DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Similar documents
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Planner Kristine Gay

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Community Mixed Use Zone Districts (CMU)

Buildings may be set back to create small plazas provided that these setbacks do not substantially disrupt the street wall s continuity.

FLORIN ROAD CORRIDOR Site Plan and Design Review Guidelines Checklist

Request Change in Nonconformity. Staff Recommendation Approval. Staff Planner Jonathan Sanders

MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued.

Resolution : Exhibit A. Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003

Architectural Review Board Report

D1 September 11, 2013 Public Hearing APPLICANT:

D. Landscape Design. 1. Coverage Intent: To provide adequate landscaping materials that enhance the appearance of development projects.

- INVITATION - COURTESY INFORMATIONAL MEETING

SMALL LOT DESIGN STANDARDS. An Illustrated Working Draft for Test Implementation

Planning Commission Agenda Item

Prepared by: Casey Kempenaar, Senior Planner

Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Residential Development

Architectural Review Board Report

WINDSOR GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form- Based Code. Staff Recommendation Approval

6 November 13, 2013 Public Hearing APPLICANT: CAH HOLDINGS, LLC

PC RESOLUTION NO ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC)

(DC1) Direct Development Control Provision DC1 Area 4

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Policies and Code Intent Sections Related to Town Center

VILLAGE OF SKOKIE Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Districts NX Neighborhood Mixed-Use TX Transit Mixed-Use CX Core Mixed-Use

The Village. Chapter 3. Mixed Use Development Plan SPECIFIC PLAN

Planning Commission Staff Report June 5, 2008

SUBJECT: PREDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW OF PROJECT LOCATED AT E. COLORADO BOULEVARD (PASEO COLORADO)

Chapter PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL (PC) ZONING DISTRICT

4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre. South fields Community Architectural Design Guidelines Town of Caledon

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

PLANNING BOARD REPORT PORTLAND, MAINE

CITY OF MERCER ISLAND DESIGN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Request Conditional Rezoning (R-15 Residential to Conditional A-24 Apartment) Staff Recommendation Approval. Staff Planner Jimmy McNamara

FRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGE (Phase 2) Residential Project

Residential Design Guidelines

BACKGROUND / DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES

MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES

CITY OF KEIZER MASTER PLAN APPLICATION & INFORMATION SHEET

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Recommendation Approval

CENTERS AND CORRIDORS

3.4 Business & Light Industrial Parks and Buildings

B L A C K D I A M O N D D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S for Multi-family Development

Division VI Community Mixed Use (CMU) Architectural Guidelines and Standards

7 November 12, 2014 Public Hearing

Highland Village Green Design Guidelines

KASPER. City of Georgetown, Texas PUD Planned Unit Development. December 30, 2015 Revised January 27, 2016

13. New Construction. Context & Character

DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES

Planning Board Hearing October 20th, 2016

Chapter 4: Jordan Road Character District

Harmony Technology Park Third Filing, Second Replat Custom Blending, Project Development Plan/Final Development Plan - FDP #130021

Design Review Commission Report

City of Lafayette Staff Report Design Review Commission

URBAN DESIGN BRIEF URBAN DESIGN BRIEF 721 FRANKLIN BLVD, CAMBRIDGE August 2018

COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION

Commercial Development Permit Area

Building & Site Design Standards Application

VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

Incentive Zoning Regulations Florida Municipal City of Orlando

Chapter 11. Industrial Design Guidelines 11.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 11.3 SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES 11.2 GENERAL DESIGN OBJECTIVES

12 January 12, 2011 Public Hearing APPLICANT: TAILWIND DEVELOPMENT GROUP,LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

B. Blocks, Buildings and Street Networks

Future Five. Design/ Development Guidelines. January 2008 Amended June 08 per City Council motion

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

D3 January 14, 2015 Public Hearing

1. General Purpose. 3. Uses

8 October 14, 2015 Public Hearing

ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES

4.9 Mendocino Avenue Corridor Plan Design Guidelines

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS MEDICAL DISTRICT

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES Site Plan and Design Review Principles Checklist

SECTION TWO: Overall Design Guidelines

Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, :30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL

Multi family Residential Development Permit Area

REQUEST Current Zoning: O-15(CD) (office) Proposed Zoning: TOD-M(CD) (transit oriented development mixed-use, conditional)

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012

Good Design Guidelines for Downtown. Preliminary Findings and Recommendations

PROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

Chapter 5: Mixed Use Neighborhood Character District

BOULEVARD AND PARKWAY STANDARDS

BUILDING SCALE AND SETBACKS 5 ELEMENTS:... 5 FAÇADES (COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL) 5

INSTITUTIONAL USE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY TECHNIQUES

Infill Residential Design Guidelines

ORDINANCE WHEREAS, this Ordinance is consistent with the City of Winter Garden Comprehensive Plan; and

CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS

Rezoning Petition Final Staff Analysis June 18, 2018

Landscape and Streetscape Design 2.5

DRAFT. 1. General Purpose. 2. Area of Application. 3. Uses CLIFTON PLACE AREA A DC2 (DRAFT)

Transcription:

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: APRIL 5, 2017 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Imboden and Members of the Design Review Committee Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Senior Planner DRC No. 4843-16 Chapman Apartments (Orange Collection) SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct 277 multiple family residential apartment units with an internal parking structure and a commercial office parking structure to replace existing surface parking. RECOMMENDED ACTION-RECOMMENDATION TO PC Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee (DRC) review and consider the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission (PC), 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 Applicant/Owner: Property Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Existing Development: Property Size: Associated Applications: Greenlaw Partners, LLC 3800 W. Chapman Avenue Urban Mixed Use 30-60 du/ac 1.5-3.0 FAR (UMIX) Urban Mixed Use (UMU) Existing 8-Story Office Building 5.77 Acres Tentative Parcel Map 008-15 (TPM 2016-125), Conditional Use Permit No. 3017-16, Major Site Plan Review No. 0845-15, Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1845-16. Previous Project Review: March 2, 2016, April 20, 2016, and September 7, 2016 PUBLIC NOTICE No Public Notice was required for this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 2 of 11 The proposed project is subject to environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV No. 1845-16) has been prepared for this project and is provided for the DRC s review and consideration. The role of the DRC is to provide a recommendation to the PC on this project and the DRC s comments may include any of the environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Comments provided by the DRC will be included in the PC 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 March 29, 2017 and posted at the site on March 29, 2017. The public review period began on March 29, 2017 and will end on April 17, 2017. Written comments must be received in the offices of the City of Orange Planning Division by 5:30 pm on April 17, 2017. PROJECT DESCRIP TIO N The applicant is proposing to replace existing surface parking spaces associated with an existing 8-story office building with a new 8-level parking structure consisting of 681 parking spaces for the office uses. Then the applicant would construct a 5-story 277 unit apartment building with an internal 7-level parking structure for the residential units. Architecture The work of architect, Richard Meier, inspired the architectural of the apartment building. Richard Meier work can be found on the Christ Cathedral campus located to the west of the site across Lewis Street in the City of Garden Grove. The proposed architectural style of the apartment complex would be contemporary, and design elements such as the roof style, window fenestration, and wall material would be consistent with this architectural style. The design elements include stucco walls, ground-level masonry, fiber-cement siding; metal railings, panels, columns, and awnings, vinyl windows, aluminum storefront, and entry stoop. Building pop-outs and offsets, variations in building heights and materials, and balconies would be added to offset the building s massing, provide human scale, and provide relief to and variation in the building form and style. The proposed architectural style of the parking structure would be contemporary with an enhanced exterior treatment, including metal mesh screens, concrete and vehicular entry signage. Landscaped green walls would be added to offset the structure s massing, provide human scale, and provide relief to and variation in the structures form and style. The parking structure would be designed to be open so that natural light can enter and to enhance visibility for security purposes. Landscape A comprehensive landscape plan for the proposed apartment complex would include a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the building perimeter, within the courtyards and common areas, and along the Chapman Avenue frontage. Proposed tree types would include but not be limited to peppermint willows, cajeput trees, fruitless olive trees, southern live oak trees,

