2002 - January 21
(!,tjtl1 . &-,Z 3-
APPROVED
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
2.
January 21, 2002
Monday - 7:00 p.rn.
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Alice Angus, Community Development Director
Karen Sully, Planning Manager,
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney,
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager - Public Works
Madeline Russell, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
DECEMBER 17,2001.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve the Minutes of
December 17, 200 I meeting, with the following correction to the second paragraph on page six: ..... that
since he could not keep people from parking in the restaurant parking spaces during the Street Faire, at
that time each year, they experience parking problems."
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
INRE:
5.
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
UPDATE ON THE CITY OF ORANGE LIBRARY BOND ACT APPLICATION
EFFORTS/LIBRARY MASTER PLAN - CITY LIBRARIAN NORA JACOB
Chair Smith requested that New Business, specifically Item # 5 on the agenda be moved forward for
discussion since the other issues on the agenda would possibly require some lengthy discussions and the
City Librarian, Nora Jacob, was present to walk through current efforts and status of this initiative to
bring new library construction to the City of Orange.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve moving Item #5,
UPDATE ON THE CITY OF ORANGE LIBRARY BOND ACT, forward on the evening's agenda.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Chair Smith thanked Nora Jacob for being present and requested she proceed.
Ms. Jacob began with an orientation for the Council. She indicated that the voters of California passed
the Library Bond Act of 2000 providing $350 million, to build and renovate public libraries throughout
the State of California. Priority will been given to ')oint use" activities between library jurisdictions and
K-12 school districts. Orange Public Library is thus working in collaboration with Orange Unified
School District to ensure that a joint-use project is a reality for our City's application for Library Bond
Act funds.
Consultants were hired to perform a "needs assessment" and help prepare a 20-Year Library Master Plan.
The City currently has .25 sq. ft. per capita of library space. The standard in the library world and the
architectural world is between .7-.9percent. In other words, we have only 1/3 of the space needed,
principally due to population growth over the last 25 - 30 years while no additional library square footage
has been added.
The Library Bond Act provides 65% of funding cost up to 20 million dollars and the remaining 35%, as
money or land or both, is to be provided by local jurisdictions.
The City Council has wisely been putting away 1, million dollars each of the past four years. Because
Orange is a mature city, however, sites for public facilities are limited. The consultants believe that both
a new Main Library downtown and a new branch library in the east end of the City are important.
Because a new Main Library would serve the entire City, and because land for it is already owned by the
City, the consultants have recommended that the City pursue a new Main Library on the parking lot space
directly across North Center Street from the existing Main Library. Over the next month or so, library
staff, and architects will be working through the process to review all the issues that need to be addressed.
The process for public input is still being developed, Ms. Jacob indicated. She assured the Commission
that she would come back as the process evolves. The State Library Bond Act Manager's Office is
holding workshops this week and next, throughout the state, to help libraries to clarify what needs to be
done in the application process. It's as much a work in progress for the library as it is for the community
right now, the City Librarian noted.
Ms. Jacob opened the floor for questions from the Commision and the community:
Commissioner Brandman: Are there are any design concepts at all? Ms. Jacob answered that there is
nothing yet. She indicated that she deliberately did not discuss this because the process for public input is
still under development.
Chair Smith: How much money has been saved in light of the Council efforts? Ms. Jacob stated $2
million dollars has been set-aside in CIP funds. She noted that the expenses of the application process
and of hiring outside consultants to assist with the technical issues will qualify for 100% reimbursement if
the City is successful in its application. The first round of applications is due June 14th.
Commissioner Bonina: In your analysis, did you find that there is more of a need in East Orange area
than in Downtown Orange? Ms. Jacob said that there is so much need across the City that the question
for the consultants became which criteria to use in recommending a project. Because a Main Library
serves everyone in the City, and because the City already possesses land in the downtown area, that's
ideal for a new Main Library, the pragmatic decision was to proceed with a Main Library project in order
to meet Library Bond Act deadlines.
2
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21,2002
Commissioner Brandman further underscored the need for pragmatism and her support for maintaining
the library at it's current location rather than in Orange.
