Loading...
2013-03-06 DRC Final Minutes CITY OF ORANGE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FINAL March 6, 2013 Committee Members Present: Carol Fox Robert Imboden Craig Wheeler Joe Woollett Committee Members Absent: Tim McCormack Staff in Attendance: David Khorram, Chief Building Official Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary Administrative Session — 5:00 P.M. Chair Fox opened the Administrative Session at 5:10 p.m. The Committee Members reviewed the meeting minutes from the February 20, 2013 Design Review Committee meeting. Changes and corrections were noted. Chief Building Official, David Khorram, stated there were no changes to the Agenda. The Planning Commission had heard the proposed project, AMLI apartments and parking garages, and the project was approved. The fins were not looked at as a sign and were approved. The remainder of the site signage would return to the DRC. Committee Member Woollett stated it was not a precedent, as they had a similar situation with an auto agency up on Tustin where the building was designed in such a way as that the entire building was a sign. It was all glass with very distinct features. Chair Fox asked if there were any items on the agenda that required a recusal by any of the Committee Members? There were none. Committee Member Woollett stated there was something that came up occasionally, it was a situation when dealing with an old building that was being renovated, and very likely had not met current building codes for fire and structure. For example, if there was a church that was built in 1950 or 1960 and it would not meet the current seismic codes, what approach would be taken on something like that and would the building require upgrades to current seismic codes? Mr. Khorram stated in Southern California that situation existed all the time. The way that it is handled is through volunteer upgrades. The question was what the threshold would be for a volunteer upgrade? There are two ways to do that. The first is through Division No. 54 of Los Angeles Building Code; and sometimes builder's come to Orange County and state that they met the minimum threshold through Division No. 54 requirements, and that would set a certain threshold for the building upgrade. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 16 Committee Member Woollett stated it was a precedent to justify the building official making an assessment. Mr. Khorram stated it was not so arbitrary in handling those types of situations. Committee Member Woollett stated as a committee and in reviewing projects and due to code issues that there might be changes that could affect their decision. Mr. Khorram stated that was the manner that Los Angeles and cities around Los Angles handled the situation. In Orange County there is a second way which is complying with existing building codes (Chapter 34 of CBC). Sometimes the finances were not there and the owners had not wanted to bring the building up to the current code; the City's recommendation would be to have those buildings brought up to the minimum threshold. Committee Member Woollett stated it was also an issue of the type of business. For example, if there were many people who worked in a warehouse vs. a building where the occupancy would be very low, he wondered if that was taken into consideration. Another factor for discussion would be the financial value of a building; if a building was valued at 1 million dollars and the owners wanted to spend 3 /4 of a million dollars on it. If a business owner was looking to spend much less, would that situation be looked at differently and less likely to be recommended for an upgrade of their property? Mr. Khorram stated if the occupancy was changed the new code would need to be met for the new type of occupancy. Committee Member Woollett stated he understood that to be the case. In Long Beach a seismic abatement ordinance had been developed and buildings that had the greatest potential for hazard to human safety were put at the top of the list, in terms of when abatement needed to be done. Mr. Khorram stated the same thing happened in Orange when a study was done and it was determined that there was a stock of 50 -80 buildings that were unreinforced masonry. The City had a program to finance some of the upgrades. Apparently, there was only one owner who chose not to do the upgrades. The records showed that everyone else took advantage and upgraded their buildings. Committee Member Woollett stated the owner was responsible for the upgrades; however, in a law suit it would be a question of whether the owner was negligent, and negligence had to do with current codes and common practice. Mr. Khorram stated the City could only go so far in what they could ask a business owner to do. Chair Fox asked when would the "Orange Academy" be in session? Mr. Khorram stated in July or August of 2013. The Building Division was currently working on developing the sessions for the City. Chair Fox stated the sessions were very good. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 3of Mr. Khorram stated each of his Staff would become an expert in their arena and there would be at least 2 -hour sessions. One of the biggest changes to the ADA code was for commercial handicap. The State of California Chapter 11B would be identical to ADA starting January 2014. There will be a lot of changes coming to commercial handicap and not residential. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session of the Design Review Committee meeting. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. Administrative Session adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Regular Session - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Committee Member McCormack was absent. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Opportunity for members of the public to address the Design Review Committee on matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no speakers. CONSENT ITEMS: (1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 20, 2013 Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve the minutes from the Design Review Committee meeting of February 20, 2013, with the changes and correction noted during the Administrative Session. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 4 of 16 AGENDA ITEMS: Continued Items: (2) DRC No. 4645 -12 - CHILI'S RESTAURANT • A proposal to remodel the facade of the existing building. • 1411 W. Katella Avenue • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714 - 744 -7223, dnguyen @cityoforange.org • Continued From DRC Meeting: November 7, 2012 • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, J.J. Jamadar, address on file, presented images of "before" and "after" proposals to the DRC members for their review in order to understand what changes were made. The applicant had addressed the items of concern from the previous review and the only deviation of those requests was the painting above the entrance. The brick was painted, mainly to gain some contrast between the sign and the background. If the building colors remained the same, the sign had not stood out as much. They attempted to maintain the feel of the three distinct buildings that existed. The colors and the awnings were a bit different. Public Comment None. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Woollett asked, referring to the section above the entrance with the dark brown and the Chili's lettering, if the brick would just be painted or would it be plastered over smooth and then be painted. Mr. Jamadar stated it could be done either way and it was a continuous surface. If they were to cover the brick they would do that all the way down to where the brick was, even behind the awning to keep the area consistent. If it was something the Committee desired it would be done. Chili's was re- imaging all 830 Chili's across the country and they were attempting to keep the branding the same and spending a bit over $200,000 at each location. Committee Member Wheeler stated the presentation was a huge improvement over the last submission. He asked for clarification regarding the drawing that showed brick on the back side of the parapet over the entrance and the building had stucco on the back. Mr. Jamadar stated if it was brick it would be left alone and if it needed painting they would paint it. Committee Member Wheeler stated he wanted it clarified if there was not existing brick, as the drawings showed, that brick would not need to be installed in that area. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 5 of 16 Mr. Jamadar stated he would make a note of that. Committee Member Imboden asked for the detail on the rope lighting? Mr. Jamadar stated it looked like neon, but it was an LED product. Committee Member Imboden stated the concern from the last presentation was that the lighting be a straight line without any sagging. It appeared to be a rigid element and he asked in the application of the lighting to the brick elements there were pilasters that existed and created a reveal. He asked how the lighting would work around the reveal? Mr. Jamadar stated the lighting would run in a straight line and when it arrived at the reveal it would be installed with a stand off so it would not jog. Committee Member Imboden stated it would stand off for most of the installation. Mr. Jamadar stated yes, that was correct. Chair Fox asked how Committee Member Imboden felt about the painting of the brick? Committee Member Imboden stated he wished that the brick was not being painted; however, the applicant had made a significant effort to meet the suggestions of the Committee. Chair Fox stated she personally agreed and the chocolate color would enhance the design intent and the recess area would not appear as a fake frame. It was tastefully done and she would endorse it. Committee Member Woollett stated if the back was not brick but was stucco instead, it would make it better if the front was plastered where the dark brown paint was to be applied as it would be more consistent. Mr. Jamadar stated the manager of the restaurant was present, Derek Takeda, and he might know what condition existed out there. Committee Member Wheeler stated he was certain it was not brick as he had looked at it very carefully. Mr. Takeda stated the brick was a veneer. Committee Member Woollett stated on the front side he would prefer that the veneer be removed or stucco applied over the brick. The Committee Members agreed with that suggestion. Committee Member Woollett stated LED lights were relatively small and he was assuming with a linear element there would be a number of LED's next to each other housed inside of City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 6 of 16 something. He was wondering if it would be an LED rope with a string of lights inside or was it an LED tape? Mr. Jamadar stated it was neither of those. It was a rigid material, almost a neon light. Chair Fox stated in the last meeting they were concerned with sagging and she felt it would not occur with the material as presented. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to approve DRC No. 4645 -12, Chili's Restaurant, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: • At the front entrance, the recessed portion of the wall, above and below the awning, be plastered and painted or the veneer to be removed before painting. • The back side of the parapet had not needed brick as shown in the drawings and to correct the plans to show the current condition of stucco. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 7 of 16 New Agenda Items: (3) DRC No. 4624 -12 — FORD /MAZDA OF ORANGE • A proposal to create a sign program for both dealerships. • 1350 W. Katella Avenue • Staff Contact: Doris Nguyen, 714- 744 -7223, dnguyen@cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Recommendation to the Zoning Administrator Associate Planner, Doris Nguyen, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Humberto Ovalle, address on file, stated he was available for questions. Public Comment None. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion Committee Member Wheeler stated he had a few concerns. He had taken some photos at the site to compare the sign areas as shown in the drawings, especially concerning signs W -1, W -2, and W -4. The photo that he took of W -1 extended from one joint line to another and it was a bit larger than shown in the drawings. The sign was bigger than shown. He took straight on shots of the other signs and came up with a slightly bigger sign area. The W -4 sign was much larger at 25' 8 ". He understood that the applicant had gone back out to remeasure. Mr. Ovalle stated that was correct and the error was that two of the signs were very similar and the installer had used the same measurement for both signs on the plans. The new sign program showed 4' -2" and 25' in length. Committee Member Wheeler asked at what point was the measurement for the height taken? Mr. Ovalle stated from the "G" to the top of the small little addition in the space of the "F." Ms. Nguyen asked if the sign area was still 11' -8 "? Mr. Ovalle stated that was correct; it was at 105.37 square feet. Committee Member Wheeler asked where that put them in regard to what was the allowable space? Committee Member Woollett stated what Committee Member Wheeler was stating was that the signs were larger than what was shown on the documentation and the documents needed to be revised. Committee Member Wheeler stated he needed to understand if the sign area was correct. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 8 of 16 Chair Fox stated she understood that the north side was under the allowable sign space usage. Ms. Nguyen stated two - thirds of 381 square feet was 254 square feet permitted on any elevation. Only two - thirds of the sign area could be placed on one wall. Committee Member Wheeler stated the presentation was for a sign program and had not shown the actual signs that would be installed. But as it was, the graphics on the west facade were a bit jumbled. He requested that the fonts be more consistent. It was not like a strip mall that had more flexibility for each tenant; it was a single use and to have such a collection of different sizes, shapes, and color was a bit jumbled. Mr. Ovalle stated the signs that they were trying to implement were for new signs proposed for quick lane for their tire center and that was near the Parts Department. The signs in the sign program were signs that already existed and they were just bringing them up to speed. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the colors matched anything, as there were so many colors out there already. Chair Fox stated her concern for the site being "over signed." Existing signs were over signed for the north side and driving by there were just so many signs. There was a different sign between the Ford signs and around the side, the sign for service was different and then the Mazda was their own logo and if there was some new signage proposed it should follow one of the fonts that already existed. It was a cacophony of signage facing the west side and she was very concerned with what the new signs would look like. She was not sure if she could endorse adding more size to exceed the allowable. There is a code in place for a reason and the code had limits; they had proposed signs that were kicking it over and it was over 170 square feet of signage. It needed to be reduced to the 154 square feet that was allowable and if the signs were new she could not understand why the new signs could not meet code. Mr. Ovalle stated some of the monument signs could be reduced a bit to meet the sign code. Chair Fox stated she could not endorse a variance. She would think that there would be some type of management in the sign program for font types. She was a bit confused with the directional signage on the building and why were they double- worded. Ms. Nguyen stated she had the original entitlement and those were part of that signage. The signs were lit. Chair Fox stated the sign program should give guidance to any new directional signage that would be placed on the ground to not exceed the code limitations. Ms. Nguyen stated the entitlement approved signs of a certain size and what the applicant was asking for was a variance that would set the precedent that basically the new sign size would be allowable in the future. Chair Fox asked if there was a way that they could keep the signs from not exceeding code. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 9 of 16 Ms. Nguyen stated the Committee could recommend a size and style to the Zoning Administrator. Chair Fox stated she would want a condition added that any new directional signs would not exceed 20 square feet in area. She could not endorse deviations from the code when it was not necessary. Ms. Nguyen stated the site already had a variance and set the precedent for those signs. The variance currently allowed 20 square feet and 5' -4 ". Anything over that was what the variance that was being requested would cover and there were three signs that were over 20 square feet. Basically what had occurred at the site was that the signs were constructed larger than approved and it also happened on some of the wall signs. Some of the signs were constructed without permits and the intent was to clean everything up in one sign program. Chair Fox stated the approval was for one size and the signs were made larger. Now the applicant was asking for forgiveness. Mr. Ovalle stated that was accurate. Committee Member Wheeler asked what signs were permitted for the north elevations? Ms. Nguyen stated she could provide that information. Mr. Ovalle stated there was a new General Manager that had not been present at the time the changes were made and his intent was to clean everything up. Committee Member Imboden asked if there was an explanation for the first variance? Ms. Nguyen stated variances were approved with the original entitlement. There were two City Council members and one appealed the decision because they had not liked the over - signage, but then rescinded the appeal as he felt it would hinder business in not accepting the signage. There was a lot of controversy and one issue was with the monument signs. The DRC had initially denied the original proposal. Committee Member Imboden stated when someone came back with the request for a modification to a CUP, he felt it was important to have the minutes from the approval from the original CUP to understand the mentality that helped to form and shape a decision. There may have been restrictions placed on the CUP for a very important reason. He would want to understand the history and dialogue that had occurred. The issue had been beat around before. Chair Fox stated what would help her to have the original approvals and what the square footages were for the sign areas. Ms. Nguyen stated she could get that information. Committee Member Imboden stated he had not necessarily needed that information and he felt the proposal would need to come back to them. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 10 of 16 Committee Member Woollett stated he wanted the information that was presently available. Ms. Nguyen stated for W -2 Variance No. 2058 -98, approved 78 square feet and they were requesting 102 square feet; W -3, the Ford logo, DRC No. 2058 -98, approved 41 square feet and it was now 60 square feet; the service sign on wall 7, Variance No. 2058 -98, approved 15.5 square feet and it was 22 square feet; W -4 at 70 square feet would have met the entitlement, but because it was measured wrong it had not met the entitlement. Chair Fox stated the numbers were larger. Committee Member Woollett stated the numbers were approximately 30% larger. Chair Fox stated she was having a problem with the added size and adding signs with a larger surface, signs almost as big as the pylons for sign W -9, and they would not know what the signs would look like. She had not seen the justification for a variance. Variances were for extenuating circumstances; a special problem on -site, the configuration on the lot, or something that would justify the variance. Ms. Nguyen stated a lot of times for car dealerships they were considered a regional destination and generally had a far setback. There was a visibility issue and the site needed more directional signage for way finding and a lot of the car dealerships had variances. Chair Fox stated if the applicant was adding another use to the building they might want to remove one of the other signs. Ms. Nguyen stated they were allowed 254 square feet on the west elevation; they were allowed to add 147 square feet and still remain approximately 30 square feet under -147 vs. 176 square feet. Mr. Ovalle stated the signs were fairly long and there were other places for reductions to meet the requirements. He was certain that he could speak with the General Manager and the manufacturer to figure a way to meet the requirement. Ms. Nguyen stated if the other signs were allowed. Chair Fox stated they were asking for forgiveness on what already existed; then there was the introduction of a number of signs, the sign area, and font issues. Her personal reaction was that the applicant was way over signed with the signage on the north elevation and if that was not the case, she could not see the justification. Committee Member Imboden stated there were justifications needed for variances and although there might have been a justification for a previous approval, it was his understanding that now the variance was coming forward for signs that were installed too large. That was not being presented and it was the reason for a variance without any basis. Ms. Nguyen stated the variance was with the Zoning Administrator and the DRC would be making a recommendation on the design of the signs. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 11 of 16 Committee Member Imboden stated aesthetically the property was already a challenge. Mr. Ovalle stated the signs for the service area were visible from Main Street and he was not sure there would be a monster impact for Katella Avenue or for Main Street. Committee Member Imboden stated for a service- oriented business if the sign was not visible then it was not viewed and therefore was not needed. He would want to see another stab taken at the project. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want the applicant to come back with a proposal that took something out in order to add something new, some form of trade -off. Chair Fox stated she could not justify such a large sign that was on a fairly small facade. Committee Member Wheeler suggested another area on the drawings that a sign could be added. Ms. Nguyen stated the signs on the site could be molded cabinet as that was part of the sign program. Chair Fox stated she would suggest a continuance with a resubmittal, reconsidering sizes and possible trade -off with those signs that were built without permits or were too large to help justify the larger signs that were being proposed. Mr. Ovalle stated if they could get the signs reduced in size would the DRC be agreeable to that? Chair Fox stated the proposal would need to be reconsidered for size. Mr. Ovalle stated they could meet the square footage point, but the number of signs could not be reduced. He would not think that the folks at Ford would be in agreement to reduce the number of signs. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would also want to suggest that the sign not be a molded sign. Ms. Nguyen stated that was well within their program. The molded cabinets were added as an approved sign because the Ford log was a molded cabinet and permitted in the sign program. Chair Fox stated once the sign program was approved, Staff would be approving all future signs. Mr. Ovalle asked if he was missing something with the cabinet signs and were those not allowed? Ms. Nguyen stated they were allowed in the sign program. Committee Member Wheeler asked if there was a way to ensure that the actual signs that were installed were the sizes that were approved? City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 12 of 16 Ms. Nguyen stated generally if signs were in substantial conformance, Staff could go to the site and look at the signs to verify that the signs complied with what was approved. Committee Member Wheeler commented that since it had been an issue in the past, could the DRC condition that a building official go out to the site and measure the signs before they were installed. He was skeptical of the measurements as presented. Mr. Ovalle stated as soon as he had seen Committee Member Wheeler's measurement of 5' -4" they had gone out and measured to only 4'. Committee Member Wheeler pointed to the drawings and showed how he had arrived at his measurement. Ms. Nguyen stated the discrepancy was probably arrived at due to the building seams not being all equal. Committee Member Woollett made a motion to continue DRC No. 4624 -12, Ford/Mazda of Orange. Mr. Khorram stated if the DRC was requesting that a building official go out to the site to measure signage that it should become a condition in the sign program. SECOND: Joe Woollett AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 13 of 16 (4) DRC No. 4659 -12 - SADDLE RANCH CHOP HOUSE • A proposal to modify the exterior of an existing building at the Outlets at Orange. • 20 City Boulevard West • Staff Contact: Robert Garcia, 714- 744 -7231, rgarcia @cityoforange.org • DRC Action: Final Determination Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Applicant, Donald Lamm, address on file, stated he was representing the property owner of the same restaurant in Triangle Square /Costa Mesa and restaurant number 2 would be proposed in Orange. The business owner hired a builder /architect /contractor and the lease was signed last April, then they were asked if the project had ever gone through Planning. The Simon Mills lease was signed and it had been sitting. He was called in to assist them, as he represented the property at Triangle Square. The project was reviewed by Simon Mills and had complied. He was working with the Orange Police Department for an ABC license. The restaurant would be going into the Alcatraz location and the restaurant had a Disneyland or Knott's Berry Farm theme. It was a new neat idea and the City of Orange Community Development Department was excited to see it come in. The Staff Report stated the signs were not part of the proposal and he asked how that