Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2005 > June 9, 2005
Shortcuts
Downtown
Water Bill Payment
Agendas & Minutes
City Employment
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Police News
Public Notices
RDRC Minutes June 9, 2005

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

COUNCIL CHAMBERS FULLERTON CITY HALL
Thursday June 9, 2005 4:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER :

The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairman Daybell

ROLL CALL :

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Daybell, Committee Members Coffman, Duncan
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Hoban
PUBLIC PRESENT: Tom Dalton, Patricia House, Aaron and Bethany Espinoza, Noel Krijger, Don Monteleone
STAFF PRESENT: Rosen, Felz, Mullis, Eastman, Bowers, Dhanda, Baker

MINUTES:

Chairman Daybell asked that his comment on the second paragraph of page 1 be changed from "appeal procedure" to "meeting procedure."

Member Duncan asked that the comment on the third page, sixth paragraph was made by Member Hoban.

Minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting were approved as AMENDED by a vote of 3 - 0.

4:00 p.m. Session
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM

Item #4 was heard first

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:

4. MUCKENTHALER CENTER RETAINING WALL. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF FULLERTON. A request to review and recommend color options for a new retaining wall system along the Malvern Avenue right-of-way at 1201 West Malvern.

Associate Planner Eastman presented the staff report dated June 9, 2004. The existing retaining wall is collapsing and the City Council recently approved a replacement wall design. The RDRC is to identify which color scheme is most appropriate. Chairman Daybell asked staff and the Muckenthaler representative what their preference was for the retaining wall block. Senior Civil Engineer Bowers stated that he did not have a preference on the color of block used for the wall.

Member Duncan asked if the selection would minimize the excavation needed behind the current wall and if it was tensar and geo-rid requiring, 10 feet of excavation. Associate Engineer Dhanda stated that it required 14 -15 feet of excavation. Member Duncan asked if the wall would abut the sidewalk and Associate Engineer Dhanda stated that it would. He also stated that there were samples of the two blocks for the RDRC to review.

Patricia House, Muckenthaler Cultural Center Director, stated that after discussions with Museum staff it was thought that the tan colored block would be the best, but stated she was flexible. Tan is consistent with the historic Muckenthaler building.

Member Duncan asked if a more creative pattern was considered. Ms. House stated that something more elaborate would distract from the historic site, and they were also trying to be fiscally conservative.

Senior Civil Engineer Bowers discussed the various types of walls that were considered.

Interim Assistant to the City Manager Felz discussed the impact other choices would have had on the trees on the east side.

Chairman Daybell asked again about the bank being cut back 14 feet. Associate Engineer Dhanda explained that as it tapers on the ends it would not have to be cut back as far, perhaps only eight feet.

Members Coffman and Duncan both agreed on the tan block.

MOTION by Member Coffman, seconded by Member Duncan that the RDRC recommend the use of a tan block for the retaining wall at the Muckenthaler Cultural Center. It passed by a vote of 3 - 0.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. PRJ05-00387 - ZON05-00043. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: AARON ESPINOSA. A request to add a new one bedroom unit with garage to a lot currently developed with a two-bedroom dwelling located at 111 North Princeton Avenue (generally located on the west side of Princeton Avenue approximately 140 to 190 feet north of the centerline of Commonwealth Avenue) (R-2P Zone) (Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines).

Assistant Planner Sowers presented the staff report dated June 9, 2005. She explained that this was an addition of a single-story structure to a property that currently has a single-story dwelling at the front of the property. It will have access from the alley to a two-car garage and is zoned R-2P. She described the craftsman bungalow design of the current dwelling, which will be carried over to the proposed structure. One condition of approval is that an inspection be conducted because staff identified some work that had been completed without permits.

Assistant Planner Sowers displayed pictures of the current dwelling and the property.

Chairman Daybell asked about the gable above the porch, if it was original construction. He was not in favor of the design of the ventilation slats, and hoped that it would not be replicated in the new structure.

Public hearing opened.

Aaron and Bethany Espinoza, 111 N. Princeton and joint owners of the property, explained that they want to keep the style of their neighborhood. The new home is designed to look like the current structure.

Member Duncan asked if the area behind the existing carport would be landscaped. Ms. Espinoza answered that it would be landscaped.

