DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Transcription

1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: MAY 4, 2016 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Fox and Members of the Design Review Committee Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner DRC No , Encore Residences Hewes, 130 S. Hewes St SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct 12 senior apartments and associated improvements. RECOMMENDED ACTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The applicant is seeking preliminary review and comments from the Design Review Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Owner: Property Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Existing Development: Property Size: RC Hobbs Company SMRS Properties, LLC 130 S. Hewes Street General Commercial Max. 1.0 FAR (GC) Limited Business (C-1) Vacant Land 19,687.5 square feet Associated Applications: Conditional Use Permit , Major Site Plan Review , and Administrative Adjustment Previous DRC Project Review: None PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice will be sent for this project at the time a Planning Commission meeting date is established. Public Notice of the DRC meeting, other than routine agenda posting, will not be provided for the project because the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and there is no Negative Declaration associated with the project.

2 Page 2 of 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines (Class 32 Infill Development Projects) because the project meets the following criteria: a. The project is consistent with the existing General Plan designations, General Plan policies and, applicable zoning designations and regulations. b. The project is in the City on a site less than five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threated species. d. The project has been evaluated for significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality and no significant effects have been identified. e. The site would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. There is no environmental public review required for a Categorical Exemption. PROJECT DESCRIP TION The project is a request to construct three buildings containing 12 senior apartments, carports and garages, a fitness/community room, and trash storage areas. The total square feet of buildings is 16,319 square feet. The buildings are two-stories with parking below units, except at the westerly portion of building C which maintains ground level units (Attachment 1 Project Plans). The project is proposed under new Neighborhood Mixed Use development standards, which require less landscaping and less setbacks. The project exhibits Spanish revival architectural influence. The project buildings are described as follows: Features Common to All Buildings S-tile roofing Rough stucco A combination of double hung and slider windows Faux wood shutters Decorate window sills and lintels Decorative wrought iron rails on upper level features Round roof vents/accent tiles Faux chimneys Mildly projecting upper level pop-outs Floor separating trim on dominant elevations Gradated upper corners on carports and garages

3 Page 3 of 8 Building A Building A is a long linear building projecting into the site nearly the depth of the property at the southerly end. Building A is approximately 21 feet wide and 115 feet deep. Building B North Elevation - The interior north elevation consists of carports, trash storage areas, and community room entry on the ground floor. The second floor consists of living area windows and balconies. Two windows are in pop-out projections and the balconies are recessed, both of which provide architectural relief. South Elevation This elevation abuts the one story building to the south. Hence, the lower elevation is plain stucco wall behind the carports building. The second floor elevation consists of two pop-out windows and small windows, such as those used in bathrooms. No other architectural embellishments are provided. West Elevation - The west elevation faces a duplex property and also has plain stucco wall on the first floor and a single pop-out window on the second floor. East Elevation This elevation faces Hewes Street and consists of decorative arch openings into the carport at the street level, a S-tile roof separation between the first and second floor, and a portico balcony on the stepped-back second floor. North of the drive entrance is Building B, which spans approximately 91 feet long and 20.5 feet deep on the Hewes Street frontage of the property. Building B, particularly the east elevation, represents the predominant street view of the project. East Elevation - A faux-entry attached-portico feature exists at the center of Building B, as viewed from Hewes Street and serves to conceal ground floor storage rooms and second floor unit entry via the parking lot-accessed stairs behind the feature. The feature also provides fullheight architectural projection from the building to the roof included above it. Symmetricallyspaced arched window-like recesses on the ground floor provide articulation to the building and light to the parking garage. Arch revels, casings, and sill are components. Second floor windows are regularly and symmetrically spaced with decorative sill and lintels. Wrought iron accents are placed at patios and sills of two windows. West Elevation This is the interior motor court elevation. Garages with paneled garage doors and a central stair entry are on the ground floor. A thin trim feature separates the first floor from the second. The second floor consists of symmetrically-spaced upper level windows in a mixed array of types in that some have wrought iron accents, some have faux shutters, and some are double hung and some are sliders. No projections or indentations in plane exist.

4 Page 4 of 8 Building C North and South Elevations These elevations both contain a central arch recess on the ground floor, a story dividing trim, and a single pop-out window on the second floor. Building C is at the northwesterly corner of the site, is the largest of the three buildings, has some units on the ground floor, and encapsulates the open space area for the project. The building is approximately 94 feet wide and 66 feet deep. The ground floor open space is approximately 20 feet deep by 36 feet long, with second story unit-access walkway projections overhead. East Elevation Garages with paneled doors and carports are on the ground floor. The carports on the left side are recessed by three feet. Architectural trim separates the floors on the right side of the building. Patios with decorative wrought iron railing are central to the elevation on the second floor. The second floor consists of symmetrically-spaced upper level windows in a mixed array of types in that some have faux shutters, and some are double hung and some are sliders. An error appears in that the divided light windows on the balconies do not reflect the floor plan. Faux chimneys are on the roof. West Elevation This elevation faces the parking lot of the White Tortilla Restaurant parking lot. Sliding doors and windows, with the exception of two double hung windows on the left side dominate the elevation. There is no trim band separating the first and second floor but two popout window projections are proposed. Those windows are the only windows with faux shutters. North Elevation This elevation faces the parking lots of the properties along Chapman Avenue that are currently occupied by the donut and lube businesses. The elevation consists of equally spaced sliding doors and windows on both stories with a patio located central to the building segment above a utility closet. No architectural trim separates first and second floors. South Elevation The south elevation is internal to the development, facing a drive aisle and Building A. The open space courtyard is central to the building. On the left side are double hung windows aligned on the first and second story. No architectural trim separates the first and second story. On the right side are arched recesses to the carport like on the Hewes Street facing elevations. A trim band separates the first and second story. A double hung window is central to the second story on the right side of the elevation. Site Layout and Landscaping Immediately north of Building A is the drive aisle entrance to the site with a linear driveway that terminates at the westerly property boundary. Carport parking is on the left side on the main drive aisle and the spaces are visible from project units. A second internal drive aisle to garages and carports splits off to the right from the main entry drive aisle and separates Buildings B and C. Common open space for the project occurs in the center of Building C and inside the east end of Building A. The rear (west)

