Loading...
2005 - February 7 MINUTES APPROVF.D Fe6iUary 7, 2005 Monday - 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission City of Orange PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: IN RE: IN RE: IN RE: (1) (2) Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 15, 2004, AND DECEMBER 6, 2004. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 8-05 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION AND COMMENDING TERESA 'TITA' SMITH FOR OVER TWELVE YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the minutes from the regular meetings of November 15, 2004, and December 6, 2004, and to Adopt Resolution No. PC 8-05. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None Commissioner Bonina (December 6, 2004 Meeting Minutes Only) None MOTION CARRIED (3) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16768 - NORTH ORANGE DEL RIO LAND, LLC The applicant has prepared Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 16768 to subdivide the Del Rio Planned Community into lots for residential development, a public park, permanent open space, and public street. The site is located west of Glassell Street between Lincoln Avenue and the Santa Ana River Channel. NOTE: The environmental impacts of the project were evaluated by Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 1720-03, which was Planning Commission February 7,2005 certified by the City Council as being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The item was introduced by Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry. The Staff Report was given by Senior Planner Chris Carnes. He noted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed the proposed design guidelines and recommended approval. He noted that the DRC did recommend several changes for consistency in architectural style, and the applicant has revised those, and the guidelines before the Planning Commission at this meeting reflect the recommended changes by the DRC. No further environmental review is needed for these applications as the environmental impacts were reviewed last year under FEIR No. 1720-03. Staff has recommended approval of the proposal, with inclusion of 85 Conditions of Approval. It should be noted that there was a revised resolution that made minor changes to several conditions to reflect the development plan that was in the development agreement for the project. The action before the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was opened. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 18101 Yon Karmen Street, Irvine. Mr. Elfend, the applicant, noted that several others on his team were in the audience should the Commissioners have questions of them. He also extended his appreciation to the City staff for their excellent work. He noted that he had received well over 100 letters of support on this project, the result of a broad community outreach program begun over two years ago. Those letters were provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council at that time. Those efforts have been continued and they work closely with their neighbors, and particularly the three groups that are most adjacent to the site. . He provided the Commission with four packages of letters of support that they secured in the last year and they come from three different areas surrounding the site. Mr. Elfend noted that the project included a 6-112 acre bio-swale, which also has bicycle trails, pedestrian paths, pedestrian crossings and sitting areas, and is also connected to the trail along the Santa Ana River. The Planning Commission had approved the overall project on April 5, 2004. Subsequently, on May 11, 2004, the City Council also approved the project. After the Planning Commission approval, they were able to secure the support of their neighbor, the R.J. Noble Co. Mr. Elfend reviewed the Conditions of Approval, stating their concurrence with all but one of them, which is Condition #85 which they still oppose. He read this item into the public record. It states "Any fencing adjacent to the border and the greenway shall be constructed of open design allowing the visibility into those areas. This construction will allow the maximum surveillance by residents who will help patrol and deter criminal activity in those areas." Mr. Elfend noted that they opposed that condition because they feel that this does impact the basic privacy of their future homeowners. This area, he stated, was approximately 200 feet from the greenway to the property line, and is a very active area. He stated that his concern, and his question, is how the homeowners were expected to enforce the deterrence of criminal activity, and also was unsure how the City would enforce this issue (i.e., if the resident planted trees, how many could he plant, how close could they be, how tall could they be, when would they have to be trimmed, etc.). He noted that the area behind the homes in question would be an active sports area, and he knew that people that 2 Planning Commission February 7,2005 moved into those homes would want some type of privacy. He requested that this condition be deleted. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Regarding the question of the fencing and the greenway, we're speaking of the area between the river and the greenway, is that correct? It is the area on the northwesterly side. . Along the riverbed, the drawing shows split-rail fences. The question is, what area of the border are we looking at where this open fencing is occurring? What I'm reading is it's basically along the greenbelt area along the river? Roger Hohnbaum: It's about twelve lots located on the far west side of the development that face onto the greenway site adjacent to the R.J. Noble property. It would not affect those homes facing onto the public street that is adjacent to the greenway and the river channel. . So basically, there is not a problem with the open fencing, with the exception of those twelve lots we've noted? That is correct. . Under Condition 37, that is the one dealing with cable television, Cable Vision and its franchise to service this area. But also, the change here, is giving the developer the right to change and install their own system that is dedicated. Is that a parallel system? We're not saying it's either/or, but it can be both, correct? That is correct. It's both systems. The standard would be to allow just the City's system, this one would allow both. . Condition of Approval #14, where the developer will work with Economic Development Staff to formalize the allocation of residential attached units for sale to moderate income homebuyers - has that been worked out, how will that be approached and who will operate it? Mr. Elfend: The condition requires the matter to be resolved before the first final map is recorded. We are still discussing this with City Staff. There is now a formal condition, which is in response to a request that came from the Planning Commission and the City Council. . Could you describe the phasing process a bit mpre? Mr. Elfend: The phasing of the site is really one phase, and that is the area closest to Glassell is the area where the homes will be most likely occupied first. However, this Commission and City Council has a requirement that we have to have the park rough-graded before we occupy any homes, so therefore both areas are being worked simultaneously. . Does that include the block wall for the Tamarin area? Mr. Elfend: We are moving forward with that as rapidly as we can. This is something between our development and the Tamarin residents. The City states that it requires a variance due to the height. . Could you explain Condition #64 a bit more? Mr. Elfend: Essentially the landscape area will be owned by the Homeowners Association but maintained through a community facilities district. In the event, for example, the CFD could not finance the district, then it would revert back to the homeowners, but there would not be both a reserve account for the HOA for that maintenance, as well as a CFD that would be financing it concurrently, because you would, in essence, be diminishing the size of the bond on one side and the HOA on the other side. . Condition #20, which addresses the intersection at Glassell Street and the entry drive. It doesn't have any timing associated with it - what is the timing to get that completed? Mr. 3 Planning Commission February 7,2005 Hohnbaum: That is actually going to be part of the first phase as it's the main access to the first group of homes, so that should be in there right up front. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pruett noted that on Condition #85 he understood the applicant's concern for the open fencing on the area adjacent to the sports park. There are two or three homes in that area adjacent to the sports park that he felt would be appropriate to exclude from the open fencing requirement. Commissioner Domer stated that he would feel comfortable expressing the Commission's strong concern with this issue, and for finding an appropriate solution to the issue, either through tubular steel fencing, or some other means. Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 2-05 recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 16768 with the revision to Condition #85. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT NO. 2517-04, MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 360-04, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3943-04 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1738-04 - DOLT RESIDENCE. A proposal to construct a 1,160 sq. ft. second-story addition to a one-story single- family residence. The existing one-story, 1920's Prairie-styled residence is listed as a contributing historic structure in the City's Historic Building Survey. The owners are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow two-story construction within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. The site is located at 260 S. Shaffer Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1738-04 has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry introduced Senior Planner Dan Ryan who is the project manager for this project. Mr. Ryan gave an overview of the staff report. He noted that the second story addition is set back from the existing parapet roofline of the first story, and is designed in the same style as the existing residence. The project also includes removal of the existing Spanish-lace stucco that was applied in 1958, and the installation of a smooth plaster finish that matches the original prairie finish. He described the type of structures that currently exist on the street, and they vary in style from Prairie, Bungalow, Craftsman, Hip-Roof cottage and Victorian. Four of the residences in the vicinity are two-story and four are one-story in height. The subject property and its adjoining property to the south are larger residential lots, having 9,917 4 Planning Commission February 7,2005 sq. ft. The surrounding lots range in size from 4,380 sq. ft. to 7,800 sq. ft. The project is within the average floor area ratio. The single-story residence has a projecting front porch that extends out from the main residence along Shaffer, and a secondary side porch entrance along Washington Avenue. He pointed out that there were five conditions in the Secretary of the Interior's standards, as they relate to additions to historic structures, and those are located within a table in the DRC's report. The City staff recommended approval of the project on September 8, 2004. The project was forwarded to the DRC on October 20, 2004. Staff and DRC discussed the proposed second story addition as well as potential options of adding the addition to the south side of the residence. Each proposal was examined for the impact to the existing building, its placement