Loading...
SR - APP-545-16 - ACCESSORY SECOND UNIT 812 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUEpP OR�� AGENDA ITEM May 10, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THRU: Rick Otto City Manager FROM: William Crouch, AICP, AIA NCARB, LEED (AP) Community Development Director ReviewedNerified By: City Manager Finance Director To Be Presented By: Marissa Moshier, Associate Planner — Historic Preservation Cons Calendar _ City Mgr Rpts Council Reports _ Legal Affairs Boards /Crates X Public Hrgs Admin Reports Plan /Environ 1. SUBJECT APPEAL HEARING: Appeal No. 545 -16 - An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Variance No. 2240 -16 and Design Review Committee No. 4475 -10 for the Yaghi Accessory Second Unit at 812 E. Washington Avenue in the Old Towne Historic District. 2. SUMMARY An appeal by Councilmember Mike Alvarez of a decision by the Planning Commission (PC) to approve Variance (VAR) No. 2240 -16 and Design Review Committee (DRC) No. 4475 -10. The project includes relocation a historic single family residence and attached garage forward on the lot by 8 feet; removal of non - contributing additions; construction of an attached 638 square foot accessory second unit, including a new rear addition to the historic building; and a Variance to eliminate the code - required one additional parking space for the accessory second unit. 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION Motion on Appeal No. 545 -16 14. FISCAL IMPACT Potential minor property tax gains from improvements to the property. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) 3(c). Enhance and promote quality of life in the community; support and enhance attractive, diverse living environments. ITEM _11,1 5/10/2016 5(b). Recognize, promote and preserve Orange's rich heritage; expand and strengthen processes and practices related to protection of cultural resources. 6. GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Land Use Element Goal 1.0 Meet the present and future needs of all residential and business sectors with a diverse and balanced mix of land uses. Policy 1.3 Provide a range of housing densities and types to meet the diverse needs and lifestyles of residents. Goal 5.0 Maintain and enhance the vibrant, transit- accessible, pedestrian - friendly, and livable character of Old Towne's neighborhoods and commercial core. Policy 5.5 Continue to require consistent, high quality, historically- referenced design within Old Towne. Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Element Goal 1.0 Identify and preserve potential and listed historic resources, including buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts, and archaeological resources citywide. Policy 1.4 Encourage alternatives to demolition such as architecturally compatible rehabilitation, adaptive re -use, new construction or relocation. Goal 3.0 Provide incentives and expand education efforts for historic preservation. Policy 3.2 Provide incentives to encourage and support historic preservation. Urban Design Element Goal 5.0 Maintain Old Towne's identity as the only authentic and intact historic downtown in Orange County. Policy 5.3 Require infill development to be compatible with the scale and appearance of neighboring historic structures and to comply with all applicable historic preservation design and development standards and Secretary of the Interior standards. 7. DISCUSSION and BACKGROUND Proiect Background/Desian Review Committee Recommendation Property owner Shucri Yaghi submitted a Land Use Project Application requesting construction of an accessory second unit at 812 E. Washington Avenue in 2010. The project included construction of the accessory second unit in the large setback in front of the existing single family residence. The subject property was designated as a contributor to the National Register of Historic Places - listed Old Towne Historic District in 1997. The applicant submitted a report from a consultant finding that the building was not a contributor to the Historic District and that new construction in front of the house would not negatively impact the historic streetscape. The DRC ITEM 5/10/2016 reviewed and continued the project, requesting additional information on the historic resource evaluation of the property. Staff analyzed the available historical data on the property and found that the existing building was constructed within the Old Towne Historic District's period of significance (1888- 1940). It retains sufficient integrity to be considered a contributor to the Historic District. However, the rear portion of the building, consisting of a utility room and portions of the bedrooms, appears to have been constructed after 1940 and should be considered non - contributing features of the property. In 2014, the applicant submitted a project to move the existing house forward on the lot to a 20 foot front yard setback and construct a new detached accessory second unit at the rear. This proposal provided all code - required parking at the rear of the property. The DRC reviewed and continued the project on August 5, 2015. The DRC determined that the large front setback and configuration of the building on the lot, with the attached garage, were character - defining features of the property. The DRC asked the applicant to study alternatives for retaining the character of the large front yard with the residence and attached garage at the rear of the lot. The DRC requested that the applicant and staff consider potential variances or administrative adjustments for the project based on the property's unique historic character. In 2016, the applicant submitted the current project to relocate the building forward by 8 feet, place the accessory second unit in the existing building, and construct a rear addition for additional living space. At the DRC meeting on February 17, 2016, the Committee determined that the 8 foot relocation of the building did not negatively impact the character - defining feature of the large front yard and was compatible with the character of the Historic District. The Committee also extensively discussed the option of placing the code - required parking space within the front yard setback. Given that the historic building is nearly the full width of the property, providing an uncovered parking space for the accessory second unit would require either detaching the historic garage and demolition of a