TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
FROM: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
1. Subject
title
A request for an addition and to extend the roofline at the rear of an existing historic residence, 230 E. Palmyra Avenue (Design Review No. 5116-23)(Continued from November 1, 2023).
end
2. Summary
body
The applicant proposes a 73 square foot (sq ft) kitchen addition and a 60 sq ft bathroom addition (total 133 sq ft) at the rear of an existing single-story historic residence. The project includes the proposed demolition and reconstruction of an existing shed to accommodate the bathroom addition at the rear of the residence.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Sheri Ledbetter
Owner: Sheri Ledbetter
Property Location: 230 E. Palmyra Avenue
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning Classification: Single Family Residential (R-1-6)
Existing Development: Single-story hipped roof cottage, detached garage, and shed. The property is a contributor to the Old Towne Orange Historic District
Associated Application: None
Previous DRC Project Review: November 1, 2023
5. project description
The proposed project consists of a kitchen and bathroom addition, and demolition of an existing shed. The project was originally reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on November 1, 2023. Detailed information about the original proposal is provided in Attachment 3. The project has since been revised to consist of the following:
• A 60 sq ft bathroom addition at the rear southwest corner of the residence. The addition will be clad in 6 inch exposure siding to differentiate from the historic residence’s 4 inch exposure siding. The bathroom addition will have two new wood windows and a new paneled door providing access to the rear yard. There will be concrete steps and a metal guardrail similar to the existing ones at the rear service porch. The rear window will be relocated to the west elevation at the bedroom to preserve the historic window.
• A 73 sq ft kitchen addition at the rear southeast corner of the residence. The addition will be clad in 6 inch exposure siding to differentiate from the historic residence’s 4 inch exposure siding. The historic window at the south (rear) elevation will be preserved and relocated to the the east elevation of the addition.
• Demolition of a 160 sq ft shed at the rear southeast property line to accommodate the bathroom addition and construction of a new shed at the rear property line, west of the existing garage, using salvaged materials from the demolished shed.
• The bathroom addition will be located on the west side of the historic service porch, offset 6 inches from the west elevation of the historic residence. The kitchen addition will be located at the southeast corner of the house and will be offset 3-feet from the east elevation and 1 foot 6 inches from the southern service porch elevation to maintain the visibility of the service porch. The roofline of both the bathroom and kitchen additions will be flat to maintain the historic hipped roof and eaveline of the house and respond to the flat roof of the service porch.
• The project will result in a .02 increase in floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.28 to 0.30. Overall floor area increases from the original proposal from 104 sq ft to 133 sq ft.
6. EXISTING SITE
The existing site is developed with a one-story 1,195 sq ft single-family reisdence built in 1908, a shed, and a detached two-car garage. The subject property is a contributor to the Old Towne Orange Historic District. It is a hip roof cottage with clapboard siding, a corner recessed porch supported by a single Classical column. There is a bay window at the west elevation and a historic service porch at the rear (south) elevation. The property is in good condition and maintains a high level of historic integrity with no apparent changes to the original structure.
Aerials and Sanborn maps indicate there existed a shed at the southwest corner of the property that no longer exists and an unidentified one-story structure roughly in the same location as the “shed” that exists today. Staff conducted a site visit to observe the existing structure. The structure is of single wall construction of board and batten over a concrete slab, which is indicative of early 20th century rapid construction practices. It has a front facing gabled roof with exposed rafter tails. There is a window at the north elevation and an entry door and window opening at the west elevation that appear to have been cut after the construction of the shed. In addition, the existing structure is slightly larger than the concrete slab. Some of the battens appear to be slightly different measurements and slightly different levels of deterioration. In addition, the roof boards appear to have been changed at a later time. The west elevation of the shed has board pieces that were cut and replaced as well. The interior of the shed is drywalled and has various types of supporting braces that were added overtime. The wood shows signs of deterioration, including dry rot. While the shed is roughly in the same location as it historically was. The level of deterioration and changes have resulted in a loss of integrity of materials and workmanship leaving the significance of the structure as a historic site feature in question. As a result of the current conditions, the shed is deteriorated, and the owner believes that the historic structure cannot be rehabilitated and repaired. A historic resource assessment has not been provided to document the evolution and integrity of the structure leaving its status in question.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The subject property is located on the south 200 block of E. Palmyra Avenue between South Orange Street and South Grand Street. It is surrounded by other single-family residences zoned R-1-6. All property along E. Palmyra Avenue between S. Grand and S. Orange Streets are contributors to the Historic District. The predominant architectural styles on the block are hip roof cottage and bungalow Craftsman. There is a prairie style house and a Victorian residence at the west corners of the property.
The applicant provided an FAR analysis that assesses the existing FAR of the block. The FAR of the block ranges from .21 to .43. The proposed average FAR of the block with project implementation will remain unchanged at .31.
8. analysis and statement of the issues
During its November 1, 2023 review of the project the DRC expressed support for the modest scale of the proposed addition, but also noted that there were a number of design issues and project features that are not in alignment with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne or the Secretary of Interior Standards. The DRC provided the following comments:
1. The position of the building additions and associated roof extension of the house leaves the service porch un-recognizable as a historic building feature.
