Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. Alrighty. I'd like to call to order and ask that the Pledge of Allegiance is done by Greg, but it doesn't look like Greg's here. Any volunteers?

The pledge. Okay. Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right. I'd like to request a roll call.

Thank you, and good evening, Chair. We'll start tonight with Committee Member Skorpanich. Here. Great. Thank you. Committee Member Gross is absent this evening. Committee member Ledesma, also known as absent this evening. Committee member Lopez requested an absence earlier. Committee member Gladson. Present. Thank you. Vice Chair McDermott. Here. Present. Thank you. And Chair Farfan. Here. Thank you. With four present members, we have a quorum this evening.

Thank you very much. I was wondering if we had quorum. Okay, at this time I'd like to open up to public comments, if that's okay. And these items are items that are not per tonight's agenda. If there's any discussions that anybody have, please make sure to provide a comment card. Is there anybody? No? All right. Well, we'll skip to the consent calendar. Okay.

The first one is 3.1, approval of minutes from the City of Orange Design Review Committee regular meeting held on 12/17/2025 and 01/07/2026. Right now, the recommended action is approval of minutes as presented. Is there any motions?

Chair, I move that we approve the minutes and the consent calendar as presented. Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. That's vote. Okay, it looks like it's approved. We have four Yeas.

I'd like to move to new business. We'll start with 4.1. It's a request to install a new neon wall sign and reface an existing blade sign on the building located at Old Town Historical District at 116 East Chapman Avenue, design review number 20. The recommended actions approve design review.

I know there's some comments or motions.

If

there's no questions from my colleagues on this one, I'm prepared to make a motion to approve it. It seems straightforward.

I am, too. I know staff had a question about if we should chime in on the font. That was the only thing that I saw in the staff report, and maybe we get a little brief presentation, consider that, and then take a direction. Sure.

All right. I'll hand it over to staff. We can do a presentation.

Thank you. This evening, Planning Technician Anna Eischelberger will present the staff report.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members of the Design Review Committee. This item is design review number 25Dash0014, a request to install a new neon wall sign and reface an existing blade sign for a commercial building located at 116 East Chapman Avenue within the Old Town Historic District. The property is designated as a contributing property and is currently developed with a two story commercial building originally constructed in 1900. The building is located at the southwest corner of South Orange Street and East Chapman Avenue within the Old Town Plaza District.

The existing structure is constructed of masonry, wood, and stucco. At this time, the building contains one existing blade sign and no existing wall signage. The proposed project consists of the installation of a new wall neon wall mounted neon sign and the refacing of the existing blade sign. The new neon wall sign will measure two feet in height and 20 feet in length totaling 40 square feet. The wall sign will consist of a black aluminum backing with a 15 millimeter neon illuminated tube for the neon lit effect consistent with the intent of the historic preservation design standards and will be anchored three inches into the existing stucco and wood wall.

While the proposed signage font style is not a traditional style commonly found within the Old Town Historic District, the design is consistent with the tenant's established business branding and franchise logo. The historic preservation design standards do not prescribe specific fonts, styles, or signage within the district. In addition, the applicant proposes to reface the existing non illuminated blade sign with a new illuminated aluminum face. The blade sign measures 15 inches in height and 16 60 inches in length totaling approximately 6.5 square feet. Staff reviewed the proposal and found materials, and lighting configuration for both the wall sign and the refacing of the existing blade sign are consistent with the historic preservation design standards for Old Town and the Orange Municipal Code.

The proposed signage will not adversely impact the appearance or character of the historic building or surrounding streetscape. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of design review number 20 five-fourteen subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Anna. Is there any comments?

So just to clarify, we a blade sign that's under story, and then the neon. They are the same font for both styles. Again, I'm not an expert of font.

Yeah, that is correct. They are both going to be the same font.

We we like you say in the staff report, we really don't have that style downtown or do do we? We just don't have a criteria for font. But we may have something like this that's

Yeah. The historic preservation design standards don't outline any specifics, like, font signage standards.

So

But we have some things that are kind of whimsical or Right. Because this is kind of that way. And I'm I'm I mean, I basically jump to crab cooker font when I hear the word crab, so that's not necessarily what I would expect here. But it doesn't it doesn't bother me in terms of style. I just think it's a good thing for us to be aware of.

And my colleagues, if you think this is an issue, the beauty of signs is they tend to be they do time change over time when a when a tenant wants to update them. So it doesn't bother me, but I do think it's a good element of of design that we we can chime in on or not. I'm not bothered by it, but yeah. But I haven't looked at as many signs as you have of late, so.

Yep. Okay. Is there any other comments?

I don't have any further comments, but I'd like to make a motion to approve item number 4.1, design review number 20, request to install a new neon sign and reface an existing blade sign in the Old Town Historic District at 116 East Chapman Avenue, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote. We have four yeas. We'll move on. I forgot to ask if there's any public comments on that one. We're moving so quick. I know you would stop me, right? Okay. Alrighty. Let's move on to 4.2.

This is a request for a total of 180 square feet to an existing single family home designated as a non contributor located in the Old Town Historical District at 173 North Waverly Street. And the recommendation is to approve by the design review committee. The number is 26Dash00-sixty. I'd like to open it up with staff report and then public comments, and then we'll take it from there.

Thank you, Chair. Again, this evening Planning Technician Anna Eischelberger will present the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you. This item is design review number 26Dash0060, a request to add a total of 180 square feet to an existing single family residence located at 173 North Waverly Street within the Old Town Historic District. The property is designated as a non contributing property and is currently developed with a one story California ranch style home originally constructed in 1946. The project site is located on the East Side of North Waverly Street between East Maple Avenue and East Chapman Avenue on a substandard 6,750 square foot lot. The existing residence is one thousand two hundred fifty fifty four square feet, set back 80 feet from the property line from the front property line with a detached garage located in front of the property, located 45 feet from the front property line.

Over time, the existing primary dwelling has undergone several modifications and currently contains a variety of exterior materials and later alterations that are not original to the home's historic character. The proposed project consists of a 129 square foot addition to the front of the residence and a 51 square foot addition to the rear. The proposed front addition will expand the existing primary bathroom by nine feet nine inches in length and will increase the height from seven feet three inches to 11 feet three inches to match the height of the existing home. The existing primary bathroom is visible from the street, and the addition will remain visible. The rear addition will enlarge an existing bedroom and will not be visible from the street.

The project also includes exterior renovations consisting of replacement, siding, removal of windows, replacing existing windows with new fiberglass sash windows, replacing and modifications to portions of the roof form to better integrate additions with the existing structure. The proposed materials include the fiber cement board and batten siding and fiberglass windows, where and the fiberglass windows were selected for their compatibility with traditional materials commonly associated with the California ranch architectural style found within the historic district. The proposed roof forms, slopes, and finishes will match the existing residents to maintain consistency with the overall scale and design of the home. Staff reviewed the proposal and found that the project is consistent with the with the historic preservation design standards, the secretary of interior standards, and the applicable development standards of the Orange Municipal Code. The rear addition remains subordinate and is not visible from the public street, while the front addition expands upon a prior modification and is clearly differentiates new work from the original structure.

The 21% floor area ratio proposed is lower than the average 24% floor area ratio of the block for parcels of similar size. This is an acceptable increase given that the addition is within setback requirements and the floor area ratio is maintained lower than the range for the average FAR for the block. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of design review number 20 six-sixty subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my report and I am now open for any questions. Thank you.

Before we move to public comments, there was a hot file that we received at three What's the difference between what was given earlier and the hot file?

I'm sorry, in terms of given what went out with the agenda Yes. Was the letter of justification, the plans, and it did not include the applicable HRA for this project. That was an administrative error on staff's part. So as a result, the hot file was the applicable historic resource assessment for this scope of work on this particular property. And it had been prepared by the group. And so we wanted to provide that both for the record and at minimum to introduce that analysis for consideration. We realize it was not an ideal amount of time. But again, we wanted to bring this to the DRC's attention. Yes.

I don't know if anybody had time to

Yes, Chair, you bring a good question. And I guess our new assistant city attorney may want to chime in. That unavailability of that assessment put us in any kind of awkwardness where the public not having access to it until whenever it was posted? I know I got it this morning, which I have to say I've tried to glance through it very quickly. It's a 70 page document, so if it's I get the situation with wanting to, you know, be sensitive to timing.

At this stage, because the document was given so late in the day, it's understandable if the DRC can't include it in its deliberations, but if you all feel you have enough information without it to proceed, you can proceed with the vote. But if not, and you would really and you need more time to examine the hot file, the correct move would be to continue it. But it's up to you whether you feel you have enough information on the project as is.

I see. I think we'll discuss it once we meet amongst ourselves.

And I don't mind hearing from the applicant as well, if that's appropriate, with staff and the colleagues here. It's just, you know, we know timing to get to hearing is usually sensitive, so we want to be thoughtful for that too. But I'd like to appreciate all of your comments on it. I haven't finished reading all of it.

Definitely. Skyler, is there any public comments? There's one. Can we go through that first, and then we'll see if the applicant would like to make a presentation? Thank you.

I'd like to call to the microphone Donnie. Oh, are you right there? That's quick. Your microphone, am I supposed to turn it on? There we go.

Is it on? Check, check. One, two, one, two. So I'm with Old Town Preservation Association. So this has crossed our path. I'm going to back up a little bit from where I am because I have a question about this whole thing with the report. I was familiar with this in the fall when Robert from Janus contacted me about looking at the architecture of this whole thing. Then they decided to stay with the draftsman they had. But I thought the historic reassessment was done in the fall. Wasn't it completed? What's the date of it? Because I seem to remember him being date almost

the document is 01/29/2026.

And I'd like to just jump in real quick, and if you could pause this time and restore it once I'm done. Public comment is not a direct question and answer. The members should not respond from the dais, but after all the public comment, you guys can respond during your discussion.

Sounds good.

Okay. Then I'll move on. We're in support of the project in California style that it's there. The current existing house is a bit of a hodgepodge of elements. And so given the fact that the addition on the back is not seen from the street, whole project itself is set forward.

The remodel that adds the square footage helps themes up the front of the main house, and then the ADU is there because the ADU is there. The garage door, the existing one, is remaining. The only suggestion that I would make on that is just somehow find a way to make sure that code enforcement is aware of that because there's too many cases. One of my projects specifically where the door was tore down, that it had to be replaced, and then we had to go through the historic planner back in the good old days when we had a historic planner on staff. And then it became a whole big issue with code enforcement.

We're in support of it. The only thing that note that came up in some of our last minute discussions was if a cut sheet of the potential fiberglass windows could be included in the drawings to make sure that that's something that adheres to what's there. And other than that, we're in full support of it. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there any other? Nope. Okay. At this time, I'd like to see if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Please state your name.

Hi. How's it going? I'm Kevin Tarbell. Yeah. Thank you guys for taking time. So I'm happy to field questions. I wasn't aware that the report didn't reach you guys till today. But I do have a copy of it if needed. The Janus historic assessment basically across the board, think it was like the 12 setting standards all were in compliance and then the mechanical, I think, remaining 10 standards were also suggested, you know, compliance as well. So as far as scope scope of work, just to kind of clarify some context, the two areas that we're looking to improve are both kind of a regular construction.

