2005 - April 18
~d- '60b ,G. -;).3
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
April 18, 2005
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Enderby, Imboden and Pruett
STAFF
PRESENT:
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Tom Mahood, Traffic Engineer
Chris Carnes, Senior Planner
Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary
STUDY SESSION
The Commissioners held a study session on Santiago Hills II and East Orange from 4:00 p.m. -
6:00 p.m. prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The Orange Planning
Commission will hold a series of study sessions on the proposed Santiago Hills II/East Orange
project in the future. Santiago Hills II is a 496-acre site located east of Jamboree Road, south of
Irvine Park, and west of SR 241/261. East Orange has a total acreage of approximately 6,335
acres and is located easterly of the SR 241/261 highway, north of Santiago Canyon Road with the
boundary of the study area located east of Irvine Lake (Santiago Reservoir) area. The proposed
project consists of residential units with development of local parks and a community sports park.
A golf course and commercial uses are proposed in the Irvine Lake area, along with residential
units.
REGULAR SESSION
INRE:
PRESENT A TIONS
Chairman Bonina announced that the next workshop on the General Plan would be held on April
23, 2005. It will take place at the Lutheran High School located at 222 N. Santiago Boulevard
between 9:00 a.m. and II :00 a.m. The title ofthis workshop is "Envisioning Change."
Chairman Bonina presented Resolution No. II-OS expressing appreciation and commending Mara
Brandman for her three years of service on the Planning Commission. Ms. Brandman was unable
to attend the presentation, but he noted that the Commission appreciated her participation and
looked forward to her continued participation in the City of Orange. He expressed his thanks and
appreciation to Ms. Brandman on behalf of the entire Planning Commission. He showed a plaque
that would be sent to Ms. Brandman at her residence.
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
Planning Commission April 18, 2005
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
MARCH 7, 2005, AND MARCH 21, 2005.
Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of March 7, 2005.
Commissioner Domer seconded the motion. Commissioners Imboden abstained, as he was not a
member of the Planning Commission during the March 7, 2005 meeting.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, and Enderby
None
Commissioner Imboden
None
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Pruett moved to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of March 21, 2005.
Commissioner Domer seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(2) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING - SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
THROUGH 2011-2012
Review of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 through 2001-
2012 to determine program conformance with the City's General Plan as required
by State Law.
Commissioner Pruett moved to find that the projects identified within the proposed Seven Year
Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the City's General Plan Policy.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
2
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
(3) (3) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) NO. 1681-03 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2390-03 - WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
ORANGE
A proposal for changes to the operation of the Orange Refuse Transfer Station. The
changes include the storage of refuse material overnight within the refuse transfer
building, the expansion of the recycling facility, and use ofa multi-purpose building
for waste transfer. The site is located at 2050 N. Glassell St.
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1681-03 was
prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
the project in accordance with provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Senior Planner Chris Carnes gave the overview presentation. He said the primary reason for the
proposal is to delete a condition that prohibited the overnight storage of refuse in the transfer
building. When this was originally approved in the early 1990's, it had a different operator than
today, and their operations in collecting the refuse of the city allowed them to have the material all
transferred to truck trailers which transfer the material out to a landfill prior to the landfill closing.
Since the new operator has taken over the trash collection for the city, they cannot complete the
collection of the materials (because of the increase in the materials being hauled) within the city.
The proposal also includes some minor changes to onsite operations in terms of where they collect
refuse such as allowing minor collection of recyclables and refuse in what was considered a truck
parking building and also collection of small amounts of recyclable materials outside of the
building. The Staff Review Committee's review of the project included two minor changes in
operation. One had to do with traffic. By allowing the material to be stored overnight, haul trucks
are parking along Glassell Street or continuously routing around to Grove to Fletcher and Batavia
waiting for the ability to enter the facility at 7:00 a.m. to collect the refuse. The City's Traffic
Division has reviewed that aspect and found that it did not create any adverse impacts on
circulation in that area. Also, secondary, was the increase in odors related to materials being
stored overnight. The City has not received any complaints over the last year or so when the
material has been stored overnight. Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to the
adoption of Resolution 16-05, which includes 9 Conditions of Approval and 14 Mitigation
Measures.
The public hearing is opened.
