The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - ZCG-1274-14 - ATTACHMENTS 4-13 CONSTRUCTION DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS 2025 NORTH ORANGE OLIVE RD Figure 1-1: Specific Plan Area .� ...�-«-.... _ _... !P ` r��. .�. 4 £ °v � ,�. ' '�...svw.r"d� t 3 � , ' :� �.. r-:. �:.� �� :.�. y '" � . r' �� '�t t + _ • �� , 1,. ' �i� K,i �.-. f = n u � � T � � n r • ,�� . �. .� �,� .� . �� a s - � � � � . � _ � , `�7MIk ._r_._ . ,.--h�-r�"�-` _�,, � ' �� -�!_ ,3r — � ��''"` .,a ` � ,�.. �� "' �.i� . � i �� ,..W..�+*-�+ �, '�� 1 , � � _ n � �� '� .. .� � �� '� �� #� � . i M.�� ,� t� - � � . . IIN �.. .� , �,w .n, . .. �a , , .. � { � �� . � .,{I � M�+�, � � ' �� ' '�r « !'.i y f; ° 'r� 1� , i'S, � ,�,, � t. » � � �¢ � � a �„. [ �'r ., - > , �� { "�.� . • ; ,/�+y,j _ , , .�, , ��" � ., � �� { ' '� - -• {'l.lJ'�4� < � _ �a„��: � H � t4,. �J �� k t�� „ x.rb .. ►- : � '� � > �� . �; '� '•- �: a 3 �. . '�s. . � �.,.�. � � � � 3 . �. �y, �:- ,..�.. ,. .� {y..a.z�,f� Ad�'a�l�i�� . . `�11 �. - =� *-�.�.. -�,.,..� .,., .. , >, � a L ' _ � . �� . .. �..c ��. .�� _ �.. . . � _ �„� � �, �,,� � .�..�.� � ��. . �_—�� . .. � - : � � . � ,� _ . � �_ . � _ � �_ — � - � . : - . . .� i S� . � � , u . a ' + +�,. : ; � ., . � �� r a � '`'' r� � _ "� •�., � _ � � � , � �`�. Q � � ;. • � ",x-,� � ,� �` ; ;�; - �, '• � i r d -.'`: �ar` . .� !� '"r. x .x, � � � ' ` ,,� �s �;; �, + � . . ,. e E � � �� F �."�. i � � �' � � � � t �k.� � *_ ,�..��x_� _�� , t� � � ry�.� ,_,�� '�� .,t `i' � ` �. ;� �,;.� —+.r q r � � < 3� zr �-+�b .l—� � ,a.:. '� � �# �;� � � r�. �'°."_ y �a� �,� � .�.aw "�� x�,'4, °� i'1'r �� " a`° � s, � �. . . w sz � �� ; ,. . ., . . ��.,. � . � i � _ � � i , � �.:. p �� 1 ' ` � �, • � � . , , � �� ,•. . . «.. ,r . ,. � � ��._ � �,..� : 'v... � }� €� , 4�.. !A'��..e.: $ � � Y �� ..�, � �- ' � ' x�',�'.. -r . � �'� -n 4 1 � � ` � '� , v� .. �.. . .� ...' i•" ��« . � g M� �_r � s k � ,z�.. � � �� , � � ,� . � } � �._ ..'...,,� � , ., , ...0 L tl . _ a � .. ' :...... .... . „� � " � "s*;�m • " �^� . ._ . � '-.� . � � -r >.- w � - ,��, . � _ . .� . s � a - r � � � ._ . r _ _� � . . ��11�li��j�.� � . � t s �I i v �.: �F.s. � `�� p� ��I � '�.� kC �,� .. �, x � �,� -� , � .F. � , , � i ' � � �� e � � 9 � , ` �" � � r " � �� , ,.. _ ' � ' s' � �,1� Ac,�r.. � �� i � . � �� '�� iy � �,�x�; � -� '�� ' A;��' _•� �i�� -a �� ,�� , � . . . � . � � _ . . _ . � � 6 ,s a�� •� " � ....�„�� ,"� _ � . �: � r y . • � � ,<. wu� � , , �� . ,. ��.,.� .� - Legend: � � Specific Plan Area ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PROJECT LOCATION MAP ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. �'�� `' City of Orange i: Environmental Advisors,LLC Orange Olive Specific Plan SITE PHOTOGRAPHS MBK Homes Orange-Olive Residential Project 2025 Orange-Olive sct Sf�e Facl Ea� � �: � ,, � . _ i �, � � .l._:�� .. ...... �a�'.. �� `s..# �¢ «y, �. , �_..., w`_. F�= � ....._�.�...._. _— ��sJ *�� — �—;__ - Pro ct Site Facl Northwest , � _- � � t i - . �...�,... � _ , ,. y•� , ,.- �i1i'.^ � � -_ . q:,..„k ' �*�4-r��;�` � � { , � ; . , "��°�,~�, � � �. .� � . , , . � �4�'�' '' +��..��- n9 # � '�5 'a' .. r.� ' ATTACHMENT NO.5 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ORANGE-0LIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. Pro)ect SRe(Facing Mortheast� ....�. �,�� _ .. .__ O�A�� ; . �`�� p . . � �,�. ��w�� . _ r :,, ,' �� ;�, r +-� } �. ` "� . L, _ � � • '� �..t+ Southem Border ot Pro ect SFte Facl East �, } � ;, i�� ; �� `� � � OE� �� #" � �� _ � . �`' �i�,=t,�, y. ,. �� ..f'�� h , �..- � � , � + ��` } - � ; � �� x � _ �� , ., °� °� �� ,�, t �_ . _ � �' � �. to-.. . . , v,,�> , �... ,-� ��. . Fro�n t s�te aci Mc�rtl�east ; , ,�.�.��k.� � , 'M„ , � ��<.�<,,,.,,�� ,y, , r�� ' � 1�� i �....�r ��`f � . �III � __ . . i�� im�i�� _ 3 _ m irt�� 6LL . ;p �',y ,� Y x `�.� &� "A'�'i PkMP xY°g- .YE *S' s, � � y ;�, g�y+: f.�� F��. .; ; ;�.3 . ..'�.r' . . . . Ad cent Pro North ot Pro at Slt� f � � - - aw ., .�� . � �.. _ , � ' `„�.��'�}�) t `� �� . . . ' � .. _ � � > r. ,r ., l�i.-' ;�..mX -,„s„ x.� 3.�,� ..-< ,�.,> ....:. : ..: ,.,:,�. �. : mr.n .a-� �. .-._ ,..,, .7 , . .� ,..: � . , , � s »s y.�, � yM' . '"✓ ...�. ..� ..: �. . . .. �. ! d Ad cent Pro North of P ct .�.;+-: �� `��,. V"" � �� r-��- �'�1;�.. ; r�'"� ., . � �p�+1 +-4?4•k..�`;.m-� �` �� .�#� i� <.... a '�i IrNarb Pro North�f t S�e :� i "�j � � s. . • �.�; •� ..,.. .. t '-nbH,aX��t� . �� ' .. . . '),i"' d ....... i <" 9La , tl:!) � I 7� _ n � . �.. � �' . wx � � :,� ' , �� x £ . � �.. , =:-. r .. __, _ �i34.w � . ..... t . �, y �M �., . : �� + iw...�.s.�*� �kre� � . ��'�. ,t� J�� I�7S , . ""�,a. T" _.. ....,.� .. ` .. ' .. � � , � �� :�� r�- � --" � � �`_ � __.�._, ��fi�x.��,:.,�..:�� ,�' � - Nearb Pro e Northweat oi Rro ect Sfte -- a..�...�._.u�.�. , - , _ � �� . -,^�`� ' � � ! � '� �. ; � �. - ,�_�' � ''r ' �� ! � �_._ a.�� r . - e ►* ` ... ... � � -, . i i �—.� �x�. .. v y . � � �l�" [:f � .ys�,�... - . ..�. ...... . /R�"1!!T""'^ :.. ^ "`�" = - �l�w £ft3�^ ' �� ,: � � t-�. _ -�.- ...r.�.,*.p�� .._..__^- ,�--.,.t. .— _��... :� :, . . , ,..._ �...,�.,,,,.._. s"32" '�..,.:�-' �, ,_.e .�. -_�_� � n ?;.�� '�M�M�1,�,,.-.- � < � . ..,.�._.. .�� -�C"� : < ' � � - - � �"` _ � .:r.._ . .. ,: , Nearby Pra ert�r�Northwest of Pro�ect Slte yW r _. . �._,.�.__.__ _ �__.� .. . � � , �� i . � !�� ..i �,k •�� , ,�., _ � ' � �• � � - { �� _ ,a, _ � � .,.. _ _ �,� . • ��. �. . ,. ��{ Y�' �'� "�, a. .w -,.-. i , ; � � ' �� '"� � . s��c�; �, �� .,�+� �� ' �,�„�i�`Y � , ��,��z�;.°�"`�f '�� .«�.r�.-�4 k „�r�,��,�",��:�� '��,�.,h � �� _...��;. a , .. . _ .... . ... ...r... .,._.. IM�ar Pro st oi P�o t Sfte . � � , • . i � _... a ' ,.� �� . � ``� ;i�� , � . ._.. e � .�„�, �a�, .. , .,:. .�� , . ,,-. _ . �_ :� � �� ? r,�=� �� . �� '_`_ �' .�__. _ _-,-. _ , 6 .,. �� - �-- ... , Atl cent P South af P ect�Re �'�� Pfl�RK��R� 1`t��s,r� �n�a� , F77E£Gttr' � ` ` i ��I lil '�, � � � �I i� �i�'�I ; k+ , . �� wur J � � s� �-' �, '�,r,.--��- � y� ��" A '� � , -� �� . . ' '�p.s,.,. �R,..,l�: �f � � � � r ,.�_ Ad c�nt P South ot Pro ect Site ..�.� *� � e r ,r $'...... :: � �� : rwawe: -,w .. . . ... ..... . .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. ... .. Planning Commission October 5, 2015 3. CONTINUED HEARING: 3.1 ZONE CHANGE 1274-14; MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW 0778-14; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17758; DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4749-14 & ENVIRONMENTAL NO. 183'7-14—ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL (MBK HOMES) Item continued from the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting approvals to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 detached single family residential condominium units. LOCATION: 2025 N. ORANGE-OLIVE ROAD RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31-15 recommending to the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1837-14 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of Zone Change 1274-14, a request to approve a zone change from Limited Business (G1) to Residential Multi-Family Specific Plan [R-3 (SP)] and approval of the associated Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan; and approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM 0033-14), Major Site Plan Review 0778-14 and Design Review Committee 4749-14. Discussion: Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She explained that the feedback from the public over the years concerned parking and privacy issues. Those issues have been addressed by staff. Sunti Kumjim, applicant, narrated a PowerPoint presentation. He gave an overview of active MBK developments in the area and the current condition of this project site. He explained that the initial feedback from staff and the community was they did not like the density, the height related to the privacy issues, and insufficient parking. The applicant has now reduced the density, and addressed the privacy and parking concerns. The Commission had questions for the applicant asking who was responsible for regulating the on-site parking and would there be signage in the common areas; what would be the parking impacts for the construction workers; if the City owned trees would be replaced; would parking tags be required; how would oversized vehicles be handled; and what was the lighting plan for the project. Public Hearing was opened. Carol Grunpensperger, address on file, had two areas of concern which were overflow parking in the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed setback requirement between 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PC MEETING MINUTES—10/5/15 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. Planning Commission October 5, 2015 the R-1 and R-3 zones. She was requesting the applicant put up some type of tree screening along the R-1 and R-3 border. Eric Jacobson, address on file, also wanted the screening of the trees and to ensure those trees would be maintained. Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Kumjim returned to address the concerns voiced by the public. He explained that the CC&Rs would stipulate that garages would be used for parking only. He also stated they looked at the tree screening suggestion but it appeared their mitigation measures had met all their concerns. Ms. Le addressed the issue of the waiver of the code and the height standards of this site specific development's Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan. The Commission made additional comments in which they felt the project was a good �t for the neighborhood; suggested using podocarpus for the screening between the two zones; liked the architecture; it would increase the property value; understood the public concern with the screening; were concerned with how the backyard landscaping would be controlled; liked it was reduced to two-stories; and were concerned that the Association could modify Condition 7. Ms. Le explained that the applicant has given a conceptual landscape plan and the Design Review Committee has asked that the landscape plan come back to them prior to issuance of building permits. They did not address the screening on along the eastern edge of the property and the Commission could make a condition or recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Gladson would like that screening detail be considered by the Design Review Committee. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 31-15 recommending to the City Council of the City of Orange their adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration 1837-14 including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approval of Zone Change 1274-14, a request to approve a zone change from Limited Business (C-1) to Residential Multi-Family Speci�c Plan [R-3 (SP)] and approval of the associated Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan; and approval of Tentative Tract Map 17758 (TTM 0033-14), Major Site Plan Review 0778-14 and Design Review Committee 4749-14 with one additional condition: 1. Look at additional screening opportunities when the Design Review Committee considers the final landscape plan. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa MOTION CARRIED. 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1837-14 ZONE CHANGE NO. 1274-14 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17758 (TTM NO. 0033-14) MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0778-14 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4749-14 RESOLUTION NO. PC 31-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1837-14 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 1274-14, A REQUEST TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED BUSINESS (C-1) TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL - SPECIFIC PLAN (R-3 (SP)) AND APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATED ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN; AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17758 (TTM NO. 0033-14), MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0778-14, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4749-14 - ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 2025 NORTH ORANGE-OLIVE ROAD IN THE CITY OF ORANGE APPLICANT: MBK HOMES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020 to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on environmental documentation, and applications for a Zone Change/Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Major Site Plan Review and Design Review; and WHEREAS, appropriate applications were filed by MBK Homes (hereafter "Applicant") in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, applications filed by the Applicant were processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2015, the City departments reviewed the Orange-Olive Residential Project and recommended the applications proceed subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015, the City's Design Review Committee reviewed the Orange-Olive Residential Project and recommended approval subject to conditions by a vote of four ayes; WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1837-14 was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and � concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposed Orange-Olive Residential Project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures; and ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PC RESOLUTION 31-15 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. ` WHEREAS, MND No. 1837-14 was circulated for public review and comment for at least 20 days as required by CEQA, with the comment period beginning August 28, 2015 and ending September 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information presented in MND No. 1837-14 including any written comments received during the public review period; and , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on September 21, 2015, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt MND No. 1837-14 including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provided as Attachment A; approve Zone Change No. 1274-14 and the Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan; and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (TTM No. 0033-14), Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14, and Design Review No. 4749-14 to allow construction of 25 detached single family residential condominium units on a 2.33 acre site(known as the Orange-Olive Residential Project),based on the following findings: SECTION 1 —MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1837-14 Findings: There are no required findings for the MND. Notwithstanding, the Planning Commission finds that the MND adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project and is the appropriate CEQA compliance document because it concludes that the project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, but mitigation measures have been incorporated and required to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level. SECTION 2—ZONE CHANGE NO. 1274-14 & ASSOCIATED ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN Findings: There are no required findings for a Zone Change/Specific Plan since it is a legislative action. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Zone Change from C-1, Limited Business, to R-3 (SP), Multifamily Residential, brings the site's zoning into consistency with the existing Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) General Plan land use designation. Therefore, approval of the Zone Change contributes to implementation of the City's Land Use Plan and furthers the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. In addition, the Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan is proposed to function as a zoning document for the project site and establishes site-specific development standards. The Specific Plan incorporates development standards similar to the R-3 zoning standards but modifies the standards to accommodate the proposed project and the proposed detached condominium product type. With the adoption of the Specific Plan, -2- ` the project would comply with applicable development standards. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Specific Plan establishes development standards that are appropriate for the site and are compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. SECTION 3 —TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17758 (TTM NO. 0033-14) Required Findings: The proposed division of land complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Orange Municipal Code, and all other resolutions and ordinances of this City, including, but not limited to, requirements concerning area, improvements and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, public safety facilities and environmental protection. The proposed tentative tract map for condominium purposes complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Orange Municipal Code and all other resolutions and ordinances of this City. Further, the tract map for condominium purposes is proposed in order to establish `common' versus `exclusive use areas' for proposed residential development on a paved site currently used for Recreational Vehicle storage. Site planning requirements related to area, improvements and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public ' roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, public safety facilities and environmental protection have been addressed either via project design components shown on the proposed plans or through conditions of approval. Therefore, the project meets this finding. SECTION 4—MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0778-14 Required Findings: 1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. The project site is located in a transitional area of the City which contains a mix of single family and multifamily residential uses as well as commercial and industrial development. The proposed detached single family condominium product type (proposed at a density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre) is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan (which allows for 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre on the site). The proposed density and the detached single family product type provide a transition between the traditional single family neighborhoods to the east of the site and the denser multifamily and apartment developments in the vicinity. Further, the two story building height, the careful placement of second story windows adjacent to other residential uses, and the high quality design and materials that are proposed also contribute to a project design that is compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, the project meets this finding. -3- 2. The project conforms to City developnzent standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. The project includes establishment of the Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan, which establishes site specific development standards. With the approval of the subject Zone Change and the associated Specific Plan, the project will comply with applicable development standards. Therefore, the project meets this finding. There are no design guidelines applicable to the project. 3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on-and off-site. This issue was reviewed by the City's SMART committee and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off-site, were found to be safe and adequate. The project proposes to take access from Orange-Olive Road via a relocated driveway, reconstructed to comply with City standards. The driveway connects to an internal private drive aisle that has been designed to provide for adequate circulation and turning movements for City emergency vehicles. In addition, five foot wide sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the private drive aisle to allow for an internal pedestrian movement as well as a pedestrian connection to the ,Orange-Olive Road sidewalk network. The design of the vehicular and pedestrian network for the site supports the goals and policies of the Circulation & Mobility Element of the General Plan which focus on achieving safe and comprehensive circulation that sustains quality of life in ' Orange neighborhoods Therefare, the project meets this finding. 4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. This issue was reviewed by the City's SMART committee and City services were found to be sufficient to serve the project. The project is an infill development located on a site that is already developed for Recreational Vehicle storage in an area of the City that is essentially built out. As such, City services are already available in the area to serve the site. Therefore,the project meets this finding. S. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. MND No. 1837-14 analyzes the environmental impacts of the project and requires mitigation measures related to cultural resources (addressing the potential for undocumented buried resources to be unearthed during grading activities) and noise (requirement for sound-attenuated windows on the second floor of units fronting Orange-Olive Road). These mitigation measures reduce the environmental effects of the project to a less than significant level. Therefore,the project meets this finding. -4- SECTION 5—DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4749-14 Required Findings: 1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the Design Review Committee or other reviewing body for the project. The Project is not located in the Old Towne Historic District. Therefore, this finding does not apply. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines. The Project is not is not located in a National Register Historic District. Therefore, this finding does not apply. 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. The surrounding community is characterized by a mix of land use types and design styles with no specific architectural theme in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Fairmeadows Eichler Tract is two blocks southeast of the site and provides the most distinctive mid-century architectural theme for the larger surrounding neighborhood. The proposed design creates a unique style and a community feel by establishing a central drive aisle to the development with residential units clustered around common "motor court" areas. Each cluster of units incorporates four architectural style types, which relate to each other through the use of similar design elements and materials inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Sidewalks and landscaping along the central drive aisle create a streetscape scene that further supports the design. This approach creates a unifying theme for the site and results in a high quality, internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles in the surrounding area. Further, the project involves establishment of a Specific Plan for the site which outlines site-specific development standards. The design complies with the standards outlined in the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan. Therefore, the project meets this finding. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the Ciry 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. � The Project is not the type of infill residential development subject to the City of Orange Infill Residential Development Design Guidelines. Therefore, this finding does not apply. -5- SECTION 6 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions shall be imposed with the recommendation of approval: 1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled Exhibit A in the City Council staff report, including modifications required by the conditions of approval, as approved by the City Council. 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 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. 3. 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. 4. Any modifications to the plans including, but not limited to, the landscaping and parking as a result of other Department requirements such as, but not limited to, 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 Planning Commission and/or Design Review Committee as determined by the Community Development Director. 5. 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. 6. The project approval includes certain fees andlor other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, these conditions or requirements constitute written notice of the fees and/or exactions. The applicant is hereby notified that the ninety (90) day protest period commencing from the date of approval of the project has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding these conditions or requirements, the applicant is legally barred from later challenging such exactions per Government Code Section 66020. 7. Prior to building permit final/certificate of occupancy, Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the City and address specific responsibilities of the Homeowners Association (HOA). The CC&R's shall be recorded prior to or -6- concurrent with the Final Map. Prior to recardation, the CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the City Attorney, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director. The CC&R's shall contain enforceable restrictions prohibiting storage of trash bins on the private street and within parking spaces. CC&R's shall also require a 20' by 20' inside clear area in each garage to be maintained at all times for its intended use as vehicle parking. No storage or other use of garage space that restricts its use for vehicle parking shall be permitted. CC&R's shall contain enforceable restrictions to ensure guest parking remains available for and is used by guests. The CC&R's shall also contain enforceable restrictions that prohibit parking in fire access areas. The CC&R's shall contain a provision that the Fire Chief can, at his discretion, require further street markings for fire lanes (including red curbing) if signage fails to keep fire lanes clear of vehicles or other obstructions. 8. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Final Tract Map shall dedicate to the City and its assigns, and the City shall approve the method and language of the dedication, the right to enter the private streets and driveways for the maintenance of public utilities (if any), emergency access, trash collection, and for any other reasons stated in the dedication mechanism. 9. Landscaping shall be maintained not to interfere with lighting or addressing. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. The property owner shall replace all dead plant material at the earliest time with similar plant material. 10. The project applicant shall maintain all structural, treatment and low impact development BMPs at the frequency specified in the approved WQMP. Upon transfer of ownership or management responsibilities for the project site, the applicant shall notify the City of Orange Public Works Department of the new person(s) or entity responsible for maintenance of the BMPs. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, security and design measures that employ Defensible Space concepts shall be utilized in 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. 12. All residential dwellings shall display a street number in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the number is easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles. The numerals shall be no less than four inches in height and shall be of a contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. These numerals shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness. In addition, a Site Map may be required at the project entry, at the discretion of the Orange Police Department. -7- � 13. All project Mitigation Measures shall be are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as described in MND No. 1837-14 and its associated Mitigation Monitoring Report(provided as Attachment A to this resolution). Planning Commission Conditions 14. When final landscape plans return to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for approval as required by the DRC's conditions, the DRC shall consider additional screening opportunities, particularly along the project site's interface with adjacent single family residential properties to the north and east. Design Review Committee Conditions 15. Detailed landscape plans showing the location and spacing of proposed plant species shall be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to issuance of building permits. The detailed landscape plan shall be consistent with the layout and conceptual plant palette contained in the DRC plan set. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, plan corrections shall be made as follows: • The note on Sheet L-5 indicating a transformer is to be located along the Orange-Olive Road frontage (north of the project driveway) shall be deleted from the plans • Incorrect data in the site information summary on Sheet A1.1 shall be corrected to match the plans and proposed Specific Plan. • The legend on Sheet L-3 shall be corrected to reflect a 6' maximum wall and fence height consistent with the development standards in the proposed Specific Plan. 17. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall add the landscape drawing to the plan sheet index. 18. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall provide floor plans and elevations for Plan 1 CX and 1 BX and detail the treatment around the entries. 19. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall indicate on the plans where the special glazing required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration for sound attenuation occurs. 20. Prior to building plancheck submittal, on the upper floor adjacency study on Sheet A1.3.0, the Applicant shall revise the plans to indicate Plan 3A in the northeast corner shall use the alternate plan and Plan 3B in the southeast corner shall use the alternate plan. 21. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall clarify on the plans the location and design of the trellis to be used on the Plan 1's. 22. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall revise the plans to use the Plan 1 standard window configuration for Plan 1BXR at the east end of the property. -8- 23. Prior to building plancheck submittal , for Plan 2D,just north of Plan 1BXR at section line BB, revise the plans to use two 30x50 windows instead of one large window as shown. 24. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall revise the plans to clarify use of solid siding without the imitation wood grain where horizontal siding is called out on the drawings. 25. Prior to building plancheck submittal, the Applicant shall revise the plans to switch color Scheme No. 6 with color Scheme No. 4. 26. Prior to building plancheck issuance, if the applicant wishes to modify the color schemes after considering them further, bring back the new revised color scheme to the Design Review Committee with the landscape plans. 27. Prior to building plancheck submittal, revise the plans to show use of a flat stucco cap on the three foot six inch walls rather than the rounded cap top shown in the illustration. 28. Prior to building plancheck submittal, on Sheet L-2, revise the plans to show that the scoring patterns shall coordinate to a fine point. 29. Prior to building plancheck submittal, analyze the curbing types and revise the plans to use rolled curbs where available. 30. Prior to building plancheck submittal, on Sheet L-3, revise the plans to switch the Liquidambar shown with a Tristania. 31. Prior to building plancheck submittal, revise the plans to show that the pathways for moving the trash cans do not have to be in the center of the space if a better location is found. 32. Prior to building plancheck issuance, bring back a lighttng plan with the landscape plan to the Design Review Committee. 33. Prior to building plancheck submittal, revise the plans to show how the entry sign is illuminated on the lighting plans. 34. Prior to building plancheck submittal, revise the plans to show that all landscaping lighting fixtures are to be frosted. In addition to the above conditions, procedural conditions contained in Attachment B are recommended for approval by the City Council. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on September 21, 2015, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: -9- AYES: Commissioners Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson& Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Correa ABSTAIN: None � r /U-! GI'!.