Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.16.92 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting of July 16, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: " 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chainnan Matteucci, Commissioners Boblitt, Mantegani, and Zelhner. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chainnan Warren, Commissioners DeZordo and Wendler. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Steve Solomon Steve Padovan Assistant City Attorney Engineering Division Dick Chiozza Dennis Chuck Richard Harmon Jeff Baca Ron Petrocchi Jim Fitzpatrick Building Division Police Departnlent Fire DepartInent CHAIRMAN COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 4, 1992. Motion-Zelhner/Seconded-Boblitt. To approve the minutes of June 4, 1992 as presented and to continue the approval of the May 21, 1992 and June 18, 1992 minutes to August 6, 1992 due to a lack of quorum. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS 147 Hazelwood Drive. Brentwood Market (Arco/I(enwood Co.. owner). UP-92-912. Use Permit and design review approval to allow the establishment of a neighborhood market with liquor sales in an existing retail building located within 200 feet of a residential zone district and related modifications to the sign progranl for Brentwood Center in the C-l Zone District in accordance with provisions of SSFMC Chapter 20.22.030. Motion-Mantegani/Seconded-Zelhner: To continue UP-92-912 to the August 6, 1992 Planning Commission nleeting due to a lack of quorum. (Commissioner Mantegani was not present at the June 28, 1992 Planning Conlnlission meeting when UP-92-912 was presented.) 127 Arroyo Drive. Wendy Wan. Appeal of Chief Planner's Decision. Appeal of the Chief Planner's decision that lot depth is measured along the average length of the lot rather than the shortest lot line (SSFMC Section 20.06.100) in accordance with provisions of SSFMC 20.90.101. Steve Padovan presented the July 16, 1992 staff report. Applicant: Mr. Phillip Wan 127 Arroyo Drive Sou th San Francisco Mr. Wan explained he wanted a storage rOOITI and had talked to Planning staff twice before actually having it built. He was told that if the distance was 6 feet from the main building and the structure was smaller than 120 sq. ft., then he would not need a permit. He stated that the contractor made it too large. Mr. Wan said he was never told he needed to put the structure at the rear of the house nor about the rear half requirement. About a month later, he received a letter about the violation. The applicant stated that the structure was in the rear half of the lot. He felt that this decision was not fair. Applicant: Mrs. Wendy Wan 127 Arroyo Drive Sou th San Francisco Mrs. Wan explained the reason the structure was on the right side of the lot and not the left was that the left side has a utility easement and that the ground is not level but on four different levels. Also it would be too close to the creek. Speaking against the project: Julie Mooney 126 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco Mrs. Mooney stated she lived directly across the street from 127 Arroyo Drive. She objected to the structure being built. She explained that the Wans have three illegal apartments on the site and that they have a building on the other side of 222 Alta Mesa Drive with a similar situation. Mrs. Mooney said it was unfair to the homeowners in the neighborhood for the Wans to operate a Ihote1." She said that the Wans could build a storage shed anywhere. She strongly objected to any further construction. She explained that there was a minimum of three apartments at 127 Arroyo Drive and that she had seen an ad in the newspaper advertising the rental of one of the apartments. Speaking against the project: Kathleen Coonrod 118 Arroyo Drive Sou th San Francisco Page 2 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting Ms. Coonrod stated she objected to any additional construction on the site. She complained that this residence was a boarding house in a single-falnily residential area. She further complained about the traffic and the fact that cars were parked up and down the street. Ms. Coonrod stated that the entrance for Mrs. Wan's tenants was located on the side of the house and that this was a fire hazard. Commissioner Mantegani questioned staff about the calls made to the Planning Division. Chief Planner Solomon stated that Mr. Wan may have contacted the Building Division, however, the basis for the appeal before the Planning Commission was Mr. Wan's interpretation of the Code. Commissioner Mantegani stated that in all the cities he had worked with they all interpreted the code the same way. Commissioner Boblitt said she supported staff on this interpretation. She stated that the applicant should have con1e to the office and shown theln exactly what they wanted to construct. She further explained that the City Code is applied equally to all people in the City and any exceptions would have to be done through a Variance procedure. Commissioner Zellmer cOlnpletely agreed with the Chief Planner. He stated that the structure was clearly located in the front half vs. the rear half of the lot; one cannot pick the short lot line. Commissioner Zelhner said that based on the aforementioned testimony, Code Enforcement should keep a close watch on this property. Chairman Matteucci also agreed with the Chief Planner's decision and his fellow Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Boblitt directed staff to have Code Enforcement inspect the property to ascertain whether or not it has been turned into apartments. Motion-Boblitt/Seconded-Zellmer: To deny the appeal of Wendy Wan and uphold the decision of the Chief Planner. It was unaniInously approved by voice vote. 318 So. Maple. McNevin Cleaning Specialists. UP-92-913. Use Permit and design review approval to create a