Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.01 Killefer Square Apartments 3 - Attachments 3-7MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1844-15 RESOLUTION NO. PC 17-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1844-15 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET APPLICANT: WESTERN STATES HOUSING, LLC Moved by Commissioner Glasdon and seconded by Chair Glasgow that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020 and Section 17.08.020.B.2a to review and snake a recommendation to the City Council on environmental documentation including Mitigated Negative Declarations; and, WHEREAS, an application for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 was filed by Western States Housing, LLC in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, an application for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15, filed by Western States Housing, LLC, was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and, WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of certain conditions and mitigation measures; and, ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESNO NO. 17-18 FOR MND NO. 1844-15 KILLEFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY 10, 2018 CC MTG. Resolution No. PC 17-18 Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 was published on March 21, 2018 and was made available for a 45 day public review and comment period from March 21, 2018 to May 4, 2018, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines and state requirements for a General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Streamlined Multidisciplinary Accelerated Review Team (SMART) determined that the plans, technical studies, and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were satisfactory, and recommended Planning Commission approval on March 7, 2018, subject to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 at its March 21, 2018 meeting, and recommended its adoption subject to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for purposes of considering Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on June 4, 2018, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 2017- 001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 for the construction of a new 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three story building upon property described in: Exhibit A to this Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 (Exhibit B) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit C) for the construction of a new 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three story building based on the following: SECTION 1— ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 has been prepared for this project to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit C) contain an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Noise included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Resolution No. PC 17-18 Page 3 of 6 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on June 4, 2018, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, and Willits NOES: Com oner Correa RECUSE: ne ABSENT: Co missioner Sin / / Ernest J. Glas`gow, Planning Comriiission Chair N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\General Plan Amendment\GPA 2017-0001 Killefer Square\PC\PC Reso No 17-18 Killefer MND MMRP.doc EXHIBIT A PARCELI: LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT NO. 566, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 18, PAGE 20 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2: LOTS 4 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE AND THE NORTH 18 FEET OF LOT 3 OF JOHN R. SCHOOLEY'S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 17 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SURVEYED BY FRANK LECOUVREUR IN DECEMBER 1870, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 33 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF OLIVE STREET AND 132 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 5 ACRES OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID LOT 4, IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT; THENCE NORTH 68 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE, 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET OF SAID PREMISES. PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT. IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS SURVEYED BY FRANK LECOUVREUR IN DECEMBER 1870, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 33 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF OLIVE STREET AND 200 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 5 ACRES OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID LOT 4, IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO A POST, THENCE NORTH 166 FEET TO A POST, THENCE EAST 165 FEET TO A POST, THENCE SOUTH 166 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET OF SAID PREMISES. APN: 039-132-15 (PORTION) EXHIBIT B Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.0046-17 MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0850-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3064-17 VARIANCE NO.2248-17 DESIGN REVIEW NO.4870-15 RESOLUTION NO. PC 18-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0046- 17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.0850-15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3064-17, VARIANCE NO. 2248-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4870-15 FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET APPLICANT: WESTERN STATES HOUSING, LLC Moved by Commissioner Gladson and seconded by Chair Glasgow that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority per Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020 to review and take action on applications for Tentative Tract Maps, Major Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances. OMC Section 17.10.070 requires the approval of Design Review when a project requires Major Site Plan Review. OMC Section 17.08.020B.2.b establishes the Planning Commission's authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council on applications involving General Plan amendments and Tentative Tract Maps; and, WHEREAS, an application for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 was filed by Western States Housing, LLC in accordance with the provisions of the City of the Orange Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, an application for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15, filed by Western States Housing, LLC, was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and, ATTACHMENT NO.4 PC RESNO NO. 18-18 FOR GPA NO.2017-001, TTM NO.0046-17, MSPR NO.0850-15, CUP NO. 3064-17, VAR NO.2248-17, DR NO.4870-15 KILLEFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY 10, 2018 CC MTG. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 2 of 22 WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 was published on March 21, 2018 and was made available for a 45 day public review and comment period from March 21, 2018 to May 4, 2018, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines and state requirements for a General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Streamlined Multi -Disciplined Accelerated Review Team (SMART), representing the City's interdepartmental staff review committee, considered the application along with plans, technical studies, and the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on October 19, 2016; April 5, 2017; August 2, 2017; November 8, 2017; January 17, 2018; and March 7, 2018 and recommended approval of the proposal subject to the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff recommended standard conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee preliminarily reviewed the proposal on September 2, 2015; August 17, 2016; October 5, 2016; November 2, 2016; and December 20, 2017. On March 21, 2018, the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the project with conditions and mitigation measures presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0. The recommended conditions and mitigation measures have been included in this Planning Commission resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised public hearing on June 4, 2018, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of or opposition to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 upon property described in: Exhibit A to this Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15, along with associated adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Errata as described in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 17-18 to allow the construction of a 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three story building based on the following findings: Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 3 of 22 SECTION 1 — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 has been prepared for this project to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contain an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Noise included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 2 — FINDINGS General Plan The project must be consistent with the goals and policies stated within the City's General Plan. The project achieves multiple goals of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment from Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), as depicted in Exhibit B of this resolution, rectifies an inconsistency between the property's zoning and General Plan designations. The LMDR General Plan Designation is consistent with the property's existing R-3 zoning and with the surrounding residential General Plan designations. The multi -family development is also compatible with the mix of adjacent single and multi -family residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements, the project increases the inventory of housing in the city and diversifies the housing types available in the community. The project rehabilitates a vacant historic school property and restores it to active use as a multi -family residential development consistent with the neighborhood. The historic school will be adaptively reused in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards). The new building is designed to be compatible with the character of the historic school and with the local Old Towne Historic District, which is located to the west across Lemon Street from the property. The new building is located at the northwest corner of the property and incorporates design features, such as balcony screening, to minimize effects on the privacy of adjacent properties. The project combines historic preservation and contextually appropriate infill development to address the goals of the Urban Design and Cultural Resources Elements. Tentative Tract Map 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, Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 4 of 22 sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, public safety facilities and environmental protection. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 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. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will consolidate multiple lots into a single parcel, consistent with the project limits. Site planning requirements related to lot area, improvements and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and sidewalks, 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. Major Site Plan Review 1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of single and multi -family residential properties with light industrial and institutional properties. Immediately to the north of the subject property is property owned by the Orange Unified School District, which operates the Richland Continuation High School. The non-profit Friendly Center and Killefer Park are also located to the north. The subject property is located north and east of the Walnut Avenue/Lemon Street boundary of the National Register and local -Old Towne Historic Districts. The site layout is designed to minimize potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and to respect the historic character of Killefer Elementary School. The new building is located at the northwest corner of the property to retain views of the historic school from N. Lemon Street. The placement of the new building, set back substantially from N. Olive Street, also allows the retention of the historic streetscape and views of the school from N. Olive Street. Although the new building is three stories, it is no more than 32 feet tall, the maximum building height allowed in the R-3 zone. Variations in the massing of the new building help to make it compatible with the modest character of surrounding single and multi -family residences, while the palette of materials references the Spanish Colonial Revival style of the historic school. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. As described in MND No. 1844-15, the project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) for adaptive reuse of the historic school and compatible new construction both on a historic property and adjacent to a historic district. The project preserves historic features and materials of the historic school, while the new building is placed to preserve views of the historic school with a design and palette of materials that is compatible the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project conforms to the required development standards for the R-3 zoning with the following three exceptions: 1) the third story of the new building, for which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, as allowed by the Orange Municipal Code; Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 5 of 22 2) the absence of private open space for the six units in the historic school, for which the applicant is requesting a Variance to avoid direct impacts to the materials and design of the historic building; and 3) the absence of covers/carports for one parking space per unit, for which the applicant is requesting a Variance to avoid impacts to the view of the historic school from N. Lemon Street. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on - and off -site. The property will have pedestrian access points on both Lemon and Olive streets. Bicycle storage is provided in convenient and accessible locations on the property. Vehicular access points have been minimized on Lemon and Olive streets to ensure safe circulation conditions. The project incorporates streetscape improvements, including repairing sidewalks and removing unused driveway approaches, that reinforce the quality and safety of the pedestrian experience. With adoption of Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures, the proposed project provides for safe and adequate circulation. 4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project. As evaluated in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts to police, fire, recreation and park services. The project incorporates design features that address Code requirements and building and infrastructure systems that maximize safety and ensure adequate utility services to the site. The applicant will be subject to payment of impact fees associated with schools, parks, libraries, sewer, and Sanitation District fees. 5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. The proposed project includes project design features that minimize potential adverse impacts to Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Noise. Mitigation Measures are also included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are incorporated into the Conditions of Approval in this resolution. Conditional Use Permit 1. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. The request for a third story for a new residential building on property in the R-3 zone is granted upon sound principles of land use. The total height proposed new residential building is 31.5 feet, which meets the zoning code requirement for overall height. The request for the Conditional Use Permit is for one additional story within the maximum height of 32 feet. Floor to ceiling heights and mechanical equipment have been compressed to the greatest extent feasible to reduce the overall height and mass of the building. The building is carefully sited on the property to limit impacts to privacy for adjacent neighbors and incorporates privacy features, such as balcony screens. The additional story also acts as a feature of the project by allowing more open space on the property to preserve public views of the historic school. As such, the placement, mass, and design of the new building will not negatively impact the streetscape and/or established land use pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 6 of 22 2. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted if it will cause deterioration of bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. Consideration has been given to whether the third story will detrimentally affect adjacent land uses. The third story is not anticipated to create problems for the neighbors or adjacent uses. Privacy features, such as balcony screens and obscured glass, are incorporated in the building design to limit the interface between neighbors and the property. The building is also located at the northwest corner of the property to avoid direct interactions with neighboring properties to the greatest extent feasible. As described in MND No. 1844-15, the project is not located in a portion of the City that is impacted by insufficient capacity for traffic circulation, parking, public utilities, or similar infrastructure needs. 