HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 INSTALL BUTT JOINT 11-5-90PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
5. 11-5-90
� �► -
TE: NOVEMBER 5, 1990 Inter Com
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE
SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT
450 WEST THIRD STREET
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Council.
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 1990 the City Council requested staff to obtain a
recommendation from the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee on an
appeal of the Community Development Department's denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant, Mr. Santori,
proposes to install new butt joint, shiplap edge siding at 450 West
Third Street in the Cultural Resource Overlay District.
The following is a chronology of events which have led to tonight's
action:
March 141 1990 - The original application was submitted to
"change the siding on the above mentioned
house" (450 W. Third Street).
March 27, 1990 - A Certificate of Appropriateness for the
project was denied as the Community
Development Department could not make the
positive finding as required by Ordinance
1001 related to compatibility in material
and protection of resource value. No
appeal was received within the 7 day
appeal period as defined by Ordinance
1001.
August 1, 1990 -
August 8, 1990 -
The applicant reapplied for the same
proposal as previously submitted on March
14, 1990.
A Certificate of Appropriateness was
again denied on the same findings as the
March 271 1990 denial.
City Council Report
450 West Third Street COA
November 5, 1990
Page 2
August 15, 1990 - An appeal of the August 8, 1990 decision
was submitted by the applicant to the
Planning Commission.
September 24, 1990 - The Planning Commission reviewed the item
and dead -locked on a 2-2 decision to
overturn the denial. Since it was a tie
vote, the original decision to deny the
Certificate of Appropriateness was
upheld.
September 25, 1990 - The applicant appealed the Planning
Commission decision to the City Council.
October 1, 1990 - City Council requested that the item be
brought before them and referred the
matter to the Cultural Resources Advisory
Committee for a recommendation.
October 18, 1990 - The Cultural Resources Advisory Committee
reviewed the item and recommended to the
City Council that: 1) the applicant
completely reside the entire house with
either the proposed siding or siding to
match the existing and; 2) the
preferred option is for the applicant to
match the existing 3" wide siding.
The City's Cultural Resources District, adopted by the City Council
in June of 1988 (Ordinance 1001) requires a Certificate of
Appropriateness to be issued by the Community Development
Department when "Alterations of the exterior features of a building
or site within a designated Cultural Resource District, or
alteration of a Designated Cultural Resource, or construction of
improvements within a designated Cultural Resources District
requiring a City building permit."
In considering the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness,
the Community Development Department must make the following
positive finding as prescribed in Ordinance 1001:
1. The proposed work conforms to the Municipal Code and design
standards which may be established from time to time by the
Cultural Resources Committee.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
450 West Third Street COA
November 5, 1990
Page 3
2. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of
the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the
District.
3. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings.
The extent of harmony shall be evaluated in terms of
appropriateness of materials, scale, size, height, placement
and use of a new building or structure in relationship to
existing buildings and structures and the surrounding setting.
Ordinance 1001 indicates that any decision of the Community
Development Director is appealable to the Planning Commission.
Additionally, any decision of the Planning Commission is appealable
to the City Council.
Since adoption of the Cultural Resources District, a total of 26
Certificates of Appropriateness have been applied for in the
Cultural Resources Overlay District. Twenty four of those have
been approved and two have been denied (Santori; March 27, 1990 and
Santori; August 8, 1990).
In conjunction with discussions on the Santori appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision, there has been discussion about the
necessity for more detailed design guidelines. The process of
preparing design guidelines for residential portions of the
Cultural Resources Overlay District has already begun. Request for
Proposals for the guidelines are anticipated to be circulated in
November sometime. The 1990/91 approved budget included $20,000
for the preparation of these guidelines. As mentioned at the
October 1, 1990 City Council meeting, the guidelines would benefit
the property owner as well as staff in reviewing projects for
conformance with Ordinance 1001. In addition to preparation of
residential guidelines, $25,000 has also been budgeted as part of
the 1990-91 Redevelopment Agency budget for preparation of a
commercial revitilization strategy and guidelines for "Old Town".
DISCUSSION
The applicant was first denied issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the project on March 27, 1990. The Cultural
Resource District Standards require that appeals must be filed no
later than seven (7) days following the decision of the Director.
The applicant did not pursue an appeal until early August of 1990.
