Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/28/1976 M I NUT E S of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 P.M. DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1976 PLACE: WEST ORANGE LIBRARY AUDITORIUM MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Hale, Mathewson, Mullin and Chairman Slade MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Acting City Planner William Costanzo Assistant Planner Mark Wheeler Planning Division Secretary Pamela J. Bayer Acting Director of Public Services Robert Yee Fire Chief Lawrence Toellner MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1976 Commission Teglia noted on page 3620 that the next meeting date had been listed as September 14, instead of September 28. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning<Commission of September 14, 1976, be approved with the above listed correction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Goldberg and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Bertucelli, Goldberg, Hale, Mathewson, and Chairman Slade NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Mullin (Arrived after the vote) ABSTAINED: None ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Slade 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 speak.ing or is heard. - 3621 - September 28, 1976 UP-76-349 UP-76-349, a request of Victor Brincat for a Use Permit to establish an auto body and fender repair shop in the C-3 Heavy Commercial Zone Dist- rict at 619 Airport Boulevard. (Continued from September 14, 1976) Secretary Costanzo presented the addendum staff report, noting that Special Condition #1 should be changed to read: 1I...by the City Traffic Engineer, may provide...1I Proponents: Allen Schnibben, attorney representing the applicant 405 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA Victor Brincat 619 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, CA Arthur Brincat 619 Airport Boulevard South San Francisco, CA Opponents: Dick Johnson, representing Metropolitan Furniture Company Warren Saltzman Company 57 Post, Suite 801 San Francisco, CA 94104 ~1r. Schnibben reiterated to the Commission that Mr. Brincat has entered a buy and sell agreement for this piece of property and does constitute an interested party, and feels that there has been no breach of contract. He further noted that Metropolitan Furniture Company feels there has been a breach of contract and they want to call off the contract. Consequently, Mr. Brincat does not know if he will actually gain possession of the premises and will not know until the suit has been cleared up. Mr. Schnibben noted that relating to finding of fact #1.5 which states that the existing roof sign not be used for off-site advertising copy, they do not intend to propose off-site advertising. Mr. Schnibben noted several other points to the Commission relating to the following: 1. On page 3 of the resolution, relating to the automobile repair and paint facility, he stated that at no time did Mr. Brincat apply for a permit for painting facilities and that they do not intend to have a painting facility. He further noted that they were informed by the Building Division that they could paint up to nine square feet,'and noted that anything larger was being subcontracted out. 2. He noted that they had no problems with Special Conditions 3(c), (d), (e), Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 10, and all the standard conditions with the exception of Nos. 6 and 10 are acceptable. - 3622 - UP-76-349, Brincat, contld September 28, 1976 3. In regard to Special Condition #1, he noted that they do not want to comply with this condition stating that they shall provide vehicular access from Airport Boulevard. Secretary Costanzo had changed this conditimn to may provide vehicu- lar access...1I 4. Special Condition #2: He noted that if this applied to signs other than the roof sign, they would have no problem with removing or modifying all signs not in compliance with City's Sign Ordinance or standards of the Architectural Committee. Secretary Costanzo noted that this applied to all signs except the roof sign. 5. Condition #3(a): Mr. Schnibben noted that they disagree with this condition which states that they must install and maintain an exhaust ventilation system sufficient to provide a complete change of air every fifteen minutes. He noted that there is a huge natural draft within the building which is more than adequate. 6. Condition #3(b): Mr. Schnibben noted that he had talked with the building division regarding the exits and stairway for the Cypress Avenue exit door and the building division had indicated they did not need the stairway now and want the installation of a new door there, since the present door has a drop of four feet to the ground level. He further noted that he felt the doors existing in the structure now are sufficient and that the new doorway is net necessary. He noted that they would be willing to put in the stairway, but feel the door is unnecessary. Com- missioner Mathewson pointed out to Mr. Schnibben that Cal OSHA requires the employer to be responsible for the safety of their employees. Commissioner Slade asked the Fire Department to respond to this. Fred Lagomarsino, Deputy Fire Marsha responded that the two 10' roll-up doors are not required exits and cannot be counted as such. He further noted that this is an E-4 type operation and that two exits must be provided that are 1/2 the diagonal of the building apart, to provide for the safety of the employees. He further stated that the applicant would have to check with the Building Division to determine if the exis- ting man doors