MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FULLERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - FULLERTON CITY HALL

WEDNESDAY MARCH 23, 2000 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER:

The meeting was called to order by Chairman LeQuire at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Chairman LeQuire; Commissioners Allred, Crane, Godfrey (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Munson, Sandoval and Simons

STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Rosen, Senior Planner Mullis, Program Planner Linnell, Associate Planner Viado, Senior Civil Engineer Wallin, and Recording Secretary Stevens

MINUTES:

MOTION by Commissioner Simons, seconded and CARRIED unanimously, that the Minutes of the February 23, 2000, meeting be APPROVED AS WRITTEN.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

ITEM NO. 1
SITE PLAN SP-790 (MAJOR). APPLICANT: DANIEL J. LUERAS; PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL ALVAREZ

Staff report dated March 15, 2000, was presented pertaining to a request to consider site and architectural plans for a nine-unit apartment complex on property located at 525 West Amerige Avenue (north side of Amerige Avenue, between approximately 285 and 350 feet west of Richman Avenue (R-3 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 3 of CEQA Guidelines).

Chief Planner Rosen reported that the property in question is zoned R-3, and the proposal meets all development standards of the zoning code. Staff recommended approval of the request.

Commissioner Allred questioned if any additional traffic control would be necessary because of the increased traffic generated by this project. Chief Planner Rosen indicated that the General Plan projected a certain amount of development which would occur in multi-family zones. A traffic model was prepared based upon this information, and the streets were found to accommodate this type of growth. Senior Civil Engineer Wallin added that a general threshold for consideration of traffic measures is a 10% increase of the traffic on any given street, and this development does not meet that percentage.

Chairman LeQuire asked if there had been any traffic or parking problems in this area.

Mike Alvarez, 360 S. Glassell, is the applicant for the project. He stated that his company already owns two four-plexes currently existing on the property, and distributed photographs of these developments to the Commission. Parking meets or exceeds all code requirements and the architecture of the complex will be a 1930's motif to blend in with the neighborhood.

David Froberg, 528 West Amerige Avenue was in favor of the project. He requested that any potential tenants be researched thoroughly, and cited numerous police calls for domestic violence in the area. He also asked if any trees would be planted in the front yard, and Chairman LeQuire stated that a landscape plan had been submitted to the City for approval.

Public hearing closed.

There was a consensus of the Commission for approval. The title of Resolution No. 6868 APPROVING site and architectural plans for the construction of a nine-unit apartment complex on property located at 525 West Amerige Avenue, was read and further reading was waived. MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED unanimously that said Resolution be ADOPTED AS WRITTEN.

ITEM NO. 2
ZONING CODE UPDATE WORKSHOP

Staff report dated March 22, 2000, was presented pertaining to the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, including Zoning Administrator-Zoning Adjustments, Variances and Conditional Use Permits, Amendments, Procedures, Hearings, Notices and Fees (Continued from February 23, 2000).

Associate Planner Viado reported that each of the above chapters represents processes involved with the approval of various discretionary permits. The proposed changes are extensive, with the intent of making the processes consistent with the applicable sections in the California Government Code, as well as current administrative practices. Proposed changes include consolidation of various sections into one major category, and removal of repetitive sections. One major change involves separating the Variance and Conditional Use Permit chapter into two chapters. An important addition to the Conditional Use Permit chapter will be the inclusion of a revocation section, approved by the City Council and Planning Commission last year. The general reorganization also includes an intent and purpose section which describes the basic principals of each chapter.

Commissioner Sandoval observed the amount of work necessary to rewrite this chapter, and commended staff's efforts.

Public comment section was opened, but there was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.

Chairman LeQuire asked if the final draft would be presented to the Planning Commission, before being reviewed by the City Council. Chief Planner Rosen assured him that staff would present the final draft at least thirty days before going to Council.

Commissioner Crane questioned whether any of the proposed graphics would be reviewed by any commission or committee. Chief Planner Rosen answered that the graphics were basic, for the most part, however there was a "frequent users list" who would be receiving a copy of the draft ordinance, including graphics, for review and comment.

Commissioner Munson inquired if staff wished to bring any pertinent or controversial changes to this section of the ordinance to the Commission's attention. Associate Planner Viado referred to the new section pertaining to Conditional Use Permit revocation.

Chairman LeQuire suggested that Commissioner Crane be added to the frequent users list, but Chief Planner Rosen stated that Commissioner Crane was presently on that list.

