SR - APP-546-16 - HOIKE RESIDENCE 730 W PALM AVENUE1. SUBJECT
APPEAL HEARING: Appeal No. 546 -16 - An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to
deny Design Review (DRC) No. 4782 -16 and Minor Site Plan (MNSP) No. 0872 -16 for the
Hoike Residences at 730 W. Palm Avenue in the Old Towne Historic District.
2. SUMMARY
On September 7, 2016, the Planning Commission denied DRC No. 4782 -16 and MNSP No.
0872 -16, a proposal to construct two new residential units and a detached two -car garage on a
property in the local Old Towne Historic District. The property contains a single family residence
that is a contributor to the local Historic District. The existing house has been rehabilitated and
will remain as a residential unit, which takes access from W. Palm Avenue. The applicant
proposed to take access for the new housing units from a new driveway at the southwest corner
of the property at N. Clark Street.
The project was initially approved by the Planning Commission in 2013; however, the
entitlements expired. The previously entitled project included a Condition of Approval that a
barn at the rear of the property was required to be relocated intact to a new location for reuse as
one of the two new residential units. The barn was considered to be a non - contributor to the
Historic District, based on a staff report from 2013. Prior receiving a building permit, the
property owner dismantled the barn. The applicant decided that the barn was not in sufficiently
sound condition to be relocated intact, and the barn was disassembled. The barn's vertical board
siding was salvaged, numbered and stored on site to be reused on the new studio residential unit.
When it was determined that the entitlement had expired and that the barn was not relocated
according to the Conditions of Approval for the previous entitlement, the applicant applied for a
new entitlement for the project. The new entitlement (DRC No. 4782 -16 and MNSP No. 0872-
16) was identical to the project approved in 2013, with the exception that the barn siding would
be reused on the studio unit, rather than having the barn relocated in intact wall panels. At the
Planning Commission hearing, all motions on the project failed through a series of tied votes and
the project was denied. The applicant for the project, Hoike, LP, appealed the Planning
Commission denial of the project to the City Council.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Motion on Appeal No. 546 -16.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
Potential minor property tax gains from improvements to the property.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S)
3(c). Enhance and promote quality of life in the community; support and enhance attractive,
diverse living environments.
5(b). Recognize, promote and preserve Orange's rich heritage; expand and strengthen
processes and practices related to protection of cultural resources.
6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Land Use Element
Goal 1.0 Meet the present and future needs of all residential and business sectors with a
diverse and balanced mix of land uses.
Policy 1.3 Provide a range of housing densities and types to meet the diverse needs and
lifestyles of residents.
Goal 5.0 Maintain and enhance the vibrant, transit - accessible, pedestrian - friendly, and livable
character of Old Towne's neighborhoods and commercial core.
Policy 5.5 Continue to require consistent, high quality, historically- referenced design within
Old Towne.
Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Element
Goal 1.0 Identify and preserve potential and listed historic resources, including buildings,
structures, objects, sites, districts, and archaeological resources citywide.
Policy 1.4 Encourage alternatives to demolition such as architecturally compatible
rehabilitation, adaptive re -use, new construction or relocation.
Urban Design Element
Goal 5.0 Maintain Old Towne's identity as the only authentic and intact historic downtown in
Orange County.
ITEM 12/13/2016
Policy 5.3 Require infill development to be compatible with the scale and appearance of
neighboring historic structures and to comply with all applicable historic
preservation design and development standards and Secretary of the Interior
standards.
7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND
Proiect Background
The 14,182 square foot property is developed with a one - story, single - family residence. The
residence was constructed in 1914 and is a contributor to the local Old Towne Historic District.
The project includes construction of two new residential units and a detached two -car garage on
the property. The new 604 square foot, two -car garage will be constructed to the east of the
existing residence. The new 1,899 square foot, 1 '/2 story unit with attached two -car garage will
be constructed at the rear southeast corner of the parcel. The unit will be clad in vertical fiber
cement siding with wood windows and doors. A new 450 square foot studio unit will be
constructed on the rear southwest side of the property. This unit will be clad with the salvaged
vertical board siding from the previously demolished barn. Access to the new units will be
provided through a new driveway onto N. Clark Street, a cul -de -sac to the south of the property.
The existing residence will continue to take access from W. Palm Avenue.
The property is located on the south side of W. Palm Avenue, east of N. Batavia Street in the
northwest quadrant of the local Old Towne Historic District. The property has three adjacent
residential lots with two non - contributing buildings (constructed in 1956 and 1979) and one
contributing building constructed in 1920. The south side of the 700 -800 block of W. Palm
Avenue contains a mixture of non - contributing one- and two -story multi - family apartments with
two contributing residential properties. The north side of W. Palm Avenue has one contributing
single - family residence surrounded by non - contributing single- family residences. The Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for the block ranges from .14 FAR to .34 FAR, with an average FAR of .21.
When this project was entitled in 2013, a barn was located at the rear of the property. The barn
was in poor condition with structural deficiencies, and it was identified in previous staff reports
as a non - contributor to the Historic District because the alterations to the structure were sufficient
to affect its integrity, or the physical characteristics that make the structure potentially historically
significant. The approved project at that time included relocating and adaptively reusing the barn
as a residential unit. The method for relocating included first constructing the frame for the new
residential unit, bracing the barn from the exterior and interior, moving the intact wall panels of
the barn and attaching them to the new structure.
In July 2016, the barn was disassembled without a building permit and the siding was salvaged
because the property owner and contractor believed that the approved relocation method was not
feasible given the deterioration of the roof and wall framing elements and that disassembling the
structure would improve their ability to salvage more of the wood siding for use on the new
studio unit. The salvaged siding was stored on site with photographs and markings on the
individual boards to assist with reassembling the siding in the original pattern. The applicant
estimates that between 75 and 85 percent of the total siding can be reused on the new studio unit.
ITEM 12/13/2016
The demolition of the barn was not completed in conformance with the previously approved
project. The Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.10.090 — Demolition Review for
properties in the Old Towne historic districts does not establish a process for review of projects
after an unpermitted demolition has taken place. Because it has already occurred, the demolition
could not be approved or denied by a reviewing body, and therefore, the demolition review
process does not apply to the project. The project considered by the Planning Commission was
for construction of two new residential units, one of which used salvaged wood siding from the
barn as the exterior cladding. The site plan was the same as the project initially approved in 2013.
The studio unit has the same dimensions as the demolished barn, which would allow the
salvaged wood siding to be reused in the original pattern on the exterior of the new unit.
Planninz Commission Action
On September 7, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider DRC No.
4782 -16 and MNSP No. 0782 -16. Four Commissioners were present at the hearing.
Commissioner Willits was absent. The Planning Commission considered the entire record,
including all testimony and additional information offered at the public hearing. The Planning
Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 3.
Three motions were considered by the Planning Commission
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16 approving Minor Site Plan No. 0872-
16 and Design Review No. 4872 -16 for construction of two residential units and a
detached two -car garage on property containing an existing single family residence
located at 730 W. Palm Avenue, noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Ayes: Two votes (Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson)
Noes: Two votes (Commissioners Correa and Gladson)
Due to the tie vote, the motion failed.
2. Continue the project when all five Commissioners would be present with no changes to
the design of the project.
Ayes: Two votes (Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson)
Noes: Two votes (Commissioners Correa and Gladson)
Due to the tie vote, the motion failed.
3. Continue the item to allow the applicant to redesign the project related to reducing the
density and finding the N. Clark Street driveway access might not be needed.
Ayes: Two votes (Commissioners Correa and Gladson)
Noes: Two votes (Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson)
Due to the tie vote, the motion failed.
Because all motions failed, DRC No. 4782 -16 and MNSP No. 0782 -16 were denied. Minutes
from the Planning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment 4 to this report.
ITEM 12/13/2016
Public Comments
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff received one email from an adjacent property
owner in opposition to the project. The email was provided to the Planning Commission in
advance of the hearing and was considered as part of the record. The email is included as
Attachment 5 to this staff report.
8. APPELLANT'S STATEMENT
On September 19, 2016, the applicant, Hoike, LP, appealed the Planning Commission decision
based on a statement provided in the appeal application. The applicant's full statement is
included as Attachment 2.
9. CONCLUSION
Under OMC 17.08.050.F, the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the
Planning Commission action to deny DRC No. 4782 -16 and MNSP No. 0782 -16. Because the
denied project included the reconstruction and adaptive reuse of the barn, the barn will not be
reconstructed using the salvaged wood siding under the existing Planning Commission action.
The Council may affirm the Planning Commission denial, which would preclude the barn from
being reconstructed and would eliminate the proposed development of the property.
The Council may reverse or modify the Planning Commission denial to allow reconstruction and
adaptive reuse of the barn using the salvaged siding, along with the new development. Staff
would monitor the reconstruction to ensure that the salvaged original siding is used to accurately
reconstruct the barn.
10. ATTACHMENTS
Attachments to Report
1. Vicinity Map
2. Appeal No. 546 -16
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2016
4. Planning Commission Minutes from Meeting of September 7, 2016
5. Public Comment received September 6, 2016
6. Plan denied by Planning Commission as Exhibit A, dated August 25, 2016
CC: Hoike, LP
Attn: Airalea Newman
1300 Quail St, #108
Newport Beach, CA 92660
ITEM 12/13/2016
Rick Fox
Stratos Form
275 S. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92866
ITEM 12/13/2016
Vicinity Map
APP No. 0546 -16
of
DRC No. 4782 -16 and MNSP No. 0782 -16
Hoike Residences
730 W. Palm Avenue
f,w
& ,
CITY OF ORANGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
HOIKE RESIDENCE
APPEAL NO. 546-16 _
DECEMBER 13.2016 CC MTG
g �QF o City of Orange
Community Development Department
` 300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
7 14- 7 44 - APPEAL APPLICATION
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. O�aN (� 1 6
This application must be filled out completely. Any appeal shall be filed with the Community
Development Department Planning Division within fifteen (I5) calendar days after the hearing or
action from which the appeal is made (OMC Section 17.08.050 C). The $1000.00 filing fee (initial
deposit - actual cost required) must accompany the appeal.
Name of Appellant(s) 12 1 kf o Z
Address of Appellant(s) 13 e
Phone No. (day) - 7 1 -` - ?9 z 1, -5 (cell) 74 z-
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Appeal of action on case number - Owe - �2 ��(� �I �irtOr 5� � /'�d t -Arvi t' o1
Project address: 7.3v pD. fern
REASON FOR REQUEST: Please s eci and ex lain WHY you are appealing the decision or
determination and indicate specifically the error or abuse of discretion (OMC Section 17.08.050 C).
Signature of Appellant (or representative) Date
PLANNING DIVISION USE ONLY: Date of hearing or decision and hearing body
Application checked by �,� � ^'� ��'�� Date & Time Received 9' n -2O1,C l 2 I Z f �'� •.
N : \CDD \PLNG\Administration \Fonns & Templates\Appeal FOnn.DOC ATTACHMENT NO . 2
APPEAL NO.546 -16
HOIKE RESIDENCE
DECEMBER 13, 2016 CC MTG.
Palm Avenue
DRC 4872 -16 & Minor Site Plan Review 0872 -16
Sep 14, 2016
The applicant appeals the actions of the Planning Commission taken during the Sep 7, 2016 hearing,
and seeks approval from City Council for re- entitlement of the project.
1.0 Initial Entitlement to present:
In September 2013, the planning commission approved, with conditions, a project to: i) relocate a non-
contributing barn and convert it to a one - bedroom accessory unit; ii) construct a new two -story dwelling
with attached garage; and, iii) construct a new two -car garage for the contributing historic residence on
Palm Avenue.
In early May of 2016, construction documents for the project were submitted to the building department
for plan check and permitting that incorporated all required conditions of approval. In addition, the
Water Quality Plan was approved by Public Works, and addresses were approved by Public Works for
the two units accessed from Clark Street.
During the plan check process, the 2013 entitlements expired. In late July, the barn was dismantled, in
a manner at variance with one of the approved conditions, on the belief that a demolition permit had in
fact been issued. Following notification that entitlements had expired, the applicant promptly re-
submitted project documents seeking re- entitlement of the project.
2.0 Planning Commission Hearing (Sep. 7, 201 6)
Commissioner Willits was absent.
During the recent hearing, the first motion (by Glasgow) to approve DRC & MSP failed on a 2 -2 vote.
Y = Simpson, Glasgow N= Correa, Gladson
A subsequent motion (by Simpson) to continue the item to the next available hearing so that it could be
heard by all five commission members also failed on a 2 -2 vote.
Y = Simpson, Glasgow N = Correa, Gladson
After commission member discussion about having the applicant re- submit a reviseddesign, the
applicant's architect sought clarification from members of the commission as to which specific aspects of
the project were unacceptable, and to please clearly articulate the nexus between reasons given for
opposing the project in the first motion (which appeared to be punitive) and those elements that needed
to be re- designed so as to make for an approvable project. This prompted a third motion (by Gladson)
to instruct the applicant to re- design the project and eliminate the N. Clark driveway. It too failed on a
2 -2 vote.