After being informed that the appeal period had elapsed, the
Community Development Department
City Council Report
450 West Third Street
November 5, 1990
Page 4
applicant re -submitted the identical plans and the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness was again denied on August 8, 1990.
In both the March 27th and August 8th decisions by the Community
Development Department, the previously mentioned findings required
by Ordinance 1001 could not be made, particularly related to the
third and most important finding. In the opinion of the
Department, the use of 6" wide siding did not significantly
simulate the Colonial Revival Style of the structure and would be
incompatible in size, scale and material to that traditionally used
and existing on such a structure. This finding was also supported
by a referral and recommendation by the City's cultural resource
consultants at Thirtieth Street Architects who has worked
extensively with the District and who prepared the City's
Historical Survey.
The attached Planning Commission Report dated September 24, 1990
includes additional detailed discussion on the architectural
considerations of this project (Attachment A).
As mentioned in the chronology of events above, the Cultural
Resources Advisory Committee reviewed this item as requested
subsequent to the item being appealed to the City Council. The
Committee unanimously recommended to the City Council that the
structure be completely resided with either the 6" or 3" siding.
The preferred option would be the use of the 3" siding to match the
existing. Conditions in the field suggested to the Committee that
the entire structure would not be consistently resided and there
would be a combination of 3" and 6" siding on the house. This
approach was unacceptable and presented a great concern to the
Committee. Field conditions since the October 18th meeting still
suggest an inconsistent use of 3" and 6" siding on the house.
CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
The Cultural Resource Advisory Committee recommended that the City
Council authorize the applicant to completely reside the entire
residence with either one of the two material noting that the
preferred action would be to match the existing 3" wide siding.
The two alternative actions available to the City Council are:
1. Uphold the denial of Certificate of Appropriateness by the
adoption of Resolution No. 90-136(b).
Community Development Department
City Council Report
450 West Third Street
November 5, 1990
Page 5
2. Approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the complete
residing of the subject residence with either the proposed 6"
masonite shiplap edge side or 3" siding to match the existing
siding by adoption of Resolution No. 90-136(a).
niel Fox
Senior Planner
DF:CAS:kbc\sanappl.df
Christine A. Shingl n
Director of Communit Development
Attachments: Planning Commission Report, September 24, 1990
Community Development Department
1
3
4
5
G
7
81
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-136(a)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE
OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION
OF NEW MASONITE BUTT JOINT SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING
AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That on March 27, 1990, the Director of
Community Development denied a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of new 6"
masonite siding at 450 West Third Street. No
appeal was received within the 7 day appeal
period as defined by Ordinance 1001.
B. That on August 8, 1990, the Director of
Community Development denied a second
Certificate of Appropriateness for the same
request as March 27, 1990.
C. That on August 15, 1990, an appeal of the
August 8, 1990 decision was submitted by G.
Santori to the Planning Commission.
D. That on September 24, 1990, the Planning
Commission reached a 2-2 split vote to
overturn the denial of the Certificate of
Appropriateness, thus upholding the original
denial.
E. That on September 25, 1990 an appeal of the
September 241 1990 Planning Commission
decision was submitted by G. Santori to the
City Council and on October 1, 1990, the City
Council also requested that the City's
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee review
and recommend on this item prior to City
Council consideration.
F. That on October 18, 1990, the City's Cultural
Resources Advisory Committee reviewed the
request and unanimously recommended to the
City Council that the structure be completely
resided in either the proposed material or
siding to match the existing with a preference
to match the existing 3" siding.
G. That the City Council held a public hearing on
the appeal on November 5, 1990.
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10I
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 90-136(a)
Page 2
H. The proposed project is categorically exempt
(Class 1) from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
I. That pursuant to Section 9252 of the Tustin
City Code, the City Council finds the
following:
1. The proposed work will conform to the
Municipal Code once a Certificate of
Approval and building permit is issued
and will conform to the design review
standards which may be established from
time to time by the Cultural Resources
Committee in that the proposed siding
would simulate the wood siding previously
existing on the residence.
2. The proposed work does not adversely
affect the character of the District in
that the proposed siding would retain the
architectural character of the existing
structure.
3. The proposed masonite siding is
harmonious with existing surroundings in
terms of material, size and scale in that
the proposed siding, when consistently
applied to the entire structure, would
simulate the woodsiding previously
existing on the residence.
II. The City Council hereby approves the subject
Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation
of new 6" wide masonite butt joint shiplap edge
siding at 450 West Third Street, subject to the
following conditions:
A. The entire house shall be resided with
the subject material.
