TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Chad Ortlieb, Principal Planner
FROM: Ryan Agbayani, Associate Planner
1. Subject
title
A request to construct a new residence and a detached rear residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to replace a fire destroyed residence at 221 S. Earlham Street (Design Review No. 5090-22).
end
2. Summary
body
The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence with two attached single-car garages and a rear detached elevated second residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with open tuck-under parking to replace a fire destroyed residence.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Denial by the Design Review Committee.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Farshad Shagoshtasbi
Property Location: 221 S. Earlham Street
General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
Zoning Classification: Residential Duplex 6,000 Sq. Ft. (R-2-6)
Existing Development: Vacant Lot
Associated Application: Minor Site Plan Review No. 1113-22; Accessory Dwelling Unit No. 0164-22
Previous DRC Project Review: None
5. project description
The applicant proposes to construct a new 1,504 sq ft two-story residential unit (first floor: 558.56 sq ft, second floor: 945.85 sq ft) with two attached single-car garages at the front of the property and a new detached two-story building at the rear of the property consisting of an ADU (673 sq ft) and tuck-under parking on the first floor, and a second residential unit (1,245.35 sq ft) on the second floor.
The project plans include an ADU. ADUs are ministerial approvals and are not subject to Design Review Committee (DRC) approval. However, the ADU is included in the project plan set because it is an integrated part of the rear unit. The DRC action may not include or be influenced by the ADU. Should the DRC choose to approve the project, staff will subsequently process the ADU under a separate action.
The Municipal Code requires each duplex unit (up to four bedrooms) to have two off-street parking spaces. At least one parking space per unit must be in an enclosed garage; however, the second required parking space can be open or unenclosed. As such, the duplex requires a total of four off-street parking spaces. To meet required parking, the applicant proposes two attached single-car garages at the rear of the front unit. One will be reserved for the front unit, and one will be reserved for the rear unit. The rear unit incorporates two tuck-under open parking stalls (one for the front unit and one for the rear unit). Each unit will have one enclosed single-car garage and one reserved unenclosed tuck-under parking spot. No parking is required for the proposed ADU, which is located within a half-mile of public transit (e.g., bus stop).
The design of the proposed buildings take inspiration from the architectural vernacular of the historic El Modena Barrio, incorporating gable roofs, balconies, horizontal siding, sliding windows, faux shutters, and composition shingle roofing. Both structures would be painted a light green (color: Dried Eucalyptus).
The west (front) elevation of the street adjacent building would be setback on the second floor level to accommodate a balcony. A minimimally projecting gable projection would occur at the balcony above the first floor. The southern portion of the west elevation would be inset five feet to provide articularion of the wall plane for greater compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The north and south elevations would be continuous planes with second story stepback at the front and projection at the back. A balcony is incorporated into the south elevation. The rear elevation consists of second story windows over garage doors.
The west (front) elevation of the rear unit would consist of open parking spaces tucked under a cantilevered second story with a slightly recessed balcony. A pole and bollard system structurally props up the second story bewteen parking spaces. The southern portion of the second story is catelievered over the first. A series of minimally overlapping roof gables are provided for visual interest. The north elevation is a continuous wall plane with exception of the recessed tuck-under parking. The south elevation is also a continuous wall plane. The east neighbor-facing elevation consists of a continuous place interruped by a balcony and windows.
With respect to landscaping, one Desert Museum Palo Verde tree is proposed at the southwest corner of the property within the front yard setback. A total of nine Cypress trees are proposed along the rear property line and six additional Cypress trees are proposed along the side property lines in specific locations near the rear unit to create privacy screening to/from the adjacent neighbors. Artificial turf is proposed within the front yard setback and at the rear of the property. The remainder of the site is paved with concrete.
6. EXISTING SITE
The existing 0.12-acre site is currently vacant. Based on past historic aerials and records, the site was previosly developed with a one-story cottage-scale bungalow with a detached accessory structure (garage) in the rear. On September 8, 2021, a demolition permit was issued to demolish a single-family dwelling and garage due to a catastrophic fire. The permit was finaled on November 8, 2021, and the site has been vacant since then. The current applicant acquired the property in the second half of 2022.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The subject property is located mid-block on the east side of S. Earlham Street with E. Washington Avenue to the north and E. Marmon Avenue to the south. To the immediate north is a recently constructed one-story single-family dwelling with detached one-story ADU in the rear (property impacted by fire at the project site). To the immediate south and east are duplexes with two one-story units each. The existing zoning designation of the subject property and all surrounding properties is Residential Duplex 6,000 Sq Ft (R-2-6). All existing buildings and dwellings on the eastside of S. Earlham Street are one-story cottage-scale bungalows. There are three existing residential dwellings on the westside of S. Earlham Street that are two-stories; however, the other four dwellings are one-story.
8. analysis and statement of the issues
Issue 1 Scale and Mass
The proposed project consists of two detached two-story structures on a 40-foot-wide, 135-foot-long lot. The existing streetscape on the eastside of S. Earlham Street consists exclusively of one-story cottage-scale structures, as do the properties that abut the project site to the rear. The second story of the proposed front unit is stepped-back minimally (seven feet) to soften the mass from the street view by incorporating a second-story open balcony. However, the proposed second-story balcony step back is inadequate to effectively break up the massing and scale of the new structure to be responsive and compatible with the single-story cottage-scale of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the north and south elevations lack meaningful design elements to break up the scale and mass of the structure.
