• Email
  • Print

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Minutes

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Minutes


Thursday April 13, 20064:00 PM


The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chairman Daybell


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:Chairman Daybell; Committee Members Cha, Hoban, and Larsen
PUBLIC PRESENT:Kirk Keller, John Killen, Michael Lehman, and Leland W. Stearns
STAFF PRESENT:Senior Planner Eastman, Clerical Staff Leopold, and Chief Planner Rosen


MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE March 23 minutes AS WRITTEN.


Item No. 1


Senior Planner Eastman provided a brief summary on the review of the final architecture and landscape details for an approved commercial/office development comprised of approximately 10,400sf of retail; 8,000sf of restaurant uses; 101,725sf of medical office; and 3,700sf of administrative offices, and a 549 space parking structure. (Generally located at the SWC of Bastanchury Road and Laguna Road, encompassing an area between Bastanchury Road., Laguna Road, Laguna Drive, and Sunny Crest Drive) (Previously Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration) (C-2 Zone) (JEA)

Senior Planner Eastman expressed that the park plans submitted fall short of what was submitted to Council, as far as what was indicated on the plans. The details provided to staff do not adequately show that it meets what staff believes the park to be. Senior Planner Eastman explained additional concerns regarding architecture, material samples, and paint palettes which were not provided for final review.

Senior Planner Eastman explained that staff is recommending to continue the project, since the plans submitted were not the most recent, and staff has not had the opportunity to review the current plans.

Chairman Daybell asked Senior Planner Eastman if there were any issues that cannot be resolved between staff and the applicant regarding the medical office building (Building C)? Are there any reasons why the Committee should not approve the building plans? Senior Planner Eastman stated there would potentially be an issue in terms of materials and application of color; at this point staff hasn't seen plans and would like to have a better understanding of the building design.

Public hearing opened.

John Killen, Accretive Realty Advisors, gave a brief introduction. He stated the project has evolved consistently with what the Planning Commission and Council approved. He explained that they took into consideration RDRC's previous comments and incorporated the reduction of height of the office building, reduction of height and massing of the parking garage, and elimination of almost 80,000 sq. ft. of the project in the residential component. Mr. Killen stated that the project is now in the building plan check process.

Landscape Architect Kirk Keller described the pocket park and stated that the new proposal shows 1500 sq. ft. (an increase of landscape area) with a 2-1 slope behind it. Senior Planner Eastman asked if the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission indicated the masonry retaining walls, and if the current proposal eliminates it and brings the slope around the building on all sides? Mr. Keller answered yes.

Committee Member Hoban clarified the location of the landscaping around the parking structure. He asked if the landscaping would be seen primarily from inside the parking structure and not on the exterior side of the building for pedestrians. Chief Planner Rosen stated that what staff originally intended for this project was at least a 10-ft landscape setback; therefore, providing a buffer to the street and not the interior of the project. He told the applicant there must be a larger landscape setback. He questioned if a retaining wall could be added to get a flat 10' setback.

Staff and the architects discussed landscaping, slope and the retaining wall. Chief Planner Rosen explained that he had concerns with the slope and staff did not realize that there would be more slope and not a lot of flat area at the street level. Senior Planner Eastman stated that the plans that were submitted and reviewed by staff show a retaining wall, but do not show a slope area.

The architects showed staff that the proposed slope would only be in select areas. Senior Planner Eastman stated that he did not have an issue with the slope, but was more concerned with what would be placed in the 5 ft. setback. He recommended that if the applicant would provide visual stimulus, such as colorful landscaping, he would not be overly concerned with the slope to below-grade parking. However, maintenance issues on the slope, such as erosion, do concern him. Senior Planner Eastman stated that those issues can be addressed in a more detailed landscape plan.

Senior Planner Eastman stated his thought that the space between the copper paneling and the park is crucial in terms of what type of material gets put there.

Executive architect, Leland Stearns, presented copper panels, brick, paint palettes, and other materials of the parking structure. He stated that the materials will carry over into the medical building. Mr. Stearns explained that the design where the elevator is located is not hidden, but gives people an idea of how to obtain access from the parking lot to the medical building, making it easy to use. Committee Member Cha expressed how much he liked the open elevator and parking structure design.

Senior Planner Eastman told the applicant that a new landscape plan can be submitted as one sheet and irrigation does not need to be submitted to the RDRC. He stated he was more concerned with having the landscape plan reviewed and having the RDRC feel comfortable with how it relates to the buildings, particularly at the pedestrian scale.

Senior Planner Eastman asked about adding a row or band of modular block or a color feature across the top of the parking structure brick facade to break up the mass and creating more of a horizontal line, versus a vertical mass.

Committee Member Larsen made a recommendation to the applicant that the structure should be made "lighter" by subtracting some of the mass, so the structure looks as thought it were floating. Senior Planner Eastman said that would visually break it down to a pedestrian scale.

The architects presented the plans of the medical building. Mr. Stearns reviewed the glazing and materials of the building.

The applicant said that all of the mechanical elements were consolidated into one screen area. The height of the building overall was reduced with the parapet being dropped 4 ft. from what was originally approved.

Senior Planner Eastman reviewed the open space and an area for outside seating/casual plaza and retail. The applicant stated that they have been approached by sit-down restaurants to be considered for the restaurant building in the second phase. There would potentially be a coffeehouse type of use around the seating area, with the planting area increased.

