TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
FROM: Alyssa Jurkevics, Planning Technician
1. Subject
title
A request to demolish an existing garage and an adjacent accessory structure and construct a new detached two car garage at the rear of a residential single-family residence designated as a contributor property in the Old Towne Orange Historic District, located at 220 S. Orange Street (Design Review No.25-0175).
end
2. Summary
body
A proposal to demolish an existing 338-square-foot detached garage and adjacent 171-square-foot accessory structure, and to construct a new 412-square-foot detached two car garage on a property designated as a contributor to the Old Towne Historic District.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Approve Design Review No. 25-0175.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Douglas Ely
Owner: Kevin Purvis
Property Location: 220 S. Orange Street
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 2-6 du/ac
Zoning Classification: Single Family Residential 6,000 square feet (R1-6)
Existing Development: Single-Family Residence
Associated Application: None
Previous DRC Project Review: None
5. project description
A proposal to demolish an existing 338-square-foot detached garage and an adjacent 171-square-foot accessory structure, and to construct a new 412-square-foot detached two-car garage located at the northwest corner of the property. The new garage will feature horizontal wood siding, graphite asphalt shingles, and a custom wood sectional garage door with a stained wood finish.
6. EXISTING SITE
The site is developed with a one-and-a-half story, 2,009-square-foot Craftsman style residence with a rectangular footprint, a detached garage accessed by a shared driveway, and a detached ancillary building. The one-and-a-half story house has a side gable roof with deep overhanging eaves, exposed rafter tails, brackets, and asphalt shingle roofing. The existing garage, located northwest corner of the parcel, has a rectangular footprint and a side gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. The detached ancillary building which is adjacent to the rear façade of the main residence and has a utilitarian design with no style expressed.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The subject property is located on the west side of the 200 block of S. Orange Street between E. Almond Avenue and E. Washington Avenue. The zoning on the west side of S. Orange Street is R-1-6, and the zoning on the east side of the street is Multi-Family Residential (R-4). All the properties except for one on the west side of the 200 block of S. Orange Street are contributing properties to the Historic District. The west side of the 200 block of S. Orange Street also has all properties, except for one, designated as contributors to the Old Towne Orange District. All the properties on the 200 block of S. Orange St. are used as single-family homes with the exception of 233 S. Orange St. being used as a 9-unit one-story bungalow court development.
8. analysis of the PROJECT
The original design of the property included a shared driveway and a two-bay garage structure that extended onto the northern neighboring property at 212 S. Orange Street. The main residence was constructed in 1911, and it is assumed the existing garage was constructed at the same time as the main residence. The main residence and garage are depicted on the 1922 Sanborn map; however, no ancillary structure is shown. According to the historic assessment, the detached ancillary building first appears in a 1953 aerial photograph, located behind the residence in its current position. The assessment concludes that because the structure is absent from the 1922 and 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, as well as from aerial photographs prior to 1940, and only appears in the 1953 imagery, it was constructed outside the district’s period of significance and is therefore not considered a character-defining feature of the property. Although the ancillary structure incorporates elements such as exposed rafter tails and horizontal clapboard siding, its overall architectural expression lacks the defining decorative features necessary to classify it as Craftsman in style or to demonstrate a strong architectural relationship with the primary residence.
The historic assessment report states the existing garage is modest in design and lacks Craftsman style features. In contrast to the main residence’s horizontal siding, the garage’s exterior walls are clad in vertical wood siding of different types and dimensions. Additionally, the historic assessment concludes that the existing garage no longer retains integrity of design, as the original configuration included a shared wall with the adjacent garage. Building permit records indicate that a portion of the shared garage was demolished in 1996, and a new garage has since been constructed on the northern neighboring property. The remaining southern portion of the former shared garage on the subject property has been altered over time, resulting in a loss of its original integrity. The assessment further notes that the existing garage did not historically include a north exterior wall with an overhanging eave during the district’s period of significance. In addition, a portion of the north half of the rear (west) façade appears to have been removed and replaced with a new exterior wall, resulting in a slight expansion of the interior space.
Furthermore, the two vehicular openings and associated doors on the primary (east) façade are inconsistent in size, proportion, and detailing. The southern bay opening is smaller than the northern bay, exposing a portion of the façade’s flush vertical wood board siding; however, the wood boards on the south garage doors do not align with the adjacent siding. According to the report, no permits, historic photographs, or other documentation have been identified to determine which bay reflects the original configuration or when these alterations occurred. The project proposes the demolition of the existing 338-square-foot garage and 171-square-foot ancillary building, based on the determination that neither structure qualifies as a character-defining feature of the contributing property.
