Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/15/2004 MINUTES January 15, 2004 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS TAPE 1 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Lieutenant Jim Thane, Planning Liaison City Attorney: Police Department: PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION Chairperson Romero opened the nominations for Chairperson and nominated Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt. Motion Zemke / Second Giusti to close the nominations. Roll call vote: Ayes: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero Noes: None No one was absent and no one abstained. Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Chairperson Ochsenhirt thanked the Commission for allowing him the opportunity to serve as Chairperson and presented a plaque to outgoing Chairperson Romero. Commissioner Romero thanked the Commission for allowing him to work as Chairperson for two years. Chairperson Ochsenhirt opened nomination for Vice Chairperson and nominated Commissioner Teglia. Commissioner Giusti seconded the nomination. Commissioner Sim nominated Commissioner Honan for Vice Chairperson Motion Romero / Second Zemke to close nominations. Commissioner Teglia was voted as Vice Chairperson by a 4-3 written ballot vote. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Don Mason, 10 Arlington Drive, pointed out an article in the Independent entitled "A South City elderly home under investigation". He noted that elderly homes need to have a registered nurse administer shots and he added that the article noted that the home was not clean. He also noted that he wanted to know how many rest homes are in the City. He entered the article from the Independent into the record. Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2004 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes December 18, 2004. 2. Mesick, Donald C. & Janel L.-Owner / Applicant 751 Alta Lorna Dr. P03-0140/UP03-0028 and Categorical Exemption Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Use Permit to legalize an existing enclosed patio in excess of 300 square feet in the Single-Family Residential (R- i-E) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.16 and 20.81. Vice Chairperson Teglia pulled item #2 from the Consent Calendar. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Mesick, Donald C. & Janel L.-Owner / Applicant Approved 751 Alta Lorna Dr. P03-0140/UP03-0028 and Categorical Exemption Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Use Permit to legalize an existing enclosed patio in excess of 300 square feet in the Single-Family Residential (R- i-E) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.16 and 20.81. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public hearing was closed. Commission comments.' The Commission was concerned with the enclosed patio becoming a living area. Response: Associate Planner Kowalski noted patio enclosures are defined as room with walls consisting primarily of translucent materials an no heating or air conditioning. The subject enclosure fits this definition. He also noted that if the owner wished to convert it they would still not be over their square foot limitation for livable area. Concern was raised with regard to a carport on the property. Associate Planner Kowalski noted that the carport would have to be demolished as a condition of approval for this application. The Commission asked if the shed in the rear would have doors on it. Mr. Mesick and Mrs. Mesick noted that a side of the shed does not have doors on it and the shed would be moved 6 feet away from the house and remain open. The Commission asked if the garage had been modified or if it is currently a garage. Mrs. Mesick noted that they currently do not have a garage and have not changed anything since they purchased the home. Associate Planner Kowalski explained that there apparently was a garage on the front of the house when it was first built but it had been converted since then into lovable area. However since the shed in the rear yard was big enough to serve as a covered parking space and was accessible via a legal driveway, it could legally serve as a replacement for any garage that was originally there before. Staff also noted that there was ample room to build a garage or carport in the side yard. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to approve P03-0140 and UP03-0028. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. Action Signs, Inc./Owner William & Andrew Morocco/Applicant Approved S:\M[V\.ute.s\F[V\.ClL[zecl M[V\.ute.s\::200-4- \01.-1.5-0-4- RPc.cloc' PClge ::2 of G Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2004 (Continued From December 18, 2003) 178-190 Airport Blvd. P03-0091/SIGNS03-0025 and Categorical Exemption Type "C" Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) to allow the expansion of an existing single faced billboard to: 1) increase the height from 70 to 90 ft; 2) increase the size of the sign face from 588 sq. ft. (12x42) to 672 sq. ft. (14x48); 3) install a new monopole structure; 4) improve the illumination; and 5) double face the sign in the Planned Commercial (P-C) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.76.170 & 20.86. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commission comments,' The billboard is aimed at the traffic from the highway. The sign is out of the view of local traffic because it is higher. There was a concern that the increased lighting would affect the drivers. Why is the sign going to be allowed to be moved depending on the development needs of the City? Would the owner also be responsible for the purchase of the land that the sign is being relocated to? Why would~n't the sign location be permanent? The billboard is an opportunity to upgrade this corridor of the City and merits findings of special circumstances. A Commissioner referenced that the denial for the sign upgrade on EI Camino Real was a different case and that all sign decisions are on a case-by-case basis. Response: Mr. Morocco noted that there would be 4 or 5 lights aimed at the sign for visibility and not towards oncoming traffic. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the purchase and sale agreement would require the applicant to relocate the sign if so desired by the City, within certain periods as long as visibility to the highway is not reduced to accommodate any future development on the site. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that relocation of the sign could be within the current sign easement or property owned by the agency within the vicinity. Principal Planner Kalkin noted that the site layout is not determined and the City needs the flexibility. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that a factual distinction between the Airport Boulevard sign and the EI Camino Real sign is that the sign being considered by the Commission is serving Highway 101 a major thoroughfare and the previously denied sign is not directed towards the same readership. Motion Romero / Second Giusti to approve P03-0091 and SIGNS03-0025. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 4. Wattis Way LLC/ Owner Continued to February 4, 2004 Consolidated Electrical Distri/ Applicant 280 Wattis Way P03-0088/UP03-0014 and Categorical Exemption Section 15301 Class 1 Minor Alterations of Existing Facility Use Permit to allow outside storage of metal racks next to an existing warehouse on property located in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32 and 20.81. S: \M[V\.ute.s\F[V\.Cl L[zecl M[V\.ute.s\::2004 \01. -1.5-04 RPc.cloc' PClge 3 of G Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2004 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Alex Visberg, applicant, noted that the company has been a tenant for 15 years and the racks have been there during his 5 year tenure. He added that the landscaping that was mandated in 1990 is the responsibility of the owner but they have tired to bring it up to code with the exception of the ground cover because it is not in season. Commission comments: How is the landscaping being maintained and is there a sprinkler system? Can the racks on the side of the building be moved to the rear of the building Are the racks secured? The pavement is in disrepair. How many employees are there and where will they park? How will the public be notified that they shouldn't park in the rear? Are 5 parking spaces sufficient for customers and where will the loading and unloading take place? It was suggested that the racks be screened from public view. Response: Mr. Visberg noted that there is a gardening service maintaining the landscaping once a week. He added that there is a sprinkler system. Mr. Visberg noted that there is designated parking in the back and cannot be moved to that location. Mr. Visberg noted that they are secured to the concrete. Mr. Visberg stated that they have made all the improvements to the driveway and remodeled the entire facility. Mr. Visberg replied that there are 19 employees and they will park in the back. Senior Planner Carlson added that the Engineering Division is willing to narrow the driveway width providing that only the employees park in the rear. Mr. Visberg noted that signs can be added but there have not been any customers park in the back. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a condition could be modified to require signage-restricting publiC from parking in the rear. Mr. Visberg stated that 900/0 of their business is delivery and on rare occasion do they have customers in the facility. He added that there are roll-up doors adjacent to the entrance and that is where loading and unloading takes place. Senior Planner Carlson noted that a shrub or a tree could be put in front of the racks. Tom Murphy, owner of property in the Utah Industrial Park, spoke in opposition. He noted that the racks are already up and it is not aesthetically pleasing. He felt that this may set a precedent and the tenant may need a bigger building. Public Hearing closed. The Commission asked what mitigations are there for racks? Senior Planner Carlson suggested placing more landscaping to screen the racks. The Commission suggested that the item go to the Design Review Board. The racks are too high to screen them. s: \M[V\.ute.s\F[V\.Cl L[zecl M[V\.ute.s\::2004 \01. -1.5-04 RPc.cloc' PClge 4 of G Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2004 Motion Teglia / Second Sim to continue P03-0088 and UP03-0014 to February 4, 2004. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff a. 3-Month Review A & S Realty/ Owner Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc./ Applicant 161 Starlite St. P03-0101/UP03-0018 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Existing Facilities 3-Month Review of Use Permit to allow the sale of wine and beer for off-site consumption in association with mail order gift baskets in the M-l Industrial Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.30 and 20.81. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Commission had scheduled a 3-month review with an ABC license being approved shortly after the approved the Use Permit. He noted that the applicant's ABC license has not been issued. He recommended that once the beer and wine license is issued the 90 day review period begin and at the end of that period the Commission review the Use Permit. Concurrence of the Commission to remove the item from the calendar and start the review Deriod when the ABC license is issued. Motion Teglia / Second Sim to review the Use Permit after the issuance of an ABC license. Approved by unanimous voice vote. b. Mancini Properties, Inc.-owner World Cup Indoor Soccer 1422 San Mateo Ave. UP-96-045 Status Update of Use Permit (UP-96-045) to allow an indoor soccer field and off-site parking at 1422 San Mateo Avenue within the M-l Industrial Zone District. Principal Planner Kalkin gave an update on the World Cup Soccer use permit. She noted that the applicant withdrew his application to modify the use permit and the unapproved uses have been removed. The applicant has removed the Q-Zar sign, facility and the arcade and installed the half court soccer facility. She noted that a master sign program for the multi-tenant building is due to the Planning Division on February 6, 2004. Commissioner Honan asked what will be done if the signage program is not submitted by the deadline? Principal Planner Kalkin noted that they will be referred to Code Enforcement. The Commissioner asked that the sign program return to the Commission for review and that a three-month review would be appropriate due to the applicant's history of non-compliance. Direction was given to Staff. c. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Fairfield Transit Village proposal was approved by the City Council and Century Theatres was continued for one month. He added that the Planners Institute is from March 31 thru April 2. 6. Items from Commission · Commissioner Zemke noted that he would not be able to attend the Planners Institute · Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that he is willing to ask the City Council not to cut the funding for the Conference being that it is a good learning experience for the Commission. · Commissioner Honan noted that she would not be going and that the City needs to make cuts and this is one s: \M[V\.ute.s\F[V\.Cl L[zecl M [V\.ute.s\::2004 \01. -1.5-04 RPc.cloc' PClge50{ G Planning Commission Meeting of January 15, 2004 area they could cut for experienced Commissioners. · Chairperson Ochsenhirt thanked staff and the Council for the work on the Fairfield Transit Village project. · Commissioner Romero noted that there is a large cigarette sign at the Westborough Valero station that was not part of the approval packet. He asked what the status was another sign on EI Camino Real that is in the backyard of a residence. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Valero sign is subject to Code Enforcement and they will be asked to recheck it. He added that the sign on EI Camino is a delicate issue due to a law regarding off-site real estate signs. He added that staff is exploring the options. · Commissioner Romero noted that he received a telephone call from a representative of Project 101 and was asked what the Commission was looking for. He noted that the Commission needed to see something with more detail and clear. Although the information submitted is a progress, more work is needed. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the problem has been quality of graphics. He added that there is another use permit application for the site and before that use permit is reviewed by the Commission the Master Plan for Project 101 needs to be reviewed and approved. 7. Items from the'Public None 8. Adjournment Motion Romero / Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting. 9:01 P.M. Thomas C. Sparks Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco fi~ 0..11..., j~ Ric Ochsenhlrt, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting February 5, 2004, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/bla S:\M[V\.ute.s\F[V\.ClL[zecl M[V\.uteS\2004 \01.-1.5-04 RPc.cloc' PClge b of b