Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/23/1976 M I NUT E S of the/regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 P.M. DATE: NOVEMBER 23. 1976 PLACE: WEST ORANGE LIBRARY AUDITORIUM MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Hale, Mathewson, Mullin and Chairman Slade None Acting City Planner William Costanzo Assistant Planner Mark Wheeler Planning Division Secretary Pamela J. Bayer Acting Director of Public Services Robert Yee Firec/fyIarsha 1 Arthur Magui re MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 1976. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of November 9, 1976, be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bertuce'l; and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Mathewson and Chairman Slade NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Commissioners Hale and Mullin ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Slade announced that this meeting of the South San Francisco Plan- ning 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. - 3663 - November 23~ 1976 UP-76-360/SA-76-34 UP-76-360, a request of Eastside Associates for a Use Permit to construct 81 townhouse units on property located between Randolph and Hillside, east of Arden, in the R-3 Restricted Multiple Family Zone. SA-76-34, a request of Standard Building Company for a Subdivision Map to resubdivide 12 plus or minus acres into 81 lots on property at the same location and in the same zone as UP-76-360. These two agenda items were heard in conjunction with each other due to their close relationship. Secretary Costanzo explained the revisions to the original plans submitted, noting the addition of the fire road and the elimination of the proposed parking lot, noting also the reorientation of several buildings and sewe6 lines. He further noted the addition of Special Condition #20 as follows: #20: That in the case of lots 77 & 78, the requirements of Conditions #1 and #2 may be satisfied by the introduction of a sideyard area of at least 375 square feet of private open yard area, said yard area to be at least 15 feet by 25 feet in minimum dimensions. ~1r. Andrew Kresci, architect for Eastside Associates, explaiYled-<a rendering presented to the Commission, noting that it showed a conceptual compliance with the conditions imposed on the proposed development. Mr. Robert Pauley, representing Eastside Associates, noted several changes they would like to see with several of the conditions. He noted that Special Condition #9, relating to off-street guest parking, had been resolved. He suggested that in lieu of the 15 gallon trees noted in Special Condition #11, that they install two five gallon trees because the smaller trees seemed to grow faster and to be more stable. He further noted that in Special Condition #12, Parcel numbers 90 and 98 should read Parcel numbers 1 and 2. He noted that stone or brick instead of solid masonry walls in Special Condition #13 would be more desirable to him because he felt solid masonry walls looked like institutional walls. He questioned the legality of setting up a maintenance district for the maintenance of publically dedicated areas, such as streets and sewers. He further questioned Standard Conditions #10 and #18 relating to landscaping strips8and maintenance of public areas. Secretary Costanzo commented on the points brought up. He noted that Special Condition #9 is necessary to assure meeting the parking needs in the area. Regarding Condition #11, he stated that the Architectural Committee was the governing body on trees and landscaping and that their policy has been to require a minimum of 15 gallon tree sizes, but that they may consider the fact that five gallon trees would be sufficient. He further noted that possibly five gallon trees would be more adaptable given our existing weather conditions. He noted in regard to condition #13 that a wooden wall might require higher maintenance, but that the wording of this condition could be changed to include the wording IIdecorative wood or stone or brick, as well as the solid masonry track boundary wall.1I - 3664 - UP-76-360jSA-76-34, cont'd November 23t 1976 Regarding Condition #15, Secretary Costanzo noted that the wording of this condition could include the words "subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of this requirement." Regard- ing Standard Condition #10, he noted that this condition would only apply in the case of the enforcement of Conditions #7 and #8 requiring a parking lot where the parking abuts directly onto a street, where screen planting is required to hide vehicle headlights. If the parking requirements are waived, so can condition #10 be waived. Secretary Costanzo further noted that Special Condition #18 could be waived in that there will be a homeowners' association. Commissioner Mathewson questioned the necessity of sprinklering the rocky hillside. Secretary Costanzo explained that the applicant is proposing to landscape those areas and that those areas should be maintained for a year or so until the landscaping takes hold and the trees and shrubs in the area should be maintained, especially during the summer months, there- fore, a temporary sprinkler system is required, followed up by an inspection. Commissioner