are..s~frisiently spaced to provide adequate protection. Fi reChief' Toe 11 ner added that when there is a drop over four inches from the door to the ground, a landing must be provided. Secretary Costanzo noted that the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 7. Condition #3(f): Mr. Schnibben pointed out that the Fire Code specifically states that there shall be no exceptions to pro- viding an automatic sprinkler system, yet he noted that there are several buildings presently in use that were not required to put in this sprinkler system. Fred Lagomarsino explained that the proposed use of Mr. Brincat is an "E" occupancy which is more restrictive than the previous operation of the furniture store which was an IIFlI occupancy. He further noted that any - 3623 - 349, cont'd September 28, 1976 building being remodeled or changed as to the use, etcetera, without a doubt would be required to install this sprinkler system. 8. Special Condition #4: Mr. Schnibben stated that the applicant does not feel he should have to remove this sign as they are not going to do anything with it anyway. He further noted that he would suggest that this condition, as well as the two conditions relating to the ventilation system and the sprinkler system, be deleted this time from the approval of the use permit because it would be unreasonable for the applicant to have to do all these things when he may not be the owner of the build- ing after the suit is settled. Secretary Costanzo noted to the Commission that the City Attorney had made a ruling on this matter stating that Mr. Brincat constitutes an interested party which means that he must be in a position to accept the conditions of the use permit application. 9. Special Condition #9: There was some dis on the hours of operation. Secretary Costanzo noted purpose of the hours was to provide quiet during the evening hours and on Sundays, so the hours were made from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Teglia noted that it should be specified that there is to be no work done on Sundays and that possibly there should be a review period incorporated into this condition which wouls allow the Commission to determine if the hours stipulated are creating any hardships on the residents in the area. 10. Standard Condition #10: Mr. Schnibben noted disagreement with this condition which states that an adequate trash area shall be provided and enclosed by a six foot decorative block or slump stone wall. He noted that there is no room on the property for a trash area and that the trash area would be inside of the structure. 11. Mr. Schnibben expressed disagreement with Standard Condition #6 relating to an lias isll elevation and plot plan. Commissioner Bertucelli asked Mr. Brincat if he has received a business license from the City. Mr. Brincat noted that they do not have a business license because the City will not issue one without a Use Permit. Commissioner Bertucelli noted that they have been in operation for two months without a use permit or business license. Arthur Brincat noted that they have been complying and that it is not their fault that the City has not given them a license. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Brincat if he objected to having to install a ventilation system. He said that he did. Secretary Costanzo noted that he would like to reply to some of Mr. Schnibbenls statements. He noted that he would abstain from commenting - 3624 - UP-76-349, cont1d September 28, 1976 on the Building and Fire Code requirements. He stated that in regard to the roof sign, this sign was built under Use Permit No. 559 for Sea IN Ski and was later twice denied for off-site advertising. He noted further that this sign is a nonconforming sign and if the applicant wishes to occupy the building, he must comply with the condition to remove it. Secretary Costanzo noted to the Commission that the applicant is presently in violation of the codes because he is presently occupying the building without complying with City requirements. Secretary Costanzo noted that in regard to Standard Condition #6, the applicant must comply with this condition and must submit floor plans to Fire Department and must comply with the requirements of the Archi- tectural Committee. In regard to Standard Condition #10, Secretary Costanzo noted that it is alright if the applicant wishes to put the trash area inside of the building and that they would not be required to provide an outside trash area. Commissioner Mullin asked for clarification from the Fire Department on the codes relating to the installation of the sprinkler system. Secre- tary Costanzo noted that buildings occupied prior to the code are exempt from the provisions of Ordinance No. 353 and that he feels it would probably be similar for the fire codes. Fire Chief Toellner noted that when the City Council passed the sprinkler amendment to the Fire Code, the Fire Department assured them that this would not be tetroactively applied to those buildings now in existence. He did state emphatically, however, that they can and will apply these codes whenever there is a change of occupancy or a change in the building. In regard to the conditions of the Fire Department and the statement from Mr. Brincat that they had received several different letters from the Fire Department, Chief Toel'ner noted that the Fire Department did not submit 5, 6, or 7 letters, but that they submitted only one letter of requi rements, the spray booth bei ng one of these. Dep\~ty Fi re Marsha 1 Lagomarsino explained that he had talked to Mr. Brincat who had indicated to him that they were going to be installing a spray