Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/19/2002 MINUTES December 19, 2002 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 7 :30 D.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Meloni and Commissioner Teglia STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Steve Kowalski, Associate Planner Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Richard Harmon, Development Review Coordinator Maurice Dong, Assistant Fire Marshall City Attorney: Engineering Division: Fire Prevention. Chairperson Romero stated that Commissioner Teglia and Commissioner Meloni were absent due to business reasons. He congratulated Richard Garbarino for his appointment to the City Council. AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that item 3a would need to be continued to January 16,2003 due to the Architect for the project having a family emergency. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes December 5, 2002. Approved Motion Sim / Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by a unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Sunil K. & Martha D. Chandar-owner/applicant 105 Mulberry Ave. P02-0062 and Categorical Exemption Class 3 Section 15303 New Construction of Small Structures Denied (Continued from December 5, 2002) Use Permit to build a new residential second unit and 2 car garage at 105 Mulberry Avenue in the (R-1-E) Single Family Residential District in accordance with the SSFMC 20.79. Associate Planner Kowalski presented the staff report and noted that staff was recommending denial of the permit. s: \/V\LV\.utes \ [t.V\.1il LLzeGl\2.002.\i2.-"0 -02. RJ>C. Gl DC- Ap-proveGl OV\. JIilV\.ulilrtj ib, 2.003 Plilge i of 2. Sunil Chandar, owner, noted that he has been at this address for 10 years and would like to build an in-law unit for his in-laws that will be migrating into the US next year and this would allow them to have privacy. The Commission and the owner discussed the project and its bulky appearance. They questioned why the applicant wanted a second story addition when there is space on the ground level. Mr. Savali, Architect, stated that due to City requirements and the site restrictions they had to add a second level. To add another room they needed to have a two-car garage, and to accommodate the two-car garage and the in-law unit, they needed to add a second story. The Commission discussed with staff the requirements under the Municipal Code allowing an addition. Associate Planner Kowalski noted that the code allows a home with a two-car garage to have 4 bedrooms and/or 2,500 square feet on the lot and with a one-car garage they are limited to 1,800 square feet and only one kitchen. Chairperson Romero noted that there was more than sufficient space for parking due to the long driveway and the two-car garage. He was concerned with the entire backyard being used as a driveway. Mr. Savali noted that this was done this way to meet the City's code. Development Review Coordinator Harmon pointed out that the plans show that the large amount of pavement allows for the cars to turn around and leave the driveway facing forward instead of reversing out of the property. Mr. Chandar presented pictures into the record to show why the driveway is needed. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the hardscape is excessive in the project and asked the Mr. Savali ifhe had tried to limit the hardscape. Mr. Savali noted that due to site restrictions and City requirements they opted to build above the existing building and locate the third space behind the house. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission felt that the proposed project was too large for the site. The Commission encouraged the applicant to redesign the addition in order to have less asphalt in the rear yard and still comply with City code. The Commission pointed out that the Subcommittee for second units in a single family residential area should look at whether the City wants to allow parking in the rear of the lot and minimize the space for recreational use. Motion Sim / Second Honan to uphold staff s recommendation to deny P02-0062. Approved by unanimous voice vote with three Commissioners being absent. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Items from Staff Continued a. Richard Elmo Haskins-owner Alexandria Real Estate Equities-applicant P02-0042 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MND02-0042 Review of landscape and building finish details. Motion Honan/ Second Ochsenhirt to continue the item to January 16,2003. s: \/V\LV\.utes \ft.V\.1il LLzeGl\2.002.\i2.-"0 -02. RPC. Gl DC- Plilge 2. of 5 Ap-proveGl OV\.JIilV\.Ulilrtj ib, 2.003 b. STUDY SESSION Levitz SL San Francisco, LLC-owner Klaff Realty, L.P .