Y = Correa, Gladson N = Simpson, Glasgow
3.0 Moving Forward
The cumulative effect of the planning commission actions is that the project is denied by a vote of only
two members, the commission is deadlocked about whether the project can be re -heard by all five
members, and (in the applicant's view) inadequate justification was given as to how any (real or
perceived) substantive defects related to the action in the first two motions.
The applicant acknowledges that missteps occurred during the most recent phases of the permitting
process that seem to have created the unfortunate impression that the applicant is unable or unwilling to
"play by the rules." This is not what the totality of the record shows. The applicant has already
expended significant good -faith effort in furtherance of the September 2013 approvals, and continues tc
demonstrate that they intend to see the project through to its proper and final completion.
The commission's actions on Sep 7 +h effectively rendered moot (at least for now) any options the
applicant might undertake to re- construct the now dismantled barn —a centra /element of the project.
The barn relocation received enormous attention in 2013 from OTPA, staff and the Commission. It is
now still the focus of attention, insofar as, it's premature dismantlement appears to the basis for a
punitive denial.
At this point, it seems very unwise to deny the project, and then continue to jeopardize the possibility of
the barn's reconstruction. The longer we wait, the more these fragile historic materials will continue to
deteriorate. No one wants this piece of Old Towne history to disappear forever. But that seems to be
the direction we are collectively headed unless corrective action is taken by Council.
The applicant, therefore, seeks to have City Council approve this project.
HOIKE. LP
October 4, 2016
Marissa Moshier
City of Orange
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 -1508
RE: 730 W. PALM AVENUE - DEMOLITION OF THE BARN
Dear Ms. Moshier,
This letter is to further explain the events that letup to the demolition of the barn. This purpose of this letter is
not to fault or blame the parties involved. Therefore, I will be leaving out staff names. Are intent was to follow the
procedures of public policy with demolition of the barn.
We had a demolition package ready for the City the week of July 11th. We targeted this date based on your plan
check comments and 2 " submittal of our building plan check for the project. Given schedule conflicts, I personally
was unavailable to go to the City myself to pull the demo permit. Guy Alexander went in my place on the morning
of July 14.2016. He signed in and spoke to one of the permit technicians at the counter. After review of the
application presented, she explained to him that the permit was issued. She even wrote a permit number on the
application and printed an information sheet for 277 N. Clark Street, city permit number 1605 -040. I have
attached the papers that was given to Mr. Alexander. With the information that was provided from staff, the barn
was dismantled.
After the barn was dismantled, and I became aware that we did not in fact have a permit, another attempt was
made to pull a demo permit. When I got to the counter I was told again that we already had a permit. I asked to
see it and preceded to explain that this was not a permit but only our plan check receipt. I then requested that we
work through processing the permit. When it came to approval from planning, it was then that you had the
opportunity to explain to me that the entitlement applications had expired.
I want to emphasize that we had no intention of deceiving the process of the City or our entitlement conditions. It
appears, in my option, that multiple factors occurred which has placed a hold on the development of the project.
We have every intention from the beginning of the project to up hold the conditions and process placed for the
development.
Thank you for your time this matter. My hope is to let all parties involved know that we have, and still have every
intention of completing this project, as required by the City of Orange.
Ki ryEl -F� m rdsl
AT lea Newman
Project Manager
HOIKE, I-P
1300 Quail Street, Suite 108, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • P 714.987.2213 • F 949.788.1649
Project Address including Unit/Space No & Zip Code:
PERMIT NO:
730 W. Palm Avenue
Property Owner Name:
Tenant /Business Name:
HOIKE, LP
HOIKE, LP
Phone No:
Email:
Phone No:
Email:
714 - 987 -2213
a
714- 987 -2213
l airalea@gcaland.com
Address:
Contact /Agent Name:
1300 Quail Street, Suite 108
Airalea Newman
City/State /Zip Code:
Phone No:
Email:
Newport Beach, CA 92660
702 - 524 -5681
l airalea@gcaland.com
Architect /Engineer /Designer Name:
Contractor Name:
Stratos Form
Tim Greenleaf Engineering
Phone No:
Email:
Phone No:
Email:
714 - 628 - 0777
rfox @stratosform.com
714 - 847 - 2700
i dstanley@tgegrading.com
Address:
Address:
275 South Glassell Street
16652 Burke Lane
City/State /Zip Code:
City /State /Zip Code:
Orange, CA 92866
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
CA Arch /Engineer /Designer License No:
Expiration Date:
CA Contractor License No:
Class:
Expiration Date:
A789510
A
1 -31 -2017
❑ Check # 3133
City Business License No:
Expiration Date:
Payment Method: ❑ visa / Mastercard
122702
6/30/17
❑ Cash
Proposed Work Description:
Demo and salvage 450 S.F. of Barn with and mezzane
❑ New Bldg
❑ Addition / Alteration
) Val ualop
bUost: Labor & Materials)
❑ Misc / Other
❑ Tenant Improvement
$
�� J l(, r J(,!
New Conditioned Square Footage:
New Garage Area Squar o age:
Misc Area Square Footage:
Type:
Type:
Type:
❑ Residential
❑ Residential
❑ Tenant Improvement
❑ Commercial
❑ Commercial
❑ Porch / Patio / Deck
❑ Industrial
❑ Industrial
❑ Fence
• Attached
❑ Attached
❑ Shed / Storage
• Detached
❑ Detached
❑ Sign
❑ Solar /Res. /Roof ($500 Max. Fee)
NOTE: Residential additions of 500 sq. ft. &
❑ Solar /Comm. /Roof ($1,000 Max. Fee)
larger and all Commercial additions are
❑ Re -Roof
sub to S chool District Fees
Building Use: (Restaurant/Retail /Storage)
No of Stories:
No Parking Spaces:
Public Building:
❑ Yes
❑ No
Zone:
Construction Type:
Occupancy Classification:
Occupant Load:
Solid Waste Disposal:
❑ Self Haul
❑ CR &R Waste
N: \CDD\ Building \FrontCounterSection \Forms .Handouts \PermitAppli cations 09-2015
v
v�
r
0
0
z
0o W
00 Q
CD
M
Q
O
A
H
Cl
d
0
�r
W
z
FA
W
Zw
UA
z0
Q
z
Q A
CG V1
Oz
�
W
A�
F'
r
rn
r
,a
n
C.
00
r
n_
W
V)
N
It
ao
It
01
Lij r
-•
U
O
o
_U
�
�
�
tA
u
Q
O
o
¢�
o
F C7
w
W W
F'
r
�
r
,a
n
�
o
W
V)
N
It
(n
It
01
Lij r
w0 �
z
G x cn
Q o v
o
_U
N O� Cl �o r 0 0 0 0C� O O O O O M m\ IT
N [l- O O M O M O O w 0 0 0 0 0 �o l- 00
�h O DD M G1 O `7 c}' N N O v1 O l� V' N
�D �o O N N 1 10 M o� W) N 4 A = I'll M `m V1
�A M N 69 69 6A r (-A C� M N '$ 69 N M 00
6A 69 69
f/j �i9 6/2 6A r+
GA �
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O At p
O O O O _O O O\ O
_ x w
N �n N
N \o �c 00 a0 N �o 00 N \m N I'D �o \C U U
CD -: -- Cl -= o o O -- o -�
M M O M ^ M O M O O O M M O N Q - Q
000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 o A A
0 0� o o o N r) 00 o o N 0 z
a
� x U U d �■ Q
O
zzx °
U U C4 W W F- Q U .a -
w x
zwQZ ° z z
¢w � waQZ¢ a,
Q Q w m U z w Q r U
w v a z U z
a1 CQ w w Co a c¢n cn cis F U N
F F F
z z
0 0 0
a d
F F F
a a a
ra `,
Q Q
U
Z U Z
U
U
W
a w �
10
00
r
01
U
�
Q
a
u
0
o
¢�
o
F C7
w
W W
N O� Cl �o r 0 0 0 0C� O O O O O M m\ IT
N [l- O O M O M O O w 0 0 0 0 0 �o l- 00
�h O DD M G1 O `7 c}' N N O v1 O l� V' N
�D �o O N N 1 10 M o� W) N 4 A = I'll M `m V1
�A M N 69 69 6A r (-A C� M N '$ 69 N M 00
6A 69 69
f/j �i9 6/2 6A r+
GA �
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O At p
O O O O _O O O\ O
_ x w
N �n N
N \o �c 00 a0 N �o 00 N \m N I'D �o \C U U
CD -: -- Cl -= o o O -- o -�
M M O M ^ M O M O O O M M O N Q - Q
000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 o M o 0 0 0 0 0 o A A
0 0� o o o N r) 00 o o N 0 z
a
� x U U d �■ Q
O
zzx °
U U C4 W W F- Q U .a -
w x
zwQZ ° z z
¢w � waQZ¢ a,
Q Q w m U z w Q r U
w v a z U z
a1 CQ w w Co a c¢n cn cis F U N
F F F
z z
0 0 0
a d
F F F
a a a
ra `,
Q Q
U
Z U Z
U
U
W
a w �
,p
ON
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
September 7, 2016
TO: Chair Gladson and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Leslie Aranda Roseber
Planning Manager
FROM: Marissa Moshier
Associate Planne - Historic Preservation
SUBJECT
COMMISSION BUSINESS: Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No.
0872 -16 — Hoike Residences, 730 W. Palm Avenue
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to construct two new residential units and a detached two -car garage on
property in the local Old Towne Historic District containing an existing single family residence. The
single family residence is a contributor to the local Historic District. The applicant proposes to take
access to the new housing units from a new driveway at the southwest corner of the property at N.
Clark Street.
This project was initially entitled in 2013. The entitlements have expired. Since that time, the
property owner dismantled a barn located at the rear of the property. The barn was considered to be a
non - contributor to the Historic District, based on a staff report from 2013. However, as part of the
previously entitled project, the barn was approved to be relocated to a new location on the property
for reuse as one of the two new residential units. The applicant decided that the barn was not in
sufficiently sound condition to be relocated intact, and the barn was disassembled. The barn's
vertical board siding was salvaged, numbered and stored on site. The current project proposes
reusing the siding on one of the new residential units.
In 2013, this item was heard directly by the Planning Commission. Staff is again directing the item
to the Planning Commission for final determination.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16 entitled:
ATTACHMENT N0.3
PC STAFF REPORT — 9/7/16
HOIKE RESIDENCE
APPEAL NO. 546-16
DECEMBER 13, 2016 CC MTG.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ORANGE APPROVING MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0872 -16 AND DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4872 -16 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE ON
PROPERTY CONTAINING AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 730 WEST PALM AVENUE
AUTHORIZATION /GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020 and 17.10.070 authorize the Planning
Commission to review and take action on OMC Sections 17.14.250 and 17.17.060 for review of
project conformance with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange
(Design Standards).
PUBLIC NOTICE
This Design Review Committee project does not require public noticing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (Class 3
— New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 15331 (Class 31 — Historical
Rehabilitation/Restoration) for construction of two additional residential units and a detached two -
car garage on a parcel containing an existing single - family residence in an urbanized area. The
project is compatible with the character of the local Old Towne Historic District and does not
negatively impact the materials or features of the historic house. As required by the Class 31
exemption, the project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. There is no public review required for a categorical exemption.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 3
.................................................................................. ............................... ...................................
........................... ............................................ ........................ ............... .................................................................... ..................
local street ............
.. ............... ............ .....:
................................................................................. ............................... .........................................................
Existing conditions.
............................... .................................................. ...............
1,681 sq. ft. single- family residence (contributor to local
Old Towne Historic District). The property previously
contained a 424 sq. ft. barn. Under the previously
approved project, the barn was intended to be relocated in
intact wall sections to a new location on the property and
attached to the new frame of a residential unit. However,
since that time, the barn has been disassembled. The
barn's vertical siding was salvaged, numbered and stored
on site. ......... ..................... ..............
.................................................................. ...............................
Surrounding land uses
................................................................................... ............................... ........................
Surrounding properties are primarily duplexes or multi-
and Zoning:
family residential units, with some single family
residences on the north side of W. Palm Avenue. The
zoning is R -2 -6 to the east, west, and south and R -1 -6 to
the north. ...............................
.......................
Previous
_ .............................. .......................................................................................................................................................
DRC No. 4685 -13 and MNSP No. 0705 -12 were
Applications /Entitlements:
approved on September 16, 2013 for a project involving
construction of two additional residential units and a
detached two -car garage. This project was approved prior
to the dismantling of the barn and included conditions
requiring the intact relocation of the barn to a new
location on site for re -use as one of the residential units.
This entitlement is expired. The current project before the
Planning Commission is the same as the previous
approva wit the exception of the relocation of the barn.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 14,182 square foot property is developed with a one - story, single- family residence. The
residence was constructed in 1914 and is a contributor to the local Old Towne Historic District. The
project includes construction of two new residential units and a detached two -car garage on the
property. The new 604 square foot, two -car garage will be constructed to the east of the existing
residence. The new 1,899 square foot, 1 1 /2 story unit with attached two -car garage will be
constructed at the rear southeast corner of the parcel. The unit will be clad in vertical fiber cement
siding with wood windows and doors. A new 450 square foot studio unit will be constructed on the
rear southwest side of the property. This unit will be clad with the salvaged vertical board siding
from the previously demolished barn. Access to the new units will be provided through a new
driveway onto N. Clark Street, a cul -de -sac to the south of the property. The existing residence will
continue to take access from W. Palm Avenue.
The property is located on the south side of W. Palm Avenue, east of N. Batavia St in the northwest
quadrant of the local Old Towne Historic District. The property has three adjacent residential lots
with two non - contributing buildings (constructed in 1956 and 1979) and one contributing building
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 4
constructed in 1920. The south side of the 700 -800 block of W. Palm Avenue contains a mixture of
non - contributing one- and two -story multi- family apartments with two contributing residential
properties. The north side of W. Palm Avenue has one contributing single - family residence
surrounded by non - contributing single- family residences. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the
block ranges from .14 FAR to .34 FAR, with an average FAR of .21.
When this project was entitled in 2013, a barn was located at the rear of the property. The barn was
in poor condition with structural deficiencies, and it was identified in previous staff reports as a
non - contributor to the Historic District because the alterations to the structure were sufficient to
affect its integrity, or the physical characteristics that make the structure potentially historically
significant. The approved project at that time included relocating and adaptively reusing the barn as
a residential unit. The method for relocating included first constructing the frame for the new
residential unit, bracing the barn from the exterior and interior, moving the intact wall panels of the
barn and attaching them to the new structure.
In July, the barn was demolished without permits and the siding was salvaged because the property
owner and contractor believed that the approved relocation method was not feasible given the
deterioration of the roof and wall framing elements and that disassembling the structure would
improve their ability to salvage more of the wood siding. The salvaged siding was stored on site
with photographs and markings on the individual boards to assist with reassembling the siding in
the original pattern. The applicant estimates that between 75 and 85 percent of the total siding can
be reused on the new studio unit.
The demolition of the barn was not completed in conformance with the previously approved project.
The Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.10.090 — Demolition Review for properties in the
Old Towne historic districts does not establish a process for review of projects after an unpermitted
demolition has taken place. Because it has already occurred, the demolition cannot be approved or
denied by a reviewing body, and therefore, the demolition review process does not apply to the
project. The project before the Planning Commission is for construction of two new residential
units, one of which uses salvaged wood siding from the barn as the exterior cladding. The site plan
is the same as the previously approved project. The studio unit is the same dimensions as the
demolished barn, which allows the salvaged wood siding to be reused in the original pattern on the
exterior of the new unit.
Development Standards
Required
Pro osed
Code Section
Building Height
1 '/2 stories
1 ' /2 stories
OMC 17.17.060,
permitted in R -2
Old Towne Design
zones in Old Towne
Standards
Historic District,
provided height is
compatible with
surrounding
resources
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 5
Distance between
Between principal
26' -11" and 25' -8"
OMC 17.14.120
structures
structures: 15' -0"
between existing
minimum
residence and new
Between principal
units
structure and
18' -0" between new
accessory structure:
units
6' -0" minimum
8' -0" between
existing residence
and new garage
Fence height
6' -0" maximum
5' -0" outside of
OMC 17.14.180
outside of front
front yard setback
yard setback
Floor Area Ratio
0.70 FAR (existing
0.33 FAR
OMC 17.14.070
(FAR)
0.15 FAR)
Lot size
No change
No change
No change
(residential)
Lot frontage
No change
No change
No change
Lot depth
No change
No change
No change
Open space,
In R -2 zone, all
N/A
N/A
common
open space may be
(residential)
p rivate
Open space, private
350 sq. ft. /unit
353 and 600 sq. ft.
OMC 17.14.070
and useable
for the new units
(residential)
595 for existing
residence
Parking
7 total spaces:
4 enclosed and 3
OMC 17.34.060.A
(residential)
2.4 spaces for
unenclosed spaces
existing house
2.4 spaces for 3-
bedroom unit
1.2 spaces for
studio unit
0.6 guest parking
Setback, Front
20' -0"
43' -8" for new
OMC 17.14.070
garage
Setback, Rear
10'-0"
11'-0"
OMC 17.14.070
Setback, Side East
5' - 0 "
5' -0"
OMC 17.14.070
Setback, Side West
5' -0"
5' -0"
OMC 17.14.070
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 6
APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
Design Review Committee: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review Committee
application to construct two new residential units and a detached two -car garage on property in the
local Old Towne Historic District containing an existing single family residence.
Required Findings:
1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive
standards and design criteria referenced and /or recommended by the Design Review
Committee or other reviewing body for the project.
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the
Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines.
3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally
consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans,
applicable design standards and their required findings.
4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential
design guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale,
massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve
or enhance existing neighborhood character.
Minor Site Plan: The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Site Plan to construct two new
residential units and a detached two -car garage on property in the local Old Towne Historic District
containing an existing single family residence.
Required Findings:
1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods.
2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design
guidelines or specific plan requirements.
3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on-
and off -site.
4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project.
5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse
environmental effects.
ANALYSIS /STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1 — Compatibility of New Construction
The proposed new residential units and detached two -car garage are compatible with the character
of the local Old Towne Historic District. The 700 -800 blocks of W. Palm Avenue contain three
contributing historic properties in a total of 15 parcels. The majority of properties contain multi-
family developments that were constructed in the 1950s or later. Similarly, the development on
Clark Street consists primarily of multi - family units developed after 1950. The majority of
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 7
surrounding properties are non - contributors to the Historic District. With the adjacent multi - family
properties, the increased density and mass and scale of the new construction is appropriate for this
location and will not impact the integrity or character of the Historic District.
The proposed new garage has design elements compatible with the Historic District, including the
front gable roof, exposed rafter tails, and siding, and has a similar mass and scale to historic
carriage houses and garages found in the Historic District. The new garage is proposed at a setback
of approximately 43 feet which is in keeping with the pattern of development in Old Towne where
carriage houses and garages are detached and located behind the front of the historic residence. The
proposed garage's small size and use of materials is consistent with the Historic District and
compatible with the contributing building.
The proposed new housing units are set at the rear of the property and will take access from N.
Clark Street. This location and new access reduces impacts to the street facing elevation of the
contributing building and will give the appearance of a separate property from W. Palm Avenue.
The proposed new unit's 1 1 /2 story height with small dormers is compatible with the mass and scale
of the Historic District and will be minimally visible from the front of the historic residence and
from Palm Avenue, due to the placement of the new garage. The building is differentiated from the
contributing building through the use of materials, such as the vertical fiber cement board and
batten siding which references the property's agricultural history without replicating the original
materials found on older buildings in the Historic District.
Reuse of the salvaged barn siding on the new studio unit allows an element of the property's history
of development over time to be preserved. The size, mass and scale of the studio unit are based on
the proportions of the demolished barn with a small 26 square foot addition. The unit will be placed
parallel to W. Palm Avenue, in the same east -west orientation as the barn. The rolling barn door and
the painted fruit on the vertical siding will be reused on the new unit. Where new infill in the reused
siding is necessary, the infill will be a combination of wood windows and horizontal wood siding,
clearly differentiated from the reused vertical board siding. The small 26 square foot addition on the
south elevation is similarly differentiated with horizontal wood siding and compatible with the
reused barn materials.
The proposed project will not negatively impact the character of the Historic District and does not
remove or alter character - defining features of the existing historic residence. The proposed project
is in conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards.
Issue 2 — Site Access and Parking
The two new residential units in the proposed project take access from a new curb cut and driveway
at the end of the cul -de -sac on N. Clark Street. As the project involves the addition of two units on a
street with primarily multi - family residences, the amount of trip generation per day is unlikely to
result in a substantial change to the current traffic patterns of the street. The new driveway will
reduce the available on- street parking by one space. Because the property is within a multi- family
residential neighborhood, there is demand for on- street parking in the area. Staff observed the on-
street parking on the 200 block of N. Clark Street in the peak morning and evening hours. There are
approximately 30 on- street parking spaces on the block. The majority of parking spaces on the
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 7, 2016
Page 8
south side of the block near the intersection of N. Clark Street and W. Maple Avenue were occupied
in the morning and evening hours. Open spaces were available on the north end of the block at the
cul -de -sac. Staff typically observed four to five open on- street parking spaces. The project provides
the required parking for each unit, which includes five parking spaces for the two units on N. Clark
Street. This provides one parking space per bedroom for the 3- bedroom unit, one parking space for
the studio unit, and one additional guest space. The elimination of one on- street parking space to
provide the driveway access should not substantially impact the existing on- street parking
conditions.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff from interested departments reviewed the project and recommended approval with conditions.
ATTACHMENTS /EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site photographs, prior to barn demolition
4. Applicant letter
5. Historic Resources Survey Form for 730 W. Palm Avenue
6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 16, 2013
7. Planning Commission Minutes, September 16, 2013
Exhibits provided to Planning Commission
A. Plans (dated August 25, 2016)
cc: Hoike, LP
Attn: Airalea Newman
1300 Quail St, #108
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Rick Fox
Stratos Form
275 S. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92866
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4872-16
MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0872-16
RESOLUTION NO. PC 17 -16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
NO. 4872 -16 AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0872 -16 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A
DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE ON PROPERTY CONTAINING
AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 730
WEST PALM AVENUE
APPLICANT: HOIKE, LP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC)
Section 17.08.020 to take action on Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan
No. 0872 -16; and
WHEREAS, Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16
were filed by Hoike, LP in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16
were processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.17.060 and 17.14.250 of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC)
require development within Old Towne to conform with the Historic Preservation Design
Standards for Old Towne Orange. The Design Standards require Planning Commission approval
for construction of additional units on a lot zoned for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16 are
categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) and 15331 (Class 31 — Historical Rehabilitation/Restoration); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on September 7, 2016,
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to
the proposal and for the purpose of considering Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16 and Design Review
Committee No. 4872 -16 upon property described as:
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION 17 -16
HOIKE RESIDENCE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PC MTG.
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2004 -246, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
349, PAGE(S) 16 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY.
[A.P.N 386 - 451 -381
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves Design Review
Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16 to construct two new residential units
and a detached two -car garage with access from N. Clark Street on property in the local Old Towne
Historic District containing an existing single family residence based on the following findings:
SECTION I — FINDINGS
General Plan Findings:
The project must be consistent with the goals and policies stated within the City's General
Plan.
The project is consistent with the General Plan's Housing Element Goals and Policies in
that it creates additional dwelling units that diversify the City's housing inventory and
contribute toward meeting housing demand.
The project is consistent with the General Plan's Cultural Resources & Historic
Preservation Element Goals and Policies in that it helps to preserve the existing
contributing historic residence to the local Old Towne Historic District and creates new
construction that is compatible with the Historic District and in conformance with the Old
Towne Design Standards.
Design Review Committee Findings:
1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive
standards and design criteria referenced and /or recommended by the Design Review
Committee or other reviewing body for the project.
Although the proposed new construction increases the density of the property, the new
buildings are compatible in mass, scale and proportion with the existing historic residence
and with the Old Towne Historic District as a whole. The new garage is set back from the
front of the historic house, following the pattern of development of historic houses and
garages or carriage houses that is typical of the Historic District. The garage also uses
materials consistent with the historic district and compatible with the contributor.
The new housing units are set back from the contributing building at the rear of the
property and will be minimally visible from W. Palm Avenue, due to the placement of the
new garage. The proposed new driveway from N. Clark Street will reduce the impacts to
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 3
the street - facing elevation of the contributing building and will give the appearance of a
separate property from W. Palm Avenue. The proposed fiber cement board and batten
siding on one of the residential units differentiates the new building from the horizontal
wood siding of the contributing residence and from the reused vertical board siding of the
barn.
The proposed reuse of the salvaged barn siding on the studio is also compatible with the
local Old Towne Historic District, because it preserves an element from the property's
history of development over time. The size, mass, scale, and roof shape of the new studio
unit are based on the proportions of the demolished barn. The barn's east -west orientation
on the property, parallel to W. Palm Avenue, will also be replicated in the new unit, and the
painted fruit on the reused siding will continue to face W. Palm Avenue, as it did before the
barn was demolished. The openings in the barn siding will be infilled with a combination
of wood windows and horizontal wood siding, clearly differentiated from the original
reused vertical board siding. The small 26 square foot addition on the south elevation is
similarly differentiated with horizontal wood siding.
In conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards, the project is consistent in size and
scale with the context of the surrounding primarily multi- family neighborhood. The design
and materials of the new construction are compatible with the character of the existing
historic residence and surrounding historic buildings. The character - defining features of
the historic residence will not be altered or removed.
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary
of the Interior's standards and guidelines.
Because the property is outside of the National Register - listed Old Towne Historic District,
this finding does not apply. However, projects found to be in conformance with the Old
Towne Design Standards are generally considered to be in conformance with the
Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In conformance with
Standard 2, historic materials that characterize the contributing residence will not be
altered or removed. In conformance with Standards 9 and 10, the new construction is
compatible with the mass, scale, size, feature and materials of the historic property. Where
appropriate, the new buildings are slightly differentiated from the historic residence
through the use of materials that are compatible but not identical to the contributing
building. If the new construction were removed at a later date, the essential form and
character of the historic property would be unchanged.
3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally
consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans,
applicable design standards and their required findings.
As described above, the proposed project is in conformance with the Old Towne Design
Standards, which are the applicable design standards for projects within the Old Towne
Historic District and which require a consistent, integrated design theme that is compatible
with the character of Historic District.
4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 4
design guidelines, the new structures) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing,
orientation and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance
existing neighborhood character.
As the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines do not apply to projects located
within the Old Towne Historic District, this finding does not apply.
Minor Site Plan Findings:
1. Minor Site Plan approval shall be granted if the project design is compatible with
surrounding development and neighborhoods.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with the local
Old Towne Historic District. The surrounding properties are developed primarily with
multi- family residences constructed after 1950, outside of the period of significance for the
local Historic District. The 700 -800 block of W. Palm Avenue has three contributing
historic properties in a total of 15 properties. Given the adjacent multi - family properties,
the increased density and new construction is appropriate for this location and is
compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of a driveway on N. Clark Street conforms
to the prevailing patterns of vehicular access for properties on N. Clark Street. The
property provides all required parking for the residential units, and the elimination of one
on- street parking space should not substantially alter the existing parking availability in the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. Minor Site Plan approval shall be granted if the project conforms to City development
standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements.
The proposed project conforms with the development standards for the R -2 -6 zone
including: FAR, landscaping, parking, and setbacks. The project also conforms with the
Old Towne Design Standards as described above.
3. Minor Site Plan approval shall be granted if the project provides for safe and adequate
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off -site.
The proposed project provides a new driveway onto N. Clark Street, meeting the required
width of 12' -0 ", for the new housing units and uses the existing driveway on W. Palm
Avenue for the proposed new garage adjacent to the existing residence. This configuration
allows vehicles associated with the existing residence to continue using the established
circulation pattern with the Palm Avenue driveway, while the new units will use the new
driveway on N. Clark Street. The driveway on conforms to the existing pattern of
driveways for the multi- family residential units on the street. Pedestrians access the
property from the public right -of -way.
4. Minor Site Plan approval shall be granted if City services are available and adequate to
serve the project.
Adequate City services are available to serve the property.
5. Minor Site Plan approval shall be granted if the project has been designed to fully mitigate
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 5
or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects.
This project will not have an adverse effect on the environment, because it meets the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) and 15331 (Class 31 — Historical Rehabilitation/Restoration) for a categorical
exemption. There are no potentially significant environmental impacts as a result of the
proposed project.
SECTION 2 — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) and 15331 (Class 31 — Historical Rehabilitation/Restoration),
because it consists of construction of two additional residential units and a detached two -car
garage on a parcel containing an existing single - family residence in an urbanized area. The project
is compatible with the character of the local Old Towne Historic District and does not negatively
impact the materials or features of the historic house. As required by the Class 31 exemption, the
project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
SECTION 3— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions are imposed with the
recommendation of approval:
1. All construction shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance
with plans dated August 25, 2016 and as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, including any modifications required by conditions of approval.
2. The salvaged vertical board siding from the demolished barn shall be reused on the new
studio unit to the greatest extent feasible. The applicant shall consult with Planning
Division staff prior to installing the siding on the frame of the new unit to confirm the
extent of the siding that will be reused. For any new replacement material used to infill
sections where salvaged siding cannot be reused, the applicant shall provide Planning
Division staff with material samples prior to the start of work.
3. Except as otherwise provided herein, this project is approved as a precise plan. After any
application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration
of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development
Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the
proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval
action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the
approved plan, the Community Development Director may administratively approve the
changed plan.
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 6
4. Design Review Committee No. 4872 -16 and Minor Site Plan No. 0872 -16 shall become
void if not vested within two years from the date of approval. Time extensions may be
granted for up to one year, pursuant to OMC Section 17.08.060.
5. Building permits shall be obtained for all improvements, as required by the City of Orange,
Community Development Department's Building Division. Failure to obtain the required
building permits will be cause for revocation of this approval.
6. These conditions shall be reprinted on the first or second page of the construction
documents for site and /or tenant improvements when submitting to the Building Division
for the plan check process.
7. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officers, agents
and employees from any and all liability or claims that may be brought against the City
arising out of its approval of this permits, save and except that caused by the City's active
negligence. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or
proceedings and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
8. Refer to conditions in Attachment A for final plans and permitting requirements.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on by the Planning
Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
Adrienne Gladson, Planning Commission Chair
Date
Attachment A: Final Plans and Permitting Requirements
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 7
Attachment A
Final Plans and Permitting Requirements
1. All structures shall comply with the requirements of Municipal Code — Chapter 15.52
(Building Security Standards), which relates to hardware, doors, windows, lighting,
etc. (Ord. 7 -79). Approved structural drawings shall include sections of the security
code that apply. Specifications, details, or security notes may be used to convey the
compliance.
2. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with the California Fire Code
as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of
application for Building Permit.
3. Prior to approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Nonpriority
Project WQMP for review and approval to the Public Works Department that:
o Describes the project site
o Describes the potential project pollutants
o Incorporates the applicable Routine Source, Structural and low impact BMPs as
defined in the Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance
Document.
o Generally describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for
structural Control BMPs,
o Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation,
maintenance, repair and or replacement of the BMPS
o A copy of the forms to be used in conducting maintenance and inspection
activities
o Record keeping requirements (forms to be kept for 5 years
4. Prior to the issuance of certificates for use of occupancy, the applicant shall
demonstrate the following to the Public Works Department:
a. That all structural and treatment control best management practices (BMPs)
described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in
conformance with the approved plans and specifications,
b. That the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described
in the Project WQMP,
c. That an adequate number of copies of the project's approved final Project
WQMP are available for the future occupiers.
5. Prior to the issuance of certificates for use of occupancy or final signoff by the Public
Works Department, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of Public Works,
that the preparer of the WQMP has reviewed the BMP maintenance requirements in
Section V of the WQMP with the responsible person and that a copy of the WQMP has
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 8
been provided to that person. A certification letter from the WQMP preparer may be
used to satisfy this condition.
6. The project applicant shall maintain all structural, treatment and low impact
development BMPs at the frequency specified in the approved WQMP. Upon transfer
of ownership or management responsibilities for the project site, the applicant shall
notify the City of Orange Public Works Department of the new person(s) or entity
responsible for maintenance of the BMPs.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a water
improvement plan to the Water Division for proposed water mains, fire hydrants,
domestic water services, fire suppression services, landscape services, and or any other
proposed improvements or relocations affecting the public water system appurtenances
for review and approval. All of the on -site water systems shall be privately owned and
maintained. The improvement plan is required to be submitted directly to the Water
Division located at 189 S. Water Street for review and approval. The applicant shall be
responsible for the costs associated with the proposed improvements.
8. The City Water Division shall not be responsible for the occurrence of and the related
consequences such as but not limited to construction delays, Certificate of Occupancy
deferment and or financial impacts due to the applicant's failure to file a Water
Division application prior to building permit issuance and or by electing to defer the
filing of the application and water improvement plan submittal and or a failure follow
the conditions.
9. Prior to approval of the water improvement plan, the applicant shall satisfy all water
main connection, plan check, and inspection charges as determined by the Water
Division. A deposit for plan check and inspection fees is required to be posted
concurrently with filing the Water Division application and submission of plans for
review.
10. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that the water
improvement plans are consistent with the fire suppression plans and or fire master
plan. The applicant's consultant preparing the water improvement plans shall
coordinate their plans with the consultant preparing the fire suppression plans and or
fire master plan so that their designs concur. The applicant shall remove the existing
buried detector check for the fire suppression service and replace it with an above
ground backflow prevention device as approved by the Water Division.
11. The Water Division shall approve the type and location of all back flow prevention
devices.
12. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that the
installation of new water mains and new supply lines in the vicinity of pipelines
conveying sewage, storm drainage and or hazardous fluids is done per the Water
Division's Standard Number 113.
13. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that a six foot (6')
minimum horizontal clearance and a one foot (1') minimum vertical clearance would
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 9
be maintained between City water mains, laterals, services, meters, fire hydrants and
all other utilities except those identified in the Water Division's Standard Number 113.
14. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that a minimum
twenty -foot (20') separation will be maintained from the public water system facilities
to the proposed /existing buildings and structures per the City of Orange Location Of
Underground Utilities Standard and as approved by the Water Division.
15. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that an eight -foot
(8') minimum clearance is provided between City water mains, and signs, trees or other
substantial shrubs, bushes, or plants.
16. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that the minimum
separation requirements are met and that each of the various designer's plan sets match.
The applicant's consultant preparing the improvement and utility plans shall coordinate
their plans with the consultants preparing the landscape, architectural, surface water
quality, fire master and or fire suppression plans so that their designs are consistent.
17. Prior to building permit issuance, construction documents shall show that permanent
signs, awnings, surface water quality features such as but not limited to infiltration
planters, basins, pervious pavement or other structures are not installed over the
City's water mains, laterals, services, meters, back flow prevention devices and fire
hydrants.
18. A minimum of fourteen - calendar days prior to public water construction, the
applicant's Engineer of Record shall prepare and provide product material submittals
consistent with the approved water improvement plans as approved by the Water
Division, for all proposed public water system facilities to the Water Division for
review and approval.
19. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall be responsible
for the installation of necessary fire hydrants and fire suppression services as
determined by the Fire Department and Water Division.
20. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall furnish and
install individual pressure regulators on the private side of new services where the
incoming pressure exceeds eighty pounds per square inch.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for the
installation/relocation of the proposed /existing public water system appurtenances as
necessitated by the proposal to a location and of a design per the improvement plans
approved by the Water Division.
22. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the water improvement plans are
consistent with the fire suppression plans and /or fire master plan. The applicant's
consultant preparing the water improvement plans shall coordinate their plans with the
consultant preparing the fire suppression plans and /or fire master plan so that their
designs concur.
Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC 17 -16
Page 10
23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans shall show that each building shall be
protected with a separate fire service unless otherwise approved by the Fire
Department and Water Division.
24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Water Division shall approve the type and
location of a landscaping back flow prevention device and fire service (detector check)
device for proposed City services.
25. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the minimum separation
requirements are met and that each of the various designers' plan sets concurs. The
applicant's consultant preparing the improvement and utility plans shall coordinate
their plans with the consultants preparing the landscape, architectural, surface water
quality management, fire master, and /or fire suppression plans that their designs are
consistent.
26. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that each property, residence, main
building or structure shall have a separate meter service unless otherwise approved by
the Water Division.
27. Prior to approval of the water improvement plan, the applicant shall satisfy all water
main connection, plan check and inspection charges as determined by the Water
Division.
28. All hot taps required on existing City mains to provide water service to any lot, parcel
or subdivision shall be performed by City crews at the developer's expense in
accordance with the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council.
Vicinity Map
DRC 4782 -16 and MNSP 0782 -16
Hoike Residences
730 W. Palm Avenue
II���
Uop yA
CITY OF ORANGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT NO.2
VICINITY MAP
HOIKE RESIDENCE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PC MTG.
730 West Palm Avenue Photo Study
Historic House — during restoration
F:\Docs_Stratos\Proi20l2\12-23\730 West Palm Avenue Photo Study.docx
ATTACHMENT NO.3
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS, PRIOR
TO BARN DEMOLITION
HOIKE RESIDENCE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PC MTG.