2. The roof extension and related massing at the rear of the house overpowers the historic home.
3. Greater differentiation is needed between the historic home, addition, and related roof extension which could be achieved through an offset or other type of transitional element.
4. Consideration should be given to adjusting the proposed floorplan so that the addition projects from the southeast portion of the house to eliminate the conflict between the original design and the existing shed.
5. The west side of the service porch should remain intact.
6. Preparation of a historic assessment of the shed is needed to inform decision making about its demolition or relocation.
7. Demolition of the shed could not be approved without an assessment given the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Issue 1 Design Modifications:
In response to DRC feedback the applicant has made the following changes to the project:
• The bathroom addition at the southwest corner of the house has been modified to address comments about the differentiation of the addition from the historic home and service porch. This has been achieved by providing a 6 inch offset of the addition along the western wall plane and a 1 foot 6 inch reduction in the depth of the addition to leave the southwest corner of the service porch exposed. This modified design results in an 8 sq ft reduction in the size of the bathroom addition.
• The kitchen addition at the southeast corner of the house has been modified to project 3 feet from the eastern wall plane to differentiate the addition and provide greater exposure of the historic service porch from the back yard. The design revisions also increase the exposure of the southeast corner of the service porch from 1 foot to 3 feet. With these changes, the size of the kitchen addition increases from 36 sq ft to 70 sq ft.
• The proposed roof condition has been modified to maintain the existing historic hipped roof, with a flat roof now proposed over the building additions at a similar height and eave trim to the service porch.
• The shed that was originally proposed for demolition and complete removal has been reintroduced to the plan. Under the revised scenario, the shed would be demolished in its present location and then reconstructed west of the garage along the rear property line using materials salvaged from the demolition. The revised plans to not include information about the shed reconstruction.
The modifications to the plans address DRC feedback on project design and are successful in differentiating the addition from the historic residence, maintaining a visual understanding of the historic service porch, and achieving a roof treatment that leaves the historic roof form intact and provides for an understated roofline for the additions. Staff believes that the design of the addition, itself, complies with the City’s Historic Preservation Design Standards and the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Issue 2 Historic Resource Assessment of Shed:
The applicant is unwilling to retain a qualified historic preservation professional to prepare a historic resource assessment of the shed and related guidance for its reconstruction in a new location. Although the applicant has revised the plans presented on November 11th to allow for reconstruction of the shed using materials salvaged from the original shed, plans for shed reconstruction and an evaluation of this option by a historic preservation professional remains warranted.
Given that such an assessment would serve as the basis for decision making about potential demolition, relocation, or reconstruction of the shed, this lack of information requested by both staff and the DRC is the cause for a recommendation of denial of the project.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided to 209 owners and occupants within 400 feet of the project on or before June 5, 2024, and the site was posted on or before that date.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines 15270(a), because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
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 deny the project 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).
While the design of the building additions complies with the OTDS and Secretary of Interior’s standards, this finding cannot be made due to the fact that a potentially historic accessory structure is proposed to be demolished and reconstructed without an assessment of the structure. The need for such an assessment was specifically requested by the DRC at its November 1, 2024 meeting as well as the city’s Community Development Department staff. Absent this assessment, an informed determination about whether the demolition and reconstruction of the shed meets adopted city standards cannot be made by the DRC.
• 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).
While the design of the building additions complies with the Secretary of Interior’s standards in that they are compatible in scale and massing with the historic residence, and differentiated by wall plane off-sets and building materials this finding cannot be made due to the fact that a potentially historic accessory structure is proposed to be demolished and reconstructed without an assessment of the structure. Therefore, without an evaluation of the historic integrity of the structure and its relationship over time with the site and larger Old Towne Orange Historic District, demolition and reconstruction of the shed in a new location using salvaged materials is potentially impactful to the historic integrity of the historic district, project site, and shed itself. Furthermore, the Secretary of Interior’s standards call for repair and replacement of deteriorated historic features, and specify that new additions or new construction shall not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
• 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).
The proposed additions to the historic structure on their own comply with the OTDS and Secretary of Interior standards in their design. The project design provides clear differentiation between the historic structure and additions through the use of wall plane off-sets, and exterior siding that is compatible with the historic clapboard but of a different board width. The flat-roofed additions are also compatible with the form, roofline details, and scale of the historic service porch. The scale and massing of the additions are also sensitive to the historic residence.
Despite the design of the additions, this finding cannot be made because the project consists of demolition of a shed that warrants a historic resource assessment to determine the significance of the structure to the property, its historic relationship to the primary residence, and its value to the historic district as a whole.
13. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 Project Plans dated May 16, 2024
• Attachment 2 Vicinity Map
• Attachment 3 Design Review Committee Staff Report, November 1, 2024
• Attachment 4 Design Review Committee Minutes, November 1, 2024
• Attachment 5 Development Standards Table
• Attachment 6 DPR Form
• Attachment 7 Historic Aerial Appendix
• Attachment 8 Sanborn Appendix
• Attachment 9 Digital Color and Materials Board
• Attachment 10 Window and Door Specs
• Attachment 11 Rear Porch Photo Appendix