4.1. An appeal of Design Review Committee (DRC) denial of Design Review No. 5067-22 regarding the construction of a new garage at a 35-foot setback at 159 N. Shaffer Street; Appeal No. 0563-23.
Hello, as a resident of Old Towne Orange, I support this appeal. It is concerning that the fire safety issue has not been taken seriously from the DRC. The fire department has deemed the structure as is as not safe. The owners are staying in accordance with city rules and regulations while trying to build a safer structure.
It seems that where the garage will be situated is also a big issue. It appears that the request is to be at a 35 footset back. Much of the opposition from the Orange Preservation Society is that the issue is that this house wants to be at 20ft set back, which appears to be incorrect. Given the misinformation from the DRC and OTPA, it seems that this has become more of a personal issue vs. asking if the proposed structure meetings the rules set forth by the city.
Dear Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners,
OPTA has a disproportionate amount of power to limit improvements to the houses in Old Towne Orange. It is my understanding that a board member of OPTA recently built an ADU and wasn’t subject to the same restrictions. This is a classic “rules for thee and not for me” situation. Why do we all have to jump through hoops and spend tens of thousands of dollars to revise architecture plans to appease a small minority? I understand it is important to not do anything too drastic and maintain a certain look and feel for the area, but this is getting ridiculous. As it stands, the current garage is unsightly and a hazard for the surrounding neighbors. The revision that is being proposed is reasonable and will improve property values. Enough is enough!
Dear Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners,
This note is to register my continued opposition to the proposed garage/workshop/bathroom proposed at 159 N. Shaffer St in Old Towne Orange.
The scale/massing of the main house is not in proportion with the historic pattern of development within Old Towne, and increasing the scale/mass of the garage (situated in front of the house, a rarity/anomaly within Old Towne -- the photographs provided in the Agenda Packet do not mirror the situation at the subject property at all), while moving it closer to the street and widening the driveway, will only diminish the historic appearance of the streetscape and the immediate neighborhood. This project, and others that have been recently approved (the project on the 500 block of S. Grand St, for example) continue the process of negative cumulative impacts upon the historic district.
I've also read the public comments from the last DRC meeting, and while I don't personally know the applicants, I have no reason to doubt that they are nice people as characterized by their supporters. For that matter, their architect is also a nice guy. But the positive character of the applicants (and their architect) isn't a compelling reason to set aside the Historic Design Standards for Old Towne Orange, which have been in place and have served our community well for many, many years. And it also sets a bad precedent that local preservation law (OTO Design Standards) and Federal law (Secretary of the Interior's Standards) can be overlooked simply based on an applicant's standing within the community. The setback of the proposed garage and its impact on the streetscape is the issue, not the integrity of the applicants or their architect.
Please concur with the Staff's recommendation included in the staff report included with the package (from 6/21/2023), and DRC and deny this proposed project on the grounds that it does not meet OTO's Design Standards.
I oppose the request for an appeal of the previous denial of a new garage project at 159 N Schaffer. A 20 foot setback is insufficient for any Old Towne property. This is not a matter of “honoring the past” but rather is an issue of precedence for any future request by other homeowners. The historic character of the historic district is imperiled if this is to be allowed. I could support this with a 35 foot setback but not 20 feet. Just walk the neighborhood and it is clear what the character of the area is with garage setbacks. I oppose accepting the appeal for a reversal of the DRC denial.
159 N Shaffer is a beautiful example of well done preservation. It is clear that in their previous remodeling efforts these owners have made maintaining historic integrity an absolute priority. I have no doubt they will do the same with their garage project. For this reason I support the appeal. If we want to keep, and attract, families to the old town community we need to ensure that historic preservation doesn’t obstruct change for the better. The project is sure to improve upon safety, functionality, and (historically accurate) visual appeal. These are benefits not only to the current owners but the community at large.
For the good of the community, the current family, and future families of 159 N Shaffer we need to strike a better balance that doesn’t solely value imposing strict aesthetic restrictions above all else. Keeping orange a vibrant community, as with all communities, requires a certain level of evolution. 159 N Shaffer isn’t Carnegie Library, the White House or the Colosseum. We shouldn’t be treating it, or other homes in historic districts, as such. The community is vibrant BECAUSE of decades of slow change, let’s keep it that way.
I wholeheartedly support the appeal of the DRC's denial of a new garage project at 159 North Shaffer. The residents of this property have gone above and beyond to honor the quality and style of the neighborhood and want nothing more than to create a space where their family can make this property their forever home - something this community was built on and needs to continue to be an example of small town charm.
