Loading...
2005 - September 19 Planning Commission Minutes c.~Sro.. Gt.~.3 September 19, 2005 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange September 19, 2005 Monday - 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Bilodeau, Imboden, Pruett, Enderby and Bonina None PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary INRE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. INRE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. INRE: CONSENT CALENDAR: None. INRE: CONTINUED HEARINGS: (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2531-05, DAPHNE'S GREEK CAFE, A PROPOSAL TO ALLOW AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE TYPE 41 (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE FOR BONA FIDE PUBLIC EATING PLACE) LICENSE FOR AN OPENING OF A NEW RESTAURANT WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF ORANGE AND MAKE A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY. Planning Manager, Leslie Roseberry gave the Staff Report to the Commission. Chair Bonina asked about the relationship of where the alcohol was to be served vis-a-vis the access points from the Mall and the patio area outside. Ms. Roseberry stated that the patio area was not specific to Daphne's, and that no alcohol would be permitted in the patio area, but only within the restaurant. Chair Bonina asked if the patio area was a common area, and Ms. Roseberry stated she believed so. CHAIR BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. Rafael Ponce, applicant. He stated that alcohol (beer & wine) would be served inside the restaurant only. He explained that the patio area was shared between Daphne's and other restaurants located in the immediate area. He said they had several other locations where alcohol was served inside the restaurant. Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 CHAIR BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING - Commissioner Bilodeau moved for approval of Draft Resolution No. PC 44-05, a Resolution of the Planning Commission approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2531-05, a Request to allow an Alcohol Beverage Control Type 41 License for a new restaurant within the Village of Orange and made a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity located at 1500 East Village Way, Suite 2202. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion. Commissioner Pruett made note of the fact that this item is categorically exempt from CEQA. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (2) DRC NO. 4011-05 - OLD TOWNE SIGNAGE CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION PROJECT. A PROPOSED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO DOCUMENT, CONSERVE AND/OR RESTORE PAINTED HISTORIC SIGNS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PLAZA. Planning Manager, Ms. Leslie Roseberry mentioned that this project was originally scheduled to go before the Design Review Committee, but several of the project sites are within 500 feet of the office building where three of the Design Review Committee members work. Therefore, this item was moved up to the Planning Commission. Ms. Roseberry then provided the Staff Report to the Commission. CHAIR BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING - Speakers: Dr. Ken Tve. Professor of Education. Chapman Universitv. applicant. 435 N. Harwood St.. Orange. Dr. Tye thanked the Commissions for allowing him to make the presentation on behalf ofthe Orange City Chamber of Commerce Old Towne Signage Committee. He mentioned highlights ofthe document he had presented to Staff. He explained that the Committee wanted to conserve and preserve the signs, not to repaint them, and other signs would be touched up. He stated that Mr. Tom Porter, a committee member had a conservator come to Orange to come up with an estimate. He stated the estimate might have to be redone due to time passed, but he thought the average sign would cost approximately $11,000 to $12,000. He said this would include the sign and a plaque that Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 would contain the owner, donor, and Chamber of Commerce names along with a brief description of the sign. He stated that Gannon Design Company of Orange would take care of the signs at cost. He mentioned they had received preliminary approval from the building owners, but ultimately there would have to be written agreements. He further stated that one oftheir committee members, Mr. Ali Parvanae, ofthe Madison-Harbor Law Firm had drawn up draft agreements between the Chamber and building owners on a pro bono basis. He stated that they had received a $10,000 grant from the Bank of America which was to be used specifically for the Bank of America/Bank of Italy sign, and an unknown donor who has tentatively committed to the support of an additional sign. He said this means if the project is approved, there would be a fund-raising campaign. He read a letter from the Chamber President, Barbara DeBoom to the Planning Commission supporting this project as well as a letter of support from Lisa Ackerman, a committee member. Mr. Scott Parker. 1040 N. Elizabeth Pl., Orange. owner of Watson's Drug Store. He stated that he had worked on the Signage Committee since its inception. He explained that the committee wanted to preserve the signs, and the history in Orange. He spoke of the importance of the plaques and how they would provide information, especially to school children, as well as provide a historical picture. He said this was a great proj ect, and hoped the Commission would agree. Mr. Russ Barrios. 