B. All required building permits shall be
obtained and fees paid as applicable,
including those fees for work without
permits.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I1
18
A
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 90-136(a)
Page 3
C. If the existing garage is demolished,
siding on the new garage structure shall
match the siding on the house. In any
case, a separate Certificate of
Appropriateness for the design of said
garage would be required prior to
commencement of such a project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
City Council, held on the 5th day of November, 1990.
RICHARD EDGAR
Mayor
1
3
4
5
G
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-136(b)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR NEW
MASONITE BUTT JOINT SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450
WEST THIRD STREET.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That on March 27, 1990, the Director of
Community Development denied a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of new 6"
masonite siding at 450 West Third Street. No
appeal was received within the 7 day appeal
period as defined by Ordinance 1001.
B. That on August 8, 1990, the Director of
Community Development denied a second
Certificate of Appropriateness for the same
request of March 27, 1990.
C. That on August 15, 1990, an appeal of the
August 8, 1990 decision was submitted by G.
Santori to the Planning Commission.
D. That on September 24, 1990, the Planning
Commission reached a 2-2 split vote to
overturn the denial of the Certificate of
Appropriateness, thus upholding the original
denial.
E. That on September 25, 1990 an appeal of the
September 24, 1990 Planning Commission
decision was submitted by G. Santori to the
City Council and on October 11 1990, the City
Council also requested that the City's
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee review
and recommend on this item prior to City
Council consideration.
F. That on October 18, 1990, the City's Cultural
Resources Advisory Committee reviewed the
request and unanimously recommended to the
City Council that the structure be completely
resided in either the proposed material or
siding to match the existing with a preference
to match the existing 3" siding.
G. That the City Council held a public hearing on
the appeal on November 5, 1990.
_ 1
3
4
5
G
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18.
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 90-136(b)
Page 2
H. The proposed project is categorically exempt
(Class 1) from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
I. That pursuant to Section 9252 of the Tustin
City Code, the City Council finds the
following:
1. The proposed siding would not conform to
the Municipal Code and design standards
that may be established by the Cultural
Resources Advisory Committee in that the
proposed siding would create an
inconsistent architectural treatment from
the Colonial Revival style of the
residence which is in conflict with the
intent and requirements of City Code 9252
related to the Cultural Resources Overlay
District.
2. The proposed siding would adversely
affect the character of the district and
the designated cultural resources in the
District in that the rating on the
subject residence would be reduced from a
'B' to a 'C' in the City's Historic
Survey and would create a precedent for
the alteration of other significantly
rated structures.
3. The proposed siding would not be
harmonious with the surroundings in that
the proposed material does not
significantly simulate the Colonial
Revival style of the structure. The 6"
wide siding is incompatible in size,
scale and material to the 3" wide siding
traditionally used and existing on the
structure and noted architectural style.
The proposed masonite siding is available
in other widths, including 311, which
would be compatible with the narrow
clapboard treatment of the residence and
consistent with the historic treatment of
Colonial Revival architecture.
Resolution No. 90-136(b)
Page 3
II. The City Council hereby upholds the denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for new 6" masonite
butt joint shiplap edge siding at 450 W. Third
Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
City Council, held on the 5th day of November, 1990.
RICHARD EDGAR
Mayor
23
24
�5
26
27
28
1
sport to the
Planning
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
RECOMMENDATION
Commission
SEPTEMBER 24, 1990
ITEM #4
APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL
OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED
INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING
G. SANTORI
450 W. 3RD STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92680
450 WEST THIRD STREET
R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)/CULTURAL RESOURCE
OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(A)
AN APPEAL TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT
JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD
STREET.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the
determination of the Community Development Department by adoption
of Resolution No. 2836.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission to
overturn the Community Development Department's denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new
siding at 450 West Third Street.
In accordance with. Ordinance No. 1001 (The Cultural Resource
Overlay District) adopted on June 20, 1988 by the Tustin City
Council, the Community Development Director has the authority to
approve, approve with conditions or deny a Certification of
Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City building permit
for property located within -la Cultural Resource Overlay District.
Upon that determination, the -,applicant has the ability to appeal
ATTACHMENT A
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Appeal of Denial of COA
September 24, 1990
Page 2
the decision to the Planning Commission. Additionally, any
decision by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City
Council.