The current garage at this property doesn't meet the building standards of today and needs to be replaced. Honoring the past is important but not at the expense of smart and necessary improvements for aging properties.
Hello, as a resident of Old Towne Orange, I support this appeal. It is concerning that the fire safety issue has not been taken seriously from the DRC. The fire department has deemed the structure as is as not safe. The owners are staying in accordance with city rules and regulations while trying to build a safer structure.
It seems that where the garage will be situated is also a big issue. It appears that the request is to be at a 35 footset back. Much of the opposition from the Orange Preservation Society is that the issue is that this house wants to be at 20ft set back, which appears to be incorrect. Given the misinformation from the DRC and OTPA, it seems that this has become more of a personal issue vs. asking if the proposed structure meetings the rules set forth by the city.
Dear Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners,
OPTA has a disproportionate amount of power to limit improvements to the houses in Old Towne Orange. It is my understanding that a board member of OPTA recently built an ADU and wasn’t subject to the same restrictions. This is a classic “rules for thee and not for me” situation. Why do we all have to jump through hoops and spend tens of thousands of dollars to revise architecture plans to appease a small minority? I understand it is important to not do anything too drastic and maintain a certain look and feel for the area, but this is getting ridiculous. As it stands, the current garage is unsightly and a hazard for the surrounding neighbors. The revision that is being proposed is reasonable and will improve property values. Enough is enough!
Dear Planning Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners,
This note is to register my continued opposition to the proposed garage/workshop/bathroom proposed at 159 N. Shaffer St in Old Towne Orange.
The scale/massing of the main house is not in proportion with the historic pattern of development within Old Towne, and increasing the scale/mass of the garage (situated in front of the house, a rarity/anomaly within Old Towne -- the photographs provided in the Agenda Packet do not mirror the situation at the subject property at all), while moving it closer to the street and widening the driveway, will only diminish the historic appearance of the streetscape and the immediate neighborhood. This project, and others that have been recently approved (the project on the 500 block of S. Grand St, for example) continue the process of negative cumulative impacts upon the historic district.
I've also read the public comments from the last DRC meeting, and while I don't personally know the applicants, I have no reason to doubt that they are nice people as characterized by their supporters. For that matter, their architect is also a nice guy. But the positive character of the applicants (and their architect) isn't a compelling reason to set aside the Historic Design Standards for Old Towne Orange, which have been in place and have served our community well for many, many years. And it also sets a bad precedent that local preservation law (OTO Design Standards) and Federal law (Secretary of the Interior's Standards) can be overlooked simply based on an applicant's standing within the community. The setback of the proposed garage and its impact on the streetscape is the issue, not the integrity of the applicants or their architect.
Please concur with the Staff's recommendation included in the staff report included with the package (from 6/21/2023), and DRC and deny this proposed project on the grounds that it does not meet OTO's Design Standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tony Trabucco
Old Towne Orange Resident
I oppose the request for an appeal of the previous denial of a new garage project at 159 N Schaffer. A 20 foot setback is insufficient for any Old Towne property. This is not a matter of “honoring the past” but rather is an issue of precedence for any future request by other homeowners. The historic character of the historic district is imperiled if this is to be allowed. I could support this with a 35 foot setback but not 20 feet. Just walk the neighborhood and it is clear what the character of the area is with garage setbacks. I oppose accepting the appeal for a reversal of the DRC denial.
159 N Shaffer is a beautiful example of well done preservation. It is clear that in their previous remodeling efforts these owners have made maintaining historic integrity an absolute priority. I have no doubt they will do the same with their garage project. For this reason I support the appeal. If we want to keep, and attract, families to the old town community we need to ensure that historic preservation doesn’t obstruct change for the better. The project is sure to improve upon safety, functionality, and (historically accurate) visual appeal. These are benefits not only to the current owners but the community at large.
For the good of the community, the current family, and future families of 159 N Shaffer we need to strike a better balance that doesn’t solely value imposing strict aesthetic restrictions above all else. Keeping orange a vibrant community, as with all communities, requires a certain level of evolution. 159 N Shaffer isn’t Carnegie Library, the White House or the Colosseum. We shouldn’t be treating it, or other homes in historic districts, as such. The community is vibrant BECAUSE of decades of slow change, let’s keep it that way.
I wholeheartedly support the appeal of the DRC's denial of a new garage project at 159 North Shaffer. The residents of this property have gone above and beyond to honor the quality and style of the neighborhood and want nothing more than to create a space where their family can make this property their forever home - something this community was built on and needs to continue to be an example of small town charm.
The current garage at this property doesn't meet the building standards of today and needs to be replaced. Honoring the past is important but not at the expense of smart and necessary improvements for aging properties.