� t'�- Adrienne Gla s i Date Planning Com ission Chair -10- Attachment B Procedural conditions recommended to the City Council: Automatic Timing: 1. The applicant, in coordination with the contractor, shall ensure that grading and construction activities comply with the following requirements: . a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; b. All operations shall comply with City ordinances with respect to hours of construction activity to minimize noise impacts; c. During construction, best efforts shall be made to locate stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from surrounding residences. Prior to Submittal of Building Plans in Plan Check: 2. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the City and as frequently amended and in effect at the time of application for Building Permit. Plans shall comply with the Fire Master Plan and Fire access and visibility restrictions. At the fire turn around, vertical clearance of 13'-6" shall be maintained and tree canopies shall not impede required turning radius. 3. Plans submitted for Building Plan Check shall comply with O.M.C. 15.32.400 Section 903.3.5.3 — hydraulically calculated systems. The design of hydraulically calculated fire sprinkler systems shall not exceed 90% of the water supply capacity. The capacity shall be calculated using a combination of the following criteria: • The lower of the following: a. the lowest water supply capacity determined by the water purveyor serving the closest fire hydrant serving the address in the last consecutive three years. b. the lowest water supply flow test conducted in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)within the last 12 calendar months. • Subtraction of the head pressure of the tallest tank supplying water to the fire hydrant flowing water, assuming the tank is full at the time of the test and empty at the time of fire sprinkler activation. 4. Add a signature block to the Tentative Tract Map sheet for City Engineer signature. Prior to submittal of plans for building plancheck, the City Engineer shall sign the plan to indicate approval of the private drive aisle cross section. -11- 5. All utility lines from the public street and street easement, including power line and telecommunication line, shall be constructed underground. The utility plan shall be revised to show the proposed underground lines. 6. Revise the utility plan to show installation of street light standards and the associated power pedestal along Orange-Olive Road per City Standards. A separate lighting plan shall be submitted for onsite lighting showing standards, electrical connections, fixtures and photometrics that meet City lighting standards. 7. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the water improvement plans are consistent with the fire suppression plans and or fire master plan. The applicant's consultant preparing the water improvement plans shall coordinate their plans with the consultant preparing the fire suppression plans and or fire master plan so that their designs concur. 8. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that a minimum twenty-foot separation will be maintained from the public water system facilities to the proposed/existing buildings and structures per the location of underground utilities public works standard number 102. 9. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the installation of sewer mains in the vicinity of water mains is done per the water division standard number 113. 10. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that a six foot minimum horizontal clearance and a one foot minimum vertical clearance would be maintained between city water mains, laterals, services, meters, fire hydrants and all other utilities except sewer. 11. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that an eight-foot minimum clearance is provided between city water mains, and signs, trees or other substantial shrubs, bushes, or plants. 12. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that the minimum separation requirements are met and that each of the various designer's plan sets match. The applicant's consultant preparing the improvement and utility plans shall coordinate their plans with the consultants preparing the landscape, architectural, surface water quality, fire master and or fire suppression plans so that their designs are consistent. 13. Plans submitted during plan check shall show that permanent signs, awnings, surface water quality features such as but not limited to infiltration planters, basins, pervious paving structures or other structures are not installed over the city's water facilities including mains, meters, back flow prevention devices and fire hydrants. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits: 14. Show all sewer and storm drain lines on the Grading Plan. Other utility lines, such as water lines, should also be shown on Grading Plan for reference. -12- 15. Show all structural BMPs for water quality purpose on the Site Plan and Grading Plan. Water quality features shown on the Grading Plan must match the WQMP. 16. The Final WQMP must be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. 17. For those projects requiring coverage under the State of California's General Construction Permit: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit (including grubbing, clearing, surface mining or paving permits as app�opriate) the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the State's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit) by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing. A copy of the current SWPPP required by the General Permit shall be kept at the project site and be available for review by City representatives upon request. Prior to Building Permit Issuance: 18. The setback between the building and property line shall comply with Table 602 and 705.8 of the Building Code. Compliance with Building Code provisions is required prior to issuance of building permits. 19. Effective January 1, 2014, all building design and building plans shall be based on the 2013 CBC, CRC, CMC, CEC, CPC, CGBC and California Energy Code. In accordance with the 2013 California Energy Code, all the new construction must comply with "HERS" rating requirement. In addition, soil and structural reports are required for new construction and fire sprinklers are required on new residential construction projects. Compliance with Code provisions is required prior to issuance of building permits. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, City required irrigation and landscape inspection notes shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, 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. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall review the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and grading plan to ensure the structure's downspouts or drainage outlet locations are consistent with those documents. Copies of the building or architectural plans specifically showing the downspouts and drainage outlets shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. 23. Prior to building permit issuance the final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director when landscaping is proposed within the public right-of-way -13- and/or the project is constructing Storm Water Quality Best Management Practices in landscaped areas. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a water improvement plan to the Water Division for new fire hydrants, domestic water services, fire suppression services, landscape services, and or any other proposed improvements or relocations affecting the public water system appurtenances for review and approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with the proposed improvements. Prior to submitting a water improvement plan, the applicant shall independently verify the existing water pressure and flow conditions and design the on-site systems to meet the site specific requirements. The on-site systems shall be privately owned and maintained. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with public water infrastructure improvements necessitated by the proposal. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for the installation/relocation of the proposed/existing public water system appurtenances as necessitated by the proposal to a location and of a design as approved by the water division. 26. Prior to building permit issuance, the water division shall approve the type and location of the back flow prevention devices for all city services. Prior to Water Improvement Plan Approval: 27. Prior to approval of the water improvement plan, the applicant shall satisfy all water main connection,plan check, and inspection charges as determined by the water division. Prior to Work in the Public Right-of-Way: 28. Prior to the initiation of any work in or over the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit(s) shall be obtained. Construction includes work on sidewalks, driveways, and utility laterals. 29. All public infrastructure, including street sections, sidewalk, driveway apron, and utilities shall comply with City of Orange Standard Plans and Specifications. The proposed sidewalk ramps shall be designed and constructed per City of Orange Engineering Standard Plan 121. The driveway entrance shall conform to City Engineering Standard Plans & Specifications (Standard Plan 108). Sewer laterals and connections shall comply with Public Works Standard Plans 206 and 207. 30. Submit a street tree plan to Public Works Department for review and approval by the City's Tree Service Coordinator. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 31. Prior to recordation of the final map, a copy of the project's CC&Rs shall be provided to -14- the Public Works Department for review and approval that includes requirements for maintenance and funding of the project's structural and treatment water quality best management practices as approved by the City in the project's WQMP. Prior to Demolition or Construction: 32. The applicant shall submit a grading plan in compliance with City standards for review and approval by the Public Works Director, prior to building permit issuance and prior to start of any demolition, clearing and grubbing, and grading, whichever is first. A Geotechnical Report shall also be submitted. The Grading Plan shall include phased Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and any Site Demolition Plan, if required. All grading and improvements on the subject property shall be made in accordance with the Manual of Grading and Standard Plans and Specifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 33. Rough grading shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Director and the graded site shall be released by the City Engineer/Public Works Director for construction. 34. That a minimum of fourteen-calendar days prior construction, the applicant's Engineer of Record shall prepare and provide product material submittals consistent with the approved water improvement plans as approved by the water division, for all proposed public water system facilities to the water division for review and approval. 35. Certification shall be filed with the City of Orange Public Works that all final grading is in compliance with the approved grading plan and City standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 36. A minimum of fourteen-calendar days prior construction, the applicant's civil engineer shall prepare and provide product material submittals consistent with the approved water improvement plans as approved by the water division for all proposed public water system facilities to the water division for review and approval. Prior to Final Inspection: 37. Certification from the Landscape Architect of record shall be filed that final landscaping was completed in compliance with approved landscape and irrigation plan. City of Orange Staff shall inspect and approve the landscape prior to release. 38. Any unused driveway approaches shall be restored with full height curb and gutter and sidewalk. Repair any cracked, uneven, or damaged public sidewalk, curb and gutter along project frontage. -15- Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 39. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or completion of a final inspection of any dwelling unit, a homeowner's association shall be formed. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, private utilities, and sanitary sewer system. 40. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, all improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 41. Prior to the issuance of certificates for use of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Public Works Department: • That all structural and treatment control best management practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, • That the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP, • That an adequate number of copies of the project's approved final Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. 42. Prior to the issuance of certificates for use of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of Public Works, that the preparer of the WQMP has reviewed the BMP maintenance requirements in Section V of the WQMP with the responsible person and that a copy of the WQMP has been provided to that person. A certification letter from the WQMP preparer may be used to satisfy this condition. 43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall be responsible for the installation of necessary fire hydrants and fire suppression services as determined by the fire department and water division. 44. All hot taps required on existing city mains to provide water service to any lot, parcel or subdivision shall be performed by city crews at the developer's expense in accordance with the fee schedule established by resolution of the city council. The following code provisions are applicable to this project, and are included for information only. This is not a complete list of requirements, and other code provisions may apply to the project. ■ Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not limited to: City sewer connection, sewer frontage fee, Orange County Sanitation District Connection Fee, Transportation System Improvement Program, Fire Facility, Police Facility, Library Facility, Park Acquisition, Sanitation District, and School District, as required. -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 will be cause for revocation of the project approval. ■ In conjunction with construction, pursuant to OMC Section 8.24 Noise Control, all activity will be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity will be permitted on Sundays and Federal holidays. ■ Building design shall comply with OMC Section 15.52, Building Security Ordinance. ■ 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 at the property line. ■ These conditions shall be reprinted on the first page of the construction documents when submitting to the Building Department for the plan check process. -17- ��.�P��.�� Planning Commission Gti;•� *; ':* �� Agenda Item ��. �••.��,�+••�° �b�.l.Y ca' October 5, 2015 TO: Chair Gladson and Members of the Planning Commission THRU: Leslie Aranda Roseber Planning Manager FROM: Jennifer Le ��— Acting Principal Planner SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING: Zone Change No. 1274-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (TTM 0033- 14), Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14, Design Review No. 4749-14 and Environmental Review No. 1837-14—Orange-Olive Residential Project, located at 2025 Orange-Olive Road. SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting approvals to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 detached single family residential condominium units. The proposed units are two-story units ranging from 2,412 to 2,519 square feet in size. Each unit includes 3 bedrooms (some with a 4�' bedroom option), an attached two-car garage and private yard space. The proposed units are configured in six distinct clusters on the site, with each cluster planned around a common "motor court" area that takes access from a central private access drive. The private access drive includes curb, gutter, five (5) foot wide sidewalks, parking, and landscaped planters. A total of 50 garage spaces and 22 guest parking spaces are provided onsite. This item was continued at the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting without discussion to the October 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt the following Resolution: 1. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 31-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1837-14 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVAL OF ZONE ATTACHMENT NO. S PC STAFF REPORT—10/5/15 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 2 CHANGE NO. 1274-14, A REQUEST TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED BUSINESS (C-1) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY- SPECIFIC PLAN (R-3 (SP)) AND APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATED ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN; AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17758 (TTM No. 0033-14), MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0778-14, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4749-14 - ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 2025 NORTH ORANGE-OLIVE ROAD IN THE CITY OF ORANGE AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINE S Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Sections 17.08.020 B.2.b.i, ii, and v. authorize the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation to the City Council on applications for Zone Changes, Tentative Tract Maps, and environmental documentation as described in the City's environmental review guidelines. Further, OMC Sections 17.08.020 B.2.a.iii and iv. authorize the Planning Commission to hear and decide on applications for Major Site Plan Review and Design Review. Footnote (b) of Table 17.08.020 - Reviewing Bodies of the OMC states that when more than one type of application is filed for a single project, the application requiring the highest level of approval shall dictate the review process for the entire group of applications. Therefore, the Planning Commission is acting as a recommending body to the City Council on all of the applications for the subject project. PUBLIC NOTICE On September 11, 2015, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to 59 property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and persons specifically requesting notice. A notice was also published in the Orange County Register on September 11, 2015. Notice was also posted on the project site. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Applicant originally submitted an application for a residential project on the subject site in December 2013 (MNSP No. 0765-13). At that time, the request was for preliminary review only. City comments focused primarily on consistency of the application with the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) development standards. Following receipt of City feedback, the Applicant submitted a formal application in May 2014. The original project proposed 35 units (maximizing allowable density on the site under the General Plan and proposed R-3 zoning. The Applicant also applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a three-story building height. Staff initially had concerns regarding the density, height, and layout of the proposed project from the standpoint of compatibility with the surrounding community. Following several plan reviews and discussions with City staff, as well as community outreach by the Applicant, the Applicant submitted revised plans to the City, reducing the number of proposed units to 25 and reducing the proposed building height to two stories. The Applicant also revised the site layout to propose the motor court cluster layout currently shown on the site plan. Their Zone Change request was also Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 3 revised to include establishment of a Specific Plan to establish site specific development standards that better accommodated the proposed detached single-family infill housing product type. SITE SUMMARY ,_......_......._.......................................... ....................._......................_......................................._...,........................................................... ... .........................................................................._............................. .........._.................. ........................................... _......_..... ; A plicant: _; MBK Homes ; __._�............._........................ ....._........_.._..........._...._....................................................,...._....................._.................................. .............._......._................ _..._.............................................. ...._....... ......._.._..........................................._........_ ..............: ; Pro erty Owner: ; Greg Shannon ;....._.._..P..._.................................._....__..__................................ . ...................;........._. ............................................_.................._.... _............_............................................................... ..................._................................._..... ........... ........................; Property Location: ; 2025 North Orange-Olive Road _............................._._........................---..._................................. ._...................._..... . .... ................................................................ __....................... ......................_................................................._.._...................................................... Existing General Plan ; Land Use Element designation.: ; LMDR(Low Medium Density Residential, 6-15 du/acre) _; _ . ............... ........... _. . . .. ... Existing Zoning Classification: ; C-1 (Limited Business) _ ......................................_.................................................. ..........._............ ..........................._...._._....__......._................................_.......... ...................._..__.._. ..................._..........._......_..._....._.............................. .............._.......................................... . .. _...........; ' Old Towne: : No :. ............._..............__................................................................._.................._.... ......_..........._:......_.......................__.........._..................._._........_....._.......... ........_........_.._.......__....._.._............_._............. ; ; Redevelo ment Project Area: ; No � ................................_.._.�............................................................................__. _ ...__..........�..._....._...... __.............._........_....._....._...._............... ...._..._..---.................._.__................_................................._.............................................._.........................: ` S ecific Plan/PC: No ' �....................._..._........................................................._......................_...-----_.... ..._......._...._...._ _.._......................_..................._.................._.........---........................._.............._............................................. _.....� Site Size: 2.33 net acres; 2.775 gross acres :...........................................................................................................................................�.................._......................................_.........__....................._.........._........_...................._....._._...........................................�_..........._..._..__................................... ....__............. ............; Circulation: : Reconstructedlrelocated driveway would connect Orange-Olive ; � Road with a proposed private drive aisle. ' :................................_........._.._._........._................................._._.....__...._............._.......................----................ _...-----........._.................._........................... .........................._.._._..........__........__._........._....................._............_....................._...._..........................................; ; Existing conditions: ' The site consists of a single parcel located east of Orange-Olive ; Road, north of Taft Avenue and south of Meats Avenue. The ; rectangular shaped site is 2.775 acres in size. The lot extends to ; the centerline of Orange-Olive Road with 0.445-acre of the ; ; property dedicated as public street easement. The site is ; currently developed as a paved lot used for recreational vehicle : ` storage. The site contains a small business office, light ; ` standards, a freestanding sign, a CMU perimeter block wall, ; perimeter chain link/barbed wire fencing, a tube steel entry gate, a driveway on Orange-Olive Road and a landscaped front yard ; setback. :............................................................... .........._._..........._.._..............................._........_..............._._.................. ........................_......................._.................... .........................__...........__....._..._..............._................._ _.. : ; Surrounding land uses The project site is located in a transitional area of the City � � and Zoning.• which contains a mix of residential, commercial and industrial ; zoning districts and land uses. The property to the immediate ; north of the site is zoned R-3 and is developed with a two-story � ; ; apartment complex. The property to the immediate south of the ; ; site is zoned C-1 and is developed with a commercial center ; ; which contains thrift stores, a Dollar Store, and other ' ` miscellaneous commercial uses. Further south is Shaffer Park ; ; and a City fire station. East of the site, the zoning is R-1-8 ; � � (Single Family Residential, 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) ; ' � and is developed with a predominantly single story single ; ; family residential neighborhood. Orange-Olive Road is located ; immediately west of the project site with railroad tracks and M- ; 1 and M-2 Industrial zoning further to the west. The ;. Fairmeadows Eichler Tract is located approximately three ; blocks to the southeast. .............. ........... .... ............... _........ __..;_._....__ ... . . . .... ... ....._..._....... _. . _. .......__... ..._. .._ ........... _........ _ .........._..._.........._. ........_....., Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 4 ..........................................................................................._ ................_.........................................._.._................................._...................................................... ... ..........................._........................... _..........................................._................ ................................... . _...........: i Previous 'I'he RV storage use has been located on the site since at least ; Applications/Entitlements: 1970. There appears to have been a variance issued (Variance ; 0928) in 1967, but detailed records of the previous entitlements ; were not readily available. An application for preliminary review � of the proposed project was submitted on December 23, 2013 ; (MNSP No. 0765-13). The application was for preliminary ; t�eview onl and no decisions were made. : ........................:........................................_...Y..............._............................................_..................................... PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 detached single-family residential condominium units. The proposed units are configured in six distinct clusters on the site, with each cluster planned around a common "motor court" area that takes access from a central private access drive. The private access drive includes curb, gutter, five foot sidewalks, parking, and intermittent landscaped planters on both sides. A total of 50 garage spaces and 22 guest parking spaces are provided onsite. There are three (3) unit types proposed, as follows: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Style C- Cottage House D- Dodge House A- Horatio House B- La Jolla House #of Units 8 7 10 BedroomsBaths 3BD/2.SBA 3BD/2.SBA 3BD/3 BA + office + loft + loft +den (4th BD option) lst Floor ross s ft 774 771 894 2"a Floor ross s ft 1,204 1268 1,194 Gara e ross s ft 434 431 429 Total ross s ft 2,412 2,497 2,519 Each unit has a private rear and side yard (provided as an "exclusive use" area) with a 6 foot high fence. The units are designed in one of four (4) architectural style types: Cottage (Plan 1), Dodge (Plan 2), Horatio (Plan 3) or La Jolla (Plan 3). Each style draws elements from and is inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Site access is from Orange-Olive Road. A landscaped setback is provided at the interface with Orange-Olive Road, along with decorative pavers at the entry. Landscaping is proposed along the Orange-Olive Road frontage, along the private drive aisle and in landscape pockets between units. Common area landscaping would be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA) while landscape and hardscape in private yards would be installed and maintained by the homeowner. The landscape palette is a mix of low-water-use groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees that complement the contemporary architectural style. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 5 APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS Environmental Review: MND No. 1837-14 has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Findings: There are no required findings for the MND. Notwithstanding, the City finds that the MND adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed project and is the appropriate CEQA compliance document because it concludes that the project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, but mitigation measures have been incorporated and required to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Zone Chan�e/Specific Plan: The Applicant is requesting a Zone Change from C-1 to R-3 (SP) to bring the site's zoning into conformance with its existing General Plan land use designation and , approval of the Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan to establish development standards for the site. The proposal includes a request for a Zone Change to change the existing zoning classification on the project site from C-1 to R-3 (SP) and to establish a Specific Plan. The proposed Orange- Olive Residential Specific Plan provides for a uniform set of development standards and design guidelines applicable to the site. The Specific Plan incorporates development standards similar to � the R-3 standards but modifies the standards to accommodate the proposed project and the detached condominium product type. Findings: There are no required findings for a Zone Change/Specific Plan since it is a legislative action. 1 Tentative Tract Mat�: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes to establish common areas and private "exclusive use areas". The proposed tract map establishes common areas that include the private drive aisle, curb, gutter sidewalk, common landscape areas, and common motor court areas. Exclusive use areas are established to provide private rear and side yards for each unit and in some cases a private porch or courtyard area at the entry of the unit. Required Findings: 1. The proposed division of land complies with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 Subdivisions of the Orange Municipal Code, and all other resolutions and ordinances of this City, including, but not limited to, requirements concerning area, improvements and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability,public safety facilities and environmental protection. Maior Site Plan Review: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Major Site Plan Review application for the project. Major Site Plan Review is required because the project involves construction of greater than six (6) new residential units on a single parcel. The proposed site plan shows a layout accommodating 25 detached residential units organized in clusters around shared motor courts that take access from a central private drive aisle. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 6 Required Findings: 1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. 2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. 3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off-site. 4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. 5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. Design Review: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review application for the architectural and landscape design for the project. Design review is required because the project involves new development that requires Planning Commission approval. Project plans including elevations and landscape plans were presented to the Design Review Committee and are reflective of the requirements of the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan. The Applicant proposes four (4) architectural style types with each style type drawing elements from and inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Requi�ed Findings: 1. 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. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Issue 1: Zone Chan�e/Densitv A Zone Change is proposed to change the site's zoning from Gl to R-3. The G1 zone allows far general commercial uses, while the R-3 zone is intended for multi-family residential uses such as apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. The R-3 zone allows single family residences, duplexes, and multifamily dwellings as permitted uses, among other uses. The purpose of the R-3 zone as stated in Orange Municipal Code Section 17.14.030 "is to provide a minimum of ground area coverage and a maximum of open space within higher density residential developments". The site has an existing General Plan designation of LMDR, which allows for development of 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre. According to Table LU-3 in the General Plan Land Use Element, residential zoning districts including the R-2 and R-3 zones are compatible with the LMDR General Plan designation. As such, the site's existing C-1 zoning is not consistent with its existing General Plan land use designation. The proposed Zone Change would bring the zoning into consistency with the City's General Plan. Allowable density or number of units per lot for the R-3 zone is dictated by the LMDR General land use designation. Based on the existing LMDR General Plan land use designation and the lot size of Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 7 the subject site, up to 35 units could be developed on the site. The Applicant is proposing 25 units at a density of 10.73 dwelling units per acre, which is within the range allowed by the General Plan. Resolution The proposed Zone Change would bring the site's zoning into consistency with its existing residential General Plan land use designation. The proposed zoning is also consistent with zoning found on properties in the surrounding area. Staff is recommending approval of the Zone Change. Issue 2: Specific Plan/Development Standards The proposed project includes a Zone Change which would establish R-3 zoning on the property. The development standards of the R-3 zone are intended primarily for attached residential products including townhomes, condominiums and apartments. The proposed Specific Plan incorporates development standards similar to the R-3 standards but modifies the standards to accommodate the proposed detached single family condominium product type. The table below summarizes the Specific Plan's development standards and compares them with the R-3 standards. There are key differences in the following areas: lot size, lot width, lot depth, setbacks, lot coverage/floor area ratio, distance between buildings, minimum usable open space, and required parking. Minimum Lot Size and Dimensions The Orange-Olive Specific Plan does not establish a minimum lot size, lot width, or lot depth standards for individual residential lots because the tract map is proposed for condominium purposes only and does not subdivide the property or otherwise establish individual residential lots. Rather, the tract map establishes common areas and "exclusive use areas" for each unit. As such, the proposed Specific Plan establishes development standards that apply only to the site as a whole and not to individual residential lots. The "exclusive use areas" for the site range from approximately 2,115 square feet for the proposed Plan 1 to 3,298 square feet. Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Lot coverage and FAR are tools for controlling the extent of building development on a site as compared to lot size. In the R-3 zone, lot coverage is used rather than FAR. Because the proposed tract map does not subdivide or establish individual residential lots, the Specific Plan establishes lot coverage and FAR standards that apply to the site as a whole and not to individual lots. The maximum lot coverage proposed under the Specific Plan is 40% which is lower than the R-3 zone would otherwise allow. For the lot as a whole, the proposed lot coverage is 32%. Comparing the relationship between individual residential units and their proposed "exclusive use areas", the portion of each"exclusive use area" covered by a structure ranges from approximately 40%to 57%. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 8 Table 1-1 Development Standards Comparison Development Standards Proposed Orange-Olive R-3 Zoning District Specific Plan Maximum Units Per Lot 25 units Per General Pian: 35 units per LMDR maximum density Minimum Lot Area No Requirement 7,000 sf interior; 8,000 corner Minimum Lot Frontage No Requirement 70 feet interior; 80 feet corner Minimum Lot Depth No Requirement 100 feet 2.88 spaces/unit(min 2 garage 2.4 spaces/unit(min 1 space/unit Minimum Parking spaces/unit and 0.88 spaces/unit covered) 0.20 additional guest) spaces/unit for guest parking 25 feet from view allowing windows in one structure to facing windows Minimum Distance Between 6 feet in any adjacent structure. 15 feet Buildings minimum befinreen solid facing walls, or when windows are located on only one facing wall. Minimum Floor Area Per Units 3 BR unit-900 sf 3 BR unit-900 sf 4 BR unit- 1,050 sf 4 BR unit- 1,050 sf 32 feeU2 stories; 20 feeU1 story Maximum Height 27.5 feet/2 stories within 70 feet of single-family residential uses Maximum Lot Coverage 40% (total SP area) 45%for 2-story structures, 55°/o for single-story structures Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.65 (total (SP area) No Requirement Minimum Usable Open Space 300 square feet(private open 250 square feet(private and Per Unit space) common open space, plus minimum dimensions) 120 cubic feet. Storage area 120 cubic feet. Storage area must must be in addition to cabinets be in addition to cabinets and Minimum Storage Area and closets typically found within closets typically found within a unit a unit(such as kitchen and (such as kitchen and bathroom bathroom cabinets, clothes and cabinets, clothes and linen closets). linen closets). Perimeter Setbacks Orange-Olive Road (front) 17.9 feet 15 feet North Property Line (side) 6 feet 5 feet South Property Line (side) 8 feet 5 feet East Property Line (rear) 11.5 feet 10 Feet Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 9 Building Height The R-3 zone generally allows for a building height of two stories or 32 feet. However, under the R- 3 zoning, within 70 feet of a residential use, building height is limited to 20 feet or one story whichever is less. Additional height is allowed with Planning Commission approval through a Conditional Use Permit. Under the Specific Plan, two stories and up to 27.5 feet building height is allowed. Setbacks Setbacks are typically measured from the property line (or in some cases from the ultimate road right of way line). Because the proposed tract map does not subdivide or establish individual residential lots, residential setbacks cannot be applied in the typical way. As such, the Specific Plan establishes setbacks that apply to the property lines around the perimeter of the site only and establish no minimum setbacks for the individual residences. The front yard setback (fronting Orange-Olive Road) established by the Specific Plan is 17.9 feet compared to 15 feet which is typically required in an R-3 zone. Residential structures are not allowed within the front yard setback. However, the Specific Plan allows for private rear yards and residential fences to fall within the front setback area (not typically allowed under the R-3 zoning). The result is a commonly-owned landscaped area between the proposed private yard fences and the Orange-Olive Road right of way that ranges in width from four(4) feet at the northernmost property line to 24 feet at the southernmost property line. The DRC reviewed this issue along with the streetscape elevation along Orange-Olive Road and found the proposal to be acceptable from an aesthetic standpoint. Side yard setbacks under the proposed Specific Plan along the north and south property lines are proposed to be six (6) feet and eight (8) feet, respectively. The R-3 zone requires a 5 foot side yard setback. As such, the proposed Specific Plan provides for a slightly greater separation between the proposed residential units and adjacent land uses to the north and south than would typically occur under the R-3 zone. Lastly, the minimum rear yard setback under the Specific Plan is 11.5 feet. Rear yards provided along the eastern property line range from 11.5 feet to 15.3 feet. The rear of the property abuts single family residential uses to the east. Under the R-3 zone, the required rear yard setback would be 10 feet for the portion of the structure that is one story and 20 feet for the portion of the structure that is two-story. As such, the Specific Plan allows for a slightly greater rear yard setback for the one story portion of the structure and a lesser rear yard setback far the two-story portion (compared to the R-3 zoning district). Distance Between Buildings The R-3 zone is primarily intended for apartments, townhomes and condominiums which are typically attached housing products. As such, the R-3 zone requires a minimum distance between buildings of 15 to 25 feet (depending on the elevation details). This standard makes sense for a site that contains multiple multi-unit buildings. The Applicant is proposing a detached single family product type. Requiring a 15 to 25 foot distance between each single family unit is not conducive to efficient site design. As such, the Specific Plan establishes a minimum distance between buildings of six (6) feet which is consistent with minimum Building and Fire Code requirements. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 10 Open Space The R-3 zone requires 250 square feet of usable open space per unit. Usable open space is required to be a combination of common open space and private open space and must meet minimum dimension standards. Further, the R-3 development standards require a development to provide certain common amenities such as a pool or community room. The proposed Specific Plan requires 300 square feet of usable open space per unit, but allows the open space to be provided as private open space (rather than common open space). Further, the Specific Plan does not require common amenities or minimum usable open space dimensions. This approach essentially foregoes common space and amenities in favor of providing a larger private yard area than would normally be provided for in an attached residential product type. Landscaping in common areas as shown on the in the plan set would be maintained by the HOA. Landscaping within private rear yards is at the discretion of the homeowner and maintained by the homeowner. Additions,Accessory Structures and Patio Covers Under the R-3 zoning, additions would be allowed subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone including setbacks and lot coverage. However, because there are no individual lots proposed, reviewing additions to individual units under the R-3 development standards would be difficult and in many cases the standards would be inapplicable. To address the potential for future additions, the Specific Plan Section 5.4.8 specifically prohibits additions that add interior square footage. This is intended to ensure that the site and building layout as well as unit size remain as is shown on the proposed site plan. Accessory structures such as sheds are also specifically prohibited which is intended to maintain unobstructed private yard area for each unit. Lastly, under the R-3 zone, it is unclear whether or not patio covers would be allowed because there are no individual lot lines from which to measure setbacks. To address this issue, patio covers are specifically allowed under the Specific Plan Section 5.4.9, subject to certain development standards such as a 10 foot height limit and five (5) foot setback from any other private rear yard area. Resolution The proposed Specific Plan incorporates development standards similar to the R-3 standards but modifies the standards to accommodate the proposed project and the detached condominium product type. With the adoption of the Specific Plan, the project would comply with applicable development standards. Staff believes the proposed Specific Plan establishes development standards that are appropriate for the site and the proposed product type. Without establishment of the Specific Plan and the associated development standards and if the proposed Zone Change to R-3 were approved, the Applicant could build an attached residential product that complies with the R-3 zone's development standaxds by right. Ultimately, staff believes the proposed single family detached product type which provides private yard space is more desirable and more compatible with the existing development pattern in the area than the attached product type typically developed under the R-3 zoning standards. Furthermore, the project site's proximity to Shaffer Park will avail the residents of easy access to multi-purpose park space. As such, staff is recommending approval of the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 11 Issue 3: Onsite Parkin� The Applicant is proposing an attached two-car garage for each unit(for a total of 50 garage spaces) and 22 additional guest parking spaces located along the private drive aisle and within the common motor court areas. Parking onsite is provided at a ratio of 2.88 spaces per unit (two garage spaces per unit and 0.88 spaces per unit for guest parking), consistent with the requirements established by the proposed Specific Plan. Under the R-3 zoning, 2.6 spaces per unit would typically be required. Of the 2.6 spaces per unit, one space is required to be covered parking and 0.2 spaces is required to be guest parking. In a single family residential zone, a two-car garage is required but guest parking is not. Therefore, the Specific Plan requires more parking than would be required for either a single family or multi- family residential use under the Orange Municipal Code. It should be noted that there is no street parking on Orange-Olive Road. The closest on-street parking is on Grove Avenue south of the project site. Shaffer Street located to the east is the next nearest residential street with on-street parking. However, a resident would need to drive on Orange-Olive Road either north or south to either Meats Avenue, Grove Avenue, or Taft Avenue, then to Shaffer Street to access the on-street parking. Although this is an inconvenient scenario, the potential for project residents to park on surrounding residential streets has been raised a concern by the local community. Because of the limited opportunities for off-site on-street parking, it is important that the project provide sufficient onsite parking for its residents and will also strictly manage and enforce parking restrictions to ensure onsite parking is used by residents. Resolution The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a parking requirement of 2.88 spaces per unit which is more parking than is required for either single-family or multi-family residential development under the Orange Municipal Code. To address the parking management issue, staff has included a condition requiring the project's CC&R's to include strict parking management and enforcement provisions. The CC&Rs will be reviewed by staff prior to final map approval. In the meantime, the Applicant has provided a draft of a parking disclosure form to be signed by homeowners. Restrictions listed in the disclosure form would be incorporated into the CC&Rs (Attachment 5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration: An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project. The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures related to cultural resources (potential for undocumented buried resources unearthed during grading activities) and noise (requirement for sound-attenuated windows on the second floor of units fronting Orange-Olive Road). The MND is included as Exhibit B to this report. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and is included as part of Attachment 1 to this report. Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 12 The 20-day public review period is August 28, 2015 through September 16, 2015. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed with the Orange County Clerk, posted onsite, mailed to 59 property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site, and published in the Orange County Register on August 28, 2015. The Initial Study/MND and the Specific Plan were made available online and posted at City Hall and at the Taft Branch Library and the Orange Public Library and History Center for review. No public comments were received during the CEQA review period. One comment email was received following the September 21, 2015 Planning Commission hearing for this item. The correspondence has been included as Attachment 6 to this report. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff Review Committee: The City's SMART team (formerly SRC) reviewed the project on March 11, 2015 and June 24, 2015 and recommended approval with conditions on August 19, 2015. Design Review Committee: On July 1, 2015, the Design Review Committee (DRC) performed a "preliminary review" of the proposed project. At that meeting, the DRC made several inquiries and suggestions regarding the design of the project. The DRC reviewed the subject proposal again at their September 2, 2015 meeting, and recommended approval of the project subject to conditions by a vote of four ayes. A copy of the minutes from both meetings is provided as Attachment 3 and 4, respectively. It should be noted that the Applicant revised the project plans following the DRC meeting to comply with the DRC's design-related conditions. As such, although DRC Conditions are listed in the project's Resolution, the plans included in the Planning Commission packet have already been revised to comply with DRC conditions. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachments to Re�ort: 1. Planning Commission Resolution PC No. 31-15 including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Site Location Map 3. Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting, July l, 2015 4. Minutes of the Design Review Committee Meeting, September 2, 2015 5. Draft Parking Disclosure Form 6. Comment Email from Dan Graupensperger, dated September 22, 2015 Exhibits provided to the Plannin� Commission: A. Orange-Olive Residential Specific Plan dated August 2015 B. MND No. 1837-14 dated August 2015 C. Project Plans dated September 4, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report October 5, 2015 Page 13 CC: Sunti Kumjim, MBK Homes (suntikumjim(c�mbk.com) Kye Evans, MBK Homes (kyeevans@mbk.com) Greg Shannon, Property Owner(Greg.Shannon@ozarksmedicalcenter.com) City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 6 of 9 New Agenda Item• (3) DRC No. 4749-14—ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL (MBK HOMES) • A proposal to develop a 2.33-acre site used for recreational vehicle storage with 25 two-story detached residential units. • 2025 Orange-Olive Road • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714-744-7238 • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She stated the applicant originally submitted an application in 2014 for 35 units and a 3-story product, but redesigned the project in response to staff and community comments. The applicant is requesting a Zone Change to R3 to align with the General Plan designation. They are also proposing a Specific Plan to establish site specific development standards along with a Major Site Plan Review, Design Review and Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes. Staff is asking the DRC for specific comments on the architecture and landscaping design. The applicants who were present for the project were Sunti Kumjim, MBK Homes; Alan Scales, KTGY; Kye Evans, MBK Homes; and Peter A. Duarte, landscape architect. Mr. Kumjim stated the �rst proposal had a higher density with a 3-story product. They listened to the feedback they had received and revised the proposed project. Mr. Duarte explained from a landscape standpoint, that the overall picture of the project was to plan for low water use and maintenance. Mr. Scales indicated from an architectural and life style standpoint, they were providing 2-story homes for a more conventional space to live with a private rear yard. He described the design of the project including the guest parking, home entry, the spine road and the inspiration from Irving Gill. Public Comments: Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. Dan Granspensperger, address on file, indicated his main concern was the impact of parking from this project on surrounding residential streets. He was glad the project no longer included 3-story homes. ATTACHMENT NO.9 Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. DRC MINUTES 7/1/15 (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) The DRC commented on the following: ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC M'�G. • Suggested addressing the public's concern regarding parking. Ms. Le stated the parking issue was not within the purview of the DRC. She said the Planning Commission could address this issue. • Questioned what the parking requirement was for this project. Ms. Le stated for the R3 zoning district it was 2.6 per unit and this proposal included 2.8 parking spaces per unit. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1,2015 Page 7 of 9 • Commented that from a design standpoint this is one of the best guest parking space layouts that the DRC has seen. • Confirmed with staff that there is a Zone Change connected to the project which brings the zoning in alignment with the General Plan designation. • Concerned with trash pickup and trash enclosures. Ms. Le has discussed this issue with the SMART Team. Trash enclosures are not proposed. The site plan shows individual trash cart locations. The details of trash pickup will be addressed in the CC&Rs for the project. • Questioned whether the fencing layout takes into account the hammerhead locations and the need to roll out trash cans from the yard area. • Questioned the space between the garages. • Commended the use of drought tolerant plants but was concerned that common areas between units might eventually become concrete in the future. Mr. Kumjim stated common area landscaping would be maintained by the HOA. • Commended the overall project and excited by the concept. • 2°d Story window concerns: o Concerned with the windows that will be facing toward the rear yards of the residential tract. Happy to see on Plan 1 that there are few windows on the 2"d story. o Concerned that Plan 3 has a number of windows on the 2"d story. Mr. Scales stated the majority of the windows are in smaller laundry spaces, toilet rooms and showers. Plan 3 does have a master bedroom window and they could perhaps rotate the bed wall. o Suggested placing a tree to mitigate the issue of looking down in the neighbor's yard. o Also suggested solving the issue with architecture instead of landscaping. Mr. Scales suggested the possibility of relocating the bed wall, minimizing the size of the window and using obscure glass. • Liked the streetscape. • Suggested adding some additional animation on the windows facing Orange-Olive. • Happy with the three different elevations facing the front of the project but there appeared to be a lot of Plan 2's at the main entrance. • Questioned whether an elevation would be included for Plan 3A. • Questioned the site plan on Sheet A 1.1 which showed the private open space extending into the front setback area. Ms. Le explained Code does not typically allow private open space within the setback areas but required setbacks can be tailored to the project in the proposed Specific Plan. • Questioned the location of Unit 2 in the northwest corner of the property which appears to be intruding into the front setback area. • Questioned the location on the site plan calling out a common area of 438 sf. • Questioned the callout of a flat stucco cap and where the pilasters occur. • Questioned the window location on the 2"d floor between Plan 1 & 2 buildings and Plan 1 & 1X buildings on plan A1.3. Mr. Scales stated they could make them a square window or use obscure glass. • Asked if there was anything special being done for sound proofing the walls and windows on the west side. Mr. Kumjin said that issue was being addressed. • Suggested animating the streetscape that faces Orange-Olive. • Liked the garages not being visible from the street. • Questioned the vinyl fence locations and the stucco gate entry. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for July 1, 2015 Page 8 of 9 • Suggested making the elevation styles more varied on the streetscape. • Had no problem with the street frontage and the setback as proposed. • Suggested the Applicant shouldn't skimp on the materials and embellish only where they need to. • Questioned if there were any issues with the Fire Department on laddering. Ms. Le stated the Fire Department will likely require tree heights to be limited on the private driveway entries for visibility. • Landscaping comments: o Concerned that the plants listed on the plans appeared chaotic and suggested not using every plant listed. o Suggested pulling back the stucco wall areas in the backyards by 2' to 3' to give the areas a sense of a garden element. o Liked the medium evergreen tree at the entry. o Thought the center spine needed a secondary player and felt the Agonis flexuosa (peppermint trees) would be a weakling. Suggested using the Tabebuia, the Chinese Lantern or the Tristania. o Questioned if the fruitless olive trees would be field grown. o Questioned the street lighting with the street trees and asked that it be coordinated. o Identified the need to consider the cable box and lines. o Suggested doing a study on the north facing plants which would be in the shade. It was noted that some of the aloe and agave species would grow in the shade. o Suggested using the Chinese Lantern tree and the Platanus acerifolia `Columbia' (London Plane Tree). Ms. Le stated the applicant would have a color/material board at the next meeting. She asked the DRC if there was any direction they would like to give the applicant on the architectural details or any direction on the materials on the various elevations. Committee Member Imboden felt it was important to call out the windows and materials on the plans. He stated there was a limited palette of material on the plans. The applicant would also need to come back with details on the vinyl windows. Ms. Le explained that staff was considering asking the applicant to add a decorative paving pattern in the motor court area to make it feel more like community areas and less like a parking place. The DRC suggested using a concrete that was sensitively scored and simple. They did not want to see pavers or stained or high contrast concrete. Ms. Le wanted feedback from the DRC regarding the screening for the transformer shown on L-1 of the plans. They agreed it needed screening. Ms. Le also asked the DRC for their feedback on the width of the sidewalks. There is a possible option of making the sidewalks 5' instead of 4'. The DRC felt a narrower street and a wider sidewalk would slow down the speed of the cars. Eric Jacobson, from the public, explained his home on Shaffer backs up to the #3 building and he voiced his concern with the windows which would look down on his yard. Agreed with the DRC suggestions to address the issue. For preliminary review only—no action is required. °E° DES�GN REVIEW COMMITTEE -��"� * �; �� ' � � �� Q2. AGENDA ITEM �s ;,�F�e.++ .�° `��..:.COUNTY GPy` .. AGENDA DATE: JULY 1,201 S TO: Chair McCormack and Members of the Design Review Committee . THRU: Leslie Aranda.Roseberry.Plaiuung Manage�� FROM: Jennifer Le,Actmg Pruicipal Planne� SUBJECT: DRC No.4749-14 Orange-Olive Residential(MBK Homes) SUMMARY The Applicant proposes to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage)with 25 two-story detached residential units. RECOMMENDED Ac'r�oN— NO ACTION (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) Staff recommends the DRC provide feedback to the Applicant as to the appropriateness of the proposed design, considering the site context and required findings for design review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: MBK Homes/Greg Shannon Property Location: 2025 Orange-Olive Road General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Zoning Classification: C-1, Limited Business Existing Development: A paved lot used for recreational vehicle storage Property Size: 2.33 acres Associated Applications: Zone Change No. 1274-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (#0033-14), Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14, & Environmental Review No. 1837-14 Previous DRC Project Review: None PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice is not required for Preliminary Review. Notice will be provided at a later date related to CEQA compliance and the Planning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENT NO. 10 DRC STAFF REPORT 7/1/15 (PRELIMINARY REVIEW) ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. Design Review Committee Staff Report July 1, 2015 Page 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is being prepared for this project. The MND will be reviewed and considered by the DRC at a later date, at the time DRC takes action on the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 two-story detached residential units (Attachment 3 — Project Plans). The proposed residential units are configured in six distinct clusters on the site, with each cluster planned around a common "motor court" area. Site access is from Orange-Olive Road. A landscaped setback is provided at the interface with Orange-Olive Road, along with decorative pavers at the entry. The internal private access drive includes curb, gutter, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped planters on both sides. 22 guest parking spaces are provided onsite. To accommodate the project, the Applicant proposes a Zone Change from C-1 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) consistent with the existing LMDR General Plan designation. The Applicant is also proposing a Specific Plan to establish site-specific development standards and a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to establish common areas and `exclusive use areas' for each unit. There are three (3)unit types, as follows: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Style C- Cottage House D-Dodge House A- Horatio House B- La Jolla House #of Units 8 7 10 BedroomsBaths 3BD/2.SBA 3BD/2.SBA 3BD/3 BA + office +loft +loft +den(4'h BD option) lst Floor ross s ft 774 771 894 2"a Floor ross s ft 1,204 1268 1,194 Gara e ross s ft 434 431 429 Total ross s ft 2,412 2,497 2,519 Each unit has a private rear and side yard (provided as an `exclusive use' area) with a 6 foot high fence. The units are designed in one of four(4) architectural style types: Cottage (Plan 1), Dodge (Plan 2), Horatio (Plan 3) or La Jolla(Plan 3). Each style draws elements from and is inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Design elements include a light sand stucco finish, a combination of hip, flat and shed roof forms, unique window arrangements and details, atched openings, porch elements, and the use of trim, wood siding, and plane changes in the fa�ade to add visual interest. Design Review Committee Staff Report July 1, 2015 Page 3 of 4 The design approach is intended to respond to the eclectic visual character of the area, and the proximity to the Fairmeadows Eichler Tract. The objective is to introduce a contemporary residential design that is distinctive, yet compatible with the context. EXISTING SITE The site is a paved lot used for recreational vehicle storage. The site contains a small business office, light standards, a freestanding sign, a CMU perimeter block wall, perimeter chain link fencing, a tube steel entry gate, and a landscaped front yard setback. Power poles are located just south of the southern property line. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project site is located in a transitional area of the City which contains a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The site is bordered to the north by a two-story apartment building; single family residential to the east; a commercial center containing thrift stores, the Dollar Store, etc. to the south; and Orange-Olive Road to the west with the railroad tracks and industrial uses located further west. The Fairmeadows Eichler Tract is located approximately three blocks to the southeast. 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. Signage. All signage shall be compatible with the building(s) design, scale, colors, materials and lighting. Design Review Committee Staff Report July 1, 2015 Page 4 of 4 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 Staff is seeking DRC feedback on the appropriateness of the design as related to mass, scale, architectural style and features, and landscape concept. The Orange-Olive interface is of particular importance, as is privacy and visual compatibility with the adjacent residential uses. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The City's SMART team (formerly SRC) reviewed the project on March 11, 2015 and June 24, 2015. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Photograph 2. Site Photographs 3. Project Plans cc: Sunti Kumjim, MBK Homes (suntikumjim@mbk.com); Kye Evans, MBK Homes; kyeevans@mbk.com) Greg Shannon, Property Owner(Greg.Shannon@ozarksmedicalcenter.com) City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2,2015 Page 7 of 17 (4) DRC No. 4749-14—Orange-Olive Residential (MBK Homes) • 2025 N. Orange-Olive Road • A proposal to construct 25 detached single family residential condominium units on a 2.33- acre site currently used far RV parking and storage. • Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714-744-7238,jle@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Jennifer Le, Acting Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She noted that staff included a condition that required the landscaping plans to come back to the DRC with greater detail prior to the issuance of the building permits. She was asking for the Committee's feedback on signage and lighting plans and whether they need to return to the DRC with more detail as well. Ms. Le also explained that the review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ends on September 16, 2015 and the DRC was to review and consider the information in the MND included in their packet in making their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The applicants who were present for this project were Arthur Alvarado, Sunti Kumjim, and Peter A. Duarte. The applicants responded to the DRC's previous design comments. Mr. Kumjim explained the alternative floor plans that addressed the privacy concerns on some of the second story units on Plan 1 and 3. Mr. Kumjim provided a color and materials board which included flat concrete shingle roofing material, wood siding and window color samples. Mr. Duarte described the changes to the landscape plans. Public Comments: Chair McCormack opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none. Chair McCormack opened the item to the Committee for discussion. The DRC commented on the following: Architecture • Requested the floor plans and elevations for Plan 1 CX and 1 BX be added to the drawings and noted DRC needed to see that. • Concerned that the special sound attenuating glazing on the four homes fronting Orange- Olive Drive was not called out on the drawings and that needed to be added. • Questioned whether all the Plan 3 units on Sheet A13.0 were using the alternate Master Bedroom window configuration as shown on Sheet A2.3. Suggested showing on the site plan where the different alternate window configurations occur and adding lot numbers to the drawings. • Questioned the trellis location shown on the Rear Elevation on Sheet A3.1.2., and wanted plans to correctly show where it occurs. • Wanted to be sure the cap on the stucco wall shown on Sheet L-2 is flat. ATTACHMENT NO. 11 DRC FINAL MINUTES—9/2/15 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2, 2015 Page 8 of 17 • Liked the scoring pattern and noted the need to get the connection point on the pattern exactly right. Street/Streetscape • Questioned why the Tentative Tract Map in the Specific Plan did not show the setback dimensions for the four homes adjacent to Orange-Olive Road. Ms. Le explained it is usually shown on the site plan and not the tract map, but this dimension would be added. • Appreciated the addition of the Concept Street Elevations on Sheet A3.0.1. Privacy Issues • Plan 1BXR on the rear elevation has a large window facing toward the neighbor to the back and questioned whether the alternate window configuration for Plan 1 be used on that unit. Mr. Alvarado said it was intended to be the standard configuration, so the plan should be corrected. • Concerned with the one 2D plan north of Plan 1BXR where the second floor master bedroom window hovers over the backyard of an adjacent residential unit. Suggested changing it to a Plan l. As another option, Mr. Alvarado explained that the window could be split using two 30 x SOs, instead of one large window. Committee member Wheeler also stated obscure glass could be used for the lower half of the window. • DRC was satisfied with the window configuration on Plan 3A and 3B on the northeast corner. Color and Materials • Favored a solid finish on the wood siding instead of the pseudo wood grain. • Questioned the locations of the blue and green colors. Discussed that the blue in scheme 6 should not be too cool and the green in Scheme 3 should not be too light. • Suggested switching the colors on Scheme 4 and 6 on Plans IB and 3A. • Suggested that the colors in Scheme 6 be reconsidered. Landscaping • Suggested adding the landscape drawings to the Sheet Index on Sheet A 1.0. • Liked the plant palette on Sheet L-3. • Applicant referred to use of Gingko trees. Committee Member McCormack was concerned that using the ginkgo tree would be an issue since it is a slow growing tree and if used should be a 24"box. Staff noted Liquidambar was shown on the DRC plans, not Gingko. • Looking at the planters between units where the trash cans come out of the rear yards into the trash collection area, the planter width is 6.5' wide and the trash can is 36"wide leaving 1'9" on each side for landscaping. Suggested playing with the pattern by putting paths on one side or the other side creating a bigger contiguous planting area instead of having the path go straight down the center. • Questioned the curbing types. Suggested using the roll curb because it looks nicer, making it a design element. Lighting Plan • Questioned the decorative pole light fixtures on the street lights and clarified that standard cobra style lights would be used on Orange-Olive with the decorative poles used on the private drive aisle. City of Orange—Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for September 2,2015 Page 9 of 17 • Questioned the up lighting on the street sign. Suggested using lights to silhouette the plants along the street wall. • Building light fixtures and locations are not currently on the plans. The Applicant showed pictures of building light fixture options and DRC suggested use of the modern styles. The DRC requested the landscaping and lighting plans come back to them. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4749-14, Orange- Olive Residential, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and noting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered by the DRC. DRC added the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant add the landscape drawings to the sheet index. 2. The applicant provide floor plans and elevations for Plan 1 CX and 1 BX and detail the treatment around the entries. 3. Indicate on the plans where the special glazing required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration for sound attenuation occurs. 4. On the upper floor adjacency study on Sheet A1.3.0, Plan 3A in the northeast corner shall use the alternate plan and Plan 3B in the southeast corner shall use the alternate plan. 5. Clarify the location and design of the trellis to be used on the Plan 1's. 6. Use Plan 1 standard window configuration for Plan 1 BXR at the east end of the property. 7. Plan 2D,just north of Plan 1 BXR at section line BB, use two 30x50 windows instead of one large window as shown. 8. Use smooth siding without the imitation wood grain where horizontal siding is called out on the drawings. 9. Switch color Scheme No. 6 with color Scheme No. 4. 10. If the applicant wishes to modify the color schemes after considering them further, bring back the new revised color scheme with the landscape plans. 11. Use a flat stucco cap on the three foot six inch walls rather than the rounded cap top shown in the illustration. 12. On Sheet L-2, the scoring patterns shall coordinate to a fine point on the scoring pattern. 13. Analyze the curbing types and use rolled curbs where available. 14. On Sheet L-3, switch the Liquidambar shown with a Tristania. 15. Show that the pathways for moving the trash cans do not have to be in the center of the space if a better location is found. 16. Bring back a lighting plan with the landscape plan. 17. Show how the entry sign is illuminated on the lighting plans. 18. All landscaping lighting fixtures are to be frosted. The above conditions are to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler NOES: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. ��°�°�� DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE * � � * 9 �' ` ` AGENDA ITEM 9y fi-;;: Q= ��F�as.�.�,�o, . c��Gp,�.,. AGENDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 2,2015 TO: Chair McCormack and Members of the Design Review Committee THRU: Leslie Aranda Roseberry,Plaruiing Manage��-��- FROM: . Jennifer Le,Acting Principal Planner�.�..� SUBJECT: DRC No.4749-14 Orange-Olive Residential(MBK Homes) SUMMARY The Applicant proposes to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 two-story detached residential units. RECOMMENDED ACTION— RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommends the Design Review Committee (DRC) recommend approval of the proposed project to the Planning Commission with conditions as stated in the staff report along with any other conditions DRC recommends in order to meet the required findings for design review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: MBK Homes/Greg Shannon Property Location: 2025 Orange-Olive Road General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Zoning Classification: C-1, Limited Business Existing Development: A paved lot used for recreational vehicle storage Property Size: 2.33 acres Associated Applications: Zone Change No. 1274-14, Tentative Tract Map No. 17758 (#0033-14), Major Site Plan Review No. 0778-14, & Environmental Review No. 1837-14 Previous DRC Project Review: July 1, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice for the DRC meeting was posted in accordance with the procedures established in the Orange Municipal Code. In addition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) related to CEQA compliance ATTACHMENT NO. 12 DRC STAFF REPORT—9/2/15 ORANGE-OLIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10.2015 CC MTG. Design Review Committee Staff Report September 2, 2015 Page 2 of 9 was filed with the County Clerk, mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject site, and published in the paper on August 28, 2015. The DRC meeting date for the project is included in the NOI. Notice will also be given for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project and is included as an attachment to your staff report. The DRC must review and consider the information in the MND prior to making a recommendation on the project. The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures related to cultural resources (potential for undocumented buried resources unearthed during grading activities) and noise (requirement for sound-attenuated windows on the second floor of units fronting Orange-Olive Road). The public review period is August 28, 2015 through September 16, 2015. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a request to develop a 2.33-acre site (currently used for recreational vehicle storage) with 25 two-story detached residential units (Attachment 3 — Project Plans). The proposed residential units are configured in six distinct clusters on the site, with each cluster planned around a common"motor court" area. Site access is via a relocated driveway on Orange- Olive Road. A landscaped setback is provided at the interface with Orange-Olive Road, along with decorative pavers at the entry. The internal private access drive includes curb, gutter, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped planters on both sides. 22 guest parking spaces are provided onsite. To accommodate the project, the Applicant proposes a Zone Change from C-1 (General Commercial)to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) consistent with the existing LMDR General Plan designation. The Applicant is also proposing a Specific Plan to establish site-specific development standards and a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes to establish common areas and `exclusive use areas' for each unit. There are three (3)unit types, as follows: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Style G Cottage House D-Dodge House A- Horatio House B- La Jolla House #of Units 8 7 10 BedroomsBaths 3BD/2.SBA 3BD/2.SBA 3BD13 BA + office+ loft +loft +den(4t"BD option) lst Floor ross s ft 774 771 894 2"a Floor ross s ft) 1,204 1268 1,194 Design Review Committee Staff Report September 2, 2015 Page 3 of 9 Gara e ross s ft 434 431 429 Total ross s ft 2,412 2,497 2,519 Each unit has a private rear and side yard (provided as an `exclusive use' area) with a 6 foot high fence. The units are designed in one of four(4) architectural style types: Cottage (Plan 1), Dodge (Plan 2), Horatio (Plan 3) or La Jolla(Plan 3). Each style draws elements from and is inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Design elements include a light sand stucco finish, a combination of hip, flat and shed roof forms; unique window arrangements and details, arched openings, porch elements, and the use of trim,wood siding, and plane changes in the farade to add visual interest. The design approach is intended to respond to the eclectic visual character of the area, and the proximity to the Fairmeadows Eichler Tract. The objective is to introduce a contemporary residential design that is distinctive, yet compatible with the context. EXISTING SITE The site is a paved lot used for recreational vehicle storage. The site contains a small business office, light standards, a freestanding sign, a CMU perimeter block wall, perimeter chain link fencing, a tube steel entry gate, and a landscaped front yard setback. Power poles are located just south of the southern property line. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT The project site is located in a transitional area of the City which contains a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The site is bordered to the north by a two-story apartment building; single family residential to the east; a commercial center containing thrift stores, the Dollar Store, and other miscellaneous commercial uses to the south; and Orange-Olive Road to the west with the railroad tracks and industrial uses located further west. The Fairmeadows Eichler Tract is located approximately three blocks to the southeast. 