Loading...
10-21-2009 DRC MinutesCITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES -FINAL October 21, 2009 Committee Members Present: Adrienne Gladson Bill Cathcart Tim McCormack Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: None Staff in Attendance: Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director Robert Garcia, Associate Planner 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. Ed Knight, Assistant Community Development Director, stated there were no changes to the Agenda or any policy or procedural information to discuss. There was no further discussion. Committee Member Gladson 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 5:27 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. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 2 of 17 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 October 21, 2009 Page 3 of 17 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: None New Agenda Items: Committee Member Wheeler stated he had questions on the item and asked that the item be moved from a Consent Item to an Agenda Item. 2) DRC No. 4437-09 -CITY PLAZA A proposal to implement a sign program for the office building. 1 City Boulevard West Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r~arcia(~cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination The presentation of the Staff Report was waived. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion to the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated on page 3 of the sign program, there was a main sign type A and a sign type B, and one below that, and he asked what that was? Applicant, Garrick Batt, address on file, stated that appeared to be a typographical error. Committee Member Wheeler stated on sign type 4, there were two different quantities listed, 2 and 4. Mr. Batt stated it was a typographical error; it was for the building identification signage and there would be two of them. It appeared some of the descriptions had shifted down. Committee Member Wheeler stated on pages 16 and 17, on page 16 below the horizontal bar on the top it was listed as quantity 5 existing and that referred to the eyebrow signs and on the next page it was listed as quantity 6. Although the Staff Report mentioned that at no time there shall be no more than 2 eyebrow signs on the south elevation and currently there was the optometry sign on that elevation, he wanted to ensure only one other sign was added until that sign went away. Mr. Batt stated there would be a maximum of two signs on any elevation. He reviewed the plans with Committee Member Wheeler. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 4 of 17 Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, pointed out where it was noted on the plans that there shall be no more than two signs per elevation. Committee Member Wheeler stated on both the eyebrow and top of building signs, there were three different types, A, B and C. Type A was a flush mount, and options B and C would be on stand-offs. He stated from a design perspective, to have both flush-mounted and stand-offs would be a bit cluttered; he suggested eliminating the flush-mounting and using the two different types of stand-off signs. Mr. Batt stated there were a number of reasons why they had listed those types. On the eyebrow level, the wall was a 36" thick of solid concrete with rebar reinforcements, and on neon signage that mounting required running conduit within the wall space. The difference between aflush- mount installation and astand-off mounted sign were the size of the bolts that held the signage to the wall surface, as well as the number of bolts that held the sign, and the depth of the pin became a problem. Committee Member Wheeler asked if Mr. Batt was stating there were constraints, due to the wall construction, that would make it impossible to place apin-mounted sign in some locations? Mr. Batt stated that was correct. He felt the best thing to do was to leave the determination of the installation at the point of permitting, and if it appeared that Staff wanted another type of sign in a specific location, which would be the point where that determination would be made. He had not wanted to presume beyond the Design Review Committee, however, they were in a technological juncture and they would be making a leap into a type of sign consistency that the Committee Members might be asking for. Technology being what it was today, they had offered different mounting capabilities. Committee Member Wheeler asked what signs would be mounted on what faces of the building? Mr. Batt stated on the face of the building that faced the 22 Freeway, for example, the thickness of that wall ranged between 26"-38" in thickness and they had listed that as a front illuminated sign. Committee Member Wheeler stated the question was whether they would be using flush- mounting or stand-offs. It was his opinion that if it could be done, it would be better to have all flush-mounted or all stand-offs. The shadow patterns would be different and the streaking from dirt would be a factor. Mr. Batt stated given Staff's involvement in planning as well as the property manager's involvement, they would ensure whatever sign type was used on the fascia that the next sign use would match in type. On opposite sides of the building, when the optometry sign left, whatever sign type was installed there would determine what the next sign type would be. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the signs would be the same on the eyebrow side and at the top of the building? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 5 of 17 Mr. Batt stated there was an approximately 18-story separation and he could not state what they would choose. The building top sign had a different purpose than an eyebrow level sign. The top of the building sign would have much fewer words and a better use of a logo and something that would be viewed from a much greater distance. The eyebrow sign would be more of a destination piece. Committee Member Wheeler suggested that each side of the building should have consistent sign mountings, whether flush-mounted or on stand-offs. Mr. Batt stated that was a workable solution. Chair McCormack asked how large were the building top signs? Mr. Batt stated they were 8' x 50', for a total maximum of 400 square feet. Chair McCormack asked for an explanation of lighting. On the site signage he asked if those were internally lit? Mr. Batt explained the different lighting for the signs and stated the site signage was not lit; there was ground lighting. He had not believed there were any tenant names listed on any of the ground signs; those were more for directional usage. Committee Member Gladson stated she was generally okay with the sign program as presented. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4437-09, City Plaza, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the following condition: 1. For each elevation of the building, all the signs on the eyebrow for that elevation shall either be on stand-offs, or pins/flush-mounted to the building and the top of building signs shall all be the same. Each elevation may be different in mounting from each other, but each elevation shall be consistent to that elevation. 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 October 21, 2009 Page 6 of 17 3) DRC No. 4398-08 - FLAPPY JACK'S A proposal to expand an existing one-story restaurant and provide associated parking lot and landscape improvements. 2848 N. Santiago Boulevard Staff Contact: Sonal Thakur, (714) 744-7239, sthakur(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Final Determination Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Larry Gibson, address on file, stated they were stripping all the wood off of the building and attempting to clean up the existing surfaces. It was a difficult building. They would be using the same materials, same profile, same mechanical well, and they had kept the glazing and fenestration. One place they would have some difficulty was in matching the tile; it was impossible in many ways. Ms. Thakur stated she had provided the Committee with an email from the landscape architect to give them an idea of the landscape concept and what plant species would be used. There would be more landscaping added than what currently existed. Mr. Gibson stated they would be tearing out everything, with the exception of two of the street trees. Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion to the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler handed out a list he had prepared with his concerns and questions on the proposed project. He asked what the roof pitch was? Mr. Gibson stated it was 4 to 12. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the overhangs it appeared that they would be reduced to about 3'. Mr. Gibson stated the overhangs would remain consistent with what existed on the building. Committee Member Wheeler stated they would be getting rid of all the wood and he asked if that included the soffits? Mr. Gibson stated yes, that was correct. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 7 of 17 Committee Member Wheeler stated the elevations showed that the mechanical equipment was resting on the roof which was the same height as the fascia, and they had prior experience on the Design Review Committee where mechanical equipment was visible. Mr. Gibson stated the parapet wall would be the same and higher than the equipment; he pointed to the plans and reviewed that with the Committee. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would propose a condition that the mechanical equipment not be any higher than the parapet. Mr. Gibson was agreeable to that. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the new dining room addition would include roof-mounted lighting? Mr. Gibson stated that was not currently shown on the drawings, mostly because he had not liked it. There was nothing to illuminate on the roof. Committee Member Wheeler suggested if he had roof-mounted lighting that it be similar to what existed. Mr. Gibson stated he felt that some of the lighting on the roof was to help illuminate the parking lot, as there was not a lot of lighting in the parking lot. He felt there was not a need for roof lighting. Committee Member Wheeler stated he had checked the security requirements for the new roof ladder and a cover was required that would go up to 10'. He asked if the sign would be refaced or would the applicant be bringing in a sign package? Mr. Gibson stated the pylon would be relocated and the sign would be different; the property owner would need to return for a sign review. Ms. Thakur stated there were two pylons. Mr. Gibson stated they would reface the one that he referred to as a monument sign that faced Santiago. Ms. Thakur discussed the sign information with the applicant. Committee Member Gladson stated a whole sign program would potentially be brought back. Committee Member Wheeler stated the new restroom extension came out at 4' 2", but his eyeball took it that the overhang was only 4', and he wanted that to be checked. Mr. Gibson stated he had checked that feature and it was 4' 2", and at the rear of the building the same type of roof existed for the walk-in cooler. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 8 of 17 Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the low pitch roof would not be compatible and that instead the low form of the entry be mimicked, with the flat roof and a bit of a parapet around it. Mr. Gibson stated he had wanted to change the entry, as it had not stated "entry". Committee Member Wheeler stated it would be less noticeable as an entry with the brick removed as that was a noticeable feature. He suggested using a different color for the form. Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted to be certain he understood that the parapet would be higher, but the other portion of the roof would remain the same. In reviewing the roof plan, the flat roof inside appeared to have a 1/2" slope; in fact, there was a portion which he pointed to on the plans, and asked if that triangular area was going to be sloped up with the roof. Mr. Gibson stated that was the cricket portion that was behind the parapet. He reviewed the plans with Committee Member Woollett. Committee Member Woollett stated the applicant had mentioned a problem with matching of the color; the the had a color applied on top of it. They could try to wash it and attempt to match it. On the site plan there was a steel structure. Mr. Gibson stated that was not on the property. It looked like a temporary storage shed. Committee Member Woollett stated there were windows along the south elevation and quite a few windows on the west; he felt there should be some trees for shading along those areas. He asked if there would be blinds inside the building? All winter long the sun would shine in. Mr. Gibson stated all three of those sides received a lot of solar heat. Chair McCormack stated one of the biggest things on the site was an area, which he pointed to on the plans, that appeared there was a 3'-4' drop and reviewing the elevations there was a chain link fence along the property line; he was not certain anything could be done about the fence. He had gone out to the site and there was a retaining wall that was not on the drawings; what was occurring was a drop and his biggest design issue was how to deal with that. From a design perspective the trees provided a skyline type of benefit and not an immediate shade issue, but his thoughts were that the Eucalyptus tree should remain. There could still be other trees below them to provide shade. Mr. Gibson stated he would be happy to leave the trees. He thought they had to be removed because they were past their maturity. Chair McCormack stated he felt they were perfect. He had looked at their root zone and how they were being maintained and would probably flourish even more with regular watering. There were two other trees that might need to be removed as they were providing some root issues. He asked if an area, which he pointed to on the plans, was all new concrete? Mr. Gibson stated there would be some repair and due to the elevation changes there would need to be some stairs and possibly hand rails added. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 9 of 17 Chair McCormack stated on the loading zone, it was in the front entry. Ms. Thakur stated it was a code requirement; the site had not had a loading zone. Committee Member Gladson stated they would need the loading zone to comply with code. Chair McCormack suggested keeping the Eucalyptus trees and to remove the other trees they had discussed. On the handicap access he was noting a zero curb, but felt there needed to be a ramp. Mr. Gibson pointed out where the ramp existed. He stated it was zero where the handicap access began. They would have wheel stops as well. Chair McCormack suggested using a curb to line up as a wheel stop. Mr. Gibson stated he had liked that idea, however, the complaint from owners was there would be oil and drippings from car radiators that would stain the sidewalk and no way to clean them. Committee Member Cathcart pointed out an area that should have a tree. He stated it concerned him that Coast Live Oak and Pepper trees had been mixed. Chair McCormack stated he could not extract a landscape concept from the plans. Committee Member Cathcart stated in reviewing the three planting areas, there was not a theme. There was a little bit of this and that and it concerned him. Chair McCormack stated generally there would be a theme of Eucalyptus, Tristania conferta, Evergreen, and deciduous types of plantings in between. He felt the Coast Live Oak would not work in the space. Committee Member Cathcart stated the Coast Live Oak would not like anything planted underneath them and it would be difficult to get anything to survive under the Pepper tree. Committee Member Gladson stated the planting beds would wind up being empty. Chair McCormack suggested the applicant choose a tree that would fit, such as an Elm or a Tristania conferta; something that would have a canopy and offer shade. He had not seen a shrub noted anywhere, which was a medium hedge. The one thing he would want to see, and he was leaning toward a continuance of the project, would be to review how the freeway edge was handled. Committee Member Wheeler stated rather than having the item continued that they ask that the landscape plans be brought back to the DRC prior to permits being issued. Chair McCormack stated the project could be bifurcated. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 10 of 17 Committee Member Gladson stated with the comments heard from her colleagues it was encouraging and she saw the project as a destination local. She had never heard of a Flappy Jack's Restaurant, and it could be something really quirky and fun with a neat appeal. There could be some creative signage that could add to the design. Over the course of the last year they had seen the gas station, and she was not certain that project had started and Chair McCormack had initially had problems with the gas station and the shared property. She was encouraged to see some activity occurring on that edge of Lincoln. The former Spires on Katella at Main, which was called the Katella Grill, had evolved with their own cachet and it would be interesting to see how the proposed project evolved. Mr. Gibson stated they could use some input from the City on landscaping. Chair McCormack stated he could list some of those suggestions: 1. To address the planting and grading issue along the freeway frontage. 2. Above all, to create a landscape concept and not just be a generic landscape. 3. To apply the proper shading and screening along the freeway. 4. Suggested only: the removal of two Palm trees vs. removal of all the Palm trees; save the Eucalyptus trees and remove the Ficus trees. 