2016-05-18 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
MINUTES - FINAL
May 18, 2016
Committee Members Present: Carol Fox - Chair
Craig Wheeler — Vice Chair
Robert Imboden
Tim McCormack
Anne McDermott
Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Le, Principal Planner
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
Administrative Session — 5:00
Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:04 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.
Committee Members reviewed the Design Review Committee minutes for May 4, 2016 and May 11,
2016.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to close the Administrative Session of the Design Review
Committee meeting.
SECOND: Anne McDermott
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Administrative Session adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 2 of 8
Regular Session — 5:34 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:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 4, 2016 and May 11, 2016
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee
meetings of May 4, 2016 and May 11, 2016 as emended during the discussion at the Administrative
Session.
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 3 of 8
AGENDA ITEMS
New Agenda Items:
(2) 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. DRC 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- 241/261, south of Irvine Regional Park
and north of the City limit.
• Staff Contact: Jennifer Le, 714- 744 -7238, jle @cityoforange.org
• DRC Action: Recommendation to Planning Commission/City Council
Jennifer Le, Principal Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Brad Engelland, Jamie Yoshida, Richard Roy,
and David Kosco.
The applicants provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the adjustments they had made to
the design guidelines which addressed the comments the DRC voiced at previous meetings.
Mr. Roy shared the new landscape structure diagram, imagery of the landscape zones, and the new
exhibit showing parkway dimensions. He explained the landscape concept that blends in with Irvine
Regional Park; the detailed exhibit showing the reconstructed Puma Trail; approach to
memorializing the cattle ranch fence with a 3 corner post with wood bracing and wire fencing at the
horse "shy" areas; the use of view fencing as opposed to solid fencing; and the type and color of
various fence materials.
Mr. Yoshida shared a 3D rendering which showed the views from Irvine Regional Park and
explained the 12 view study section exhibits.
Mr. Engelland addressed the comments the DRC had made regarding the architectural design. They
had made the sketches clearer; made text edits; changed the product plotting; and the submittal page
had been augmented.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Asked why the areas and densities were removed from Page 12. Ms. Le stated this was
something staff had asked the applicant to remove from the Design Guidelines because it was
a zoning - related issue and more appropriately included in the Santiago Hills Planned
Community Standards.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 4 of 8
• Liked the new plotting sheets which now specify which land use sectors each product type
applies to.
• Noted the one -story and two -story elements had been clarified.
• Appreciated the new trail legend.
• Appreciated the addition of the fence corner braces.
• Thankful the yucca was brought back and included in the landscape palette.
• Impressed with the new design guidelines.
• Noted that some homes can still be seen from some places in Irvine Regional Park but given
the improvements that have been made to the project design, it appeared landscaping would
mitigate it.
• Appreciated the 8' parkways.
• Curious how the street tree pattern would be consistently woven throughout the project. Mr.
Roy stated they have to develop a very comprehensive design development plan.
• Concerned with how the fuel modification would impact the existing landscape and potential
screening opportunities. Mr. Roy indicated screening could be accomplished with the palette
identified and Mr. Clark indicated DRC would review more detailed landscape plans in the
future to ensure screening was well executed.
• Noted it was the first time seeing how the grading was going to work on the ridgeline. Mr.
Yoshida explained how it was changing from the old grading plan to the new one.
• Concerned that the ridge along Irvine Regional Park would be changed but the effect of it
would be a much more pristine experience in the park by creating more of a berm.
• Questioned the grading at the base of the Bennyhoff bump. Mr. Roy indicated the houses
would be around the base of the bump.
• On the Draft EIR addendum on page 31 -4 questioned the statement that "simulation provided
for the views from Irvine Regional Park showed that proposed houses and other structures
would not be visible from the park" and thought this was not entirely true. Ms. Le explained
that 2 view points had been addressed previously in the EIR. The Addendum described
updated information for only the 2 previously evaluated view points and the homes were not
visible from Irvine Regional Park from those view points. Ms. Le indicated that staff would
clarify the language in the Addendum.
• On the Draft EIR addendum on page 31 -7 questioned the 2 oak trees mentioned in MM V -3
and if they were 2 specific oak trees. Ms. Le explained that the measure was referring to the
previously approved Sector E which has been dedicated to the County as open space and it
was not specific heritage trees but just oak trees that were to be located near the trail
entrance.
Vice Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval of DRC No. 4847 -16, Santiago Hills II
Design Guidelines, to the Planning Commission and City Council based on the findings and
conditions listed in the Staff Report and considering the addendum to the previously- approved EIR:
SECOND: Robert Imboden
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 5 of 8
(3)DRC No. 4823 -15 Encore Residences Prospect
• A proposal to construct 28 senior apartments and associated improvements.
• 184 N. Prospect Avenue
• Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb
• DRC Action: Preliminary Review
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
The applicants who were present for this project were Jeff Moore and Roger Hobbs.
Mr. Hobbs stated they were excited about redeveloping this area. He discussed the parking
requirement for the project.
The Committee questioned staff about the reference to a divided light window in the staff report.
Mr. Ortlieb explained it referred to the bottom floor windows which did not match the second and
third floor windows. It was noted that the landscape plan was conceptual and Mr. Ortlieb said the
plant palette still needed to be nailed down by Crime Prevention and Fire staff.