Senior Planner Eastman asked if they had samples of the decorative paving. Mr. Keller explained that the pattern of the paving has not been finalized. He provided samples of block including Dublin three- piece Sierra. Mr. Keller said the 60 lb. and 80 lb. blocks would be laid out across the street.

Public hearing closed.

Committee Member Hoban said he was disappointed that the residential was taken out and the project revised. Although he likes the "final" information provided, he is concerned with the landscape in the park and in front of the parking structure. Committee Member Hoban would like to see that the landscape play to the public on that corner rather than the people in the parking structure. He recommended more green space to soften the corner; although he liked the idea that it slopes down into the parking structure and gives it a different element. Committee Member Hoban expressed that he has seen greater improvements on the medical building than what he first saw in the set of plans. He stated that he would like Committee Member Duncan to see the landscape plan. He recommended that there be more discussion on landscape.

Committee Member Cha is happy with the parking structure. He is also content with the safety features of the elevator and stairs, and stated that as long as the corner park is flat to the parking structure, he is happy with the project.

Committee Member Larsen stated this was the first time he had seen this project and liked the parking garage very much. In response to the corner, he liked the fact that the architects tried to appease two different groups and created something very dynamic and doesn't think one should take precedence over the other. He likes that the architect tried to change the most mundane experience, which is a parking garage, and turn it into something different.

Chairman Daybell agreed that the corner should be leveled rather than sloped in the back toward the building, which is what the Planning Commission envisioned. Although staff recommended the project to be continued, he did not think the medical building or parking structure needs to be continued. He thinks it would be desireable to have more information on the landscaping. Chairman Daybell recommended that the landscaping be brought back to the committee for review by Committee Member Duncan, who is a landscape architect.

MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Cha, to APPROVE the building portion of the plans (Building "E" and "C") with a condition that the revised landscape plans be brought back to the RDRC with all other staff concerns addressed adequately. CARRIED unanimously with all voting members present.

Item No. 2


A request to remodel an existing 2-car garage by adding an attached 2-story dwelling, construct an additional 1-car detached garage, and increase the maximum permitted floor-area-ratio (FAR) by 10% (from 40% max permitted to 44%), on an R-2P zoned lot at 221 N. Princeton (Generally located on the west side of Princeton between 223 and 273 feet south of Chapman) (Categorically exempt under Section 15303 of CEQA Guidelines) (R-2P Zone) (Continued from September 11, 2005) (JEA)

Senior Planner Eastman stated that the proposed project does not meet code. The plans do not meet the Floor Area Ratio limitations established for the preservation zone. Staff recommended that the project be continued.

Senior Planner Eastman provided the RDRC with a summary of this proposal's history. He stated that the project has been noticed and continued by the RDRC on several occasions. Due to code issues, Senior Planner Eastman said the property owner may be now requesting to build the detached one-car garage and perhaps add to the rear garage. Staff has indicated to the property owner that she may be able to move forward with it because it does not affect the FAR, but still need to come before the RDRC to review it for historic preservation compatibility.

Staff is recommending that the Committee continue the project to allow the applicant to revise plans.

Fullerton resident Edna A., who lives across the street from this property, said she has no objections with what is being proposed, but hasn't yet seen the plans.

Chairman Daybell stated he was concerned with the scaffolding and construction he has seen on the site.

MOTION made by Committee Member Cha, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen to CONTINUE the project to a date uncertain and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present.

Item No. 3


A Minor Development Project request to consider facade modifications for a new restaurant space, including a new metal awning, wainscoat and signage, on an existing building zoned C-3/ROD (Central Business District Commercial/Restaurant Overlay District) and within the Central Business District (CBD) and a Community Improvement District (CID). (C-3 Zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (Continued from February 9, 2006 as PRJ06-00033 - ZON06-00008) (JRO/JEA)

The applicant, Joe Florentine, was previously present, but had to leave due to conflicting schedules.

Senior Planner Eastman presented the sample materials that will be used for the awning. He stated that the applicant might use an aluminum material and paint it with a rust treatment, instead of actually using rusted material. The concern is that when it rains, it is possible that a true rusted material will come down and drop on people, staining clothes, asphalt and pavement, if the rusted material is used. Creating that affect through a paint job may be a better alternative, in terms of maintenance, said Senior Planner Eastman.

Committee Member Larsen said he would've preferred to have a metal that aged on its own, as first proposed, but agreed with Senior Planner Eastman's concerns of maintenance and staining. He recommended that the material be galvanized.

Committee Member Hoban asked about the treatment being made below the awning with plates and rivets. Senior Planner Eastman explained that he was under the impression that the plates were 18" each, but recent plans indicate a 29" plate.

The Committee and Staff discussed the materials and lighting. Senior Planner Eastman reviewed the LED lighting underneath and stated there would be the ability to change the colors. This would illuminate the bottom side and on top will be some spotlights that come down with potentially a different color. As a visitor walks underneath this lighting, he will experience a transition of color. Senior Planner Eastman stated that what the applicant is proposing is a weathered metal with a urethane coat placed on it for preservation. He suggested that possibly the best solution for the applicant to get the weathered look on the awning is to paint the awning with a "Rustoleum" textured paint.

Chairman Daybell recommended that this project be approved subject to using a non-corrosive or non-rusting material that is controlled.

MOTION made by Committee Member Larsen, SECONDED by Committee Member Hoban to APPROVE the project subject to a non-corrosive treatment and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present.








Senior Planner Eastman provided a summary on the City Council and Planning Commission meetings.


City Council - April 4
Planning Commission - April 12




MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Cha and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to adjourn meeting at 6:20 P.M.