Low Graphics Version Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map
City of Fullerton
Community Dev
Home ... > 2004 > August 19, 2004
Shortcuts
State College & Raymond Grade Separation Updates
Downtown
Water Bill Payment
City Employment
Agendas & Minutes
City Services
Classes
Emergency Preparedness
Online Services
Permits
Police News
Public Notices
Staff Review Committee Meeting Minutes August 19, 2004

COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FULLERTON CITY HALL
THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M., August 19, 2004

CALL TO ORDER:Chairman Rosen called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:Cortez, King (for Becerra), Rosen, Tabatabaee, Thompson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:Mullis
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:Kusch, Eastman, Sowers, and Norton
OTHERS PRESENT: Rhee, Shultz, Adams, Cassell, Chung, Esposito, Hyun

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

August 5, 2004 approved as written.

INTRODUCTIONS - COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBERS:

ACTION ITEMS:

PRJ04-00681 ZON04-00069. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID CHUNG.

A request for a tutoring center located in an existing office-professional building on property located at 2250 Rosecrans Avenue (southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Rosecrans Avenue) (O-P zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (Continued from August 5, 2004) (AKU).

Chairman Rosen stated that this project was heard at the August 5th meeting and was continued to allow the applicant time to address two unresolved issues regarding handicapped restrooms and accessibility to the second floor for classroom. Individuals in attendance introduced themselves to the Committee, including Carmen Esposito, the subject property owner, David Chung, applicant and operating manager for One To One Reading and Math Center, and Lea Shultz, operating manager for One To One Reading and Math Center in Anaheim Hills. Mr. Esposito addressed the restroom issue stating that there is a restroom in on the first floor, and outside restrooms that could be utilized. Committee Member Tabatabaee replied if that is the case, perhaps the restroom issue can be resolved. However, the main concern is accessibility. As a result of the 900 square-foot office being classified by the Building Code as a classroom (10 people) two exits are required. The applicant has not provided a solution to these issues since the last meeting.

Chairman Rosen asked Mr. Chung the reason he has made no attempt to contact the Building Department to resolve the outstanding issues. Mr. Chung commented that the main reason why he has not moved forward with the project is his concern with his neighboring tenants negative reaction to having a similar type business move into the center. He said that he has spoken with both Mr. Soo-Hyun and Ms. Rhee to try to resolve their objections to the business but was unsuccessful in changing their minds and they remain opposed to the move. Mr. Chung stated that it is very important to him to be able to establish and keep a positive relationship with his neighbors, and because the neighbors are so opposed to the business, he does not feel comfortable signing a 5-year lease with the property owner to move his business to that center.

Ms. Schultz added that the tutoring center did not want to put a lot of time and energy into resolving the handicapped restrooms and accessibility until they were certain they could resolve their neighbors concerns.

Chairman Rosen opened the meeting for public comments.

Ms. Rhee pointed out that the center is saturated with tutorial types of businesses. She stated that when she signed her lease with Mr. Esposito she was assured that he would not allow another tutoring business similar to hers move into the center. She said she was opposed to increasing the number of children in the center because of potential discipline problems. She submitted a petition and a copy of her lease for the record.

Mr. Soo-Hyun said that when he visited the applicants existing business located at the Fullerton Towers and looked at the program, the tutoring is not one-on-one as Mr. Chung claims. Ms. Schultz responded by saying that their main tutoring center has a group tutoring class only during the summer. The Anaheim center is one-on-one tutoring and the Rosecrans Center (a satellite center) would be one-on-one tutoring with no group classes.

The meeting was closed to public comment and opened to the committee for their final recommendations.

Committee Member Tabatabaee stated that the request cannot be approved without some resolution of the pending code issues. Chairman Rosen concurred and called for a motion to deny.

A motion was made to deny (without prejudice) and the applicant can reapply once the issues have been resolved.

MOTION made, SECONDED, and CARRIED unanimously to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRJ04-00681 ZON04-00069. (Resolution No. 375)

There is a 10-day appeal period where any action by this Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. The request may be approved subject to conditions. Minutes of the hearing and a Resolution will be prepared.

PRJ04-00742 ZON04-00074. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: BRENT A. ADAMS.

A request for a 20% reduction in the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet, to accommodate a garage remodel and addition, on property located at 735 El Mirador Drive (north side of El Mirador Drive, 600 feet southeast of Madonna Drive) (R-1-10 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (AKU).

Assistant Planner Kusch stated the applicant is proposing a project that would include expansion of the existing garage outward toward the street El Mirador Drive. The proposal includes a study where the existing garage is located. In order to accommodate this expansion, the applicant is requesting a 20% reduction in the required front yard setback from 25 to 20 feet. The existing setback of the neighboring properties is 25 feet and are all consistent. One concern from a Zoning Code perspective is, that by adding a door, it potentially could be used as another bedroom. Staff is recommending a condition that there be an opening between the family room and the study (as depicted on the floor plan). A second concern is that the new expansion will be compatible to the exiting residence in terms of exterior material, color and roof materials. Staff received no inquiries concerning the proposal.

Mr. Adams stated that he had no plans to use the addition as a bedroom, and the materials will be uniform with the rest of the residence.

The Committee had no issues and called for a motion to approve.

MOTION made, SECONDED, and CARRIED unanimously to APPROVE PRJ04-00742 ZON04-00074 as conditioned. (Resolution No. 376)

  1. All exterior material, color and roof material used to construct the new addition shall match the existing house.

  2. Approved numbers of addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property and alley serving said property. For front address numbers we recommend a height of 1 inch for every 10 feet from the street (14 inch maximum); 2 to 3 inch numbers for rear numbers mounted above the doors. Address numbers must meet FFD Standard #7 requirements.

  3. An opening shall be provided between the new study and adjacent room. The study shall not be utilized as a bedroom.

There is a 10-day appeal period where any action by this Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. The request may be approved subject to conditions. Minutes of the hearing and a Resolution will be prepared.

ADJOURNED AT 9:35 A.M. AS STAFF SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE:

FacebookTwitterYouTube
RSS for Fullerton NewsFullerton eLists
Home | Contact Us | FAQs | Service Request | eLists | Site Map | Disclaimer & Privacy PolicyCopyright © 2000 - 2014 Community. Development, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832. 714-738-6547