02-22-17 TTM 6231 E. Wimbleton Court
TO: Chair Gladson and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director
FROM: Robert Garcia
Senior Planner
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Tract Map No. 0034-14, Major Site Plan Review No.0785-14,
Design Review No. 4768-14, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1841-15, located at 6231 E.
Wimbleton Court.
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to subdivide one approximately 2.08 acre lot into eight numbered lots and
two lettered lots for eight single-family houses and one common recreation area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission review the proposal and take the appropriate
action. The Planning Commission can take one of the following actions:
Recommend approval to the City Council, with required findings.
Recommend denial to the City Council, with required findings.
Continue the project to allow the applicant additional time to revise the proposal to address
any concerns/issues of the Planning Commission.
AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020 authorizes the Planning Commission to review
and take action on Tentative Tract Maps, Major Site Plan Review, Design Review applications.
Footnote (b) of Table 17.08.020 - Reviewing Bodies of the OMC states that when more than one
type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of
approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the
Planning Commission is acting as an advisory body to the City Council on all of the applications for
the subject project, given the need for City Council action on the Tentative Tract Map.
PUBLIC NOTICE
On February 9, 2017, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 75 property owners/tenants
within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and persons specifically requesting notice. The project
site was also posted in two (2) locations with the notification on that same date.
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
February 22, 2017
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is subject to environmental review per the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration
(ENV No. 1841-15) has been prepared for this project and is provided to the Planning Commission
(PC) for review and consideration. The role of the PC is to provide a recommendation to the City
Council on this project and the PC’s comments may include any of the environmental impacts
associated with the proposal. Comments provided by the PC will be included in the City Council
staff report.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt this environmental document was mailed to residents, property
owners, and tenants within 300’ of the subject property. Additionally it was advertised in the
Orange City News on December 7, 2016 and posted at the site on December 7, 2016. The public
review period began on December 7, 2016 and ended on January 9, 2017. City staff received 14
written comments during the public review period. Of the comments received one was from a
public agency asking to be kept in the distribution list for the project, the remaining 13 were from
members of the community in opposition to the proposal. The written comment and response to
comments have been included in the ENV No. 1841-15.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant: Haitham A. Hafeez
Property Owner: Yasir Jordan Kahf
Property Location: 6231 E. Wimbleton Court
Existing General Plan
Land Use Element Designation:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Existing Zoning
Classification:
Residential Single Family 6,000 SF min (R-1-6)
Old Towne: Not Applicable
Specific Plan/PC: None
Site Size: 2.08 Acres
Circulation: The site is accessible from Wimbleton Court on the southwest
side and from Pheasant Lane on the northeast side.
Existing Conditions: The 2.08 acre site is currently developed with an abandoned
residence and garage structure. The site previously served as a
palm tree nursery.
Surrounding Land Uses
and Zoning:
The project site is located in an area surround by single-family
residences to the east and south zoned Single Family Residential
(R-1-6), a vacant lot to the west zoned Single Family
Residential (R-1-7), and vacant land to the north zoned
Agricultural (A-1).
Previous
Applications/Entitlements:
None
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applicant is proposing a residential development on the 2.08-acre project site. The
applicant is seeking to develop the site with eight custom homes. The project involves subdividing
the approximately 2.08-acre parcel into eight numbered lots and two lettered lots. The project will
be developed in two phases. The project includes a clubhouse with an indoor pool and associated
common area. The common area includes an outdoor social area with grill and shade structure,
walkways, basketball paving, turf area, and seat wall, as well as a large screen hedges along the
eastern and southern borders of the lot. The slopes on the northern portion of the site will be left
undisturbed and will be included in an open space easement. Phase 1 of the p roject will include
construction of all retaining walls, drainage structures, utility stubs to all lots, the clubhouse and
common area on Lot A, the entrance on Lot B, and custom homes on Lots 3, 6, and 8. The
remaining lots (1, 2, 4, 5, and 7) will be part of Phase 2. Homes on the Phase 2 lots will be left to
individual owners to construct. The owners will be required to follow the same neighborhood theme
and architectural style established by Phase 1.
