Loading...
05-18-2005 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL Committee Members Present Staff in Attendance: Committee Member Absent: Jon Califf Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Wednesday, May 18, 2005 Rick Otto, Acting Planning Manager Edward Knight, Principal Planner Howard Morris, Landscape Coordinator Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary Donnie DeWees Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an administrative session beginning at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 2 1. DRC No. 3996-OS -THE IRVINE COMPANY Santiago Hills IUEast Orange Planned Communities Design Guidelines Review of Design Guidelines for the Santiago Hills II and East Orange residential developments Staff Contact: Edward Knight, Principal Planner DRC Action: Final review and recommendation of the proposed design guidelines to the Planning Commission Chair Califf inquired if Staff wanted to provide any additional illumination on the report. Planner Edward Knight commented that Staff is looking for a final review by the DRC. He would like the committee's overall impressions of the design review guidelines and specific concerns or issues with them that should be expressed to the Planning Commission. At this point Chair Califf asked the applicant if there were any inputs from the previous meeting they would like to have addressed or if they are content with them going forward with the recommendation at this time. The applicant responded they are content with moving forward and added "the earlier dialogues were useful and appreciated". Chair Califf then advised the discussions would begin with the more detailed design guidelines. Applicant Roger McErlane wanted to clarify again that the Santiago Hills II area has more detail because they are at a tentative map level of planning. When you get out to East Orange Areas II and III they are still at the program level. Chair Califf inquired when these get to the tentative map stage will they reflect similar levels of detail? Mr. McErlane responded affirmatively. Committee Member Joe Woollett expressed he had thoughts in three basic areas; first, that the DRC should review future designs. The next had to do with the designs themselves. For Santiago Hills II he remarked that he had a lot of comments to make about the designs and thus requested they go through them on a page-by-page basis. He pointed out that while it was clear to him that the Irvine Company had done their research and did excellent work in responding to the City and the City's desire to somehow provide a stamp of identity of Orange on this development, the expression of some of these historic styles in Orange is not the same as it is in other areas. Due to the DRC's familiarity with Orange, and in order to maintain that specific identity, he stated there were a few little things they could address that would facilitate the overall objectives. Committee Member Woollett's third point related to landscaping. He commented that the Irvine Company has awell-known reputation for their desire to really do a great job on landscaping and noted that neither the City nor the Irvine Company had landscape architects in attendance at the meeting so the comments would be limited in this area. An inquiry was then made as to next steps. Ed Knight informed the group that as is noted in the Design Review Guidelines, the initial page says that the guidelines are detailed enough that for conventional subdivisions, they should be able to bypass the review process and be able to go on City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 3 to a building permit. We have met with the company and historically looked at how projects are reviewed in the City of Orange. He pointed out that although they felt the Design Guidelines did a lot, and achieved a lot, from Staff's perspective, for conventional subdivisions, there was still a need to bring that project to the Design Review meeting. There would be an initial Staff Review of the layout of the subdivision to ensure that the police and fire concerns are being handled. Once that's completed it would then be brought forward to the DRC for review. Using the guidelines it would then go through a process here and once that's completed, then the applicant or builder would be able to move on to get their building permits and begin construction. The other type of project being proposed is known as the B map. What is going to happen with those is that you are going to see another map, another tentative tract map. A lot of those projects are going to be either condominiums or town homes, or even detached homes that are slightly different from the traditional or conventional subdivision that is very prevalent in the City of Orange. Those would be major site land reviews. The DRC's role would be to make recommendations to the Planning Commission; then the Planning Commission would see the tentative tract map plus the DRC recommendations on the major site plan review. Orange tract map documents then go on to the City Council for a final discussion. Mr. Knight was then asked if the DRC's focus is on the architecture as opposed to how each lot works. He responded that it is mostly focused on the architecture along with reviewing the signage and landscape plans. Committee Member Joe Woollett added that they are also interested in seeing the placement of buildings as that is an integral part of the design. He commented further on tract design and noted that at the last meeting they discussed a 20-foot setback. If that doesn't work when you look at the whole block or street, he pointed out that someone has to exert some design thought in terms of introducing a little variation. The applicant declared they will be looking at each of these very carefully. The page-by-page review now commences with Committee Member Wheeler indicating his first point was just covered and moving on to Page 2 of the Santiago Hills II booklet he questions the third paragraph in the home style section. It mentions specific criteria including typical average home size; however, he could not find anything that addresses home sizes. He then asked if it had been decided that was no longer applicable to the Design Guidelines and if it was covered elsewhere or should be removed. The response was that at one time they did indicate some square footages and then became concerned about locking something in when they weren't sure what it really would be. Committee Member Wheeler then asked if this was an appropriate forum or appropriate place to discuss home sizes or something like a FAR that would give the designers a guideline as to what they can do rather than just build to the max and build to the setbacks. The applicant stated their preference is to try and define what the marketplace is looking for at the time of development. That is typically when they would set actual product sizes. He added that their preference would be to not include any kind of square footage, other than setback and they do include things about variation and architectural elevations, so it makes it very difficult to max everything. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 4 Committee Member Wheeler commented again that it pushes into a situation where something might come to the City in the final steps of design and that is not acceptable. For that reason it may be in the best interest of all concerned to enforce with some maximum FARs or perhaps some average neighborhood FARs to encourage differentiation. The applicant indicated they try to do this by addressing different product types throughout the entire community and added they do have a wide variety of square footages that sort of spread throughout the community. Too much variation in a neighborhood however creates difficulty in production building. Chairman Califf pointed out that it comes back to the question "are setbacks sufficient to ensure the diversity that both parties are looking for"? The applicant's response was that if the guidelines regarding massing and articulation were not available it would be more of a concern. This was confirmed by the other applicant representatives with additional input that perhaps a range may be appropriate. Committee Member Wheeler encouraged starting out with some sort of mass ratio and if there was builder objection to that then the DRC would be open to changing it. The applicant stated the worst thing would be if the builders developed a floor plan and the whole site plan comes to the DRC only to have the DRC disagree with it. He confirmed they definitely had experience with other projects that would allow them to arrive at some numbers which are many times based on FAR. Chair Califf pointed out that this is where a range is more appropriate at this point in the process. Committee Member Wheeler suggested a range for each different home type be provided. The applicant responded "if our design team is saying they can do that then we'll try to do it". He suggested further that they approach it two ways: the zoning code sets out regulatory requirements and these are intended to implement those requirements and give flexibility in design but if regulatory is not available as described within the guidelines then the applicant would provide a recommendation or suggestion. Committee Member Wheeler thought this would be great. Committee Member Woollett asked if there is a lot coverage requirement in the zone ordinance. Staff responded there is no lot coverage requirement in Santiago Hills II and the applicant would provide a FAR range to Staff so it could be incorporated into the design guidelines. Inasmuch as it could not be added without research, Staff agreed to do further research and come back with a suggestion. The next remarks relate to Page 4, last paragraph: Committee Member Wheeler noted reference to a network of multiuse equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails, and an elementary school, yet he only found a little bit of reference to trails in the guidelines and didn't see anything of the elementary school. He asked if it was covered elsewhere or not known yet. The response was that Santiago Hills II originally did call for an elementary school in that planned community; however, in December of this year, the Irvine Company entered into a new agreement with the Orange Unified School District and the need for that elementary school was eliminated. It will therefore need to be stricken from the reference. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 5 The applicant also noted they have an elaborate trail system that is part of the overall community design. It has already been approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, but it does not show up in the graphics here. He also indicated the school is probably going to be built in East Orange, Area I and the subdivision was designed to have a street interface so there are no houses directly adjacent to the school. Page 5: Committee Member Wheeler questioned the open space framework diagram showing a neighborhood park on the North side of Chapman but the maps on Pages 7, 49, and 54 don't seem to show it. The response was: The referenced diagrams were really showing zoning and the park isn't zoned so that's why it wasn't shown; the framework document is really intended to show what is on top of the zoning. Regarding Page 15 under architectural philosophy, the next to last sentence: A home designed to a particular set of compatible styles, is always stronger than a home that has a style applied after the floor plan has been designed. Committee Member Wheeler commented, "can we have that bold and underlined; I think that is excellent." On Page 16: Committee Member Wheeler indicated he was having a hard time (probably just due to a lack of understanding) in correlating the table with the housing styles as shown on Page 47. He cited an example: at Page 16, there is a type called "court single family attached" but he couldn't find anything specifically on Page 47 that says that. He pointed out there are a couple courtyard single family attached and asked if those were the same thing. He also indicated Pages 16 and 47 seem to be redundant. He then suggested eliminating the table on Page 16 and just adding the architectural style information to the table on Page 47. By only having one table there won't be any mismatch between the two and it would be easier to look at the specific home type to see what the style is going to be without having to go back and forth to figure out what is going on. A sample table was provided for the applicant's reference. The applicant indicated they would correct them. On to Page 17: Committee Member Wheeler suggested a few other features be mentioned under general attributes: 1) For Spanish Colonial, or it can also be called Spanish Eclectic, one would be towers either square or round, because that's often a feature. 2) Elaborate chimney tops. 3) Colonnades, pilasters, and things of that sort. The applicant's response was "the more we can put on, of things that you would like to suggest, would be acceptable. Definitely towers are real indicative of what we are looking for. So, maybe we made our bullet points way too simple, and we certainly can add to that." Committee Member Woollett then questioned the reference to massing on Page 16: "You say, one or two story links forming a courtyard. What do you mean by courtyard?" The applicant responded: "an interior courtyard, a lot of times you do build all the way around, sometimes there is an enclosed interior court, sometimes it is a U-shaped house, with courtyard." City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 6 Committee Member Woollett then clarified that it is an outdoor space that is surrounded on at least three sides. The applicant responded affirmatively. Page 19: Committee Member Woollett pointed out that on the nicely drawn rendering at the bottom of the page, there's kind of a tower element there that doesn't seem to be related to the roof below it. Committee Member Wheeler shared his concern as it was his opinion that in this rendering it seems to be coming down right in the middle of the archway which isn't something that would be done. Committee Member Woollett added it should never be done and that part of the Spanish Colonial style that is very important, is that it is emulating load bearing, usually a heavy kind of wall structure. What we see happening again and again is the tract builder doesn't understand that and blows the design completely. Collectively they agreed that this one rendering is sending the wrong message. On Page 21 some additional features that might be mentioned under general attributes for Monterey were: 1) French Doors opening onto second floor balconies (perhaps they're called full height windows). 2) Detail column capitals at the balconies where they often have scroll work type block at the top. Emphasize the trend that seemed to be done a lot in the 30's with Monterey style, a variation of wall finish materials between the two levels--sometimes a board lap siding on the bottom and stucco on top. The applicant responded that he thought some of their images did that but perhaps they just didn't mention it. Committee Member Woollett then asked if the terms "deeply recessed or trimmed in wood" really meant wood or did they mean looks like wood?" The applicant responded that on a house like this they would actually do wood and on a Monterey they are typically showing more wood details. Committee Member Woollett said this is an important guideline to be understood if they were going to be seeing this again. Chair Califf then asked the applicant if they had any inclination to encourage clay tile. The applicant responded they would like to say they could do it; however, cost is an issue and they work with some really great concrete roof tiling manufacturers and really push for the very best. The most natural looking of the concrete tiles is an S tile. Further, on a Monterey they might want to see a flat the as it helps to give more variety. Committee Member Wheeler added that flat tiles, even shingles, seem to be more appropriate for Monterey. City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 7 Committee Member Woollett pointed out that on Page 23 one of