Chair Smith thanked Nora Jacob for her information and insight indicating that the Planning Commission
looks forward to future periodic reports.
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS
3.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2001-0003; ADDING SECTION 17.10.035 TO THE
ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 17.08.020 TO
REGULATE TEMPORARY USES
A proposal to establish a permit application and review procedures for nonrecurring
temporary uses such as modular buildings and outdoor storage, and seasonal, annual or
recurrmg uses. This item was continued from the December 17, 2001 meeting.
NOTE:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305
(Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution PC 36-01, recommending approval to the City Council
of Ordinance amendment 2001-0003.
Ms. Sully, Planning Manager, introduced the item indicating the modifications had been made based on
Planning Commission feedback as well as other modifications to facilitate Ordinance implementation and
to streamline the application process. Ms. Sully requested Anna Pehouschek, Sf. Planner, report these
modifications to the Commission.
Anna Pehoushek indicated that the item originally came before the Commission in July of 2000. The
Planning Staff has modified agenda item #3 Draft Ordinance to include the following modifications:
. Establishing specific application requirements for a Temporary Use Permit;
. Prohibiting non-recurring temporary uses within the Old Towne Historic District
. Granting the Zoning Administrator the authority to take action on permits for non-recurring
temporary uses:
. Granting the Community Development Director the authority to take action on permits for
annual, seasonal, or recurring temporary uses;
. Establishing a six-month time limitation for recurring temporary uses; and
. Establishing a one-year time limitation for non-recurring temporary uses with the possibility
to re-apply for a maximum of one additional year (maximum two-years total).
Additionally, the Planning Commission would not be involved in the permit review process unless an
appeal is filed on the approval or denial of a permit.
Ms. Pehoushek indicated that Table 17.08.020 was revised to include Temporary Use Permit (Non-
Recurring).
She stated that these revisions reflect Commission comments of July 17, 2000 and that the Planning Staff
recommends the Planning Commission approve the Ordinance as amended and forward it to the City
Council for action.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 2], 2002
Ms. Sully, requested addition of the word "fina]" at the end of Section 5. Procedure. The last sentence
would then read, "Zoning Administrator action shall be deemed fina]".
Chair Smith expressed concerns regarding how a "Pumpkin Patch" or a "Christmas Tree Lot" are defined.
Ms Pehoushek referred to the definitions - Non-recurring are of extended duration. for a fixed period or
until they become permanent fixtures. Pumpkin Patches, Christmas Tree Lots, Haunted Houses, etc., are
considered temporary.
Chair Smith then asked how or if the public is noticed. Ms. Pehoushek indicated that public is noticed
through the Staff Review Committee or Zoning Administrator notice. Ms. Sully added that notice is
posted at the kiosk, on the City's Website and also through mail.
Chair Smith stated that she didn't see any reference to Design Elements: time anticipated or description of
use, or color. These should add to the property and not detract from the current environment. Although
these can certainly be added per Ms. Sully, Ms. Pehoushek indicated that it was envisioned that these
would be incorporated into the application.
Chair Smith maintained that the Design E]ements: Color, modular size, materia], architectural detail, and
landscaping, as well as how notice is made clear to the public and how the site is monitored for length of
stay in relation to the permit, should be included in the Ordinance.
Ms. Sully indicated that there is cause of Revocation, Section G, with states that a permit may be revoked
for any reason, immediately or upon a 3D-day written notice.
Commissioner Pruett asked about landscaping and whether this issue had been considered and whether
there is code enforcement. Commissioner Pruett recognized that Temporary-Recurring and Non-
Recurring have different processes but does not believe that recurring users should be penalized with
higher fees.
Commissioner Brandman questioned whether refundable deposit fees were viable, whether
neighborhoods could be notified on Cable Channels 3 or 6, and whether landscape is kept up and cleaned
up?
Ms. Sully indicated that codification rules are followed and any changes require code amendment.
Chair Smith inquired as to whether modulars, as in library trailers (Commissioner Pruett) require a
conditional use permit. Again, Ms. Sully responded that these items would fall under the Temporary Use
Permit. Ms. Pehoushek further indicated that language is in the code regarding use of structures; long
term and CUP processes are still in place.
