Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.17.94 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting of Novelllber 17, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: 7:32 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mantegani, Vice-Chairman Lucchesi, Commissioners DeZordo, Padreddii, Romero, Warren and Zellmer ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Steve Solomon Steve Padovan Steve Mattas Theresa Cayssials Richard Harmon Ron Petrocchi F. Lagomarsino City Attorney Building Division Engineering Division Police Department Fire Department CHAIRMAN COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 4, 1994 and September 1, 1994 Motion-Zellmer/Second-Romero: To approve the minutes of August 4, 1994 as presented. They were unanimously approved by voice vote. ABSTAINED: Commissioner Warren. Motion-Warren/Second-Zellmer: To approve the minutes of September 1, 1994 as presented. They were unanimously approved by voice vote. ABSTAINED: Chairman Mantegani. Southeast corner of Sunset and Stonegate Avenues. Mark Robson/Santa Clara Development (Ida Crosariol. owner). SA-93-111. PUD-93-26. Negative Declaration No. 767 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development and Design Review for a 32- unit, single-family detached residential development on 4.76 acres in the R-l Single-Family Zone District. Project involves subdividing the property into 32 single-family lots with private streets and related site, elevation, grading and landscaping plans in accordance with the provisions of SSFMC Chapter 20.84, Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Map Act. Assistant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Page 1 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/94 The first issue discussed was the architecture. Applicant: Mark Robson Santa Clara Development 1978 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Mr. Robson talked briefly about the history of the project and how it has changed since its first submittal. He explained that their main goal is to create a high-quality, traditional, detached single-family neighborhood. Mr. Robson explained that the original plan had 36 units and after the first study session with the Planning Commission he had reduced the size of the retaining walls and the number of units to 32. He went on to say that the Design Review Board liked the architecture after substantial changes were made. Speaking against the project: Richard Shanahan 796 Stonegate South San Francisco Mr. Shanahan's main concern was the construction of a wall of buildings on Stonegate and the obstruction of the view. Speaking against the project: Malcolm Catchatoorian 760 Stonegate South San Francisco Mr. Catchatoorian was also concerned about the obstruction of the view but felt the project was fine as long as the structures were below grade. Chairman Mantegani stated he was not in favor of shared driveways (lots 3 and 4). Commissioner Warren agreed and asked if the applicant was willing to try and .redesign the driveways. The applicant agreed. Richard Harmon, Engineering, stated that he is concerned with 900 driveways; they are not useable for parking cars and it is difficult to maneuver your car in and out of the garage. Commissioner Lucchesi discussed the exterior building colors. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the garage; 20' x 20' vs. 19.4' x 19.4'. Richard Harmon, Engineering, explained that the same discussion had occurred regarding the Terrabay project and that you would be excluding larger cars if the garage was reduced in size. . Page 2 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/94 Commissioner Warren stated she felt more comfortable with the 20' x 20' garage. Mr. Robson stated that this was a PUD; this was a very difficult site with which to meet all the requirements and he said something has to give somewhere. Commissioner Zellmer stated that the issue here is the density. If the density was lowered by reducing the number of units there would not be any more issues. Commissioner Padreddii stated he liked the project very much and did not want to see the developer change the whole design; if their engineers agreed it could work, who were we to disagree. A discussion ensued about the storage area. Mr. Robson said that he would prefer to find a storage area in the garage. The next issue discussed was the useable open space; the park-in-lieu fees were also discussed. Mr. Robson said that the fees were close to $200,000. The Commissioner DeZordo agreed that there was no need for the common open space area but Commissioner Lucchesi asked staff to advise the Commission where these fees would be going; what zone. Commissioner suggested some paving and patios in the backyards. The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide 15' in the backyard. Mr. Robson said there were only 3 homes that will have less than 15' and said he would show some alternates at the next meeting. Site grading and retaining walls were discussed next. The 22' crib-block wall is a main concern to staff. The Commission discussed "Keystone" cement blocks which are low maintenance. Commissioner DeZordo asked that the 22' crib-block wall be landscaped. Commissioner Warren asked for a copy of the proposed budget and the proposed CC&R's. Chairman Mantegani called for a IS-minute recess at 9:00 P.M. Chairman Mantegani readjourned the meeting at 9:15 P.M. The next item discussed was public streets vs. private streets. Cassette 2 A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the size of the public streets; full width public streets vs. narrower private streets. Page 3 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/94 Chief Planner Solomon said there is no precedent for approving narrower public streets but the City Council can approve this. Richard Harmon, Engineering, stated that if the City allows smaller streets it will generate more complaints; people parking where they should not be and greater responsibility for the Police Department to enforce regulations. Commissioner Padreddii stated that when they last met with Robson, he remembered telling him that if he purchased the school property the Commission would agree to private streets. Now that he bought the property, we are saying that he cannot have private streets. Other