2016-02-24 DRC Final MinutesCITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
February 24, 2016
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair
Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:08 p.m.
Chair Fox inquired if there was any Policy or Procedural information. Jennifer Le, Principal
Planner, indicated there was no Policy or Procedural information.
Ms. Le informed the Design Review Committee as to who the architectural firms would be working
on the Santiago Hills II Design Guidelines to ensure no one would have to be recused from the
meeting. The two firms were Clark & Green Associates and Bassenian Lagoni Architects. The
Committee Members indicated they did not have a conflict with those firms.
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design
Review Committee meeting.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 2 of 8
Regular Session — 5:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All Committee Members were present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not
listed on the Agenda.
There were no speakers.
CONSENT ITEMS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 3 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS
New Agenda Items:
(1) DRC No. 4847 -16 — Santiago Hills II Design Guidelines
• A proposal to modify previous project approvals in order to construct 1,180 residential units
in the Santiago Hills II Planned Community area. This review will focus on the proposed
amendment to the previously- approved Santiago Hills II Design Guidelines.
• Santiago Hills II, east of Jamboree Road, west of SR -241, south of Irvine Regional Park and
north of the City limit.
• Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238, jle @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Jennifer Le, Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. She
explained that the DRC would be providing feedback on the Design Guidelines related to
architectural styles and landscape concepts.
The applicants who were present for this project were Dan Miller, Richard Roy, Brad Engelland,
Bob Clark, Jamie Yoshida, Scott R. Adams, and David Kosco.
Mr. Miller provided background information on the previously approved Santiago Hills II project.
Mr. Roy gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the landscape concepts including the trails and
Mr. Engelland highlighted the architectural portion of the Guidelines including the four proposed
styles.
Mr. Miller clarified that the project would be using reclaimed water and Mr. Roy explained the two
statewide water regulations in place regarding irrigation.
Ms. Le explained that all the entitlements would go as a package from the DRC to the Planning
Commission, and the final decision would be made by the City Council.
Public Comments
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. Those who spoke were Stephen Amendt,
Bob Hahn, Alan Burns, Laura Thomas and Thea Gavin. They made the following comments:
• Asked if there was any ingress /egress for this development off of Jamboree.
• Asked where the water would be coming from for the development.
• Wanted to know how far the horse trail on Jamboree would be separated from the road and
voiced concern with irrigation flowing onto the trail. Suggested drip irrigation for adjacent
landscaping. Asked about trail bridges.
• Questioned the topography and berm surrounding the residential development along
Jamboree. Would the development be visible?
• Wanted more information on the trail going from Irvine Regional Park to Peters Canyon.
• Wanted to see a topographical map showing more detail between the development and Irvine
Regional Park.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 4 of 8
• Asked how many homes would be single level as opposed to two -story and if all the
townhomes were two - story.
• Concerned with privacy between homes and short driveways (which are issues in Santiago
Hills I).
• Asked if any of the parking spaces would be tandem. Asked about the square footage of
homes and whether there would be a downstairs master bedroom.
• Noted the attractive landscape on the trail along Jamboree. Suggested that a deep setback and
meander for the trails (such as those at Windes and Meads at Orange Park Boulevard) are
attractive.
• Glad to see native plants being reintroduced on the project site.
• Asked if native plants within the actual home landscaping would be a part of the
development.
The applicants addressed the issues raised by the public. Mr. Miller indicated the water would be
provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District and recycled water would be used. Mr. Roy explained
that this project would include a 6' wide sidewalk along the east side of Jamboree with a landscape
separation and a zero irrigation runoff type system. Mr. Yoshida explained the vehicular access
points on Jamboree and described the berm along Jamboree. The development would not be visible
from Irvine Regional Park.
Committee Member Imboden clarified that the designs the Committee was looking at now were
conceptual design standards that architects will use to develop plans.
Mr. Engelland explained that everything would likely be two - stories, described the driveway lengths
and that tandem garages could be an option, and they would design privacy between homes.
Mr. Roy answered the question regarding native plants being a part of the home landscaping. He
said some builders do install front yard landscaping. Mr. Miller said they have recommended
guidelines on other project sites but it is the responsibly of the homeowner to maintain their
landscaping.