The one in the front, do you guys have this screen on there, you guys looking at okay. If you could go to that first slide that you were on that plot, you'll see on the upper left in the back there, that's that's an existing bedroom. I believe the prior, you know, construction had just extended from the original Homes eaves. So that that bedroom in interior dimension is like six foot two inside. So it's abnormally low. So we're just all we're looking to do is really just correct the ceiling height. So that would involve just removing those two outside walls. And then where you see that dashed line in the very top left, we're just matching it to the existing, you know, rear wall of the home. So that's the added square footage there.

I think that's about the 61 feet.

We are gonna maintain intend to maintain the one kind of historic door to the exterior, and we're gonna just relocate it to the other side. So that's that's in the the rear. None of that is visible. The home is set way in the very back portion of the lot as was mentioned. For the other portion, it's kind of in the middle on the left. It's set back. Yeah. Right in there. It's set back behind the garage. Currently, on the the left side of the play page, that existing area, it's an odd l shape around a window.

Also a very low ceiling. They kinda did the same method in that front so that that ceiling height is also abnormally low in that bathroom. So all we're looking to do is actually, I think the report referenced nine feet. That's actually from the the far corner, but from that corner closest or that edge closest to the garage, it's actually just pumping at five feet and squaring it off to make a clean roofline. So that's in in essence kind of what we're looking to improve.

I'm trying to think as far as windows, you know, there was there was the mention of some windows and changes across the very rear of the property. Oh, there you go. Let's see. The Yeah, the elevations are good. So on the upper left, that would be your east elevation there. The two on the left are existing. We're just gonna keep them where they are. We're just gonna improve them. Right? So so there's no no real changes there.

The the right portion where there's that single window, I think it's w that's too small for me to read. I think it's like w three if I remember. Anyways, that there's currently two two windows there. Both are really not operational. They're metal clad. We're just gonna replace it with one to match the single hung that's on the the historic elements of the house. So that's just to add consistency. The

the proposed board and batten

is really just kind of at the rear and then in the front facing portion of the home. And then I'm trying to think on the on the other end, there's that would be on the the north elevation kinda left of that fireplace. That roofline is just literally just raising to a proper height and reconnecting kind of properly at the roof right there. Yep. So you see that dash line, it's just bumping out.

I think it's less than three feet to just match the existing as well. There is a window that we're removing there, but we've added the the easement on the rear of the home for the bedroom. I'm trying to think if there's any other Are

you guys able to ask questions? Yeah, you can just stand by, you can have a seat. We're going to have an internal discussion, and then we'll

Yeah, not a problem.

We'll bring you back up. All right, at this time I'd like to open it to the committee. Is there anybody like to go first?

Yes, I have a couple of questions. So I saw in the historic report that well, and in the staff report that two alternate materials are being proposed that are not found in the historic district. And that is the cementitious Hardiplank siding and also fiberglass windows, which are not traditional materials. So I'd like to get some more information about the Hardy plank. The sample that went around is showing an artificial wood grain. Is that the intention of what's going to be put on the building?

That's our understanding based on the material that was provided. But again, if we need exact clarification as far as yes, please. So the options are a smooth finish versus a full wood grain finish. Is that correct? Okay. So I they just wanted to clarify.

Sure. Yeah. No. That's a great question. So and working with the consultant, he just that was kind of a recommendation to kinda closely match some of the other wood materials, but honestly, we're we're open to either. There's there's there's a smooth finish option. There's, you know, the the wood grain. We're also if if wood is preferred, we're we're open to that as well. We're just trying to clean up the aesthetic to match. We propose the vertical because if you look at some of the existing elevations, like on the north elevation, the majority of the home has that horizontal clad or the horizontal along the base, but most of it is vertical. So they wanted to have something that marries, but also have the distinction from the old to the new. But, yeah, we're we're we're open to any any

Okay. So you're you're proposing the the the faux wood grain, but you are open to a different finish?

Yeah. If there's if there's something that you feel is more compatible on,

we're Okay.

Totally open.

And as far as the the fiberglass windows are concerned, did you bring a sample of what you're proposing? Because they come in different textures and sizes. And

I I don't have a window with me.

I didn't know

I could get a sample of a window.

Window companies sometimes will give you they have they they have a small The trial. Or the cut sheet. Do you have the information about that? Digitally,

so I don't I assume provided. But it's a guard, I believe,

We need to review what it looks like because since it's an alternate material, we don't know how compatible it will be with the historic district.

It was just a recommendation from the historic assessment process. That was the recommendation that I was providing.

Sure. But we need to evaluate it.

I understand. Is it wood preferred? I mean, we're open to, you know, wood frame single hung. That's totally fine too.

Wood is preferred. Oh, wood is always preferred. In the historic district.

I'm always related to that. You know, I'm open.

Okay. We'll talk about it. We'll talk about it. Thank you for the information.

Happy to be compliant to

kind of whatever the recommendation.

Recommendation. That's great. Thank you very much.

Chair chair, before the applicant steps away, because I had a question. Did I hear correctly the garage the garage door, which is shown in some of the photographs, you're you're leaving that as is. Yeah. It'll stay the same.

It'll it'll need to be kinda touched up and repainted, but

Okay. You're not touching the garage door. The look of that will stay the

same. Okay.

Exactly as it is, yeah.

Thank you. Is there any other comments? Someone like to make a motion?

I had questions about the materials as well and we always prefer wood. Especially for a non contributor well, in past years we didn't allow substitute materials at all. But the fact that this is a non contributor and it's set back from the street, what we're really looking for is to have it look like a wood window because it is in the district and that's what was done for homes of this period. I do want to make sure that there and I might want to add a condition on this is that we don't have any faux muntins or mullions on those windows because there are some on the market that would be okay except for those little plastic fake things. So we certainly don't want to see that.

I am really appreciative that this is a really nicely scaled addition. It's taking a house that's sort of a bunch of mishmash and sweetening it up a little bit or quite a bit and making the home more usable for a family that means it's going to last longer. Even though it's a non contributor, we want try to preserve what we have here. I was a little bit bothered by the west elevation of the house, that it was just a solid wall with no windows, but I could see from the floor plan and the interior that's, I think, three different spaces inside where you really couldn't put a window in there. And it's it's blocked the view of it's blocked by the garage, garage.

So I feel comfortable enough with that that I am prepared to support the project tonight.

Thank you.

Members, I too like the direction this project's going and the sensitivity to unmuddle so much that's here. It's clear the age of the house and and how things were just kinda done and folks could just, you know, add here and patch there. It's clearly a a great improvement. I I have to go on record that I don't like being last minute on things. I like to look at the records of everything.

Our job is to make the findings that we have to make for these, and the assessments are critical to that. It doesn't stop me from supporting this. I do concur that I would prefer wood windows, but I'm okay with an alternative. And if we want to craft up a condition to let staff make sure the millions and all the materials are exactly like we would expect, I could get comfortable with that too. So I think it's going the right direction. It's just with the full agenda we have, I'd like to give things our time.

Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Chair

Yes, I would just like to respond about the windows. I think that unless we can really see what the finish is going to be, because I've seen some really dreadful artificial faux wood grain fiberglass windows, that are too bulky and too fake to acceptable. And if the applicant is willing to do wood windows, then I think that I would like to have this conditioned with wood windows unless they want to bring us a sample of what they're and I think that DRC should review those windows, unless they're wood windows, which I would not want to Yeah, agree

with you. I like that idea of wood windows, or then we could condition, we could essentially do a continuance for them to bring us the sample of the alternative mop of the fiberglass with that so we could look at it before we officially approve it. So it's either way.

Unless they do windows, in which case

I would

not want to make them come back. If you want to condition that and also the smooth finish, I support that.

Did you have anything else? I have

Yeah. A I'd like to just overall, I think I appreciate the drawings. I like seeing the existing, the proposed. I think the drawings were really well done. And I think the placement of the hardscape is in good taste and follows what's existing. And love the space between the house and the sidewalk or the walk. You have a nice foundation. I think if we can write up a condition of approval that meets what the group is looking for, think I'd like to move on with the vote, if that's okay, and we can go from there. And it looks like you probably already have it written down, if you'd to make a motion.

I do, thank you.

All right.

So we'd like to get to yes on projects. So with that in mind, I'd like to make a motion to approve DRC number 20 six-sixty, a request to add a total of 180 square feet to an existing single family home, non contributor located in the district at 173 North Waverly Street, subject to the findings and conditions of the staff report with the following additional conditions, that all new windows be wood, that the Hardie product, cementitious board be with a smooth finish. We didn't talk about the doors, but let me just pause there on the motion. There was a new door or only a relocated door. One new door?

I think there was one new door.

Sorry. I wasn't sure if I could.

And whether that what that material is

So there's only there's only one exterior door. It's being maintained from

Oh, okay.

The one side by the back room, and it'll be relocated.

It's original

The original one. It has wood

muntins. Real ones. Yes.

That's what like.

Which are very

cool.

Okay. So I think that completes my motion.

I'll second that motion.

Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Please vote. Okay, it looks like we have approval.

Thank you. We're going to move on to let me catch my notes here. Okay. We're gonna move on to 4.3. This is a request to demolish an existing garage and adjacent accessory structure and construct a new detached two car garage at the rear of the resident residential single family residence designated as a contributor to property in the Old Town, Orange Historical District located at 220 South Orange Street. Design review number twenty five dash -one hundred seventy five. At this time, I'd like the staff to make a presentation. And we have new person.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We're getting settled. We'll pull some plans up. But tonight, this item will be presented by Alyssa Yerkovic, our planning technician. Thank you, Alissa.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Design Review Committee. My name is Alessia Orkovic. I am one of the planning technicians here. The item before you is Design Review No. 2075, which is a request to demolish an existing three thirty eight square foot garage and an adjacent 171 square foot accessory structure, In order to construct also a new four twelve square foot detached two car garage at the rear of a residential single family residence designated as a contributor in the Old Town Historic District located at 220 South Orange Street.

The site is currently developed with a one and a half story of 2,009 square foot Craftsman style residence that features a side gable roof with overhanging eaves, exposed raptor tails, as well as asphalt shingles roofing. The detached garage is located at the northwest of the property, while the ancillary structure is going to be located at the adjacent rear of the main residence and has a simple utilitarian design. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single family residence, and nearly all properties on the west side of it are of the block are designated as contributing properties as well in Old Town. The main residence and the garage do appear and under the attachments on the Sanborn map in 1922. However, the ancillary structure does not appear until 1953 in an aerial photograph.

Based on the historic assessment report, the ancillary structure was constructed outside the district's period of significance and therefore is not considered a character defining feature. Although the structure does include elements such as an exposed rafter tails and horizontal clapboard siding, it lacks the architectural detailing necessary to classify it as a craftsman style and or to demonstrate a strong architectural relationship with the primary residence, I should say. The HRA also states that the existing garage is modest in design and lacks defining craftsman style features that is in contrast to the main residence horizontal siding. The garage exterior walls are clad in vertical wood, siding of different types of dimensions. In addition, the garage has been significantly altered over time, including a demolition of a portion of it because the garage originally did share.

And then in 1996, the garage configuration was split and a new garage was constructed on the neighboring property. Additional modifications to the remaining structure, including a replacement of portions to the exterior walls, has resulted in the loss of the garage's original historic integrity. According to the report, there's no permits, historic photographs or other documentation that have been identified to determine which bay reflects the original configuration when these alterations did occur. The project proposes that the demolition of the existing three thirty eight square foot garage and the existing 171 square foot building has been based on the determination that neither structure qualifies as a character defining of the contributing property. The proposal includes the construction of a new two car garage in the same general location as the existing structure, and the new garage would be about four twelve square feet and 10 feet in height and would maintain a similar orientation, massing as well as the roof form.