Mathewson asked what the intended selling price would be. Mr. Pauley noted $55,000 to $60,000 per unit. Commissioner Mullin asked for input from the Fire Department. Fire Marshal Maguire said that the developers have cooperated all along the way in pro- viding fire access. He explained the requirements of water flow and the placement of the fire hydrants and noted that they would need plans showing the location of the hydrants and proof that the water flow req~ired could be provided. He noted that tests run on the water flow capacity for that area showed that the fire flow was well below what would be required, which led the Fire Department to believe that the required fire flow is not available in the area. He noted that the developers might have to come up with a means for obtaining additional water. He noted that the developer is aware of this and that they will have to provide demonstrated proof that this can be done. Mr. Jim Rowell, engineer for Eastside Associates, noted that the water flow is up to California Water Service, and that it is his understanding that their engineers were working on a design system. He noted that the lines are very bad and that a much larger, more adequate line is needed to supply fire flow. He noted that it will take California Water Service six to 10 weeks before a design can be provided, but that they are hopeful. Commissioner Teglia requested to know if the C.C.& R. 's would have provisions in them relating to the colors for the exterior treatment of the buildings. Secretary Costanzo noted that there should be C.C.& R. 's and that that kind of protection has to be built into the project. He noted that the City would require these protections to be built into the C.C.& R. IS. City Engineer Yee noted to the Commission the four amendments to his pre- viously submitted conditions. 1. He noted that there needs to be sidewalks on View Court. 2. He noted that the subdivider should obtain a right-of-way easement from the gas station in order to be able to en- croach into that land. He further stated that if a curb and sidewalk could be worked out, then he would go this route. - 3665 - UP-76-360jSA-76-34, cont1d November 23, 1976 3. He noted that the center sewer trunk line should connect with the eight inch line instead of the six inch line, and that the sewer line between Buzz Court and Bocci Avenue should be encased with concrete. 4. That the original map shows the storm drain line extended to Buzz Court and this should be done. Further that the storm drain system should be extended to pick up the slope area. Mr. Rowley noted that he had some questions with the City Engineer's condi- tions, namely #8, #9 under Streets, and #2 under Sanitary Sewers. He noted that #9 has been solved with the encasement of the sewers. In relation to #8, he noted there should be some allowances for street integration. City Engineer Yee stated that as long as the street grade does not exceed 12 percent, he would be satisfied. Mr. Pauley noted some concerns with street drainage and guttering off the slope area. City Engineer Yee stated that he did not see this as a problem and that it could be resolved. Secretary Costanzo noted that there should be some discussion of signaliza- tion of Hillside and Bocci. Mr. Pauley noted that they already have about $200,000 into the project and that the signalization would add another $50,000 which would add to the cost of the unit upon sale. He noted that the additional traffic would not be that great from these units and that they should not be penalized by having to solve the problems of an already congested area. He noted that they would be willing to share in that cost but would not be willing to pay for the entire signalization. He did note, however, upon being questioned by Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Slade, that he would be willing to fight this issue with the City Council and would accept Planning Commission approval with that condition intact. Commissioner Goldberg noted that Mr. Pauley would be creating the need for the signal by creating the intersection of Bocci and Hillside and he felt this cost should be absorbed by the developer rather than passing it on to the homeowner, but that there possibly should be a share method developed for this signali- zation. Chairman Slade agreed and noted that he felt the developer should not have to bear the entire cost for this signalization. Commissioner Mathewson moved that UP-76-360 be approved subject to the con- ditions of the staff report with the above noted changes. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Commissioner Mathewson then moved that SA-76-34 be approved subject to all of the conditions of the staff report. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. - 3666 - November 23~ 1976 UP-76-364/SA-76-~~6 UP-76-364, a request of Bud Fratessa (Stewart Title) to construct 48 resi- dential units in 12 buildings on vacant property located on the west side of Stonegate Drive, approximately 1000 feet south of Hillside Avenue, in the Planned Community Zone District. SA-76-36, a request of Stonegate Ridge Properties and E. G. Coopman to create 48,>air space condominium units on property located on the west side of Stonegate Drive, approximately 1000 feet south of Hillside Avenue in the Planned Community Zone District. These two items were heard simultaneously because of their close relation- ship. Secretary Costanzo presented the staff report, noting that the land across Stonegate Drive must be included in this application because it is part of Phase 8, and if it were not inclUded, then the land coverage would exceed 50 percent. He noted that because these plans are not in compliance with the Master Plan for Stonegate Ridge, the applicant must obtain consent to modification of the Stonegate Plan. He noted that the Master Plan was con- ceptually approved in the 19601s, but with the actual development occurring in the 1970's, it is necessary to make revisions to the plan. He noted that he would like to change his recommendation that this matter be tabled to a continuation on this matter to December 14, 1976, Planning Commission meeting, provided that the applicant has submitted his revised drawings by December 1, 1976. If the drawings are not submitted by that date, then the hearing would be scheduled for the first meeting in January. Mr. Frank Aitken, Civil Engineer for the pGoject, noted that they would provide the necessary play areas for children and will revise the parking areas. He noted that the property across Stonegate would be included. He further noted that the roof gardens and the tandem parking in the one parking lot will be omitted and all parking will be screened. Commissioner Mathewson noted that the original plan showed a considerable change from the plans submitted and that the homeowners in the area might protest. Secretary Costanzo noted that the concerns of the homeowners can be addressed at the public hearing and that this type of development would produce a type of ownership that would be more homogeneous with the area. He further noted that the original studio units and one-bedroom units would generate a more transient traffic and would invite a less desirable environment. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would like the City Attorney's opinion on the deviation from the original plan. Commissioner Bertucelli moved that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1976. Commissioner Goldberg seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Commissioner Bertucelli moved that SA-76-36 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1976. Commiss4oner Goldberg seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. - 3667 - November 23~ 1976 PM-76-137 PM-76-137s a request of Charles Petrocchi for a Tentative Parcel Map to adjust the lot line to conform with the location of the buildings on the property located at the southwest corner of Miller and Spruce Avenues in the R-3 Restricte.a ~1ultiple Family Zone District. Secretary Costanzo presented the staff reports illustrating the lot line adjustment and the necessity for the adjustment. He noted that the sale of the corner house to a third party facilitates this lot line adjustment. He noted that the two lots would be substandard, but he felt this would not be significant in that both a variance and a use permit had created the situation in the mid 1950's. Further, he read into the record the Special Conditions. Proponent: Charles Petrocchi, representing the owner 1010 El Camino Real South San Francisco, CA Chairman Slade asked if lot 38 and the unnumbered parcel were part of this application. Secretary Costanzo noted that they were not a part of this application. There was some discussion on the importance of the wording of the condi- tion relating to a three foot setback from the new lot line to the building on parcels A and B. Commissioner Bertucelli asked Mr. Petrocchi if he had the six feet that are required. He said that he did. Commissioner Hale asked if the houses faced on Spruce and if the garage access is off of Miller. Mr. Petrocchi noted that the houses face on Spruce and the garage access is off of Miller Avenue. Commissioner Goldberg asked if there could be a restriction inserted that there not be a fence ever built between these two proposed lots. Secretary Costanzo noted that there is a fence already existing which is three feet high. He noted that the setback is imposed to prevent any obstructions in the area which would hamper the Fire Department. He noted that any kind of fence would not hamper them, in that they would go through it or over it. He noted that the three foot existing fence could easily be jumped. Commissioner Mathewson asked if the three foot setback requirement for Parcels A and B could be a matter of deed recordation. Secretary Costanzo noted that this cannot be done in the deed restriction, but that they can ask that the owner show a six foot easement through this area for fire access purposes. Fire Marshal Maguire noted that if a fire access easement would facilitate maintaining that fire department access, he could make such a recommendation. He further noted that this could be maintained through Fire Department inspections and if in the future an application is made to make a change, it would be caught by the Building Division. Commissioner Hale moved that PM-76-137 be approved subject to all of the conditions of the staff report. Vice-Chairman Teglia seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. - 