Development Standards
Required Proposed Code Section
Building Height 2 story no more than 32 feet in
height.
2 story no more than 32 feet in
height.
17.14.070
Fence height
42” Required front yard or in
the side and rear yards of
standard lots shall be limited
in height to six feet, as
measured from the highest
elevation of land contiguous
to the fence, and ten feet as
measured from the lowest
elevation contiguous to the
fence, whichever is less.
42” Required front yard or in
the side and rear yards of
standard lots shall be limited
in height to six feet, as
measured from the highest
elevation of land contiguous
to the fence, and ten feet as
measured from the lowest
elevation contiguous to the
fence, whichever is less.
17.14.180
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.60 for lots less than 10,000
SF and 0.50 for lots greater
than 10,000 SF.
Range between 0.32 and 0.54
for lots less than 10,000 SF
and between 0.26 and 0.46 for
lots greater than 10,000 SF.
17.14.070
Landscaping
All required setbacks abutting
a public right-of-way shall be
permanently maintained with
landscaping.
Meets or exceeds minimum
standards. 17.14.040
Lot size 6,000 SF Lots range between 6,000 SF
and 14,540 SF. 17.14.070
Lot frontage 60’ Range from 60’ to 79’ 17.14.070
Lot depth 100’ Range from 100’ to 132’ 17.14.070
Open space,
common 900 SF per unit 900 SF per unit 17.14.070
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 4
Parking
2 enclosed garage spaces/unit
up to 4 bedrooms accessed by
a 12 foot wide 20 foot long
driveway. For 5 or more
bedrooms, 1 additional
enclosed space.
Lots 1 through 7 have four
bedrooms, the applicant is
providing a two car garage.
Lot 8 has 6 bedrooms, the
applicant is providing a three
car garage.
Table
17.34.060.A
Parking, guest Guest parking not required for
single family residential.
Guest parking not required for
single family residential.
Table
17.34.060.A
Setback, Front 20’ 20’ minimum 17.14.070
Setback, Rear 20’ Range from 20’ to 60’ 17.14.070
Setback, Interior
Side 5’ 5’ minimum 17.14.070
APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
Major Site Plan: The applicant is proposing a Major Site Plan to subdividing the 2.08-acre parcel
into eight numbered lots and two lettered lots.
Required Findings:
1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods.
2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design
guidelines or specific plan requirements.
3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on-
and off-site.
4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project.
5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse
environmental effects.
Design Review: The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application for the
architectural design, landscaping, and streetscape improvements associated with the proposed
residential development.
Required Findings:
1. In the Old Town Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive
standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the Design Review
Committee or other reviewing body for the project.
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary
of the Interior’s standards and guidelines.
3. 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 findings.
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 5
4. 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 will preserve or enhance
existing neighborhood character.
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The project meets the general standards for single family developments in the R-1-6 zone. The
project’s issues revolve around the design quality and contextual compatibi lity with the surrounding
area. In analyzing the architectural elements, staff is of the opinion that the proposed architectural
styles have been modified to make the project visually distinctive statement and to set the proposed
development apart from the surrounding residences. The DRC has reservations about the project
design elements and questioned the applicant’s refinements to the architectural styles.
Issue 1: Architecture
The custom residences in Phase I, will establish the architectural theme for the development of the
residences in Phase II. Staff can best describe the architectural style as having a Moorish influence.
The applicant is proposing three different plans with similar but varying architectural features, and
is proposing three-color schemes. The proposed finished materials will consist of stucco with a
main color and accent colors, and a blend of clay tile roofs. The applicant use s ogival arches to
accent the building elevations, utilizes Tuscan style columns, and exposed rafter tails to add visual
interest. The window styles and treatments vary throughout the elevations. Some windows are
sliders, others are single hung windows, and some of the windows have muntins, while others do
not. The use of Moroccan design wood screens are used to cover some of the windows and doors.
The garage doors appear to be heavy and have a Tuscan feel to them, which are accented by arches.
