Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/11/1973 M I NUT E S September 11, 1973 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 p.m. DATE: September 11, 1973 PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall S<huth San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli, Slade, and Chairman Mullin MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mathewson ALSO PRESENT: Acting City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission Neal J. Martin Acting Assistant Planner Surendra N. Amin MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 28, 1973 Commissioner Lazzari moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of August 28, 1973 be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slade and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Slade and Chairman Mullin NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mathewson ABSTAINING: Commissioner Raffaelli ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING O~airman r~ullin 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 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. - 3204 - UP-2S2 September 11, 1973 UP-2S2, a use permit request of Prank P. Borja to allow the construction of lli1 entrance door and a roof to cover the entrance walkway and area between the garage and main building at 2249 Greendale Drive, in the PC District Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planne~ Neal J. Martin "The applicant is requesting approval of a use permit to construct an enclosure over the entrance of an existing townhouse. The structure would be located along the side of the detached garage and between the garage and the main building, as indicated on the enclosed sketch. Part of the structure, which will run parallel with the garage, will use the existing 5 foot fence and extend the fence to a height of 10' 1 1/2". The roof of the proposed structure will consist of plastic sheeting. The proposed project is located within a Planned Community District. The purpose of the district is to regulat design standards as deter- mined during the initial development of this area. Approval of the use permit would contradict the purpose of the Planned Community District, and most likely set a pattern for future use permits that auld also deviate from the original design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny approval of the application for use permit." Interoffice Memorandum, dated August 23, 1973, from Fire Marshal Fox "We object to the issuance of this permit for the following reasons: It does not permit us to ladder the building and prohibits access to the building for fire fighting and rescue operations." Names and addresses of Pro~onents and Opponents Proponents: Frank F. Borj a 2249 Greendale Drive South San Francisco, the applicant Opponents: None After some discussion Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings as set forth in the Staff Report, and recommendations as submitted by the City's reporting department heads and deny the requested UP-252; seconded by Commissioner Raffaelli. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Mullin declared the motion for denial of the request passed and informed the applicant of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, if he wished to do so, within 10 days hereafter. His appeal should then be filed with the City Clerk in order to have a second hearing set before the City Council. - 3205 - UP-253 September 11, 1973 UP-253, a use-permit request of Eureka Federal to allow installation of an illuminated, appurtenant sign having 45 sq. ft. in the new Chestnut shopping plaza, in the C-l District. The proposed sign would be freestanding. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin "ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a use permit to install an illuminated, appurtenant sign having 45 sq. ft. in the new shopping plaza on Chestnut Avenue, in the C-l District. The proposed sign would be free standing and would be located at the corner of the property. The sign has been before the Architectural Committee for preliminary review and is acceptable to the committee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the applicant shall comply with the submitted requirements of the City's department and division heads, and the subsequent requirements of the Planning Commission's Architectural Committee~ The requested pole sign is located within the property line and complies with the City's Sign Ordinance require- ments. The total sign area for Eureka Federal will not exceed the proportionate amount of square footage allowed for the building which Eureka Federal will occupy." Interoffice Memorandum, dated September 4, 1973, from Chief Building Inspector Roy R. Ghilardi "Reviewed application on free standing sign and noted that location of said sign as per attached plot plan shows proposed sign located within the Chestnut right of way. Property line is four feet (4') from existing sidewalk and supports for proposed free standing sign should maintain this minimum distance." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: peter Homes, Representative of Eureka Federal 4610 Mission Street, San Francisco Opponen ts : None Mr. Robert Volosing, 2228 Kenry Way, stated that he would prefer a sign on the building rather than the freestanding sign. Chairman Mullin also expressed his concern regarding signs in the City of South San Francisco, and stated that a review of the Sign Ordinance is needed. Commissioner Lazzari moyed that tfre pla,nl1ing, Commi$sio}1 adopt the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff Report, and approve UP-2S3 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed unanimously - 3206 - V-167 September 11", 1973 V,"",167~ i:l vari.ance ;request of Gene Freeman to permit three carports instead of five garages for a five-unit group of dwellings in the R-3 District. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin. "The applicant is requesting approval of a variance which would permit a three-car carport in lieu of the required five-car garage for a five- unit group of dwellings in a R-3 District. There are several important points that should be noted in order to create an accurate understanding of the problems regarding this application for a variance. 1) in 1957 a use permit was granted for a second unit at the rear of the property. A two-car garage was provided. Prior to that date the si te was occupied by one single family dwelling. 2) In 1959 an application was filed for construction of an additional J third unit. A variance was required since the addition required a third parking space. The Zoning Ordinance at that time required 8'width per parking space. But only 20' witClth existed for the three parking spaces J therefore a variance for a side yard setback of l' from the required 5' setback was requested. The variance was granted, and the carport was extended up to the required 24' width. 3) At present there are five units existing. Two more units were created without any building permit. 4) Recently the front four of the five units were severly damaged by fire. The extent of the damage required the Building Inspector to rule that the entire building and site improvements must conform to current City Ordinances. 5) Current regulations requires 9' per parking space. The applicant plans to reconstruct the four damaged units, therefore he is required to provide one parking space per unit, (tetall1ing 5 parking spaces) at99 , per space. The applicant is requestingl a variance fO'.:f2' three instead of five parking spaces. In fact, in practice only two parking spaces are possible in a 24' width. It is impossible to impose on a tenant a requirement to buy smaller cars. 6) At present two cars per family is not unusual. Granting of this variance would force most of the residents to park on Grand Avenue. RECO~NDATION: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find: 1) That there are exceptional circumstances relating to the physical aspects of the property. 2) The variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights. 3} The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. -. 3207 - V-167 Continued September 11, 1973 "In this particular case the first two findings could be made. However, since reduction in the available parking space requires tenants to park on the street or in the alley~ the variance would adversely affect the safety and convenience of others living in the nei~lborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance." Interoffice memorandum, dated August 28, 1973, from Lt. E. Scanzio of the Police Department "This department feels that carports are inadequate, and recommend the required five car garage with doors." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Gene Freeman 246 Dundee Drive, SSF the applicant Opponents: Mrs. Irene Baglyos 529 Grand Avenue, SSF Mr. Baglyos 529 Grand Avenue, SSF Mrs. Baglyos presented a petition signed by 60 residents opposing granting the requested variance. The petition read as follows: "I wish to protest the granting of a variance as posted on the building known as 528 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. for owner/applicant Mr. Gene Freeman." After some discussion Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commis- sion continue the hearing to the next regular meeting to be held September 25, 1973, in order that the applicant can work out a solution with the Planning Division. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and w~s passed unanimously. V-168 V-168, a variance request of Maurice Brosnan to permit construction of a eight-unit apartment house on a parcel of land which has less than the required area, in the C-2 District. Area Variance for 8-unit aprtment house. From 8,000 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin - 3208 - V-168 Continued September 11" 1973 "The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a eight-unit apartment house on a parcel of land which has less than the required area, in the C-.2 District. The lot is located on the northwesterly corner of Linden and California Avenues and is vacant. The lot size is 50' x 150' totalling 7500 sq. ft. The ordinance requires 1000 sq. ft. for each unit. Since the area is zoned for C-2 it would require a use permit for apartment use. On May 8, 1972 the Planning Commission adopted the following policy statement to abandon granting such variances. "Policy statement: The Planning Commission will not favorably consider requests to vary the minimum dwelling-unit area requirement of the R-3 District. An area of less than one thousand square feet will not qualify a developer or landowner for an additional unit. The Planning Commission abandons its former posture on the dwelling unit-area requirement of the R-3 District, and requests for variances therefrom. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Maurice Brosnan 607 Poplar Avenue, SSF The Applicant Opponents: . None After some discussion Commissjjoner Lazzari moved that the Planning Com- mission enforce the Policy Statement adopted by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1972, and adopt the findings as set forth in the Staff Report, and recommendations as submitted by the City's reporting department heads and deny the requested V-168. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slade and was passed unanimously. Chairman Mullin declared the motion for denial of the request passed and informed the applicant of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, if he wished to do so, within 10 days hereafter. His appeal should then be filed with the City Clerk in order to have a second hearing set before the City Council. SA- 27 SA-27, an application for a tentative subdivision map for a portion of Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 3, Block 2, Stonegate Ridge Unit No.1, City of South San Francisco - 3209 _. SA-27 Continued September 11, 1973 Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin "The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map which would allow construction of 47 new townhouse units in the Stone- gate Ridge Planned Unit Development Unit No.3. The proposed condominium project is part of Stonegate Ridge Planned Community Zoning District which- h-as been previously approved. This zoning district h-as a total of 8 planned units.__ Plans for Planned Units No.1 & 2 were approved and buildings are existing or under construction. The proposed condominium project is Planned Unit No.3 and contains 47 units. This unit conforms to th-e previously approved development plan and the conditions of the planned Unit Development Use Permit. The proposed condominium project meets the requirements of the State Sub- division Map Act, and the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of South- San Francisco. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the tentative subdivision subject to the following conditions. 1 . That the. subdivider comply with the submitted requirements of the City-Is department and division heads. 2. Street names on Tentative Map shall be changed from Poplar Ave. to Eucalyptus Avenue and Hillridge Lane to Park Lane. 3. Prior to recordation of the Final Map the subdivider shall cause the 10' California Water Services Easement, shown under Lots 18, 19, 31, and 6 and 7 to be abandoned or relocated to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official." Memorandum, dated September 7, 1973, from Fire Marshal William A. Fox "We must take exception to the layout of the street design. The driveway between Buildings 8 and 27 is approximately 240 feet long and should have a cul~de-sac with a 40 foot minimum radius to curb line. The driveway between Buildings 28 and 47 should be a full through street. An on-site inspection reveals that, due to the cut off of Stonegate Drive, this was the original intention for this driveway." Letter, dated August 28, 1973, from Murray-McCormick Environmental Group "The units in the proposed development will have 68 garaged cars and 15 open parking spaces. The attached schedule outlines the number of units for each of the building types." Building No. of No. of Open Type Bedrooms Units Garage Parking Type I 2 18 18 Type II 2 8 8 Detached Type III 3 11 22 Type IV 2 10 20 Li7 (;8 15 Total - 83 spaces/ 47 units + 1.77 spaces per unit" - 3210 - SA-27 Contd September ll~ 1973 Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Keith Hastings Murray-McCormick Environmental Group 150 Ford Way, Novato.) CA. 94947 Agent for the Applicant Speakers: Anth01Y E. Panelli, 794 Parkway> South San Francisco After some discussion, Commissioner Raffaelli moved that the Planning Commission contine the hearing to t~e next regular meeting on September 25, 1973 in order to resolve the matter raised by the Fire Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lazzari and was passed unanimously. So. Spruce Avenue Rezoning RZ-26, proposed rezoning of 4.401 acres of land, located on the westerly side of So. Spruce Avenue between the C-3 District and th.e R-l District of Mayfair Village, from "R_3", Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District, to "C-3", Heavy Commercial District. Secretary Neal Martin read the following into the record. STAFF REPORT: ANALYSIS: At its meeting of August 28, 1973 the Planning Commission held its first public hearing on the proposal to rezone certain lands north_ of Spruce Avenue from R-3 to C-3 District. Questions were raised at that public hearing concerning the existence of a 50' buffer strip which was previously provided for under a rezoning application. The staff has researched this matter and found that in 1956 a rezoning was granted in this vicinity which required a 50' landscaped buffer strip adj acent to the Mayfair Village residences. Specifically, the property which was rezoned waS the site of the Colonial Bakery, now Oroweat Bakeries. The land was zoned to PCM (Planned Commercial) District from R-l (Single Family Residential) District. Planning Commission Resolution No. 537, a copy of which is attached, specifies that "the