Loading...
2018-12-19 DRC Final Minutes CITY IS OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES—FINAL December 19, 2018 Committee Members Present: Tim McCormack- Chair Anne McDermott—Vice Chair Mary Anne Skorpanich Carol Fox Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Simonne Fannin, Recording Secretary Administrative Session—5:14 Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session at 5:05 p.m. and inquired about Policy/Procedural Information. Committee Members discussed brightness of the new LED street lights that were recently installed. Committee Member Fox made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: McDermott AYES: McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:46 p.m. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19,2018 Page 2 of 7 Regular Session—5:47 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members McCormack, Imboden, Skorpanich, McDermott, and Fox were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for Members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS. RIBUFFO: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 28, 2018 and DECEMBER 5, 2018. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to approve the November 28, 2018 and December 5, 2018 minutes as emended in the Administrative Session. SECOND: Fox AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, McDermott, Fox, and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ASSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19,2018 Page 3 of 7 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New A�enda Items (2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4938-18 CALVY RESIDENCE • A proposal to reconstruct a 91 SF service porch and make other exterior alterations to an existing single-family residence. The property is a contributing resource to the National Register-listed Old Towne Historic District. • 231 E. Culver Avenue • Staff Contact: Kelly Ribuffo, 714-744-7223, kribuffo(a�cit�oforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member McDermott lives across the street from this residence;therefore, she recused herself from this item. Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, provided an explanation of the alterations to the single-family residence consistent with the staff report. The applicant demolished a small room at the back of the house and constructed a new addition to replace it on the same foundation. Maggie Salib, engineer for the applicant, submitted photos of the previous and new roof as well as new plans of the roof, which differed from the plans provided in the DRC packet. She explained her client is going through a financial situation and it is not feasible for her to rebuild a new roof. She asked the Committee to approve what has already been built. Ms. Ribuffo stated the applicant intended to redo all of the doors and windows as drawn; the property owner is asking for the roof to be maintained as constructed, rather than removing it and starting over because itis not very visible from the street. Jeff Frankel, representative of Old Town Preservation Association, explained the code violation was reported in September 2016. He is not sure that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and it is difficult to believe that the applicant, who owns two adjacent properties, didn't realize that permits were required for demolition and a room addition. Since there is no documentation, photographic or otherwise except for the ghosting on the wall of the structure, OCPA would like to see the service porch built at least to the height and perimeter of the existing foundation. OTPA's biggest concern is that they have lost a number of these service porches through illegal unpermitted demolition. He suggested that the applicant research the neighborhood and see how other service porches were built. There should be consequences for demolishing a historic building or feature. He also suggested installing the forced air unit in the new service porch instead of cutting a new entrance in the historic structure. Jim Sanchez, applicant team representative, stated it had 2 x 3 noninsulated pressboard walls and the entire interior of the room had mold due to condensation. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Cari Calvy, daughter of the applicant, stated the property was purchased for rental income. The entire property was in poor condition, especially the back room. They know they should not have torn it down, but they have had a loss of income for two years, which should be considered a form of punishment. Committee questions and comments: • The Committee asked staff if the new roof line was already constructed. Ms. Ribuffo explained Code Enforcement cited the applicant for unpermitted construction. The pictures that have been provided by the applicant depict the new construction. • Members all agreed that the rendering of the roof line in the new plans was completely different from the one that was submitted in their packet. The new elevation shows very little roof pitch compared to the previous one. Ms. Ribuffo stated the staff report in the Committee's packet includes construction changes that staff recommended. The pictures that the applicant provided are what has been constructed without permits and the new plans presented as the meeting is a drawing that shows what is existing on the property right now. Staff visited the project site earlier this year and recommended that the applicant revise their project to meet the envelope of what the previous porch appeared to be, which is the footprint of the existing foundation and the old roof line. It was staff s opinion that the new construction was too massive and the roofline was inappropriate as an addition to the house. The applicant is asking the Committee to allow them to maintain the construction that they had completed. • The Committee stated it was a small house that likely had a patio, and at some point the patio was enclosed to create a service porch; they asked if it was demolished in its entirety. Ms. Ribuffo stated it appeaxs that all of the framing members for the walls and roof are new; the only thing that was left was the foundation. • Committee Members asked staff if they have had a chance to review the new drawings that the applicant submitted this evening. Ms. Ribuffo stated no, she had not seen them. • Committee Members asked if staff knew what kind of siding is under the fiber cement shingles on the original portion of the house. Ms. Ribuffo stated no, she didn't know. • The Committee Members do not dispute the poor condition