Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-20MINUTES March 20, 2008 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 o.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Teglia and Chairperson Giusti ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Burns 8~ McDonnell Engineering/applicant Shell Oil Products/owner 135 N. Access Rd P07-0135: UP07-0024 8~ DR07-0080 (Continue off-calendar) None Use Permit and Design review allowing an 8 foot tall fence within the minimum require front setback situated at 135 North Access Road, in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District, in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32, 20.73, 20.81 and 20.85. Motion Prouty /Second Zemke to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Javier &Elvira Valencia/applicant Javier ~ Elvira Valencia/owner 648 Commercial Ave. PUD07-0001 Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of a new single-family house on a 7,000 square-foot lot located at 648 Commercial Avenue, with a 9'4" front yard setback within the R-3-L Multiple Family Residential Zone District (R-3-L) in accordance with SSFMC Sections 20.20 & 20.84. Public Hearing opened. None Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar, Admin. Asst. II No Changes Commissioner Prouty recused himself from the hearing because he owns property within 500 feet of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 project. Associate Planner Beaudin presented the Staff Report. Javier Valencia, owner and contractor, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present his project to them. He pointed out that they were before the Commission in October 2007 at which time they were given a list of tasks to complete before returning to the Commission. Mr. Valencia noted that one of the items that he was to provide was a statement from a structural engineer regarding the feasibility of removing of the structural columns. He further noted that in addition to the structural impact they have supplied documents that show the estimated cost impact of removing the portion of the building that encroaches into the front yard setback. The cost estimate also includes the costs incurred with the delay in the project, including expired deposits with some contractors, equipment rentals, and the rise in cost of materials. He felt that the issue could have been prevented if the original architect's error had been corrected by plan check in March 2003 or before February 2006, when the building permit for the project was issued. He also pointed out that only when the framing was nearing completion did the setback issue came to light, and further pointed out that the setback was not enforced with any of the previous properties built on the Commercial Avenue stretch. Mr. Valencia cited 654 Commercial Avenue as an example of a reduced setback and pointed out that the balconies are at a 9'4" foot setback and other buildings on Commercial Avenue have smaller setbacks. He pointed out that the staff report states that front yard setbacks range from 8 to15 feet, with stairways setback 5 to 8 feet from the property line. He understood that regulations change with time but does not feel that his home is out of place in the area. He obtained signatures from homeowners and residents in the neighborhood that support their PUD (Planned Unit Development) application and urged the Commission to review, approve and remove the stop work notice on his project to allow them to move forward. George Corey, Attorney representing Mr. and Ms. Fontana who are long time property owners of the property located at 654 Commercial Avenue, pointed out that other than for the removal of the electrical and running water, the illegally built garage has been ignored. He added that it has an additional story and covers a window on Mr. Fontana's property. He pointed out that there is no need for the second story to be there and had requested from the beginning that the second story be removed. He added that the staff report suggests that the electrical and other items be removed, but the history of the project shows that the garage will become a housing unit once again. He stated that Mr. Fontana was bothered by the placing of a line on the sidewalk that according to Mr. Valencia was the property line. Mr. Corey added that Mr. Fontana, at his own expense had a survey completed by a surveyor that showed the property line 14 inches closer to the Valencia property. He pointed out that the history of the project shows that there has been no adherence to the City's codes and no one should benefit from this. He added that this does not fit as a PUD because it is mandatory under the municipal code, and he read the last sentence of SSFMC 20.84.010 into the record. He pointed out that there are some exceptions which do not apply to this project. He noted that the project has had many illegal items and if it weren't for Mr. Fontana's information to the Commission, they would have known very little about those improprieties. He clarified that Mr. Fontana does not do this to hurt his neighbor but to protect his own property, and while Mr. Beaudin sees this as a good project, Mr. Fontana sees this as a huge imposition on the street and his own property. Mr. Corey continued that no one likes to recommend the most expensive alternative but there is no choice because a PUD should not be granted for this property because any subsequent project that has many illegal items could get away with it to a certain point in the future. Projects then become subject to a PUD so that there are no problems with the project in the future. He read the last sentence of the staff report into the record and explained that Rita Fontana had made many complaints with regards to work continuing after the stop work notice. He added that photographs were sent showing that tiles were installed after they were given permission to waterproof the building only. He recommended that they accept the City option that requires the tear down of the front, being that the steel is not necessary. Mark Buccarelli, Architect, explained that he has been working with City Staff and the owners to present the current project to the Commission. He pointed out that in both options the music room is proposed to be removed from the accessory building and hopes this will be acceptable to Mr. Fontana and his family. He added that the applicant's proposed option maintains a partial encroachment into the front setback, but it is not unlike the property at 654 Commercial. He pointed out that the City allows 18 inch projections into 5:\M%v~.utPS\~%v~al,~zCd M%wutPS\,03-20-08 RFC M%wutES.doc PG19C 2 tr f 8 Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 setbacks, but the front balconies at 654 Commercial Avenue are nearly aligned with the garage steel frame of 648 Commercial. He further added that the City's option calls for removal of the front steel frame