5 Page 5 of 8 and north setbacks are 7.5 feet. The south setback is about 4 feet. The Hewes Street front yard setback varies from 0 to 6 feet as authorized by the Neighborhood Mixed Use zoning standards. The applicant s landscape plan is conceptual because the applicant will be seeking to obtain DRC approval for the building layout and architecture and then returning to the DRC later with detailed landscape and irrigation plans. Per the conceptual landscape plan, landscaping is sparse around the site perimeter, except at the minimal Hewes Street facing elevation. The landscaping is sparse along the non-street facing elevations because the Neighborhood Mixed Use standards facilitate an urban feel and because the buildings require a 5 foot wide Fire Department path of travel and ladder landing pads for emergency access to upper story units. Hence, landscaping in fire access areas is limited to vine planters, and decomposed granite. Landscaping south of Building A and in the project frontage is proposed as drought tolerant shrubs. A small landscape planter with trees is proposed at the terminus of the main entry drive aisle. Palm and Loquat trees are proposed as street front accents. EXISTING SITE The site is vacant. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project is located in the El Modena area. Surrounding uses and zoning are as follows: North Individual freestanding single-story buildings occupied by auto lube and donut businesses that front onto Chapman Avenue, C-1 zone South A multi-tenant retail commercial building, C-1 zone East - A multi-tenant retail commercial center with a grocery store, C-1 zone West - A parking lot serving a freestanding restaurant and a single-story duplex property with one of the units being a 1916 bungalow with Craftsman features. The unit has a 6Z rating in the City s resource inventory and is located away from the project towards Park Street. The properties are zoned C-1 and R-2-6, respectively. Several of the surrounding commercial buildings utilize architectural materials and features similar to the proposed project building such as S-tile roof elements, stucco walls, and arched features. 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.

6 Page 6 of 8 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 THE ISSUES Issue 1 Architectural Improvements: In general, staff finds the design of the project to be appropriate internally and complimentary to the area. However, staff has identified areas where the project design may be enhanced. Staff also has identified areas where additional information would be helpful in conveying architectural details of the proposed design. Those areas include: Design Enhancement Suggestions Replacing the rectangular patio drain spouts with rounded ones Utilizing Ogee rain gutters and downspouts Replacing all sliding windows with double hung windows Adding additional dimension to plant on trim features Providing a planter and accent lighting in the Hewes Street facing portico Information for Architectural Details Sections for trim features Sections for plant on trim Casing detail Sill sections Labeling plants near fire laddering areas as soft-stemmed and low growing

7 Page 7 of 8 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION This project has not yet received a completeness determination from the staff advisory board, hence the preliminary review. 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. Findings for DRC applications come from three 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) The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC review the design of the project and make recommendations for any appropriate improvements. 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). This finding is met in that the project is not in the Old Towne Historic District. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior s standards and guidelines (OMC F.2). This finding is met in that the project is not in a National Register Historic District.

8 Page 8 of 8 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). This finding is met in that the project provides a unified Spanish revival architectural theme via the use of S-tile roofing; stucco walls; arch recessed; gradated garage, balcony, and carport features; decorative trim, sill, headers, and reveals; faux shutters; wrought iron accents; and double hung windows. The 25 foot heights of the buildings are appropriate to the area and under the 32 foot high limitation of the code. The floor area ratio of the site does not exceed the 1.0 maximum of the land use designation. The internal composition of the site accommodates drive aisle flow, parking, and private and common open space. Emergency access needs of the project area are accommodated. Landscaping is focused at the front of the site where the building setback is minimized. Landscaping is minimized in other areas which, is consistent with the Neighborhood Mixed Use development standards. There is no specific plan pertaining to the area or site. 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). The project is not defined as infill residential development. Hence, this finding does not apply. CONDITIONS Given that this is a preliminary review, conditions will be provided at the time a formal review is requested. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project plans 2. Color and material board (to be provided at meeting) cc: Roger C. Hobbs 1110 East Chapman Avenue Orange, CA N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Conditional Use Permits\CUP Hallmark Senior Apartments\DRC Preliminary Staff Report v1.docx