Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/10/1972 M NUT E S October 10~ 1972 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:20 p.m. DATE: October 10, 1972 PLACE: Council Ch.ambers, City Hall South_ San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gamma., Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson., Mullin, and Slade. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli 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 PREVIQUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1972 Commissioner Lazzari moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of September 25, 1972 be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma., Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade.. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Acting Chairman Gamma 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. - 3537 V-139 October 10> 1972 V-139> variance request of Edward W. Paulus to construct an industrial building within the required rear-yard setback of a parcel of land located on the easterly side of South Maple Avenue ". about 720' southerly of Victory Avenue, in the M-l-H District. Secretary Pass read the following report into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass. "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the 'findings' and action indicated in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report. "FINDINGS: 1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or buildings in the same district 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applic- ant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 4. The granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical difficulties, un- necessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The reaI''''yard requirements of the M-l--H District are designed to promote the establishment of alleys, wh.ere such establishment would be desirable and practicable. In the instant case, the establishment of an alley would be defini t ely neither desirab 1 e nor pract i cab 1 e. 7. Many similar variances have been granted by the Planning Commission. "CONDITIONS: "Th.e applicant shall comply with th.e submitted requirements of the City's officials., the standards and specifications administered by the Director of Ecological Development, and the subsequent requirements of the Planning Com- mission's Architectural Committee." - 3538 V-139 continued October 10, 1972 Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Neil Vannucci, A.I.B.D. 301 So. Spruce Avenue South San Francisco, CA. Agent of the applicant Opponents: None Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and approve V-139 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted require- ments of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli V-146 V-146, variance request of Mateo Investment Company to construct an industrial building within the required rear-yard setback of a building site located on the easterly side of San Mateo Avenue, about 95' northerly of Scott Street, in the M-2-H District. Secretary Pass read the following report and letter into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass The Office of the City Planner respectfully recommends that the Planning Com- mission adopt the 'findings v ,action, and conditions embodied in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report. "FINDINGS: 1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or buildings in the same district. 2 The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of theappJication will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the ap- plicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially deterimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 3539 - V-146 continued October 10, 1972 4. The granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The rear-yard requirements of the M-2-H District are designed to promote the establishment of alleys, where such establishment would be desirable and practicable. In the instant case, the establishment of an alley would not serve a substantial purpose. 7. Many similar variances have been granted to property owners in this municipality's industrial districts. "CONDITIONS: "The applicant shall comply with the submitted requirements of the City's officials, the standards and specifications administered by the Director of Ecological Development, and the subsequent requirements of the Planning Com- mission's Architectural Committee." Inter-Office Memorandum dated "Recommend that no building permit be issued until such time that the Fire Department has approved the water main fire protection system and the fire alarm protection system that is planned as a part of the development of the Trojan Industrial Park complex." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Neil Vannucci, A.I.B.D. 301 So. Spruce Avenue South San Francisco, CA. Agent of the applicant Opponents: None Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and approve V-146 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted require- ments of the City's reporting department heag.s. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli - 3540 V-147 October 10, 1972 V-l47, variance request of Ihdustrial Associates to construct an industrial building in the required rear yard of a building site located on the south- easterly side of West I-:larris Avenue, about 200' northeasterly of Mitchell Avenue, in the M-2-H District. Secretary Pass read the following report into the record. liThe Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the 'findings' embodied in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report, and grant the requested variance upon the condition that the applicant comply with the subsequent requirements of the Planning Commission's Architect- ural Committee. "FINDINGS: 1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or buildings in the same district. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation illld enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 4. The granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The 15' rear-yard requirement in the M-2 District is designed to en- courage the establishment of alleys, where such establishment would be desirable and practicable. In the instant case, the establishment of an alley along the rear property line of the subject building site would be neither desirable nor practicable. 7. Under the proposed 'Comprehensive Revampment to the Zoning OrdinanceJ1 the Planning Commission has recommended that the rear-yard requirement in the M-2 District regulations be deleted therefrom. 8. Several, similar variances have been granted by the Commission. References: V-62 (February 10, 1969); V-79 (March 23, 1970). "CONDITIONS: liThe applicant shall comply with the submitted requirements of the City I s officials, the standards and specifications administered by the Director of Ecological Development, and the subsequent requirements of the Planning Com- mission's Architectural Committee." - 354l - V-147 continued October 10, 1972 Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents. Proponents: Neil Vannucci, A.I.B.D. 301 So. Spruce Avenue South San Francisco, CA. Agent of the applicant Opponents: None Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report., and approve V-147 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lazzari and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade.. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli PM-I02 PM-l02, tentative parcel map of Bennett & Kahnweiler, representing the subdivi- sion of a 3.943 parcel of land, located at the southeasterly corner of East Grand Avenue and Kimball Way, in the M-2-H District, into three lots. Secretary Pass read the following report and letter into the record. Report and Recommendation of City Planner, Daniel M. Pass "The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the regulatory standards embodied in the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco. The said proposed subdivision would create three, small, but well-designed industrial parcels. Each parcel would accommodate a proposed industrial building and its off-street parking amenities. "The Planning Office therefore respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the submitted requirements of the City's officials, and the requirements imposed upon SA-2l, the tentative and final maps of the Bennett & Kahnweiler Industrial Subdivision." Inter-Office Memorandum dated September 29, 1972, from Leonard J. Pittz, Chief Building Inspector. "I have examined the tentative Parcel Map, PM-l02, being a resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 2, Bennett and Kahnweiler Industrial Subdivision,and recom- mend approval with the following corrections to be made on the final map: - 3542 - PM-l02 continued October 10., 1972 "I. Parcell as sh.own on the map should be changed to Lot 2, Parcel 2 to Lot 3, and Parcel 3 to Lot 4. "2. Final map shall be prepared on standard 18" x 26" sheet." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Hans R. Mulberg, Civil Engineer 948 Dolores Avenue Los Altos, CA. Agent of the applicant Opponents: None 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 Commissioner Hale and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade.. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli County of San Mateo's Proposed Acquisition of Four Parcels of Land Situated within the City of South San Francisco Secretary Pass read the following letter into the record. Letter dated September 27, 1972, from Robert E. Friday, Director of Property, Engineering and Road Department, County of San Mateo. liRE: PROPOSED ACQUISITION BY THE COUNTY OF TAX DELINQUENT PROPERTY WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Dear Mr. Pass: In accordance with the provisions of Division 1, Part 6, Chapter of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, the Board of Supervisors is pro- posing to acquire the following tax delinquent properties, located within the City of South San Francisco, for the uses as noted. ASSESSOR'S NO. 015-180-060 091-142-130 AREA PROPOSED USE 14.02$ AC Preservation of bay 1 ands or possible con- veyance to State 7.5 + AC Exchange for existing or future park and open space proj ects 23.82+ AC Exchange for existing or future park and open space proj ects 10.365+ AC Exchange for existing or future park and open space projects 3543 - 091-142-210 091-151-010 County of San Mateo's Proposed Acquisition (contfd) October 10, 1972 "Unless these parcels are redeemed the purchase will be consummated at the meeting of October 12, 1972. "No development projects are proposed for the parcels. For those parcels to be acquired for exchange purposes, ownership by the County will be of a cus- todial nature until exchanges can be arranged. "We are of the opinion that these acquisitions will have no substantial effect on the environment and therefore that environmental impact reports should not be necessary at this time. "Please bring these proposed acquisitions before your Planning Commission in order that it might find them in conformity with the City's general plan." Report and Recommendation of City Planner, ~aniel M. Pass. Recommendation "The Planning Office respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following findings, and instruct the Secretary to transmit notice of this adoption to Mr. Robert E. Friday, Director of Property of the County of San Mateo. "Findings: 1. Since the County of San Mateo does not propose to develop the territories in question during its 'custodial' freehold, the pro- posed acquisitions would not patently contravene the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco. 2. The County of San Mateo's proposed acquisition of the territories in question would tend to conserve and protect this municipality's open space, and would therefore be beneficial. I.! Acting Chairman Gamma then asked the Commission for a motion, that the Secretary send the following communication to Robert E. Friday, Director of Property, County of San Mateo, Redwood City. "The South San Francisco Planning Commission, meeting in regular session on Tuesday, October 10, 1972, considered your letter of September 27, 1972, and the County of San Mateo's proposed territorial acquisitions, described therein. "At the conclusion of the aforementioned consideration, the Commission adopted the following findings, and instructed the undersigned to transmit a copy there- of to your office. 1. Since the County of San Mateo does not propose to develop the territories in question during its 'custodial' freehold, the pro- posed acquisitions would not patently contravene the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco, 2, The County of San Mateo's proposed acquisition of the territories in question would tend to conserve and protect this municipality's open space, and would therefore be beneficial. "A copy of the City Planner's report on the sub j ect matter is transmitted herewi th for your information. Thank you for consulting the South San Francisco Planning Commission." _ ~ r::;L1L1 - County of San Mateo's Proposed Acquisition. (cont I d) October 10, 1972 Commissioner Hale moved that the communication be sent to Mr. Robert E Friday. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale.., Lazzari", Mathewson, Mullin, and Slade. NOES: None ABSENT: Chai rman Raf f ae 11 i POLICY STATEMENT Commissioner Hale moved that the following policy statement be adopted, to supersede the policy adopted by the Commission on Monday" September 25" 1972: liThe Planning Commission will require front yard landscaping in Planned Community and Planned Unit Developments to improve the order and general amenities of said developments and will there- fore require future site plans to show ]'andscaped areas which constitute part of a lot and require future development statements to set forth the percentage of each lot to be occupied by a struc- ture and the percentage to be open and/or landscaped." The motion failed to carry and Acting Chairman Gamma, with the concurrence of the Commission, ordered the matter to be held over and advertised for the Planning Commission J s regular meeting of October 24, 1972. GOOD AND WELFARE, 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, Acting Chairman Gamma announced that the next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on Tuesday.., Octoher 24, 1972, at 8:00 p.m. in the Basement Theatre of the Grand Avenue Library.., 440 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Donald Gamma, Acting ChaO rman Planning.. Commission City of South San Francisco Daniel M. Pass, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco sna/rm Note: Oral presentations, arguments and comments were recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the office of the City Planner. 3545 -