TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
FROM: Ryan Agbayani, Associate Planner
1. Subject
title
A request to construct an addition to and remodel of an existing one-story single-family dwelling at 1791 N. Ridgewood Street in the Fairmeadow Eichler Historic District (Design Review No. 5142-24).
end
2. Summary
body
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to and remodel of an existing one-story single-family dwelling at 1791 N. Ridgewood Street in the Fairmeadow Eichler Historic District. The proposed modifications are intended to restore the historic integrity of the original Eichler home to become eligible for designation as a contributor to the historic district.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Approval by the Design Review Committee.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Property Owner: Syed Danish Ahmed
Applicant: Robert Imboden (JANUS)
Property Location: 1791 N. Ridgewood Street
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning Classification: Single-Family Residential 8,000 sq ft (R-1-8)
Existing Development: One-story single-family dwelling with attached two-car garage
Associated Application: None
Previous DRC Project Review: None
5. project description
The applicant proposes to reverse a number of changes that have occurred to the residence over time, and restore previously altered character defining features so the property will become eligible for designation as a contributor to the Faimeadow Eichler Historic District. In summary, the proposed scope of work includes:
• 255 sq ft addition at the south façade
• Removal of the existing altered raised masonry planter, and restoration to the original design
• Removal of the non-historic stone veneer from all façades of the home
• Removal of the existing non-historic windows and exterior doors and installation of aluminum sash replacements to more closely resemble the original features
• Removal of the existing altered glazing assembly at the front façade and reconstruction matching the original façade‘s configuration and appearance
• Removal of a non-historic patio cover and pergola at the south side of the house
• Removal of existing deteriorated plywood cladding and replacement with original Eichler specified siding
• Removal of existing raised atrium enclosure and replacement with skylights in-line with the original roof form
• Temporary removal/reinstallation of existing exterior wall-mounted heating/cooling units and relocation of lines into exterior wall cavities
• Installation of new roof/skylights at the location of the former atrium, in-plane with the original roof line
The proposed addition is located at the south façade of the existing dwelling, where an existing patio cover is located. The addition is offset 9 feet, 6 inches from the front of the garage, behind an existying 6-foot tall wood privacy fence. The proposed addition is seamlessly integrated with the home.
6. EXISTING SITE
The 0.19-acre subject site is currently developed with an existing Mid-Centruy Modern one-story single-family Eichler home with an attached two-car garage. The property was originaly constructed in 1962 and follows the Model LA-114 floor plan. It is located within the Fairmeadow Eichler Historic District; however, it is designated as a non-contributor due to a number of modifications that occurred over time. The existing dwelling lacks a level of historic integrity required to be considered as a contributor to the historic district.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The Eichler Fairmeadow Historic District is located in a central area of the City. Completed in 1962, the tract features 119 homes designed by Anshen & Allen, Jones & Emmons, and Claude Oakland, and comprised of five models and three unique one-off designs. The subject property is located mid-block on the east side of N. Ridgewood Street with E. Ferndale Avenue to the north and E. Briardale Avenue to the south. To the immediate north, south, east, and west are existing one-story single-family dwellings. The existing zoning designation of the subject property and all surrounding properties is Single-Family Residential 8,000 sq ft (R-1-8). The dwellings to the west south, and east are designated as contributors; however, the dwelling to the immediate north is a non-contributor.
8. analysis and statement of the issues
Issue 1 Differentiation of Addition:
The Orange Eichler Design Standards (OEDS) allow for additions to Eichler homes that do not change the building or neighborhood’s character defining features and comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Additions shall be subordinate to, compatible with, and differentiated from the original house. The applicant is proposing an addition that is sensitive to the mass, scale, and volume of the original house. The addition is simple and rectangular in shape and does not rise above the highest point of the original house or alter the roofline. The applicant is proposing to match the existing roofline and cladding, so as not to compete with the historic home. Per the OEDS, using cladding that matches the historic home is appropriate if a visual and/or physical break is incorporated. The new addition is set back 9 feet, 6 inches from the front of the garage. Additionally, a clear line of demarcation is provided where the addition occurs. The fascia board is proposed to be perpendicular to the ground plane in order to provide a subtle distinction from the original canted fascia.
Issue 2 Visibility of Addition:
Additions should be configured in a way that respects the established pattern of the existing streetscape and front yard setbacks. Side additions should be set back from the front façade of the house and behind fencing to minimize visibility from the street. The proposed location of the addition is set back from the street and will be minimized by the existing fencing.
Issue 3 Enclosed Atrium:
The original dwelling was built per floor plan Model LA-114. The LA-114 model floor plan is identified as having a central, front-facing gable roof with atrium. The original atrium was enclosed with an elevated roof by previous owners, prior to the designation of the historic district. This space is now incorporated into the home’s interior. The current owner wishes to retain that interior space, but also remove the elevated roof to make the roofline flush. Large skylights are proposed to replace the solid roof currently situated above the former atrium space.
Staff believes that the proposed removal of the elevated roof brings the property into greater conformance with the Orange Eicher Design Standards.
