Loading...
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.