The applicant was first denied issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness on March 27, 1990. The Cultural Resource District
Standards require that appeals must be filed no later than seven
(7) days following the decision of the Director. The applicant did
not pursue an appeal until early August of 1990. After being
informed that the appeal period had elapsed on April 3, 1990, the
applicant re -submitted the identical plans and the issuance of a
COA was again denied on August 8, 1990. On August 15, 1990, the
applicant submitted a written appeal (Attachment A).
This item does not require a public hearing; therefore no
notification for such was transmitted. The applicant has been
forwarded a copy of this report.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to attach masonite butt joint shiplap edge
siding at 450 West Third Street over the original narrow clapboard.
The proposed siding would give the structure a more durable outer
skin.
According to the Historical Survey for the Cultural Resource
District which was recently adopted by the City Council, the home
was constructed in 1924 and is one of the City's prime few examples
of Colonial Revival style architecture and is representative of the
size, shape, and char-acter of homes built by the average resident
of Tustin during the 19201s. The Historical Resources Survey
Report classifies the structure as representing the very best that
remains of the past, and a vital link to the community. Staff
reviewed the proposed installation of masonite butt joint shiplap
edge siding with Thirtieth Street Architect's (the City's
architectural consultants), who prepared the Historical Survey.
The consultant indicated that the changes could significantly lower
the high rating which was given to this structure because of
incompatibility of the proposed materials with the style of
architecture of the building (Exhibit B). The Community
Development Department's intent is to preserve the architectural
integrity of the structure.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Appeal of Denial of COA
September 24, 1990
Page 3
Given the difficulty of duplicating materials of that time period,
the Community Development Department suggested that perhaps the
applicant could use other materials which more closely resembled
the siding presently on the house or perhaps the existing siding
could be refinished, painted, patched and reinforced using
recognized preservation methods identified by the Department of the
Interior for preservation of historic structure. The Department
has attempted to work with the applicant to obtain appropriate
materials and would re-evaluate any new alternatives upon
submittal.
The Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
installation of new siding for the subject property and determined
that the required findings to grant approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness could not be made.
Based upon this analysis, the Community Development Department
denied the subject request based on the following required
findings:
a. The proposed work does not conform to the Municipal Code
and design review standards which have been established
by the Cultural Resources Committee in that the proposed
improvement is not in character with the narrow clapboard
siding which is found on Colonial Revival homes of its
period.
b. The proposed work adversely affects the character of the
Designated Cultural Resources within the District in that
by permitting the subject modification the City's
architectural consultant has indicated that the structure
rating of B+ could drop significantly.
C. The proposed work is not harmonious with existing
surroundings in that the materials are not significantly
similar to the Colonial Revival style of the structure
and is incompatible in size, scale, and material; and the
structures in the immediate area are of similar high
ratings. .
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, modification of this structure by permitting
the proposed masonite butt joint shiplap edge siding is
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Appeal of Denial of COA
September 24, 1990
Page 4
inconsistent material with the existing structure given its
historical significance. As a result, positive findings for the
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness could not be made.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold
that determination by adoption of Resolution No. 2836.
Christ pher 0. Jackson, Sr.
Associate Planner
CEJ:CAS:kbc
Christine A. Shing' on
Director of Commune y Development
Attachment: Resolution No. 2836
Community Development Department
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2-31
26'
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2836
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DENY A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED
INSTALLATION OF NEW MASONITE BUTT JOINT SHIPLAP
EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper appeal has been filed by G. Santori
requesting authorization to install new masonite
butt joint shiplap edge siding at 450 West Third
Street.
B. The Community Development Department denied the
subject request on both March 27, 1990 and August
8, 1990.
C. The proposed project is categorically exempt (Class
1) from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
D. The proposed work does not conform to the Municipal
Code and design review standards which have been
established by the Cultural Resources Committee in
that the proposed improvement is not in character
with the narrow clapboard siding which is found on
Colonial Revival homes of its period.
E. The proposed work adversely affects the character
of the Designated Cultural Resource within the
District in that by permitting the subject
modification the City's architectural consultant
has indicated that the structure rating of B could
drop significantly.
F. The proposed work is not harmonious with existing
surroundings in that the materials are not
significantly similar to the Colonial Revival style
of the structure and is incompatible in size,
scale, and material; and the structures in the
immediate area are of similar high ratings.