Gary Sheatz, Assistant. City Attorney, indicated that other CUP processes and the Code exist to handle
other types of structures.
Commissioner Brandman asked for clarification of Short-Term vs. Long-Term Temporary Use. Ms. Sully
indicated the rule of thumb is one-year.
Chair Smith called for members of the public to address the Commission. There was none; the item was
closed for Commission action.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Chair Smith indicated that items of design relating to modular structures size, color, material,
architectural detail and landscaping should be noted in the document. Additionally, she inquired where
and how notice is given to the public and thought it should be noted in the document.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, for adoption of resolution PC 36-
01 recommending approval to the City Council of Ordinance Amendment 2001-0003, subject to the
addition of the word "final" at the end of section 17.1O.035.C.5 and the regulation of design features
including, but not limited to, size, colors, materials, architectural details, and landscaping in section
17.10.035.E, Conditions of Approval.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS:
4.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1680-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2389-01 AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT AA 01-67 - GREG & MERIL YNN EARLY
A proposal to construct a 200 square foot first floor addition, and a new 937 square foot
2"d story addition to a single story 1923 Bungalow (total addition - 1,137 sq. ft.). Project
also included the demolition of a 266 square foot garage and the construction of a new
two-car garage. The administrative adjustment would allow a (J '3") reduction in
vehicular back-up distance. The subject property is zoned R-I-6 (Single Family
Residential District) and is within the Old Towne Orange Historic District and is located
at 142 N. Cambridge Street.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1680-01 was prepared to evaluate the
environmental impacts of this project. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt this document as an adequate and complete assessment of
environmental issues related to the potential approval of this project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Negative Declaration 1680-01 and resolution PC 43-01 approvmg
Conditional Use Permit 2389-01.
Ms. Karen Sullv. Planning Manager, introduced the proposal, and provided a brief introduction. She then
introduced Dan Ryan, Senior Planner and Historic Planner, to elaborate further on the proposal.
Mr. Ryan began review of the Staff Report stating that on advice of the City Attorney, Staffrecommends
removal of condition #3 in Draft Resolution No. P.C. 43-01. Deletion of the condition is a result that the
dedication is not necessary at this time. It is not a part of this plan.
Mr. Ryan also indicated that on page 4-3, the roof height is noted as 20'3"; that number should be 22'7".
Mr. Ryan explained that the request for a Conditional Use Permit is for second story construction in Old
Towne, which is allowed subject to said permit. An Administrative Adjustment is also necessary to allow
the reduction in the parking back-up distance.
Mr. Ryan continued with review of the design standards, regulating ordinances, and historic survey
guidelines. He indicated that the property has been listed as a historically contributing building to the
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
district and that any design changes to defining features that caused the listing or adversely affect that
listing may cause the de-listing of the "historic" property. He pointed out that in the first submission
there were no longer any defining features of the original bungalow. The applicant was asked to go back
and design a more acceptable project. The project was revised several times resulting in plans that kept
the original structure intact, and made the second story addition more simplified and reflective of the
Bungalow style; also the roof height and building massing was reduced.
Mr. Ryan added that the Staff Review Committee (SRC) reviewed the project at their regularly scheduled
meeting on December 12, 2001. The SRC found that the project meets the requirements of the zoning
code in relation to building height, setbacks, usable open space, and floor area ratio. The Staff found that
the project complies with all the appropriate guidelines.
Mr. Ryan indicated that the Design Review Committee noted that the project site was unique being both
adjacent to commercial development and on the edge of the Historic District. The DRC recommended
approval of the project to the Planning Commission subject to conditions enumerated in the staff report
and resolution.
He continued indicating that the Planning Staffs analysis of the proposed project was similar to the
findings of the DRC in that the project, as proposed, retained the original defining features of the existing
single-story bungalo\v, and the design and construction of the new addition \vollld not result in a loss or
diminution of the historic charactcr ofthc rcsourcc.
Staff also concurs with the DRC that the project's site design, and building's location at the edge of the
district would mitigate or reduce its impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Ryan summarized the staff recommendation: Staff supports the recommendation of the DRC's
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2389-01 and Administrative Adjustment AA 2001-0067, subject to
the recommended conditions outlined in the draft resolution (P.c. Resolution No. 43-01).