3. A Conditional Use Permit must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan.for the area in which it is located. The property is located in a neighborhood with a mix of single-family and multi -family residential properties, combined with light industrial and institutional uses, including Richland Continuation High School and Killefer Park. It is located across N. Lemon Street from the Old Towne Historic District. As described in MND No. 1844-15, the project, including the new construction, is in conformance with the SOI Standards, and with mitigation measures will have a less than significant impact on the historic Killefer School and the adjacent Old Towne Historic District. The new building incorporates design elements that minimize impacts to privacy of adjacent properties and is compatible .with the mass, scale, design and materials of the historic school on the property and with historic residential buildings in the Historic District. 4. A Conditional Use Permit, if granted, shall be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. The request for a third story for the new building has been evaluated for compatibility of mass, scale, setbacks, design and materials with the historic school and the surrounding neighborhood. Standard conditions of approval related to construction of the project, modifications to the plans, and continued conformance with the SOI Standards have been included in this resolution. With implementation of these conditions of approval, the proposed project will complement surrounding land uses and preserve the general welfare. Variance 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Killefer Elementary School is a historic resource, designated in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In order for a project associated with a historic resource to be in conformance with the SOI Standards and cause a less than significant impact to the historic resource, it must maintain and preserve the important historic, or character -defining features, of the property. The National Register designation for Killefer Elementary School identifies the property's character -defining features as including the doors, windows, plaster finish, courtyard, and corridor system of the partially covered raised arcade around the Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 7 of 22 courtyard. Another important character -defining feature is the public view of the school from both N. Olive Street and N. Lemon Street. In order to preserve these features, the project requires two Variances from the zoning code requirements of the R-3 zone: 1) elimination of the private open space required for each unit in the historic building; and 2) elimination of the covers/carports for one parking space per unit. The presence of the historic building on the property, located immediately adjacent to the Old Towne Historic District, and the desire to preserve its character -defining features provide the special circumstances required to grant Variances for these components of the project. Under the zoning code requirements for open space, each unit must have a private fenced patio or balcony directly accessible from the interior of the unit. The physical changes to the historic building required to create direct access to private patios would include cutting new door openings in the building, resulting in the loss of historic materials and potential changes to the raised arcade around the courtyard. The enclosures required for the private patios also would substantially change the open landscaped character of the courtyard and former play areas around the school. These changes would not be in conformance with the SOI Standards and would likely result in a significant impact to the historic resource. In lieu of private open space, the applicant has provided seating areas around the historic building that will allow residents the benefit of a passive outdoor amenity without impacting the historic school. Similarly, the view of the school and its courtyard and play area from N. Lemon Street is identified as a character -defining feature of the historic property. It is also an important community landmark that has characterized the northern portion of the Cypress Street Barrio and the adjacent Old Towne Historic District since the school's construction in 1931. Under the zoning code requirements for multi -family residential parking, at least one parking space per unit is required to be covered. In a development of this size, this requirement is typically met with carports or individual garages. However, providing carports on this property would result in at least 24 carports or garages between the historic school and N. Lemon Street. The historic view of Killefer Elementary School would be substantially obscured from N. Lemon Street, impacting the immediately adjacent Old Towne Historic District. This change to the site would also not be in conformance with the SOI Standards and may result in a significant impact to the historic resource and the Historic District. Strict application of the zoning code in this case contradicts and impedes the City's and community's goals for high -quality preservation and adaptive reuse projects for important historic properties. Granting of the Variances promotes preservation of the historic building while allowing the property to be developed for multi -family residential use. Granting of the Variances allows the property to enjoy the same rights as nearby properties to develop as allowed under the code, while rehabilitating and adaptively reusing a long -vacant historic building and community landmark. 2. The variance granted shall be subject to such conditions which will assure that the authorized adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is located. Granting of the Variances will confer no more rights to the subject property than exist for other properties in the neighborhood. Development of the subject property is constrained by Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 8 of 22 historic preservation standards for the historic school. Preservation of the historic building limits the buildable area on the property, so no special privileges are conferred in that granting of the Variances allows the property to be developed for multi -family residential use, similar to adjacent properties. Granting of the Variances confers the same rights to develop as other nearby properties without historic buildings. The Variances are also subject to conditions of approval to ensure that only the permitted improvements are authorized for on -site construction. Design Review 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. This project site is not within 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. This project site is not within any National Register Historic District; therefore, this finding does not apply. However, the project is located on a property that is separately designated in the National Register of Historic Places. As described in the Historic Resources Impacts Analysis of MND No. 1844-15, a component of the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project is in conformance with the SOI Standards. Adaptive reuse of the historic school requires minimal change to the historic materials and character of the building. The existing building form, courtyard, arcaded covered walkways, and doors and windows will be maintained and rehabilitated. Interior changes to accommodate the residential units will preserve the sense of space of the large classrooms and will maintain specific classroom features, including chalkboards and fire hose cabinets. Historic elements of the building will be restored based on physical evidence from the building and historic photographs, including the clay tile roof and decorative tile surround at the entrance. In addition, the proposed new building will be located on the property to preserve the historic views of the school from North Olive and North Lemon Street. The mass, scale, and location of the new construction is appropriate to the size and prominence of the historic school, while the design and materials reference elements of the school's Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. The new construction is compatibility with the historic resource and is completely reversible without causing major change to the materials of the historic school. 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 project is neither located in a specific plan area nor an area of the City subject to design standards. However, because the project is located on a property with a National Register - designated historic resource and adjacent to the Old Towne Historic District, the SOI Standards apply to rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the school and the compatibility of the new construction. As described above, the project is in conformance with the SOI Standards. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 9 of 22 The surrounding neighborhood is an eclectic mix of single-family and multi -family residences with some large scale industrial buildings to the northwest. Houses within the boundary of the Old Towne Historic District are located across North Lemon Street from the property, and much of the surrounding development reflects the scale and character of single- family residential neighborhoods developed in the first half of the 201h century, around the same time as construction of Killefer Elementary School. Adaptive reuse of the historic school puts a long -vacant community institution back into productive use and prevents the continuing deterioration of the historic resource and the potential impacts of that deterioration on the surrounding neighborhood. The three-story scale of the new building is reduced with variations in massing from the rooflines, enclosed stairs, elevator tower, and balconies, and the building is sited to avoid negative privacy or other aesthetic effects on neighboring properties. The new building references the design elements and materials of the historic school with a theme that is consistent and integrated between the historic resource and the new construction. These elements are also compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as they reference a long history of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture that is typical of residential neighborhoods from this era in Orange. Project landscaping enhances the pedestrian experience on North Lemon and North Olive Streets and preserves traditional neighborhood views of the historic school, an important part of the property's history and cultural significance. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character. This project is not an infill residential development subject to the City's Infill Residential Design Guidelines; therefore, this finding does not apply. SECTION 3— CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions are imposed with approval: General 1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled May 21, 2018 including any modifications required by conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Any future expansion in area or in the nature and operation of the use approved by Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15, shall require an application for a new or amended Site Plan Review. 2. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled May 17, 2018. Any future changes to the project's architectural or site design features approved by Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 10 of 22 Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 shall require an application for a new or amended Design Review. 3. These conditions shall be reprinted on the second page of the construction documents when submitted to the Building Division for the plan check process. 4. Within two days of final approval of this project, the applicant shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check payable to the Orange County Clerk in an amount required to fulfill the fee requirements of Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d) (2) and the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code 21152 14 Cal. Code Regulations 15075. If it is determined that there will be no impact upon wildlife resources, the fee shall be as required based on the current fee schedule. 5. Within two days of final approval of this project, the applicant shall submit a $3,000.00 deposit to the Planning Division for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Time spent by City staff to complete the project will be charged to the applicant. When more than 50% of the deposit has been credited toward hourly services provided, the applicant will be billed directly for actual time spent on the project. At the completion of the project, a final accounting of deposit posted and amounts charged toward the project will be calculated and any charges due to the City or refunds due to the applicant will be processed. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 shall become void if not vested within two years from the date of approval. Time extensions may be granted for up to one year, pursuant to OMC Section 17.08.060. 9. Any modifications to the plans including, but not limited to, the landscaping and parking as a result of other Department requirements such as Building Codes, water quality, Fire, or Police shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 10. Subsequent modifications to the approved architecture and color scheme shall be submitted for review and approval to the Community Development Director or designee. Should the modifications be considered substantial, the modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 11 of 22 11. 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. 12. The project approval includes certain fees and/or 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. 13. Building pen -nits shall be obtained for all construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Community Development Department's Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits may be cause for revocation of this entitlement. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant shall pay all applicable development fees, including but not limited to: City sewer connection, Orange County Sanitation District Connection Fee, Transportation System Improvement Program, Fire Facility, Police Facility, Park Acquisition, Sanitation District, and School District, as required. 15. All construction activities shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (Orange Municipal Code Section 8.24). In conjunction with construction, all activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sundays and Federal holidays. 16. In conjunction with the operation of the project, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property to a level deemed adequate by the Community Development Director or designee. This includes, but is not limited to, the buildings, landscaping, recreational facilities, trash areas, signage, utilities, walls, fences, gates, and parking areas. Any graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours from the time the City of Orange Notice of Violation is received by the applicant/property owner. 17. Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, a historic preservation consultant shall be engaged to monitor construction and make recommendations on decisions to rehabilitate or replace features in the historic building. The consultant shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. 18. Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, the applicant shall return to the Design Review Committee with details on lighting, the balconies in the new building, awnings, window trim and reveals in the historic and new buildings, and the east (Olive Street) fagade of the new building. 19. The air-conditioning units in the north side yard shall be relocated away from the residential properties to the north to minimize noise. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 12 of 22 20. The details on the rehabilitation of the historic structure as described in the Historic Resources Impact Assessment shall be included as -additional conditions on the plans. 21. The rain gutters and downspouts on the historic building shall be copper plated and match what was originally on the property to the extent that documentation is available. 22. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the roofing materials on the historic and new buildings shall return to Design Review Committee. The roofing of the new building should be the same material as the historic building with some differentiation in design. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the interpretive elements in the Olive Street front yard and museum space shall return to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 24. Prior to issuance of a building permit associated with the Project, the Applicant shall engage a qualified historic preservation consultant, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in historic architecture or architectural history, to review the construction plans for the adaptive reuse of the historic elementary school building. The consultant shall review and advise on, in particular, proposed building accessibility and paint color, in addition to the project's general confonnance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The consultant shall prepare a memorandum on the construction plans' conformance with the Secretary's Standards and shall provide the memorandum to the City of Orange Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. Prior to issuance of a building permit associated with the Project, a final colors and materials board shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. 26. Fees or other charges for use of required parking spaces and required storage areas shall not be applied to occupants of the residential units. 27. The project shall comply with all Regulatory Requirements and Mitigation Measures included in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 28. Installation of solar panels or covered parking is prohibited on the west side of the historic school building to maintain sightlines to the historic school. 29. The applicant is encouraged to communicate with and develop a plan for securing the historic school building with Orange Unified School District as quickly as possible after final action by City Council. Fire 30. 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. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 13 of 22 Landscaping 31. Prior to issuance of a building permit associated with the Project, final landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared and submitted by a licensed landscape architect for review and approval by the Community Services Department and the Design Review Committee. 32. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all landscaping improvements shall be completed according to the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Community Services Director. 33. All landscape areas shall be maintained in neat and healthy condition. Should any plant material die, the property owner/operator shall replace it with new healthy plant material to match the approved landscape plans. 34. Prior to building permit issuance, final landscaping plans for the project shall be designed to comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines as described in Section IX et al of the City of Orange Landscape Standards and Specifications. 35. Prior to building permit issuance, City required irrigation and landscape inspection notes shall be placed on the final landscape plan, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. 36. Prior to building permit issuance, final landscape plans for the project shall include landscape area calculations required for State -mandated landscape water use reporting. Police 37. Prior to building permit issuance, construction plans shall show that all structures shall comply with the requirements of Orange Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 (Building Security Standards) and Building Security Guidelines, which include requirements for doors, hardware, lighting, addressing, landscaping, windows, and construction site security. Architectural drawings shall include sections of the Ordinance that apply under "Security Notes". An "Approved Products List 1/08" of hardware, windows, etc. is available upon request. 38. Security and design measures that employ Defensible Space concepts shall be utilized in development and construction plans. These measures incorporate the concepts of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), which involves consideration such as placement and orientation of structures, access and visibility of common areas, placement of doors, windows, addressing and landscaping. 39. 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. 40. There shall be positioned at each entrance of a multiple family dwelling complex an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the complex which shows the location of the viewer and the unit designations within the complex. 41. Any new lighting on the premises shall be installed in such a way to direct, control, and screen the lighting to prevent off site light spillage onto adjoining properties and shall not be a nuisance to any point beyond the exterior boundaries of the property. The applicant shall Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 14 of 22 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. 42. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Orange Police Crime Prevention Bureau and set an appointment on -site to test all lighting to ensure it meets all OMC standards. The lighting shall be tested and confirmed to determine if the lighting meets or exceeds the exterior boundary standards. 43. A construction site security plan shall be submitted to the Orange Police Department Crime Prevention Bureau for review and approval prior to the start of construction. Public Works - Water 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a water improvement plan to the Water Division for proposed water mains, 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 improvement plan is required to be submitted directly to the Water Division located at 189 S. Water Street for review and approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs associated with the proposed improvements. 45. Water improvement plans submitted during plan check shall be consistent with the City Water Division Standards and Specifications, 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. 46. 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. A deposit for plan check and inspection fees is required to be posted concurrently with filing the Water Division application and submission of plans for review. 47. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of the existing public water system appurtenances as necessitated by the proposal to a location and of a design approved by the Water Division. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show the existing 4 inch water main in Olive Street upgraded to an 8 inch DIP from Walnut Avenue to Rose Avenue. Installation of the 8 inch DIP shall be completed per Water Division Standard Plans and Specifications. 49. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show that the installation of new water mains and new supply lines in the vicinity of pipelines conveying sewage, storm drainage and/or hazardous fluids is done per the Water Division's Standard Number 113. 50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show that each property, residence, main building or structure shall have a separate meter service unless otherwise approved by the Water Division. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 15 of 22 51. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show that a six foot minimum horizontal clearance and a one foot minimum vertical clearance will be maintained between City water mains, laterals, services, meters, fire hydrants and all other utilities except those identified in the Water Division's Standard Number 113. 52. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show that an eight -foot minimum clearance is provided between City water mains, and signs, trees or other substantial shrubs, bushes, or plants. 53. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents 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. 54. Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction documents shall show that permanent signs, awnings, surface water quality features, such as but not limited to infiltration planters, basins, pervious pavement or other structures, are not installed over the City's water mains, laterals, services, meters, back flow prevention devices and fire hydrants. 55. A minimum of fourteen calendar days prior to public water 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. 56. Prior to installation, the Water Division shall approve the type and location of all back flow prevention devices. 57. 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. 58. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall furnish and install individual pressure regulators on the private side of new services where the incoming pressure exceeds eighty pounds per square inch. Public Works - Water Quality 59. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits the applicant shall submit a Priority Project WQMP for review and approval to the Public Works Department that: a. Prioritizes the use of Low Impact Development principles as follows: preserves natural features; minimizes runoff and reduces impervious surfaces; and utilizes infiltration of runoff as the method of pollutant treatment. Infiltration BMPs to be considered include the use of permeable materials such as concrete and concrete pavers, infiltration trenches, infiltration planters, and other infiltration BMPs as applicable, b. Incorporates the applicable Site Design, Routine Source, Structural Control and Low Impact BMPs as defined in the Model Water Quality Management Plan and Technical Guidance Document. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 16 of 22 c. Maintains the hydrologic characteristics of the site by matching time of concentration, runoff, velocity, volume and hydrograph for a 2-year storm event, d. Minimizes the potential increase in downstream erosion and avoids downstream impacts to physical structures, aquatic and riparian habitat, e. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for structural and Treatment Control BMPs, f. Identifies the entity or employees that will be responsible for long-term operation, maintenance, repair and or replacement of the structural and Treatment Control BMPs and the training that qualifies them to operate and maintain the BMPs, g. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of all structural and Treatment Control BMPs, h. Includes a copy of the forms to be used in conducting maintenance and inspection activities, i. Meets recordkeeping requirements (forms to be kept for 5 years). Includes a copy of the form to be submitted annually by the project owner to the Public Works Department that certifies that the project's structural and treatment BMPs are being inspected and maintained in accordance with the project's WQMP. 60. Prior to the issuance of a certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate the following to the Public Works Department: a. 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, b. That the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP, c. That an adequate number of copies of the project's approved final Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. 61. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final signoff by the Public Works Department, 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. 62. 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. 63. 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 Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 17 of 22 Public Works Department of the new person(s) or entity responsible for maintenance of the BMPs. 64. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit (including grubbing, clearing, surface mining or paving permits as appropriate) 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. 65. Prior to City approval of the landscape plans, the applicant shall review the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and ensure the proposed landscape plans are consistent with the project grading plans and show the proposed storm water infiltration devices and other treatment Best Management Practices incorporated into the project that may affect landscaping areas. Public Works — Subdivision 66. All residential fencing along common areas, public spaces, etc. shall be of open construction to provide natural surveillance from residences to the surrounding area except where solid walls are required for sound attenuation or along side yard areas. 67. Prior to issuance of a fire service (detector check), the required water supplies for hydrants and fire sprinkler systems shall be determined and the water supplies shall be approved by the Fire Department. 68. The applicant shall pay all sewer related fees including sewer frontage fees based along the length of the property where sewer lateral will be connected to the sewer main line on N. Olive Street. Prior to Recordation o Final Map 69. The applicant shall cause to be prepared a Final Map in substantial compliance with the Tentative Tract Map and conditions of approval, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 70. The applicant shall pay any applicable fees for the processing of the Final Map, as established at the time the map is filed. 71. The following improvements shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works. At the discretion of the Public Works Director, security may be provided to the City in lieu of constructing facilities: a. All required streets and street improvements appurtenances street names, street signs, streetlights, roadway striping, redcurbing and stenciling on roadways within the map and outside the map boundaries, if required. All street lighting shall be designed to maximize downward throw, and minimize upward losses into the atmosphere. b. All required surface drainage, storm drain facilities, and water quality improvements, including any offsite improvements, extended to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff. Sump conditions shall be designed to handle 100-year frequency storms. Semi -sump conditions shall be designed to handle 25-year Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 18 of 22 frequency storms. Main line storm drains that serve sumps and semi -sumps shall be designed to handle 25-year frequency storms. c. A water distribution system and appurtenances which shall conform to the adopted City of Orange Water Division regulations. d. Sewer collection system and appurtenances which shall conform to the adopted City of Orange regulations. e. Monumentation shall be set, based on a field survey. f. Undergrounding of utilities. g. Landscaping for public areas. All landscaping shall include the installation of root barriers on the sidewalk side of tree, or where conditions warrant, the installation of Deep Root box as directed by the Community Services Department. h. Medians and parkways along public streets shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover (no turf grass) and the median noses less than three feet paved with stamped concrete per City Standard. 72. The applicant shall prepare an improvement plan for the anticipated public improvements for this tract map, and submit the plans for review and approval by the Public Works Department. All applicable plan check and permit fees shall be paid by the applicant, as established at the time the plan is submitted. 73. The applicant shall prepare and submit a sewer capacity analysis and request "will serve" letters from the applicable water and sewer districts. 74. All sidewalks shall be designed and constructed to City of Orange Public Works Standards. Transverse slope must not exceed 2%. 75. The applicant shall prepare a final hydraulic and hydrology report, prepared by a qualified engineer, for review and approval by the Public Works Director. 76. The applicant shall prepare and submit a final geotechnical and soils classification report to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and Public Works Director. Prior to Issuance o a Gradinz Permit 77. The applicant shall submit a grading plan (36" x 24" plan size) in compliance with City of Orange Public Works standards for review and approval by the Public Works Director. 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. 78. Any soil imported or exported from the Tentative Tract boundaries shall require issuance of a separate Transportation Permit. 79. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees to cover plan check and inspection services related to the grading activities. 80. The grading plan shall detail all of the locations where retaining walls will be constructed, including height and engineering for each wall, and the applicant shall obtain a building permit for walls over three (3) feet in height prior to construction. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 19 of 22 81. Any grading outside of the tract boundaries shall require the applicant to either obtain slope easements or off -site grading agreements in a form suitable to the Public Works Director. 82. The applicant shall prepare a dust control plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director. 83. 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 Issuance of a Building Permit 84. The Final Map, as approved by the Public Works Director, shall be recorded. 85. 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. 86. The applicant shall coordinate with the City's solid waste provider for location and design of service. 87. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an address number request, including an addressing plan, to Public Works Department for review and approval. 88. The building closest to the N. Olive Street frontage shall have the lowest address number. 89. For the building in the back, not clear in sight from N. Olive Street, an illuminated address sign shall be placed in the front. Prior to Issuance o a Certificate ofOccupane 90. 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. 