• Email
  • Print

RDRC Minutes September 23, 2004

RDRC Minutes September 23, 2004


The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairman Daybell


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Daybell, Committee Members, Duncan, Johnson, Silber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Committee Member Coffman
PUBLIC PRESENT: Ed Gentalen, Guz Nassar, Guillermo Acevedo, Tom Dalton, Brad Kuish, Arnie Wenyon, Edwardo Guerra
STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Associate Planner Eastman, Associate Planner Sowers and Clerical Support Dew


The minutes of the August 12, 2004, August 26, 2004 and September 9, 2004 meetings were approved as written by vote of 4-0.


  • ITEM NO. 1

    Associate Planner Eastman presented the project as outlined in the staff report. Staff had recommended denial on the application previously and the item was continued to give the applicant time to address staffs concerns. Staff feels that the design of the ATM is not aesthetically compatible with the existing building. Should the RDRC approve the project, staff recommends that a low seat wall constructed of brick to match the brick of the sites existing buildings. Staff has asked that the RDRC discuss some alternative designs to incorporate the project with the existing architecture. The Engineering and Police Departments has expressed concerns regarding the location of the ATM, and have asked the RDRC to consider problems encountered recently. The Police Department and the Engineering Department concur that the proposed location is not appropriate for an ATM, and Engineering has provided a letter to this affect. Associate Planner Eastman concluded by stating staffs recommendation is to review, provide direction, and continue the item until a later date.

    There being no questions for staff, Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to the public.

    Property owner, Brad Kuish, began by explaining how important it is for Wells Fargo to have visibility on the north side of the building. To re-locate the ATM to another part of the building is not suitable to Wells Fargo. Mr. Kuish addressed staffs concerns regarding landscaping. Mr. Kuish assured staff that he will preserve the tree at the location and he has completed the perimeter landscaping as recommended by staff.

    Committee Member Silber stated that his biggest concern is where people would park to access the ATM. Property owner Brad Kuish assured the committee that parking would not be an issue. He informed the committee that according to his Operating Agreement, parking should not be an issue that would approve or disprove any of the uses he has for the property.

    Chief Planner Rosen commented that it was rare for Engineering to send out a memo requesting modification of a site plan. He continued by stating it was a matter of safety, not parking.

    There being no further public comments, Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to the Committee Members for discussion.

    Committee Member Duncan shared his concerns about the location of the ATM. He also indicated concern regarding the traffic along Chapman Avenue and believes it could potentially be a problem. He recommends denial based on the current location but would consider approval if the ATM is re-located.

    Committee Member Johnson indicated he was in agreement with Committee Member Duncan. He stated he desired to back the Citys recommendation to come up with an alternative location for the ATM.

    Committee Member Silber stated he had reservations regarding the project at this time due to the fact that he believes the ATM is not well integrated with the existing building

    Chairman Daybell shared that he drove around to different locations where there are existing ATMs and noted that in each case he observed there was adequate parking. Chairman Daybell continued by saying he agreed with Committee members Duncan and Johnson and thought it best that the ATM be re-located.

    Motion made by Committee Member Johnson and seconded by Committee Member Silber and carried by all present to continue the project based on the ATM being relocated to a different area and approving the conceptual idea of a Wells Fargo ATM identification sign at that location, with the sign design coming back for review.

  • ITEM NO. 3

    Assistant Planner Sowers presented the proposed project. She stated that a request to add a second dwelling unit over a three car garage in a R-2P zone. This location is part of the College Park preservation zone. The project proposes to add approximately 2300 square feet, of which 1,600 square feet are livable.

    Chairman Daybell questioned if the applicant is in agreement with the conditions proposed by staff regarding the roof shape.

    There was some discussion between the Committee and the Architect on the roof shape that would be used. Ed Gentelen assured the Committee that he and the owner had no objection to any changes that Staff recommends.

    Tom Dalton from Fullerton Heritage wanted clarification of Item 3. He was concerned that the owner would use aluminum windows instead of wooden windows. He believes that the addition should stay in tradition with the original architecture of the neighborhood, and not match the aluminum windows currently on the existing house. He also shared his concern regarding the chimney being cantilevered from the second floor.

