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.