Design elements include modest overhang eaves, exposed fascia and simple wood detailing the complement of the historic residence. The project complies with all applicable zoning and development standards and are consistent with the historic preservation design standards of Old Town. Staff recommends approval of the project with recommendation of conditions of approval. Thank you for your time. And that concludes staff's presentation. And staff is available for any questions, as well as the applicant is here as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Elisa. At this time I'd like to see if there's any public comments. No? Okay. At this time does the applicant would they like to make a presentation?

I do have Doug here to present, if that's okay.

Thank you, Doug.

Good evening members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be in front of you again. And also, I'd like to thank Alyssa for guidance getting us to here at this point. We also have Kevin Purvis, who is the property owner. He is here in the audience tonight.

And he may be able to answer any questions that you might have. Our historic preservation consultant was Flora Chow of Page and Turnbull. She was not able to be here tonight, but she is watching. And she can text me if there's any questions that you have of her. It might be helpful, Alyssa, if you could go to the photographs.

I just want to spend a little bit of time just to make sure you understand what is going on with the existing garage. We were fortunate enough that Paul, neighbor who's also in the audience tonight, he had these photographs of a garage that he built. Originally, the original garage spanned the two properties, and it was accessed by the shared driveway that went between the two properties. And he decided in, I think, late or early two thousand maybe to, build a new structure. So he removed the portion of the garage that was on his property.

And the portion that remains, you can kind of see in that bottom photo that is second from the left. The The existing garage is comprised of two bays, and they were both constructed at different times. Our investigation of it showed that I believe what happened is that when it was built, it was a two bay structure spanning the property line. And then the south portion was built still in that same period of significance. It might have been maybe a couple years later, but I could tell through some testing that we did that it was built second.

The perimeter facade of the existing garage is it's got t one eleven siding on the north portion where it was cut off. The front has a different vertical siding than the south. And then the back end there isn't a photo here, but the back end has some vertical siding that faces the wall. And you can only see it from the church, which is on the other side. If you have additional questions, I did bring additional photos on a flash drive.

But the rear of the existing garage, the north portion was also pushed out at one time. And, right now, it just has some plywood over it. The garage is currently, the existing garage is 14 feet seven inches in-depth. And my client cannot park a car in it. And the intent was to be able to upgrade the property and have what is permitted by right garage that is 20 by 20.

What we've done though is we've reduced the depth a little bit so it doesn't stick out any further, and we're requesting an interior depth of 19 feet and a width of 20. The ancillary structure, you can see that on the photos on the bottom left. It was built in the early 1950s. It has a mix match of facade treatments. Each facade is different.

I did bring additional photos if you wanted to see that as well. It has a dirt floor on the interior. I'm not sure exactly what it was used for. Maybe it was just a tool shop or something like that. Pardon? That's the first I've heard that. So anyway, it and was built real close to the existing residence, and we would like to remove that. And the garage that we are replacing the structure with Alyssa, if you could go to the There's

some more pictures somehow.

Front of it. Keep on going up a little bit. There you go. So since we are building within 10 feet of the rear property line, there's a height limit of 10 feet. So that's the reason why our garage does not match the neighboring garage in height.

We also wanted to honor the spirit of a two bay garage. And so we've proposed two individual garage doors. Those are sectional doors that look like the carriage style. And I believe you may have seen the color board. We've got a picture of it there.

So we would like this to just be a tribute to what these garages always were and kind of bring it I believe that when it was first built and it spanned the two properties, it was similar to that, although it had a higher roof pitch. The side elevation does that say north? It should say south. Keep it at the elevation. It looks like we have something this mislabeled there, but the elevation on the far left there yeah.

That should say south exterior elevation. And then the one on the right is the north exterior elevation. The we do not have exposed rafter tails on it. We've haven't captured eave. We have details in the drawing showing what our intent is. And I'll just, wait to see if you have any questions, and I'll respond to those. Perfect.

Thank you. I'm sure we'll have some questions. I'd like to open up to the committee and see if they have any comments or questions.

I normally get heartburn when I hear demolition of garages and accessory structures. But in this case, I certainly see the rationale for not saving either one of these. The fact that the garage has one of the four walls fully new and looks like it appears that half of another wall is not new and patched together. And the accessory structure has a dirt floor even though it could potentially have been significant in its own right since it was built in the 50s and it's more than 50 years old. So in this case, I don't have any qualms about approving the demolition of either one of these.

And I was delighted to see that there's wood windows and a wood door proposed on this, and just wanted to get a confirmation from the project proponents that there are no fake muntins on this one either, because we don't want to see that. That's great. Yeah, so nice design, very nice scale, appreciate that. And also, you know, sort of respecting that spirit of what these ancillary structures used to look like. So nice job on the project.

Thank you.

I also can support this project. I will point out on the windows, it says that they are aluminum clad. Is that correct? Wood windows, aluminum clad wood windows? Or are they odd?

Sorry about

that. Didn't see that.

Saw They're

all wood windows. So we'll just make that correction there that they're not aluminum. Although I have to say, if they're going to be clad, if it's not vinyl, aluminum is another story. Okay, so that's certainly fine. I think that this is a very reasonably sized and very reasonably designed utilitarian building with above average doors. And I think it's very appropriate for the site, and I'm able to make the findings and approve this project.

Thank you. Any further comments?

Yes. And colleagues and chair, I too duplicate when I when I hear a project ask asking for demolition, my antennas go up as they should, particularly on a contributing site. And even if it is a secondary ancillary building or two. I'm glad you got the correction on the windows because I see the I see the board has the word aluminum, so that was one of my question. I too can support.

I did really appreciate the assessment to give me all those details and explain why a demolition is appropriate here, why the integrity is is gone, all the materials are essentially been lost. Exactly what I want to see in an assessment to tell me why they would find it appropriate to demolish it. My only other suggestion is really more of a suggestion because you are also looking to demolish, and I know the owner is behind you, so I want to the ancillary building, as we look at those details, is there a possibility of some of that is any of that siding, any of that material potentially salvageable? Do you particularly the newer building, not the garage so much, but potentially some of that might be reusable, especially if it could be redwood. I don't know, but that was my only thinking because materials are really important, so

Great comment. I didn't really look at it to that extent. It's possible on the back end where there is some horizontal siding. I didn't really check the profile.

Yeah. It's really that second it's the it's the newer building that will answer at a lay wood wood shop or whatever it was. There may be something to salvage there. And it's only it's worth exploring because you're gonna be demolishing.

Sure. Sure. Good good comment.

That was my comment. So I too can support it, the findings as well. Because it's nice when the package has what we need.

Definitely. Okay. At this time, I'd like to open up to a motion. And my committee members?

Chair, I would like to move to approve design review number 25000175, and, with the findings and the conditions that are listed in the staff report and no further conditions.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second that. Oh, Mary Anne got me. Go ahead, go ahead. It's fine, I can second. I'm not fast enough.

No problem. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Congratulations. Thank you.

Okay. We're going to move to 4.4. This is a request for adaptive reuse of two existing vacant buildings designated as contributors within the Old Town Historical District to accommodate a new restaurant with walk up window service and full bar known as a Window, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. And this is the design review number 205. At this time, I'd like to have staff make a report. And it looks like we have

Thank you, Chair. Yes, once again, it's my pleasure to reintroduce Alissa Yerkovic, sir.

Great. Thank you, Alissa.

And we'll begin momentarily.

Sorry about that, a little bit of technical difficulty, but we are on now. Good evening again, Chair and members of the Design Review Committee. So this item is going to be Design No. 20 5 for adaptive reuse of two vacant contributor buildings within the Old Town Historic District for a new outdoor restaurant and a bar known as the Window. The project site is located at 237 West Chapman Avenue and consists of a 10,887 square foot corner parcel developed with a 19 24 standard oil superstation.

The site contains two one story utilitarian buildings with them arranged around a former surface parking lot. The site also has Building A, which is located at the rear, originally functioned as the auto service building, while Building B at the front served as a filling station. The proposal would convert Building A into a kitchen and a restroom area, whereas Building B would be into a bar and a walk up counter service. The remainder of the site would function as an outdoor dining and activity space. The project includes two twenty five outdoor dining seats and 16 bar seats with no indoor dining proposed.

The existing buildings do retain an L shaped form and a historic industrial character, including concrete and masonry construction, metal and plaster finishes and a streamlined, modern detailing of Building A. Additionally, contributing site features include the existing pole sign and then with also fencing around it with mature trees, brick planter and a monument sign, which is identifying the Orange Plaza Historic District. So if you sit on that corner of Lummon And Chapman, you will see it. That one's going to be staying in place. Proposed improvements are limited, but our focus for the adaptive reuse, which include the modifications for the walk up service, ventilation, signage, landscaping related to site improvements while also maintaining the overall historic character of the property.

Building A is proposed for adaptive reuse as a kitchen with a walk up counter service. There was an attached canopy that you will see here. This will be enclosed and this will be the restrooms that the patrons will use. So the existing footprint will stay the same. Exterior modifications would also include infilling the existing counter service on the south and west facades with the cantilever wraparound service counter.

Other improvements would include new wood windows, rooftop mechanical screening, signage on the south and west facades as well as a roof mounted rotating pull sign. Building B is also going to be proposed as adaptive users for the bar and walk up service. Exterior alterations would include replacing the glazing within the existing metal window and transform frames on the south and west facades. And there will be modifying of the existing door openings with new metal panels and windows. Site modifications also include replacing the canopy slabs with new concrete accessible paving and concrete improvement and replacing nonoriginal security doors with glazing up roll up doors to create an indoor and outdoor seating area, open space kind of concept.

As for landscaping, there is going be site improvements. The project will retain its existing trees. There is a pool also, signage that faces onto Chapman that will stay and the brick monument sign, as mentioned earlier. New improvements would include decomposed granite surfacing over the existing asphalt, in ground planters and lighting and movable furnishings. Additional improvements would include a new fencing and a trash enclosure at the northwest corner of the site.

Staff is recommending a condition requiring more durable surface with a concrete along the primary circulation of paths and service areas while allowing the DJ in lower traffic areas. I should note that there have been revisions made to the paving layout to address any concerns regarding the decomposed granite spilling into the public right of way. So we do have another site plan that we will follow-up and show you. And then I will also have the applicant further explain as well. So but pretty much all the majority entry and exit areas will be covered with pavers, so they would be along this way as well as expanding it here.

And then you also have this right here. That would also include pavers. Currently, this area is DG. In the plans, you will notice that these here, when you look at the sample, those are going to be pavers. They're no longer going to be utilizing let me pull it up for everybody to see.

This material will no longer be part it's going to be with pavers. So with the updated changes, we will follow-up and show you so you can see what it would look like. So I just wanted to kind of make that clarification. But overall, staff is supportive of the project and finds that the adaptive reuse to be consistent with the historic preservation design standards as well as the Secretary of Interior standards and its applicable provisions with the orange Municipio Code. The project retains its historic character and integrity of the contributing structures while introducing a new compatible new use that revitalizes an underutilized historic property.

Staff therefore recommends approval of the project to recommend conditions of approval. Thank you for your time. That concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available, as well as the applicant and the team if you have any further questions.

Thank you, Elisa. At this time, I'd like to see if there's any public comments. There is? Okay.

Hello again. As I said, my name is Donnie Duis. And for this project from here, I've got three hats on. And so one is the preservation chair from OTPA. The second one is a design professional in Orange.