235 E. Maple. Orange. He stated he lived in Old Town for 35 years, and served on other committees. He stated he had received about six inquiries regarding the signs during the Street Fair. He said that all the committees he served on had expressed support for the proj ect. Ms. Elizabeth Gefner. 2557 Berkelev Circle. Orange. She stated she had lived in Orange since she was four years old. She thought since Orange was known for its historic Downtown, it was important to preserve it and make sure it stays around, and she thought this was a wonderful way to do this. She asked the Commission to approve the project. Ms. Judv Schroder. 1041 No. Elizabeth. Orange. She stated she also worked in Orange as a painter and has a gallery in Orange. She eXplained that she paints on location in the City of Orange. She stated that 25% to 35% of her paintings were painted in the Plaza area. She mentioned the Bank of Italy sign. She said the sign had been covered over about two to three times, but the Bank ofItaly sign kept coming through the paint, and she thought the sign wanted to be noticed. Mr. Al Ricci. 616 E. Chapman Ave.. Orange. He stated the signs in Orange are part of their history. Presently, there was graffiti on the signs, and the signs were not taken care of. He believed this project was necessary to preserve the signs. He further stated that if something is not done now, they may never get to restore the signs. Mr. Ali Parvanae. committee member. He said that he had been asked to volunteer some time on this committee, and he was happy to do so. He stated he would be happy to answer questions on the legality of what they intend to do. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes September I9, 2005 Chair Bonina asked Mr. Parvanae what the form of agreement would be between the building owners and he assumed the Chamber or City or the Committee. Mr. Parvanae responded that he had come up with the idea for the property owners to grant an easement to the Chamber. The easement would be where the sign is, then it would become the duty of the Chamber, to maintain, conserve, preserve, and service the sign. He wasn't sure how receptive people would be to his idea. He thought they may want a different approach such as a license, or issue a permit to have a sign, but the committee wanted to approach this at a later time. For now, they wanted to obtain an easement. Commissioner Bilodeau asked about the graffiti on the Hobbs Battery Sign and what the proposal would be to remove the graffiti. Dr. Tye replied that currently this was the responsibility of the building owner. Commissioner Bilodeau then asked if the Signage Committee took over the maintenance of the signs, how this would be done. Dr. Tye responded that the easement would come into force once it was cleaned up the first time, then the maintenance of the signs would be the Chamber's responsibility. He added that there was tagging done to the Bank ofItaly sign. Since the Masonic Lodge owns that building, they had the sign cleaned up. Commissioner Enderby asked the applicant to elaborate more on how the funding of the project would happen. Dr. Type stated that he did not know the answer to the question exactly, but the committee had discussed a number of possible fund-raising activities. He thought the total cost for the project would be less than $100,000, but the committee did not feel they had to complete all the signs at one time. They would like to have one or two signs done, and then the fund raising would be easier. First, they need the approval to move forward. Commissioner Imboden stated in reviewing the Conservator's Package, he did not notice any discussion of cases where there were signs painted over signs. He thought there were a few instances of this type in Old Towne, and he wondered what the methodology of how this would be addressed, i.e., what the precedence or priority would be to deal with signs that have several layers of signage, one over the other. Dr. Tye replied that Commissioner Imboden was correct in his statements. This was discussed with Conserve Arts, and believe they can go through the present coat of paint and see what is under there. He continued that they would want to do one of those types of signs first to see how it works, and it is a gamble. He stated one of the reasons to move on this now was that they did not want any further signs to be painted over. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Chair Bonina echoed the Commissioner's statement that this was a great project, and something that Old Towne needs. He also asked if any research was done relative to historical documents or photos where signs were located, and where signs were painted over as mentioned by Commissioner Imboden, and possibly uncovering some additional signs in going through this process. Dr. Tye replied that yes and members ofthe committee had done a considerable amount of research where there were other signs. He said they had identified 11 signs with two additional signs located behind buildings. He stated that it needed to be determined if other citizens have additional information beyond which they have been able to gather. Mr. Ricci added that most of the signs had been painted over. He stated that there may be three different versions of the same sign, and it would have to be decided which sign to preserve, because they were all historical. Commissioner Pruett asked if there would be an opportunity to reference the three signs and perhaps have a small replica ofthe three signs on the plaque that would be at eye- level. He stated this would give people the opportunity to see it. Mr. Ricci replied they would have to speak to the people who would do the conservation work, and would have to find out what all the signs looked like, and this would be difficult. He thought there would be more pictures available, but there aren't. Commissioner Pruett stated that even ifthey don't know what the sign looks like, if there is some record that there was a sign there, could it be referenced on the sign, and Mr. Ricci replied yes. Speaker- Ms. Janet Crenshaw. 