DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Transcription

1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: APRIL 20, 2016 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Fox and Members of the Design Review Committee Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Jennifer Le, Principal Planner DRC No Metrolink Parking Structure Project SUMMARY The Design Review Committee (DRC) previously recommended approval of the Metrolink Parking Structure Project subject to conditions. DRC review is required to make a final determination as to conformance with previously-approved plans and conditions related to brick pattern details, landscaping, and lighting. In addition, sign details for the parking structure have been further developed. DRC recommendation to the City Council regarding project signage is requested. RECOMMENDED ACTION F INAL DETERMINATION & RECOMMENDATION TO CI TY COUNCIL Staff recommends the DRC review the brick pattern options and approve the appropriate plan sheets subject to any revisions the DRC deems necessary to support the findings. Regarding signage, staff recommends the DRC recommend approval to the City Council, who has final approval authority for City projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Property Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Existing Development: Property Size: City of Orange 130 North Lemon Street Old Towne Mixed Use (OTMU) Public Institution (PI) and OTMU-15 City-owned surface parking lot 1.73 acres Associated Applications: Zone Change No , Major Site Plan Review No , Parcel Map & Environmental Review No

2 Page 2 of 7 Previous DRC Project Review: March 20, 2013, July 15, 2015, September 16, 2015, and November 4, PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice was posted in accordance with procedures outlined in the Orange Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Metrolink Parking Structure Project was approved by the City Council on January 12, 2016 along with the project. DRC s determination as to plan details fall within the scope of the previously-approved MND and nothing further is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). P R O J E C T DESCRIPTI O N The Metrolink Parking Structure s project site is 1.73 acres in size and is comprised of the proposed parking structure site (1.23 acres) and the adjacent construction staging area (0.5 acres) to the south. The project involves the removal of the existing 172-space public surface parking lot and construction of a five-level parking structure, with two subterranean levels, one at-grade level, and two above-grade levels on the 1.23-acre portion of the project site. The parking structure would provide 611 parking spaces, with 500 for transit users (Metrolink) and 111 spaces for general use. Access would be via two driveways, one on Lemon Street and one on Maple Avenue. An equipment/storage area and a bike plaza are also proposed. The structure would be clad with a brick veneer exterior wall finish to blend in with the historic masonry commercial and industrial buildings in the surrounding area. The structure openings would be squared off with metal mullions and echo the style of window openings found on many commercial buildings in the Old Towne area. Brick pilasters with a precast concrete base would be incorporated on all four structure elevations. A precast concrete band is proposed at the top of the parapet. Brick soldier courses are also incorporated into the facade to add visual interest. Parking structure access points would be accented with metal canopies. The structure height would be up to 28 feet. Two elevator towers are proposed at the north and south ends of the structure (maximum height of 41 feet) and would be finished with glass panels to allow for visibility and security. Flush-mounted photovoltaic panels and light standards are proposed on the top. The project includes construction of a new sidewalk, curb and gutter, and installation of street trees and City light standards along Lemon Street and Maple Avenue where the parking structure interfaces with the sidewalk. Onsite landscaping is concentrated on the east and north project site frontages at the base of the parking structure along Maple Avenue and Lemon Street. EXISTING SITE The site is 1.73 acres and is currently used as a 172-space public surface parking lot. The site is paved with striped parking spaces, planters, landscaping, lighting and perimeter fencing and walls.