and visibility to public views. The existing building has defining Prairie features, which include a banding of 12 windows on the south side. Adding the addition there would impact these character-defining Prairie features. The applicants also felt that the addition would not work on the south side in terms of floor plan, thus prompting the request for a second story addition. The DRC discussed the applicant's request to remove the existing Spanish lace stucco that was applied in 1958, as well as extending and rebuilding the existing fireplace up to the second story addition. The DRC felt that the proposal, as submitted, would meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. One of the DRC's requirements was to provide photo documentation of the existing structure prior to any work commencing. There was also consideration taken by the DRC to determine what effect the addition has upon the structural system of the first floor and how much impact that would be to the existing building to create the addition. The architect who designed the project stated that it could be accomplished without adversely affecting the existing structure. Staff is recommending adopting PC No. 06-05. The public hearing was opened. Scott Bolt, the owner-applicant, spoke regarding his project. He noted that his family had lived in Old Towne since 1988, and he previously restored three other homes to their historic stature. He has also done extensive research to try to keep the home to the existing single-story structure while still keeping it within Old Towne design standard guidelines. There are historical trees on the property (coastal redwoods, etc.) that they would like to retain. Therefore, it made the most sense to add a second story. It has been designed so that the second and first story blend well, yet still would be notable enough, in case someone wanted to research and return it to its original condition. Several neighbors are supporting the project and have submitted letters to this effect. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Regarding the Spanish lace stucco, the applicant originally wanted to remove all the stucco down to the wood frame so they could do electrical and plumbing upgrade. That was not recommended by the DRC if I am reading this correctly. Did the applicant still wish to remove the stucco down to the wood frame? L. Roseberry: Usually the DRC doesn't get into that level of detail on how someone is going to rewire or plumb, except there was a concern about the finish of the house, and there were a couple of different iterations on how that was going to be done. I wanted to confirm that the exterior stucco is not going to be removed all the way down to the woodwork, is that correct? Mr. Bolt: The DRC said that we were able to remove amounts of stucco if we came across rotten wood or termite damage if we needed to. I believe the DRC's concern was not so much just for the stucco 5 Planning Commission February 7,2005 as for the original moldings around the windows, etc., and did not wish to lose those defining features during removal of the stucco. . On the issue if damage is found on the chimney, with the stucco, etc., can we make sure that staff works with the applicant and the construction contractor where we don't end up two months from now with half the house removed? Mr. Ryan: That is the reason for photo documentation, as well. . The garage face is very plain - is there anything being done to break that up or to give it a different feel? Mr. Bolt: There is a band that goes around a portion of the mid-section of the garage and we are hoping to work with different color stuccos to bring out some of the detail on that band and possibly at the top, as well. We haven't gone through color selection on the stucco yet. The public was invited to speak: In Favor: Al Ricci, 616 E. Chapman. Mr. Ricci spoke to seeing all three properties that the Bolt's had previously renovated and all were models for the community. He did not see any alternative to the Bolt's trying to keep it a one-story as there was a pool in the back that would be lost if they did. He noted that on N. Cleveland and N. Pine there were also 2-story Prairie-style homes, so this was not inconsistent with the Prairie-style home. Opposed: Jeff Frankel, 384 S. Orange Street. Mr. Frankel was speaking on behalf of OTPA. OTPA is not opposed to second story additions on historic structures, as long as the addition does not have a negative impact on the structure or historic district. The OTP A is opposed to this project because it does adversely affect these resources. It will adversely affect the character of this 1921 Prairie home. This home was not designed as a two-story Prairie, and in our search, we have yet to find a two-story Prairie with this type of second story configuration. The concerns are many. This design is not similar in design to the two-story Prairies in Old Towne, as mentioned in the Staff Report. It is one of only two single-story Prairies located within the Historic District. This addition does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards that state "duplicating the exact form, materials, style and detailing of the historic building in the new addition, so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building is not recommended." It will not be clear as to what is historic and what is new. The second story is almost an exact copy of the first. The Old Towne Design Standards state that to preserve facades and maintain the existing character, the construction of additions should be out of public view in side or rear yard areas. The OTP A would agree with staffs original recommendation for an addition on the south side of the residence that would have the least visual impact on the historic building. There were only 3 DRC voting members present. The full impact to the original structure (i.e., removal of plaster, etc.) was not fully discussed, only that this option would have the most impact on the original structure and the historic district. The OTPA strongly encourages the Planning Commission to deny this project, or send it back to the DRC for further review. This is a unique structure that deserves more attention as to the implications ofthis proposal. 