• Email
  • Print

RDRC Minutes August 26, 2004

RDRC Minutes August 26, 2004


The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Chairman Daybell


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Daybell, Daybell, Johnson, Silber
PUBLIC PRESENT: Lt. Williams (Police Department) Holder, Mansfield
STAFF PRESENT: Rosen, Eastman, Kusch, Norton


The approval of minutes for the August 12, 2004 meeting were DELAYED until the September 9, 2004 meeting to allow members additional time for review.


  • ITEM 3

    A request to review a monument for the Police and Fire Department Associations.

    Committee Member Duncan recused himself due to conflict of interest.

    Associate Planner Eastman introduced the request. The Police and Fire Association, (a joint venture) wish to construct a monument to honor those who have passed away in the line of duty. The proposed location is on the east side of City Hall (referred to as the City trees). The memorial will be fully funded by the associations through donations and grants. This item previously came before the committee for comments and suggestions. At that time, three options were presented. The option chosen is what is referred to as the two hats. A conceptual drawing of the two hats was passed out to give the Committee Members an idea of what the proposed memorial would look like.

    Associate Planner Eastman stated that the conceptual plans would go to the City Council for final review and approval. Staff has recommended that the final details of the plan be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Maintenance Services and Engineering Departments. He described the designs features. The monument will be located on a circular concrete pad. The monument will face City Hall, and benches would be installed so that they face the monument. The intent is to align the monument with the Police Station so that the stations tower becomes a backdrop for people seated on the benches. The brick border around the monuments circular concrete pad would be of donation bricks. Additional bricks may be added as a border on either side of the paths leading to the monument pad. The project also includes imbedded bands. Each band is intended to point toward one of the Citys Fire Stations, and will radiate from a City seal plaque in the center. Because of cost, the applicant will likely not use bronze for the bands as intended. Colored concrete or some other type of inlay may be used. Staff suggests that the concrete be detailed, and that the landscape material be low maintenance. The Senecia species was chosen to match the Police Station landscaping and to visually tie the two City properties together.

    Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Design Review Committee recommend approval.

    Chairman Daybell opened the meeting for public comment.

    Officer Williams expressed his appreciation to the Committee for their ideas and suggestions on this project. He stated that he brought those ideas before the Fire and Police Associations and they are supportive of the two hats concept, and the landscape plans and are anxious to move forward with this project.

    Chairman Daybell closed the meeting for public comment and opened it for Committee Member comments.

    Committee Member Johnson thought that stone, or pavers in granite or tile would be less expensive, and could be donations as well. He suggested that brick be used along the walkway as an outside band on both sides.

    Committee Member Coffman was pleased with the project, and finding options that will fit into the budget. It is a nice tribute to the men and women in uniform in the City, and hope that the idea would be carried throughout the country.

    Committee Member Silber supports the project and feels the two hats sculpture is the best design choice; however, he would love to see the sculpture taken up another level, it is not imperative but desirable and a personal preference that the base be more abstract in terms of materials and less banded. Looking at different materials is a suggestion and a possibility to explore.

    Chairman Daybell also supports the project but thought that concrete bands would distract from the monument. He suggested that the bands and arrows pointing to the Fire stations should be of a material other than concrete, some kind of metal or other type of contrasting material such as tile. He also preferred that the sides be left open. He called for a motion to recommend approval.

    MOTION made by Committee Member Johnson, SECONDED by Committee Member Coffman and CARRIED by all present to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of PRJ04-00286 ZON04-00038 with Staffs recommended conditions.

  • ITEM 1

    A request to review revised architecture for an approved 120-unit condominium project located at 115 East Truslow Avenue.

    Chairman Daybell said that this project was previously reviewed by the Committee. City Council requires that the revised architectural plans come back to the Committee for a final review.

    Committee Member Coffman said it was not quite clear to him why the City Council is asking the Committee to look at the revised plans. Associate Planner Eastman explained that there are significant changes to the architecture relating to the exteriors facade and the interiors and the two mixed-use buildings have some change to the footprint because tower features were introduced. Associate Planner Eastman said the Members of the Committee are experts in the design field, have the expertise to provide knowledgeable and detail comments, and represent the community versus staff who is hired to process the projects.

    Committee Member Coffman said that at the Planning Commission level there was an issue regarding access to the Ice House door, and inquired as to whether this issue was resolved. Associate Planner Eastman replied that it had.

    Mr. Holder, with the Olson Company, and Mr. Mansfield with WH Architects, Inc. spoke about the changes to the plan. The project has a whole new look. The footprint of the loft buildings is not changed The exterior was simplified, has a more traditional brick appearance; details have been added along the roof cornice; the floor plans have been simplified to accentuate the commercial space of the live-work units; the balconies and emergency exit for the third floor will be of metal to draw upon the industrial-look of fire escapes with an open metal staircase; window placement has been aligned to provide a more rhythmic appearance consistent with traditional industrial buildings; a third story deck was added, and the loft units have been reconfigured to make the third floor elevators more convenient to the front door.

