COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL
WEDNESDAY MAY 10, 2006 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Savage at 7:01 p.m.
Chairman Savage, Commissioners Bailey, Fitzgerald, Hart, and Musante.
Chairman Francis and Thompson.
Acting Director Rosen, Acting Chief Planner Eastman, Senior Planner St. Paul, Acting Senior Planner Allen, Acting Associate Planner Kusch Senior Civil Engineer Voronel, and Recording Secretary Pasillas.
MOTION made by Commissioner Musante SECONDED by Commissioner Bailey and CARRIED 3-0, with Commissioners Fitzpatrick and Hart abstaining, that the Minutes of the APRIL 26, 2006 meeting, be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
ITEM NO. 1
PRJ05-00781 – ZON05-00114 – ZON05-00115 – TRACT TR-17002 – LRP-00011.APPLICANT:LUIS IBANEZ; PROPERTY OWNER:JASON KROTTS.
Staff report was presented pertaining to a proposal to demolish an existing industrial facility (a 225,000-square-foot manufacturing building and a 10,000-square-foot maintenance building) and construct a new industrial park development comprised of the following applications: a zoning amendment to change the zone from Manufacturing Park (M-P) to Manufacturing General (M-G); a Tentative Tract Map to divide one (1) parcel into seven (7) parcels, including one for condominium purposes (13 condominiums); a major site plan to construct 12 buildings, comprised of 20 units ranging from 6,000 square feet to 34,000 square feet, for a total of 289,370 square feet; and a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the base 45% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with a proposed FAR up to 56%, on property located at 1550 Kimberly Avenue (south side of Kimberly Avenue, approximately 600 feet west of Raymond Avenue) (M-P-100 zone) (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (HAL).
The applicant had requested a continuance to June 14, 2006.
MOTION made by Commissioner Musante, SECONDED by Commissioner Bailey and CARRIED unanimously that said item be CONTINUED to June 14, 2006.
ITEM NO. 2
SITE PLAN SP-595A – ZON05-00064.APPLICANT:PETER JEONG; PROPERTY OWNER:LUTHERAN CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR.
Staff report dated May 10, 2006 was presented pertaining to a request to modify an existing site plan to construct a single-story building measuring approximately 4,575 square feet and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care facility in the new building, consisting of up to 78 children and five staff members, on property located at 1521 W. Orangethorpe Avenue (north side of Orangethorpe Avenue between 108 and 400 feet west of Eadington Avenue) (R-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines) (AKU) (Continued from July 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting).
Acting Associate Planner Kusch gave a brief overview of the project.He explained that the original church was approved in 1956, and in 1989 site plan SP-595 was approved, which modified the church property to accommodate the adjacent condominium development to the west of the property.This revised the parking area to a total of 71 parking spaces.
In July 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the original proposal for a child care center, and it was recommended that the project be continued due to a last minute request by the applicant to increase the enrollment from 40 children to the currently requested 78 children.The Planning Commission also requested that a comprehensive master plan be provided for review.
An aerial view of the property and the site plan were displayed, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained the proposal.He displayed a master plan for the church property, as previously requested by the Planning Commission, and explained that only the child care facility was before the Planning Commission at this time. A floor plan and elevations were shown, and the exterior of the building was described.
The property was considered a through lot, with two street frontages on Orangethorpe and Hill Avenues and staff recommended restricting vehicle access from Hill Avenue.Currently, 70 parking spaces are available and would satisfy the parking requirements for the non-concurrent use of the church and child care center.There was an adequate drop off area which precludes children from crossing the street or parking area.A fence would be installed to separate the child care center from the adjacent parking area.
The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which would not be concurrent with Sunday church services or Wednesday Bible study.
Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained that the Municipal Code required a six foot wall to be provided adjacent to single-family residences, and a portion of the wall would need to be extended in order to meet this requirement.