portion of the building or placing an uncovered parking pad in the front yard. The DRC ultimately determined that a parking space in the front yard is not compatible with the character of the Historic District. The Committee recommended approval of the project with the variance request to the Planning Commission with a 3 -1 vote, with one member recused. The DRC found that the project, including elimination of the required parking space, was in conformance with the Old Towne Design Standards and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards). Planning Commission Action On March 21, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider VAR No. 2240- 16 and DRC No. 4475 -10. The Planning Commission considered the entire record, including all testimony and additional information offered at the public hearing. The project approved by the Planning Commission consists of: • Relocation of the historic residence and garage on the property. The building will be relocated forward on the lot by 8 feet to a 58 foot setback for the attached garage and 63 ITEM 5/10/2016 foot setback for the residence. This setback has been designed to maintain the historic relationship of the residence to the street, one of the distinctive characteristics of the property. • Construction of an accessory second unit. The existing building will contain both the primary residence and an attached 638 square foot accessory second unit, each accessed from two existing doors on the front elevation. Non - contributing additions at the rear will be removed and a new addition will be constructed to provide additional living space for the primary residence and accessory second unit. The front elevation of the building will remain largely unchanged. • Variance for the elimination of one code - required parking space. Under the Orange Municipal Code, one uncovered parking space is required for construction of a new accessory second unit. Existing parking on the property must be maintained, and the new uncovered parking space may not be a tandem space. The property has an existing one - car garage that will be extended to allow space to park a vehicle. Given that the historic building is nearly the full width of the property, placing an additional uncovered parking space at the rear would require demolition of a portion of the building. The DRC recommended approval of the Variance, because the Committee found that placing a parking space in the front yard or substantially changing the configuration of the buildings on the lot is not compatible with the character of the Historic District. The following issues were discussed in the March 21, 2016 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4): 1. Relocation of Historic Building 2. Elimination of Parking Space for Accessory Second Unit The Commission voted 3 -1, with one Commissioner absent, to approve the project based on the findings and conditions included in PC Resolution No. 03 -16 (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission found that the unique historic character of the property, with the large front setback, justified granting the Variance. Public Comments There were three public speakers at the March 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. One speaker was the project architect, in favor of the application. Two were residents opposed to the application. 8. APPELLANT'S STATEMENT On March 31, 2016, Councilmember Mike Alvarez appealed the Planning Commission decision based on the following statement provided in the appeal application (Attachment 2): I would like the entire City Council to have the opportunity to determine if this approval for a variance relating to parking is an abuse of discretion in light of recent compliants regarding parking issues. I also question whether the circumstances were present to allow ITEM 5/10/2016 the elimination of the code required parking space for a new accessory second living unit. The final issue of ignoring the Secretary of Interior Standards that do not recommend the relocation of Historic buildings. 9. CONCLUSION Under California state law, an accessory second unit shall be permitted on property containing a single family residence, provided that the project meets the required development standards. This project meets all required development standards for an accessory second unit, except for the code - required one additional parking space. The applicant has demonstrated that one uncovered parking space can be accommodated on site through alterations to the historic building or historic setting. In the previous proposal reviewed by the DRC in 2015, the residence was proposed to be separated from the garage and relocated to a 20 foot setback. This allowed space for parking at the rear of the lot, but eliminated the character- defining front yard setback. In the approved project, a paved parking pad could be placed in the front yard, either parallel or perpendicular to the existing driveway. This would alter the historic streetscape with additional paving and a vehicle in the front yard, which the DRC determined was not compatible with the character of the Historic District. The DRC determined that preservation of the character- defining feature of the historic front yard setback outweighed the benefit of providing one additional parking space on site. The Planning Commission concurred with the DRC and approved the Variance to eliminate the parking space with findings that the constraints placed on the property by the configuration of the historic building on the lot and the character - defining large front yard setback justified the Variance from the code - required parking. Therefore, the issue before the City Council is the preservation of a character- defining feature of the historic property or providing code - required parking on site. 10. ATTACHMENTS Attachments to Report 1. Vicinity Map 2. Appeal No. 545 -16 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 03 -16 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 21, 2016 5. Planning Commission Minutes from Meeting of March 21, 2016 6. Plan approved by Planning Commission as Exhibit A, dated March 20, 2015 CC: Councilmember Mike Alvarez 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Shucri Yaghi 112 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite D Orange, CA 92866 ITEM 5/10/2016 Craig B. Wheeler, Architect 58 Plaza Square, Studio G Orange, CA 92866 ITEM 5/10/2016