Loading...
2012-03-07 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES — FINAL March 7, 2012 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Woollett opened the Administrative Session at 5:12 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager, stated there were two items on the Agenda. The first item was a single family residence proposal in OPA and the second Agenda item was Salem Lutheran. They were expecting a lot of people to attend the presentation. She stated what was important was for the DRC to be able to do their job efficiently and to focus the discussion on the design aspects of the proposed project, the landscape aspects of the proposal and it was different then most projects that were brought before them. The proposed project was much broader and more conceptual; it was setting out the envelope of how big the worship center could be. The height, the setback, the landscape and landscape palette as opposed to stating specific plants in specific areas; that would happen subsequently at another date. If the proposal before them moved through the process and the City Council approved the Specific Plan and certified the EIR then Salem's representatives would need to return to the DRC with final design of their worship center. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that it would then be with that submittal that the DRC members could review such items as color choices, tree placement, and all of those details. The DRC would want to review the information being presented for height and they could make recommendations if they decided to on height guidelines. Committee Member Fox asked if the preschool would come back as a rehabilitation application? Ms. Roseberry stated if there was massive rehabilitation to it, then it would come back in a DRC application. If they would just be making minor changes and interior changes, probably not. Staff would make that call when it was brought to them for review. If would be appropriate for the Chair to provide information for those present to understand what the purview of the Committee Members was; and that it was not to state whether the expansion was or was not appropriate — that would be information for the Planning Commission and City Council. The DRC members would be reviewing the proposal for design elements against standards. They would not be advising on the operation of the school or whether or not the pick up and drop off plan was working, those were things they would not be looking at. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 2 of 34 Chair Woollett asked if Ms. Roseberry would make a statement to supplement information that he would provide to the community members that might be present for the presentation? Ms. Roseberry stated she would be available. She stated that there were microphones provided at the conference table and the lectern to enable the audience to hear the discussion and for everyone to hear the speakers during public comment. The DRC would have three options on the item: (1) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, (2) to recommend denial to the Planning Commission, or (3) the item could be continued. She recommended that if a continuance was required that the item be continued to a date certain. Chair Woollett asked if Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, would be providing information on the history of the project? Mr. Garcia stated he was not planning on that. Chair Woollett stated the item had been before the DRC at a much earlier date. Ms. Roseberry stated she would recommend that it be stated that back in 2006 a rendition of the worship center was proposed and reviewed with the DRC during a preliminary review and that had since closed out and there had not been any entitlements granted. The Committee Members reviewed the minutes from the February 15, 2012 Design Review Committee meeting. Corrections and changes were noted. Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All Committee Members were present, and there was one open position on the DRC. 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. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 3 of 34 CONSENT ITEMS: (1) Approval of Minutes: February 15, 2012 Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting on February 15, 2012 with corrections and changes noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 4 of 34 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items (2) DRC No. 4579 -11 — GRANEK RESIDENCE - ROSSITER RANCH LOT 4 • A proposal to construct a 6,328 sq. ft. single - family residential house, which includes an attached garage, a 1,605 sq. ft. detached garage /workshop, and a detached 640 sq. ft. secondary accessory dwelling unit. • 6050 E. Jack Pine Lane • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, do uyen cr,cityoforange.oM • Previous Review: November 16, 2011 • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Ken Parsons, address on file, stated he believed he had addressed the concerns from the previous submittal and they were looking forward to the review process. Public Comment Laura Thomas, address on file, stated she was representing the OPA as president of the OPA, and also a member of the advisory board member to the City of Orange. The advisory board reviewed projects that affected Orange Park Acres. She was not being adversarial, however, as she had reviewed the meeting's agenda she noticed the project that was before them and she had not met with the advisory committee to discuss the project and she realized the project had not come through Orange Park Acres. She wanted to bring that to the attention of the DRC. The net on the lot, although it was 43,560, it went into a private street and what happened was that the actual lot size was 42,020 making the useable portion of the lot a bit less than one acre. Orange Park Acre's concern was the massiveness of the structure on the lot that would prevent the site from being conducive to an equestrian area. When reviewing the building and the structure if things were put on the lot, and she was not certain what that layout was, it would not provide the ability for the next or current owner to have access to the rear of the lot to bring a trailer through and to be able to bring hay through, have an arena turn around or to have a barn. The community The Reserve, that was in Orange Park Acres, the houses in that project were built in the middle of the lots and approximately 4,000 to 6,000 square feet and that community changed their CC &Rs regarding horses and animals. Because of the location and the set up of the homes a barn with a proper set back would not be able to be placed on those lots. That entire community, which was touted as equestrian wonderful, came in without one horse in that community. The lots were acre and half acre lots. She wanted to bring that to the attention of the DRC; the message of the OPA community and how they needed to review every home and the layout of any new homes. They could not have more house than ability to allow conduciveness for equestrian as that would lead to the demise of that community. The lots needed to have access to the horse trail and have a gate access. It was all part of OPA and just as valuable as the things that were looked at in regard to Old Town; and those were her concerns. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 5 of 34 Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Chair Woollett stated in reference to the comments presented by Ms. Thomas, he asked Ms. Nguyen if she was familiar with the requirements? Ms. Nguyen stated she had believed that projects that were only Design Committee Review had not required OPA review. There were levels such as Zone Changes, CUPs, General Plan Amendments that required OPA review. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated Ms. Nguyen was correct. Mr. Parsons stated based on the information that they had on the survey that had been completed on the property, and the follow up survey that had been done, the additional area that would be in the street were outside of what the one acre property line was. Jack Pine Lane was not included in that area. The 44,213 would not include the right -of -way of the private street. Chair Woollett stated the area that was provided on the plan had not included any street right -of- way. Mr. Parsons stated that was correct. It was his understanding that the private street was set aside as a separate lot. He stated that the public speaker, Ms. Thomas, may not have reviewed the latest plans that had a large area at the southwest corner of the property that was a wide open area and an area that a subsequent owner could use for equestrian purposes. It was a good size area and bordered the trail with access from the RV parking site. He pointed out the area he referred to on the plans. The Committee Members reviewed the plans. Committee Member Fox stated there had been some verbiage regarding a pool, however, she had not seen that on the plans. Mr. Parsons stated a pool had been initially proposed and they had elected to not proceed with that in the present proposal. It could be something added at a later date. Committee Member Wheeler stated as far as the design was concerned all the things that they had spoken of previously had been addressed. He may have miscommunicated a bit, with the exposed rafter tail situation; the plans showed exposed rafters but not exposed rafter tails. It was a suggestion he had made to provide a more classical appearance. On the columns there was a call out for azek material and it may need a backer, some plywood behind it. He was glad to see the window detail and there was 2x's shown for the head, jam and the sill and he suggested using Ix jams to break the joint, or to use a protruding upper sill and some sort of a drip under the header to break the joint. There was a minor issue on the brick brackets there might be a block needed with a lag and that could be addressed with their structural engineer. Committee Member Fox stated there was a reference to rafter tails and she asked if that was the rain gutter? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 6 of 34 Mr. Parsons stated it was a fascia board with the rain gutter and he had wanted to have a fascia board to back the gutter, as opposed to having it just hang from the rafters. Committee Member Fox stated in the previous minutes there had been a comment regarding split face block on the low wall along the street; the landscape plan stated split face but the site plan read as stucco. Mr. Parsons stated they would revert to the landscape plan and that was split face. Committee Member Fox stated there was vinyl fencing and she asked if that was only in the area of the garden equipment? There was some planting in that area, but the white of the vinyl caused quite a glare. Committee Member McCormack stated the brightness of the vinyl was an issue that had been previously presented. He asked if the applicant could go through the suggested changes from the previous minutes and state what had changed with the presentation before them in terms of the landscape. He had noticed that the vinyl fence had been replaced with wrought iron and he suggested using black wrought iron. There had been an issue with privacy and that was the reason they had initially proposed a vinyl fence. Mr. Parsons stated they had changed the 18" wall in the front to a non - stucco material, it would be split face. Applicant, Sylvia Lyons, address on file, stated they had used mulch along the curb rather than decomposed granite. The planting had been spread out more to allow for more growth. With the removal of the pool area the plant areas had been spread out, keeping in mind the different water needs of the plant areas. Committee Member McCormack stated he looked at in -fill requirements with other neighborhoods in Orange and with the comments presented by Ms. Thomas there had been some good points made. He asked Ms. Nguyen if legally the project had not had to go through additional reviews? Ms. Nguyen stated that was correct. Committee Member McCormack stated would it be beneficial to provide for an equestrian area? Mr. Parsons stated if a future property owner wanted that it would fall on that owner to do that and his client had not program for that. Ms. Nguyen stated in reviewing the suggestions from the previous submittal there were some low grasses added in the area that had been previously planned for a pool, the plant areas had been revised some for low water and others for moderate. The ground cover along the rolled curb had been changed to mulch. The low wall would be split face with a concrete cap and the root barriers would be circular type and would be used with any trees located within 5' of pavement. Mulch areas were added to all trees in the lawn areas. Much of the concrete had been changed to pervious paving or paving stones. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 7 of 34 Committee Member McCormack stated they would not have required circular root barriers. Ms. Lyons stated there had been some question as to whether there would be root barriers and there had been a detail on the plans for that. Committee Member McCormack stated he objected to the use of circular root barriers and asked that those be changed to linear root barriers. He believed they had captured all the suggestions and he wanted to discuss the vinyl fence. Mr. Parsons stated he had not wanted the vinyl fence to be a huge stumbling block. He asked what the position of the DRC was for the portion of vinyl fence that was included in the proposal? Committee Member Wheeler stated it was only around the equipment area. Committee Member Fox stated once the plants grew would the glare from the fence be mitigated? Ms. Lyons stated the trees would provide shade patterns and there was shrubbery in front of the fence that would be in the 4' range. It would not cover the entire fence, but it would conceal it a bit. Committee Member Fox stated she believed the plant material would mitigate the glare. Chair Woollett asked if it had been a suggestion or a condition? Committee Member Wheeler stated the big concern was the expanse of vinyl fence that had initially been proposed along the trail. Mr. Parsons stated that had been removed and the only vinyl that remained was for the maintenance equipment. Committee Member Fox asked about the condition regarding the drip pans and the pervious pavement? Ms. Nguyen stated if they chose they could remove the condition or add a requirement for drip pans only under long term parked vehicles, such as RV parking. It could be removed, added as a suggestion or the condition could be modified. Chair Woollett stated he felt it was an owner's choice. Committee Member Wheeler stated they could add solid concrete under the parking area. Mr. Parsons stated that would create a strange material change and it harkened back to situations where vehicles were leaky and that was not generally the case with current vehicles on the market. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 8 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated with the garage space most of the vehicles would be inside. The Committee Members concurred that the condition would be removed. The Committee Members discussed the formulation of a motion. Committee Member McCormack stated on Condition No. 7, the property shall have a maximum of two driveway approaches from Jack Pine Lane; the west rolled curb area would be another entry. Mr. Parsons stated if it was a driveway it would be, but it was not. Ms. Nguyen stated that was discussed previously and it was not another access and the gate width had also been reduced. Mr. Parsons stated that was not a vehicle access area and it might be used to bring a lawnmower across. Verbatim text. Committee Member Fox made a motion to approve the plan with the condition that the architectural site plan be corrected so the low wall is called out as a split face block wall at the front of the property. That the wrought iron fencing to be dark in color. Ms. Nguyen asked wrought iron or tubular steel? Committee Member Fox stated tubular steel. That the root barrier, the circular root barrier be changed to linear, and that condition 4 be deleted. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 9 of 34 (3) DRC No. 4538 -11 - SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH & SCHOOL • Proposal of a Specific Plan for Salem Lutheran. The Specific Plan provides for a redesign of the church and school campus with a new worship center that includes a sanctuary, conference and meeting rooms, and administrative offices. • 6500 E. Santiago Canyon Road • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714 - 744 -7231, rgarcia(a,cityoforange_org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chair Woollett stated that the proposed project was a conceptual proposal and they would not be reviewing the project for specific details. It was not in the purview of the DRC to address Planning and Zoning issues that would be covered by the Planning Commission. The DRC would be reviewing the proposal for the aesthetic components and currently they were conceptual aesthetics. If the project should move forward the applicant would return at a subsequent date with a more detailed plan for review and conformance. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were a couple of documents that were circulated through the DRC that were also available for public review; those were the Environmental Impact Report and the Specific Plan. The DRC's purview within those documents related to aesthetics, design guidelines and design standards. Those were components that the DRC would be looking at. The proposal was conceptual and the DRC would be reviewing the proposal for the guidelines for a future project. The project had two more steps prior to a final outcome and those being Planning Commission and City Council review. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Michael Madden, address on file, stated he had reviewed the Staff Report, recommendations and conditions and they were in agreement with those; he was available to answer any questions. He was a Land Planner. Chair Woollett asked if there were any questions for clarification purposes on the proposal? Committee Member Fox asked where the property lines were? Mr. Madden pointed out the property lines on the drawings presented. Chair Woollett opened the item for public comment. Public Comment Tom Grayson, address on file, stated he was a resident of east Frank Lane, directly across from Salem and the old Fowler House. There were aesthetics issues he wanted to address; in the proposed plan there were Bott's dots that were not aesthetically appealing nor would they remedy the traffic situation on the resident's only ingress and egress road. Instead of a fence they proposed dots on the road. A permanent fence would resolve the aesthetic and traffic City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 10 of 34 problems by separating the residential and Salem traffic. The Salem plan exhibit 3 -9 page 329 titled Fire Department requirements also presented an aesthetic and safety issue, as well as an emergency access issue. Salem's ingress and egress lanes would be impacted with pick up and waiting vehicles twice daily and would take 25 -30 minutes to clear. According to exhibit 3 -9 emergency vehicles would need to drive through the mass of waiting vehicles, blasting fire engine horns and causing mass vehicle movement, with kids running between vehicles to waiting parent's cars; that he had observed. According to the Fire Department's plan the emergency vehicle would need to stop to unlock the gate to gain access to the proposed 20' fire lane at the west end of Frank Lane; which was directly south of the Fowler House. His wife's 911 call last year was a prime example of how the plan would not work. His solution would be to widen the proposed two lane ingress and egress road to a legal fire lane the entire length of east Frank Lane with a turn around at the west end of the Fowler property. It would benefit both residents and Salem. Chair Woollett stated it appeared to be a comment regarding traffic and he asked if that could be addressed at the DRC level? Ms. Roseberry stated the comment pertained to public safety and traffic; it could be addressed for the aesthetic portion of the proposal. Chair Woollett stated whether it worked or not was not in the purview of the DRC. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. Laura Thomas, address on file, president of the OPA Board and a member of the advisory committee to the City of Orange. There was a real estate committee that operated under the board and the real estate committee and the board had met with representatives from Salem on two different occasions. There was nothing structural and they were not clear to provide an opinion as it was a conceptual proposal. She was confused as to why the DRC was reviewing a conceptual proposal and a Specific Plan that would take the project out of the OPA plan, she asked if they were making a recommendation on the Specific Plan? Chair Woollett stated yes. There were general guidelines that would set the standard for any building and elevations that would come at a later date. They would judge them on the documents currently being presented. Ms. Thomas stated the real estate board and advisory committee were not clear as to why there was a Specific Plan that would take the property outside of the purview of the OPA Specific Plan? Ms. Roseberry stated the Orange Park Acres Plan is part of the General Plan and absolutely exists. What the applicant wanted to do with a Specific Plan was to prepare a long range development plan and guidelines for future expansion, rehabilitation for the site as a whole instead of looking at the site a piece at a time. The Specific Plan included the development regulations, to think of it as the zoning regulations for the site. It would not take it outside of OPA. If the document should be approved, it would guide the development for any new construction or rehabilitation of buildings on the site. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 11 of 34 Chair Woollen stated the plan included the height of the building and if the plan was approved and a building came to the City at a future date at the height designated in the plan, essentially the height would not be an issue as it would have been approved during the process of the Specific Plan approval. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. Ms. Thomas stated they were not in favor of creating a Specific Plan and they found challenges with Salem and the school being a small community church with a little day care center and now wanting more space and growth; she could appreciate that the Specific Plan might appear as the answer to that problem, but over time it had been stated that they wanted to just add a little more and it continued to grow. There had been a horse arena at the corner that was on the grass area and it had been communicated that it would remain there forever, but it was now gone as Salem needed the space. There were challenges that the community had tried to work with. The previous plans had a height issue with being too tall and it had not fit in a community of low level buildings. The size of the building with 700 parishioners would create an impact to the community. It had started as a small community church and it was no longer that. There was a point that they realized the church was too big and could not continue to grow at its current site. What if the City Council chambers had to be 3 blocks bigger, how much could they grow in an area without being too intrusive to the neighbors? She wanted to address the building size, the Specific Plan and because they were an equestrian community with trails bordering their community they needed to take extra care in what happened on that particular parcel of land and what would be impacted. The Fowler House area was zoned residential 1 acre, all of the Salem land was residential 1 acre; the parcel that was the Fowler residence was an acre of land that the church sold and was out of the umbrella of the Specific Plan and now it had been purchased by Craig Olsen and some how had come back to Salem. It was a part of a piece of land that was removed and now they would scoop it back in to make the Specific Plan bigger. There was an issue with that and how it was evolving. Expansion was the issue. Ms. Thomas stated there had been good discussion in their meetings and she wanted more specific information that the advisory board could review, and work with the Salem representatives along the way. There was an impact on the community with the conceptual plan. Bobby Grayson, address on file, stated her family had owned the property on Frank Lane since 1945. She was addressing the project aesthetics with the proposed construction, Salem would be adding more traffic to an already congested area with the proposed constriction. Resident lanes must first be fixed before any other constriction was done. The proposed fence must be in place before constriction started. It must be explicitly stated in Salem's proposed plans. The traffic issues were supposed to have been addressed in the 1998 CUP and had never been resolved. It needed to be resolved first. She was willing to work with Salem, however, no Salem representatives had contacted her and her only contact with Salem were through belligerent Salem associates who parked on her ingress and egress blocking her access. She was supposed to have unobstructed access to her private road which Salem was using as their own. Ms. Grayson stated she wanted to also address Salem's activity at the vacant Fowler House. Numerous all day personnel were parking their vehicles at the Fowler House driveway and behind the garage. They were using her one lane road and sometimes blocking it so she was unable to drive her car out of her driveway. There had also been children entering the recycling City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 12 of 34 container at the back of the garage in an area that was prohibited to children. If Salem was supposed to be abiding by the 1998 CUP until the new proposal passed, why was there any activity at the vacant property? The residents needed a permanent divider in place before anything else was done. Christine Rosenow, address on file, stated she could talk for hours on the proposal before them. Her land extended 16' past her back fence and 150' wide, and 10' of her property on Frank lane. She was recently involved in Salem's expansion plan since 2004 and the neighbors had not been consulted since 2007. During the past few years she had few informal meetings with Church representatives which had been uninformative and casual touching -base meetings. One of the plans that had been put forth to the City was titled Community Alternative which claimed she had agreed to. She had not known what community they had conferred with, but it was not OPA and it wasn't her. She agreed with Tom and Bobby that the oversize Bott's dots were not aesthetically pleasing. She supported the fire lane. Ms. Rosenow stated she had reviewed countless plans and found the newest one to be the most uninformative of all. The skeletal structure of the plan gave no concrete information. Where would the actual sanctuary be located? Would it face her house or Santiago? Would people exit towards her home every Sunday? Would there be windows and would she hear Sunday music? If the church left the gym building what would become of the newly available space, would there be new classrooms? Had the height of the new worship center taken in the fact that the site was currently raised. There was too little information to address or to give her opinion; conceptually she was against the plan. She was concerned over the size of the proposed worship center and how it would affect the site's overall parking needs. Using the grass playfield for parking went against City code. The applicant showed a parking ratio of 1 space per 2.28 seats; in '98 it was 4 people per car. As soon as the Church had an occupancy of 57% the grass playfield would need to be used, and that was not taking in account the choir or other people behind the scenes. Was the business of the Church to maximize its facility to increase revenue and membership? What successful business would anticipate having only half the church filled? Page 22, section 4.8 read the need for other parking was intended to be anticipated on attendance records of events including holiday church services, school graduation and special events, and services such as Christmas programs, occasional funerals and weddings. What about open house, sing alongs, and other events, the grass was used a lot now. These events were normal activity for churches and schools and adequate parking should be provided. Simply put the expansion plan was too big for the site. Linda Cunningham, address on file, stated her home backed up to Salem. She was against the size of the Church. In 1998 the City unintentionally approved a striping plan for Frank Lane allowing Salem to entirely encroach on a private street. Her privately owned street. Salem with the City's approval had no authority to approve the changes unless it had been voted on with the 8 property owners and Salem. Since she had brought it to the City's attention in 2007, the City or Salem had never restriped Frank Lane or offered a solution. Due to Salem's encroachment the residents would not able to get to their homes and she was unable to get to the back of her property on a daily basis. Salem's new plan showed further encroachment and taking over of Frank Lane and dictating how it would be used. Salem had no legal right to do that. Salem's CUP required agreement with the neighbors, specifically in the use of Frank Lane and caused Salem to currently be in violation on a daily basis. In addition Salem's current plan had not reflected the huge legal issue. There was no mention of a fire lane at the dead end of Frank Lane. Once Frank Lane was up to code the Fowler House garage and setbacks would not be City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 13 of 34 legal. Since Salem had not included the fire lane their plans needed to be rejected and redesigned. Liberty Grayson, address on file, stated he would discuss only 2 of the 8 major setback issues of the proposed plan. The grandfather clause expired once the Fowler House construction began. Proper road access and easements must be restored back to 10' with any new property construction. The plan for the Fowler House had not shown the major construction; nor a California legal residential turn about. Once the plan was corrected it would show the house was illegally situated in the minimum setback requirement from the road. Part of the house would require demolition. It would change the house design. None of the current plans could pass the City Council without that issue being corrected. Since Salem was in possession of the Fowler property it would violate Salem's agreement with the City, the residents and illegally violated the current 989 CUP, when the 989 CUP was drafted the Fowler property fence line was well established and was not within the boundary of the 989 CUP. Salem could not introduce the Fowler property into any plans connected to Salem. The Fowler House was outside of the 1998 CUP agreement, for setbacks, as the setback needed to maintain its original setbacks. Mr. Grayson stated he had not understood why the City had not seen the blatant setback violation. All current plans needed to be rejected and if continued it would be grounds for the City to terminate the current CUP with the property returning to individual residential lots. The City cannot change the terms of the CUP without resident's permission. He strongly disapproved of the proposed plans as Salem had not provided any information to the residents per the 1998 CUP agreement. Chair Woollett stated he had no further cards submitted for Public Comment and he reminded the members of the public that the DRC would be reviewing the proposal for aesthetic issues and they would not be able to address issues pertaining to parking or traffic. Peter Jacklin, address on file, stated he wished to make a comment. Chair Woollett asked that he fill out a speaker card in order to speak. Two other members of the public also came forward to submit speaker cards. Mr. Jacklin stated he was a resident almost 40 years in OPA. He was on the OPA board and Chair of the traffic committee. He had spent a lot of time reading the DEIR and they had the opportunity of speaking with the Salem representatives. There were 2 points that came to mind and there was a lot of confusion with the project, why it was happening and where the new parishners were coming from and how they would get to the property and the effects of traffic. It was not clear at all as to why a Specific Plan was needed. The Sully Miller property was asking for a Specific Plan change. The battle over Ridgeline had a situation where the City Attorney cut and pasted the Specific Plan to meet the needs of the developer. He was not certain the value of a Specific Plan and in pulling parts from the plan it became less valuable. There was confusion about the intent and why it needed to be done. Before the plan moved forward the City owed the community answers. There were questions in response to the NOP and in reviewing the DEIR and in the City's response section many of the questions were not answered. Mr. Jacklin stated on the traffic issue, and he could not speak about the details of traffic, but when speaking to people about the Salem project, traffic was the issue. There was traffic problems currently. One was Santiago Road, there was the Meads curve and the other was the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 14 of 34 intersection of Santiago, Frank Lane and Orange Park Blvd. He was not convinced that as it stood today that the traffic plans were the right answer. His question was when Ridgeline came before the City Council the Traffic Commission was not involved and was the City's process to have that Commission review plans? Chair Woollett stated after Public Comment he would have City Staff explain process. Mr. Jacklin asked if he understood it correctly that the proposal could be approved in its current state and was an option that the applicant would need to return with further details? Chair Woollett stated there were many components to the Specific Plan and one was aesthetics; the DRC dealt with those issues. One of the problems that a City had was what came first, "the chicken or the egg" kind of thing, some would want the traffic to be dealt with first and then the aesthetic issues. That created issues. Typically in the City of Orange the aesthetics came first and there was no explanation in Staff's presentation regarding the Specific Plan. Some of the questions that came up were included in the Specific Plan, but were not brought up as the DRC would not be dealing with those issues. Marilyn Drown, address on file, stated she lived on Frank Lane and had built a beautiful home and had spent a lot of time and money and loved making her home a wonderful place and she invited the DRC members to come and enjoy it, if they could make their way through the traffic. She shared a very long property line with