Loading...
11-19-2008 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL 19 November 2008 Committee Members Present: Bill Cathcart Adrienne Gladson Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session - 5:00 P.M. The Committee met for an Administrative Session beginning at 5:07 p.m. Chair Wheeler opened the discussion with a review of the Agenda. No changes were noted. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry, stated she had sent out an e-mail to each of the Committee Members reminding them that the December 3, 2008 Design Review Committee Meeting would begin at 4:30 p.m. in order to discuss the Old Towne Design Standards. Chair Wheeler would recuse himself from that discussion; however, he could be present to review the Agenda and minutes. Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, would be leading the discussion that evening. Committee Member Cathcart stated he would be recused from Item No. 3, Arby's Corner Sign Program, as Arby's was a client of his firm. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the November 5, 2008 meeting. Changes/corrections were noted. Chair Wheeler asked if there was any further discussion. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated there were two meetings scheduled for December and the first meeting of January was on January 7, 2009. She wanted to take a quick poll to verify if everyone would be present for those meetings. Generally speaking, either the last meeting in December or the first meeting in January had no items, many times due to the logistics of preparing information prior to the closure of City Hall one of the meetings would be removed. If one of the dates needed to be moved, she asked the Committee Members if they had a preference as to which meeting should be removed? The Committee Members stated they would be available for the December and January meetings. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated she would schedule accordingly. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 2 of 16 Committee Member McCormack made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:20 p.m. SECOND: Bill Cathcart AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL All Committee Members were present. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There 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: November 5, 2008 Committee Member Cathcart made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 5, 2008, Design Review Committee Meeting with corrections as noted. SECOND: Joe Woollett 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 19, 2008 Page 3 of 16 AGENDA ITEMS: New Agenda Items: 2) DRC No. 4292-07 -GENERAL UNDERGROUND FIRE PROTECTION A proposal to construct a two story office addition. 701 West Grove Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, rgarcia(cr~,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Terry Householder, address on file, stated he was present for any questions the Committee Members might have. Public Comment None. Committee Member Cathcart asked why was it the case that Senior Landscape Coordinator, Howard Morris' requirements were not included in the Staff Report? Mr. Garcia stated typically the requirements from Mr. Morris were provided a day or two prior to the DRC Meeting, which was after the Staff Report had been prepared. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated Staff could certainly work with the Community Services Department to obtain the comments earlier. Mr. Morris generally received his packet on the item and at that time prepared his final comments for the meeting. Committee Member Cathcart stated he brought it up as the storm water BMPs were important and it had been noted in the comments prepared by Mr. Morris and he felt it should be included in the details of the landscape requirements. Mr. Garcia stated there was a preliminary approval on the proposed project and that was the reason they were now before the DRC. The additional requirements would need to be met prior to final approval. Committee Member McCormack asked how the parking requirement had been calculated? Mr. Garcia asked if he was referring to parking based on the landscaping or general parking? Committee Member McCormack stated he was referring to general parking. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Garcia stated there was a breakdown for manufacturing/industrial facilities at two spaces per 1,000 square feet. For office space, once it exceeded 25% of the space, anything above the 25% was parked at four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Ms. Aranda Roseberry explained that 25% of the square footage of the building was presumed to be office space, with a 1,000 square foot building, 250 square feet would be included in the industrial parking count, once that square footage was exceeded the overage would be at the actual office parking count calculation. Committee Member Woollett asked how trucks would be accounted for? Mr. Garcia stated if the applicant had company-owned vehicles there would be the need to provide parking spaces for them at 1 to 1. Committee Member Woollett stated the business could start out with 10 trucks and in a year's time they could be at 20 trucks. Mr. Garcia stated the applicant would then be required to provide additional parking for those vehicles and it would be monitored through Code Enforcement. Committee Member Woollett stated on the east side of the building there was a little stoop next to a door, and because the stoop existed there it appeared as though the east side of the building to the edge of the planter area was not needed for traffic. He pointed out the area he spoke about on the plans. He understood why there could be some justification for not providing planting along the property line, however, it would seem to him that the applicant was missing an opportunity to provide planting on the east side of the building which would be important in enhancing the project from the street. He asked if that had been considered? Mr. Garcia stated the Fire Department required that area as an access area. Committee Member Woollett stated generally the Fire Department required 20'. Committee Member Gladson stated the plans noted 30' and if they added a planter on the east edge 25' of space would remain. Committee Member Woollett stated presumably the Fire Department was not planning on driving over the stoops. The additional planter would allow for additional trees along that area. The building was very tall and that side of the building was very exposed. Committee Member Gladson stated on the plans it appeared that the landscape stopped at the second stoop and referred to the area on the plans. Committee Member Woollett clarified that the requirements called for the perimeter of the project to have landscaping. Mr. Garcia stated the perimeter of the property had a requirement for landscaping. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 5 of 16 Committee Member Woollett stated there was the north portion of the property that had an extended property line; if that had not occurred and the site was rectangular the rear area would still remain. He had visited the site and understood that additional landscaping could be lost, however, if there would not be landscaping in that area it would make sense to ask the applicant to provide additional landscaping at the building. Mr. Householder stated in the area with the noted stoops he was not certain that the stoops would be constructed due to the elevation; he preferred to keep landscaping away from the building as much as possible. They had proposed taking the landscaping out to the east side of the property and they had proposed to construct an 8' high block wall. His business would use both driveways for truck deliveries. The trucks would enter on the east side for daily deliveries and follow the drive to the north side of the building and turn back around the building. The intent would be to mitigate any landscaping in that area. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not understood why there would be a need to mitigate landscape unless they would be driving illegal trucks on the highway, as he understood the trucks could not be more than 10' wide and the driveway was 25' wide. Chair Wheeler stated the stoop showed two risers on the elevation which would have them about a foot above the pavement. Mr. Householder stated he had not reviewed the final elevation. Committee Member Woollett stated he would defer to the Landscape Architects on the Committee. Committee Member McCormack stated he had not understood why the applicant could not meet the landscape requirement. If it was left up to him he could certainly find ways to meet the requirement. Landscaping was not just trees; there were other viable values with trees. Trees assisted with the reduction of heat gain and the global warming situation. In that regard trees would be mitigating the situation on the back side of the building. To set a precedent to allow a variance would send the wrong message as future projects could be submitted with similar variance requests. Industrial areas needed the landscape more than anywhere else. He was concerned with the collectiveness of setting a precedent. He pointed out an area on the plans and asked the applicant why that area had not shown proposed plantings? Mr. Householder stated the area Committee Member McCormack spoke about was directly against another building and he was seeking as much parking as they could get. They had established that they would not need the required parking. He faced a railroad easement in the back of the property and he was currently working to reduce the easement on a 6' area that previously had been used for railroad purposes. There was also a storm drain in the area. He felt with the new addition of the building they were enhancing the existing landscape. If they had not proposed to expand the building the landscape would remain the same. It became a cost issue for him. He would loose 5' of storage if he was required to add more landscaping. Committee Member McCormack stated in reviewing the calculations the building went from 17,800 to 21,500 in terms of a footprint on site. He was comparing this to projects in Irvine that expanded the site footprint and redefined the use years later. There were traffic problems due to City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 6 of 16 the change in use, and it was the reason he had asked about the parking. When he looked at the floor plan he felt it would be easy to open up an area (he pointed to on the plans) for that use. Mr. Householder asked what he meant by for that use? The area Committee Member McCormack was referring to on the plans was the manufacturing shop and the other area was the corporate office facility. Their company owned the property and had not anticipated leaving the building or redefining the space for other uses. Committee Member McCormack stated the applicant had gone from 1,745 square feet, which was an office building to 7,000 square feet. Mr. Householder stated it was a 2-story building; the footprint was 3,900 square feet. Committee Member McCormack stated he looked at an increase of 6,000 square feet for a manufacturing facility. The applicant was not having engineers or a controller, they were working trucks in the back, and that was the reason he was asking questions from a planning point of view. It appeared to be a lot of office space. In the long range plan he questioned if the need was for 6,000 square feet of office space? Mr. Householder stated he had the opportunity to build now. Chair Wheeler asked if the applicant had recently moved to the location? Mr. Householder stated they had owned the building since 2005 and they had occupied the property for a little over a year. Committee Member Cathcart asked if adding landscape along the front portion of the property continuing down to the parking restricted the applicant? Mr. Householder stated he was looking at the situation from an economics point of view in maintenance. They would not require all the parking that was required by code. Committee Member Cathcart clarified if an area of the property was used to unload materials? Mr. Householder stated the area he referred to was used for truck access. Committee Member Cathcart stated the trucks would not be as wide as that area and the applicant had mentioned that the area would be used to off-load supplies. Mr. Householder stated the building had adrive-thru door. From a maintenance stand point they wanted to present the best product they could and have the best appearance possible. If they added landscaping down the east side of the property the DRC was suggesting more landscape against the building. He asked if there was some give and take or was he being required to have two planters. Committee Member Cathcart stated he believed the suggestion was for a planter to match up to the stoop. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Householder asked if he added that planter was he able to eliminate the landscaping on the outside? Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant was dealing with a requirement that stipulated landscape was required along the entire perimeter of the property. Mr. Householder stated he understood that. Committee Member Woollett stated he was not sure why Staff would consider that as it was a rule. Mr. Householder stated he had applied for a variance. Committee Member Woollett stated he had not understood why, everyone else was required to meet code. The applicant must have something special about their facility that made it different from any other facility. The requirement was State Law. The variance could not be approved if it was just something the applicant wanted and had no legitimate reason behind the request. Mr. Householder stated his argument on that point was that he had an existing building which was not being modified. They were adding a new building out front and they would be providing plantings along the perimeter of the new space. Applicant, Carla Distrola, address on file, stated if the building had been left in its present state there would be no landscaping. Committee Member Woollett clarified that the rule was being interpreted as in changing only a portion of the site, the landscape requirement would only apply to the new portion of the building. Mr. Garcia stated Staff had not suggested that, they would have preferred landscaping along the entire perimeter. Committee Member Woollett stated it was not a matter of what was preferred and asked how the ordinance read? Mr. Garcia stated the code stated the applicant was required to have landscaping along the entire perimeter. Committee Member Woollett stated if the property was 10 acres and they added a 1,000 square foot addition would the applicant be required to meet current code? Mr. Garcia stated yes, the applicant would be required to meet current development standards. Committee Member McCormack stated with that being said, unless the applicant could prove hardship; the development standards were in place to ensure new developments were an enhancement. Staff could work with the applicant to find ways to meet the standards. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Householder stated their goal was to have a better place and the building had improved since they had purchased the building. Ms. Distrola stated they had agreed to upgrade the landscaping from the standard landscape requirement. If the applicant was allowed the variance they would upgrade the landscape that was being added, rather than just add a required box tree. They wanted the project to look as good as possible for the City of Orange. Committee Member McCormack stated appearance was not all landscape does. Landscape provided the benefit of reducing the heat island affect. He was aware of the maintenance issue, however, the other benefits were huge. Committee Member Cathcart stated, in speaking for himself, he felt there was a lot of foundation planting underneath the trees that he felt was not necessary for a manufacturing plant. With the addition of trees and mulch or something porous the applicant could move closer to the tree requirement and forgo much of the shrubs under the trees, the applicant would save money in the long run. Committee Member McCormack stated he agreed with Committee Member Cathcart to allow the trees to do the heavy lifting. The applicant would want to mitigate the impact of all the structure and pavement and that was how the ordinance read: to break up the appearance of large expanses of hardscape. Committee Member Cathcart stated much of the maintenance would be necessary with the shrubs and ground cover. The applicant could reduce those plantings and add more trees with mulch. He stated from a practical stand point some of the materials should be further thought out. One of the exhibits presented showed a truck coming in with a car going out, with an Olive tree that was non-descript and not fruitless, there would be fruit droppings all over the ground with a 30' canopy that would receive abuse from the trucks. He suggested an evaluation of the plant materials. Committee Member McCormack stated it would be appropriate to get fussy in the areas that were an entry, however, for the perimeter he suggested the applicant spend their money on trees which would reduce the heat island affect and provide them with the necessary plantings to meet the requirements. Mr. Householder stated with the additional plantings it would cause him to loose 5' of space in the back. Committee Member Cathcart stated he felt they could get to the requirement with the planting just to the end of the building. He was not suggesting planting the additional space the applicant was referring to. That area would be ignored and he would not expect the area to be planted. Chair Wheeler asked if the Committee felt if there was a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the trees would not be required along the entire perimeter? Committee Member Cathcart stated that was the suggestion, with the space they could add additional trees to meet the requirement. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Garcia stated if they carried the landscape to the edge of the planters the applicant would meet the tree requirement. They had encouraged the applicant to have landscaping carried to the edge. Committee Member McCormack asked if an area of the property had deed restrictions on it? Mr. Householder stated the railroad had a restriction for construction on that area of the property. Committee Member McCormack clarified they were not able to plant trees on that area if they wanted to? Mr. Householder stated that was correct. Committee Member McCormack stated if they arrived at the tree requirement there would not be a need for the variance. The area he questioned would come under a hardship as the applicant was not able to plant in the deed restricted area. Committee Member Cathcart stated the notes from Community Services required the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted to Mr. Morris for approval. Mr. Householder asked if the landscaping plan would need to be approved prior to moving forward with the proposed project? Committee Member Cathcart stated if the DRC were to approve the proposed project the final landscape and irrigation plan would need to be submitted to Community Services before permits were issued. Committee Member McCormack stated in adding more trees and eliminating some of the ground cover and shrubs the project would be a total re-design. Committee Member Cathcart stated it was a reduction in under-story landscape and an increase in trees with a look at the type of trees that would be planted. The Olive trees should be revisited and suggested the use of a more narrow canopy tree Committee Member McCormack asked if the Committee wanted to see the redesign back before the DRC? Chair Wheeler asked if the Committee wanted to review the plans before the item went to the Planning Commission or prior to final approval? The Committee concurred they would be satisfied to review the plans prior to final approval. Committee Member McCormack stated he wanted it to be clear to the Planning Commission that the request was for a change in the landscaping. Committee Member Cathcart stated they could approve the proposed project; it could go before the Planning Commission and prior to permits being issued the DRC would review it. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 10 of 16 Chair Wheeler stated the Planning Commission could have further requirements that would affect the proposed project. Ms. Aranda Roseberry asked if the site plan would remain the same? Committee Member McCormack stated the site plan would remain the same, he felt the planter that Committee Member Woollett had suggested should be added and the tree requirement needed to be met. The suggestion was also for the landscape theme to be changed to an un-fussy landscaped area. Committee Member Gladson stated the variance would not be necessary. She was not comfortable with the variance and not a direction she chose to go in to reduce the trees. The value of landscape to a building was critical. Committee Member Woollett stated the variance was the applicant's issue. Chair Wheeler stated he was reminded that architecture was referred to as frozen music, and like music needed a good rhythm, he felt there was no rhythm to the building and it appeared disorganized. There were contrasting colored bands at the panel breaks and on the south front elevation each panel was a different width. He suggested removing the contrasting colors, or if they wanted to keep the contrasting colors he presented a drawing to change the panel dimensions. He suggested areas where equal size panels could be used to establish a more consistent rhythm. The door and window combination would need to be moved a bit. Committee Member Cathcart asked if Chair Wheeler was suggesting the changes? Chair Wheeler stated he was suggesting that the changes be a condition. Committee Member Woollett stated the changes would not affect the interior. Chair Wheeler stated it would only change the panel breaks. If there was a problem with the changes and the applicant's engineer felt it was not workable they could review that when the plans returned to the DRC for landscape review. Committee Member McCormack stated on the screen wall for the heating and air units he had not noticed the screen on the other elevation. Chair Wheeler stated he was looking at the other building behind it. Mr. Householder pointed out the area where the units would be located. The units would be screened in with some type of metal flashing to match. Committee Member McCormack stated he had reviewed other designs where the wall was pushed up to screen the equipment and eliminated the need for a secondary screening element. Mr. Householder clarified the elevation that he was looking at and stated there was a screen all the way around. The gray color Committee Member McCormack was referring to was the City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 11 of 16 existing building. He would check to see if the panel elevation could be raised. It would be a matter of raising the concrete panels 3'. Chair Wheeler stated the building was high enough that the equipment would not be visible. It could be a cost saving to have one continuous screen rather than separated screening elements. Mr. Householder agreed with the suggestion. Committee Member McCormack stated he had noticed some discrepancies in the numbers referencing the parking and landscape on the applicant's plans that had not matched the numbers in the Staff Report. Chair Wheeler asked for clarification on the planter suggestions. Committee Member McCormack stated the suggestion was that the planter on the east side of the building would run from the beginning of the parking spaces to the stoop with the landscaping to wrap around that. Mr. Garcia clarified that it would go to the second stoop. Chair Wheeler stated that was correct. Committee Member McCormack stated the additional planting area was on the west side to line up with the existing building. The tree issue would be to continue the cadence of the trees shown on the landscape plan to have a consistent theme and to use a tree with more of a vertical nature and to make the ground planting areas less fussy. He also stated there were to be vines on the trash enclosure. Mr. Garcia clarified that the final landscape and irrigation plans would be submitted for review by the DRC prior to final issuance of building permits. Chair Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission, DRC No. 4292-07, General Underground Fire Protection, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: 1. A final landscape plan be submitted to the Design Review Committee prior to final approval. 2. The planting on the east side of the building be added from the beginning of the first parking row to the second stoop at the second building with clearance around the first stoop for access. 3. The landscaping to be continued on the west side of the building to line up with the north end of the existing building. 4. The new trees to be of a vertical choice and shrubs to be removed from the planters on the east and west perimeters and only be used in the front of the building. 5. The rhythm of the building to be cleaned up per the suggestions presented to obtain a regular rhythm of the panels. 6. The roof-mounted mechanical equipment screens to be changed from three separate enclosures to one enclosure to cover all equipment. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 12 of 16 SECOND: Adrienne Gladson 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 19, 2008 Page 13 of 16 3) DRC No. 4388-08 - ARBY'S CORNER SIGN PROGRAM A proposal for a sign program for a new small commercial center. 