Jim Astor, representing Waste Management, prepared and submitted the application before the
Planning Commission. Waste Management agrees with the information presented in the Staff
Report and Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Astor stated
that Waste Management accepts and will comply with all Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Measure listed therein. He asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the transfer
station has been in operation for approximately 10 years. There are no new uses requested, nor the
intensification of the current uses. Rather the overnight storage will be an enhancement to the
3
Planning Commission April 18, 2005
existing service to be used when needed. Safety and traffic flow will be improved by this
enhancement.
The commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. The solid waste facility permit and the role of the LEA (Local Enforcement Agency) -
could you explain that further for the public? The City grants the Conditional Use Permit
to allow the type of use, and has had several conditions on the facility. But the agency that
watches over this facility, performing unannounced monthly inspections, is the LEA. The
State operating permit specifies several minimum standards that the facility must abide by,
and that's what the inspector is there for, is to check the compliance. They check logs,
incident logs, and any special occurrences that may happen during that prior month.
. In Article 6.2 it does allow for some burning of trash under the discretion of the site
supervisor. Is it under a covered/sprinkled area? I'd have to take a look at that section, it's
not familiar to me. We do not burn trash, and we're not allowed to burn trash.
Commissioner Pruett clarified that it's just a state minimum standard, it did not necessarily
mean that the facility implemented that procedure. Every so often we'll get what is called a
"hot load" in one of our collection trucks. If it's able to do so, it will be brought into the
transfer station and an area will be cleared for it - this item is just asking us to dump that
waste and keep it separate from the waste in the building and put the fire out as quickly as
possible. Basically it's getting the trash out of the truck so the truck doesn't catch on fire,
if he can get to the facility in time. That's what that refers to.
. Does each truck get weighed? Yes, all incoming trucks are weighed so we know how much
weight of material is in that truck.
Ken Hanson, 313 Grove, Orange. He is the owner of the 19 industrial buildings next door under
construction. The concern is the environmental impact report that is used for the negative
declaration did not consider his project, it showed an agricultural use on the 4+ acres that he
purchased last year. So their concern is should they have studied the actual use next door. Seven
buildings are being built on the property line adjacent to the Waste Management facility. We are
concerned about the potential future owners of these buildings should there be a stronger odor than
at present. Does Waste Management have a method to make sure that it doesn't get any worse
than it is now. If it stays where it is now, Mr. Hanson said they really don't have a problem with
it. The trash drivers presently drive in, and upon exiting "stage" or line up on the street in front of
his property and apparently do paperwork. It is not a concern to him now during construction, but
after the buildings are sold and occupied, the presence of a whole line of trash trucks on the street
on Grove would be unfortunate.
Chris Carnes noted that the project was zoned industrial, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
states that the Waste Management project site was surrounded by industrial uses (not the
agricultural use that Mr. Hanson's site previously was). Mr. Astor, representing Waste
Management, wanted to assure Mr. Hanson that Waste Management would change the practice of
the trucks staging in front of his property so that it did not impact the future owners.
The public hearing is closed.
The commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
4
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
· Item D/Page 6 - the visual integrity of this project. Any storage is going to take inside the
facility - is this visible to the public or not? It is partially visible if you know to look
between the gates. There is a 12- foot screening wall between the parking lot and the truck
processing/recycling area behind it. And there is a gate that is probably 50% screened by
materials that you can partially see through.
· Ideally, if you could replace the screening with a green type of screening that you can't see
through would be very helpful from a public perspective.
· Regarding Mr. Hanson's concern about parking in the street - the Planning Commission's
action here today is not a grant to park in the street, and the vehicles will be subject to the
city's vehicle codes.
Commissioner Domer moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 16-05 adopting Mitigated Negative
Declaration 1681-03 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2390-03. Commissioner Enderby
seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(4) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1737-04, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2004-0006, SANTA FE DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO.2, ZONE CHANGE NO. 1230-04, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15786, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 358-04
(INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS), DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
2944-04, AND A DEMOLITION REVIEW FOR TWO NON-
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE OLD TOWNE HISTORIC
DISTRICT - THE OLSON COMPANY.
A proposal for a Transit Oriented Development adjacent to the Santa Fe Train
Depot, which will include forty, three-story residential lofts, five of which are
proposed as live/work units. Six of the units (15%) will be available to moderate
income buyers through affordability covenants. As a result of the affordability
covenants, a Density Bonus is requested for this project. The applicant is
requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use
designation from Industrial (0.40 Floor Area Ratio) to Old Towne Mixed Use (6-24
dwelling units/acre), an amendment to the Santa Few Depot Specific Plan Overlay,
a Major Site Plan Review (including a Density Bonus), a Vesting Tentative Tract
Map, Design Review and a Demolition Review for a non-contributing structure in
the Old Towne Historic District. The subject site is located at 501 West Maple
Avenue.
5
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1737-04 was prepared
for this project in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.
Commissioner Bonina asked for a full reading the Staff Report. It was given by Chris Kelly,
Contract Program Planner for the project. She gave an overview of the project, noting that there
were two covered parking spaces per unit for a total of 80 spaces. Half of those are side-by-side
parking and half of those are tandem parking. Additionally there are 10 open parking spaces
provided. As there are five units, which may be converted to live/work, the City's uniform code
required nine spaces, this project is providing ten. The project consists of 8 separate buildings,
and there four four-plexes and six six-plexes. Ms. Kelly pointed out an exhibit that showed the
color palette on the project, and said she would be happy to answer questions. There were none at
this time. She went on to describe the entitlements/mitigations (which are noted above).
Ms. Kelly described, for the benefit of the commissioners and the audience, the definition of
"Transit Oriented Development." It's defined as moderate to high-density development located
within easy walking distance to a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential
employment and/or shopping for pedestrians, and while not excluding the automobile, is
pedestrian friendly. The particular subject site was found to be appropriate for a Transit Oriented
Development. She further noted that the City had received funding for a pedestrian bridge in the
location of the train station. After investigating several other local pedestrian bridges, she noted
that they tended to be 3-4 stories in height. This was another contributing factor to the reasoning
as to why this project would work in this area. The project is within the Merged Orange
Residential Area, and as a result, the applicants are providing the 15% affordable units. Ms.
Kelly further noted that she submitted, as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, an
attachment with the findings that the highest land values result from medium density residential,
and that the surrounding uses and the General Plan indicate that the existing use of the property is
incompatible with the surrounding uses. The existing industrial use consists of obsolete buildings
in blighted condition. It is not economically feasible to demolish the existing outdated industrial
development and develop a new industrial use. The rents from the new structure if done this way
would not be sufficient to induce a new industrial development on that site. There are no traffic
issues with this site. Ms. Kelly noted that Public Works did not require a traffic study for this
project because the difference in the numbers between the residential site use and the industrial
use are insignificant.
The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee. It asked that the building be moved
five more feet to the south, which provided a I5-foot rear-yard setback, and move it five more
feet to the east, which provided a I5-foot west side-yard setback adjacent to the apartments. The
setbacks go beyond those of which are required for this property.
The applicant had a neighborhood meeting. Eight people showed up. Staff did not attend
because that is between the applicant and the neighborhood. The tenants onsite were not aware
of the proposed project, they had not been informed by their landlord. When the project was
posted, no public hearing date was posted as it had not been approved by the DRC as yet. As
soon as the project was approved by the DRC, notices were sent out. There was initial confusion
and hard feelings due to the lack of communication by the landlord.
6
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
The applicant met several times with OTP A. Additional brick was added to the street elevations
as a result of these meetings. And the window patterns were modified, as well. OTP A has
continued to express concern re: the height of the building, and their desire for a full-brick, not a
half-brick as proposed. The OTP A is also opposed to the vinyl windows.
Staff believes the project is a positive addition to the Maple Pixley area, and is a posltlVe
transition between the Santa Fe Depot Plan and the residential uses. Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the entitlements that are
listed in the report. The resolution incorporates the findings that would be necessary for this.
Kim Prijatel, Vice President of Development for the Olson Company gave a brief history and
overview of the project. She has worked with Staff over the last 12 months on this project. She
noted that the Olson Company was founded in 1998 and is recognized as the leading developer of
For Sale/In Town housing in California.
The public hearing was opened.
