Loading...
2013-08-07 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL August 7, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Tim McCormack Joe Woollett Craig Wheeler Committee Members Absent: Robert Imboden Staff in Attendance: Greg Hastings, Interim Community Development Director Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Rick Otto, Assistant City Manager Wayne Winthers, City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Mark Schwartz, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:13 p.m. Planning Manager, Leslie Roseberry, proposed clarification of context for the discussion tonight, as it might go off -topic due to the nature of the discussion. Posters outlining the purview of the Design Review Committee (DRC) and of the Planning Commission and City Council were posted in the room for reference. The DRC focus is to be on the smaller context of how the project affects the immediate neighborhood. The wider, external project context will be examined by the Planning Commission. This is because of the size of the project, and also because there are several different land uses in the project. Any comments which the DRC thinks might fall under the Planning Commission's purview will be recorded and forwarded to them. Ms. Roseberry also encouraged all speakers to speak into the microphones so that everyone in attendance could hear all comments. Chair Fox noted that there were no minutes to review. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the DRC meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:19 p.m. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 2 of 32 Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. Chair Fox called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members are present except Committee Member Imboden. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 3 of 32 AGENDA ITEMS (there are no "New Items" for this meeting): Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4413 -09 & ENV No. 1818 -09 - RIO SANTIAGO SPECIFIC PLAN • The project is a proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning Designations for the 110 acre site and create a Specific Plan that would allow: a maximum of 130 single family homes; a maximum of 265 senior (age- restricted) housing units that could include up to a three -story building; pay- for -use private recreational facilities which could include up to an 81,000 square foot building; and open space areas north of and including Santiago Creek. Publicly available trails, publicly available open space, and private streets are also proposed as part of the project. • 6118 E. Santiago Canyon Road • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • Continued without discussion from DRC Meeting: June 5, 2013 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the City Council Chair Fox reminded all members of the public that they needed to fill out speaker cards if they wished to speak. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Ortlieb about page 22 of the report, and the overall plan adequacy. The question posed in the report was whether the new standards should supersede the standards of the zoning code. He asked if that meant more restrictive, or in place of the existing zoning code. Mr. Ortlieb explained that it was to be in place of the existing code. The project has a lot of criteria that are mandatory, and design standards that are mandatory as well, and the question is whether those mandatory criteria and standards are better than the existing code for regulating development of this site. Committee Member Woollett asked if the Specific Plan addressed standards that were less restrictive than the existing code. Mr. Ortlieb said there were, and offered the 42 foot height limit as an example, since the existing code sets 32 feet as the limit. Chair Fox asked if the City standards would apply to the recreational area, since there are no new standards introduced in this Specific Plan. Mr. Ortlieb said that any place where the Specific Plan is silent, it is assumed that the existing municipal code would apply. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 4 of 32 Committee Member McCormack asked about page 20 of the report, the first paragraph. Mr. Ortlieb explained that AES -3 simply means that any design impacts of the Specific Plan will be mitigated by the opportunity the Design Review Committee has to look at each plan as they are finalized and brought back before the Design Review Committee. Ken Ryan, KTGY Group, address on file, representing JMI properties and Santiago Partners, LLC, spoke as the applicant's representative. He introduced Megan Penn, KTGY Group, Project Manager, and pointed out several other people associated with the project, including Project Engineer Dino Campanelli, Fusco Engineering; Landscape Architect, Luke McKew; and others. Mr. Ryan opened by thanking staff for their work on the project so far. He described the project as one that converts an existing sand and gravel operation into a residential, open space, and recreation community. The purpose of the presentation tonight is to get a big - picture view of the general ideas behind the project. He also reiterated that all designs would be brought back before the Design Review Committee as they are ready to be drawn up more specifically. He said most people he spoke to were anxious to develop the property and have it become something other than a sand and gravel operation. He proceeded to show various graphics related to the project that showed the proposed uses of the four different areas: Area A is open space; Area B is active recreation; Area C is medium - density recreational, where age- restricted housing would go; and Area D is low - density residential. He identified and discussed the six primary principles for the project: 1. Integrated open space 2. Connectivity & walkability 3. Community character 4. Health & wellness 5. Sustainability 6. Community facilities & amenities He then described the trails and green areas in the proposed design, including the asymmetrical streetscape, and went over the proposed home lot sizes, the 3 -story building in the age- restricted housing area, and the 81,000 square foot building in the recreational area. The public amenities that the applicant feels fit into the overall aesthetic of the area would be public trails, a public park, increased public access, the greenway reserve, and the 3.7 acres of open space. Mr. Ryan continued, pointing out that while the proposal asks for some regulations in the zoning code to be set aside, many other facets of the project go way beyond what the zoning code requires. The idea behind a Specific Plan is to allow for new ideas and new characteristics that fit with the particular area under discussion, and this Specific Plan does just that. He showed the wall and fence plan, and how that dealt with sound and privacy. He also described the 3 main parkway sections, and each one goes beyond what the existing zoning requires: this area has a required 18 foot landscape zone, while the proposal contains a 39 foot zone adjacent to Santiago Canyon Rd. Also, the proposal allows for a 20 foot wide trail along the river, with 10 feet for biking, 4 for equestrian, 2 for walking, and 4 for landscaping. He also showed some of the ideas for the different landscaping zones, including areas being left in their City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 5 of 32 natural state. He pointed out that most of the landscaping was chosen to reflect the character of the neighborhood. He then described the architectural styles, including that an eclectic mix of architectural styles seemed to be a good thing that kept it from looking uniform. Some of the overused styles were removed from the list, but the idea was to keep many different styles. He also mentioned the placement of the different buildings, and showed that there would be a 50 foot setback for the 3- story building. There is a wide variety of different densities in the plan, which mirrors the surrounding area. He also showed some drawings of what some of the different elements of the project might look like. Chair Fox thanked the applicant and opened the floor to public comments. She reminded everyone from the public that they had three minutes to speak. She also reminded speakers of the different areas being discussed tonight and how they compared to the areas that would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Public Comments: Pete Bowen, address on file, spoke supporting the plan. He can see the development area from his own house on Linda Vista St. He was generally positive about the plan, explaining that there are 30 -40 foot piles of debris that represent a worse massing problem than a proposed 3 -story building. He likes the massing plan, and thinks it can be a really beautiful development that will improve the community. The building at Grijalva Park is a 26,000 square foot building with nothing to hide it, and it feels fine in that spot, so an 81,000 square foot building with landscaping should not be a problem. He likes how the sidewalks are set off from the road, and how it provides access to Orange Park Acres on both the road and the creek trail. He looks forward to it and feels it will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Tom Davidson, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. He disagreed with Mr. Bowen, and felt the project wasn't compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of its massing. He agreed that he doesn't like the sand and gravel operation at the site now, but doesn't like this plan either. He pointed out that 50 feet of setback for a 3 -story building isn't much, pointing out that the Weimer Room itself was 56 feet long. He disagrees with the idea of using a new Specific Plan when the existing plan is a good one and should be held to. Bob Myers, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. He lives in the Jamestown tract of The Colony, and feels that the scale and mass of the project is too much. This plan will put 395 residences on 50 acres of buildable land, which is 8 times the density of the surrounding area. Everyone agrees that the current situation isn't good, but this plan seems unreasonable because of the density and the height in the plan. Nick Law, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. He is a resident with a view of the dirt pile at the sand and gravel operation. He pointed out that the sand and gravel operation didn't exist on the property until the current owners of the property bought it. As bad as the pile is, the height is not even as tall as the proposed 3 -story buildings, and at night the dirt pile is not illuminated and basically goes away from sight. He is opposed to the plan, since he feels there's nothing like this in the neighborhood, which features mostly single - family homes. He also mentioned that the recreational facilities didn't fit either. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 6 of 32 Theresa Sears, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. She lives on Santiago Canyon Rd and feels the plan has been from the developers' perspective, and there's a lot they aren't telling the public; there are other plans that govern this property, and we should stick to those plans rather than throwing them out in favor of this plan. 10 years ago, a plan similar to this one didn't go through the process to be adopted. There are 12.6 acres zoned for houses, and the developer should develop that land rather than trying to overturn the existing zoning. The creek is unusable land, and setting it aside as open space is not a favor from the developer. Nothing about this plan fits in with the existing Orange Park Acres area. Judy Lash, address on file, spoke supporting the plan. She lives in the Old Towne area, and has watched the development of many different projects over the years. This plan is a good one, in that it allows for citizens outside of that area to use the park and open space. Julie Hunter, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. She states this plan has no compatibility with the neighborhood, throwing out the existing plans is ridiculous, as those plans were formed for the good of the community. Having the Specific Plan come before the Design Review Committee seems strange, as the plan hasn't even been evaluated to see if it could happen. The other challenges of traffic are going to have to be dealt with, and those should be handled first in her opinion. The current developer put the eyesore on the property in the first place, and fixing it this way seems disingenuous on the developer's part. Laura Thomas, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. She is president of the Orange Park Association (OPA). This plan is not compatible with community aesthetics, since at 6,000 square feet the lots are too small to accommodate RV parking and horses. The lots on the adjacent housing mostly have 10,000 square foot lots that do accommodate these things. The Design Review Committee was already concerned about the height of Salem's church tower, and the 3 -story building in this plan would be in that same category. This is a rural area, and should not be this densely populated or have buildings of this height on it. Ray Grangoff, address on file, spoke supporting the plan. This plan does a good job of matching the community that is around it, and certainly would be better than what is there now. Jason Phlam, address on file, spoke opposing the plan. His balcony overlooks the dividing line between sections A and B in the Specific Plan. The medium - density and recreational sections of the plan would make for more people looking into his backyard, which he isn't in favor of. He believes the plan will make traffic worse on Santiago Canyon Road, and the only way to fix that is for the city to take homes to widen it, and his home is one of those, so he would not be in favor of that. Chair Fox called a 10- minute break; Chair Fox re- convened the meeting at 7:02pm. Chair Fox stated that the discussion tonight will be structured around the committee going through the large plan binders and addressing each major section: • Massing and Scale • Context • Architectural Design City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 7 of 32 • Color and Material Palette • Landscaping • Signage • Upholding Community Aesthetics • Enhancement of Community Character • Identity of the City • Overall Specific Plan adequacy Chair Fox explained the reason for looking at this plan despite not having building plans, stating it creates its own set of standards for future development. This meeting judges those standards proposed by the applicant to see if they are adequate and meet all the issues being discussed. It includes things like height, setbacks, and aesthetics. Before the Planning Commission gets the plan, they want to make sure that these issues are properly vetted, so they can focus on land use and other areas of the plan. There is, of course, some overlap in some of these areas. Chair Fox suggested that the discussion start with issue #2 from the staff report, which is Massing and Scale. Section 5 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on aesthetics would be the logical place to start, as it has larger pictures of the area. Page 5.1 -1 is the first picture. Committee Member Woollett referenced page 5.1 -4, and the paragraph about topography. He walked the entire site as a way to get a grasp of the area, and he has lived near that area for about 40 years. This is a huge parcel of land, and unless you walk it, you don't get a sense of that scale of the area. First, even when one is walking on the existing trail near the Mayberry development, there is a lot of traffic noise that can be heard. Having a sound barrier along Santiago Canyon Road is going to be a benefit to the people living in the area, even if it's farther away from the trail. Second, Area A is defined as a natural vegetation area, even though it's not very natural except in the sense that it hasn't had anything done with it. If it's going to be considered natural, there should be something done with it to help preserve it in its natural state. Third, he was concerned about the three story building, but if it's positioned in the right place and surrounded by the proper landscaping, it will get lost in the overall project. He advises everyone to keep the scale and the distances in mind when considering the project. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 5.1 -12. He is questioning the statement that "windows on prominent locations shall be designed and articulated in a manner that is consistent with the building's architectural style." He wonders how a "prominent" location is determined, and wondered whether it wouldn't be better to treat all the windows the same way on all sides of a building. Chair Fox referenced page 5.1 -12. She looked at the visual simulations, and felt that the smaller lots will likely change the massing character of the houses that are being designed. A lot of the houses pictured in the materials won't actually work with this plan as well as they appear to work in the drawings. The report states that the 3 -story building will be surrounded by 2 -story buildings that help mitigate the disruption of the view. She believes they are not mitigated, and will block views of the ridgelines from Santiago Canyon Road. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 8 of 32 Chair Fox also referenced page 5.1 -15. She noted that the report states the project will have a minimum 50 -foot setback for all 3 -story structures from the edges of plan area C. Chair Fox believes this is too looming of a mass, and won't protect the character of the area. Committee Member Woollett stated that the plan used the allowable height on 3 -story buildings as a guide, but that allowable height seems to be a lot higher than it needs to be. Committee Member McCormack commented on Figure 5.1 -4, which is a view of the 3 -story building. He says that to use landscaping to mitigate the height view, which the plan proposes, there will need to be a lot of ground space to support the screening or framing of the landscaping. His comments tonight will speak to the viability and sustainability of the landscaping. Committee Member Wheeler was also very concerned with the same figure, and stated that this seems visually worse than the Salem Church tower, which was a contested placement as well. He suggests the developer look at other placements of the YMCA building on the lot, since it is so close to Santiago Canyon Road as placed now. Chair Fox also thought that placement would have a negative impact. The staff report also asked the Committee to see if the Specific Plan was in line with the City of Orange's General Plan. Item 7.5 on that plan was to protect significant view corridors and open space ridgelines, and item 7.1 was to preserve the scenic nature of ridgelines visible throughout the community. Chair Fox believes this picture (Figure 5.1 -4) completely obliterates a large portion of the view of the scenic ridgeline. Having this mass so close to the street poses a problem on many levels. Committee Member McCormack stated that the Infill Design Guidelines also compel the committee to look at the visual impact of a project. Chair Fox referenced Figure 5.1 -5. The view from the trail on the other side of the creek shows where the 3 -story structure is, and it looks like the beginnings of an urban center, which doesn't have the character of that part of Orange. Anywhere over the ridge in the Orange Park area is less dense than downtown Orange and other parts of the city, and this plan doesn't seem to fit. Committee Member McCormack stated that the mass, when seen from far away, seems even more massive, since the landscaping that is planted won't be close enough to mitigate the situation for several years until it grows and develops. The sameness of the repetition is also a problem, as the character created by changing things up a bit embodies this section of Orange. This plan doesn't look compatible with the rest of the area. Chair Fox referenced Figure 5.1 -8, which was the view analysis from the reserve looking toward the development. The near lots in the picture look very large, perhaps 12,000 square feet, and those are fine, but the picture makes it look like most of the lots will be that size, when in fact those are the exceptions rather than the rule. It is good to use the large lots to buffer it against existing development, but it's also misleading to make it look like that is a standard -sized lot. Committee Member McCormack also commented on the photo, stating that it doesn't do a good job of showing what it could actually be. The photo makes it look like a monopoly game, where there are just blocks set out in a row. If the developer doesn't place the houses carefully, it could look really bad. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 9 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that development standards are calling for a 5 -foot setback differential between the first and second floors, so that would make quite a difference in the looks of the houses. Chair Fox pointed out that the buildings were not to be judged for their architecture yet, but the closeness of them is fairly accurately represented. Chair Fox referenced Figure 5.1 -10. This picture looks across Santiago, and it looks like something in a denser, urban or suburban setting, rather than the rural setting that this area is supposed to be. She also referenced Figure 5.1 -11, saying that the ridgeline was blocked from this view. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 5.1 -31, and asked about Mitigation Measure AES- 3 which is dealing with the design of a sound wall, but doesn't seem to be what this page is talking about. Mr. Ortlieb mentioned that AES -3 was meant to establish that the Design Review Committee will get to look at detailed pictures and graphics later on, so the negative visual impact that the project might have could later on be curtailed by the review process in the future. The sound wall reference is simply saying that its existence would help with the visual impact. Committee Member Wheeler indicated that they will need more than just a sound wall to mitigate those negative effects. Chair Fox mentioned she was looking at General Plan Goals 7.1 and 7.5, and these still apply to the overall massing and scale question. Item 6.0 is to encourage contextually appropriate infill development projects and property renovations. Item 6.2 is to insure new infill development contributes positively to the surrounding corridor or neighborhood including the potential to provide additional park space and minimize the visibility of on -site parking. These 2 items are not being met by the Specific Plan. Committee Member Woollett cautioned that putting the preservation of views above all else would result in no development at all. Chair Fox stated she was in favor of doing responsible development, and the proposed location for the 3 -story building is not ideal and the building could be placed better. She believes there is a way to develop areas and not have such a negative impact on the surrounding views. Chair Fox referenced the part of the report that deals with Massing and Scale, since the discussion was still on Issue #2, in Section 6, which describes the development standards. After that, the Committee will come back to section 4 with specific architectural comments. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 6 -2, stating that the orchard grove "bosque" should be "bosk" instead. Also, page 6 -3 states the building site will be moved, and it doesn't sound logical to move a building site. Chair Fox referenced planning area D and wondered whether there will be horses allowed there. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 10 of 32 Mr. Ryan explained that there were to be no horses anywhere on the development. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 6 -5, where it speaks of maximum floor areas. It seems that these are almost identical to the City of Orange's minimum floor areas, and he wonders if the report shouldn't read minimum instead of maximum. Mr. Ryan acknowledged that it should read minimum. Committee Member Wheeler also asked about the square footage, and showed that there seemed to be a big jump between the 1- bedroom and 2- bedroom units. Mr. Ryan said he would double check that. Committee Member Wheeler said that the 3 style elements should be raised up to the next level. Ms. Penn acknowledged that that was correct. Committee Member Wheeler said the distance from the local street for the villas was in disagreement between the diagram and the table. Mr. Ryan explained that the diagram should be accurate rather than the table if there is a discrepancy. Committee Member Wheeler recommended that the numbers be in only one spot so as to avoid confusion over possible discrepancies. Chair Fox referenced the skilled nursing, pointing out that it was the biggest bulk in the project, and suggested that there should be some stepping in the setbacks. The skilled nursing has the same setbacks on the 1 -story and 2 -story with no stepping. In the villas, there is some stepping between the upstairs and the downstairs. The independent living also has no stepping between the first and second floor. The stepping would help to mitigate the mass problem. She stated that was actually a really big issue for her. Mr. Ryan asked for clarification on that suggestion. He wondered if the suggestion was that beyond the 50 feet in the 3 -story buildings, there should be some articulation in the architecture between the 2n and 3rd stories. Committee Member Wheeler explained that was what was being done on the single- family homes, and it should be done on the other parts of the plan as well. Chair Fox said that some amount of stepping between the first and second floors of both the assisted living and independent living would help to articulate the mass and mitigate the bulk. Committee Member McCormack referenced Figure 6 -1, which relates back to Figure 6 -4, and stated they look like they came from two different documents. The setbacks on these residences should be 10 feet from back of sidewalk, but these sidewalks are not against curb. The sidewalks should always be away from the curb. The trees need to be in a sustainable zone of viability, so the small areas where trees can grow will not allow for the quality and character that's intended City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 11 of 32 here. In most of the developments in Orange, the sidewalk is far enough back that people can walk behind a car parked in a 20 -foot driveway. Additionally, the street trees that would normally be planted between the sidewalk and the curb need to be planted on someone's private property, and some people don't want that. The result is that the landscape element is already compromised. Developments that want to retain or build character create these parkways with street trees, so they can't be taken out by the property owners. In developing the character of this new development, landscaping plays a huge part. Mr. Ryan responded that he agreed with Committee Member McCormack. The initial vision for the property was to have no sidewalks, or have them on only one side of the street, to help the area feel more rural. Through the course of the six different review steps in the process of getting this plan here, the compromise was that sidewalks on both sides of the street were required in order to get the plan in front of the Design Review Committee. Mr. Ryan confirmed acceptance of removing the sidewalks in order to keep the project viable. What's in front of the Design Review Committee tonight is something that works, but the initial design recommendation was to not have sidewalks at all, so it wouldn't be a problem if those had to be removed. Committee Member Wheeler stated he took a picture of a neighborhood with a wider road and no sidewalks. He thought it looked nice, and suggested that would be a wise way to go, especially since there are neighborhoods with no sidewalks in the surrounding area. He also referenced page 6 -6, where it talks about minimum space between buildings being 10 feet. He asked whether there could be something done about offsets between windows on opposite buildings with a narrow side yard so people aren't looking through from one building to another. He also pointed out that the minimum courtyard dimension listed is 8 feet, although the total space listed is 48 feet, which would mean one side needs to be 6 feet. He suggested that probably meant to say 64 feet. On page 6 -7 it looks like the numbers don't line up with the items they are talking about. Chair Fox referenced that same page, where it says the maximum height of the main structure of independent living is 42 feet for the 3 -story building. The assisted living has a 32 foot maximum for a 2 -story building. She thought a 3 -story building wasn't appropriate, even next to the residential buildings in the plan. It provides an urban character, which is too urban for this part of Orange. Committee Member Wheeler commented that 3 -story was fine, but it shouldn't be so close to the road, and needed to be built up to gradually. He wouldn't rule out 3 stories if it could be done well and not loom over everything. Committee Member McCormack agreed. Committee Member Woollett said it could work if done right as well. Chair Fox asked how the Committee Members felt about the 50 foot setback from Santiago Canyon Road. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 12 of 32 Committee Member McCormack said he felt that wasn't wide enough, especially for that large of a structure. He encouraged that there was work to be done to make it look good, but it could be done. Chair Fox said the picture looked like a good setback of even more than 50 feet, but that amount of setback wasn't spelled out clearly in the plan, and wouldn't be guaranteed unless it was spelled out in the plan. In looking at the aesthetic impacts mentioned in the DEIR, the problem of blocking ridgeline views could be mitigated by bigger setbacks, so that would be an essential component, especially along Santiago Canyon Road, for Chair Fox to see in the plan as it is revised. She also thought stepping along the facade of the 3 -story building was essential. Those are the two things that could mitigate the presence of a 3 -story building. Mr. Ryan explained that there was already a 39 foot landscape zone from the back of Santiago Canyon Road. Chair Fox asked if there was then an additional 50 feet beyond that. Mr. Ryan explained that the 39 feet of landscaping was part of the 50 feet. Chair Fox then asked if that meant there wouldn't be parking, since there would be only 11 feet left to put in parking. Mr. Ryan explained that there could be a drive aisle or something, but the 39 feet of landscaping is guaranteed by the plan. Chair Fox said that even if the base of the building was 50 feet away, the third story needed to be farther away from Santiago Canyon Road, perhaps even 20 additional feet. Mr. Ryan explained that the DEIR does its purpose in terms of sharing information, but it doesn't contain architectural renderings, so it doesn't represent what's guaranteed to go in that space. Chair Fox pointed out that approving the Specific Plan could create a code that allows the 50 foot facade to happen, and she does not want to allow that to happen. Committee Member McCormack stated that the setbacks and densities and massing of the building is what's making this project hard to approve. Having sustainable landscaping will be very important to helping all these areas work well together. Committee Member Woollett stated that having a variable setback generally helps to overcome this kind of concern. If there was a 75 foot setback, for example, a straight 3 -story building would be fine. Chair Fox asked if the Committee needed to recommend specific numbers for those variable setbacks. Committee Member Wheeler stated a reluctance to put specific numbers on it. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 13 of 32 Chair Fox pointed out that the Specific Plan as it currently exists does have specific numbers on it, so it would be appropriate to put specific numbers on the recommendations to make sure the plan agrees with the Committee's thoughts on the plan. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Mr. Ortlieb that the current ordinances do not have any specific numbers on variable setbacks. Chair Fox pointed out that the plan says 42 feet is the maximum height for a 3 -story building. She asked Mr. Ortlieb if that was at variance with what the current code allows, which is 32 feet. Mr. Ortlieb stated there are urban mixed -use zones where it can exceed 32 feet, but this R -3 zone probably doesn't allow for anything over 32 feet. He will check the ordinance to make sure of that figure. Mr. Ortlieb also pointed out that the 42 feet was to allow for different architectural styles, since the 42 foot mark would be the ridge of the building, not necessarily the top of the highest floor. For example, some architectural styles could have sloped roofs that might require additional height beyond the useable space of the buildings. Committee Member Wheeler asked if that could be something discussed as part of an architectural projection in a limited area rather than for the building as a whole. Mr. Ortlieb said it could be part of that conversation. Chair Fox mentioned that currently the plan just says 42 feet, so there are no guarantees that the architect who designs the building won't put a flat roof on the entire building going up to 42 feet, rather than a single spot in the roof that reaches 42 feet. She wondered if there was language to be added that might help give some reassurances about this. Committee Member McCormack said that would be difficult without articulating a specific type of architecture. Chair Fox said the way it's written it could be a 42 foot parapet. Committee Member McCormack agreed. Chair Fox said to her that would not fit aesthetically. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he wanted the applicant to know that the Committee generally felt this 42 -foot tall plan was too tall to sustain a 50 -foot setback, but wanted to also allow the applicant to come back with a response in future plan revisions. Chair Fox said although the specific building designs were going to come back to the Committee, the Specific Plan might not be, and she wanted to put something a little more specific in the Specific Plan so that people who work from these rules have a good idea of what the Committee will allow in specific designs. She felt having those rules in place now would save time and effort later on in the process. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 14 of 32 Mr. Ryan said that Section 4 of the plan is the design criteria, which is simply the design guidelines, and the development standards were focused on using these guidelines. He suggests that the Committee add in language to the design guidelines letting future designers know what they are looking for. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would agree with that, and would say that 42 feet would only work for certain architectural elements, and not just as a general rule. He suggested the 42 feet mark could be conditioned for a percentage of the total building. Mr. Ortlieb mentioned that this Committee will recommend to the Planning Commission (PC), so these comments can be part of the suggestion, including things that would change the Specific Plan wording. It's not necessary for the applicant to come back before the Design Review Committee after this, so the Committee should include whatever language they think should be in there. The result of this discussion is a recommendation to the PC, not a binding condition placed on the applicant. Committee Member McCormack said there are two ways of doing this: the character and context of the plan are being commented on, and the applicant could take a continuance and come back to the Committee after working on the plan, or the Committee could either approve or deny with a list of conditions. Mr. Ryan said he would prefer a specific decision and conditions, so they have something to work on as they revise the plan. Chair Fox said she felt chapter 6 was more general to mass and scale, and the more specific areas will be discussed later. Committee Member Woollett said there should be something included to mitigate the 50 foot setback and 42 foot height. Chair Fox said if there is going to be a condition, there should be some specific language that comes from the Committee. The third floor should have a higher setback, for example, and the height of 42 feet wouldn't cover the entire area of the building. Chair Fox asked if the Committee was done with the medium - density residential zone material. Everyone seemed to agree that they were. She then stated that the discussion should move to the low- density residential section, which starts on page 6 -10 of the plan. Committee Member Wheeler asked about page 6 -10 where it says that 20% of driveways must be set back 20 feet. He doesn't understand how you could set back a driveway, and asked for clarification. Ms. Penn said the intent was to require that the houses have at least 20% of the driveways be front - loading rather than side - loading. Committee Member Wheeler suggested the plan could say that more clearly. He also asked about page 6 -11 where it talks about zero lot line houses, and it says that "primary windows" need treatments, but it doesn't define which windows are "primary." City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 15 of 32 Mr. Ryan said they could certainly define "primary windows" and specify that they should be translucent. Committee Member McCormack referenced certain parcels on the plan that would be considered zero lot lines, such as lot 102. He said he thinks the lots on the corners have easements, but those easements appear to be included as part of the square footage, which they shouldn't be, since they aren't the owner's property. He stated he believes the developer did this to help maximize the stated lot sizes, but that this practice is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. The way these lines are drawn, this creates a zero lot line, and the residents would have to use the easement areas to get access to their own property, which shouldn't be the case, and doesn't even look legal. Chair Fox also mentioned that development criteria 6 -5.2 states the minimum lot frontage of 45 feet, but the code states that R -6 needs to be 60 feet. Mr. Ryan mentioned that there were competing purposes and priorities that made these lots challenging: 1. Make a project that's viable 2. Deal with the creek access 3. Deal with the fire department for emergency access 4. Deal with the relationship with the neighbors in the reserve area 5. Deal with the slope Committee Member McCormack said the intent here seems obvious to him: to get as many lots as possible on the property. He really didn't think that purpose is close to the purpose and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ryan brought up the project engineer, Mr. Campanelli. Mr. Campanelli stated that access to several lots from the cul -de -sac were preserved with the current lot lines, and in one case there was only one way in and out of a lot due to fire access. There are reciprocal access easements used to provide access to the lots. He would be open to a revision to the frontage open space in the lots if needed, but because of the limited access and grade on some lots it would be difficult to change the lot lines. Reconfiguring the lots would be an option. Mr. Ryan clarified that the Committee was fine with the primary roadway, but the way the cul- de -sacs are laid out it feels just a little too dense, and the committee would recommend losing a few lots. Chair Fox asked where the 45 foot minimum lot frontage occurs. Ms. Penn explained that there had to be a minimum in there, even though that isn't necessarily the size of any of the lots. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 16 of 32 Chair Fox asked how wide most of the lots were, and based on scaling of the charts it seemed that many lots were 60 feet, although some looked narrower. She felt that since the discussion was on massing and scale, the development had a lot more smaller, narrower structures on it that doesn't fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which has more equestrian properties with larger lots. Mr. Ryan stated that the open space and trail elements were part of preserving the neighborhood character, and that there are other developments similar to this, including Serrano Heights, that have this size or smaller lots. The big idea would be that these residential elements would be insulated and organized around the open space to the north and the sloping land to the east. That is why there was a strong push not to include sidewalks on both sides of the street, so that the streets were wider and the area felt more open. The idea was to include open space both internally and externally, and have smaller lots, rather than having larger lots and losing that open space. Chair Fox stated that there isn't the possibility of building on some of the open space, so losing that open space isn't really an option anyway. Mr. Ryan pointed out that there are some spots where there could be lots, but the developers have chosen not to put them there to preserve the open space. Committee Member McCormack ran through the numbers on some of the lot sizes, and pointed out that if the average lot is 60 feet, and there are 5 -foot setbacks on both size, that leaves 50 feet for the house, with 21 feet being the garage, that leaves only 29 or 30 feet for the structure. That calls into question how many options for architecture there will actually be in the development as a whole. Chair Fox pointed out that if the lot itself was smaller, since 45 is the stated minimum, then the problem becomes even more constraining, so maybe it would be a good idea to state 60 feet as the minimum. Committee Member Wheeler added that it might make it harder to do a side -entry garage if the lots weren't 60 feet wide either. These problems have the possibility of changing the character of the neighborhood if the lot size isn't spelled out a little more. Committee Member McCormack said there just doesn't seem to be enough room in the lots. Chair Fox pointed out that the minimum is 20% front -entry garages, but it could end up being that 100% of the driveways become front -entry if the lots aren't wide enough. This would be a problem. Committee Member McCormack also pointed out that even with the side -entry garages, there's a lot of paving, and if there are houses next to each other with side -entry garages going to the same side, it is going to have a lot of continuous pavement, which will affect the overall character as well. The Specific Plan as written leaves open the possibility of things not going well as the houses are actually designed, and it is frustrating. It's a common problem in design, and people think that landscaping can solve the problem, but if there isn't enough space, landscaping can't do much to solve the problem. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 17 of 32 Mr. Ryan pointed out that there have been some recently developed homes on small lots that are not what the industry was doing 7 -8 years ago. Chair Fox said she thinks that the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size is too small for this area. Mr. Ryan wanted to clarify that this is not a rural area, and the smaller lots are only a problem if it is a rural area. Chair Fox said that the zoning was for open space and R -1 -8. Mr. Ryan mentioned that right now the area is zoned for sand and gravel, and eventually the choice will be between the sand and gravel business or a development with smaller lots. The sand and gravel operation makes money and will continue to do business on that property until a more suitable alternative is proposed. Committee Member Wheeler questioned whether lot size is within the purview of the Committee. Chair Fox said the lot size is dictating the dimensions of the houses, and therefore constraining the architecture and other design elements, and those are within the Committee's purview. She feels 60 feet should be the minimum width for lots, since that part of the city feels different from Old Towne or other parts of the city. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that there is quite a bit of variation in lot size in the area as well. There are trade -offs, and what the applicant has said about the trade -offs is accurate. Some of the most valuable land in Orange County has the smallest lot size as well. Committee Member McCormack noted that when he was reviewing section 4, he saw that the variety and arrangement of the different houses and their architectural sizes would be constrained by the smaller lot sizes. Some houses in some styles would be just fine in smaller lots, but the variety the developer is going for would be harder to insure if there was only a certain type of house that could be put on the lots, rather than having the space to choose from a larger variety of styles. Committee Member Woollett noted that his comments are tempered by the fact that Monday he spent half the day walking around Balboa Island, where there are really small lots, and they are some of the most valuable properties in the county. Mr. Ryan mentioned that the developer thought the non - linear configuration of the development and the mix of different uses in the same area would help insure the development fits in with the neighborhood character. Chair Fox said it does help. Mr. Ryan said that the thinking was if the development went on for a long stretch in the same direction, it would feel too dense, but since things are broken up, it doesn't. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 18 of 32 Chair Fox asked for finishing comments on the development standards related to the tract map. The conclusion is that the Committee needs to make a recommendation about some of the problems that have been discussed, like access areas. Mr. Ryan said it was also very critical that this fit into the larger urban design components, like don't just do a stucco wall outside that says Rio Santiago, or having sidewalks on only one side of the street. Chair Fox said one recommendation would be about resolving the southeast corner of planning area D and lot access. She then asked for comments on the open space and recreational space. Committee Member Woollett stated that the trail is listed as being 20 feet wide, but it's not very clear how that space will be divided up into horse, bike, and foot traffic. Also, it's shown as a public walk, but it isn't connected on either end to existing trails, and can only be accessed from within the development. He wonders if the design is keeping faith with the standards if the trail isn't developed better and connected to existing trails. Mr. Ryan stated that he has committed verbally to the city that they would be willing to connect that trail to existing trails. The city and county had asked them to look into it, and they did. Committee Member Woollett said that if that was the case, the trail doesn't necessarily follow the trail standards. Mr. Ryan stated it is 100% connection since it would be accessible throughout the length of the trail in the development's property. Committee Member Woollett stated that it wouldn't connect to anything on the east side. Mr. Ryan said he asked if the city wanted to take over the land, and they declined. The county would be willing to accept the land, and would determine when and where it connects to existing county trails. The Specific Plan doesn't describe that because it won't occur on the property of the development, but it has been discussed, and things are being set up for that to take place in the future. He also believes that having the trail terminate instead of connect isn't necessarily a bad thing, and used the Santa Ana River Trail section in Yorba Linda as an example. Trails that simply end can help serve the local communities and still be very beneficial. Committee Member Woollett said he understood that, but if people take the trail west of Bond Street, it backs up to townhome developments and runs along the creek, and it's a terrible area. The concern is that the trail needs to be developed, landscaped, and maintained in a way that it isn't just a back -alley shortcut. The 20 feet is much wider than it needs to be if it's a trail. He's concerned that the standard that the plan goes by in developing that trail is not adequate. Mr. Ryan said the 20 feet was for 10 feet of biking, 4 feet of equestrian, 2 feet of joggers, and landscaping. Committee Member Woollett confirmed that Mr. Ryan actually did anticipate horses on the trail. Committee Member Woollett asked how they were going to get there. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 19 of 32 Mr. Ryan said they would connect along the equestrian trail from the Mara Brandman arena across the street or the equestrian trail that goes in front of the reserve right now. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Mr. Ryan that horses would go through the main entrance to the development. He then asked why there wasn't a row of trees down the middle like the other trails have. Mr. Ryan said in some cases the easement itself is up to 100 feet wide, but the plan stays out of the flood plain and stays out of the riparian area entirely, and the setback will include re- vettment in place to protect the residential components of the plan. There is a revetment that gets built, covered up, and planted on between the 20 feet and the repairing edge. It does get up to 100 feet wide in some areas. The 20 foot paved area is separated on the creek side by a wide undulating area that will be planted. Staff asked for there to be a black safety fence to keep people from getting down into the creek. There is room outside the trail to plant, and on the internal side, there is space between the trail and the development edge that will be landscaped. The reason why the trail itself is 20 feet wide and doesn't have lots of trees is that it needs to be accessible to fire vehicles. Also, the break in the homes along this area makes it more accessible to residents as well. Committee Member McCormack was concerned that the trails should be connected to Cannon Street, since the points don't necessarily line up well right now. The widths of the different trails need to transition smoothly from one to another. It's a solvable situation, but it needs to be done carefully, and the plan doesn't have a lot of specifics on how that will be done. Chair Fox said the Committee should make a recommendation to the PC on this since trails are under their purview. She then stated that the discussion should get into architectural design, which starts in section 4. Committee Member Wheeler noted that page 4 -1 describes a "rural architectural scheme." This Specific Plan feels more like an urban development so far. Committee Member McCormack referenced page 4 -5, which mentions the sustainability of the landscaping, lighting, reduced turf zones, and reduced pavement, but there are few details in the document, so he would like additional explanation. Mr. Ryan said there is a sustainability section in the Specific Plan, 5 -7, that describes this in more detail. The energy conservation side and lighting speaks to that. The goal is to have the minimum street lighting that Public Works thinks is still safe. Musco lighting will be mandated to be incorporated. The general idea is less lights, less spillage of lighting, and more energy conservation. Committee Member Woollett asked Mr. Ortlieb if, since that section was included in the Specific Plan, would the Committee be able to cite that section in demanding those things in the development. Mr. Ortlieb explained that anything that was in there with a mandatory statement will be enforced. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 20 of 32 Committee Member Woollett pointed out that not everything in this plan has that kind of language. Mr. Ortlieb said that from an enforcement standpoint, it's hard to say an idea must be implemented if the language doesn't require it. If the design is lackluster on all fronts of sustainability, the leverage is there to say that the idea wasn't realized, but it won't be possible to force something that isn't mandatory. Committee Member Woollett said one of the issues bound to come up is south - facing unprotected windows, which is not energy responsive. Mr. Ryan explained that there are often not specifics in this document since the buildings haven't been designed yet. Page 4 -85 does provide a lot of "shall" statements in it that indicate certain elements that are mandatory, but other parts of the plan suggest things and give the designers some freedom to do some elements the way they best see fit. The Committee and Staff have a lot of purview; for example, under page 5 -7 regarding sustainable evaluation there is language that says that as part of future developments, the different elements will come back to the different committees involved for further review. The developer thought the plan did a good job of balancing required specifics with general suggestions that the future builder can work with. Committee Member McCormack said the glossy pictures are nice, but they don't necessarily have a lot of specifics in them. Like those, sustainability gets a lot of lip service, but isn't really dealt with meaningfully. Mr. Ryan pointed out that his firm recently created a zero energy home that was written up in the Orange County Register. Committee Member McCormack said he was going to react to the sustainability issues because they have something to do with design. He wondered if the pervious pavement areas on the cross - section of the roadway, for example, were done for sustainability, and these kinds of issues are things that need to be discussed. He also mentioned that artificial turf should only be used for active use rather than the iconic front lawn. Mr. Ryan mentioned that the porous concrete and pervious pavers are used and mentioned in section 4 -4.9, and there is language in the plan that requires their use. Committee Member Woollett stated that the Committee was looking toward the number that shows how much water must be kept on site, and the plan is suggesting ways to do that, rather than requiring much specifically. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -8, and the requirement that 20% of the driveways be set back again (as was mentioned on page 6 -10). He also mentioned that on page 4 -11, it says "every 4 house." The text could be worded to make it more random, rather than a prescriptive regular number. Committee Member McCormack referenced page 4 -11, stating that this exhibit shows no sidewalk, and it might be more helpful to have an exhibit that shows the other side of the street City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 21 of 32 with a sidewalk to clarify that the sidewalk will be on one side of the street. The desire of just about everybody would be to be able to walk and not have to be right next to cars. The goal would be to get to an image that shows the sidewalk on one side. Mr. Ryan asked if the sidewalk on one side of the street would be good; Committee Member Wheeler stated he would be all for that. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -11, and the side -entry garages, and asked that if there were two houses with driveways joining up with each other, there could be an easement that allows for a single area for both driveways to share, which is seen in some parts of Old Towne. Mr. Ryan said yes. Chair Fox asked for feedback from the Committee Members on the seven different architectural styles mentioned in the plan. Committee Member McCormack went first, listing this thoughts on each one: Craftsman, 1- story = OK; Monterey, 2 -story = OK; Andalusian, 2 -story = questionable, tropical look; Spanish, 1- or 2 -story = OK; Cottage, 1 -story = OK, 2 -story = no, steep pitch does not match previous approved Craftsman Monterey; American Revival, 2 -story = no, doesn't match the roof pitch, not a California contextual style; Ranch, 1 -story = OK, quintessential postwar California style. He wondered what happened to postmodern contemporary Eichler. Chair Fox stated she wrote that down as a suggestion. Committee Member McCormack felt that what would help this project would be to add in different styles to help it look like the eclectic Orange Park Acres area nearby. When a whole lot of homes are done in similar styles, it looks like a housing tract. Chair Fox stated that Orange would like to see architecture that fits the uniqueness of Orange. The Andalusian style doesn't fit that, but the Eichler does. She would recommend swapping those two out. Committee Member McCormack added that you can create neighborhoods with the many different styles. He suggested one way to make it more palatable was to make it more eclectic. Committee Member Wheeler confirmed with Mr. Ryan that there would be some 1 -story houses. He commented if there should be some language in the plan regarding number of stories, since it looks like most of the homes will probably be 2 -story. Mr. Ryan said there could be something like that in the plan. Committee Member McCormack pointed out that some of the architectural styles work best for 1 -story houses, while others work well with 2 -story houses. Chair Fox said that there are some fantastic 2 -story Airplane Craftsman houses in Tustin, and they feature an upstairs that it much smaller than the first story. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 22 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought that there were far too many styles, and it would look too cluttered. The variety of forms and shapes would provide the variety, rather than a variety of architectural styles. Craftsman wouldn't seem to fit, for example. He would be in favor of the palette of materials being limited, but the arrangement of forms being very high. Chair Fox stated she didn't want to see this look like most of the other newer developments in south Orange County. Committee Member Woollett stated that the Committee should try to find a combination of styles that is uniquely Orange. He thinks Committee Member Wheeler's comment has merit, but would allow greater variety to mirror what happens in Orange. He stated he had thrown out Andalusian and American Revival from consideration. He also didn't feel like the descriptions of the styles were accurate, and doesn't give the Committee much traction to include or exclude specific styles. Chair Fox said that instead of looking at the descriptions, the examples might help to clarify. Committee Member Woollett stated that he didn't think the examples were very good either. He feels the same way as Committee Member Wheeler about Craftsman in that if it isn't done well it sort of desecrates the style. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he saw a design in Tustin that allowed the front porch to be raised even on a house that rested on the slab. He thought this might be a good possibility for using Craftsman well in this plan. He listed Ranch as a style to include, as well as Mid - Century Modern, Irving Gill, even something new. Mr. Ryan stated he would be supportive of the suggestions. Committee Member McCormack said that sometimes the lot size helps drive the decision on architectural style. Chair Fox stated that the Committee would need to come to some consensus on the different acceptable styles, either to minimize or maximize the variety of styles. Committee Member McCormack mentioned that it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to see an Eichler next to a Cottage. Committee Member Wheeler said there was very little detail on what the styles would be of the other buildings besides the single - family homes. Mr. Ryan said that this palette should also apply to the other areas, but they will not necessarily be the same. Committee Member Wheeler said there should be more detail on what the plans are for those buildings. The 3 -story building, for example, could be either very successful or fail miserably based on the architectural style selected. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 23 of 32 Mr. Ryan said that the YMCA building was designed to have a National Park feel to it, but nothing is decided yet. Chair Fox said she just really feels like this part of Orange is unique to the rest of Orange County, and that "distinctive" should be preserved and come through in the style of the development. Chair Fox summarized the Committee's thoughts: everyone was on board with Ranch, Mid - Century Modern, and Irving Gill. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that people often have different ideas about what each of these styles look like, which can create a problem for the developer. The challenge is to give the designers a variety of options, but at the same time make sure that things are steered in an acceptable direction. Mr. Ryan said that there aren't a lot of specifics, so adding in some styles would be just fine at this level. Chair Fox said that some parts of the plan are very specific, to there's a disconnect if the Committee goes through item by item, but if new styles are added, she wonders if the Committee will need to see this part of the Specific Plan again just to judge those. Committee Member Woollett asked if it was possible to have these more carefully nuanced descriptions come back to the Committee later. Planning Manager, Leslie Roseberry, stated that the recommendation could be worded to send everything forward, or it could say to take part of the plan and ask for it to come back before it goes to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will likely not schedule their meeting for a while, so there might be time to have the descriptions come back to the Design Review Committee before then. Mr. Ryan said that he was shooting for the first meeting in December for the Planning Commission. Committee Member Woollett stated that there should be a consensus tonight on which styles should be approved and which should be eliminated. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a consensus on eliminating Craftsman and Andalusian. Chair Fox thought that Monterey was not in the context of Orange. Committee Member Wheeler said if the plan is going to include Cottage, Ranch, or American Revival, then move away from the Mediterranean forms (including Monterey), and stick with a collection of "Ranchy," American Revival, or Cottage -type things, and not try to blend it in with the Mediterranean styles with clay tile roofs, etc. Chair Fox said that contextually the American Revival seems to fit Orange. Committee Member McCormack said he prefers to stay away from things that look like barns, since that would likely be associated with bigger lots. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 24 of 32 Chair Fox said that the houses in this style sometimes look good because there is no garage on them, and the barn or other feature is in the back. As a form, there are some parts of that style that are seen in the Orange Park area. Mr. Ryan said that his request was for the Committee to not completely eliminate their ability to respond to some opportunity to come back with something that will respond to everything that has been talked about tonight. Focusing the list down to one or two architectural styles would not be something they would be advocating. Committee Member Wheeler said he believes the applicant has heard what the Committee was thinking about, and hopefully it came out that there was a consensus on seeing a little bit more cohesion in the styles. Chair Fox stated that the Committee would be in favor of a grouping of styles that can work well together in a group, with perhaps leaving off the Mediterranean derived and Craftsman styles. Mr. Ryan was concerned that that would eliminate most of the 2 -story styles. Chair Fox said that would be a good reason to leave American Revival on the list. Committee Member McCormack said that the Irving Gill would be available in a two - story. Mr. Ryan asked the DRC to let the minutes reflect to the Planning Commission that certain styles were discussed favorably and other styles were discussed less favorably. This could provide design standards and other core concepts spelled out clearly, but the architectural styles could be kept more general with feedback and discussion rather than simply a list of "yes" and "no" to certain styles. Chair Fox asked if that meant to leave the Specific Plan more vague on architectural styles. Mr. Ryan said the recommendation to the PC could be that the Committee discussed architectural styles with the applicant and offered alternatives. Chair Fox feared that could leave the door open for a designer in the future to come in with plans that were completely out of alignment with the things discussed here unless something more specific was included in the recommendation. Mr. Ryan said he heard that the Committee certainly didn't like a couple of styles, and was open to adding others, and he was supportive of those comments. He didn't think it would be effective to limit the options even further. Chair Fox said she was also reluctant to leave it completely vague with just a few guidelines. She would like to see this list return to the Committee at some future point. Committee Member Wheeler said he agreed. Mr. Ryan said that on behalf of the applicant he was reluctant to eliminate too many of the choices this early in the process. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 25 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the recommendation could be to further study the idea of grouping styles to form communities that would be more harmonious among themselves. He would feel better agreeing to allow so many different styles if there were assurances that they would come together in some sort of cohesive motif. Mr. Ryan said that sounded better, as it allowed the designers to judge whether there was a place where some of these styles could be done well and could work. Chair Fox asked if the Committee would still want to see the list come back to them. Committee Member Wheeler said he would be in favor of that, since it would give them some ideas on how the different groupings could work. At that point, some specific styles might be eliminated. Committee Member Woollett said the lot size could affect the styles as well, so until the lot size question is handled, the style question may not clearly apply. The Committee agreed that could then include more modern styles. Chair Fox said that the styles that were clearly eliminated could still be eliminated. The only other comments might be that Ranch might have limited 2 -story elements, and that there should not be stucco, but mostly siding on them. Committee Member Wheeler also suggested that there be more information on the styles of the other buildings in the plan. Mr. Ryan said that these styles also apply to the rest of the project, but admitted that could be made clearer in the plan. Committee Member Woollett wondered if the Fire Department had anything to say about the materials in the project. Chair Fox moved forward into the general architectural standards, including building materials. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -30, where the plan mentions the limitation of each building using two primary materials with no one material comprising more than 80% of the surface seemed too limiting to the designer. That should be taken out. The requirements for the overhang on this page also seemed to disagree with the possibilities for some of the architectural styles, which have almost a zero eave. That should probably also be taken out. He also mentioned page 4 -32, and hoped that the requirements for windows and trim should be on all sides of the building. Page 4 -54 mentioned roof lines for the detached garage, but many of them could have flat roofs with parapets. This could prove to be too limiting. Committee Member Woollett mentioned a comment in the plan about carports. He recommended that carports should never be standing alone, and there should be some clarification of where the carports can exist. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 26 of 32 Mr. Ryan said that was probably meant for the senior living areas rather than the single family homes, but acknowledged that it could be cleared up more. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -35, and suggested there be language added to encourage the designers to gang up the plumbing vents to cut down on the number of roof penetrations required. That's mechanical, but also aesthetic. Committee Member McCormack also noted that if there are going to be solar panels, they will not work if there are many different roof penetrations. He also referenced page 4 -31, pointing out wood shake is prohibited, and solar panels are allowed. Committee Member Woollett referenced page 4 -33, where the walls and fences are discussed. This seems to be left wide open, and there are a lot more options for walls and fences than there should be, since this might allow for the continuity of the project to be interrupted. Either the restrictions should be tighter, or there should be a central wall and fence program to govern the walls and fences of the entire development. Chair Fox also suggested putting in a list of materials acceptable for the walls and fences, and a recommendation that the walls and fences should have a continuous aesthetic. Committee Member McCormack pointed out that stucco tends to get painted white, and the character of the area is described as "rough- hewn," which the stucco might not fit. The fences should whisper to people that they are there, rather than shout their appearance, especially since there will not be horses on the property. Basically, the fences should be an accent rather than a defining feature of the development. Chair Fox asked if the materials should be listed specifically, or if simply using the term "rough- hewn" could guide the development. Mr. Ryan mentioned that he had been asked to be consistent with the trail that exists, and there is a white fence out there, so that is why the white fencing was included. Committee Member Woollett noted on figure 4 -57 that both brown and white fences were shown, and he would prefer that either brown or white should be used, and not both. There are tracts that are ruined by walls and fences because people have done whatever they wanted to do, and there should be some consistency ensured. Chair Fox mentioned that the discussion is now moving into landscape. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -37, and noted that the figure being referenced should be 4 -31 rather than 4 -37. Page 4 -3.9 refers to pilasters, but they are freestanding columns rather than pilasters. Committee Member Woollett mentioned that the opening for the main entrance provides a sound tunnel, and there is some concern that that might be a problem. The sound walls on the sides might help, but would likely just move the sound right through the development. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 27 of 32 Chair Fox confirmed with Committee Member Woollett that would mean the sound might end up in the creek area. Chair Fox said that the sound already does travel into that area, and this will mitigate that problem for some of the houses, but not all of them. She stated she didn't see the sound as the developer's problem to solve. Committee Member Wheeler said he would hate to see them close that off. Chair Fox said that visual link is important. Committee Member Woollett wondered if the side sound walls should continue and go through the entire area rather than stop at the gates. Mr. Ryan said that the PC would address any noise issues. Chair Fox said that visually it will be one of the nicer aspects of the development. Committee Member McCormack mentioned that page 4 -36 mentions unified landscape, and that can help guide the rest of the landscaping. That includes rough -hewn materials. He also pointed out that all the figures here are typical landscape treatments and should work fine, except he would like to see if possible that the landscaping could use less turf. He also mentioned 4 -51, which mentions a 6 foot minimum parkway, and only an 18 foot trail easement. The 6 foot minimum parkway against traffic is a consistent design element mentioned in the plan. That goes with all the trails listed on pages 4 -52 and 4 -53. On page 4 -55 the curb - separated sidewalk is mentioned, and the goal should be to have the sidewalks all using the proper setback rather than being on curb, even if that means that there is a sidewalk on only one side of the road. The 5 foot minimum requirement for the sidewalk setback will help give some sustainability to the street trees. All the drawings in the plan show a curb setback for the sidewalks. On page 4 -56, the key element of the landscape character is section 4.4.4c, private and local streets and drives, which mentions street trees and curb - setback sidewalks. All the drawings should reflect that element. On page 4 -61, the plan shows conflicting cross - sections. All sections J, K, and L should be consistent. Mr. Ryan stated that they are not in disagreement with that suggestion, but that would be with sidewalks on one side of the street. The compromise during the Staff Review was to put sidewalks on both sides, so some drawings reflect that, but in order to get the proper street width and curb setback, there will only be one sidewalk. He also stated that a change in this area might get pushback from Staff so he wanted to be sure he wasn't just going to keep going back and forth on this element, since Staff steered the plans in this direction initially. Committee Member McCormack stated if design -wise there is a sidewalk on curb and 20 -foot garage setback, people will be required to walk around a lot of parked cars. Mr. Ryan stated that sidewalks on one side is doable, and there are examples of neighborhoods close by that have it as well. Chair Fox agreed, but was worried that Staff would say "no" to it. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 28 of 32 Mr. Ryan explained that the engineering staff demanded two sidewalks, so that is what is in the drawing, but that isn't really what the applicant wants. Ms. Roseberry stated that Staff was likely trying to put the plan into the standard street - planning box rather than reflecting on the specific area. There have been deviations from other plans in the past, as long as the road still works. She also stated that it would be helpful to have the reasons for the deviation in future steps in the process. There is a process to deviate from the standard, but the process often starts with the standard as the requirement. Committee Member Wheeler said that if the single sidewalk plan isn't allowed, there will need to be more discussion, as it could create an accessibility issue. Committee Member McCormack said he doesn't think the sidewalk against the curb works. Committee Member Woollett asked about the numbers: if there is no sidewalk, then the 6 foot setback still exists, as well as the 20 foot garage setback, so the house would still need to be 26 feet back. The property line would still stay there. Mr. Ryan was in favor of that, since the landscaping could then be added to the non - sidewalk side of the street. Committee Member Wheeler asked how it would be explained that there was no parking on one side of the street. Mr. Ryan said signs would likely be the best way, and possibly striping as well. Committee Member McCormack referenced section K, stating that the plans allow for a 2 -story structure, 8 feet away from a curb face, which is about the smallest street wall found in an urban area. Mr. Ryan explained that was the minimum. Committee Member McCormack said that 8 feet looks way too cramped. He wondered if there was a way to narrow the roads by making the parking either diagonal or parallel, which would allow for more setback for the 2 -story structures. Section L is also covered in the suggestion to keep all sidewalks off of curb. Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -75, stating there are going to be 7 or 8 driveways in the area, and that isn't represented in the picture very well. Mr. Ryan acknowledged that he could use a different image. Committee Member McCormack said that page 4 -77 shows the 2 -to -1 slope, but the plan view doesn't really show it clearly. He asked if there is a possibility of undulating the slope so that it's more clearly shown. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 29 of 32 Committee Member Wheeler referenced page 4 -79, figure 4.4.7c, he wanted to be sure that chain -link fences were explicitly prohibited. It states the prohibition in other areas, but not this area. On page 4 -86, it states that neon lights are not permitted. He thought that might be too restrictive. Chair Fox said it was too flashy for the area. Committee Member McCormack referenced page 4 -89, and asked to resolve the white fence and brown fence confusion. Chair Fox said that there will be a white fence along Santiago Canyon Road. Committee Member McCormack said that was fine, but to have a choice of fence color would be too many choices, so white should be limited to the fences that match the neighboring white fences. He also stated he prefers the brick cap slump stone be tan so the walls can be cohesive. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that just because there are a lot of options doesn't mean that the developer can use all of them. Committee Member McCormack said that sometimes giving too many design options can lead to too chaotic of a design. Chair Fox asked if the plant palette would be too big of an item, and if there should be a short break first. Committee Member McCormack said he actually didn't have much on the plant palette. He said that 4 -92 was a big issue that needs to be resolved: the trees can't be running through the park because of the utility easement, but he believes there should be trees in the park. On page 4 -95 there was a plant zone diagram of Zone 3, which shows exactly what he had been talking about all night. Zone 2 has the brown fence, which was mentioned earlier. He said figure 4 -37 is a winner. In terms of plant power, there should be some things changed, since some of them may not work very well. Zone 1 is fuel mod, so it will change slightly. The only thing that shouldn't go in in terms of the trees is the Melaleuca. Accent shrubs should be combed over to see if they fall in Zone 1 or 3, and they should be taken out since too much water. There should be better balance between the low -water plants and the areas that get the most and least water. Mr. Ryan pointed out that the Fire Department has been talking with the developer about the fuel mod zone and other concerns. Committee Member Wheeler lauded the applicant on the choice of Engelmann Oak trees in the plan. Committee Member McCormack mentioned that the natural grasses should be placed in a shaded area so they don't get too big and add to the fuel load. Great choices in Zone 2. The only three choices to question would be the Geijeria, Melaleuca, and the Bushy Yate. On the shrubs, if there could be a listing of the shrubs that will actually turn into trees if let go, and put them in a separate shrub tree palette, that would help if there's going to be a layered landscape. All the other listings look good. Zone 3 is good, but features too many things. He would recommend City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 30 of 32 making it compatible with the other zones and take out some of the thirsty options. Designating things as background and accent trees really helps. There are good options here for flowers, but you shouldn't use all of them. The rose, for example, will need more water, and should be very carefully placed. The senior communities often enjoy having roses or other traditional landscaping rather than the drought- tolerant types that are more modern. Mr. Ryan asked his landscape architect, Mr. McKew, if he was okay with these changes. Mr. McKew indicated he was. Committee Member McCormack referenced 4 -106, and recommended including the word "linear" before root barriers. He also suggested that regarding slope planting, there should be included a statement that the minimum tree density should be 2 trees per thousand. Committee Member Wheeler had a couple of small items regarding internal consistency. Page 2 -9 references figure 2.3, and it should probably be 2.5. On page 3 -10, the image on the right side didn't appear to occur on the site plan. On page 3 -15, the age - qualified assisted living area along Santiago Canyon Road featured a long, straight building line that should be broken up. On page 3 -21, the master plan refers to several roadway profiles which use a different nomenclature than when the same profiles are mentioned elsewhere in the plan. These should just be changed to be internally consistent. Chair Fox stated that the last issue was the signage, but that was probably already covered in division 6. The issues in 7 and 8 are very specific. She asked if there should be a short break before addressing them, or if they should be continued to another meeting. Ms. Roseberry said that they could be continued or dealt with after a short break. Chair Fox says the final two issues are very detailed, and it may not be best to try to hammer those out yet tonight. Committee Member Wheeler said it might be better to hammer some of these out after the applicant has had a chance to react to some of the feedback presented tonight. Mr. Ryan said he was fine with continuing as long as the meetings could be done before the December projections for Planning Commission review. If there was a spot open in September, for example, that might work well. Ms. Roseberry said there should be some openings in September. Chair Fox said that these two remaining issues are very wide in scope, and they should probably be looked at after other revisions have been made. Ms. Roseberry said the staff report can collect all the different notes on the meeting to give the applicants clear direction to guide the revisions. Mr. Ryan said anything in writing that details what has been discussed tonight would be very helpful. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 31 of 32 Committee Member Woollett said that there may be some other changes the Committee thinks of as it ruminates on all the discussions tonight. Mr. Ryan asked if the public hearing would continue at the next meeting. Chair Fox said she didn't think it would be, since it's just a continuing of the discussion, and the public has already had a chance to be heard. Ms. Roseberry said it might be the case that the public could comment on the new materials presented at the next meeting, but that would probably be the broadest participation plan possible. Committee Member McCormack said any public presentation probably has to present an opportunity for the public, but that would be limited to the new information. Mr. Ryan asked for the date of October 2, 2013 for the meeting to be continued to. That should give everyone time to make their changes, and still give time to be ready to present to the Planning Commission on their December 2, 2013 meeting. Committee Member McCormack moved to continue this item to a future meeting. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2013 Page 32 of 32 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on August 21, 2013. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Robert Imboden MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.