200 block of North Cleveland. OTPA. She stated that OTPA was concerned about the painted signs in the Old Towne Business District, and appreciated the Signage Committee taking on this project. She said that OTPA would like to see the signs preserved, but not restored or changed. The one exception would be to remove any recent graffiti, and if possible, to protect them in some way from future damage and disfigurement. CHAIR BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Imboden asked Staff about the end of the item, there was a Code Provision that states "..that building permits shall be obtained for all construction of work as required by the City of Orange." He assumed for each sign there would be a submittal to the City that would enact a specific permit for that particular project that would address what would be done. He asked ifthis was correct. Ms. Roseberry stated that since they would not be attaching anything to a wall or illuminating anything, these types of permits would not be necessary. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Commissioner Pruett asked Staff if the bronze plaques placed on the buildings required some type of permit. Ms. Roseberry stated she would say no, but she would have to follow up with the building official because there were things you could attach to a wall without a permit, but there might be certain things that the building official may want to be aware of. Commissioner Pruett stated that ifthere were any permit or code requirements that would be in conflict with maintaining these historical signs and placement of the historical reference plaque, the City should look at how to work around this to allow it to occur. Ms. Roseberry stated that there wasn't anything that came to mind. She explained if someone has a painted wall sign now in the City, they can maintain it, but cannot put up a new one. She added the plaques were similar to a building plaque that states they're on the National Registry. Chair Bonina stated that in fact, if there is an application, there would be an agreement in place with the property owner that this could occur. Commissioner Enderby made a motion to approve Design Review Committee No. 4011- 05, the Old Towne Signage Conservation and Preservation Project. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS: (3) APPEAL NO. 502-04 OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF DRC NO. 4016-05, RICK WIN'E Ms. Roseberry gave a full reading ofthe Staff Report to the Commission. She mentioned the fact that DRC ruled that the stone could remain in the cantilevered area of the house, and the chain swag did not need to be replaced which were the two points that OTPA was appealing. She also stated that OTPA had also submitted a packet of information to the Commission. Commissioner Imboden asked about the order of events. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Ms. Roseberry stated the permits issued were not for the garage, but for the front of the house. She said that the applicant was asked to stop work at some point. She was unsure if work had been done contrary to what was approved or if they had done the work prior to the permit. Chair Bonina asked OTPA to come up and provide their proposal along with some background of OTPA Mr. Jeff Frankel. address on file. OTPA He explained the history of OTPA, and how this organization was established to preserve and protect this historic district through education and since its inception, they have monitored projects within the District, and worked in conjunction with the City. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Frankel how someone could contact the organization to participate or provide comments. Mr. Frankel answered that there was a web site; www.OTPAorg , that contained contact information as well as a hotline with links to the Secretary of Interior Standards, etc. Mr. Frankel then stated he hoped the Commission had a chance to review the materials provided concerning the Old Towne Preservation Association's (OTPA) appeal. He explained that the Board had agreed that there were substantial violations of the Old Towne Orange Design Standards as well as the Secretary of Interior's Standards for rehabilitation. Mr. Frankel discussed: . The removal of historic fabric ofthe house removing two of the four-arroyo stone columns. . Applicant continued work, and demolished the two remaining columns. . A 'Stop Work' was ordered and the applicant then met with the City to secure permits on a nearly completed project. . Failure to follow the process that included review and assessment of a project to ensure the project will comply with the Old Towne Orange Design Standards as well as the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. . One of the columns did need to be repaired, but not replaced. . He estimated that over 80% of this style architecture includes some type of cantilevered pop-out element. . The heavy chain is not uncommon for porch railing treatment on Craftsman style homes. . Only remaining example