Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHIRD ST W 450V G o� '� � City of Tustin Community Development Department November 6, 1990 Mr. G. Santori 450 West Third Street Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 450 WEST THIRD STREET, TUSTIN Dear Mr. Santori The Tustin City Council at a regular meeting on November 5, 1990, approved the subject project. The City Council's decision is final. A copy of the resolution will be sent to you for your records once a signed copy is available. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Chri tine A. Shingleton, mmunity Development Daniel Fox Senior Planner CAS:DF:nm/santori.df 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544.8890 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 FILE COPY 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 24, 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. i 3 4 5 6 7 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(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 to allow the complete residing of the subject residence with either the proposed 6" masonite shiplap edge siding or 3" siding to match the existing, 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 7 3 4 5 6 7 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(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. Y WYNN i y Clerk "S2��.��J�?� .� RICHARD EDGAR Mayor City of Tustin RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN RESOLUTION NO. 90-136(A) SS MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 90-136(A) was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of November, 1990 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Edgar, Puckett, Potts, Prescott COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Pontious v a E. Wynn, City Clerk PAGE 1 October 12, 1990 - RECEIVED - PETITION NOV 6 1900 COMMUNITY OEAEOPMENT SUBJECT: SIDING APPROVAL We are petitioning the City Council to overturn the ruling by the Planning Commission (September.24, 1990), to disallow a house siding change at 450 W. 3rd Street, owned by Giulio & Jenny Santori. The signatures below are that of neighborhood residents who are in support of this petition. ' INAM, .'. . '��:!GI /gyp♦ ' � 3 . i ' ct 1 PAGE 2 (Cont. from }ge 1 re: siding change) ) —" WFIVED — Nov 6 1990 Signature Date Address COMMUNITY CEVLEOPMENT 21 3 y 0-4 70 23_-�ti ���/� /� U 24. —( I C-1 1 i� — -- I o / i'i ¢Lo _ W UUt z ✓� —f-c� S r w 26. �� a TiJ (D / cJ S��vGc� _ ' a -L..— - �LC G:• 27. /0 z� SUSS, 4./ ^vS?] kl 28. 2 l0 3 z - o. r c z 1. r 0 8'76 00 S Ib Z b 1050. % Sc/ �aS�i�T 34. G /0 a Gss l� ti/ 36 goer�i�� 8 .L 245� -7v - fro Tfi,2] 5T. 41. / o p So Gc 1% Sc� 42. rd 4 _ S 101 ,\ 44' 46. �v G✓ /"l�c i slJ2t 4 ll v S t 484 Y �l�jn %(� 2�0 /0lfi�� zg- rx� c rc/ 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1990 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .5 L PUBLIC HEARING NO. I 11-5-90 Inter - Coni 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 14, 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. 140 appeal was received within the 7 day appeal period as defined by Ordinance 1001. August 1, 1990 - The applicant reapplied for the same proposal as previously submitted on March 14, 1990. August 8, 1990 - A Certificate of Appropriateness was again denied on the same findings as the March 27, 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 Christine A. ShinglSbn Senior Planner Director of Community Development DF:CAS:kbc\sanappl.df Attachments: Planning Commission Report, September 24, 1990 Community Development Department 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(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 24, 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 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 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. 7 3 4 5 G 7 8 9I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 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 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. 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2C 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. 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. 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. 1 3 4 J G 7 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 iG 17 is i9 20 21 99 2:i 24 2.5 26 27 28 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 Report 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. 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 a Cultural Resource Overlay District. Upon that determination, the applicant has the ability to appeal A TTA CHMENT 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 character 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. 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 Desicrnated 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. 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 Jackson, Sr. Christine A. Shing on Associate Planner Director of Commune y Development CEJ:CAS:kbc Attachment: Resolution No. 2836 Community Development Department 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19, 20 21 23 24 25 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. 10 that the proposed improvement is not in character with the narrow clapboard siding which is found on Colonial Revival homes of its period. E. 