DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Transcription

1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: MAY 17, 2017 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Imboden and Members of the Design Review Committee Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Director of Community Development Anne Fox, Contract Staff Planner DRC NO Orange Art of Dentistry SUMMARY The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,000 square foot office building and related site improvements to construct a 2,565 square foot office building including related site improvements to establish a dental office. This project was continued from the Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting of January 18, 2017 where comments were provided to the applicant suggesting design changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Staff recommends that the DRC recommend approval of the proposed project subject to conditions of approval contained in the Staff Report and any conditions that the DRC determines appropriate to support the required findings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Contact: Applicant/Owner: Property Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Existing Development: Property Size: Associated Applications: PUBLIC NOTICE James Le, Coastal Estates & Development Dr. Kha Le 2006 West Chapman Avenue General Commercial Max 1.0 FAR (GC) C2 (General Business) 2,000 square foot office (veterinary clinic) building with six parking spaces and related site improvements Acres (10,530 SF) Minor Site Plan Review No & Administrative Adjustment No No Public Notice was required for this level of review of 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 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because it consists of the construction of a new, small (< 10,000 SF in urbanized area) structure zoned for such use, not involving the significant use of hazardous substances, where all necessary public services are available and where the area is not environmentally sensitive. PROJECT DESCRIP TION The applicant proposes the demolition and removal of the existing veterinary clinic building and the existing on-site improvements (parking and landscaping) on a 10,530 square foot, mid-block lot located on the south side of West Chapman Avenue between South Marks Way to the east and South Flower Street to the west. The current ingress/egress to/from the site is via two 30-foot wide driveways along West Chapman Avenue that will be removed, and is proposed to be replaced with a single driveway with a 27-foot wide entry aisle leading to 12 parking spaces. An additional five feet of right-of-way will be dedicated and the reconstruction of the off-site improvements will provide a driveway to current City standards that is ADA compliant and restores all brick banding within the eight-foot sidewalk area, including two new street trees. The project was originally presented to the DRC at the meeting of January 18, At that meeting, the applicant was directed to refine their proposal. Key issues included the following: Concern that the building wasn t buildable as shown conceptually. It was recommended that a licensed professional review the plans for basic conformance with Building Code requirements interlacing building systems. Building exterior should take on a simpler form, appear as an office rather than retail use, which will translate to a simpler landscape palette modern design approach. It was suggested that the design incorporate a flat roof with raised parapet, asymmetrical façade and building mass, with pitch or raised portion to give prominence to the building entrance. Requested that plan sheets and drawings be consistent as there were discrepancies between site plan, floor plan, landscaping, lighting and elevations. Asked for the landscape plan to be more considerate of tree sizes, placement as they relate to parking lot striping, and a simpler palette with a more thoughtful distribution of shrubs and groundcover. Attachment 3 contains a point-by-point response from the applicant to all of the DRC comments. The revised plans propose construction of a new 2,565 square foot, one-story, office building on the most southern portion of the site, with zero-foot setbacks along the rear and side yards. The building is rectangular in shape with a three-foot-high raised parapet surrounding a flat roof at an overall height of 14 feet, six inches, with a raised centered parapet, flat roof at an overall height of 20 feet, six inches. Plans do not specifically call out a cap or trim piece at the parapet edge. The parapet roof design architecturally screens the roof skylights and the mechanical equipment. The exterior walls are proposed to be finished with a smooth stucco painted gray. Trim and two column