1107 North Tustin Street Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur ,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Committee Member Cathcart recused himself from the presentation as the applicant was a client of his firm. Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Jon Califf, address on file, stated he wanted to clarify that the LED lighted sign was inside of the building not on the glass. The sign was approximately 4 feet from the glass and would be visible from outside. Committee Member Gladson stated it was recessed rather than being pushed out. Mr. Califf stated that was correct. Applicant, Todd Matthews, address on file, stated on the individual signs for the tenants he was not certain he could request that their signs must be red. They anticipated UPS moving in as a tenant and to ask them not to use their brown for their sign could be an issue. Ms. Thakur stated Staff had spoken with the City Attorney and if there was a tenant that had a registered trademark they would not be asked to change their colors to meet the sign program. In that event UPS would be allowed to use their trademark colors. To allow other tenants to come in with any color and any size letters would defeat the purpose of having a sign program. Mr. Matthews stated he could understand limiting the size of the sign. On the color requirement not all businesses had trademarks, however, they generally associated specific colors with their sign or logo. It was all hypothetical as it was not certain who would tenant the building. He had not wanted to restrict the color. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood the applicants concern and he also understood the need to limit a tenant from using a color that was weird. Ms. Thakur stated with the sign program it was a matter of finding some consistency for the signage. Public Comment None. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 14 of 16 Chair Wheeler opened the item for discussion by the Committee. Committee Member Woollett stated he would be inclined to allow the applicant to return if a tenant wanted to use a color other than red and had no registered trademark. They could return for that request. Committee Member Gladson stated there could be a number of colors that could be used. She was not opposed to allow the tenants to have options. She was hearing from Staff that they were seeking consistency with other signs that came in as the sign program would need to be applied. In terms of Staff recommendations for channel letters she supported that requirement. Committee Member McCormack stated the way he saw it if it was not red, it could be any color, unless it was stated that the sign letter needed to be red unless it was a registered trademark. Otherwise it could be any color anyone wanted. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt if it was not a registered trademark and a tenant chose not to use red they could come back to the City to request approval for the use of a different color. Mr. Matthews stated it was a problem as it was not clear what would be approved colors. Committee Member Gladson stated they would be amending the sign program with the approval of other colors. Mr. Califf suggested they could add another Arby's color as an alternate for tenant signage. If there was a tenant such as a water store and they wanted to use blue they could come back to have their signage reviewed. Committee Member Woollett stated he felt it was not a good idea to use all red; however, he also would not want the choices to be wide open. Mr. Califf stated it was not a large shopping center and it would probably be one or two tenants that would use the other space. Chair Wheeler stated as the center was small that was more reason for consistency. Committee Member McCormack asked if the tenant signs could be different sizes based on square footage of the building? Mr. Califf stated assuming the two tenant buildings were the same size they would be the same, if one tenant building was larger that tenant, by code, could use a larger size. Committee Member McCormack asked on the LED what was the color of glass that was in front of it? Mr. Califf stated it was clear and the color they were looking at in the pictures was from a 3Ta generation color printer, it was not the true color. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 15 of 16 Chair Wheeler stated he thought the Staff Report also referred to the awning and sign color red match and clarified with Staff if that was a requirement? Ms. Thakur stated it was a suggestion. Chair Wheeler stated he agreed with that. Committee Member McCormack asked if the applicant planned on keeping the existing sign that was out front? Mr. Matthews stated they would be keeping that sign and re-facing it. The sign was 10' x 10' and 5 feet off the ground, it met the code requirements. Committee Member Gladson stated on the directional signs she suggested if there was a way to add a base to them to carry the architecture of the building to them, instead of just having them as little popsicles sticking in the ground. Mr. Matthews clarified that Committee Member Gladson was suggesting the width to be carried down to the base of the sign and the signs would be a block. Committee Member Gladson stated that was correct. Chair Wheeler asked the Committee Members if they concurred with the suggestion on the directional signage? Committee Members Woollett and McCormack stated they were fine with the suggestion or the way the signs were presented. Mr. Matthews stated he would appreciate that as a suggestion as they were corporate signs and he would be required to review that change with his corporate office. Chair Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4388-08, Arby's Corner Sign Program, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following condition: 1. All signage on the buildings shall be red in color and any requested change in color be approved by the DRC. And with the following suggestion: 1. The directional signs have a full base, rather than a small pedestal post. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECUSED: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2008 Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Gladson made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 4:30. The meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m. SECOND: Tim McCormack AYES: Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bill Cathcart MOTION CARRIED.