Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/09/1975 December 9, 1975 M I NUT E S of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 P.M. DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1975 PLACE: WEST ORANGE LIBRARY AUDITORIUM MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Slade, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Mathewson, Mullin, Teglia and Chairman Hale MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: City Planner David C. Hale Director of Public Services Frank J. Addiego Zoning Administrator William Costanzo City Engineer Robert Yee MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1975 Commissioner Mathewson moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of November 25, 1975, be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Mathewson, Mullin, Teglia and Chairman Hale NOES: ABSENT: None None ABSTAINED: Vice-Chairman Slade ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Hale announced that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished to come before the Commission to be heard, but who objected to having his or her voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he or she is speaking or is heard. - 3493 - December 9, 1 UP-75-323 & PM-122 UP-75-323 and PM-122, requests of Norpen Development Company for the con- struction of 20 condominium units on Greendale Drive between Gilbert Court and Galway Drive. (Continued from November 25, 1975) These two items were heard simultaneously because of their close relationship. Secretary Hale presented the staff reports and noted to the Commission that the Standard Conditions had been added to the Use Permit staff report which had inadvertently been left out on the previous staff report. He further read into the record a letter from Deborah Carson, President of the Homeowners' Association, noting that there are a number of possible deficiencies with the development based on the past record of building by Norpen. She further stated that the developer has failed to enforce the C.C. & R. IS and that the developer prefers to maintain control over the Architectural Control Committee. She noted three items that she would like to see accomplished. (1) Review and make public any homeowner complaints that have arisen and that any unresolved complaints be surveyed. (2) Convene a special citizens subcommittee to review with City planning staff the proposed conditions to be placed on the developer. (3) Staff to research complaints with the other developments outside of the Westborough area. Proponent: Hank Richman, representing Norpen Development Company 1011 Cadillac Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Opponent: Mr. Gary Goren 3741 Fairfax Way South San Francisco, CA Mr. Goren noted to the Commission that he felt the letter from Deborah Carson was perti nent to thi s heari ng in that the present r,es igent~ of West borough have been mi srepresented by Norpen He noted that other homeowners in'th.e area were considering bringing suit against Norpen. Commissioner Teglia requested to know if the City Attorney had seen the letter from Deborah Carson. Secretary Hale stated that he had seen it but had not had time to review it. He noted that the City Attorney would like sufficient time to comment on it. Commissioner Mullin asked if Norpen had ever forfeited a performance bond. Hank Richman said that they had not. Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Richman to respond to some of the points made in Deborah Carsonls letter. Mr. Richman note~ that standard C.C. & R. IS were used in West Park 3 and that they had been approved by the City of South San Francisco He stated that he had had nothing to do with the - 3494 - December 9, 1975 UP-75-323 & PM-122. cont'd C.C. & R. IS for West Park 1 and 2. On the question of warranties, Mr. Richman stated that over the years they have maintained as many as eight men doing warranty work on the 1300 homes, and that all legitimate com- plaints were followed through on. He noted that there were still three men and a superintendent handling warranties. Mr. Richman noted that they have never ducked their responsibilities as far as warranty work is concerned. He noted that when a letter comes in, a copy is made and immediately forwarded to his superintendent. He said that some warranty work had been put off in the last few months because of selling and moving people in, but that this work was now being completed. Commissioner Mullin requested Mr. Richman to define warranty work. Mr. Richman noted that letters regarding warranty work usually come in at the end of the warranty period (one year). He stated that warranty work in- cluded improperly done construction work which did not hold up. He stated that this was not to be confused with maintenance work. Chairman Hale requested to know if ground water was warranty work or main- tenance. Mr. Richman said that he could not answer that and that he did not know why there was a water problem. He noted that they have put in underground drains in some places when there were