    Ed Gentelen explained his reasoning for the chimney and its location. After some discussion of different possibilities on where the chimney might be located, Ed Gentelen informed the Committee that if Staff and the RDRC object to the present location of the chimney he would suggest to the owner to move the chimney inside.

    There being no further public comments, Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to the Committee Members for discussion.

    Committee Member Johnson stated he believes the architect complied with the design standards, and Member Johnson is in support of the project with staffs recommendations.

    Committee Member Duncan expressed concern about the location of the chimney and believed it best to re-locate it. Otherwise, he concurred with Committee Member Johnson and was in support of the project with staffs recommendations.

    Committee Member Silber agreed with both Johnson and Duncan and believes that the chimney doesnt work with the cantilevered design. He proposed bringing the chimney down to the ground if budget allows. He also suggested moving the chimney partly into the building so it isnt cantilevered as much. Aside from the chimney, he was in support of the project with staffs recommendations.

    Chairman Daybell summarized by stating the committee would like to see the chimney design changed. He asked for a motion to approve the project with staffs recommendations.

    Committee Member Silber moved and Member Duncan seconded to approve the project PRJ04-00830 with staffs recommendations and adding a condition that the chimney be moved approximately 8 inches to one foot into the building so as to engage it into the roof more. The motion passed unanimously.

  • ITEM NO. 4

    Assistant Planner Sowers presented the proposed project as an entire faade remodel of the existing SBC building on northwest corner of Amerige and Pomona Avenues. The proposal includes utilizing the existing variations of the roofline to give the appearance of three separate buildings. Staff would like the RDRC to discuss the use of real windows versus faux painted windows on the first floor of the four story building.

    There being no questions for staff, Chairman Daybell opened the discussion to the public.

    Ed Guerra, the architect for SBC, acknowledged Staffs concern regarding the faux windows on first floor of the four-story building. He continued by saying that it would be no problem to continue the storefront windows all the way across the first story of all three sections. Regarding the landscaping, Mr. Guerra assured Staff and the RDRC that SBC would continue to maintain the landscaping and if anything were damaged, it would be replaced. He asked for clarification and guidelines on correction number 3. Assistant Planner Sowers explained that it meant paint to match.

    There was discussion on the reason behind the remodel. Architect, Ed Guerra stated that the building has a problem with rainwater coming into the building. This building houses telephone exchange equipment and one of the buildings biggest enemies is moisture.

    There being no further public comments, Chairman Daybell turned the meeting over to the Committee members for discussion.

    Committee Member Silber indicated he believes that this building is a background building and should remain as such. Although he appreciates the motivation behind the change, he is skeptical the building will turn out as everyone hopes. Member Silber believes this project should be simplified.

    Committee Member Duncan concurred with member Silber and believes this project should be simplified. He suggested incorporating more landscaping and eliminate the proposed faux windows.

    Mr. Acevedo questioned whether the RDRC and Staff would approve replacing the faade with something similar to what the building has now. He continued by saying the main driver for this project is keeping the equipment inside the building safe and secure.

    The Committee unanimously agreed to continue this project until the project can be revised.

  • ITEM NO. 2

    Associate Planner Eastman presented the proposed project. He stated that it was a minor development project request to consider revisions to a 3-unit apartment complex. This project had been reviewed previously by the RDRC on August 12, 2004. At that time the Committee had approved the project subject to a number of conditions. One of these conditions required the applicant to redesign the balconies and provide a color scheme for final RDRC approval. The applicant is now requesting final approval. The applicant is not in attendance.

    At this time the applicant has not modified the balcony in any way. Staff has recommended modification of the balcony. The applicant has provided wainscoting as asked, and has also increased the wainscoting to a height of 3 feet.

    Committee Member Johnson and Member Silber seconds to approve the project as presented with staff recommendations, which allow staff to review the modifications as identified in condition number 1 and grant final approval of the material samples and paint palette. The motion passes unanimously.


Committee Member Silber informed the RDRC that the Pelican Group had invited the RDRC to attend a site tour in Huntington Beach. Chairman Daybell suggested inviting the Pelican Group to one of the coming RDRC meetings.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.