Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/25/1972 M I NUT E September 25, 1972 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 p.m. DATE: September 25, 1972 PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall South San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Jr., Mullin, Slade, and Chairman Raffaelli MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M. Pass Assistant Planner William A. Timmons Planning Aide Surendra N. Amin MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 1972 Commissioner Mullin moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of September 11, 1972 be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson, Jr. and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Jr., Mullin, Slade and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSENT: None ANNOUNCE~~NT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Raffaelli 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 in order to be heard, but objected to having his voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he is speaking or is heard. - 3527 - UP-234 September 25, 1972 UP-234, use-permit request of Damien House to continue the operation of a drop-in center without the provision of the off-street parking required therefor, at No. 983 Linden Avenue, in the C-3 District. Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass. "The Office of the City Planner respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the 'findings' and action indicated in the attached, tentative Official Action Report. "FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, operation or the use of the build- ing or lands for which the permit is sought will, under the circumstan- ces of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area of such proposed use, and will be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 2. The approval of requested use permit would not meet the requirements of Section 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The required eighteen off-street parking spaces for Damien House's five residential-staff members, and 40 non-residential participants is not excessive. 4. The Planning Commission has consistently required off-street parking for private land uses, public land uses, schools, municipal facilities, and churches. 5. The granting of the instant use-permit request would be tantamount to the granting of a special privilege, and would therefore endanger this municipality I s comprehensive off-street parking program." Inter-Office Memorandum, dated September 14, 1972, from Paul Ziemer, Permit and License Officer, from Police Department. "This Department would still request that the off-street parking required under UP-l66 be a stipulation of the permit for Damien House. Due to the high potential for accidents in this heavily travelled area, we would like to keep as many parked vehicles off the street as possible. This street is posted in the 900 block no parking 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. for the southbound lanes. We have several times in the past had to either tow vehicles parked across from the Damien House or contact them to move the vehicles in the a.m. hours to allow the free flow of the morning commute traffic. This area receives a heavy flow of traffic from about 7 a.m. and continuing into the evening hours. We would concur with the findings of the Planning Division mentioned on page #2 sections 1, 2 3, 4, and 5 of the South San Francisco Planning Commission Official Action Report USE permit request.1I __ 'ZC::')Q _ SECOND REVISION - Page 3529 MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting UP-234 continued September 25, 1972 Inter-Office Memorandum, dated September 15, 1972~ from Jack Ehle, Jr., Acting Fire Chief. "Damien House has met all of the mlnlmum requirements of the fire department as to hazards inside the building. Although these requirements have been met, another existing problem has not been solved, that of on-street parking. We must have assurance that no congestion in this area occurs, as we must have free flow of traffic at all times to service this lower end of Linden Avenue." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Michael K. Cowan, Executive Director Damien House, 983 Linden Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 The Applicant Opponents: None After considerable discussion on off-street parking~ Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and deny UP-234. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and failed to pass by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Mathewson, Mullin and Slade. ABSENT: None Whereas, the motion to deny UP-234 failed passage, Chairman Raffaelli ordered the instant request of Damien House to stand approved. PM-96 PM-96, tentative parcel map of the Division Warehouse Company., representing the rearrangement of two, adjoining industrial lots, located on the southerly side of Forbes Boulevard, about 190' easterly of the projection of Eccles Avenue, and next to No. 400 Forbes Boulevard, in the M-2-H District. (Continued from the meeting of August 28, 1972) Secretary Pass read the following letter into the record. Letter dated September 25, 1972, from Louis A. Arata, Civil Engineer. "As discussed last week, it is desired that no action be taken at this time on subjective tentative parcel map and I hereby request that this item be withheld for action until the planning commission meeting of November 27, 1972." - 3529 - PM-96 continued September 25, 1972 The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the hearing be postponed until November 27, 1972, as requested by the agent. PM-lOO PM-lOO, tentative parcel map of Westborough Hills No.8, representing the resubdivision of 28 lots, located on the northerly side of Rowntree Way, and on the westerly side of Annapolis Court, in the Westborough- West Park No.3 Planned Community District, into a 56-unit condominium project. Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass. "Proposed Condominium Project No.8, a resubdivision of 28 lots in Block 11 of Westborough-West Park No. 3E, meets the require- ments of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the regulations and standards embodied in the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco. The said project would be congruous with the General Development Plan of the Westborough-West Park No 3 Planned Community District, as amended, and the Site. Plan of Planned Unit Development ilK," as approved by the Planning Com- mission on June 26,1972 (UP-225). "The Office of the City Planner therefore respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the sub- mitted requirements of the City's officials." Inter-Office Memorandum dated September 14, 1972, from Leonard J. Pittz, Chief Building Inspector. "I have examined the tentative Parcel Map PM-lOO being a resubdivi- sion of Lots l3 through 40, Block 11, Westborough-West Park No. 3E and recommend its approval with the following corrections to be made on the final map. / 1. The title should read as being a resubdivision of Lots 13 through 40, Block 11, Westborough-West Park Unit 3E instead of Unit No. 8E as shown. 2. The parcel containing former Lots 19 through 28, shown as Lot 42 should be numbered Lot 45 as Lot 42 was assigned to a parcel in the previous Condominium Project No.7. 3. The parcel containing former Lots 29 through 40, shown as Lot 43, should be numbered Lot 46 for the same reason as stated in No. 2 above," - 3530 - PM-lOO continued September 25, 1972 Report received on September 21, 1972 from R. David Martin, Chairman, Airport Land Use Committee. "The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) has re- viewed the proposed development referenced above. The Noise Exposure Forecast here is within the 30-35 NEF range from aircraft operations and the evaluation criteria developed under the ABAG Regional Airport Systems Study indicates new construction or de- velopment should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise re- duction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. It is recommended that these suggestions be made a basic requirement of this development by the local juris- diction. "If we can provide further information, please contact Eugene Masciarelli, of theALUC staff in the County Planning Commission office, 369-1441, extension 4l6l." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Henry Richman 3655 Georgetown Court South San Francisco, California 94080 The applicant Opponents: None Considerable discussion ensued regarding the noise reduction requirements by the Airport Land Use Committee. Although reluctant, Mr. Richman volun- tarily agreed to contact the A.L.U.C. staff, in the County Planning Commis- sion office in Redwood City. At the conclusion of the consideration, Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion. Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the requirements as set forth by the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gamma and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mullin, Slade and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: Commissioner Mathewson, Jr. ABSENT: None - 3531 - PM-lOl September 25, 1972 PM-I01, tentative parcel map of Mark Sena1di, representing the rearrange- ment of three adjoining lots, located on the northerly side of Rocca Avenue, about 250' northeasterly of Park Way, in the "R-l" District. Secretary Pass read the following report into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass. "The proposed resubdivision meets the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the standards and regulations embodied in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances of the City of South San Francisco. Said resubdivision would rectify the Lot 5 garage's encroachment onto Lot 4, and increase the buildable width of the latter building site. YlIn light of the above factors, the Planning Office respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission approve the instant tenta- tive map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the submitted requirements of the City's officials." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Mark Senaldi 261 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 The appl icant Opponents: None Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the requirements as set forth by the City's reporting depart- ment heads. The motion was seconded by COlnmissioner Lazzari and was passed unanimously. Planning Commission's Review of Project Plans The South San Francisco Planning Commission's review of the three-dimensional spatial relationships, amenities, and aesthetic qualities of Planned Unit Development "K," located on Westchester Court, at Radburn Drive, and on Geddes Court, in the Westborough-West Park No.3 Planned Community District. (Continued from the Planning Commission I s meeting of September 11, 1972.) Secretary Pass read the following analysis and letter into the record. Urban Planning Ana1ysis-80, dated September 20, 1972 Required Landscaping of the Front Yards of Townhouses in Planned Unit Developments "Several members of the South San Francisco Planning Commission recently expressed much concern over the poor quality of the landscaping in many - 3532 - Planning Commission's Review continued September 25, 1972 "of the front yards of the townhouses in the planned unit developments of the Westborough-West Park #3 Planned Community District and the general lack-luster character of the maintenance therein. These com- missioners attribute the state of the landscaping in West Park #3 (Greendale Neighborhood) to the developer's failure to include front- yard landscaping in its standard sales package. "The Office of the City Planner supports the shift of the landscaping burden from the townhouse purchaser to the planned unit developer. The townhouse planned unit development is a cluster-garden concept, and there- fore, unlike the single-family dwelling subdivision of standard design, requires that speci a1 emphas es be pl aced upon the order, ba1 ance , harmony, uniformity, and consonancy of its edifices, commons, and private yards. As long as the individual property owner is charged with the responsibility of landscaping the front yard of his townhouse, this municipality cannot be assured that the aforementioned emphases will be applied to the comprehen- sive landscaping of a given planned unit development. However, where the responsibility of onsite landscaping rests with the developer, the qualita- tive standards of the Architectural Committee would be applicable and con- trolling. "The following survey indicates that several, well-planned cities require developers of townhouse clusters to landscape the front yards therein. A Survey of Seven Cities, and Their Landscaping Policies Pertaining to the Front Yards of Townhouse Lots City No. of Townhouse PUD'S Is Developer Required to Install Front-Yard Landscaping? 