Jeff Frankel, OTPA - He thanked the Olson Company for meeting with the Preservation
Committee. He also gave a brief overview (per Chairman Bonina's request) of the Old Towne
Preservation Association. The OTPA believes this could be a good project. He said the OTPA
would like to see a design that reflects a style similar to the adjacent Cordage building, a good
example of a brick industrial structure. The industrial area is an essential component of the
historic district, and the OTPA would like to ensure that the industrial feel of the area is retained.
The Olson Company has been receptive to the comments made by the OTPA, but they still have a
number of concerns.
(a) They'd like to see the height reduced, and penthouse structures eliminated.
(b) They would prefer tuck-under parking.
(c) In-kind materials should be used - the proposed vinyl windows and brick veneer should
be replaced with more appropriate steel or wood-frame windows and full dimension
brick. The stucco areas should be replaced with brick, particularly on the exterior
facade. (The Jensen Building is a good example of this).
(d) Details that appear on the north, south and east facing elevations should be included on
the west elevation as well, ifthey are visible.
(e) The number of proposed parking spaces for this project is inadequate.
Public speakers opposed to the project:
Pat Hetherington, 139 N. Parker
John Baker, 1051 Arbor Way
Benjamin Naumann, 129 N. Parker Street
Kathryn Voigt, 154 N. Pixley Street
Carl Bloom, 501 W. Maple, Unit R
Gary Engle, 501 W. Maple, Unit B
7
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
Mitch Tanner, 630 W. Palm, #21
Robert Patterson, 183 N. Pixley
Dale Forester, 141 Pixley
Todd Denning
Items discussed by those opposed to the project included:
. Significant increase in parking and traffic
. There are 30-40 trains per day, can't imagine houses that close to the tracks
. Height of building
. Privacy - buildings are too tall, they will be looking directly down into back yards
. No EIR completed.
. No time to react to the project
. Currently there are 10 businesses on this site - losing the site will present a significant
hardship to those occupants.
. Consider parking permits for residents
. Cars are currently speeding (50 mph) down Pixley; consider speed bumps
. Project is overbuilt - 40 units are excessive.
Chairman Bonina asked Gary Sheatz, the Assistant City Attorney to address the public's concern
about CEQA and no EIR being done on this project. He stated briefly that once the initial study
has been conducted, and the environmental analysis has been done, if there are found to be impacts
that cannot be mitigated, then an EIR must be prepared. If those impacts can be mitigated through
mitigation measures, then you can prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which has been done
for this project.
The commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. What are the allowable businesses for the live/work units? A final list has not been
finalized nor approved.
. Will there be any onsite management for the project? No.
. What are the price structures for the units? Currently they are in the high $500,000's. On
the affordable units it is $315,000 for the 3 bedroom, and the 2 bedroom will be slightly
less.
The public hearing was closed.
After the public hearing was closed, the commissioners continued their discussions, and brought
up other issues/concerns:
. Concern for design issues - windows have not been decided. Vinyl windows are not
appropriate for this type of project in Old Towne.
. Balcony walls are 6' high on the units with rooftop elements. That adds additional height
to an already very high project.
. Signage - the signage on the project for the live/work unit is described as tasteful/smaller
brass plaques. The commissioners want this signage design to be part of the CC&R's.
8
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
The public hearing was reopened to provide an answer to the window issue:
Per Kim Prijatel, the vinyl windows provide better sound attenuation. They are willing to go with
the aluminum and can make that work.
The public hearing was again closed.
Commissioner Domer asked whether the HOA could stipulate parking only III the garage?
Assistant Attorney Sheatz replied yes.
The commissioners felt that the vinyl/aluminum window issue should be resolved prior to the City
Council meeting.
Commissioner Domer moved to Adopt Resolution No. PC 18-05 recommending to the City
Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1737-04, General Plan Amendment No.
2004-006, Santa Fe Depot Specific Plan Amendment No.2, Zone Change No. 1230-04, Major Site
Plan Review No. 358-04 (including a density bonus), Design Review Committee No. 3944-04,
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 16786, and Demolition Review of two Non-Contributing Structures in
the Old Towne Historic District.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, and Enderby
Commissioner Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(5) NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1740-04 AND MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 349-04 - CHOCO REALTY CORPORATION (CHOCO)
A proposal to construct a 1,700 space parking structure and a raised pedestrian
bridge. The pedestrian bridge is proposed to connect the new parking structure to
CHOC's main hospital building, which is located north of La Veta Avenue. The
pedestrian bridge will be built over La Veta Avenue. The site is located at 575 S.