Committee Member McCormack questioned the possible use of flyover bridges for trails. Mr.
Miller said it had not been considered in 2005 due to issues such as ADA requirements and the
amount of land it would require.
Ms. Le addressed the issue concerning tandem parking explaining that it is not allowed for Code -
required parking (two -car garage) but could be allowed for non -Code required parking if approved
at the City Council level.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC had the following comments:
How neighborhoods are working together
• Questioned the yellow zones on the diagram and that J246 lots were only 3,375, 3,600 and
3,900 square feet but in the low density residential Planned Community zoning standards it
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 5 of 8
says it has a 4,500 square foot minimum area per unit. Mr. Engelland said the difference was
how gross acre versus net acre was calculated.
Architecture
Noted the sketches in the previously- approved design guidelines were very helpful and suggested
adding similar illustrations. Suggested using graphics to better illustrate the listed general
characteristics and design features.
Early California
• Questioned if it would be more appropriate to have low to mid rise roof pitch to differentiate
it from the other styles. Also the examples were showing both cantilever and recessed
balconies which should contrast more from the Monterey style.
Formal Spanish
• Suggested emphasizing the low pitch roof to separate it from the Early California.
• Noted a number of illustrations showed a large number of pilasters and suggested including
those in the description and that it might be an appropriate place for quoins.
• Noted that the hip roof was called out in the description but the photos show gable roof
accents. Suggested mentioning gable accents that occur on the illustrations and emphasizing
wrought iron railings.
Santa Barbara
• Thought the Santa Barbara design could be more edgy and interesting.
• Suggested emphasizing the tight eaves and barges, and the desire for sculpted chimneys and
emphasizing the recessed windows. Suggested the use of espalier on frames or walls and
terra cotta tile screen windows.
Traditional Monterey
• Suggested on the Traditional Monterey going to a medium pitch roof and using railings that
look like wood. The flat slate roof seemed to conflict with the red tile description in the
materials list.
• Preferred the written general characteristics between Early California and Traditional
Monterey be more distinct. The Traditional Monterey needed to have a substantial balcony
and encouraged hip roofs.
• Concerned with the illustrations of the Traditional Monterey because it is a housing type that
is based on a large, simple adobe rectangular building that has a simple cantilever balcony
over the front and it should have a ceremonial entrance. One of the examples had a
Caribbean Spanish Colonial feel to it.
• Would not add wrought iron to this style.
• Concerned that all the images on the Monterey style except one showed no garages. More
garages needed to be shown on the images to reflect reality. Throughout, wanted illustrations
or photos to demonstrate that the styles were adaptable to the proposed geometry and mass of
the product types.
• Noted on Page 25 it stated flat two -story elevations were prohibited but there were examples
shown of this style.
• Confused by what was meant by front to back gable roof.
• Need to mention the board and batten being used upstairs.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 6 of 8
• Concerned that there were no style examples showing the narrow lot and none were
interpreted in a townhome situation. More photos or illustrations need to be included of the
multiple styles as applied to the product types (especially townhome and motor court types)
and more details of balconies with wrought iron railings, window trim, entry, and balcony
features.
General Comments Section
• Questioned what the wording describing the plane breaks meant and that it needed to be
illustrated.
• Suggested clarifying throughout where "setback" is intended versus setting something back.
• Suggested using the term "divided lights" instead of window "breakups ".
• Noted missing text on Page 26.
• Questioned the use of the word "courtyard" for the motor court product types.
• Needed the sentence "Use a tight rake on shed roof conditions that are in plane with a
perpendicular second floor wall" on Page 25 to be illustrated.
• Garages are prominent. Preferred to see the garages minimized.
• Questioned the color of the flat slate roof and the conflict of colors listed on pages 25 and 28.
• Questioned the S tile and flat tile styles and suggested clarifying the terms.
• Noted that exposed rafter tails were a great idea.
• Wanted to make sure that the masonry returned to a reentrant corner and came clear to the
ground.
• Questioned the windows and if true divided light would be used.