problems. Commissioner Teglia requested some input from Mr. Richman on the Architec- tural Control Committee. Mr. Richman stated that certified letters were sent to homeowners requesting that they meet the C. C. & R. IS and that these letters were sent out 24 hours after the complaint was received. He noted that he had not received any complaints from Mrs. Carson and, therefore, nothing can be done. He stated that in the C. C. & R. IS, the majority of the homeowners can make up the Architectural Control Review Board and that when the developers finish in the area, the owners will form and be on this Board. Commissioner Mullin requested to know if Mr. Richman would be willing to give up control of the aforementioned Board now. Mr. Richman responded by saying that when they completed the development, he would be willing to turn over control of the Board to the homeowners. After this discussion. Commissioner Teglia moved to table these two matters. This motion died for a lack of second. Mr. Richman noted that he would like to see the Parcel Map approved. Mr. Goren noted that he would like to see both of these matters continued as they are closely tied in with one another. Commissioner Mullin moved that UP-75-323 be continued until the meeting of January 13. 1976, to allow a response from the City Attorney on Deborah Carsonls lette~s~. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was pas s~d ... una n i nl9U slY. Commis~ioher Mull n moved PM-I22 be approved. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it failed by the following roll call vote: - 3495 - UP-75-323 & PM-122, contld December 9, 1975 AYES: Commissioners Bertucelli and Mullin and Chairman Hale NOES: Commissioners Goldberg, Mathewson and Teglia ABSTAINED: Vice-Chairman Slade ABSENT: None Commissioner Goldberg then moved that the original Tentative Parcel Map be given an extension of time until the end of February. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Then Vice-Chairman Slade moved that PM-122 be continued to the meeting of January 13 in order to be heard simultaneously with UP-75-323. Com- missioner Goldberg seconded the motion and it was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Slade, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Mathewson, Teglia and Chairman Hale NOES: Commissioner Mullin ABSENT: None UP-75-326 UP-75-326, a request of Guiseppe Cuneo for the construction of a produce market and rental warehouse on the west side of Old Mission Road between Evergreen Avenue and the Colma Town Limits. (Continued from November 25, 1975) Secretary Hale presented the staff report. He further read into the record an addendum to the staff report which is a revised joint recommendation of the Department of Public Services and the City Attorney pertaining to the future needs of Mission Road. City Engineer Yee gave the background and requirements for this roadway, indicating that in 1955 the Assessment Dis- trict was formed and the Planning Commission and City Council agreed that the width of this roadway should be 80 feet. Proponent: Mr. Louis Arata, representing the applicant 1 La Cruz Millbrae, CA 94030 Opponents: M. Schechtman, representing the dental building 1131 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA E. T. Howerton 1280 Mission Road South San Francisco, CA - 3496 - December 9, 1975 UP-75-326, contld Mr. Poletti, anadjo;oing owner, noted to the Commission that he was not willing to dedicate any portion of land for improvements of the roadway. He felt that the 10 foot sidewalk was totally ridiculous and that there was no need for parking on the west side of the building. He felrt Mission should be deleted-wrom the General Plan as a major arterial. Mr. Arata noted that Mr. Cuneo is very concerned about the costs involved if he would have to widen the road, which is something that he has done once already. Mr. Schechtman, representing the dental building at 1131 Mission Road, re- quested to have survey information to see/What percentage of their property would be taken. He noted that if any portion of the front of their property were removed, it mi ght affect the 'entryway to thei r property. Mr. E. T. Howerton expressed his concern with the addition of more businesses along Mission Road noting that safety for the school students would become a problem and stop lights or signs would be needed in that area. He noted that he was opposing the produce market. Mr. Embimbo, another representative of Mr. Cuneo, noted to the Commission that the value of the land the City wants dedicated would be more than the cost of putting up the building. Mr. Loujs Arata noted to the Commission that the land in question includes power poles which would have to be moved if this strip of land were dedi- cated to the City. He noted that they were moved once at the expense of PG&E but that to move them a second time would be at the applicant's expense. Commissioner Mullin requested to know if there were requirements for an arterial street in existence at the time the Assessment District was formed in 1955. He