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. Design Review Committee Staff Report September 2, 201 S Page 4 of 9 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: Response to DRC's Previous Comments DRC reviewed the project on July l, 2015 and provided detailed design comments. The DRC's July 1, 2015 meeting minutes are included as Attachment 4 to this report. The Applicant has responded to DRC's previous design comments as summarized below. Staff is seeking DRC feedback as to the sufficiency of the revised design plans in addressing DRC comments. Architecture • Comment: Additional animation on the windows facing Orange-Olive and varied plan types at the entry are needed. Suggested varying the elevation styles along the streetscape. o Response: Sheet A1.1 shows a different plan type mix for the units at the entry than was previously-proposed. The Applicant also included an elevation for Plan 3A on Sheet 3.3.1 and a streetscape scene on Sheet A31 and L-4. Street/Streetscape • Comment: A building corner, fencing and private open space are located within the Orange- Olive setback. o Response: The proposed Specific Plan was revised to identify the setback from Orange- Olive as 17.9 feet minimum. This setback represents the minimum distance between the Orange-Olive street right-of-way and proposed buildings. The Specific Plan allows for perimeter block walls as well as private open space to be located within the Orange-Olive setback. This allows for the layout shown on the plans. The common landscaped setback area ranges from approximately 4' to 24' in depth (running north to south) along the Orange-Olive street frontage. Refer to Sheet A1.1. • Comment: Reducing the street width to accommodate a wider sidewalk is preferred. o Response: Sheet Al.l shows that sidewalk width along the private drive aisle was increased to 5' by reducing the planter width along the sidewalk by one foot. The street width was required to remain at 26' due to fire access requirements. Design Review Committee Staff Report September 2, 201 S Page S of 9 Privacy • Comment: Privacy concerns related to second story windows for units adjacent to residential. o Response: Alternative designs were prepared for proposed units with second story windows that face adjacent residential structures. Second story windows were windows , were relocated, minimized or otherwise designed to avoid direct views to adjacent residential units. Refer to Sheets Al.l, A2.1, and A2.3. Landscaping • Comment: Streamline the plant palette. o Response: The landscape palette is similar in complexity to the previously proposed. The Applicant has presented a conceptual landscape plan which provides a menu of plant materials to be used in designated landscape areas, but has not provided specific location or spacing details (particularly for shrubs or groundcover). Staff has added a Condition 1 requiring the landscape plan (showing detailed locations and spacing for each proposed plant type)to come back to DRC prior to issuance of building permits. The more detailed landscape plan will be required to be consistent �vith the layout and conceptual plant palette contained in the DRC plan set. • Comment: Clarify landscape maintenance responsibility. o Response: A legend has been added to Sheet L-1 showing HOA- versus privately- maintained landscape area. • Comment: Add a tree type that is "stronger"than the peppermint tree along the private drive. o Response: Sheet L-3 shows the applicant added three "medium canopy" tree types. The peppermint tree was removed from the "medium canopy" tree list and is listed as a "specimen"tree option located at the entry. • Comment: Coordination between fire requirements and landscape plan is needed. o Response: A "small tree" type (White Crape Myrtle or Australian Willow) is proposed at the motor court drive entries. Sheet L-3 was revised to show a reduced density of trees at the driveway entrance to ensure the tree canopy does not interfere with Fire access and vehicle cleaxance. • Comment: Suggestion for a simple scoring pattern in motor court areas compatible with the Irving Gill architecture. o Response: Sheet L-2 shows the proposed scoring pattern for the motor court areas. Decorative pavers are also proposed at the driveway entry at Orange-Olive. • Comment: Lighting and Landscape plans must be coordinated. o Response: Sheet L-5 has been added to show a lighting plan and light fixture details for onsite lighting. The lighting plan does not detail building lighting fixtures. In addition, note that a SMART condition of approval will be applied to the project requiring installation of street lighting along Orange-Olive consistent with City Public Works standards. Public street light improvement plans will be required prior to issuance of building permits. Transformers • Comment: Screening for the transform;,r is needed. Design Review Committee Staff Report September 2, 2015 Page 6 of 9 o Response: Transformers have been relocated from the Orange-Olive frontage to the south side of the private drive (Sheet L-1). All transformers are proposed to be located in a landscaped area for screening. (Note: Sheet L-5 shows a transformer north of the driveway fronting Orange-Olive Road. The Applicant has indicated this note was in error and staff has included Condition 2 requiring the note to be deleted prior to issuance of building pertnits.) Fences and Walls • Comtnent: Correct the stucco gate and its connection to the vinyl fencing. o Response: Correction was made on Sheet L-2. • Comment: Suggestion to pull the stucco wall back by two or three feet to create a garden element along the private drive aisle. o Response: Sheet Al.l and Sheet L-2 were revised to pull the proposed stucco walls back by two feet to create a landscaped element along the private drive aisle. • Comment: Question regarding access from rear yards to motor courts for trash carts. o Response: Sheet A1.3 shows a location for trash carts within the private rear yard of each unit. Gate access is provided so that homeowners may bring the trash carts from their rear yards to the common motor court area on trash day. However, the site plan requires homeowners to roll the trash bins through the common landscape area between units to access the motor court area. This may affect landscape feasibility and design in these common areas. Staff is seeking DRC feedback on this issue. Issue 2: Signage & Building Securit��in� The Applicant has included a sign concept on Sheet L-4 that appears to meet Code and is generally compatible with the building design through the use of a similar finish and color palette. The sign concept does not provide detailed dimensions that are needed to determine that the sign meets Sign Code requirements. In addition, Police and Fire standard conditions will require compliance with the City's Building Security Ordinance. Compliance with this Ordinance will likely require a lighted address on the entry sign and at each residential cluster. Such building lighting details are not yet shown on the plans. Standard conditions require signage and lighting plans that comply with Code to be submitted and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, this issue can be resolved at the staff level. If the DRC would like to review the building security lighting and sign details to ensure they are compatible with the building architecture, the DRC may add a condition requiring the final lighting and sign plans to return to DRC prior to issuance of building permits. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The City's SMART team (formerly SRC) reviewed the project on March 11, 2015 and June 24, 2015 and recommended approval on August 19,2015. Design Review Conzmittee Staff Report Septe�nber 2, 2015 Page 7 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REpUIRED 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 o� a project. The same holds true if denying a project; the decision making body must detail why it cannot make the Findings. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC recommend approval to the Planning Commission with the recommended conditions. 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 1710.070.G.1). The project is not located in the Old Towne Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.070.G.2). The project is not located in the National Register Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply. 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 requiNed findings (OMC 17.10.070.G.3). The surrounding community is characterized by a mix of land use types and design styles with no specific architectural theme. The proposed design creates a unique style and a community feel by establishing a central drive aisle to the development with residential units clustered around common "motor court" areas. Each cluster of units incorporates four architectural style types, which relate to each other through the use of similar design elements and materials inspired by Irving Gill architecture. Design elements include a light sand stucco finish, a combination of hip, flat and shed roof forms, unique window arrangements and details, arched openings, porch elements, and the use of trim, wood siding, and plane changes in the fa�ade to add visual interest. Sidewalks and landscaping along the central drive aisle create a streetscape scene that further supports the design. This approach creates a unifying theme for the site and results in a high quality, internally consistent design that is compatible with the eclectic mix of styles in the surrounding area. Further, the project involves establishment of a Specific Plan for the site which outlines site-specific development standards. The design complies with the standards outlined in the proposed Orange-Olive Specific Plan. Jennifer Le From: Dan Graupensperger <yonka@pacbell.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:39 AM To: Jennifer Le Subject: 2025 N Orange Olive Jennifer, As I stated last night there are two areas of concern that at least some of the local residents want you to know about. First, parking. The applicant has met the parking standard for this kind of development. However, as I told Sunti, the current developments on Meats meet the standard and our street is filled with overflow parking. As you know it is my opinion the building code standard is inadequate and needs to be changed. Sunti said the projects similar to this that his company has already completed have been able to control the parking through the HOA. This seems like a workable solution except that after one year his company is no longer in control and it will be up to the homeowners to manage this. I am not sure this is adequate. Is there a management device that can be tied to the deed that requires the garages be used for vehicle parking only ? Second, with change of zoning and conditional use permit the applicant is asking the set back requirements for finro story R- 3 buildings adjacent R-1 to be waived. Through the DRC the applicant has made some adjustments to the dwellings along this boarder but again I am sure they are adequate. The applicant is asking the neighborhood to give up certain property rights to build this project so I think they should take one more step to mitigate the impact of this project and put up some kind of tree screening along the R-3 / R-1 boarder. I think the burden of this screening should be on the applicant ,the maintenance of the trees be part of the HOA, and the trees be required as part of the development, similar to fuel modification requirements on the east side of town. The idea is to not create a solid boarder of trees but rather to soften the silhouete of the buildings and partially obscure the veiw from the second floor into the back yards of the adjacent single story dwellings. Since I will be out of town for the continuance meeting in October will you please pass this on the Planning Commissioner and send a copy to Sunti. I want to make sure he has time to think about these items so he can give a considered response. Dan Graupensperger 2029 N. Shaffer St. ATTACHMENT NO. 13 CORRESPONDENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 1 ORANGE-0LIVE RESIDENTIAL NOVEMBER 10,2015 CC MTG. Jennifer Le From: Dan Graupensperger <yonka@pacbell.net> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 7:52 PM To: Jennifer Le Subject: 2025 N Orange Olive Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Jennifer, I have reviewed the general plan, and zoning for this parcel and I think I understand the basic issues. I understand the zoning change is being allowed to fit the general plan but I do not understand why the CUP was granted allowing the reduction in set back without some kind of mitigation measure. I have enjoyed the sunsets in that direction for 50 years and now I will get to see square blocks of buildings. I know the DRC and Planning Commission feel these dwellings have a great visual appeal and mimic a famous designers buildings. However, they are looking at them from the street where I will only get to see just the top portion which will look a lot like a tilt up from my front yard. It has been suggested that the single story dwellings adjacent put in trees to block the skyline change and I had this discussion with Sunti. This is unacceptable on at least three levels. First, the applicant is creating the problem so the applicant needs to mitigate it. Second, at least one of the adjacent dwellings has a mostly concrete back yard and a pool, no room for a row of trees. Third, even though the applicant is willing to provide financial assistance to adjacent dwelling owners for them to plant trees, this option will require them to both change their landscape and pay to water the trees into the future to mitigate a problem that is not created by them. It is my feeling the Planning Commission made the wrong decision in allowing the CUP without properly mitigating the problems created by a reduced set back. There is adequate space on the applicants site plan for a row of trees along the property line that will soften the affects the development has on the surrounding dwellings. I suspect the applicant does not want the long term responsibility of the trees and does not want the responsibility of partially landscaping these lots. That is not reason enough to avoid mitigating this problem the development creates. Our request is not for a solid fence of trees, which would be expensive to plant and maintain, but rather trees spaced to soften the outline of the buildings and provide some screening for the adjacent single story dwellings. The pallet of drought tolerant trees recommended by other local municipalities that the fit this need is available on line and available through local distributors. I hope the council when considering this development does not mistake lack of Planning Commission meeting attendance by my neighbors as lack of interest. Not everyone believes they can affect change in city planning. Our request is that the City Council, if they approve this project, will require the applicant to plant a row of trees to at least partially screen the adjacent single story dwellings from the two story dwellings he is building. Please pass this e mail on to the Council and Sunti. I hope I can attend when this comes up on the Council agenda but if I cannot I would really like them to know this is still an issue with our neighborhood. Thank You, Dan Graupensperger � Jennifer Le From: MARIE CLAUDE LINTEAU <koyatchi@msn.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:48 AM To: Jennifer Le Subject: Orange-Olive Residential Project/ N Shaffer Street Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning Jennifer, We are new here on Shaffer Street in Orange and it has come to our attention,via your correspondence and our concerned neighbors,that our view of the 25 detached single family condos will be mainly brick walls.We are requesting, along with our neighbors,that a lining(landscape, trees, etc) be added to the plan so that our view of the back of the condos is embellished and more pleasant. We do appreciate your attention to this matter as we love our new neighborhood and would love to preserve it. Could you reply to confirm you have received my email? Again,we truly appreciate your time! Sincerely, Andreas Laux and Marie-Claude Linteau N Shaffer Street i