DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE: MARCH 16, 2016 TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair Fox and Members of the Design Review Committee Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Senior Planner DRC No. 4764-14 The New Home Company (Marywood Site) SUMMARY Final review of the design elements for the construction of 40 new detached two-story singlefamily residences at the former Marywood Pastoral Center - Diocese of Orange. RECOMMENDED ACTION - FINAL REVIEW Staff is requesting that the Design Review Committee (DRC) review the final design proposal in accordance with the recommended changes in the Conditions of Approval prior to building permit issuance which serve to support the required findings and ensure the preservation of community aesthetics. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Property Location: General Plan Designation: Zoning Classification: Existing Development: Property Size: Associated Applications: The New Home Company 2811 East Villareal Drive Low Density Residential (LDR) Single Family Residential (R-1-6) Marywood Pastoral Center for the Diocese of Orange 16 Acres TTM No. 0035-14, CUP No. 2981-15, MJSP No. 790-14, and ENV No. 1839-14 Previous DRC Project Review: Preliminary Review on December 17, 2014. On July 15, the DRC provided a full review and requested additional information prior to making a recommendation. On August 19, 2015, the DRC reviewed the revised full design and recommended approval with conditions. PUBLIC NOTICE No Public Notice is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 2 of 6 The project was subject to environmental review per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Orange certified an Environmental Impact Report (ENV No. 1839-14) on October 13, 2015. PROJECT DESCRIP TION The New Home Company/applicant, is proposing to construct 40 new detached two-story single family residences on the 16 acre Marywood Site. All existing development associated with the Marywood Pastoral Center will be cleared from the site to accommodate the new residential development. The proposal calls for three floor plans and three architectural styles. The applicant is clustering architectural styles, with one dominant style on each of the streets, but having a mix of all three styles. All three floor plans can be reversed to provide a varied streetscape. The smallest floor plan would have four bedrooms. The larger floor plans would have five bedrooms. Each of the floor plans would include covered outdoor living area in the rear of the house. The applicant has proposed a varied street plan, which would be achieved by the three different floor plans that can also be reversed, three different architectural styles, and three different color palettes, which results in many different combinations of floor plan, architectural style, and color palette. At the DRC meeting of August 19, 2015, the Committee recommended approval of DRC No. 4764-14, Marywood Residential Development, to the Planning Commission based on the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, and with the additional conditions: 1. Appearance of the second level decks be studied and provided to the DRC for review in elevation prior to final approval. 2. Applicant study enhancement of the secondary elevations or façade where they are most highly visible on Lots 25, 26, 29, 31 and 39. 3. The side yard wall adjacent to the neighbors on Lot 17 be constructed of slump stone. 4. Restudy the walls and slope conditions adjacent to Lots 22, 25 31 and 37. 5. Explore all the façade conditions and geometry of roof gables particularly where materials begin and end and balance those on the façade and come back for final review including a color and material sample board for each of the styles that are offered. With the following recommendation: 1. Lessen the exposure of the bedrooms that face one another between Lots 19 & 20 and Lots 33 and 34. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the City Council on September 21, 2016. The City Council approved the project on October 13, 2016. EVALUATION CRITERIA Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.10.070 establishes the general criteria the DRC should use when reviewing the project. This section states the following:
Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 3 of 6 The project shall have an internally consistent, integrated design theme, which is reflected in the following elements: 1. Architectural Features. a. The architectural features shall reflect a similar design style or period. b. Creative building elements and identifying features should be used to create a high quality project with visual interest and an architectural style. 2. Landscape. a. The type, size, and location of landscape materials shall support the project s overall design concept. b. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of required addressing, nor shall it obstruct the vision of motorists or pedestrians in proximity to the site. c. Landscape areas shall be provided in and around parking lots to break up the appearance of large expanses of hardscape. 3. Signage. All signage shall be compatible with the building(s) design, scale, colors, materials and lighting. 4. Secondary Functional and Accessory Features. Trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas, transformers, and mechanical equipment shall be screened in a manner, which is architecturally compatible with the principal building(s). ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Below is a list of the items that the DRC requested that the applicant further analyze and return to the Committee for review. They were further refined and additional conditions were incorporated into Conditions of Approval in City Council Resolution No. 10890. The conditions are numbered as contained in the City Council resolution. The applicant has provided a text response to each of the conditions (Attachment 4). 20. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall return before the Design Review Committee with final architectural and landscape plans, and color and materials for review and approval by the Design Review Committee. The applicant has provided a complete half size set of the architectural drawings and the landscape plans. In addition, the applicant has provided a color and material board for each of the proposed color schemes. 21. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall study enhancement of the secondary elevations or façade where the elevations are most highly visible on Lots 25, 26, 29, 31 and 39 and provide to the Design Review Committee for review prior to final approval. The applicant has provided floor plans and elevations of both the standard the enhanced elevations for Lots 25, 26, 29, 31 and 39. In addition, the applicant has also provided enhanced elevations for Lots 28 and 40.
Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 4 of 6 22. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall further study the appearance of the second level decks in elevation and provide to the Design Review Committee for review for to final approval. Both the standard the enhanced elevations which the applicant has provided also include elevations of the optional decks. 23. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the proposed side yard wall adjacent to the neighbors on Lot 17 shall be called out to be constructed of slump stone. In the landscape plans, the applicant has provided Section B-B Lot 17 Slope Planting, which calls out the wall to be slump block for Lot 17. 24. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall restudy the walls and slope conditions adjacent to Lots 22, 25, 31, and 37 and provide to the Design Review Committee for review prior to final approval. The applicant has revised the grading on all the lots including Lots 22, 25, 31, and 37 to eliminate all wall stacking. 25. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall explore all the façade conditions and geometry of roof gables particularly where materials begin and end and balance those on the façade and return to the Design Review Committee for final review including a color and material sample board for each of the styles that are offered. The applicant has provided a complete half size set of the architectural drawings, which address the Committee s concerns. In addition, the applicant has provided a color and material board for each of the proposed color schemes. 26. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall provide cultural details for the memorial area to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. The applicant has provided a complete half size set of the landscape plans, which include details for the memorial area. 27. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall revise the plans to include provisions for a pedestrian access entry gate and return to the Design Review Committee for final review. The applicant has provided a complete half size set of the landscape plans, which include details on the pedestrian access gate. 28. Prior to the submittal of plans into building plan check, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian gate into the development. The location of the pedestrian gate shall be review with City staff for compliance with any applicable codes. The applicant has provided a complete half size set of the landscape plans, which include details on the pedestrian access gate. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff from interested departments reviewed the conceptual plans and draft environmental impact report on multiple occasions. On June 16, 2015, Staff reviewed the revised documentation and recommended approval with conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 5 of 6 The courts define a Finding as a conclusion, which describes the method of analysis decision makers utilize to make the final decision. A decision making body makes a Finding, or draws a conclusion, through identifying evidence in the record (i.e., testimony, reports, environmental documents, etc.) and should not contain unsupported statements. The statements which support the Findings bridge the gap between the raw data and the ultimate decision, thereby showing the rational decision making process that took place. The Findings are, in essence, the ultimate conclusions which must be reached in order to approve (or recommend approval of) a project. The same holds true if denying a project; the decision making body must detail why it cannot make the Findings. The Findings are applied as appropriate to each project. Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC recommend approval to the PC with recommended conditions. 1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.070.G.1). The project is not located in the Old Towne Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply to the application at hand. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior s standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.07.G.2). The project is not located in the National Register Historic District; therefore, this Finding does not apply to the application at hand. 3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3). The project s architecture provides architectural continuity that reflects contemporary interpretations of the City s historic and cultural characteristics. The applicant has proposed a varied street plan, which would be achieved by the three different floor plans that can also be reversed, three different architectural styles, and three different color palettes, which would result in different combinations of floor plan, architectural style, and color palette. The project s architecture would be internally consistent and provide for an integrated design theme. The landscaping themes have been integrated and work well with each other. There is no specific plan for the site. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.07.G.4). The Infill Residential Design Guidelines apply to small scale subdivisions of four (4) lots or less, because of its size, consisting of a 40 lot subdivision, the proposed project is not considered infill residential development as defined by the City s Infill Residential Design Guidelines; therefore, this Finding does not apply.
CONDITIONS Design Review Committee Staff Report Page 6 of 6 Conditions of Approval for the project were approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 06-14. Staff is recommending that the DRC approve the final design with the conditions of approval presented below as it relates to the final design. The DRC may provide additional conditions or modifications to conditions to support the required findings and ensure the preservation of community aesthetics. 1. The project shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with plans and exhibits date labeled February 17, 2016 including any modifications required by conditions of approval, and as approved by the Design Review Committee. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Design Review Committee Minutes of August 19, 2015 3. City Council Resolution No. 10890 with Conditions of Approval 4. Applicant s response to the Conditions of Approval 5. Proposed Plans cc: David Mello The New Home Company 85 Enterprise, Suite 450 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656