3668 - November 23, 1976 COMMUNICATIONS Director of Parks and Recreation Milkovich handed the Commission an Exhibit "A" on the Feasibility Study for the Oyster Point Marina, explaining that this report was only to give the Commission some background on the project for the joint meeting coming up with the Planning Commission, City Council, and Parks and Recreation Commission on December 8, 1971. He noted that they had met with BCDC and that the project has been basically approved by them. He noted that at the meeting on December 8, there would be a com- plete explanation of the project, but that copies of the Feasibility Study would be available for the Commission to borrow prior to that meeting date. Commissioner Teglia noted that the figures on Exhibit "A" differ from the feasibility study and she asked if staff would be prepared to justify these figure changes. Mr. Milkovich noted that these figures would be discussed at the December 8 meeting and noted that these figures are an update and that the entire project has been enlarged upon. Vice-Chairman Teglia requested to know who the author is of Exhri;bit "A". Mr. f'~ilkovich noted that this was a result of DmJm, Williams and Kubbelback and City staff. Secretary Costanzo presented a memo discussing DP-76-1l2 which was an application for a mini-warehouse complex that had gone before the Archi- tectural Committee. He noted that the Archite'cxural Committee did not have any problems with this project, but felt, because of the large size of the project, that the Planning Commission should review and approve it. There was some discussion on the fact that the billboards would have to be removed in order to construct the buildings. Secretary Costanzo explained that if they wished continued use of the billboards in new locations, they would have to apply for a Use Permit. Commissioner Goldberg requested to know if the Southern Pacific Railroad and the State of California owned the land. Secretary Costanzo said that this was correct. He further noted that a building permit would not be issued until the billboard situation had been resolved. Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Neal Vanucci, representative of the lessee, if it would be a problem for him to remove those signs and replace them at a later date. He said that would be no problem, and that the lessee would have to cOllle'back to the Commission for approval of the signs before they could be reconstructed. Commissioner Mathewson asked about on-street parking for storage vehicles. Secretary Costanzo noted that there is an area for this on the highway side and that will be landscaped also. He noted that the parking area for boats and campers would be paved, but that there is a 12 inch water line at that location which is proposed to be dug up and replaced with a larger line. Consequently, the applicant would wait to pave until after this is done. Secretary Costanzo further advised the Commission that the Architec- tural Committee recommended that the applicant try to obtain an egressaricf ingress access easement from the Southern Pacific Railroad. - 3669 - Communications, cont1d November 23, 1976 Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Vanucci what his experience has been with traffic on this type of project. Mr. Vanucci said the amount of traffic generated is very low because the vehicle owners do not visit the storage yard area very often. Commissioner Goldberg requested to know if there would be a watchman for security purposes. Mr. Vanucci noted that there will be an office manager and a maintenance man for general cleaning up. He further noted that the complex would be closed in the evening and that there will be a full-time watchman and guard dog and that there will be a gate across the road. Commissioner Mullin asked Mr. Vanucci if he were involved in the mini-ware- houses in San Carlos. He said that he was not. Commissioner Goldberg moved that DP-76-1l2 be approved subject to the re- qu i rements of the Archi tectura 1 Commi ttee and any otherl.perti nent Ci ty departments. Commissioner Mullin seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Mention was made of the Kaiser Master Plan report by Secretary Costanzo, noting that it was only for the Commission1s review. Secretary Costanzo no~ed that the responses for the Gellert Boulevard Exten- sion EIR were provided to the Commission only for reading purposes before the next Planning Commission meeting at which time the item was scheduled. There being nothing to consider under Good and Welfare and no *ther communi- cations or matters of interest for the Commission, Chairman Slade announced that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be December 7, 1976, held jointly with the City Council, at 7:30 p.m. at the West Orange Library Auditorium. The ffi~eting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Wesley Slade, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco a Secretary Planning Commi on City of South San Francisco NOTE: The entries of this Planning Commission meeting indicate the action taken 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 the items discussed are on file in the office of the City Planner and are available for public inspection. - 3670 -