PRJ04-00431 ZON04-00051 (MINOR). APPLICANT: BUSHALA BROTHERS, INC. AND PROPERTY OWNER: HENRY GOMEZ.
Assistant Planner Kusch described the project as outlined in the staff report. The property is in a redevelopment area and is subject to RDRC approval by the Fullerton Municipal Code. Staff reviewed the proposal in terms of compliance with the R2 zone requirements, which allows two units on the property. The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing home from 203 E Truslow Avenue to 201 E Elm Avenue. Staff noted that the proposed new house meet the requirement that the front setback at Pomona Avenue be the same as the predominate setback along the street; the existing setbacks along Pomona Avenue average 16 feet. Except for the houses porch, the house meets the required setback. The porch encroaches within that setback area. Staff is recommending to set the house further away from Pomona Ave to meet the front yard setback requirement. Associate Planner Eastman clarified that it is a code requirement that the building have a 16 feet setback. Assistant Planner Kusch noted that the property is not in a preservation zone, so the Historic Preservation Guidelines do not apply. The project includes a new 2-car garage, and staff recommends the garage be compatible to the relocated house in siding and roof materials.
Committee Member Coffman questioned staff or the applicant about the space in between the exisisting house and proposed garage, which is presently 8 feet as drawn. He said that if the house were to shift rearward to accommodate the 16-foot front yard setback, then that would leave four feet between the existing house and the proposed garage. He questioned if the proposed garage needed to shift as well. Assistant Planner Kusch thought that there is a window on the East side of the house that the applicant would like to keep. Mike Miller said it is the window in the center of the kitchen and he would not like to block the view from this window with the garage. He spoke with the Building Division in regards to the setback between the two buildings and they would be ok with a four-foot setback. Assistant Planner Kusch said that there is no minimum setback requirement between garages and dwellings. Associate Planner Eastman asked if the garage would be new construction? Mr. Miller said it is new construction. Mr. Miller stated that he drew the plan simply to allow for a recommendation from the committee.
There being no further questions for staff, Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to the public for comments.
Vice-Chair Silber stated that the existing roof looks to be beyond its economic life and wondered if there were any plans to replace the existing roof. Henry Gomez said that he planed on replacing both roofs with the same type of materials. Vice Chair Silber asked if the applicant would be painting everything the same color scheme. Mr. Gomez said that everything would be the same. Vice-chair Silber stated that it looked as if the porch supports had already been removed at the homes current location on Truslow, and asked if the applicant planned on making the necessary repairs. Mr. Miller noted that they had needed to knock the concrete porch out from under the house to move it and they would be making necessary repairs.
Committee Member Coffman asked the applicant if they are agreeable to the 16 feet setback requirements for the porch. Mr. Gomez and Mr. Miller agreed that with the setback requirements.
There being no further public comments Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to Committee Members for comments.
Committee Member Duncan liked the house located towards the corner and thought it would be a good display on the corner. He liked matching the roofing, and the garages setback along the side of the house instead of the front. He supported the project.
Vice-Chair Silber felt the same as Committee Member Duncan. He suggested adding a nice entry walkway with landscaping and is in support of the project with the adjustments to meet the setback requirements.
Committee Member Coffman agreed with comments that have been made and thought it would look nice on the corner. He wished the applicant good luck with the project.
Chairman Daybell thought it would enhance the property. He asked staff if the Committee needed to condition the color scheme in the motion.
Associate Planner Eastman said that staff would ask the to condition the approval if they felt it is important to requires the color scheme even though the applicant had indicated that he would be matching the buildings in material and color. Chairman Daybell stated that he felt that the committee should incorporate a condition that the motion include the review of roofing material and that the color scheme be compatible between the old and the new. Committee Member Coffman added that the issue should be resolved now instead of revisited at a later date.
Vice-Chair Silber motioned to approve the project with the conditions listed in the staff report and an additional condition that the replacement roofing on the new house and the existing house match, and coordinate building colors in order to provide a unified appearance.
Associate Planner Eastman stated that staff would ask that the condition read that the applicant submit paint chips and a material board prior to issuance of the building permits. Vice-chair Silber amended the motion to read that the implementation of this motion is that staff will review for compliance prior to issuance of building permits for the new foundation of the relocated structure, and with the stipulation that the building be moved back to meet setback requirements.
Committee Member Coffman seconded and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4 -0.
Chairman Daybell asked the Committee and staff to agendize to the next meeting the issue of Committees and Commissions.