Tom Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, was supportive of the project, with staff's recommendation.

Chairman Daybell asked the applicant if they have reviewed staff's conditions and were they in agreement. Mr. and Ms. Espinoza stated that they had reviewed them and were in agreement.

Member Duncan thought that it was a nice project. He was glad the applicant did not plan a two-story structure and was supportive of staff's recommendations.

Member Coffman agreed that it was a nice project. He asked Assistant Planner Sowers if they were to comment on any work done without a permit on the existing building, or would staff handle that. Assistant Planner Sowers answered affirmatively.

Chairman Daybell did not like the gable on the current structure, but commended the applicant for the proportioning of the single-story structure on the property. He liked the project and asked for a motion.

Associate Planner Eastman asked Assistant Planner Sowers to clarify the work that had been done without permits.

Assistant Planner Sowers responded that she thought the carport and patio cover, window change-outs or other work currently being done in the front house did not have permits. Some of the work may not require a permit, so staff is suggesting a Code Enforcement inspection.

Associate Planner Eastman stated that his concern was identifying the issues that potentially could be a concern of the RDRC and getting feedback from them. He felt that clarification on the extent of the window change-out would be necessary. Staff supports double-hung wood windows installed facing the street. A vinyl window would need to have a wood grain texture.

Member Coffman asked if the applicant could have a carport and not have a garage. Assistant Planner Sowers answered that based on the age of the construction of the house it was possible. The permit would qualify that the carport was structurally sound.

Associate Planner Eastman said staff would generally review and approve that because it is not an expansion of the space, it was more of a maintenance issue. If there were concerns with historic compatibility, it would be referred to the RDRC.

Member Coffman stated that they would like the same conditions for the proposed structure applied to the current structure.

Associate Planner Eastman asked if the siding had been replaced and was it installed over the existing siding and was the window trim replaced. Ms. Espinoza answered affirmatively to all questions. She also elaborated that each window had to be special ordered because they did not want to alter the building structure to fit a new window.

The committee and staff discussed the wording in the condition regarding windows, the ability to install a sill under the windows and that there were different ways that window details have been done in the past. They also discussed the siding and trim.

Associate Planner Eastman's concern was that sometimes window glazing does not appear recessed. It appears that the trim was flush with the siding and he would like it replaced. Ms. Espinoza stated that the trim is recessed and asked what is the dimension required. Associate Planner Eastman stated that it is usually 1 to 2 inches.

MOTION by Member Coffman, seconded by Member Duncan that the RDRC approve the Minor Developmenet project as submitted with staff's conditions of approval. The motion passed by a vote of 3 - 0.

2. PRJ05-00388 - ZON05-00044. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: EDUARDO NEGRETE. A request to add three bedrooms and one bath (for a total of 651 square feet) to the rear of the existing front house on a lot located in the Community Improvement District located at 230 East Truslow Avenue (south side of Truslow Avenue between 356 and 406 feet east of Pomona Avenue) (R-3 Zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines

Senior Planner Mullis stated that a translator (Guillermina Torrico) has been provided for the applicant. He is proposing an addition to the existing home on Truslow. The two-story addition will not be seen from the street and will increase the home by 650 square feet. Staff asked that the materials would match the existing home. A two-car garage and parking in the rear will alleviate parking problems and is required to be completed before occupying the addition.

Public hearing opened.

Ms. Torrico stated that the applicant had not reviewed the conditions, so the City's translator read them to him in Spanish. Mr. Negrete agreed with the conditions.

Member Coffman asked if the locations of adjacent buildings penciled in were accurate. Senior Planner Mullis felt it was correct. He suggested reversing the orientation of the deck. He presented a sketching of his suggestions for change. Mr. Negrete was concerned with making the suggested changes because of a closet planned for the area discussed.

Member Duncan liked the solutions Member Coffman has presented. He suggested that the applicant make the changes and return to the committee.

Chairman Daybell asked if the committee wanted to continue this item.

Senior Planner Mullis stated that if the committee gave direction to staff that was acceptable, they could review the second submittal. She stated that there are no windows on the second story because the side yard is not wide enough to meet the zoning code setback requirements.

Chairman Daybell suggested that staff handle any review of subsequent plans.

