Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2003 > October 9, 2003
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Public Notices
RDRC Minutes October 9, 2003

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS FULLERTON CITY HALL
Thursday October 9, 2003 4:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER :

The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Chairman Johnson

ROLL CALL :

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Johnson; Vice-Chair Daybell; Committee Members Blumer, Coffman, and Silber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None
PUBLIC PRESENT: Dusk Sheridan, and Katie Dalton
STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Associate Planner Eastman, Assistant Planner Sowers, and Clerical Support Thompson

MINUTES:

Minutes for September 25, 2003 were unanimously approved with a vote of 3 -0, and Committee Member Blumer abstaining.

4:00 p.m. Session
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM

NEW BUSINESS:

ITEM 1
PRJ03-00490 - ZON03-00048 APPLICANT & OWNER: DUSK SHERIDAN.


A request for a 20 percent reduction in the required side yards and two additions to a structure in the preservation overlay zone. Assistant Planner Heather Sowers introduced the project at 241 Jacaranda, the northeast corner of Jacaranda and Highland. The property is zoned R2 (P) and currently occupied by a single family dwelling with a detached garage. The applicant is proposing two additions, which are being brought before the committee because of the preservation zone designation. The first is an 89 square foot addition on the side of the property with a one-foot adjustment to the required setback; the second is a 187 square foot addition to the front of the home.

The house was originally constructed in 1937, and appears to have been initially wood sided. It was modified with stucco and wainscot coat siding in the 1960's. The applicant is proposing to return the structure to the wood side finish as well as remove some design elements that were added to the structure in recent years. Specifically a vent that was added to the front of the home in the gable area and decorative trim. The proposed elevations show a craftsman style. The project complies with the zoning code for R-2 zoned properties.

Staff had a few items from the design standards for preservation overlay zone with staff's comments to be reviewed by the committee. The design guidelines require the columns to be appropriate to the period as far as material and style and staff would condition further approval of the plans to have the columns in compliance with standards for the period. The windows on the south elevation show a return to a three-panel window from a single large window keeping with a craftsman style. The decorative mullions were recent additions and not in the original construction of the home.

The applicant is proposing a skylight on the side yard addition. The design guidelines for the preservation zone do not allow skylights or solar panels visible from the street. Staff is recommending that the applicant move the skylight to a position that is not visible from the street, or look for an alternative source of natural light. Staff will require the same material to be used on all sides of the residence. In the elevations there is a possible discrepancy as to what will be replaced with the wood siding and what would be retained. According to the applicant, the intention is to ultimately side the entire structure, although the project will be completed in phases with the side yard being completed in the near future, and the front addition at a later date within a two-year period. Staff would require plans that show materials consistent with the design guidelines, and that the applicant provide color boards to ensure color compliance of materials. The applicant assured staff that the colors would be consistent with the current structure.

Committee member Coffman asked how long it would take between each phase. The applicant, Dusk Sheridan, stated it would depend on the amount of difficulty involved with the installation of the bathroom addition. Associate Planner Eastman stated that if the addition was not complete within the two years, the applicant could apply for an extension in writing.

Committee member Daybell had some concerns about trimming the side setback from 5 feet to 4 feet, and questioned if the measurements were from the edge of the sidewalk to the building or from the inside of the brick wall. This property is in located in the R2 zone, where the street side yard setbacks are required to be 5 feet. Assistant Planner stated that the zoning code allows for a twenty percent reduction with a minor site plan; therefore the setback would be 4 feet from the property line to the house.

Katie Dalton with Fullerton Heritage asked if the applicant knew about the original design of the home. Mr. Sheridan stated that the earliest information at the public library only dates back to 1967, and according to neighbors the siding was installed in 1963. Ms. Dalton had concerns that Mr. Sheridan was basing the design on pieces of other homes in the neighborhood. He stated that his intent is to blend in with the neighborhood and wanted to add some of the original character. Ms. Dalton expressed her concern for the project being time consuming, and all four surfaces being constructed with the same material.

Associate Planner Eastman said that from staff's perspective the design guidelines suggest that the materials used around the building must be consistent. Although staff's concern is primarily that is seen from public view. The RDRC should look at the integrity of the building and create a structure that would be compatible for the neighborhood even though it might not be in compliance with the guidelines. Associate Planner Eastman stated that this would be a step in the right direction. Staff would prefer the applicant to invest the finances into the details of faades facing the street, and the design of the detailing versus "cutting corners". Additional details such as the columns on the patio, and the materials to be used. Generally, the details need to be consistent with the craftsman style identified. Associate Planner Eastman advised the applicant that typically staff would direct the applicant to hire an architect with a background in historical buildings to assist in the design, versus staff working out the details. Associate Planner Eastman questioned the shed roof on the front elevation. By extending the porch the roof becomes a flatter pitch and would not look appropriate for the historical area. Associate Planner Eastman expressed concerns that the detailing of the roof has not been worked out.

Committee member Coffman stated that he had no problem with the side yard setback or converting the home to the bungalow style; however he does have concerns with the time frame of the project and changing the materials on the building. If only the bathroom addition gets completed the materials used on the addition would not be consistent with the rest of the home. He stated that the sides are not concealed enough by the six foot block wall to join two different types of material. He also was concerned with the length of the shed roof over the porch extending out quite a bit away from the home. He suggested that the applicant improve the level of the detail for a craftsman style home. Mr. Sheridan suggested that the bathroom addition could be stucco.

Committee member Blumer based his comments on the craftsman style of the design. His concern with the project is that the two different pitches on the roof would create a hole for water to pool on top of the roof. The siding should be a lap siding opposed to a groove siding. The windows should be a larger middle window flanked by two smaller windows, to be consistent with the neighborhood. He added that if mullions are used, they should be on the outside. The columns should be tapered, and the trims need to be more delicate than shown on the drawing, and the base should be either stucco or brick. The porch should have exposed rafter tails consistent with the rest of the home. The applicant's design shows outriggers on the gables, however the purpose of the outriggers is to support a large overhang and unless the applicant went with a 24" overlay, they are not necessary. Lastly the bathroom should be kept to a standard size, which is 5 feet wide, to minimize modification to setback.

Committee member Silber expressed his concerns for finishing only the portions of the residence with siding. If the applicant maintained the same pattern of wood siding on the bottom and stucco on the top, the problem of trying to integrate the corners of the material would be resolved. He reminded the applicant that part of the craftsman style was the integrity and logic of the building. His additional concerns are consistent with Committee member Blumer's comments on the roof pitch, and design. He is fine with the modification to the side setback but stated that a standard bathroom is 5 feet in width.

Committee member Daybell suggested if there are changes made to the existing plans that RDRC should review the updated project.

Mr. Sheridan asked the committee if they would consider approving the project not as a craftsman style home but still allow the wood siding on the home. Associate Planner Eastman assured the applicant that the committee is looking for a building that is well designed, fits in with the neighborhood, and has additions that blend in with the surroundings based on the details.

Vice Chairman Daybell made a motion to approve the bathroom addition with the stucco and wainscot siding to match the existing house as it is now; subject to the relevant recommended conditions in the staff report (all conditions except 2, 9, 10, and 15), the twenty percent setback; with colors compatible to the existing house; the removal of the skylight or replaced with another means of natural lighting, and continue a discussion on the front addition indefinitely. Committee member Silber seconded and the committee passed the motion with a vote of 5 to 0.

OLD BUSINESS:

None

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547