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ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.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