The tree palette proposes several tree varieties with a palette of shrubs and groundcovers which are
used at the project’s internal private street and walkway system leading to the common use area,
designated at Lot A. The common area includes an outdoor social area with grill and shade
structure, walkways, basketball paving, turf area, and seat wall, as well as a large screen hedges
along the eastern and southern borders of the lot. The slopes on the northern portion of the site will
be left undisturbed and will be included in an open space easement.
Issue 2: Design Review Committee Review
At the DRC meeting of May 4, 2016 the Committee reviewed the preliminary proposal for Phase I.
The Committee noted substantial errors in the coordination between the floor plans and the
elevations. The elevations did not reflect what the roof plan indicated especially where there were
angles on the plans. The windows were not reflected in the floor plan shown and the elements
shown on the façade were not reflected in the floor plan, such as columns. The Committee
suggested the applicant hire a consultant that was familiar with the proposed architectural style
because there was not a connection between the floor plans and architectural styles. The Committee
provided general discussion about design direction addressing site planning, architecture, and
landscape approach on a general level.
At the DRC meeting of August 17, 2016 the Committee reviewed the preliminary proposal for a
second time on Phase I. The Committee noted that the new plans were an improvement from the
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 6
last submittal but refinement was still needed. There were inconsistencies of roof pitches, window
and door spacing, arches, roof changes, and plate heights. The Committee suggested creating
courtyards in the back of the some of the homes to make the space more usable. The Committee
discussed the retaining wall in the back yard areas and suggested using the contour of the land to
determine where the wall should be.
At the DRC meeting of December 21, 2016, the Committee reviewed the formal proposal. At the
meeting, the Committee felt that the project did not uphold design community aesthetics and the
project was internally inconsistent and lacked in integrated design theme, and lacked sensitivity
both internally and to the surrounding community the Committee wanted to continue the item, in
order to allow the applicant additional time to resolved the concerns expressed by the Committee.
However; the applicant felt that they had addressed the Committee’s previous concerns and
requested a recommendation from the Committee, rather than returning to the Committee, therefore
the Committee recommended denial to the Planning Commission on the proposal.
Minutes for all three DRC meetings have been attached to the staff report as Attachment 3, for the
Commission’s review and consideration.
Issue 3: Neighborhood Concerns/Public Comments
At the Design Review Committee meeting on December 21, 2016, there were four speakers
expressed concerns regarding the proposal, some of which were not within the purview of the
Committee. In general, the comments related to aesthetics, lack of landscaping, height of retaining
walls, proximity to existing homes, loss of views, privacy, ingress/egress, and impact on quality of
life.
During the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which began on December 7,
2016 and ended on January 9, 2017, City staff received 13 comments from members of the community,
all 13 commenters are in opposition to the proposal. In general the concerns are related to access to
the club house via Wimbleton Court, guest parking, height of proposed walls, use of existing
easements on Wimbleton Court and Pheasant Lane for site access, aesthetics, lack of landscaping,
impact on quality of life, traffic concerns, safety, noise, density, ingress/egress, impact to wildlife,
loss of views, height of structures, and privacy concerns.
The comments and response to comments have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and is attached as Exhibit B to the staff report for the Commission’s review and
consideration.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff Review (SMART):
City staff reviewed the proposal numerous times and completed its review of the submitted plans on
June 20, 2016, and has recommended approval of the applications requested due to the project’s
compliance with the development standards, subject to standard conditions.
Planning Commission Staff Report
February 22, 2017
Page 7
Design Review Committee:
The project was reviewed by the Committee on two separate for preliminary review. On December
7, 2016, the mitigated negative declaration was released for public review and the revised
architectural design was formally reviewed by the Committee on December 21, 2016. The
Committee recommended denial to the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-0, primarily based on
the numerous meetings with the project team, and the Committee’s consensus that the project does
not uphold community aesthetics and that the project is internally inconsistent and lacks in
integrated design theme; lacks sensitivity both internally and to the surrounding community.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Design Review Committee Minutes dated May 4, 2016, August 16, 2016, and December 21,
2016
3. Photographs of existing site
Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission:
A. Submitted Plans date labeled February 22, 2017
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV No. 1841-15)
cc: Haitham A. Hafeez
1451 S. Hacienda St.
Anaheim, CA 92804