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 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1990 CO , UNIT DE LOPA4EWT -- - e:�5- 6;4wTr/2/ v �771V. 6'hWS71-4/E 'roof/ i6v '2 W7-/14�il /f%r'--22 yi64� To l ooers OicTtf/S CO/I PZ,67TFGY /•v�Tc�A� /UI � %/�Ej O �CS %OGz�' �/S c�72lJCTUr 17-S OcSw� 71?x U T��v T Ti9 19uJ61 7G�i9S Oj/E�i2 l%S�9/�G® 7TH �DU2 �©D17 �IiQ�E��%�/llT/zN,D 72�/T/l� L�T� KI -Y %101P 64% : 77y� �5, / ✓��rr�/rTie / E T �� Tis v'sE c�AzeE7724-o ` Y O EYA115' 1151T 11 Al ( t 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 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 8, 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 with the architectural style of the 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 built by the average resident of Tustin in the 1920's. The City of Tustin Historical Survey classifies this house with a "B" rating which represents some of the best that remains of the past, and is a 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 made in writing to the Community Development Department within seven (7) 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 D' for of Community Development Daniel Fox Senior Planner DF:CAS:kbc cc: Chris Jackson March 14, 1990 Toy Tustin Planning Department Fromi 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. Secondly, 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. 6(Jo/z!,(1, ,Wotz' 11V AlZo6lee-S-S Pc1-9ti/fiNO /06 S Respectfully yours, G. Santori IN T 151 � City of Tustin Community Development Department March 27, 1990 G. Santori 450 W. 3rd Street Tustin, California 92680 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, Califomia 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 th,e 19201s. 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 fol Christopher E.Jackson Associate.Planner. CEJ:CAS:kbc GnlrLleLn street architects Inc. September 19,1990 Chris Jackson Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: 450 W. Third St. Dear Chris: EX4 a IN T 35 We have reviewed the issues surrounding this case and recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's denial of die Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new siding. We base 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 IX 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 blvd newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8647 (714) 673-2643 match the existing siding in terms of species of wood (probably redwood) and shape. This material can be ordered from lumber yards such as Ganahl in Anaheim. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. very truly yours, John C. Loomis President encl. 2s BUILDINO: EXTERIOR FEATURES -- continued Wood: Clapboard, weatherboard shingles, and ocher u in Recommended 8etalning existing material, when- ever possible. itapairing or replacing, where nec- aseary, deteriorated material with new material that duplicates in size, shape, and texture the old as closely as possible. Architectural Metals: Raowrne7u3s42 Not Reoomnended Removing architectural features such as siding, cornices, brackets, window architraves, and doorway pediments. These are, in most 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 at aluminum siding. Such material can also contribute to the deterioration of the struc- ture from moisture and insects. Cast iron, steel, pressed tin, aluminum, zinc Cleaning, when necessary, with the appropriate method. Case iron and steel are usually not affected by mechanical cleaning methods while pressed tin, zinc, and aluminum should be cleaned by the gentlest method possible. Not Recommended 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 cc be protected from the environment. Do not uae cleaning methods that alter the color or texture of the metal. FCENUIAL 5 STANDARDS - eontinuod c` 7. Tha surface claaaina Of atructuras shall be undertaken with the aentlast means posaibla. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeolo- gical resources affected by, or adjacent to any acquisition, protection, stabilization, praaervation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. 4 GENERAL STANDARDS The foZZoun: ganaral standards apply to aZl treatmonta undertaken historic propartioe Zistad in the National Ragister: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible for a property that raquiras minimal alteration of the buildir tura, or site and its environment, or to use a property for it originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing 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 when possible. 3. A11 buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their 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 ocm right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. 6, Deteriorated 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, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from othar buildings or structures. ADDRESS: 4593RD ST (W.) DATE: 1924 STYLE: COLONIAL REVIVAL - 20S SOURCE: RATING: T D+ ALTERATIONS: I - COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: 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, Ranked 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 =1 end of the front facade, match those used throughout the rest of the house., I CN I RI CANCH: Ch:n'les Iuld Clnrn Wilsrm ncquired this pngrerty . 