COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM FULLERTON CITY HALL
THURSDAY, 9:00 A.M., JANUARY 16, 2003
|CALL TO ORDER:||Joel Rosen, Chair called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.|
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:||Mullis, Tabatabaee, Thompson, Wallin|
|COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:||Lynn, Maynard|
|STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:||Eastman, Kusch|
December 19, 2002 minutes approved as written.
The applicant was present.
Staff Senior Planner Mullis described the scope of the project, and displayed aerial photos of the site. She said that the proposed addition meets the open space and setback requirements recommended by the Site Plan process. The applicant has spoken with his neighbors; none objected. Only one condition was recommended, and that modified plans be submitted within 10 days.
MOTION made, SECONDED and CARRIED by all members present, to APPROVE PRJ03-00007 - ZON03-00001 subject to the following condition. (Resolution No 323).
The applicant was advised of the appeal period.
The applicant was present.
Staff Assistant Planner Kusch described the scope of the project stating that Curves is a women's weight loss and fitness center requesting to open a business in an existing storefront with a tenant space of approximately 2,000 square feet.
The center was designed, based on the current tenants, with no surplus parking. Staff is concerned with the lack of parking, not for this tenant, but for any subsequent tenants with a more intense use. The applicant submitted a Staff Report from the City of Brea of a similar size facility. The parking study showed that the center would not have a demand higher than a typical retail space, and parking did not appear to be an issue. However, depending on the type of business of future tenants in Fullerton, parking could be an issue.
Curves proposed hours of operation are:
6:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Mon.-Fri.
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sat.
The applicant, Leanne Perezcano, stated that the center is very small scale; she would start with 8 machines; 12 being the maximum. Women would be in and out in 30 minutes. She displayed a photo taken at 5:00 p.m. to show that parking would not be an issue.
MOTION made, SECONDED and CARRIED by all members present, to APPROVE PRJ02-00439 - ZON02-00055 subject to the following condition(s). (Resolution No 324).
The applicant was advised of the appeal process.
ADJOURNED AT 9:30 A.M. AS THE STAFF SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECONVENED AS THE STAFF REVIEW COMMITTEE
Staff Associate Planner Eastman introduced the proposal. He said there are two phases to the project and two proposed site plans, A and B. The Redevelopment Design Review Committee reviewed the project June 9, 2003, and recommended approval with a preference for Site Plan B.
Phase 1 includes remodeling the Center's facade along Orangethorpe Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. There may also be some changes to the Factory 2 U building if alternative B is implemented. This depends on yet unidentified factors that have to do with the existing tenant lease agreement and potential to attract new tenants for the Phase 2 addition. There will also be minor changes to the landscaping at the entrance of Orangefair Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue.
Phase 2 - includes two alternatives, an addition of several retail spaces in the rear of the center and a restaurant; a remodel to the faades of Lemon Street and Orangefair Avenue, and a reorientation of the parking lot from northsouth/eastwest. Alternative B demolishes Factory 2 U and part of another tenant space and creates a pass-thru lane for access to tenants in the back. The square footage lost by demolishing Factory 2 U would be partially reconstructed by adding to Tenant 12 and 13. The property owner would like to create a pedestrian plaza atmosphere as well. Orientation of in some tenant spaces still needs to be addressed.
The Site Plan Review Committee's comments include:
Staff Assistant Planner Kusch introduced the project. He explained that this request is to modify a retaining wall. Staff has requested hydrology calculations. Building a storm drain up through the channel would create a blind area between the retaining wall and fence. May need to revise the slope area.
Fire had issues with cars parking on both sides of the street and along the cul de sac, leaving inadequate width for fire trucks to navigate in case of a fire. The solutions suggested were to either widen the road, allow parking only on one side of the street, or allow no parking. Fire would like to require no parking along the cul de sac. An option to sprinkler instead of widening the street was discussed. A 6-foot parkway with a 4-foot sidewalk around the perimeter was recommended.
Assistant Planner Kusch presented the project.
The Committee had no comments.