The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-10-02 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL October 2, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Tim McCormack Robert Imboden Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Greg Hastings, Interim Community Development Director Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Marissa Moshier, Contract Staff Planner Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Diane Perry, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:09 p.m. and asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, stated that Mr. Ortlieb had some additional information to pass out to the Committee Members for Item 3, Rio Santiago. Also, she would briefly go over some suggestions as to how to guide the Rio Santiago project for this meeting. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, explained and clarified the details of the supplemental information to the Staff Report for Rio Santiago and stated this information was based on a meeting that Staff had with the applicant on Tuesday. He explained the applicant has pointed out their "big eight items" that they feel are the most important and that respond to the DRC's previous comments. This includes responsibilities of Area A, ridgeline views, the 3 -story building, lot widths in relation to the architecture, potential styles and groupings, sidewalks and sidewalks having parkways, and Area D lots that are accessed by easements. He went on to explain the chart details and nomenclature. Chair Fox stated that it appeared this was the applicant's intent to show that they were addressing the issues. She went on to state that this was an exhaustive list and since just receiving 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the meeting, the DRC wouldn't have time to review in depth; the other Committee Members also commented that they should have received this a few days before the meeting. Mr. Ortlieb agreed and stated that Staff did inform the applicant several weeks ago that the DRC's comments provided at the previous meeting were valuable points. The applicant had a chance to respond before the Staff Report was released but Staff did not receive their comments. Ms. Roseberry stated the list included in the Staff Report should help facilitate the conversation. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 2 of 49 Chair Fox commented that the "exhaustive list" just introduced would now make it almost impossible to keep this evening's meeting at a reasonable length of time. Ms. Roseberry replied that the applicant felt responses to comments could be pared down to about eight areas; the discussion of those topics would include discussion of the particular comments and be able to flush it all out. She went on to explain that the DRC would need to make determinations if items were resolved or not resolved; or to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or add additional specific conditions. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Ms. Roseberry that the Committee Members could take "straw votes" throughout the project's review, since there were so many items to consider and the idea would be to incorporate the "straw votes." Chair Fox agreed it was better to handle the items by "issue" and not necessarily by "number." Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a list of recommended conditions and suggestions that he could pass out to the other Committee Members. Committee Member Woollett thought that was a good idea and confirmed with Ms. Roseberry that Committee Member Wheeler could pass out his "list" and as each topic came up for discussion, the other Committee Members could refer to the list and discuss in detail. Committee Member Woollett asked Staff to clarify the "DRC Action - Recommendation to City Council." Mr. Ortlieb confirmed that this project would go on to the Planning Commission as well, but the City Council would be the final determining body. Ms. Roseberry confirmed for the Committee Members that the Planning Commission (PC) Staff Report would highlight points of areas that the DRC were not authorized to resolve and the PC would also receive copies of the prior DRC Staff Report and minutes. They would take everything into consideration before making their final recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Ortlieb advised the Committee Members that it was their call as to whether or not to let the public speak again during the "Public Comments" session. Committee Member Woollett suggested that the meeting not go past 9:30 -10:00 p.m. Chair Fox agreed but commented that with the new information just presented to them this evening, the meeting may go longer. Chair Fox also confirmed with the other Committee Members that the public should be able to address the DRC during the Rio Santiago meeting. Committee Member Imboden stated that he was also troubled by the fact that the DRC had just received the additional information right before the meeting and didn't have a chance to review. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of September 4, 2013. Changes and corrections were noted. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 3 of 49 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:31 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: The Regular Session began at 5:32 p.m. All Committee Members were present. 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: September 4, 2013 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of September 4, 2013, with the changes and corrections noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett, Robert Imboden NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. • City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 4 of 49 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4699 -13 — STREETER FOURPLEX • A proposal to demolish an existing rear addition and to construct a rear addition to the contributing building. • 137 -139 E. River Avenue, Old Towne Historic District • Staff Contact: Marissa Moshier, 714 - 744 -7243, mmoshier@cityoforange.org • Continued from DRC Meeting: September 18, 2013 • DRC Action: Final Determination Marissa Moshier, Contract Staff Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Doug Ely, the applicant's architect, address on file, thanked Ms. Moshier and Ms. Roseberry for their efforts in getting this back to the DRC. He also thanked the Committee Members for meeting out at the site today. The applicants have amended their proposal per the comments from the previous meeting: (1) leave all the existing siding that was in good condition in place without removing it, and (2) allow existing plumbing and conduit to remain exposed on the exterior. After reviewing in detail today, the applicant was hoping that the DRC might have a different opinion of these two items. The applicant's preferred approach would be to remove the historic siding on the west side of the property and reinstall it on the east side; that would enable the applicant to properly waterproof the building for the long term. If left in place as the DRC previously recommended, the waterproofing would have to be handled on the interior of the west side of the building where the interior finishes were removed by coming in and chalking wherever there is daylight, although not the best approach. On the east side of the structure, the applicant is not removing interior finishes (it's plaster over wood lathe) and the existing cabinetry in the kitchen would stay. If the siding must be left in place, they would like the DRC to evaluate the approach of selective removal in order to get the piping inside the building. A hip roof design at the rear was included in the revised design, although the applicant's preferred design was a gable roof at the back end. Public Comments: Jeff Frankel, representing the Old Towne Preservation Association (OTPA), address on file, stated (1) they still supported leaving all the siding in place; (2) any replacement or relocation of the plumbing or conduit should be done from the interior, as it's easier to patch plaster than risk damaging the siding; (3) they're glad to see the asbestos siding removed; and (4) they agree with Committee Member Imboden's previous remark that the house across the street is the identical same house except the sun porch and the chimney are on opposite sides; the fenestrations seem to be the same, etc. One thing they couldn't determine was if there was any kind of service porch area in the rear; it seems most of the Bungalows had a service or screened porch. Regarding the foundation, it's sub - standard and in disrepair; if it's not in the DRC's purview City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 5 of 49 then it should be in the City's purview to address this issue. Another item that the DRC might not have addressed and/or conditioned was to remove the plaster /stucco areas as well with the matching siding. Also, the Staff Report indicated the siding needed to be the same profile, reveal, etc. but it also needs to say that it should be wood siding. OTPA is glad to see this structure rehabilitated and feel it's all positive but the foundation still needs to be addressed. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett stated that he feels the DRC is in danger of making decisions based on what is immediately in front of them - "looking at the trees instead of the forest." If this building was worth anything to the City, then it would need to be there for another 50 -60 years. By not allowing the removal of siding for waterproofing, to just caulk it up and hope that it holds together for a few years, is totally crazy. The applicant needs to be able to pull the siding off and put some waterproofing underneath it to protect the building from moisture intrusion. If this is allowed to happen, then this also allows the applicant the opportunity of moving siding around from one place to another to come up with the very best appearance on the building. He doesn't think that looking at it in the broad sense violates the Standards that the DRC follows. Also, regarding the hip section in the revised drawings, it's not a good solution and was not in keeping with the design of the rest of the building. He agrees with the gable design that the architect previously submitted; it makes the building more attractive, is not against the basic design of the building, and it will serve the community and the owner in the best way. He was also concerned about the pipes. If the siding is allowed to be removed, he supports the applicant doing what he wants to do and what the community would like him to do by getting the majority of the pipes within the wall. There are two conflicting fundamental issues they are dealing with in a Historic District. The applicant's building had work done early on and that work is historic. The portion on the north side is historic but it's allowed to be taken out. There needs to be some balance in what they are looking at and what they are doing. Committee Member Wheeler stated when he was out at the site today: (1) he asked the architect how much could they restore to what appears to be the service porch, by perhaps retaining the critical bead board under the horizontal line of the window sill and maybe using horizontal siding between the windows above that. He wanted to discuss how much of this would represent a false re- creation. He thought this approach would represent something more realistic than what's currently being presented to the DRC; and (2) he also asked if it would be feasible to use a 7 -foot plate on the rear addition area and a low pitch roof, with something other than shingles. It would incorporate a volume ceiling inside so it wouldn't seem to low and then be able to bring the roof of the rear of the building up under the existing eave rather than above it. Mr. Ely replied to the two items: (1) regarding the bead board, "yes, they could re- create it." There were different types of bead board and also some vertical grooved siding which was made to look like bead board. A lot of the work done in the depression era was "shoddy" construction and they didn't want to recreate that. What they were proposing and preferred was the horizontal siding going around, which was also done during that same period of time; and (2) regarding the 7 -foot plate height, again "yes, they could do it" but they didn't want to do it for the following reasons: (a) architecturally, he has never cared for a 6 -foot 8" header and then a 7 -foot plate height, as proportionately it doesn't look right, so he preferred the arrangement of a spatial layout with an 8 -foot plate height; (b) if there was a 7 -foot plate height it would be taller than City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 6 of 49 what's there now and the slope of the roof would have to be shallower than what it is now to tuck in underneath the existing; and (c) if redoing the north side of the house, it would look like all of the efforts were spent to recreate, restore, and rehabilitate for the next 100 years and it didn't feel right. He felt the proposed design with either the hip or gable, and a proposed 8 -foot plate height and the roof sloping up over the existing roof did not take away from the existing roof /corner. It's still respectful and subservient to the original structure. These are the reasons they would like to adhere to their original design. Committee Member Wheeler replied that it's common for existing service porch massing used in many areas of Orange to have a 7 -foot plate. Rob Streeter, applicant, address on file, stated his father was trying to keep all the trim inside the house: the 1" x 8" old casings with the nice crown that goes around it. It's being kept in the whole 1 -unit and wants to continue that into the addition but wouldn't be able to do that with a 7- foot plate. Committee Member Imboden stated he wasn't in agreement with everything said this evening. Historic Preservation has specific Standards, not Guidelines. Regarding the screen porch, he agrees with Committee Member Wheeler and shared with Mr. Ely when out at the site today that the screen porch has always been a screen porch and is reflected clearly as such on the Sanborn Maps. The DRC has worked with other applicants to help them meet their design program and still maintain the porch. He stated Mr. Ely's comment about not wanting to recreate shoddy construction was a mischaracterization of where the DRC was at. He also disagreed with Staff that a screen porch is not a character - defining feature on the back of this house. Although the porch is not in good condition, lack of maintenance doesn't say anything about whether it's a character - defining feature. He went on to state that he cannot support the request to remove the western siding and move it to the other side simply because the applicant doesn't want to handle the issues inside the building; he also doesn't believe this would be supported by the Standards. He suggested there could be limited removal on the east side and move some of it from inside; that might be able to be handled at the Staff level and that could be discussed further. But he cannot support removing an entire side of siding from one side of the building and moving it to the other; it's not supported by the Standards. Committee Member Imboden went on to state that he also disagreed about the waterproofing issue. This convention of building has been done in over 1,000 structures in Old Towne and this doesn't appear to be a problem here. This specific house is over 100 years old and doesn't appear to have had any huge issues with water infiltration. He reiterated he'd be happy to discuss another way to selectively remove siding. Another issue is the fascia; a character - defining feature of the Craftsman style is that it typically doesn't have a fascia. Although this house currently has fascia across the two front eaves, it doesn't exist anywhere else on the building and was probably added. The plans show that fascia is being added everywhere; he thinks there should be further discussion about this. The foundation of this building is an issue but it's not part of the project. He suggested that Staff could discuss changes to the foundation as there are Standards that provide guidance as well. He's not troubled by the stucco; there's currently a modification to the property and it has been there a long time. Unless it's going to be restored back to what it was originally, then leaving it like it is should be fine. Stucco is not an incompatible material with