3 Page 3 of 7 Access is via two driveways on Lemon Street. The site is located within the City s National Register-listed and locally designated Old Towne Orange Historic Districts. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project site is located in a transitional area of the City which contains a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses. The site is bordered to the north by Maple Avenue and Chapman University s Dodge Film School; single family residential and commercial uses on Lemon Street to the east; Chapman Avenue and commercial uses to the south; and single family residential and commercial/industrial uses on Cypress Street to the west. The surrounding area contains a mix of contributing and non-contributing structures. EVALUATION CRITERIA Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section establishes the general criteria the DRC should use when reviewing the project. This section states the following: The project shall have an internally consistent, integrated design theme, which is reflected in the following elements: 1. Architectural Features. a. The architectural features shall reflect a similar design style or period. b. Creative building elements and identifying features should be used to create a high quality project with visual interest and an architectural style. 2. Landscape. a. The type, size and location of landscape materials shall support the project s overall design concept. b. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of required addressing, nor shall it obstruct the vision of motorists or pedestrians in proximity to the site. c. Landscape areas shall be provided in and around parking lots to break up the appearance of large expanses of hardscape. 3. Signage. All signage shall be compatible with the building(s) design, scale, colors, materials and lighting. 4. Secondary Functional and Accessory Features. Trash receptacles, storage and loading areas, transformers and mechanical equipment shall be screened in a manner, which is architecturally compatible with the principal building(s). ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF TH E ISSUES The project was reviewed by the DRC for preliminary review on March 11, 2013, July 15, 2015, and September 16, 2015, and recommended for approval on November 4, 2015 subject to conditions. The project was approved by City Council on January 12, 2016 and construction

4 Page 4 of 7 documents are being finalized for bidding purposes. DRC is being asked to review the submitted information and to make a final determination as to project conformance with previously-approved plans and conditions. Regarding signage, DRC is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council, who will have final approval authority over parking structure signage. Issue 1: Brick Pattern At the November 4, 2015 meeting, the DRC discussed the desire to provide greater variation in the façade of the parking structure and considered several concepts for a brick pattern. The DRC provided feedback and included a project condition stating: The detailing of the brick at the two elevator towers shall come back to the DRC with a subtle pattern at the blade sign portion of the façade prior to the start of construction. To comply with this condition, the designer has provided three options for the brick pattern for DRC consideration. Option 1 shows a stacked bond brick pattern framing the blade sign on the elevator towers. In this option, the brick frame will be composed of the darkest color within the brick blend used on the building. Option 2 focuses the decorative brick pattern in the cornice of the building at the elevator tower. This brick pattern could either be composed of the darkest color in the brick blend or could consist of a change in plane in the brick pattern. Option 3 was shown to the DRC previously and represents a decorative brick pattern on the ground floor walls of the building at the elevator tower. This brick pattern could also be composed of the darkest color in the brick blend or could consist of a change in plane in the brick pattern. Refer to the Plan Sheet 4.3 options provided as Attachment 1. Meeting minutes for the November 4, 2015 DRC meeting are provided as Attachment 2. Issue 2: Landscape Plan DRC previously approved the plans for the project subject to the following conditions: Tree grate shall be as specified in the Depot Specific Plan for style and an additional ½ grate be added to each end of each tree well. On Landscape Plan L7.01 that the Nandina (S3) and Prunus caroliniana (S4) along the perimeter of the building shall have the following placement: the S3 to be in front of the panels that have openings and the S4 to be in front of panels that are solid and shall be maintained at a 6 height using 6 stakes. The landscape plan has been revised to show the shrub placement as described in the condition. Therefore, staff believes the plans are in conformance with the previous DRC condition. Regarding tree grates, the larger tree grate sizes as conditioned would result in a sidewalk condition in which a large portion of the sidewalk would be covered by tree grates with small intermittent sections of sidewalk in between, which is not a desirable condition from a visual or maintenance

