COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
FULLERTON CITY HALL
May 11, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM by Chairman Daybell
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Daybell; Committee Members Cha, Duncan, Hoban, and Larsen
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Harry Mestyanek, Melanie Nichols, and Wayne Sant
Acting Director Rosen, Acting Chief Planner Eastman, Senior Planner St. Paul, Acting Senior Planner Allen and Clerical Staff Leopold
MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Duncan and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE April 27 minutes AS WRITTEN.
Item No. 1
PRJ04 - 00901 – ZON04 - 00094.Applicant:Wayne Sant AND PROPERTY OWNER:OTTO KAHN.Sunrise Assisted Living.
Review of landscape plans in accordance with conditions of project approval.Property is located at 2226 N. Euclid Ave. (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (SPD Zone) (HAL)
Acting Senior Planner Allen presented a staff report on the project.She clarified that staff incorrectly reported that 36” box fern pines would run along both lots 4 and 5.These trees are actually proposed to run along all of lot 4 and a portion of lot 5.The remainder of the trees along lot 5 is proposed at 24” box.The condition regarding mature tress addressed the height only.
Committee Member Cha arrived at 4:05 p.m.
Committee Member Duncan asked if the trash enclosure located at the north end could be relocated?Acting Senior Planner Allen stated it that it is not a fixed location, and can be moved as long as the waste hauler can have access to it.
Committee Member Duncan questioned the reference to the drought tolerant plant list.Acting Senior Planner Allen said the City does have a list of drought tolerant plans and it requires for that a minimum of 50 percent of planting material be drought tolerant.
Public hearing opened.
The applicants were present.Representative Harry Mestyanek stated the applicant did not have any questions or issues with the staff report.
Applicant Wayne Sant explained the intent they had in terms of matching the proposed landscape to the architecture and explained that they wanted the project to feel like a “home”.
Mr. Sant reiterated that there is an area along lot 5 where 36” box trees cannot be planted because there is a lack of space.Acting Senior Planner Allen clarified that the condition regarding the mature trees in that area is a height condition of 10 ft.As long as the trees are 10 ft in height, the condition is met.Mr. Mestyanek stated they were going to be tagging the trees in the nursery during the construction phase before the materials are brought to the site.He stated that representative Melanie Nichols would make sure that the trees meet the height requirements and are full and viable.
The Committee sought clarity from staff on the location of the walkway around the site and the design of the emergency vehicle access driveway.Committee Member Hoban questioned the need for a sidewalk that won’t connect to anything.Acting Senior Planner Allen stated that ultimately a sidewalk will likely be placed on Euclid through a City project.She noted that when the Yuma Way project was developed, it did not take access from Euclid, therefore, it was not required to construct a sidewalk.It was required to dedicate the right of way however to accommodate a future sidewalk.She stated that staff is very concerned about how the connection works and flows and has been working with the Engineering Department and the applicant to make sure there is a good transition.
The applicant stated there is also a planned bus stop to the North where it would allow visitors to use the bus system and have pedestrian access to this building.
Committee Member Duncan questioned if the landscaping on the street will be consistent.Acting Senior Planner Allen said there is a master street tree plan. The next step after the on-site landscaping is done will be to get the street improvement plan to the Maintenance Department and they will tell the applicant the type of trees to be placed.
Public hearing closed.
Committee Member Duncan stated the plant material was eclectic and thought there was too much going on; however, it does provide a residential feel and achieves the intent of a “home” concept.The east edge of the backside of the building looks fine with an exception of some of the trees located too close to the building.On the front side, there are many trees that are 18” in. to 24 in. away from the face of the building and/or pavement.This needs to be re-evaluated.Committee Member Duncan questioned the large yard space along Euclid with the trees pushed right up on the building.It would give a better feel and design if the trees are pushed toward the trail, in order to give the trees more room, and would alleviate many of the problems that are too close to the paving.He expressed that some of the trees will out grow their spaces.Committee Member Duncan stated that the applicant should look into expanding the ground cover shrub area, and reducing the lawn area.He said certain trees can be planted in a yard area as opposed to a planter; however that would defeat the purpose of being drought tolerant as they would be watered with the lawn.
Committee Member Duncan told the applicant that the loop trail on the south edge makes an abrupt 90 degree right turn into the trellis area, and he thinks it should have a smoother transition.
Chairman Daybell suggested that a lawn is not needed on the Euclid Street side since that side of a building will not be used by residents.The trees and shrubs can be moved as suggested by Committee Member Duncan or be made into a planter area.
Committee Member Cha had no comments regarding the project.
Committee Member Larsen agreed with Committee Member Duncan’s comments.
Committee Member Hoban stated that he liked the grass because it gives color to a property and gives it a sharp look, but agreed with Committee Member Duncan’s comments in pulling the trees away and reducing the size of the grass.Committee Member Hoban said that in order to get to the trash enclosure, a person would have to go through a parking stall, so it may be reasonable to move the trash enclosure east and off the lawn.
Public hearing re-opened.
Mr. Mestyanek said Committee Member Duncan had very good comments and his representatives would not be opposed to expanding the shrub areas at the northern end andprefers the tree arrangement Committee Member Duncan suggested.Mr. Mestyanek said that what is not shown on the plans are the utilities and fire service running along the front of the building underneath the lawn area.The tree locations will need to take the utilities into account.
The Committee discussed possibly continuing the item.Committee Member Duncan stated that the applicant can re-evaluate the Committee’s recommendations, along with staff’s suggestions and can move forward with the project while working with staff.He said his biggest concern was the tree placement close to the paving and the building, but recognizes the limitations created by the utilities.
Public hearing closed.
Committee Member Hoban stated that if the trash enclosure was moved it would look better.
Chairman Daybell stated that if it’s reasonable to relocate the trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of staff, it should be done.
MOTION made by Committee Member Duncan, SECONDED by Committee Member Hoban and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE project with recommendations to re-evaluate the location and proximity of trees to paving and the building; re-evaluate the location of the trash enclosure; look at a smoother transition on the south end of the walkway to the trellis; and reduce the lawn area in the front.
Acting Chief Planner Eastman provided a summary of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings.
City Council – May 2
Planning Commission – May 10
MOTION made by Committee Member Cha, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen to ADJOURN meeting at 4:55 p.m.