One letter of opposition was received and mentioned the following concerns:
·Size of building
·Number of students to be enrolled
·Increase in traffic
·Decrease in property values
One letter of support was also received.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the child care center subject to the conditions contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Hart asked to see the front elevation, and then questioned how high the building was, if it was considered a single story, and if a second story could be added in the future.Acting Associate Planner Kusch answered that the building would be 20 feet high and was considered a single story, a second story could be added in the future subject to review and approval.
Commissioner Hart asked if the seven-foot setback was based on a single story and Acting Associate Planner Kusch responded affirmatively.She then wanted to know if the upper windows would overlook the fence onto adjoining properties.Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained that the windows were located in the attic/loft area, which would not be readily accessible, and were intended to provide light.
Chairman Savage asked the loft ceiling height and Acting Associate Planner Kusch responded the height was between eight and ten feet.
Commissioner Bailey wanted to know if the project was before the Planning Commission because they were putting a different type of use on property zoned R-3.Acting Associate Planner Kusch stated that the Municipal Code required child care centers to be subject to a conditional use permit review and approval regardless of where they were in the city.
Chairman Savage asked how access to the loft space was gained and Acting Associate Planner Kusch answered that it was by way of a pull down stair.
Public hearing open.
Kwan Lee, a representative of True Love Church, explained the progress of the project since the Planning Commission meeting in July 2005.He stated that they had invited the community to a town hall meeting to understand their concerns, and those concerns were taken into consideration when designing the project.He stated that the church was in agreement with the recommendations made by staff and they were ready to proceed.
Commissioner Bailey asked about increased noise and lack of privacy affecting the neighboring residences.Mr. Lee answered that the facility would be used for child care only, Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.He added that the windows discussed earlier were in the attic and would remain shut.Commissioner Bailey asked about doors and windows remaining open and Mr. Lee stated they would remain closed during the child care hours as required by Title 22.Commissioner Bailey asked about community outreach and whether there was an open door policy.Mr. Lee explained that they wanted to work with the community and took into consideration the community’s recommendations during the planning process.
The following people spoke against the project:
Brian Pendaruis, 1500 W. Hill
Samuel Shin, 1557 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, #4
Javier Garcia, 1501 West Hill Avenue
Their concerns were:
·Hours of operation
·State license requirements for square foot to child ratio
·Ratio of children to staff
·Combined total (both child care and after school program) of children
·Would like trees planted between facility and neighboring homes
·Size of facility – three times the size of houses in neighborhood
·Not suitable for this location
·Noise – current and projected
·Unsupervised children at play
·Play equipment over fence and children climbing fence to retrieve equipment
·Saturday language school, Sunday church, seven days a week with noise
·Would like fewer children and a smaller facility
·Access in the cul-de-sac will bring additional traffic to Hill Avenue
Acting Director Rosen clarified that there was no pedestrian or vehicular access proposed for Hill Avenue.
Chairman Savage asked about the intended use for the attic/loft, and Mr. Lee explained that it would primarily be used as a storage area with opaque windows to allow light in, yet retain privacy for the neighbors.
Commissioner Musante asked if the existing playground would remain and if the proposed playground would be further from the neighboring residences.Mr. Lee said the existing playground would be taken out and relocated in the future.He further explained that staff did not want children crossing the parking lot to access the playground, therefore, a new playground would be provided in front of the existing pastor’s residence.
Acting Chief Planner Eastman clarified that the playground was a requirement for a child care center.Code did not require equipment to be provided, but there must be an area for the children to play.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Lee about the Bible study at night, and if it would be held in the new facility.Mr. Lee responded that the new facility would be used for child care only.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked about the student-to-teacher ratio, and if the Planning Commission approved the project for up to 78 children, would the state agree to that.Mr. Lee stated that Title 22 governed child care facilities, and a 12-1 ratio was required.This ratio was taken into consideration during the planning of the facility.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there were discussions about landscaping between the building and the neighboring residences.Mr. Lee stated that if the Planning Commission desired, it could be accommodated, as long as it did not affect the seven-foot setback.Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there was a child care center operating at the church currently, and Mr. Lee explained that the church had a parochial license for after school care and that was all they were providing at this time.