Mr. Ryan further indicated that he Planning Staff received two public comment letters from Gloria Boice,
addressed to Chair Smith (Jan. 9, 2002) and to Karen Sully (Jan. 10,2002), and prepared comments to
address those inquiries. Concerns included:
. Encroachment ofthe Office Professional Zone into the residential neighborhood
. Project's affect and proximity to properties having Local Landmark status
. Whether a second story development is necessary in this R-I Zone
. Historic preservation design standards and review criteria
. "Masionization" and the 1991 Aegis Historic Inventory
. Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation
. CEQA review of cumulative affect and adverse changes
. Denial of the original application, etc.
The prepared comments to the above inquiries are included in the Staff Report.
Regarding CEQA requirements; Mr. Ryan indicated that the project complies with the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, generally followed the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and was
considered to be mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. This
concluded Mr. Ryan's staff report.
Karen Sully requested this opportunity to enter into the record; a letter dated Jan. 14, 2002 to Alice
Angus, Community Development Director, from Robert Boice. Additionally, Ms. Sully had four other
letters received this evening, addressed to Chair Smith, from concerned citizens supporting this proposal.
These letters were submitted by: W. Robert and Sally Berthard - 125 N. Cambridge St., Deborah Frost-
6
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
133 Cambridge St., Susan Brown and Frank Spino, Jr. - 157 N. Cambridge St., and Ed and Irene
Matthews - 182 N. Cambridge St.
Chair Smith asked the Commission for their questions of staff.
Commissioner Pruett inquired as to whether the "proposed or new" Front Yard Setback (4-3) was 20 ft. or
25 ft. Mr. Ryan stated that the correct answer is 25 ft.
Commissioner Bonina questioned whether "re-design" of the building was not allowed in Old Towne if it
resulted in loss of historical value. Mr. Ryan replied that the features of the building which caused the
historical listing, basically the front fa9ade and the design of the second floor is compatible with the
design features of the bungalow with a second floor.
Chair Smith asked, in light of the 25 ft. setback of this property, what is the setback of other properties on
the street, as they all seem to line-up? Mr. Ryan said that certainly seem so, but he did not know the exact
setback of other properties on the street.
Chair Smith inquired as to what the Commercial Building location was before its present classification.
Mr. Ryan indicated he believed it was a telephone switching building and before that he did not know.
Chair Smith introduced Robert Imboden of Secoy Architects who represents the applicant Greg and
Marilynn Early. Mr. Imboden said that considering that Mr. Ryan had covered most of the history of this
project he wanted to make some comments and then answer any question the Commission might have.
Robert Imboden developed and presented a contextual map of the all the adjacent properties with regard
to this project. Per the key, all the dark areas on this map refer to structures over I-story in height,
however. a point of clarification - the structures at 845 and 911 W. Chapman, as well as the one at 129 W.
Chapman are technically I-story buildings with 2-story volume. 129 W. Chapman is a church, a I-story
building but 2-story volume. The lighter shaded areas. as noted by the key, are primary structures on
those lots.
Mr. Imboden continued: Eleven of the addresses that received notification are more than I-story in height.
One of those, 182 Cambridge, a little more that 2 blocks North, is I Y, -story, an historic original structure,
originally built as a I Y, -story and 910 Maple, where there is an accessory structure more than ] -story in
height. The conclusion is that the community throughout Old Towne has a mixture of use and housing
types are represented there.
Robert Imboden concluded saying that Mr. and Mrs. Early and their architects believe that this proposed
project has been not only sensitive to what's going on in the historic district, but, in fact, is a reflection of
it. The current proposal reflects and preserves the essential form, character and period design of existing
historic structure. The design takes its cues from both its immediate surroundings as well as any other
historic structures located in the historic district.
Mr. Imboden then provided snapshots of similar "airplane bungalows" located in Old Towne. He further
concluded that that the present design creates a logical transition from the commercial edge on E.