to meet the 15-foot setback requirement at all levels but this scheme will impact the design, the structure of the home, and the owner's financial resources. He encouraged the Commission to approve the "applicant's option" so that all parties may move forward. Anita Arellano and Evelyn Martin spoke in favor of the project. Their comments were: • The Valencia's are a family that gives a hand to those who need it despite their handicapped child. • Having a home on the property is better than having an empty lot that can become a hangout for kids in the neighborhood. • The Valencia's have spent a lot of money on the project since they went to the Design Review Board and received an approval. • This is the third home where plans were made and the error was on the Planning Commission and would like to see this corrected being that the owners of this property are willing to abide by the rules. Vice Chairperson Teglia clarified that the Planning Commission is not responsible for this in anyway and the error was with the Building Division and could have been caught at the foundation stage and, with the licensed contractor and architect. He noted that it would have been nice to catch the problem much earlier but it was not caused by the Planning Commission; it is now before the Commission to try to resolve. Ms. Martin felt that with three homes having this type of error, someone needs to be on their guard and they need to check everything before their approval. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that staff has been trying to address these problems and have put procedures in place to prevent this from happening again. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Zemke noted that by looking at the plans, the project is drastically different than what was approved. He noted that the building is 5 feet longer than what was approved and pointed out that the builder added 5 feet to the building, not the City. Vice Chairperson Teglia pointed out that Mr. Fontana's concerns are the second story on the garage, which is being removed and asked Mr. Corey if there was a problem with the existing single story of the garage in the back. Mr. Corey noted that there is no problem with the single story garage, being that it existed as a single story garage when the Fontana's purchased their property and the second story appeared about 5 years ago. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the structure is even with the balconies of Mr. Fontana's property, but there is a further bay window extension that is the point of contention. He questioned if Mr. Corey was recommending the City's option. Mr. Corey pointed out that with the property on the east side they stepped their building back. Associate Planner Beaudin clarified that there are no building permits for the garage and that an aerial photo from 1964 shows a clear break in the ridge which would suggest a second story on the garage as it sits on the property. He pointed out that it is a legally non conforming structure and staff cannot determine if it was a full second story or not from the aerial photo. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the owner has opted to remove the second story. Associate Planner Beaudin replied affirmatively and further clarified that the bay window no longer projects any further beyond the steel frame in the applicant's option. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if Mr. Valencia was a licensed contractor who has built many houses to which Mr. Valencia replied affirmatively. Vice Chairperson Teglia pointed out that Mr. Valencia would have to have ordered additional materials based on the plans and asked if Mr. Valencia questioned the impact of the extension of the building and would have noticed something was wrong with the plans. Mr. Valencia stated the he got the measurements by making sure that his setbacks were appropriate. He made sure there was a 5 foot setback on either side of the building, 20 foot setback from the property line to the garage and a 12.5 foot setback from the back property to the back of his home. He added that the building is massive because they had to excavate deep for the garage to go flat into the back and there were times where the excavation would not let them easily verify the setbacks and so he used the existing building to confirm the setbacks. He pointed out that they did not know there was an error in the plans when this was being done and he wanted to s:\M%wutes\FCwaltzed M%~,utes\os-2o-o8 R.~c MLwutes.doc page s o f g Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 make sure that the setbacks were correct. He added that the building grew in the back because of a measurement that was on the approved plans. He noted that this was an error by the original architect and Mr. Valencia took the setbacks based on the properties adjacent to his building. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that the error was with Mr. Valencia's designer. Mr. Valencia responded that this was correct and somehow it got through the plan check process and himself. He pointed out that he has been building long enough to know that it does not pay to do something wrong, but the error kept escalating and was missed by the designer, plan checker and himself. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that this is something that could have been caught during the foundation inspection. Vice Chairperson Teglia pointed out that a PUD is not a tool to get out of minimums but a tool to be creative on a site, such as clustering homes to allow for additional open space. He added that there is always a benefit that comes from a PUD and having one after the fact opens up the City to a lot of liability in this case and in future actions. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that PUDs have been used on small lots on Commercial Avenue, as an example the Habitat for Humanity project located at 440 Commercial Avenue, where a PUD was used for reduced setbacks. He added that with regard to this project the required findings can be made in this instance, and although this may not be the standard use of a PUD, the required findings are supportable due to setback patterns, development patterns and the proposed massing being consistent with other homes on Commercial Avenue. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff echoed Associate Planner Beaudin's comments and felt that the findings help make sure that the City is not exposed to undue liability or allowing for such a situation where people will build illegal homes, get caught and apply for a PUD. He felt that it would be much more difficult to make the findings in these cases. He reminded the Commission that a PUD is a form of zoning and that there is no limit on the time when the legislative body can adopt zoning and even though the language indicates the PUD should be approved before the start of construction, within the framework of zoning that limitation wouldn't apply, and if it were meant strictly the way Mr. Corey suggested it would prevent the approval of a PUD for a property where there had already been construction. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that in general planning terms this is not a proper application of a PUD. Chief Planner Kalkin replied that it is not an ideal application of a PUD, but it is a tool that is available to bring the application forward for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Sim pointed out that staff is recommending the applicant's option is also approvable. He questioned which of the two options, the City's or the applicant's is preferred. Associate Planner Beaudin explained that from a design perspective there is more work to do on the City's option because it was put forward as a concept that was requested by the Commission. He pointed out that both options are viable from a design perspective, but will require additional refinement and design review because there are a number of changes to account for. He added that there will be time invested in both options, but the applicant's option would require less time because it has been further developed. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that there was some controversy on side setbacks, and the documentation presented to the Commission is encroachment of scaffolding and other things during construction into the Fontana's property. He questioned if staff was comfortable with where the property lines are at this time and continuing construction without encroaching into Mr. Fontana's property. Associate Planner Beaudin replied that the current structure can be constructed on the applicant's property but construction work on the accessory structure in the rear of the property might encroach onto the neighboring property because it is sitting on the side property line. He added that there is survey information on the property and based on that survey, there is no longer a question about where the property lines are. Commissioner Sim noted that the City is being more rigorous on site surveys for projects so that liability and accountability goes to the licensed surveyor and not the City or architect. He questioned if the Commission was fine with the City's option or the applicant's option. Commissioner Zemke suggested exploring the City's option and felt that the building can be attractive while removing the steel framework. Commissioner Sim concurred with Commissioner Zemke and added that the City's option is more desirable but has not been detailed to the level that the Commission expects. s:\M%wutes\~i.wctl%zed M%H,utes\os-2o-o8 iz.PC MCwutes.doc Page ~ of s Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 Commissioner Moore explained that there are emotions and families involved in this project and he looks at the project in terms of neighbors getting along. He added that the City's option is his preferred option and suggested further work on it. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if there were other options other than the City's and applicant's options which were provided by the applicant. He was concerned about taking off half of the front of the house and believes that there is some architectural merit to having the projection in the middle. He noted that they have not been given enough options and need the experts to provide the options to the Commission. Associate Planner Beaudin explained that the City's option can be dressed up with architectural projections which are permitted by code. He added that this is why they discussed the horizontal eve element that can be seen above the second story which projects out with a smaller bay window element to maintain the architectural element that was part of the original design. He added that among the architectural elements to be further discussed are the full balconies that are shown on the conceptual front elevation which could provide some visual relief from a three story home. Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned if there was anything done to minimize the amount of steel that was taken from the front of the house. He explained that the second story comes out and questioned if it was possible to keep the center projections while removing the side protrusions. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that a representative from the Building Division will need to speak to what is structurally possible. He explained that by looking at the steel in plan view there is clearly an offset for the steel framing to account for the two car garage. He was unclear as to what would be left if portions of the steel frame were removed. Vice Chairperson Teglia reiterated his question with regards to having another option available. Associate Planner Beaudin stated that according to the Chief Building Official the steel is in place for the size of the projection that is currently seen on the applicant's option and anything less than that amount of projection would not require steel. Commissioner Sim stated that if the Commission cannot reach a clear decision with the information before them they can give staff and the applicant direction to have a more desirable scheme prepared for the Commission. He noted that a bay window without a column has some flexibility and allows the facade to be re-proportioned to make it more desirable. He was concerned about giving direction without seeing the final design and questioned if they had to send it through design review. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that staff is looking for the Commission's recommendation because if they approve the City's option it will no longer be a PUD and the application would return to the Design Review Board and the process would end at that point. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff clarified that the City's option was included to help give the Commission some ideas about how the situation on the property could be corrected without the approval of a PUD, but there is a PUD application before the Commission. He added that if the Commission denies the application, the owner has the opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council or work on another option that would go through the full process. Mr. Valencia informed the Commission that they are going through a financial hardship because the loan they took out to build the home and the amount of funds has slowly been drained to close to nothing. He added that if the PUD and appeal do not go through the property will remain in its current state for a long time. He explained that it is easy to point out the beams and say that to remove them will cost $45,000, but this is not a business that is being dealt with but a family, and asked the Commission to consider this when they reach their decision. Commissioner Sim asked Mr. Valencia if the posts that support the balcony