1. Fremont 2. Los Gatos 3. Mountain View 4. Novato 5. Redwood City 6. San Leandro 7. Sunnyvale 10 6 75 3 3 2 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes " Inter-Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1972, from John Noonan, City Attorney. "The referenced analysis discusses the desirability of having the developer include front-yard landscaping and advises regarding the status of such a requirement in seven cities. The question raised is whether the City's planned community and planned unit ordinance authorizes such a requirement. It is my opinion that the Planning Commission may require the inclusion of front-yard landscaping for lots in planned unit developments when the Commission is considering the application for the planned unit. Ordinance 490 in setting the requirements of a site or plot plan states in one part as follows: 'Landscaped and open areas which constitute part of a lot, or are adjacent to the lot, or are reserved as open green areas for the benefit of the district or section. ,. (Section 4. 24b-2 -0) . In addition, the provisions for the general development statement provide as - 3533 Planning Commission's Reyiew continued September 25, 1972 "follows: 'The percentage of each lot to be occupied by a structure and the percentage to be open and/or landscaped. Y (Section 4.24b-4-I) If a planned unit development has already been approved without provision for front-yard landscaping, the Planning Commission may not require the front-yard landscaping without consent of the developer." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Henry Richrnan 3655 Georgetown Court South San Francisco, California 94080 Ray Greer AVCO Community Developers, Inc. 1177 Saratoga, Sunnyvale Road San Jose, California 95129 The Agent All Planning Commissioners mentioned they visited the Westborough-West Park Unit No.3 development, as discussed in the meeting of September 11, 1972, and were not delighted with the front-yard landscaping, except for a few houses. Mr. Richman mentioned that F.H.A. does not allow a mortgage on yard lands- caping. Mr. Ray Greer of AVCO Community Developers, Inc commented that he worked on PUD in the East Bay area, but those PUD's were of apartment complex type where front yard and common greens are managed by Housing Association. All Commissioners felt that developers could do a better front-yard lands- caping job than individual home owners. At the conclusion of this review, the Commission adopted the following policy, and instructed the Secretary to the Planning Commission to transmit notice thereof to the members of the Architectural Committee of the City of South San Francisco. POLICY STATEMENT The developer of Planned Unit Development ilK," in the Westborough- West Park No.3 Planned Community District, shall landscape the front yards of the townhouses constituent thereto, in order to improve the order and general amenity of the said Planned Unit Development "K," the Greendale Neighborhood, and the Westborough community-at-large. Commissioner Mathewson, Jr. moved that the Planning Commission adopt the above policy statement. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gamma and was passed by the following roll call vote: - 3534 - Planning Commission's Review continued (Roll call vote on Policy Statement:) September 25, 1972 AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Mathewson, Jr., Slade, and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: Commissioners Lazzari and Mullin ABSENT: None At 9:50 p.m. Chairman Raffaelli recessed the meeting to an executive session, regarding a report of the Public Safety Capital Improvement Committee EXECUTIVE SESSION Report of the Public Safety Capital Improvement Committee The South San Francisco Planning Commission, meeting in executive session on Monday, September 25.) 1972, considered the "Matter of the Siting of the Pro- posed Police Facility." At the conclusion of this consideration, the Commission adopted the following findings, and instructed the Secretary to transmit such to the Honorable City Council. FINDINGS "1. The site of the police facility proposed by the Public Safety Capital Improvement Committee is, to some extent, supportable urban-planning wise. However, the location of the police facility on the subject site will require the amendment of the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco." "2 The Planning Commission will sit as an uncommitted, quasi-judicial body during the public hearing on the said amendment," Commissioner Mullin moved that the Planning Commission adopt the above findings and instruct its Secretary to transmit such to the Honorable City Council The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gamma and passed unanimous ly . Chairman Raffaelli reconvened the Planning Commission in regular meeting at 11:52 p.m. 3535 - September 25, 1972 GOOD OTHER AND COMMUNICATIONS. There being nothing further to be considered under Good and Welfare, and there being no further communications or other matters of interest for the Planning Commission, Chairman Raffaelli announced that the next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on Tuesday, October 10,1972 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, California. The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m. Daniel M.Pass, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Mario Raffael ,Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco sna/rm Not e : tape. Oral presentations, arguments and comments were recorded on The tape is on file in the office of the City Planner. - 3536