COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FULLERTON CITY HALL
THURSDAY, 9:07 A.M., May 6, 2004
| CALL TO ORDER:||Chairperson Rosen called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m. |
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Mullis, Rosen, Tabatabaee, Thompson, Hamilton for Becerra |
| COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:||Becerra and Wallin |
| STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:||Kusch, and Norton |
| OTHERS PRESENT: ||Michael Reid, Michael Bridges, Charlotte and Andrew Lee, Cindy Leinart, and Jai Yang |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
April 15, 2004 approved as written.
INTRODUCTIONS - COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBERS:
PRJ04-00326 ZON04-00041. APPLICANT: CINDY LEINART; PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF FULLERTON.
A request to install a wireless telecommunication antenna measuring 50 feet in height on property located at 4011 West Commonwealth Avenue (antenna located on the east side of Dale Place, approximately 170 feet south of the southwest corner of Dale Place and Artesia Avenue) (P-L zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15303 of CEQA Guidelines) (AKU).
Assistant Planner Kusch said that the applicant is proposing to install a 50-foot tall monopole telecommunications antenna just beyond the Dale Place entrance on the Fullerton Airport property. The elevations show that the monopole would have flush mounted antenna. The Water Engineering Division raised some concern that the lease area and/or the monopole itself might be on a Metropolitan Water District water line. If this were the case, it would be necessary to relocate the facility to a different area. Verizon representatives have met with the Airport Manager, Rod Propst, and lease negotiations are underway. The necessary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clearance has not yet been obtained.
Chairman Rosen inquired whether the structure would need to be lighted. Cindy Leinart, representing Verizon, said that lighting was not required; however, Verizon would not be opposed to lighting the structure if the committee thought it was necessary. In response to staffs concern regarding the lease areas location and its proximity to the water line, Ms. Leinart said it appears that the area may be clear of the water line but she would have the distance measured to be sure that there is a 15-foot minimum distance from the water line. She added that there are three other potential locations if the proposed lease area proves to be over the water line. Verizon is proposing a free-standing slim line pole; however, the Committee thought a light standard would be an acceptable design alternative. Ms. Leinart displayed photographs of a light standard with an integrated antenna that was installed in Chino Hills similar to the lights at the Fullerton airport.
Staff recommended that the item be continued to make sure where the water line is located, and to map out other potential locations that have existing light standards. Staff indicated that they would forward the applicant the necessary forms to obtain FAA clearance for the proposed structure. Chairman Rosen asked about access to the location. Ms. Leinart stated that the airport would allow access, but in order to limit access and prevent security breaches to the airport property, Verizon would prefer a separate access onto the property and proposed fenced lease area. Chairman Rosen stated that it is the consensus of the Committee that a light pole should replace the slim-line design, and that a determination be made to the precise location of the underground utilities.
Committee Member Thompson advised the applicant that when revised plans are submitted that they must show Fire Departments access.
MOTION made SECONDED, and CARRIED unanimously to CONTINUE PRJ04-00326 ZON04-00041 to May 20, 2004.
PRJ04-00338 ZON04-00044. APPLICANT: ANDREW LEE; PROPERTY OWNER: BRAD KUISH.
A request to allow a tutorial/vocational school within an existing office building on property located at 444 North Harbor Boulevard (southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue) (C-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines) (SMI).
Senior Planner Mullis stated that the applicant is proposing a tutorial/vocation school located on the second story of an existing office building. SAT and ESL classes would be offered. The class hours would generally be between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. with some administrative activities between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.. The maximum number of staff members would be 3 persons with up to 10 students, 8 in a classroom and 2 being tutored. The classes would not exceed 90 minutes, and are generally targeted to 8th through 11th grade age students. Staff has received some calls expressing concerns about the availability of public parking. Some potential conditions have been drafted for discussion.
Committee Member Tabatabaee was under the impression that the building was part of the public parking district. Chairman Rosen said that the building was constructed without any parking, and was never part of the public parking district; however, there was a Development Agreement that allows the use of public parking. There was additional amendments made to the agreement that acknowledged the lack of parking and that only certain uses would be allowed. The continued concern is how much more intensive is the use being proposed in terms of what was envisioned for the building. The issue with a school use is how many people in a classroom, and how long they are there during the day as opposed to a commercial business.
Committee Member Tabatabaee said that the applicant is in compliance with exiting and restroom facilities. The only issues are the need for a fire alarm, and to determine the correct occupancy designation based on the number of students, hours of operation, and the age of the students.