Main Street.
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1740-04 was
prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
the project in accordance with provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The project was introduced by Senior Planner Chris Carnes. He explained that the project would
provide 150 additional surface parking spaces. The parking spaces are critically needed for the
existing hospital building and clinics, which are located north of La Veta Avenue. The proposal
has been reviewed by the City's Staff Review Committee, which has recommended approval. This
included a review of the traffic model for the building because it does result in a change of traffic
9
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
from north of La Veta to south of La Veta. The Design Review Committee has also reviewed the
proposed building plans, the exterior materials, signage for the structure and landscaping and has
also recommended approval. Staff has included a recommended resolution, which includes 3
mitigation measures and 45 conditions of approval. Most of the conditions are standard ones
related to new development in the city.
The public hearing is opened.
Phyllis Nelson, representing CHOCO Realty Corporation gave an overview of her project. She
thanked all of the staff that were so very helpful including Alice Angus, Chris Carnes, Roger
HoImbaum, Tom Mahood and the Design Review Committee. She introduced two pictures, which
gave the project description of a parking structure with surface lot and pedestrian access to CHOC
Hospital via a raised pedestrian bridge and walkway.
The commissioners had the following questions/concerns:
. Are there three access points to the pedestrian walkway? (1) In front of CHOC Hospital,
(2) At the parking Structures, and (3) At the existing parking structure? Yes, that is
correct.
. The proposed traffic signal that has been mentioned, that is to be installed at CHOC's
expense, is that correct? Yes, that is correct.
. What properties does CHOC control near the proposed site? Do you own or control 505
Main Street? CRC Realty Company does, which is one of the CHOC companies.
. The property to the east, the existing pavilion parking structure, does CHOC own that? No,
that one does not belong to CHOC.
. Concern is with the bridge, you're introducing a horizontal element crossing La Veta that
from a purist's perspective is very much different in style from the existing structures and is
also at a different level than the existing bridge structure. The selection of an open, very
airy type of system for the bridge was in response primarily to the safety and security
concerns of the pedestrians using the bridge. We don't believe that the existing stucco-
laden bridge is the proper material for a bridge to begin with, so there are fundamental
architectural differences in that approach.
. Was there any effort made to try to connect the parking structure to the existing Pepper
Road bridge? The pedestrian bridge is fairly expensive in its own right, costing about $2.5
million. If the bridge were connected to the Pepper Street bridge and then across - it would
have been significantly more expensive and it would not have allowed the CHOC
employees to get to their work location which is the CHOC hospital, so employees would
have had to cross the street, once again, in various locations. So it was not practical.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Domer moved to adopt Resolution No. PC 17-05 adopting Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. 1740-04 and approving Major Site Plan Review No. 349-04. Commissioner
Imboden seconded the motion.
YES: Commissioners Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
10
Planning Commission
April 18,2005
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina .
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(6) NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1747-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE (DRC) No. 3967-04 -- FITCH RESIDENCE
A proposal for a 495 square foot addition to the rear of an existing 645 square foot
1904 Hip Roof Cottage residence. The project also includes the demolition of a 290
square foot contributing accessory structure, replacing it with a 525 square foot,
detached garage. The site is located at 365 North Pine Street, Old Towne Orange
Historic District.
NOTE:
Negative Declaration No. 1747-05 was prepared to evaluate
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project
in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, introduced the project and gave an overview. He noted that the
project is being reviewed by the Planning Commission under the Old Towne Design Standards for
demolition to a contributing accessory structure greater than 120 sq. ft. in size, demolition of a
contributing structure greater than 138 sq. ft. (that's the rear shed porch), addition to a contributing
structure of more than 20% of the existing floor area, and demolition review of replacement
structures prior to the issuance of a building permit. The building is listed in the City's Historic
Building Survey. The DRC made several modifications to the design of the addition to make it
more symmetrical in appearance. Staffis recommending approval of the project.
The public hearing is opened.
John Turner, 169 S. Harvard Street - designer of the project introduced himself and stated that he
would be happy to answer any questions on the project.