Historic House — before restoration
Barn — South East Corner
F: \Docs Stratos \Proj2012 \12 -23 \730 West Palm Avenue Photo Study.docx
Barn — Front (North) Elevation
c
F: \Docs_Stratos \Proj2012 \12 -23 \730 West Palm Avenue Photo Study.docx
Barn — North West Corner
View from North Clark Street
I
4
1p
A4
- mom
IWLL
N
F: \Docs_Stratos \Proj2012 \12 -23 \730 West Palm Avenue Photo Study.docx
Neighbor across West Palm Avenue
802 West Palm Ave — Historic House with duplex at rear and new garage
W
C
fl_
7
04
O
O
r+
O
D
v
7
O_
T
7
rD
N
rF
Z
N
rY
0
D
r
v
O
C
f-r
N
V
u
u
O
c
H
D
N
N
m
N
H
A
m
m
H
A
D
Z
2
m
n
D
T
CA
A J I
s D 70
� N
e W J
n ti O
CA
A
a O
T
X
V
W
s O
N
3
D
O
0"
DU
(D
n
D
LO
N
00
0)
01
O
w
T m
N
m
D
m
v
l /
D
n
m
O
_Z
Z
T
m
m
N
7
04
W
D)
3
0
0
ID 0
ID
N
V
N
T
O
'n D
Y N
v QI
c P
z �
o A
P
m
0
m V
D
x
V
A
P
m
d
y
f
f
D
ti
UI
T
A
n
2
4
N
D
O
O
CA
W
O TI
0 M
v Z
o m �
n
3 D
N
D N O
p --k Z
o Z
(D d r
� r
G m
00 cr D
Z
o M
Z
CL
N
O
c
m_
Eli
v
O
V
W
O
N �
O D
N (D
0
v
0 2D
ao
C)
D
N
00
Q1
Cr)
O
T
r
0
T
r
O
X
m
v
m
z
n
m
O
T
O
ai
D
r
n
O
z
C
n
O
z
m
Q
0
0
O
n
C
N
HOIKE, LP
July 27, 2016
City of Orange
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 -1508
RE: MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0705-12 AND DESIGN REVIEW 4685 -13 FOR 730 WEST PALM
AVENUE
Dear Ms. Moshier,
This letter is provided to you as requested for consideration of approval to relocate and
reconstruct an existing barn with a 50 sq. ft. addition; construct a new detached two -car
garage; and to construction of a new 1 % story additional housing unit with attached garage.
This current application is provided for review as the original application has since expired.
The plan provided in this application have minimal changes from the original approval. All
material and colors proposed with the original approval are to remain the same. Minor
changes have occurred to the elevations and floor plans. These changes are depicted on plans
with a delta to show the differences from the original approval.
Along with the minor plan changes, the method of dismantling the barn has also been changed.
The original proposal, provided to commission back in 2013 for the reconstruction of the barn,
was reviewed by a licensed framer. During the review it was determined the method provided
below would be a better option in order to salvage most, if not all, of the existing barn.
Method of Dismantling:
1) Removed the shingles and the roof sheathing, and proceeded to remove the roof
rafters.
2) Cut the siding boards loose from the top 2x4 plate.
3) All siding boards to be removed and stacked in a location on the property for future use
as the siding on the newly framed building in its new location. Where it was necessary
and accessible, pieces to be marked as to their location on the structure.
a. Note: Method of identifying the pieces and reconstructing the siding on the new
structure is by identifying each board using photos. Every board has distinctive
markings that will insure that all of the important and critical pieces will end up
back in the same spot.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
APPLICANT LETTER
1300 Quail Street, Suite 108, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • P 714.987.221: HOIKE RESIDENCE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PC MTG.
Method of Reconstruction:
We plan on constructing the new framing in the manner as depicted on the plans, as per the
architect and engineer. When it comes time to reinstall the siding, we will use a new top and
bottom to install the boards over added 2x4 horizontal nailers and new plywood with moisture
barrier building paper.
Thank you for your time in this matter. I look forward to continuing this proposed project and
working with staff. Please feel free to contact me should have any questions or require
additional information.
Kind regards,
Airalea Newman
Project Manager
1300 Quail Street, Suite 108, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • P 714.987.2213 • F 949.788.1649
P1. Other Identifier
*P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication J❑ Unrestricted
*a. County: Orange and (P21, and Plc or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Date: T R 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec B.M.
c. Address: 730 - W PALM AVE , # City: oran Zip: 9 2868
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and /or linear resources) Zone ME/ mN
e. Other Locational Data:
* P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boudnaries. Continues on Pg.3.)
Materials: Frame - Wood siding
A single -story bungalow with lap siding and multi -gable roof. Two front - facing gables are present on the
front facade with the forwardmost one forming an entry porch overhang. This has since been enclosed.
Ornamental purlins and transoms adorn the upper gable faces.
* P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP2) -- Single family property
(List attributes and codes) ar- .""°" "..`.."„ "., " "�°`"'....`" '®.`...�..�:`e'.. .: s...''.. .,....�.«..,.._...,,......m....
*P4. Resources Present: d❑ Building ❑ Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site 0 Element of District ❑ District ❑ Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: 2005
(View, dale, accession #)
*P6. Date Constructed/ Age and Source:
1914
❑� Historic ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Both
* P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none. ")
Orange County Assessor Records (2005). Chattel Architecture (2005)
Historic Resources Survey. AEGIS (1991) Historic Building Inventory
Update. Heritage Orange County, Inc. (1982) Orange Historic Survey.
*Attachments: ❑ NONE ❑ Location Map Continuation Sheet(s)
❑ Archaeological Record ❑ District Record ❑ Linear Feature Record
❑ Artifact Record ❑ Photograph Record ❑ Other (List): y _= vF
DPR 523A (1/95)
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8: Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
D. Gest, P. Lavalley, D.
Matsumoto; J. Snow
Chattel Architecture
13417 Ventura Blvd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
*P9. Date Recorded:
April, 2005; November, 2009
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Reconnaissance
❑d Building, Structure, and Object Record
❑ Milling Station Record ❑ Rock Art Record
ATTACHMENT NO.5
HISTORIC RESOURCES
SURVEY FORM
HOIKE RESIDENCE
,..,.. m"ir, n P7 raj K n! MT(,
Page 1 of 3 *Resource Name or #: PALM_W_730_APN_386 451 - 38
(Assigned by Recorder)
- m W 11
Page 3 of 3 * Resource Name or #: PALM_W_730APN 386 -451 -38
(Assigned by Recorder)
Recorded by:
D. Gest, P. LaValley, D. Matsumoto; J. Snow
Chattel Architecture
13417 Ventura Blvd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Years Surveyed: 1982, 1991, 2005
Listed in National Register:
General Plan: MDR # of Buildings: 1
Planning Zone: R -2 - 6 # of Stories:
Lot Acre: 0.5625 # of Units: 1
Principal Building Sqft: 1672
B6. Construction History (Continued from Pg.2):
Date Recorded: April, 2005; November, 2009
❑d Continuation ❑ Update
Description of Photo: 1991
B13. Remarks (Continued from Pg.2):
P3a. Description (Continued from Pg.1):
DPR 523L (11/98) *Required Information
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
September 16, 2013
TO: Chair Steiner and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Leslie Aranda Roseberr�t, l
Planning Manager ((�� 11��
FROM: Marissa Moshier
Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT
COMMISSION BUSINESS: Design Review Committee No. 4685 -13 and Minor Site Plan No.
0705 -12 - Palm Avenue Housing, 730 W. Palm Avenue
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to relocate and reconstruct an existing bam and construct an addition; to
construct a new detached two -car garage; and to construct a new 1 ' /2 story additional housing unit
with attached garage on a parcel that contains a one -story single family residence. The single family
residence is a contributor to the local Old Towne historic district. The barn is considered a non-
contributor to the historic district. The applicant proposes to take access to the new housing units
from a new driveway at the southwest corner of the property at N. Clark Street.
This item was originally heard for preliminary review and comment at the May 1, 2013 Design
Review Committee meeting. Subsequent to the hearing, staff learned of several irregularities
surrounding the processing of the project, one of which may have caused a Committee member to
have a conflict of interest. To address all due process considerations and ensure that there were no
procedural defects created by DRC's final review and recommendation, staff is directing the item to
Planning Commission for final determination.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 31 -13 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ORANGE APPROVING MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0705 -12 AND DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4685 -13, FOR RELOCATING AND
RECONSTRUCTING A NON - CONTRIBUTING BARN AS AN
ATTACHMENT NO.6
PC STAFF REPORT DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
HOIKE RESIDENCE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 PC MTG.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 2
ACCESSORY HOUSING UNIT, CONSTRUCTING A TWO CAR
GARAGE, AND CONSTRUCTING ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSING UNIT
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 730 WEST PALM AVENUE
AUTHORIZATION /GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020 and 17.10.070 authorize the Planning
Commission to review and take action on OMC Sections 17.14.250, 17.17.060 and 17.10.090 for
review of demolition of any structure over 120 square feet in the Old Towne historic district and for
review of project conformance with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne
Orange (Design Standards).
PUBLIC NOTICE
This Design Review Committee project does not require public noticing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 (Class 2
— Replacement or Reconstruction) and 15303 (Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures). There is no public review required.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant:
....
Rick Fox . ... .
Property Owner:
GCA Landholdings, LLC
Property Location:
730 W Palm Avenue
........ . .....
Existing General Plan
Medium Density Residential (6 to 15 Du/Ac)
Lan Use Element de signation:
....... ........
Existing Zoning
R -2 -6 (Duplex Residential District)
Cl assification :
Old Towne:
Yes .....
Specific Plan/PC
N/A
Site Size
0.13 Acre (14,182 sq ft )
Circulation:
W. Palm Avenue is a collector street. N. Clark Street is a
local street
Existing conditions.
........
1,681 sq. ft. single - family residence (contributor to local
Old To hi storic district) and 424 sq. ft barn
Surrounding land uses
........
R -2 -6 to east, west, and south; R -1 -6 to north
and Zoning:
.......... .........
Previous
None
Applications /Entitlements
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 14,182 square foot property is developed with a one - story, single - family residence and
detached barn. The 1,681 square foot residence was constructed in 1914 and is a contributor to the
local Old Towne historic district. The building has been recently rehabilitated in conformance with
the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange (Design Standards). The 424
square foot detached barn structure is located at the rear of the property and is in poor condition
with structural deficiencies. Because the barn was not previously identified in historic resources
surveys of the local Old Towne historic district, staff requested that the applicant prepare a historic
resource assessment of the barn. The historic resource assessment was prepared by an architectural
historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards from
Cynthia Ward Historic Preservation Consultants. The consultant's historic resource assessment
found the barn to be a non - contributor to the local Old Towne historic district, because it lacks
sufficient integrity to convey its significance as an early agriculture - related resource. The DRC
staff report dated May 1, 2013 concurs with the consultant's findings that the barn is a non-
contributor.
On May 1, 2013, two proposals for development of the property were presented to DRC for
preliminary comments. Proposal A consisted of demolition of the barn, construction of a 1 '/2 story
duplex at the rear of the property, and construction of a two car garage to serve the existing
residence. Proposal B consisted of relocation and reconstruction of the barn with a small addition to
serve as an accessory housing unit, construction of a 1 ` / 2 story single housing unit at the rear of the
property, and construction of a two car garage to serve the existing residence. DRC preliminary
comments recommended Proposal B, relocation and reconstruction of the barn. Based on these
comments, the applicant chose to pursue Proposal B and submitted a Land Use Project Application
for the project described below.
The applicant proposes relocation and reconstruction of the barn to the northwest of its existing
location. A new 26 square foot addition will be constructed at the south elevation of the barn to
bring the size to the required minimum 450 square feet for an accessory housing unit. A new 1,899
square foot, 1 ` / 2 story building with one housing unit will be constructed at the rear southeast corner
of the parcel. A new 604 square foot, two -car garage will be constructed to the east of the existing
residence. Access to the reconstructed barn and new housing unit will be provided through a new
driveway onto N. Clark Street, a cul -de -sac at the southwest corner of the property.
The property is located on the south side of W. Palm Avenue, east of N. Batavia St in the northwest
quadrant of the local Old Towne historic district, outside of the National Register historic district.
The property has three adjacent residential lots with two non - contributing buildings (constructed in
1956 and 1979) and one contributing building constructed in 1920. The south side of the 700 -800
block of W. Palm Avenue contains a mixture of non - contributing one- and two -story multi - family
apartments with two contributing residential properties. The lots on the south side range in size
from 7,157, to 26,136 square feet in area. The north side of W. Palm Avenue has one contributing
single - family residence surrounded by non - contributing single - family residences. The Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for the block ranges from. 14 FAR to .34 FAR, with an average FAR of .21.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 4
Development Standards
Required
Proposed
Code Section
Building Height
1 '/z stories allowed
1 '/2 stories
OMC 17.17.060
in R -2 zones in Old
Towne historic
district, provided
height is compatible
with surrounding
resources
Distance between
Between principal
26' -11" between
OMC 17.14.120
structures
structures: 15' -0"
existing residence
minimum
and new housing
Between principal
unit
structure and
25' -8" between
accessory structure:
existing residence
6' -0" minimum
and barn
Fence height
6' -0" maximum
5' -0" outside of
OMC 17.14.180
outside of front
front yard setback
yard setback
Floor Area Ratio
0.70 FAR (existing
0.33 FAR
OMC 17.14.070
(FAR)
0.15 FAR)
Lot size
No change
No change
No change
(residential)
Lot fronta e
No change
No change
No change
Lot depth
No change
No change
No change
Open space,
N/A
N/A
N/A
common
(residential)
Open space, private
350 sq. ft. /unit
2,050 sq. ft.
