The meeting was called to order at 4:20 p.m. by Chairman Coffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Coffman; Committee Members Daybell, Blumer, Johnson, and Silber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Linnell, Program Planner; Associate Planner Eastman
Minutes for January 9, 2003 were approved, by a vote of 4 to 0. Silber abstained due to being late to the January 9, 2003 meeting.
Motion by Chairman Coffman, second by Blumer, to elect Member Johnson as the new Committee Chairman for the 2003 year. Motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
Motion by Blumer, second by Chairman Johnson, to elect Member Daybell as the new Vice-Chairman for the 2003 year. Motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0.
Associate Planner Eastman presented a decorative resolution to the Committee for adoption which recognizes Program Planner Bob Linnell's service and dedication to the Committee. The resolution had been prepared by Staff at the request of the Committee.
The resolution was circulated among the room. Each member expressed appreciation for Bob's dedication and guidance. Katie Dalton, representing Fullerton Heritage, expressed appreciation of Bob's dedication and expertise in Historic Preservation. She stated that Bob has been instrumental in preserving Fullerton's architectural and cultural history.
Program Planner Bob Linnell accepted the recognition with expressed appreciation.
Motioned by Member Daybell, seconded by Coffman, to adopt the decorative resolution as prepared and signed, subject to the resolution being framed. Motion approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
Associate Planner Eastman introduced 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, which has a flat roof, strong horizontal features and unique detailing. According to the County Assessor, the house was constructed in 1919. Staff has reviewed the proposed dwelling with the applicant, and has asked that plans be revised to address Staff's comments. The applicant's architect has agreed to revise the drawings to reflect Staff's comments. Staff has recommended that the Committee continue the project to the next scheduled meeting.
Associate Planner Eastman distributed pictures of the project site to the Committee and discussed Staff's comments regarding the design. It was clarified that Staff told the applicant's architect that he need not attend this meeting as Staff is recommending a continuation, and that any discussion would be for information purposes.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the project and Staff's recommended changes. The Committee discussed how a jog or step-back of 1st or 2nd stories could break up the mass of the building at the street. It was noted that the stairway provides some opportunity to do this. Member Coffman commented on the massing of the existing building, and noted that the sloped tile roof at the entrance is set back from the plane of the front facade, and that there is in effect three different "sections" to the front facade. Member Blumer identified that the existing structure is made up of cubes, and that there is a central cube system at work. Member Silber has concerns with the flat vs. slope roof issue, and feels that there is a need to address this in the design. Member Blumer discussed the possibility of recessing the back to create 3 elements, which would tie in with the existing structure. The Committee inquired as to the possibility of exterior stairs. Staff commented that it is the City's position to try and work with existing floor plans and focus on exterior design issues, unless the floor plan of the project is such that it creates massing or impact to the exterior which is unacceptable.
Comments were solicited from Katie Dalton, representing Fullerton Heritage. Ms. Dalton indicated that she had previously reviewed the plans and Staff's comments, and agreed that the design of the proposed structure needs to be revised. She was pleased with Staff's analysis and the Committee's comments.
Motioned by Daybell, seconded by Silber, to continue the project to the meeting of February 13, 2003 as recommended by Staff. Motion approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
Associate Planner Eastman introduced the proposed project located at 218 N. Yale. 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 very simple single-family residence designed in somewhat of a "Colonial Bungalow" style. The existing home is generally a rectangular structure, with a recessed corner porch entry, and a hipped roof. An addition is currently under construction on the southern side of the structure, which was approved several years ago. The predominate feature of the existing house is it's pitched roof, vented dormer, and fascia moulding. According to County Assessor information, the structure was constructed in 1908.
Staff had reviewed the proposed dwelling with the applicant in October 2002, and the project had been continued to this meeting from the November 7, 2003 meeting. The proposed project was continued to allow the applicant to revise plans to address code issues and Staff's comments. Complete revised drawings have not yet been prepared or submitted for review; therefore Staff recommends that the Committee continue the project indefinitely.
Associate Planner Eastman presented the submitted plans and site pictures, and discussed the changes Staff had recommended. Elevations prepared by the property owner were shown to the Committee. These new elevations address Staff's comments related to massing and changes in the roof and floor plan. The plans also portray new ornamentation and exterior treatments.
The Committee reviewed and commented on the elevations sketched by the property owner. Member Silber commented that the entry roof which protrudes out from the building isn't "anchored" to the building, and is so low it is a "head bumper". He also commented on the horizontal banding and felt it detracted from the architecture by eliminating the vertical focus of the building's southwest corner, and by creating a "layering" effect for the first and second floors, which looks artificial. Silber stated that the applicant is adding details which are not needed, and the proposed structure, like the existing structure, would benefit from just being simpler. The Committee agreed that the details on the proposed structure appear contrived, and it needs to be simplified. Member Blumer commented that the windows on the front elevation need to be centered, and moved away from the building edges. Discussion followed regarding the windows, including combining the windows into one. The Committee generally agreed that a single window matching the existing structure's front window might be more appropriate, particularly on the southern (right) side of the proposed structure's front elevation. It was recommended that the applicant look at the existing structure and see how much "plane" exists between window(s) and building edges. Member Silber pointed out that the elevation and the floor plan do not coincide at the balcony/porch areas. The Committee expressed appreciation that the property owner sees the historic value of the property and had attempted to add features which beautify and improve the structure. However, it was recommended that the "revised" structure be simplify, and that the applicant have the design and structural issues addressed by his architect/design professional.
Katie Dalton, a member of the public representing Fullerton Heritage, stated that she had reviewed the original plans and discussed the changes recommend by Staff. Ms. Dalton indicated that she was pleased with Staff's comments, and felt the discussion by the Committee at this meeting was valuable.
Motioned by Coffman, seconded by Silber, to continue the project indefinitely as recommended by Staff. Motion approved by a vote of 5 to 0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.