the sketches (the little vignette) in the upper left hand corner appears to have a flat, thin opening that doesn't work with the style. The applicant responded that it did look out of scale and they would find a better image for it. Chair Califf then asked the applicant if they were going to persist with including Craftsman in the Design Guidelines. The response was that if the DRC wanted to recommend that it not be included or that it's use be very limited, that would certainly be okay. Committee Member Woollett thought they ought to include it but there ought to be some further definition. Committee Member Wheeler reiterated that this is not Old Towne but a new project. He suggested that it instead be called Craftsman-like, or Craftsman Revival. His preference being Craftsman Revival as we can build a modern house that at least refers back to the memories and associations with Craftsman but without having to be fanatically rigid to the details of it. He added the need to really clamp down on what is wanted, as far as how realistic, how close to the original do we want it, and set some definitive limits. Committee Member Woollett then expressed his preference which was to try to leave it as Craftsman and try some other things. Otherwise, his concern was it may be confusing, i.e., under massing, it talks about a raised front porch. If you raise the front porch does that mean you raise the first floor? And what do you mean by a raised front porch? Is it really up 2 or 3 risers? The raised porch is appropriate, but it infers a raised first floor or at least a partial raised first floor. The discussion continued with roofing choices. Flat or shingle? There may not be an expression in Orange for tiled roofs with Craftsman so consequently it could end up with shingles which may be a fire hazard. At this time Committee Member Wheeler interjected that he would like to have more of a compromise, some sort of low relief hardy the - a composite that is more fire retardant. The applicant advised they will check into this. Committee Member Wheeler added he thought it was worth going for as it is a great style, quite characteristic of Orange and he didn't think it occurred anywhere else around the county, at least in terms of new developments. The applicant commented if they were going to proceed with Craftsman it was talked about as being a single story house, or maybe a single story with a small second floor that is hidden up inside the roof line and instead of being typical you would see that house within the neighborhood. He added that he thought the discussion was going to help them a lot, with the form, massing and to fit the style a little better than trying to apply it to every two story house they have. Committee Member Wheeler sought assurances the discussion wasn't confusing between Craftsman and Bungalow; you could do a nice two story Craftsman. He considers the Gamble house to be a Craftsman and grew up in a very big two story Craftsman so he believes it is achievable. Although in Orange there is mostly the Bungalow style, or 1 or 1-1/2 story, his opinion is you could do a two story Craftsman. Chairman Califf cautioned you just need to be careful of the mass. Committee Members then made the following requests: City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 8 1) Under roof strike the words, tile, flat or shingle. The applicant responded "shingle is what you're looking for." Committee Member Wheeler confirmed. 2) Under windows and doors it should be specified: wood trimmed doors and windows. The applicant clarified that the window itself is probably going to be vinyl, it is not a wood window. Committee acknowledged and indicated they struggle with white. The applicant responded they would be sand or an almond color but not white. 3) Under windows it should be clarified that horizontal sliders would not be allowed with Craftsman style; instead, single and double hung vertical slider, casement, awning; all would be fine. 4) It should be noted louvered shutters are not permitted. 5) Under Details and Ornamentation: under porch columns, strike brick. Plaster would be appropriate. 6) Shingle siding, horizontal lap siding -- hardy plank, smooth is better, made to look like it was painted twenty thousand times. These are all acceptable but not artificial wood grain. The preference is lap siding. It may be beneficial to specify how much lap siding. We clearly don't want lap siding at the front, stopping at the corners and turning into stucco for the other side. We'd like to have it specified that if it is going to be a lap sided house, a certain percentage has to be this specialty siding. The applicant indicated they could do that and would never do the store front" appearance anyway. They would always try to do the same treatment on all four sides. It was agreed that that if siding is an application for the elevation, it should continue on all four sides. 7) Under windows and door, the third bullet item: "divided lights in all or top" should probably read "top portion". Applicant agreed. 