OMC 17.14.070
(residential)
Open space,
350 sq. ft. /unit
2,050 sq. ft.
OMC 17.14.070
useable
(residential)
Parking
2 spaces per unit, at
4 enclosed and 2
OMC 17.34.060.A
(residential)
least 1 of which is
unenclosed spaces
enclosed, plus 1
additional space for
accessory unit
Parking, guest
N/A
N/A
N/A
(residential)
Setback, Front
20' -0"
31' -10" for new
OMC 17.14.070
garage
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 5
Setback, Rear
10' -0"
I1' - 0 "
OMC 17.14.070
Setback, Side East
5' -0"
5' -0"
OMC 17.14.070
Setback, Side West
5' -0"
5' -0"
OMC 17.14.070
APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
Minor Site Plan: The applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Site Plan to relocate, reconstruct
and add to a non - contributing barn as an accessory housing unit, to construct a two car garage, and
to construct one additional housing unit.
Required Findings:
1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods.
2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design
guidelines or specific plan requirements.
3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on-
and off -site.
4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project.
5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse
environmental effects.
Design Review Committee: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review Committee
application to relocate, reconstruct and add to a non - contributing barn as an accessory housing unit,
to construct a two car garage, and to construct one additional housing unit.
Required Findings:
i . In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive
standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the Design Review
Committee or other reviewing body for the project.
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the
Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines.
3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally
consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans,
applicable design standards and their required findings.
4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential
design guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale,
massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve
or enhance existing neighborhood character.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 6
ANALYSIS /STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1 - Relocation and Reconstruction of Barn:
To assess the existing condition of the barn and the feasibility of relocation, the applicant engaged a
structural engineer, Grimm & Chen Structural Engineering, Inc. Based on the structural engineer's
report and on -site observations from staff, the barn appears to lack an internal structural framing
system that would allow it to be braced and relocated in one piece. Vertical board siding appears to
serve as a vertical load bearing element. Additional structural support appears to be provided by
plywood sheathing applied to the interior face of the vertical board siding in various locations. An
interior stud wall, not original to the structure, appears to provide additional vertical and lateral
support. The existing roof framing appears to have been modified several times in the past,
resulting in substantial sagging of the roof ridge. The existing rafters and ridge are supported by
2x4 vertical members, not original to the structure, resting on existing ceiling planks. Plywood
sheathing has also been added to strengthen the roof framing. A lack of waterproofing has
contributed to deterioration of building elements used for structural support, including the vertical
board siding and roof framing. Given the lack of internal structural framing and the deterioration of
existing building elements, staff concurs with the applicant's structural engineer that relocation of
the barn in one piece is unlikely to be feasible and that substantial reconstruction of the barn will
likely be necessary to convert it to habitable space. Retaining the barn in its existing condition and
location will result in continued deterioration.
The applicant proposes a three phase process for relocating and reconstructing the barn. In Phase 1,
a new structure, including concrete slab with curb, waterproofing, and roof structure, will be
constructed and prepared to receive the barn wall panels. In Phase 2, the barn will be prepared for
relocation by replacing deteriorated vertical wood boards as necessary, removing and storing the
existing rolling door and track, bracing the exterior walls, installing temporary collar ties at existing
top plates, and removing the existing roof structure and cladding. In Phase 3, each of the four wall
surfaces will be detached as panels, moved intact, and attached to the new structure. Please see
Attachment 4: Barn Relocation Method for a more detailed description of the relocation and
reconstruction. This relocation method constitutes demolition of the barn under the City's
definition of demolition (OMC 17.04.023 and 17. 10.090). However, reconstruction of the barn
retains the existing mass, scale, and original materials to the greatest extent feasible.
Based on the consultant's historic resource assessment and staff report dated May 1, 2013, the barn
is considered a non - contributor to the historic district. Because the barn is considered a non-
contributor, the appropriate Design Standards for review of the project are those related to
compatible new construction and/or alterations to non - contributors in the historic district. The
proposed relocation and reconstruction of the barn appears compatible with the local Old Towne
historic district, because it retains the existing mass, scale, roof slope, rolling door, and vertical
board siding to the greatest extent feasible. The barn's orientation parallel to W. Palm Avenue and
its visibility from the public right -of -way will be retained. The existing openings will be infilled
with a combination of aluminum frame windows and horizontal wood siding,'clearly differentiated
from the original vertical board siding. The infill will also be inset approximately three inches from
the face of the original siding to further differentiate the infill from the original material. The small
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 7
26 square foot addition on the south elevation is similarly differentiated with horizontal wood siding
and compatible with the original materials. The proposed reconstruction of the barn appears to be
in conformance with provisions of the Design Standards related to new construction within the
historic district.
Issue 2 — Compatibility of New Construction:
The applicant proposes to construct a new 1,899 square foot, 1 '/2 story building with one housing
unit at the rear of the property and a new 604 square foot, two -car garage to the east of the
contributing building. The proposed new construction conforms with the R -2 -6 zoning standards.
The 700 -800 block of W. Palm Avenue has three contributors in a total of 15 properties. Given the
adjacent multi - family properties and losses of integrity to the historic streetscape, the increased
density and new construction is appropriate for this location and will not cause further losses of
integrity to the historic district.
The proposed new garage has design elements compatible with the historic district, including the
front gable roof, exposed rafter tails, and wood siding, and is in keeping with the mass and scale of
historic carriage houses and garages found in the historic district. The new garage is proposed at a
setback of 31 feet, 10 inches, approximately in line with the front door of the contributing building,
but set back from the line of the front porch. This location is closer to the street than is typical of
carriage houses and garages associated with contributors to the historic district. However, the
proposed garage's small size and use of materials is consistent with the historic district and
compatible with the contributing building.
The proposed new housing unit is set at the rear of the property and will take access from N. Clark
Street. This location and new access reduces impacts to the street facing elevation of the
contributing building and will give the appearance of a separate property from W. Palm Avenue.
The proposed 1 ' / 2 story height with small dormers is generally compatible with the mass and scale
of the historic district and will be minimally visible from the public right -of -way, due to the
placement of the new garage. The building is differentiated from the contributing building and
from the barn through the use of materials, such as the vertical fiber cement board and batten siding
which references the property's agricultural history without replicating the original materials found
on the older buildings on the property. The proposed new construction appears to be compatible
with the local Old Towne historic district and in conformance with the Design Standards.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff Review Committee:
The Staff Review Committee reviewed the project on September 19, 2012 and provided preliminary
comments.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 16, 2013
Page 8
Design Review Committee:
The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on May 1, 2013 and provided preliminary
comments.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Drawings, dated August 10, 2013
4. Barn Relocation Method
5. Material Board
6. Photographs
7. Design Review Committee Staff Report dated May 1, 2013
8. Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes dated May 1, 2013
cc: Rick Fox
Stratos Form
275 S. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92866
Guy Alexander
GCA Landholdings, LLC
3185 F -2 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Planning Commission Meeting I September 16th, 2013
3. COMMISSION BUSINESS: — b 1�
3.1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4685 -13 AND MINOR SITE
PLAN NO. 0705 -12 – PALM AVENUE HOUSING
The applicant proposes to relocate and reconstruct an existing barn and construct an
addition, a new detached two -car garage, and a new 1' /z story additional housing unit
with attached garage on a parcel that contains a one -story single family residence.
The single family residence is a contributor to the local Old Towne Historic District.
The barn is considered a non - contributor to the Historic District. The applicant
proposes to take access to the new housing units from a new driveway at the
southwest corner of the property at North Clark Street.
LOCATION: 730 W. Palm Avenue
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class
2 – Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15303
(Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31 -13 approving
the relocation and reconstructing of a non - contributing
barn as an accessory housing unit, construction of a two
car garage and construction of one additional housing unit.
Historic Preservation Planner Marissa Moshier presented a project overview consistent
with the Staff Report. The house at 730 W. Palm Avenue is a contributing structure, but
the barn on the property is not.
Commissioner Correa asked if the house was a contributing structure. Ms. Moshier
stated it was. He also asked about the nature of the craftsman home, and whether they
typically had their garages all the way at the back of the property. Ms. Moshier said that
was typical. Commissioner Correa said he felt strongly that the garage should be moved
back 10 feet to be consistent with the craftsman style and the neighborhood.
Commissioner Correa referenced page A -2, where the materials for the project are
described as vinyl and plastic in some parts. He would like to see all the materials be
wood. For the barn roof, he sees that the plan calls for corrugated, even though the
original was asphalt. He would like to see it kept consistent with the roof on the house.
Commissioner Gladson asked if there were 3 units proposed, and why the use would be
under the purview of the Planning Commission. Ms. Moshier explained that the plan
proposes 2 housing units plus the barn used as an accessory unit, which is allowed since
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
3 PC MINUTES DATED
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
HOIKE RESIDENCE
SFPTFMRFR 7- 2016 PC MTG.
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
the property is zoned R -2. Commissioner Gladson also asked for clarification on why
this project is before the Planning Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz explained that this project was taken from the
purview of the Design Review Committee and placed under the Planning Commission.
There were some irregularities in the process of the project going before the Design
Review Committee, so the project was shifted to the Planning Commission to head off
any due process challenges from either the City or the applicant. The project would have
come back to the Planning Commission anyway, and the only difference is that the
project will not now be vetted through the Design Review Committee. Commissioner
Gladson asked if that meant the Design Review Committee was still an entity that the
project could be sent back to. Mr. Sheatz said it was, but that would bring up all the
potential due process problems that they were attempting to avoid. He would prefer that
the project not be sent back to the Design Review Committee for that reason.
Chair Steiner noted that 2 items were presented and entered into the record: a letter from
Raymond Chen, Structural Engineering and the Historic Resource Assessment.
Rick Fox, address on file, the architect for the project, spoke as applicant. He concurs
with the findings in the staff report and is prepared to accept the conditions in the report.
He feels this project makes a strong positive contribution to the neighborhood, both on
Palm and Clark streets. He clarified some of the details in the report, specifically
regarding the relocation of the barn. The original Historic Resource Assessment was
prepared in December of 2012 and at that time there were still several possible
development options. After that report, the staff asked for additional details on the 7
aspects of integrity. Section 3.1.3 of the report shows the details that have been added as
a result, specifically regarding the aspects of integrity. The May 1" Design Review
Committee report also provides information on integrity on page 6. The 2 aspects of
integrity that this barn retains are the aspects of feeling and design. The relocation
honors and retains those two aspects, providing the same orientation as the original as
well as the same materials when the originals are salvageable. Also, the original window
and door patterns are retained. Various other details of the building are retained, such as
the painted fruit and the sliding door. The materials being replaced were chosen so as not
to create a false sense of history and make it seem as if the remodeled building is original.
Regarding the infill construction issue, the garage has been set back 8 feet from the porch
rather than being flush with the porch. The placement of the garage right now allows for
multiple open spaces for the different residents to use. There is a very mature orange tree
located right behind the garage, and that will be retained with the proposed garage
placement. The two different vehicular entrances to the property help mitigate any
negative impact on Palm Ave. Pushing the garage farther back will reduce the useable
open space behind the garage.
Sherry and Guy Alexander were given the opportunity to speak, but they deferred their
right to speak to a later time.
4
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
Jeff Frankel, address on file, spoke and pooled the minutes of himself, Steven Brennan,
Sandy Quinn, and Sue Vares to get 12 minutes to speak. He was concerned about the
lack of Design Review Committee input and thought a final review of the project by the
Design Review Committee would have been very beneficial. He has discussed the
project with the applicants, architect, and staff and still has some concern regarding the
design. The OTPA applauds the applicants for their great job rehabilitating an historic
bungalow, but said he knew, and everyone in the project knew, this was going to be a
difficult and controversial project.
He reviewed the consultant's report from May 2013 as well as the staff report. The
consultant's report mentions that the barn was built on an historic site, and the loss of its
surroundings has no bearing on its contributing status. There were many small barns not
associated with orchards that were built in Orange historically, and some of them still
exist. The report mentions an earlier survey that determines that the barn is non-
contributing, but the OTPA is not aware of any such survey. Rather the barn was simply
not mentioned, which doesn't mean it isn't a contributing structure. Past inventories
haven't necessarily listed garages, barns, and other accessory structures. There are many
structures like this that have been restored and treated as historic buildings, and they form
an important part of the historic fabric of Old Towne Orange. The OTPA disagrees with
the claim that the barn is a non - contributing structure, so CEQA guidelines should apply.
