The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairman Johnson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Johnson; Committee Members Blumer, Coffman, Daybell, and Silber (Arrived @ 4:10 p.m.)
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Associate Planner Eastman
Minutes for January 23, 2003 were approved, by a vote of 5 to 0.
Associate Planner Eastman presented the proposed project located at 242 W. Malvern, which is the southeast corner of Malvern and Highland Avenues. The proposal is to construct a second dwelling unit over a new 4 car garage in an R-2P zone (Duplex Residential with a Preservation Overlay). The site currently contains a single residence designed in a Spanish Revival style, and a detached garage which currently takes access off of Highland. The old garage will be demolished and the new garages will be oriented with access off of the rear alley. The new dwelling unit will have an entrance fronting Highland. A courtyard will separate the new garage and dwelling unit from the existing house.
The project is being reviewed by the RDRC because the property is in a preservation (P) overlay zone, and because the applicant is requesting a 10% increase in the allowable floor area. The scope of the RDRC's review is to determine compatibility with adjacent properties, historic compatibility, and overall project design (i.e., site layout).
Associate planner Eastman explained that the project was reviewed by Staff several weeks ago, at which time Staff asked the applicant to make changes to comply with the Fullerton Municipal Code and the City of Fullerton Design Guidelines for Residential Preservation Zones. Staff had presented the project to the RDRC at the January 23, 2003 meeting as an information and discussion only item. The project presented at this time reflects the changes recommended by Staff and the comments provided by the RDRC at the January 23 meeting.
Staff recommends that the RDRC approve the proposed project as revised, subject to the 21 recommended conditions outlined in the staff report.
The applicant's architect, Edward Gentalen, presented the project proposal. In attendance with the architect was the applicant/property owner, Carol Dodson, and her property manager. Mr. Gentalen stated that the plans have been revised per Staff's comments, and that he and the property owner have reviewed the staff report, and have no objections to Staff's recommended conditions of approval. He provided a color rendering of the project to show how the project will match the existing structure, including matching roof tile and stained wood at the balcony and railings. He clarified that the "french doors" fronting the courtyard actually be sliding doors with a "french door" appearance. Mr. Gentalen indicated that quality windows will be used, and the garage doors will also be of a high quality.
Committee Member Silber stated that he had no real comments, as he felt the revised project was a good project.
Member Blumer stated that the architect has done an excellent job, and he had only minor comments. One, he felt the exterior storage doors could be slid under the second story decks to provide some protection from the elements and to visually line them up. Second, he pointed out that the deck appears to be wider on the elevation than on the floor plan. Third, he felt the wings on the side of the second unit's entrance cover could be reduced in size, and that the wing's square edges could be clipped to match the angle of the cover's tile roof. He also pointed out that the elevations show a trim on the side of the entrance door which run from the wing walls to the slab, but the trim was not shown on the floor plans. Architect Gentalen pointed out that this was a "stud" thick trim, and that it is his intent to carry it down to the base of the building. And finally, Member Blumer stated that he thought the cantilevered balconies, while structurally sound, could use a second row of corbels to add visual strength. Committee Members Coffman, Blumer, Silber, and the architect discussed the slope of the entry cover's pitched roof and whether the clipping of the wing wall would work better with a steep or shallow sloped tile cover. It was determined that a shallow pitch to match the existing house's pitched entrance would be o.k., and that the wing walls should be "clipped" to match the slope of the tile cover.
Committee Member Daybell commented that he was very impressed with the project, and that he only wanted to know where the trash cans will be stored. Architect Gentalen stated that the trash cans would be stored in the east side yard on a concrete slab, and a gate would be provided to give access to the rear alley. Staff identified that the location of the trash storage and the access gate can be addressed in the landscape plans which Staff will review. Member Blumer asked if the applicant would be willing to place an arched gate feature at the rear of the side yard to match the existing "portal" gate on the west side of the property. Member Silber asked if lighting could be provided at the access gate for affect and safety. The architect and property owner said that they would be glad to add the arched gateway and lighting.
Committee Member Coffman expressed that he is pleased with the project. He had only two questions. One is to identify the size of the "beam ends" (corbels) above the garage; and the other was to identify the size of the beams and posts at the balcony. Architect Gentalen stated that the beam ends will match the beam ends on the existing house in terms of size and design. He stated that the beams and posts of the balcony were not completely identified yet, but that the intent is to match the scale of the woodwork on the existing house.
Committee Member Johnson stated that he likes the project, and he has nothing to add beyond what has already been discussed.
Committee Member Blumer asked about the downspouts on the new structure, and inquired as to whether they would be metal or of a high quality material. Ms. Dobson stated that she has recently put downspouts on the existing house, and that the new structures will match the existing house.
Member Silber asked if lighting could be concealed in the overhang soffit above the garage doors. Architect Gentalen stated that that would not be a problem.
Motioned by Blumer, seconded by Silber, to approve the revised project as submitted, subject to Staff's recommended conditions, and the revisions discussed above. These discussed revisions include: 1) clipping of the entrance cover's wing walls to match the slope of the tiled roof; 2) that the entrance cover's tile roof have a shallow pitch to match the sloped entrance roof of the existing house; 3) that the entrance door's trim be carried to the base of the building; 4) that a second layer of corbels be added to the cantilevered balconies to provide visual strength; 5) that the access gate to the rear alley, from the east side-yard, be provided with an arched "portal" that matches the existing courtyard gate on the west side of the property; 6) that the access gate to the rear alley be provided with light for affect and safety; and 7) that the decorative "beam ends" and balcony members match the size and dimensions of the existing residence's features.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.