8) Some additional features that might be mentioned under General Attributes for Craftsman would be: a) Dormers, either shed dormers or gable dormers. b) Chamfered Eased edges on the outlooker beams. c) Trellised porch or shared roofs-these are a common feature and add nice detail. d) Porch railings sided with the same materials as the house. e) Special garage placements and treatments -- garages on a Craftsman style should be tucked out of the way, set back or side in. Applicant agreed with this. On Page 26: Several Committee Members had issues with the illustration at the bottom of this page: the stucco, the roof that is a rambling composition, the two pitches facing front, both pitches coming up to the ridge, which you wouldn't do; it has a one riser porch, exposed rafter tails showing on the porch but they don't seem to appear on the second floor eve, no outlookers at the barges and it doesn't have any brackets. The applicant responded that this is indicative of City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 9 the problems they were having. They were trying to find examples of a good contemporary example. The Committee pointed out that some of the other photos were really very good, i.e., the drawing just above the large one on the left with the apparent raised porch. They commented that the stone and the shingles were great, the outlookers were all there and the way the roof structure is developed is terrific. On Page 27: the vignettes are fine except for the one in the lower left. Committee Member Wheeler was asked for comments on the large picture on the right to which he replied it was different and it's probably not Orange but he thought it was close enough. Committee Member Woollett pointed out that it was rough stucco which again Committee Member Wheeler commented he had seen that, just not in Orange. It was also suggested that the two pictures on the lower left hand side be removed as they are misleading-the shutters, the vertical paneling didn't work, the brick and the very obvious concrete the wrapped over the edge of the barge didn't work either. The applicant responded they would do some more searches. On Page 29: Staff commented they appreciated the objectives called out in the building articulation but they expressed concern they may not have sufficient teeth. Often when there is a submission for a housing project it is built to the setbacks. It is built to the max. Once again, they pointed out that a floor area ratio, or something like it, would help add some muscle to it. On Page 36: Committee Member Wheeler suggested that under criteria, the last item, the whole pitch issue be eliminated there and be referred back to the individual styles, where each of them does mention their own roof pitch. This just saves a little bit of redundancy. On Page 37, under Criteria: "Balcony railings are encouraged to be consistent with architectural style": Committee Member Woollett wanted this amended to say "balcony railings must be consistent with architectural style". Further, the same applies to covered balconies and living area cantilevers, it should be specified these must be appropriate to the architectural style. On Page 38: also under Criteria, Paragraph 3: "Homes directly adjacent to the arterial road, raised entry drives and open spaces" where it says "are encouraged to be given particular attention", that should be stricken and instead say, "the rear and side articulation must reflect the style of the building". The applicant pointed out that it was their intent to make sure they gave particular attention to the rear and side articulation when the houses were very visible. Chair Califf reiterated that whatever style is on the front elevation (where it is visible) needs to be consistent on all four sides. In the same section, the next to last bullet: architectural massing and articulation to style is mandatory. We're not just going to "encourage" it. On Page 41: An organizational change was recommended here to reflect the appropriate wall finishes in each of the architectural styles instead of showing primary wall finishes in this area. Consolidating the appropriate wall finishes and the appropriate vignettes to the style area makes City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 10 it a stand-alone section and really ensures you know everything about it. Committee Member Woollett then asked "where else are you going to say Spanish Lace Stucco finishes is not allowed"? Committee Member Wheeler responded "That would go on all of them". This suggestion was recommended for the next one as well: Accent Wall Materials-the appropriate materials information would be listed on the style sheets. Again, the same recommendation followed for the roofing materials. It was noted that on Page 43 there was a reference made to the California Ranch style, which didn't occur in the book. This type of confusion would be eliminated with implementation of the proposed recommendation. On Page 43, under Criteria: "Roof material options maybe dictated by fuel modification zones." Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant if that is what they meant and they responded yes". Committee Member Wheeler requested to revert back to Page 41 and suggested they amend the wording where they referenced "exposed footing should not be exposed more than 6 inches above the finished grade". He stated the reason for this is because it would be very appropriate to have a foot or a foot and a half of foundation exposed at a porch or raised floor look on a Craftsman. On Page 44, 2"d paragraph, 2"d line under intent: Referring to color. Committee Member Woollett asked "what is meant by saturated intensity? Do you mean not adding any white to the basic hue?" The applicant responded that he thought it meant rich, rich colors; however, it depends on the style and further, that it isn't paled down. Committee Member Wheeler added that you can also address colors in each of the style categories. At this point the applicant offered to work on the color section and perhaps attach it to the style section. On Page 49: Committee Member Wheeler pointed out a little technicality: there is a zone, up in the dark brown color, the top of it, that is an "I" lower case "d" yet in going through the home styles there didn't appear to be any map that covers that area. The applicant advised that is the city's affordable housing project that will come later. Their intent wasn't to include it because it was the City's sponsored project and the City has a specific design in mind which is now evolving to be some sort of a sponsored project. The Irvine Company will now be the lead on the project. On Page 56: under Characteristics where it is repeatedly mentioned "Front doors facing street": Committee Member Wheeler asked, "does that mean the front door is on the street side of the house? Or does it mean that it has to be parallel with the street?" The applicant responded he thought it was saying it is visible from the street. The front door is not hidden somewhere, behind the garage or off to the side. The door may be at any kind of an angle. Committee Member Woollett stated that what bothered him with this is the impression is that every door will face the street and that is not the intent. The applicant agreed and offered to make a slight modification. Committee Member Woollett then pointed out the example on Page 51 where the door is off to the side and said the modification should essentially state that the front door needs to be visible. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 11 Another comment provided by Committee Member Woollett was the repeated use o£ "Primary rooms orient towards street." His concern here was that in some of these dwelling types, you may want the kitchen window in the front as that would give the parents an opportunity to monitor the children. The applicant responded what they were trying to avoid was small bathroom windows facing the street and indicated they would certainly have the ability to discuss this further when the plans come in, if it is or isn't appropriate. On Page 56: side straight in garage--l8-foot minimum: Committee Member Wheeler asked for clarification of this comment, was it meant for a corner lot? The applicant responded that it says setbacks to property line front, straight-in garage and the front setback is 18 feet from back of sidewalk to the face of the garage, so that would be the corner lot situation. On Page 59: Committee Member Wheeler indicated that this site plan made him wonder if at some point they should start thinking about offsetting windows between buildings that are close to the property line. His opinion was they needed some sort of requirement for that incorporated. Committee Member Woollett asked why they referenced "zero lot lines" as he didn't find any zero lot lines diagrammed there and didn't see any provision for zero lot lines in the setbacks. Committee Member Wheeler thought they were talking about easements and suggested that if that was the case they delineate the easements on the drawing as it would make it clearer if they could crosshatch the easement areas. Mr. Knight stated that construction-wise the City is concerned about building a house right on the property line and what that means to that elevation. Committee Member Woollett added that two 5-foot setbacks next to each other with a fence in the middle is not a very good solution. The applicant then showed an example of a project that actually exists in San Luis (San Diego county) and explained that basically the wall of the house is a courtyard wall with the windows all raised. Committee Members commented that in this case they would be looking for something that would sustain the semi private nature of the space if you were within a certain range. Another concern expressed here was this allows a building height of 35 feet and that means where the buildings are 10 feet apart, they could be 35 feet high. The applicant responded that while it is possible, it is not the way this program is done. He also added there is a specific in zoning that the third story cannot exceed 600 feet of living space and cannot be added to more than 50% of the units so it is really intended to be a sporadic accent piece. A third story tower may be a painting room with some other kind of features that you may have seen in some of the other models. Committee Member Woollett pointed out this is the kind of thing the DRC would look for when a developer brings in the drawings and the hope would be that the project wouldn't be way down the line and then something like this is brought in where it was excessive. On Page 63: Committee Member Wheeler pointed out that from here on back there are complexes that eliminate the 18-foot driveway. This creates a concern about parking. He then asked what happens to guest and overflow parking in these areas, is it going to be on the curb, or is there some tool to prevent that? Or is there a provision for some guest parking that is not shown? The applicant responded that the regulations have a provision for guest parking in these City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 12 sorts of situations. It is .2 spaces per unit. What you would see on the