The Secretary of the Interior Standards do not recommend moving historic buildings
unless it is absolutely necessary for the project to go forward. Those that have been
moved have been moved in a very sensitive fashion, keeping a minimal distance and
keeping the same relationship to the primary structure, and were conditioned not to be
dismantled. This is not the situation in the current project. Also, in -kind resources are to
be used on historic resources, and the Old Design Standards strongly encourage the use
on infill projects, and the OTPA encourages that for this infill project as well. The new
garage will be using in -kind materials, as it should. The OTPA also believes the barn
should use in -kind materials, specifically for the windows and doors. Aluminum framed
windows, for example, are an inappropriate material. The OTPA also questions the
choice of roofing materials, since the original material would have likely been asphalt
composition shingles, which is not the material being proposed. He would disagree that
it creates a false sense of history, as that is what is currently on the building. One of the
OTPA's biggest issues is the location of the infill garage. This location does not meet the
Secretary of the Interior Standards, since it doesn't continue historic relationships on the
site. The proposed location of the garage is inconsistent with traditional building patterns
in the district. When traveling through the historic district, one does not see any garages
in this location relative to the historic building, unless they were built before the
designation of the historic district and, therefore, aren't subject to the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Approval for this location would set a dangerous precedent, as all
previous projects that involved moving a building have been done with minimal distance
and a preserved relationship to the original site. Future applicants may use this as an
opportunity to propose putting garages farther forward on the sites, which would damage
the historic relationships in the district.
5
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
There are two larger issues that the OTPA believes are incompatible with the historic
standards; the OTPA is willing to compromise on the many others. First, the location of
the garage; this should be moved back 20 feet, thus keeping the historic relationship.
Second, the use of materials on the barn; aluminum frame windows and roofing materials
different from the originals should not be used. The OTPA requests that the Planning
Commission condition any approval of the plan on the moving of the garage back and the
use of in -kind materials on the barn.
Robert Imboden spoke, not representing the Design Review Committee, or commenting
on design, but on the Historic Resource Assessment prepared for the project. He is not
opposed to the project per se, and believes it could happen if done properly. However, he
feels the project is not there yet, and doesn't conform to all the required standards,
specifically regarding the assessment of the building and its compliance with CEQA. He
reviewed his credentials to speak on this matter, including his work in historic
preservation, his time spent on the Planning Commission, and his time spent on the
Design Review Committee. He also has experience working with a barn -like structure in
terms of assessing its historic significance. The earlier project was not determined to be
historic, but for vastly different reasons than those that apply to the current project. He
doesn't automatically believe that every old building needs to be preserved. In the case
in front of the Commission, the primary areas that have been referenced in terms of the
assessment are the integrity and setting. The report does not provide an executive
summary, which made it hard to understand the findings in the report. The report
mentioned that the building isn't contributing based on the National Historic Standards
and the State Historic Standards. He doesn't see why the National Standards would be
relevant in a discussion of CEQA.
In order for a building to be listed in the State Register of Historic Structures, it doesn't
need to meet all 7 listed criteria for integrity. There is no evidence, for example, that the
garage had ever been moved outside of the period of significance, and therefore lost its
historic claim. Also, the type or method of construction is not a way that anyone reviews
workmanship. The use of single -wall construction doesn't prove or disprove the historic
nature of the building. Also, the paving that was done to the barn subsequent to its
construction should not disqualify it as an historic structure either.
There are 4 historic aerial photos that show this building in place. These barns were not
limited to the use of citrus - growing properties, so the absence of a citrus grove also does
not disqualify it from historic status. Any modifications that might have been made to
the structure are easily fixable in the restoration process. Lack of identification of the
barn as a contributing structure in several of the inventories cited in the report is simply
because it wasn't a primary structure, and the inventories only recorded primary
structures. CEQA guidelines state that just because a property isn't listed as historic in an
inventory, that doesn't mean it isn't historic. The logic used to conclude that this
structure is not historic is therefore faulty.
In summary, he stated that everyone in the community has a responsibility to be good
stewards of the historic materials here, and that he is concerned about the precedent that
6
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
approving such a project might set. He finished by asking the Commission to question
staff about how the project would be impacted if the building were to be deemed historic,
and whether the project could still happen. His issue is not with the design of the project,
but with the inaccurate information and logic in the report.
Chair Steiner asked for questions from the committee members, then asked for Mr. Fox
to come back up to respond to the comments from the public.
Mr. Fox came back and tried to summarize the 3 main issues; 1 is the window framing
material on all new constructions; 2 is the roofing material of the barn; and 3 the setback
of the garage.
Commissioner Buttress said the other issue was the evidence for whether the barn was a
contributing structure or not.
Mr. Fox said there are sections of the report that deal with CEQA criteria for the project
and each of those criteria are discussed in some detail. He said he understands that just
because a structure wasn't listed on a survey, that doesn't mean it isn't a contributing
structure. That's precisely why this report was commissioned. People might come to
different conclusions on different parts of the report, but he disputes that the report is
either incomplete or inaccurate. Even if the barn is contributing, that would only affect
the types of materials used on the windows and roof.
Chair Steiner said it was unfortunate that the writers of the report couldn't be at the
meeting tonight.
Mr. Fox then addressed the issue of the material types and location of the garage. The
window and barn materials could be changed if needed. The advent of the two -car garage
is fairly recent in the history of architecture. The single -car garage was often an
accessory. He would be willing to change the location if that would be part of a
compromise.
Commissioner Correa mentioned the sense of false history, and he doesn't see any false
history here. Once the decision to save the barn was made, all the other steps should
logically follow, and there is a responsibility to save it correctly. Some single - family
homes did have barns, so the materials should be as original as possible. He has some
reservations about moving the barn, but is willing to accept that in order to help the
project move forward. He feels in order to preserve the historic fabric, the windows
should be wood and the roof should not be done with corrugated material or other more
modern materials. The house originally had a single -car garage. A two -car garage is
going to be very imposing on that property, but he is willing to compromise and require
the garage to only be moved back 10 feet rather than 20, and 5 feet on the east side to
comply with the setback requirement. He asked on page A -7, what kind of garage door is
being used, and why does it appear that there are two different kinds of designs on the
garage doors?
17
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
Mr. Fox said the desire was to be a barn look, and the material itself would be painted
metal.
Commissioner Correa said he was fine with there being two different garage doors, but
thought the materials should be uniform for all the buildings, and the garage should be
pushed back 10 feet.
Chair Steiner clarified that the garage is already 8 feet back, and asked Mr. Fox to
elaborate.
Mr. Fox said the garage was 8 feet from the front of the existing building. He asked if
the proposal would be to push it back another 10 feet.
Commissioner Correa clarified that it would be another 2 feet so that the total setback
was 10 feet.
Mr. Fox said that wouldn't be a problem.
Commissioner Buttress asked if that would allow for the tree directly behind the garage
to be kept.
Mr. Fox said he wasn't an arborist, and couldn't say for sure.
Commissioner Gladson said she doesn't feel she has enough credible information from
the materials presented to her to make an informed decision, especially a specific
decision on whether it's acceptable to move the barn or not based on whether it is or isn't
a contributing structure. She said she was concerned about the precedent of moving a
potentially contributing structure. If there was clear evidence that it wasn't contributing,
it would be fine to move it. The exceptions to the CEQA guidelines only apply if this
isn't a contributing structure, and we just don't know that for sure.
Mr. Fox clarified that the existing site plan does show the current and proposed locations
of all buildings, even though they are sometimes called different things.
Chair Steiner said the originally proposed design shown to the Design Review Committee
had a Plan A and Plan B option, with Plan A being to demolish the barn and Plan B being
to move it.
Mr. Fox said that Plan B had received the most support, and even if the garage isn't
contributing, it is clearly something that the community would like to keep. He also felt
that demolition by neglect should not be an option.
Commissioner Gladson said the missing ingredient in the proof is the Sanborn maps,
which aren't included.
3
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
Mr. Fox explained that the Sanborn maps fell short of this particular property, so those
couldn't be used to get a definitive answer.
Chair Steiner said that there could be an argument either way on the evidence for whether
the barn is contributing. He said he didn't feel a strong opposition to the project, and
wanted to see if a compromise could be reached without a definitive answer to the
question of whether the structure is contributing.
Ms. Moshier said she doesn't think there is locatable definitive evidence regarding
whether this is a contributing structure. The Sanborn maps didn't extend this far west, so
aerial photographs are the main evidence.
Commissioner Gladson asked if they were likely to find additional evidence in the future.
Ms. Moshier said it was unlikely that she would be able to find more evidence to clarify
the issue.
Commissioner Gladson asked if it made sense to reconsider all the different criteria on
the property.
Ms. Moshier said the main question is whether the property retains sufficient integrity to
convey its historic significance as an agriculture - related resource. So the question is
whether there is enough historic material there. There have been alterations to the roof
framing structural, and the internal structural system, and to the openings in the buildings,
so there have been losses to integrity.
Commissioner Gladson said that doesn't necessarily preclude it from not qualifying.
Ms. Moshier clarified that there are 2 criteria for whether the structure qualifies: the first
is whether it is significant, and whether it is associated with an historical event or person,
and this property meets that criteria; the second is whether it retains enough of the
original material to convey that historic significance.
Commissioner Gladson said the report stated that the building has 60% of its historic
material, which is more than half.
Commissioner Correa said he wished to err on the side of safety.
Chair Steiner asked what specifically he meant by that.
Commissioner Correa said if the applicant is willing to make the changes brought up so
far, he would be fine with that.
Chair Steiner asked how the applicant would feel about moving the garage back an
additional 12 feet (20 feet total).
9
Planning Commission Meeting September 16th, 2013
Sherry Alexander said she would love to save the big orange tree, but she would be open
to moving it wherever the Commission wanted it.
Mr. Fox said the existing orange tree is about 6 -8 feet from the back of the garage.
Moving it back that additional 12 feet would mean that the garage would end about 7 feet
from the rear proposed structure. Placing the garage where it is was originally proposed
was designed to help preserve a larger piece of open space that would therefore be more
useable to the residents.
Commissioner Buttress asked if moving it back 12 feet would require removing the
orange tree.
Mr. Fox stated that 12 feet back would mean the tree cannot be retained.
Commissioner Buttress asked if moving it back 4 -6 feet would allow the tree to be saved.
Chair Steiner said the question of whether to save the orange tree should be second to
whether the historic fabric is going to be preserved.
Commissioner Correa asked how old the orange tree was.
Mr. Fox said it appears to be original to the site.
Commissioner Buttress asked about the houses around this property. They seemed to
have garages that were right up near the front of the property. She doesn't understand
why this is such a large concern.
Commissioner Gladson said the relationship in the historic period was to have the
garages moved back as far as possible on the property.
Commissioner Correa added that the garages were pushed back in order for the craftsman
houses to shine.
Commissioner Buttress said having the open space that's larger and useable is a good
thing.
Commissioner Gladson said that putting 3 units on a 14,000 square foot lot means there
will be some tradeoffs regarding how much open space is available. This is more dense
than it was, so people should expect to lose some of the open space.
Mr. Fox said if moving the garage back 20 feet was what it would take to approve, the
applicants would be open to that.
Planning Manager Leslie Roseberry stated that the garage was 31 feet long and would
only need to be 20 feet long, so that might help move things back as well.
10
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16th, 2013
Ms. Alexander said the plan was to have a 31 foot garage so the garage would be more
useable in terms of storage for bikes and other equipment.
Commissioner Correa moved to accept the proposed site plan with the following
conditions:
• The materials used would be of the same nature as typically are used in a
craftsman home, including the roof .
• The garage would be moved 20 feet back, with a 5 foot side yard setback.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Correa, and Steiner
NOES: Commissioner Gladson
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
11
Planning Commission
3. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
September 7, 2016
3.1 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4872 -16 AND MINOR SITE PLAN NO. 0872 -16 — HOIKE
RESIDENCE
The applicant proposes to relocate & reconstruct an existing barn and construct an addition; to
construct a new detached two -car garage; and to construct a new 1' /2 story additional housing unit
with attached garage on a parcel that contains a one -story SFR. The SFR is a contributor to the
local Old Towne Historic District. The barn is considered a non - contributor to the historic
district. The applicant proposes to take access to the new housing units from a new driveway at
the southwest corner of the property at N. Clark Street.
LOCATION: 730 WEST PALM AVENUE
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15302 (Class 2 — Replacement or Reconstruction) 15303 (Class 3 —
New Construction or Conversion or Small Structures and 15331.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -16 approving the construction of
2 residential units and a detached two -car garage on property containing an
existing single family residence.
Discussion: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner- Historic Preservation, presented a project
overview consistent with the staff report. She explained that the project was initially entitled in
2013 and those entitlements had expired. This current project was requesting the same 2013
entitlements except for the treatment of the barn structure on the property.
