Loading...
11-04-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL November 4, 2009 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager David DeBerry, City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. Chair McCormack opened the Administrative Session with a review of the Agenda. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. There were no minutes to review, and at the next meeting the Committee should have two or three sets of minutes to review. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she wanted to go over some thoughts, regarding an Agenda item, Ridgeline Equestrian Estates; it was a fairly large project for the City. There might be a number of members from the public that wish to speak. One of the things that she wanted to remind the DRC was that the focus of their decision-making would be on the aesthetics of the project, the layout, the landscaping, and the elevations of the proposed homes. The focus of the DRC would be to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission would be reviewing the Land Use changes, the General Plan Amendment request, and the Zone change request. Those items were outside of the purvue of the DRC. She suggested that either the Chair or she would reiterate that statement to assist the public in understanding the focus of the DRC. With that being stated, she was not certain if there would be a large or a small turnout from the public who wished to speak. She suggested that the members of the public fill out a speaker card and turn that into the Recording Secretary prior to the time that the public comment portion of the meeting was opened. The stack of speaker cards would then be given to the Chair and those wishing to speak could be called up one at a time to assist with the flow of the meeting. What the Mayor generally would do, would be to announce the next speaker and who would be waiting "on deck". That process would allow everyone to speak and keep the meeting moving along nicely. She also anticipated that the City Attorney would be available to speak to any legal issues. David DeBerry, City Attorney, was present. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if there were any questions that the Committee might have regarding dealing with a larger crowd? Chair McCormack stated he was set to go and there were no other questions from the other Committee Members. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there was a podium set up for the speakers and she anticipated that the applicant would be speaking from boards and as usual the applicant would be City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 2 of 34 given some latitude for giving their presentation. As was also usual, Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, who was the Project Manager, would be presenting the item. She stated the public speakers would have a time limit of three minutes for their comments, which was in line with City Council and Planning Commission guidelines. There was no further discussion. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: All DRC 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 was none. CONSENT ITEMS: All matters that are announced as Consent Items are considered to be routine by the Design Review Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless members of the Design Review Committee, staff, or the public request specific items to be removed from the Consent Items .for separate action. 1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 3 of 34 CONSENT ITEMS (continued): 2) DRC No. 4289-07 - ST. NORBERT'S SCHOOL FACADE REMODEL A request for a one year time extension on a previously approved entitlement to remodel the north facade on an existing school building. 300 E. Taft Avenue Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, 714-744-7239, sthakur(ae,cityoforange•org Previously approved at the DRC meeting of December 19, 2007 DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4289-07, St. Norbert's School Facade Remodel, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Committee Member Gladson stated she had one question, and she had agreed with the approval. Timing-wise, could the applicant come back a number of times for an extension? Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated the way in which the code was currently written was that it was a one year extension. This past Monday, November 2, 2009, Staff had presented to the Planning Commission an Ordinance that would go forward to the City Council later in the month, which would change the extension to a three year extension. The entitlements were good for two years and with the Ordinance change it would be plus three with a sunset clause which had been recommended by the Planning Commission to 2013. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 4 of 34 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: 3) DRC No. 4207-07 - RIDGELINE EQUESTRIAN ESTATES A proposal to develop approximately 51 acres with 39 equestrian oriented residential units on 39 minimum one-acre lots with 34 of the lots accommodating private equestrian stables. The project also proposes an equestrian ride-in only arena, open space, approximately one mile of public and 0.7 mile of private trails, private streets, site landscaping, and development of supporting the infrastructure necessary for project implementation. 1051 N. Meads Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, 714-744-7237, cortlieb(a~cityoforangeorg DRC ACTION: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Chair McCormack stated he and Committee Member Woollett had met with the applicant and Committee Member Cathcart had met with the project team as well. Chair McCormack asked Planning Manger, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, to reiterate what she had spoken about during the Administrative Session. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the main focus of the Design Review Committee was to look at the aesthetics of the projects. They would be looking at the landscaping, the elevations of the proposal, and they would not be looking at the proposed General Plan Amendment or Zone changes or Land Use change from "golf course open space" to "residential". That would not be the focus of the Design Review Committee; those items would be the focus of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The DRC would be charged with reviewing the aesthetics of the project and to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, would focus on those components in his presentation. The trails would be reviewed a bit; however, the trails would be presented to the Parks Commission. The DRC's focus was on the aesthetics of the proposed project and the Chair would appreciate that public comment would also focus on the aesthetics and not on the General Plan Amendment, Zone, or Land Use changes. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated in order to allow everyone to speak and to keep the meeting moving, she was asking that members of the public wishing to speak fill out a speaker's card, which was located on the table at the entrance to the room. Those cards could be brought to the table and given to the Committee Chair. The Chair would call the speakers up to the podium to allow them to speak. Chair McCormack stated he wanted to remind members of the public that when they approached the podium to speak they would be addressing their comments and questions to him and not to the applicant. There would be a three minute time limit for public speakers. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 5 of 34 Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Ken Ryan, KTGY, address on file, stated it was a great Staff Report and he would attempt to not repeat anything Mr. Ortlieb had presented. On behalf of JMI Real Estate he was very excited to be present. The DRC review reflected three years of work from their team, particularly with Mr. Ortlieb and Ms. Aranda Roseberry's hard work. He introduced the design team that was present and available for questions. They also used the resources from Alice Sorensen, an Equestrian expert in designing the project. The trails were a subtle addition and a part of the overall aesthetics of the project. He thought it would be helpful to briefly put into perspective the design approach, as it was the DRC's expertise and purvue in reviewing the plan. It was somewhat of an overlay. His preference in hopefully moving forward would be that they could go through the hard work that had been put in the proposed project, that the DRC would respectfully approve the project. If there were any specific conditions or action items, and he wanted to speak to the conditions, his preference would be as it had been done in the past would be as long as they were going in the right direction with the. design intent that many of the follow-up action items could be channeled through Staff, as long as there was substantial conformance. At the end of his presentation he wanted to highlight just a few of the conditions that he would respectfully ask the DRC to think about and to share their suggestions for the best direction on those items. Mr. Ryan stated in terms of the overall design approach, as a team, they had two main fundamental mission statements. The first one was to upgrade the condition of the site; it was formerly a privately owned golf facility that was no longer viable and they had looked at what could be done to the site to enhance the current conditions. The second thing was to focus on community character and amenities. That had been accomplished through a process of blending of a system space analysis; they looked at traffic and water quality, but also looked at four main ingredients: contextural characteristics, client's needs, community input and lastly, market considerations. When they took those areas and blended them in the correct manner they came up with a good design which he believed was being presented. Part of the design process involved community input. They had approximately 1,200 surveys that they had sent out and held numerous coffees with over 400 people who attended those meetings. They had conducted phone surveys and provided website information, and what had come out of the process early on were four primary things. Those issues were to develop the property with an equestrian-oriented lifestyle, think about the architecture and landscape that would be complimentary to the setting, less traffic than the former use that occupied the property and lastly, to provide community amenities that reflected the setting in which the proposed project would be located in. Those four fundamental feedback items that were obtained from the community were the cornerstones for the proposed project that was being presented. Mr. Ryan stated Mr. Ortlieb had done a great job with the overall summary. The 51 acres and 39 one-acre lots were one of the fundamental feedback issues that had come from the community, to build something that was complimentary to the surrounding area. The site was surrounded by low density, equestrian-type properties. The 39 one-acre lots blended in and reflected that. They had utilized the topography of the site, in a very powerful way, which added to the contextual City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 6 of 34 relationship and the beauty of the project. Meads Street, where the primary entrance was located, was also the terminus of where Handy Creek ran adjacent to the property on the west. They had wanted to celebrate the creek. There were an abundance of trees along Handy Creek and they had wanted to incorporate that into the overall setting. The regional trail allowed for future trail linkage. On the property there were gentle slopes that ran along the land and broke up the property and allowed the site to feel fairly organic and also offered spectacular views that fit in with the surrounding neighbors. The proposed project took advantage of the site topography. The landscape was an important piece of the project and for the plant palette they used plants that were reflective of the California vernacular and there were several zones, including a buffer zone, that included a list of appropriate plant materials. There were focal entry trees that would be located in key nodes and visual locations on the property. There was a street tree plant palette throughout the proposed project and there were also common and private plant areas that were listed on the plans. Mr. Ryan stated the proposed project was not LEED certified; many clients had not wanted to get a plaque on the wall and spend the money for LEED certification. From a design and landscape perspective, with sustainability being a big part of the thought process, they would be removing heat islands which were the currently existing parking lot and tennis courts. There would be bio swales along the roadway systems; first flush and water would be collected along the bio swales and then treated before going into the overall drainage system. He wanted to speak to the dissipater. The plan had reduced auto traffic from the previous use and there would be a reduction in terms of trips. The current EIR that was out for public review indicated the trip reduction. The plant palette was very compatible with the natural surroundings of the site. They had thought about being green as far as the land plan was concerned. Mr. Ryan stated he wanted to speak about the trails. The equestrian rural lifestyle in Orange Park Acres (OPA) had trails and was a large part of that. One of the things they wanted to do in regard to trails, and it was one of the things he wanted the DRC to consider in terms of their review, was intended to be subtle and not over-built. Their thinking was with the one acre lots that allowed for barns in the back that would have access to the trails and include internal trails had been planned from a design perspective from the community feedback that they had received. It was not Irvine, it was OPA. He referred to an exhibit that displayed the wide variety of trail conditions throughout OPA. The trail system with the Ridgeline project was built to honor that. He pointed out specifics on the exhibit, and how the trails worked within the development. The trails exceeded the current standard of an 18' right away; they suggested a 15' tread, the City standard was 10', and internally there were trails that acted as feeder trails. The trails differed in size and the thought was that all trails should not be alike, but reflect the use and area they were set in. There would be trails that were open to the public and internal trails that would generally be used by the residents of Ridgeline Estates, but could be accessed by the neighbors and the ride-in only arena. What they had heard early on was the need for an equestrian facility. Community members were concerned from a design perspective that there be compatibility, with a quiet setting that people could access from the trails. In the development agreement that was being worked on with City Staff, JMI Real Estate had plans to donate the Sully Miller Equestrian arena to anon-profit SOIc and that had been considered in the designing of the arena. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 7 of 34 Mr. Ryan stated the street system fit in with the area, with rolled curbs, a bio swale on one side with a trail on the other side. The street system was characteristic of the setting that the proposed project would be located in. The architecture contained a series of floor plans, but they were also fairly focused on what fit into the architectural character of the area, which were the California Ranch, California Traditional, and the California Country. Barns were designed to reflect those as well. He presented a display board with the different home designs and layouts. The homes were large in relaxed settings. He felt it was important, and he referred to display boards on the wall, that they allow the land to speak to them in terms of the layout of the site. He pointed to a board and stated that shot was taken from the west location looking to the east and in the foreground was the ride-in only arena. He pointed out the entry to the site. He stated in the distance there were the existing Ridgeline homes, and the proposed site would be below that view line. The project would blend into the setting that it would be located in. He explained the layout of the site on the exhibit boards. Mr. Ryan stated he wanted to review some of the conditions of approvals that he wanted the DRC to think about. On Conditions Nos. 3 and 7, there was a requirement, that if there were to be changes in elevations on the floor plans that the applicant would need to return to the DRC. He understood if they were going to change to a Mediterranean style or go from an 8,000 square foot project to a 4,000 square foot project, but he felt if they were in substantial conformance that language could be added that stated as long as there were no radical changes, the preference would be to allow minor changes to be reviewed at a Staff level. As long as they were in the color palette, architecture, and in substantial conformance to what was being presented. Condition No. 8, he apologized for not discussing that with Mr. Ortlieb; the condition stated reserved and he was not certain if that was just a typo and asked for clarification? On Condition No. 11 which was the trail standards issues, he had briefly mentioned what their intent was, and what he had just shared with the Committee, based on their discussions with Alice Sorensen, the equestrian expert, they felt it was important that all trails were not the same size and that the feeder trails internally that would be maintained by the HOA, should in fact reflect the other trails that were found in other areas of OPA. Many in the surrounding areas were much smaller than what they had proposed and he had not wanted to force the trails to all be big internally. Their request on Condition No. 11 would be to not adhere to the formal 18' x 10' trail standard on all the trails. There was a very strong design purpose for having the trails in a variety of conditions. Condition No. 12, there were some 600 trees on site and most of the. trees along the trails would remain; the creek was a great amenity and they wanted to celebrate that. Some of the trees would be replaced and the site would end of up with 880 trees. The site would go from 612 trees to 880 trees in terms of the plans that were being presented to the DRC. To mandate that all the new trees be 24" box, they were not certain that it was the best way to go. From a design perspective the thought was to have some 24" boxes at entrances and some of the other locations, but in their experience with areas where there would be high wind velocity, that over time, the right tree at a 15 gallon size would be a stronger tree in the long run. He asked that they think about that in terms of mandating that all trees be 24" box. Condition No. 13, this was the condition that stated the project would need to return to the DRC for irrigation and landscaping on both sides of the trail. He was not certain that it was warranted; it was not the condition throughout OPA, in the case of the street scape, there was trail on one side of the street, and unilaterally there would be some areas that irrigation worked next to the trail, such as along Handy Creek. The trails throughout the entire project would not have landscaping along both sides. He would also request that those changes would go back to Staff and not back to the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 8 of 34 DRC. Condition No. 14 requiring trail turn-out easements on the driveways, he felt that would be an HOA determination and handled through CC&R's; the feeder trails would be handled by the HOA. Condition No. 15 was the requirement that would return to the DRC, it was a recent City-wide adoption and a code requirement that had not allowed tandem parking. On the proposed project, as it responded to the market characteristics and the high end homes, tandem parking was to accommodate a vehicle with a boat attached and allowed for the Ferrari or the electric vehicle to be parked. The request for tandem parking should have some flexibility as they would need that based on buyer needs of the homes. Condition No. 16 was a request to repair the chain link fence on the western side of the property, there was Handy Creek which they wanted to maintain and working toward the property there had been a chain link fence that had been there for the golf course and their intent was to remove that fence. Condition No. 18 was about the dissipater, and he wanted to share some information on that. The design was not complete yet, but they wanted the DRC to understand their intent. He distributed a two page handout to the Committee Members. He stated that essentially the information he passed out explained what a dissipater was and how it would fit into a street section and how the Swale would be used in water collection. He explained the handout to the Committee Members. He stated that there were two photos, one was the existing conditions of Handy Creek, and somewhere behind the grasses would be the outlet for the dissipater with some type of rock, not a slab of concrete, but something that looked fairly organic or natural that would disappear into the landscape over time. His respectful request would be, if the DRC felt they were headed in the right direction, to allow the final plans to return to Staff for review. Condition No. 19 was also to come back to the DRC, which was the signage on the proposed project. They had provided information regarding the monument sign on the size and dimensions, which would be modified a bit with some curvature. The intent of what they presented was to show the materials, stone, and cap, and again he asked that the signage be placed under a substantial conformance component and that it return to Staff. On trail signage, they had not proposed any signage; however, they would be consistent and agree to conform to the City standards. Condition No. 16 was the condition relating to phasing of the trails, they had been working very hard with the City Attorney and their request was to add language: per the development agreement. There would be more specificity in the development agreement with the design and safety aspects of the trail. Condition No. 31 was the letter of map revision which would be necessary and commonly referred to as LOMAR. The engineer on the proposed project had designed the project so they would not need that and he asked that the condition be removed. Condition No. 68 was a request for fire marking. On the map they had indicated that there would be the appropriate signage and the curbs would be marked accordingly. He requested that all the curbs not be painted red, and they would certainly conform to the Fire Department's standards, but they would prefer signage rather than red curbing. From a design perspective it would not be keeping with the intent of the proposal. Mr. Ryan stated lastly, Conditions No. 79-138 reflected the Environment Mitigation Measures and some of the design features; he wanted to state that for the record that the Draft EIR was out for public review and there would perhaps be changes to that document, and that those would be fluid and finalized at a later date. Mr. Ryan stated he appreciated all the DRC Members time and support on the proposed project. Chair McCormack opened the discussion for Public Comment. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 9 of 34 Public Comment Connie Bowen, address on file, stated in looking at the project solely on if it fit the community, and a logical answer was yes. The proposed project maintained the rural aspect of the area and enhanced OPA. It was in the middle of a rural neighborhood and was consistent with the rural aspect of the area. It was interesting that suburbia had been developed around it and the small neighborhood with same sized lots and with the community trail use, regardless of what neighborhood residents lived in and there was the equestrian element that blended with OPA. She was very excited about the project. Rose Ellen Cunningham, address on file, stated she had been a resident of the area for almost 40 years. She wanted to see something done with the property, if only for the fact that it would mean an entity would be responsible for maintaining Handy Creek. For keeping it clean and restoring it to a natural state and managing the creek system. So often the creek was strewn with trash and caused issues with neighboring properties. According to the DEIR the proposed project accounted for additional run-off and would redirect drainage to the landscape rather than to the water system in Handy Creek. Handy Creek needed to be preserved and she was glad that there would be the opportunity for that. She had reviewed the proposed plans for the homes. With the lots, arena, and trails, the homes with the style they had chosen would fit in much better than the 1960 commercial building that currently occupied the property. They fit in better than any of the alternative uses that had been discussed in the EIR. Placing an equestrian facility, a church, or an education facility right on Meads would impact traffic for the residents that lived there. OPA was a residential community and let's be done with the commercial elements and return OPA to what it was-a residential community. She felt the proposed project would fit in very beautifully. Russ Garcia, address on file, stated he had lived in OPA going on his 10`" year and they had moved there for the equestrian lifestyle and rural nature of the area. Over the last two or three years he had spent a lot of time trying to understand what the project was about and how it had been migrating forward. From everything he had seen it fit into the style that was the reason they had moved to OPA. One of the things that he had watched over the two-year period was that the developer had held meetings attempting to get input from the community and he felt the team had done a good job of taking into account the community input on how the project should look and how it fit in. The site had been a golf course and he had taught his daughter and son how to golf there. It was neat to have a golf course there, but in looking at the aesthetics over the last 10 years vs. what would be constructed was a better fit. He would drive a couple more miles down the road to Tustin Ranch. He believed it was a good project and would fit into OPA. Lynn Canton, address on file, stated she had been a resident for approximately 10 years and she could not think of a better fit for OPA; to replace a commercial worn-out business with 39 one acre homes that had beautiful homes and landscaping. Ridgeline would replace anon-equestrian commercial use and would add a recreational use that was appropriate for the community. The residents would gain a public arena, where they could ride-in and would not add to the traffic, and they would get new trails and homes with barns that would add opportunities for the residents to have horses. The new trails would keep Ridgeline consistent with the existing OPA community, but also open up a large area for the residents to explore that had only been open to some tennis players and golfers. OPA was a horse community and the trails and new arenas City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 10 of 34 would give them new opportunities and it guaranteed the Sully Miller Arena would be available for their use and was very important to the community. The project was compatible with the equestrian community and she supported it. Larry Pace, address on file, stated he was a resident of Villa Park. He was a business owner at Ridgeline when it was a golf and tennis club for over 10 years and he could say that over time that he had suffered commentary from members and the community about how the site had become a declining commercial property and business. He had known John for a long time and with the introduction to the project and the idea of creating a wonderful asset for the community and it sounded great. To see how much detail and thought had gone into the project and the involvement with the community, he was looking forward to seeing it and OPA would be proud to have it in their community. Chair McCormack asked for any additional public speakers? There were none. He closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting and opened the discussion to the Committee Members. Committee Member Cathcart stated in memory of Donnie DeWees, the shutters were an issue. Having gone through the architectural elevations there were some of the shutters that ran afoul and that those should be corrected. Mr. Ryan stated was that suggestion to make sure they were the correct size and that they fit the opening, and he stated that would happen. Committee Member Cathcart asked Staff if Howard Morris was still available on a contract basis? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated he was in once a week on a weekly basis and there was an individual that had taken over much of his duties and was stretched rather thin. If there was something that they needed to get in front of him she would make a point of doing that. Committee Member Cathcart stated on some of the landscape issues that would come up as they discussed the project could easily be handled by Mr. Morris. As he was transitioning out he felt some of the landscape questions might need to return to the DRC. Chair McCormack stated he was going to also make the same point. Fortunately, the DRC had two landscape architects. The City, as stated by Committee Member Cathcart, was transitioning away and Staff would not have the ability to professionally deal with the landscape architecture portion of the proposed project. The DRC had been requiring all landscape issues to return as there was not a way for Staff to review that portion of the project. Staff could administer after the DRC had gone through to make conditions. Mr. Ryan stated to be clear, and hopefully, the DRC would approve the proposed project in concept; however, closer to final, they would bring back a landscape plan that showed all landscape and as long as the plans were fine in concept they were okay with the proposed presentation. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 11 of 34 Chair McCormack stated yes, if the concept was final enough they could potentially approve that plan. Committee Member Woollett stated he quite frankly had not known what the public comment would be and he had been waiting to hear from them. They seemed to be answering one of his main questions, which was even though the designs were more formal in an equestrian area the residents of the area were not bothered by that. He had seen a less formal area in OPA and apparently the public was not that concerned about the formal and less formal areas and he would no longer worry about that. He wanted to address some of the concerns the applicant had addressed. First of all item No. 11 had to do with trail standards and as he looked at what had been submitted and he also understood that the project would be presented before a special trail evaluation committee, it was not clear to him why the DRC would be recommending something different than what was in the presentation. Mr. Ortlieb stated when the Staff Report was written they had included all the details of the trails and wanted to hone in on issues that were design related. Condition No. 11 pertained to items in the document that were called Park Planning and Development Standards and there were specific things that spoke to the size of the trail, the signage, and maintenance of the trails. The thought was to place the condition in the review, understanding the Parks Department would deal with those issues. He wanted the applicant to comply with some of the other things that were not being addressed in the presentation. He was comfortable with those issues proceeding on. Committee Member Woollett stated his question to the applicant would be that he was hearing that the applicant was happy to go along with the current conditions, however, he would like to go with the sizes of the trails as they had proposed in their plan. Mr. Ryan stated he was fine with that and he wanted to clarify that they would not need to comply with a strict interpretation of that Condition to maintain all trails at 18'. Committee Member Woollett stated that was his understanding and he liked what was being presented. On item No. 14, he had not understood what the "trail easement over driveway" referred to and asked for clarification? Mr. Ortlieb stated that pertained to the concept, referring back to the trail standards, if there was a trail that was less than 10' in trail tread width, and two horses would be passing in opposite directions there would need to be a turn-out, potentially where someone could pull over to the side allowing another person to pass. The way the standards were structured was that there be a trail turnout every 150'; with the way the trails were mapped out in the project. A driveway could accomplish the turnout requirement. Committee Member Woollett asked the applicant what their issue was with that Condition? Mr. Ryan stated his concern was that they needed clarification on what the conditions meant and also if it was internal to the project that it could be something that would be handled through CC&R's and not a City approval. The turnouts were proposed at 100' so they would be exceeding the standards. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 12 of 34 Committee Member Woollett stated on item No. 16 the chain link fence, the applicant was offering to remove the fence. His perception was that unless there was a need for the fence, it would be better if it was removed. Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff's thought on that was if the creek had a specific ecological state, or to keep riders from veering off the trail the fence would be a deterrent and that was the logic for replacing the fence. Committee Member Wheeler suggested if the fence was needed it could be replaced with wood or vinyl fencing. The OPA specific plan discouraged chain link. Committee Member Woollett stated on item No. 18, with respect to the dissipater, he liked what had been presented and he would be inclined to accept the applicant's proposal. Committee Member Woollett stated on item No. 19, he was hearing that the recommendation was to review the signs in a broader context and not just the sign that was being presented. Mr. Ortlieb stated that was correct. If the DRC wanted to see more specifics for the entry signage the condition would apply and also extend to trail signage. There were not a lot of alternatives as the applicant would need to comply with the trail standards. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt the fewer signs the better. Chair McCormack asked if there was anything in OPA that had provisions that would prohibit individual neighborhood signage. He had seen only one other sign in the area and he wondered if there was an OPA requirement that signs were not wanted? Mr. Ortlieb stated he was not certain. Chair McCormack stated it was very difficult to name neighborhoods for the rest of OPA and the proposed project would stand out as being a name. If they would want the signage to blend in there could be a sign such as ride-in stable, and not have the site be recognized as a different enclave. Mr. Ryan stated their thinking was to present the maximum dimensions and stone for the subtle entry monument sign. He also felt that fewer signs would be better and the sign would be built into the landscape forms. Committee Member Gladson asked if the Parks Commission group would chime in on that issue? Mr. Ortlieb stated for trail signage they very well could. Committee Member Gladson stated they may have a lot to say regarding that, she could see them having input. She concurred with Committee Member Woollett that a minimal amount of signage would be suggested. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 13 of 34 Committee Member Cathcart stated when speaking about signage on the entry monument, the proposed sign information was merely to show size, width, and height; he would like to see some articulation to that entry monument because the architecture of the proposed homes was very nice. He had not wanted the sign to get fussy, but there should be some articulation. Committee Member Woollett stated he thought the architectural styles of the homes had been very well done and they seemed very appropriate for the area. He favored allowing some latitude when the houses were developed. A person who bought an acre lot and wanted to build a home, if they had wanted to change it from what was being presented was okay, and maybe the DRC should attempt to set some guidelines for the size of the building and more general things, but he was not particularly concerned if a buyer wanted three windows instead of two or maybe a change in the material. One of the characteristics of the neighborhood was that there were many differences currently and he was inclined to allow variations, so that everything need not be completed precisely as it was being presented. Committee Member Cathcart stated he agreed and one of the things that he wanted to bring up was the turn-in garage and that aturn-in garage could be used. The variety and difference between the architectural units would make the project better. Chair McCormack stated one of the biggest things he noticed when he went through OPA was the fact that there was eclecticism, there was not one piece of architecture that was the same. He stated he had not seen any contemporary structure and he felt the applicant had really met the mark with the architecture in capturing what blended in. The key thing he would want to see was to not make the site look like tract homes; the design he would want would be to have those fairly large homes set back more. In OPA he had only seen one or two homes that were no more than 30' from the road. With the one acre lots the large homes should be set back a bit more and with all the property why would the houses be so close to a vehicular element. The one story homes could be closer to the street and he suggested to move the homes around a bit, skew them off-line. He noted that in OPA there was not one driveway that was the same; there was asphalt, stamped concrete, and brick, and that was the charm. For the project to fit in, he felt it needed to have that flavor and to touch on those design issues. Chair McCormack stated on two or three of the proposed residences they were 20' from the trail and 30' from the curb face. For a home that large it was pretty close to the ~ street and he suggested that the site plan be re-looked at so that some of the larger homes could be moved back. There were a few portions where driveways were right next to each other on a property line. That netted out to about 30' of hardscape with no breaking up of that. What happened was that someone had not liked their neighbor and they would throw up a fence and would ruin that openness and the natural street scape element. There were three or four lots that had double driveways on the same lot and the driveway for the garage went in and the driveway for the stable went back right next to each other. Mr. Ryan asked if he could comment on some of his observations? He stated they were excellent observations and they had gone through the same thought process. He respectfully asked Chair McCormack to think about the possibility to adjust just a couple of the homes, and that could be a condition of approval. There was a lot of thought in laying out the site, much of that thought process was from the feedback they had received from their neighbors that lived in the area now. They asked what it was like to live in an equestrian community and how was it for the residents that lived there who had no horses? They received a lot of feedback and Alice Sorensen, who City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 14 of 34 was not present, but was an important component to their team; and they found that the barns should be oriented to allow access to the trails and due to the topography they had not wanted to force that issue and had a lot to do with where the feeder trails were located. He felt it was fairly gentle and he respected Chair McCormack's comments, but to force the properties further back, there was an issue that they had heard from the community was that the horses would get spooked if they were out front. Because the site was in a predominately equestrian community, 34 out of the 39 lots had barns, and much of the separation had to do with ensuring the horses would be in the back with the homes out front. Lastly, he agreed with the comments about not wanting the site to look like a tract; they had not added light standards, the orientation and elevations added a certain variety, and they felt they had a good variety on the street scape. Due to the topography of the street they had great horizontal and vertical movement. There were only two or three situations where the side-by-side driveways existed. On the concept board there were landscape elements depicted to illustrate that it was an important element that needed to be treated just as the Chair had stated. In some cases, and there were only two on that street that the Chair had referred to and they had addressed that issue with landscape. If the DRC felt that stone pavers or different driveway treatments should be offered they would be supportive of that. There had been some concerns that the manure dumpsters that came up the street could have more air in the tires to maneuver over the pavers. Chair McCormack stated he was attempting to gain some commonality about OPA and one of the things that struck him was that it was obvious when entering OPA because there were no curbs and it was an asphalt section with gravel, turf, or dirt and that was OPA. One key thing he saw in every front yard was the fact that there was some vertical undulation, some homes were close to the street but there was an undulating eclecticism and there was not one equally spaced street tree in the area. He suggested some of those design elements be used on the proposed project. Mr. Ryan stated if Chair McCormack was to craft a motion that stated the landscape palette should be reflective of what he had just stated he would absolutely embrace that. The charge that they had given the land techs was to honor Handy Creek and the slope areas. They had wanted to break up the street trees in organic nodes. Chair McCormack stated he agreed that on Condition No. 13 that there should be landscaping on both sides of the trail. He understood why it had not been planned that way, but to have some type of buffer between the horse trail and the street was an important facet; in OPA it had not happened all the time. On Orange Park Acres Blvd. the trail was right on the street and on Meads too. If there was the ability to add a buffer, a landscape buffer and trees that would be adjacent to the curb would be greener and mitigate the heat sink of the roadway. Committee Member Gladson stated part of that too was that the trail would not be exclusively used for horses. There could be an occasional pedestrian. She would support landscape on both sides of the trail. Mr. Ryan asked on those issues it was such a small area that it occurred and he would play devil's advocate, to have a wider street scene and more of a setback with a traditional feel? It was included in the CC&R's, that the trees that were planted adjacent to the trail would be organic and of a natural plant palette. The concern in evaluating the situation was to attempt to City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 15 of 34 not make the streets too large and formal; he pointed out the roadway they were discussing and stated it was a feeder for nine homes. Chair McCormack stated they could be on the slope side of the trail or the street side of the trail. Some people would take care of them, some would not and the character of the landscape aesthetic was important in having a tighter framework. With setbacks and homes so large he suggested not having more than 30', like knowing it was asix-inch step, unless it was a one story ranch the home could be pulled up to 20'. He was not suggesting pulling all the homes back, but to vary them and skew them. Committee Member Wheeler stated that was a component of the OPA Specific Plan, that they encouraged different setbacks. Chair McCormack stated the one thing he wanted to state was in terms of the slopes, he was involved with slopes in Aliso Viejo and they had a formula for treating extra large slopes. They used a formula of two trees for every 1,000 square feet; it could be a 5-gallon or a 1-gallon, just as long as it was a tree that was equally spaced. The trees could be at the toe, and he had used that formula to gain a certain amount of coverage on the slope. It worked out great and those communities came out great. He would want to suggest that they get at least '/z or 1 tree per 1,000 square feet. He wanted to put that out there to know what the site would look like in 15 years. If there was no tree coverage, visually there would be a lot of ground cover that would suffer. It would be tough to get the slopes to be mitigated by just relying on the under story. Committee Member Cathcart stated on Condition No. 14, which stated all trees should be 24" box, he suggested that there be some variety in sizes. Chair McCormack stated he agreed and there should be some variety. Someone might want to place a 36" or a 5-gallon and he suggested that the applicant have some latitude in choosing the tree sizes. They had used in the past 75% 15-gallon and 25% 24", and that was not a straight line in the sand and it was dependent on other items. Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to share that she wanted to see the final landscape plans. She was not certain what her colleagues would decide, but the recommendation was that the DRC would get all those details. Mr. Ryan stated that was fine and he would be comfortable bringing back a final landscape plan prior to building permit issuance that was consistent with what was approved. He was uncomfortable with the discussion about the formula and coming up with more trees than what was proposed. There were already 600 trees on site currently; they would be saving 100 trees, moving 157, and spending money to have the buffer edge of trees with the end number of trees being 812 trees. Based on the landscape concept it was a very relaxed solution that felt fairly organic. Committee Member Cathcart stated if in fact the applicant had to conform to Condition No. 14 and have all the trees be 24" box that would be more onerous than adding a few more trees that could be 5-gallon or 15-gallon. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 16 of 34 Chair McCormack stated when he was out at the site it was a golf course and there were probably not many trees out there and the connection to how many trees existed, as a comparison, was skewed and the number sounded large, however, there were not a lot of trees out there. Handy Creek had a lot of trees and they were saving a lot of the trees. To compare the site with a traditional park there would be a lot more existing trees. With the slope issue, and Committee Member Cathcart hit on a good point, it was not to add bigger and more expensive trees, but the trees would be an important green aspect to provide shade. In providing shade to the lower-story shrub area it would mean less water usage and more savings. That formula would save the residents more money in the long run. Mr. Ryan stated he appreciated that discussion, especially not mandating having all trees be 24" box. Committee Member Cathcart stated along with the landscape planting plan he would want to review an irrigation plan. He would want overhead watering limited where possible and consider using a smart controller. He felt the HOA could afford one and it was approximately 250.00 per year to be connected to the SEMAS station in Irvine. Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to understand a little bit about the residence that was on the site. The Ehlen Family CIMIS Association and particularly in the Draft EIR, she was a bit surprised to seeing it dismissed. She was a little uncomfortable that an adequate assessment had not been made and essentially because the EIR was dismissing the property as less than significant there was no need for mitigation and she felt there was a need for additional work to be done. LSA had done the analysis in 2007 and as she read the report she was surprised to know that there was an association to the residence to the Ehlen family. She was disappointed to see it be dismissed as though it was not important in the City's local heritage. It was an outlying farm building and it was something the updated General Plan was struggling with, in ways to deal with cultural resources that were outside of the historic district. It was a perfect example of where they may need to tread a bit more carefully. She had gone to the site over the weekend. The architectural significance of the building was not high, but it was more of a cultural issue because of the family association. She would put it on the applicant to flush out the details a bit more. It was a personal concern of hers. Committee Member Wheeler asked if he could suggest a couple of solutions? Committee Member Gladson stated he could, but technically in the world of environmental review when it came to a cultural resource, the worse case scenario was that the building was significant and its removal would have an adverse impact on the cultural resources and therefore if proceeding with the demolition there would need to be an override. She had not felt they needed to move in that direction, but she knew there were other ways to deal with it, such as a photo documentary. She was not comfortable as a Committee Member in recommending that section of the Draft EIR to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Wheeler stated one of his thoughts was if there had been any suggestions of relocating the building. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 17 of 34 Mr. Ryan stated he understood the EIR was out for public review and that was certainly something that would be commented on and evaluated appropriately. His understanding was that the building was non-contributing and not significant. It would not mean that other mitigation measures could not happen, but as it related to what was being presented, he felt it would not change what they were proposing. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt it was a separate issue. In terms of a hierarchy, the cultural issue of the residence that was on the property and deciding how to retain it, move it, dispose of it properly, or documenting it was part of the CEQA process. She would give the consultant the benefit of the doubt in analyzing the property in 2007, which was prior to all the work being done in the General Plan Update. They simply looked at it from the State historic listing and not from a local level. She felt it needed to be nailed down as it was an area where it could be challenged. She was being very conservative from a preservation standpoint. Committee Member Gladson stated the cultural and aesthetic sections were totally in the DRC's purview and the Planning Commission would want their take on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and it was important for them to chime in, as it was part of their role as DRC Members. Mr. Ryan stated if that was an important issue, it could be something that they could add to a trail feeder that spoke of what had been there. Committee Member Gladson stated on the landscaping and the issue of trees, she acknowledged that the Eucalyptus trees would be retained and she wanted more to be retained. In going through the assessment of the Draft EIR, it appeared that there were five California Sycamores that would be cut down and she had not known where all the trees were, but she wondered if they could still be preserved or protected. She wanted to see if there was a chance to retain more trees on the site. Some would be lost, but particularly on the perimeter she would make a plea for more trees to be retained. Mr. Ryan stated they had attempted to do their homework and they were saving 147 trees. There were some additional trees that would be planted off-site. The Committee reviewed the plans with the applicant and his landscape architect to discuss areas of planting and removal of trees. Chair McCormack stated he had relocated large Sycamore trees. Eucalyptus could not be relocated. Committee Member Gladson stated she had an issue with the perimeter edge and she would want more trees to be saved if they could. Mr. Ryan stated that was what they would be doing. Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred also on the turn-in garage of the architectural aspect of being able to have that option. She was not certain about the tandem space issue and Staff might be able to clarify that issue. The tandem situation would be on the straight-in garages. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 18 of 34 Mr. Ortlieb stated the tandem would be a double tandem. Staff had not accepted tandem parking in other places in the City, such as in needing to meet a required parking space number, it would not be allowed. Instead of having a traditional two car garage there would be a garage with a tandem orientation, Staff had not had the ability to allow that. Chair McCormack stated he felt it was a good feature, especially in reviewing the product. With a resident who had a suburban with a trailer behind it and stored in a garage it was a huge feature. Committee Member Woollett stated it was a matter of required parking. If there was a requirement of three spaces and the fourth space was tandem, there would not be a violation. Mr. Ryan stated typically the tandem rule was fine, and typically in an urban setting, what tended to happen was that a parking space would become storage. In the proposed project that would not be the case, the homes were 6,000 to 8,000 square-foot homes and the space would be used for tandem parking to have a third car parked in that space. Committee Member Cathcart stated he agreed with Chair McCormack that the residents of the proposed project would have the wherewithal to buy toys and those residents should have a place to store them. Committee Member Wheeler stated the requirement was for three garage spaces for properties with five bedrooms or more. Mr. Ryan stated the other reason that issue came up in other settings was that there was no place to park, but in the proposed project there would be adequate space to park and vehicles would not spill out onto other areas. Committee Member Gladson stated she respected the need to meet the code requirements, but she was not bothered with the tandem parking if it met the code with the proposed project. The other thing that was nice with reviewing landscaping again was that the Draft EIR spoke to some biological issues and she would want to give the applicant a suggestion to choose as many native plants to encourage the little critters and birdies that traveled through. She thought that was the intent, but she wanted to specify that it would be her preference. She appreciated the solar and green aspects of the project and she was not certain if the Chair's suggestion for undulating the setbacks and placement of the homes would assist with some of the solar gains. Chair McCormack stated there was a provision for the roofs to have photovoltaics and it would be best to have the roofs in the correct areas to be beneficial. Committee Member Gladson stated she was curious on the secondary access road to Coyote Lane, as it was part of a trail connection. She was not certain if the packet included the details of that area. She was not certain if the other Committee Members had any aesthetic concerns about that. What occurred sometimes after a project was built was that she would go out to a site and realize that some detail had been missed. The access road was built for fire apparatus with a dual trail purpose. She wanted to ensure that area looked rural too. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 19 of 34 Mr. Ryan stated they had spent a lot of time with the Fire Department and the thinking was that with Coyote Lane, they worked with ensuring that the trail would meet the minimum requirement for fire safety; they had gone to 20' which was an adequate dimension and would allow for landscaping. There was also a concern with the 20' width clear, it would be 20' of DG with landscape on both sides of the area and at the same time the area served as trail access. Committee Member Gladson stated she had brought it up to see if her landscape colleagues had any suggestions for the area as it was not a typical tract. She personally had not liked the gate. Chair McCormack stated the gate looked like a fire gate, and when there was a fire burning the Fire Department wanted to be able to locate that gate quickly, he had no problem with it. He understood the reality of the need for access when homes were burning. Committee Member Gladson stated on filtration systems and filteras, the Committee had struggled with all of the water issues and they were not always as attractive as they could be. She asked the Committee Members if there was anything that particularly troubled them? She wanted to understand the dissipater and she concurred with Staff's recommendation that the DRC would review it again. If it was not natural looking it would look really funky. She had seen filteras in the field and they could be great, but if a tree died they looked kind of funny and empty. Some of that needed to be worked out, but she would be inclined to see some specifics. Mr. Ryan stated he ensured the intent of what they spoke of would be implemented. Committee Member Gladson stated she had some issues with vinyl fencing. The applicant was asking to amend the OPA Specific Plan. She was not certain where the vinyl fencing would be installed and what that material would look like. Her initial knee-jerk reaction was no and she would not necessarily support it. Committee Member Cathcart stated it was installed on the Broadmore entry off of Chapman. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was a lot of vinyl fencing out there. Committee Member Gladson stated it was out there and maybe it was irrelevant. Mr. Ryan stated the reason they had asked to have flexibility with the material, ~it was an eclectic area and there was a mix. There were some new projects that had been recently approved and those had vinyl fencing. The flexibility of vinyl or wood was consistent with what had occurred in the area. Committee Member Gladson stated she had seen the use of vinyl in front yards in the area and her inclination would be to have the applicant bring back that detail to the DRC. Mr. Ryan stated if he understood the discussion correctly, the detail landscape plan, the final tree and a few other things, that there would be an approval with some language that stated prior to building permit issuance those items would return for final acceptance. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 20 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated she personally felt the cultural thing that she spoke of with the house and the history of the house, she wanted to get that answer before the Committee took action on the proposed project. She would want that issue cleared up and either have mitigation measures or recommended solutions prior to a recommendation for that area. Committee Member Cathcart asked if the applicant could take the concerns of Committee Member Gladson and return with a solution, rather than having the project go back and forth? Committee Member Woollett stated he was a bit confused with Committee Member Gladson's concerns. The family that owned that house had a building in Old Towne that had the family name on it, and to him that was not very significant. There were many buildings in the City that families owned and they also had properties elsewhere, and he felt that was not a big deal. The family was an important family, but there were a lot of important families. The building itself, even if it was located in Old Towne would be considered non-contributing. There was not a cultural issue from his viewpoint and he thought if it was a real concern there could be a sign that told a story that the residence had existed and the possibility of including something in the library might not be a bad idea. Buildings could be torn down in OPA without any problems at all so why should they have a problem on the proposed project site? He went along with the report on it and had not supported Committee Member Gladson's concerns. Committee Member Gladson stated she respected Committee Member Woollett's position but disagreed. Mr. Ryan stated the hope was that the proposed project would be approved with the appropriate conditions. The EIR was still out for public review and if there were other things that needed to occur when that was finalized they would be open to that. Committee Member Gladson stated generally in terms of the concept, theme, and architecture she liked the suggestion for some flexibility for the potential future homeowners to have some options. One of the things that the applicant had asked for was the ability to handle many of the issues at the Staff level if the proposed project was in substantial conformance and she would intend to agree with that request. She was curious why five of the lots had no barns? Mr. Ryan stated it had to do with space and grading and they had not wanted to grade the site; and also through community feedback there would be residents who would not have horses. With the livability aspect they also responded to the connection with the trails and in some areas that could not be done and those were the lots without the barns. Committee Member Wheeler had previously passed out a list of his concerns. He stated he had not noticed anything in the report about maintenance of the filtera system. Mr. Ryan stated that would be a component of the HOA document. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was fine with the vinyl fences and there seemed to be a lot out in that area and he was not certain what type of material was more appropriate with horses. The Orange Park Specific Plan discouraged concrete masonry walls and he wondered what would be used for the retaining walls? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 21 of 34 The applicant's architect stated they would use something that complimented the architecture, possibly with stucco. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the house setbacks, along E Street the homes were fairly lined up and he suggested moving one or two of the homes back. On the conceptual Equestrian trail plan he suggested adding a ledger and on the same drawing the street sections were duplicated on the tentative tract drawing and he felt that was a bad thing to have the same drawing on two places and there was a bit of a difference between them. He thought they should get rid of the chain link fence and if a fence was needed a vinyl trail fence or steel fence could be used. He agreed that on the non-historic residence there should be something done and at the very least to have a photo documentation done for the property and to add a plaque at the site. They could explore the option that someone might want to relocate the home. There was a page in the Staff Report that spoke about the possible division of the plan into two dwelling units, on both Plans 1 and 3 there were separate areas that were not labeled and showed base cabinets and upper cabinets. In the front of a living space, which he pointed to on the plans, there appeared to be additional living spaces. Mr. Ryan stated the area was a library. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Plan 2, second floor, there was a notation for a second kitchen. He really liked the floor plans and thought they had done a great job with them. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated on Plan 2, Staff had spoke about that and that space was supposed to be deleted or indicated as a wet bar only and not a full kitchen. They were okay with having a sink and some cabinets, it was not an unusual request, and they asked that they not be full kitchens. Committee Member Wheeler stated if the parking requirement would not allow the tandem parking it appeared there would be a problem with lot 13, 17, and perhaps 21 and 22; what was the applicant's fallback position? Mr. Ryan stated that was the reason they felt the tandem parking was appropriate, given the topography and the character of the sights. If the City would not allow the tandem parking they would probably need to eliminate a few homes and redesign those spaces. Committee Member Wheeler stated if an existing model would not fit, he suggested leaving those sites as builder ready for custom homes. Mre Ryan stated they could, however, the thinking was with the variety of the floor plans and the models the concept was to have an organic feel and to create a balance and they had not wanted to introduce an unknown element that could potentially stick out like a sore thumb. Committee Member Wheeler stated the City had an infill design guideline that the DRC would enforce. Committee Member Cathcart asked Staff if the tandem issue had been resolved? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 22 of 34 Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the Parking Ordinance had already been adopted and it was in place. Mr. Ortlieb stated City Council adopted the code that stated with a five or more bedroom residence, three spaces were required. There was no language that stated the three spaces could or could not be a tandem space, so it was actually a policy decision that would be made by City Council. In the DRC's design authority they could make a recommendation to allow tandem parking. The Committee Members concurred that tandem parking would be necessary for the proposed project. Committee Member Wheeler stated the site plan had not shown the specific exterior elevations for each lot and he asked if that had not been decided yet or would they be leaving that up to the buyers? Would a site plan return with all the elevations? Chair McCormack stated he would want to have that come back to the DRC. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to see what homes were placed on each lot. Mr. Ryan asked if that was something that could come back; that the Committee liked the basic concept, but prior to building permit issuance the final elevations and lot placements could return to the DRC? Committee Member Gladson stated she would be okay with that. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was very much in agreement with the use of native plant species for the site. There was an effort in Southern California to bring back the Engelmann Oaks and would that be something possible to suggest in place of the Cork Oak. Chair McCormack stated there were some equestrian-unfriendly plants on the list; the leaves and acorns of the Oak trees were poisonous and horses would eat them. The Prunus varieties were also poisonous. The Hypericum was also poisonous. He had found on almost every website that those were consistently noted as poisonous. Committee Member Cathcart stated he would suggest that the use of those trees could be placed in areas that horses would not be in. Chair McCormack stated he would not want to take the Oaks off the list, but take Prunus off the list. The Engelmann Oak could be a suggested tree. Committee Member Wheeler stated a group in Pasadena, the Arroyo Seco Society, who was pushing to bring the tree back could probably give them some information in locating those trees. He suggested California Fan Palms instead of the Canary Island Palms. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 23 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated there were Palm trees that were being removed and suggested that those could be transplanted on or off-site. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the solar panels would the HOA have any say in where those could be located? Mr. Ryan stated there would be language in the CC&R's regarding the solar panel placement from a design perspective. Committee Member Wheeler stated the more solar panels the better with no visibility from the street and that would mean some homes could not have them. Some solar panels would not look good against the roofs. Committee Member Gladson stated over the next 10 years the technology for solar panels would just get better and they could be done properly. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was concerned about Staff Condition No. 93 regarding the electrical outlet for automobile charging. He would not have the slightest idea what voltage or amperage they would want to suggest; some solar cars were 3-phase, some were 120 and he would not know what amperage they would require and how could they recommend that? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that was a project design feature, it was an air quality design feature and she understood Committee Member Wheeler's thought process. The applicant would come forth with further information on that. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the EIR, page 5.1-18 and on 5.1-27 it referred to a temporary 8' minimum sound barrier and he understood that was a remnant of something that had been thought about early on and had been removed, and it should be removed from the EIR. It appeared that some of the lots, 3, 4, 5, 15, and 23 had their stables fairly close to a water flow line or a bank that descended to a flow line and it was cautioned against in BMP A5, on table 5.7-9 and that should be looked at. He asked if any thought had been given to biomass or a composting facility for the manure? Mr. Ryan stated they could look into that. The current operation was that a scout car would come in and take the manure to another facility. Committee Member Wheeler stated the EIR also spoke about manure storage being in a covered area graded properly with a inpervious floor, and would that be something they would want to incorporate into the stable area. He asked about the deer that was located on the site and if it was something that was worth keeping. Mr. Ryan stated he wouldlook into that. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the roofing the Staff Report called for composition shingle, but the color sheet appeared to be the and he asked if the roofing would be flat tile? A member of the applicant's architectural team stated they would be using flat tile. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 24 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated the Staff Report called for slump block on many of the elevations and stone veneer, but many of the materials that were presented appeared to be brick. A member of the applicant's architectural team stated there would be slump block and cultured stone. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the Staff Report on page 5 there was a notation listing nine color themes and material lists and that the DRC allow the applicant to utilize any of the themes for any of the architectural styles and he asked if that referred only to the color schemes or was it also in reference to the material use? Mr. Ryan stated the thinking was that on the California Country-style, the colors were a bit darker and the colors on that palette were darker, but there would be some latitude in variety as long as it was from the palette variety for that style. There were also a variety of colors in the slump block and brick that could be mixed. Once the elevations were assigned to the lots, they would need to insure that there was harmony, and darker color schemes for the California Country and light material/colors for the traditional styles and no sameness. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Elevation lA he felt the entry door was scary; it appeared to be something out of a British jail and appeared too harsh. It seemed stark and he suggested adding some type of a roof or another detail. On Plan 1 B the drawing had some confusion in soffits and also the ridge heights appeared to not agree. The rear elevation showed a taller ridge and the side elevations had not shown that. He personally would want to see the floor plans come back with roof plans on each of them, and many of his questions could be answered in reviewing the roof plans. Mr. Ryan stated as the project moved forward and his thinking if none of the same people who reviewed and approved the project were no longer present, that the approvals and directions suggested were clear that those items that needed to return were consistent with the entitlement and recommendations that would be made. Committee Member Gladson stated the thing she struggled with was that there was a limited amount of Staff resource and they had lost a critical person in the landscape department and the DRC struggled with the predictable outcome of what would be built and to ensure that it met the community aesthetic. On the flip side they would not want to bring the applicants back, but wanted to get all the details correct. Chair McCormack stated one of the struggles that they had from a design point of view was to see how the applicant would solve some of the issues and having the project return to the DRC was to ensure that the plan that had been presented and the recommendations made was what was built with just a few conditions that could be handled at a Staff level. The next place the project would move to was the Planning Commission and if there was a plan that came out of the DRC recommended to them it would be with just a few things that would be conditioned to changeo City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 25 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated the Planning Commission relied on the DRC to review the design aspects of the project and trusted them to focus on the details; the Planning Commission would be very busy with the Land Use aspects of the proposed project. Committee Member Wheeler stated on Plan 2A on the entry door the floor plan appeared to show it offset, but on the front elevation it was centered. On Plan 2 there appeared to be a problem with the door swinging on the upper landing, he reviewed that detail with the applicant. There were some roof inconsistencies on Plan 2A over bedroom No. 4 and Plan 2C had a chimney that had not appeared on any of the other elevations. On Plan 3A the black and whites showed columns upstairs and downstairs, but on the colored rendering it was more of a Monterey style. He asked that they check the plans for that detail. On the same plan on the front elevation there appeared to be a change in the material from slump block to stucco in' the line from the living to the music room but there was not a change in plane there and he suggested with the change of material that there be a plane change. In the area behind the stables there appeared to be some sort of tent with a gate surrounding it but it had not appeared on the elevations and he suggested that it be dotted in on the elevations. Chair McCormack stated the one thing he noticed in his visit to OPA and his goal to have the site be compatible with the area and for the site to appear as if it had always existed. He had done a whole vegetational mapping with what he viewed at the site and he had gone all over OPA. The predominant plant material was #1 Peppers, #2 Eucs, #3 Pines, and #4 Platanus, and that made up the general feel of that community. His conflict was that the Eucs and Pines were high-fire plant materials and everyone always gave the Eucs a bad rap due to the Bark Beetle. There were some species that were not susceptible to that. He suggested the use of more Peppers than Pines, but to use Pines in areas that had more irrigation and set away from homes and to use Eucalyptus as filler, along with Platanus. To make that palette the major landscape concept. The focal trees were sitting in an area he pointed to on the plans. The other thing he noticed was that the street trees were all small trees and he suggested mixing some larger trees with the smaller varieties. There was not a feel of an urban street tree arrangement For the common area tree he suggested the use of trees that would be thoughtful to horses. The common area trees would be open to what the residents wanted. The core trees should be added to the suggested list of trees. The shrubs have at it, although there should be an extra palette that dealt with Condition No. 95, removal of approximately 1.7 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, and what was spelled out to be looked at was the Coastal Sage and in looking at the grading plan there would be grading to the property line and removal of that entire section of Coastal Sage habitat. They would need to find a place where the Coastal Sage would be placed back on the plan with the sub-shrubs that belonged in that community. He had found only five native plants on the applicant's palette and he suggested using more native plantings. In his experience with detention basins there needed to be a very good plant palette for the detention basins, it would be a very small list and there were few plants that could take the underwater conditions and the pounding summer sun. He wanted to maybe do a trick on the slopes which he had done before by placing Evergreens at the toe and the slope would be hidden and it retained the higher views. The fuel modification was not on the list and he felt the Fire Department would be coming back. Mr. Ortlieb stated the Fire Department had spoken with him regarding the area as being a high fire area and they had actually spoke about items for the architectural exteriors having special City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 26 of 34 treatments on exposed wood features. He was speculating that it could lean over to the landscape areas as well, once the Fire Department reviewed the final project. Committee Member Cathcart stated it appeared that the Fire Department had already taken their swat as it was stated that the sprinklers were part of the Fire Department's requirement. Mr. Ryan stated they had met with the Fire Department and it would be disappointing if they came in to suggest a different plant palette as that had not been communicated to them and they already had fairly restrictive conditions that every home had fire sprinklers in them. He appreciated that comment; however, it would be disheartening considering the amount of time they had already spent with the Fire Department. Chair McCormack stated there were a lot of tennis courts in the area and asked if there were any provisions in the CC&R's that tennis courts would be restricted due to lighting? Mr. Ryan stated there would be some restrictions on what residents could and could not do to ensure the integrity of the area was maintained. There were other private residences that had tennis courts in the adjacent areas. The plan was for no street lights and things of that nature. Under appropriate screening and with the proper setbacks he would think that tennis courts would be built into some of the lots. Committee Member Gladson stated on Condition No. 76 on the high-fire danger there was wording that spoke about eaves ends to preclude the entry of flames. A member of the applicant's team stated the perimeter of the project would be a wet zone and all the homes would be set back from that wet zone and that would be used as a wet zone with all of that area being irrigated. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated that Staff had a list of items that they had wanted the DRC to speak specifically to and if the DRC was at a point of crafting a motion, Mr. Ortlieb could go through that list and they could get a sense about each of those, then the Committee Members could add anything additional. Committee Member Gladson asked on Condition No. 8, which stated reserved, if that was just a typo? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was a typo, and it could be noted as not used. Committee Member Woollett stated many of the things they spoke about were already in the recommendations and in some cases they would be changing that recommendation a little bit and there were some that would be added. Chair McCormack stated they had a choice to either continue the item with all the suggestions and he had the issue on the building orientations and would there be a better way to not have the site feel like a tract. On the landscape, that would come back. What would be the plan that went to the Planning Commission that showed approved on it? The plan, and he was not certain what City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 27 of 34 everyone else felt, but typically the plan that went to the Planning Commission moved forward with the approval and the notation of what items should return for review. Mr. Ryan stated on that particular issue he would respectfully request that the proposed project would move forward and conditioned with those observations and suggestions that had been made and that they would undulate the homes as much as possible, they would appreciate moving in that direction. Committee Member Wheeler stated they had spoke of seeing a landscape plan and seeing a plot plan that had the building elevations on it and he personally was opposed to continuing the project and that they should condition those items that they were concerned with. Chair McCormack stated he was willing to approve the project; that it was a specific project and not tilt-up commercial. The approval was easy to make; that they would be approving what had been presented. Committee Member Gladson stated she was struggling with the fact that they would not review the re-plotting of the homes prior to submission to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Woollett stated it could return with the landscape plan and could Chair McCormack suggest some range of motion that would be a guide. Chair McCormack stated his biggest heartburn was the 20' setback on the homes along the trail, for the most part it would not mean a whole scale change to the site. Maybe the one-story homes were 30' from the trail. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was a bit nervous about asking for a huge front setback and would present problems for the rear yard; people would want pools and tennis courts and he would not like to see a requirement for asking the applicant to move everything way back. Chair McCormack stated the magic number for him was 30'. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the DRC had a couple of options; it was at the discretion of the DRC and the Planning Commission to approve the project at some point and they could ask that the applicant return with a new site plan on a continuance prior to a recommendation to the Planning Commission. They could also ask as another option that prior to the issuance of building permits that they review a plan that had specific elevations on specific sites with the two story homes being pushed back. One of the biggest concerns was that once the sites were plotted they would want to keep the homes within those envelopes and some of the plots were just one acre and there were a few that were just a couple of feet over one acre. They had analyzed everything with that concept in mind with the hydrology and other elements and if the DRC was looking to a wholesale change it put a completely different spin on everything that would lead into CEQA issues. It was at the pleasure of the DRC and the Planning Commission on how they proceeded. If they wanted to make some minor changes, that could be completed through some conditions with a return of specific items to the DRC for review. If the project was in substantial conformance to the site plan presented and she felt the Planning Commission would be comfortable with that, but if they were looking at something completely different it would take City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 28 of 34 them to a completely different page. They could condition the project and those options were open to the DRC. Mr. Ryan stated he had been hoping to move forward at this point and if there would not be a request for wholesale changes they could work with the one-acre lots and accomplish what the DRC was requesting as they had the room for movement. In the context of the other bullet items he had noted some of the things that would return to the DRC prior to building permits and they could do that. Given that there were different elevations on one acre lots, the horizontal and vertical movement would respond to some of the issues and concerns and they would ask that the project not be continued, but that they could make those modifications and move forward. Committee Member Wheeler stated those concerns could be conditioned and the Planning Commission would have that information. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the DRC could potentially see the project back after the final action by the City Council and based on the building dates. It would take some time to re-plot the site. Committee Member Gladson stated she understood the Chair's concerns, but was confident that they would have the opportunity to see the project prior to building permits. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it could come back on a conceptual level, possibly taking one of the streets and doing a loose site plan, showing the Planning Commission a sample of what the DRC had requested. It would allow a larger window of opportunity for consideration of the changes. The proposed project probably would not go to the Planning Commission before January as there was a lot of EIR work and with the Parks & Planning Commission as well. Mr. Ortlieb stated the intent of structuring some of the conditioned items to return to the DRC was hinged to the fact that the proposed project included a development agreement. Because there was a market timing issue that they needed as a factor of that, the project could come back 2 to 5 years from now. Market trends changed, things changed, and it would allow the applicant some flexibility in the overall layout as long as it fit within the general framework of what the EIR was based on. Chair McCormack stated City Council could also have conditions placed upon the project. Their condition list would be lengthy. He had not wanted a wholesale change to the site plan, but to make some minor changes to the plan. Mr. Ortlieb stated he had taken notes on each item and he could go through that list from the Staff Report with the DRC's input. Mr. Ryan stated on Conditions Nos. 3 & 7 as long as they were in substantial conformance with the architecture and the floor plans they requested that there be some flexibility in that and to leave the review by Staff. Both No. 3 and 7 stated if there were any changes to the floor plans or elevations that the project would need to return to the DRC. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 29 of 34 Committee Member Woollett stated the Condition read that as long as the applicant was in substantial general conformance can be maintained in general conformance and he asked the applicant if he had any objection to that? Mr. Ryan stated no. Committee Member Woollett stated the Conditions read that Staff was not asking for precise conformance. Mr. Ryan stated on Condition No. 7, he had also read it as needing the applicant to return to the DRC if there were any changes. Committee Member Woollett stated that it had been suggested that the DRC would allow for some changes without the project changes needing to return, and the questions was how far would that allow the applicant to go. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had thought that it should return due to the inconsistencies in the drawings, however, they were minor and it may not need to return. His preference would be to see the architecture again and the Condition could be left as written. Mr. Ryan asked if it was possible to add to Condition No. 7 the language regarding substantial conformance? There was nothing that stated the elevation and architecture was approved in concept. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would not have a problem adding that the Committee felt the project was going in the right direction. Mr. Ortlieb stated he would rewrite Condition No. 7 as follows: "While the DRC believed the plans to be conceptually appropriate, the applicant shall return before the DRC with final plans for approval prior to building permit issuance." Chair McCormack stated Condition No. ll trail standards; he felt there was not an issue with the trail widths as presented. Mr. Ryan stated that he read Condition No. 11 that the applicant would adhere to the trail standards. He requested some language that the trails as presented by the applicant were appropriate as it was the DRC's condition of approval, not the Council's. Mr. Ortlieb stated the DRC was not approving anything; they would be recommending the proposed project to the Planning Commission. The conditions would be recommended conditions. Mr. Ryan stated he was hoping that on those items they were in agreement and that there would be a recommendation that would state such. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated what they would do would be to call it out in a Staff Report for the Parks Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council that there were Staff recommended City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 30 of 34 conditions and a notation of what the DRC had recommended, what the Parks Commission had recommended, and what the Planning Commission had recommended and to leave it at that. Mr. Ryan asked if the Conditions would read as initially presented in the Staff Report with additional verbiage that stated the recommended changes by the DRC? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated some of the conditions that the DRC were recommending might not be Staff's position and they needed to show both of the conditions to the other recommending and approving bodies to allow them to see both sides. Chair McCormack stated on Condition No. 12, he felt all trees should not be 24" box and that there should be a variation of tree sizes. Committee Member Woollett stated they were headed in a direction that any conditions that the DRC wanted to change would be noted as a change in the motion. Committee Member Wheeler stated he suggested leaving the conditions as written and then the DRC could add or provide information on why they wanted to change a condition. Committee Member Woollett stated they should be doing that. Committee Member Wheeler stated they needed to go through the conditions to see what changes needed to occur. Chair McCormack stated on Condition No. 12, they could recommend the formula he had spoken about previously and also entertain the idea of allowing 5-gallon trees. Chair McCormack stated on Condition No. 13, pertained to landscape on both sides of the trails, to leave as written by Staff. Mr. Ortlieb stated that condition was for the perimeter trail. Chair Mc McCormack stated on Condition No. 14, which were the turn-outs over the driveways and he suggested that they leave as written by Staff. Chair McCormack stated on Condition No. 15, the concurrence by the DRC was to allow tandem parking. Chair McCormack stated on Condition No. 16, the concurrence by the DRC was to remove the chain link fence. Chair McCormack stated Condition No. 18 was the dissipater. Committee Member Gladson stated she wanted to review it again. Committee Member Woollett stated he was okay with what was presented and it would accomplish everything that they asked for. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 31 of 34 Committee Member Wheeler stated he was okay with it. Chair McCormack stated they would leave Condition No. 18 as written and the only item that would come back would be the detail landscape around it. Chair McCormack stated Condition No. 19 related to signage. Committee Member Gladson stated could they note that for Condition No. 19 that the DRC found the signage to be in substantial conformance and that there should be minimum signage. Chair McCormack stated he would want it to come back, in coordination with the red curbing and the signage needs that those would be looked at. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want to add a condition that the red curb should be avoided if possible. Committee Member Gladson stated Condition No. 19 would be left as written by Staff. Committee Member Cathcart stated on Condition No. 26 they had wanted to add the language per development agreement. Chair McCormack stated Condition No. 31, was for the LOMAR and it would be left as written. Committee Member Wheeler stated Condition No. 31 was not something he would want to decide on and not an area the DRC should deal with. Mr. Ryan asked why Condition No. 31 was on the conditions of approval for the DRC if it was not something they had authority over? Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated it was in consideration of the EIR and the project as a whole and they had placed the conditions out there for everyone to see. Chair McCormack stated Condition No. 68, was the red curbing issue. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the DRC could make a recommendation that if there was a choice per fire code that they would prefer signage. Committee Member Woollett stated he would prefer a red curb over signage. Mr. Ryan stated the Fire Department may want the signs anyway. The proposed project had an organic rolled curb and they had not wanted it red. Chair McCormack stated Conditions No. 79-138 were mitigation measures. He asked on Condition No. 82 for group mail boxes to have integrated lighting and he had not seen any mail boxes on the plan or any lighting? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 32 of 34 Committee Member Gladson stated it was a standard mitigation measure in the EIR. Mr. Ortlieb stated there was a standard template of items and it had been carried over from there. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the project design features which were part of the project proposal were in place and therefore presented no impact, and therefore no mitigation measure necessary. Those features were also included in the Mitigation Monitoring Table to be available at plan check or finaled, Mr. Ortlieb would go out with the list to verify that all the items had been completed. Chair McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4207-07, Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following additional exceptions and conditions: 1. The Committee concurred with the varied trail width as proposed. 2. In reference to Condition No. 12, there shall be an allowance that not all trees be 24" box and that the applicant shall use a formula of 75 percent, 15-gallon and 25 percent, 24-inch box trees as a guideline, with the exception that 5-gallon trees may be used, as appropriate, per species. On the slopes, there shall be 1.5 to 2 trees per every 1,000 feet minimum 2:1 slopes) with a grouping of Evergreen trees at the base of the slope to provide screening. 3. In reference to Condition No. 13, landscaping of the public perimeter trail shall have landscaping on both sides of the trail, existing or provided. The trail on the streetscape shall be landscaped where appropriate. 4. In reference to Condition No. 15, tandem parking shall be allowed. 5. In reference to Condition No. 16, the chain link fence shall be removed and that trail-type fencing shall be added. 6. In reference to Condition No. 26, the trail installation timing shall be "per the Development Agreement." 7. In reference to Condition No. 68, the curbing shall not be painted red. The fire signage shall be evaluated with the signage packet that returns to the DRC. 8. The applicant shall re-evaluate the setbacks and the skewing of the lots in specific areas to achieve a more varied non-tract like appearance. Specifically, the two-story houses should be pushed back where possible. The location of buildings shall come back to the DRC for a subsequent review. 9. The applicant shall revise the side-by-side driveway conditions to provide more relief for landscaping between the two driveways at a minimum of eight feet. 10. Architectural and roof plans shall return to the DRC for review prior to building submittal. 11. Vinyl fences are acceptable. 12. The exposed faces of the retaining walls shall be finished with material similar to the residences. 13. More variety shall be added to the setbacks on E Street. 14. The landscape palette shall include and be modified as follows: a. To include larger trees in the street tree pallet. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 33 of 34 b. To include predominant species of California .Pepper tree, Eucalyptus species, Pinus species, Sycamore species, and that the Eucalyptus species be Eucalyptus Grandis, or a species proven to be anti Bark Beetle. c. Use equestrian-friendly plant palette and to limit the use of Oaks and Prunus species in horse zones. d. Add the predominant tree to common area trees and the private area tree pallets Sycamore, Pines, Eucalyptus, and Peppers). e. Add a Coastal Sage Scrub plant to the plant palette list for restoration of habitat. f. Add a plant to the plant palette list specifically for the retention basins, including the dissipater. g. There shall be an attempt to preserve more of the existing trees; to move or reuse trees. The movement of the Palm trees shall be encouraged. h. Add native plant species to the plant palette to both common and private areas. i. The applicant shall prepare photo documentation of the non-historic residence to be submitted to the Orange Public Library, History section. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2009 Page 34 of 34 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on November 18, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.