lnulti-tenant building from a single-tenant building with related modifications to the landscaping and parking in the M-l Zone District in accordance with provisions of SSFMC Section 20.30.040(h). Applicant: Brigitte Steinebel 318 So. Maple Avenue Sou th San Francisco Mrs. Steinebel stated she objected to the following conditions: In regards to the proposed parking lot, the Steinebels thought they had more than enough landscaping. The did not feel they had to remove the three pine trees; it would be costly to do so. They felt they enhanced the aesthetics of the front of the property and prevented trucks from Page 3 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting illegally parking in that area. They also asked to reduce the size of the parking spaces. Mrs. Steinebel did not see the need for landscape plans done by an architect for the rear of the property. She stated that they were willing to do what was necessary to make the property look good. They both felt that there was enough landscaping in the front and on the side of the property. Mrs. Steinebel felt that they had more than adequate parking for the two businesses. She also questioned Engineering Condition I (C) regarding the addition of a sidewalk along the property frontage between the south driveway and the intersection of the south property line with the South Maple Avenue right-of-way. Applicant: Bert Steinebel 318 So. Maple Avenue Sou th San Francisco Mr. Steinebel explained that on the other side of the pine trees there are several tractor trailers where drivers parked overnight. He preferred leaving the trees there. He also felt that if they removed the trees, a parking problem would occur. Mrs. Steinebel also stated that she did not understand Engineering Condition I (D) which required theln to obtain an Encroachlnent Pernlit questioned Engineering Condition II (B) which required the applicant to install three stop signs considering the proximity of the driveways. In addition she asked why they had to subnlit a parking and striping plan for review and approval (Engineering Condition II (C)). Mrs. Steinebel questioned Planning Condition No.5 and that they would like to keep the paved area adjacent to parking space #10. She explained that this nlulti-tenant building will be owned and occupied by theln and all they wanted was to divide the two businesses. The Planning Commission requested staff to address the concerns of the applicant and explain the conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Padovan explained to the COlnlnission that all buildings with more than one tenant require a comprehensive multi-tenant sign program. He then explained Planning Condition #4 indicating that staff wanted to maintain the same balance of trees prior to the improvements. He further explained that when an application is processed on an existing property, staff requires that landscaping be upgraded. He said the plans did not have to be complex but should include ground cover, shrubs, etc. As far as Condition #5 was concerned, Assistant Planner Padovan explained that a large percentage of landscaping was being rellloved due to parking improvements. He then explained Condition #6. He said that staff only suggested a landscape architect, however, one is not required. What is required is a landscape plan which is reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect. Commissioner Boblitt believed the reason a landscape architect was suggested was that he/she would know the types of plans that do well and are easily Inaintained. She also believed that the trees should be removed, although it was unfortunate that such mature trees had to be removed. Page 4 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting Assistant Planner Padovan agreed that he had seen trucks parked on the railroad right-of-way adjacent to South Maple Avenue. He said he would Inention it to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Mantegani asked Richard Harmon, Engineering, to elaborate on their conditions. Mr. Harmon explained that he had Inade a physical inspection of the site and found that the pine trees were severely uplifting the southerly driveway. He also stated it was a hazardous condition because the trees limited the line of sight cOIning out of the southerly driveway. Regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Harmon stated it was a nonnal condition to require a sidewalk along the property frontage when new development occurs. He added that with the proposed BART extension, the area would be improved. He further explained that the stop signs are specifically required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Encroachment Permit is to insure that the public improvements requested on South Maple Avenue will be done. Commissioner Mantegani questioned staff about the paved area adjacent to parking space #10; had staff considered that as an option for a motor vehicle? Assistant Planner Padovan answered in the affirmative. COInmissioner Zellmer stated that there were three critical areas: parking, landscaping and signage. He explained that he was sYlnpathetic with the applicant but that the Commission could not lnake any exceptions. The City must aSSUlne that at sOlnetime in the future, other tenants will be in this building and have to plan accordingly. Chairman Matteucci related that pine trees had presented problems in the past not only for the City's sidewalks but also for foundations. He stated that the City was in favor of trees and landscaping but pine trees do too much daInage. Mr. Steinebel explained that he was a small business owner and it would cost about $6,000 to install a sidewalk. Motion-Zellmer/Seconded-Mantegani: To approve UP-92-913 based on the findings and subject to the modified conditions. Planning Condition #5 to read: "The pavement shall be removed and new landscaping installed adjacent to the parking spaces