of swag chain railing they know of in the Historic District. . Stated the columns on this project were not reconstructed in the matching profile of the original column. . Showed the old columns and the new columns for Win'e project and how the profile of those columns had changed drastically. Mr. Frankel stated that the issues the Association has with this project are the violation of Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2005 the Old Towne Design Standards as well as the Secretary of Interior's Standards for rehabilitation. The Association disagrees with the DRC's findings. He added the DRC's findings are inconsistent with the required findings outlined on Page 11 of the Old Towne Design Standards. Mr. Frankel mentioned DRC member Woollett did not consider the cantilevered pop-out element a defining feature ofthis building. He further stated Mr. Woollett is the longest standing member of the DRC, and as other DRC members, has been involved in many training sessions dealing with preservation and the standards. Mr. Woollett asked the applicant ifhe would rather have the stone out or a ribbon driveway. Committee member Wheeler stated he wished it wasn't there, referring to the stone. Mr. Frankel said to suggest and approve an alteration of a defining feature of this structure, which is a violation, in trade for an item that is encouraged, a ribbon driveway, is objectionable. He added that the DRC also did not require the chain to be replaced. Secondly, he continued, the removal of a significant amount of historic fabric with no prior inspection, formal review or documentation was also in violation. The Secretary of Interior's Standards state, "deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and visual qualities, and where possible, materials. As extensive as this project is, with the removal and replacement of the entire porch and columns, it should have required DRC review from the beginning. Thirdly, he explained, the removal of the City's Historic Preservation Planner from the project. The Board realizes that the Historic Preservation Planner, at times, may not be able to handle as many projects that are submitted. He stated the Board could not stress enough how important it is that knowledgeable individuals review these projects. It seemed the applicant did not agree with Mr. Ryan's assessment and review, so the project was reassigned to another planner. He continued to say their needs to be more training in the area of historic preservation for Staff, and should require a background in historic preservation for new hires and current planning. Mr. Frankel encouraged the City not issue the permits for this project until these violations are resolved. He believes the project should have been recommended to the Planning Commission from DRC for review as it includes the demolition of an accessory structure greater than 120 square feet with the replacement structure not being the same size and function as discussed in Old Towne Design Standards. He mentioned the two draft Violation Notices dated June 24, 2005 that the Commission should have received, and a Notice of Violation Letter sent to Mr. Win'e dated June 24, 2005. He requested that the Notice of Violation Letter be read into the public record. This completed Mr. Frankel's comments. Chair Bonina asked Ms. Roseberry to read the Notice of Violation Letter into the record. Ms. Roseberry stated that this letter is on the City of Orange letterhead dated June 24, Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2005 2005 to Mr. Rick Win'e and the Win'e Family Trust regarding a Notice of Violation for exterior modifications at 264 No. Shaffer Street. She further stated in parenthesis "Hand delivered on 6/24/05 by Earlene Shackelford". She then read the letter into Public Record. Chair Bonina stated that there was a planner issue that the Commission may not be in position to resolve, but may have to raise this issue with Staff. He then asked Mr. Frankel if the primary objections were to the material or the actual contour of the columns. Mr. Frankel replied that the Association's objection was that the columns were demolished when only one column was deteriorated. He said there were many examples of columns of the same vintage or masonry work of arroyo stone with the same type of mortar that are still standing. He said some of the mortar does deteriorate and when it does, you replace the deteriorated areas, and leave the rest alone. He continued that in this case, all the columns were demolished, and he believes the City's intention was to retain the two that were left so that the two demolished columns could be rebuilt with the same profile of the two existing ones. It was his understanding that the two existing columns as well as the chimney were not deteriorated. Chair Bonina stated in the "before" pictures ofthe columns he saw, it appears that the columns are straight with no contour, while the columns that were replaced show the same basic structure. He asked if the same stone was used. Mr. Frankel stated it was his understanding that new stone was used, but he could not be sure. He's assuming some of it was new and some of it was old. His point is that there was no need to use any new stone because the old stone should have been reused and had the same profile as the existing columns, but since they were all demolished, the only record was the photos. Chair Bonina wondered ifthese were structural columns and if the stone was the actual structural element. Mr. Frankel replied that many times there is something within the