3 Page 3 of 8 elements on the north façade are proposed to also be finished in a smooth stucco, painted a rust color. Metal trimmed commercial storefront windows, including clearstory, and doors using nonreflective bronze glass are also proposed on the building, north façade. Six decorative black wall sconces adorn the building exterior s front (north) facade. Supporting site improvements include a trash enclosure located within northeast corner of the site, setback approximately 14 feet from the West Chapman Avenue right-of-way. Elevations of the enclosure were not included in the revised plans, but notes on the Site Plan indicates that it would masonry block, conform to the City Standard Plans and Specifications No. 409, and have vines planted to help with softening its appearance. Further, the Perspective Plan shows the enclosure in a color that appears to match the field color proposed for the building. An existing six-foot high block wall located on the westerly property line will remain. The parking lot area also includes the installation of four light poles at a height of 23 feet. A Conceptual Landscape and Irrigation Plan shows that a total of 15 new trees, one 36-inch boxed sized Strawberry Tree, and seven 24- inch boxed and seven 15-gallon sized Crape Myrtle Trees are proposed. A mix of shrubs that include Blue Hibiscus, Flax, Kangaroo Paw, Rhaphiolepis, Euonymos, Daisy, Compact Myrtle, Spanish Lavender, and Liriope are located throughout the planter areas of the parking lot and front yard setback area. EXISTING SITE The 0.24-acre site is improved with a one-story, 2,000 square foot office building that previously served as a veterinary clinic, surrounded by parking and landscaping areas. Although there are no physical obstructions to the parking lots and drive-aisles between the subject property and properties abutting on the east and south side, no formal reciprocity agreements or restrictions are in place that would limit redevelopment of the subject property. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project site is located within the former Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west all maintain similar zoning and land use designations. The site is located in an urbanized area of the City that is in transition. Staff is currently evaluating or has evaluated several proposals for property redevelopment, façade improvements, and overall site improvements along this stretch of West Chapman Avenue. The area consists of commercial uses such as retail commercial centers, office buildings, and food establishments. The properties immediately abutting the subject property on the south, east and west sides each have one-story commercial structures. Properties to the north across West Chapman Avenue are developed with two-story office buildings. There is no predominant architectural style and new development within this area of West Chapman Avenue are guided by the Design Standards for the former Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, Thematic District #2 transition linking historic Old Towne and the contemporary developments further west. EVALUATION CRITERIA Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section establishes the general criteria the DRC should use when reviewing the project. This section states the following:

4 Page 4 of 8 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 Issue 1: Integrated Design Theme Architectural Features The architectural features of the proposed building have been revised to simplify the form and mass of the building. However, the window and door elements do not seem to complement the revised building form and lack a comfortable rhythm. The clearstory windows appear too large and square; and there is no alignment with the more vertical, rectangular shaped windows below. The north façade is still attempting to combine symmetrical and asymmetrical elements window sizes and lack of a defined entry point to the building. The design concept still seems to be somewhat incomplete and needs some further refinement to completely resolve the issue of aesthetics. Landscape The type, size and location of the proposed landscaping has again been revised to comply as much as possible with the minimum requirements for number of trees, sizing and reduced irrigation use. However, the total number of trees required based upon the City s formula outlined for development of a C2 Zoned parcel is still deficient by one tree. Therefore, the applicant is seeking Administrative Adjustment approval from this requirement (Issue 2). Secondary Functional and Accessory Features The trash enclosure is proposed to be located in an area of the site that is highly visible from West Chapman Avenue. This is not an optimum location for such an accessory structure, particularly when there are still no elevations provided to

5 Page 5 of 8 determine if it is architecturally compatible with the building. This issue could be resolved through conditions regarding finishes and colors. Mechanical equipment is anticipated to be located on the flat portion of the roof, surrounded by a three-foot parapet and appears to be architecturally screened, although equipment sizes and a cross-section were not provided. The photometric plan was not revised with this submittal and shows that the proposed light poles and fixtures within the parking lot area present a very high foot-candle measurement on the paved surfaces directly under the light source. The fixture is compatible with the revised building form; however, the six building mounted fixtures should be changed to a more modern or streamlined appearance to better coordinate with the revised building architecture. The above issues need to be resolved in order to support the finding of an internally consistent and integrated design theme that upholds community aesthetics. Staff is requesting that the DRC add conditions of approval to address the specifics of some of the yet defined project elements to gain a more cohesive aesthetic. Issue 2: Number of Trees (Landscape Design) The City s formula for calculating the number of trees is based upon combining the project site s perimeter measurements, building perimeter and parking lot drive aisles and then dividing by 36. Based upon Staff s calculation of the measurement, which does not duplicate the linear measurement of the building perimeter where it is at zero setback; the project should show a total of 16 trees being provided. The proposed design indicates a total of 15 trees, one of which is 36- inch box, seven of which are 24-inch box size, with the remaining seven at 15-gallon. Overall, this deficiency in the number of tree is less than ten percent. A deviation from a required development standard that is ten percent or less is subject to approval of an Administrative Adjustment by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, the DRC is acting as a recommending body for the Administrative Adjustment for the reduced number of trees related to the appropriateness of the landscape design. While Staff believes that this minor deviation from the number of required trees can be supported, the DRC had previously expressed concern regarding the spacing, sizes and variety of the trees. The sizes of some of the trees has been increased, but the spacing still does not align with the parking lot striping and the planter depths may not accommodate the initial planting. The DRC also expressed a concern for the distribution and palette selected for the shrubs and groundcover in the planters. This issue appears to have not been resolved with the revised plan. Staff requests that the DRC provide some additional direction to the applicant regarding the landscape material and coordination with the building architecture. This issue can also be resolved by requiring the applicant to provide a final landscape plan review to the DRC prior to issuance of building permits. With the recommendation for approval of an Administrative Adjustment and the imposition of the condition, the issue would be resolved. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Streamlined, Multi-Disciplinary, Accelerated Review Team (SMART) considered the submittal and resubmittals over the course of five meeting agendas and at its October 12, 2016 ultimately decided to recommend that the application be scheduled for review by the DRC. The SMART recommended conditions of approval related to design have been included.