The commissioners had the following questions and concerns:
· The south elevation shows a room on the back that's being removed? Yes, that's presently
a bathroom and a kitchen and the shed roof over it will be removed. So is that a shed roof
all the way across the back of the house? Yes. That's been added on, the original house in
that south elevation, the roofIine that you see there where the shed begins and the roof stops
- that was the original wall.
· I'm still confused - the windows on that elevation don't make sense. Where does the new
addition start, what's existing, and what's happening with the house in terms of
demolition? Where the shed starts, if you go to the south to the drawing that's immediately
below that, you'll see where the original wall is, and the original wall will be brought out
again, and that's where the addition actually recesses. The bathroom that was part of the
shed will be now moved into the house.
11
Planning Commission
April 18, 2005
. Do I understand that currently there is a front door that faces the street, and the proposal
removes that front door? That front door goes into a bedroom and its been blocked off on
the back of the door so its not a usable door now. It was blocked off years ago. There's
another door on the new elevation (southern) that is being used as the front door.
Janet Crenshaw, representing OTPA, spoke to the project. She said she was excited about the
project because they were taking off the asbestos. The OTPA believes they replicated the garage
nicely, even though it needed to be moved in order to do the addition. She is concerned, also,
about the door - and it really does change the front of the house to remove it.
Commissioner Domer asked Ms. Crenshaw if there were any other examples of where the front
door had been removed, is there a precedent or a way that the architectural presentation of the door
could be retained?
Jeff Frankel, OTPA, said an original door should not be removed and sealed over, it is contrary to
the standards. The door should be retained. If the interior use has changed and the door is no
longer needed, then he believes the door should stay in place.
Daniel Ryan, Senior Planner, was asked to speak to the issue of the front door facade. He said
there were quite a few homes in Orange that actually have two front doors because a lot of the
times they had offices in the home, so they had one door facing the street, and another door on the
side that went into a parlor where they conducted business. That was very typical. So its
important, at least the main facade has the front door retained.
Commissioner Pruett said that he had no problem with the plans for the garage, but he had an issue
with the doors. Commissioner Imboden asked staff regarding a condition that was put forth by the
DRC, and somehow through the design did not seem appropriate and the condition was removed.
Could you please explain this? Senior Plauner Dan Ryan said that the original drawing had a
straight gable and the change was an elongated hip roof with a flat section on top. They felt that
was more appropriate where the roof lined up. Alice Angus, Director of Community Development
stated that the DRC suggested (in a Condition of Approval) that the applicant note in the plans how
much of the garage roof was a gable and how much was a shed roof. The problem from a design
perspective, put forth in their Condition #5, that to make it a functional garage with a door wide
enough to accommodate two cars, and to put the gable in the same dimensions, in came down in
the middle of the garage. The dimensions got strange, so from a staff level we thought that the
way the applicant had originally designed it works better than the suggestion by DRC.
Commissioner Imboden said that explanation cleared it up.
Commissioner Imboden read several guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards of
what is NOT proper rehabilitation of a historic structure, and 3 items address (specifically) the
front door issue.
(l) Remove and erratically changing entrances and porches that are important in defining the
overall historic character ofthe building so that as a result the character is diminished.
(2) Removing an entrance or porch because the building has been reoriented to accommodate a
new use.
12
Planning Commission
April 18,2005
(3) Failing to undertake adequate measure to ensure the protection of historic entrances and
porches.
Mr. Turner, the architect, said the door could be made part of the facade. Commissioner Imboden
said that whether the door is actually usable is not an issue. It should retained and left in place and
not removed as it radically changes and removes that part of the building's history.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Pruett moved to Adopt No. PC 15-05 adopting Negative Declaration no. 1747-05
and approving Design Review Committee No. 3967-04, for the demolition of a contributing
accessory structure with a replacement structure and an addition that exceeds 20% of the existing
floor area to a contributing residence. For clarification, when the Planning Commission states it is
approving the action of the DRC, per Commissioner Pruett, what they are doing is adopting the
garage with the single gable, and also adding the Condition that the West-facing front door be
retained. Commissioner Enderby seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Bonina moved to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 2,2005.
Commissioner Domer seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Domer, Pruett, Enderby and Imboden
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
13