II. The Planning Commission hereby upholds the determination
of the Community Development Director to deny the subject
3
4
5I�
61
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A
20
21
22
23
24
2"
2(
2-o
2�
Resolution No. 2836
Page 2
appeal for the installation of new masonite butt joint
shiplap edge siding at 450 West Third Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 24th day of September, 1990.
KATHLEEN FITZPATRICK
Secretary
DONALD LE JEUNE
Chairman
0
1eqTrNa 61'11Z1S71-1f1-Z--7
2C/7�%%�GY
--- — -. I�1�5_'/`_fI L G V4e�-W-
r, . S/,c�//V�_ D•U /�`/_ �l>cS'�'. _
0
4� 0�
70
�6o
�Oo�(S �� %ff/S �OU�SE Cp/UI�LE'T�G Y XX-1S72---WZ
SGS ��i rs �IE,T� 17
ay.0iTioiv
C�osi�vrj l �i�lE�o
�.tsf%v
/c/frs /09
t1
%TE'�o�rvr W-
704,,
17-
/r/�l/,9SOIEA2 P/t,s/r���
7TH yDU2 �J000 �U'D�EdUIEilJT/ZND
/.vT��vTi�s/�SLETS
C CT 2/O
��O�N EyES02E' /7' D SETS
%�sPE�T�OLL/ J�Jv�ZS
�. S�iv9olz�
0.
t151T Al
G "� City of Tustin
Community Development Department
August 8, 1990
G. Santori
450 West Third Street
Tustin, California 92680
SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED
INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING, 450 WEST THIRD STREET
T
Dear Mr. Santori:
This letter is in response to your request of July 24, 1990 to
reapply for the installation of masonite butt joint shiplap edge
siding on the property located at 450 W.. Third Street. In
accordance with Ordinance No. 1001 which was adopted on June 20,
1988, the Community Development Director has the authority to
approve, approve with conditions or deny Certificates of
Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City building permit
for property located within a Cultural Resource District.
The following findings are required before a Certificate of
Appropriateness is issued:
a. The proposed work conforms to the Municipal Code and design
standards which may be established from time to time by the
Cultural Resources Committee.
b. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of
the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the
District.
C. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings.
The extent of harmony shall be evaluated in terms of
appropriateness of materials, scale, size, height, placement
and use of a new building or structure in relationship to
existing buildings and structures.and the surrounding setting.
The Community Development Department has reviewed the proposed
installation of complete new siding for the above mentioned
residence and denies a Certificate Of Appropriateness as the
required findings can not be made in that the proposed masonite
butt joint shiplap edge does not significantly simulate the
Colonial Revival style of the structure and is incompatible in
size, scale, and material to that traditionally used for such a
300 Centennial Way - Tustin, California 92680 - (714) 544-8890
G. Santori
450 West Third Street
August 81 1990
Page 2
structure. Distinguishing details of the house include the narrow
clapboard siding which is found on Colonial Revival homes of its
period, particularly on the subject house•
In this respect, the
proposed shiplap siding is not in harmony w th the architectural
style of the building.
The home was constructed in 1924 and is one of primethe city's a d few
is
examples of Colonial Revival style architecture
representative of the size, shape and cha racter of homes built by
the average resident of Tustin in the 1920's. The City of Tustin
Historical Survey classifies this house with a B rating
t1and which
a
represents some of the best that remains of the pa
vital link to the community in which it is located.
The intent of the Cultural Resources Overlay District is to
preserve the architecture of the structure. With the difficulty of
duplicating materials of that time period, perhaps there are other
materials which more closely resemble the siding which is presently
on the house or perhaps the existing siding can be refinished,
painted, patched, and reinforced using recognized preservation
methods.
Pursuant to provisions of Ordinance 1001, this decision may be
appealed to the Planning Commission if such appeal is within severe in
(7)
writing to the Community Development Department
calendar days from the date of this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding,this matter please feel
free to contact me at -(714) 544-8890, extension 258.
Sincerely,
Christine A. Shingleton
Di for of Community Development
l
Daniel Fox
Senior Planner
DF:CAS:kbc
cc: Chris Jackson
March 14, 1990
To: Tustin Planning Department
From: G. Santori
450 W. 3rd Street
Tustin, CA 92680
(714) 832-7861
I am applying for a permit to change the siding on the
above mentioned house.