columns. He was not sure about this property, but the main issue was that the City went in the wrong direction and the proj ect was not properly assessed. The process was faulty, and there was no previous inspection ofthe columns or the porch itself. He stated you should not replace any of the wooden material unless it's deteriorated. He mentioned as far as the swag chain railing, it was common to use chain as a railing. It would also be inappropriate to recreate a wooden railing that was never part of the house. Most of the homes he's seen that have arroyo stone columns have no railing and never did. Chair Bonina asked if there was a timeline for the sequence of events. Ms. Roseberry replied that looking at the letter, it appears as though they received permits to take care of the porch columns, and the chimney, but in taking the rehab work Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 a bit farther, this seems to be reflected in the letter. She thought the letter came after the permits. Chair Bonina asked if the applicant had a permit for the reconstruction of the columns, and Ms. Roseberry stated yes, this is what she inferred from the letter. Mr. Frankel added this was after the columns were reconstructed. He stated they obtained permits after the columns were rebuilt. Commissioner Imboden mentioned that nothing was said about the garage in terms of its design. He asked Mr. Frankel if OTPA objected to the proposed design. Mr. Frankel replied that the only objection they have about the garage was the exterior staircase. He stated this is generally not allowed. He mentioned that the DRC allowed this because they were going to switch the stairway from one side to the other so it wasn't as visible. CHAIR BONINA OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Todd Win'e. 253 N. Pine Street, Orange. He began by stating that he felt the DRC findings were not inconsistent with the Design Standards and felt they were in compliance with both the Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards. He said the removal ofthe chain railing on the porch that is described as a distinct feature that defines a character ofthe contributing structure within this Appeal was performed more than one year ago. He contends that this is not a defining feature of the Craftsman home as evident that there is no other similar feature existing in the area. He explained this was validated when the permitted rehabilitation ofthese columns exposed the common cement used to secure these chains. The structural material used to support the columns was lime mortar, and if these chains were installed during the original construction of the column, lime mortar would have been used at the anchor points, but it was not. He addressed the second structure being appealed, the stone veneer cantilevered bay element. The appeal cites the Design Standard, Page 37, Appendix C, Number Two, as to why this structure should be removed. He noted Appendix C, Number 10 of the very same standards as well as the Secretary ofInterior Standards. "New additions and adjacent or related construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and it environment would be unimpaired." He stated this is what had been performed. He continued that this Standard provides the homeowner of these historic properties the ability to make them into their homes while preserving the historic value of the community. He referred to the first Design Standards cited in the Appeal that states the work that has been performed had an adverse affect on the historical significance and value of the building and surrounding area. He said for those that live particularly in the 200 block of North Shaffer, this statement was blatantly untrue. In fact, all of the work performed including the structure in question has been praised by the neighbors. Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Win' e the process used to construct the stonework in the Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 columns. Mr. Win'e explained that originally, there was a tree on the far left column. When the tree was removed, the structure fell down. As soon as it fell, the structure was supported with wood, and reinforced with a wood beam going down the center of the column. Originally, none of the structures had any wood support whatsoever. They were set on bedrock, and then lime mortar was used to install and build the columns. As they stand today, there is a wood column supporting it. The stone on the outside is a facade; it has no structural support, and is supported by a 4 x 4 footing with a 4 x 6 beam. Commissioner Pruett asked if the stone faCade was originalstone. Mr. Win'e replied that it was the original stone, but it did look different in the pictures because all the stone had been cleaned. He explained they had cleaned the stone because putting a 4 x 6 in the center took up space where original stones used to be, and would not fit in the same location as before and had to be manipulated. Because there was a coating on the outside, one would see the coating and new stone, and had a blotched look. Commissioner Pruett stated that typically the stone columns at the comers are typically rounded following the nature of the stone. He mentioned it appeared that to be more of a concrete pre-cast. He asked how he was able to put stone in there to get the right angle feature versus the roundness that naturally comes with stone. Mr. Win'e responded that it took a lot of work, and that's how the original columns were set. He stated when they tore down the first two columns, that's