2 lids - in 1921 from Alice Hubbard and owned it until I969. Wilson built Life house fur 55.000, All cxpcusivc (muse far dmsc days. Iwssibly because of the wide elm -cd waln"t ntolding',=I Around the ceilings in cath room. Wilson .wAs A water -well contractor, working in Tustin and for the Irvine Company. He received recognition in 1945 when he 3rought in the deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -inch slovcpillc cuing. The well, located on the Rorchard anch on Ritchey St., Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep. There arc few Tudor Revival homes in Tustin. This one is a good example of that tyle and representative of the size and general shalx: being built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's. F-MIeIT .c" •4L�Y.1 I tIf 1 1 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, Ranked 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 =1 end of the front facade, match those used throughout the rest of the house., I CN I RI CANCH: Ch:n'les Iuld Clnrn Wilsrm ncquired this pngrerty . 2 lids - in 1921 from Alice Hubbard and owned it until I969. Wilson built Life house fur 55.000, All cxpcusivc (muse far dmsc days. Iwssibly because of the wide elm -cd waln"t ntolding',=I Around the ceilings in cath room. Wilson .wAs A water -well contractor, working in Tustin and for the Irvine Company. He received recognition in 1945 when he 3rought in the deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -inch slovcpillc cuing. The well, located on the Rorchard anch on Ritchey St., Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep. There arc few Tudor Revival homes in Tustin. This one is a good example of that tyle and representative of the size and general shalx: being built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's. F-MIeIT .c" Inter - Com DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1990 CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Well COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I;IQIV, B AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On Monday, October 1, 1990 the City Council requested staff to obtain a recommendation from the Cultural Resource Board on an appeal of the Community Development Department's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant proposed to install new butt joint, shiplap edge siding at 450 West Third Street in the Cultural Resource overlay District. The item has been appealed and will be reviewed by the City Council after a recommendation has been made by the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee. 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 a Cultural Resource Overlay District. Upon that determination, the applicant has the ability to appeal 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 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 applicant re -submitted the identical plans and the issuance of a COA was again denied on August 8, 1990. On September 24, 1990, the Planning Commission reached a split vote decision on overturning the Community Development Department's decision, thereby upholding the denial by staff. Please review the attached report to the Planning Commission for additional information on this case. Memo to Cultural Resource Board 450 West Third Street October 10, 1990 Page 2 CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Cultural Resource Board review and recommend to the City Council a course of action on this project. Your recommendations will be included in the formal report to the City Council on November 5, 1990. Christ pher EY Jackson, Sr. Christine A. Shing ton Associate Planner Director of Community Development CEJ:CAS:kbc\sanappl.cej Attachments: Planning Commission Report, September 24, 1990 Community Development Department ReITEM port to the ��, A Planning Commission DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING APPLICANT/ G. SANTORI OWNER: 450 W. 3RD STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 LOCATION: 450 WEST THIRD STREET ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)/CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(A) REQUEST: AN APPEAL TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET. RECOMMENDATION 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 Ov&rlay 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 withi-n a Cultural Resource Overlay District. Upon that determination, the•.applicant has the ability to appeal L� 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 character of homes built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's. 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: .r 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. M yeslgnatea 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. 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 . Jackson, Sr. Christine A. Shing ' on Associate Planner Director of Commune y Development CEJ:CAS:kbc Attachment: Resolution No. 2836 Community Development Department 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221 24 25 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. 10 I* 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. 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 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 AT1aLiIHENT /-5- 6f��7- IVFO- - %tA"--- .... . ..... - --- ..TO ,QA.._ --- 12 12 S •9/zGY _ . �/ �S'1"_ Ef12 / G(/ tJT A /-0 7-- YZ § - k:V 2:: h-�9-Z.9_aVS _07- 01VLY�ifJ.