booth. Consequently, Mr. Lagomarsino assumed they would be painting and submitted the condition relating to the spray booth. Mr. Arthur Brincat noted to the Commission that they will put in a spray booth when he feels it is necessary. Com- missioner Goldberg asked the Fire Department if there would be an exception to their spray booth requirement if the applicant only painted nine square feet in area. Fred Lagomarsino explained that this is correct, but that it must be in an approved location to assure proper ventilation, etcetera, and that there has been no such approval to date for the paint area. Mr. Brinca"t indicated that he has been sending all paint jobs next door since he received a cease and desist order for painting. Commissioner Goldberg indicated that he had personally seen Mr. Brincat painting in that building well after the cease and desist order had been issued. - 3625 - UP-76-349, cont'd September 28, 1976 Mr. Schnibben requested to know if, in Special Condition #4, the condition is met if a use permit is applied for or must the use permit actually be obtained. Secretary Costanzo noted that the Commission can make a final determination on this question. Commissioner Mathewson requested clarification on the roof sign as orig- inally authorized under UP-559 and which is now separate from this use permit application. Secretary Costanzo noted that the roof sign is a problem. He further noted that the roof sign was included in this use permit application, but that because there was no data the copy or proposed use of the roof sign, Secretary Costanzo advised the applicant that he would have to file a separate use permit application for this roof sign. Mr. Dick Johnson, representing the legal property owner, addressed the Commission stating that they were not awarea.f''tifucg~cs~Ey-eime negotiations were made for the sale of the property that the use would be an auto repair facility. He further noted to the Commission that they would object to the applicant making any substantial changes in the building and that they want the building back in the same condition in which it was given. Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Johnson if the fact that it is an auto repair shop entered into the litigation proceedings. Mr. Johnson said that it does not enter into it. Commissioner Goldberg requested Mr. Bri explain how he arrived at the fact that the air change in the buil ng is now at 11 minutes. Mr. Arthur Brincat explained that one evening, he could not remember the date, he closed up the garage and started three cars and smoked them out, until the entire building was filled with smoke. After shutting the cars off, he went outside and timed how long it took for the building to clear and it took 11-1/2 minutes. Commissioner Goldberg noted to Mr. Brincat that around one o'clock in the afternoon a good draft comes up, but that during the morning hours, there is no wind at all. Commissioner Goldberg requested to know if the applicant had seen Special Condition #10 as it was reworded in the staff report of September 14. Secretary Costanzo said that he had received a copy of the staff report, and that this condition was covered during the meeting of September 14. Commissioner Mathewson moved that this matter be tabled for 90 days. Com- missioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was denied by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bertucelli and Mathewson NOES: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Goldberg, Hale and Mullin and Chairman Slade ABSENT: None Commissioner Mullin noted that he would rather see this matter approved and the conditions imposed on the applicant now, rather than delay for 90 days. - 3626 - UP-76-349, contid September 28, 1976 Commissioner Mullin moved that UP-76-349 be approved subject to all of the conditions included as a part of the resolution with the below listed changes, as well as all other conditions from the City Engineer, Fire Department and Building Division, and that said resolution be adopted. Secretary Costanzo read the resolution into the record, including all of the Special and Standard Conditions, noting the changes made as follows: 1. Special Condition #1 was changed from 1I...shall provide...1I to II.. .may provide... II 2. Special Condition #10 was changed to read: IIThat the applicant shall post with the City of South San Francisco a cash deposit or cashier1s check in an amount equal to the costs to comply with the conditions as herein set forth or $5,000, whtchever sum is greater. Said deposit shall be refunded to the appli- cant by the Planning Commission when it has satisfactorily determined that all of the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions as set forth herein have been completed. The use permit shall stand approved when a certificate of occupancy, zone clearance and deposit refund have been issued by the Building Division, City Planner and Planning Commission. If the work has not been completed within 12 months from the date the cash deposit is received, the use permit will auto- matically expire and the deposit shall be forfeited to the City for the purpose of securing corrections and completion of the conditions as herein stated or for the purpose of terminating any non-approved uses of the property. II 3. To Special Condition #9 was added the sentence: IIThat within six months of the date of the establishment of the use as set forth in Condition #10 below, the application shall return to the Planning Commission for further considera- tion of the hours of operation and the days of operation. Commissioner Hale asked how the determination would be made if the $5,000 cash deposit would be sufficient. Secretary Costanzo noted that the deter- mination would be made at the staff level by computing building costs, etcetera. Vice-Chairman Teglia seconded the motion and it was pas roll call vote: following AYES: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Mullin and Chairman Slade e, Mathewson, NOES: Commissioner Bertucelli ABSENT: None - 3627 - September 28, 1976 UP-76-353 AND UP-76-354 UP-76-353 and UP-76-354, requests of Grubb and Ellis Realty Fund II for an extension of time on two on-site subdivision freestanding identification signs in the R-3 Restricted Multiple Family Zone District at #1 Appian Way. (Continued from August 10~ 1976) Secretary Costanzo presented the staff report. Proponent: Bill Helfrich Grubb & Ellis Realty Fund II 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA Opponent: None Mr. Helfrich noted to the Commission that they have experienced additional problems with closing escrow and are now scheduled to close by the 14th or 15th of October. A problem at the title company level forced them to shut down for two weeks and during this time they could not sea~l any units. Starting in March of 1975, they sold 24 units and upon being ready to close, 16 of those 24 dropped out, leaving eight. There have been 19 additional contracts since August 14 or 15 and they feel the signing is an important factor in these sales. He noted that 667 people have come to the project recently and after filling out a questionnaire, it was determined that 30 percent of these people found out about Colina by their signing. He noted that he would like to have the Commission extend their signing permits for another 30 days, at which time they will come back to the Commission with a report. He noted that ultimately they would like to have the signing for six months more. Commissioner Mullin and Gommissioner Hale both felt that maybe a 60 day extension would be more reasonable. Commissioner Mathewson moved that UP-76-353 and UP-76-354 be extended for 60 days and that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 23. Vice-Chairman Teglia seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GELLERT BOULEVARD EXTENSION Secretary Costanzo noted that since many of the people in the audience were here for this hearing that this matter be considered next on the agenda instead of waiting until it actually came up. The Commission agreed. Secretary Costanzo noted to the Commission and to the audience that at a meeting of September 27, 1976, the City Council reaffirmed their previous position that all matters pertaining to Gellert Boulevard and the projects on either side of Gellert be tabled by all Commissions, Boards and staff until such time as the City Council brings it back from the table. - 3628 - Gellert EIR, cont'd September 28, 1976 Chairman Slade apprised the audience of this, noting that if they still wished to bei'ffueard, they could, but that it would be more relevant if they waited with their comments until such time as this matter was taken off the table. Mr. Thomas Callan noted that since there was going to be a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting on September 29, 1976, he would like to see this matter continued to that meeting. Chairman Slade noted that they had a recommendation from the City Council that all Commissions table this matter and that this will be done at this meeting. He did note, however, that Mr. Callan was welcome to attend the Planning Commission/City Council meeting of September 29, as Commissioner Teglia noted that this was one item she intended to bring up for discussion. Chairman Slade directed all interested persons from the audience to leave their names and addresses with staff so that they can be notified when this matter comes back from the table by the City Council. Commissioner Goldberg moved that this matter be tabled until such time as the City Council brings it back from the table. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. SA-76-33 SA-76-33, a request of Maurice Brosnan Construction Company for resubdi- vision to create seven lots located 362 feet north of Grand Avenue on Willow Avenue at the extension of Miller Avenue. (Continued from the September 14, 1976, meeting) Secretary Costanzo presented the staff report. Proponent: Maurice Brosnan 607 Poplar Avenue South San Francisco, CA Opponents: Sam Nilmeyer 1041 Su:nnys ide Dri ve South San Francisco, CA Maryann Croney 1033 Sunnyside Drive South San Francisco, CA Mr. Brosnan noted to the Commission that he has comp:li:ed with all conditions and that he has more square footage for common greens than required. He noted that the pathway was presenting some problems as he does not want it going through the subdivision and that he had requested the City Council to delete this pathway or to move it to another location. - 3629 - SA-76-33, cont1d September 28, 1976 Mr. Nilmeyer expressed his opposition to this subdivision in that he felt the residents of that area had been promised by the City Council that the pathway would be put in when the Miller Avenue extension was deleted. He noted that the children have no other quick way of getting to school. He also noted that he felt there was not enough parking for the subdivision. Secretary Costanzo noted where the parking spaces would be located and noted that there would be ample parking. Ms. Croney noted that she opposes the deletion of the pathway as the children need this pathway. She noted that she felt this would not result in the same situation as Baldwin Hills because the children would not be congregating there as it is not close to the school itself. Commissioner