I'm principal director of design of Duise Design in Cypress Avenue. I also live up on so I'm a resident. So this has a big impact on what I'm looking at here. So before we get into the project, there's a couple of things I did want to say. The fact that there's been DRC meetings that have been canceled, and then this package we get only on Thursday, and there's five things on there, it's very problematic for the public to be able to rack to this, for OTPA to rack to.

It's an awful lot of stuff, especially when there's this many projects. They're very diverse. They're very complicated. It was very difficult to of saddle up for this one. No preliminary projects submittals very often anymore for DRC projects. It's problematic as well. So there's a long list that we have here, unfortunately, for this project. OTPA is very, very concerned about this. There's a long list of ones. I'm just going to try to hit on the largest ones with the time that I have.

Okay. So we're starting there. From an overall standpoint, the project's very, very heavy handed. Just overwhelms the site. The design of it overwhelms those two little defensive buildings that have been sitting there by themselves since before the pandemic.

Like I said, it's just very heavy handed. Rather than being a restaurant that's sort of in and of or a project in and of Orange, this is something that was in Los Angeles that's here. And it's palm trees, it's this. And it's sort of land in here from outer space. There's a tremendous amount of seating and landscaping that's there rather than paying attention to the openness of the space.

The existing canopy should be a prominent part about the thing. There's seating that's there. It's kind of hidden. It's just the existing voice of those two buildings we just don't believe is being heard. So the one idea would be to delete the seating that's there. It's at that canopy. Do something different to it. I mean, two twenty five or two thirty five seats. I forget which one. Awful lot. There's plenty of room to do other things. That canopy could be potentially. There could be an antique car that's there. There could be something there. Now, I'm not here to design it for them.

I understand that. Patrons are always looking for photo ops to put on Instagram and things like that. So that's a very common thing that happens with these kinds of projects. But basically, the landscape seating, umbrellas, everything rather overwhelm the building. The existing building themselves are just being stripped down to their bones.

There's very little of it that's left. There's so much new that's coming to it. And that doesn't necessarily always have to be like that. Again, there's an existing voice of both those buildings that's been there for decades and decades, and we hate to see that silence. Mainly because of this adage that once historic fabric is gone, it's gone forever.

It's very difficult to replace in this day and age. The other issue is more of a technical thing. Fortunately, there's a great many mistakes, missing and misleading information that's on the drawings, information missing on exterior elevations, vertical heights missing on wall sections that correspond to building elevations. The biggest one that I'll spend the most twenty one seconds. Can I immediately ask for more time?

Not at this time.

Can you pause?

Pause? I don't know. Never paused before.

Okay. So the big thing is the impact of the mechanical equipment that's on the roof. It's not shown correctly where the elevations are. It's not shown where the renderings are. There's entourage material, umbrellas that are put in the way of seeing what those images look like and what the impact on the mechanical units is. Thank you.

Okay. We'll review and have discussions internally. We'll go from there. Thank you. Is there any other public comments? Thank you.

Good evening chair and members of the DRC. Diana Zanek, also representing OTPA. I'd like to speak specifically about two elements of the project that we believe are inconsistent with both the Old Town design standards and the broader principles established by the secretary of the interior standards. One being the proposed six foot tubular metal fencing along Chapman and the lack of meaningful landscaping between that fencing and the public sidewalk. Old Town's commercial corridors generally maintain a pedestrian friendly human scaled environment.

Our historic standards encourage landscape treatments and site elements that soften building edges, reinforce walkability, and complement the historic character of our district. What is being proposed here instead creates a hard defensive edge along the public realm. The tubular metal fencing, especially at six feet high, introduces a security oriented appearance that feels more appropriate for a modern commercial complex than a historic district. Along Chapman, this fencing becomes highly visible and visually dominant. Rather than contributing to the streetscape, it creates separation from it.

Equally important is the complete absence of a landscape buffer between the fence and the sidewalk. The design standards emphasize the importance of landscaping and softening transitions between public and private spaces. A narrow strip of landscaping would significantly reduce the harsh visual impact of the fencing and patio edge. Right now, the project presents an uninterrupted wall of metal directly adjacent to the sidewalk. I would respectfully ask the committee to require a redesign of these elements before approving project, specifically lowering or reconsidering the fencing material and incorporating a meaningful landscape buffer between the sidewalk and patio edge. Thank you.

That's the last. Okay. At this time, I'd like to open it to the committee and open up to discussions. Oh, sorry about that. Forgot. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jeff Rabbit. I'm with AO Architects. And I am standing here as the AOR for the project. We do have a primary designer, who is also represented with the group here.

We also have a representation of the owner operator and also a member from the HRG historic resource group that wrote the report. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I do wanna clarify a couple of things that contrary to what my good friend Donnie has mentioned, you know, there was a lot of care taken to maintain character defining elements of both buildings, limiting openings to where existing openings occurred. On the smaller outbuilding that's adorned by steel windows, we've taken great care to keep that steel frame intact and come behind it with a meaningful historic representation of an industrial type window that's operable, but sets just behind the plane of that historic window. Again, there's a lot of care taken. If that report is read deeply, there was many items that we took a lot of care and understanding for.

But I think overall, the idea was to create this synergistic family friendly casual dining space in an underutilized location that sat for a very long time. So we think the improvements are a dynamic entry point to the historic downtown. And I think landscaping has been looked at, revised multiple times while it went through staff review to maintain a density and pedestrian sort of scale, but at the same time being very cognizant of some of the crime prevention requirements of keeping it open so that you can view from the outside inside. As far as the fence goes, it is located exactly where the current fence is located, maintains an open sort of inviting sort of fence, not intended to be any sort of, you know, security measure other than putting it at a height that would be difficult or a little more cumbersome to climb over after business hours. That being said, I will pause there and give it back to the committee to ask any other questions.

And I can certainly bring up team members for their comment.

Perfect. Please stand by. I'm sure we're going to have some questions for you. Before I open up to the committee, my office is right around the corner, and I walk by the space every day. And I was always wondering what's going to happen with this space. So I was happy to see the project. And there's a lot of great improvements. And there's some things I have questions about that I'm going to ask the applicant. But at first, I'd like to open it up to the committee and see if we have comments and questions.

I was just wondering if there is any illustration of the because in the renderings, don't see the area to the north where I see the west elevation street side view, it ends at the loading dock. Are there any other illustrations that show what that how it's going to meet up with the former Taco Adobe site, I think is what it's next to.

I think what we see on these pages are the renderings that were submitted with the request. And if we wanted to go to the site plan, Elisa, I think we can maybe infer some of those tie ins.

Furniture?

Yeah, that's a good one.

That probably gives you a better sense.

Guess I just want a little bit more explanation maybe from the applicant of how the loading trash ping pong table situation, how that's all going to flow cleanly together. Is that too vague of a question?

Designer.

Okay.

The intent of the area that's dedicated as sort of service area, which is where our electrical grease interceptor and trash collection would occur, has a gate with a paved access directly to the kitchen. So any deliveries, those types of things will circulate down through the center of that space. The back area and maybe I'll let Masha speak to the private, almost a reservable segment of the overall dining space is kind of beyond that.

Yeah, mean, was very like in any project of this size

Microphone, if you don't mind. I'm sorry. Sorry. Thank you, that helps.

I think like in any project of this size, we did have to consider all parts that are required, including the fact that there will be trash, that there will be probably delivery drivers coming through to pick up items that would be ordered. So an existing cut in a curb, I'm not even exactly sure modified it all. I think it's exactly like it was. Basically, landed at the point where we understood would be an entrance for all of those things, trash collection, pickup, parking spot. And next that the only logical would be to keep the trash contained in that area.

Now what else can we do around an area that is otherwise all open for guests to visit and browse around and walk it like they would a greened up park. We wanted it to still be approachable and still be usable and not just be fully cut off. That's why that was considered to be introduced as like a play area where, you know, maybe a family that wants a bit more privacy or a larger group can go sit and still be entertained in otherwise, pretty difficult corner that is bound by trash and parking. But that's kind of how the program landed in that corner. We didn't want to fully take it away or make that feel like it's something enclosed that we're putting on a, you know, on an edge of a property line.

We wanted it to still feel inviting, continue the landscaping all around so it doesn't feel like we forgot about it. But it is a bit more of an enclosed program in that sense.

And there's no parking requirement or any kind of okay. So you're just providing the loading area for deliveries? Correct. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. We didn't have a whole lot of time to dig through all of this, so I just needed a little bit more explanation. Thank you.

I'm chair to committee member McCormick I'm sorry, McDermott. And you may want to come back to the microphone because I too wish I I wish that this weekend was not really enough because there's a lot going on here. There's a lot going on to the site. I'm just looking at all of the, quote, areas to sit and be in kind of a either exclusive area or table area. You're getting service, and then you have open areas.

I guess I need I know that that is kind of related to the use, which isn't completely in our purview, but I'm trying to get an understanding of Sure. What this is trying to be Yeah. As a food place. You've got to have a kitchen. I get that. So that's my first question. Second, I wanna understand what is new, what is not new. I think the canopies are all new. They're all existing. Aren't there some new shade things?

Nothing is being So my answer to your first question will kinda help with us too. Right?

Yeah. Because it's like yeah, it's a lot. A lot, and I think a speaker talked about the fact that this hasn't been in front of us before. There's a lot to really digest. Sure. Walk through more of the details of what you want. Yeah, go ahead.

Hi. I'm Jeff Goodman. I'm the founder of the window and the CEO of the company. So I'm the operator. Matt and I'll describe the restaurant. So, real quick, I don't know if anyone, on the committee has been to a window, but, we've been in business since 2019. We built a steakhouse but has a promise to our neighbors. We added a burger window, really simple, craveable food. We promised the neighbors that we would keep prices really, really low. We opened with a $3.5 cheeseburger.

It's still only $4 The mission of the window is to be approachable and egalitarian. This space, we're in love with what we're about to do. Our intent is to build really a community gathering center, a park. The machine shop, the building to the plan Northeast is a kitchen and a simple pickup window. The other building is a bar.

The bar is incidental to what we do, maybe 20% of sales. And then beyond that, we've tried to create like a public space, but also little intimate moments, little private places. You can see that the seating lining up to the window itself is really meant to be very casual and fast food oriented. And then the pockets of seating around the garden are really meant to be loungy. There's three different fire pit areas.

One of those is that private area in the back that we're seeing as like a private party area, but also a way to, when the restaurant is not busy, to kind of scale down the space and only be serving 50 or 60 people and they still feel like there's activity. Like I said, it's meant to be park like. Masha touched on it. We're putting in like a play area in that center. And from a service flow, guests order at the window or order at the bar. At the bar, they're served their drinks. They walk away. They sit down at their seats. At the window, they're called back to the window by their name, and they pick up their food. It's really simple.

It's like a $12 per person experience. And this is just meant to be casual, fun, and like I said, part of the community.

So it's it's not exactly a Golden Roads or kind of the fill of the stadium atmosphere like Golden

Roads. It's it's not.

Because that's open with places for you to go do Cornwall and hang and watch a game. But that's the outdoor spaces you're creating in a small way.

Yeah. Yeah. The outdoor space You can for it's viewing sporting events or we're not having bands or anything like that. There's going to be ambient music and it's really hangout space. It's not meant to be, like I said, a heavy drinking area or anything like that.

There's nothing wrong with with providing that option. So people can bring their own food in?

No.

Okay. So No. So it is a private it's a private restaurant exclusively here. So if you want something to eat, you get you order through the window. Okay. That gives me context because I'm just trying to get my head around all of what I'm

seeing. Sure.