Chapman to the residential quality ofN. Cambridge Street. The inclusion of the new 2-car garage in this
proposal helps alleviate parking on one of Old Towne's busiest streets. Its proposed location is consistent
with the Secretary of Interior's recommendation to create new parking facilities in the area as soon as
possible. The design reinforces and maintains the integrity of the single-family residential character of
this block.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Mr. Imboden felt it was important to mention that over the past year, they were able to share the design
process with both the Old Towne Preservation Association as well as the neighboring property owners.
Many suggestions and recommendations made by those individuals have been incorporated into the
proposal.
Finally, this evening, Mr. and Mrs. Early had provided Mr. Imboden with two additional letters from
neighbors supporting their proposal and they wished to have them included in the official record of the
meeting.
Chair Smith thanked Mr. Imboden for his comments and asked him to walk the Commissioners through
the project. He said he would be happy to do that.
Chair Smith noted that Greg and Marilynn Early were present. Mr. And Mrs. Early voiced their
commitment to the project and consideration of the thoughts of their neighbors. Chair Smith then asked if
anyone had questions for Greg and Marilynn Early. There were none.
Although project cost cannot be a concern when the Commission is making a decision, Chair Smith
expressed her understanding of the expensive nature of such a project, and wanted to know what was
behind the Early's decision to take a small bungalow and add to it rather than look for a new house.
Mrs. Early replied that they had looked, but in essence what they found would require work and since
they have the ability, they'd rather work on this one.
Chair Smith asked whether there was a swimming pool in the proposal. Mrs. Early answered, yes. Chair
Smith indicated that the pool was not under the Commission's purview - code would prevail. Chair
Smith asked about an orange tree in the back yard, stating she couldn't tell which side of the fence it was
on. Mrs. Early replied the tree was in their back yard and that they would try to keep it.
Chair Smith further questioned front yard setback. Mrs. Early said that all the setbacks along the street
seem to be similar. Then Chair Smith & Commissioner Brandman expressed concern that the color board
showed a whitish color for the house, indicating that white tends to make buildings look larger. Mrs.
Early indicated that it was a previous iteration. The main color of the house is olive with burgundy trim
and white accents. Again, Chair Smith indicated that the color is not under the Commission's purview.
Because further discussions may be lengthy, Chair Smith called for a brief recess of ten minutes,
returning promptly at 9:00 p.m. to hear from the speakers.
Planning Commission Hearings resumed at 9:00 p.m. with Chair Smith reading the two letters Mr.
Imboden submitted earlier, supporting Greg and Marilyn Early's proposed plan, the first dated 1119/02
from Greg Buckley and the second, dated 1/21102 from Jane Walder.
Chair Smith then requested Mr. Imboden return to the podium to walk the Commission through the
project.
Mr. Imboden explained that the proposal was trying to achieve the program of the applicants while
working within the design ofthe airplane bungalow. The primary fayade and the front fayade will remain
absolutely unchanged with the exception of the brick veneer on the steps. Chair Smith asked for
clarification on the steps on the south side to which Mr. Imboden replied that there was a sliding glass
door with steps coming out. Mr. Imboden continued that there would be fayade loss only to the rear of
the building and that there were French doors opening onto a short porch.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Commissioner Bonina inquired as to the amount of back yard setback. Planning Staff stated that 10ft. is
the required minimum and Mr. Imboden said that the proposed plan would have a 23 ft. 6 in. setback.
Commissioner Pruett wanted an explanation of condition #2 of the Design Review Committee report,
which states that the open sleeping porch shall only consist of a roof over trellis. Mr. Imboden eXplained
that it is a roof, not a trellis. Mr. Imboden further explained that the south sleeping porch is indigenous to
California. The applicants would like to keep it and it was the result of early reviews with the DRC.
Chair Smith then question attached vs. detached garages. Mr. Imboden indicated that in the original
design the garage was detached which made for large volume. Before, new construction had single-car
garages, however, Old Towne now requires 2-car garages in an effort not to encroach on neighbors by
pulling mass away for the neighbors.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Imboden to indicate the architectural style. He replied that it's called a Craftsman
Style Bungalow although he personally would not use the word bungalow, just Craftsman Style.