• Preferred to put the window grid on the outside and not on the inside.
• Others preferred no grids and wanted single light or true divided windows which were more
honest.
• Asked for further research on current window products.
• Wanted to ensure the window treatment and trim carry all around the house.
• Asked if it would be of value to add a description of the submittals that the Design Review
Committee and other bodies would be asking for future builder -level submittals which would
include a privacy study and roof plans.
• Concerned there was a lot of stucco and sameness, but generally were okay with the four
architectural styles.
• Suggested in some of the neighborhoods using fewer styles, but creating more distinction
between the varieties and perhaps featuring one primary style, but did not make it a
requirement.
• Requested in the current guidelines adding in the studies of the projected layouts of the
homes together with elevations of the specific streetscape concepts like were included in the
previously- approved guidelines.
• Suggested mentioning the minimum overhang dimension on each style.
• Questioned the reason to not use the gray roof color.
• Summarization of the comments: Add the Santa Barbara turret to the bullet list, allow a
recessed balcony just on the Early California, allow gable accents on the Formal Spanish if
the hip is dominant, lower pitch roof on the Formal Spanish, emphasize on the Santa Barbara
tight eaves, allow for sculpted chimneys, emphasize recessed windows, suggested terra cotta
tile screen windows, and limit the railing material used on the Monterey to wood.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 7 of 8
Landscape
• Requested planting areas that were bigger to sustain a bigger tree.
• Concerned the 6' parkways were a little small and could only support a medium sized tree at
best. Noted 8' medians /parkways were better.
• Requested a consistent landscape theme that makes a statement and supports the architecture.
Requested landscape focus on the streetscape.
• Questioned the terminology of private street versus street.
• Asked that large tree wells be added where there is adjacent sidewalks. Suggestion to bump
out the sidewalk a bit to get more space.
• Discussed the plant palette and suggested using more sycamores along the streets.
• Questioned if there would be water retention areas to accommodate water runoff. Suggested
the plant palette be adjusted in the inundation zone.
• Wanted to see the scenario where two driveways would be adjacent to each other and
discussed ribbon driveway to break up the pavement.
• Wanted the trail connection between Irvine Regional Park and Peters Canyon to shine.
Suggested an enlargement of the link
• Suggested the use of roundabouts as a landscaping design feature that would also help slow
down drivers.
• Wanted to see how the houses were to be screened from Irvine Park and the use of a berm at
the top of the slope. Discussed the need for cross sections and view simulations.
• Asked that on the maps using J's, I's and 1's that they use some different font to distinguish
them.
• Concerned with the amount of eucalyptus that would be used. Supported adding natives.
• Concerned with the presentation of the plant palette in the Design Guidelines. Suggestion to
include photos or illustrations to give a sense of the proposed landscape character, something
beyond just words.
• Supported the native pines being reintroduced to the area.
• Questioned what the texture would be on the block wall and wanted the photograph replaced
showing the split face wall that actually would be used.
• Questioned the tubular steel fence being proposed and wanted to see samples along with
color and material.
• Questioned the color of the split rail fence and wanted to see a sample if it was not real wood.
• Noted the lack of a fencing plan and wanted to see heights and colors.
• Wanted a better understanding and guidelines for solar panels and how that plays out in other
communities. Discussed consolidating panels to make a consistent shape, hiding conduits,
limiting roof penetrations and using black frames.
• Summarization of comments: provide areas with bigger trees; 6' parkway was small;
suggestion to bump out the sidewalk; houses should be framed by the trees and not
concealed; discussed the tree wells and curb adjacent sidewalks; discussed the evergreen
character along Chapman Avenue; how runoff would be handled; plant palette was not
showing the true character of the landscaping; suggested photos be added for the landscape
palette; clarify locations and materials for fences and walls; add a fencing plan; discussed
solar panels and including guidelines that limit roof penetrations; and limiting pavement
when driveways were side by side.
For Preliminary Review only — no action required
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for February 24, 2016
Page 8 of 8
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the special Design Review Committee
meeting on March 2, 2016.
SECOND: Tim McCormack
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.