6 Page 6 of 8 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. Staff recommends that the DRC provide direction and guidance to the applicant concerning the issues as outlined in the Analysis/Statement of the Issues Section of this Report through the addition of conditions or continue any action to a future DRC meeting on the project if necessary to review revisions. If conditions can be applied to address architectural elements, Staff recommends the DRC recommend approval of the project to the Zoning Administrator based upon the following: 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 project site is not within the Old Towne Historic District; therefore, this finding is inapplicable. 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 project site is not within the National Register Historic District; therefore, this finding is inapplicable. 3. The project design does not uphold community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is inconsistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC F.3). The existing area of the City is characterized by a variety of architectural styles, ages of buildings, and sizes. The project, with implementation of DRC recommended refinement to the overall design, would incorporate specific architectural features, details and materials that complement the community aesthetics while creating an internally balanced design. The site is located in the former Southwest Redevelopment Project Area and is subject to the City s Southwest Design Standards, which identifies four thematic districts. Buildings within Thematic District #2 should be consistent with suitable architectural style of buildings within proximity and those that are more modern in design further west on Chapman Avenue. With the DRC recommended refinements, the proposed improvements will satisfy the objectives for transitional design to the central portion of District #2.

7 Page 7 of 8 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). This project is not an infill residential development; therefore, this finding is inapplicable. CONDITIONS The following conditions are applicable to the approval of the project design: General 1. All construction shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled as Attachment 2 of this Staff Report (label dated ), including modifications required by the conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee. Further, exterior building color and materials shall substantially conform to the plans and color and materials board approved by the Design Review Committee on. Any change to the exterior of the building from the approved plans shall be subject to subsequent review and approval by the Design Review Committee. 2. The applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability or claims that may be brought against the City arising out of its approval of this permit, save and except that caused by the City s active negligence. 3. The applicant, business owner, managers, successors, and all future assigns shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, including all City regulations. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. 4. Except as otherwise provided herein, this project is approved as a precise plan. If changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plot plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan without requiring a new public hearing. 5. Construction permits shall be obtained for all construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Community Development Department s Building Division and Public Works Grading Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit. 6. If not utilized, project approval expires twenty-four months from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted in accordance with OMC Section The Planning entitlements expire unless Building Permits are pulled within 2 years of the original approval.

8 Page 8 of 8 Community Services 7. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare a final landscaping and irrigation plan consistent with the grading plans, site plans, and the conceptual landscaping plan as proposed for the project for the review and approval of the Design Review Committee. 8. Prior to building permit issuance, City required irrigation and landscape inspection notes shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. Public Works Water Quality 9. Prior to City approval of the landscape plans, the applicant shall review the approved Water Quality Management Plan to ensure the proposed landscape plans are consistent with the project grading plans and that they show the proposed storm water infiltration devices and other treatment BMPs affecting landscaping areas. A copy of the proposed landscape plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Surface Water Quality Section for review and comment. Building 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees including but not limited to: City sewer connection, Orange County Sanitation District Connection Fee, Transportation System Improvement Program, Fire Facility, Police Facility, Park Acquisition, Sanitation District, and School District, as required. 11. All structures shall comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter (Building Security Standards), which relates to hardware, doors, windows, lighting, etc. (Ord. 7-79). Approved structural drawings shall include sections of the security code that apply. Specifications, details, or security notes may be used to convey the compliance. 12. The final approved conditions of approval shall be reprinted on the first or second page of the construction documents when submitting to the Building Department for the plan check process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Landscape Plan and Elevation Sheet from January 18, 2017 Plan Submittal Set 3. Final DRC Minutes for January 18, 2017 with Applicant Responses 4. Revised Plans (label-dated ) cc: James Le Dr. Kha Le Coastal Estates & Development 1176 Skyline Drive El Campo Avenue Laguna Beach, CA Fountain Valley, CA N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Design Review\DRC Orange Art of Dentistry\DRC May 2017\DRC Staff Report _Art of Dentistry_ docx