• Email
  • Print

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Minutes

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Minutes




May 25, 2006

4:00 PM


The meeting was called to order at 4:03 PM by Acting Chairman Duncan



Acting Vice-Chairman Duncan; Committee Members Hoban and Larsen


Chairman Daybell and Committee Member Cha


Tom Dalton, S. Emily Evans, Patty Galente, and Bruce Hostetter


Acting Director Rosen, Acting Chief Planner Eastman, Senior Planner St. Paul, and Clerical Staff Leopold


MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE May 11 minutes AS WRITTEN.


Item No. 1


Acting Chief Planner Eastman provided a staff report for a request of a Minor Development Project to (1) demolish existing dwelling in a preservation zone and (2) construct a 1,298 s.f. two story residence and 450 s.f. dwelling unit above a 2-story garage located at 220 and 220 1/2 N. Lincoln Avenue (Generally located on the east side of Lincoln, approximately 273 ft. north of Wilshire) (R-2P Zone) (Categorically Exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). (Continued from December 8, 2005 and February 23, 2006 meetings) (HAL).

Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained that the applicant’s designer has re-designed the project and has re-submitted the proposal.He stated the applicant has met the issues staff identified as concerns and would recommend approval with minor modifications as identified in the staff report.Acting Chief Planner Eastman noted that the applicant submitted a second revised plan, which was prepared after the applicant received the staff report in an effort to address some of the concerns prior to the meeting.Staff recommended approval of the project subject to conditions (some of which have been addressed in the revised plans).

The applicant Matthew Howe stated the items he revised were the following:

·10 x 10 useable open space problem for rear unit “A” was fixed.

·He chose old lantern lights for the alley, and they will match both structures.

·Removed all of the stone veneer and made it into a white wash stucco.

·Added a front window toward the street at the back of the unit.

·Removed the double arch at the second dwelling’s entry porch, and replaced with single arch.

Mr. Howe stated that he will submit landscape irrigation plans prior to issuance of building permits.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated that the applicant changed the floor plan and the orientation of the second floor.He explained that staff spoke to the applicant’s designer, after the last meeting and discussed methods to orient the building so it is related better to the street. Staff felt that if Mr. Howe wanted a two-story, the second story could run perpendicular to the street and have a variation in roof lines.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated there was previously discussion of the rotunda being a dining room versus a traditional entry.

Staff is pleased with what has been submitted in terms of the revisions that have been done.

Staff and the applicant discussed the casement and fixed windows proposed.Acting Chief Planner Eastman said a product sheet or sample must be provided to staff with a clear understanding of what the objective is in the construction documents.Staff expects some of the arched windows will be revised during the plan check process due to exiting requirements.

Acting Vice-Chairman Duncan asked about the window side elevations and requested clarification of the locations of the windows.He stated that the second floor bedroom windows were not shown, and the windows next to the chimney on the first floor were not equal distance to the fireplace centerline.Mr. Howe said he could put a total of two windows, one on each side of the fireplace.Mr. Howe said windows will be needed in the bedroom for fire accessibility.

Acting Vice-Chairman Duncan recommended adding a door to create storage under the stairs that come up to the back porch units area.

Acting Vice-Chairman Duncan asked about the arched trellis at the front elevation.Mr. Howe stated that when he met with Acting Senior Planner Allen about the project, she recommended the arch could stay or be removed, but thought it would look good from one end to the other.Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated that he had a discussion with Acting Senior Planner Allen about the arch, as well. Staff is not opposed to the trellis, but had some concerns in terms of head clearance requirements as relates to the step into the house.In the previous plan, there was not enough clearance to meet building code at the entrance to the door.Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated there may have been some discussion in terms of having to raise it to meet the minimum clearance, versus having an arch which provides an average versus flat height. Staff is not in objection because it becomes a courtyard space and the trellis feature adds shadow and line work.Committee Member Larsen expressed his concern as to whether the arch was really needed.

Mr. Howe stated that the doors will be mahogany stained and the wood inside the windows will be stained to match the doors.

Committee Member Larsen asked about the top first floor ceiling height being 9 ft.He suggested using the building sides to support the trellis structure and keeping it square shaped.Mr. Howe said he would do what Committee Member Larsen suggested and explained that he removed the fascia and has now exposed rafter tails.

Public hearing opened.

Mr. Howe described the lighting and explained that he will be using a dark colored lantern style with a dimmer switch.Acting Chief Planner Eastman provided some recommendations including a light that is shielded to prevent glare;and at a 10 ft. height, where it can’t be vandalized.Resident Bruce Hostetter made some suggestions regarding motion sensors and lighting including using a shielded fixture called an RLM as opposed to using a lantern.

Resident Patty Galente expressed her concerns including privacy and the side windows on the two-story unit and lighting.She stated she would like to request clear story windows in the back and adding a window on the side that can be opened.Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained there is an issue with providing clear story widows in bedrooms because emergency exiting is required.

Resident Emily Evans expressed her concerns with allowing a larger home in her neighborhood.

Tom Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, said this is a better plan than the ones previously seen before.He is concerned about the two stories in the front house, but can see by the setback that it will not have nearly the impact of the original design.Although Mr. Dalton prefers to see a one story built to match the rest of the block, he thinks the design presented is much more pleasing to the eye and more compatible with the preservation zone.Mr. Dalton does not think this was the original house on this property and does not think it has any historical significance. Therefore, Fullerton Heritage does not have any problems with having it demolished.Mr. Dalton stated he would like to see a one-story house in the front of the lot.

Public hearing closed.

Committee Member Larsen mentioned the back windows and explained that the 8 ft. size of the bedroom was not appropriate for someone to live in, and the applicant should have the architectreview it.Committee Member Larsen thought the applicant should lose the arch of the front trellis and keep it flat between the entry and the dining area.

Committee Member Hoban agreed with Committee Member Larsen’s comments.He added that the Spanish element which is above the first floor should be duplicated in a few other locations, such as the curve of the chimney or in the back house.He stated that there’s opportunity to add those elements to the staircase.Committee Member Hoban said he would like to see either the Spanish element re-used or use another element on the chimney.He commented on Committee Member Larsen’s suggestions regarding the 8 ft. room stating, that usually projects have rooms overhang (cantilever) the garage an extra 2 1/2 ft., so the applicant may consider opening the room or shifting the interior wall with the closet by at least one foot.Committee Member Hoban said the roof lines have improved from the last meeting.

Committee Member Duncan liked the fact that the house is only going to be 1,298 sq. ft. and will look nice as the front house.He stated there was good public comment regarding the back room and windows.Committee Member Duncan is in support of the project.However he would like to see a nice polished set of final plans.The revised floorplans for bedroom 3 with recommended comments of clear story, side windows, ventilation and better lighting should be brought back to the Committee for review.

Committee Member Hoban stated he was in agreement with having the applicant bring back a revised set of plans with the recommendations to the Committee.He agreed with the decision to postpone the project to the following meeting.

MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to CONTINUE project to June 8, 2006 meeting in order to incorporate the Committee’s suggestions.

Committee Member Duncan reiterated the Committee’s suggestions including comments made regarding:


·Second floor plan of the rear unit’s bedroom three

·Straightening trellises

Committee Member Duncan recommended that Mr. Howe bring product and lighting fixture brochures to the following meeting.

Committee Member Hoban stated the architect needs to come up with the rendering of his concept.Committee Member Duncan said to re-evaluate or remove the trellises.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman recommended that the applicant submit 8 copies of the final plans for staff and the Committee, prior to submitting plans for review by the Landmarks Commission.


Acting Chief Planner Eastman and Acting Director Rosen discussed the City Council and Planning Commission meetings.


MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen to ADJOURN meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ruth Leopold

Clerical Support