overall site plan is a tabulation how they came up with that ratio. This will be in the zoning code. Mr. Knight added that at the staff level they would be checking that. On Page 65: Committee Member Woollett asked what mechanism is there so that the alleys don't become really long straight streets. The applicant responded that in zoning there's a definition of what an alley can be, the length and dimensions. He added they too are concerned about the appearance of an alley; that they don't look too long, etc. The applicant then showed some examples where they aren't thru-alleys and are less than 150 feet long. Committee Member Woollett remarked that this was a different kind of alley. The applicant referred to them as "courts" (reference Pages 69 and 71). Committee Member Wheeler then suggested a cautionary statement that alley lengths should be restricted or long continuous alleys should be avoided. Committee Member Woollett expressed concern about implying that the City of Orange has already granted permission that you can have an infinite long alley. The applicant felt that the words "should be avoided" puts everyone on notice and still gives them the freedom to respond to the site plan conditions. The applicant pointed out that on Page 71 this is a townhouse program. These programs put all the garages on an alley which isn't the best but it hides all garages in an attempt to make it look as good as possible. The entire perimeter is facing out to a nice street with front doors and porches. On Page 70: Committee Member Woollett indicated this is what he saw as potentially the most egregious situation where there could be a space between the buildings of 10 feet and the building would be 50 feet high. He then asked Mr. Knight if this was a case where it would be better if the guidelines said 35 feet, instead of just dictating the code. Mr. Knight responded that it may be better to ask the designers if they can get some additional information on that as to put a more restrictive standard is going to be problematic. The discussion continued with a suggestion from the applicant being: at 35 feet high you can be 10 feet apart; however, if they went above the 35 feet, then they would have to setback to increase the space. His opinion was this would accomplish what Committee Members were requesting while still enabling some architectural elements that might go close to the 50 feet. Although the applicant stated he didn't believe they would ever do that he wanted the flexibility. Committee Member Wheeler's response to this proposal was to just incorporate language that narrow lot lines have setbacks without putting specific numbers. The applicant agreed that would be appropriate. Committee Member Woollett then added that generally what happens is a developer develops a plan, and they flip-flop them so you do end up with the high sides next to each other fairly frequently. The applicant responded that they understood what was being required in terms of having some additional separation above 50 feet. City of Orange Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 13 On Page 77: Committee Member Wheeler stated it was unfortunate there wasn't a landscape representative present and that he was having difficulty discriminating the colors. He thought if they used colors that were further apart it would be easier. Further, he couldn't locate Santiago Canyon Road in the lower right. Another confusion he expressed was with the inconsistencies with the street names on some sheets i.e. the maps on Pages 77 and 78 call it Santiago Road (if you use a magnifying glass) while the legend talks about Chapman Avenue and Jamboree Road Streetscape extension, as well as Santiago Canyon Road. Planner Ed Knight clarified they really haven't gotten a final decision on this yet and that the general feeling was the roadway should probably be Chapman until it gets to the corridor, then the corridor would serve as kind of an appropriate boundary line. Until the final decision is reached they are using Chapman/Santiago Canyon Road. Committee Member Wheeler encouraged him to limit the confusion on the drawings citing Page 77 where both Chapman and Santiago Canyon Road were referenced. The applicant then added that what they were trying to implement is a continuation of the street scene which is established along Chapman, up through Jamboree and create transition, continuing that up to the corridor. That was the reason for calling it the Chapman Street Scene, not necessarily the name of the street. Once you get beyond there, you are sort of transitioning to anew style as you get in the more rural area. That's why they are different. They are going to be different street scenes. We have called Chapman and Santiago about four different things on four different maps. Every time we think it is one thing, somebody says it is something else. It does need to be clarified, ultimately. Committee Member Wheeler then stated he had difficulty trying to figure out the relationship between Page 77 and Pages 86 and 87. The reasons cited dealt with terms referenced for different areas, i.e., on Page 77 the terms hillside, open space, transition, buffer, community backdrop, and canyon transition were used. On Pages 86 and 87 terms like oak woodland influenced and tall road edge were used. He then asked how they were related and suggested they use the same naming conventions in both areas on the landscape framework