The reasons being that some of the existing siding was
destroyed upon removal to facilitate an electirical panel change
(modern circuit breaker type). Unfortunately, the siding
cannot be purchased today. Secondlys and more important, a
new garage will be constructed very soon which would also
require siding and the cost to have matching siding would
be quite prohibitive 661o/z1,(18-WOW /N BZ06126=sS
IVC) /06 g
Respectfully yours,
f
G. Santora
City of Tustin
March 27, 1990
G. Santori
450 W. 3rd Street
Tustin, California 92680
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION
OF COMPLETE NEW SIDING AT 450 W. 3RD STREET
-Dear Mr. Santori:
In accordance_ with Ordinance No.. 1001 which was adopted.June 20,
1988 by the Tustin City Council, the Community Development Director
has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny
Certification of Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City
building permit for property located within a Cultural Resource
District.
The following findings are required before a Certificate of
Appropriateness is issued:
a. The proposed work conforms to the Municipal Code and design
standards which may be established from time to time by the
Cultural Resources Committee.
b. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of
the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the
District.
C. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings.
The extent of harmony shall be evaluated in terms of
appropriateness of materials, scale, size, height, placement
and use of a new building or structure in relationship to
existing buildings and structures and the surrounding setting.
The Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed
installation of complete new siding for the above mentioned
residence and has determined that the proposed improvement does not
comply with the required findings in that the proposed masonite
butt joint shiplap edge does not significantly simulate the
Colonial Revival style of the structure and is incompatible in
size, scale, and material.
Distinguishing details of the house is the narrow clapboard siding
which is found on Colonial Revival homes of its period and
particularly on the subject house. In this respect, the proposed
siding is not in harmony with the architectural style of the
300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 - (714) 544-8890
G. Santori
March 29, 1990
Page 2
building.
The home was -constructed in 1924 and is one of the City's prime few
examples of Colonial Revival style. architecture and is
representative of the size, shape, and character of homes being
built by the average resident of Tustin..during the.1920's. The
draft Historical Resources Survey Report classifies this house as
a B+ which represents. the very best that remains of the past, and
a vital link to the community in which it is located. The City's
intent is to preserve the architecture of the structure. With the
difficulty of duplicating materials of that time period, perhaps
there are other materials which more closely resemble the siding
which is presently on the house or perhaps the existing siding can
be refinished, painted, patched, and reinforced using recognized
preservation -methods. These alternatives should be reviewed and
evaluated. The City will re-evaluate any new alternative that you
may have.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel
free to contact me at (714) 544-8890, extension 254.
Sincerely,
Christine A. Shingleton
Director of Community Development
for
Christopher E. Jac son
Associate - Planner.
CEJ : CAS : kbc
thirtieth
street
architects
enc.
September 19,1990
Chris Jackson
Associate Planner
City of 'Dustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: 450 W. Third St.
Dear Chris:
E*+,r i BIT $
We have reviewed the issues surrounding this case and recommend that the
Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's denial of
-he Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new siding. We
oase this recommendation on the following facts:
1. The fact that the Owner has purchased new siding is unfortunate but irrelevant.
Note that most lumber yards and building supply yards will take back building
materials and issue a refund for a modest handling charge.
2. The replacement of the existing 1X bevel siding with shiplap siding would
result in a major visual change (modernization) to the appearance of the residence
and would greatly impact its rating, probably reducing it to a C -at best. This is
because the new siding has a wider overall dimension and has a different shadow
line than the bevel siding. The new siding would change the visual texture of the
exterior appearance of the residence. (see Standard No. 6)
3. The bevel siding is a major exterior feature of this unique Colonial Revival
Bungalow. Replacement is only recommended as a last resort. If maintenance is a
problem, perhaps the existing siding could be repaired by removing blistered paint
from the wood using a heat gun (NO sandblasting). 'then the siding could be
reprimed and painted. If some replacement is necessary new material should
architecture historical rehabilitation planning
2821 newport blv& newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8547
(714) 673-2643
match the existing siding in terms of species of wood (probably redwood) and
rhaP p e. This material can be ordered from lumber yards such as Ganahl in
Anaheim.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call mc.
very truly yours,
John C. Loomi&
President
encl.
28
BUILDING: EXTERIOR FEATURES -- continued
Wood: Clapboard, weatherboard stein lea and other w in
Recommended
Retaining existing material, when-
ever possible.