Hale requested to know the distance from the cul-de-sac to Grand Avenue. Secretary Costanzo noted that it is about 500 feet. Commissioner Ma'hewson requested to know if the right-of-way could be taken all in fee or part of it in fee. City Engineer said the whole thing must be taken in fee. Secretary Costanzo noted that the total area of the lots due to the fact that the right-of-way is being required in fee only, will be 3,000 square feet larger, thereby requiring 3,000 square feet of reduction on the seven lots. Commissioner Teglia noted that she could not vote for this subdivision with the pathway going through it. Commissioner Bertucelli noted that he would like to hear from the City Council on what is happening with the pathway and the public safety site. Commissioner Hale concurred with that. Commissioner Mullin noted that something should be done with wording whereby the pathway section could be held in abeyance, allowing the applicant to move ahead with the rest of the development. Secretary Costanzo noted that he did not know of any legal way to do this; that the Commission is mandated by their actions and the actions of the City Council to install the pathway. There was some discussion on the procedures that would be necessary for deleting this pathway. Secretary Costanzo noted that the General Plan would have to be amended to delete this footpath or that the applicant would go ahead and build the project and put in this pathway. Commissioner M~llin requested to know if we could require the applicant to reserve that area and post a. bond for subsequent construction of that path- way if the City Council takes action on another area suitable for that footpath. Secretary Costanzo noted that we would be asking him to give us an easement. Acting Director of Public Services Yee stated that if the Commission requires the pathway as part of the subdivision, he is certain that Mr. Brosnan would appeal this to the City Council 9 so before a bond can be required, we must know what direction we are going in, and that a bond would be premature at this time. - 3630 - SA-76-3311l conld September 28, 1976 Commissioner Tegliaexpressed her feeling that this matter should be continued to give them time to have an informal discussion with the City Council. Commissioner Slade noted that tJo>matter what happens, there will have to be action taken at this level, and if it is appealed to the City Council, they will then have to deal with the question of whether or not they intend to appropriate funds to put the path through and they decide either way. He further noted that at his time, the Commission may be premature in trying to out guess the Council since the pathway is part of the General Plan at this time. Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Brosnan if the position of the path, 7-1/2 feet of width on either side of lots 4 and 5, imposed a hardship om the positioning of the proposed building. Mr. Brosnan iddicated that the buildings could be rearranged to accommodate such an easement if the City extended the path through the complex. He noted that it would change the buildings a little but that it could be arranged. He noted that the biggest problem was bringing kids into the complex who do not live there. Commissioner Mathewson requested a breakdown of what the actual conditions of the use permit would be. Secretary Costanzo read into the record Special Conditions 1 through 9, noting the change in Conmition #9 from ~...ots No.3 and 4 to "lots No.4 and 5.11 He noted that Special Condition #10 would be deleted and that Special Condition #11 would now become No. 10 adn was changed to read as follows: Condition #11: IIThat prior to the recordation...upon which fees, if any, a re to be pai~d... II SecretaryCCe~~anzo further read into the record the Condition s of the City Engineer. Commissioner Goldberg moved that SA-76-33 be approved with the above mentioned conditions including the changes made to Condition #11 and with the deletion of Condition #10. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion and it was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Goldberg, Hale, Mathewson, Mullin and Chairman Slade NOES: Commissioner Teglia ABSENT: Commissioner Bertucelli PM-76-134 PM-76-134, a reques t of Alfred Call ega ri for a parce lli:map to create two 7,000 square foot plus lots from one parcel, at 835 - 835~ Olive Avenue. Secretary Costanzo presented the staff report. Proponent: Alfred Callegari 541 Grand Avenue SSF, CA - 1n11 - ,PIl1--76-134," CaJTergari, cont I d September Opponent: None Mr. Callegari explaIned the situation he is presently facing, noting that he cannot acquire funding for a 14 unit project, but that he has a loan commitment for seven units and would like to proceed with the project without obligating the entire property. Commissioner Mathewson requested to know if there is anything to prevent development on Lot 33. Secretary Costanzo noted that a Use Permit would be required to be obtained by the developer if he were to develop in front of the existing nonconforming house. Commissioner Goldberg asked if the development plans of Mr. Callegari resembled the apartment project on Grand Avenue. Secretary Costanzo noted that OS had seen the development plans and that they were far superior to the Grand Avenue project. He also noted that he assumed the driveway ease- ment depicted on the plans would be for any future problems that might exist with future building. Secretary Costanzo noted three absolute obligations which must be ful- filled by the developer as follows: 1. He will have to maintain five feet setback from the structure. 