5 Page 5 of 7 standpoint. Considering these factors, the City Council ultimately decided not to apply this condition to the project. As such, the landscape plan continues to show 7 foot by 7 foot tree grates. It should also be noted that the project includes an irrigation system for the street trees which was a DRC recommendation. Issue 3: Lighting Plan DRC previously approved the plans for the project subject to the following condition: With regard to lighting, the LW1s in the service yard shall be mounted below the 6 fence height. This provision has been added to the plans on Sheet E1.11. In addition, the City s Public Works Department and Police Department made changes to the street lighting plans since the last time the DRC saw them. These changes resulted in a change in the number and distribution of street lights along the sidewalk. However, the lighting styles remain the same and are a combination of the pedestrian acorn lights and tear drop style street lights. Therefore, staff believes the changes are in substantial conformance with the previously-approved plans. Issue 4: Signage The DRC previously approved plans which included sign concepts as shown on the project elevations. Additional sign information has now been developed and is included in Attachment 1. One sign on each of the two elevator towers is proposed, one on Maple Avenue and one on Lemon Street. The sign is proposed as a blade sign, consisting of a painted metal cabinet with neon letters and an orange fruit and arrow graphic. The sign is proposed at 12 feet 5 inches high by 4 feet 9 inches wide and 6 inches deep, with a sign area of 59 square feet per sign face. The sign is positioned between decorative brick soldier courses at the building s second level. The designer will bring color and materials samples to the DRC meeting for review. The Design Standards identify a maximum sign area of 15 square feet per sign face for blade signs. Although the sign area exceeds the standard, staff believes that the scale of the sign is appropriate for the size of the building and is compatible with the historic district. The sign area maximum in the Design Standards was written to limit the size of new signs on historic commercial buildings in the Plaza. Signage on these buildings is scaled to the size of typical early 20 th century storefronts and is directed primarily at pedestrians. The Design Standards did not anticipate the need for wayfinding signage directed at both pedestrians and vehicles on a new parking structure. Staff believes that a sign meeting the 15 square foot size requirement would be out of scale with the building and would not function as wayfinding signage for vehicles. The proposed sign design, materials, and exposed neon are compatible with the character of the historic district and are appropriate for the size, mass and scale of the parking structure. Staff is recommending that the DRC find the sign in conformance with the intent of the Design Standards and recommend

6 Page 6 of 7 approval to the City Council. The City Council is the ultimate decision making body for City projects and for the interpretation of City codes and standards. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS The courts define a Finding as a conclusion which describes the method of analysis decision makers utilize to make the final decision. A decision making body makes a Finding, or draws a conclusion, through identifying evidence in the record (i.e., testimony, reports, environmental documents, etc.) and should not contain unsupported statements. The statements which support the Findings bridge the gap between the raw data and the ultimate decision, thereby showing the rational decision making process that took place. The Findings are, in essence, the ultimate conclusions which must be reached in order to approve (or recommend approval of) a project. The same holds true if denying a project; the decision making body must detail why it cannot make the Findings. The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Below are the four findings that, as applicable, are used to determine whether a project meets the intent of the code related to design review and historic preservation guidelines: 1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC F.1). 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior s standards and guidelines (OMC F.2). 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 (OMC F.3). 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 (OMC F.4). Since the design conforms with the previously-approved plans and conditions, the findings as stated in the November 4, 2015 staff report still apply. Regarding the proposed sign, although the sign does not strictly adhere to the sign area requirement in the Design Standards, the proposal meets the intent of the Design Standards because the sign is an appropriate scale compared to the proposed parking structure s elevator tower which is

7 Page 7 of 7 approximately 40 feet tall. The sign is also sized as necessary in order to be readable to both vehicles and pedestrians in order to function for the parking structure use. A smaller sign that strictly meets the sign area standard would appear out of place on the 40 foot tall elevator tower and would also not fulfill its function as a readable wayfinding sign. The proposed sign design and materials, with a painted metal cabinet and exposed neon, reflect the character of early commercial signs in the Plaza. This type of sign is frequently used throughout the commercial areas of the historic district and is compatible with the historic streetscape. As such, the sign meets the intent of the Design Standards and the Secretary s Standards and is compatible with the proposed building as well as the historic district. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS No additional conditions are recommended. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Sheets L1.01, L7.01, E1.11, A3.2, A4.3 (Options 1-3), and Sign Rendering 2. Minutes from the November 4, 2015 DRC Meeting cc: Jacki Scott, City Traffic Engineer