The Commission asked staff if the driveway on Palm Avenue was being eliminated; if the new
two -car garage could be configured so the existing driveway could be used and why wasn't this
attempted; confirmed the barn in 2013 was to be relocated and that it required a demolition
permit; asked what criteria was used to determine the barn required dismantling; questioned the
26 sq. ft. addition on Page 7 of the staff report because the letter from Airalea Newman stated it
was 50 sq. ft.; asked for clarification about the density since this project was adding two
additional dwelling units on the property; asked if there were options in the future to address
demolition of structures without permits; confirmed the new proposed structures and the
driveway on Clark Avenue were the same as proposed in 2013; concerned with the time lapse
and no penalties being imposed; and asked if there had been any communication with OTPA.
Chair Gladson acknowledged receiving correspondence from Brad Gentry who raised a number
of issues about the project. Ms. Moshier indicated that the parking issue had been taken into
consideration and it did meet the off - street parking requirement.
The applicants who spoke on behalf of the project were Rick Fox and Airalea Newman.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC MINUTES — 9/7/16
2 HOIKE RESIDENCE
APPEAL NO. 546-16
DECEMBER 13, 2016 CC MTG.
Planning Commission
September 7, 2016
Rick Fox, architect for the project, stated he had worked closely with City staff since 2013. He
explained the reasons why this was a strong project for Old Towne. He said the current proposal
included all the conditions and issues raised in 2013 except the current condition of the barn. He
explained how there had been delays in the preparation of the construction drawings which were
submitted in May 2016. He verified that there were no plans to subdivide the property.
The Commission asked Mr. Fox who made the decision that the infrastructure of the barn was
compromised if the applicant had informed him about the dismantling of the barn; clarified that
since the entitlements had expired it would delay the plan check; asked why an extension had not
been requested; had raised concerns in 2013 as to whether or not the barn was a non- contributor
and now it was gone; concerned that the barn had not been relocated but dismantled and the
conditions of approval had been totally ignored; asked if the 450 sq. ft. of the proposed studio
included the mezzanine; concerned with having two driveways and asked that a new design with
just one driveway be considered; confirmed the parking space for the auxiliary unit was an open
space; asked since the barn had been removed, had there been alternative options for relocating
units so there would be no access from N. Clark; and asked why the property could not be
subdivided.
Public Hearing was opened.
Airalea Newman, Hoike LP, addressed the demolition of the barn and said it was a
miscommunication with her counterpart. She explained how the barn had been dismantled.
The Commission asked if Ms. Newman knew the barn was to be taken down in panels and if she
was aware of that condition of approval; stated the conditions of approval are not guidelines;
confirmed that Ms. Newman knew the conditions of approval; thought some type of restitution
should be considered; noted that this barn was built with 2x 12s with no studs in between and
there were no walls to take down to reuse as a 2x4 framed wall; and noted since she was involved
with the project since 2013, she had read the planning report and was aware a demolition permit
was required for the barn.
Public Hearing was closed.
Vice Chair Correa had a problem with the barn demolition because the conditions of approval
were not guidelines; noted if this project was approved, they would be saying it was alright to
demolish an existing building without City approval; noted the entrance for the residents in the
back was more for convenience; noted this property was big enough to design a new site plan
that would have only one street access; and concerned it would set a precedence for future
projects demolishing structures without permits.
Commissioner Glasgow did not think the Palm Avenue access from the house to the property
line was big enough to reconfigure and had no problem with the entry off of Clark Avenue;
concerned with the demolition without talking to the City and getting a permit; wanted to see the
barn material put on the new garage since it has a view from the front; concerned that the studio
had a loft and it could be used as a second bedroom; noted the barn was a non - contributing
structure and the applicants were reusing the boards; and noted that until a severe penalty has
been established, demolition without a permit will continue in the future.
3
Planning Commission
September 7, 2016
Commissioner Simpson thought the required findings for the DRC and for a minor site plan in
the staff report had been met. He did not think the applicant should be penalized because there
are no mechanisms to deal with these situations and more clear guidelines should be established.
Chair Gladson stated she could see both perspectives on this project. She had voted no on the
project in 2013 because of her concerns on the significance of the barn but now that was gone.
She was happy there was a plan to save the boards. She was concerned with more than two units
on the property but they met the parking requirements, the development standards, and the
findings. She would want to eliminate one of the units to comply with the Old Towne Standards.
Mr. Sheatz said there has been some teeth in the illegal demolitions in the form of requiring a
redesign and it had affected property owners. He stated there is an ordinance that addresses
demolitions but it has not been updated in some time. The change to the ordinance would be
driven by the City Council.
Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16 approving Minor
Site Plan No. 0872 -16 and Design Review No. 4872 -16 for construction of two residential
units and a detached two -car garage on property containing an existing single family
residence located at 730 W. Palm Avenue, noting the item was categorically exempt from
CEQA:
MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow
SECOND: Commissioner Simpson
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson
NOES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED.
Motion was made to continue the project when all five Commissioners would be present
with no changes to the design of the project:
MOTION: Commissioner Simpson
SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow
AYES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson
NOES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED.
Motion was made to continue the item to allow the applicant to redesign the project related
to reducing the density and finding the N. Clark Street driveway access might not be
needed:
MOTION: Commissioner Gladson
SECOND: Commissioner Correa
AYES: Commissioners Correa and Gladson
NOES: Commissioners Glasgow and Simpson
ABSENT: Commissioner Willits MOTION FAILED.
The applicant was informed that this item could be appealed to City Council.
n
u
Marissa Moshier
From: Brad Gentry <bradrgentry@gmaiI.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 10:39 AM
To: Marissa Moshier
Subject: Re: 730 W PALM AVE - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Hi Marissa,
Please confirm your receipt of my attached email.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this important matter!
Respectfully,
Brad
'yewpori i oxll, CA 9
c 949.30o.7010
BradRGengy@ gmail.com
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
This transirnis"lon mat he privilu;cd and Ill ay contain conTidenti tl 1lio:wa ion ❑ttenii d only ii+t ih,• taaipient(,) 11a1ricd '111o\ c. And other dtatrihutirnt. rc-
trau,mission, copying or d1 1 C10sL1%' ,I tit), message to sn iA% pwhihited. If you have i :ccieckl this tt m,1111,Muxi in el tirr. picase not1h me ilnincdiately b"
telephone or retarn cnxil, and delete this 'rorn "our sVMC111. Thank you.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Brad Gentry < bradrgentry(&gmail.com > wrote:
Good Morning Marissa,
I am writing again to express my vigorous objection to the current 730 W Palm Ave
development plan. Per our conversation Friday September 2nd, I understand the Orange Planning
Commission is scheduled to review the 730 W Palm Ave development plan this week. I am
hopeful the Orange Planning Commission will read and carefully consider both this email and
my previous July email dated July 26th and accompanying land survey (Bradley Owen's Survey
dated 7/21/16).
The basis of my determined opposition to the 730 W Palm Ave development plan stems from my
family's 10+ year ownership and management of four multi - tenant properties located on W Palm
Ave and N Clark Street, of which two of our properties (798/800 W Palm Ave and 253/261/269
N Clark Street) are located adjacent to 730 W Palm Ave .
ATTACHMENT NO. S
PUBLIC COMMENT RECD 9/6/16
HOIKE RESIDENCE
1 APPEAL NO. 546-16
DECEMBER 13, 2016 CC MTG.
As long time multi- tenant Old Towne Orange property owners, we are aware of the growth of
Chapman University and the resulting strain on Old Towne Orange housing as well as street
traffic and parking. Over the years, I have attended several Chapman University hosted meetings
between local property owners and Chapman University off - campus housing officials. During
these community meetings, Chapman University growth plans were discussed and mixed Old
Towne Orange property owner reactions were aired. I sincerely believe that a balanced and well
reasoned approach by Chapman University and the City of Orange should be formulated and
implemented to cope with inevitable growth and resultant increased demands upon housing,
traffic and street parking. In my view, a likely component of the future Old Towne Orange
development plan will be to "downzone" impacted neighborhoods to help ease traffic and street
parking demands.
The proposed 730 W Palm Ave development plan runs counter to any efforts to help alleviate the
neighborhood's impacted housing, traffic and parking demands. An immediate example is the re-
tenanting of the existing house on 730 W Palm Ave with numerous Chapman students and their
vehicles parked on the lot and W Palm Ave.
The 730 W Palm Ave development plan calls for two new residential units in the rear of the lot
with vehicular access to be provided via a new curb cut to N Clark Street through a narrow
portion of the lot touching N Clark Street. As previously mentioned in my July 26th email:
• Regarding the proposed N Clark Street curb cut, the Bradley Owen's Survey dated
7/21/16 shows that there is a 20 foot curb radius between our 798/800 W Palm Ave and
253/261/269 N Clark Street properties and a 25 foot distance for the proposed driveway
easement. During the physical inspection and field work, Bradley Owens stated that the
proposed curb cut and driveway would be "very narrow ". I would add that anyone
visiting the site would reach the quick conclusion that the proposed curb cut would be "so
narrow as to be virtually impracticable" as well as adversely impacting the already
congested (traffic and parking) N Clark Street cul -de -sac. Throughout our long time W
Palm Ave and N Clark Street property ownership, I can definitively state that N Clark
Street traffic and street parking are already very congested and difficult, especially during
"street sweeping" and "trash pick up" days. I sincerely believe approval of the proposed
curb cut and driveway to N Clark Street would result in safety issues for both street
residents and anyone utilizing the street.
• The proposed curb cut and driveway would be "squeezed" between our two existing
property line fences and ongoing vehicular usage could damage our property fences given
the narrow driveway.
• The proposed curb cut and driveway to N Clark Street would be via a portion of the 730
W Palm Ave property which does not have a N Clark Street address. Will the owners of
730 W Palm Ave seek a legal "lot split" to create a new N Clark Street address?
• During our Old Towne Orange property ownership, we have come to understand and
accept the precedent for multi -unit property owners along W Palm Ave to have access
vehicular to rear units via driveways on W Palm Ave. Our 798/800 W Palm Ave and
802/804/806 W Palm Ave properties have driveways on W Palm Ave. The properties
immediately adjacent to our 802/804/806 W Palm Ave and 730 W Palm Ave also have
access to rear units via driveways on W Palm Ave. The 730 W Palm Ave development
plan could be revised to utilize a driveway on W Palm Ave without the need to adversely
impact an already congested N Clark Street.
• If the Planning Commission does not acknowledge the N Clark Street congestion and
approves the proposed N Clark Street curb cut, I would feel compelled to submit a
2
development plan for another new N Clark Street curb cut and driveway to provide
vehicular access to the rear unit of our 798/800 W Palm Ave property which borders N
Clark Street.
• The 730 W Palm Ave development plan we were given called for the Historic Barn to be
relocated on the property next to the property line between 730 W Palm Ave and our
798/800 W Palm Ave property. As mentioned in my July 26th email, the 730 W Palm
Ave owners illegally demolished the barn (on July 15th when the City of Orange offices
were closed) in an obvious attempt to circumvent the Old Towne Orange Historic
Property Guidelines. We and most other Old Towne Orange property owners respect and
follow the appropriate property guidelines. I would submit that the owners of 730 W
Palm Ave obviously did not respect nor comply with the Old Towne Orange Historic
Property Guidelines. If the current 730 W Palm Ave development plan is approved, I
would suggest that a damaging precedent would be created to allow future disregard for
the Old Towne Orange Historic Guidelines.
As a local property owner I respect property ownership rights however, I also firmly believe that
there must be a thoughtful balance between public and private rights and interests. Old Towne
Orange has become an impacted area, due in part to Chapman University's tremendous growth.
As discussed during community meetings hosted by Chapman University, the positive economic
growth generated by Chapman University should be balanced with impacted local property
owners and their rights to enjoy a quality lifestyle.
As proposed, the 730 W Palm Ave development plan should be denied or dramatically altered to
eliminate the N Clark Street curb cut. In an era when "downsizing" in Old Towne Orange is most
likely inevitable, approval of the proposed 730 W Palm Ave development plan would negatively
impact an already congested street and neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Brad Gentry
Bind Gentry
Newpuri Bcach, CA 92
c 041),200'
BradRGentryry(a 9mail.com
CONP'lDKNT1 ki. INMR,NIA I ION
This ti "anSMISM011 mac be privileged rind nriy auttam conlidcutiA mfonrmiion intended oil, h,r (he rcipicnl(st named aboee. Any
001,21 ilistrihu(iO JI, rr ❑ansmi,siun, eopyinc of disclosure of this n1es;atte iti 11W1 k v proPubitett. It you have rc, cI%od th; (tttnsmi >910n in
error, plea,e notity 111s i,nrnediaicly by telephone or return email dud Itti , Crom 'cnu "'ICIII l hank qnu.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
91