%ffE -- ---- 4 X- X Oi1- fes_ c9 r/%G�SO_ TffE�.UT�2/d2 D ��C _-S'�EC/,S �iC �/S_ ��✓ECr ----ave-._ LZ T � ��- GZ1oszA` 114�10 jlwv ; .7(] /P1} % 12Z--itJ 7- >6u >6u 2�IA7-//% To �o(f)l-rs D,c:-��tis AC,26,�cSE Col�Mee5TFGY /,vW 41J�/T/D/ll - / IC-IV7l6 U2C.4SC,� lT Iry o T TE�o� T / igT�ff� v tiTsi�, o CE�, 'tiV No / ry /� -7 TS T E T/s/� vL5::: 0 OZ, ET Z G� � -aG� v �.n _ �� City of Tustin August 8, 1990 G. Santori 450 West Third Street Tustin, California 92680 Community Development Department SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING, 450 WEST THIRD STREET 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 8, 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 with the architectural style of the 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 built by the average resident of Tustin in the 19201s. The City of Tustin Historical Survey classifies this house with a "B" rating which represents some of the best that remains of the past, and is a 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 made in writing to the Community Development Department within seven (7) 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 D' for of Community Development Daniel Fox Senior Planner DF:CAS:kbc cc: Chris Jackson March 14, 1990 To% Tustin Planning Department Fromt 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 electrical panel change (modern circuit breaker type). Unfortunately, the siding cannot be purchased today. Secondly, 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. CcLCY/Z/�9L �(/o/L6(/S 12 S -S Pcn�� AVO /06 9 Respectfully yours, G. Santori uzele City of Tustin March 27, 1990 -EAIINTt t Community Development Department G. Santori 450 W. 3rd Street Tustin, California 92680 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 Ch ristopher E. Jackson Associate.Planner CEJ:CAS:kbc c,rllr�i��r� street architects inc. September 19,1990 Chris Jackson Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: 450 W. Third St. Dear Chris: We have reviewed the issues surrounding this case and recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's denial of die Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new siding. We base 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 Cat 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 nccessary new material should architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8647 (714) 673-2643 match the existing siding in terms of species of wood (probably redwood) and shape. This material can be ordered from lumber yards such as Ganahl in Anaheim. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, John C. Loomis President encl. PREA$g 28 BUILDING: EXTERIOR FEATURES -- continued Hood: Clapboard, weatherboard, shingles, and other woadan aidinR Reconmiended Retaining existing material, when- ever possible. Rapairing or replacing, where nec- assary, deteriorated material with new material that duplicates in size, shape, and texture the old as closely as possible. Not Reoomnended Removing architectural features such as aiding, cornices, brackets, window architraves, and doorway pediments. These are, in moat 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 in 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. Architectural Metals: Cast iron, steel, pressed tin, aluminum, zinc R000mnended Not Recommended Removing architectural features that are an essential part of a building's character and appear- ance that illustrate Che continuity of growth and change. Cleandng, when nece"ary, with the appropriate method. Cast iron and steel are usually not affected by mechanical cleaning methods while pressed tin, zinc, and aluminum should be cleaned by the gentlest method possible. Exposing metals that were inten- ded to be protected from the environment. Do not use cleaning methods that alter the color of texture of the metal. FCE R RAL STANDARDS - continued 7. Tha surface cleaning of stmcturss shall be undertaken with the gentlast means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that Will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeolo- gical resources affected by, or adjacent to any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. ADDRESS: 450 3'RD ST (W.) DATE: 1924 STYLE: COLONIAL REVIVAL - 20S SOURCE: RATING: T B+ ALTERATIONS: p COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: 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. Denzil 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, are located on cacti 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 cut end of the front facade, match those used throughout the rest of the house.a SIGNIFICANCE: Charles mal Clan, Wilaul acquired this property - 2 lots - in 192.1 from Alice Hubbanl and owned it until 1969. Wilson built the house fur 5$,tHH), all expensive house for dmsc days, possibly because of the wide ca ved walnut "Inkling used around dtc ceilings in each room- Wilson was a water -well contractor, working in Tustin and for die Irvine Company. Ile received recognition in 1945 when he brought in the deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -inch stovepipe casing. The well, located on the Borehard ranch on Ritchey St., Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep. There are few Tudor Revival homes 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 1920.5. EMI 61T "C" El GENERAL STANDARDS The folZooting general standards apply to aZZ treatmenta undertaken historic propertise listed in the National Register. 