the Craftsman style as long as it's done well. He talked about the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 7 of 49 screen porch, the lower plate height, and how the applicant had an interest instead in wanting to change it to match the rest of the house. It's not a good preservation job if the project overtakes what's out there now. This project needs to be consistent with the other projects they have handled in the past. Committee Member McCormack commented about historic preservation vs. architectural upgrading and how sometimes they do conflict. Regarding the screened -in porch, he also visited the site today and agreed with the other Committee Members that the screened -in porch was a period piece but of course it doesn't look nice. Regarding the two types of vertical boards, if it was all historic he would agree it should be retained; however, that's not what's there and it looks as though it was pieced together. Regarding the siding, he thinks that the siding should be left in place. Moving the siding around disrupts the fabric of the historical structure. Some of the utilities should be moved in the wall; he thinks that the applicant could selectively remove the historical siding and have the ability to surgically put it back in. Regarding the stucco, whether historical or not, he's not a fan of stucco and thinks the same siding should go all the way around. He thinks the stucco should be removed as he doesn't think it's historical to the structure. The siding would make this a more uniformed structure. Regarding a 7 -foot plate line vs. an 8 -foot plate line, he could go either way. He doesn't prefer short roofs but he understands it's historical. Committee Member Wheeler explained what he had meant; the interior would be a volume ceiling so it wouldn't seem like a 7 -foot flat ceiling. Committee Member McCormack replied that suggestion would be better, meaning the roof would go underneath the existing eaves. Chair Fox stated that only if it was a flat roof. Mr. Ely stated it would have to be really flat. There would have to be 2 x 6 framing on top of that, which wasn't there now. Then to tuck it in underneath the existing roof with the span, that would make it substantially shallower in pitch than what's there now. Committee Member McCormack thinks it would look better to have the roof go above the existing roof, and possibly still keep the 7 -foot plate line. He stated there seems to be a division among the Committee Members as to how to approach this issue. Committee Member Woollett clarified that yes, there is precedent, but in this building there's almost a singular difference in that there are some very early changes on this building. The changes are historic so that provides justification and a reason for approaching this in a much broader way than the DRC would normally do. Therefore, he thinks the DRC shouldn't be as "picky" to follow a particular historic reference point in terms of service porches. There used to be service porches but now all that is left is a very bad remnant of a service porch. For that reason, he supports the different way the applicant is approaching this. Ms. Moshier clarified Staff's position on the existing porch, which she thinks it was a screened porch according to physical evidence and the Sanborn Maps. She stated that the extent of the alterations, meaning the existing service porch has lost integrity, and therefore is no longer a City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 8 of 49 character - defining feature of this building. However, service porches in general or a more intact service porch could still be a character - defining feature on other structures. Committee Member Imboden stated the service porch on this structure was still intact. It retains vertical siding, floor, and vertical openings for the windows, although some of the window sashes are gone and have been relocated to other locations in the home. He gave an example that if another house had the windows removed the whole house wouldn't be thrown away. Chair Fox agreed that this was a service porch but had some mysterious solid concrete wall next to the door in one part and it divided the two different kinds of siding. Historically, there seems to be pieces that were removed and replaced with something else at the west end; the east end seemed more intact. She thinks the integrity of the porch has been compromised. Other projects that have come before the DRC have asked to add on to the back of a historic house and the DRC has allowed those applicants to remove a lot of siding and windows and add on a gable to the back of the house. She feels in order for this square footage to be usable for this house it's legitimate to change it. The approach with the hip, although not preferred by the applicant, does keep it subservient to the primary historic structural. She discussed with the Committee Members the area on the northeast corner might have been the end where an original service porch was. She suggested that the northeast corner could be treated with something like vertical siding but then transition to horizontal siding on the rest of the north and wrapping around on the west; that would then be treated as an addition being added to a historic structure with a hip. Committee Member Imboden stated that the only reason the northeast corner lacks integrity is illustrated by the Sanborn Map. He stated it looked like the suggestion was turning the screen porch into house and turning the part that wasn't ever a screen porch into a screen porch. Chair Fox agreed and stated Committee Member Imboden was correct; she would withdraw her suggestion. Committee Member McCormack, referencing the plans, asked questions about the hip and shed on the northeast corner. He stated a shed roof with the configuration of the footprint wouldn't work on the northwest corner. He asked if a hip roof on the northeast corner would make sense. Committee Member Wheeler replied that the shed wraps around so the hip is a required geometric form to change from one plane to the other. He would just call it a wrapped shed. Chair Fox stated she talked with the architect today out at the site about continuing the shed roof all the way across the back and then as it turned to the west side there would just be a lower shed behind it. The architect and applicant did study that and it looked bad. Mr. Ely stated they are just trying to transition that particular corner. He feels it's subjective and their preference is a gable. Mr. Ely and the Committee Members looked at the plans and discussed this issue further. He stated they would be open to either way. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 9 of 49 Chair Fox summarized that some of the Committee Members are saying keep it low and under. Committee Member Woollett was in support of how the applicant wanted to do it. Committee Member Imboden stated it makes a difference whether they are restoring a porch or doing an addition. He feels this project is an addition and complies more with the Standards than taking a porch and closing it, changing the windows, etc. Chair Fox asked the Committee Members if they would support doing "this approach," meaning the applicant would demolish the existing old screened porch that has been compromised many times over the decades and putting in an addition that is distinct from the rest of the home. The Committee Members agreed but said that would be a different project. Committee Member Imboden stated his concern was if they were getting into any trouble moving towards this way because it's not built exactly on the same footprint. Mr. Ely replied that since they were removing the existing structure on the north end, it became a legal non - conforming issue that the square footage wouldn't be any larger than the original square footage. In order to get the pop -out they had to move a certain portion of it back (referencing the plans). Therefore, it was the same square footage as was there before. Committee Member Imboden confirmed with Mr. Ely that the non - conformity was not being increased. Committee Member McCormack stated it was an addition and far more attractive but does lose the service porch feel. He referenced another sheet (on the plans) that looked more like a service porch and wondered what it would look like with the shed roof going underneath the existing roof. He referenced sheet 8 on the plans, indicating "this one" looked more like a service porch, especially taking off the horizontal siding just below the windows and putting in the vertical. Mr. Ely asked if the DRC was opposed to them treating this as an addition rather than a restoration. Chair Fox replied she was questioning that herself after leaving the site. She wanted to take a "straw vote" for the two issues: (1) siding, and (2) shape of the addition. Committee Member Woollett suggested wording for the "straw vote" to be that the DRC consider: that the service porch having been so severely compromised that they would agree to have it removed and to make an addition on the north side of the house that would include a gable. Committee Member McCormack agreed since it's been modified so much, but stated he could go with either roof structure. Committee Member Imboden agreed and stated he was okay with this approach -a demolition and an addition. Chair Fox agreed and stated she was okay with it, with the gable. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 10 of 49 Committee Member Wheeler stated he was opposed; he would prefer to see a restoration of the service porch. Chair Fox asked to take a "straw vote" of the Committee Members about the siding, keeping it intact, damaged siding be replaced, etc. Committee Member Woollett replied that he had discussed the removal of siding in detail with the son, Mr. Rob Streeter, and explained how the applicant could go through this process of removing the siding without tearing the wood. Committee Member Imboden stated that there were other opportunities and ways of removing siding and went on to explain the details. He stated he would support the direction the DRC is headed with this, except the property owner needs to make a plan and discuss /review with City Staff because he would want to see it limited as much as reasonably possible. Committee Member Woollett reiterated that it's foolish not to allow the owner to take the siding off and install protective waterproofing material as a membrane. There was further discussion with Mr. Ely and the Committee Members about the waterproofing issue and different ways of doing this without damage to the siding on this property. Committee Member Wheeler was in support of letting the applicant do the waterproofing on this structure as long as it was carefully done. Committee Member Imboden asked for clarification from Mr. Ely about the siding: if they were removing the siding on the west side in order to put waterproofing on there; or were they proposing to take siding off and put it back exactly where it went; or proposing to move it to the east side. Mr. Ely replied that on the east side there are locations where the siding has been damaged and will need to be removed so it's either replaced with milled to match or historic siding. Also, there are some portions of siding on the inside that could be utilized on the exterior. On the east side there is original historic siding so that the location where there is new milled siding that matches would be installed on the west side which is not a street elevation. Committee Member Imboden stated he couldn't support that. He stated that Committee Member Wheeler's suggestion was taking boards off, numbering them, and putting them back in place. But the applicant was proposing to remove the siding, have a pile of siding to use to refinish the house, and then do the west side; he couldn't support this way of doing it. He doesn't think the Standards support the applicant's way of doing this. Committee Member Woollett stated he did support the applicant's way of doing this. Chair Fox confirmed with Committee Member Wheeler that his approach was to have the applicant replace the siding in place and then repair it on the other side with siding as close as can be matched. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 11 of 49 All the Committee Members agreed with Committee Member Wheeler's approach of removing the siding, etc., except for Committee Member Woollett. Mr. Ely stated in order to simplify this the applicant would propose to leave all the siding in place but would ask the DRC to make a condition to allow the property owner to selectively remove siding so that they could get the existing exterior piping inside the walls. Then it would be replaced with historic material of which there is some material they could replace on the east elevation. He suggested the applicant would use any material they could find on the inside to replace any material they are removing on the east elevation with existing historic material, but not from the west side. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the following description be used: the applicant would remove siding as necessary for the ability to relocate plumbing; then the applicant would ideally replace that siding where it came from (the original siding). Where that is not possible, the applicant would replace it with historic siding taken from the former north wall that is now enclosed by the service porch; and where that is not possible, the applicant would replace it with new material to match as closely as possible. There was further discussion among the applicants and Chair Fox that Committee Member Wheeler's suggested description was an option, since the applicant was requesting to leave the siding intact. Chair Fox asked the Committee Members to formulate a motion. Committee Member Wheeler stated that he thought the Committee Members should have been able to review this project's meeting minutes from the previous DRC meeting. The Committee Members discussed which sheets to make reference to in the motion. Also, Committee Member Imboden asked the other Committee Members about the use of stucco. Chair Fox stated the applicant is requesting only an addition to the back of the house; therefore, she doesn't think the DRC should be asking the applicant to make changes to the existing front porch and the stucco areas. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the fascia issue. Committee Member Imboden stated he's not asking the applicant to remove whatever fascia is existing on the front of the house. However, the current drawings that are in front of the DRC to approve show there would be fascia everywhere -on the current historic house as well as the addition and he wouldn't support this. Mr. Ely stated that it wasn't their intent to change any of the existing fascia. But they were proposing to put fascia on the new addition in order to keep it separate from the historic structure. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 12 of 49 Chair Fox confirmed with the Committee Members that they would not ask the applicant to remove the stucco. Committee Member Imboden made a motion to approve DRC No. 4699 -13, Streeter Fourplex, subject to the Conditions contained in the Staff Report, with the following additional Conditions shown below; and subject to the Findings contained in the Staff Report, except the second paragraph of Finding No. 1 shall be changed to read as follows: "The proposed addition is also in conformance with the Design Standards. The existing porch structure has had substantial alterations. The proposed addition retains the existing square footage and is compatible with the contributing building in the use of materials. The proposed wood siding is appropriately differentiated from the historic wood siding, and the proposed roof pitch and slope and shed and hip and gable configuration are compatible with the contributing building in the Old Towne Historic District." And with the following additional conditions: • The sheet labeled "No. 9" presented to the DRC this evening with the four 3- dimensional illustrations shall be the approved design, with the exception of the fascia treatment that is included in that drawing. • The existing historic portions of the house that do not currently have fascia remain in that manner in areas as approved by City Staff and in areas to relocate utilities currently exposed outside the home. • For the replacement siding, where possible, the applicant shall reuse siding from the interior of the home; and where not possible, the replacement siding shall match exactly the original siding in dimension, profile, and overlap. These areas are to be identified, reviewed, and approved by Staff. • The texture of the real wood shall also snatch as closely as possible. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett NOES: Craig Wheeler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 13 of 49 (3) 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. The Design Review Committee (DRC) previously reviewed the proposal at their August 7, 2013 meeting. This meeting is a continuation of the project review for the DRC to consider any changes or new information provided by the applicant and to conclude the review. • 6118 E. Santiago Canyon Road • Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714 - 744 -7237, cortlieb @cityoforange.org • Continued from DRC Meeting: August 7, 2013 • DRC Action: Recommendation to the City Council Chair Fox clarified for the public that this was a continuation of the Rio Santiago project. Anyone who would like to speak during the Public Comment session should only address items based on any new information being provided for this evening's meeting and should only address items that are within the DRC's purview, as noted on the "boards" in the front of the room. Any items outside the purview of the DRC as shown on the other "board" will be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting at a future date. Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report and stated this was a continuation from the August 7, 2013 meeting. There were three issue items in the Staff Report: (1) a list of comments from the DRC members which he obtained from listening to the audio tapes; (2) regarding sidewalks on one side of the street with a parkway vs. sidewalks on both sides of the street without any parkway; he added that there was a Public Works (PW) Staff member at this evening's meeting; and (3) the overall Specific Plan adequacy. Chair Fox complimented Mr. Ortlieb's summarization of all 64 issues. The applicant's representative, Ken Ryan, KTGY Group, address on file, introduced his Staff, Megan Penn, KTGY, address on file; and their partner /architect, David Senden, address on file. Recalling the previous DRC meeting and the Committee Member's comments, they took to heart the development areas that could be similar to the last century in terms of the feel of small builders, no mass produced; and tie in contextually to not just the setting, but also the history of architecture in Orange, like Eichler - inspired. Mr. Senden would be discussing these architectural items later in the meeting. He went on to introduce Dino Capanelli, engineer, address on file; Luke McQue, landscape architect, address on file; and Chris Nicholson and Bret Bernard, with JMI Santiago Partners, LLC, addresses on file. They were ready to focus on the items they were asked to look at by the DRC, and glad to be turning this sand/gravel pit into what they think would be a beautiful residential open -space recreation project. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 14 of 49 Mr. Ryan continued, stating they have gone through the last transcripts and minutes, looked at all the notes, met with Staff again this past week, and stated they believed there were only about 10 items for them to discuss with the DRC. He felt most of the 65 items would be covered as they covered the 10 items on their list this evening. He suggested that the DRC go through the applicant's 10 items first and stated this would help the overall discussion and answer their questions and concerns. Chair Fox commented that it would be very beneficial for Mr. Ryan to go through the applicant's items and let the DRC know what they changed since the last time. She also stated that she had to chastise him, as the DRC was presented with a lot of this data only 15 minutes before the start of the Administrative Session. The DRC Packet only addressed three of the comments so she was glad to hear that the applicant was proposing more than three responses to comment on. She mentioned the Committee Members have not had ample time to review these new considerations and so it might add a lot of time to tonight's meeting. Mr. Ryan stated they were ready to reply to the DRC comments. However, first he wanted to state for the record that they had difficulty getting Staff comments, DRC notes, and transcribed minutes from Staff in a timely manner. They ended up getting a copy of the audio tapes to listen to themselves. A couple of weeks ago the applicant was surprised to hear that Staff had 65 items that needed to be commented on, as the applicant only had 10 items among their entire team. He noted that last Wednesday they were asked by Staff to give their responses to the 65 items. He felt the process was not handled correctly, but in spite of that, they felt there were only 10 major items. Chair Fox asked Mr. Ryan that if they had 10 items, why did they only reply to three of them (per the DRC Packet material). Mr. Ryan stated they would respond to all of the items at tonight's meeting and decisions could be made. He didn't want the record to state that the applicant did not respond. They also only received the supplemental data at 5:25 p.m. this evening although he had heard a member of the public had this information earlier today. Chair Fox and Mr. Ryan continued to discuss the changes submitted today by the applicant consisting of 10 items vs. replying to all 65 items. Committee Member Imboden asked Mr. Ryan if there was disagreement that the items that have been raised by Staff were not raised at the hearing. Mr. Ryan replied there was no disagreement and they're prepared to go through the items. Committee Member Imboden stated then it would be fair to say that the applicant was present at the last meeting, heard all the comments, and therefore now would have the opportunity to respond, whether or not Staff listed them all out or not. Mr. Ryan replied yes, that was correct. Chair Fox suggested that Mr. Ryan start by presenting their 10 items, and the DRC would discuss each item as presented. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 15 of 49 Public Comments: Don Bradley, resident of Orange Park Acres (OPA), address on file, stated he couldn't really tell what the project would look like yet since it appears it's still being modified. However, regarding Staff Report-Issue 3, he stated the architectural styles are not compatible with the surroundings. He moved from Irvine and didn't expect the "Irvine look" to follow him here to Orange. He's against this project and if in the DRC's purview, please do not recommend this development to the next step. Rose Ellen Cunningham, resident of OPA, address on file, stated she supported this development. Regarding the proposed Planning Area C - "Age Qualified Homes" and Planning Area D- "Single Family Detached Homes," she liked the wide range of architectural styles shown in the new Rio Santiago Specific Plan. She feels East Orange is defined by the diversity of architectural home design and styles. She stated East Orange has a wide variety of homes; however, not homes for people over age 55 that might need more managed care but also still enjoy luxury living and living options for aging adults. She supports the land uses in Planning Area C. She appreciates the safeguards in the Specific Plan that prohibit market -rate apartments ever being built at the site despite some false claims of Rio opponents. She feels the developer is going above and beyond the call of duty at this time. Laura Thomas, resident of OPA, address on file, stated that this plan is not in character with the neighborhood and she's against this project. She acknowledged how the DRC has the intensity and scrutiny as shown in the previous project review, and she would ask that the DRC look closely to the character of what the neighborhood offers, like zero lot lines next to acre and half - acre homes. There's nothing out in this area now for high- density age - permissive living. Although not in the DRC purview, home values will be affected. There are also no sidewalks in OPA and parts of the east area because it's supposed to be open space and that rural feel. Judy Lash, resident, address on file, stated she supported the Rio Santiago project; it will be a terrific addition to East Orange. Besides replacing the old sand and gravel mine which doesn't fit the rural area, Rio Santiago brings abundant public amenities including new parks, trails, and forever - protected open space on both sides of the creek. The amount of open space and park land provided in this plan goes above and beyond any state or city park requirements and she is dismayed other people in the City do not recognize this, including City staff. She stated she was also in support of the lot sizes, sidewalks, and landscaping being proposed by the property owner. She also thought single sidewalks combined with exceptional landscaping will complement the area of East Orange. Rob Leiter, YMCA Board Member of Orange, address on file, stated the YMCA (Y) supports this Rio Santiago design project. The Y Board has been looking for a way to make their existing facilities look better. The Y's service area extends all the way out to Silverado Canyon, and has three Orange County locations. The Rio Santiago location is an excellent location and would be a good building design and look. Chair Fox clarified with Mr. Ryan the order in which the DRC would discuss each item. The DRC could take informal "straw votes" along the way. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 16 of 49 Mr. Ortlieb reminded the DRC that the Public Works representative was here to discuss the private street right -of -way. Chair Fox clarified for the DRC members that they would hear Mr. Ryan's presentation per item and then discuss each item one at a time with Mr. Ryan and the DRC members. Mr. Ryan stated they could always go back if necessary and discuss items in the matrix. Mr. Ryan went on to state that these were not changes but instead responses based on the last meeting. They could have responded to all of the items in the last meeting except for the idea about grouping architecture together, like coming up with an Eichler- inspired idea. He felt all the other items were just clarification. They weren't presenting new information; they just had more time to articulate the visual thoughts to help the conversation. Mr. Ryan, addressing the City's engineering issues, pointed to the "boards" and also referenced the small -scale exhibits. As it related to the rural idea and in not making this mass - produced, the applicant agreed this area should feel fairly organic; 50% of the space was open space and recreation, externally as well as internally. One of the main ideas relative to the idea of sidewalk on one side of the street and parkway on the other was a combination of things per last meeting's discussion. He described, upon entering the project, an asymmetrical open space element; their vision as reflected on the booklet cover showed a stone tower and use of fairly organic materials. They understood this was Orange, not Irvine, so they also thought about the location/setting. At the primary entry a visitor, passer -by, or resident approaching this project would see a 39 -foot wide landscape zone along Santiago [Canyon Road], with the open space element and a sidewalk on one side that comes in; there's a public trail that would continue from The Reserve through the project. Vehicular, pedestrian, visitors, and /or residents would visually and physically terminate on a linear park that's larger than an NFL football field and then connect to the trail system along Santiago Creek/The Greenway Reserves, some 50 acres. The applicant has agreed to make the trail off -site to go underneath Cannon Street so it connects to the larger system. Internally they thought it was just as important to think about the open space atmosphere. In turning right into the single - family residential development there would be a wider landscape zone on one side of the street and no sidewalk on the other side. Instead, there would be a landscape zone. He referenced the exhibit and stated that this was originally submitted to Staff. He talked about a smaller street and going to 28 -feet instead of 31 -feet; then on the larger paseo it would be a 6 -foot parkway on one side of the street and the other side with the wider paseo would be 18 -feet, with a meandering 5 -foot sidewalk going in and out, planting large trees, etc. This was the idea for this primary entry which would also terminate on an open space element which would also connect to an overall trail system. He stated that no matter where a person lived in this project, they would feel like it was an open -space atmosphere. The rest of the streets presented were a 43 -foot wide right -of -way and a 28 -foot wide street, with a parkway on one side of the street (the 5 -feet) and a 10 -foot parkway on the other side with the sidewalk. There was discussion at the last meeting about putting the parkway next to the street and the applicant thought that was a valid request, although it might reduce the tree palette if the landscape zone was 5 -feet. Mr. Ryan continued, stating this was the applicant's seventh version of the Specific Plan review /discussions with Staff and all the other entities involved. He again pointed to a specific City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 17 of 49 section on the "boards" about what the City's Public Works /Engineering Division stated they preferred regarding the streets. Mr. Ryan said the applicant would even prefer a recommendation from the DRC to the Planning Commission asking the applicant to rethink this. What's in the Specific Plan is the primary entry which still has a wider paseo, the streets a little wider -goes from 28 -feet to 32- feet -so the landscape zones get smaller, but it's 14 -feet instead of 18 -feet; the sidewalk on the other side of the street is 6 -foot. This is what the applicant would now prefer than what was originally submitted with smaller street roadways; the number of homes doesn't warrant the larger standard. The other street section (pointing to "boards ") is a 31 -foot wide road, but the applicant's recommendation was 28 -feet. Then there's a 6 -foot sidewalk on each side, but again the applicant's recommendation was 10 -feet, with a little smaller road and a parkway on both sides. The applicant's original proposal was more in keeping with the previous DRC meeting /discussion. Mr. Ryan clarified for the Committee Members the different exhibits being presented to them this evening. He pointed to one of the exhibits and explained that this highlighted how varied the area was. There were many different street and sidewalk conditions and referenced areas like Parkridge, Serrano Heights, Hidden Creek, Mabury Ranch, the area west of Cannon, etc. He pointed out that The Reserve had no sidewalks, other areas had sidewalks on both sides with a parkway, the Parkridge neighborhood had sidewalks next to curb, Jamestown had sidewalks on one side of the street, and Serrano had sidewalks up close on both sides. He concluded that the applicant's engineers respectfully disagreed with the City's engineers; the applicant's engineers thought it was safe and the applicants liked the parkway and the smaller streets. Chair Fox asked for clarification, referring to the "maps," of the location of the proposed sidewalks on only one side and the parkway. Mr. Ryan described that, in terms of the pedestrian user, the multi - purpose trail currently stopped at The Reserve; it's an active mining operation with no public access. The applicant's suggestion was that there be a continuation of that trail along the entire length of the property within a 39 -foot landscape zone. There was 40 -feet to plant and that would be an extension of a 10 -foot trail. The 10 -foot multi - purpose trail would also be brought through the project, through a meandering landscape zone on the right side, and connecting through their linear park to the edge along the entire creek, which would have the County of Orange standard of a 20 -foot wide riding and walking trail with landscaping on both sides along the length of the creek. That's the larger public realm opportunity. Committee Member Woollett asked about sidewalks along Santiago Canyon Road. Mr. Ryan stated there would be no sidewalks; it would just be a continuation of what's there today in front of The Reserve, a 10 -foot multi - purpose trail with split -rail fence. There was discussion with Mr. Ryan and the Committee Members about the paint colors of the fence: white, brown, etc. Committee Member McCormack confirmed with Mr. Ryan that it was a 39 -foot landscape setback with a 10 -foot trail, which would essentially be a 29 -foot wide landscape area and which the trail is a part of. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 18 of 49 Mr. Ryan, referencing the plans, discussed some of the applicant's suggestions for landscaped areas upon entry into the project; for example, on the right side there would be some cool little open space elements. He pointed to a certain section (on the plans) and said this was significant as it was wider and there could be an arbor connecting to the trail system which they thought brought the outside open space inside. There would be no sidewalk on the other side of the street, just a wider landscape zone with a sidewalk on this side of the street (he pointed to where the sidewalk would be). The City plan wants a wider paseo but then would have to be smaller because the road got a bit larger than what the applicant wanted and the City's Engineering Division wanted a sidewalk on the north side of street. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the other streets in the same area ideally had sidewalks on just one side. Mr. Ryan replied yes, and that was the applicant's second section that they were suggesting. Everywhere else in the project, other than that section, the applicant was suggesting a 10 -foot wide landscape zone on one side of the street with a 5 -foot sidewalk. The applicant could go either way, whatever the DRC recommended. On the other side there would be a 5 -foot landscape zone, not a sidewalk. He stated it was such a small development; there were not long linear streets as they were broken up by open space elements and thought it made sense in terms of the number of homes. A sidewalk on just one side of the street was no big deal. Chair Fox confirmed with Mr. Ryan that this proposal was for private roads. Committee Member McCormack confirmed with Mr. Ryan and wanted to make it very clear that when they say there's no sidewalk in that specific area, basically it's a 20 -foot setback to the garage face to back of curb with a car in it. There was further discussion with Mr. Ryan and Committee Members about the correct setback; that it would really be 25 -feet, from the back of the curb, before getting to the garage. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant could live with what's currently in the Specific Plan or else they wouldn't be here today, but they had liked it when the DRC recommended sidewalks on one side of the street. Committee Member McCormack stated he might have said that because of the rural feeling and with the rolled curbs it would be the Orange Park Acres kind of look, but the setback to garages would normally be more generous than 25 -feet. He thought the most important character of this project had to be the character of the streetscape /the neighborhood; it's the "front" and it's what everyone sees collectively. The public also feels it's very important to create that aesthetic. He went on to explain how landscape works, what the requirements are, what the City has, and the varying parkway sizes relative to tree sizes. With a 20 -foot setback to the garage, there's at least included a "neighborhood element" which is composed of a street, parkway, sidewalk, and front yard; it's the iconic Orange front yard /street. He thought half of the people wouldn't mind losing 6 -feet in the backyard in order to gain character in the front. He stated the neighborhood in this project should have parkways and it wouldn't hurt to move the homes back 6 -feet in order to City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 19 of 49 create character and aesthetics. One of his biggest points is streetscape character; creating character in this community by having a strong streetscape and a sustainable landscape. Chair Fox suggested they now hear from the Public Works Staff. She asked if all of the DRC members were in agreement about sidewalks on one side. Committee Member Woollett stated his concerns about the children walking on the street. Mr. Ryan stated the streets were smaller and the applicant felt with the small short segments of homes that it was safe. There were other examples in the area with longer stretches and no sidewalks at all. Committee Member McCormack confirmed with Mr. Ryan that there would also be on- street parking on one side. Frank Sun, Deputy Public Works Director /City Engineer, stated they follow the City's Public Works (PW) standard in their recommendation to have sidewalks on both sides. Some concerns are the need for pedestrian circulation, due to the sports facility on the west end. People need to cross the street and then find the path to get to the area where they need to go. In PW review comments, they indicated if sidewalks weren't provided on both sides, they would like to see a pedestrian circulation plan as they want to make sure easy access was provided. The PW standard plan also said if there was driveway access on both sides of the street, then there would need to be sidewalks; and if there wasn't driveway access and no on- street parking, then just parkway is allowed. Committee Member Woollett asked what the relationship was between the driveway and the need for a sidewalk. Mr. Sun replied that the City of Orange PW Department follows the County of Orange's standard recommendation that when there is driveway access there would be people coming out of the garages and coming out of the front door, so they need the ability to walk through the neighborhood. Committee Member Woollett confirmed with Mr. Sun that if there's a driveway that would mean there's a front door on that side; and when there is a front door there needs to be a sidewalk. Committee Member Wheeler commented that there's a community along Cannon on the other side of the creek that has sidewalks on one side but driveways on both sides and asked if there were any problems regarding accidents, etc. Mr. Sun replied sometimes they get complaints about no sidewalks, gaps in sidewalks, and ADA requirements. The difference is in an established area or private street it's hard to go in and add sidewalks. But in a public space ADA access must be accommodated. Committee Member McCormack confirmed with Mr. Sun that the driveway would then be the access to the front door so it's almost shared with the car. Committee Member McCormack continued, stating the issues that come up are that if a connection is wanted to the street from the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 20 of 49 front door it's limited to make that connection at the driveway. If ADA becomes an issue, the driveway has to be maximum 2 %. The garage finished floor is set at 2% slope from the curb line, plus the driveway would have to be 4 -feet wider if a car is parked in the driveway. Mr. Sun replied regarding a driveway slope condition that would not accommodate ADA use. Committee Member McCormack reiterated his concerns about what all falls behind in this design of the sidewalk and again mentioned taking away the 6 -feet from the backyard. As a homeowner, if they didn't want to connect their driveway but instead wanted to connect to the street, they wouldn't be able to because it's a 5 -foot landscaped area right -of -way, unless they obtained an encroachment permit for that right -of -way. But if there's a sidewalk there, it's an unencumbered connection. Everybody will design their front yard to have walls, landscaping, walkways, steps, and not all the finished floors will be the same. This ties the developer and the civil engineer to grade the driveway 2% from back of curb to the garage finished floor if it has to be accessible. Chair Fox stated that it's not required to have ADA access for all single- family residences so it's not necessary to pursue this. Committee Member McCormack replied then there's a 4 -foot, 2% access from the driveway so that adds 4 -feet of concrete to the driveway. Chair Fox stated it's not a requirement to make single - family residences barrier -free accessible. These single - family houses would not be held to that slope of a driveway as ADA doesn't apply. Committee Member Imboden commented that if using the argument of accessibility to drive this, it most likely isn't going to be met. Committee Member McCormack stated he looked at it as a design challenge that could become a design flaw. The front door and driveway are already a design challenge. All of this could be alleviated by having a sidewalk, then the issue is over; the homeowner could do whatever they wanted. He didn't know how far up, insurance -wise, the finished floor had to be above the top of curb; those would all be issues that set the finished floor /structure. Mr. Ryan replied that this project was largely about balance, and this was one of those balance issues that they could make work. The applicant could do sidewalks on both sides of the street. They prefer not to make the lots any smaller than the minimum 6,000 square -foot lot, with some up to 20,000 square feet. The applicant liked sidewalk on one side of the street. Chair Fox stated the applicant chose their private street widths. Mr. Ryan stated yes, they went back and forth with engineering and this is what came out of all the discussions. Chair Fox stated the memo from Public Works always showed the sidewalk with some landscaped area between the curb and the sidewalk. The City standards show a parkway between the curb and the sidewalk which makes a nice level sidewalk and solves all the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 21 of 49 problems, which the problems were raised by the applicant for proposing narrower streets. With a narrower right -of -way, the applicant was now forced to have a street and only just sidewalks and zero parkway. Mr. Ryan replied no, that they proposed smaller streets in order to put more landscaping in the parkway. The Specific Plan was revised to reflect this, which the City's Engineering Division said it needed to be the standard. Mr. Ryan confirmed for Chair Fox that there were no parkways (in an area she referenced in the plans) because the City's Engineering Division wanted wider streets to meet the engineering standards. He also stated this wasn't a zone change; this was a Specific Plan that had its own set of design standards to reflect the unique characteristics of this property. Chair Fox asked if they were proposing narrower streets as part of the applicant's Specific Plan. Mr. Ryan replied that narrower streets were adopted by the City of Orange; there's currently an "action item" for Planning Staff to adopt a new street section. There's a condition of approval and record that states "this street that was approved for Ridgeline, there should be a standard that's part of the Code that reflects that." Chair Fox asked Staff if because the applicant had a Specific Plan, does that mean the developer gets to dictate the street width. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, replied the developer can propose the street widths they would like to have and then Staff would evaluate it like anything else, like land use, setbacks, etc. Their Specific Plan does give them a great deal of flexibility in what they propose. The City then also knows what to expect with the development because of the standards and regulations within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan becomes basically zoning for the site. Chair Fox stated she wasn't aware that street width was considered zoning. Ms. Roseberry replied that Staff compares it to the current standards. She stated that Mr. Ryan was correct, that the City looked at something different for Ridgeline because they wanted something other than the City standards. Staff then had to look at Ridgeline on its own merits. Mr. Sun confirmed that the new standards have already been incorporated into the City's Public Works new standards. The street width was reduced because if the standards were met and the vehicle volume doesn't exceed 500, then the new standards are incorporated. Committee Member Wheeler asked if this was designed for driveways on both sides or only on one side. Mr. Sun replied there's a case for each scenario. If parking on both sides, then the whole width of the street would need to be wider. At the same time, the minimum width that is set takes into consideration things like trash cans placed on the street and fire engine widths, access, etc. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 22 of 49 Chair Fox commented that the section referenced in Ridgeline says "parking in residential frontage on one side only." Mr. Ryan replied that was correct and they are doing the same thing on Rio Santiago. He stated it's about compromise; the applicant felt if there were going to be sidewalks on both sides of the street, then there would be stringent CC &Rs in terms of the street trees. Mr. Ryan agreed with Committee Member McCormack's comment that a street feels how it's planted. There was discussion among the Committee Members about the parking and the grass swale in Ridgeline compared to Rio Santiago. Committee Member McCormack stated once again that his biggest issue was the streetscape sections and the need for consistency to support the consistent landscape element. When radical changes occur, it changes the consistency of the landscape component. Chair Fox asked Committee Member McCormack which parkway "scheme" he favored (referencing the plans). Committee Member McCormack adamantly opposed sidewalks, curbs adjacent; it doesn't work at all. He would rather have rolled curb and no sidewalk at all. His third choice would be the sidewalk against curb, which was a terrible solution and never worked. Chair Fox confirmed with Committee Member McCormack that his preference would be sidewalks on both sides of the street with a parkway. She thought that would mean a wider right -of -way. Committee Member McCormack stated not necessarily; he liked the narrower right -of -way. He asked what would be the "magical number ?" Chair Fox replied that was up to Public Works and what they figured out. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant thought it was 28 -feet and Public Works thought it was 31 -feet, so they agreed to disagree. The applicant settled on 31 -feet, and put sidewalks on both sides of the street. Chair Fox asked for comments from the other Committee Members. Committee Member Wheeler stated last time they talked about the alternate between sidewalk on both sides as shown right up against the curb or sidewalk on one side only, separated from the curb by a parkway and no sidewalk on the other side. Referencing the plans, there was discussion among Chair Fox, Committee Member Wheeler, and Mr. Ryan, and it looked like now they were back at "the sidewalk next to the curb." Mr. Ryan stated they would be very comfortable moving the sidewalk away from the curb. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 23 of 49 Chair Fox replied the problem now was that they have comments from PW endorsing the other approach; the DRC needs to weigh in on what recommendation to make to City Council. Committee Member Wheeler said his recommendation would be to go with "sidewalk on one side, separated from the curb by a parkway" and not have sidewalks on both sides even though the driveways would be on both sides. It's contrary to the standards but it's much more appropriate aesthetically with the neighborhood, OPA, and other communities in the neighborhood. It says rural and brings it back to that feeling of rural. Committee Member Woollett stated again it all depended on how active the street was going to be and worrying about children walking on the streets if no sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Ryan reiterated that the plan was sort of an unusual configuration and would allow many different streets to drive on. He talked about the different ways cars could be driving on the various streets. The applicant believed, for the same reason about doing three different architectural styles, the separation of those areas worked from a safety perspective as well as from a design perspective. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was anything they could do for traffic- calming measures or to direct people to use a certain route. Mr. Ryan stated sure, they could think about that. Chair Fox stated Mr. Sun had suggested that a pedestrian circulation study needed to be studied and presented. Committee Member Imboden stated he also had concerns about the sidewalks and children being in the streets. Although the applicant characterizes these streets as not being very long routes of vehicular traffic, he doesn't entirely agree with that especially when he looks at the surrounding neighborhoods. Most of the streets are a short cul -de -sac elbowed kind of development and he thought in those kinds of areas he wouldn't have concerns about vehicular traffic being so fast. It's all going to depend on the speed of the traffic. Chair Fox suggested looking at the neighborhoods, taking into account the small cul -de -sacs. Committee Member Imboden stated that they are all connected by one long road. He also mentioned putting in some kind of traffic- calming devices. It's a safety issue; that there are not going to be children and mothers with strollers out in traffic lanes where people are driving faster than they should. Committee Member McCormack stated again that his preference was sidewalks on both sides and then there wouldn't be this issue. However, he asked about putting in some kind of designated bike /stroller lane on the non - sidewalk side. Ms. Penn stated, pointing to the "board," the circulation plan was great because many people would walk on the trail instead, and wouldn't always walk through the community. There was further discussion about this among the applicants and the Committee Members. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 24 of 49 Committee Member Imboden stated he heard what they were saying and agreed; however, one child lost would be one too many, so if traffic- calming could be used, why not do it. Chair Fox stated if the pedestrian circulation study was done, then she felt the DRC consensus could probably support sidewalks on one side, but only if the circulation was thought about. The DRC members still felt the same way about this issue as the last time. And Committee Member Wheeler stated to also add traffic- calming to the pedestrian study. Mr. Ryan stated that they were agreeable to doing this. Mr. Ryan then went on to discuss the 50 acres of open space that the applicant was dedicating to the County and to address the DRC's concerns that were brought up at the last meeting: • The chain -link fence goes away. There will be a split -rail fence for aesthetic purposes and also serves as a barrier, and will be included along the length of the trail system along the property. • The downslope of that and closer but still out of the sensitive resource areas, which they aren't touching from a grading perspective, there will be black mesh fence that isn't really noticeable but looks elegant. It has most recently been used at the Anaheim Wetlands area. • As far as who gets the land, the applicant has been working with the Third Supervisorial District, with Supervisor Campbell in the past and currently with Supervisor Spitzer. Within the last month they have met with OC Parks, OC Public Works, and OC Health & Safety to help finalize the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which currently is being reviewed by the County. Ultimately, this wouldn't be in the DRC's purview. He stated if the MOU was not finalized prior to moving on to PC & CC, the City might want to add some sort of condition, prior to obtaining building permits. • Regarding the area on the North side (referencing the Site Plan "board "), the area currently zoned R -1 -6 and General Plan designated for residential and becoming part of the Greenway Reserve, the County will be the entity that decides where the connection takes place, the nature of the open space area, and they'll be reaching out to Mabury residents for input. For the applicant, a project design feature which would be similar to a mitigation measure in the EIR required that the applicant collect the seeds from the tar plant and then utilize the seeds in the open space preserve area. Once the County obtains the land, they will be using this as passive open space and the applicant expects the County would be working with the residents about trails, plant palette, etc. For the applicant's environmental mitigation, their grading plan doesn't go into the creek. They are doing all of their grading outside of the creek; the grading line is outside of the limits of the flood zones. The creek will stay in its current condition, except for the County working with neighbors as to what could occur for future public access. Mr. Ryan confirmed with Committee Member Woollett that the applicant was donating this land to the County of Orange. Committee Member Wheeler asked about the removal of non - native plants and replacing with native plants. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 25 of 49 Mr. Ryan replied the County of Orange would be responsible for that as part of the MOU. He talked about how this could be used as a future "mitigation bank," where credits were obtained for cleaning up creeks, etc. Mr. Ryan confirmed that the applicant would put this in writing in the draft MOU to the County about the DRC offering this as a suggestion to be pursued. Mr. Ryan went on to the next item to discuss the 50 -foot setback and the 3 -story element for the independent living. A 75 -foot setback was previously suggested by one of the Committee Members; the applicant re- evaluated this and is agreeable to making this 75 -feet in terms of any 3 -story element. Committee Member Wheeler asked if that would just be the third -story or the whole building and he also asked Mr. Ryan to reiterate which are the 3 -story elements. Mr. Ryan confirmed it would be any third -story element. He went on to show /explain (pointing to the "boards ") that under this scenario of accommodating the maximum that's allowed for age - qualified is 265 units (mixed active adult, some assisted services, and assisted living). The "brown" sections are the one /two -story elements which are separated townhomes along the creek. The independent care was the "light yellow" section and pointed out where the 3 -story element started and how far it went back. More discussion ensued among Mr. Ryan, Ms. Penn, and the Committee Members explaining the different heights of the age - qualified buildings and setbacks. Chair Fox, still addressing the assisted living and nursing buildings, pointed out that one of the diagrams allowed the 3 -story element to within 50 -feet of the property but another diagram showed the 3 -story element buried in the middle of the property. Mr. Ryan replied that's what made them think they could probably live with 75 -feet instead. He reminded her that what they were looking at was a working concept, not a builder application. Chair Fox stated that this was still a representation. She confirmed that 75 -feet would increase it by another 50% and she thought that helped a lot. Mr. Ryan agreed. Mr. Ryan and Chair Fox further discussed the two and three -story elements. Chair Fox commented that the visual sims presented at the previous DRC meeting showed the 3- story element was 200 -feet back. Mr. Ryan disagreed and stated the visual sims were accurate and represented the 50 -foot that the environmental consultant prepared. Chair Fox commented it must have been the conceptual renderings. Committee Member Woollett stated that he thought 75 -feet solved the problem, as the requirement was 75 -feet on any third - story. At the point when it comes back to the DRC, that will be the question -if it's sufficient or not; it won't be dependent on previous views or simulations. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 26 of 49 Chair Fox replied they are here to judge the guidelines. Committee Member Wheeler stated it would depend on how much mass there was at that setback. Chair Fox stated the DRC comments had pertained to the percentage of the project that was at that height. Committee Member Woollett stated the question would be if this gives enough flexibility so when it comes back to the DRC they can do what they feel needs to be done. Committee Member Imboden stated that what gets permitted should be what comes forth. The DRC needs to speak up if they don't want something permitted. Committee Member McCormack agreed about the massing issue; 75 -feet, three- stories, probably wasn't something the DRC would approve. There would have to be a step -back situation. Committee Member Wheeler stated he could propose a condition about articulating both a horizontal and vertical planes for anything that close. Mr. Ryan stated they would be comfortable with that. Chair Fox outlined the issues that were involved with mitigating the bulk of the 3 -story structure: • Blocking of the ridgeline views. • Looming over the street. • Articulation through varying setbacks or stepping back between floors. • Limiting maximum height to a percentage of the floor area; that there is a maximum height listed and for all intents and purposes it could all be at a height with a parapet at that height, unless it's stated that the reason the extra height is needed was to allow roof line articulation. Then the percentage of the building floor area that can be at the maximum height would need to be limited. This needs to be in the development standards as a limit. • The development standards show a projection height limit even higher than the 42 -feet. It shows 48 -feet as the architectural projection on the independent living. The main structure shows 42 -feet and the projection height of 48 -feet. Last time there was no mention of the 48 -feet. The Committee Members discussed this further. Chair Fox stated this was huge /too tall. • The Recreation building was listed as a 38 -foot height with a 46 -foot high projection. She's not opposed to spires but not on top of a 42 -foot tall building. There was further discussion about the heights and maximums. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant would be okay with eliminating the spires. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 27 of 49 Chair Fox stated if the 48 -foot was eliminated, then the maximum would be brought down to 42- feet, and then the maximum could be 10% of the area. The ridgeline view would be incorporated into this. Mr. Ryan, referencing a graphic, stated this was an illustration of the projected roof at 42 -feet. The first, second, and third floor required the 9 -feet and separation between those so it ends up at midpoint with roofline of 36 -feet. He suggested they could add more description about the height, for a maximum parapet height of 42 -feet. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there's currently anything in the Specific Plan about the applicant coming back with the ridge running parallel to the road or allowed to run the ridge perpendicular to the road. Chair Fox sated then there would be 42 -feet facing the street. Mr. Ryan stated the Specific Plan was silent about it, but they would be comfortable with some type of direction to do that. Chair Fox stated it could read: the 42 -foot height limit would be limited to 30% of the square footage of the footprint. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could establish some sort of profile that they could go up a certain height and then from that back at a certain angle. There was further discussion among the applicants and Committee Members about setback lines, heights, sloping, articulation horizontally and vertically, etc. There were comments about what was done in Laguna Beach and at Chapman University's future Science Center for additional setbacks for stepped buildings. Committee Member Woollett asked how far back was the 36 -feet. The applicant stated there wouldn't be any 3 -story element closer than 75 -feet. Committee Member Wheeler added from there it could go up at a 45- degree angle, plus additional articulation was encouraged /required. Mr. Ryan stated the applicant would be very comfortable with that. There was discussion about breaking up long walls, etc. Mr. Ryan stated if the DRC wanted it the applicant would be comfortable adding something about "long monotonous walls should be avoided/discouraged." Mr. Ryan next discussed the ridgeline views and referenced the "view boards." He commented that the Staff Report stated there were General Plan policies about preserving ridgeline views and recommended this be incorporated into the plan. The current plan shows that the entry into the project has been kept "open," and with the trail next to the residential single- family area there were some views. However, nowadays there are no longer prominent long distance views along City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 28 of 49 Santiago Canyon Road like there were in the past. The real perception along Santiago Canyon Road shows County facilities, telephone poles, and a mining operation. Therefore, the applicant felt that a 39 -foot landscape zone that would be planted appropriately would be a beautiful street scene rather than trying to preserve glimpses of hills in the distance at this location. The applicants continued referencing the "view boards" and the different views. Mr. Ryan added that there would also be a landscape median. The applicants and the Committee Members continued discussing the different views. Chair Fox commented that the ridgeline views would be blocked with mass with any 3 -story building. Referencing the diagram, she stated that changing it by 25 -feet wouldn't change the effect of it. The applicant stated internally this project has been about balance; they have met with the surrounding neighborhoods and most of the feedback was focused on getting the 3 -story element in the center. The more it gets pushed back the more it goes towards one of those constituents so they were trying to find a happy medium. Mr. Ryan next discussed the YMCA (Y) building. This conceptual layout reflected what they had heard from the Y and also reflected what's in the Specific Plan about the number of ball fields, can there be a pool, how much parking, etc. So it's a real concept that reflects the requirements in the Specific Plan which would be the new zoning. Worst case scenario, the EIR looked at three ball fields, but physically to get an 83,000 sq. ft. building with a pool, basketball area, and softball and soccer fields, there couldn't be three fields and parking wouldn't work. They looked at different options for this property like a pay -to -play concept but the Mabury residents didn't like that concept. The neighborhood was concerned there would be too many ball fields, too many lights, and it would be too noisy. They wanted something less intense and that's what the Y was proposing; but if the Y didn't work out, then another end -user (like Catholic Diocese or OC Lutheran) would be limited to this type of "less intense" program also. Mr. Ryan continued that this proposed Y 2 -story element /building with a 38 -foot to 46 -foot high pitch ended up at this location because again, it was a balancing act with the neighbors and others. This was also a "kinder and gentler" approach to the creek in having the building at the specified location. Also, Mr. Ryan stated that there is Least Bell's Vireo habitat in this area so it's more challenging to build here. They were trying to avoid impacts to biological sensitive areas. Committee Member Woollett asked why the building couldn't be located more in the middle. Mr. Ryan stated they were trying to internalize some of the recreational activities so they weren't exposed so close to the street. Chair Fox stated there was a 39 -foot landscape buffer. Committee Member Imboden stated he needed to see the building pushed back. Mr. Ryan asked how much it needed to be pushed back. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 29 of 49 Committee Member McCormack asked about the parking band on the edge, double - loaded, 24 foot aisle, 18 foot parking, 18 foot parking, as the buffer total, as landscape and a landscape parking lot. Mr. Ryan replied that a couple of the constraints that forced the location of the elements /buildings were not only the Least Bell's Vireo, but also the landfill /dump. There won't be buildings on this site; however, the County could in the future make this landfill /dump area parking and /or recreation facilities so the applicant was trying to allow for this plus possible future ball fields. Chair Fox suggested a 75 -foot setback. Committee Member Imboden stated this building shouldn't be treated any different than the other building; it's too much impact to the street and needs a more creative look at it. Committee Member Wheeler suggested to push the building back even more than 75 -feet. The Committee Members discussed how far back the Y building should be pushed back. Mr. Ryan said the building was treated differently than the 3 -story element because it's a smaller mass. Committee Member Wheeler stated that some of the DRC's previous objections included that by lining up the Y building with the other buildings it was too much of an urban approach to the area. He would like to see the Y building pushed back as much as possible. Mr. Ryan asked that if they needed to make a recommendation to that effect, could it be a condition that the applicant try to make a 75 -foot setback. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to see more of a setback and wouldn't support the 75 -feet. Committee Member McCormack asked about the parking mass, required parking, and bringing in off -site people. Mr. Ryan replied there's a program for required parking that the Y will manage. He stated the Y is open to the public and it's not a "pay -to- play" facility. Chair Fox stated there were so many open functions on this site that many could be put along Santiago Canyon Road and the building pushed back. There was further discussion with Mr. Ryan and the Committee Members about the setback for the Y building. The DRC agreed that the Y building setback would have to be more than 75- feet. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 30 of 49 Chair Fox asked the Committee Members about height on the recreation building. It currently showed 38 -foot with a 46 -foot projection. They all agreed the height was fine as long as the building was back far enough from the road. It currently showed 30 -feet so they wanted at least a 100 -foot setback, in order to get rid of the "urban corridor feel." Mr. Ryan went on to the next item which was lot width. There's currently a minimum lot width of 45 -feet per single - family residential, which meant 35 -feet of house with side setbacks, a 20- foot wide garage, and 15 feet of architecture. The applicant would like to increase to 50 -foot minimum lot width size. Chair Fox confirmed with Mr. Ryan that none of the lots get down to 45 -feet. Committee Member McCormack stated this was a way to get away from the density and mass issue. The statement was meant to vary the lot widths. Mr. Ryan stated the DRC could recommend varying lot widths. There was discussion with Mr. Ryan and the Committee Members about different /varied lot widths in the different neighborhoods in the area, and also compared lot sizes in some places like Old Towne Orange, Laguna Beach, and Newport Beach. Mr. Ryan stated they did a study to put this all in context of the neighboring areas and this was "Classic Orange," a huge variety /diversity in lot sizes. Chair Fox stated that the applicant was offering to change the plan to read 50 -foot minimum lot widths and asked if a minimum of 55 -feet was what the DRC expected. Committee Member Wheeler replied that encouraging shared driveways thereby increasing the amount of landscaping would make him feel better about the 50 -foot width. Chair Fox stated that there were a percentage of driveways with alternating setbacks. The residential standards were nice and that's what the DRC was trying to do with the other elements of the project in the other Planning Areas. A percentage of the lots were supposed to be set back; more random; 1 in 4. So with 50 -foot wide lots that would be every fourth. The potential of shared driveways every 4 to 6 houses, that would be mitigating some of the narrowness feeling of it. She was suggesting a 55 -foot minimum as that would be the 45 -foot house; if there's a 20- foot garage, and a 25 -foot house, that looks more like the diagrams presented. The houses should be bigger than the garages. Committee Member McCormack said 55 -feet would be better than 50 -feet because it makes the house appear bigger than the garage. Mr. Ryan replied, asking for a minimum 50 -feet and an average 55 -feet. Chair Fox stated she thought the average was 60 -feet already. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 31 of 49 Mr. Ryan replied no, and they didn't want to eliminate the 50 -foot minimum. He offered a compromise of a minimum of 50 but an average of 55 and they could make that work because there would be a variety of widths of lots. Chair Fox asked about the average 60 -feet. Mr. Ryan said then they'd lose the end -user and the mining operation would continue for the next 40 years. Committee Member Woollett questioned if the shared driveway really worked, as that meant a person couldn't park in the driveway. There was discussion among the Committee Members about the shared driveway. Chair Fox indicated that she's aware that this project is a Specific Plan and the applicant sets their zoning, but they are basically doing R - - which is 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lots. The Orange Code for R -1 -6 zone is 60 -feet wide minimum lot frontage. The applicant proposed 45 -feet, however, the minimum is 60 -feet in Orange for R -1 -6. It's R -1 -6 density but not in the DRC's purview, and now the applicant wanted to make the lots less than what the Code standard is in Orange. There was further discussion with the applicant and the Committee Members about lot sizes. They referred to Serrano Heights as an example. Chair Fox stated that the DRC was here to discuss the project, not to negotiate the issues. Committee Member Woollett commented about the diversity of people living here in town and some people just requiring a smaller dwelling. Within the context of this development, he was fine with some smaller lots and felt it was consistent with a balanced approach. He stated Old Towne only has 50 -foot lots. Chair Fox replied that the garages are all in the back yard. Mr. Ryan replied to Chair Fox's comment, saying that "they" don't have 50% of their site given away for open space that's currently zoned for residential and General Plan for residential; "they" weren't giving away acres, such as Planning Area A. Committee Member Woollett stated one of the reasons they were reducing standards is because this was being set in an area where a lot of open space has been set aside and so they were allowing some denser areas. He didn't have a problem with this. Committee Member Wheeler stated he agreed with Committee Member Woollett's comments. The average could be 55 -feet but having a few lots at 50 -feet would be fine. Chair Fox stated if a 50 -foot minimum was allowed, there was a chance there would be a lot of them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 32 of 49 There was more discussion among the Committee Members about lot sizes. Committee Member Woollett added that the trade -offs were a very large open space and a creek running through it. Chair Fox replied that with a 55 -foot average with 50 -foot minimums, there could likely be half the lots at 50 -feet and the other half at 60 -feet. There could be half the lots with the garages wider than the house and there could be half the lots with houses wider than the garage. Committee Member McCormack asked, as a design element, could they put the garage in the back and put the challenge on the architect. Committee Member Wheeler suggested to let the City Council look at the possibility of wider lots. He felt that 50 -55 -foot lot sizes were a nice compromise but let the City Council know that the majority of the DRC thought the lots should be larger. It was the general feeling of the DRC that when lining up a lot of garages with driveways, the area starts looking like a tract. Mr. Ryan replied that the streets weren't that long, with maybe the longest being about 13 homes. It wouldn't give the feel of long stretches of garages. With the variety of setbacks along with the variety of the widths of the lots and the open space elements, it could rival the coast and people would want to live here due to the open space. Chair Fox confirmed with the other Committee Members that they would make a recommendation to the City Council about the lot widths. Mr. Ryan stated the next issue was concerning lots and he confirmed there were not any zero lot lines. Pointing to an exhibit, Area D, he explained when coming in to the back of the project on the relatively flat cul -de -sacs, there's a 28 -foot wide road that was proposed on the street section, with the extra parkway, that is not included in the lot and is included in a separate public access. The lots as reflected on the Tract Map are 60 -feet wide, 102 -feet deep, 106 -feet, 60 -feet, lots that have been laid out per the Specific Plan requirements and are 6,000 sq. ft. lots and are not calculated. Committee Member McCormack stated on the civil plan it was called out as an easement which would make it a zero lot line configuration. Mr. Ryan confirmed they are not part of the lots. He also confirmed with Chair Fox that if it was an easement it would be in addition to the 6,000 sq. ft. lot. There was further discussion and explanation about the easement with Mr. Ryan, Chair Fox, and Committee Member McCormack. Chair Fox asked if there was going to be a different Tract Map since the lots currently shown are 60 -foot minimum width, and now they have proposed 50 -foot lots instead. Mr. Ryan confirmed that the current Tract Map does show a variety and not all are minimum 60- foot width, and they are minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lots. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 33 of 49 Mr. Ortlieb clarified the 5 -foot setback disclosed has an asterisk side note that shows there could be a zero lot line setback, but that would probably be assuming there would be a double 10 -foot setback on the non -zero side. Committee Member McCormack stated his initial concern was that there would be 6 -foot tall block walls and that would be the end /resulting aesthetic. Mr. Ryan stated there were no lots smaller than 50 -feet wide on the Tract Map. Chair Fox stated that by going to a minimum of 50 -feet nothing had to be changed on the plan. But by going to a minimum of 55 -feet, the Tract Map would have to be redone. For the Orange Code R -1 -6, it would have to be changed to 60 -feet, except due to the Specific Plan, there were compromises. Mr. Ryan confirmed with the Committee Members that the 6 -foot block walls only appeared on about 3 -4 lots; they are not predominant design elements. Mr. Ortlieb commented that it probably resolved itself by the Specific Plan being silent on the matter and reverting back to the Code. The Code would look at the front yard being defined as the shortest distance of the lot facing the street. When there's an easement in place, that becomes the street so once that becomes the front yard line, there can't be a 6 -foot wall in the front yard setback. There was discussion among the Committee Members as to how to condition the block wall /fence. Chair Fox stated that DRC consensus would be to prohibit block walls at side -yards adjacent to easement. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the wording include a condition to prohibit solid fences or walls. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought this was a fence issue and to leave it as that. Committee Member Wheeler suggested to ask for a comprehensive fence /wall plan. Committee Member McCormack replied there's going to be a 6 -foot tall wall or fence, a 6 -inch wide curb, and a road. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could prohibit swimming pools on those lots. Chair Fox stated the consensus was that something had to done with the side yard fence. She stated that Committee Member McCormack had suggested that if the easement was wider, there could be a parkway or a 4 -foot hedge, and then it's acting more like a street cross section. Committee Member Imboden commented that there were entire cities that required fences to be set back from the property line by a couple of feet. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 34 of 49 Mr. Ryan stated that it appeared for now they would not allow smaller widths of lots. The applicant would then be losing 4 -6 lots by such requirement. Chair Fox replied that there was so much being placed in this area, it's dictating these DRC comments /concerns. Mr. Ryan stated it's a balance and they believed what they were proposing was appropriate based on the fact that they were giving away 55% of the site to open space. He suggested that the DRC condition could say one or the other, think about wood fencing or think about loosening up the plan. By saying there needs to be setbacks and a wider street, and make this work, the applicant feels the DRC is telling the PC and CC that the applicant needs to lose six lots on the project. Committee Member Imboden stated that wasn't a fair statement. If there's a design situation that the DRC is not comfortable with, it's up to the applicant to solve it. Chair Fox stated the DRC was not comfortable with the design; it's up to the applicant to come up with a re- design if the DRC points out flaws in their design. Committee Member Woollett asked about the sidewalks where this problem area was located and where was the curb in relationship to the lot line. There was discussion and explanation about a 28 -foot flag lot alley which would be landscaped along the frontage of the homes in the back. The alley would not be up to the standards of the street. The alley would be access for fire access, trash trucks, etc for that residence. Committee Member McCormack stated this was a symptom of "over- lotting" a development. It's not acceptable and a solution needed to be made by the applicant. Chair Fox and the other Committee Members unanimously agreed that the layout of the easement was not acceptable. Chair Fox clarified for Mr. Ryan that the applicant needed to find solutions to the problems based on the DRC comments. Mr. Ryan asked for examples and Chair Fox gave a couple of examples: (1) there could be an actual street that meets the other requirements; or (2) the lot configurations could be changed. Mr. Ryan asked for an explanation of what the DRC's problems were with the current design. Chair Fox stated there's a lack of aesthetic treatment to this corridor (pointing to the east neighborhood); it doesn't look like the rest of the development, as a result of the density proposed. Mr. Ryan's next item to discuss was the fence and wall plan that appeared in the Specific Plan, which dealt with sound walls as well as aesthetics. He referenced item No. 46 in the Staff Report and other specific items in the Specific Plan. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 35 of 49 Chair Fox commented that at the last meeting they had been discussing the brown and white colors of the fences for the equestrian trails, and also the DRC felt the fence program was "loose." Committee Member McCormack stated the previous DRC comments suggested not having so many white and brown fences, etc. Mr. Ryan stated they were very comfortable with changing the fence colors. They would go with a white fence along Santiago Canyon Road to be consistent with the other white fences along that street. They would also choose white or brown and not mix it up. Committee Member McCormack recalled that he had suggested it should be rough -hewn, meaning no white. It should be more natural and "less brash/Kentucky- looking." Mr. Ryan stated the DRC's previous comments said there were too many choices. The applicant was asking for either white or brown. The white - colored fences were all over East Orange. Committee Member Woollett commented there were all types of fences, including open fences, closed fences, and walls that are fences. He stated that white or dark wasn't descriptive enough. Mr. Ryan talked about there being a split -rail fence coming along Santiago Canyon Road, then coming into the project and connecting along the length of Santiago Creek. The County would want to use a material they could maintain which is consistent and also adds character. Chair Fox suggested that the applicant could use white fences along Santiago for consistency and because that street is adjacent to the project; then as it goes into the actual project the fences would become natural. Committee Member Woollett commented this conversation came about because of an alley and the concern about walls /solid elements. He stated they needed to discuss this and the other fences throughout the interior as well; too many choices means too many selections. Mr. Ryan reminded the DRC that this was a Specific Plan, not a Major Site Plan. At this point they were not designing the project, only providing good guidelines and direction. This project would have future applications coming forward so the suggestion was not to over limit the materials and what's utilized on the Specific Plan at this point. Right now it's about finding the balance between the spirit of the area and not overdesigning it because there's no developer yet. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that any of the Rio Santiago future projects that come before the DRC would include a specific fence or wall plan. All the Committee Members were in agreement with this suggestion. Committee Member McCormack talked about the importance of this element as these tended to be linear objects. If it changes so often it becomes cluttered - looking. The point being is that these aren't blocks that are changed like in architecture. The fence wasn't changing; it should just be disappearing. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 36 of 49 Mr. Ryan was in agreement with this. Chair Fox clarified that when a project comes back to the DRC for design approval, it would have a fence plan for review. The Specific Plan would just describe different choices that would be allowed. Mr. Ryan agreed and stated the applicant concurs about not having too many choices. Mr. Ryan went on to the next item about landscaping, and stated there had been some discussion previously about removing some plants from Zone 3 and doing a shrub tree category. Referring to the Matrix, he stated they are in agreement with all the comments shown on the Matrix and would accept those as recommendations. The applicant's landscape architect stated that there was just one item of concern about previous comments regarding landscaping /undulation. Referring to the site plan and linear park detail "boards," he stated the developments edge was already undulated, although it looked straight on the plans /boards. The applicant clarified for Chair Fox that the line she questioned was in fact a back property line, not a building edge. There was further discussion and clarification of other property lines and building undulations. Committee Member McCormack explained what he previously meant about undulation; he didn't want to have the "line /toe of slope ", instead he wanted to have the grading moving out, and undulating in the slope area (pointing to the "boards ") where it's not 2 to 1. Just have a line of what's turf and what's scrub and it gets flat. Do not do the 2 to 1 slope; instead, pull the toe of the slope out. Mr. Ryan said that was fine; they would accept some recommendation to that effect. Mr. Ryan proceeded to the next item regarding what was discussed from the previous meeting about the residential areas and giving some thought to doing groupings of architecture. The applicant was agreeable to taking out the Andalusian architecture. Mr. Ryan explained (referencing the three boards) the different architectural groupings that could be options and included in the Specific Plan: (1) California Contemporary; (2) Early 20 Century Spanish Revival, which picked up on the Irving Gill idea; and (3) Ranch. This would be an interesting grouping; with three different elevations of each style there would be nine different elevations. This could make sense with organizing three different development areas that felt like smaller villages. Mr. Ryan continued, explaining about a second option that was more along a Spanish theme, an Early 20 Century Spanish Revival (referencing a sheet). There could be a Monterey and a Spanish. The third option could be a Ranch, Cottage, and American Revival grouping. The fourth option could be more diversified with a California Contemporary, Spanish, and Craftsman. Each of these could be options that a builder would be encouraged to explore. He also referenced two other sheets that related to the DRC's request to think about an Early 20 Century Spanish Revival with typical design elements, roof forms, and structural elements. The City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 37 of 49 second suggested addition to the Specific Plan would pick up on the Eichler neighborhoods and a California Contemporary. David Senden, architect, address on file, stated it's tricky with these styles and writing a Specific Plan. Trying to look forward with the architecture, it's hard to give examples from the past when trying to live forward. He thinks Eichlers are good examples of California Contemporary although he doesn't think of Eichlers as contemporary anymore; they are more Mid - Century Modern. Most of the proposed houses are 2- story; it would be hard to do a 2 -story Eichler so it's looked at for inspiration. The ideas being presented are starting points and guidelines. Committee Member Woollett asked what does California Contemporary mean versus Mid - Century Modern. Mr. Senden replied that "modern" was a specific style and the period of "modernism" was from the 1920s to the 1960s. Then in the 70s and 80s there were other post modernism styles, etc. All of them at their time were "contemporary " - meaning "of its time." There was further discussion with Mr. Senden and the Committee Members about contemporary /modern styles, Spanish styles, and looking forward /being innovative. The idea was not to have everything look the same /cookie - cutter kind of approach all the way down the street. Committee Member McCormack asked, referencing the Plans, about Enclaves B and C. Chair Fox stated she had an issue with the different styles being across the street from each other. Her suggestion was that Enclave B jump across the street, just on the ones that face it. Committee Member McCormack commented that they aren't villages. The California Contemporary and the Spanish could be blended; it would look more eclectic. Mr. Senden replied that he wasn't opposed to having the neighborhood flow across a bit, but he felt it was nice for each neighborhood to have its own identity and exclusivity. There was further discussion with Mr. Senden, Mr. Ryan, and the Committee Members about the different Enclaves and how one neighborhood style was across the street from another neighborhood style. The question was brought up if someone would want to be looking at another different kind of neighborhood style across the street from them. Committee Member Wheeler commented that it would be more like each street having its own identity rather than the area. Committee Member lmboden stated the lower part of "B" drops over to "C," then there's internal consistency driving up the street. Mr. Senden agreed and stated it would probably be better to drop the "B "style down on "C" for more balance. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 38 of 49 Committee Member Wheeler stated he was supportive of this approach and his personal choice would be Option 1 which was the Ranch next to The Reserve area which feels more like a ranch feeling and that would be a continuation along Santiago Canyon Road of a similar style. Chair Fox confirmed with Mr. Ryan that all of these Options would be the ones they would want in the Specific Plan for builder options. Mr. Ryan said yes, this was their take to include all the Options unless the DRC felt like some of them didn't make sense. Committee Member McCormack asked why the applicant thought that 2 -story Eichlers wouldn't be very nice. Mr. Senden replied what he said was that not many 2 -story Eichlers would be found. Chair Fox stated there were many 2 -story California Contemporary homes. However, she felt that name itself might need to be changed, as "innovation" was what they're looking for and not having people have to guess what California Contemporary is. Mr. Senden stated that there were still some elements that linked the architecture to the place, whether or not it's Contemporary. They called it California Contemporary because it would be timeless 50 years from now, people would still want to live here, and it would hold up like the Eichlers. He doesn't like using architect's names on styles because people are protective of their specific neighborhood styles, etc. There was further discussion with Mr. Senden and the Committee Members about the styles, diversity, what will sell in the housing market, how the homes were different but could co- exist, how there's "group form" -using similar materials in a neighborhood but with varying forms, etc. Chair Fox stated she had a concern about using the Craftsman style. She thought in the previous meeting the DRC had a consensus about not encouraging the use of Craftsman because they aren't done in a very authentic way when trying to do a tract house. Mr. Ryan replied that they heard that conversation but left in the Craftsman because if a builder did come forward they would have to come before the DRC again for approval. The DRC would then decide if it was done well so that's the reason for leaving it in. Chair Fox read through the list of how many options there now were; the project would begin looking like South County. She thought there were too many options and suggested Spanish could be deleted. Chair Fox and Committee Member Wheeler stated they really liked Option 1. Chair Fox stated she was still in favor of taking Craftsman out of the mix. What makes Orange "Orange" was because the City had true Craftsman houses and the City also encouraged in the community modern innovation as opposed to regurgitation of old styles. She was worried that the other couple of fabulous options could be optioned out. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 39 of 49 Mr. Ryan suggested that it could state in the Specific Plan that it's highly encouraged that there not be Craftsman, but not to make it a mandate. The applicant was only at the Specific Plan level and still had to go through Planning Commission and City Council. Committee Member Woollett said he recalled discussing this and it was mentioned that it was hard to make a Craftsman work without a raised floor. Committee Member Imboden stated he preferred not to see the Craftsman as an option. The few Craftsman projects that have come before the DRC and tried to embrace this revival didn't adapt well. Mr. Ryan stated they would be okay eliminating Craftsman. Referencing the plans, there was further discussion with Mr. Ryan and the Committee Members about what the styles of the other buildings would be. Chair Fox confirmed with Mr. Ryan that the other buildings would be choosing from the same style Options. Committee Member Wheeler stated that previously the applicant showed in the illustration that the Y was going to have more of a lodge or heavy timber look. Mr. Ryan stated the Y had asked to see some early architecture; however, now it would be refined and not have such a lodge look. Committee Member Wheeler stated the plans were still lacking information about what architecture the other structures were going to be. Committee Member McCormack stated, and Mr. Ryan agreed, the styles of bridging the main entry should be compatible with each other so the entry has some meaning. Chair Fox stated that would be especially bad if the recreational building was a Craftsman because of the 83,000 sq. ft. size. Mr. Ryan stated they would be comfortable with some condition that the architecture should reflect internal consistency. Committee Member Imboden stated he'd rather see it conditioned that way. He's doesn't know if a building of that size needs to come in with one of the styles as much as it needs to be compatible. He'd rather give the latitude for the design of those larger structures to be just that, something that's compatible rather than dictating style. Mr. Ryan stated they were done going through their items and they thought they had covered the items in the checklist. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 40 of 49 Chair Fox went through her covered items: • Mitigation of the bulk of the independent living facility. • Narrowness of the lots. • Lack of parkways, fences, sound walls clarification. • Miscellaneous landscape issues which was embraced by the applicant without discussion. Committee Member Wheeler went through his covered items: • Encourage variation modulation of those assisted living elevations along Santiago Canyon Road so they tend not to have that straight line as shown on the site plan. • There's a requirement showing that there would be at least two primary building materials on building wall planes; he was requesting that be removed in order to have more flexibility. • There's a requirement showing minimum eave and rake overhangs; he was requesting that be removed or tied to the specific styles, so each style would have their own minimum. • There's a requirement that attached garages should have the same roof treatment as the building they serve; the suggestion would be to allow flat roofs for the attached garages, especially for the California Contemporary, and perhaps Spanish as well. • Encourage the ganging of plumbing vents. • Sidewalks on one side; there's a consensus on that already. • The question on Table 6.5.1 -did they really mean maximum floor areas and why a big difference between the 1- bedroom and 2- bedroom areas. • The item of consistent window trim on all sides, which the documents did not show. • Provide a comprehensive fence plan. • Other suggestions: o for the Specific Plan, do something to present to the City Council showing them the way the Specific Plan was before the changes and then showing them the revised Specific Plan with the changes made. o efforts be made in Area A to insure more natural vegetation. • Landscape items: o slope edge, which is taken care of. o shrub tree category be added to the plant palette (the applicant said okay). o avoid tree species that have the vigorous linear migrating root systems (the applicant said okay). o statement for slope planting be added to the effect that the minimum tree density is two trees per thousand square feet and that the applicant might want to increase the tree count to save water. o Section K: the discussion about the 3 -foot separation between the back of the sidewalk and the 2 -story elevations in the senior living area. Committee Member McCormack went through his covered items: • To get a 6 -foot parkway and the sidewalk offset. It's still up in the air if whether there is sidewalk only on one side, but there cannot be curb - adjacent sidewalks. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 41 of 49 Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they recommend to the Planning Commission that they encourage Public Works to allow sidewalk on one side separated by a parkway from the curb with no sidewalk on the other side. Chair Fox commented that it was already discussed and it would be depended on the applicant providing a pedestrian circulation plan. Committee Member McCormack stated to add that it should be a minimum 6 -foot wide parkway, consistent. There was discussion among the Committee Members about if that was doable and to encourage a 4 -foot sidewalk. The applicant stated they were agreeable with this. Chair Fox confirmed with Committee Member Wheeler that he had many comments about window articulation and the definition of primary window, and that articulation of window trim detail should be consistent and carry throughout all the facades. The DRC wasn't requiring treatments for every window but if there were treatments, they be consistent. The applicant stated they agreed. Committee Member Wheeler also stated that the window offsets between neighboring residential units should be required where separated by narrow setbacks. The applicant stated they agreed. Chair Fox stated the DRC now needed to go through the items in the Staff Report, page 11, Item 3 - Overall Specific Plan Adequacy: a. Does the Specific Plan adequately describe the project for purpose of understanding the project design? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed. b. Are the proposed Specific Plan Design Criteria appropriate, sufficient and adequate to establish a design framework for all future projects in the plan area that would be developed under the Specific Plan? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed, but contingent on all the recommendations being adopted. c. Do the proposed Specific Plan Development Standards justify superseding the standards of the Zoning Code with regard to design? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed, but only after the following was discussed and agreed upon: Chair Fox stated that the City's Zoning Code has FAR maximums for all the different residential uses but for this project there haven't been any FAR maximums on their lots. There were setbacks but no FAR maximums. The Committee Members and Mr. Ortlieb discussed the FAR. Mr. Ortlieb stated that it was addressed in the Specific Plan as the function of what the setbacks were. Chair Fox stated then they could build very large houses on these two 20,000 sq. ft. lots if they built to the setbacks they have. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 42 of 49 Committee Member Imboden asked if they could just encourage the applicant to develop the FAR maximums by the time it comes in front of the PC. There was discussion with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Ortlieb, and the Committee Members about developing the lots, FAR, and setback requirements. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the DRC make a condition that the applicant provide FARs to the next body. Mr. Senden stated there would be challenges with both setbacks and FAR. Chair Fox replied FARs were applied to every other lot in the City. Mr. Ryan stated yes, they could come up with something that made sense. Chair Fox stated FAR wasn't in this and she thought it should be .70 as that's what the maximums are on all the other residential lots in Orange. Committee Member Imboden stated they could make a recommendation to the PC stating the DRC is encouraging the applicant to develop what they believe is an appropriate FAR for their development and the PC should review that proposal in relationship to the FARs that exist in the City's current zones. d. Are the proposed Specific Plan Development Standards appropriate, sufficient and adequate to cause appropriate design and regulation of all future developments on the property? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed, but contingent on all the recommendations being made. e. Is the landscape palette adequate? No, all the Committee Members agreed. f. Are the architectural styles compatible with one another? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed, with the condition that the Craftsman style be deleted. g. Are the architectural styles compatible with the surroundings? Yes, all the Committee Members agreed. Chair Fox stated they now needed to go to the Required Findings in the Staff Report, page 12, Item 3, to determine if they find that the overall project, as submitted in the Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map, meets this finding: "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.F.3)." Chair Fox stated that she could not make this Required Finding so another Committee Member would need to make this Finding. She couldn't make the Finding that the applicable Design Standards for this part of Orange were being upheld. Committee Member Imboden asked Chair Fox to elaborate for the DRC why she couldn't make the Finding. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 43 of 49 Chair Fox stated: 1. The 3 -story structure wasn't allowed anywhere in the City's Residential Zoning Codes nor in the General Plan. There were many deviations from the General Plan in that area so as far as applicable Design Standards, she doesn't feel that addresses that. 2. The narrowness of the buildings with respect to what the houses were like in that context was also something that she felt didn't meet with the City's own In -Fill Residential Design Guidelines. Although it's not an in -fill project because it's a large -scale development, she feels the lot size and closeness create an aesthetic on a house that doesn't fit in that neighborhood. Committee Member Woollett stated by its very nature what they were doing was creating new rules intentionally for justifiable reasons which were talked about, including the open space, a balance within the plan that allowed for different sizes of lots and buildings, and the 3 -story element was being adjusted for setbacks, so he doesn't have a problem making the Finding because the DRC has incorporated within what they are allowing for some trade -offs. The DRC looked at the project as a whole so they could make this Finding. Chair Fox asked so in order to make the Finding, it would be due to the trade -offs. Committee Member Woollett replied yes, and also stated that included the increased setbacks, how the step -back issue was handled at the 45 degree angle, and how the variation of lot sizes was justified. Committee Member Imboden stated that he thought this development was different than what has gone before. He added that there were mitigating measures that were being enforced on this development that accounted for those differences and allowed it to be compatible with its surroundings. He stated it's a Specific Plan and it fits a specific need, purpose, time, and place. By the very nature of the project they are adding mitigation measures to address the uniqueness. Chair Fox asked if the motion needed to include all the recommendations or could they just state that it's based on the recommendations made in the meeting. Ms. Roseberry replied that straw polls were taken as the DRC went through each item and that should suffice. The motion should probably include the topics that were covered and leave it at that as opposed to going through each change. The Committee Members discussed that they had Committee Member Wheeler's list that they could use as well as the supplemental list given to them in the Administrative Session by Mr. Ortlieb; plus there were the 56 other items. Chair Fox stated they also added to the items during their discussion; for example, like the 75- foot setback for the 3 -story building, additional setback of one additional foot in height allowed for each additional foot of setback, and the 100 -foot setback on Recreational. There were some very specific conditions that were established during the meeting that wouldn't be on either list. Committee Member McCormack commented that the list they received during the Administrative Session wasn't even applicable. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2W 3 Page 44 of 49 Chair Fox suggested using Committee Member Wheeler's list and also adding the other items to it that they established during the meeting this evening. Committee Member McCormack stated when the street sections leave applicable Design Standards he didn't think Mr. Sun was totally in agreement about the terms of the sidewalk only on one side. That would be outside of what's going to be required by Public Works (PW). Chair Fox replied that Mr. Sun stated PW needed a pedestrian circulation plan from the applicant in order to mitigate that variance from the City's Code. Chair Fox then read through her notes for the other Committee Members to make sure she had covered all the concerns and issues. Further discussion ensued among the Committee Members about how to state the conditions. She then passed her notes on to Committee Member Wheeler to include in the reading of the conditions. Ms. Roseberry stated in order to write the next Staff Reports, Staff could use the list but also needs concurrence as a whole from the DRC Members. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for DRC No. 4413 -09 & ENV No. 1818 -09, Rio Santiago Specific Plan, with the following recommended conditions: • The two -story age - qualified assisted living as illustrated on Figure 3.3 of the Specific Plan should be modulated to provide more animation in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. • The YMCA (Y) building shall be set back 100 feet instead of the 30 feet shown. • The age - qualified independent assisted living 3 -story portion of the building should be set back a minimum of 75 feet, with allowable additional height of 1 foot for each additional 1 foot of setback, with a 36 -foot height limit at setback and a maximum height of 42 feet. • The neighborhood enclaves as shown on attachment No. 7 to the Staff Report which shows a collection of different styles and that the Early 20 Century Spanish Revival and California Contemporary styles are recommended for approval. • The enclave arrangement should be changed to provide consistency on both sides of the streets as they pass through the neighborhood. • The requirement shown on Page 4 -30 of the Specific Plan requiring at least two primary building materials on building wall planes is too restrictive for some of the architectural styles and should be eliminated. • The requirement shown on Page 4 -30 of the Specific Plan showing minimum eave and rake overhangs is too restrictive for certain styles and should be either eliminated or specified individually for each style. • The requirement shown on Page 4 -34 of the Specific Plan requiring that the detached garages, if provided, shall have similar roof treatment as the building they serve is too restrictive in that it might prevent flat roof garages with parapets which could be appropriate in certain situations. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 45 of 49 • That wording shall be added to the Specific Plan to encourage the ganging up of plumbing vents to reduce the number of roof penetrations where possible. • That there are situations on the site where the use of sidewalks on only one side of the street would be preferable to having sidewalks on both sides and that the City's Public Works Department should be encouraged to find a means to allow this to be possible. It is the preference of the DRC that there should be landscaping between the curb and the sidewalk at least 6 -feet wide and that the sidewalks could be reduced to a 4 -foot width in these situations. With this change, the new Page 3 -23 provided as Attachment No. 9 is preferable to the original in the Specific Plan but that a Pedestrian Circulation Plan must be provided in order to justify the use of sidewalks on one side prior to review by the Planning Commission. In addition, the setback on the non - sidewalk side of the street shall be increased by 6 -feet. • Table 6.5.1 on Page 6 -5 of the Specific Plan shall be studied to determine if the "Maximum" building areas shown should actually be listed as the "Minimum" and if there should be such a large difference in floor area requirements between the 1 bedroom and 2 and larger bedroom units. • That the door and window trim details shall be consistent on all elevations of a given structure. • That the window offsets between neighboring residential units should be required where separated by narrow setbacks. • That plans to be submitted for further review by the DRC shall include a comprehensive fence and wall program to ensure compatibility throughout the project. • That the applicant shall provide prior to submittal to the Planning Commission a recommended FAR maximum that they would be able to comply with, and that the Planning Commission compare that to the existing zoning in other parts of Orange. • That the applicant shall re -study and re -work the area of the Tract Map shown in Enclave A of Planning Area D where the access easements are used to reach homes. • That the architectural styles shown in the previous submittal would have removed from them the Craftsman and Andalusian treatments. The additional treatments of California Contemporary and Early 20 Century Spanish Revival shall be recommended for approval. • That the applicant shall provide by the next submittal to the Planning Commission a revised Specific Plan that indicates those changes that have been made based on editorial comments from the DRC for changes that have been made or have not been made. • That the minimum lot width throughout the single - family detached residential area shall be a minimum of 50 feet, with a minimum average of 55 feet. • That the shrub tree category shall be added to the plant palette. • Page 4 -106 shall be revised to state "avoid tree species which have vigorous linear migrating root systems." • That a statement for slope planting shall be added to the effect that the minimum tree density is two trees per thousand square feet and that the applicant may want to increase the tree count to save water. • That dual -use driveways for two units shall be encouraged where possible. • That the architectural treatment of the non - single family detached residential, recreational, and the age - qualified housing shall be of a compatible form along Santiago Canyon Road with the residential. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 46 of 49 And with the following suggestion: • That efforts should be made to ensure that Planning Area A shall be provided with more natural vegetation which would require the removal of non - native planting and the addition of appropriate native species. Following the reading of the recommended conditions by Committee Member Wheeler, there was discussion among the Committee Members and Ms. Roseberry about how to state the Findings. Committee Member Imboden stated Finding No. 3 was met as follows: The Design Review Committee finds that through the implementation of the recommendations stated, that the project design upholds the community aesthetics through the use of internally consistent, integrated design theme, its stated design standards, and their required findings. SECOND: Joe Woollett The Committee Members then agreed to discuss additional items with Mr. Ryan before the final voting. Mr. Ryan first thanked Staff and the Committee Members for their due diligence. Mr. Ryan then asked for clarification about the architecture and landscape setback recommendation. Committee Member McCormack stated it was the 5 -feet plus the 6 -feet. It's the 6 -foot parkway and the 5 -foot sidewalk. The applicants stated they couldn't do this. There was further discussion with the applicants and the DRC. Mr. Ryan stated the setbacks could work as long as the DRC would recommend a smaller street by 3 -feet; 28 -feet vs. 31 -feet. Committee Member McCormack explained the setback starts at the right -of -way line. On the one side it would be a 6 -foot parkway plus a 4 -foot sidewalk; the back of sidewalk would be the right -of -way line. Then jumping to other side of the street, those two have to be equal. He stated smaller streets wouldn't matter; it would be the streetscape profile off the curb that mattered. Chair Fox clarified it's the setback from curb. Mr. Ryan said they understood but to go to that they would want to go to smaller streets. They wanted to add to the motion: (1) if the setbacks were going to be as the DRC stated, then they would want the setback to be from the back of the right -of -way; and (2) it's important to have a recommendation that a smaller street would be appropriate. He stated they go hand -in -hand. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 47 of 49 Committee Member McCormack commented that would be the City's call, not for the DRC to decide. He stated that the DRC already had it correct in the motion. What the applicant was asking the DRC to do was to add a recommendation to make the street smaller. The applicant stated the current plan was okay with the overall right -of -way of 43 and 43. They were just asking to have a landscape zone and a smaller street, instead of two sidewalks. If the right -of -way was getting bigger then it would blow up the Tract Map and the plan; that was the issue. There was more discussion and explanation among the applicants and the Committee Members about right -of -ways, setbacks, parkways, and sidewalks. Chair Fox then modified the recommendations to include: • To shift the buildable /building area back 5 -feet and reduce the rear -yard setback by 5- feet. Mr. Ryan then went on to his last issue about the pedestrian plan that was included in the DRC's motion. Chair Fox confirmed that the pedestrian plan needed to be submitted to City Staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Chair Fox also confirmed that the pedestrian plan had no bearing on the fencing plan. The fencing plan would come back to the DRC as a component of the design when the applicant started pursuing approval of the structures. Committee Member Imboden suggested that when the fencing plans do come back to the DRC they could also show the pedestrian plan along with it, not for approval but just in order to understand the user interface. Then the final voting took place. AYES: Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: Carol Fox ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 48 of 49 New Agenda Items: None City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2013 Page 49 of 49 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on October 16, 2013. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Joe Woollett, Craig Wheeler, Robert Imboden NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m.