Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/18/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE January 18, 2001 1'ABEl CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Baldocchi, Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Sim MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairperson Meloni (out due to illness) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Kimberly Johnson Richard Harmon Rocque Yballa City Attorney: Engineering: Bldg./Fire Prevo AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that there are no changes to the agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2000. Motion Honan / Second D'Angelo to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 2. De Young Museum South City Industrial Co., LLC-owner Corporation of the Fine Arts Museums-applicant 245 So. Spruce Ave. UP-00-084 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Interior alteration within an existing facility Use Permit to allow an office and warehouse use generating in excess of 100 average daily trips within the existing SFIA building in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.32.060 (Recommending continuance to February 15,2001) 3. Costco Gas StationlCostco-owner/applicant 481 So. Airport Blvd. UP-00-026 & ND-00-026 S:\Minutes\011801 RPC.doc Page 1 of 5 Use Permit to allow four island (eight multi-product dispensers and 16 fueling positions) gas station and over 100 additional ADT at the vacant site across from the existing Costco facility. (Recommending continuance to February 15,2001) Motion Teglia / Second Honan to continue items 2 and 3 to February 15,2001. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Items from Staff a. General Plan discussion on single family FAR. Chief Planner Sparks and Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Commissioner D'Angelo thanked staff for giving the Commission this information. He pointed out that there are many illegal additions being done because the FAR does not permit it. He noted that he is looking forward to these type of discussions. He suggested addressing the requirement for an addition is to add covered parking space. Commissioner Teglia stated that it is a complicated issue and welcomes a discussion on it. He added that planning is always a matter of balance. He added that the character of the City is one story homes with two bedrooms and many homeowners have gone up a floor, which is a nice balance. He pointed out that the developments that had the maximum density in the beginning are now bringing the FAR issue up. He added that another type of situation that brought up the FAR issue were celiain issues that are preempted by the State and the City has no control of these. He suggested looking at the full range, rather than losing control of certain things. He also suggested limiting the use of the Minor Use Permit process and giving the Planning Commission extra flexibility while maintaining the control that is needed. Commissioner D'Angelo asked for an explanation of the Minor Use Permit process. Commissioner Teglia noted that this might be a tool that allows the Commission flexibility. He stated that it is going to be important to discuss new development, existing development, uses with a certain amount of jurisdiction, and ways to allow an addition in South San Francisco. Senior Planner Lappen noted that staff and the Commission can revisit a handout that is provided to all applicants that shows what the zoning ordinance requires in terms of residential size. He added that it is tied to parking, although there is a lot coverage requirement of 50%. He noted that if there is an existing unit with a one car garage, the maximum that can be done with a one car garage is 3 bedrooms and 1800 square feet, and with a two car garage the size can be increased to 2500 square feet. He added that this is prior to the General Plan and what is being used to control some bulk and development, although it does not control design. Commissioner D'Angelo asked if it is over controlling by require adding a garage space for an additional amount of square feet. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this type of question is going to be addressed Commissioner Honan asked what happens to those that have converted their garages but have made carpOlts. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this will also be discussed and are now trying to identify the issues for the Commission's consideration. Senior Planner Lappen noted that this is a matter of finding if the carport as a covered garage space and Steve handles those issues specifically. He pointed out that a review of applications received over the last year that go through the building permit process ranged between 300-500 square feet additions not including any garages. He added that lot coverage is different than F ARs. Chairperson Sim noted that another consideration is topography. He pointed out that the City has hillside, flat, urban and suburban areas. He suggested that staff analyze each neighborhood for their unique and distinct S:\Minutes\011801 RPC.doc Page 2 of 5 qualities. He noted that when there is an addition regardless of the site, there is a different density projection to the neighbors depending on where the house is located. He also suggested that staff analyze view corridors. Senior Planner Lappen proceeded to show pictures of various neighborhoods in South San Francisco. He noted that each neighborhood in the City has its own characteristics. Commissioner D'Angelo asked Chief Planner Sparks to have a future discussion on having an entrance to an addition be through the main entrance. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff will look at the second unit requirement and the State requirements and then will be brought back to the Commission. He added that planning is a matter of balance and the .5 FAR is not working everywhere. He added that this has proved to be onerous to many of the residents for additions that don't look out of scale. He pointed out that this can get very complicated very quickly. Chairperson Sim noted that in the Westborough area there are concrete pads in the area, the landscaping is decreasing, and lot coverage exceeds 50%. He noted that decking on second floor is being expanded with columns coming down to the [lIst level. He pointed out that the lower neighborhood is looking at that and others look at the strategy in doing this incrementally where the City or neighborhoods have difficulty finding when there is a violation. He stated that it is a difficult to enforce these types of additions. Commissioner Baldocchi asked how much the design of the additions can be impacted. Chief Planner Sparks suggested that a possibility is to have any addition go to the Design Review Board, but that staff is also trying to keep the process simple. Chairperson Sim noted that the Westborough Homeowners Association has their own architectural committee. He asked that staff return to the Commission with the process on approving residential additions and how the City gets involved with CC&Rs. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it is a general rule of any City not to get involved with CC&R enforcement. .' Commissioner Honan asked how many residents are requesting additions and finding out that their neighbor has it. Chief Planner Sparks noted that Senior Planner Lappen had a rough count of 96 approvals and about a dozen with additions that exceed the 0.5 FAR in the past year. Commissioner Romero noted that the PUD process is used on occasion to try to get around the development standards and suggests developing some type of residential PUD process that would enable individuals to have some flexibility in determining whether a project can be accommodated. He suggested developing a standard that requires on-site parking in lieu of covered parking and feels that the City needs to accommodate the publics needs. He added that an alternative to having an in-law unit available on a single family lot should be investigated and considered very strongly. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that a homeowner may not have to go to Design Review Board but maybe a subcommittee and would streamline the system. Commissioner Baldocchi added that the Commission's desire to have a design standard for additions and it has to be made clear in the code that these are the expectations. She noted that part of the requirement is going to be that it be consistent with the area and house. She reiterated that she would not mind having an addition go through some type of a design review process. Chairperson Sim agreed with Commissioner Baldocchi in that the applicant will know what is expected from them. Chairperson Sim also agreed with Commissioner Baldocchi's comments. Commissioner Teglia suggested not throwing everything out the window and the Commission does want to allow some flexibility. He added that the parking regulations predate any of the Commissioners and parking congestion could be a specific reason why those requirements were put into the Code. He added that the FAR is a more recent matter and noted that allowing a PUD is probably not the specific tool that could be used. He suggested looking at the history of why the requirements were set and not go too far back. Commissioner Romero noted that he was recommending the type of process that a PUD allows. He eXplained that if a person needs some type of variance form the certain requirement and it is reasonable it can be S:\Minutes\011801 RPC.doc Page 3 of 5 accommodated. He noted that this will help the homeowner in a way that their addition will be acceptable without restricting them too much. Direction was given bv the Commission as discussed above. b. Study Session Project 101/Huntsman Architect Group-applicant, Intereal-owner 600-790 Dubuque Ave. UP-00-024 & ND-00-024 Use Permit allowing a Master Plan for a business center generating in excess of 100 ADT involving a use change of four existing structures, largely occupied by tenants using space for warehouse operations, but also limited existing office, retail and fmniture use to predominantly office with limited warehouse space and retail to support the new office uses--intent to convert the old warehouse facility to an office park. Recess taken at 8:20 p.m. to allow the applicant to setup their presentation. Recalled to order at 8:25 p.m. Tim Murphy gave a presentation on their vision of transforming project 101. Commissioner Teglia noted that future graphics should be more realistic, such as, a computer rendering for better contrast. He stated that the existing awnings are proposed to be removed and asked what the signage for each tenant would be. Mr. Murphy noted that the signage consists of two pieces, an aluminum clad box that is a canopy, and slid around the canopy is a steel plate that intersects between the canopy and the painted sign. He added that the canopy is an aluminum box shaped canopy. He noted that in the rear of the building there is an entry that is being removed and will be made to match the rest of the project. Commissioner D'Angelo was concerned with the wind in the area and the patio then being unusable. He asked if any of the existing buildings will remain at the site after the Master plan is implemented. Mr. Murphy noted that West Marine is the only business that will remain. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that the laundry service is always convenient and asked if this will be an onsite wash and laundry, or a front service with an offsite use. Mr. Murphy noted that it was discussed to be on the site. Commissioner D'Angelo noted that this then changes the character of the facility. He complimented Mr. Murphy on the showers and the biking. Commissioner Romero asked how the loading dock area where the Office Depot was going to be converted. Mr. Murphy noted that they will get rid of the bumpers, will repaint it and then filling the roll up door with a storefront. Commissioner Romero asked if the parking will be up against the building. Mr. Murphy noted that the curve stops then there are stairs in certain areas where exiting is required. Commissioner Romero suggested that the applicant consider a planting area along the wall to improve the look of that. Commissioner Honan noted that there is a wind problem in the area. She asked if the applicant still plans on having outdoor seating and if not what is being planned for that area. She also asked what type of trees would be put into the area taking into consideration the wind conditions and what would be the applicants maintenance plan. Mr. Murphy noted that the wind direction is largely from the hill and the buffer will protect the wind flow. They will use a trellis or other device to encourage the wind to go over the seating. He pointed out that the trees are also selected from the City list and that they have entertained bids for the landscape installation and maintenance plan. Commissioner Teglia asked if the applicant was considering a mix of uses. Mr. Murphy noted that he project is transitioning towards office use. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that he likes the campus motif which has been done in the East of 101 area. He encouraged that the applicant maintain the existing recreational use. He added that this may be a valuable long term tenant. S:\Minutes\011801 RPC.doc Page 4 of 5 Chairperson Sim noted that there is now more parking available and asked if there was a way to balance the landscape and parking. He pointed out that this may allow a TDM program and the owner may want to look into that. Mr. Murphy noted that fig trees would enhance the area. Chairperson Sim noted that these are moments where the Commission can reinforce some of the issues that they have. Commissioner Romero asked if the applicant was planning on resurfacing the parking area and incorporating some streetscape to improve the look of the area. Mr. Murphy noted that there are new walks around the buildings and in front of every building. Commissioner Honan asked if the colors presented to the Commission are the colors that are being proposed. Mr. Murphy noted that there are four schemes that are of the range that will be used. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission will be reviewing the SEIR after it goes out for review at the end of March. c. Misc. Chief Planner Sparks noted that he is delighted with the Commission's new appointments to the DRB. He added that the new board met Tuesday night and there were spirited comments. He added that the City Council conducted a housing forum and it was a useful exercise with interesting commentary. He noted that the City Council was interested in good quality development regardless of density. He noted that the League of California Cities Planning Conference is March 21-23 and are going to reserve spots for a full Commission because staff does not know when there will be appointments to the Commission. 5. Items from Commission Commissioner Teglia wanted to alert the rest of the Commission of the new construction of the Giorgi furniture store and does not recall approving the setback as it is now. He noted that there is a wall being built on Baden A venue and there is a small sidewalk. He asked if it was too late to do anything about the closeness of the building to the street. He added that the materials were also higher quality and asked that this be reviewed also. 6. Items from the Public - None 7. Adjournment Motion Honan / Second D'Angelo to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ;~~ ~C~d Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Eugene Sim, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting February 1, 2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. TCS/bh S:\Minutes\011801 RPC.doc Page 5 of 5