    Associate Planner Eastman referred to Elevations I and II of the loft. He asked Mr. Mansfield to identify what types of materials would be used. Mr. Mansfield stated that on Elevation I the material would be a thin brick applied over stucco to tie it with the Ice House. Elevation II would have a smooth stucco finish on the massing elements that step forward with a light sand finish behind. Brick would also be used on the buildings facing Harbor Boulevard to tie into the Ice House and the office building next to it. The Live-Work Townhomes have been revised to include tower features at either end; and additional detailing provided to the front of the buildings.

    Committee Member Coffman asked what is the intention of the scored foam on the loft cornice and would the color of the stucco match the color of the building. Also, what types of materials would be used for the arch at the entry. Mr. Mansfield replied that the foam element is intended to provide a shadow as the sun goes across. The color has not yet been determined. The truss would be tube steel above a brick and stucco base.

    Committee Member Coffman stated that his biggest concern is the outside stairs, and what they might ultimately be used for. Kids could climb the stairs being that they are on the exterior. He felt that the stairs should be enclosed or placed higher to discourage this activity. Mr. Mansfield explained that there would be a barrier such as a wrought iron gate on the second floor that would remain at a certain height and would be locked. It is intended to provide some level of security, and would be well lit.

    Committee Member Duncan asked whether the finish on the loft is the standard stucco finish. Associate Planner Eastman said it is intended to have a smooth finish, and added that when the project went to Planning Commission for review there was a condition added to the Staff Report that stated the buildings would have smooth finishes. The smooth finish is intended to mirror the Santa Fe Depot. Committee Member Duncan stated that he supports the project, but would like more clarification on the alternate finishes as to where the different features occur on the site plan that reflect the Ice House and the Train Depot. On the lofts, he would prefer to see the brick carried through to continue the theme.

    Committee Member Coffman said, for him, there was still some ambiguity as to where the materials would be applied and what they would ultimately look like. He questioned if the loft brick would match the adjacent brick house building. Associate Planner Eastman clarified that a condition of project approval requires the brick material to have a similar finish and be compatible with the adjacent Ice House building. Staffs intent is not to make it match. Committee Member Coffman referred to Drawing #7 and asked what the enhancement is at the corner. Mr. Mansfield stated that the enhancement is the wrapping around of the brick. Due to budget constraints the buildings would not be fully wrapped, but there are elevation opportunities off of Truslow and the main streets to enhance. Committee Member Coffman said it is not clear on the plans how the wrapping terminates at the back.

    Committee Member Johnson had no further questions or comments and supports the project.

    Committee Member Silber agreed with Committee Member Duncan that the variations between the finished brick versus stucco, and is not sure that a trussle over the roadway is necessary. As for the loft buildings, it seems as though the brick works better than the stucco. Whether the buildings share the same treatment is not as critical as how the buildings work together in groups to create the outside spaces as outside rooms that you move through and the landscaping in relationship to the buildings. He referred to Sheet 9 and pointed out that on the rear elevations there are a lot of window corners in large expanses, with little opportunity for expansion joint that might attract cracks. He thought that a solution to the problem might be to provide some back and forth movement on the elements.

    Committee Member Daybell agreed with Committee Member Silber; he would like to see some variation along the wall as opposed to a flat surface.

    Committee Member Duncan or Silber asked if any thought has been given to enhanced paving in the driving areas up to the paseo. Mr. Mansfield explained that at the main entrance the focus is to create a clear pedestrian corridor, so there will be no elaborate paving in this area. At the juncture there would be enhanced sidewalk material that will connect off Truslow Avenue and merge into the central courtyard. This would link Truslow to the train station.

    In regard to landscaping, Associate Planner Eastman said that at the first RDRC meeting there was a question as to how the space would be landscaped. The applicant had a conceptual landscape plan prepared that showed where the landscape fingers would occur, it showed the trees and identified landscape materials. The second review had very little comments regarding landscape. Staff will review the colors.

    There was discussion as to whether the final landscape plans should come back to the Committee for a final review. The majority of the members said they would like to have a last look. Committee Coffman did not feel that it was necessary for the Committee to review the plans a second time and felt that the plans could be approved by Staff.

    Committee Member Daybell said that 4 out of 5 would like to see the landscape plans come back for final review. He called for a motion to recommend approval.

    MOTION made by Committee Member Johnson SECONDED by Committee Member Coffman, and CARRIED by all present to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of PRJ04-00804 ZON04-00071 with staffs recommendations, and final landscape plans to be reviewed by the Committee.


    A request to construct a new 3,100 square foot restaurant with a drive-thru window (Farmer Boys Restaurant) located at 1446 North Harbor Boulevard.

    Assistant Planner Kusch said the property is vacant and in a Redevelopment area. The project is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at the September 8th meeting. The restaurant is towards the southern portion of the property at the existing entrance to the Fullerton Financial Towers and adjacent to the recently rehabilitated Automobile Club on the north. The plan shows a drive-thru along Harbor Boulevard and wrapping at the end around the southern portion. A patio is proposed along the east side of the restaurant and wraps around to the northern portion of the restaurant.

    It was noted in the Staff Report that in order to comply with the landscaping and parking requirements that a slight revision would need to be made within the landscape area. Staff recommended reducing the depth of the parking spaces paving from 19 to 17 feet, and adding 2 feet to the landscaping to meet the minimum 6-foot depth requirements, and allow for parking overhang on both sides.