IQVairing or replacing, where nec-
eseary, deteriorated macerial with
new material that duplicates in
size, shape, and texture the old
as closely as possible.
Not Recommended
Removing architectural features
such as siding, cornices, brackets,
window architraves, Awd doorway
pediments. These are, in =out
cases, an essential part of a
building's character and appearance
that illustrates the continuity of
growth and change.
Resurfacing frame buildings with
new material, which is inappro-
priate. or was unavailable when
the building Was constructed,
such as artificial stone, brick
veneer, asbestos or asphalt shingles,
and plastic or aluminum siding.
Such material can also contribute
to the, deterioration of the struc-
ture from moisture and insects.
- Arch:.tectural Metals: Cast iron, steel, pressed tin, aluminum, zinc
Recommended
Clegg -JUS, when nece*sary, with the
appropriate method. Cast iron and
steel are usually nQt affected by
mechanical cleaning methods while
pressed tin, zinc, and aluminum
should be cleaned by the gentlest
mathod possible.
Not Reconmended
Removing architectural features
that are an essential part of a
building's character and appear-
ance that illustrate the continuity
of growth and change.
Exposing metals that were inten-
ded to be protected from the
environment. Do not uae cleaning
methods that alter the color or
texture of the metal.
( S
-"L'NEI L STANDARDS — continued
7. The surface cleaning of ettu,aturee shall
corhezrcleaningwith
mathoda.that
gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and
will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken.
8. Evory reasonable effort shall be made to protectaand preserve
ieser earcheolo
pratection,
gical resources affected by, or adjacent to any q
stabilization, praservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction
project.
4
GENERAL STANDARDS
The foUowri.ng genarat standards apply to aZZ treatments undertake?
UatorW* properties Zistad in the Natio=Z Ragi iter.
�,. Every raasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible
for a property that raquiras minimal alteration of the buildii
tura, or site and its environment, or to use a property for it
originally intended purpose.
2. The disti &uishing original qualities or character of a building,
structure, or site and its environment Shall not be destroyed. The
removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive archi—
tectural features should be avoided vhen possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products
of thair own time. Alterations which have no historical basis and
which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are
evidence of the history and development of a building, structure,
or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired
significance in their own right, and this rigrtif icanca shall be
racognizad and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features 'or examples of skillQd criftarmanship,
which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated
with sensitivity. -_
6. Dntarloratad architectural features shall be repaired rather than
replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary,
the new material should match the material being replaced in composition,
designs color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or
replacement of missing architectural features should be based on
accurate duplications of features, subatantiated by historical,
physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs
or the availability of differQnt architectural elements from other
buildings or structures.
ADDRESS:
450 3RD ST (W.)
DATE:
1924,_
STY ..r,:
COLONIAL REVIVAL - 20S
SOURCE: RATING:
T B+
ALTERATIONS:
COMMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
?� � ��1�,' i, -,� .:iy''.:+4:.+; MEd{^!•.�=•. ^`,�AY��� � hl` M.� r
• tafe
i.
A Tudor -style roof, with a hipped peak on both the side -facing gables and the front -facing porch roof, crowns the Colonial Revival
bungalow at 450 Third Street. Dentil trim, returns, and double louvered vents accent the gable faces. Narrow clapboard siding covers
the exterior. The porch is supported by tapered wood columns. resting on piers built of two colors of grey brick. The wide front door.
accented with a row of narrow diagonally -placed beveled glass windows, is flanked by multi -paned sidelights. Plate glass windows.
flanked by narrow double -hung sidelights, arc located on each side of the front door. A matching window set can be seen under the
double gable on the west facade. A pair of double -hung windows, which occupy the space near the cast end of the front facade. match
those used throughout the rest of the house.
SIGNIFICANCE:
Charles and Clara Wilson stcquired this property - 2 lots - in 1922.1 front Alice Hubbard turd owned it until 1969. Wilson built the house
for $5.000• an expensive house for those days• possibly because of the wide cwvcd walnut molding used around the ceilings in each
room. Wilson was a water -well contractor. working in Tustin and for the Irvine Company. He received recognition in 1945 when he
brought in the deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -Inch stovepil)e casing. The well, located on the Borchard
ranch on Ritchey St.. Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep_ There are few Tudor Revival Moines in Tustin. This one is a good example of that
style and representative of the size and general shape being built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's.
Fm)q4l NT "(: 0