6 Planning Commission February 7,2005 In Favor: Craig Wheeler, 58 Plaza Square. He wanted to comment on some of the issues that had been brought before the Commission. He noted that they originally did look at adding the addition to the south side of the building. But when he noted the bank of unique windows on that side, as a fan of passive-solar design, he felt that this was an early example of good passive solar. He said that they wanted, in their design, to ensure that the second story structure was definitely not a part of the original structure. One other thing that is being done to the garage to help mitigate the massive two-story effect, is that there is an existing trim band on the north side, but it stops very inappropriately at each end of the north wall, and their intention is to wrap that trim band around the rest of the garage. Additionally, he wanted to note that it was brought up at the DRC meeting about not damaging the existing ceiling on the structure. He stated that what the DRC did not realize is that there was sufficient space between the existing ceiling where they would float a second story floor so as not to damage the existing ceiling. Opposed: Mr. Bruce Sneller, 506 E. Almond. He noted that his residence is one block north of the subject house. He stated that it was his understanding that one of the main intents of the Old Towne Design Standards was to protect the unique features of the neighborhoods. In his opinion this addition would change the streetscape and ambiance of that whole particular neighborhood. He felt there was a lot more neighborhood feeling against this project, although the others did not want to go public with their opinion. He cited a number of standards within the Old Towne Design Standards and this project did not conform to these. He provided a map for the Commissioners showing 81 homes, with 69 being single-story. In Favor: Ann Lundquist, 133 S. Shaffer Street. She stated that her home, as well as her business, was within two blocks of the Bolt's residence. She agreed that it would be very difficult to add onto the south side, because of the configuration on the outside and the rooms on the inside. She said that so many homes in Old Towne had added on and there were no backyards left with them. She was opposed to this. The plans for this residence are aesthetically pleasing and they fit with the period and style of the home. Mr. Bolt spoke to the issue of the stucco, noting that there was a lot of discussion around it at the DRC meeting as well as here at the Planning Commission. He stated that their original intention was to remove the stucco, for reinforcement of the walls as well as plumbing, etc. He questioned why, if they were required to put an additional finish over the original stucco anyway, why could they not bring it down to the wood frame level and re-stucco from there? It's not critical that all the stucco be removed, but it seemed to him that it would be more practical. Ms. Roseberry responded to the applicant's question. She noted that through the Design Standards they try to retain the existing, in-kind, original materials. By not removing the stucco from the entire existing house, it would leave some line of demarcation between the original home and the addition, so as not to create a false sense of history. The intent is to preserve as much of the original stucco as possible. 7 Planning Commission February 7,2005 The public hearing was closed. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . Appreciation was expressed to the applicant and the architect for all the effort that was put into this project. It's always difficult when the project is within Old Towne because you have conflicting statements: it can't be similar in design, yet it needs to blend, but also must appear as an addition. . In terms of differentiating between the existing structure and the addition, the setbacks that are proposed for this new addition take care of that. The concept of having to have a different texture of stucco between the old and the new is concerning. It needs to be consistent throughout, it just doesn't make sense. If you have a building that had redwood siding on it, you wouldn't have some other type of siding on the addition. The original stucco should stay to whatever extent possible during the removal of the Spanish lace stucco. . As to whether this project is consistent to the neighborhood, Mr. Ricci gave a good example as to how some of these corner lots have the larger two-story homes on them. It's not overbearing on the property. In this situation, the larger lot is one that allows the bulk and mass to be imposed on the lot without a significant impact to the integrity of the neighborhood. . I would suggest that we add some verbiage to the conditions that would provide for the installation of the sheer walls, with minimal removal of the original stucco surface. I will leave it to staff to come up with the wording on that. . The alternative here is to expand the first story, which frankly would impinge on some very valuable open space on the lot. It would also necessitate the removal of some very mature trees. The fact that the second story is, in fact, set back, provides the visual and street relief that is necessary. The one thing that ultimately swayed me in terms of supporting this project is where the building is actually oriented on the site. It will be lower, in fact, than the standards allow, which is 32 feet, and this new building (with the addition) is, in fact, 25 ft. 8 inches. Commissioner Domer moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 06-05 approving Negative Declaration No. 738-04 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2517-04, Minor Site Plan Review No. 360- 05, and Design Review Committee No. 3943-04 for a two-story development within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion. He asked staff to provide the proper wording for the condition dealing with the sheer wall, etc. Mr. Ryan suggested the phrasing: "Examine those areas where the sheer strong walls can be installed with the least impact to the building and the existing stucco finish." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The Commission recessed for a to-minute break. 8 Planning Commission February 7,2005 Ms. Roseberry, Planning Manager, noted that Items #5 and #6 should be combined for the purpose of discussion. (5) MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 295-03, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 52-04, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3842-03 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLATATION NO. 1739-04. A proposal to construct a two-story 5,836 sq. ft., professional building on a 19,675 sq. ft. lot, located at 305 S. Main Street. Proposal includes the demolition of 1,400 sq. ft. of accessory structures and the relocation of an historic 1927 Provincial Styled gas station building to 887 N. Glassell Street (SEC of Glassell Street and Collins Avenue - see agenda item #6). NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1739-04 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. (6) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 2936-04 - LEASON POMEROY III A proposal to construct a 2,187 sq. ft., new retail center on a vacant lot located at the southeast comer of Glassell Street and Collins Avenue. The development proposal includes the relocation and rehabilitation of a 98 sq. ft. Provincial Style 1927 Historic Clark Gas Station building from 305 S. Main Street to this new location of 887 N. Glassell Street NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures - Class 3) and Section 15332 (In-fill Development projects - Class 32). Ms. Roseberry explained that there were two sites that are part of Items 5 & 6. They are 305 S. Main Street, and 887 N. Glassell Street. 305 S. Main Street is the home to the 1927 gas station, and the gas station is proposed to be relocated to the site on Glassell. The negative declaration was prepared for the relocation of the gas station. Moving a historical building is considered a demolition since you're moving it from its original location. It will be relocated to Glassell with a new office building on the site. The Main Street site will have new professional office buildings. The applicant is the same for both projects, and both projects do have administrative adjustments for looking forward to the taking of roadway, setbacks and one does for parking, as well. Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, gave the staff overview presentation. He noted that the project had been in the works for several years and is now coming to fruition. Both sites required a lot of street takes, right-hand turn pockets, additional setbacks, etc. There were a lot of issues to make both sites work. The requested administrative adjustments will not be detrimental to the public 9 Planning Commission February 7,2005 health, safety or welfare. There are only four remaining gas stations of this type remaining in Orange County, so it is considered quite an icon. During the review of these projects, the DRC had only two requirements: (1) Modifications should be made to the landscaping, as discussed, prior to the review by the Planning Commissions (this has been done). (2) Provide lighting details, features, and photometries prior to review by the Planning Commission (this has also been done). Staff is recommending the approval of both projects. The public hearing was opened. Leason Pomeroy, 158 N. Glassell. Mr. Pomeroy, architect for the project, wished to make one clarification to the Staff Report. They actually are not asking for an administrative adjustment on the parking on the office building. The size of the building has been reduced to match the parking. There is a request for an administrative adjustment on the smaller project, 10%, going from 11 to 10 spaces. He noted that Della Clark is the actual property owner. Approval has been received on both projects from the DRC and the Staff Review Committee. The OTP A has reviewed, and is also in favor of the project. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . On the Glassell and Collins site, has there been any interaction with the neighbors? The neighbors have been spoken to, and their concern was more during construction, that noise is kept to a minimum, and that construction not be started before 8:00 a.m. as they do live there. Originally there was a proposal to put a coin-operated carwash on that site, and the issue there was that it's a 24-hour operation with residents on both sides, so that project was cancelled. . Any consideration in matching rooflines? Quite to the contrary. The retail site was made to just fade away, and to accentuate the little gas station in the front. There was no plan to make the buildings look similar. Patrick Mitchell, 156 S. Citrus. Moved to Orange several years ago because he liked the sense of community, and he felt that Orange had a true sense of heritage that was equally as important as trends and styles. He is the owner of the Blue Orchid Flower Shop at 305 S. Main Street. He feels that there is more at stake here than just a business. He and his wife have been tenants in the Clark gas station for the past five years. As many as 7 generations of families have been served at this site. He wanted to note that he was not there at the meeting to try to save his business. We knew this day was coming. Since they began working at the site in 1999, literally hundreds of people have stopped in the store, not just to buy flowers, but to share their experiences of buying gas from Don Clark, to ask questions about the unique building, and many asked for directions to Old Towne, City Hall, and other locations within the City. He asked that the Planning Commission not just consider architecture, but also the location. 