept as low as it can possibly be to maintain equal headroom throughout. 3. As previously discussed, moving the horizontal band to maintain a closed pediment on the front gable roof. 4. Provide a section detail for the attic addition. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 7 3. DRC No. 3897-04 - FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH Proposal to remove the existing freestanding post sign fronting Orange Street and add a new wall sign on the west elevation of the sanctuary building. 161 South Orange Street (Old Towne Historic District) Staff Contact: Kim Chaffin, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination The project overview was given by Associate Planner Kim Chaffin. The building is a contributing structure to the Old Towne Historic District. The applicant proposes to put a wall sign up on a red brick structure, although most of the other buildings on the property are an off- white stucco. The initial proposal was reviewed on April 21, 2004. Concern for durability of the wood material on awest-facing building was expressed by the DRC at that time. There was also concern with the new sign competing with the existing granite dedication plaque on the property. It was suggested that if the applicant used white, that it be the same color to match the existing off-white stucco. The applicant has provided a new proposal for '/4" laser cut aluminum characters painted white, 15' in height, Century Schoolbook Bold font. The logo would also be the same material, 33" in height. They are proposing to center the new sign under the four stained glass windows, in hopes that it will now not compete with the existing granite sign. The new sign is in keeping with the Old Towne design standards. Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street, offered his opinion that he thought this sign was an improvement over the old sign. A motion was made by Committee Member Craig Wheeler to approve the project with the following condition, including the four listed in the Staff Report: 1. The signage be pin-mounted and stand off from the face of the wall. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 8 4. DRC No.3932-04, 3933-04, 3934-04 - FEATHERHILL TERRACE New single-family residences on three vacant hillside lots. 2409, 2411, 2419 Feather Hill Drive Staff Contact: Chuck Lau, Associate Planner DRC Action: Final Determination Church Lau, Associate Planner gave the overview of the project. He noted that there were three separate residences being discussed together, rather than having them be separate projects to discuss, as they were similar. The project follows the City of Orange Infill Residential Development Guidelines that promote the preservation of neighborhood character and property values, maintenance of streetscape integrity, continuation of existing urban form, and topography sensitivity. Mr. Lau was joined by the developers of the property: Richard Hudson, 27762 Vista del Lago, Mission Viejo Toby Hudson, 27762 Vista del Lago, Mission Viejo Jeff Chamley, 202 Calle Marino, San Clemente John Killen, 14032 Enderlie Center Drive, Tustin Stu Livingstone, 515 E. Maple Avenue The plans for the three projects were discussed in detail. Joe Woollett inquired as to how much slope there was from the garage door down to the sidewalk. The answer was it was about a 9% slope. Chuck Lau noted that it was important to have parking on the property, since there was no parking on that side of the street. Craig Wheeler also noted that there were going to be two street trees removed, and inquired about the plans to replace those. Because there are existing trees on the site, there will be a tree survey that shows that any tree that is larger than a 10" diameter will have to be replaced with a tree with a 3-to-1 ratio. Craig Wheeler noted that since the street trees were quite mature and formed an existing pattern with others along the street, it might appear that there was a break in the pattern if the trees were missing, and suggested several alternatives. Chuck Lau assured the Committee members that Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator for the City of Orange, would be involved in the project to supervise this area. Jon Califf, Committee Chairman, asked if there was any public comment. There was none. A motion was made by Committee Member Joe Woollett to approve the project with the following conditions in addition to those mentioned in the Staff Report: 1. Attic vents be on the rear side of the roof, and plumbing vents be grouped. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 9 SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Jon Califf, Donnie Dewees Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None MOTION CARRIED City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2004 Page 10 5. DRC 3915-04 - LIVINGSTONE RESIDENCE Proposal to add a detached lanai and attached patio cover to the existing residence. 515 E. Maple Avenue (Old Towne Orange Historic District) Staff Contact: Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation DRC Action: Discuss revised plans with applicant. Discussion only - no action taken. Project continued to August 4, 2004 meeting. N:\C D D\P L N G\Council Commissions Committees\DRC 7-21-04 drem.DOC