Commissioners disagreed saying that they had not promised private streets. Mr. Robson stated that public streets would radically change the project. He further felt that they were complying with the characteristics outlined in Resolution 82-88. Chairman Mantegani could agree to private streets if they would not be included in the density count. Other Commissioners did not agree; the straw vote was 4-3 (Commissioners DeZordo, Padreddii, Romero, Zellmer/Chairman Mantegani, Commissioners Lucchesi and Warren). Commissioner Zellmer stated that the density is too high, that streets are a non-issue; the bottom line is the high density. He further stated that he would prefer public streets with a 56' right-of-way. Commissioner Romero agreed but said that this will kill the project. City Attorney, Steve Mattas, explained that staff could draft up findings that are site specific, that is, lower retaining walls o~ methodology of grading. Mr. Mattas advised that if you approve the project at 32 units you are implicity making the determination that with private streets you do not count net acreage under Policy 14. Commissioner Warren reiterated that she wanted to see the project's by-laws, CC&R's and budget. If there were inadequate funds to maintain the driveways over the long term life of the project then they would not meet the requirements under Resolution 82-88. A discussion ensued again regarding the density; 30 units vs 32 units. Chairman Mantegani agreed to the 32 units (streets not to be included in the density count) but he was adamant about the findings being iron-clad and site specific. Commissioners DeZordo, Padreddii and Warren also agreed with Chairman Mantegani. Page 4 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/95 Chief Planner Solomon said there is no precedent for approving narrower public streets but the City Council can approve this~ Richard Harmon, Engineering, stated that if the City allows snlaller streets it will generate more conlplaints; people parking where they should not be and greater responsibility for the Police Department to enforce regulations. Commissioner Padreddii stated that when they last met with Robson, he renlenlbered telling him that if he purchased the school property the Commission would agree to private streets. Now that he bought the property, we are saying that he cannot have private streets. Other Conlmissioners disagreed saying that they had not promised private streets. Mr. Robson stated that public streets would radically change the project. He further felt that they were conlplying with the characteristics outlined in Resolution 82-88. Chairman Mantegaui could agree to private streets if they would not be included in the densitycount. Other Conlnlissioners did not agree; the straw vote was 4-3 (Commissioners DeZordo, Padreddii, ROlnero, Zellmer/Chairman Mantegani, COilllnissioners Lucchesi and Warren). Commissioner Zelln1er stated that the density is too high, that streets are a non-issue; the bottom line is the high density. He further stated that he would prefer public streets with a 56' right-of-way. Commissioner ROlnero agreed but said that this will kill the project. City Attorney, Steve Mattas, explained that staff could draft up findings that are site specific, that is, lower retaining walls or methodology of grading. Mr. Mattas advised that if you approve the project at 32 units you are implicity making the determination that with private streets you do not count net acreage under Policy 14. Comnlissioner Warren reiterated that she wanted to see the project's by-laws, CC&R's and budget. If there were inadequate funds to maintain the driveways over the long term life of the project then they would not nleet the requirements under Resolution 82-88. A discussion ensued again regarding the density; 30 units vs 32 units. Chairman Mantegani agreed to the 32 units (streets not to be included in the density count) but he was adamant about the findings being iron-clad and site specific. Commissioners DeZordo, Padreddii and Warren also agreed with Chairman Mantegani. Page 4 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/95 The next topic of discussion was phasing. Mr. Robson explained the phasing saYing streets and engineering work would be done up front; then building 2 or 3 models; then building' 6 or 7 product units and then as the structures are sold moving down the site. Staff advised that a proposed condition will require the proposed phasing plan be sent to the Building Division for their approval. Commissioner Warren was adamant that an adequate maintenance budget be available even if the market falls and units are no longer being built. The environmental analysis came next. Chief Planner Solomon said staff had not received any public comment on the document. Motion-Warren/Second-DeZordo: To recommend to City Council certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 767. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Cassette 3 Commissioner Warren stated her concern about Mitigation E-4. The next issue was landscaping and screening. This was discussed briefly. The applicant said he would submit a specific plan at the next meeting. General Plan Policies #1, #8, #13, #14 and #17 were briefly discussed. There were no comments on the PUD. Motion- Warren/Second-Zellmer: To continue SA-93-111 and PUD-93-26 to December 1, 1994. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Items from Staff - Chief Planner Solomon advised Commission committee had met with Genentech on Building 25 prior to this night's Planning Commission meeting. He said it was well received and that Genentech would be presenting the plans for Building 25 to the Commission in January for formal action. He briefly discussed the BART station in San Bruno at the Tanforan Center. He said that the EIR should be out sometime next month. Items from Commission - None. Page 5 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/94 Motion-Zellmer/Second- Warren: To adjourn the meeting to December 1, 1994. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Chairman Mantegani adjourned the meeting at 11:10 P.M. olomon, Secre a Planning Commission City of South San Francisco "~' . ,"-".J ,-antegani, Chaif11iatr-, "Planning Commission -City of South San Francisco RM:SS:ab Page 6 of 6 Pages PC Meeting of 11/17/94