TO: Chair and Members of the Design Review Committee
THRU: Hayden Beckman, Planning Manager
FROM: Alyssa Jurkevics, Assistant Planner
1. Subject
title
A request to construct a new detached two car garage at the rear of a single-family residential property designated as a contributor in the Old Towne Orange Historic District, located at 437 S. Glassell Street (Design Review No. 25-0171).
end
2. Summary
body
A request to construct a new 441-square-foot detached accessory two-car garage located at the northeast corner of the property, designated as a contributor to the Old Towne Historic District (Design Review No. 25-0171).
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
Approve Design Review No. 25-0171 with recommended conditions.
end
4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant: Charlie Melvin
Owner: Aidan Flores
Property Location: 437 S. Glassell Street
General Plan Designation: Old Towne Mixed Use 15(S) (OTMIX-15S)
Zoning Classification: Old Towne Mixed Use Spoke Street (OTMU-15(S))
Existing Development: Single-Family Residence
Associated Application: None
Previous DRC Project Review: None
5. project description
The proposed project includes the construction of a new one-story, 441-square-foot detached two-car garage located at the northeast corner of the property with access oriented toward the rear alley. The proposed garage would be set back 1 foot from the north (side) property line and 18 feet from the rear property line.
The proposed garage would feature a front-gable roof with asphalt shingles, painted fiber cement lap siding, and steel exterior doors with a white finish. The garage would have a maximum height of 11 feet 11 inches at the highest point of the gabled roof. The structure would be 9 feet 9 inches in height at a point 5 feet from the property line.
6. EXISTING SITE
The project site is developed with a one-story, 1,134-square-foot single-family residence constructed in 1908. The building is roughly rectangular in plan and features wood clapboard siding, a hipped roof clad in asphalt shingles, open overhanging eaves, and exposed rafter tails. The building elevations are asymmetrically arranged, with rectangular window and door openings. The primary west-facing elevation includes a small entry portico with a pedimented gable supported by simple classical columns, flanked by fixed single-light windows and leaded-glass transoms. The existing residence is identified in the 2005 DPR Form as a “Hip Roof Cottage” architectural style.
7. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT
The project site is located near the southern boundary of the Historic District, within the block generally bounded by Culver Avenue to the north and La Veta Avenue to the south. The property is surrounded by contributing properties to the north, south, and east. These properties consist primarily of one-story, early-to-mid twentieth-century single-family residences exhibiting Bungalow, Victorian, and Period Revival architectural styles that have since been converted to commercial uses. Within the immediate vicinity, there is one non-contributing property, located on the west side of Glassell Street directly opposite the project site.
8. analysis of the PROJECT
The proposed new garage would be detached from the existing primary building and located toward the east (rear) of the lot, with a 1-foot setback from the north (side) property line and an 18-foot setback from the rear property line. The placement is consistent with the development pattern of the immediately surrounding contributing properties, which primarily consists of one- and two-story single-family residences with detached secondary buildings accessed from the rear alley and shallow side yards. The garage would be minimally visible from S. Glassell Street, with primary access provided from the rear alley.
Architecturally, the proposed garage would feature a front-gable roof with overhanging eaves and asphalt shingles similar to those of the existing roof on the contributing primary building. The east elevation, facing the alley, would include a rectangular garage door opening centered beneath the gable peak and proportionate to the overall height of the wall plane, similar to the fenestration and massing of both contributing and non-contributing accessory buildings in the vicinity. The existing simple concrete parking area would be retained, providing a clear progression from the public alley to the private residential space.
The primary exterior materials proposed for the garage include asphalt shingle roofing, painted fiber cement lap siding, and steel doors with a white finish. Wood cladding is one of the most common character-defining features of the Historic District. Although wood cladding is not proposed for the new garage, the painted fiber cement lap siding would closely resemble the appearance and character of traditional wood siding while remaining distinguishable as a contemporary material. This approach would allow the new construction to be compatible with the historic character of the district without creating a false sense of history. Overall, the proposed garage is compatible with the historic character of the property and Historic District. Its placement, scale, massing, architectural features, and materials reflect the established development pattern while remaining distinguishable as new construction. The project would not adversely affect the contributing primary building or the overall integrity of the Historic District.
9. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
None.
10. PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided to owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project on or before September 24, 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.
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. As a one-story building with a square plan, the proposed new garage would be similar in mass and scale to surrounding secondary buildings.
4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.07.G.4).
The proposed two-car garage would not result in any direct impacts to the physical integrity of the subject property, which is a contributing building, or to other contributing features within the Historic District. The proposed garage has been designed consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Design Standards (HPDS) and would be compatible with the surrounding historic context through its size, scale, and massing, as well as its use of compatible architectural features and materials.
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 approved October 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 the City’s approval of PA25-0171, 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.
14. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 Vicinity Map
• Attachment 2 DPR Form
• Attachment 3 Project Plans
• Attachment 4 Historic Resource Assessment Memo