Commissioner Godfrey indicated he did not notice a "sunset" clause for Conditional Use Permits. Associate Planner Viado reported that page 42, Section 15.70.090, states: "upon violation of any provision of this chapter, or upon failure to comply with the conditions of approval, or if the use has become a nuisance, or in the event that a conditionally-permitted use is not used or is found to be voluntarily abandoned for a six-month period, the Development Services Department shall serve the property owner with a notice of intent to revoke the Conditional Use Permit." Chief Planner Rosen added that any revocation would also require a public hearing process. Commissioner Godfrey's concern was directed towards fraternities and sororities, but did not wish to set a precedence by singling out certain CUP activities. Chief Planner Rosen stated that this issue will be reviewed further, and brought back at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Crane asked if legal counsel would review this document, and Chief Planner Rosen indicated that in-house counsel has already reviewed certain portions of the ordinance.

There was a consensus of the Commission to accept this draft section of the update to the zoning ordinance as presented.

ITEM NO. 3
ZONING CODE UPDATE WORKSHOP

Staff report dated March 14, 2000, was presented pertaining to the proposed revisions to the following chapters of the Fullerton Zoning Ordinance: Nonconformities; Provisions and Conditions for Special Uses (new); General Use Provisions; Conditions and Exceptions; Yards, Heights and Areas; Interpretation.

Program Planner Linnell reported that a new chapter has been added dealing with special uses, such as churches and day care centers. The section entitled Yards, Heights and Areas has been eliminated in its entirety, and that information has been relocated to other chapters. Concerning temporary special events (pages 3 and 4), presently a permit must be obtained from the Police Department for circuses, carnivals, etc. Staff has experienced problems with these types of permits in the past, because of the lack of review among other departments within the City. Staff has contacted the Police Department to request that this responsibility be relinquished by the Police Department and turned over to Development Services.

Commissioner Godfrey asked why staff felt the Development Services Department would be more qualified to review these permit applications. Program Planner Linnell answered that Development Services would be more aware of impacts this type of use could create in surrounding neighborhoods. Chief Planner Rosen added that the site plan review committee is multi-departmental, with representatives from the Engineering, Police, Fire, Planning, and Building Departments, and could review the applications more thoroughly. Commissioner Godfrey questioned if the multi-departmental review is enumerated in the code. Chief Planner Rosen suggested that a "blanket" statement be included which states that all appropriate departments necessary will be utilized to process the permit.

Commissioner Simons asked who in the City determined what kind of liability insurance and fees shall be paid for these types of permits. Program Planner Linnell stated that the City Council would have to impose a fee, and the liability insurance is determined by the City's Risk Management Department. Program Planner Linnell reminded the Commission that staff is still in the discussion stage with the Police Department concerning this issue.

Program Planner Linnell added that another section in question is whether a CUP should be required for a caretaker's residence. This is defined as a residential unit on a commercial or industrial property, strictly for a caretaker or security guard.

It was the consensus of the Commission that the Conditional Use Permit requirement for a caretaker's residence be eliminated.

With regard to non-conforming uses, Program Planner Linnell pointed out that on page 46, staff is suggesting eliminating that portion which states that a non-conforming use cannot be "built back" if it has been damaged. Staff does not feel this restriction is necessary, and eliminating it would allow more latitude to the property owner if he desired to build back his original structure after a natural disaster. This would allow the property owner to obtain financing in a more expedient manner. Chief Planner Rosen also stated that the majority of the time, these requests are for single-family homes in a commercial zone.

Chairman LeQuire expressed concern that this would make it easier for a property owner to rebuild a non-conforming structure. He was of the opinion that if a non-conforming use was destroyed, then the property owner should be required to rebuild to the current zoning designation.

Chief Planner Rosen noted that presently many of the city's older buildings are non-conforming and this would allow them to be rebuilt to their original design. Also, this would not allow a property owner to rebuild a larger structure-it would have to be the exact dimensions of what originally exists.

There was no one from the public who wished to speak on this matter.

There was a consensus of the Commission to accept the draft section for the update to the zoning ordinance as presented.

REVIEW OF COUNCIL ACTIONS

Chief Planner Rosen gave a brief report on recent City Council meetings

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There was no one present who wished to speak on any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.

AGENDA FORECAST

The next regularly-scheduled meeting will be April 12, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.