Loading...
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