Chair Smith called for public comment, first speakers in favor of the proposed project (each speaker had
three minutes):
. Greg and Leslie Buckley (910 E. Maple) - The Buckleys said their own home is non-contributing,
historically, and they had attended several DRC meetings on the Early Proposal. They could
appreciate the enthusiasm Mr. & Mrs. Early have displayed and their efforts to maintain historical
accuracy. Further, they believed that this project could only increase the value of their property.
Therefore, they give their full support to the project.
. Jane Walder (167 N Cambridge) - Ms. Walder stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for
four years. She bought her house as an investment. Ms. Walder is very familiar with the
architectural drawings and believes that this plan is going to fit. She indicated that one of the
problems in Old Towne is that couples with families can't live there. You have to be single or
young, just starting out, or older and without children. Ms. Wilder gave her full endorsement
knowing that Mr. and Mrs. Early's goal is to stay true to the architectural style.
. Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer) - Ms. Crenshaw stated that she was in favor of the proposed
plan but did have some reservations about the size and even more about the attached garage.
Next, Chair Smith called for those opposed to the project:
. Mary Matuzak (340 S. Grand) - Although Ms. Matuzak requested time before the Commission,
she had to leave before she was called.
. Robert Boice (143 N. Pine) - Mr. Boice indicated that the Commissioner's packet included an e-
mail letter from Judy Wright regarding Historic Resources Inventory. Mr. Boice whet on to give
some history regarding Judy Wright and the Inventory. In this letter, Ms. Wright applied the same
matrix to this project as she did in her 1991. Of concern is the large, inappropriate additions to
one structure, which set a precedent for the future and further encroachment, would destroy value
on this street. Mr. Boice said that his other concerns included mass of the structure, the attached
garage, the scale of the project, and the introduction of new materials. None of these elements is
consistent with the street and he did not want to see another non-contributing structure added to
this historic district.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Chair Smith called for questions to Robert Boice. Commissioner Brandman asked if the proposed
project would be non-contributing. Mr. Boice indicating that non-conforming is interpreted today to
be non-contributing by the National Registry History.
. Gloria Boice (143 N. Pine) - Mrs. Boice wanted to make it perfectly clear that she was not to
speak in opposition to Greg and Marilynn Early, but rather to speak in favor of preservation. She
indicated that she and Mr. Boice had worked on preservation issues in the City of Orange since
1981, more than 20 years. They have been dedicated to preserving Orange's historic
neighborhoods during that time and are concerned that this project would set a devastating
precedent for Orange, if approved. Mrs. Boice asked that the Commission not reward the
applicants for simply altering previous submittals, but only if they provide a process that is
clearly in compliance with the contributing structures in the neighborhood. She further stated that
this project is unacceptable because its details and characteristics are not consistent with the
bungalow, which means small hut or small house. This is not a small house; it is a craftsman, not
a bungalow. Bungalows do not have sleeping porches, that is a characteristic you would see in a
large craftsman home. Further, the home should have a detached garage, visible from the street,
to maintain the rhythm and pattern of the street. Gloria Boice said she questioned whether this
was an airplane style bungalow, because they generally have a small second story. Ms. Boice
believes that this project is unacceptable because it's not in context with the pattern of the street
and its mapping is too large. In addition, apparently there are several I v,-story structures on this
street, but it can become monotonous. Ms. Boice believes this project is unacceptable because of
the dangerous cumulative effect, if revised. She alluded to Dan Ryan's comments about the
compatibility of this structure, probably in the September 5th minutes when this project was
approved. Gloria Boice asked that the Planning Commission not approve this project until it is
compatible with the bungalow neighborhood.
Chair Smith asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak - there was none. She then asked the
applicants to come forward for closing remarks.
Mr. Imboden addressed the issue of the style of this home: as indicated earlier, this house is a craftsman
style home, bungalows are not specifically limited to the craftsman style and craftsman style is not
specifically limited to the bungalow style. Mr. Imboden does not believe that this plan could be called a
bungalow; it is a craftsman style home. Additionally, while everyone has his or her opinion, he believes
that a sleeping porch can be used on a bungalow, as the home he grew up in was a bungalow with a
sleeping porch.