Page 3 of 11 and Brisbane box trees. Ground-level landscape planters would be placed in various locations along the building frontages. All setbacks and other common areas not occupied by buildings or hardscape improvements; such as drive aisles, pedestrian walkways would be landscaped. The vehicular entry/exit for the parking garage of the apartments and the proposed urban plaza would include decorative pavers. As noted above, project development requires the removal of a number of trees and other landscape improvements associated with the existing parking lots where the proposed apartment complex and standalone parking structure would be developed. Although development of the overall project would include removal of most of the existing trees within the project site (approximately 74 trees), it would provide a greater number of trees (approximately 222 new trees) than currently exist. A comprehensive landscape plan would be provided for the proposed parking structure that includes a variety of new trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the parking structure perimeter. Proposed tree types would include but not be limited to peppermint willows, fruitless olive trees, southern live oak trees, and Brisbane box trees. Additionally, landscaped green walls would be provided along certain elevations of the parking structure. The proposed landscape elements for the parking structure would help to visually soften the parking structure when viewed from public areas. Lighting Lighting for the apartment complex would consist of building-mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian walkways; ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape, architectural features, and signage; interior lighting for the apartment complex and parking garage; lighting for the courtyards, including for the swimming pool area; and security lighting. Lighting for the parking structure would consist of building-mounted light fixtures; lighting for pedestrian walkways surrounding the structure; ground-mounted decorative lighting for landscape and architectural features; and interior parking area lighting. Amenities The proposed apartment complex would have access to a number of amenities, recreation areas, and services, including a leasing area with offices, employee workroom, and break room, a fitness center with restrooms, a yoga room, a centralized mailroom, a clubhouse for resident entertainment and gathering, a business center, and three internal courtyards. Each apartment unit except the studios would include either a patio for ground-level units or balcony that would range from approximately 57 to 89 square feet. All units would also include a washer and dryer room. Three courtyards internal to the apartment complex would be provided for use of the project residents. The entertainment courtyard would feature a fire pit with lounge seating on permeable synthetic turf, communal dining table with outdoor kitchen, and landscaping. The lounge courtyard would include lounge seating on permeable synthetic turf, communal dining table with outdoor kitchen, and landscaping. The pool recreation courtyard would feature a lap pool and spa, custom cabanas with chase lounges, daybeds on permeable synthetic turf, a fire pit with

Page 4 of 11 lounge seating, dining tables and barbecue counter, an entertainment terrace, lounge seating with double-sided fireplace on permeable synthetic turf, and landscaping. Furthermore, an urban plaza would be flanked by the apartment complex and stand-alone parking structure; the plaza would feature enhanced paving with flush curb and a green-wall background on proposed stand-alone parking structure. Access and Circulation Vehicular access for the proposed apartment complex would be provided via an existing, fullaccess driveway off Lewis Street and a new, restricted-access driveway right-in/right-out only off Chapman Avenue. The driveways would lead to internal private drive aisles, with decorative pavers provided along portions of the drive aisles. Vehicular access to the apartment parking garage and for service and emergency vehicles would be via the new north-south drive aisle that would connect to Chapman Avenue. Once inside the parking garage, vehicles would circulate via, internal drive aisles and vehicle ramps, wayfinding signs would be provided within the parking garage. The parking garage would be restricted to residents, guests, and employees of the apartment complex, with gated access entries. Vehicular access to the stand-alone parking structure would be provided via an existing east-west drive aisle that connects via a drive aisle on the adjacent property to City Boulevard West and an existing north-south drive aisle on the eastern end of the project site that connects to Chapman Avenue. Entry/exit to the parking structure would be on the northern end. Once inside the parking structure, vehicles would circulate via internal drive aisles and vehicle ramps, wayfinding signs would be provided within the parking garage. Pedestrian access for residents, guests, and employees of the apartment complex would be provided via sidewalks that surround the building and tie into the existing sidewalks to the north and west. Along the south and east sides of the apartment complex, pedestrian access would be through streets that are friendly to cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. A pedestrian corridor featuring a pergola and shade trees would be provided along a portion of the southern end of the apartment complex. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with decorative pavers would be provided at the parking garage exit/entry intersection with the new north-south drive aisle. Access to the individual apartment units would be provided via internal pedestrian corridors/walkways on each level of the apartment complex, as well as elevators and stairwells. Pedestrian access to the upper levels of the stand-alone parking structure would be provided via elevators and stairwells. Environmental Review The analysis contained in the MND determined that implementation of the project may result in significant environmental effects without mitigation. CEQA Guidelines requires that mitigation measures be identified for such impacts in an effort to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level and that mitigation be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. The MND includes six mitigation measures, which will be folded into Conditions of Approval. Incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impact to a less than significant level.

