02-05-18 APP 837-839 Cambridge Street
TO: Chair Glasgow and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director
FROM: Kelly Christensen Ribuffo, Associate Planner
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 0551-18 of Administrative Design Review No. 0093-17 and
Minor Site Plan No. 0923-17 - Steckler Residence, 837-839 N. Cambridge Street
SUMMARY
An appeal of the Community Development Director approval of a proposal to construct a new single
family residence and accessory dwelling unit on a vacant lot on N. Cambridge Street.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered
and may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the action that was appealed.
AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES
OMC Section 17.08.050 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and take action on the subject
appeal application.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to OMC Section 17.08.040.A, notice of public hearings for appeal applications shall occur
in the same manner as was required for the original permit issuance. Both Administrative Design
review and Minor Site Plan applications require posting of a notice sign on the subject property at the
time a decision is made by the Community Development Director.
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
February 5, 2018
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 2
On January 25, 2018, the Planning Division posted the site at one location with a public notice sign.
Prior to posting notice, Planning Division staff received an individual request from one (1) resident
to be notified of the date and time of the Planning Commission public hearing for this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. The project consists of construction of one single family residence
and a second dwelling unit, both of which are specified as exempt projects under this exemption
classification.
There is no public review required.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Appellant: Steve Colburn
Appellant Address: 845-847 N. Cambridge Street
Project Applicant/Architect: Steve Phillips
Property Owner: Kevin Steckler, HOCHAP1738, LLC
Property Location: 837-839 N. Glassell Street
Existing General Plan
Land Use Element Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR); 2.1 - 6 du/acre
Existing Zoning
Classification:
Single Family Residential (R-1-6)
Old Towne: No
Specific Plan/PC: None
Site Size: 9,025 SF
Circulation: Access would occur exclusively from N. Cambridge
Street with one curb cut entrance
Existing Conditions: The site is a vacant lot.
Surrounding Land Uses
and Zoning:
The subject property is bounded in all cardinal directions
by properties zoned R-1-6. Use types consist of single
family residences, some including accessory dwelling
units.
Previous
Applications/Entitlements:
None applicable.
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On October 4, 2017 the Planning Division received an application to construct a new single family
house with two-story design elements and attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a vacant lot on
North Cambridge Street. The subject property was formerly part of the larger property addressed 821
N. Cambridge Street, but was subdivided into two lots through Parcel Map No. 2017 -140 earlier in
the year. The subject property is a flag lot, with access to Cambridge Street via a long driveway that
constitutes the only street frontage for the property.
The proposed new single family residence is 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms on a single level, with a
double height clerestory over the living room. The ADU is attached as a second story to the north
side of the building above one of the two garages. The ADU is the only two story portion of the
building. There are a total of four garage parking spaces provided as part of the proposed plan.
OMC Section 17.14 sets out specific development standards for residential developments within the
R-1-6 zone.
Development Standards (R-1-6)
Required Proposed Code Section
Building Height 32 ft - 2 stories 21 ft 7 in. – 2 stories 17.14.070
Fence/Wall Height 42 in. in the front
yard; 6 ft height
limit for other areas
of the property
6 ft perimeter fence 17.14.180
Floor Area Ratio
(F.A.R.)
0.6 0.43 17.14.070
Parking (Single
Famly Residence)
Enclosed garage, 2
parking spaces
Two garages, 4
parking spaces
17.34.060
Parking (ADU) 1 unenclosed
parking space,
unless exempt
Exempted – within
0.5 miles of transit
stop
Ord. 02-17 (to be
codified)
Setback, Front
(South)
20 ft 20 ft 17.14.070
Setback, Rear
(North)
10 ft 10 ft 5 ¾ in. 17.14.070
Setback, Side (East
and West)
5 ft 5 ft 17.14.070
Usable Open Space 900 SF
~900 SF, rear yard
and courtyard
17.14.110
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 4
Landscape Area 40% of front yard
setback area
41% turf block 17.14.210
As proposed, the project meets all of the development standards for the zoning district. In addition,
Single family residences and ADUs are both permitted by right in the R-1-6 zoning district.
On December 18, 2017 the Community Development Director approved the project, an approval
letter was sent to the applicant, and a notice sign was posted on the property. Over the holiday closure
the project planner received email questions from adjacent property owners regarding the project.
On January 5, 2018 the Planning Division received an appeal application from Steve Colburn, owner
of 845-847 N. Cambridge, which is directly adjacent to the subject property.
APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
Administrative Design Review (OMC 17.10.070.E)
Required Findings:
1. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally
consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans,
applicable design standards and their required find ings.
2. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange infill residential
design guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale,
massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and wi ll preserve
or enhance existing neighborhood character
Minor Site Plan Review (OMC 17.10.060.D)
Required Findings:
1. That the project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods;
2. That the project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special
design guidelines or specific plan requirements;
3. That the project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both
on- and off-site;
4. That City services are available and adequate to serve the project;
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 5
5. That the project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse
environmental effects.
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The appeal application (Attachment 1) cites several different land use related concerns related to the
proposed project, including student housing, density, and impact on surrounding property values. The
appeal also cites concerns related to privacy that may be caused by constructing a two -story tall
building in an existing neighborhood.
The scope of review of Administrative Design Review and Minor Site Plan Review focuses on design
related issues, with the goal of ensuring the new development within the city is compatible with its
surroundings, meets applicable development requirements, and can be adequately served by city
services. Review is undertaken with reference to the required findings for each application, the
development standards for the zoning district, and the Infill Residential Design Guidelines.
Based on the scope of work and architectural plans (Exhibit A) provided by the applicant, the
Community Development Director approved the project as meeting the required findings listed in the
Orange Municipal Code. The proposed building has a unified design theme, is of a compatible mass
and scale compared to surrounding development, and has been designed to maximize privacy between
properties as recommended in the Infill Residential Design Guidelines.
Land use is not reviewed as part of Administrative Design Review or Minor Site Plan Review. No
land use entitlement was required for the proposed project as both single family residences and ADUs
are permitted by right in the R-1-6 zoning district, so long as they meet all applicable development
standards. Therefore, staff has focused analysis on the design issues identified in the appeal
application, specifically window location/privacy and potential light intrusion onto adjacent
properties.
Issue 1 – Privacy
The appellant states in their application that if a two-story structure is constructed on the subject
property it could potentially compromise the privacy on their property, as second floor windows could
look down onto their property.
OMC Section 17.14.070 permits two-story buildings by right in the R-1-6 zoning district. However,
the Infill Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit B) provide guidance for review of privacy
considerations for infill in developed neighborhoods:
Section C, Privacy Considerations:
1. The placement of windows, building orientation, building height, and location of on-site open
spaces should consider the privacy of existing adjacent residences.
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 6
2. Placement of windows and openings on second story additions should not create a direct line
of sight into the living space or the back yard of adjacent properties to maintain privacy.
3. Where privacy between adjacent residences is a concern, windows should be staggered, placed
at the top third of the wall, or frosted.
4. The design and orientation of second story balconies or decks should be sensitive to windows
or private open space areas of existing adjacent properties.
The proposed building has two areas that are two stories in height. One area, on the north side of the
building, is a double height clerestory over the living room. There is no second floor proposed in this
area, so there is no potential for direct views to adjacent properties. The second area is the ADU,
which is a second floor above the garage at the southeast corner of the building, and includes a deck
facing a central courtyard
It was the opinion of staff when reviewing the proposed project that the applicant had minimized
privacy issues to adjacent properties to the extent feasible given the unique shape and location of the
lot. The majority of the building is single story, with views to adjacent properties blocked by existing
6 ft tall perimeter fences. The front of the ADU, including the deck, face inward towards a central
courtyard, away from the closest neighboring houses. There are also only three windows proposed to
face outward to adjacent properties on the east side of the building. Two of the windows are on the
upper portion of the wall and are for a bathroom and kitchen. The third window is an egress window
for one of the bedrooms in the ADU.
Issue 2 – Lighting
The appellant states in their application that there are existing issues related to site lighting on an
adjacent property owned by the same owner as the subject property.
The Infill Residential Design Guidelines to do not address exterior site lighting. However, OMC
Section 17.12.030. A states that lighting on any premises shall be directed, controlled, screened or
shaded in such a manner as not to shine directly on surrounding premises. Furthermore, lighting on
any residential property shall be controlled so as to prevent glare or direct illumination of any public
sidewalk or thoroughfares.
The approved plans for the project did not provide specific detail related to exterior lighting.
Generally this is something that is reviewed by planning staff during the building plan check and
inspection process to ensure compliance with the zoning code requirements. Any non-compliance
after occupancy of the building is handled through the Code Compliance Division.
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 5, 2018
Page 7
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff Review:
On December 18, 2017 the Community Development Director approved the subject project. An
approval letter was sent to the applicant and a notice sign was posted on the property on the same
day.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Appeal Application and Justification
2. CDD Approval Letter dated 12/18/2017
3. Vicinity Map
4. Aerial Map
Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission:
A. Approved Architectural Plans
B. Infill Residential Design Guidelines
cc: Steven Phillips
26 Windsong
Irvine, CA 92614
steve@slparchitect.com
Kevin Steckler
1012 E. Adams Avenue
Orange, CA 92867
Steve Colburn
845-847 N. Cambridge Street
Orange, CA 92866
steve@langplumco.com