2. He has to have 50 feet of lot frontage on both parcels. 3. If he builds seven units, there must be 7,000 square feet of land area. Commissioner Hale moved that PM-76-134 be approved subject to all of conditions of the staff report! Vice-Chairman Teglia seconded the motion and it was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Teglia, Commissioners Goldberg, Hale, Mathewson, Mullin and Chairman Slade NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bertucelli REPf9~ors R-2 STANDARDS AND P.U.D. REQUIREMENTS Staff repo~ts and study information relative to the establishment of a minimum lot size for units in the R-2 Zone District and deletion of the 4-acre minimum requirements for a Planned Unit Development. Secretary Costanzo noted the staff repott and asked the Commission just to review it between now and the time when staff would return to them with a more detailed report. He noted the densities per acre in the study area as follows: - 3632 - September 28, 1976 R-l = 6.7 - 7.5 units to the acre whichiould be inconsistent with the low density classification in the General Plan R-2 - 12 units to the acre which is inconsistnet with themediam density in the General Plan He noted that if P.U.D. were changed for become 13 units to the gross acre. 1. He further noted that he ~elieved revitalization in this area was the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the study would begin to make this happen. sity would LAND USES EVALUATION Staff reprot and study information on land use, zoning, general plans, and specific plans for the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. Secretary Costanzo noted that the Commissdlon should review this report He illustrated conceptual concepts of the area in question and noted that the plans were incomplete and that there was no back-up data. He also indicated that the topo,raphy and ownership made the feasa- bility of the plan difficult to invision. COMMUNICATIONS $'ecretary Costanzo presented to the Commission a request from Mann Invest- ment Company to have the Commission consider a change to their original plans. Secretary Costanzo explained that after approval of the Mann Investment project, the residents of the area filed an appeal to the City Council. He explained that the developers of the project, Mr. Fratessa and Mr. Smith, met with the residents to resolve the problems and decided that they would reduce the height of the building from two story to one storyl Since this is a change in the type of the building and a change in the plan for Stonegate Ridge, he felt the Commission would have to decide if this needs to come back for another public hearing or if this change could be made by staff. He further noted that when the residents wdithdrew their appeal, it was conditional in that they thought this matter would be coming back to the Commission for another public hearing at whi€h time they could attend to be sure these changes were made. Comm'issioner Mathewson noted that the memo from the Ci ty Attorney i ndi cated,that a pub 1 i c heari ng woul d not be ne.cessary. " Secretary Costanzo noted that although the change is minor, ahd there is no increase in densiitiy, the building will be slightly wider. Mr. Bob Smith, general partmer with Mann Investment Company, indicated that there originally were nine one-story buildings and three two-story buildings and with the change there would be only two two-story buildings. Commission Tegl1ia felt it shoild come back for another public hearing. Commissioner Mullfn agreed with this, noting that administrative leeway might be setting a precedent. - 3633 - Commununications, contld September 28, 1976 Commissioner Goldberg moved that this matter be brought back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing at the earliest possible date. Vice-Chairman Teglia seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. GOOD AND WELFARE The eommission noted to Secretary Costanzp that a resolution of commendation should be done for David Hale, the previous City Planner, Secretary Costanzo said that';he would do this. Commi$si..oner Goldberg noted that Mr. Schumann wants to occu~ythe quonset hut at 325 Miller Avenue. Staff refused to allow him to occupy this hut as he promised he would tear it down, according to City Council direction, and construct the new gui~ding. The secretary said that he needs a use permit to occupy the property, in any case. The commi ss i on as~eel staff how many use permi ts, vari ances, etcetera that they have granted have run out. Secretary Costanzo noted that a good number of them have run out. The Commission noted that the restaurant at the corner of Callan and Westborough has not been completed and now they are proposing to build a Savings & Loan. Secretary Costanzo noted that they would have to obtain a Use Permit in order to build it. Chairman Slade requested staff to prepare a report on what the Commissd,on has done over the past year. Secretary Costanzo noted that this would be done. There being nothing further to be considered under Good and Welfare and no other communications or matters of interest for the Commission, Chanyltman Slade announced that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be held jointly with the City Council on September 29, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. Wes 1 ej{ Sl~de, Cha i rman P l~jnningCommissi 0 n Ci ty of SSF 1 i am Plg. Commission Ci ty of SSF NOTE: The entries of this Planning Commission meetingindicate the action toclciliippose of each item. Oral presentations, arguments and documents are recorded on tape. The tapes aret'> 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. - 3634 -