worked. Mr. Garcia stated the Outlets of Orange had a very generous sign program and it should not be a problem. Mr. Lamm stated Simon Mills was threatening to pull the lease and he had been trying to get on the calendar since December. He had never seen a City that had the case loads that the City of Orange had for their Staff. He needed to get the project through the process. Public Comment None. Chair Fox opened the item to the Committee for discussion. Committee Member Wheeler asked if the stage coach and proposed mannequins would be considered signs? Mr. Garcia stated those were considered components of the architecture. Committee Member Wheeler stated sheet A3.1, note 4, referred to surface ornamentation being removed, patched, and repaired; he asked if the pilasters were being removed? Mr. Lamm stated it was on the face that wrapped around. Committee Member Wheeler stated he believed it was part of the building, but it was hidden by the trash enclosure wall. In leaving the pilasters it appeared as a foreign element and a left over City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 14 of 16 from the Brewing Company; he suggested those be removed. His biggest issue with the proposed project was the eyebrow roof on the top. He had studied ghost towns and such and he had never found one with a shed roof. He had never found one with a shed roof at the parapet and it had not fit in with anything in the center; he suggested it be replaced with a cornice. Mr. Lamm stated they could do that. Committee Member Woollett asked if that was on the east elevation and would he want that cornice to continue? Committee Member Wheeler stated he would want something "plain Jane" and the cornice could be carried around. Mr. Lamm stated it appeared to be a plant on cornice. Committee Member Wheeler stated there was another eyebrow and it reminded him of Disney's Fantasia with the hippos dancing in their Tutus. He asked if the roof could come out more? The Committee Members reviewed the roof and made suggestions. Mr. Lamm stated they could keep the existing awning. Committee Member Imboden stated the eyebrow that was proposed had not been thought out as it terminated in a different condition at every edge. Chair Fox stated if the eyebrow was installed as drawn the stage coach would need to be supported with something else. She objected to the shed roof at the cornice line more than she objected to the other roof area. Mr. Lamm asked if the cornice could remain at the top on the existing building? That seemed to be what the Committee was looking for, and to leave the hippo skirt around the middle. Committee Member Wheeler stated he would suggest it be larger than proposed. He would also want the draftsman to label the elevations by orientation or to provide a legend. Mr. Lamm stated the proposal had gone through three architects and two contractors to date and it was the unfortunate side that restaurant owners were not builders; they were operators. The Costa Mesa location was a year behind schedule and it was an unfortunate situation. Committee Member Wheeler stated on the barn door the struts were to act as a compression member that kept the door from sagging. Half the doors were proposed in one manner and half the other way; he would want the details corrected. Chair Fox stated the open shutters appeared to be drawn correctly; it was just the barn doors that needed correcting. If the roof from Alcatraz was attempting to be incorporated there were some details that needed to be worked out. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 15 of 16 Committee Members Imboden and Woollett agreed with the suggestions for the shed roof treatments. Committee Member Wheeler made a motion to approve DRC No. 4659 -12, Saddle Ranch Chop House, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report and with the additional conditions: • The east elevation pilasters and horizontal members, except possibly the cornice be removed and the wall plane to be returned to a flat surface on the portion of the building partially concealed by the trash enclosure. • The shed eyebrow roof at the top of the structure to be removed and replaced with a cornice to match the existing cornice on the east elevation or smaller, at the owner's discretion. • Shutters and barn doors to be constructed in the historic manner with the diagonal strut running diagonally to the hinge at the bottom of the door or shutter. Mr. Lamm commented, regarding the first condition for the removal of the pilaster, that if they found those members to be structural that could change things. Chair Fox stated those elements were being removed in other areas of the building. Committee Member Imboden stated the approval would not include any signage. SECOND: Robert Imboden AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. City of Orange — Design Review Committee Final Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2013 Page 16 of 16 ADJOURNMENT: Committee Member Imboden made a motion to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Design Review Committee meeting on March 20, 2013. SECOND: Craig Wheeler AYES: Carol Fox, Robert Imboden, Craig Wheeler, Joe Woollett NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tim McCormack MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.