indicated as #1, #-Wand #11 as numbered on the plans dated "Received June 22, 1992." All landscaped areas shall be separated from parking and driveway areas by a new six-inch-high concrete curb." It was unanimously approved by voice vote. 3569 Callan Boulevard. Goldilocks. UP-87-804/Mod 2. Use Permit Modification to allow an office and storage facility to be located in a tenant space in a separate building for an existing restaurant and bakery in the C-l Zone in accordance with provisions of SSFMC Section 20.22.030. Chief Planner Steve Sololnon presented the July 16, 1992 staff report. Page 5 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting Applican 1: Johann Yuzon General Manager of Goldilocks 27 Mills Canyon Ct. Burlingame Mr. Yuzon briefly explained the background of Goldilocks stating that in 1988 Goldilocks first received approval froln the Planning Commission. He explained that the current shutdown by the County was due to a miscomnlunication. He went on to say that Goldilocks has spent more than $25,000 remodeling the office and storage space; the current retail store only has 320 sq. ft. of storage space which represents about 4% of the whole area. Mr. Yuzon stated that there were seven locations and that each had its own bakery and storage area. He explained that their Vallejo store served the Safeway stores. He did say that Goldilocks planned to move the storage to Hayward next year to centralize the business. Representing the applicant: Archie Carr 870 Campus Dr. Daly City Mr. Carr, a bakery coordinator for Goldilocks, advised they had sublnitted plans to the Hayward Planning Commission and which had been approved. He explained that in regards to Planning Condition #2 they had a trash facility in the back. He did not see any problems with the conditions of approval or the findings. Mr. Carr stated that he was a former USDA inspector and was licensed in the city. Commissioner Boblitt related that when the applicant first came before the Commission Goldilocks said that they would not be transporting products to anywhere else. The Commission was told that they had more than enough room for the business. At that time, the applicant was told that if they were going to use it for storage of large equipment and for food than this was not the area for it. The storage should be with the large facility itself. Commissioner Boblitt stated that they could use the site for offic.e use. Commissioner Mantegani stated that he did not believe that you could approve this modification for one year and that the applicant would be gone after that year. He agreed with staff. Commissioner Zellmer asked the applicant if they had other storage areas since they had seven stores and if so how large of an area. The applicant replied that the South San Francisco site was the largest and that the other stores were allocated at least 15% of their square footage for storage. Comlnissioner Zelhner also questioned the application about the distribution of goods. He stated that he agreed with his fellow Conllnissioners that since this a chain operation and the store in South San Francisco is the largest in Northern California, he believed this to be a distribution point. He further expressed his agreement with staff and said he would entertain recommendation for additional conditions. Mr. Yuzon explained that they could reduce the storage space, if necessary, but that they definitely needed their offices there and that it was c.ritical to their business. Page 6 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting COlnlnissioner Zellnler then discussed the following two issues: 1) the size and quantity of storage, and 2) the detachlnent of the building fronl the Inain facilities which creates traffic problems that would need to be addressed. Commissioner Boblitt stated that this business had to operate within its confines. Commissioner Zellmer asked staff that if this application was readdressed as office use what would be the impact within our existing Zoning Ordinance? Chief Planner Solomon stated that they could operate an office within that space without a permit but that he would have to check further. Motion-Boblitt/Seconded-Mantegani: To deny UP-87-804/Mod 2 based on the findings for denial. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Items from Staff Chief Planner briefly discussed the budget and advised the Commission that staff had been directed to decrease costs of department budgets by up to 5%. He stated that all conferences had been eliminated and that we might be losing a position in the Planning Division. He then talked about the 1992-93 Work Progralll which included the east of 101 study; area plan for the EI Camino Corridor; annexation of properties and another master plan for the McLellan site; Genentech's master plan. Chief Planner Solomon said staff would prepare a work program for their review. Items frOlll Commission Commissioner Boblitt cOlllplained that there was a large Coca Cola machine left in front of the now closed Westborough produce market. She also asked if staff could expedite the removal of the cars parked in front of Acutech Autos, 45 Chestnut Avenue. She also questioned staff whether or not anything was ever done about the Genentech earthquake structures. Commissioner Boblitt stated that before Genentech presented another project to the Commission, she wanted Genentech to get started on these structures. She wanted this message conveyed to Genentech. Steve Solomon, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Chair an Mattuecci adjourned the meeting to A~st 6, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. -f!/ ,-"-j IJ; ~ / '<.f ",""A) /1 ~ f _') "f~ 1~~/' ,b' , ~ /~?::.(--... -7 ~~ /rJ'/ /f ~ ,,/; "" f V tt-'i1?1CAf2 "",It i/ ' ~ i;';Y'~L" J i% _ - " Louis Matteucci, 'Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco " LM:SS:ab Page 7 of 7 Pages 7/16/92 PC Meeting