Page 5 of 11 Staff requests that the DRC specifically review Aesthetics Section 3.1, and Cultural and Paleontological Resources Section 3.5 in the MND to determine if there are any impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed project. EXISTING SITE The 5.77-acre site is currently developed with an existing 8-story office building consisting of 170,000 square feet and surface parking. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project site is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, within the Uptown Orange area, which is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU). The properties to the north located on the north side of Chapman Avenue are zoned R-1-6. The properties to the west, east, and south are zoned UMU consisting of a mix of professional office uses, retail/restaurant uses, and apartments. The Christ Cathedral is located just to the west in the City of Garden Grove. EVALUATION CRITERIA Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.10.070 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. 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 ISSUES The DRC reviewed the proposal for the apartment building and office parking structure at their March 2, 2016 and April 20, 2016 Committee meetings. At the September 7, 2016 meeting, the applicant requested Committee comments on the office parking structure only.

Apartment Building Comments from March 2, 2016 Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 6 of 11 Wanted the architecture of the apartment building to be further developed, building was too conservative. Liked the streetscape form and the heavy base of the apartment building. Concerned with some of the size of the larger overhangs because they were excessive. Thought that the 5-story nature of the apartment building massing was not broken-up enough. Suggested enhancing the pedestrian level. Noted that the balconies had some interesting features. Wanted the roof areas treated differently and wanted the applicant to create varying rooflines. Wanted something more interesting and original as far as the colors and materials. Apartment Building Comments from April 20, 2016 Liked the new design on the elevations because they have more harmony and agreement. Thought this was a huge improvement with the new design and that it was simple but sophisticated. Concerned with the stone façade on the lower level and wanted it to be unique and special. Not convinced the plaza was a plaza with the amount of traffic that would be in it. Liked the shades of white and the renderings. Suggested making the plaza area a zero curb line to make it a single plane and use bollards to create a safe zone. Noted the extensive glazing and asked the applicant to keep in mind the exposures it would have. Suggested using the same planting palette but making it taller. Noted the façade that faces Chapman was missing some specialness and it had a lot of repetition and no mass break. Suggested making something slightly different in the center or at the corners. Office Parking Structure from March 2, 2016 Comfortable with the parking garage architecture. Liked the effect of the circular forms on the screen wall, but questioned the randomness of them and suggested that they could be more subtle. Liked the balance of the green screen and fin elements. Thought the green screen was regimented, it need to be more and wanted something more natural.

Office Parking Structure from April 20, 2016 Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 7 of 11 Thought the weakest spot on the design was the use of the circles and suggested simplifying the design. Noted a spandrel panel had been added and suggested extending the fins up so it would look closer to what had previously been designed. Questioned the green walls that did not come to the ground and if the planter would be built into railing. Requested samples of materials and colors. Questioned the elevated panels and wondered if they should look like the ones that are alive or should they be treated differently. Suggested on the west elevation that instead of the floating green screens make something with the same material as the fins. Thought this structure was the weakest link on the whole project. Thought the design should focus on what it would look like at night. Suggested making it simpler like the existing parking structure in the area. Office Parking Structure from September 7, 2016 Noted on the front elevation of the parking structure they were controlling the growth of the vine at certain levels but it could be difficult to maintain. Suggested covering some of the openings with plant plaids to soften the parking structure. Noted the amount of maintenance needed for Boston ivy. Confused by what was green screen and what was ivy planted on the concrete and asked that it be shown more clearly on the drawings. Thought there was a huge improvement to the parking structure. Suggested having something to stop the height of the vines. Requested the Boston ivy and creeping fig be called out on the landscape plan. Wanted more detail on what would be happening on the ground including the location of footings, planters, and lights. Wanted the applicant to think about the treatment of the building and how the removal of the vines could affect the painted surface. The applicant has made multiple revisions to the proposed architectural style of the apartment complex and office parking structure in an effort to address the concerns and previous discussions with the Committee during the preliminary review stages. 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