Mr. Imboden said he had just received the letter from Judy Wright (AEGIS) and has a little difficulty
responding to it. He reiterated that the Design Review Committee has reviewed this project several times
over the past year. He stated that the DRC knows and understands both the application of the Old Towne
design standards, as well as, the application of the Secretary of Interior's standards in Old Towne Orange.
He emphasized that the DRC members are all trained design professionals and they do this on a regular
basis. As for Judy Wright, she did this 14 years ago and he doesn't believe she understands or remembers
the streetscape, so her determination is questionable.
Mr. Imboden indicated that there was a time when many homes in Old Towne had carriage houses behind
them and even barns where livestock was kept. What he didn't understand was the comment about
adding another material that makes this incompatible with the style. He questioned if this referred to the
use of the shingle on the new portion of the structure. Mr. Imboden further stated that wood shingle as
siding was very common on craftsman style homes and as recommended here by the Secretary of Interior,
the new construction must be compatible yet differentiated from the original structure. Again, this is
maintained only at the very top portion of the house so that it doesn't take on a whole new character, a
shingled character, yet it distinguishes that portion.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, and Smith, asked questions and engaged in further discussions
regarding detaching or moving the garage to a different location and whether there would still be room for
a pool. Mr. Imboden stated that, technically, anything is possible but he'd have to discuss these scenarios
with Mr. & Mrs. Early and that it could possibly create more concerns/modifications.
At this point, Chair Smith closed the Public Hearing. She then requested the Assistant City Attorney,
Gary Sheatz, to address the issue of an architect being a member of the Design Review Committee, as
stated in Mr. Robert Boice's letter of January 7, 2002. There was a particular reference to Susan Secoy,
who was an architect on the project.
Attorney Sheatz indicated that there was no violation, what so ever. The additional reference to the
potential for bias /influence is a question Attorney Sheatz said should go back to the DRC and they would
have to ask themselves - whether they felt influenced or biased by a member of their committee who was
also an architect on the project.
Chair Smith asked Mr. Dan Ryan to explain contributing vs. non-contributing. Mr. Ryan indicating that
contributing means, "adds to the features and is unique, historically". Chair Smith then questioned the
architectural style as the project grows from 1000 sq. ft. to over 2000 sq. ft.? Mr. Ryan said that there
could be adverse ratings and the property may still be contributing. As far as the bungalow style, he
indicated that he tried to look at other buildings that have a second story. This design is more replicative
of the craftsman style, taking the features in the same proportion to the second floor. When it comes to
detaching the garage, the design clearly changes and no longer reflects a bungalow with a second story.
Commissioners Brandman and Bonina had further questions regarding the garage height if it were
detached and Mr. Ryan indicated that the height would then be 12 - 13 ft.
Chair Smith then made it known that she had met with Mr. Robert Imboden prior to the meeting and
Commissioner Brandman stated that she had met with Mr. and Mrs. Boice.
Chair Smith then called for any further discussions.
Commissioner Pruett said careful consideration must be given to detaching the garage and is would
probably backup to the Mr. and Mrs. Boice's property and it may cause some problems by creating bulk
and mass for the entire lot and not add a lot of value to the property. He continued that this is a unique
property that requires special consideration. The work that has been done is good. Commissioner Pruett
said that bulk and mass issues should be put in the context of where it is on the property and how it's
situated and, in this instance, the bulk and mass is adjacent to a commercial zone. Commissioner Pruett
believes that the project should go forward.
Commissioner Romero complimented the applicants on their effOlts to comply with DRC and the Historic
Preservation Groups. He is not in favor of detached garages as heard lrom other Commissioners and
believes an attached garage would provide more efflcient use of space as compared to a detached garage
option. He also believes that time has proven that an attached garage is more usable, convenient, efficient
and desirable as there are no longer detached garages being designed. Finally, he believes that opposition
to the design and addition has merit bnt certainly does agree to some points that were made in the Orange
Couuty Register a few days ago when it reported of an Orange homeowners dilemma in getting approved
by The Old Towne Preservation Association for improvements or modifications to their home. He
believes in the homeowners rights and believes that if The Old Town Preservation Association is not
willing to allow additions or major remodeling, then the law should be changed to reflect that desire, as
opposed to current frustrations and expense a homeowner currently deals with in getting any addition or
remodel approved.