The rear unit incorporates indentations in plane; however, much of the indentation is awkward due to the accommodation of understory garage parking. There are no meaningful design elements incorporated on the north, east, and south elevations to break up the scale and mass of the buildings. Overall, staff’s opinion is that the proposed units are very “box-like” with no significant design elements to break up the scale and mass of the two-story structures, thus resulting in an un-successful transition from the single-story predominance of the neighborhood.
Issue 2 Privacy Concerns
The proposed two-story units create potential privacy concerns for the adjacent properties to the north, east, and south, which are all developed with one-story dwellings. During the review process, the applicant eliminated some second-story windows and incorporated cypress trees along the property lines to create additional screening. Although these items help to mitigate potential privacy concerns, the potential for views into neighboring properties from window and balcony placement persists. The lack of mitigating design elements and tiered modules of the proposed second stories continue to perpetuate potential privacy concerns.
Issue 3 Minimal Landscaping
Per the Irrigation and Planting Plan on Sheet L1.0, a total of 16 trees are proposed on site. Only one tree is proposed at the front of the property. The remaining 15 trees are concentrated towards the rear of the subject site to mitigate potential privacy concerns from the second-story windows. Artificial turf is proposed within the front yard setback and at the very rear of the property. The rest of the site is paved. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping is inadequate, and that additional landscaping should be implemented to contribute to open space and recreation.
Issue 4 Fences on Property Lines
The applicant is proposing new fences on the northern and southern property lines. There are existing wood fences with CMU block pillars along the northern, southern, and eastern property lines. Should the project move forward, the applicant will be required to coordinate with the adjacent property owners for demolition of existing walls and construction of new shared walls to comply with the Municipal Code requirement that no parallel fence or wall be constructed less than five feet from an existing fence or wall.
Issue 5 Access to Parking Spaces
The proposed entry doors of the two single-car enclosed garages are configured facing the rear of the property, thus requiring vehicles accessing the garages to maneuver through the driveway and within the interior drive aisle/back-up space to enter. This configuration is unconventional compared to traditional street-facing or side-facing garages. Although the proposed configuration meets the minimum required 12-foot driveway width and 25-foot minimum back-up space, staff questions the practical functionality of the rear-facing garages and anticipates future uses of the garages being used for storage, rather than their intended purpose of parking.
The under-story open parking spaces at the rear unit are separated by structural bracing poles for the dwelling protected by bollards. Despite the bollards, staff is concerned about the potential damage to the structural support poles, which could create a life safety issue. As such, staff believes that an alternative design is warranted.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
On November 4, 2022, March 1, 2023, December 13, 2023, and February 28, 2024, the City’s interdepartmental Staff Review Committee (SRC) reviewed the proposed plans and supplemental documents and provided corrections. On June 19, 2024, the SRC deemed the project complete to proceed to DRC review, despite unresolved reservations regarding design.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
On July 25, 2024, public notices were mailed to a total of 201 property owners and occupants within a 400-foot radius of the project site. A public notice was posted at the site on that same date.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15270(a), because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
Findings for DRC applications come from four sources:
• The Orange Municipal Code
• The Infill Residential Design Guidelines
• The Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne (commonly referred to the Old Towne Design Standards or OTDS)
• Orange Eichler Design Standards (or OEDS)
The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC deny the project.
• 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 (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).
The proposed project does not uphold community aesthetics because it fails to respond to the prevailing scale and architectural articulation of the surrounding neighborhood. The street-facing west elevation does not incorporate enough of a stepped-back tiered configuration to be consistent with the exclusively one-story cottage-scale streetscape on the eastside of that block. Additionally, the side and rear facing elevations are predominantly unarticulated and do not incorporate design elements that break up the “box-like” elevations facing the adjacent properties. Lastly, the proposed dormer element on the north elevation of the front unit incorporates a relatively steep slope, which is not integrated with the more “gradual” slopes of the gable roof elements on the two units.
The neighborhood and surrounding development consist primarily of one-story cottage-scale residential dwellings. The existing two-story structures on the west side of S. Earlham Street incorporate some design elements (e.g., dormers or shifted rooflines) to break up the scale and mass of the two stories. However, the proposed two-story structures of the proposed project are not compatible in scale and height to blend in with neighboring structures because the two-story detached buildings overwhelm them with their disproportionate size. Furthermore, there is no harmonious transition between the existing one-story development and the proposed project because the second-story elements are not divided into smaller “modules” to break up the mass and scale. Additionally, the proposed “dormer” element on the northern elevation of the front unit is out of place and incorporates a very steep slope in comparison to the gradual slope of the gable roof. Lastly, there are potential privacy concerns given the close proximity of the second stories to the property lines. There are no tiered modules to create some separation between the second-story windows and balconies to the adjacent properties.
13. CONDITIONS
No conditions are provided because the project is a denial recommendation.
14. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
• Attachment 2 - Project Plans
• Attachment 3 - Applicant Project Narrative Letter
• Attachment 4 - Digital Color and Materials Board
• Attachment 5 - Development Standards Reference Table