Commissioner Hart asked about the approval process, building vs. license.Mr. Lee explained that the facility must be in place prior to obtaining a license.He further added that the rooms were designed to accommodate the requirements of Title 22.
The following people spoke in favor of the project:
Elaine Findley, 1715 N. Holbrook, Anaheim (owner of three child care centers)
Alice Kim, 13617 Beach Street, Cerritos
Byung H. Jin, 2524 Coventry Circle, Fullerton
They were supportive of:
·High demand for child care and this facility would provide care for 78 children
·Neighborhood school concept was good
·Small children take naps for several hours in the afternoon which will lessen noise
·Staggered play times, 12-24 children on playground at one time
·Title 22 was very strict and offered good control of a child care facility
Commissioner Hart asked Ms. Findley if she had any problems with neighbors at any of her schools and she stated that landscaping was placed between the school facility and the residences in order to address one neighbor’s complaints, but no other complaints had been voiced.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Lee if the church was currently operating a child care facility.He responded that they are licensed as a parochial school with a minimum age of 4 years 6 months.The church operated a preschool with licensing up until approximately a year ago, at which time it was shut down.Currently, it was offering tutoring and after school programs only.
Public hearing re-opened.
Lois Blanchard, a resident on Eadington, wanted to know what the maximum age would be for the children attending the child care.Acting Director Rosen clarified that the site was currently approved as a parochial school, but this application was for a child care center which included all ages.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked staff about the concern over increased traffic and wanted to know if traffic studies were completed. Acting Associate Panner Kusch responded negatively.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked about the size of the building, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained that the code does not restrict the size, but the size of the facility was subject to review and approval. The underlying R-3 zone had certain lot coverage limitations, parking requirements, and open space requirements that are taken into consideration.Commissioner Fitzgerald asked for verification that this project met these requirements, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch answered affirmatively.She asked how the facility operated currently, and Acting Associate Planner Kusch stated that his understanding was on Sunday the sanctuary was in use and during the week the parochial school was offered.He was unsure of the current operating hours, but believed them to be before and after school, Sundays, and on Wednesday night for Bible study in the main facility.
Commissioner Fitzgerald wanted to know how tall a one story building could be and Acting Associate Planner Kusch answered that 20 feet was the single-family residential requirement and that figure was used in this instance.Commissioner Fitzgerald asked about landscaping between the facility and the neighbors and Acting Associate Planner Kusch stated that for emergency exit requirements and egress the current space would not be able to accommodate both landscaping and an exit pathway.The building footprint could possibly be shifted and reduced in size if the Planning Commission desired to add landscaping.
Commissioner Musante asked the ages of the children, for both the child care and after school program.Acting Associate Planner Kusch explained that staff was not imposing age restrictions, and he was unsure whether state licensing would restrict the ages. Typically this type of care was used for children up to age 13.
Public hearing open.
Mr. Lee defined child care age as before kindergarten.Title 22 required the separation of school age children and preschool age children.Commissioner Hart asked if the after school children would have access to the playground and Mr. Lee responded that it would be for child care children only.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Fitzgerald stated that she believed there had been compromises since this plan was previously presented and felt there was a need for child care in the neighborhood.She hoped the church and residents could be good neighbors, and she would support this project.
Commissioner Hart agreed with Commissioner Fitzgerald and thought the church had listened to the neighboring resident’s concerns.She believed a church was a good option for an R-3 zone and would support this project.
Commissioner Bailey stated that much had changed since the original design and his concerns had been met.He was happy with the playground location and the addition of the pedestrian path linking the street with the new child care center.He did not believe it was possible to accommodate all of the neighbor’s concerns.He would support the project.
Commissioner Musante agreed with the other commissioners.He believed preschool was an important part of our educational system and realized there was a demand for additional child care.He would support the project.