further asked when the 88 feet became effective. Secretary Hale said that he was not sure if there were requirements for an arterial street at that time but that there was a policy that the roadway should be 80 feet. He noted that the 88 feet became effective with the adoption of the Subdivision Ordinance in 1968. Commissioner Teglia requested to know the necessity of putting in a 10 foot sidewalk. City Engineer Yee stated that even though the area is zoned Unclassified, the use is commercial and there is a 10 foot sidewalk require- ment for a commercial area. Commissioner Teglia further asked if the City was going to widen all of Mission Road. Secretary Hale stated that it is City policy that this road be an arterial but that there is no proposal for improvements at present by the City. Commissioner Teglia then asked Mr. Yee if he knew PG&Els policy on moving power poles and the cost for doing same. He said that he would have to check with PG&E on the matter. Director of Public Services Addiego noted to the Commission that a full study of this area needed to be done including traffic flow, the width of the right-of-way and all existing conditions of this area and report back to the Commission by the second meeting in January. Commissioner Hale requested to know if this study would encompass the BART Station. Addiego replied that the possibility of a future r~pid transit station located in this area would be assumed as a part of this study. UP-75-326,cont'd December 9, 1975 Commissioner Mullin asked if after this study, an 88 foot right-of-way would still be recommended. Addiego replied that it would all have to be studied but that an 88 foot right-of-way was not very probable. I n response to Commi ss i oner l;,egl i a, Secreta ry Ha 1 e noted tha t the Com- mission had two alternate actions that could be taken. 1. The Commission could approve the application based on an 80 foot right-of-way with the question of improvements to be resolved at the conclusion of the study to be performed by the Engineering Division. 2. The Commission could defer action until the study has been completed. Commissioner Mathewson moved that Mission Road, as an arterial, be planned as an 80 foot right-of-way and that all other conditions con- tained in the staff report dated Des~mber 9,1975, are ~p")roved wi~h the question of improvements along ..... ..Missicon. Road to be c.eci ded at the conclusion of the special staff study. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Then Commtrssioner Mathewson moved that the City Engineer investigate the travel lane of Mission Road~' determine the requirements for safe traffic movements in, on and around the affected parcel and that said report shall be delivered back to the Planning Commission within 30 days for their consideration of the applicant's request for an exception to the Cityls roadway standards in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 7.01, of Ordinance No. 603. Commissioner Mullin seconded~ae motion and it was passed unanimously. The matter was continued to the January 27, 1976, meeting of the Planning Commission. UP-75-327 UP-75-327, a request of Joseph Haggarty for a signing program for his development on the northeast corner of Ca~~~n Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard. Secretary Hale presented the staff report and read into the record a letter from R. M. Solovierff, a resident of South San Francisco, request- ing approval of the application. Secretary Hale indicated that staff had met with the applicant and had discussed with him the guidelines recommended by the Architectural Committee. Based on these guidelines, Mr. Haggarty had agreed to develop the final plans for his signs and present them to the Commission. Proponents: Mr. Joseph Haggarty We~tborough Realty, Inc. 3545 Callan Boulevard, SSF Odd E. Haugen 2456 Rowntree Way, SSF December 9, 1975 UP-75-327, contld Proponents (contld): Paul Accinelli 231 Morton Drive Daly City, CA Carol Peterson 3850 Fairfax Way South San Francisco, CA Eileen Roach 2565 Bantry Lane South San Francisco, CA James Gahin 2415 Bantry Lane South San Francisco, CA 94080 Joe Mosqueda 2140 Greendale Drive South San Francisco, CA Opponents: Deborah Carson, President, Westborough Homeowners I Association 3820 Carter Drive (SEE CORRECTION IN MINUTES OF South San Francisco, CA JANUARY 13, 1976) Mr. Haggarty presented his drawings for the proposed signs, noting to the Commission that the freestanding sign would be 51 x 151 in area rather than the 50 square feet maximum recommended by the Architectural Committee. Mr. Haggarty noted to the Commission that the sign would have ivory back- ground and nonsheen letters for softening effect. There would also be three address and tenant signs, one in front of each of the three buildings. They would liketb~ Prudential sign to be illustrated over the doorway instead of on the ground. He noted that the Prudential sign would be lighted but would be turned off after the close of business. He further noted that each tenant will be identified by a small door