Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.20.97 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSIIOP: 7:00 P.M. Introduction to Planning - Zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. :MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Romero, Vice-Chairman Padreddii, Commissioners Masuda, Siln, Teglia, and Baldocchi MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Barnett ALSO PRESENT: E. & C. D. Director: Planning Division: Urban Planner Senior Planner Assistant Planner Act. Secretary II Assist. City Attorney City Engineer Dev. Review Specialist: Police Department: Marty Van Duyn Steve Solomon Steve Carlson Lawrence Kasparowitz Rosa Perez Wayne Snodgrass Arthur Wong Richard Harmon Sgt. Ron Petrocchi APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The April 4, and 18, 1996, and January 16, 1997 lninutes were relnoved from the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM 494 Forbes Blvd., Jessica McClintock, Inc., Applicant/Owner UP-97-010; Cate20rical Exemption, Class 1, Section 15301 Use Permit to allow retail sales, sign program, and use generating more than 100 ADT in the (P-I) Planned Industrial Zone District in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.32.060,20.32.030(c) Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Commissioner Teglia stated that the proposed sign is still below standards, he would like to see an improvement on the design. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Motion- Teglia/Second-Sim: Motion to continue to April 171\ 1997 Meeting per applicant's request. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. 180 Kimball Way, Kwong Kolm Architects by Henry I(wong, Applicant; Equitable Life Assurance Society, Owner; PUD-96-129; Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration No. ND-96-129 Planned Unit Development to allow the conversion of warehouse floor area to office area, and a use generating in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trip ends, situated at 180 I(imball Way, operating 24 hours/day, to allow a parking ratio of 1.8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet offloor area for the R & D use, allow the construction of a parking lot at 292 East Grand Avenue for the Research and Developlnent and industrial uses at 180 I(imball Way, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District, in accordance with provisions of South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.32.060, 20.32.070(a), 20.74.070(c), and 20.74. 120(b). (Continuance requested to April 3, 1997) Chairman Romero directed staff to continue PUD-96-129 as requested by staff to April )I'd, 1997. 899 Airport Blvd., A&S Engineering/Shell Oil Co., Applicant/Owner UP-96-110, V-96-110 and Mitigated Negative Declaration #96-110 Use Pennit to allow the conversion of automobile work bays to a 24-hour food mart and Variance to allow a reduction from fourteen (14) parking spaces to eleven (11) spaces situated in the P-C Planned Comlnercial Zone District, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.24.030(c), 20.24.070(a), and 20.82.080. Chairman Romero directed staff to continue UP-96-11 0, V -96-110 as requested by the applicant to April 17t\ 1997. Adjacent to 1000 Grandview (APN 015-250-110), Nextel Communications/California Water Service Co., Applicant/Owner; UP 96-124, Miti2ated Ne2ative Declaration #96-124 Use Pel111it allowing a wireless communication facility consisting of ground mounted antelU1a and a subtelTanean equipment vault with landscape screening, situated on a two (2) acre landlocked parcel on Point San Bruno Hill (APN 015-250-110) adjacent to 1000 Grandview Drive, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District, in accordance \\Tith South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.32, 20.77, and 20.83. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carlson presented staff repoli noting staff s consideration to the surrounding environment and that the proposed project should not detract to the surrounding area. The negative declaration was circulated for 20 days and no COlnlnents were received. The plans have some changes and staff recommends approval. Mr. Wyman described Nextel's services and the proposed project as a 16' Inonopole with up to 12 panel antennas, and below grade equipment rOOln adjacent to the antenna array. He explained their effolis to screen the antenna frOln the Wind Harp and the continued landscaping as in the CalWater site, between their project and the open space to the north of the area. He indicated that the site would provide a service coverage area to the North to candlestick point, and to the South to the San Francisco Int'l. Airport. He presented a list of antenna locations, and infonned that additional sites were being sought to the south in the Shaw Road area and further south into San Bruno. Mr. WYlnan introduce Mr. Scott Hagberg, Construction Manager, and Mr. Nate Coats, RF Engineer, for Nextel who are available to answer questions. Representing the Applicant: Joe Wyman, Planner Nextel Comn1unications Page 2 of2 pr l\/fto r') nn/Q7 The Commission asked to see the list of additional sites in South San Francisco. They suggested the pole be painted to blend into the area, and that a tree be added bet\veen the pole and the water tank next to the mature acacias. There was concern that the poles/antennas not rust and wanted the fence to match. Mr. Wyman stated the poles could be painted gray to blend into the horizon and that they reduced the ridge by 60% with a slender monopole. He noted that the poles are 16 feet and the antennas are 4 feet, they come galvanized and the fence would be painted to luatch the surrounding landscaping. Mr. Wyman indicated this was a fence within the CalWater facility fence and will have dense foliage. Mr. Coats stated that the applicant could place additional low shrubs to create a dense foliage between the pole and the water tank next to the mature acacias. The Comluission thanked the applicant for doing a subterranean project and the coverage map of the serviced area. Chairman Romero closed the public hearing. Motion-Padreddii/Second-Masuda: To approve Negative Declaration ND-96-124 and Use Permit UP- 96-124 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS Kaiser Permanente - Garage: Parking Management Plan Planner l(asparowitz presented the updated information submitted by l(aiser which included the parking counts from Kaiser's security guard and a letter from Kaiser's Administration supporting the Parking Management Plan. Sgt. Petrocchi had reviewed the parking luanagement plan. The Comluission discussed the relocation of the trailers parked at the side entrance of the hospital visible from EI Caluino Real and taking up ten parking spaces. Staff infoflued that the total number of parking spaces would be reduced with patients' parking spaces at eight feet-six inches wide, and the employee' parking at the top level at eight feet in width. Planner Kasparowitz stated that the City Council would set the public hearing date on April 9th, for the public hearing to be held on April 23rd. He clarified that the parking study analyzes the parking demands and luanuvers~ and the parking management plan is an internal document to manage the customer/employee parking. Discussion continued on controling the street parking on EI Camino Real. City Engineer Arthur Wong stated that if Kaiser comes up with a parking management plan and if one of the proposal is time limited parking on EI Camino Real, the City could then ask for Caltrans' review. At the present time, there have be no complaints of that area. The Commission further discussed the parking on EI Camino Real and persons using Caltrans bus systelu. Chairman Romero asked whether the City could review the EI Camino Real parking issue before BART was in place. City Engineer Wong noted that the proposed parking garage for BART willlueet their proposed demands. Page 3 of3 pr Mta ')!')()/Q7 Study Session - Downtown Flexibility Ordinances: Commissioner Teglia and Baldocchi will be abstaining from this item as advised by City Attorney. Chairman Romero called a 5 minute recess at 8:20 PM. Meeting called back to order at 8:25 PM. Planner Steve Solomon presented staff report noting that the City Council had reveiwed the ideas to make standards less restrictive in the old town areas due to the lanes. He indicated that there would be no action today, but the ideas brought forward by the Planning Con1mission would be incorporated into a draft ordinance to be reviewed at a public hearing. He presented slides showing: 1) Examples of ramps that match and do not match with the existing building. 2) Front yard side fences and shrubs with height limits. 3) Garage access in Lanes and rear yards fences and structures; and 4) Single side parking at lanes on asphalt and cement curbs with little landscaping. Planner Sololnon asked the Commission to note how changes could be Inade: A) Inodify standards, B) require minor permit hearing, or C) develop policies and design standards. He noted that some changes are needed city-wide, and other changes just in residential/rural areas. The possibility of an overlay district, which overlays on the standard districts, n1ay be considered for the accessory structures category. He also indicated how the City needs to allow for accessibility ramps and have a method of removing the ramps when they are no longer needed. The rear yard decks are allowed but not on side yards since they may intrude in the privacy of the neighbors. The front yard decks are not allowed to exceed 18 inches in height, and there are no set backs established. Planner Solomon explained how limits or floor area ratio (FAR) of sites are similar to performance standards. Discussion continued on the performance approach for a front yard use detennination (what is a front yard used for and how to define the front yard useable space area). Planner Solomon noted in the interpretation of flexible zoning, exceptions could be measured by the flexibility in the percentage, if the site meets certain standards. Assistant City Attorney Snodgrass stated that an ordinance needs to have usable definate standards, i.e. a range that staff could say something is or is not permissible, is acceptable. The Commission discussed a variety of ramps and ways of screening them. One idea was a retaining wall and earth filled base ralnp with shrubs along the edge for screening. The Commission expressed concern that all residents would build decks to the front propeliy lines, the option for review by the Comlnission on a case by case basis is desirable through the variance process. Planner Solomon explained that Council's focus was on residents with existing structures who want to alter the existing stnlctures and should not be constraint from Inaking improvements to the existing properties. Discussion continued on items to consider through improvements such as landscaping on hillsides, drainage, and concerns with noise as the usable space between neighbors is narrowed. The Commission considered limiting the height of decks to not introde into the privacy of the neighbors. Discussion continued on limiting height on accessory structures and not allowing them any closer than five feet from the rear yard property line. Planner Solomon noted the pros and cons of reducing the 20 foot setbacks for garages on lanes. The main concern was that the vehicle can be Inaneuvered if less than 20 feet away frOln the property line. The trade off is parking on the lanes vs. maneuverability. Director Van Duyn indicated that with the allowed parking on lanes, the attractiveness to the front of the Page 4 of 4 pr l\;fto- ') /'In/07 house will be encouraged. He noted that this policy is only talking about those lots with older homes which were built with only one car garage. Discussion continued on the restrictions of parking in the front yards. Chairman Romero noted that some of these issues apply to specific areas of the City and would like to have the next report diferentiate which issues apply to specific areas and which apply City wide. Further discussion continued on rear yard accessory structures. Planner Solomon noted that there is a lilnits of two accessory structures and the square footage is limited to a specific percentage of the required rear yard but does not lilnit with consideration to the lots size. He explained that the Commission lnay want to consider the protection of the usable open space in the rear yards, this would discourage cottages and in-law units. Accessory stnlctures are itelns that could be reviewed in the case by case basis with the minor use permit or use permit process to allow a review to lnake sure they meet the intent of the standards. .,..,....................,................................, ~:~g~pp~p.g::::Qt:@g~:~:~tt:~:::~ Discussion continued on the restrictions or establishing Design Standards of sheds, what could be implemented or what is desired. Does the Commission want to require a planning pennit when a building permit is not being required by the UBC. The COlnmission considered the need to control buildings that would effects neighbors' propeliy or aesthetic view. The Commission considered "rules" vs. "guidelines" to assist the resident and business in the design of the accessory structures. The Commission discussed the possibility of increasing rear yard fence limits from 6 feet to 8 feet and the safety concerns for front yard fence limits from 3 feet to 6 feet. Discussion continued that a rod iron fence does not impede in the visibility and heights of 4' or 6' could be considered, but solid fences are not recommended in the fi"ont yards higher than 3'. The Commission thanked Planner SolOlnon for a very informative report. COlnmissioner Teglia and Baldocchi returned to the dias. Items from Staff: None Items frolTI Commission: Chairman Romero noted a possible hazardous condition of an unfinished fence job at Romney & Del Monte Avenue near Aha Lama Middle School. Director Van Duyn stated that the Building Division! Code Enforcement will be notified. Commissioner Baldocchi asked whether the Commission could be aware of items coming before the Commission faliher in advance than a week. Staff noted that items in the Design Review Board agenda and minutes are a preview of what the Planning COlnmission will be receiving. Director Van Duyn and City Attorney cautioned the COlnlnission of talking to applicants before the public hearing. Commissioner Sim invited the Planning COlnlnission to the AIi Rise fundraiser Council will be serving. Also the American Planning Association is having their convention the first Monday of April, the Commissioners are invited to breakfast. Commissioner Teglia noted that the project location lnap included in the packet are helpful. He also Page 5 of5 PC Mto- ?.I?O/c)7 reported that banners along Grand Avenue are looking sloppy. Director Van Duyn stated staffwould review the Inatter and step up enforcement. Chairman Romero informed that he was contacted by an irrate resident after attending a neighborhood meeting, that a 149 unit project had been approved and commencing in six months on the north side of sign hill. The meeting was held by the property owner, Mr. Jim Tucker and his representative, Mr. Lagomarsino. Chainnan Romero expressed concern that the residents have been Inisinformed and notified the resident that the Planning Comlnission had not approved such a project. Planner Carlson informed the COlnlnission that the developer had met breifly with Planning, Building, Engineering and Police Departlnents, but they have not subn1itted a cOlnplete application. He had discussed with them that a community meeting would be advisable after they had submitted an application. Staff was not notified of the apparent meeting. Director Van Duyn stated that Planning Division could send out a letter to residents to inform theln that there is no official application on file and that they would be notified when the proposed project would come before the Planning COlnmission and City Council for review. Planner Carlson noted the applicant and owner have been informed that an EIR will be needed. Director Van Duyn will inform Mr. Lagomarsino and Mr. Tucker to schedule a work session with the Planning COlnmission and to Ineet with City staff as soon as possible. Items from the Public: None Adjournment: Motion-Masuda/Second- Teglia: Motion to adjourn meeting at 10:00 PM to the Regular Planning C0l111nission Meeting of April 3, 1997. -\or '&~~(~~~b1.J Willialn ROlnero, Chainnan Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Ma V Duyn, Secretary Plan . ng Commission City of South San Francisco WR:MVD:rp Page 6 of6 Dr l\tf+n ,., /,.,n/o'7