The proposal includes construction of a new two-bay garage in the same general location as the existing garage. The new garage would be approximately 412 square feet in area and 10 feet in height, and would maintain a similar orientation, massing, and roof form to the original garage. The design incorporates modest overhanging eaves, exposed fascia, and simple wood detailing intended to complement the historic materials and proportions of the main residence.
The proposed project is consistent with all applicable zoning and development code requirements. Pursuant to Orange Municipal Code Section 17.10.090 “the demolition review process has been established to preserve the integrity of the City's cultural and architectural history.” Pursuant to pages 9 and 10 of the Historic Preservation Design Standards the DRC is the final deciding body.
Staff recommends approval of the project with the included conditions of approval.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided to owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project on or before May 7, 2026, and the site was posted with a notice on or before that date.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves the construction of a new private garage, which is considered a small accessory structure appurtenant to a residential use.
12. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
Based on the following Findings and statements in support of such Findings, staff recommends the DRC make a final determination on the proposed project with recommended conditions (Orange Municipal Code 17.10.070.G).
1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.070.G.1).
The proposed project adheres to all of the relevant guidelines for new garages and accessory structures in the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange. The new garage would have the same rectangular form and gable roof profile as is typical of the historic garages found in the historic district. Additionally, the new garage would have two single-bay doors rather than one double-bay door. The design also gives the impression of paired doors similar to garages found in the historic district.
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.07.G.2).
Projects found to be in conformance with the HPDS are generally considered to be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. There are no changes proposed to the historic main residence. The construction of the new detached garage would not impair the essential form and integrity of the historic property.
3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.G.3).
The new garage is in compliance with the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne Orange related to the construction of a new 2-car enclosed garage. There will be two one-car garage door bays with wood sectional garage doors with vertical siding in respect of the existing doors to the original structure. The garage structure will be a larger footprint than the existing structure to meet the standards of the Orange Municipal Code for an enclosed garage and will have a similar appearance of the previous original structure.
13. CONDITIONS
The approval of this project is subject to the following conditions:
1. This project is approved as a precise plan. All work shall conform in substance and be maintained in general conformance with the plans (date stamped received May 7, 2026, and in the project case file), including modifications required by the conditions of approval, and as recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee. After the application has been approved, if changes are proposed regarding the location or alteration of any use or structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. If the Community Development Director determines that the proposed change complies with the provisions and the spirit and intent of the approval action, and that the action would have been the same for the changed plan as for the approved plan, the Community Development Director may approve the changed plan without requiring a new public meeting. If the Community Development Director determines that any proposed change is substantial, he may refer the plans to the Design Review Committee for subsequent review and determination.
2. The applicant agrees, as a condition of City’s approval of PA25-0175, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, at applicant’s expense, the City, its officers, agents, and employees (“City”) from and against any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City, including, but not limited to, any claim, action or proceeding commenced within the time period provided in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval, to challenge the determination made by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding to which the City receives notice and to cooperate fully with the applicant in the defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to pay, including any expenses ordered by a court or expenses incurred through the Office of the City Attorney in connection with said claim, action or proceeding. City may, in its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding but such participation shall not relieve applicant of the obligations of this condition. In the event the applicant is required to defend City in connection with such claim, action or proceeding, City shall have the right to approve counsel to so defend the City, approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted and approve any all settlements, which approval(s) shall not be unreasonably withheld. The obligations set forth herein remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including any and all appeals of any lower court judgment rendered in the proceeding. Further, applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City for all costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this provision.
3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, including all City regulations. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit.
4. The final approved conditions of approval shall be reprinted on the first or second page of the construction documents when submitting to the Building Division for the plan check process.
5. Construction permits shall be obtained for all future construction work, as required by the City of Orange, Building Division. Failure to obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit.
6. If not utilized, project approval expires 24 months from the approval date. Extensions of time may be granted in accordance with OMC Section 17.08.060
14. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
• Attachment 2 DPR Form
• Attachment 3 Project Plans
• Attachment 4 Historic Assessment Report
• Attachment 5 1922 & 1950 Sanborn Map