|COUNCIL CHAMBERS||FULLERTON CITY HALL|
|Tuesday||April 12, 2005||7:30 PM|
CALL TO ORDER :
|The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. by Chairman Daybell|
|Committee member Jerome Hoban was introduced to the Committee|
ROLL CALL :
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Daybell; Committee Members Coffman, Duncan and Johnson|
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Daybell; Vice Chairman Hoban, Committee Members Duncan and Johnson|
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:||Coffman|
|STAFF PRESENT:||Chief Planner Rosen, Associate Planner Eastman, Planning Intern Bunim and Clerical Staff Norton|
|Deferred approval of minutes to the next regular meeting of April 28, 2005.|
Review of architectural and site design of a proposed mixed-use project and associated Specific Plan (Generally located on the southwest corner of Bastanchury Road and Laguna Road, encompassing an area between Bastanchury Road and Laguna Road, Laguna Drive and Sunny Crest Drive (Currently C-2 Zone; proposed Specific Plan District)
Staff presented the staff report dated April 12, 2005 regarding the proposed demolition of the existing Sunny Crest Plaza shopping center and the construction of a mixed use development.
Associate Planner Eastman stated that this project will include a major site plan application, a zone change to Specific Plan District (SPD), the adoption of the Specific Plan, realignment of utility easements, and a tentative tract map. He explained that this item, if approved, will go to the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval.
Associate Planner Eastman explained that he would provide much of the same information presented at the community meeting earlier in the evening. He clarified that land use and traffic issues would not be addressed, as they are not in the purview of the RDRC. Primarily, he will be focusing on revisions made since the last time the RDRC heard this item. He introduced Joel Rosen, Chief Planner for the City.
Associate Planner Eastman told the committee that:
Associate Planner Eastman displayed an aerial view of the site and explained the boundaries of the proposed development and described the surrounding properties. He told the committee that the area of notification was expanded beyond the 300 foot radius and also included anyone who had attended previous community meetings or contacted staff and requested notification. Of the five applications, the major site plan deals with the physical improvements of the project, which is why the RDRC is reviewing it. The zone change requested is a land use question and not in the purview of the RDRC.
Associate Planner Eastman stated that previous community meetings addressed land use questions, and neighborhood compatibility. The community has questioned the design, the appropriateness of the architectural style, possible traffic congestion, the parking lot location and cumulative impacts. He said that the intention of the previous RDRC meeting held on February 3, 2005 was to get direction and input for the developers regarding design. Several issues were raised and the meeting minutes reflect the concerns. The RDRC had supported the mid-century modern architecture and it was deemed compatible with the architectural style of St. Jude, however they had concerns with the height of Building A along Bastanchury, the lack of a village square and the height of the parking structure. The revised plans include a reduction in height to three stories and in elevation on the west side of Building A. The number of condominiums has been reduced by 14, which was a result of eliminating the fourth floor and the new tiered design. The common space was moved to the east side of the building. The number of tandem stalls were reduced and the landscape setback was sloped up to a half wall height at the parking garage.
Staff is recommending approval of the concept architectural site and landscape plan. Staff is not recommending land use approval at this time. That recommendation will be given to the Planning Commission, upon review of outstanding items. Staff has recommended 17 design conditions of approval which can be modified, eliminated or conditions added. Most significantly, staff is recommending removal of one third floor unit, closest to the tier transition. If the City Council approves the project, staff has requested that the RDRC review construction documents for final approval of details.
Committee Member Johnson asked why the traffic area in the plaza was raised. Associate Planner Eastman suggested that he direct that question to the developer.
Public hearing opened.
Leland Stearns, overall design architect; Mike Lehman, medical specialist architect; Paul Bettenhausen, landscape architect, introduced themselves.
Mr. Stearns said that he had considered the comments from the last RDRC meeting and talked about the nature of the space along Sunny Crest Drive. He explained that the utility easements restrict the development. He showed the two entries to the garage and how the common space was moved to the center which is more easily accessed and near the elevators. It was increased from 1,900 to 2,800 square feet.
Mr. Stearns also talked about:
Mr. Bettenhausen discussed:
Mr. Stearns talked about:
The following residents spoke:
Khosroo Esfahlani, 2320 N. Morelia Place
Bruce Hostetter, 205 N. Cornell
Carol Gruetter, 821 Rodeo Road
Michael Kanne, 2871 Terraza Place
Pamela Lehman, 411 Pinata Place
Sandy Marshal, 925 Valencia Mesa
Kae Thomas, 109 Miramonte Drive
Mike Marcinkevicz, 1424 Sunny Crest Drive
Florence & Randy Plummer, 1400 Richman Knoll
Caleb Eller, 170 Laguna
Chris Bond, 1429 Richman Knoll
Larry Smith, 1706 Sunny Crest
Jennifer Burns, 1539 Avolencia Drive
The public testimony was closed. The project was brought back to the committee for discussion.
Chief Planner Rosen noted that the committee could continue the project to another public meeting. Mr. Rosen offered that in light of the number of people who left the meeting before giving their testimony.
Committee Member Johnson stated he was not in attendance at the February 3, 2005 RDRC meeting. He felt that the project was in the context of the area. He also was concerned with the safety or pedestrian and vehicular traffic. He felt that the architecture was a good design, just not at this particular site. He recognized that the community was not accepting of this design and felt it would be best to wait until after the next community meeting before he takes a position.
Vice Chairman Duncan spoke about the direction of the architecture. He felt that the parking structure is too large and the landscaping is underachieved. He discussed other varieties of trees needed along the edge of the project. He wanted to see the plaza paving extended along Sunny Crest.
Committee Member Hoban asked staff if the concrete arches were salvageable. Chief Planner Rosen asked Member Hoban to wait since the public hearing was closed and they would get an answer from the applicant. He asked about expansion joints for stucco to avoid cracks over time. He was concerned with the entry to the rehab center where one of the residents doorways exits directly to the street. He felt that additional grass areas were needed for pets. He thought that the parking structure needed more vertical elements. He liked the paver stones and suggested using them for the driveway and crosswalks.
Chairman Daybell felt there was a need for the existing businesses to stay, so perhaps they could relocate over to the food court. He wanted to hear more public input and talked about the setbacks.
Mr. Killen asked the RDRC to vote on the project tonight. Chairman Daybell stated that he did not feel it would pass after hearing the committees comments.
MOTION by Member Johnson to continue this item to another date. The motion died due to a lack of a second.
Mr. Killen spoke out of order, reminding the Chairman that the applicant had made a request for a vote tonight.
Chief Planner Rosen stated that the Committee was not obligated to respond to the request of the applicant.
Mr. Esfahlani spoke out of order and Associate Planner Eastman reminded the Chairman and the public that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. At this point, the committee discussed the project and had motions pending.
MOTION by Committee Member Duncan, seconded by Committee Member Hoban, to approve the project, subject to staffs recommended conditions and comments provided by the committee members. Members Johnson and Daybell voted against the item and Members Duncan and Hoban voted in favor, Member Coffman was absent. The proposed project received a tie vote. A tie vote constitutes a recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission and City Council.-->
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.