II
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
Commissioner Bonina said he agreed with Commissioner Pruett and to some degree with Commissioner
Romero. He concluded that moving the garage would be a detriment and considers it's current location a
beneficial departure from the original proposal. The issue of the second story moves the mass away from
property lines. Commissioner Bonina's one concern is the cumulative effect, i.e. what if the project were
proposed by another property owner in close proximity to the Greg and Marilyn Early?
Commissioner Pruett reiterated that the property is unique due to its proximity to the commercial property
next door. He further expressed that Judy Wright should have been at these hearings, if she had an
Op1lllOn. Ms. Wright's e-Ietter was not signed nor was there validity that her correspondence was
received via e-mail and therefore should not carry the weight of a signed letter.
Commissioner Bonina addressing the question of having another property owner request the same or
similar plan and believes that approval would depend on the project's surroundings and what's unique
about it. However, he doesn't believe that you can withdraw the right of someone to make change.
Jerry Bailey, Design Manager, Public Works Department spoke to the issue raised by Chair Smith
regarding widening the street. He indicated that the City has no immediate plans, that is, within the next
10- 20 years, to widen Cambridge. The street doesn't compete well for funding resources.
Chair Smith stated that there may be cumulative effects of this proposal, while understanding that
although Mr. and Mrs. Early's property is unique, she also knows that uniqueness usually inspires others
to copy.
Commissioner Brandman asked the Assistant City Attorney to respond to Commissioner Bonina's
position on someone requesting the same or similar plan.
Assistant City Attorney Sheatz responded that Commissioner Bonina is correct in that each application
must be evaluated on it's own merits, not on a blanket set of guidelines. Mr. Sheatz indicated that it's the
Planning Commission's discretion. It could be a Conditional Use Permit with incompatibility issues.
Commissioner Brandman took exception. She inquired how it could be incompatible if it's next door?
Karen Sully stated that compatibility could be based on any number of things. Commissioner Romero
added that the reason this particular proposal fits here is the commercial property next door.
Chair Smith reminded all that this project still needs the City's approval to go forward. An alternative
might be demolish the old and build a new house.
Commissioner Brandman wanted to know if a "no" response was appropriate because she had a hard time
believing that this project would not be replicated. She expressed concern about the "domino effect" and
property owner rights vs. the historic register. Commissioner Brandman spoke of the large amount of
effort Mr. & Mrs. Early have put into this project but felt that this proposal is not good for the
community. Additionally, she disliked the fact that Ms. Wright's e-mail was discounted for lack of
signature.
Chair Smith said there is a need to address the process in light of the fact that she first saw pictures of this
proposal only one-week ago, though the proposal had been in process for I V, years. Chair Smith
indicated the project had come a long way towards preservation; however, she could not be swayed by
trying to be nice. She believes that the garage is not true to design with homes of this era and that there is
too much on a small canvas: porches, patios, swimming pool, the increase in square footage, and the
massing is not compatible with other houses on the street as all but three houses on both sides of the first
12
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
January 21, 2002
two blocks of N. Call1bridge are one story. Chair Smith concluded that the proposed project should go
back for reworking to put it in conformance with the neighborhood.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero for adoption of resolution PC 43-0 I
approving Negative Declaration No. 1680-01, Conditional Use Permit 2389-01 and Administrative
Adjustment No. AAOI-67, subject to conditions of approval I through 7, in Section 3 of the resolution,
with the deletion of Condition Number 3.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Bonina, Pruett, Romero,
None
Commissioners Brandman, Smith
MOTION CARRIED
Ms. Sully advised the audience of the appeal process: A notice of appeal must be filed in writing within
fifteen days of this hearing and must include the fee of $350.00. Any qualifying appeal will be heard at
the earliest date possible.
INRE:
ADJOURMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to adjourn to the study
session on Tuesday, January 29, 2002 at 4:30 p.m.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
Commissioners Brandman, Bonina, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
13