Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.01.93 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting of April 1, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:33 P.M. (Cassette 1) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Mantegani, Commissioners DeZordo, Lucchesi, Padreddii and Zellmer. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Warren ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Steve Solomon Steve Padovan Dick Chiozza Ray Van Dohren Mike Baird Ron Petrocchi Jim Fitzpatrick Assistant City Attorney Engineering Division Building Division Police Department Fire Department CHAIRMAN COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 17, 1992 and March 18, 1993 Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Mantegani: To approve the December 17, 1992 Planning Commission minutes as presented. (Commissioners Boblitt and Wendler approved the minutes prior to the meeting so there was a quorum.) They were unanimously approved by voice vote. ABSTENTION: Commissioners Lucchesi and Padreddii. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Padreddii: To approve the March 18, 1993 Planning Commission minutes as presented. They were unanimously approved by voice vote. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS 900 Dubuque Avenue. Levitz (Corporate Property Investors. owner). UP-92-918 A. B. C. D. Negative Declaration No. 740 A) Use Permit to authorize telnporary seasonal outdoor sales events (open storage of goods), each of which is expected to generate in excess of one hundred (100) average daily vehicle trips pursuant to SSFMC Sections 20.24.070( a) and (b) and 20.24.060. Page 1 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 Chief Planner Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Representing the applicant: Larry Cochran Plant Manager Levitz Furniture Corp. 900 Dubuque Avenue SSF Mr. Cochran stated that Levitz has outside sales three times a year and they set up a tent. They are usually held on a holiday weekend. He said the staff report limited the sales to one per quarter so. if two holidays landed within a quarter they could not have two sales. He asked that the Commission still allow Levitz to do this. Chief Planner Solomon stated that they could change Condition #7 to read: "Temporary outdoor tent sales shall be limited to onc cvcnt pcr calcndar quartcr a maximum of 1\vo (2) cT;cnts pcr ycar three (3) events per calendar year but not closer than 30 days between one event and the next." Representing the applicant: Al Gonzalez McLeod Architectural Group 16400 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida Mr. Gonzalez stated that he had concerns about the additional landscaping. He said the site already had over 10% landscaping before the Oyster Point Overpass and because of this project the landscaping will be reduced to 8%. He wanted the Commission to eliminate Planning Conditions #4 and #5. Chief Planner Solomon said that the landscaping is required by the Code. Commissioners Zellmer, Padreddii and Lucchesi agreed that the landscaping should be 10%. Commissioner Lucchesi asked Assistant City Attorney Dick Chiozza if there was a conflict since he was on the Board when Levitz went through Design Review. Assistant City Attorney Chiozza answered that as long as there was not a personal conflict he could vote on this application. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Mantegani: To approve Negative Declaration No. 740. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Lucchesi: To approve UP-92-918A based on the findings and subject to modified conditions of approval. Planning Condition #7 was changed to read: "Temporary outdoor tent sales shall be limited to one 8T;ent per calendar quarter, a maximum of 1\vo (2) cvcnts pcr ycar three (3) events per calendar year. An event shall not be scheduled to begin sooner than thirty (30) days after completion of another event. Each event shall be limited Page 2 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 to a maximum of ten (10) continuous days........." It was unaniInously approved by voice vote. B) Use Permit to authorize outdoor storage, including the operation of an outdoor trash compactor pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.24.070( a) and (b). Chief Planner Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Mr. Gonzalez, representing the applicant, stated that they did not approve of Design Option A. Joseph Reedy DES 399 Bradford Redwood City Mr. Reedy was hired by the City to investigate the options. Options #1 and #2 were explained by Al Gonzalez in answer to Commissioner DeZordo's request. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Zellmer: To approve Negative Declaration No. 740. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Lucchesi: To approve UP-92-918B (including all three Design Options #1, #2 and #A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. C. Use Permit to authorize modification of the interior and exterior of the existing retail/warehouse facility which includes expansion of the existing nonconforming warehouse use so that it comprises approximately fifty-seven percent (57%) of the facility's total gross floor area pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.97.050. Chief Planner Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Mr. Gonzalez advised the Commission that on Appendix A item #2 Levitz requires a minimum of 2 not 8 loading doors. He further explained that the showroom is also being used as a warehouse; a dual use and, therefore, it was incorrect to say that Levitz is moving the showroom. He also objected to cutting into the showroom and having to leave the sign where it is. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Lucchesi: To approve Negative Declaration No. 740. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Lucchesi: To approve UP-92-918C (including Design Options #1, #2, #3 and #4) based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Page 3 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 D. A Type "C" Permit pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.76.170 to allow the relocation of two existing nonconforming signs, a pole sign and a wall-mounted individual letter sign. The pole sign exceeds the maximum height of ten feet (Section 20.76.150(a)(4), the facade sign is to project above the wall to which it will be attached (Section 20.76.150(a)(3)(B) and the total of the two signs exceeds the maximum allowable size of 300 square feet (Section 20.76.120(a)). Chief Planner Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Mr. Gonzalez stated that at the Design Review Board meeting in August they were never advised that the sign had to be above the parapet line only that it should be smaller. He further explained that Levitz thought the size of the sign was correct for visibility of 500 to 600 feet from the Dubuque intersection. Mr. Gonzalez reminded the Commission that all of the changes being made are being done because of the condemnation of the land by the City and that Levitz is going through negotiations with the City because of this condemnation. Mr. Gonzalez questioned Planning Condition #4 (regarding landscaping). Chief Planner Solomon answered that in order to approve the Use Permit the Commission must make a determination that it conforms to the General Plan and also bringing the project up to code at this point. Commissioner Zellmer stated that he was on the committee for the sign ordinance and asked staff if the Commission could approve the relocation of the sign. Commissioner Lucchesi said he could not remember the discussion or comment about the sign being above the parapet line (Commissioner Lucchesi was on the Design Review Board when this application was on the agenda). Commissioner Lucchesi further stated that the Design Review Board tries to downsize signs in general. Commissioner Mantegani questioned whether the Commissioner would make findings to move the sign above the parapet. Commissioner Zellmer stated that the 101 corridor is unique and businesses adjacent to it tend to need greater visibility. Mr. Gonzalez said Levitz could change the color of the box if they had to. Commissioner Lucchesi stated that Levitz could reduce the size of the sign which then could be placed below the roof line portico and the parapet and it could be integrated more with the building so it becomes more of an architectural design and takes into consideration the height of the warehouse wall. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-DeZordo: To approve Negative Declaration No. 740. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-DeZordo: To approve UP-92-918D (including Design Options #1, #2, #3 and #4) based on the findings and subject to modified conditions of approval. Change Planning Condition #6 to read: "The building facade sign may be relocated along the building wall provided it is kept below the top of the parapet and subject to the Chief Planner's Page 4 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 approval. The Com. mission finds that the horizontal extension of the proposed ently structure portico over the existing roof shall be considered a portion of the building wall if, in the opinion of the Chief Plannel~ it is redesigned to integrate into the overall building architecture and that the facade sign may be located on said extension provided, if in the opinion of the Chief Planner, said sign is reduced in size' appropriate to the scale of said extension." Century Plaza (Syufy Enterprises/Alioto Fish Co.). ZA-92-80. Negative Declaration No. 745 Zoning Text AInendment and environmental determination of same to modify SSFMC Section 20.84.070( a) to allow flexibility in required parking by deleting the following wording: "In no case shall a lesser number of parking or loading spaces be provided than required by Chapter 20.74 for similar uses, and the Planning Commission may increase the requirements." Chief Planner Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Applican t: Ray Syufy 150 Golden Gate San Francisco Mr. Syufy stated he had read the staff report and have no difficulties with the proposal. Commissioner Zellmer was of the opinion that "we are opening a can of worms." He stated that the City might be creating situations where a user comes in and we accept certain parking situations that is unique to that tenant only. Then further down the road, a reasonable use may not meet the parking demand and the building will sit vacant for lack of sufficient parking. Chief Planner Solomon stated that staff recognized this but felt that conditions of approval would alleviate potential problems. Commissioner Zellmer stated that he thought it was agreed to be very "use specific." He further stated that on the surface it looked like a simple solution but that he was a little apprehensive. Commissioner Lucchesi shared that feeling and a discussion ensued regarding parking requirements; conditioning of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the possibility of future problems, etc. It was noted that TSM is encouraging public transportation and even reducing parking so that the public will use public transportation. Commissioner DeZordo said this amendment was set up for abuse. Commissioner Zellmer stated that he preferred to send this application back to staff for further review especially paragraphs 2 and paragraph (B) under "20.84.070." He also wanted reasonable assurance that the City would be able to control this. He also thought the City Page 5 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 needed to have better control over who and how traffic studies are being done because of the sensitive nature and that it should be addressed nlore specifically. Vice-Chairman Mantegani stated that a consultant hired by the City should do the studies. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Lucchesi: To continue Negative Declaration No. 745 and ZA-92-80 off-calendar. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Orange Park Expansion Environmental Impact Report Orange Memorial Park. City of South San Francisco Review of Final Environmental Impact Report and recommendation to City Council. Director of Parks and Recreation Barry Nagel presented the Aprill, 1993 staff report. He advised the Commission that both Mr. Callander and Mr. Martin were present if they had any questions. (Cassette 2) Speaking with concern: Joe Rivera 630 Mayfair SSF Mr. Rivera stated that he had spoken at the March 4, 1993 Planning Commission meeting against the Linear Park. He stated that he had a petition which he was submitting with 24 signatures of people who live on Mayfair Avenue and who object to this park. Mr. Nagel advised Mr. Rivera that he could object to the design of the park at the City Council meeting which will be held on April 28, 1993. Commissioner Mantegani asked Mr. Nagel to be sure to notify Mr. Rivera of the upcoming City Council meeting. Speaking with concern: Jim Parker 642 Mayfair SSF Mr. Parker stated that he signed the petition objecting to the Linear Park. He stated that after every soccer game it takes him more than a week to clean up the litter. He said he called the City various times to try to get the north part of the canal cleaned up but to no avail. Mr. Parker also expressed his concern about the safety of the area, the traffic impact, noise impact and the location of the proposed park. He was also very concerned about the maintenance of the Linear Park. Director Nagel stated that the concerns and the petition would be presented to City Council. Page 6 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 Commissioner Lucchesi stated that all the comments raised are valid questions. Commissioner Zellmer stated that the Commission was only reviewing the EIR at this time. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-DeZordo: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Orange Memorial Park Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Report as a response to comments to be used in conjunction with the "revised" Draft Environmental Impact Report. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Southeasterly corner of West Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Orange Memorial Park Project and property owner P. Mazzanti. PM-93-300 Tentative Parcel Map to create one 0.38 acre parcel (Parcel 2) and to combine four existing parcels into one 29.86 acre parcel (Parcel 1) at the southeasterly corner of West Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Chief Planner Steve Solomon presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-DeZordo: To approve PM-93-300 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. West Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Orange Melnorial Park. City of South San Francisco. GP-93-46 General Plan Amendment to change the designation on the Land Use Diagram from "Open Space" to "Low Density Residential" for a newly created 0.38 acre parcel containing a single- family home at the westerly terminus of Tennis Drive. Assistant Planner Steve Padovan presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Zellmer: To adopt the resolution recolnmending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment GP-93-46. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. 820 Tennis Drive. Orange Memorial Park Project (P. Mazzanti. owner). RZ-93-83 Rezoning of a newly created 0.38 acre parcel containing a single family home at 820 Tennis Drive from O-S, Open Space, to R-I-E, Single Family Residential. Assistant Planner Steve Padovan presented the April 1, 1993 staff report. Motion-DeZordo/Seconded-Zellmer: To adopt the resolution recommending that, subject to the approval of General Plan Amendment GP-93-46, the City Council adopt RZ-93-83. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Page 7 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93 Items from Staff Chief Planner Solomon advised the Commission that as of April 1, 1993 he would be Interim Director of Economic and Community Development. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Mantegani: To adjourn the meeting to April 15, 1993. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Vice-Chairman Mantegani adjourned the meeting at 9:25 P.M. ~~2 Steve Solomon, Secretary -- Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Robert Mantegani, Vice-Chair Planning Commission City of South San Francisco RM:SS:ab Page 8 of 8 Pages PC Meeting of 4/1/93