1 Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible i for a property that raquiras minimal alteration of the bulldinj turn, or site, and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing 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 when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their 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 significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skillad craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated 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, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing archttactural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Y G O� '� � City of Tustin Community Development Department September 26, 1990 George Santori 450 West Third Street Tustin, California 92680 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Dear Mr. Santori The Tustin Planning Commission at their regular meeting on September 24, 1990 reached a split vote on your request to overturn the Community Development Department's decision to deny your Certificate of Appropriateness to install a shiplap 5 inch width siding at 450 West Third Street. The split vote results in the previous decision of the Community Development Department to be upheld. The Community Development Department has received your appeal letter and will schedule the item for the next available City Council meeting. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Christine A. Shingleton J404�9- - Christopher E. Jackson, Sr. Associate Planner CEJ:kbc PC: 9/90 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544-8890 � ��-<Z`PT ? 0 VEECEIVED S E p 2 5 1990 COM," U( Y NEL�JP°�EE�T BY C'� a4Piln n �i2�"c7or� �,/ �.U/iy U •v �Tl ,�EvELO�iL�C�/" CH2/ST/rrJC 7 -OX/ ZD,o9N/L-L AO'X Gfi/L/S VAM,5oa/ ,f;D vg �T /O IiU S✓"I e z XL '-la6,Ti4J61' G . 4? - 0O Ts77V "o �����LL iM7 .%/41ub d T Report to theme Planning Commission DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 ITEM #4 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORIS DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING APPLICANT/ G. SANTORI OWNER: 450 A. 3RD STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 LOCATION: 450 WEST THIRD STREET ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)/CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301(A) REQUEST: AN APPEAL TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF NEW BUTT JOINT, SHIPLAP EDGE SIDING AT 450 WEST THIRD STREET. RECOMMENDATION 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 Departments 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,a Cultural Resource Overlay District. Upon that determination, the .applicant has the ability to appeal 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 S, 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 character 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. 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 adverselv 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. 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 le. Jackson, Sr. Christine A. Shing ' on Associate Planner Director of Communi y Development CEJ:CAS:kbc Attachment: Resolution No. 2836 Community Development Department 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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. E. that the proposed improvement is not in character with the narrow clapboard siding which is found on Colonial Revival homes of its period. 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 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 ATT64ltlEf4T "A# 417-1 0 - �IV PZ 714 x� RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1990 Col%�ITUEg MENT BY 7- V, cSA—A179–,V'., , — - .2r.- .,y /Z ,oC S7/,S /zz y ._. --- ---- _mow- ���_� ���-�G����r./_ c�� ti��„- ... ... .. . . ..-To-__.9E. — . T�ZV-IW y --9 7b o o ol � Fa: Ylo� ... 76- 07 ie7X 7Z7/2-/O,,-Z- 90 -25IV72FI2/dV PZ4110 /A / llucl-Az - As- .10 7� /119a2P19Y 12Z--ti7-�14 sT/Zt:� i6c; 7lHlqr/1'5rtl TCIIWJe!��77tE G OOHS 0�"Tii`/S iOU�SE �j/r//�`LET�GY /•v572- / �l T /���j O �C-CsT�G �/s cS72vcTL a /rs (5i4/zV/Vo- L OlJZ/T/O/(J oO /2" T T E�oi�rT '2 70ti�-xrTsAlft/�,o �uJ6� Y �ECf (JS� 17' ZZ S Itk,-M �%Si9/ 206 17-Y- �-' /,UTA C eT /7io o/jv�s-s G y 1101P&064E 77 � X oo/TSDST/ IS E/C �sPE�T��CC y �vj2.s� i o`er Y � `� City of Tustin August 8, 1990 G. Santori 450 West Third Street Tustin, California 92680 t*151T"Al It Community Development Department SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF NEW SIDING, 450 WEST THIRD STREET 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 8, 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 with the architectural style of the 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 built by the average resident of Tustin in the 19201s. The City of Tustin Historical Survey classifies this house with a "B" rating which represents some of the best that remains of the past, and is a 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 made in writing to the Community Development Department within seven (7) 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 D'f_reqor of Community Development Daniel Fox Senior Planner DF:CAS:kbc cc: Chris Jackson March 14, 1990 Tot Tustin Planning Department Fromt 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 eleci,rical panel change (modern circuit breaker type). Unfortunately, the siding cannot be purchased today. Secondly, 