Issue 4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
The proposed FAR with the new 255 sq ft addition is 0.35, which is higher than the average 0.22 FAR of the surrounding development. The FAR of the subject home is higher than that of the adjacent properties, primarily because of the increased floor area that occurs within the former atrium which was enclosed. The limited 255 sq ft expansion of the perimeter building footprint is not considered by staff to be an issue. The applicant proposes to maintain the atrium as interior living room area. The elevated roof will be removed but the area below will remain as additional living space without contributing to the home’s overall bulk and mass.
Staff believes that the proposed 0.35 FAR does not significantly increase the overall FAR of the surrounding development, which will remain as 0.22 FAR.
Issue 5 Number of Off-Street Garage Spaces:
The original LA-114 model floor plan has a total of four bedrooms with a two-car garage. However, per the existing floor plan on Sheet D1.1 of the proposed plans, there is a total of five bedrooms. Per Orange Municipal Code, a single-family dwelling with five bedrooms requires a three-car garage. However, OMC Section 17.34.020 states that, “any single-family dwelling which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter shall be made to comply only at such time as additions or alterations which increase the original floor area by more than 25 percent, or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, are carried out.” The proposed 255 sq ft addition does not exceed the 25 percent threshold of the floor area, which would not require a three-car garage.
Furthermore, a three-car garage is not consistent with the OEDS.
Overall, staff is in support of the project as presented by the applicant. The OEDS emphasize preservation of the character-defining features of the front elevation of the residences along the street, with modifications to secondary elevations managed to allow flexibility for change, but also to retain the indoor/outdoor quality of living intended by the original design of the homes. The applicant proposes an addition to the secondary elevation that retains the overall form, mass, and character of the original home. The project includes reversal of several inappropriate past changes to the Eichler home.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
On September 5, 2024, public notices were mailed to a total of 67 property owners and occupants within a 400-foot radius of the project site. A public notice was posted at the site on that same date.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities), because it consists of an addition to an existing structure that does not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area, the project site is located in an area where all public services and facilities are available, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
Per OMC Section 17.10.070, design review is required for all projects within Old Towne or other historic districts, as established, except where otherwise exempted by adopted design standards and/or adopted specific plan(s). Findings for DRC applications come from four sources:
• The Orange Municipal Code
• The Infill Residential Design Guidelines
• The Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne (commonly referred to the Old Towne Design Standards or OTDS)
• Orange Eichler Design Standards (or OEDS)
The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC approve the project with recommended conditions.
• In the Eichler Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria reference and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.07.G.1).
The project complies with the OEDS. The addition is located on the south side elevation of the residence and visibility to the addition from N. Ridgewood Street is minimized because of the matching height and the existing fence at the front elevation of the residence. The addition is consistent in form, scale, and design with the architectural vocabulary of the Eichler home models in the Eichler Fairmeadow tract. Differentiation is achieved by a 9 feet, 6 inch setback from the front of the garage, and incorporating fascia board perpendicular to the ground plane to create a subtle distinction.
• The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).
As described above, the project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent and integrated design them. The project conforms to the OEDS
• For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.07.G.4).
The new addition is compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and preserves the existing neighborhood character, as described above. The project complies with the Infill Residential Design Guidelines.
13. CONDITIONS
The approval of this project is subject to the following conditions:
1. This project is approved as a precise plan. All work shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with the plans included in the Design Review Committee staff report dated September 18, 2024, and in the project case file, including any modifications required by the conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee. Any changes from the approved plans shall be subject to subsequent review and approval by the Design Review Committee.
2. After any application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan without requiring a new public meeting.
3. The applicant agrees, as a condition of City’s approval of Design Review No. 5142-24, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at the applicant’s expense, the City, its officers, agents, and employees (“City”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City, including, but not limited to, any claim, action, or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or to challenge the reasonableness, legality, or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding to which the City receives notice and to cooperate fully with the applicant in the defense thereof. Application shall reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to pay, including any expenses ordered by a court or expenses incurred through the Office of the City Attorney in conjunction with said claim, action, or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of the obligations of this condition. In the event that the applicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding, City shall have right to approve counsel to so defend the City, approval all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approve any and all settlements, which approval(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld. The obligations set forth herein remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including any and all appeals of any lower court judgement rendered in the proceeding. Further, applicant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for all costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this provision.
4. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit.
5. The final approved conditions of approval shall be reprinted on a dedicated sheet (or sheets) of the construction documents when submitting to the Building Division for the plan check process.
6. Construction permits shall be obtained for all future construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit.
7. Design Review No 5142-24 shall become void if not vested within two years from the date of approval. Time extensions may be granted for up to one year, pursuant to OMC Section 17.08.060.
14. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
• Attachment 2 - Project Plans
• Attachment 3 - Site Photos
• Attachment 4 - Applicant’s Project Narrative Letter
• Attachment 5 - Digital Color and Material Board
• Attachment 6 - Milgard A250 Brochure
• Attachment 7 - Velux Modular Skylights
• Attachment 8 - Development Standards Reference Table