Yeah. It's a lot of details. So then my last question, and we we'll get into probably more minutiae. This used to be a service station and a Texaco, as the photograph in one of our attachments tells us. I'm not I'm not necessarily getting that vibe. How do we tell that this was a historic gas station?

Can we go maybe to a visual?

And how do we maybe tell that story in terms of the the significance of this being one of our original early gas stations in town, and service station and a gas station.

Yeah. I think it's a good point. And I think to that end, to answer one of your previous questions, right? Literally everything that is on-site currently is staying within its bounds. We are not adding any canopies, we're preserving them.

So the kind of the historic documentation that we have of how this look like, which it doesn't anymore, right? It's been modified and whatnot, but we are we really are not trying to touch much of it. We have gone through a pretty rigorous back and forth with a historic consultant on exactly what windows were exactly where and how can we break and custom design our service behind to still fit within the heights existing and all of it. So we were trying to, as much as we could, really signal that. We are adding in, you know, the brand narrative or the brand color is very, like Jack was saying, it's very family friendly, it's very light touch in that sense.

So it's everything is staying white as is. We're gonna be exposing and bringing in green elements to just kinda accentuate and bring out the fact that these canopies are all existing, that we're touching them up and leaving them like that. Now, will we have like car parked below? No. Right?

We are changing the use of it. So we're not trying to signal and say, hey, this is still a gas station that we're using now. But we're here we have stayed within every single canopy and even when we are introducing in that building b that has a canopy attached to it and we're putting restrooms in, we have moved all the walls on an inside so everything stays exactly as is and are basically building a tiny little building within it so we can we we can give the restrooms to it. The idea that, like, we really are trying to see the existing structures, which is basically all there is on this big concrete lot as something to celebrate has been maintained since the beginning of the design. We love that fact that we're able to go and utilize again, bring to life something, you know, that is so epic.

It's so great. But it is like, everything else is kinda like yeah. It's a, you know, it's a restaurateur that's bringing in a, you know, a new city park because it is like, in the center of it, it has a children play area. Mhmm. And it's it's greened up as much as we can. We're respecting existing palm trees and existing trees and just adding in what is compliant with your city ordinance on landscape. There's an existing fence that we're just brightening up and making it white. Like, it's it's really where we have tried and stayed within the bounds of what's there, respected as best as

we can.

So so to be and to apologize for interrupting. So the new the new thing would be the trash enclosure? Is that the only new Yeah.

The trash enclosure is not

It's even an enclosure. It's an enclosure. But, but that's I guess that's the part of me trying to digest all the details because you have the old picture has, you know I'm I'm not old enough to note Route 66, but I'm thinking the car culture of Southern California is a really interesting vibe to celebrate. And adaptive reuse is a cool element to take a once needed service station slash station for repair. I know this is Hoffman Radiator because that's what I remember it.

So and and not miss that. So that's kind of my questions, I guess, more dealing with that and trying to understand all the pieces because there's a lot to focus on.

If I could also just kind of provide some staff context in the greater efforts that we've had. This truly is a partnership project between the city and the applicant in bringing their vision for this site. And we do recognize that adaptive reuse has significant challenges. But at the end of the day, we do have the preservation of the buildings in their context as far in terms of their site, their existing condition. There is, in staff's consideration, really a moderate level of new elements that are being introduced that are actually current code requirements that they're able to meet and provide.

And they're also generally preserving a very pedestrian oriented outdoor type of integrated space. And so to that extent, this has been the result of significant amount of work from the applicant and their desire to really celebrate, I think, the existing buildings and utilize them in a way that will result in long term preservation of

these buildings.

And Mr. Beckman, I totally appreciate your insights as our planning manager. And and not to belabor the point, it's just that we saw this at 05:00 last Thursday, and I have to admit I haven't looked at every element here. So those are just some of these comments are a bit because it's so fresh and new. Not opposed to exactly what we want to see from an adaptive reuse.

I get it. It's like this is a great celebration of that. It's it's more trying to make sure we do this correctly and getting the details really spot on because it is an entry. It's an entry point, and I that's why I want to be very sensitive to what we do. So that's kind of where my comments are coming from.

Perfect. Thank you. Before Oh,

I did want to I forgot. I was are we final are we the final determining body? Because we may be now, but that's just a side issue. And I have a question about the poll sign too. But the poll sign is also rather an interesting thing that's part of the mix because that's they wanna keep it, the round sign, but we may wanna study that a little bit too. But if we're final body, we we might need to know that, and that's fine, too. But yeah, the sign up there.

So yeah, generally speaking, signs are standalone review processes. And so that could be considered in a future application. But they do provide their vision for the signage in this case and in this context. So it can be taken under advisement as part of the project proposal. And just in terms of the final step, then yes, the purview of the DRC tonight is overall the physical changes to the site per the proposed adaptive reuse. The applicant has filed an application for a conditional use permit that will be processed to the Planning Commission. And that's for the sales and service of alcohol on-site.

Okay. I know they can take advantage of our streamlined approach on that if they wanted to.

I believe we've taken a look at that, and I think the outdoor dining is within a certain buffer of residential uses.

Okay.

Before my comments, is there any other comments? I have lot of questions. Oh, go for it. A lot of questions.

It's great to see this site with something happening. I'll start off with that. I have some general comments, then I'll delve into some questions about the site itself, the site plan, and then onto the buildings. But I'll start out with the historic resource assessment. Everything looked complete in that, but I did not see Secretary of Interior Standard Number six.

I was wondering if that just inadvertently got left out of the report or and my read of the project seems to be in conformance with that standard, but the report went from two, three, four, five and then seven. So I thought that was odd.

I'm Adam Rochford with Historic Resources Group. That might just be an omission. Did go through all the standards, the guidelines, and the Santa Fe Depot. Great.

Okay, thank you. I figured it just was an editing issue. And then a question for staff. Are we approving the signage that's being shown here? Because we don't really have any details on the individual signage components.

In this case, the signage would be a separate review process.

Okay, great. So a couple of questions about the site plan. The first is, why DG? What drove that choice? And I'm wondering if it's to meet the water quality management plan requirements for stormwater control or if someone could speak to that.

We have a number of outdoor spaces in our company. We have 20 restaurants with a varied number of materials. The DG was selected for style, for warmth to help make it feel organic and earthly. We contemplated pea gravel, which I think was a recommendation made by possibly staff. But we've had difficulty keeping that contained in our restaurant spaces.

And we also find that with a large number of kids, the pea gravel gets thrown around a lot. So we wanted a natural we don't want to concrete over the whole thing. We want it to feel breezy and light and park like and resort y.

Would that be

stabilized DG or would

that just be loose DG?

It's I believe it's compacted.

Compacted and stabilized.

Okay. So understanding that the concern was DG getting into the street, DG getting into the sewers, we're happy to compromise and they had the pavers that I think were discussed a few moments ago so that the high traffic areas aren't DG. And additionally, seasonally, we'll re compact the DG as necessary.

Need to do that. And then is there no ADA parking requirement on-site? I saw path of travel indicated on one of the sheets, but it's not really clear where that ADA parking yeah, go ahead please,

Sorry about that. I believe because of the AB 2,097

Yeah, so this property and about half of the Old Town District lies within a buffer area that under a state law means that local agencies cannot require minimum on-site parking. And so that's the case for this project and several other recent ones in the area. There is still an obligation to comply with path of travel on the site. And so that has been provided to the satisfaction of the building review under SRC. But a physical parking space on the property would not currently be required.

And this would be part of the in lieu parking program

Correct.

The city has. Okay. So parking is being contributed in that manner.

The

design standards for historic preservation say that the trash enclosure should not be visible, but it looks like it's pretty challenging to figure out another place because Building A is set right at the property line. It's not like you have some out of view spot for that. So I recognize that the site has limitations on that. I also thought that the fencing was rather heavy. The fencing that's now there is the pickets are farther apart and a little slimmer.

It would give a little bit more open feel and more visibility to the historic structures, which would be my biggest concern, is that we still want to make those historic buildings the centerpiece and sort of the primary visual element of the property. So but there's no it looks like it's all low plantings that are intended to be behind that. There's not going to be a hedge or anything of that nature intended?

No. We were I think this happened in the multiple review processes, but when the police was also reviewing this, they were the ones that pushed the landscaping, the one the closest to the property side to be at the lowest level.

Okay, great. If

I may, we're in alignment. We want the least barrier to people visibly seeing all the happy folks inside. We've tried to put up fencing that's the minimum so that we don't have to lock up everything every night or

take It's everything like So that's a lot of furniture and umbrellas.

So we started with eight foot fence and came down to six and obviously have, you know, thinned out the plantings as well.

Okay. And then the final thing about the site would be the rotating rooftop sign and that's sorry, but that's a hard no. And because it does not it's not found anywhere else in the district and that kind of signage isn't allowed for the

As I understand, the signage is going to be a different meeting, but we're prepared. We're prepared to take that out of the design.

Sure. And then, as one of the speakers mentioned, we used to do a process where we had preliminary review, where especially bigger, more complicated projects would come in first, not for a vote. We weren't scheduled for a vote, but it would just be a more preliminary version of design without a lot of the details worked out yet, just to get some feedback from the committee. And we don't do that anymore, but this plan set reminds me of when we used to do that because we normally get door and window details, we get lighting details, we get more landscaping details, and this package doesn't give us those kinds of details, so I would look for those kinds of things before we could give final approval for the the project. And I'd also like just to make if we do continue this item tonight, I'd like to suggest to staff that this would be a good project that would benefit the committee members from a site visit, if that could be arranged, if it doesn't go for today.

So I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was going on with Building A. And I'll just say preliminarily, I really like the treatment on Building B in terms of the windows, and I think it still conveys that sort of general architectural style and that sort of automotive station feel and sensibility to it. But Building A, a little bit less so. We don't see a lot of detail about the mechanical screening on the roof. It looks like it's four feet.

And before I even get to the screening, I couldn't make sense of different sheets in the plan set. You could Ms. Yerkovich, bring up sheet 11, please.

Sheet 11 of the plan set.

Yes. Perfect. Yeah, so other direction. And in the lower right, drawing number one says section at kitchen, and there's a slope roof there shown. But then I am seeing on sheet seven so is this am I looking at the south elevation here? Is that what that is?

Yeah, what you're seeing here is a section through the front half of Building A. So you're seeing the canopy of Building A in the background. Okay. But that's You're looking at the lower.

That sloped roof is where? Is that over the whole roof?

That is over Building A.

Okay. But when I look at sheet seven that shows existing south elevation, it just shows a flat roof.

What you're seeing there is the parapet. So the slope is behind that.

That. Oh,

Okay. Okay. So if we could go back to 11 then, the parapet is proud of that slope.

Yeah. You can see that So you don't see that? Literally a two inch parapet on that front edge. Okay. Okay. But I'd also like to clarify that we did further investigation structurally on it since this time, and we are now realizing that that secondary roof, the slope, was built much later Oh. We believe after maybe some fire damage occurred. So when that was built, the existing roof line, which you see on that lower almost looks like ceiling trusses, is actually the original roof structure line. And so we have elected to remove that slope and bring it down so that the equipment sits down behind the parapet

That's great.

So that screening is minimized, and it now only stands three or 18 inches above the existing parapet and is now set back per planning's recommendation of three feet.