when the violation was reported, and they sought a permit immediately. He said when they went through the permit process, there was no discussion of DRC review or any further actions. Had they known they needed a pictorial record of what was completed, they would have done so. Commissioner Pruett asked if the columns were constructed prior to the permits being issued. Mr. Win' e answered no, but were removed prior to the permits. He stated the permits contained the footing inspection, and the completed column inspection. Chair Bonina asked if after the two outside columns were demolished, the City came to the home. Mr. Win' e replied that this is when the letter from the City was issued. Then, they received the permit to include all four columns to remove and replace. Chair Bonina asked about the rock beneath the cantilever, and asked what was there prior to that. Mr. Win'e stated the rock was put in at the same time that the columns were built. He said the cantilever was there with nothing underneath it, but dirt. Page 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2005 Chair Bonina asked ifthe cantilever was visible from the street, and Mr. Win' e answered yes. Commissioner Imboden stated he had a similar question about the columns. He asked if his understanding was correct in that the first column disintegrated by itself, and then asked how the other three columns were removed. Mr. Win'e stated that one of the columns had a wood stump underneath it, and when the stump was removed, he placed his hand on it and the column fell down. He mentioned this is what happened with the chimney as well. He explained that lime mortar has a life expectancy of 60 years, and the house is 80 years old. He stated that the two columns in the center had some pointing to them, which made them a bit more stable, but they also came down. Commissioner Pruett asked how long the house was owned by the current owner. Mr. Win'e replied that this was his father's house, and he has owned it a little over a year. Chair Bonina asked if there was a reason why the column was larger than the original. Mr. Win'e stated that the rebuilt column was not larger, and wished he had a pictorial record to illustrate it. Chair Bonina stated that it looked like the original column had more definition to the rock and the mortar lines are further defined. Mr. Win'e explained that this is because they're eroded in, and one doesn't see the hard edge that is currently in the picture. Chair Bonina asked what was done after the notice from the City was received. Mr. Win' e stated they went to obtain the permits to complete the demolition, and rebuild the columns and the fireplace. At that time, the decking was in question, and Mr. Dan Ryan came to the house and took pictures of the under structure. Once it was determined the decking needed to be replaced due to termites, they replaced the deck. Chair Bonina asked at what point Mr. Ryan left the project. Ms. Roseberry stated that due to a Code Enforcement issue, it was important to Staff for the applicant to move through the process quickly. Mr. Ryan took a month vacation and in order not to delay this for another month, this was reassigned to another planner in order to address this in September versus October. Commissioner Enderby asked Mr. Win'e to explain about the swag chain again. Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Mr. Win' e explained that the swag chain was removed after the children in the family played on it and it came off. Commissioner Imboden asked ifthis was discussed with the City when this happened. Mr. Win'e claimed ignorance of the fact that the did not know he needed to do this. Chair Bonina asked Mr. Frankel to come back up to respond with any comments. Mr. Frankel stated there was no reason why the columns could not be built with the same profile as the original columns. He referenced the Secretary of Interior Standards that states even when repairing or repointing, they do not want new mortar used, but to use the same type of mortar that was used in the existing masonry work. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was some further definition to the stone, i.e., the mortar lines weren't as pronounced, process aside, would this help in the OTPA's assessment of the columns. Mr. Frankel replied that anything that created the same look as before would be acceptable. He thought the coating that Mr. Win'e was referring to was probably a patina on the stone, and not a coating. Chair Bonina mentioned the structure in the back. Mr. Frankel stated that OTPA did have an issue, but did not feel it was necessary to file an appeal because they thought it should be recommended to the Planning Commission because the new structure is not the same size or the same use. He stated the DRC could review it ifit was the same size and for the same use, but since it's not, it would have to be continued to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bilodeau asked if OTPA was requesting that the columns be torn down and reconstructed completely. Mr. Frankel answered no. He felt the City permitted something they should not have permitted. It was his understanding that the applicant was told to keep the remaining two columns. At this point, they're requesting the removal of the stone foundation under the cantilevered stone foundation and the chain railing reinstalled. He added to recreate a railing for the porch would be inappropriate and contrary to the Standards as well. Chair Bonina asked Staff if there were any safety or code issues regarding the railing