    The property is within a scenic corridor, and the applicant is proposing to do a 2 to 2-1/2 foot mounding along the required landscaping on Harbor Boulevard to partially screen the drive-thru. The site plan was reviewed by the Traffic and Engineering Departments for stacking. Their recommendation was to require that the northern driveway be a right turn only to prevent cars from entering and conflicting with cars waiting in the drive-thru. Staff recommends that the landscape plan come back to the committee for review and is looking for a complementary palette.

    In terms of elevation and architecture, the building includes a concrete tile roof, a parapet with a plastered cornice trim, a porte-cochere over the drive-thru aisle pickup window with a plaster finish on the upper portion, the posts would have a stucco finish. A building sign is proposed on three sides of that porte-cochere. A second tower element is proposed at the eastern entrance with the same finish and a rooster weathervane on the roof.

    Exterior materials include plaster exterior walls, diagonal reglet-patterned box outs with stucco trim over the windows on the south building elevation. The base will feature a stone wainscot and is complimentary to the existing stone faade on the Automobile Club building. Awnings are also proposed on the windows. Staff recommends approval subject to staff conditions and those of the Committee.

    Committee Member Johnson asked why the drive-thru is located along Harbor Boulevard as opposed to the frontage. Assistant Planner Kusch said it is partly to address Traffic Engineerings concern with stacking to allow a deep enough stacking distance between the menu board and the pickup area. Associate Planner Eastman explained that the menu board must be on the left hand side, and stacking cannot cut across the main entrance of the restaurant.

    Chairman Daybell opened the meeting for public comments.

    Mr. Lowinger, Construction Manager and Mr. Veriato R.E. Manager for Farmer Boys Restaurant introduced themselves. Mr. Veriato said he believes they have created a site plan and a concept that would be both pleasing to the City and the Fullerton Tower owners and tenants. It is a good service oriented business and expect to do very well.

    Committee Member Johnson asked if the mounding is turf or shrubs, and are the street trees part of the project. Assistant Planner Kusch replied that staff recommends shrubs or a combination of shrubs and trees. Associate Planner Eastman advised that it is a standard condition from the Engineering Department that improvements be provided. Committee Member Johnson asked if ingress/egress, has been resolved with Traffic Engineering. Only a right turn would be allowed.

    Committee Member Silber said that he has no problem with the site plan but is opposed to the Corporate Identity type of a building design. There is only one element that ties it into the building next door at the base and it will be disguised on Harbor Boulevard by the berm -- this is a scenic corridor so it has importance; the building has only one small element that ties it into the building next door. The buildings design does not try to gather virtue by picking up elements of the other building along Harbor Boulevard, or by tying into the buildings behind it architecturally. He does not feel that the false windows add a positive dimension to the design. The building is non-descriptive, and he is opposed to the building sign. There is an opportunity to tie the drive-thru to the elements to the building next door. He does not find tile on a mansard roof to be a replica of a farmhouse, and recommends that the design plans be revised and resubmitted.

    He offered some constructive ideas to improve the design of the building such as picking up elements from the adjacent Automobile Club. The drive thru could be covered with an arbor-trellis type of framework. If the design includes a hip or a mansard roof it should tie into adjacent buildings. The towers could create a true roof structure, be tied together, or aliened. He encouraged the architect to take these comments into consideration.

    Committee Member Duncan agreed that more innovation is needed to make the building look different from the other established Farmer Boy Restaurants. A design that is unique can be just as successful. Different materials could be used to change the look. The canopies, towers, and the overheads are too large and out of proportion, and he does not support the design as presented.

    Committee Member Coffman agreed that the architecture lacks creativity and also thought that the towers are out of proportion and that they lack purpose, especially the one over the drive-thru. The design seems to have little regard for the site and its exposure to the street. From Harbor Boulevard heading south you see the back of the building and never see the front. If the site does not lend itself to a change in direction then design the back to make it more presentable. If the towers are matched, the design could be more contemporary; if a simpler approach is taken. He would prefer that the canopy over the drive-thru be flat as opposed to the tower or perhaps just a projection with masonry veener. He supports the site plan, but would agree that the architectural plan should be revised.

    Committee Member Daybell suggested a more unique and individual design instead of a canned variety. There should be some type of screening to block car lights coming through the drive-thru from south-bound traffic.

    Chief Planner Rosen suggested that the Committee recommend approval of the site plan to the Planning Commission and ask that the final architectural plans be returned.

    Committee Member Daybell called for a motion.

    MOTION made by Committee Member Silber SECONDED by Committee Member Johnson and CARRIED by all present to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Site Plan for PRJ04-00647 ZON04-00064 with Staffs recommendations and that the final Architectural Plans come back for a final review by the Committee.

Public Comments

There were no public comments.

  • Staff/Committee Communication:

    September 23, 2004 Agenda Forecast:


  • Committee Concerns:


Meeting Adjourned

There being no further business, Chairman Daybell adjourned the meeting to the City Pointe open house at 5:55 p.m.