5. Show the existing off-site trees in order to visualize how they impacted the design and suggested that the Oak trees not be in such a confined space, or to use another tree. 6. Simplify the design and use only one type of tree. 7. The suggestion for accent plants would be to use the Mandina Harbor dwarf and the Limonium. Use the Coffeeberry, for the low growing; and to use a medium hedge. Mock Orange was a mass, Silverberry was a mass, and Texas Privet was a clipped hedge. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the trash enclosure would be just block and what type of gate would be used? Mr. Gibson stated the enclosure would be stucco to match the building and the gate would be on posts so they would not be torn from the masonry. Chair McCormack stated he was discussing the landscape with the other Committee Members and he suggested not using the Coast Live Oak, but to use the Pepper tree if it would fit into the applicant's landscape theme. Mr. Gibson asked if the root system on the Pepper tree would be fine? Committee Member Cathcart stated they would be fine. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4398-08, Flappy Jack's, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional condition that a Landscape Plan return to the DRC prior to building permits being pulled and with the following additional conditions: City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 11 of 17 1. The roof overhang shall be the same dimension horizontally as the existing overhang. 2. The new trash enclosure shall have a stucco exterior to match the building. 3. The walk-in cooler be designed with a parapet roof form to match the parapet roof form of the current existing entance. 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 October 21, 2009 Page 12 of 17 4) CUP No. 2766-09 - VERIZON WIRELESS A proposal to modify an existing wireless facility located on an existing Southern California Edison tower. The proposal calls for four (4) new panel antennas to be mounted on the SCE tower. 8030 E. Serrano Avenue Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, (714) 744-7231, r~arcia(a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Committee Member Wheeler suggested that the item could be approved without discussion. All Committee Members concurred with the suggestion. Public Comment None. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of CUP No. 2766-09, Verizon Wireless Facility, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report. 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 October 21, 2009 Page 13 of 17 5) DRC No. 4383-08 - AT&T WIRELESS SITE NO. 000191A A proposal to co-locate 11 antennas on an existing Southern California Edison power line tower and to construct a mechanical equipment enclosure under the tower to support the antennas. East of Feather Hill Drive, North of Meats Avenue Staff Contact: Chad Ortlieb, (714) 744-7237, cortlieb a,cityoforange.org DRC Action: Recommendation to the Planning Commission Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Gil Gonzalez, address on file, stated he wanted to address a few things. With regard to the requirement for storing within the enclosed area two gallons of paint, in order to deal with graffiti, he had forwarded that request to SCE and SCE would not allow any hazardous materials to be stored on site. AT&T had an 800 number for graffiti removal and they would provide that to Staff with a condition that graffiti would be removed within 48 hours of AT&T being notified of the problem. He stated on Item No. 4 requiring that a rumble strip and additional gravel be added, SCE had graded an entry access to the site. AT&T would visit the site once every six weeks and there would be only one truck that would enter the site and he was not certain how much of an impact that would be in contributing to the mud on City streets, and he requested that the request be removed from the conditions. On Item No. 5 requiring AT&T to provide evidence from the property owner approving access to the site, there was an easement on the site from SCE and AT&T was attempting to gain clarification on that, and to gain the access permission from SCE. He wanted to add to the condition: permission from the property owner or evidence from SCE that AT&T would be allowed to access the site through the easement. Committee Member Gladson asked if he wanted to change the wording on Condition No. 5? Mr. Gonzalez stated that was correct. The Condition currently read that the applicant shall produce evidence to the Director of Community Development that permission from the property owner had been granted. There was an SCE easement and he believed through the easement that AT&T would be allowed to access their site through the SCE easement. He was in the process of gaining that information and documentation, rather than going to the property owner. Either clear evidence from SCE or permission from the property owner would be obtained. Lastly, they were concerned with the request for a lattice cover. What was being proposed was a chain link cover that would not be seen from the public view; he reviewed the proposed plans with the Committee. Mr. Ortlieb stated regarding Condition No. 4, SCE created the right-of--way through their easement to the adjacent property as well as their own property. If grading were to occur that lead to Shadow Ridge Lane, that would essentially move or wipe out the rumble strips at that location. Mr. Gonzalez stated there would only be access to the site every six weeks and he felt there would not be a problem with contribution to the debris or mud on the street. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 14 of 17 Public Comment None. Chair McCormack opened the item for discussion to the Committee. Committee Member Woollett asked what a rumble strip was? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was a piece of metal with other pieces of metal in it. When tires rolled over it, the mud would be knocked off. Instead of having utility vehicles track mud onto the City streets, the rumble strips would take a huge accumulation of mud off the tires before they hit the streets. Mr. Gonzalez stated there was a lot of gravel in place at the entrance of the site and they were okay with that. Anything that was permanent might create a problem with the property owners. There was a 30' sliver of private property directly at the entrance. Mr. Ortlieb stated in coming up the side there was a parcel that went up hill to a property owner that had front access from another street. The backyard dropped down to Shadow Ridge Lane and the vehicles would need to cross over that property to gain access to the AT&T site. Mr. Gonzalez stated SCE had an easement with the property owner, which was the reason they had not wanted to be held only to the consent of the property owner as they believed SCE had the right to grant permission. Mr. Ortlieb stated that might not be a DRC issue. Chair McCormack stated he was not certain if that was legal. Committee Member Woollett stated there would be a recorded document that would allow access to the property; whether it came from the owner or SCE, SCE had the power to grant that and the City would not be involved. Committee Member Gladson stated she was fine with how the Condition was written and it charged the applicant with the responsibility of clearing the issue up. Committee Member Woollett stated on the paint and graffiti, he presumed that there was concern of potential graffiti on the enclosure. He asked if there had been any thought given to the use of some sealer on the enclosure which would allow easier removal of graffiti? Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff was asking for a graffiti resistant paint to be used, but was not certain how effective that would be. The applicants offer and alternate solution would work; if Staff had the phone number to add to the case file, that would be a point of contact and would be good as long as the provider was still providing service. Chair McCormack asked if the phone number could be made available on the tower? City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 15 of 17 Mr. Gonzalez stated they could actually add it to the enclosure door. They were very limited to what could be added to the enclosure as SCE had very narrow requirements. Committee Member Gladson asked was the idea of keeping the paint on site to paint over the graffiti? AT&T would still have to be called to have it painted out. Chair McCormack stated he agreed that the paint should not be out there as it would change composition over time with the heat. Mr. Gonzalez stated the property management phone number was set up to deal with other issues as well as graffiti. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a way to get that number to the community? Mr. Gonzalez stated they could provide that number and it would be public knowledge once it was provided to Staff. Committee Member Gladson stated she felt the first part of the condition, requiring graffiti resistant paint was fine, and to substitute the second sentence with: the applicant shall provide the toll free phone number. Committee Member Woollett stated the other issue was regarding the request for having flush panels. The Committee had accepted the panels on the towers; it was already a utility structure and it would not matter if the panels were flush or not. The panels were fairly closed in and he had no objection to the design. Chair McCormack stated from a design perspective, if in the future another enclosure would be added his request would be that the new enclosure/tower be the same. Mr. Gonzalez stated that was very common and it was generally all dictated by SCE. Committee Member Gladson stated she concurred with Committee Member Woollett's observation; it was what it was-a utility structure, and to recommend a better design would not make the entire thing better. On the rumble strip, for clarification, would the strip be right at the entrance on Shadow Ridge? She understood what the strip would do and the Staff Report noted that there had been problems with mud on that street and she would want to prevent that. Chair McCormack asked why the strip could not be moved further up? Mr. Ortlieb stated it could be moved up as there was a lot of compacted gravel in the area. Mr. Gonzalez stated he had not wanted to place anything on the private property access and he would be fine with gravel and he asked if that would suffice? Committee Member Wheeler stated he was fine with gravel on the private property access and the addition of a rumble strip beyond that property. City of Orange -Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2009 Page 16 of 17 Chair McCormack stated he felt that was Staff's call. Committee Member Gladson asked about the enclosure, would there be any objection to a chain link top to the enclosure? It would prevent anyone from gaining access. Committee Members Wheeler and Cathcart concurred with the use of chain link for the enclosure top. Chair McCormack made a motion to recommend approval to the Planning Commission of DRC No. 4383-08, AT&T Wireless Site No. 000191A, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the modifications to those conditions as follows: 1. A maintenance phone number be provided in the case file. 2. That the rumble strips be moved off of private property and to have gravel the length of the private property. 3. To allow chain link to be used for the enclosure lid. 4. Permission to access the property be provided to Staff. And with the following condition: 1. If another enclosure were to be installed, that it would be consistent in materials and form. 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 October 21, 2009 Page 17 of 17 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on November 4, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m. SECOND: Adrienne Gladson AYES: Bill Cathcart, Adrienne Gladson, Tim McCormack, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED.