Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.21.97 Minutes MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE August 21, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Romero, Vice-Chairman Barnett, Commissioner Masuda, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Baldocchi MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning Division Marty Van Duyn Jim Harnish Susy Kalkin Steve Mattas Sgt. Ron Petrocchi Sgt. Mike Massoni Richard Harmon Don Castain Ray Honan City Attorney Police Dept. Engineering Division Building Division Water Quality Control Plant PRESENTATIONS & RECEPTION 1. Resolution commending Leo Padreddii for his service on the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission. Chairman Romero presented the resolution to Mr. Padreddii. Mr. Padreddii thanked the Commission and stated that he will continue serving the COlTIlTIUnity through the Harbor District. Motion- Romero/SecondTeglia to adopt the resolution. 2. Resolution commending Sgt. Ron Petrocchi for his service to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission. Commissioner Teglia presented the resolution. Sgt. Petrocchi thanked the Commission and noted that the quality of life in South San Francisco has been consistently high due to effective planning. He added that other agencies are using the process established by South San Francisco because of its effectiveness. Motion- Teglia/Second-Sim to adopt the resolutign. 1 of 7 3. Resolution commending Arthur Wong for his service to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission. Commissioner Sim read the resolution. Mr. Wong was not available to accept the resolution. It was noted that Mr. Wong is currently on his honeymoon. Motion-Sim-/Second- Teglia to adopt the resolution. Meeting recessed 7:45 p.m. Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of August 7, 1997 - Motion-Barnett/Second-Honan to approve. Unanimously approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Margaret Warren expressed her personal appreciation for Sgt. Petrocchi's dedicated years of service. She voiced a concern with respect to TCI Cable, and the possibility that they are splitting signals instead of installing separate service. Chairman Romero announced that Item 5 a. would be heard before Item 4. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff a. Report back regarding Heather Heights. Chief Planner Harnish presented the report. He identified the first item of concern as a public health and safety issue involving the condition of the guardrail that was installed by the developer at engineering staff's request because of safety concerns. This was done without consulting with the Commission. He added that it is common for staff to review projects with plans approved by the Commission, and in general these kinds of decisions are made on every project. He cited the narrow setbacks in this project have caused the changes to be particularly noticeable. Options to address the concerns of the neighbors have been explored and will be discussed later. The second item of concern pertains to the landscape. Some of the landscaping had been delayed by the developer until the issue of the guardrail was resolved. Landscaping planned for the southeast corner has been installed. Plants have been placed randomly, but to some extent progress is being made. The third issue involves the building setbacks. He has visited the site three times, and along with the Building Official, measured the area to determine the setbacks. A number of setbacks are not consistent with the approved plans. After receiving the letter from Santa Clara Development he measured again, and determined that the setbacks are close to complying. Adjustments were made which were approved by Planning, Building and Engineering staff The basic problem is that property line is under the sidewalk, if measured from the foundation to a 5' setback. Architectural projections caused fireplaces and facade to extend l' to 2' into the front or side yard setback. Those projections do not appear in plot plans. This is typical. However, it is an issue that staffwiIl need to look at more carefully. The issue of the conflict between the 15' PC Mtg. 8/21/97 2 of 7 minimum setback and the discrepancies is one that the Commissions may want to discuss further to determine what rear yards should be. The conclusions are different from the staff report. The comments made by Mr. Garcia are largely correct. With respect to the concerns on the retaining walls, most changes were made in order to expand yards. The walls are more vertical for additional space. With the exception of the south end of the project, this is consistent with the approved plans. On the north side of Joseph Drive, adjustments were made from original approved plans, but in the judgement of staff the changes were not significant. Mr. Harnish concluded by stating that the issue of the guard rail needs to be resolved. He suggested discussing the concerns, and recommended that the Commission give staff direction to work with the developer to resolve all the issues. Mr. Harnish informed the Commission of his heightened awareness of the sensitivity expressed by the Commission over these issues and advised them of his desire to resolve issues through more frequent communication between staff and the Commission. He added that in the future staff will exercise judgement which is more sensitive, and will be less willing to approve variations without first consulting with the Commission, which could mean a delay to the project. Commissioner Teglia stated that he thought you could not build into a setback. Chief Planner Harnish explained that as he understands it this is the way this City, and other cities measure setbacks. Commissioner Masuda added that he would like to see this changed. Discussions followed with Vice Chairman Barnett and Chairman Romero expressing concerns with respect to setback discrepancies and retaining walls. Chairman Romero questioned why certain lots were permitted to have less than a 10' useable setback. Mr. Harnish responded that only one lot that has less that 10'. Other areas have 12'. Questions were raised by the Commission about the retaining walls. Commissioner Romero stated that the blue prints do not show crib block walls or elevations for the south end of the project, except as indicated in the staff report, and questioned whether the Commission would have approved the crib block wall. Mr. Romero asked how these conditions came to exist. Mr. Harnish explained that he has not been able to determine from the files that there were discussions pertaining to the wall. He added the site plans show a variation in elevations that would indicate that retaining walls would be necessary. Some cross sections were submitted to the Building Department. Members of the Commission expressed safety concerns for building on slopes for not only this project but future projects as well. Commissioner Romero cited specific aspects of this project, the south wall and guard rail, as a public nuisance with inadequate landscaping. Mr. John Garcia, representa~\ve for Santa Clara Development, the company that is building Heather Heights, was invited to the podium. He stated that the retaining wall is in exact conformance with what was required by the Commission and Council He cited the Wagstaff report addressing environmental issues which cost $50,000. He added that the City addressed the retaining wall, among other things, for over a year and a half. Mr. Garcia added that the stamped, approved plan shows the retaining wall and slope. In response to a question from Commissioner Teglia, Mr. Garcia stated that the height is 18' and 20'. The far east side isa triple tiered wall, single wall with an 18' slope. Mr. Garcia stated that originally Mr. Solomon had requested the redesign. Each wall had a building permit, and was approved by the Planning, Engineering and Building. Commissioner Romero raised a question about the cross sections. Mr. Garcia stated that it shows roughly 15-20. Commissioner Romero asked what the rear yard useable space is. Mr. Garcia stated that he believes it is 18' to 20'. He added that he feels bad about the barricade. He pointed to the fact that the City Engineer has stated that the project is in substantial conformance. With respect to the landscaping Mr. Garcia stated that the southern retaining wall would eventually be covered with plant material which was planted from top down. He added that they also planted on school PC Mtg. 8/21/973 of 7 property to enhance the retaining wall. Mr. Garcia stated that they thought they were doing everything right; however if there is a problem, they would like to try to fix it. He took offense to the COlnmission saying that were submitted to the Commission and City Council showed the crib block wall, and also asked Mr. Garcia if he would enjoy looking at that wall. Mr. Garcia would not respond to these questions. Mr. Garcia added that what was approved is what was built. Commissioner Barnett questioned, if retaining walls weren't presented to Commission, at what point did they apply for a permit for the retaining wall. Mr. Garcia added that the Planning Division was very concerned with aesthetics, and they had to approve before building. Commissioner Barnett asked Mr. Garcia if he felt this is what was approved by the Planning Division. Mr. Garcia responded that it is what was approved by all departments and what was built is more than what was requested. Following a question by Commissioner Teglia, Mr. Garcia stated that the retaining walls were approved before it went to the Commission. Commissioner Masuda commented that the City Manager and senior building inspector are no longer in the system. City Attorney Mattas stated that it is apparent that while some of these items are identified, they were not clear to the Commission, and the objections by neighbors. He called attention to Condition 20, which makes reference to the crib wall. He added that staffs lesson should be to take additional steps to provide the Commission with a better understanding of what is being approved. Mr. Mattas suggested that the Commission direct staff to come back with options of what can be done to improve the items of concern. He added that Mr. Garcia understands the concerns and is willing to work with us. In response to Commissioner Honan's question, Mr. Garcia indicated that 12 homes have been sold and closed escrow and 18 have sold and have not closed escrow. Commissioner Romero asked when the landscaping was done on the south wall. Mr. Garcia stated that it has been complete for 2-3 months. Commissioner Romero asked when the wall was completed. Mr. Garcia stated that it was completed in December of 1995. However, the landscaping was delayed due to the lack of water supply, and underground utilities on school property. COffilnissioner Romero questioned that 12 homes were occupied, without landscape in place, and asked if it is part of the association. Mr. Garcia explained that the landscaping could not be done until the appropriate time, otherwise the plants would die. He added that the planting was done when models were opened in April. In response to Commissioner Romero's question, Mr. Garcia stated that the developer has to maintain the landscaping for some time following completion of the proj ect. Margaret Warren was invited to the podium. She stated that the Commission is correct about the crib wall. The residents on Eucalyptus are the ones affected with the view of the wall, not Heather Heights. Having been on the Commission throughout the project she expressed her disappointment with the project's useable open space, side/rear yard setback which was a major concern and was discussed in detail when the original plan was for 36 homes. She expressed concern that, after intense discussions and arguments by the Commission about useable rear, side yard, and front yard setbacks, the project as built is not what it was intended to be. She added that grading cuts the setback to within 3-5', which is inadequate. She stated that she does not understand the guardrail, and that the City suggested it. She stated that the Commission was clear that a solid wood fence was unacceptable. She compared the guardrail to something used on Highway 101, which is not appropriate in a residential area. She suggested that a solution now, could be narrowing the sidewalk without creating a problem. She expressed her disappointment in developer who promised a high-class project. Commissioner Romero asked how the guard rail would hold in a significant impact. Richard Harmon, Engineering Division representative responded that it was designed to prevent sideswipes. The guard rail was installed in an effort to protect the hOlnes below. Two solutions were considered which are approved by state; the guard rail or concrete barrier. Staff felt that guard rail was the better option. In the process PC Mtg. 8/21/97 4 of 7 of installing the guard rail the installer pointed out that there was insufficient dirt to support the guard rail. For this reason the guardrail was approved adjacent to the sidewalk. Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Harmon's opinion of the recommendation to box the guardrail. Mr. Harmon said that this was first he had heard of it, and was not completely clear on what was being proposed, however at first consideration did not appear to pose a problem. Commissioner Teglia stated that this should have been reviewed by Commission. Mr. Harmon added that this is not done in public. improvements; where the City Engineer has jurisdiction. A question was asked by the Commission with reference to the maintenance of the guard rail. Mr. Harmon indicated that the City will be responsible for maintenance. Commissioner Romero stated that the City should not have to assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance because the developer cut into the hill more than they should have. Commissioners Teglia, Barnett, and Masuda came to a consensus that staff should be instructed to present them with some options on the guard rail and retaining walls. Mr. Mattas reminded the Commission that the applicant has taken certain actions and complied with legal requirements, and explained that there are legal options. Unless staff feels differently, he would not recommend sending this back to Design Review. He would suggest that Planning staffbe instructed to work toward a resolution. Commissioner Romero agreed. Mr. Mattas addressed the issue of eaves extending into setback areas. He reminded the Commission that 2' extension language exists in the Zoning Code, and the Commission has the authority to make changes at a later time. Commissioner Masuda requested that staff look into that. Chief Planner Harnish explained that most of the projects are PUD's and each PUD is a zoning ordinance in and of itself The Commission has the ability to tailor modifications individually to what they believe is best for the City. Commissioner Masuda expressed his desire to see designs or drawings beyond foundation plans in the future. PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEM 4. Downtown Flexibility Ordinance/ Zoning Administrator/ Minor Use Permit City of South San Francisco, Applicant ZA-96-014; Negative Declaration No. ND-96-014 (Continuedfrom June 19, & July 17, 1997) Zoning Text Amendments which: + Establish regulations for the Downtown Residential Overlay District + Amendments to apply City wide: amend the setback requirements of garages and carports built on lanes (S20.71.040); allow wheelchair access structures in the front yards of residential properties (S20.71.050); allow fences up to eight feet in height in the rear yard subject to the approval of a minor use permit (S20.73.020(D)); allow the City Engineer to approve or recommend approval of driveway widths less than standard (S20.74.150(C)); allow private residential handicap parking spaces be placed in required yards where there is not an alternative space available, subject to the approval of a minor use permit (S20.74.125); modify the definitions of Family Day Care Homes and Large Family Day Care by increasing the number of children from 12 to 14 to conform with changes in State Law (S20.06.100(F)); Amend the zoning procedures by creating a "Zoning Adl11inistrator" and a "Minor Use Permit" procedure (adding chapters 20.80 and Chapter 20.89). Further, amending the appeals and notice and hearing procedures and requirelnents to reflect the aforementioned new procedural chapters (amending Table 20.88.040 and Chapter 20.90); and a Negative Declaration of environmental impact regarding the amendment. Senior Planner Kalkin presented report and presented details on concerns expressed by the Historic PC Mtg. 8/21/97 5 of 7 Commission. She added that a review of the Municipal Code, limits their review to demolitions. Any concerns will be passed on to City Council. She added that the Commission had endorsed certain amendments as part of the East of 101 area. Margaret Warren questioned whether an appeal process by the Planning Commission is still possible. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Masuda had a question as to whether wheel chair ramps are installed by the City, and who maintains them.. Director of Economic and Community Development Van Duyn responded that some ramps and handicap facilities have been put in by the City through assisted funding, but only on public projects. Commissioner Teglia wanted to know the effects of eliminating the zoning administrator. Ms. Kalkin explained that creating the zoning administrator would reduce the review time, as well as the required fees. Mr. Harnish explained that the intent is to process these minor exceptions in a fast and affordable manner, legitimizing them, while addressing safety issues. He added that historically people faced with significant permit process on these minor issues choose not to get permits. He further added that the Ordinance identifies minor and major criteria and this recommendation is limited to the situations identified in the report i. e. fence heights, wheel chair ramps, and accessory buildings. The major concerns noted were enabling the Planning Commission to have final say over the Zoning Administrator's decisions/actions, or providing SOlne other mechanism to allow the Planning Commission to have early notice of proposals and ability to call up specific items of concern. City Attorney Mattas suggested using a process that is being used in another community which calls for the zoning administrator to take minutes, which go to the Planning Commission for review. Any troublesome items could be called by the Commission and approval would not become effective until the Commission reviews the minutes. Further discussions followed on the alternative to send a notice to the Commission when the 300' radius notices are mailed, and if the Commission has a problem, they could come to the meeting. Commissioner Teglia added that he was not in a hurry to approve this aInendment. Commissioner Baldocchi was concerned that the Commission review certain cases. Mr. Van Duyn explained that the intent is not to overburden staff, and that if additional layers were going to be added, it would be best to maintain the existing process. After much discussion, with some Commissioners expressing their support for the minutes option, and others in support of the noticing option, Commissioner Teglia requested that the item be continued. City Attorney Mattas cautioned the option of having one member of the Commission call an item up; and what could happen in an instance where one melnber wants something to come forward, and six don't. Further discussions followed of the possibility that once a decision is made, the individual Planning Commissioner would have 15 days to appeal, but if the Commissioner was the appellant, he or she could not act on the item Mr. Van Duyn stated that since this has become so complex, he feels that staff needs to put something together and come back to the Commission. Commissioner Teglia moved to continue to Sept. 18th- Second Barnett. Motion amended to continue to October 2nd. Commissioner Sim and Masuda opposed. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Meeting recessed 9:45 p.m. PC Mtg. 8/21/97 6 of 7 Meeting was called to order at 10: 00 p .In. 5. Items from Staff b. Discussion of Project Review Procedures. Chief Planner stated that due to the late hour he would put this item off to a future meeting. 6. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Sim spoke of the need for staff to alert the Commission of situations where the potential might exist to extend the height of a building by claiming mechanical reams or equipment. He also requested that staff present the Commission with adjacent conditions for evaluating. Chief Planner Harnish stated that he intends to provide more clear and comprehensive use of the project in setting, which would include the adjacent areas. Mr. Harnish notified the Commission that the Special Meeting with Council which had tentatively been scheduled for September 3, 1997 did not meet with Council's schedules. The City Manager's office is working with Council for an alternative date. The Commission will be notified once a date has been determined. Mr. Harnish advised the Commission that there are no items scheduled for the September 4, 1997 Meeting, and he would recommend canceling that lneeting. Motion to cancel-Barnett/second Teglia. The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel the September 4, 1997 meeting. Mr. Harnish informed the Commission of the all-day event taking place on September 27, 1997, hosting approximately 50 booths. There will be a booth on the General Plan Project. We will send additional information as it becomes available. Mr. Harnish informed the Commission of a resignation on Design Review Board, which will be brought back at the next meeting. 7. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion -Romero/Second Masuda. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote to adjourn at 11 :05 p.m. to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 18, 1997. b{~ Jim Harn sll, S1cretary Planning ()m ~sion City of So :h an Francisco ~/ ~0 . \ ~ "'{lh~ /,-/i1f . \. Marty Romero, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco MR:JH:is PC Mtg. 8/21/97 7 of 7