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 request to demolish an existing two-car detached 408 square-foot garage and construct a new two-car detached 434 square-foot garage at the rear of an existing duplex at 454 S. Shaffer Street. (Design Review No. 5117-23)(Continued from the May 1, 2024 Regular meeting).
end
2. Summary
body
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-car 408 square-foot garage at the rear of a non-contributing property and in its place construct a new two-car detached 434 square-foot garage and the creation of two unenclosed parking spaces at the rear of an existing duplex. The property is not a contributor to the Old Towne Orange Historic District.
The project was continued from the May 1, 2024 Design Review Committee meeting due to lack of a quorum.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Matt Johnson
Owner: Matt Johnson
Property Location: 454 S. Shaffer Street
General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Zoning Classification: Residential Duplex (R-2-6)
Existing Development: Two-story postwar non-contributing residential duplex and two-car detached garage
Associated Application: None.
Previous DRC Project Review: None.
5. project description
The major components of this project include:
• Demolition of a single-story, detatched two-car 408 square-foot garage with a hipped roof and two-bay garage doors located at the rear of a two-story non-contributing duplex property. The existing garage is positioned at an angle facing the alleyway.
• Construction of a new single-story two-car 434 square-foot hipped roof garage detatched garage at the rear of the property. The proposed garage will be located in roughly the same location as the existing garage but it will not be at an an angle in order to accommodate two unenclosed parking spaces. The garage doors will face the alley and the proposed rear configuration will allow for easier navigation and access for the required parking spaces. The garage will be clad in such to match the existing residence and have a man door at the east elevation.The applicant is proposing to maintain the appearance of the two bay garage doors to retain the appearance of detatched garages in the alley.
• Replacement of the existing non-conforming artificial turf at the front and side yard elevations with new compatible landscaping.
• Removal of an existing chain link fence at the rear and installation of a new 6-foot wood fence to match the existing wood fence.
Per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020, the DRC’s role is advisory and the Planning Commission shall make the final project determination on building demolitions in the Historic District.
6. EXISTING SITE
The existing site is developed with a two-story vernacular foursquare duplex building constructed in 1954. The building is clad in plaster and has a hipped roof with composition shingles and exposed rafter tails. There is a one-story projection at the first bay of the front (east) elevation with a hipped roof and exposed rafter tails. The entrance to the first story unit is centrally located and fenestration consists of double hung windows with shutters. A wood staircase at the north elevation leads to the entrance to the second-story unit. There is a detached two-car 408 square-foot hipped-roof garage at the southwest corner of the property at the rear. A 6-foot dog-eared gate is located outside of the frontyard setback and provides access to the rear yard and there is a chain link fence at the rear yard, similar to the chain link fences at of the postwar duplex units between East Culver Avenue and East La Veta Avenue.
There is no change proposed in the floor area ratio (FAR) because the applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage with a garage that is only 26 square feet larger in size. The project does not significantly change the FAR of the property or the block.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The subject property is located on the west side of the 400 block of S. Shaffer Street between E. Culver Avenue and E. La Veta Avenue. The zoning on the west side of S. Shaffer Street is R-2-6, and the zoning on the east side of the street is Single-Family Residential (R-1-6) and R-2-6. All but three properties at the east side of the block are non-contributing properties to the Historic District. The four southernmost buildings on the east side of S. Shaffer Street are also contributors to the Historic District. The duplex is part of a larger postwar duplex development between S. Center and S. Shaffer Streets. All duplexes in this development block are identical in a vernacular foursquare style, plaster cladding, and hipped roofs. The parking spaces for all units are accessed through a central alleyway that is accessed off E. Culver Avenue.
8. analysis and statement of the issues
Issue 1 Visibility of the Garage:
The existing garage is partially visible from S. Shaffer Street if viewed northwest from as it is located near the southwest property line of the main residence. The new proposed garage will be set four feet from the south property line and five feet from the west property line. It will have a hipped roof and will be 11 feet to the top of the roof. In addition, the garage will be single-story and subordinate to the two-story duplex. The orientation will shift, to be more in line with the other garages located off the alley for the S. Shaffer properties. The visibility will not change drastically and will not impact the streetscape of the Historic District.
The Historic Preservation Design Standards state that “new garages should not compete visually with the historic residence and should be subordinate in height, width, and area in comparison to the existing primary structure.” The visibility of the garage will not detract from the character of the Historic District when viewed from the street and will continue the relationship of garages located at the rear of the residence. It does not visually compete with the historic residence and is subordinate in height, width, and area in comparison to the existing residence.
Issue 2 Proposed Door Materials:
The applicant is proposing flush panel wood garage doors (Classic Wood Model 33) painted to match the existing color of the garage doors and a Masonite mandoor with a wood veneer finish. Typically, doors in the Historic District are solid wood. However, per the Standards for Non-Contributing Buildings in Historic Districts section of the Historic Preservation Design Standards, “alternatives to traditional building materials may be considered, if the alternative material is compatible with the building’s predominant architectural style or with comparable contributing buildings in the Historic District.” The garage is a vernacular hipped roof structure clad in stucco with no defining architectural character or style. While the man door is not solid wood, the proposed wood veneer Masonite door will not impact the integrity of the Historic District and the style would be compatible with the proposed garage. Neither doors will be visible from the street.
Overall, staff is in support of the project and believes that the proposed garage and improvements to the site conform to the Historic Preservation Design Standards. In addition, the proposed reconstruction of the garage will allow for the addition of two unenclosed spaces, bringing the property into conformance with Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.34 - Off-Street Parking and Loading.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided to 186 owners and occupants within 400 feet of the project on or before April 18, 2024, and the site was posted on or before that 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 15302 (Class 2 - Replacement or Reconstruction), because the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, and as per Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because it is the construction of a new accessory structure.
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 recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with recommended conditions.
• In the Old Towne 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 garage will be minimally visible from the street and only while looking northwest from S. Shaffer Street. It will be compatible in material, design, and style with the existing non-contributing duplex. The proposed garage is in conformance with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for new accessory structures as well as standards for non-contributing properties.
• In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.07.G.2).
Since the property is not a contributor to the Historic District, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards apply to how the proposed work will affect the Historic District as a whole, and not the individual building. Consistent with Standard 9, new construction will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property or the district and the garage reconstruction will not impact the streetscape of S. Shaffer Street beyond the existing conditions and will only be partially visible from S. Shaffer Street when looking northwest.
• 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 mentioned above, the project has an internally consistent, integrated design that is compatible with the Historic District in its material, scale, and size.
• 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 garage is compatible with the existing two-story residence and the surrounding development with the scale, mass, and orientation of the garage. It is located at the rear, minimally visible, and is compatible in design and material. It will not have a detrimental impact on the existing neighborhood character and will not result in a loss of integrity of the Historic District.
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 May 15, 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. 5117-23, 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 (“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. 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. 5117-23 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 - Letter of Explanation
• Attachment 3 - Project Plans
• Attachment 4 - DPR Form
• Attachment 5 - Product Specifications
• Attachment 6 - Historic Aerial Appendix
• Attachment 7 - Development Standards Table