Mr. Bridges, in-house counsel for Etum Academy and lessee of the property in question, stated that the school is a satellite campus of the Academy that has multiple campuses around Southern California. Staff did inform the Academy that one of the major areas of concern was the adequacy of parking in the area. Given this information, Mr. Bridges said he has prepared a break down of the flow of persons in and out of the property during the course of the day. The posted business hours are Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. but the hours from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. are strictly for administrative matters in house. During that time period, parent/teacher meetings are scheduled, and the maximum number of people attending a meeting would be two parents. Potentially from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. there would be a need for only four parking spaces. Four oclock is the prime time when classes and tutoring begins. There is no time that anyone would be on the premises for more than 90 minutes at a time. The maximum number of persons on site at any given time would be 13. Given the age range of the students, it is unlikely that there would be a need for more than eight parking spaces during class time. Mr. Bridges said it is his understanding that occasionally seminars are given on Saturdays to explain the program to parents; however, the density would not be greater than what is indicated on the information that was submitted to staff. It was also brought to his attention that there is a clause in the Owner Participation Agreement that states the City Council studied the parking situation and found that there was a sufficient quantity of alternative parking other than public facilities.
Chairman Rosen mentioned that parking in the structure next door is very controversial and all of the businesses in the neighborhood have been working towards a solution in terms of the hours of operation and the types of businesses that are being approved in the downtown area and this building in particular. There are some restrictions regarding employee parking. Employees are allowed all day parking in designated spaces with a parking permit. There are 1- and 2-hour parking spaces and those hours are enforced. Staff was concerned whether a school use would need exception to that limit. Since reviewing the request, it is clear that there would not be a problem with the use.
Chairman Rosen asked the applicant if he had had a chance to review the proposed conditions, and if he would be opposed to expanding on Condition No. 1 (e) to include occasional Saturday seminars. Both the applicant and the director stated that they would not object to this addition.
Chairman Rosen asked where would the children be dropped off for class. Mr. Bridges said that the most appropriate drop-off area has not yet been decided. It is most likely that a handout would be prepared that would bring to the parents attention the parking situation and a diagram of the drop-off and pick-up area.
The Committee made a motion to approve based on the proposed conditions.
MOTION made, SECONDED and CARRIED by all members, to APPROVE PRJ04-00338 ZON04-00044 as conditioned below: (Resolution No. 365)
- The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans, descriptions, and statements provided by the applicant, including the following:
- Classes shall only occur on Monday through Fridays between the hours of 4pm and 8pm.
- The total number of staff on site shall not exceed three persons.
- The total number of students on site shall not exceed 10 persons (2 being tutored and 8 in classrooms).
- No class shall be longer than 90 minutes.
- In addition to the class times described in a above, administrative meetings (including meetings with parents) may occur between the hours of 10am and 2pm, Monday through Friday and seminars periodically on Saturdays.
- The subject matter being taught shall be SAT preparation or ESL (English as a Second Language) for 8th through 11th grade students.
- The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws.
- All corrections generated from the Citys plan check review process shall be incorporated as conditions of approval including a fire alarm and fire extinguishers.
- Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services:
- A student drop-off plan.
- A handout for parents informing them of the parking limitations in the area and the approved student drop-off location.
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.
PRJ04-00368 ZON04-00046. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL REID.
A request for a 20% reduction in the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on property located at 1100 East Union Avenue to add a bedroom and bath to an existing house (approximately 350 feet west of Union and Raymond Avenues) (R-1-7.2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Section 15305 of CEQA Guidelines) (SMI).
Senior Planner Mullis stated that the applicant is requesting a 20% reduction in the required front yard setback. All of the houses in the neighborhood have a similar setback with the exception of a few homes that are setback 15 feet on the opposite side of the street. Photographs were shown of the house and what it would look like from either side. The only concern is what is proposed is rather plain, and needs more detail. No neighbors have called to oppose.
Mr. Reid said he intends to add architectural treatment on the front of the addition, but in his haste to prepare a drawing for todays meeting, he did not take the time to show this treatment on the plans. Mr. Reid went on to say that feed back from his neighbors about the project has been positive. He explained that in pulling the house forward it would go pretty much straight across with a recessed entry. As far as the addition fitting into the character of the neighborhood, he said that there is a house several doors down with the exact same facade. He mentioned that he intends to keep the existing birch tree on the property. A draft list of conditions was provided for Mr. Reids review. He read and concurred with all of the conditions.
The Committee had no further comments and made a motion to approve with conditions.
MOTION made, SECONDED and CARRIED by all members, to APPROVE PRJ04-00368 ZON04-00046 subject to the following conditions: (Resolution No. 366)
- The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans, descriptions, and statements provided by the applicant, except that additional architectural treatment on the front elevation shall be provided such as shutters, planter shelves, paned windows, a secondary exterior material such as brick or stone to break up the blank stucco wall proposed. This enhancement shall be shown on the plans submitted for plan check and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Development Services.
- The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws.
- All corrections generated from the Citys plan check review process shall be incorporated as conditions of approval.
- Address numbers shall be installed to meet the Fullerton Fire Department Standard No. 7 requirements.
ADJOURNED AT 9:55 A.M. AS STAFF SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE: