Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.03.96 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION October 3, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Warren, Commissioners Barnett, Lucchesi, Masuda, Padreddii, and Commissioner DeZordo - arrived at 8: 15 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Romero ALSO PRESENT: E. & C. D. Director: Planning Division: Chief Planner Senior Planner Interim Planner Act. Secretary II Assist. City Attorney: City Engineer: Dev. Review Specialist: Police Department: CHAIRMAN COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES Marty Van Duyn Steve Solomon Steve Carlson Lawrence Kasparowitz Rosa Perez Wayne Snodgrass Arthur Wong Richard Harmon Sgt. Ron Petrocchi Motion-Barnett/Second-Padreddii: To approve the September 5, 1996 minutes as presented. They were unanimously approved by voice vote. Commissioner Lucchesi Abstained. Motion-Barnett/Second-Masuda: To approve the September 19, 1996 minutes as presented. They were unanimously approved by voice vote. Commissioners DeZordo and Padreddii Abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 309 Airport Blvd., Christy's Bar & Grill/Christina Lee, applicant (Satya Narayan, owner) UP-96-090; Cate~orical Exemption: Class 1 Section 15301(a) Use Permit to allow karaoke and live music until 2: 00 AM at an existing cocktail lounge in the Planned Commercial Zone District (D-C-L), in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.26.060(a) and 20.26.030(c). Director Van Duyn stated that this application Item 2 on the agenda "UP-96-090" is requested to be continued to the next meeting of October 17, 1996, and readvertized due to a date error on legal notice to neighbors. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 721 Airport Blvd., Airport Plaza Inn, PUD-96-058; Negative Declaration No. ND-96-058 Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a 45 unit motel and including exceptions to rear yard setback and two-way driveway width with associated parking and landscaping in the P-C Retail Commercial Zone in accordance with SSFMC 20.84. (Continuedfrom September 19,1996) Chairman Warren opened the public hearing. Interim Planner Kasparowitz presented the staff report and noted that the manager's unit had been deleted. The lot has two front-yard set backs as defined by code. An environmental clearance will be required because this property has been used for automotive repairs. Further because this project will have subterranean parking the Applicant will be removing the top 10 feet of soil. He presented revised findings (#3 a, b, & c and #6), and a memo from the Building/Fire Prevention Division (regarding shoring and protection of adjacent buildings); and recommended that they become part of the conditions of approval. He cited letters from neighbors including Darby Dan, Tricor, and Old Town Homeowners and Renters Association, in favor of the project; and a letter from John Markley, attorney for the Economy Motel, with concerns about the project. In response to Mr. Markley's concerns, Planner Kasparowitz noted: A. Mr. Markley's reference to policy 42 is actually referring to General Plan Policy 44. Policy 44 that states "mid-rise office buildings 4 to 20 stories in height should only be permitted East of 101 and along the East slope of San Bruno Mountain". Staff felt this policy was not relevant because it applied only to office buildings. B. Lot coverage was considered with the building and below-grade parking was not considered as lot coverage, if this had been an above ground parking structure, staff would have included it as lot coverage. Further, the architect stated in his letter that the project will provide 10% landscaping within the property lines. There is no manager's unit in the current proposal, therefore, the project meets the parking requirements; and the 16 feet parking stalls do meet standards. C, D & E. The City Engineer will answer the traffic, street parking and drainage concerns. F. This point is covered with the removal of the 10 feet of top soil and further testing after the excavation will be required. G. The Building/Fire Prevention Division's conditions addressed this point. H. GP Policies 2-28 to 2-31 Airport Blvd. and encourages replacement of auto repair business and encourage visitor service uses such as motels. The Business District is described as needing a more attractive entrance, and staff feels that this project provides three of those General Plan policies. He further described the PUD ordinance's compliance within the Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial Districts. Page 2 of6 Pages PC Mtg. of 10/03/96 I. Traffic was not considered a problem, parking has been met, the size of building has been reviewed by Design Review Board, possible toxic mitigations have been met and drainage and sanitation would be addressed at the building permit stage. The Staff agreed with Chairman Warren's observation that the City does not have Floor Area Ratio in this area. Reoresentin2 Annlicant: Sharad Lal SKL Architecture & Planning. 3018 Willow Pass Rd. Concord, CA 94519 Owner/Applicant: L. G. Patel 120 Hickey Blvd., SSF Soeakin2 with Concerns: Michael Amin Economy Inn 701 Airport Blvd., SSF Soeakin2 with Concerns: John Markley, Attorney 620 Greystone Drive Orinda, CA George Bugnatto Old Town Homeowners and Renters Association Mr. Lal noted that he was familiar with the codes in South San Francisco and decided to build the underground parking to allow for more open space on the area. They will be replacing rear sidewalk with standard size and add more landscaping. The only exceptions being asked are to the rear yard landscaping and the width of the parking ramp. He felt that the project will beautify the area. Mr. Patel stated he supports this project because it will help beautify the area and be a service to the community. Mr. Amin's concern is with the motels consistencies of having a 20 to 30 room limits along Airport Blvd. He agrees with encouraging development such as boutiques, restaurants and motels but development should be compatible with the existing buildings. Mr. Markley noted his clients (Mr. Amin) concerns in the large size and number of rooms of the proposed building site on a small lot. He does not understand why General Plan policy #44 does not apply. His client is concerned with too much concrete, the proposed landscaping was not been met, traffic flow on Airport Blvd., safety, street parking, water drainage in the underground parking lot, and excavation of contaminated material (that all material be tested and adjacent building be protected during and after construction). Mr. Markley stated that the applicant was using the PUD process incorrectly, and asked that the Commission consider reducing the number of units because the large mass of the building did not fit the neighborhood surroundings. Mr. Bugnatto stated that the current applicant should not be penalized for asking for more units, and that the project will help improve the neighborhood. Chairman Warren closed the public hearing. Commissioner Masuda asked for clarification on the traffic and drainage concerns on site. Richard Harmon, Project Development Specialist for Engineering Division explained there is a left turn lane at Armour Avenue and Airport Blvd., Linden Avenue and Airport Blvd. has signalized intersection for safe "U" turns at both locations. The proposed project has sufficient parking on the site. The width of the driveway lanes inside the building is not a concern of the Engineering Division but the vehicle turning radius is acceptable, the 25' two lane driveway leading to the building is as required, the drainage runoff on site had been reviewed and accommodations have been taken care of Page 3 of 6 Pages PC Mtg. of 10/03/96 Commissioner Barnett felt the height structure should fit the existing neighborhood and asked if it is the Commission's wish to have larger scale buildings on Airport Blvd. for the future? Commissioner Padreddii noted he sees it as a good innovative project which meets standards. Commissioner Lucchesi asked for actual wording of General Plan Policy #44. Director Van Duyn read the policy into the record. Commissioner Lucchesi asked if building was under the height limit? Planner Kasparowitz responded that there is a part of the building, an architectural embellishment that is over, but the majority of the roof and the parapet wall are well below the 50 foot limit. Commissioner Lucchesi expressed concern on how PUD's are used, but in this case the PUD is being used appropriately. He noted that as long as the Engineering Division has no concerns with the driveway and the Commission should try to have this project be compatible with the neighborhood, but in this case it may be good to see something new, this may be compatible to the one down the street the new project at Airport and Armour. The concrete wall, may need vine to soften the wall. He suggested that a condition be added that vegetation be added to soften the visual effect of the wall. Is Police Department comfortable with security of parking? Sgt. Petrocchi said yes. Chairman Warren was concerned with landscaping. The project Architect noted that there would be planters above ground surrounding the parking spaces near the building, as shown on the landscape plans submitted for this meeting. She too would like to see relief in the walls, would like to condition that the walls at the rear property yard be redesigned to provide some relief Director Van Duyn agreed to work with staff: applicant and have Design Review Board look at the changes. Applicant stated they would be willing to work with staff Commissioners Padreddii, Barnett, and Masuda would like to keep design as is. Commissioner DeZordo arrived 8: 15 PM. and noted he would not be voting on this issue, but agreed to have the Design Review Board look was the proposed changes as long as it does not delay the application. Chairman Warren noted that the purpose of the PUD process is to get a better project. This project is asking for minor adjustments. She noted that what was agreeable 13 years ago may change today; for example, some of the colors used in projects 13 years ago look very dated now. She was for approval, with added conditions, i.e., protection of adjacent properties; protection before construction, protection after construction, toxic contamination removal. Planner Kasparowitz reiterated the Commission's amended conditions of approval as follows: Add to Planning Division requirements: 2. Special Conditions: e. Clinlbing plants be added to soften the appearance of the wall at the Cypress Avenue side to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Specialist. f. Before issuance of a building pernlit, a plan shall be subnlitted to the Fire Prevention/Building Division detailing the nlethod(s) of protecting adjacent buildings, the nlethod(s) used (e.g., underpinning, shoring or extending the foundation) for protecting adjoining buildings nlust first be approved prior to any excavation work near adjacentbuilding~ g. Before issuance of a building pernlit, a plan shall be subnlitted to this office detailing the nlethod(s) by which adjacent buildings will be protected fronl settlenlent and lateral nlovenlent after construction is conlpleted Page 4 of 6 Pages PC Mtg. of 10/03/96 h. After final excavation, the ren'laining soil shall be tested for toxic contan'lination and necessary ren'ledial actions shall be taken to establish clearance from San Mateo County Deparln'lent of Environmental Health. Commissioner Lucchesi, asked the Commission if they wish to see a drawing or photo of the surroundings. The majority of the Commission did not wish to see additional drawings or photos for this project. Director Van Duyn advised that Commissioner Lucchesi's suggestion that when future project come in that we have profiles that have block faces in a relationship to adjacent building, so that the Commission, neighbors, and staff can get an idea of the scale of the project and how it would look in the present neighborhoods. Chairman Warren asked the Commission to consider if they want more buildings of that height on Airport? Commissioner Masuda noted that this building would be a bit larger than Darby Dan's building which is next door. Commissioner Barnett stated he is pleased with this project and does feel this will improve the area. Motion-MasudalSecond-Lucchesi: To approved PUD-96-058 and Negative Declaration #ND-96-058, based on the findings attached to the staff report and as amended, and Conditions of Approval, as revised. It was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Commissioner DeZordo - Abstaining. Chairman Warren turned the meeting over to former Chairman Lucchesi, she had an emergency at work. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Minor Permit Process: Chief Planner Solomon presented his staff report. He stated that minimizing the zoning process is of importance to the City. He covered the direction staff is taking in preparing draft ordinances on which staff would like the Commission's comments. He reviewed the legal due process (public hearings or no public hearings) noticing: when to notice before or after the decision, referral of appeals, and when items are required to be reviewed by the City, whether minor permits should be staffed by a committee or an administrator. He mentioned that after reviewing procedures with other City's Planning Departments, staff is proposing a conservative procedure outline briefly as an Administrative Use Permit which is noticed before the hearings, with a hearing staffed by a Zoning Administrator or a Staff Committee. Another method, used in San Francisco, is where staff reviews the building permits for conformance with standards, and when found in conformance the neighbors are noticed of the decision. The neighbors might then request a hearing with the Planning Commission if are issues are not resolved. Commissioner DeZordo commented on discretionary permits used in San Francisco. He preferred the staff committee idea (with all members being equal), over the Zoning Administrator. Commissioner Lucchesi stated he agrees with Zoning Administrator approach. It is one person and the applicant feels he is on a one to one basis. He sees the benefits of a staff committee, but approving minor project without public hearing and noticing after the decision may not be a good idea. Director Van Duyn commented that San Francisco does this with administrative permits, we are talking about discretionary permits which do need to be noticed. Our City Attorney does not favor the former since South San Page 5 of 6 Pages PC Mtg. of 10/03/96 Francisco is a General Law City, we could not easily do some of these actions; they are done by Charter Cities. Director Van Duyn clarified that staff recommends noticing before the hearing for discretionary permits. He also explained another process for minor permit applications in which applicants go to their neighbors and get letters confirming their review of the plans, then the applicant goes to the City for professional review. If staff or neighbors did not approve a project, the applicant can go directly to Planning Commission. This keeps the staff out of the middle. This would only apply to small neighbor Issues. Discussion continued on what type uses the modification committee/zoning administrator would review. Some would be the 100 ADT trip generation use permit, retail sales, and converting single tenant building into multi-tenant. Commissioner DeZordo noted that parking and landscaping issues could be handled at the stafflevel and that the process be simplified as much as possible. Chief Planner Solomon explained how the process might work, there would be a hearing but not formal, it would be noticed, no staff report would be written just conditions of approval, and the minutes/action of the project would be the findings and conditions of approval. Discussion continued about the greatest flexibility criteria, where they deal with larger project, controversial and CEQA issues would come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Padreddii agreed that the process needs to be simplified. Director Van Duyn commented on how the informal process is simpler and less time consuming. Commissioner DeZordo noted that San Francisco is having problems with enforcement of discretionary permits. Chief Planner Solomon noted direction from the Commission, and at future meetings he will have a punch list on the E. of 101, appropriate areas for discretionary process, and information on the Administrative Zoning Officer. Items from Staff: None Items from Commission: None Items from the Public: Director Van Duyn noted a letter from Mark Robson in response to Mr. & Mrs. Woods' letter a copy was given to the Commission. There was a meeting held with the neighbors, staff and the developer. The developer was not aware that the problems were occurring, and they have worked on the issues brought out in Mr. & Mrs. Woods' letter. Developer/Applicant will work with residents to select the planting on the walls. Commissioner DeZordo commented on his concerns on the wall elevation. Adjournment: Motion-Masuda/Second-Barnett: To adjourn meeting at 10:45 PM to October 17, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. k'Q_ ~, Marty Van Duyn, ~retary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco /I /I)A !!!1, ~ Margaret Warren, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco MVD:rp Page 6 of 6 Pages PC Mtg. of 10/03/96