sign. Deborah Carson, president of the Homeowners I Association, read into the record a letter she had written to the Commission requesting rejection of this application. She stated that this sign would be on a scenic corridor and should not be allowed. She further stated that she was basing her letter on the originally proposed larger sign. Odd Haugen noted to the Commission that he favored the approval of this signing program. Mr. Paul Accinelli noted that he favored the signing program and requested approval of the application. Carol Peterson, Eileen Roach, James Gahin and Joe Mosqueda all commented on the aesthetic value of the building and expressed their desire to have the signing program approved. Vern Bergess, Campbell, stated that the applicant needs the sign area but that they have cut down the size of the sign. UP-75-327, contld December 9, 1975 Commissioner Goldberg requested to know the setback from Westborough Boulevard to the wall of the building. Mr. Haggarty stated that from curb to sign is eight to ten feet and from the side of the sign to the wall of the building is another three feet. Commissioner Bertucelli moved that UP-75-327 be approved subject to the conditions of the staff report, with the following exceptions: 1. Condition l.a. be changed to read 1I0ne freestanding sign 51 x 151, with a height of 10 feet, illuminated, con- taining the copy IIWestborough Realty Center--Real Estate, Insurance, Loans.1I 2. Condition l.c. be deleted. Vi ce-Cha i rman Sl ade seconded the motion; and it was passed by the fo 11 owi ng roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Slade, Commissioners Bertucelli, GOldberg, Mathewson and Chairman Hale NOES: Commissioners Mullin and Teglia ABSENT: None COMMUN I CA TiIJONS Secretary Hale read into the record a letter from Robert Lawrence requesting that the Commission reconsider his application and petition for rezoning 527 and 531 Myrtle Avenue to R-2. Mr. John Penna, representing the appli- cant, felt they had additional cost input. Commissioner Teglia moved that this application be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. Commissioner Goldberg seconded the motion and it was denied by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Teglia NOES: Commissioners Mathewson and Mullin and Chairman Hale ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Slade Secretary Hale read into the record a letter from Edward Brincat.requesting that the Planning Commission initiate actions to amend the text of the Cityls Zoning Ordinance to allow a card room in the C-3 Heavy Commercial District with a Use Permit. Secretary Hale pointed out to the Commission three options: 1. The Commission could initiate the action to amend the Cityls Zoning Ordinance to allow card rooms in the C-3 Commercial Zone; with a Use Permit; Communications, cont1d December 9, 1975 2. The Commission could permitted in the City 3. The Commission could refer mine operating characteris brought back to the Commissi items 1 and 2 above. not want card rooms Francisco; to staff to deter- c~rd rooms to be for i decision as to Commissioner Mullin moved that staff s d meet with the Police Department to determine the operating characteri of card rooms and report back to the Commi ss i on by January 27, 1976. Commi ss i oner Mathewson secondedt.uhe motion and it was passed unanimously. Zoning Administrator Costanzo requested input from the Co~mission on the review process to be used for the installation of fireplaces and chimneys in the Westborough area. He noted that the Commission could request the property owner to file for a Use Permit but that this would be costly to the property owner when comparing the filing fees with the cost of installa- tion. He further noted that the Commission could direct the Architectural Committee to handle the review and approval process for these fireplaces and chimneys. The Commission agreed unanimously that the approval process for fireplaces and chimneys should be handled by the Architectural Committee. Commissioner Goldberg requested staff to make the revamping of the sign ordinance a priority item in staffls work schedule. There being nothing to be considered under Good and Welfare and no further communications or matters of interest to the Commission, Chairman Hale announced that the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on January 13, 1976, at 8:00 p.m. at West Orange Library Auditorium. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Homer V. Hale, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~"'''-2 ~ lei ~. L-~ ~. ... ~ .,........... - ,.,- "",... - David C. Hale, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NOTE: The entries of this Planning Commission meeting indicate the action taken by the Planning Commission to dispose of each item. Oral presentations, arguments, and documents are recorded on tape. The tapes are available in the Office of the City Planner. Documents related to ~he items dis- cussed are on file in the Offfce of the City Planner and are available for public inspection. ",..",