91. Utilities serving the development, such as electric, cable television, street lighting and communications shall be installed underground, completed and approved by the appropriate utility provider. 92. Any utilities or easements constructed to serve the project or requiring relocation shall be completed and accepted by the affected agency and the City of Orange. Resolution No. PC 18-18 Page 20 of 22 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted on June 4, 2018, by the Planning Commission of the City of Orange by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson, and Willits NOES: Commissioner Correa RECUSE: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson Date N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\General Plan Amendment\GPA 2017-0001 Killefer Square\PC\PC Reso No. 18-18 Killefer GPA, TTM, MJSP, DRC, CUP, VAR.docx EXHIBIT A PARCELI: LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT NO. 566, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 18, PAGE 20 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2: LOTS 4 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE AND THE NORTH 18 FEET OF LOT 3 OF JOHN R. SCHOOLEY'S FIRST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE 17 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SURVEYED BY FRANK LECOUVREUR IN DECEMBER 1870, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 33 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF OLIVE STREET AND 132 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 5 ACRES OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID LOT 4, IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT; THENCE NORTH 68 FEET; THENCE WEST 165 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE, 165 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET OF SAID PREMISES. PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT. IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS SURVEYED BY FRANK LECOUVREUR IN DECEMBER 1870, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 33 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF OLIVE STREET AND 200 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 5 ACRES OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID LOT 4, IN BLOCK G OF THE A. B. CHAPMAN TRACT; THENCE WEST 165 FEET TO A POST, THENCE NORTH 166 FEET TO A POST, THENCE EAST 165 FEET TO A POST, THENCE SOUTH 166 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE EAST 33 FEET OF SAID PREMISES. APN: 039-132-15 (PORTION) EXHIBIT B Existing and Proposed General Plan Maps 50 51 52 O r- i 740 i 767! 1 7�5 9 723 i 69.2 Am 615 594 Sit I 3 I I $40 598 ^ sm S34 Y 532 Y 530 n n RA :SSS I I 18??7018t-1 9 3 --O-- a I I___C IR R f�MQ:Rd e 1 1 986 982 9 jrl IN j 0 1 S j 19 7 9 7 3 L______—___ 980I 978 II ,. ____________ 1 . 976 I 1 j R R: cwa�ae 8 6 i g 952 i' 1 I^ 2 i"9�r�'T g l 12 950 j jl� _1 9189,6941 I I j F a l I 1 1 j I R 2 1 I i ;iie ci I 1 I 1 I ' I _____-1 COLLINS AVE .-,. --------, 1 I--- II Q I I #. I I I I I I I 1 I I I I Irl Iyl I�j I I I I I I�j I I I I I I I I 90 91 446 EXISTING 1 INCH = 400 FEET GENERAL PLAN Dale Saved: 3/29/2016 MAP Sl I 875 870 I I wi 867 866 j a a7 xi (91 859 �� 851 850 ���yy___��_yy_y@yyAEKy4E9Y�AY�__ Of8N 8Q jl n 'ef 1 837 M M 7n 829 j 815 826 B20 I I � 805 004 I AR� l��I' I p-----I I 3 569 566 561 5611 56C 555 554 517F —A i39 561 �g 531 528 571 590 s.rw w „m ant '�� 595 92 71 v N 615 6RF� 1 5 597 596 594 59 593 590 592 I 580 58 7 581 580 ; 1 578 569 2 1 1 57 568- 5691 56� UM DR 562 554 545 1 RANCHO , i SANTIAGO I COLLEGE 1 ADULT LEARNING f_ CENTER 543 544 535 536 529 528 i ; . CIO t:a o N WALNUT AVE - Mom. EMMM4.1 Low Medium Residential 6-15 du/ac CD ------------ 493 4s4921 486 495487 0 477 474i I i 1--1 U J Lu U) Q! J �I 0 �i 31 21 13 PROPOSED " GENERAL PLAN w E MAP S r\ N Planning Commission ABSTAIN: None Recess taken 9:40 - 9:50 June 4, 2018 MOTION CARRIED. 3.2 General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the subject property's existing General Plan designation from Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR, 6-15 du/acre) to allow a 24 unit multi -family residential development with surface parking and residential amenities on a 1.7 acre site. The project includes adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the historic Killefer Elementary School. Six residential units will be located in the historic school building. Eighteen units will be located in a new three-story building. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit to request additional building height (three stories) in the R-3 zone and a Variance to request the elimination of covers/carports for required parking spaces and private outdoor space for the six units in the historic school. LOCATION: 541 N. LEMON NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1844-15 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. MND No. 1844-15 finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1844-15 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET AND 2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0046-17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.0850-15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3064-17, VARIANCE NO. 2248-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4870-15 FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET ATTACHMENT NO.5 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 04, 2018 KILLEFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY 10.2018 CC MTG_ Planning Commission June 4, 2018 Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. She pointed out the existing site is a vacant school campus owned by the Orange Unified School District which contains the historic Killefer Elementary School. The school is listed in the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture and cultural significance as a site of school desegregation. Chair Glasgow and Commissioners Gladson, Willits and Correa disclosed they met with the applicant. Commissioner Correa stated this was desegregation at this school occurred years prior to landmark court cases of Mendez v. Westminster, and 12 to 10 years prior to Brown v. Board of Education. This building is very significant to the State of California and possibly the whole United States. Commissioner Gladson asked staff to review the General Plan and zoning situation at the site and how it related to the surrounding neighborhood. She also asked staff to explain how the City ensures that the applicant is adhering to the mitigation measures and conditions of approval for building rehabilitation and restoration. Ms. Moshier stated one of the critical components of the project is that the historic school will be rehabilitated in conformance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. The construction documents need to provide detail about the specific materials used for the historic school, how the individual features on the interior of the school will be treated, and identify what the historic features are and how they will be treated during construction. The construction will need to be monitored by staff and a historic preservation consultant to ensure that it conforms to the Standards at every stage of construction. Commissioner Gladson requested more information about the public access to the history walk and historical exhibit in the lobby of the building. Ms. Moshier stated the history walk is intended to be in the landscaped area and the front yard of the school which will be accessible to anyone who was walking by the property. The Design Review Committee will approve the interpretive elements prior to building permits. Commissioner Gladson asked staff to explain the concept of adaptive reuse and identify any examples of projects in the area. Ms. Mosher stated that the first of the Secretary of Interior's standards refers to rehabilitation as being either maintaining the existing use of the property or finding compatible uses that require minimal change to the historic features of the property. It anticipates that the buildings and uses will change over time; what is important from the preservation standpoint is to make sure that the new use fits the features, materials and design of the historic building. The Anaheim Packing House and the Digital Media Arts Center at Chapman University are examples of adaptive reuses. Leason Pomeroy, representing the project on behalf of Western States Housing, provided a history of the purchase and evolution of the design of the property. Commissioner Correa asked Mr. Pomeroy if Chapman University had been notified about the project. He also asked for more information about public access to the building and historical displays. Mr. Pomeroy responded that Chapman University students will likely be occupying the units given the proximity of the apartments to the university. Commissioner Correa stated he did not see how any changes had been made to consider the project apartments rather than a dorm and reviewed project features, which were not conducive family occupancy of the units; the project it geared toward students. He was also concerned about the lack of parking. Mr. Pomeroy stated they changed the nature of the project from dormitories to apartments, which meet the standards for R-3 zone. The project also exceeds the City's parking requirements. 6 Planning Commission June 4, 2018 Commissioner Gladson clarified that the applicant's proposal is for 24 apartments and will not be a dormitory. She asked Mr. Pomeroy to walk them through the access to the school, school site's history, and the history walk. She also inquired about how the parking would be managed, and which of the existing trees would be retained. Mr. Pomeroy stated that when the project team met with the Barrio Historical Society for historical exhibits, they discussed how they could preserve the history of the school. There will be a 24/7 security, and the history walk will contain monuments along the pathway of the school. The vestibule will be given to the Orange Barrio Association for historical exhibits. He added that all of the existing trees would be preserved and there would be assigned parking. Commissioner Correa asked how many community meetings there had been other than the March 19, 2018 meeting? In response to Commissioner Correa's question on neighborhood meetings, Mr. Pomeroy stated they had several meetings with the neighbors who originally thought it was going to be owned by Chapman University; once they realized it would be privately owned, they were in favor of the project. Chair Glasgow discussed the reduction in the number of units since the original project concept. Donson Liu, Traffic Engineer with LSA, provided an explanation of the traffic study and circulation at Lemon and Walnut. Chair Glasgow asked for more information about potential impacts to the intersection of Lemon Street and Walnut Avenue. Mr. Liu indicated that project traffic does not result in a change in level of service to the intersection, and that traffic counts are concentrated on Lemon since that is the location of the vehicular access to the project. Commissioner Correa asked how the anticipated number of cars compares to the anticipated number of residents. He wanted to know where people would park if there are more residents than spaces. Commissioner Correa also expressed concerns about potential inadequate emergency access. In response to Commissioner Correa's question regarding overflow parking, Frank Haselton, Managing Principal with LSA stated there is no variance being requested for a reduction in parking; the Orange Municipal Code requires 52 spaces and the site is providing 62 spaces. The Fire Department had also approved the circulation plans which will allow emergency vehicles onto the property. Commissioner Willits asked for clarification of the total parking court referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Glasgow opened the public hearing. Jeff Frankel, representing Old Towne Preservation Association, stated they met with the applicant multiple times and attended three years of DRC hearings. The fact that the project requires two variances and a CUP, is a good indication that the three-story project is not a good fit in the predominantly single -story neighborhood. It creates adverse impacts on the adjacent historic district. Many of the impacts have not been mitigated to less than significant levels; the massing, size and scale of the infill building is not compatible with the size and scale of the historic building as required by the Secretary of Interior Standards and parking is not sufficient. OTPA wanted to make sure that covered parking is not added in the future to obscure the building. He noted that DRC had reservations on recommending approval to the Planning Commission and made suggestions for changes that have 7 Planning Commission June 4, 2018 not been incorporated. Mr. Frankel expressed OTPA's concerns about vandalism at the vacant school. He acknowledged that the building is deteriorating and needs to be restored. Richard Cruz, 592 N. Lemon Street, spoke about parking and safety concerns, as well as anticipated occupancy levels of the apartments. Jerome Ryan, 429 N. Lemon Street, stated his belief that the project is a dormitory and will impact the neighborhood's density, parking and traffic; it does not belong in a single family area. Robert Baca, former Vice President of the Orange Barrio Historical Society, was on the 711 Committee and Chapman University Neighborhood Advisory Committee, stated there is no need for this project to accommodate Chapman students. The overall consensus at the March 11 community meeting was opposition and a feeling that the City does not care about the Barrio. The situation is no longer segregation of Mexicans, but segregation of students. Mark Colin, Orange Barrio Historical Society board member, stated the Society objects to the project and continually attended the DRC meetings to voice their objections. The dorm -like structure is detrimental to the environment and negative to the community. PJ Jahangiri, owner of 557 N. Olive Street, felt the project does not fit in the community due to the parking problems. Chapman students already park on the street because it is a non -permitted street. The majority of the people who live in the neighborhood are Hispanic, but are afraid to come forward and speak even though they are in opposition. Mr. Jahangiri expressed his frustration that the school district has completely neglected the school. Paul Turek, 536 N. Glassell Street, resides on Glassell and spoke in opposition due to the traffic and student pedestrian traffic, and the three story structure being too tall for the neighborhood. He commented about the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Glassell. He expressed concerns about the building height, as a tall building would block his view of the Disneyland fireworks. Doug Westfall, national historian, spoke about the history and significance of the school. He would like to see public access to the property and that it remains an educational facility. Brian Weitz, 400 N. Olive Street, displayed images of the neighborhood on an iPad, and spoke in opposition because the structure is not compatible with the neighborhood, referencing the objective of the City's design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding development, and LSA's studies are not valid. Gerardo Rodriguez, 486 N. Olive Street, is a longtime resident within half a block of the school and stated none of his neighbors are in support of the project because a three-story building does not belong in the neighborhood. He did not believe the density was appropriate for the neighborhood and expressed a concern about parking for Killefer Park. Paul Guzman, member of the Orange Barrio Historical Society, stated the school should be preserved and he was not in support of the project. He discussed the negative impacts the neighborhood had experienced overtime due to City land use changes. There were no other speakers; therefore, Chair Glasgow close the public hearing. Mr. Pomeroy approached and stated the plan had changed from the original concept of developing a 300 bed dormitory building to a 24 unit apartment project. The project team had met the City codes, addressed the comments of the SMART Committee, developed a Mitigated Negative Declaration, received a recommendation 8 Planning Commission June 4, 2018 approval from the Design Review Committee, and were now asking for a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to move forward to the City Council. Commissioner Correa commented that he feels Chapman may eventually own the property; residents are not present because they do not feel empowered and feel that they have been discriminated against over time. This project is a dormitory and not an apartment complex. As Commissioners, they have a moral and ethical obligation to not allow it in the community. The size and scale does not belong in the community. He was also concerned about Chapman buying the historic buildings and impacting the community. Commissioner Correa noted that in February 2018, Mayor Tita Smith made it clear that she would like to see the Cypress Barrio designated its own a historic district. He feels that a private person or organization should be allowed to move forward and see if they can obtain funds from the State of California in order to save the building. Commissioner Willits did not share Commissioner Correa's feeling that Chapman has any