That's great. That's great. Because I was gonna question whether that the area because on the on the roof plans, the area of the canopy is rather is is most of that roof space, and whether the mechanical equipment could be clustered more to the north or smaller. But that sounds like it's going be a great design solution. And then at one point, I can't remember if was in the staff report, it describes these where the restrooms are going under the existing canopy as a new building.

And it looks like that new building is attached to the solid wall of Building A, but does not touch the posts of the canopy? And does it sit does the roof of that restaurant building sit Does it attach to the canopy itself or does there's a gap?

Right.

Oh, beautiful.

Yeah. The idea was to keep that canopy completely intact, its own separate original structure. We're building a building much smaller in including the height of it Okay. So that you can see that it's actually

It's a canopy, a free That's great. Yeah. And then that's proposed to be built of masonry. Is it differentiated at all from the walls of the main part, the non canopy part of building A? Is there any kind of differentiation other than sort of the it's the form itself that it's it's this cubicle sitting under the Right.

It's it's a plastered exterior. Building A is very different from Building B. Building B has significant uniqueness to it because of the metal structure and the panels and the window mullions. Building A is a bit of a hodgepodge of wood structure, some old CMU, in some areas failing miserably. And so the idea is to clean that up and then tie the restroom into what isn't currently a plastered exterior on Building A.

Okay. Okay. Great. So that takes care of that. And then it was really and part of it is that I am looking at these plans on a laptop screen and having difficulty reading some of the finer details. But I'm curious about markings of the where the fenestration openings are changing. You have something that's marking where those openings were. But it's not clear to me how you're doing that. Is it a change of materials? Is it a change of plane?

How are you delineating where those window and door openings used to be in the new surfaces.

So I think that's yeah, if you want to move the elevations. What we did is we purposely put existing

below proposed.

Yeah. The people at home that are watching, if you're not at the microphone, they can't hear or on the recording.

So sorry.

If you wouldn't mind.

Yeah. So when this was set up, it was purposely stacked so you could see existing right below the proposed. There are no new openings. We're enclosing what was maybe some of the service doors where we've now located a pedestrian door. There's a menu there. It's not a window. But the service windows are within the framework of the service door.

So the dimensions of those window openings are not changing?

Correct. So it would be an infill flush plain plaster finish to match.

Okay. Because I think it was on this sheet, Keynote 19, which I cannot read on this screen, but was something about delineation? Delineation strip, marking original architectural features now infilled. What is that? How is that?

It would be like a stucco screed, essentially, to outline where the former

Oh, Okay. Okay. But it's very subtle. Because I've seen where that's done where it just is a little bit of an inset so that the original wall sits proud of and it only

needs

to be maybe an inch or two, but that's another method for doing that.

Just to add to that, we did the design started with trying to understand historic and focus on program needs. And through even just our own historic consultants review, all of that had to be tightened to really just stay fully within. So the windows have we just had to make the program work. There's like no other way. Shrink it down, it only has to be within what's there already now.

Okay. I recognize that this is a good shot of it right here, the ordering window right there. In the rendering, you show it as looks like stained wood, and it just looks a little heavy. And I realize this building originally had wood windows, but I don't know. It just seems a little overpowering for that space and sort of detracts from its kind of industrial feel because it's got that wood trim around it and the color contrast of it as well.

Ms. Yerkovits, maybe you can show the renderings toward the end of the plan set.

I apologize. Did you say the renderings? The renderings. Yeah.

Yeah. In that instance, the existing building really does have a wood frame window in it, and so we felt like staying with that and not introducing an aluminum window there was we were trying to be a step closer to what that building already has.

Mhmm.

Yes. There is for program. The partition of that window is a bit different, you know, because you do have to order Sure.

Sure.

Gonna be open to public. But it is just Douglas fir, DUMOULIN: you know, sealed for other use.

Wood.

JULIEN Real wood. No faux components. Okay. And I think I had a question about Building B. What happened to that? Maybe I can go on to someone else.

Okay. I'd like to have some comments. You want to go before me?

Yeah. Go ahead. Well,

first of all,

I would like to say that I am really impressed with the creativity and the inventiveness of the project and how well the historic preservation has been attacked. I can see that the the windows are working within the grids, and I still you know, the colors have changed, but you still, can can feel these iconic buildings. I'm I'm very supportive of of all of the concept of all of this. The thing that is, really holding me back and why I would not be able to approve this as it is is the fence. It's the enclosure of this very as as committee member Gladson was pointing out, the car culture aspect of the fast food and the gas station and the you know, these buildings were their own sign.

The buildings were so iconic sitting as islands that that's where their whole feel and look comes from. They really need to be seen from the street. And the the way that the fence is designed and the landscape is designed, it looks like a cage. It looks like they are, you know, animals in a zoo or something, and it just is an unhappy situation. I don't know what the exact answer is.

I think that, you have to to look at some different fence designs and different colors so that it disappears more. Maybe a large part of it can be movable so that it's wide open during business hours and then you close it. But the security aspect of it is really off putting. And and I don't think that the the landscaping is working well with the fence. The whole pedestrian situation is that's the only thing I really have a problem with.

The rest of it, I think, is is really pretty exciting. It's fun and it's different and I think it's a really good adaptive reuse. So those are my comments, Chair.

Thank you. I have some questions too. If we can go to page 13. And I wanna toggle between thirteen and twelve. I'm gonna start with the landscaping. When you toggle between these two pages, seems like there's an overlap between either embedded gas heaters and trees. Look at billing B, for instance, in the top right hand side, and then go to the previous. It looks like they're taking up the same real estate. So these are embedded. So I'm just more curious if that's the design intent, to have one overlap the other? Or is that just a mistake?

I'm not sure, you know, if you're at this point looking at our final set which has been advanced and coordinated further. But no, it's not an intent to have an overlap. The grid of the inline gas heaters has been studied pretty thoroughly because we have we would have to run gas to exact point. They're not overlapping with umbrellas. They're there and they're certainly close to our what are our, openings for the in ground planters because that is exactly where we want kind of people to congregate and gather around the greenery, but they don't overlap or clash with trees or umbrellas.

Okay. And since we're up, these are gas heaters and gas fire pits? Okay. A quick question before you come up. For staff, is gas loud in 2026 as a type of heating?

As far as heating element goes, our understanding is that it is in the context of the fire master plan and final approval from the fire authority. As it's a compressed material and as it ties in with the city's infrastructure, it would be allowed if it can be designed.

Perfect. Because it's my understanding Title twenty four and twenty twenty six are not allowed to use gas anymore. I may be incorrect. I'm not sure.

We can certainly take that into consideration. However, in any instance, if there is a state law that overrules the local requirement, then we'll communicate that to the applicant.

I prefer gas. I love gas. I wish you could keep it.

And is that for air quality purposes?

I'm not quite sure. I think it's just environmental.

Or just more of the whole push to electrification.

Exactly. I think that's what it is. But sorry about that.

Hi, chair. I just wanted to clarify that in that exhibit, what you're seeing on the heaters is there's a small heater. It's a vertical heater, and then there's a dashed heat spread that's also imposed over it. So the overlapping is what you're what you're seeing. Heater, the larger circle around the heaters is just literally where the The heat. Falls.

Yeah. But, you know, trees are wood, and wood catches fire,

and they're kind of That's a certain requirement that we have to be away on certain umbrella types and we've taken that into consideration and I think that's what Moshe was alluding to on the working drawings is there's been some movement.

Perfect. It's just an aesthetic and safety issue. The other question I have, in terms of planting, it looks like you're going for that tropical look. And there's a base of design for architecture, which I think you've done a great job. But is there a base of design for the landscape in terms of why you chose the plant material that you did? Is there a reason? I know you mentioned there's an existing palm and another tree I don't recall. But can you speak to the landscape design in terms of what your design intent is?

Yeah. We certainly have, when we walked the site and walked your beautiful city of Orange, taking into account where we're going to and what is there currently. We really wanted it to feel like it's lush and that it's not gonna be a tremendous effort to upkeep. So we do wanted to bring something in that is within within the city approved palette, but also has some presence and is recognizable and can can add to that. So I think the palm trees that were additionally introduced that are the, you know, kind of taller taller canopy have been there for that reason.

And the other part was we did try to think about shade and the fact that there will be, you know, the pleasantness that some sort of canopy of a tree can create or so this was all kind of considered in the same iteration of how to make the most pleasant outdoor space that you can sit in for, you know, an hour or two and and work around perimeters, the fact that this is still a commercial space. So this is kind of where the palette came together. I see. But we we did we do have a landscape designer on the team that, unfortunately, is the one that wasn't able to attend today that worked thoroughly back and forth already with the city to adjust and and kind of improve the final palette that I believe the staff was staff was in agreement with it. So we did go back and forth through multiple iterations to get there.

But in just in a sense of design, it was all about making it feel like it's, you know, lush and green and approachable and feeding into what's already there.

Got it. And your landscape designer is in here, but you have some grasses sticking out of the DG or pavers. Is that your design intent over on the bottom right hand side of the site, AC number four? Is that is that the design intent?

Yeah. I do believe we were it's gonna be a combination of a of a lower planting. Some of it which do which are fall under grasses. Perfect.

Thank you. I'm going to have some just general comments. In terms for me, for the project, I think the planting, doesn't fit what in terms of water wise, in terms of water use, we we're as I've said many meetings, the city of Orange uses domestic water. And in some cities that I do projects, I can't even get one plant that's moderate. What you have is you have some tropical plants mixed in with low water and and moderate.

I have no idea how that's that's gonna get approved in in the future, but, you know, in terms of your water calcs and your water allowance, but, you know, that's not our purview. That's just my opinion. If if this was my project, I would choose more of the mullenburgia, the the deer grass that you have over there, and more of that like the Hesperalo, the Acacia. You only have three nine trees for this big area. You have a lot of umbrellas.

So the whole, you know, canopy and make providing shade, it's dependent on the umbrellas that are embedded and are not movable and also the the gas heaters that they're proposing. So there's less flexibility that OPTA mentioned. In terms of the perimeter, I too was bothered by the fence type and the just the overall feel. Typically, we try to avoid a hardscape and a vertical element without a a landscape buffer. What I like to see is, you know, an 18 inch offset and a different material.

I know there's other materials that can be used. I know you have a picket and you need a four inch by on center picket in order for safety, which makes it a very harsh barrier. I know it's more expensive, but there's glass that can be used. There's also other material or other operations that you're saying that could slide open and close. And in looking at the historical pictures, this whole corner was open as the public realm was just inviting.

And now it's enclosed. It's just it's a negative and a positive. It's just different in terms of accessibility, both visually and being able to walk across the site. I know it's a private property, and you have your food needs and security. But that's just something to think about. It's just something I'm looking at. Overall, I think the buildings are beautiful. And looking at the old Texaco gas station, I'm I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with your restaurant. Maybe those are your colors, your green and your white.

And maybe it'd be too tacky, but maybe the red of the Texaco and the and that maybe it would be, but that's just my but maybe that's going too far in preserving what it was before. Let me go through my other comments here. We talked about the tropical, the base of design, more water, wise plants, fence types. Yeah. I think I've covered all my comments. At this time, I'd like to just open up to the committee if we are all done with oh, one more question here.

I did search my notes, I found two other items. I think it was on Building B, there's a little piece of the metal cornice that's missing, so there's a gap. Must have been damaged or lost at some point. And I didn't see any notes on the plans, although I had a hard time reading them, to fill in that missing that little missing piece of the metal cornice. Is that already addressed in your plans or would you be willing to do that?