Associate Planner Eastman said that staff would not have any objections to review alternate plans.

MOTION by Member Coffman to condition the applicant to provide a revised floor plan and elevation for staff's approval; relocating the deck to the south end of the building; relocating the bathroom and/or closet to the north end. The deck is to be located at the southwest corner to view the rear and side yard and create a composition with the windows on the back of the building between the first and second floor.

Associate Planner Eastman asked for clarification if the motion required the applicant to revise the plan, or if the revision is only a "suggestion." He said that if the Committee felt strongly about making changes to the deck, a condition of approval, staff could require the changes be submitted as part of the plan check process.

Member Coffman said he would like to see the changes made, but if the applicant wanted to keep it as submitted, that would be fine with him.

Associate Planner Eastman identified that there may be structural issues and said the applicant might incur additional cost for multiple revisions required to meet structural requirements. He asked if the committee felt the current design was adequate.

Chairman Daybell felt that the plans were not adequate without modifications.

Member Coffman stated that, in his opinion, he would approve the plans as submitted, he was only making suggestions for improvement. He would encourage the applicant to make the changes.

MOTION previously made by Coffman, which required revisions, was seconded by Member Duncan and passed by a vote of 3 - 0.

3. PRJ05-00363 - ZON05-00034. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: NOEL KRIJGER. A request to allow the addition of a 3-bedroom unit over a 4-car garage to a lot zoned R-2P with an existing 3 bedroom unit at 226 N. Yale Avenue (generally located on the east side of Yale between 155 and 205 feet south of Chapman). (Categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines).

Chief Planner Rosen arrived at 4:35 p.m.

Senior Planner Mullis presented the staff report dated June 9, 2005. The applicant is proposing to build a four-car garage on the ground floor and a second unit above the garage. Photos of the current structure were distributed. She discussed the proposed architecture being craftsman style, working around a power pole, and modifying the rear of the building, which is currently flat.

Chairman Daybell asked the applicant if they are in agreement with the recommended conditions. The applicant stated that he was in agreement.

Public hearing opened.

Don Monteleone, 2115 N. Moody, showed the committee enhanced elevations. He explained that the new proposal is to have two gables popping out in the rear, creating a window seat on the interior with a planter box under the windows.

Associate Planner Eastman said that a condition is usually added requiring concealed lights be provided under the pop-out for safety reasons. Mr. Monteleone agreed with that condition.

Member Duncan asked if the new elements met the setback requirements. Senior Planner Mullis said that it did meet the setback requirements.

Tom Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, liked the project and felt it was in keeping with the preservation guidelines, and liked the changes. He asked if the floor area ratio had been met. Staff answered that it was met.

Public hearing closed.

Senior Planner Mullis stated that if this was an acceptable design, it should be memorialized in the motion.

Member Duncan was in support of the project, it was nicely done and recommended the condition of the new gable element in the rear.

Member Coffman was also in support of the project. He felt that since a cantilevered or offset could not be done, the proposed plan is more consistent with the style of architecture than the gable pop-outs.

Member Duncan felt that a cantilevered plan would add cost to the project and did not match the historical style of the house. He recommended putting planter boxes under the windows.

The committee discussed different types of surface-mounted safety lighting and reviewed pictures of the alley.

MOTION by Member Coffman, seconded by Member Duncan to approved the plan with a lighting element included. Motion passed by a vote of 3 - 0.

STAFF/COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION:

Chairman Daybell thanked Member Duncan for chairing the previous meeting in his absence. Associate Planner Eastman stated that he communicated to Oscar Johnson Vice-Chairman Duncan's public appreciation of his seven years of service, which he had expressed at the 7 p.m. session and Oscar was thankful for them. He also spoke about the appointment of a new RDRC member scheduled for late June. Chairman Daybell asked to be notified when the City Council recognizes Oscar Johnson.

Associate Planner Eastman informed the committee of upcoming meetings:

Providence - July 13 (Planning Commission)
Jacaranda Community Meeting - June 28
Sunrise - July 6 Special Meeting (Planning Commission)
Olson Company - Upcoming meeting not scheduled yet

OLD BUSINESS:

MOTION by Member Duncan to adjourn, seconded by Member Coffman passing by a vote of 3 - 0.

Meeting adjourned at 5:28 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