305 S. Main Street rests on part of Camino Real, Historic Highway 101, and it's a major thoroughfare for people coming and going from Orange. The public hearing was closed. 10 Planning Commission February 7,2005 Commissioner Pruett offered that he felt this was a good project. Unfortunately, the historic structure (gas station) was getting lost in its present location. To put it on the comer puts it in a prominent location and will draw a lot of attention to the history that is provided in the City of Orange. He hoped that the gas station would include some sort of historic information in its new location, so that when visitors ask, they can learn about its history. Both of the above items were voted upon separately. In regards to Item #5, Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 07-04 approving Negative Declaration No. 1739-04 as being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Further, he moved to Adopt Resolution No. 07-05 approving Minor Site Plan Review No. 295-03, Administrative Adjustment No. 52-04, and Design Review Committee No. 3842-03 for development of new professional offices and the relocation, rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Clark Gas Station Building within the City. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED In regards to Item #6, Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 10-05 approving Administrative Adjustment No. 32-03 and Design Review Committee No. 3936-05. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED (7) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 3958-04 - YOSHIZUMI RESIDENCE A proposal to expand the living area of a 1,116 sq. ft. single-story, 1923 Dutch Colonial Revival residence with a new 713 sq. ft. addition. The proposed addition will include two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a new covered porch added to the rear of the contributing historic residence. The address of the site is 131 N. Waverly Street (Old Towne Orange Historic District). NOTE: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures - Class 3) and Section 15332 (In-fill Development projects - Class 32). 11 Planning Commission February 7,2005 Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry asked Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, to gIve an abbreviated overview of the staff report. Mr. Ryan stated that the project before them was required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a recommendation from the DRC. Any project that exceeds 20% expansion of the existing floor area needs to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. It's a single-story home, with a multi-gabled Dutch-style roof. He noted that Staff is recommending approval of the project. The public hearing was opened. Doug Ely, the architect for the project, spoke for the owners, Steve and Carol Yoshizumi. He noted that he is also the neighbor to the north of the property. He noted that there was no existing dining room or family room, and this project would be adding two bedrooms and relocating a bathroom. When the project is completed there will be 3 bedrooms, two baths and a den. The existing garage is a bit restrictive, but the Yoshizumi's prefer to leave it in its historic/contributing state. Some of the maneuverability difficulty has been removed by taking away two feet of concrete stoop on the steps of the house. The existing facade will be retained, and the new addition will not be visible from the street. The Commissioners had the following questions/concerns: . It appears that between the garage & house is a covered breezeway, is that correct? It is between the existing house & existing garage. . Are the original doors remaining? The doors are carriage-style doors. As you face the doors on the right-hand side, it's actually like a bi-fold door, it slides open. The left portion is a hinged door. One of the things that we discussed during the DRC meeting (and it was not approved to proceed), was a comment by staff to look at widening the garage door opening for better vehicular access. The problem with doing that is that there would only remain about two feet of wall area, and the doors (once removed) would be difficult to re- hang and have work properly. . There appears to be a strip of property along the back of this site - what is that? It's a Southern California Edison easement, about 3-feet wide, and it's just enough room for Edison to get into the area and maintain the power lines. In Favor: Andrea McCullough, 325 N. Shaffer Street, OTP A. She wanted to note that the OTP A was very positive on this project and approved of it. Mr. Ely, architect, stated that he and Mr. Y oshizumi wished to note that on Item #4 of the recommendations of the DRC, it stated that "matching shingles should be used on the new garage." The garage is existing, so the statement should read "...on the new addition". This was duly noted by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Domer noted that similar verbiage would also need to be used on Resolution No. 7-07. 12 Planning Commission February 7,2005 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Domer moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 5-05 approving Design Review Committee No. 3958-04. Commissioner Bonina seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bonina moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 7, 2005. Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Domer and Pruett None None None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 13