Yes. The intent is to repair the portion that looks like it was damaged from a vehicle.

Okay. I thought I saw in a photograph that there was actually a piece missing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. And then did I hear someone say earlier at the podium that the DG is going to go on top of asphalt? Yes, no? Is that the plan? No. So the asphalt will be removed and the DG will be put in. Okay. Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you. That was all I had.

Okay, I'd like to open up the committee and let's have a discussion. Start over here.

I need more answers like many of you in conveying and listening to your comments, committee members. And like I said earlier, the details really, we we need them. I heard comments like, oh, we changed the parapet when we figured out when we looked at a little bit more that that might not be the original roof. And I heard a comment that that's not our final set of landscape plans that we're working with staff. Those make me a little itchy because I want us to approve what we're going to get and make sure that it's accurate.

I appreciate our landscape expert. Tropical I don't think tropical our tropical plant palette is really compatible. So taking another look at that, I think a continuance is a really smart place to go as committee member Mary Anne Skripanich explained. I think that gets a little more time to get the details. This is definitely going in the right direction.

Excited about what this can be. It's just we've got to get it all in a set that we can look at. And I'm I'm old school. I like the paper plans, and I appreciate staff getting those to us in the future. But I think this just needs a little more work. We heard from the public. I think there was a question about the mechanical equipment. I don't know if that got answered, and they're not doing it. Well, they're doing something in the in the kitchen. They're gonna need to do mechanical equipment in the kitchen area.

So and maybe some sort of stuff there. So AC, I don't obviously, they're not doing that in the bar because it's all open. But those are really critical details, particularly for where it's what it is. I do think I'd like to see a little more of an homage to the historical cultural significance of it. So you know if you never go here and eat a great hamburger or have a cocktail, man, that used to be that used to probably be a Texaco or that used to be a gas station.

And isn't that cool or whatever? So I think we just need a little more work, and we can give a suggestion of what we're looking for. We're really you guys know better than me since I'm still new. We're good at putting that together. I think that's helpful. And I think the applicant will hear from our heart that we're working for them and we're partnering with them and with our staff. So that's my general thinking.

Thank you.

Well, as I mentioned, I can support the project except for the fencing and the landscaping. At this point, I'm not willing to vote in favor.

Would you be open to conditions of approval?

Such as?

Just your recommendation in terms of fence types, fence

functions.

I'm not designing this

project. No problem. If I

could ask a question of Mr. Hyland. In years past, what we've done, for example, similar to this project, is to approve the bulk of what's on the plans, but then have something that we need to see more detail on, like the fence in this case or the landscaping in this place, come back for a subsequent approval so that they can move forward with their building permit for the structures, and whether we can do that or not.

Hayden, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I believe with a single application or what's in front of the committee we can only approve what's before the committee, not piecemeal it up. But know a different length then.

Yes. Generally, the proposal that's before the DRC comprises the request. And so the ask would be that in full context, any concerns be addressed either through direction or conditions, which would enable them to move forward to the PC, for example. And we would ask that if DRC could provide specific direction, if there are elements that are missing, we have the project team here who is also more than capable of providing some feedback and dialoguing with the DRC as to what the material needs or the info needs might be in order to be able to move forward.

Okay.

And just real quick. One, I wasn't here in years past, so I can't speak to how that process went. But one issue with that is giving approvals at different stages could lead to difficulty for the app developer. It could lead to them spending money where they're never ultimately approved because the landscaping never figured out or anything like that, but they're going further along with everything. So I'd really recommend we try to avoid that if possible.

Sure. Okay, understood.

Although we are going to see signage come back as a separate package, right? Anything else coming back as a separate package?

No, this would be the bite at the apple, so to say. And again, I just wanted to preface that the plans that are before you represent months of work from between the applicant and the SRC. So this plan, as proposed, has gone through review from fire and public works and all of that.

What about the changes that the project team referred to with changing the reform that was added later, and I think some of the hardscape changes that they since these plans came out. Sure. Where do those stand with our approval?

So I think what you see before you tonight represents the request as best fit based on feedback from several rounds of submittal. And Angelo Huang, who's no longer with the city, had been initially the project planner. We did get a download from him as to what the nature of that discussion was. But by and large, what we have been working with the applicant toward is ultimately a best fit for the site in context. But again, we're not subject matter experts.

And so those discussions included the city's consultant, historic resource consultant, who reviewed the HRA, has reviewed the plans. And so in the context of the roof forms, some of that was due to discovery on the applicant side. They said, Okay, we're going to go take a look a closer look at that because that may inform the design and ultimately what is placed on the plans. And so that's just one example of some of the iterations that have developed over time. This certainly is a more evolved request than what was originally submitted. And again, that's just a testament to the desire by the applicant to feature a new use on this site that pays homage to the original use.

So do I understand correctly that since these plans came to us or were submitted, that you have some design changes to either I can speak on that. Or roof or

Yes. Okay. So just a little bit of explanation. So yes, so what you received, you know, was by Thursday. Since then, the applicant and I have had discussion. I did let them know about the condition of the DG, so they did follow-up with some changes. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to share it today because it wasn't one of the attachments. So that's what I was trying to allude to following up with you. So if the goal is, we can I try to write down everyone's recommendations? If we do move forward, I would make sure that whatever was changed in that brief moment since Thursday will be uploaded, modify what was recommended and we can go from there.

So we would continue the item and then we would see those or we would approve it and then if they would come back, say, with their signage and we would approve those modifications?

I'm not understanding So the if I can, the applicant had prepared some additional details in terms of the pavers and the paver locations in response to staff's input. And those were more recent. And they were too recent to share, at least. But in context, they can be captured via a condition and can be incorporated into a plan set for verification. So prior to building permit approval, there's the plan check process for verification of those items.

Okay. But we won't we'll be approving an outdated set of plans. And then you have we put a condition that does what? I'm not understanding that.

Yes.

It says go ahead with this stuff that we haven't seen and staff will approve it. Is that your suggestion?

In any case, a condition of approval is direction in the future, especially if there's information missing from the plans. So that was really the context of our comment that if there are items of information that are missing, those can be added in the future for verification by staff.

Okay. So just fill in the number on this check? Or I'll sign it and you I fill in the don't know about that.

Yeah. That that yeah. And

I while you're over there ruminating committee member, staff just said the stuff that we the words we have heard so much in the last year, we are the subject matter experts. We are the body appointed by the council to be just that oversight group, and that's the challenge of not having a historic preservation planner and all of those things. We have an extra lift. So that makes me uncomfortable too. So I know this is hard stuff, but

Let me pose the go ahead, Anne.

I was going to suggest that the chair ask the applicant if they would be willing to accept a continuance because I would certainly be willing to do that.

Or if I could I was going to suggest something similar, is ask the applicant if they would come back with those other modifications when they come back with their signage So that we would be approving precisely what is drawn here, and then these more recent modifications we would see in a future meeting.

Yes. I hear that, but I'm also very aware that this could become something removed by the next body that reviews this project.

And No one else is gonna be reviewing the architectural plans.

Well, I don't want that to be the case if we've if we're going yeah. That's not what the

process was that you outlined.

Because there's been a practice to take away DRC conditions of approval on landscaping in the past. That's what I want to clarify.

For the elements, the physical changes to the project, the DRC would be the final approval. There is a concurrent COP that's being processed, but that's simply for the sales and service of alcohol.

We don't want to get into that. We we're not interested in that side of the business, but we also want our side to stay out of it.

But all the planning commission's going to be presented with is the liquor license issue. I I hear Not nothing that we're seeing tonight.

I hear you. I just witnessed the last Planning Commission meeting where that was not the question. So I'm just being cautious about what we want. And our staff hears us, but that's my concern too. So I personally would like to see all of these details before I can support a full approval of it, just to be comfortable.

Looks like we have a mixed committee here. We like to there's two options. Either there's continuous with the topics we presented, or there's a risk that we could take a vote and it could be a no or something else. So we'll give you a minute or two to discuss, if that's Okay.

Clarification. I know a lot of talk about evolution and change. The landscape plan is currently as presented, so no change there. I made a comment about separation of umbrellas to heaters. Heaters have not moved. Those are gas in place. The movable umbrellas have been slid just in order to accommodate the width. So again, it's not really a design change. It's just more of a update to what has been discovered. The roofline had been discussed with staff many times about, hey, we know with adaptive reuse, we're going to have grease hoods.

We're going to have HVAC. None of that had been designed, engineered at the time that we initiated this approval process nor would or most projects because of the cost and risk of doing so early on. Once that was completed, it was discovered that, hey, we can make an improvement that satisfies planning even further by reducing that screen down and utilizing that roof. So it's not it's not we're not it's not a bait and switch here. It is in Wait. The

time out.

Time out. We're looking at the plan here. And on the bottom right hand side, you have a heater and a tree on the same location. Also closest to the building, health and welfare is our number one concern here. And I know the purview of this committee is for design, but there's some big things here that if you said the the landscape is is what you you intend, I don't think that landscape is ready.

And for those safety issues and then the water and then you have nine trees for such a big area that are canopy, but the majority are palms and palms don't provide a lot of shade. So in terms of landscape, I can't support this project as it stands today. In terms of hardscape, there's some things that I'm confused where the DG goes and where the flagstone that's no longer there, it's pavers. I don't know where it goes. You have planting floating in the middle of DG, which I have no idea how that gets irrigated.

There's just a lot of questions that I have that if you want us to vote on it tonight, we can. Or does the team, the design team, want to go back and consider some of our suggestions, some of our discussions, and come back with a revised plan that meets all our concerns here, that's another option.

And another clarification on the DG versus pavers. The plan, as it's proposed, is that the majority of the space is DG. The change came as a reaction to reading the ambiguity of condition number three that talked about increase of a firm paved like material, concrete pavers or otherwise. And so we understood from earlier discussions with planning not only or public works, not only was there concern with the DG from a drainage standpoint, which has been resolved and conditions met through the submission of the QMP, the outstanding issues seem to have driven toward displacing DG out onto the public walk. And so the change came from including pavers at those entry points.

So it was a minimum change. But what we're trying to do is get clarification on what the ambiguity of that condition meant.

Got it. Okay. So what is the client's and design team's decision in terms of need a minute? No problem. Thank you.

Hi. Did we get an answer? They're still deciding? Okay. That's what I could I'm not hearing very well when they're not in front of the microphone.

May I get clarification on what a no vote would mean versus a continuance?

I

would

also ask for Connor's input, and he just stepped away. But in the context of the DRC being the reviewing body, my understanding of the provisions of the OMC is that a decision by this discretionary body could be appealed to the next higher level of discretionary bodies in the context of the applicant's dissatisfaction with whatever action is taken. I believe that might be something that he's looking into at the moment. Connor, if you don't mind. There question was posed in terms of what would be the options if there were a disagreement with the action by the DRC on an item.

I believe for under our cities to be the final determination here. From there, if you disagreed with their findings, I'm not their attorney, but you could challenge it further up in the courts. But I don't believe this is an appealable action to the PC.

I'll defer to that response simply because of the line in which this application is processed.

I believe the intent of the group is to move this forward as smoothly as possible. And if there are conditions that need to be met, those conditions we can design to meet.

And I will also point out that let's say hypothetically there was a motion to approve this with some conditions. If you only get two yes votes, that's a no, because we don't have an odd number of people here today. So so

I think we can do the math then. Yeah. Thank you. You know, we appreciate that you're being incredibly considerate And we'll go for the continuance.

Okay. Thank you. I think we're almost there. It's just some small items. And so I will make a motion then.

Perfect. Before you

make the motion, I think I agree. I think we're just there, just polishing the details, making sure we have the latest plans. I'm happy to see the site change into what you're proposing. It's a great project. It's just those little things. Do we have to say the date, the next available date? Staff's preference would

be to identify a date certain as that's the most expeditious option.

Got it. Okay.

And is that Yeah. It would be up to the applicant, but it sounds like you're going to be ready very soon with some revisions to the plan. So

I think a month. I bet a month is very doable for them. I think two weeks is pretty fast because they have to prep staff has to write the staff report tomorrow. Just depends Two weeks

for your submittal, which then

It's they have to do it.

Have to

do like that.

We haven't heard the full context of the detail request. So that being said, if the applicant team were in support of a quick turnaround, the next available would be two weeks just on paper because there would not be a noticing requirement. And so I'll leave that to the deliberation of the applicant in the context of what that ask is.

And if we did it to that date certain, we could continue it to another date certain as well. Yes. Again, and not have to re notice if they needed a little more time.

So that

sounds like a good solution.

Okay, with that I'll make a motion to continue design review number twenty five-twenty five to the date please? May no.

June?

The next regularly scheduled DRC meeting is June 3. June 3.

To give the applicant team time to address the few remaining details discussed tonight.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second the motion.

Please vote. I'm sorry, Chair, if I may just interject. If we could also include in the motion the details in particular that the applicant can provide back at that meeting, I think that would be extremely helpful. Just in terms of information items, design concerns, elements that staff can work with the applicant so that the next conversation is relevant to your concerns.

Okay. I can say my list after yours Sure. That pertain to landscape and fencing.

Okay. So I'll amend my motion to include the issues that the committee would like the applicant team to work on, which are any changes to the roof of Building A, comma, the mechanical screening for Building A. The material chosen for the fencing,

and the operation of the fence, and and operational

aspects of the fence. And then, Jerica, why don't you pick up?

And then on my list, it'd be consider a fence to be 18 inches from the edge or appropriate distance. Also, the fence to be more transparent or operationally movable, so it appears to be more open. Planting to be low more low water appropriate and and also provide more shade versus depending on palms. And confirm the trees and umbrellas are not taking up the same space. And then lastly, the pavers and if you can let us know the location, the entry points, and the edges. It's my list.

Was there a concern about the windows that too? Anything with I know you were noting pages that had windows.

I didn't have any other didn't hear any other of my colleagues No. Echo my echo that concern. So I

I'm echoing it. If we we know windows were where they originally are gonna go, we should probably really understand the window situation on that one building.

That is marked on the plans. I was just asking for the

clarification If of it's not yeah, if it's there for you to see if

If you can read the plans, you can find it. My trouble was reading the plans.

I can't read them on the screen, and that may just be because it's a it's, like, hard to get into the details. But I just throw that out there with if it's fine, we can omit it. We also note that the signage would be are just shown for for they're shown for illustrative purposes only and that that would be a separate and a later submittal for all their signs. Is that appropriate? Correct. But it is shown on the plan, so you would probably want to call out that it's just for reference and not for It's

not a bad idea. Yeah. And I'll amend my motion again to state that signage is not included in well, we're continuing, so we don't really need to do that today. Yeah. So I'm

not You can add a call out if you'd like. Not a problem.

And just not to be overly redundant or anything, but in terms of the fence, I mean, all aspects of the design the material, the color, the design, the size, the operation everything about it should be reconsidered to make it more transparent and have a more open feel. I just want to give enough direction.

I think I heard less of a cage. Yeah. That is very descriptive.

Okay. Do we have a second?

Yes, I will second.

Please vote. And just to be clear, this is a vote to continue it. Okay. It looks like we have four yeas.

Sure, can we take a little break?

We were just talking about

I think you were probably doing over I'm over here in the far side of but the yeah, a little break would be great.

Okay. I'd like to move on to 4.5. This is a request for sorry. A request to construct a nine eighty four square foot addition with a 115 foot front porch to the existing 480 square foot single family residence, and to replace existing a 192 foot garage with a new 400 square foot two car detached garage on the property designated as a located at 405 East Toluca Avenue design review number 5156. And this is number this recommended action is approved design review number 5156.

I'll reset that. All right. Let's start with the staff report. Thank you, Chair Farfan.

Our senior planner Arlen Beck will provide the staff report. Thank you.

All

right. Good evening, Chair Farfan and members of the design review committee. Before you tonight is design review number 5156, which is a request to construct a 984 square foot addition and a new 115 square foot front porch to the existing single family residence and to replace the existing detached one car garage with a new two car 400 square foot detached garage at 405 East Toluca Avenue, which is within the Old Towne Orange Historic District. This application was brought before the DRC at the 10/15/2025 DRC meeting and was continued to the December seventeenth, twenty twenty five DRC meeting where the application was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant additional time to respond to the comments received from the DRC. Since that time, the scope of the project has changed from a full demolition and rebuild to an addition to the existing single family home structure.

The project site is an approximately 6,720 square foot lot developed with a four eighty square foot single family residence originally constructed in 1935 and a detached one car garage. The property is identified as a noncontributor within the historic district. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing nonoriginal front porch and demolition of the existing detached garage. The construction of a new 115 square foot front porch and a nine eighty four square foot addition, replacement of nonoriginal windows and doors, construction of a new two car garage at the rear of the property, and new landscaping throughout the site. In evaluating the project, staff reviewed the proposal for consistency with the applicable historic preservation design standards for Old Towne Orange and the applicable development standards found within the Orange Municipal Code and found that it was compliant.

Additionally, historic assessment has been prepared for the project by GPA Consulting and found the revised project to be consistent with the applicable historic preservation design standards for Old Towne Orange. Staff found that the proposed project is compatible within the surrounding neighborhood in terms of massing scale setbacks, reform and overall site layout. And that the garage placement is the rear of the property following the historic development pattern commonly found within the district. And that the addition will match the prevailing front yard setback along East Toluca Avenue. Additionally, the project maintains a floor area ratio of 0.28, which is comparable to other nearby contributing properties and slightly below the overall block average of 0.29.

The proposed materials, colors and architectural elements are designed to be compatible with the surrounding historic context while remaining distinguishable as new construction consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. And based on that, staff recommends that the design review committee approve design review number five thousand one fifty six subject to conditions of approval included in the staff report. That concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, I'd like to see if there's any public comments. Okay. Okay, we have a Diana.

Regarding the proposed project, OTPA respectfully disagrees with staff's recommendation to approve this project. We feel the design presented tonight is simply too large and architecturally out of character with a historic rhythm and scale of the neighborhood. While the existing home is designated as a non contributor, it was built in 1935 during the period of significance. The neighboring property owner explained that the historic orientation of these homes reflects the area's earlier agricultural history and orchard layout. Moving the structure significantly forward disrupts disrupts that established historic relationship and streetscape.

The proposed design seems more like a long, linear, multifamily structure, more appropriate for a multifamily complex rather than a single family home, especially one located in a historic district. The massing along the side property line lacks articulation or visual relief, which creates an imposing wall effect inconsistent with the development pattern found throughout the network track. There are also design details that feel incompatible with the historic character of Old Town, including the oversized entry treatment and sidelights that are a more contemporary appearance. That comment includes the garage door as well. Equally concerning is that the project is being presented as an addition while nearly the entire original structure would effectively be removed, leaving little meaningful historic fabric intact.

If that's the reality, then the project should be held to current setback and compatibility standards expected of new construction. Finally, I'd ask the DRC to remember that during the prior DRC hearing, concerns were raised about preserving more of the original structure and improving the project's design. It seems that those recommendations were not necessarily incorporated into these plans. Old Town's character is created not just by individual homes, but by scale, spacing, orientation, and compatibility, And I feel that this proposal misses that mark. I respectfully ask this committee to continue this item and require a more thoughtful design that better reflects the historic context of this neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. We have another one? No? Oh, we do.

Good evening. I've been asked to come here and speak tonight. My neighbor Ashley Ashley Toomey and her husband couldn't be here tonight, and they live at 415 East Toluca, which is right next to the project. And I'm here to, just share some of her bullet points from her e comments. I'm not gonna read her a whole dissertation. Here we go. Thank you for your consideration. Below is a summary of our requested conditions of approval for the project at 405 East Toluca Avenue. First bullet point. The project meet current allowed side setback since nothing of the original structure is remaining.

Second, that the proposed gates along the eastern side of the property not be attached to the existing block wall, which exists entirely on the adjacent property. Third, an arborist prepared construction plan to preserve tree roots and drip line of these existing mature trees during groundwork approved by the city's tree specialist prior to demolition permits. And the fourth, that the applicant communicate and coordinate with neighbors before trimming back tree branches that cross over the property line but are not located on the neighbor's property. Next one. Confirm location of water and gas lines before demolition construction begins.

And lastly, the applicant provide the applicant provides a drainage plan prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project. And that's from Ashley and Jonathan Toomey. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other? I did receive a I think it was an email. It came from oh, I think this is the same one. Okay. Just seemed a lot longer. Okay. So it's the same one. I just scroll all the way down to the bottom. Okay. At this time, there's no more public comments. We'd like to give the opportunity for the applicant to do a presentation if they'd like. Please state your name. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Rafi. I'm the property owner of the subject property. Thanks for your time and for your viewing our project. Our goal with this project has been to improve a very small non contributing home while keeping it comparable with the character of Old Town Orange. We revised the plan substantially based on staff comments from the previous hearing on 10/15/2025. We also kept the project one story with simple design, comparable material and a detached rear garage that fits the name board character. We believe the project is consistent with historic preservation design standard and respectfully ask you guys for approval. Thank you. My team and I are here to answer any questions.

Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Let me turn off the right microphone there. Okay. Since there's no more, that's the presentation. I'd like to open it to the committee for discussion. Any questions, comments? Okay. I was going to my left first.

Don't know why.

You can go to the left. I know that the letter from miss Ashley's last name, I can't say. There's a there's a concern in the letter about the fact that her property at 415 and this property was at one time one. Do you know more about that? I don't see a discussion of that in the historical assessment. Would you because that's a concern with her, I think we should address that. And then I have more questions too. So,

sir, we actually on 11/05/2025, we did went to local historic library process feed. We did meet with the librarian there. There was nothing that discussed about that all those three properties were all combined. All the based on research, our research started from 1875 all the way to the current. And based on research, we did not find any findings that all those three were combined.

The only detail that we were able to find, which I can confirm, that in one of the dates that it was partial of the parcel that was sold to a different person. In the early stages, the the entire lot was sold multiple times. Before nineteen hundred February seventh, Brian sells a smaller portion of the land to Frederick Bigerman, and that's all we have as far as subdivision and details.

If it looks on an aerial map like it because it's an unusual arrangement to have four fifteen kind of oriented towards the west.

Like when the subdivision was performed, my team and I

Yeah. There's did There's a good

with Ireland that this this particular land was not subdivided properly because it is very narrow land. I think it's only 40 feet length.

Yeah, you. Of course.

Hi, I'm Audrey Von Erins with GPA Consulting. I'm the architectural historian who assisted one of the architectural historians who assisted Draphy on reviewing the project. And like he said, he did go to the library and met with the local historian there to obtain all the documents that they did find regarding this property. So we did review all of those. After reviewing the comments that were made in the public comment that you're referring to, we did double check our findings and looked at the historic aerials as well as the Sanborn and fire insurance maps.