TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
FROM: Ani Mnatsakanyan, Associate Planner - Historic Preservation
1. Subject
title
A proposal for a new addition at the side of an existing historic residence, located at 814 E. Ferndale Avenue (Design Review No. 5111-23) (Continued from March 20, 2024).
end
2. Summary
body
The applicant proposes a 158 square foot bathroom and closet addition at the east elevation of an existing single-story historic residence. The project was continued from the February 7, 2024 DRC hearing.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Approval by the Design Review Committee.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Kyle Digiantonio/ RVM Construction
Owner: Jacob and Dana Copenhaver
Property Location: 814 E. Ferndale Avenue
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning Classification: Single Family Residential (R-1-8)
Existing Development: Single-story residence with a low-pitched front facing gabled roof and an attached garage. The property is a contributor to the to the Fairmeadow Eichler tract.
Associated Application: None.
Previous DRC Project Review: The project was reviewed on February 7, 0224. The DRC continued the project to provide the applicant additional time to respond to the Committee’s feedback.
5. project description
The proposed addition was first reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on February 7, 2024. The DRC continued the item to allow for the applicant to make design revisions in response to committee member comments.
The revised proposal includes:
• A 158 square foot addition at the east (side) elevation of the residence towards the rear of the structure. The addition will be clad in Eichler siding and will be inset 1 foot at the rear (south) elevation. There will be a new fixed transom window at the south elevation. The fascia will be offset by three feet. The existing window will be salvaged and reused at the east elevation. The roof of the addition will be flat and will not rise above the existing roofline.
• Interior improvements, including remodel of existing bathrooms and addition of a half bathroom.
• Replacement of the non-historic one by 4 inch trim on east elevation with 1 inch by 1 5/8 inch trim.
The original proposal presented to the Design Review Committee is as reflected in Attachment 2 (Staff Report dated February 7, 2024) In response to the Design Review Committee’s feedbck, the applicant made the following revisions:
• Inset the addition by 1 foot so that the south elevation is not aligned with the original residence.
• Corrected drafting errors on the primary residence.
• Retained the existing bathroom door and window.
• Replaced the 1x4 inch trim at the east windows with 1 inch by 1 5/8 inch trim to match west elevation.
• Reused the existing window on the new addition.
• Replaced the vertical fixed glass window with a transom inoperable window that matches the residence.
6. EXISTING SITE
The site is developed with a Mid-Century Modern single-family residence, identified as Variant 1 of Model LJ-124 in the original tract development and constructed in 1964. This model is single-story post-and-beam construction with a three-quarter-width low-pitched front-facing gable roof that forms a deep eave overhang over cantilevered, square-end wood beams with trapezoidal transom windows tucked under the eaves of the one bay garage. The remaining width of the building has a flat roof with no overhang and no fenestration. The gable’s center bay is recessed to form a covered carport and entrance. The building, including the garage door, is clad in narrow-gauge, vertical wood siding.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The Eichler Fairmeadow Historic District is located in the central area of the City. Completed in 1962, the tract features 119 homes designed by Anshen & Allen, Jones & Emmons, and Claude Oakland comprised of five models and three unique one-off designs. E. Ferndale Avenue predominantly consists of contributing structures of varied models.
8. analysis and statement of the issues
The project was continued on February 7, 2024 by the DRC to provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to the following design feedback:
• Correct drafting errors and depiction of existing elevations.
• Greater differentiation of the addition from the primary residence is needed.
• Minimize loss of original features on the primary residence.
• Provide correct product specifications for the proposed window.
• Consider maintaining the bathroom door although it is on a secondary elevation.
• Concern about the use of a line of demarcation as a method of differentiation.
• The style of the vertical fixed glass may not be appropriate for a closet addition.
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 smaller than the mass, scale, and volume of the original house. The addition is simple and rectangular in shape and does not rise above the highest part 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 applicant is no longer proposing a line of demarcation. The applicant is proposing to differentiate the new addition by insetting the addition 1 foot from the south elevation of the primary residence.
Issue 2 Visibility:
Additions should be placed on lots in a way that respects the established patten 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 Salvage of Historic Materials:
The applicant is no longer proposing to remove secondary features on the east elevation. The bathroom door and window will remain in place. In addition, the applicant is proposing to re-use the existing window on the east elevation of the new addition instead of replacing it with a new window.
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 historic home.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided to 65 owners and occupants within 400 feet of the project on or before January 25, 2024, and the site was posted on or before that date. Re-noticing is not required for projects that are continued to a date certain.
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 of less than 10,000 square feet to an existing residence, in conformance with allowable development in the General Plan and in an area where public facilities and services are available.
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
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 referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.070.G.1).
The project complies with the OEDS. The addition is located on the side elevation of the residence and visibility of the addition from E. Ferndale Avenue is minimized because of the fence at the front elevation of the residence. The addition is consistent in form, scale, and design of the architectural vocabulary of the Eichler home models in the Eichler Fairmeadow tract. Differentiation is achieved by offsetting the fascia by three feet at the south elevation and by insetting the south elevation of the addition by 1 foot.
• 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 theme. 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.
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 (date stamped approved April 3, 2024, and in the project case file), including 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. 5111-23, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at 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 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. Applicant 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 connection 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 the applicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action or proceeding, City shall have the right to approve counsel to so defend the City, approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approve any 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 judgment 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 the first or second page 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. 5111-23 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 - Staff Report dated February 7, 2024
• Attachment 3 - DRC Minutes dated February 7, 2024
• Attachment 4 - Letter of Explanation
• Attachment 5 - Project Plans, FAR Analysis, and Product Specifications
• Attachment 6 - DPR Form
• Attachment 7 - Historic Aerial Appendix
• Attachment 8 - Site Photos
• Attachment 9 - Neighborhood Context Photos
• Attachment 10 - Development Standards Table