Redevelopment Design Review Committee Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
|COUNCIL CHAMBERS||FULLERTON CITY HALL|
|Thursday ||March 9, 2006||4:00 PM |
CALL TO ORDER :
|The meeting was called to order at 4:06 PM by Chairman Daybell |
ROLL CALL :
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Daybell; Committee Members Duncan, Hoban, and Larsen |
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:||Committee Member Cha |
|PUBLIC PRESENT:||Katie Dalton and Lance Laven |
|STAFF PRESENT:||Senior Planner Eastman, Clerical Staff Leopold, and Chief Planner Rosen |
|MOTION made by Committee Member Duncan, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE February 9 and 23 minutes AS WRITTEN. |
NEW BUSINESS: None
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:Item No. 1
PRJ06-00078 - ZON06-00013. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL SEVILLE.
Senior Planner Eastman provided a staff report on a request for approval of a Miscellaneous Development Project to change windows at 143 N. Cornell Avenue (generally located on the west side of Cornell, approximately 130 feet south of Wilshire Avenue) (R-2P zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (JEA)
Senior Planner Eastman clarified that Michael Seville is the applicant and contractor and he is not present; The property owner, Sherry Pelican, is also not present. Senior Planner Eastman indicated that he spoke to the applicant this morning and informed him about the time of the meeting. Senior Planner Eastman told the Committee that under these circumstances staff would recommend that a decision not be made on an item until the applicant is present, but it is up to the Committee to make the decision.
Senior Planner Eastman told the Committee that the proposal was being presented to them today because a decision made by staff, is being appealed. He stated the project was originally a code enforcement complaint regarding construction being done without a permit. Staff checked permits and although one was issued, it was not for the scope of work. Staff performed an inspection on the property and noticed the windows were replaced and, as a result, placed a stop-work order.
Since then, permits have been issued for interior improvements. Staff had conversations with the contractor in terms of what had been done and what could be done to offset what staff felt were inappropriate installation of windows. Senior Planner Eastman explained the alternatives for the applicant. He stated staff's concern that the window grids are not of a typical design seen in a historic building and have no profile to them. They are flat and do not cast a shadow line and look as if they are applied grids. Therefore, they do not represent the character of a historic home.
Staff did condition the approval to state that the front window facing the street should be replaced because it is the most dominant window. The applicant agreed to replace it with a window that staff would identify as appropriate.
Senior Planner Eastman stated that the project was approved, but since the decision was then appealed, it is now presented to the Committee for final determination. He explained to the Committee that staff believes the decision made was appropriate under the circumstances.
Public hearing opened.
Katie Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, stated she was very displeased about this project. She does not think that staff should lower the standards of the "Preservation Zone Guidelines" for this applicant, but should hold the remaining properties to the standard that is in the "Preservation Zone Guidelines". She stated that although the staff report was thorough, it takes the basic premise that because other properties on this particular block face have had their windows compromised that we should allow the applicant to meet the lowest common denominator as opposed to rise with the standard that has been set forth in the "Design Guidelines" and zoning code.
Ms. Dalton is asking that the applicant remove all of the windows that are visible from the street and replace them with something that is of significant higher quality and similar to the quality and style of the original windows that were removed.
Public hearing closed.
Chairman Daybell told the Committee that he received a call from Tom Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, the night before regarding this item covering the same concerns Ms. Dalton mentioned.
Committee Member Duncan said the windows should be replaced to maintain the intent of the preservation zone.
Committee Member Hoban agreed and is disappointed to see that this matter got this far; therefore, putting the committee and staff in a difficult situation. He stated his concerns including the different sizes of the window with the size of the trim, which is not authentic. He said he did not expect the applicant to reface the whole section if it's on the back corner of the house. Committee Member Hoban expressed his concern that the door was filled in the same fashion, which is not appropriate.
Committee Member Larsen stated that the project is the reason why the preservation guidelines are in place for something that is already existing. He agreed with replacing the windows and said it was a big deal. Committee Member Larsen stated he did not think the Committee should vote until the applicant is in attendance.
Senior Planner Eastman explained to the Committee the nature of the notification process and informing the applicant. Staff would recommend that the Committee continue the item in order to give the applicant the opportunity to attend the meeting.
Chairman Daybell said the applicant didn't follow the guidelines or get permits, as required, and he should be advised that the Committee will require that the windows to be restored to something that is close to what was there before. He also stated that the applicant should be notified about the Committee's comments and concerns stating they didn't like what he did and will most likely refuse to accept what has been done.
MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to CONTINUE the project to the March 23 meeting.
STAFF/COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION:Chairman Daybell requested that staff provide a refresher course on the "Historic Preservation Guidelines" for new members and be placed on a future agenda.
Senior Planner Eastman provided an update on the previous Panera project and Metro condominium project previously brought to the Committee and their current status. He also provided a summary on the City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
MEETINGS:City Council - March 7
Planning Commission - March 8
ADJOURNMENT:MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Duncan and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to adjourn meeting at 5:10 P.M.