Page 8 of 11 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 17.10.070.G.1). The project is not located in the Old Towne Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply to the application at hand. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior s standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.07.G.2). The project is not located in the Old Towne Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply to the application at hand. 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 17.10.07.G.3). The built environment is characterized by a variety of architectural styles, ages of buildings, types of development, and sizes. The project would be designed in a modern architectural style for both the wrap around apartment complex and the office parking structure that would incorporate architectural features that complement the surrounding styles, while creating a balance design internally. The landscaping introduces pedestrian oriented elements that enhance the streetscape and establish linkage between the project and surrounding office and retail uses. These elements contribute to the City s long-term goal of a vibrant mixed-use district. There is no specific plan for the 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 17.10.07.G.4). The proposal is a large-scale multi-family residential development that falls outside of the applicability of the City s Infill Residential Design Guidelines; therefore, this Finding does not apply. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION City staff completed its review of the submitted plans on March 1, 2017, and has recommended approval of the applications requested subject to standard conditions.

CONDITIONS Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 9 of 11 Staff is recommending that the DRC recommend approval of the project design and the environmental determination to the PC subject to standard conditions of approval, and additional conditions as deemed appropriate by the Committee to support the required findings and ensure the preservation of community aesthetics. 1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits date labeled including any modifications required by conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee. Any future expansion in area or in the nature and operation of the use approved by Tentative Parcel Map 008-15 (TPM 2016-125), Conditional Use Permit No. 3017-16, Major Site Plan Review No. 0845-15, Design Review Committee No. 4843-16, Administrative Adjustment No. 0243-16, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1845-16, shall require an application for a new or amended Site Plan Review. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, this project is approved as a precise plan. After any application has been approved, 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 plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan without requiring a new public hearing. 3. Subsequent modifications to the approved architecture and color scheme shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 4. Any modifications to the plans including, but not limited to, the landscaping and parking as a result of other Department requirements such as Building Codes, Water Quality, Fire, or Police shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate determining body. 5. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, all landscaping located within public areas shall include the installation of root barriers acceptable to the Public Works Department on the sidewalk side of the tree, or where conditions warrant, the installation of a Deep Root box as directed by the Public Works Director. 6. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that new mechanical equipment screening shall be installed that architecturally matches the building. 7. 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. 8. The project is considered a Priority project and will need to prepare and submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with treatment BMPs and site design features

Page 10 of 11 such as more permeable pavements, landscaping infiltration, directing roof runoff into planters and other BMPs that will serve as buffers for runoff from the site. The WQMP shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Prior to building permit issuance, construction plans shall show that all structures shall comply with the requirements of Municipal Code (Chapter 15.52 Building Security Standards), which relates to the use of specific hardware, doors, windows, lighting, etc. (Ord. No. 7-79). Architect drawings shall include sections of the Ordinance that apply under Security Notes. An Approved Products List 1/08 of hardware, windows, etc. is available upon request. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, security and design measures that employ Defensible Space concepts shall be utilized in development and construction plans. These measures incorporate the concepts of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), which involves consideration such as placement and orientation of structures, access, and visibility of common areas, placement of doors, windows, addressing, and landscaping. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, the final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange Fire Department. 12. Prior to building permit issuance, final landscaping plans for the project shall be designed to comply with the City s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines as described in Section IX et al of the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. 13. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall schedule a light reading inspection with the Crime Prevention Bureau. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. The applicant shall use shielding so as to ensure that the light standards meet the requirements of OMC Section 17.12.030 for the areas beyond the property s exterior boundaries; light spillage or pollution to surrounding residential areas shall not exceed a maintained minimum of 0.5 foot-candle. 14. 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 permits, save and except that caused by the City s active negligence. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceedings and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 15. The applicant 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. 16. Building permits shall be obtained for all construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Community Development Department s Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits may be cause for revocation of this entitlement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Design Review Committee Minutes from the March 2, 2016, April 20, 2016, and September 7, 2016 Meetings

Page 11 of 11 3. Proposed Plans cc: Donald Lamm Tarek Shaer Diamond Star Associates, Inc. Urbanestgroup 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 330 1007 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, #231 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Manhattan Beach, CA 90267