affiliation with this project; it was purchased by a company who wants to provide a good project. The building has been vacant for five years and is being destroyed; something needs to be done now and even though this may not be the project that the community wants, something needs to be done with such a historic building. Commissioner Gladson stated that she could support the project because it restored the school, which is the most important and paramount aspect of the project. It tells the entire story of people who live in this neighborhood and who went to Killefer School. Considering the environmental document that was prepared, the traffic study, the parking discussion, the sensitivity to the design being visible on Olive and Lemon, there is a balance and trade-off. She would like to move up the priority of the restoration of the school in the project implementation. Chair Glasgow agreed it was a difficult decision; he did not want to see the degradation of this property. Orange Unified had it on the market for several years, Chapman University did not step up to take over the property when it came on the market and other school districts were not interested in it. He felt that the project fits because there is an organization willing to spend a lot of money to restore the building which will be beyond repair if it is not taken care of soon. As Commissioners they look at land use, what the zoning is, does it meet the parking requirements, does it fit within the realm of what the zone says it does and this project meets all of them. The neighborhood has had the option to put funds together to buy the building and restore it; but nobody has done that. Commissioner Gladson stated she would make a motion; however, she would like to condition the project so that the school building is the top priority and prohibit any future addition of carports that may obstruct views of the school from the street. Mr. Pomeroy stated they would put a full-time guard on the property as soon as they closed escrow in order to preserve and secure the building. A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. PC 17-18 titled A Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a new 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three-story building at 541 North Lemon Street and Resolution No. PC 18-18 titled a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 for a new 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction 9 Planning Commission June 4, 2018 of a new three-story building at 541 North Lemon Street. The project has been cleared from CEQA pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, including additional conditions prohibiting future installation of solar panels or covered parking on the west side of the building to maintain sightlines for the historic school; and encouraging communication and a plan for securing the building with Orange Unified School District as quickly as possible after final action by City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Gladson SECOND: Chair Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Glasgow, Gladson and Willits NOES: Commissioner Correa ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED. 4. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday, July 2, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION: Chair Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simpson MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on July 2, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Weimer Room. 10 �bUN t Planning Commission Agenda Item June 4, 2018 TO: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission THRU: Anna Pehoushekw Assistant Community Development Director FROM: Marissa Moshier jVWL Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15, to allow the construction of a 24 unit multi -family residential development involving adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of a historic school and construction of a new three story building at 541 N. Lemon Street. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the subject property's existing General Plan designation from Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR, 6-15 du/acre) to allow a 24 unit multi -family residential development with surface parking and residential amenities on a 1.7 acre site. The project includes adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the historic Killefer Elementary School. Six residential units will be located in the historic school building. Eighteen units will be located in a new three-story building. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit to request additional building height (three stories) in the R-3 zone and a Variance to request the elimination of covers/carports for required parking spaces and private outdoor space for the six units in the historic school. RECOMMENDED ACTION The following Planning Commission actions are recommended: 1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED ATTACHMENT NO.6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 04, 2018 KILLEFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY 10, 2018 CC MTG. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1844-15 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE- STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET 2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 0046-17, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0850-15, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3064-17, VARIANCE NO. 2248-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4870-15 FOR A NEW 24 UNIT MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND REHABILITATION OF A HISTORIC SCHOOL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE- STORY BUILDING AT 541 NORTH LEMON STREET AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and take action on applications for Major Site Plan Reviews and environmental documentation as described in the City's environmental review guidelines. OMC Section 17.10.070 requires the approval of Design Review when a project requires Major Site Plan Review. General Plan Amendments and Tentative Tract Maps require final determination by City Council. 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 May 24, 2018, the City sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 234 property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and persons specifically requesting notice. The project site was posted with the notification in two locations, and at City Hall on that same date. The notice was also published in the Orange City News newspaper on May 24, 2018. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1844-14 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. MND No. 1844-15 finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures (Exhibit B). The public review period began on March 21, 2018 and ended on May 4, 2018. On March 21, 2018, the City sent a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to a total of 234 property owners and tenants within a 300 foot radius of the project site, and other potentially affected public agencies and utility service providers initiating the public review period for the environmental document as described above. This notification was also published in the Orange City News on March 21, 2018, was on file with the Orange County Clerk Recorder, and was posted in two locations at the site. Copies of the document were available for public review at the Orange Public Library & Local History Center, the Taft Branch Library, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Staff received one written comment letter from responsible agencies, four comment letters from members of the public, and one verbal comment made at the Design Review Committee meeting on March 21, 2018 during the public review period. Responses to those comments were prepared and forwarded to the respective authors in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and in advance of the City's consideration of any determination. Copies of the comment letters and responses can be found in Section 1 of the MND (attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit B). PROJECT BACKGROUND Applicant: Western States Housing, LLC Property Owner: Orange Unified School District Property Location: 541 N. Lemon Street Existing General Plan Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) Land Use Element designation: Existing Zoning R-3 Classification: Old Towne: Not Applicable Specific Plan/PC: Not Applicable Site Size: 1.7 acres Circulation: The site is located between N. Olive Street and N. Lemon Street north of W. Walnut Avenue. Vehicular access to the site is from a driveway approach on N. Lemon Street. Pedestrian access is from both N. Olive and N. Lemon streets. N. Lemon Street and W. Walnut Avenue are two- lane (undivided) collector streets. N. Olive Street is a two- Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 4 lane (undivided) local street. Existing_ conditions: The 1.7-acre site is presently developed with a 9,900 square foot Spanish Colonial Revival style elementary school building, constructed in 1931. The building is one story (20 feet tall) with a basement and has an octagonal bell tower over the primary entrance on the east elevation. The school has a U-shaped plan, surrounding a courtyard which opened onto a play yard when the school was in use. The courtyard is visible on the west side of the property from N. Lemon Street. A raised, partially arcaded, concrete exterior walkway runs on three sides of the courtyard and served as a corridor providing access to the classrooms and offices. At the center of the west elevation, facing the courtyard, the corridor expands into the courtyard area to create a raised stage with an arched surround. To the north and south of the schoolhouse are two non -historic modular classroom buildings and a storage shed. The remainder of the site is paved for use as a surface parking lot. Surrounding land uses Surrounding properties have a range of General Plan and Zoning: designations including Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) or Low Density Residential (LDR), Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI), Open Space Park (OS-P), and Light Industrial (LI). Adjacent zoning includes Duplex Residential (R-2-6), Multi -Family Residential (R-3), and Industrial Manufacturing (M-2). The diversity of nearby zoning and General Plan designations reflects the mix of uses surrounding the property. The subject property is located north and east of the Walnut Avenue/Lemon Street boundary of the National Register and local Old Towne Historic Districts. Properties immediately to the west across N. Lemon Street are located within the boundary of the Old Towne Historic Districts. To the west are industrial and residential properties. To the south and east is a mix of single and multi -family residential properties. Immediately to the north are residential properties and property owned by the Orange Unified School District, which operates the Richland Continuation High School. Property to the north also contains the non-profit Friendly Center and Killefer Park. The surrounding area is characterized by primarily one story single and multi -family residences. The houses are modest with consistent front and side yard setbacks that create the established low -scale residential character of the Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 5 neighborhood. The majority of the houses were constructed in the first half of the 20"' century and reflect a typical detached single-family residential pattern of development from that period. Industrial properties are located to the northwest of the project site, primarily along the railroad corridor. These properties contain one story warehouse and manufacturing buildings. The majority of the buildings are set back from the street and appear to be between 20 and 30 feet tall. Previous None. Applications/Entitlements: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I The project consists of adaptive reuse of a historic school property for a multi -family residential development of 24 one- and two -bedroom units. In order to accommodate multi -family residential development on the property, the existing General Plan designation of Public Facilities and Institutions (PFI) is requested to be changed to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). The amendment brings the property's General Plan Designation into consistency with its existing Multi - Family Residential (R-3) zoning. The density range for LMDR is 6.1 to 15.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project density is 14 dwelling units per acre. The major project components consist of. • Rehabilitation of the historic school for use as six multi -family residential units (all two - bedroom units) and common amenities such as exercise and multi -purpose rooms. The historic courtyard will be repurposed for an outdoor amenity of horseshoe pits. Rehabilitation of the school will be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards), as described in Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1844-15. The floorplans for the new residential units in the historic building are designed to allow the use of existing historic doors and windows for light, ventilation, and egress. The historic covered U-shaped arcade around the courtyard will provide circulation for residents. Historic classroom partitions, chalkboards, and built-in cabinets will be preserved within the units. • Construction of one new three-story building with 18 multi -family residential units at the northwest corner of the site. Fifteen of the units have two bedrooms. Three have one bedroom. The new building is 31.5 feet tall with an additional 3.5 feet in height for an elevator tower. The height of the elevator tower is permitted by right under the Orange Municipal Code, which allows additional height for mechanical systems and elevators that are less than 5 percent the total area of the roof. The design of the new building is intended to complement the Spanish Colonial Revival style of the historic school with a plaster finish, clay tile roofing, and wrought iron railings. The L-shaped gable roof and variations in massing provided by the elevator tower, enclosed stair, and balconies are intended to reflect the residential character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 6 • Construction of a surface parking lot with 58 parking spaces in the location of the existing surface parking lot on N. Lemon Street. An additional four guest parking spaces will be provided in the northeast corner of the site with access from N. Olive Street. In order to preserve views of the historic school, landscaping will be kept low along the site perimeter on N. Lemon Street. Trees on the west side of the site will have tall canopies to avoid obscuring the west elevation of the school from the street. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request to allow third story on the new building. The maximum height of buildings in the R-3 zone is two stories or 32 feet. Under OMC Section 17.14.100, the applicant may request additional height or stories through a CUP. The new building height of 31.5 feet meets the zoning code requirement for permitted height. However, because the proposed project exceeds the limit on the number of stories, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the third story. • Variance request to allow elimination of private open space for each unit in the historic school building (six units total). Each unit in a new multi -family residential development is required to have one private outdoor area directly accessible from the unit (OMC 17.14.110). The applicant is requesting to eliminate the private outdoor areas for the units in the historic building. Providing direct access to private outdoor areas from each unit in the historic school would require cutting new openings in the building, altering the historic materials, design, and circulation patterns of the school. In lieu of the private open space, the applicant is providing three landscaped common seating areas around the building for passive recreation for residents. • Variance request to allow elimination of covers/carports for required parking spaces. The parking standards for multi -family residential development require covered parking for at least one parking space per unit. Under this requirement, the parking lot would be required to have at least 24 carports covering half of the required parking spaces for the residential units. The applicant is requesting to eliminate this requirement in order to preserve the historic views of the school from N. Lemon Street. Development Standards Required Under Proposed Code R-3 Zoning Project Section Lot Area 7,000 sq. ft. interior 74,288 sq. ft. (1.7 acres) Table 8,000 sq. ft. corner 17.14.070 Lot Frontage 70 ft. interior 281 ft. Table 80 ft. corner 17.14.070 Lot Depth 100 ft. 264 ft. Table 17.14.070 Residential Density 6.1 - 15.0 dwelling units/acre 14.1 dwelling units/acre Table (density range allowed under 17.14.070 Low Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation) Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 7 Lot Coverage Max. 45% - 2 story structures 44% Table 55% - I story structures 17.14.070 Building Height 32 ft. or 2 stories, whichever is New residential building: 31.5 ft. Table less; however, building height and 3 stories 17.14.070 in excess of 32 ft. or 2 stories and may be pennitted with a CUP. CUP request for third story 17.14.100 Distance between 8 ft. 16 ft. between historic school and Table principal structures new building 17.14.120 Open space, useable 250 sq. ft. per unit or 6,000 12,408 sq. ft. Table (Total includes square feet total for 24 units 17.14.070 common open space plus private open space) Open space, 4,500 sq. ft. 9,690 sq. ft. 17.14. l 10 common At least 75% of total required usable open space must be common open space in the R-3 zone Open space, private One patio (minimum 10 ft. by New building: 17.14.1 10 10 ft.) or balcony (minimum 7 6 Patios: 120 sq. ft. to 420 sq. ft. ft. by 7 ft.) per unit 12 Balconies: 109 sq. ft. Total = 2,718 sq. ft. Up to 25% of the total open space requirement may be met Historic building: by counting any private Variance request to eliminate exterior open space areas private open space for six units to (patios and balconies) avoid impacts to historic building. provided within the project. Parking 1 Bedroom: 1.7 spaces/unit Table 2 Bedroom: 2.0 spaces/unit 17.34.060.A Guest: 0.2 spaces/unit Total Required: 47 spaces for residential units 5 spaces for guests 52 spaces total 62 spaces Setback, Front 15 ft. Existing historic building setback Table on N. Olive Street is 17.14.070 a roximately 23 ft. Setback, Rear 10 ft. New building: Table 15 ft. to building wall and 10 ft. 17.14.070 to face of balconies for new building on N. Olive Street Setback, Side 5 ft. New building: Table 10 ft. to building wall. 5 ft. to 17.14.070 face of balconies Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 8 Unit Size 1 bedroom = 600 sq. ft. min. 1 bedroom = 768 sq. ft. 17.14.130 2 bedroom = 750 sq. ft. min. 2 bedroom = 900 - 1,174 sq. ft. Storage Area per 120 cu. ft. per unit 121 cu. ft. per unit 14.14.140 Unit APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS General Plan Amendment: The Applicant is requesting approval of General Plan Amendment to change the property's existing PFI General Plan designation to LMDR, consistent with the property's existing R-3 zoning. Required Findings: 1. The project must be consistent with the goals and policies stated within the City's General Plan. Tentative Tract Map: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map to combine six lots into a single parcel, consistent with the project limits. Required Findings: 1. The requirements.for the filing of subdivision maps shall be governed by the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 16 of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC). All maps shall comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Zoning Ordinance, Title 16 of the OMC, and any other ordinance, statute or law pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land. Major Site Plan: The applicant is proposing a Major Site Plan to construct a new 24-unit multi- family residential development, including rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Killefer Elementary School, construction of a new three-story building, and associated parking and amenities. Required Findings: ' 1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. 2. The project conforms to City development standards and ally 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. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 9 Conditional Use Permit: The applicant is requesting a CUP to allow construction of a third story for the new building in the R-3 zone. The maximum permitted height in the R-3 zone is 32 feet or two stories; however, per OMC 17.14.100, the applicant may request additional height through a Conditional Use Permit: Required Findings: 1. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted upon sound principles of land use and in response to services required by the community. 2. A Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted if it will cause deterioration of' bordering land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. 3. A Conditional Use Permit must be considered in relationship to its effect on the community or neighborhood plan for the area in which it is located. 4. A Conditional Use Permit, if granted, shall be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare of any particular applicant. Per OMC 17.14.100, in reviewing the request, the Planning Commission shall consider: A. Siting buildings or structures so as to achieve greater usable open space area than could be achieved with two story construction. B. Siting buildings or structures so as to consider shadows, solar orientation, and noise impacts, as well as respecting the terrain. C. Designing and/or screening all roof -top mechanical and electrical equipment as an integral part of the building design. D. Illustrating a design compatibility with both the existing and desired character of the surrounding area and uses. Variance: The applicant is requesting two Variances: 1) to allow elimination of covers/carports for required parking spaces in the R-3 zone; and 2) to allow elimination of required private outdoor space for the six units in the historic school. The Variances are being requested to avoid or minimize impacts to the historic building. Required Findings: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. The variance granted shall be subject to such conditions which will assure that the authorized adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is located. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 10 Design Review: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the architectural design, landscaping, and streetscape improvements associated with the proposed project. 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 DRC or other reviewing body, for the project (OMC 17.10.070.F.1). 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.F.2). 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.070.F.3). 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infzll Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.070.F4). ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Issue 1: Adaptive Reuse and Compatibilitv of'New Construction with Historic Pronert The adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the historic Killefer Elementary School will be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards), as described in MND No. 1844-15. In order for the project to be in conformance with the SOI Standards, the proposed conversion of the school to residential units must cause minimal change to the character of the historic building and its site and must maintain and preserve historic materials, features, and spaces. In addition, any new construction on the property must not destroy historic materials or features and must be compatible with and differentiated from the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the historic building. The rehabilitation of the exterior of the historic school will preserve existing historic materials and features, including the plaster finish, wood windows and doors, tower entry element, and covered arcade and stage around the courtyard. Missing features of the building will be restored, including the clay tile roof and decorative tile surround at the entry, based on evidence from historic photographs. The new residential units will be inserted within the existing classroom partition walls and are designed to use existing doors and windows for light, ventilation, and egress. Interior classroom features, such as chalkboards and in-built cabinets, will be preserved. Because the classroom partition walls and interior features will remain in place, the form, features, and materials of the classrooms could be restored, should the building change use at a later date. The new building is placed at the northwest corner of the property to preserve the public view of the historic school from N. Lemon Street. This view is a significant character -defining feature of the historic school and a community landmark for the Cypress Street Barrio. In conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page I SOI Standards, the project's site layout is intended to retain the historic open space and views around the historic school. The new building is also set back from N. Olive Street by approximately 80 feet to avoid impacting views of the historic school in the streetscape to the east. The form of the new building, with variations in massing from the L-shaped gable roof, elevator tower, and balconies, is compatible with the form of the historic school. The palette of materials for the new building, including the plaster finish, clay tile roof, and wrought iron balcony railings, also reflects the Spanish Colonial Revival style of the historic school. Issue 2: Compatibility of Project with Neighborhood The project's site layout is intended to limit effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The new building is located along the north property line, immediately adjacent to the parking lot of the Richland Continuation High School. The height and mass of the building are located at a substantial distance from the residential properties to the south. The building is positioned at a diagonal to the closest residential neighbors to the northeast, and on the north side of the building, screen walls are provided at the sides of the balconies to limit views to the adjacent properties. Obscured glass will also be used on the lower portions of windows on the second and third floors to limit the potential for privacy impacts to neighboring properties. The building design draws from the Spanish Colonial Revival style architecture of the historic school. This style, with its variations in massing and palette of materials including plaster finishes and clay tile roofs, was particularly popular in the 1920s and 1930s. This time period is within the period of significance for the adjacent Old Towne Historic District (1888-1940), and the style of the new building complements and reflects historic architectural styles that are typical of the adjacent Historic District and the surrounding neighborhood. Issue 3: Conditional Use Permit for Third Story The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a third story in the R-3 zone. The new building is 31.5 feet tall, which is under the 32 foot height limit that is permitted by right in the R-3. However, the zoning code limits buildings to no more than two stories in the R-3 zone. Because the new building has three stories, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. Under OMC 17.14.100, which allows the applicant to request additional stories through a CUP, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the following in making a recommendation on the appropriateness of the CUP request. A. Siting buildings or structures so as to achieve greater usable open space area than could be achieved with two story construction. B. Siting buildings or structures so as to consider shadows, solar orientation, and noise impacts, as well as respecting the terrain. C. Designing and/or screening all roof -top mechanical and electrical equipment as an integral part of the building design. D. Illustrating a design compatibility with both the existing and desired character of the surrounding area and uses. The third story on the new building allows the new construction to be concentrated at the northwest corner of the property. This allows the large area to the west of the historic school to be used for Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 12 parking and open space. It also allows the new building to have a relatively narrow street -facing frontage on N. Lemon Street. The third story means that the new residential units will be placed at a substantial distance from the residences to the south of the property. Where adjacent residential units are located at a diagonal to the new building, balcony screening and obscured glass have been provided to limit the potential changes to privacy for these neighbors. The floor -to -ceiling heights of the three stories have been compressed to the greatest extent feasible to reduce the visual impact of the third story and to ensure that the total building height does not exceed the 32 foot maximum allowed in the R-3 zone. Mechanical systems are designed to work with the compressed floor plates, and the elevator tower is designed as an integral component and design feature of the building. As described above, the design of the proposed new building is compatible with the character of the historic property and with the surrounding neighborhood. Issue 4: Variances for Private Open Space and Covered Parking The applicant is requesting two Variances for the project: 1) Elimination of the private open space required for each unit in the historic building 2) Elimination of the covers/carports for one parking space per unit Killefer Elementary School is a historic resource, designated in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In order for a project associated with a historic resource to be in conformance with the SOI Standards and cause a less than significant impact to the historic resource, it must maintain and preserve the important historic, or character -defining features, of the property. The National Register designation for Killefer Elementary School identifies the property's character -defining features as including the doors, windows, plaster finish, courtyard, and corridor system of the partially covered raised arcade around the courtyard. Another important character - defining feature is the public view of the school from both N. Olive Street and N. Lemon Street. Under the zoning code requirements for open space in the R-3 zone, each unit must have a private fenced patio or balcony directly accessible from the interior of the unit. Providing direct access to private patios from the units in the historic school would require cutting new door openings in the building, resulting in the loss of historic materials, and potentially eliminating the use of the raised arcade around the courtyard as the project's circulation system, consistent with its historic use. The enclosures required for the private patios would substantially change the open landscaped character of the courtyard and former play areas around the school. These changes would not be in conformance with the SOI Standards and would likely result in a significant impact to the historic resource. In lieu of private open space, the applicant has provided seating areas around the historic building that will allow residents the benefit of a passive outdoor amenity without impacting the historic school. Under the zoning code requirements for multi -family residential parking, at least one parking space per unit is required to be covered. In a development of this size, this requirement is typically met with carports or individual garages. The view of the school and its courtyard and play area from N. Lemon Street is identified as a character -defining feature of the historic property. It is also an important community landmark that has characterized the northern portion of the Cypress Street Barrio since its construction in 1931. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 13 However, providing carports on this property would result in at least 24 carports or garages between the historic school and N. Lemon Street. This historic view of Killefer Elementary School would be substantially obscured from N. Lemon Street. This change to the site would also not be in conformance with the SOI Standards and may result in a significant impact to the historic resource. The presence of the historic building on the property and the desire to preserve its character - defining features provide the special circumstances required to grant Variances for these components of the project. Strict application of the zoning code in this case contradicts and impedes the City's and community's goals for high -quality preservation and adaptive reuse projects for important historic properties. Granting of the Variances promotes preservation of the historic building while allowing the property to be developed for multi -family residential use, similar to the rights enjoyed by nearby properties. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of these Variances to the Planning Commission, citing the importance of providing flexibility in the zoning code to allow preservation of important historic properties and their character -defining features. Issue 6: Environmental Impact/Miti action The analysis contained in the MND determined that implementation of the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects without mitigation to the following environmental factors: Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Noise. Section 3 of the MND provided in Exhibit B summarizes the project's significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation. Incorporation of the mitigation measures into the project results in a reduction of significant impacts to less than significant levels to the environmental factors listed above. With the adoption of the MND by the Planning Commission, the issue is considered resolved. Issue 6: Public Comments The City received one comment letters during the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration from the following responsible agency: • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requested that the project comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 regarding asbestos emissions from demolition/renovation activities The City also received public testimony from the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA) during the Design Review Committee meeting on March 21, 2018, a comment letter from the Orange Barrio Historical Society (OBHS), and three emails from neighboring residents. Responses were prepared to all comments received and were forwarded in compliance with CEQA. With the concurrence of the Planning Commission on the information provided when acting to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, the issues are considered resolved. The comments received and the responses are provided in Section 1 of the MND (provided in Exhibit B). Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 14 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff Review Committee: The Streamlined Multidisciplinary Accelerated Review Team (SMART) determined that the plans, technical studies, and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were satisfactory, and recommended Planning Commission approval of the project on March 7, 2018, subject to the mitigation measures included in the MND and staff recommended conditions. Design Review Committee: The DRC conducted preliminary reviews of the project design on September 2, 2015; August 17, 2016; October 5, 2016; November 2, 2016; and December 20, 2017. The Committee formally reviewed the subject proposal at the March 21, 2018 meeting, and unanimously (5-0) recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the MND and project subject to staff recommended conditions and mitigation measures included in the MND, as well as the following additional conditions, which have been included in draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 18- 18: • Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, a historic preservation consultant shall be engaged to monitor construction and make recommendations on decisions to rehabilitate or replace features in the historic building. The consultant shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. • Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, the applicant shall return to the Design Review Committee with details on lighting, the balconies in the new building, awnings, window trim and reveals in the historic and new buildings, and the east (Olive Street) facade of the new building. • The air-conditioning units in the north side yard shall be relocated away from the residential properties to the north to minimize noise. • The details on the rehabilitation of the historic structure as described in the Historic Resources Impact Assessment shall be included as -additional conditions on the plans. • The rain gutters and downspouts on the historic building shall be copper plated and match what was originally on the property to the extent that documentation is available. • Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the roofing materials on the historic and new buildings shall return to Design Review Committee. The roofing of the new building should be the same material as the historic building with some differentiation in design. • Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the interpretive elements in the Olive Street front yard and museum space shall return to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. The DRC Minutes are provided as Attachments 6 through 7. Planning Commission Staff Report June 4, 2018 Page 15 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachments to Report: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-18 for recommendation to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-18 for recommendation to approve General Plan Amendment No. 2017-001, Tentative Tract Map No. 0046-17, Major Site Plan Review No. 0850-15, Conditional Use Permit No. 3064-17, Variance No. 2248-17, and Design Review No. 4870-15 3. Vicinity Map 4. Existing Zoning Map 5. Site Photos 6. Design Review Committee Minutes, December 20, 2017 7. Design Review Committee Minutes, March 21, 2018 Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission: A. Submitted Plans date stamped May 23, 2018 B. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1844-15, Letters Received from Responsible Agencies and Members of the Public, and Response to Comments C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program cc: Western States Housing Development Co. Attn: Leason Pomeroy, III 158 N. Glassell Street, #201 Orange, CA 92866 Orange Unified School District Attn: Claudio Sorrera 1401 N. Handy Street Orange, CA 92867 N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\General Plan Amendment\GPA 2017-0001 Killefer Square\PC\PC Staff Report 2018-06- 04.doc Vicinity Map 541 N. Lemon Street 615A 6661-4 I IJI�.____ EVFREIIPL___ 640 �.._... 69011 658 1-4 Cr^i cYi v �� �' ?1 65 14 1-4 1`j I 645 i R— 3 6521.4 i 0 i, 657 — ' j I r-1 643 1 642 644 i —�' 638 ,1 ca+TMGN 1634 636 163 u.l 633 162 i j 62. 622 ! 621 1615 III 615 I 1611' 602 l 5° ' 594-_ — _.--.—\ AROSE_ _ 594 I 592', 595 y 594 1 593 594�1 593 57 I C5800 585 sae 58558 R5A 585 11 L ' i ! 579581 1 5775 578 j 577 L` I 544 569 1- L���568 1 577 � 569 A D 572 l u~il 555_ I F11 569 sT1 560 561 — wl 56 1 545 55y 1- wj 156 M2 155r- 556 1 �1 j .� 540 1 543 1 544 SANTNG �I ss 9 I 4 OI 538 1 ... — 1 CpAEGE.AMT 1 till536 i 535 536 i I. EARNING CENTS 54 1 W �' .. 11539 532 529 52 528 - b �28 C0 537 --RSi j 531 530 s2' __ 520 st2 1 — s2o szi 1 52s $ $ $ b04� 12 507rT 1 513 R61 —� f I J ¢12 _ iii 515 -- �_ _I, 1 , t 11_=1 -5D4 1 1 5G5 0 N W / ,T ,_ City of Orange Community Development Denartment ATTACHMENT NO.3 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE VICINITY MAP JUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. 50 51 52 - 1038 1032 .II�II Ij I aNY Si *M p 3 � ;, p SA A 020IR16 i -I1M 1.49 10022101 yNNa NN $Nr rO9I.9_876_6 � q.- .� 2_`. 0yy1"AV 9849861- p1 1982 988 IS s 995 95 98985 N_vr R ___-__DCSTV975976 9 950 948944 946 75 ._ _ --- w --- 965 966 iw 965 U N _ JA�ARARO/CiNE-- 994 -I982 I{ -------------- F'' I I - � 930 '. - �s I x: I� wY -. COLLINS AVE g 6pF 9ese g ���rnR r 87s �' _894� s91 _ 890 ��--$-- ---� — e6o e 48�866 A-K N;]1 _ �9 -.�881 ;rl g�'_.. 8�_ esb I1888a,,,555a555� B 876 56S 866 867 .866 _ c71 /59860 2855 850 1 r Il g/�.5[�i 859 z�835 L_._, -I `I'Rz 851__ 847 838 'T-- 833 832 ice' � 7.. .. __ 812 847 840 -I 1843 842 'oo Y N g Y �. i 83z .. 832 - 837 r. i. 829 828 1829 826 833 - _. ._.- ..�.. 825 828 829 15 817 _.._820 815 820 ?f 0 820.E 815 812 \ 815 812 I It eN _812 8p5 812 Y Y 814 �' —� 810 r .7 808 807._ 802 801.-. 802 1. 803 ___LOMITA AVE i y.. 815 ! t -_ 795 Co E i GB I 1 c 796A �3b1LTAAVE�2. _Z22_ 792 rn _ { yl N __ _ ___ � 791 N 7921i %92 p 7 _....I 794 a 784rav:eY�' S�1 ..._ L� 776 a 7�781 . 81 767 I I 1-----__ 'nl I �fss - I- n 761 783 7� I� 7 7 I` ____ ,� IF 77 r r� 770 7 1 775 3 768 7 a r OAKMONT AVE Q -\ `I 66 O Z64 ns ' 1 0* 1 7 1 760 760 (` 1 _._ j 773 766 70L 3'951oi avin 4i i{ / � j0 1 1 75 \ 7 _... 752 1zl In n ` � 1 N 745 i -- r - 7.S __ 751 �I t'- - 736 741 745 735 740 703�a"' & 7? 735 723" j 740 725 F 730 70 < __ ____ --' 5 1— MAYFAIR MAYFAIR AVE --------------------- 71 - -- - e ^ , _ ..---�714 s'.Q� n 9'. [76 ___ _ _- �_ __1dAYFAIR AT/E_ 91 jjj'���\I/A,_^/�^� t 1/1---"' 6927 n ry rv_ n "'70431 31 KILLEFER 31 43�z� Y Y Y 4 _615A(615 PARK St. 6�2864 NI`___-ENEf2E ppy _.o - -- _ ______ E`LERETTPL w 1 42 IU' -09- .. __ Q o Y 1641 7 K e 1� _ 690 m I 31 31 Igl 6.59-- i 640 645 elcntann 31 31 II 651 wl 1662 R-3 652 650 y ZI 634 .. OI 625-_-595' _II 621 616 1 593 " 615 a 1 1 I 1 615 594 592 ---------- -A' � v 602 1595597 96594 ' � I / - ,&DSE- _� _ I 577 581 - ! 585 F:I 591578 Q595 RC 5943 90692 1I 11!sgp, ___ R -6 5691 568156 588 1' 569 �578 _ �77 579581 _ _ sn A70 ��, a 571 0 544 I j 577 - 5685 IA 569A 572 r 566568 1Z1 ameoi 554 Lcrlo rj 1 ��I 4 Iz i ur1 Im iII lil w �g x 1 555 562 560 1 - w $ao 513 1 541 i bql �1 1 R -`- '�'� 5 656 1 coo r ` w 1 O S ' -__. B� A w 3µ O n In 529 . _ 528 I >I w 538 b36I `_ O _-. 1 - z 11e„,tt vo la9 =. I 5 _520 51 �I ml 531 5 .- 536 53 m— _ 5 s2o J s31 ATTACHMENT N0.4 534 1 528 531 RS 532 521 T - 525 1 512 .��i$� 5 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE <� 1 sot , R 1 Y 13 R61 515 _ _ s�3 EXISTING ZONING MAP 1 I -- — JUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. 90 91 ZONING 71 1 INCH = 400 FEET MAP Date Saved: 3/2912016 p 71 ca .II�II p 3 � ;, p SA A 020IR16 i -I1M 1.49 10022101 yNNa NN $Nr rO9I.9_876_6 � q.- .� 2_`. 0yy1"AV 9849861- p1 1982 988 IS s 995 95 98985 N_vr R ___-__DCSTV975976 9 950 948944 946 75 ._ _ --- w --- 965 966 iw 965 U N _ JA�ARARO/CiNE-- 994 -I982 I{ -------------- F'' I I - � 930 '. - �s I x: I� wY -. COLLINS AVE g 6pF 9ese g ���rnR r 87s �' _894� s91 _ 890 ��--$-- ---� — e6o e 48�866 A-K N;]1 _ �9 -.�881 ;rl g�'_.. 8�_ esb I1888a,,,555a555� B 876 56S 866 867 .866 _ c71 /59860 2855 850 1 r Il g/�.5[�i 859 z�835 L_._, -I `I'Rz 851__ 847 838 'T-- 833 832 ice' � 7.. .. __ 812 847 840 -I 1843 842 'oo Y N g Y �. i 83z .. 832 - 837 r. i. 829 828 1829 826 833 - _. ._.- ..�.. 825 828 829 15 817 _.._820 815 820 ?f 0 820.E 815 812 \ 815 812 I It eN _812 8p5 812 Y Y 814 �' —� 810 r .7 808 807._ 802 801.-. 802 1. 803 ___LOMITA AVE i y.. 815 ! t -_ 795 Co E i GB I 1 c 796A �3b1LTAAVE�2. _Z22_ 792 rn _ { yl N __ _ ___ � 791 N 7921i %92 p 7 _....I 794 a 784rav:eY�' S�1 ..._ L� 776 a 7�781 . 81 767 I I 1-----__ 'nl I �fss - I- n 761 783 7� I� 7 7 I` ____ ,� IF 77 r r� 770 7 1 775 3 768 7 a r OAKMONT AVE Q -\ `I 66 O Z64 ns ' 1 0* 1 7 1 760 760 (` 1 _._ j 773 766 70L 3'951oi avin 4i i{ / � j0 1 1 75 \ 7 _... 752 1zl In n ` � 1 N 745 i -- r - 7.S __ 751 �I t'- - 736 741 745 735 740 703�a"' & 7? 735 723" j 740 725 F 730 70 < __ ____ --' 5 1— MAYFAIR MAYFAIR AVE --------------------- 71 - -- - e ^ , _ ..---�714 s'.Q� n 9'. [76 ___ _ _- �_ __1dAYFAIR AT/E_ 91 jjj'���\I/A,_^/�^� t 1/1---"' 6927 n ry rv_ n "'70431 31 KILLEFER 31 43�z� Y Y Y 4 _615A(615 PARK St. 6�2864 NI`___-ENEf2E ppy _.o - -- _ ______ E`LERETTPL w 1 42 IU' -09- .. __ Q o Y 1641 7 K e 1� _ 690 m I 31 31 Igl 6.59-- i 640 645 elcntann 31 31 II 651 wl 1662 R-3 652 650 y ZI 634 .. OI 625-_-595' _II 621 616 1 593 " 615 a 1 1 I 1 615 594 592 ---------- -A' � v 602 1595597 96594 ' � I / - ,&DSE- _� _ I 577 581 - ! 585 F:I 591578 Q595 RC 5943 90692 1I 11!sgp, ___ R -6 5691 568156 588 1' 569 �578 _ �77 579581 _ _ sn A70 ��, a 571 0 544 I j 577 - 5685 IA 569A 572 r 566568 1Z1 ameoi 554 Lcrlo rj 1 ��I 4 Iz i ur1 Im iII lil w �g x 1 555 562 560 1 - w $ao 513 1 541 i bql �1 1 R -`- '�'� 5 656 1 coo r ` w 1 O S ' -__. B� A w 3µ O n In 529 . _ 528 I >I w 538 b36I `_ O _-. 1 - z 11e„,tt vo la9 =. I 5 _520 51 �I ml 531 5 .- 536 53 m— _ 5 s2o J s31 ATTACHMENT N0.4 534 1 528 531 RS 532 521 T - 525 1 512 .��i$� 5 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE <� 1 sot , R 1 Y 13 R61 515 _ _ s�3 EXISTING ZONING MAP 1 I -- — JUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. 90 91 ZONING 71 1 INCH = 400 FEET MAP Date Saved: 3/2912016 p 71 ca 9 994 -I982 I{ -------------- F'' I I - � 930 '. - �s I x: I� wY -. COLLINS AVE g 6pF 9ese g ���rnR r 87s �' _894� s91 _ 890 ��--$-- ---� — e6o e 48�866 A-K N;]1 _ �9 -.�881 ;rl g�'_.. 8�_ esb I1888a,,,555a555� B 876 56S 866 867 .866 _ c71 /59860 2855 850 1 r Il g/�.5[�i 859 z�835 L_._, -I `I'Rz 851__ 847 838 'T-- 833 832 ice' � 7.. .. __ 812 847 840 -I 1843 842 'oo Y N g Y �. i 83z .. 832 - 837 r. i. 829 828 1829 826 833 - _. ._.- ..�.. 825 828 829 15 817 _.._820 815 820 ?f 0 820.E 815 812 \ 815 812 I It eN _812 8p5 812 Y Y 814 �' —� 810 r .7 808 807._ 802 801.-. 802 1. 803 ___LOMITA AVE i y.. 815 ! t -_ 795 Co E i GB I 1 c 796A �3b1LTAAVE�2. _Z22_ 792 rn _ { yl N __ _ ___ � 791 N 7921i %92 p 7 _....I 794 a 784rav:eY�' S�1 ..._ L� 776 a 7�781 . 81 767 I I 1-----__ 'nl I �fss - I- n 761 783 7� I� 7 7 I` ____ ,� IF 77 r r� 770 7 1 775 3 768 7 a r OAKMONT AVE Q -\ `I 66 O Z64 ns ' 1 0* 1 7 1 760 760 (` 1 _._ j 773 766 70L 3'951oi avin 4i i{ / � j0 1 1 75 \ 7 _... 752 1zl In n ` � 1 N 745 i -- r - 7.S __ 751 �I t'- - 736 741 745 735 740 703�a"' & 7? 735 723" j 740 725 F 730 70 < __ ____ --' 5 1— MAYFAIR MAYFAIR AVE --------------------- 71 - -- - e ^ , _ ..---�714 s'.Q� n 9'. [76 ___ _ _- �_ __1dAYFAIR AT/E_ 91 jjj'���\I/A,_^/�^� t 1/1---"' 6927 n ry rv_ n "'70431 31 KILLEFER 31 43�z� Y Y Y 4 _615A(615 PARK St. 6�2864 NI`___-ENEf2E ppy _.o - -- _ ______ E`LERETTPL w 1 42 IU' -09- .. __ Q o Y 1641 7 K e 1� _ 690 m I 31 31 Igl 6.59-- i 640 645 elcntann 31 31 II 651 wl 1662 R-3 652 650 y ZI 634 .. OI 625-_-595' _II 621 616 1 593 " 615 a 1 1 I 1 615 594 592 ---------- -A' � v 602 1595597 96594 ' � I / - ,&DSE- _� _ I 577 581 - ! 585 F:I 591578 Q595 RC 5943 90692 1I 11!sgp, ___ R -6 5691 568156 588 1' 569 �578 _ �77 579581 _ _ sn A70 ��, a 571 0 544 I j 577 - 5685 IA 569A 572 r 566568 1Z1 ameoi 554 Lcrlo rj 1 ��I 4 Iz i ur1 Im iII lil w �g x 1 555 562 560 1 - w $ao 513 1 541 i bql �1 1 R -`- '�'� 5 656 1 coo r ` w 1 O S ' -__. B� A w 3µ O n In 529 . _ 528 I >I w 538 b36I `_ O _-. 1 - z 11e„,tt vo la9 =. I 5 _520 51 �I ml 531 5 .- 536 53 m— _ 5 s2o J s31 ATTACHMENT N0.4 534 1 528 531 RS 532 521 T - 525 1 512 .��i$� 5 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE <� 1 sot , R 1 Y 13 R61 515 _ _ s�3 EXISTING ZONING MAP 1 I -- — JUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. 90 91 ZONING 71 1 INCH = 400 FEET MAP Date Saved: 3/2912016 p 71 ca Killefer School Photographs East elevation on N. Olive Street. View southwest. East elevation on N. Olive Street. View northwest. ATTACHMENT NO.5 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE SITE PHOTOS DUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. Killefer School Photographs Tower element and primary entrance on N. Olive Street. View west. Courtyard and stage. View east. W--A.M. I I Killefer School Photographs Tower element and projecting bay on north side of building. View east. North building wing. View southwest City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New AlZenda Items: (2) DRC NO.4807-15 — KILLEFER SQUARE • A proposal to adaptively reuse a historic school building and construct one new building on a former elementary school property for use as multi -family residential units. The Spanish Colonial Revival style school building is listed separately in the National Register of Historic Places. The project has changed substantially from the previous version reviewed by the Design Review Committee in 2015 and 2016. The private student housing of 62 units with 340 beds has been eliminated and replaced with standard multi -family residential development of 24 one- and two -bedroom units. The applicant is requesting an additional preliminary review by the DRC to receive feedback on the revised project. • 541 N. Lemon Street • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(a)eityoforange.org • DRC Action: Preliminary Review Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and explained that the DRC was only to review and comment on the item. The Committee questioned: • The nature of the two variances; Ms. Moshier described the variances for covered parking and private open space for the units in the historic buildings. • The height of the existing bell tower and single-family residences across the street. • The address of the building during the historic period. The representatives who were present for this project were Leason Pomeroy and Doug DeCinces. Mr. Pomeroy, architect, and Mr. DeCinces, a developer and participant in the project presented a model of the prior design as well as the modified proposal. Mr. Pomeroy pointed out the following changes: • Reduction in density from 80 to 24 units. • Elimination of subterranean parking. • Preservation of all trees on the property. • Reduction of exposure of the building to the neighborhood across the street. Public Comments: Chair Imbodep opened the item to the Public for comments. Paul Guzman representing the Orange Barrio Historical Society read a letter from the Society in opposition of the project, and urging preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of the building. Doug Westfall, historian, expressed his preference for the historic building to be used for education and preserved in its historic state. ATTAC>EIlVIENT N0.6 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE DRC MEETING MINUTES 12/20/17 JUNE 04, 2018 PC MTG. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Jeff Frankel representing the Old Towne Preservation Association expressed objections to: • Construction of a three story building on this block. • The tall height and contemporary building design in relation to the historic building. He also expressed support for preservation of the interior and exterior defining features of the historic building, questioned whether an EIR or Negative Declaration would be prepared, and asked that a Historic Preservation Consultant have oversight on the project to make sure it complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Moshier stated that the historic impacts analysis found that the revised project is not a significant impact on the historic school or the adjacent Old Towne Historic District. Chair Imboden noted that analysis has been done with previous versions of the project that found there were impacts to the historic resource; the findings changed with this proposal. In response to the DRC's initial questions, Mr. Pomeroy stated that the bell tower was about 25 feet and is taller than the elevator tower on the proposed building. Ms. Moshier stated it was addressed as 540 N. Olive in 1950 The DRC had the following questions and comments: • What is the original color on the building? Mr. Pomeroy stated there were three different colors when they looked at the paint layers. They believe the proposed color is the earliest color on the building. The Committee commented that the dark color is unusual for the period and style of building and recommended professional paint analysis to determine the original color. • Would windows be added or removed? Mr. Pomeroy stated there will be no added doors and all the existing windows will be rehabilitated; there will be two previously removed windows that will be restored. • How many doors and windows will be removed or added on the interior? Mr. Pomeroy stated he didn't have a count, but all the walls and doors in the corridors will remain the same. • The rationale for two fences around the parking lot? Mr. Pomeroy stated they would be happy to eliminate the second fence. • The Committee is concerned about the orientation of the ADA access ramp and thought it could be improved, possibly through use of the Historical Building Code • The Committee is pleased with the reduction of the mass of the new building in relation to the historic school, and that the windows can be kept without many fagade changes. • The Committee encouraged the use of a Historic Preservation Consultant to develop details of the ADA access and building colors. • The Committee indicated that the sand volleyball court was not compatible with the historic character of the courtyard and recommended proposing a different recreational amenity for that location. Mr. Pomeroy described the other historical elements of the interior that will remain, such as fire hose cabinets, chalk boards, and chalk holders. The DRC provided the following comments on the proposed new building: • The scaled -down structure is an improvement. • Continued to be concerned about privacy impacts to the nearby residents; suggested reducing impacts by screening balconies on the offending side and installing frosted glass on the bottom part of the windows. • The design does not look residential; it appears too commercial. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2017 Page 6 of 6 • The building needs to be more of a complement to the historic resource. It does not look like it is on the same property as the historic school. • In may be better to change the massing of the building to reference the Spanish Colonial style, and then modernize the materials, instead of creating a modern building in massing and putting Spanish Colonial details on it. All members found a contemporary new building to be acceptable. • Building looks too bulky, needs softening and variation; the balconies and walkways read like a parking garage. • The building needs some kind of roofline or other changes to the parapet to reduce the box look. This might include adding more square footage at the ground floor to vary the massing or lowering the plate heights of the upper floors. • In response to the applicant's exhibits which included buildings on Chapman campus, the Committee expressed that the subject property is not comparable because it is not on a college campus. • Saving the historic resource before it deteriorates any farther is critical. The Cominittee expressed that adaptive reuse is encouraged in order to preserve the historic building. Ms. Moshier clarified that the project will return to the Committee with the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and all of the technical reports that relate to the Committee's recommendation before it goes to Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. SECOND: McDermott AYES: Fox, Imboden, McCormack, McDermott, and Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2018 Page 4 of 10 (3) DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4807-15 — KILLEFER SQUARE • A proposal to adaptively reuse a historic elementary school property for a one- and two - bedroom multi -family residential development. The school building is designated in the National Register of Historic Places. Six units will be located in the historic school building. Eighteen units will be located in a new three-story building at the northwest side of the property. Sixty-two parking spaces will be provided in two surface parking lots. • 541 N. Lemon Street • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714-744-7243, mmoshier(di cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission Marissa Moshier, Historic Preservation Planner provided an overview of the project consistent with the staff report. She stated the DRC's action is a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the project design and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) related to aesthetics, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. She stated at a preliminary review in December 2017, there were a number of comments related to rehabilitation of the school, including paint color, preservation of the historic materials and the accessible ramp at the front door. Conditions have been added to ensure that the final color and materials board comes back to the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building pen -nit and to engage a Historic Preservation Consultant. Also, the applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan which was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Senior Landscape Project Coordinator. A condition of approval has been added so that the final landscape plan will return to the Committee prior to issuance of a building permit. Leason Pomeroy, Applicant, provided a brief description of the changes that were made in response to the Committee's comments and recommendations and provided a new redesigned model. He also stated that the lobby will be donated for use as museum space to depict the history of the site and they are installing a series of pickets down the sidewalk which will provide a timeline of the school. Chair McConnack opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Jeff Frankel, Old Towne Preservation Association, commented on the Aesthetics section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, stating that he disagreed with the finding that the new building does not have an impact on the site and on the surroundings. Mr. Frankel also disagreed with the findings in the Cultural Resource section that there is not a significant impact on the cultural resource. He commented that there are no mitigation measures related to the impact of the new building on the school. Although the project was much better than what was original proposed, Mr. Frankel did not think that the development was compatible with the surrounding area. However, the historic resource continues to deteriorate week by week because it is not secured. OTPA does not want to see the resource disappear. Although they are not happy with the infill project still, it needs to move toward protecting the historic building. Mark Colin, Orange Barrio Historical Society, stated that OBHS wants to preserve the structure as a national historic landmark. OBHS is opposed to converting the building into dorms because it would prohibit community access to this historic building and increase foot traffic in this area. ATTACHMENT NO. 7 MND-1844-15 KILLEFER SQUARE DRC MEETING MINUTES 03/21/18 IYT1VP nA 7I11R PC MT(- City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2018 Page 5 of 10 Douglas Westfall, a national historian stated he would prefer to see the building used for educational purposes and would like to see the building preserved for history and made accessible to the community. Committee Members McDennott and Imboden disclosed they met with the applicant to review the design. The Committee had the following questions and comments: • The Committee liked the architectural changes that were made; the new building is a better fit for the neighborhood than the previous design. • The Committee asked who would own any archaeological or paleontological finds if there are any on the property. Ms. Moshier stated it depended on what the find is. The Mitigation Measures in the MND require developing a monitoring plan for what will be done immediately after a find is made and what the appropriate avoidance or disposition of those finds will be. The plan will also specify who the appropriate caretaker is for specific finds. • The forms of the new building should be complementary to the historic school with the materials done in a more modern way in order to set it apart. For example, the exterior plaster of the new building could be smooth to differentiate it from the historic school. • The new roof greatly improvedthe massing; however, if they moved one of the units from the top floor down to the ground floor, it would provide more variation in the mass. • Seven air-conditioning units are adjacent to residents on the north side of the property; they will need to be moved to another location on the property in order to reduce the noise for neighbors. Ms. Moshier stated for the record that there is a Mitigation Measure in the MND related to noise; cumulatively, the AC units are required to meet the limits in the noise ordinance. • The handicap access ramp for the front entrance of the historic school requires additional development. Committee Members agreed that they want to see the final plans and recommended that the applicant engage a historic preservation consultant on use of the California Historical Building Code. Ms. Moshier stated the conditions of approval require that the applicant work with a Historic Preservation Consultant and return to the DRC with a new proposal on the ramp for final approval. • A suggestion was made to look at the handicap ramp at the Doti Building at Chapman University as a possible solution. Mr. Pomeroy briefly described the challenges of providing a ramp at the recessed entrance of the historic building. • The gutters and downspouts on the historic school should be replicated based on historic evidence and should be copper plated to limit toxic runoff. • The Committee asked the applicant about a plan for the retention of the interior features of the school building. Mr. Pomeroy stated they want to retain as much as they can; however much of it has already been destroyed by vandalism. • The Committee would like to see the description of interior features from the Historical Resources Impact Assessment incorporated into the plans. Ms. Moshier stated a consultant will review the construction documents and determine the plan for preservation of exterior and interior historic features. • The Committee asked what the roofing material will be. Mr. Pomeroy stated the historic building will be restored to its original terra Gotta file roof The new building will also have terra Gotta tiles. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2018 Page 6 of 10 • The Committee agreed that they would like see the following items for final approval before the start of the project: awning and window details, roofing materials, paint, landscape, lighting, and handicap accessibility plans. • As an individually listed building on the National Register, this project should be conditioned to obtain a Historic Preservation Consultant prior to the construction process. Ms. Moshier stated there is a condition to engage the consultant to review the construction documents for conformance with the Secretary's Standards, and to specifically advise on the paint color and the ramp. Committee Member Imboden stated he is concerned about the lack of having someone to review field conditions during construction and make recommendations for treatments. • The Committee Members expressed support for the Variances to eliminate the requirement for covered parking and to eliminate the private open spaces for the units in the historic building, because both applications preserve important historic features of the site. • The facade of the new building on Olive looks like the end of a building; it needs something to elevate it as the street fagade. • The Committee briefly reviewed the landscape plan and suggested a grove of trees in the parking lot to provide shade. The trunk height of the trees must be tall enough to avoid blocking the view of the historic building. Ms. Moshier suggested that the applicant provide staff with infornation when they have engaged a consultant prior to the submittal for plan check. Committee Member Skorpanich made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of DRC No. 4807 — 15, Killefer Square in accordance with the conditions and findings in the staff report with the additional conditions as follows: • Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, a historic preservation consultant shall be engaged to monitor construction and make recommendations on decisions to rehabilitate or replace features in the historic building. The consultant shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards; • Prior to submittal of plans to the City for building plan check, the applicant shall return to the Design Review Committee with details on lighting, the balconies in the new building, awnings, window trim and reveals in the historic and new buildings, and the cast (Olive Street) facade of the new building; • The air-conditioning units in the north side yard shall be relocated away from the residential properties to the north to minimize noise; • The details on the rehabilitation of the historic stricture as described in the Historic Resources Impact Assessment shall be included as -additional conditions on the plans; • The rain gutters and downspouts on the historic building shall be copper plated and match what was originally on the property to the extent that documentation is available; • Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the roofing materials on the historic and new buildings shall return to Design Review Committee. The roofing of the new building should be the same material as the historic building with some differentiation in design; • Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the interpretive elements in the Olive Street front yard and museum space shall return to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. In addition, the Design Review Committee made the following recommendations: City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Mceting Minutes for March 21, 2018 Page 7 of 10 • Additional vertical trees should be added to the parking lot as a grove in the center of the lot. The trunk height and canopy of the trees should allow views of the historic school from Lemon Street. • The selection of Soap Bark and Scarlet Oak trees in the landscape plan should be reconsidered. SECOND: Fox AYES: McDermott, Fox, Imboden, McCormack, Skorpanich NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Marissa Moshier From: Dan Graupensperger <yonka@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:44 PM To: Marissa Moshier Subject: Re: Project at Kilifer Marissa, What you sent was perfect. I now understand the conversation among the planning commissioners at the meeting. Not sure if you are still taking input from the public but if you are I would like to say I am opposed to this project as it stands now for the following reasons. First, a three story structure at this location will have a large negative affect on the on the feel of the neighborhood of mostly single story structures. Second, this is a dorm not an apartment. It is clear by the plan that each bedroom is designed to have more than one occupant which means the parking plan is not adequate. The developer did a good dance around the fact this is not an apartment complex it is a dorm. I suspect there will be more than one person per bedroom if this thing gets built. Having said all that. A two story true apartment complex with adequate parking might fit. The neighborhood might prefer a one story complex but I think that is just not feasible in todays market. Thanks again for taking time to send the info. Dan Graupensperger On Monday, June 11, 2018 4:34 PM, Marissa Moshier <mmoshier@cityoforange.org> wrote: Hello, I have attached a scan of the unit plans for the new three-story building of the Killefer Square project. If you would like to see the complete set of plans, please let me know. The complete set is a large file, so I would have to send it over several emails. If you would prefer, you can also come into the Planning Division at Orange City Hall and look at the plans in person. If that's the case, please let me know in advance, so that I can make sure the plans are available for you at the front counter. If you would like any additional information or have other questions, please let me know. Thank you, Marissa Moshier Historic Preservation Planner Community Development Department City of Orange (714) 744-7243 From: Dan Graupensperger [mailto:yonka@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 3:16 PM To: Marissa Moshier <mmoshier@cityoforange.org> Subject: Project at Kilifer Marissa, ATTACHMENT NO. 7 EMAILED COMMENTS DANGRAUPENSPERGER, RESIDENT KILLEFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JULY 10, 2018 CC MTG. Is there a link to the floor plan of this three story dorm/apartment complex. I could not understand the basin per room conversation at the planning commission meeting. Dan Graupensperger