Public Comments:
Chair Fox opened the item to the Public for comments. There were none.
Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion.
The DRC commented on the following:
• Questioned if the balconies and porches were right on the sidewalk as shown on the site plan.
Mr. Moore said yes and noted what the Committee was looking at was not an updated street
scene plan because the Fire Department changed their turning radius so the building had to
be pushed closer to the street.
• Noted on the north elevation that it was unclear where the fence would be on the property
line. Mr. Moore said that fence would no longer be on the project.
• Questioned if there would be any security for the units on the lower floor. Mr. Hobbs said
there would be wrought iron fences around the patios.
• Questioned the staff about the allowable property line fencing. Mr. Ortlieb stated they are
still testing out the Urban Mixed Use code. 42" is the standard front yard fence height.
However, given the absence of front setbacks in the UMU zone fence height is unclear.
• Questioned the existing block wall shown along the north side of the property and was told it
would remain. Mr Moore said the brick wall on the north elevation would be demolished.
• Noted discrepancies on the drawings like on the north elevation which showed a column base
but it was not shown on the east elevation.
• Wanted more information on the popouts showing exactly where they were and how big they
would be, and that the popouts shown on the second and third floor were not the same.
• Objected to the thin wall on the arch and wanted it thicker.
• Agreed with staff about looking at easing sharp corners at lintels.
• Very important to study the project at street level.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 6 of 8
• Asked what was meant by the private space right on the street and was anyone going to use
that outdoor space right on the sidewalk.
• Noted the aesthetics on the front of the building with the balconies and the corner common
area were the weakest parts of the project and was not all that attractive. Wanted the quality
of the outdoor spaces looked at.
• Questioned the different window treatment on the first floor compared to the other floors.
Mr. Moore said there was no significant reason other than the architect looking to make a
separation between the first floor and the second floor.
• Wanted to see the corner element reworked noting it was not a very strong architectural
statement. Mr. Hobbs asked if the covered area was required and Mr. Ortlieb said it was not
a requirement and open space amenities are a menu -based option. The common area has to
be provided and it has to be cohesive.
• Suggested the patio roof -cover break from the main form and appear more like a porch on a
building rather than holes cut into the building.
• Asked if there was a way to switch the mechanical room and stairwell with the clubhouse.
• Noted the one -story clubhouse helped transition to the two -story building next door.
• Suggested changing the clubhouse into a one -story apartment so it would still break up the
mass and move the clubhouse somewhere else.
• Noted the plans did not show streetscape conditions. Mr. Moore said there would be no
block wall along Prospect.
• Noted there was no street parking and the front entry needed to be reconsidered.
• Asked if there was a way to push the tower balcony units back into the building and have the
other part of the building pulled out for balance.
• Suggested moving the clubhouse to the center.
• Noted the open space in the back was remote and concerned with the blank three -story wall
facing west. Suggested moving the spa open space to another place so the clubhouse was
oriented to it.
• Questioned the grading plans on Section B along the south property line with a 6' wall with
no wheel stops, a weak parking area with vines every 27', and a 10' drop on the property line
next to the adjacent property. Mr. Moore said by code they have to build a 6' wall between
the 2 properties.
• Questioned the conceptual landscape plan requirements for trees along the property line and
parking lots. Mr. Ortlieb explained with the Urban Mixed Use standards there is not
requirement for trees at the property lines except at the front setback which is 1 tree for every
30 lineal feet and 10% of the parking lot landscaping was required.
• Noted this landscape approach would become disappointing after 10 years. Suggested in the
bigger planting areas, to use bigger trees such as a sycamore.
• Wanted the vine pockets repeated on the north elevation and to have at least some plants
growing vertically.
• Suggested it be designed more like an urban building and make it so it does not look like the
street was widened.
• Suggested the applicant look at the AMLI project which gave the front spaces a more
defensible feeling with raised porches.
• Thought the project was appropriate for the location.
• Noted some coordination issues with the windows between the plans and the elevations.
• Questioned the windows on the landing at the stairs and suggested it be redesigned.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 7 of 8
• Wanted the bedroom window on the west elevation looked at again.
• Not sure if there was a rhythm or reason to the shutters and they seemed random.
• Discussed the proposed use of sliders, single hung, and double hung windows.
• Wanted the sill heights as high as possible for safety on upper floors.
• Wanted a reason behind the use of divided lights and wanted the windows to have a cohesive
point.
• Concerned with the fake window over the clubhouse and preferred a real window.
• Concerned with the nearness of the three -story corner to the existing two -story unit on the
adjacent property.
• The back of the building by the spa area was blank and suggested using some interesting
windows.
• Suggested using a hip roof instead of a shed on the private spaces in the front.
• Would like to see variety and control on the towers.
• Noted the applicant would need to check with the Fire Department before they come back to
the DRC with the landscape plans and to coordinate the parking lot lighting with tree
locations.
For Preliminary Review only — no action required.
City of Orange — Design Review Committee
Final Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2016
Page 8 of 8
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn to the next Design Review Committee
meeting on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: Craig Wheeler
AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Tim McCormack, Anne McDermott, and Craig Wheeler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.