for the porch. Ms. Roseberry stated there were no code issues from a zoning viewpoint, but did not know if there was one from a building viewpoint. CHAIR BONINA CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Commissioner Bilodeau stated this was his first Old Towne project. He did not have a problem with what the applicant has done. He thought the applicant tried to enhance the look of the home. In terms ofthe chain, he said that could be replaced at any time. As for the rock placed under the cantilevered pop out, it was meant as a decorative element and could be removed, and didn't think it was meant to be destructive. Commissioner Imboden indicated he had received phone calls on this project from the community since its inception with concern about the columns being removed. He mentioned his recollection of the timeline he questioned earlier, was different. He believes that the City stepped outside of what the normal procedures were for preserving the structures in Old Towne. He agreed that the Secretary of Interior Standards would have approached the removal of the columns differently, and would have recommended only those portions needing replacement be replaced and simply repoint the other locations. He stated he couldn't disagree more with the DRC finding of the cantilevered pop out. He said the photos they have could attest to the frequency to which pop-outs occur on Craftsman-era architect, so to put a base under that, changes that feature and is no longer a cantilever, and in his opinion, it removes a defining feature. In regard to the swag chain across the porch, this is also a character-defining feature on Craftsman-style homes. Although they are rare, they do exist. He recalled that the applicant stated the mortar didn't match. He said he has stone piers on the front of his home, and where the original railing was inserted into the columns, you can see a differentiation in that concrete because they were inserted afterwards. He also would like to see the skirt under the cantilevered removed and the swag chain go back in order to move forward with the proj ect. Chair Bonina asked Staff to speak on the demolition of the two buildings in the back being replaced with a different size and/or purpose. Ms. Roseberry stated there are provisions in the Old Towne Standards as well as the Demolition Process about the demolition of non-contributing accessory structures. She said there was some vagueness to the definition. Under the DRC Review, the demolition of a non-contributing structure greater than 120 sq. feet can be looked at by the DRC when the replacement structure is similar in function and size to the structure being removed. The new structure is partially the same insofar as the structure being demolished could be used as a garage, and the new structure can be used as a garage and also has a large attic on top so the form is different. When you look at the Planning Commission Review, it talks about demolition of a non-historic resource, so it uses different terminology. Instead of referring back to a non-contributing accessory structure, it talks about a non-historic resource and so it's not as specific as Staff would like it to be. It could have been when the determination was made, they felt it was similar enough and that it could be looked at by the DRC. But, the DRC can indicate that they are not comfortable with acting on something, and ask that it be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Chair Bonina asked how many members participated in the DRC. Page 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Ms. Roseberry stated there were three. Chair Califf recused himself because he's the architect on record for the garage. Commissioner Pruett stated there seemed to be issues in Old Towne where people are not familiar with the guidelines and other standards that are required in Old Towne, and this concerned him. He said because then it has to be fixed, and the property owner is harmed by this because it is an additional cost for them. If the change is not made, then the community is harmed because the fabric of Old Towne is damaged in some respect. He wondered how this problem could be eliminated, and has come up with a suggestion for the OTP A. When they see a 'For Sale' sign go up in Old Towne, that they send a letter to the property owner that the home they are purchasing would be subject to the Design Standards of Old Towne, and the Federal Guidelines as it relates to preservation of property. Any changes or modifications to their property should be discussed with the City or even OTPA. He said this would begin to communicate to new owners that there is a process to go through. The only way that Old Towne can assure that their interests in preserving the community are maintained is to pay attention when a property is for sale, and send a letter to that property owner. This is just a comment, and it may be something to consider. He agreed with the fact that there is no benefit in having the columns changed. He does believe that the cantilever needs to be a cantilever, and the rocks under there need to be removed to maintain the Craftsman style. As far as the swag chain, he thinks this needs to be replaced based on two findings. One is that there is evidence of the swag chain being on a Craftsman home as a feature, the other is that when the recent property owner purchased the home, the swag chain was there, and it was removed by the property owner. He complimented the applicant on all the work done on the restoration of his home. In terms of the garage, the