-applicant 900 Dubuque Ave. P02-0082 (Use Permit) and Negative Dedaration ND02-0082 Continued (Recommend continuance to January 16, 2003) Use Permit allowing two research and development buildings (3-story & 4-story) with combined floor area of201,436 square feet with at-grade parking and a 5-level parking garage on a 7.62 acre site in the (P-C) Planned Commercial Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.79. Motion Honan / Second Ochsenhirt to continue the item to January 16,2003. Recess called at 8:00 p.m. Recalled at 8:05 p.m. c. STUDY SESSION Stonegate Estates/Hillside TownhomeslHillside Land LLC-owner Paul E. Davis Architect-applicant Hillside Blvd. & Stonegate Drive PUD, SA-01-012 and Negative Declaration ND01-012 Study Session of Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development allowing six (6) single family dwellings and ten (10) townhomes and common area with exceptions for lot size, lot coverage and setbacks, situated at a vacant 1.4 acre site bounded by Hillside Boulevard and Stonegate Drive in a Medium Density Residential Zone District (R-2-H-P), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.78 and 20.84. Senior Planner Carlson gave a brief presentation. Paul Davis, Architect, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the new proposal. Mr. Davis reviewed the original plan with 20 units and the proposed plan with 16 units. The tot lot has been moved to a centralized location on the site. He showed North, South and end elevations of the proposed dwellings. They have addressed the Commissions concerns. Mr. Davis noted that they meet FAR and all other code requirements. He showed photomontages of what the project would look like from the surrounding areas. The following spoke against the project. Angeles Herrera Estella Williams 947 Ridgeview Court HOA Representative The speaker's concerns were: · The impact this project will have on their lives and views of the hill. · Lack of earlier notification and lack of information for the neighborhood. · Traffic impacts on the neighborhood and Hillside School students and at the intersection of Ridgeview and Crestwood. · Description of the approval process and expanded description. · Increased notification to include PT A and Daycare. · Impact on the Eucalyptus trees across from 941-947 Ridgeview. Chairperson Romero noted that the neighbors did get notified early in the process because the Commission is starting the review process with this proj ect. s: \/V\ LV\.utes \ ft.V\.1il LLuGl \2.002.\i2.-"0 -02. RPC. Gloc- Plilge 3 of 5 A-pproveGl oV\.JIilV\.ulilrtj ib, 2.003 Chief Planner Sparks noted that the process could be discussed with any member of the public if they phone staff or make an appointment. They will also have a chance to voice their opinions to the developer at a community meeting that will be held prior to the public hearing. Senior Planner Carlson noted that the Eucalyptus trees appear to be on PG & E property and are not a part of this proj ect. Commissioner Sim and the applicant discussed the Design Review Board comments on the proposal. The Design Review Board wanted the tot lot moved to a centralized location, they wanted the site less congested and they suggested changes to the landscape materials, modifications to the balconies, the color scheme and the retaining walls. All of their comments have been addressed. Commissioner Sim noted that the rustic look was a nice touch and suggested having better quality elevations. He suggested that they look at the roof plan, and provide more articulation on elevations. Commissioner Honan was concerned with the amount of storage area being supplied for each of the dwellings. This will leave the door open for illegal conversions especially with the a bathroom in that area. Mr. Davis noted that this allows the homeowner the opportunity to convert the basement to a shop if they wish to do so. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that there could be a traffic problem with the new intersection. Mr. Davis noted that he worked with Public Works on moving the intersection lower from the curve. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked about the 5-foot trellis separation between the homes. Mr. Davis noted that there are no fences in between the properties because they will share the side setbacks. Each house has 10 feet of usable space on one side rather than five on each side. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked if there would be hardscape in this area. Mr. Davis noted that it would be stepping stones and all this detail is shown on the revised landscape plan. Commissioner Sim noted that the private road would be maintained by the HOA and asked if there have been problems with private streets in the past. Development Review Coordinator Harmon noted that there is no engineering perspective on private streets. He added that the roadway meets all of the City's standards for private streets. The original driveway design at the top of the curve had a 25% cross slope and it would have cracked the frame of the fire trucks and this is why it was moved to the current proposed position. Commissioner Sim asked Mr. Davis to provide a percentage of how much greenscape was being provided for each individual parcel. Mr. Davis noted that he could provide that information at the next meeting. Commissioner Sim encouraged Mr. Davis to relieve the tightness of the corner of unit 7. Chairperson Romero noted that there is an II-foot drop on the retaining wall from Stone gate to the middle portion of the site. Mr. Davis noted that it is extreme at lots 11 & 12 where there is a 10-foot wall. This is because Ridgeview has a 25 % slope and this is why some lots have high retaining walls which will be mitigated with terracing and planting. TAPE 2 Chairperson Romero noted that the dwellings are obviously not three bedroom homes and do not qualify as affordable housing. The City is lacking affordable homes and there is no affordable homes being proposed in this project. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the applicant is negotiating with the Housing and Community Development staff to meet the City's affordable housing requirements off-site. Chairperson Romero noted that the City has met the luxury home numbers required by ABAG, but that it needs affordable homes. All the C units could be made smaller, and affordable. Commissioner Honan noted that a den with a closet and a large storage area leave room for illegal bedroom s: \/V\ LV\.utes \ft.V\.1il LLzeGl \2.002.\i2.- ~9 -02. RPC. Gl DC- Plilge 4- of5 A-p-proveGl OV\. jlilV\.ulilrtj ib, 2.003 conversions. Mr. Davis noted that they did not intend to make the plans look this way and would modify them to reflect otherwise. d. Discussion of TDM programs. i. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff does not have a report on TDM programs for the Commission yet. The formal TDM program has been setup with goals of certain amounts of reduction of single occupant vehicle trips. The City has approved the Bay West Cove and Britannia East Grand projects which will be built next year and when these are fully occupied for a year there will be reports done on these projects and others that the Commission has approved after the adoption of the TDM Ordinance. ii. The Commission has received a memo on fence issues from ECD Director Van Duyn. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the fences are a challenge and will try to address these in the near future. iii. The second unit subcommittee will start meeting soon and Chief Planner Sparks asked when the subcommittee would like to meet. Commissioner Honan suggested January 9,2003, which was accepted. 4. Items from Commission Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt congratulated all the Commissioners that participated in the appointment process for the vacant Council seat. The Planning Commission was represented very well and felt that they were interviewed excellently. Chairperson Romero noted that there are students trying to jump the fence that is blocking the student access from El Camino Real to Old Mission Road. He asked that staff look into having this either reopened or allow pedestrians to access the new road at the BART site. The Commission wished everyone happy holidays. 5. Items from the Public None 6. Adjournment Motion Sim / Second Ochsenhirt to adjourn the meeting. 9:47 P.M. ~~~~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco u)~~ William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting January 2,2003, canceled Regular Meeting of January 16,2003, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/blh s: \/V\ LV\.utes \ fLV\.1il LLuGl \2.002.\i2.-"0 -02. RPC. Gl DC- Plilge 5 of 5 A-p-proveGl OV\.jlilV\.ulilrij ib, 2.003 WELCOME 1:..iU PM If this is the first time you have been toa Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 5 minutes to discuss their item. The Chairman will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The COmmission has adopted a policy thllJ applicants and their representatives have a maxhnum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non- applicants may speak a maximum of 5 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you willgo to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535. William Romero Chairperson Richard Ochsenhirt Vice-Chairperson Judith Honan Commissioner Michael Meloni Commissioner Joseph D'Angelo Commissioner Marc C. Teglia Commissioner Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Michael Lappen Senior Planner Eugene Sim Commissioner Steve Carlson Senior Planner Susy Kalkin Principal Planner Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and artici '. . should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829-3800 Ii ki P pate ill thIS meetillg , Ive war ng days before the meeting. Steve Kowalski Associate Planner