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. EcECY/Z/cyG ((Ja/Ld( /SOI�O(� ��/ /fid Ei/Z�SS IV6 /06 9 Respectfully yours, G. SantLo%ri Y G �� City of Tustin March 27, 1990 E#41NT"Au I Community Development Department G. Santori 450 W. 3rd Street Tustin, California 92680 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 Christopher E. Jackson Associate.Planner CEJ:CAS:kbc thirtieth street architects ince September 19,1990 Chris Jackson Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: 450 W. Third St. Dear Chris: EAG -11617 e We have reviewed the issues surrounding this case and recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Community Development Director's denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new siding. We base 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 blvd newport beach, california 92663 fax (714) 673-8647 (714) 673-2643 match the existing siding in terms of species of wood (probably redwood) and shape. This material can be ordered from lumber yards such as Ganahl in Anaheim. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, John C. Loomis President encl. 28 BUILDING: EXTERIOR FEATURES -- continued Wood: Clapboard, weatherboards shingles, and other wendan aiding Recommended ketaining existing material, when- ever possible. &apairing or replacing, where nec- essary, deteriorated material with new material that duplicates in size, shape, and texture the old as closely as possible. Not Recommended Removing architectural features such as siding, cornice&, brackets, window architraves, and doorway pediments. These are, in most 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. Architectural Metals: Cast iron, steel, pressed tin, aluminum, zinc Recommended Cleaning, when necessary, with the appropriate method. Cast iron and steel are usually not affected by mechanical cleaning methods while pressed tin, zinc, and aluminum should be cleaned by the zentlest method possible. Not Recommended 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. De not use cleaning methods that alter the color or texture of the metal. 1 5 GENERAL STANDARDS — continued 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeolo— gical resources affected by, or adjacent to any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project. 4 GENERAL STANDARDS Tice following general standards apply to all treatments undertak histortia properttios Zietad in the NationaZ kagiater: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatibl for a property that requires minimal alteration of the build ture, or site and its environment, or to use a property for originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing 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 when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their 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 significanca shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftamanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the now material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. ADDRESS: 450 311 D ST (W.) DATE: 1924 STYLE: COLONIAL REVIVAL - 20S SOURCE: RATING: T H+ ALTERATIONS: 1. COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: A -1 odor -style roof, with a hipped peak on both the side -facing gables and lite front -facing porch roof, crowns the Colonial Revival bungalow at 450 Third Street. Dentil trim, retuvis, 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, are located on each side of die 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 die cast end of the front facade, match those used throughout the rest of the house.., S IC NI RI CAN CR: ------- •-••••—•••,., ,.,,.w,,, ""Imre' nus piuperty _ 2 lots - in 1924 from Alice liubbanl raid owned it until 1969. Wilson built tite house for $5,0()0, all expensive house fur those days• possibly because of the wide caned walnut molding used around the ceilings in each room. Wilson was awater-well contractor, working in Tustin :utd for the Irvine Company. Ile received recognition in 1945 when he brought in tic deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -inch stovepipe casing. The well, located on the Borchard ranch on Ritchey St., Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep. There are few Tudor Revival homes in Tustin. This one is a good example of that style and representative of die size and general shape being built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's. INT "C„ 'ti,�'•r... lit; \,.t, �Nr -; � .. A -1 odor -style roof, with a hipped peak on both the side -facing gables and lite front -facing porch roof, crowns the Colonial Revival bungalow at 450 Third Street. Dentil trim, retuvis, 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, are located on each side of die 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 die cast end of the front facade, match those used throughout the rest of the house.., S IC NI RI CAN CR: ------- •-••••—•••,., ,.,,.w,,, ""Imre' nus piuperty _ 2 lots - in 1924 from Alice liubbanl raid owned it until 1969. Wilson built tite house for $5,0()0, all expensive house fur those days• possibly because of the wide caned walnut molding used around the ceilings in each room. Wilson was awater-well contractor, working in Tustin :utd for the Irvine Company. Ile received recognition in 1945 when he brought in tic deepest known water well using one unbroken string of 16 -inch stovepipe