Loading...
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