The title of Resolution PC-06-13 APPROVING a request to modify an existing site plan to construct a single-story building measuring approximately 4,575 square feet and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care facility in the new building consisting of up to 78 children and five staff members, on property located at 1521 W. Orangethorpe Avenue was read and further reading waived.MOTION by Commissioner Hart, SECONDED by Commissioner Musante and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
Acting Director Rosen explained the appeal process.
PRJ06-00137 – LRP06-00007.APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER:CITY OF FULLERTON.
Staff report dated May 10, 2006 was presented pertaining to a request to find the conveyance of the subject property from the City of Fullerton to the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency consistent with the City’s General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, and as required by the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency and Pelican-Laing/Fullerton LLC.The property disposition will facilitate the construction of a mixed use residential and commercial project with a public parking structure in the Central Redevelopment Project Area (Amerige Court).Generally, the certain parcels of real property, consisting of approximately 2.5 acres of land, are located on the north and south sides of Amerige Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Malden Avenue, specifically, Lots 33 to 47 inclusive, and the northerly 34 feet of Lot 48, in Block 17 and Lots 13 to 27 inclusive in Block 20, except from said Lot 27 the west 18 feet thereof of the townsite of Fullerton (C-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidelines) (HAL)
Acting Senior Planner Allen gave a brief overview of the request.She explained that the General Plan consistency action was the next step in implementing the agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Pelican-Laing, and clarified that the determination was being made on a conceptual mixed-use project with residential, commercial, and public parking components.She reiterated that this action was separate from the review and approval of a specific project application for the site.
An aerial view of the subject area was shown.Acting Senior Planner Allen presented diagrams of General Plan designations and zoning classifications of the area and its vicinity, and noted that a mixed use project was a permitted use.She discussed the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as they related to the central downtown focus area, commercial land uses, and the redevelopment and/or revitalization of existing commercial areas.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find the conveyance of the subject property from the City of Fullerton to the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Several members of the public wished to speak and Acting Director Rosen noted that although this was not a public hearing item, the public was entitled to speak on any item on the agenda.
The following persons spoke regarding this project.
Melba Coles, 1119 S. Orchard Avenue, wanted to know if the property were transferred to the Redevelopment Agency could it then remain vacant.Acting Director Rosen responded that it was a possibility, but if it remained vacant it would need to be transferred back to the City.
Edward Moorlach, 113 Rose Drive, was against transferring the property.He would like the parking lot to remain and felt Redevelopment monies would be better spent elsewhere, referencing Brookhurst and Orangethorpe.He stated that the downtown area was doing fine.
Commissioner Bailey asked how the process would work and Acting Director Rosen explained that the action before the Commission was a determination if the conveyance was consistent with the General Plan.There was not a specific project before the Commission at this time.The subject of the consistency determination was an unspecified mixed use project.
Commissioner Hart asked if transferring the property to Redevelopment would have an affect on the parking.Acting Director Rosen said no development action would be caused by the Planning Commission’s action tonight.Any projects would be reviewed in the future.
Commissioner Fitzgerald felt the transfer was consistent with the General Plan and would support the transfer.
Commissioner Musante asked about timing and if this was the necessary first step.Acting Director Rosen responded that this action was in the Development Agreement and required the City to take this action as the first step.
Commissioner Bailey found it consistent and would support.
Commissioner Hart stated she would support.
The title of Resolution PC-06-14 APPROVING a request to find the conveyance of the subject property from the City of Fullerton to the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency consistent with the City’s General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, and as required by the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency and Pelican-Laing/Fullerton LLC, was read and further reading waived.MOTION by Commissioner Fitzgerald, SECONDED by Commissioner Bailey and CARRIED unanimously by voting members present that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.
Commissioner Bailey asked about a letter the commissioners received regarding a complaint against a vehicle rental location, and Acting Director Rosen responded that the complaint would be investigated.Commissioner Bailey asked about the status of the project at the fire station on Pioneer and Gilbert, and Acting Senior Planner Allen stated the applicant had not submitted formal construction drawings as of this date.
REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
Acting Director of Development Services Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings.
There was no one from the public who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
The next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be May 24, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.