applicant provide a 50' planting strip adjacent to the residential area". Such a 50' strip is only applicable to the area behind the Oroweat Bakeries and has not yet been made a requirement of the properties to the north. It is suggested that that 50' strip might be continued in the vicinity of the subject rezoning. Also, as mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission might wish to consider the merits of zoning the entire area, between So. Spruce and Mayfair Village to a P-C-M (Planned Commercial and Light Industrial) District. Such a district requires that all uses obtain a use permit prior to their construction. The uses which would be allowed in such an area are, retail stores, personal service establishments, offices, wholesale stores, manufacturing outlets, research laboratories and other similar uses. If such a use permit were required, then the Planning Commission would have control over the possible objectionable characteristics of some commercial uses such as noise, dust, odor, and other environmentally degrading elements. The Commission might wish to explore the merits of such suggestions at the next hearing on this sub j ect. " - 3211 - So. Spruce Avenue Rezoning Contd. September 11, 1973 Speakers: 1) Jack Zancanella, 135 Fir Avenue~ South San Francisco 2) Ronald Street, 126 Fir Avenue, South San Francisco The residents of the neighborhood in general agreed to the preceding Staff Report. Since there was a telephone request from Mr. Joe Benetti to continue the hearing, and the alternative proposal to rezone the subject land to P-C-M, Commissioner Hale moved that the RZ-26 be held over to the Novembe~ l3~ 1973 Planning Commission meeting and that all parties concerned were tobe notified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lazzari and was passed unanimously. POLICY STATEMENT Proposed Policy with respect to the Planned Community District Modification Secretary Martin read the following findings and recommendation into the record. "The South San Francisco Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings and the Statement of Policy with respect to the modifications to the Planned Community District. FINDINGS: 1. Section 4.21 of Ordinance No. 490 of the City of South San Francisco states that the purposes of the Planned Community District are to: a) Establish appropriate zoning regulations for large tracts of land which are under unified ownership or development control, to permit the long term development of such tracts with a variety of uses of land while insuring that: 1. The development will be consistent with the adopted general plan of the City. 2. The tract will be planned and development executed in a manner to provide an environment of stable quality and desirable character within the tract. The purpose of this district is to regulate design standards as determined during the development. Modification through Use Permits or Variances would contradict the purpose of the Planned Community District, and most likely weaken the standards prescribed for the original design. ..... 3212 ~ Policy Statement Contd September 11, 1973 POLICY STATEMENT "The Planning Commission will not favorably consider requests for amend- ments for modifications to the Planned Community District even though modifications could be of a minor nature such as adding fireplaces, chim- neys, wind screens, installing fences of more height than permitted, extending a fence of any kind in the front, roof covering to any part in the front or rear, installing awnings to windows which may affect the appearance of the building." At the conclusion of its consideration of the policy, Chairman Mullin asked the Commissioners for a motion. Commissioner Slade moved that the Planning Commission_a.dop_t the above policy statement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed unanimously. GOOD AND WELFARE Tom Hunter, representing Local 467, stated that he would like to show a film regarding the use of plastic pipes in buildings, and request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council view the film. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that tms would not be within their juris- diction. Mr. Anthony panelli, 794 Park Way stated that mobile canteen operators are selling stale sandwiches near public parks for children. These sand- wiches are left over food which were not sold during the week days. We feels that there should be some kind of ordinance that the sandwiches should be dated like milk. The Commissioners felt it was not within their jurisdiction, but that it might be within the jurisdiction of the County, State or Federal Government. Chairman Mullin stated that there should be more trash cans near public parks. 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 Co:rnmission, Chairman Mullin announced that the next regular meeting of the$outh San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on September 25, 1973 at 8: 00 p. m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, Cali~6rnia. The nH~eting was adj ourned at 11: p. / ,I 1/ /)l /' h' c' \L,"",/ I ) l 4/' ,Ii-l' -1;'(' ,./:fV I "7', l 'i~;1 EU~'e~~(/~i1it Ii ~ .~~h1ttfnfai(Ct';I' PI ann incg/C ommi ss i on City of South San Francisco Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NOTE: Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Office of the City Planner sna _. 3213 -