outside stair feature is something that have avoided in Old Towne, and he preferred this was inside the garage structure. He felt this would add more storage area, and be a benefit. Chair Bonina agreed with Commissioner Imboden that the columns were not something to be changed, but the chain could be replaced and added to the historical value. He stated he had a problem with enclosing the stairway. He felt direction was given to the applicant that allowed them to put the stairway on the exterior of the building, and it has been done already based on the photos. Commissioner Pruett stated that he did not think the garage had been constructed. Ms. Roseberry said that the project had been held up by the Appeal. Chair Bonina retracted his statement about the stairway and stated that the stairway should be enclosed as Commissioner Pruett suggested. He also added that it would be helpful if the Planner were here in the future. Ms. Roseberry stated that the Planner was on vacation, and if they had waited, it would not have been heard until October l7'h meeting. She asked Mr. Ryan to attend, but he was out ill today. Page 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Commissioner Pruett made a motion to approve the Appeal of Design Review Committee, DRC No. 4016-05 and approving Appeal No. 502-04 which is the Determination of the DRC No. 4016-05 and in approving the Appeal, the following is what is approved: 1. Approve the columns as constructed as being accepted. 2. The river rock foundation under the cantilevered window is to be removed so that this becomes a true cantilever. 3. Approve the demolition of the two storied buildings located in the rear of the project site 4. Approve the proposed building elevations that were submitted to the Commission this evening with the modification that the stairwell will be moved to the interior of the garage rather than the exterior. 5. The chain is to be restored. Commissioner Pruett mentioned the ribbon driveway is a great idea, and is within the front setback and recommended the ribbon driveway be taken back as far as it could. Commissioner Imboden seconded the motion. Chair Bonina asked ifthere was any further discussion. Commissioner Imboden asked if they needed to discuss with the applicant the possibility of moving the staircase inside. He wondered if this can be done with the existing elevation as proposed. In the event they can't, where will this be taken for review. Commissioner Pruett stated he was sure the elevation would have to be changed, but Staff would review those plans and if needed, would go back to the DRC. Ms. Roseberry answered that this would change the footprint as well as the elevation. Secondly, she stated, the Commission is the final hearing body on this unless it get appealed to the City Council. She then asked City Attorney, Mr. Sheatz if there was a significant change, would it come back to the Planning Commission or through the DRC with the recommendation to the Planning Commission. Chair Bonina asked if they could suggest in their motion that this goes back to the DRC to look at the elevation with the understanding that the stairway would be enclosed. Mr. Sheatz replied that ifit needs to go back to the DRC. He was concerned, given some of the issues that if they enlarge the footprint will there be a bulk and mass-type of issue. Chair Bonina stated ifit does, then the DRC would be in a position to understand and assess this. He did not think they were the body to do this. He said to bring it back to the DRC, allow them to understand and review it, and if they feel uncomfortable with it, they would kick it back to the Commission. Page 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2005 Commissioner Imboden commented that the stairs had gone in and out through the project. He asked if the project wasn't coming to the Commission with the exterior stairs as approved by that body, and now the Commission is making a decision that we feel that should be tucked inside the building. He believes the Commission would be sending it back to the reviewing body that came to a different decision than what they did. He wanted the applicant to move forward in a meaningful way not to be sent back to have revision again. Chair Bonina stated if the recommendation is to put the stairway in an enclosed area, it would change the elevation and the footprint. He said a decision had to be made what the Commission wanted to do. He continued that they could not arbitrarily say that and then there is no approving body. He believed the logical direction is for this to go back to DRC, let them review the elevation, mass, and footprint and then, ifin fact, there are some major changes, and it needs to come to the Commission, then it will. Commissioner Pruett stated his view was that it would not be approved with an exterior stairway, yet he did not want to deny the project because then it would take a different direction. The issue is that it needs to be modified, then it would go through a process to seek approval of the elevation, mass, etc. He also wanted to make a point that DRC in reviewing this project will only review the garage. He continued the other issues had been resolved. Chair Bonina stated they had a motion and a second. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, and Pruett Commissioners Bilodeau and Enderby None None MOTION CARRIED Chair Bonina made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, October 3, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. YES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Page 17