Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.25.96 Minutes MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD January 25, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PC MEMBERS PRESENT: Chainnan Warren, Vice-Chainnan ROlnero, Comlnissioners DeZordo, Lucchesi, and Masuda DRB MEMBERS PRESENT: Esta G. Kornfield, Jackie Stavi, Robert A. Williams, and John Murphy MEMBERS ABSENT: COlnlnissioner Barnett and Anthony T. Shen ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division: Chief Planner Interiln Planner Steve Sololnon Lawrence Kasparowitz ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS INTERVIEW Esta Kornfield - presented her focus on how projects use plant lnaterials, and gave a brief description on her background and experience. Discussion followed on the types of drawings sublnitted, and her focus on landscaping and plant lnaterials. She noted that she does drive by projects to see how they turn out and also noted that the applicants are receiving free advise which is a great benefit. Robert Williatns - noted that the D RB is an advisory board to the Planning COlnmission and that the goals/policies of the City Council and Planning COlnlnission need to be reviewed. He looks at the overall context of the building; he feels that the Planning Division needs to review plans with the applicant for plans to follow city policies. Ms. Kornfield noted concern with PUD projects' density. Mr. Willatns is concerned with large single fatnily projects without enough landscaping or parks. When asked "What lnotivates the board lnelnbers" Ms. Kornfield said she enjoys being of assistance to the applicant and seeing the project itnprove. Mr. Williatns said he enjoys working with applicants, but would like a sense of direction froln the Planning Commission as to what they want for the City. In response to the questions of the Board's cOlnposition, Mr. Willaitns noted that when a Board melnber is absent it creates a very small board and the applicant may not get a sense of being before a Board. He suggests that a staff lnelnber sit on the Board at the meeting, to keep a minitnum of three people on the board. In previous years Public Works/Engineering and Fire Dept. had representatives at the meetings. He stated that other Design Review Boards look at internal function of a house for the hOlneowners that draw-up their own plans and are not represented by an architect or contractor; they do offer suggestions to those hOlneowners. He noted that SOlne Boards have an attorney, interior decorator, a color consultant, three architects, a contractor, and an engineer; and he would like to have a planning staff member to act as a lnelnber. Esta Kornfield responded to COlnlnissioner Padreddii' s question on landscaping. She noted that she does suggest planting lnaterial specially on cOlnlnercial projects and recoIn mended providing a new publication silnilar to "Friends of the Urban Forest in San Francisco" for the public. In response to Chainnan Warren's question on the worst and best projects since they were on the Board, Mr. WilliaIns cited the Sunrise project and noted they reviewed what went wrong and have worked on not lnaking the Saine lnistakes; the best is the housing developlnent on Chestnut Avenue. Ms. Kornfield noted the best is a cOlnlnercial site located west of Hwy. 101 at Airport Blvd.; and the worst are the parking lots with all asphalt and no landscaping. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Interitn Planner Kasparowitz explained the Design Review Board's ordinance sections, and that is advisory to the Chief Planner and also explained the DRB process. He explained that the current board is cOlnposed of three architects, one landscape architect, and one citizen member (who is also a licensed contractor); four of the lnelnbers should be professionals. Kasparowitz then presented "before" and "after" plans of projects that the Board had itnproved. Discussion continued on policy directions. Chief Planner Sololnon noted that the infonnal process adopted in the past five years is for the applicant to work with our Landscape Architect following the first meeting, instead of going back before the DRB several titnes, and that this has sped up the application process. Discussion continued on an application's review froln TAG, DRB and then the Planning Comlnission. Kasparowitz noted that Genentech has preferred to have several study sessions and also, staff preferrers to have at least one study session on major projects. COlnmissioner Masuda asked if DRB's COlnlnents are part of the staff reports when they COlne before the Planning COlnlnission? Vice-Chainnan ROlnero asked for the DRB minutes before the items COlne to the Planning COlnlnission. Mr. Sololnon noted that the DRB's comlnents are contained in the COlnlnission's staff reports. Chainnan Warren was concerned that our DRB lnay be too stringent, Mr. Willialns noted that in the Bay Area, South San Francisco is not stringent. It was mentioned that other cities have Page 2 of 3 PC/DRB Meeting of 1/25/96 subcolnlnittees of planning cOlnlnissioners as the design review board. COlnmissioner Pradreddii noted in the last few years the pennit process complaints have been less. Chairman Warren noted that during that period of titne, the COlnlnission delegated much more latitude to be within the planning staff's purview due to their confidence in the Chief Planner and also delegated planning actions that used to COlne to the Commission. This has sped up the process, and lnany of the problelns have been resolved at the staff level. In noting the Planning Comlnission's direction, Sololnon stated that five years ago the direction was to itnprove the quality of design in the City, three years ago the direction focused on not daInaging businesses COIning into the cOlnmunity, and reducing cOlnplaints from single faInily hOlneowners about the design review process; and now the sensitivity to the community/neighborhoods and hannony of businesses within the cOlnlnunity is the primary focus. The COlnlnission discussed the direction froln Council. Jackie Stavi noted that it is confusing to the applicant when they get DRB's recolnlnendation, gets approval froln the COlnlnission and then is denied by City Council. Discussion continued on how helpful the tour of the City had been and how SOlne projects looked different once they had been constructed, than what the COlnmission had seen on the plans. The COlnlnission and D RB lnelnbers expressed their views on the itnportance of landscaping and wished to have infonnation available for the applicant with types of planting appropriate to SSF. In sUln In ary , the Board would like direction froln the COlnlnission, and the COlnlnission would like to set a lneeting with Council to address this issue. A tour of the best and worst projects, to take place after the lneeting with Council, and lneeting again with DRB during the year, were also discussed. Adjournment: Motion-Masuda/Second-Lucchesi: To adjourn lneeting at 9:30 PM. to February 1, 1996, Regular Planning COlnlnission Meeting. ~~ ~ /JI/. Steve Sololnon, Secretary Planning COlnlnission City of South San Francisco Margaret Warren, Chainnan Planning COlnlnission City of South San Francisco 55: rp Page 3 of 3 PC/DRB Meeting of 1/25/96