of the home; however, the demolition of service porches is a huge loss as they tell a story of that era. • Committee Members were concerned that they didn't know what the roof pitch was. It appears that the roof pitch that was in the packet drawings is called out as 1:12, but the roof pitch that is on the existing construction is not called out on the drawing. Ms. Salib stated it is a flat roof with a slope for drainage. • Neither of the drawings seem correct because they did not reflect what is out there now or what used to be out there. The roofline is shown extending higher than the rafters of the sloped roof on the original house, which is not correct. • The Committee did not believe there would have been a flat roof on a home in that era; the porch would have had a sloped roof. The Committee Members were not in favor of a flat roof. • The siding material on the main part of the house is fiber cement and the drawings did not indicate that the intent was to have wood siding on either the house or the service porch. • Horizontal siding shown on the plans was not very typical on service porches in that era. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2018 Page 5 of 7 • The Committee Members expressed concern about the drawings in a number of places; there were a large number of discrepancies, lack of details, and elements were not called out. • The Committee explained that this is a National Register historic district with design standards and the City has demolition and permitting processes. The findings could not be made to show that the project complies with the standards based on the plans presented. • The drawings were not adequate for this project because they did not reflect the existing condition, including the ghosting of the demolished structure, or describe what will be built. • The Committee Members asked staff what would happens if the DRC cannot make a finding that the project is compliant with Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Ms. Moshier stated that means they cannot make the required findings for approving the design review application or the exemption for historic resource rehabilitation/restoration under CEQA. • It would be appropriate to continue the item to obtain accurate drawings that show what is built now so the Committee could evaluate the problematic areas. • The project was not striving to achieve the details and materials that they look for in Old Towne projects. • The Committee explained that the addition should be compatible with the historic building. The Committee was looking for elements that make the addition distinct from the original house; it was good that the service porch steps in from the side of the house, but the way it was rendered on the plans made it look like the siding goes all the way through and that is something that the Committee discourages. Usually the siding on the main building is one type of siding and a different type of siding or scale of siding is placed on the addition. The Secretary of Interior's Standards requires a point of ' demarcation between the old and new, with a distinction in the materials so you can tell that it's different. The Committee's summary of items that needed clarification include: • The existing building needs to be accurately depicted in the drawings, including the ghosting of the demolished structure. • Windows need to be detailed as constructed in the field. • The porch appears to be wider than the house on the plans; accurately depicting the porch is of critical importance. • The roof overhang at the rear is not depicted correctly on the elevations. • The new roof is shown as projecting above the existing roof on some elevations but not on others. • The foundation for the addition is depicted differently from different sides of the building. • The proposed new windows have mitered corners; wood windows do not usually have mitered corners. • The proportion of window sashes should match the existing windows or at least be very close. • The new window and door trim should be chosen in relation to what is existing on the house now. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19,2018 Page 6 of 7 • The siding on porches was typically different from the house; it should not match the house. • The door for the forced air unit should not be included on the original part of the house; it could possibly be placed on the proposed addition. • Clarify the plans regarding the asbestos siding on the original house. • If the project is going to be treated as an addition rather than a reconstruction of a service porch, the roof does not have to be a shed roof; it could be a pitched roof with a new attic. Either re-construct the service porch with a shed roof or an addition with a pitched roof. • Look for a door style that is more compatible with Craftsman or bungalow architecture. Committee Members stressed that the applicant not only needed to consider the items from this list, but they had to meet the requirements of the Design Standards. The Committee recommended that the applicant look around the neighborhood to see other examples of historic service porches and small additions. Committee Member Fox explained the difference between a raised panel door and a flat-panel door to the applicant. Mr. Frankel added when asbestos siding is added to the homes, the window trim detail was often removed. When the asbestos siding is removed, you see the ghost of the original window trim. The Committee recommended looking at different window trims and using one that is found on Craftsman homes or bungalows. Ms. Calvy stated she will walk the neighborhood and do some research, and then meet with staff to come up with a better plan and materials. Chair McCormack asked the applicant if they would like to continue the item and Ms. Calvy responded yes. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to continue DRC No. 4938-18 in order to give the applicant an opporiunity to revise the plans based on the Committee's comments and recommendations. SECOND: Fox AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, Fox and Imboden NOES: None ABSENT : None ABSTAIN: McDermott MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Draft Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2018 Page 7 of 7 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn at 6:57 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled on Wednesday,January 16,2019 at 5:30 p.m. MOTION: Fox SECOND: Imboden AYES: McCormack, Skorpanich, Imboden and Fox NOES: None ABSENT: McDermott MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.