the Fowler House, there was an over 200' property line and they had a single family dwelling, the Fowler House, it had not changed and had become dilapidated and it had not been cared for. It was a source of frustration for her as she drove by it everyday. If someone dangled the plan for a better aesthetic there, it was very tempting to say yes, make it beautiful; but the change would be from a single family residence to a pre- school. Those were two very different things. The OPA was made up of single- family dwellings on minimum 1 acre lots and then there had been a church and school sharing a private road in OPA. She had tried to be a good neighbor, but no one had ever approached her in 30 years about any impacts, aesthetically or otherwise. She was opposed to any kind of vague plan that would not take into consideration the impacts to the neighborhood. Jone Oliver, address on file, stated she was closer to Chapman than she was to Salem. She was opposed and in favor as she had a child that went to pre - school many years ago and she had a grandchild that attended pre- school now. Once in a while she would pick up at the school and she understood the frustration that the neighbors had. There was no place to park to let her grandchild out of the car or to get her in. She loved the Lord and anytime anyone could find Jesus in a school experience, she was in favor of that. She had not known that the only thing they were speaking of was the aesthetics of the plan. If the City could resolve, what had caused the residents so much anger, was the traffic and then later work on the building, the City would have much less resistance. Before she had a grandchild at the pre - school she would get stuck in the traffic. She really liked the school and she would want some resolution with what was causing the residents so much heartache. If the DRC went out there during school start time they would understand it, she had not witnessed students darting in and out. There were 700 people in the church and that was on Sunday and there would not be church traffic with the school traffic and there were many issues that were being lumped together. She hoped they could pull the issues apart and work on the traffic first and that could be the answer. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 15 of 34 Chair Woollett asked Staff to address the process. Ms. Roseberry stated back in 2006 Salem Lutheran had gone before the City with a request to amend their CUP to build a new worship center. At that time they had provided final design drawings for that project; that went before the DRC as a preliminary review and the application was withdrawn when Salem made the decision to go the Specific Plan route. There were different ways to implement an expansion for the church or any church and it was not the first church in the City to request a Specific Plan for their site. Some people might think of it as a master plan, a long range plan. What were contained in the Specific Plan were things such as zoning requirements that included building height restrictions, setbacks and parking. It went a step further with the architectural and landscape guidelines as it would be specific to the site and how development over time would play out. The applicant could have come back for a CUP for the worship center and another for the preschool; but what Salem wanted to accomplish was something more cohesive and coordinated. For their design standards they wanted something in place for the entire site. It was a different vehicle, as opposed to the vehicle they had started with years ago. The details were not included in the Specific Plan as it looked a the broader picture, the setbacks, height, design requirements and there would not be details such as earth tones using "Sherwin Williams Paint No. 5;" that would come later. A final design packet would need to be submitted for review if the project moved forward. What was before the DRC would set the framework and the construction and changes would be within the Specific Plan. Chair Woollett stated the community was concerned with the traffic and it was very clear; his perception was that the Specific Plan would deal with those issues and be addressed by the Planning Commission. If the DRC moved the project on, it would then go before the Planning Commission and that body would deal with the traffic concerns. The matters that were brought forth through Public Comment would be heard and resolved at the Planning Commission level. Ms. Roseberry stated that was correct. The applicant understood the traffic issues that had been concerns of the neighbors and they had addressed those in the Specific Plan and those were delineation of Frank Lane and the secondary access off of Santiago Canyon, items that had been addressed in the DEIR. Those issues would be items that the Planning Commission and City Council could act on. Chair Woollett opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Fox stated she wanted to speak to the CUP and there had been community members who had asked why there was a Specific Plan and that it was invalid and that sort of thing. She wanted to clarify beyond what Staff had shared. The current zoning on the lot was requesting to be changed from single - family residential, in its current zoning the applicant required a CUP for the church to be on that site; the trouble with that was the zoning on a single family residential had nothing to do with the specific problems that had been brought forth by community members. It was better to not handle everything that the church requested through the CUP process as there was not an overlying master plan in place that would provide for height limits, specific setbacks and traffic. When a Specific Plan was put in place the community would have the opportunity to control and manage the entire master plan for the site, rather than attempt to do it in little pieces. The CUP would be overridden by the Specific Plan. The City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 16 of 34 Specific Plan would do the management that the community was concerned with, because as it stood the CUPs had not managed the use very well. Mr. Grayson stated by definition the CUP was not currently valid? Chair Woollett stated that was a question for Staff. Ms. Roseberry stated the church and school operated under their current entitlements and nothing had changed and would not change unless the City Council approved in some form the application before them. Mr. Grayson stated he had not believed they were. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Page no. 614 of the Design Guidelines it called for existing chain link fencing to be preserved and even extended behind the preschool. The dented fence along the east property line was the most significant visual problem for the whole project. The fences were terrible. He would want to discuss ways to eliminate the chain link fence and not add more. The OPA plan and policy stated on Page no. 4.1 -19 of the DEIR promoted the use of wood rail fencing, either natural or painted white and restricted the use of block walls, chain link or other opaque fencing. He suggested getting rid of the chain link fencing. If higher fencing was required he would suggest pre - finished mesh fencing. Mr. Madden stated the chain link fence was existing. The kids used the playground, multi- purpose field for play. There were balls and other game pieces there. The fence was approximately 6' along Santiago and Orange Park Blvd. and balls went over the fence currently and it was a safety issue. How that was addressed would be something that would continue to be looked at. The chain link existed and parts of it would probably be impacted by grading. Whatever the outcome was it would need to be a fence that would protect the kids and traffic from balls and things rolling out. On the preschool, north of the parking, the chain link ended and split rail began. Committee Member Wheeler stated tubular steel would be more appropriate for the rest of the perimeter and if they needed something taller they could look at alternatives. He was opposed to adding more chain link and he would want to see them remove what was there. There was fencing that was in terrible condition on the site. On Page no. 614 it talked about the reconstruction of existing masonry wall, but he could not find the type of finish for that wall. Mr. Madden stated the specific finish had not been provided. The wall that existed had been finished on the neighbor's side with a split stone veneer and at the north end it would wrap. How that would get interfaced with the abutting wall would be looked at as the project went forward. It would come back with the site details and be complimentary to what existed. Committee Member Fox stated there were details on exhibit 6.7; it read masonry site wall at westerly property CMU plaster with stucco finish and precast concrete pilaster cap. It also had the split rail fence detail and referenced Frank Lane wall. There were no Bott's dots and she asked if it was part of what was being approved? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 17 of 34 Mr. Madden stated it was conceptual. With the site plan level there would be detailed material information; the site plan listed material to be complimentary to what existed. The split rail fence was proposed to run along Frank Lane and complimented the split rail fence that ran along Orange Park Blvd. The Bott's dots that were referenced in the draft EIR were the results of conversations with community members; as to whether they wanted a physical separation or another type of visible separation that could be crossed if needed. In the draft EIR both options were provided. Chair Woollett stated in reviewing the information provided there would be a divider on Frank Lane with landscaping and other things; if the proposal was approved and something came back he would expect to use the criteria in the plan to judge whether it was in conformance or not. Mr. Garcia stated the split rail fence would run along the property line at Frank Lane. Chair Woollett stated that would be the portion of Frank Lane that was reserved for the residents. Mr. Madden stated the split rail fence and raised median would be located between the church travel lanes and the resident's travel lane without landscape. Committee Member Wheeler stated the Specific Plan gave options for Bott's dots. Mr. Madden stated yes, there were options. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that they might want to look at different types of pavement to create a separation, rather than the use of Bott's dots. Mr. Madden stated there were many options and something to make it physically visible. Committee Member Wheeler stated if there was a textured strip there could also be a split rail fence with openings along the fence for residential driveway access. Committee Member McCormack stated in looking at Bott's dots with a split rail fence that would wrap the entire property and visually there would be designation. A split rail fence was a much better design choice. There were openings that could be accessed by fire and there could be safety and design. Applicant, Frank Elfland, address on file, stated currently there was not a definition of the two uses and in the context of their ongoing dialogue with the OPA Board, real estate committee and community members it would be a collaborative effort that would provide an aesthetic and traffic /safety resolution with access to the properties. The document would be general enough with an either or and possibility of options. It was an effort between the church and the neighbors. Committee Member Wheeler stated on signage, with Walgreens they had used signage painted on the pavement for directional purposes. Mr. Elfland stated they were open to what would work for all parties. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 18 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler asked if they would then add a condition to study other options for the church and residential separation. They would not be stating that a specific material or structure was being approved, but to add information of what the options might be. Committee Member Fox stated they should have on the conceptual site plan a clear definition of where the property line was. It was a debate on Frank Lane and it needed to be very clear and it would clarify how much of the lane was being used for what purpose as it was very vague for her in reviewing the proposal. The Committee Members reviewed the cross section for the property line designation. Committee Member McCormack stated in terms of designing an access road for the residents on Frank Lane, which would provide for a dual lane 16' wide with a 4' buffer, the things that got thrown in the blender with the design was the question of whether it was a legal fire access area? Those were the things to ask in designing something if those things were not put in first. He asked if it was 16'? Mr. Madden stated on exhibit 4.14 there was the designation for the fire and emergency access lanes which were on the north side. It had been presented to Staff and reviewed; he assumed the Fire Department had reviewed it as well. Fire access would be on the north side of the median. The Committee Members reviewed the exhibit and where the fire access area was located. Mr. Garcia stated the fire access plan had been reviewed by SRC and the Fire Department. There would be further compliance check points as the project moved along. Chair Woollett stated he was concerned with the divider. The fire access plan was for the church and he asked if fire access to the residents was off of Grayson? Mr. Madden stated there was emergency access to the residents. Chair Woollett stated the primary access was off of Grayson. He was concerned aesthetically, and right now it was a mess. There was a big wide area of asphalt and he was not surprised with the confusion when people drove onto that wide area; it was not very attractive for the residents in viewing it from the west or rear yards. As the area became a visual buffer to the church development, what happened in that space was important. Mr. Madden stated Frank Lane was a very tough design study and as Mr. Elfland had mentioned they wanted to provide as much flexibility as possible so as the design process proceeded with the church and the neighbors they could come up with the best solution. One difficulty was that the dimensions were fixed. Frank Lane and the program elements that went into that area created a snug fit; they would want to see a median that was wider, but there was no room for that. To provide a fence line was something they could do. Committee Member Wheeler stated what was needed was a request to see a detailed study of the access approach that would cover issues of fencing, approach, signage and pavement treatments. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 19 of 34 Committee Member Fox stated she had to express her concern over Bott's dots and it was not only a visual concern, but there were disobedient parents who would park on the other side and block the street. A fence was a better solution. Mr. Madden stated they could add the condition language, as suggested by Committee Member Wheeler, that it could be a combination of both elements. With a barrier separation and strategically spaced openings. Committee Member McCormack stated that was a solution with the split rail and where there were openings there could be Bott's dots and there could be other paving elements and signage. All of those things could be designed into it to make the nice cheesecake. The split rail fence could carry the day and maybe in other areas the landscape could be enhanced. Committee Member Fox stated she had concerns with the edges. Committee Member McCormack stated what was difficult was to have a tendency to have the landscape have a certain aesthetic. There was a specific aesthetic in OPA. The one thing that he felt the aesthetics needed to respond to was compatibility. There was also the proposed building which was a large mass area and that fact coupled with the fact that only 37 trees would be preserved and removing 78 trees would change the aesthetics of the site. Edges were important. With a small house a huge Sequoia tree would not be planted next to it, or a big huge Ficus tree and with the proposed larger scale project planting a small Sumac tree next to it would not be appropriate. That would appear odd. The landscape had to include a compliment to a large building, openings to see it, areas to frame it and that the ground plane needed to be large enough to support it. There were small little 4' squares on the drawings and outside the 4' squares was a 95% compacted soil area that they drove on. The planting areas had to be large enough to grow. Whether it be a tree well or an open area it needed to be big enough. The first thing he wanted to see was a plant palette that would replace the 78 trees and the aesthetic of a large building site and have it be appealing enough to have the aesthetic they were seeking. Mr. Madden stated two edges of the area, Orange Park Blvd. and Santiago were being replicated to what existed there and near the preschool they would introduce some new plant material. The landscape architect had recommended a variety of plant materials for the interior of the site to compliment the existing site and the fabric of the area. He asked if the specifics about which plants to use and what size would be addressed at a later date? Committee Member McCormack stated yes; and he was only talking about the trees. The trees would be the key of the landscape. He reviewed the plant choices and stated on column A instead of a Coast Live Oak tree he would recommend Alnus as it was a smaller tree and he would go through the choices in regard to tree sizes. It would be up to the designers to create the aesthetic of layering, if the ground plane was pushed out for use areas it left a small ground plane area and left only room for a hedge. That would provide a different appearance. The aesthetic in OPA was not the formal hedge look, that being said he would want some of that flushed out. He would want to review the edge treatment. He would want to have more layering in the interior areas and frame the uses while providing plant screening. The other issue he had was that in reading the EIR for the reduction of heat island effect; it stated only on pedestrian paving City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 20 of 34 surfaces and when he read further to areas were there was bio retention areas those were a bit more generous. When he reviewed the proposal for pervious pavement on the whole site there was only 1200 square feet of pervious pavement and he wanted to put that out there as an area to be looked at for design purposes. Committee Member McCormack stated his biggest issue was the treatment of the grass area and it was noted as grasspave or equal. Mr. Madden stated it was not turf block and it was described in more detail in Section No. 5. Committee Member McCormack stated the area he was referring to was a sports field and in reviewing the two multipurpose play areas, there was one for basketball land more hard surface sport use. The other field had grasspave and not a playable surface, no other sport would be appropriate for the grasspaved area, as it was not a playable surface to run, and cut and move. Grasspave would be only for fire access and used as an infiltration system. Grasspave was never used for active sports. Mr. Madden stated in the Specific Plan, on Page no. 5.2 in the third paragraph down it explained the material and it was not what Committee Member McCormack was referring to. The area would be planted with reinforced turf, it would not be grasspaving and it was a product that was on the market specifically for sports play and for parking. Committee Member McCormack stated he was familiar with structural turf and if that was the case, that would work. Committee Member Fox stated the plan read that 15% of the time the multipurpose play area would be used for overflow parking and it would be approximately 54 days per year and she asked if the grass would be able to support that type of use? Committee Member McCormack stated yes. The designers had to ensure that the water efficient landscape regulation requirements were met, to have only 20% turf on the site proposed. From a design standpoint that calculation would need to be completed to ensure compliance. Mr. Madden stated the multipurpose play field currently existed and it was an existing use that would remain and the area around it would be enhanced. In terms of water usage the landscape architects had looked at that. Committee Member McCormack stated they would need to review the plant palette; it could change the aesthetic and the landscape architects had to be cognizant of the landscape palette with regard to many of the other issues. Chair Woollett stated he agreed with what Committee Member McCormack had stated in regard to providing large trees for large buildings. One of the primary issues was a building with a lot of mass. In reviewing the plan he had not found spaces for really big trees. He wondered if on the south side if maybe some of the parking spaces could be given up to provide for large tree plantings. It was a conceptual plan, but those details needed to be addressed. Committee Member Fox stated there was a certain mass with a 100% parking calculation, but that provided no space for landscaping. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 21 of 34 Chair Woollett stated they had gone beyond the regulation in regard to parking as the code was 1:6 and they were proposing 1:2.4. Mr. Garcia stated they proposed 1:4. Chair Woollett stated in his calculation it was much better and they were not on the edge of the regulation at all; they were on the edge of wisdom. They were better than what the regulation called for. Committee Member McCormack asked how many parking spaces were on site? Mr. Madden stated 180 and it was parked 1:4; and they wanted to limit the parking on the multipurpose field. It was important to look at ways to enhance the landscape elements and the trees. It was important in the recommendation for landscape that they also looked at parking and the importance of parking on site. Committee Member McCormack stated if he was crafting parking he would construct tandem parking and to look at those types of situations. For the overflow they could tandem park and to provide more ground space around the building. Mr. Madden stated they walked a fine line of meeting City code for parking and pushing the parking elsewhere, to overflow zones or elsewhere. He looked forward to the comments for the plant palette and landscaping. Chair Woollett stated he took all of the parking, including the overflow parking and divided that out and got the 1:4, but according to the City regulation that had to be paved striped parking. The paved striped parking was the minimum. They would not want to loose seats and it was a very important issue. In reviewing the Specific Plan he could not find where they would get the landscape buffers that were essential to compensate for the bulk and mass of the building. Committee Member McCormack stated he concurred and he had asked if the paved parking was tied directly to church use? Chair Woollett stated the City standards were never enough for peak periods; they had done a very wise thing by providing for the peak periods. They came back to the basic issue of would there be enough planting space for landscaping on site? Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could suggest the use of Palm trees or other types of trees that would not take up so much ground area? Committee Member McCormack stated a trees canopy would go to its drip line and that could be modified in that trimming back a tree would cause the roots to not go out as far. They could use Palm trees, but it would not do the screening they might be after. Palm trees were not the aesthetic of OPA. There needed to be openings and closings and levels of different screening to have the end product be successful. How to handle the parking situation horticulturally was the City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 22 of 34 issue and the ground plane would need to be able to support the tree that was planted in it. If the building was smaller the plants could be smaller. Committee Member Fox stated that lead to some of the issues she had and it was the density of the proposed project. In reviewing the built area of the site it was extremely dense and also very tall. She wondered if it was appropriate given the balance of the rest of the site. If the scale of the worship center and the new structures were scaled down that would also alleviate the parking and it would create more areas for buffers. Mr. Madden stated they needed to keep in mind the plazas and open spaces that usually occur in a church use. The plan provided for a series of layers. If standing in the middle of the basketball court looking at the worship center there was a plaza and architecture. There would not be large planting areas as it would not be appropriate. If driving along Orange Park Blvd. and looking across at the worship center there was landscape that occurred along Orange Park Blvd. and Santiago, there was tree massing and plantings that separated the courtyard from the parking and multipurpose field. Depending on where you viewed the site from there were layers. If the issue was the plant palette and the size of those areas they could review that and develop language that would address that. The proposal and site plan would need to return responsive to the suggestions. The use that was being proposed in the plan as shown provided for public gathering spaces and the framework for plantings. The preschool and other enhancement areas would also have new planting areas and landscaped layers. Chair Woollett stated in fairness to the whole situation the Committee Members had to have a dialogue amongst themselves and if they had questions they would address him for those issues. Committee Member McCormack stated the comments made by Mr. Madden were duly noted. His point would be that the landscape proposed was inherently thin, not wide enough and the space provided for what would be planted there. He wanted to see a flushing out of how they could get to a more substantial landscape plan. The trees were basically singular in their groupings and he would want to see a bit more play in it. Committee Member Fox stated she liked the direction that had been taken at the access point of Santiago Road; it was a nicely proportioned landscape area. In the Specific Plan the guidelines that were set forth stated that the trees should be grouped in a rural manner, but in the conceptual plan presented the guidelines were not followed. It was also found to be that way in many of the other requirements. The Specific Plan was worded very well, but the proposed plan had not met the translation in the design. The Committee Members reviewed the proposed plan and commented on the layout and massing. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was an area (he pointed to on the plans) that was doing so many things and one of the things that had been brought up with the 2006 proposal was what could be done with the basketball court/recreational area to make it look better and not just have asphalt with stripes. Also, it was the task of making the area feel like a gathering place. Were they to assume that during church services that the multipurpose area would always be used for parking and that there was not any additional outdoor space? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 23 of 34 Mr. Madden stated the outdoor spaces were the areas that were in tan, during the church periods the parking lots would be full. Chair Woollett stated on the circulation plan he was not certain how that was defined and he asked Staff for some clarification. There was a nice turn around for cars coming off Santiago and turning back out and the landscaping and all had been addressed nicely for that area, but there was nothing that would lead anyone to the south end of the property. He was not certain how the circulation area was planned for in that area. Committee Member Fox stated there was a circulation plan in the Specific Plan. Chair Woollett stated during the week there would be parking on the multipurpose area when it was not being used for recreation on exhibit 4.10. Mr. Garcia stated that there was a circulation plan that would be used during school hours for parents picking up and dropping off students. Chair Woollett asked if it would be striped for parking and marked for recreation at the same time? Committee Member Fox stated there might be parents who might park there while waiting for their child and then enter into the pick up loop. Mr. Garcia stated based on the way the pick up and drop off area was used, parents would not be able to park in that area. It would be for movement only. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there would be signage that would advise parents of how they needed to proceed during pick up and drop off times? Mr. Garcia stated he was not certain how that would work. Committee Member Fox asked if the Traffic Division would be reviewing all of that? Mr. Garcia stated they had reviewed it. Chair Woollett stated the relocation of the building, which created the massing of the buildings, provided for a significantly better circulation on the site. It addressed the issues on the south boundary. In terms of the placement of the building away from the intersection of Santiago Blvd. had been issues. It had been pulled back on the property and aesthetically made a lot of sense. The proposal was very responsive. As there was a lot of paving he had a concern in creating an environment for the buildings that would not have visual shielding. The suggestion for how to treat the landscaping for the preschool area on exhibit 6.3, some of the concerns expressed by the community addressed those issues. When going toward the western quarter of Frank Lane it was a residential area and the proposed plan for that area was very well done. He would hope to have a little stronger development in the southern portion of the development. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 24 of 34 Committee Member Fox stated she wanted to recap some of her points and conceptually getting the circulation access would alleviate traffic issues and it was a much nicer entrance. An entrance that was not on an alley type street. The church would gain a much more grown up presence in facing Santiago, instead of everything being oriented off of Frank Lane. She asked where the trash enclosures would be located? Committee Member McCormack stated there was only one trash enclosure. He could only find one trash enclosure and the EIR stated that it was to be screened. The enclosure he found was screened only on one side, he pointed out where it was located to the other Committee Members. He stated if there was a vine on the east wall it would be screened. Committee Member Fox asked what would occur in the service lane? Mr. Madden stated there was existing trash receptacles in the back and he would need to speak with the applicant on the exact location as they had talked about having the enclosure in the back where it currently existed and the Specific Plan called for the trash to be completely enclosed. Committee Member Fox stated on the Fowler House being a preschool there was not only the most buffering between that and the adjacent resident then anywhere else on the site, but there was also adequate landscape and layering. It was also the safest place to take children with the need to walk them into their school. It was a great division with the gate and at the preschool children were walked in and at the other school those students were dropped off. It was a good site utilization. Her biggest issue was the density and massing. She felt the worship center was too tall and too massive. She was not sure if they should only be discussing concept site plans or should she speak to the Specific Plan as well? In the Specific Plan the Fowler House information stated that the Fowler House would be maintained, but if it was destroyed and needed to be replaced the new structure could be a 32' high structure. She had not seen a scale on the existing structure, but thought it was in the area of 24'. If there was a need to replace the structure that would be an addition of 8' to that site. To her the proposal was great and she loved it; but she wanted to review the Specific Plan as she objected to the preschool being able to have a height, if rebuilt, of 32'. The residential scale was noted as wanting to be maintained, however, at 32' that would not be the case. She also felt chain link was unacceptable, not only was it not desirable in Orange, but the OPA plan specified the use of wood rail fencing, painted white or natural to give a sense of openness and to restrict the use of block walls, chain link and opaque fencing. There were block walls and chain link proposed and those were materials that went against the OPA guidelines and the City of Orange guidelines and there was enough development that they should not allow the existing fencing to remain. If someone could show her how growing vines on the fences could mitigate it enough that might help, but there was nothing being planted that would grow in that manner. Committee Member Fox stated on the material and colors of the preschool during the re -build stage it had a statement of the use of a multitude of colors, where the colors for the proposed project were supposed to be natural colors and the guidelines should match. If the preschool ever had the need to be rebuilt it should have a maximum height of the existing height and it should be painted to blend cohesively with the rest of the campus. She would want those comments added to the Specific Plan, 6.22.22 and 7.32.22. Committee Member Wheeler asked what was the height that she would want for the preschool if it was rebuilt? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 25 of 34 Committee Member Fox stated at the existing ridge of the house, she was not certain of the height that currently existed out there. She would recommend that the worship center be lower than the height proposed. Chair Woollett stated he had not had an issue with the proposed height for the worship center. Even if they lost a few seats to alleviate some of the concerns Committee Member Fox spoke about, it would still cover a large area. It was important with a large interior space to have height. Because of the placement on the site that the area could tolerate the height, particularly if it was properly shielded, to have it buffered with landscaping and that sort of thing. When the roof slopes there was only a relatively small portion of the roof that had the increased height. Committee Member Fox stated, as she read the information it was 25% of the structure that could be above 32', between 32' and 39'. She understood that a church nicely designed should include a soaring experience and to have the lifting up feeling from the inside; she felt that was appropriate, however, at 39' it was quite a bit higher than the multipurpose room that existed on the site. On the church on Chapman it had a 114' high steeple, but it was a very small area. It was a sensitive issue and in reviewing the facade that faced Frank Lane she objected to the height. The height and mass were so great and it was south facing so the sun would bounce right off of it and there was not a lot of room for trees. If there was some mitigating balance she might understand it better. The allowances as proposed were pushing the limit a bit. Committee Member Wheeler asked Staff if there was a copy of the 2006 Salem Lutheran submittal? Mr. Garcia stated yes. He presented a copy to the Committee for their review. Committee Member Wheeler stated, referring to the copy of the 2006 submittal, pointed out where the worship center site had been proposed initially and the elevations for that submittal. One of the things that struck him was how much better the fenestration was and there was not so much blank wall. The 2006 proposed worship center was such a better design. Committee Member Fox stated they were not judging the proposal for the building per se, but conceptually she wanted to provide feedback to the applicant so when the proposal came back with a proposed more detailed design the applicant would understand that she would not approve of the project, personally, with the height and roof line as outlined on the conceptual proposal. The roof line made a big difference on the previous proposal and there was much more layering which helped with the mass of the building. For her she would want the height to drop to 36'. In general the density and massing of the facade was too much. Committee Member McCormack stated the previous proposal was well done. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the conceptual plan there was so much high glass and it was not very well coordinated. Chair Woollett stated their comments could indicate their preference for development along the lines of the previous proposal. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 26 of 34 Committee Member McCormack stated the shadowing helped with the roof. Committee Member Fox stated even with shadowing of the current proposal the roof overhangs were much shorter. Committee Member Wheeler stated on materials the new entrance walls had stone pilasters and there was also a concrete cap to that. It was adding more stuff to the vocabulary of materials that were already in use. There was split face block, three types of roofing, different trim types, exposed wood and so forth, and he asked if it was good to add another material such as stone or would it be better to use some of the existing materials? Mr. Madden stated he agreed with Committee Member Wheeler. The picnic shelter had brown asphalt shingles and the roof support of a slump block wall, the existing sanctuary had a tile type terra cotta roof and the sanctuary and preschool roofs were flat; in moving to the multipurpose building there was a slant type roof with stucco and dark brown window trim. The one story school building had a metal roof that was slanted and shallow without overhang. There was quite a variety of materials. When the new worship center was put in, the sanctuary and preschool buildings that were there now would be removed. The areas that would remain would be the multipurpose building and the two preschools. The chance to bring in new materials and colors would add new vibrancy, which was important to the site. The existing and remaining building, while compatible and appropriate to the area, there was a chance to provide the buildings with more character. Committee Member Wheeler stated if they added new material he suggested that the material be spread out a bit and incorporated in planters and in other areas and not just the new worship center; to allow those materials to work their way through the campus. Committee Member Fox asked if the worship center height was measured from existing grade? Committee Member McCormack stated he had not found any handicap parking for the worship center. On the entry, if there was waiting for someone to come out of the building; there had to be a stacking area. What happened if a car parked across the crosswalk? The entry needed some response to that issue; it was a visual, aesthetic and safety issue. Committee Member Wheeler stated the access appeared to have a 5' or 6' of height difference between the sidewalk and the main upper area; assuming that they could not start up until getting past the equestrian trail and then assuming a 10% grade, which was the maximum the City would allow, it appeared that they would not get to that height until they got to the middle of the circle. He asked if the circle would be sloped or part way up to a flat circle? Mr. Madden stated when they arrived at a detail plan that would all be worked out with the engineers. It would peak and have a slight slope, something gentle and if there needed to be small retaining walls that could occur with a decorative treatment. That level of detail would be worked out along with a drainage plan. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 27 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler asked if the gate would need to be pushed back a bit more, and if so what would occur there and that area would need to be well studied. If the entrance had not worked they would be at square one and the whole Specific Plan would need to come back as it was a vital component of the entire proposal. Although they were not discussing traffic issues, the new entrance would alleviate much of the traffic concerns. Chair Woollett stated with respect to the church, circulation plan and the amount of outdoor space for gathering was inadequate. People would come out of the church and they would tend to hang around outside and for a church of the size as proposed there was very little space for gathering. The people would come out directly onto a parking lot. Committee Member McCormack stated they would go directly onto a parking lot. If they were to go to a zero curb that would mitigate the situation. If would also be midday and right on the north south access with full sun; people would probably not want to hang around and there would be loss of fellowship. Chair Woollett stated in the winter they would be shielded from the sun by the buildings and there could be some shade structures provided. He was less concerned with the sun and more concerned with the space. He wondered if any consideration was given to instead of having the access as proposed why the access had not occurred further east. Santiago Blvd. rose in that area and there would not be the height difference and instead of having major circulation running right through there it could be in another area with less parking. It might be a fire code situation. Mr. Garcia stated it was a Traffic Division concern with a required distance from the intersection being necessary and would not allow the access at another point. Committee Member Fox suggested that the access be angled slightly. It was a good point as the density was created with everything being pushed to that area. Mr. Madden stated they had looked at that situation very closely. Committee Member Fox stated there were different issues; and she asked if there was a way to decide on the Specific Plan and have different decisions on different components of the presentation? Chair Woollett stated they needed to add conditions that would limit the Specific Plan or ask the applicant to restudy certain areas and come back to them, depending upon whether they could cover it all with conditions. Ms. Roseberry stated for some of the issues the Planning Commission would prefer having something new in front of them, such as changes to the landscape palette would be something they looked to the DRC to finalize for them. The suggestion might be to have the applicant study a specific area or concern and bring it back. If there were other things that the DRC wanted to recommend, such as they were okay with all of this, but it would be better if A, B, and C were another way or for landscape to delete certain trees and add 3 other trees those could be conditions. If there were big changes that were necessary she suggested that the DRC request that the applicant take a look at those things and come back. It could be that a suggestion might City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 28 of 34 not work for them. If there were parts of the Specific Plan that through the DRC process needed to be changed they could simply show new language as it moved to the Planning Commission. For areas that the applicant might look at and not agree with the suggestions or conditions they could still recommend approval with certain items to be looked at further by the Planning Commission. The applicant would have an opportunity to see what worked for them and there were also items that might conflict with another code, they could look at those things too. Committee Member Fox asked if they would be looking at recommendations from the conceptual plan or from the Specific Plan? Ms. Roseberry stated it would be better if it was based on issues, such as the chain link fence. If there were changes needed, those areas of the Specific Plan would need to be flagged. Chair Woollett stated with an issue such as chain link that could be handled through one statement. There were bigger issues that they would want to look at again to understand how a specific issue had been resolved. Committee Member McCormack stated they had given so much information to the applicants in their discussion to looking at how they could deal with the mass issue that the applicants deserved another chance to see what they could come up with. Committee Member Wheeler stated there were so many interacting elements and a change in one area could lead to a change of another component of the project. Chair Woollett stated he was speaking from his experience as a church architect and the rest of the Committee Members could decide if his comments had any relevance. When he created a master plan he designed it for as many seats as he could get; it was a negotiation and he wanted to get as many seats for the congregation as he could. He would want the maximum amount of flexibility with the details of the design. They had to decide as a Committee where the envelope needed to be in terms of how much was appropriate for the site and taking in the concerns of the community and the City's regulations. He was concerned that the envelope was a little too tight for the reasons that they had discussed; the space around the building, the bulk and mass and the view from the street. Ms. Roseberry stated it would be helpful if they could hit each topic one by one and they would be recorded in the minutes as opposed to going through the discussion portion of the minutes that contained a vast amount of information and if they could summarize that would be helpful. If the DRC was looking toward a continuance, move to continue based on specific issues that would assist the applicant. Committee Member Wheeler asked if they could go through the items that they were wanting to see before a motion was made and then in the motion to base the motion on the list that they created. Chair Woollett stated bulk and mass and landscaping and open space. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 29 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated he had tried to keep a list of a few things I got chain link and there was a consensus on that. That we should see more study on the Frank Lane separator to incorporate other types of separators that might be textured pavement, that might be split rail fence in sections, whatever worked for the Committee Member Fox stated but I think we all agree that pure Bott's dots would be aesthetically inappropriate and ineffective? Committee Member Wheeler stated they all agreed on that. We want to make sure the property lines are clarified on a future submittal. We wanted to study the plant palette to come up with a way to provide larger specimen trees especially on the larger sanctuary worship space. Committee Member McCormack stated larger species with the appropriate ground plan growing area is the key issue with that. Committee Member Wheeler stated in coordination with that to see more open patio space that is not used for parking and other uses that would mean having to probably reduce the massing of the building, although hopefully to have the applicant maintain the number of spaces or seats that they have now. Another item is that they want to make sure the documents were changed to show the height limit of the preschool should it be destroyed or raised would not be higher than the exiting preschool. Committee Member McCormack stated the concept of studying and actually having the EIR and the Specific Plan state that the open multipurpose turf area for parking is structural turf and not grasspave to then on top of that assess how the numbers work out in terms of the water efficient regulations and how it crafts the shrub palette and the ground plane palette for the landscape palette so that comes back as saying this works with the regulations rather than having it all approved and finding out they can't make it work. I want to make sure someone has done a draft "go around with that." Chair Woollett asked does the City check all of these calcs as far as the approval, if they don't meet all of these requirements there going to have to change it aren't they? Mr. Garcia stated typically the process is when the project was ready for final completion they make sure the landscaper of record has certified that the project will meet the water requirements. Chair Woollett asked if the applicant would need to do that before he submitted the final landscape plan? Mr. Garcia stated yes, for our purposes they want to make sure they have that documentation by the time they final the permit. Chair Woollett asked if that would be before the final approval of the plans and the building? Mr. Garcia stated yes. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 30 of 34 Chair Woollett stated we're concerned they don't want to wait that long. We want to be sure it gets confirmed before they start any construction. Ms. Roseberry stated you'd be able to do that before the final plans would come back through the process because I've been thinking about this to try to do that now would take it to a level the plan and the EIR are not looking at, if I am understanding correctly. Committee Member McCormack stated what he would like to do and if it was his project to get down on his table and calc how much that grasspave was and do the calculation and see where I was at, it would take you half and hour and knowing I could pull that off but on all the other planting areas I need to have the palette look like that because it's level one total drought tolerant. Chair Woollett stated he wanted a preliminary. Committee Member McCormack stated I would do it if it was my project, analysis is too big for me to pull off and get to the finish line. Ms. Roseberry asked are you trying to determine a certain level of drought tolerance for the plant palette? Committee Member McCormack stated that's one, if it's too big Ms. Roseberry stated by too big, what do you mean? Committee Member McCormack stated if it is too much turf, even if we have level one drought tolerance then that has to get smaller it won't be compliant, in other words is that too big to do worst case is what he was saying. Committee Member Fox stated and then you don't have plants anywhere else. Chair Woollett stated the concept could be skewed, because ultimately it was unbuildable. Committee Member McCormack stated a quick hour, hour and a half calculation to see if that size turf area is only 20% of what remains. Chair Woollett stated make that specifically to address the turf. Committee Member McCormack stated okay then do a calculation to see 1 St draft if the amount of the play field and multipurpose play field structural turf area is appropriately sized to make sure the remaining landscape stays intact as drought tolerant. I also wanted to add the specific things about the one trash enclosure to have that illuminated if only one trash enclosure if needed and I stated this earlier in the meeting and it was a question is only 1200' of pervious pavement all we can do or can we do more? Chair Woollett stated wait a minute that was a rule you're going to run into when we do the Specific Plan and it was easier to add more pavement more porous so why worry about it now? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 31 of 34 Committee Member McCormack stated okay we can strike that. The other one was there were bio retention areas all over the plan in the EIR and he would like to see the landscape and that was areas that were holding water to have those areas highlighted on the landscape plan and that was a different plant that could survive under water. Committee Member Wheeler stated but again wasn't that something that could wait for the more detailed submittal, does it need to be done on this one. Committee Member McCormack stated I guess it could wait, but that was the challenge and even if he said that they would only need to put another heading in their landscape palette; bio Swale plants and it begins to address that use. That is all I had. Committee Member Wheeler asked do they want to add something about the visual appearance of the worship center as far as how it relates to the previous submittal? Ms. Roseberry stated what I would do with that is look at adding or deleting some of the architectural guidelines of the worship center if there was something that they wanted amplified or something they would want to, such as if looking at the materials and they are thinking they don't want that type of material in there or we absolutely want this material or if they were talking about the overhangs or some architectural detail that would result in x , that was how they would phrase it. Committee Member Wheeler stated let me suggest some and see how it flies; as far as materials if a new material such as artificial stone or real stone was incorporated in the design of the worship center that the drawing to come back to us showing how that material could be utilized throughout the project site to defuse and tie into the existing buildings, does that make sense? The Committee Members stated yes. Committee Member Wheeler stated that the windows and large overhangs as shown on the submittal of 2006 seems more of an appropriate direction than the concept elevations that had been presented so far. Ms. Roseberry asked if there was another way to phrase that without looking back at a case that was withdrawn. Committee Member Fox stated there was good phrasing in the Specific Plan they just don't, they haven't applied it to the things they have in here to their concept plan in 6.2.3 doors and windows for the worship center: "prominent windows on highly visible elevations should be articulated in a manner consistent with the architectural styles such as recesses or projections, decorative grills or trellis projections." They have some good, I felt that the Specific Plan had some good wording on how the design should be done. I think the Specific Plan was very well articulated. On the Specific Plan she wanted to go into section 7.3.3 that stated building height for the worship center that stated 39' and she would like to propose 36' and, or if there was other mitigation to be at 39', but it says no more than 25% of the building roof plan can exceed 32', it says here and maybe it might be a much lower percent. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 32 of 34 Chair Woollett stated in the previous plan the height was 39" which was the way they designed it, they mitigated that height and mass. Committee Member Fox stated maybe that was what they wanted to see that the height and mass is mitigated and not necessarily control the height limit. When you look at that building when it was designed originally it was further away from the other buildings and now you got just this mountain up against all these other buildings. Committee Member Wheeler stated he thought they had been receptive to that other design in 2006, the height was 39' but it was also closer to Santiago Canyon Road, but then Committee Member Fox asked if he ever got to her question about was the height measured from adjacent grade and if so were they allowed to build up the grade such as now the height was even taller? Mr. Garcia stated the vertical distance from the building height is defined as the vertical distance from the average finished grade as measured around the perimeter of a structure 5' out from the exterior wall surface to the highest point of a structure. Committee Member Fox stated o.k. they can't raise the adjacent grade too far because they have to meet the existing grade in their next door classroom so that would keep it locked in I think. I feel that massing is too much and if you guys don't agree at least on the preschool we should, we talked about changing the 32' to existing ridge, we mentioned that already. Chair Woollett stated the forms of the building should mitigate the height and mass of the building. Committee Member Wheeler stated of the worship center, which was a good way to put it. Chair Woollett asked if there was anything else they needed to add, and could they frame this into a motion now so people could go home? Ms. Roseberry stated you may want to ask the applicant if all those things were clear enough. Mr. Madden stated he just wanted to make sure they got a record of the meeting, there was a lot of information and a lot of good comments so if you can just make sure they do that then if they had any questions on it, in terms of clarification they could contact Robert on it. Committee Member McCormack stated the Specific Plan was well written and if they followed it as a guideline, a lot of stuff on the plans did not follow this, or touch on it yet. Committee Member Fox stated that gave her a sense of security, because if they approved the Specific Plan that was what they will use to judge this. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest a motion that we move to continue it based on the items described to the applicant. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 33 of 34 Chair Woollett asked if they needed to be more specific? Ms. Roseberry stated they were fine, since it was being continued and between the three of us we had a pretty good list of what they were looking at and we will get the minutes from Sandi and we will be fine. The direction for the applicant to take back and sort of digest and look at. Chair Woollett asked if they should set a time when it would come back? Ms. Roseberry stated she would ask the applicant if there as a date certain, the DRC meets on the first and third Mondays? Mr. Madden stated they would need to pow wow, to talk to Frank. Ms. Roseberry stated it does not need a date certain. Chair Woollett asked if the next meeting would be noticed to people? Ms. Roseberry stated certainly, they could re- notice it. Verbatim text: Committee Member Wheeler stated: Chair, I would like to make a motion to continue DRC No. 4538 -11, Salem Lutheran Church and School, with the guidance given during the discussion. SECOND: Carol Fox AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2012 Page 34 of 34 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Fox made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on March 21, 2012. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Carol Fox, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.