so it would be easy to identify each of the pallets. The applicant responded he thought that was a good observation and they were done at two times. He clarified which one was a plant palette within a certain landscape zone and stated that how they apply to specific areas is a little more general and they were not tied together very well. Committee Member Wheeler indicated he thought a lot of additional work was necessary. He specifically noted that seven legend items on Page 77 mentioned Sycamores while on Pages 86 and 87 there were only two mentions of Sycamores, two different types. Committee Member Woollett then referenced comments provided by Howard Morris; specifically to be careful with the use of Eucalyptus trees. He suggested they be used in limited quantities and not be planted near homes, roads and walkways. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 14 Further, the rest of the plant palette was okay. It was suggested another tree be added to the list: the Plantanus Mexicana, the Mexican Sycamore. It is a great, new, fast growing tree that grows straight up and keeps its foliage a lot longer than the other species of trees. Committee Member Woollett then commented he liked the detail on the trail and the fencing. The applicant commented that it should be noted absolutely none of the landscaping is going to be maintained by the City. It is maintained by the homeowners association. On Page 83 and in sections of 84 and 85: Committee Member Wheeler stated there doesn't seem to be a section cut through the toll road and asked what kind of landscaping is going to happen there? What about sound walls? Or sound control? The applicant responded "For the most part sound control will come in later. You will probably see it on the Site Plan. It will be a combination of berms and walls. So you won't see walls over 6 feet tall." Committee Member Wheeler added it would be nice to have it included here so we know what is planned. On Page 84, section C for Chapman Avenue: Committee Member Wheeler noted it shows a 50 foot minimum setback from the curb to the beginning of the residential area and asked if this is typical for both sides of Chapman/Santiago for the project? The applicant response was affirmative; that is the development setback. It is important that the road still be a predominant experience as opposed to a product. Committee Member Wheeler then compared Page 84 with Page 88 stating there seemed to be a discrepancy between the type of planting on the slope off Chapman highlighting the entry plan on the top of Page 88 shows the theme wood rail fence at the back of the sidewalk but it doesn't seem to show anything at the top. The section on Page 84 calls for Oak, Sycamore, and Pine trees, when the entry plan on Page 88 calls for Oak, Eucalyptus, and Pine. He stated a little coordination was needed. The applicant responded they will try to use the oaks at road edge and as they get within a block of the buildings they will use different plantings. Committee Member Wheeler then added he thought it would be a nice touch if they brought back some of the original wild flowers that are native to the area. On Page 90: Committee Member Woollett questioned the size and use of the pilasters: "Are they a minimum 24 x 24? Then the view fence: are you going to permit any steel posts or will it only be the pilasters, every 10 feet or so"? The applicant responded that the pilasters would typically be at a property line so it would happen every 50 feet and there might be an intermediate post; however, it wouldn't look that much different. Further, they are usually 24 inches square but where there is a slump block flat pilaster, there is only going to be a certain dimension that works with those materials and he didn't know if it was 24x24. Committee Member Woollett stated it is 16-1/8 and when the developer puts in 8x8 or 16x16 that it gets to be too small. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 15 Committee Member Woollett then asked if there was any rule regarding sloping, fencing and walls and how they will resolve draining. The applicant responded there is no rule. They will deal with it and try to make the pilasters different variations using different techniques. Committee Member Wheeler then noted there is probably a fairly good stand of Oaks and maybe Sycamores in this area and asked if lower density homes are going to be able to fit around the existing trees? The applicant responded that was the goal and once again, they are doing zoning level only so they will have an illustrative site plan. At this time Committee Member Woollett suggested a discussion about the Cottage Style referencing Page 25 and asking if they would want to include brick for detail and ornamentation. Committee Member Wheeler responded definitely for details and ornamentation but not as wall material. A motion that DRC 3996-OS be continued to June 15, or the next available meeting of the applicant's convenience was made by Committee Member Woollett, seconded by Committee Member Wheeler. AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:None MOTION CARRIED. City ofOrange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2005 Page 16 Committee Member moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Committee Member Woollett. AYES:Jon Califf, Craig Wheeler, and Joe Woollett NOES:None ABSENT:None RECUSED:None MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.