casing. The well, located on the Borchard ranch on Ritchey St., Santa Ana, was 1475 feet deep. There are few Tudor Revival homes in Tustin. This one is a good example of that style and representative of die size and general shape being built by the average resident of Tustin during the 1920's. INT "C„ OFFICIAL NOTICE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF TUSTIN Notice is hereby given that a Cultural Resources Advisory Committee is scheduled for October 18, 1990 at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Development Department at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Agenda items to be discussed include the following: 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Appeal 450 West Third Street 2. Town Hall meeting on Old Town Tustin 3. Cultural Resource designation by address 4. Status of other work efforts Information relative to these items is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890, ext 250. �„ „ -VD i3rz� J p�2,o,� nzwsc, s ,mss at OFFICIAL NOTICE 4 --ti LJF�- OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF TUSTIN Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, will consider on November 5, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California the following: Appeal of the denial of a Certificate of Aupronriateness A appeal by G. Santori requesting the City Council to overturn the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed installation of new siding at 450 West Third Street. The subject Property is further described as Assessors Parcel No. 401-363-8. Information relative to this item is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544=8890, extension 250. Mary Wynn City Clerk Publish: October 25, 1990 h$eFT b. P05(A& Al Ep {Z'J 06 , �i4•F� i'I�tP�'-P-G--f� F,r,OF-- h 1%'fAII.I":G I I5N ^•. RAI-DRIS h;' P NOTICE TO NOTICES NAP! POSTED AT CIL Y Y.' INITIAL DATE Ronald L. Young Frank H. Greinke Randy Strickland 200 South A Street P.O. Box 4159 455 W. Third Street Tustin, CA 92680 Orange, CA 92613 Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-01 401-362-02 401-362-04 Donald E. Via 9851 Kite Drive Huntington Beach, 92646 401-362-05 Orville Emerson, Jr. 12421 LaBella Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 401-362-08 Frank H. Greinke P.O. Box 4159 Orange, CA 92613 401-362-11 LaVelle H. Wright 12691 Arletta Cir Garden Grove, CA 401-362-14 401-362-15 David R. Chrislip 1242 S. Huron Drive CA Santa Ana, CA 92604 401-362-06 Steven K. Dibbern 535 W. Third Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-09 Jeff Minarik 245 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-12 J.M. Ruiz, Jr. 26601 Las Ondas Dr 92640 Mission Viejo, CA 401-362-16 Anthony N. Kawashima 6 Autumn Leaf Irvine, CA 92614 401-362-18 William R Jones 440 W. Second St Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-21 Dorothy A. Chittenden 320 S. A Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-02 Shirley J. Robinson 425 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-05 Giulio D. Santori 450 W. Third St Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-08 Arthur M. Charleton 460 W. Second St Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-19 Mary B. Ware 515 W. Third Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-07 Richard P. Poe 265 S. Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-10 Sandra J. Firth 205 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-13 Thomas L. Elliott 510 W. Second St 92691 Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-17 Larry L. Ellis 430 W. Second Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-22 Jessie L. Willbrandt 27061 Agrado Mission Viejo, CA 92692 401-363-04 Elma J. Illingworth 445 W. Main Sstreet Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-06 Edward R. Wellman 450 W. Second St Tustin, CA 92680 401-362-20 Helen M. Gritz Helen M. Hayward 302 S. A Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-01 Shirley J. Robinson c/o Shirley Cook 415 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-04 Dorothy Deering 455 W. Main Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-07 Joan S. Threadgill John C. Hall Mrs. Eloise H. Sawinski 430 W. Third St 440 W. Third St Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 401-363-10 401-363-09 Patricia Ferreira Sutcliff 330 California St Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-01 Tibor Brasso 540 W. Third St Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-04 Lucille S. Brinser Lucille Ross 17 Pepperwood Laguna Bch, CA 92656 401-371-01 Wintford L. Tadlock 135 S. Myrtle Ave Tustin, CA 92680 401-372-02 Edna E Dalby 525 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-02 First Advent Church 555 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-05 Gwendolyne Fay Brown Family Trust 1001 S. John P1 Santa Ana, CA 92605 401-371-02 401-371-03 Donald A. LeJeune 440 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-372-03 First Advent Church Christian of Tustin 555 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-03 Loyd Dixon 500 W. Third Street Tustin, CA 92680 401-364-06 Jon Sharp 520 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-372-01 Paul J. Snow 430 W. Main St Tustin, CA 92680 401-372-04 Edmond D. Johnson Richard M. Vining Charles W. Young 3211 Ibsen St 400 W. Main St 340 W. Main St San Diego, CA 92106 Tustin, CA 92680 Tustin, CA 92680 401-372-05 401-372-06 401-372-07