are in place. Mr. Valencia replied that everything is in place. Commissioner Sim stated that if the Commission decided to deny the PUD, this would give the applicant clear direction as to what needs to be done. Mr. Valencia replied that he cannot financially deal with this because he cannot get another loan. Commissioner Sim asked if the demolition costs would be severe for the applicant. Mr. Valencia noted that it is not only demolition but reconstructing a different pattern and new structural prints. He further explained that their original structural engineer has informed them that any liability will be voided if they remove anything from what exists now, which would require them to start from scratch. He noted that he is being honest with the Commission in letting them know that the house will stand as is if they are required to remove certain features. s:\M%wut~s\~i.wctl%zed M%wutes\os-2o-o8 Rpc Mtwutes.doc page sof g Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if there was anything that could be done with the front of the current structure. Mr. Valencia noted that he had worked on pulling the walls back in order to give the bay windows a flat look. He explained that they have removed a lot of square footage from the front and added that if the beams were not in place they would only have to remove the wood and could reuse it elsewhere. Vice Chairperson Teglia questioned if the angled walls are being pushed back. Mr. Valencia noted that those are being pushed back. Commissioner Sim noted that this makes it look more boxy and the original scheme was curvilinear. Mr. Valencia replied that they have included a pan style roof to take care of the boxy look. Commissioner Sim was sympathetic to the owners needs but felt that the architect needs to compel the Commission and show that there is an added value to this. He noted that he was not convinced that this was a more significant design value than the other design. Mr. Valencia added that he does not have a clear answer for the Commissioner but invited him to look at the property and visualize how much space will be removed and how it will look. Commissioner Sim noted that as an architect he looks for a human experience in projects and sees that the front has been flattened out. He pointed out that he is looking at architectural character whether there is a setback issue or not. Mr. Valencia noted that if the walls are left the way they were originally intended to be then the final design would have a smooth look and not abox-like look. He added that the walls were moved to meet the new square footage numbers they were given and had suggested removing the square footage from another area so the facade would not change. Commissioner Oborne noted that she is not recommending a certain course of action, but noted that there have been errors on all sides. She added that the Commission has to determine if there has been a good faith effort to resolve the problem. She noted that there are desired aesthetic and design features that the Commission would like to see and that there are issues with the neighbors, but she felt that this needs to be treated as an exception and not precedential. She added that the Commission needs to look at the project in a fair and balanced manner and assess if there has been an effort to correct these errors and to try to reach a fair solution. Mr. Valencia added that he has tried to get along with the Fontana's and has decided to remove the legal non-conforming structure to accommodate some of their issues, but is unclear as to what else he can do. He added that his hands are tied in terms of doing something else in the front. Commissioner Zemke asked Mr. Valencia if he would prefer that the Commission vote on the PUD at this meeting. Mr. Valencia replied affirmatively. Motion Zemke /Second Sim to deny PUD07-0001 Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioner Zemke Noes: Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Teglia, and Chairperson Giusti Absent: None Abstain: Commissioner Prouty Motion failed Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission has not denied the PUD, but again questioned if a PUD is the best option to help move the project along and if there are other conditions to improve the project. Associate Planner Beaudin pointed out that there is not a lot of additional side enhancement needed because the landscape upgrades have been added and the building materials are consistent with the design. He noted that there is a possibility to add some character with the railing detail or other architectural treatments. Mr. Valencia offered to hire a professional painter to choose a color scheme that would make the structure appear smaller. Commissioner Sim noted that he would like to see the side elevation of the balcony and see s:\rntwutes\~CwalCzed Mev~utes\os-2o-o8 R.pc M%wutes.doc Page ~ o f g Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 if it is solid or not. Mr. Valencia noted that it is a metal square tubing. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that Commissioner Sim seconded the previous motion and felt that there may have been something that the Commissioner was looking at that changed his decision. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked if there were any suggestions he had for the Commission on the item. Commissioner Sim noted that the Commission has to make a difficult decision and is looking at fairness. He felt that the staff recommendation is a professional analysis and gave the Commission enough information, weight and credence to the interpretation of the items being considered. He noted that he was looking for a solution with a better design. He added that there will not be a perfect answer for the applicant, neighbors and the City and added that they are all accountable to each other. He added that he is looking to the applicant's architect to show a more compelling design. Commissioner Sim noted that the side elevation is a solid wall that projects out and suggested that the architect take some of the suggestions given to them and work with staff on the design. Vice Chairperson Teglia asked Mr. Valencia if he could work with the architect and return in two weeks. Associate Planner Beaudin noted that if the Commission is comfortable with the PUD application in terms of the front yard setback, the neighborhood pattern, and supports the findings, then an option would be to allow staff to work with the applicant through the Design Review Board and design review process to refine those design details that seem to be the remaining concern. The Commission felt that this was workable. Commissioner Sim felt that the architect needs to add more detail to the presentation. Mr. Valencia pointed out that he is limited with what he could do because of the steel beams. Commissioner Sim pointed out that in this type of situation the Commission has asked for something that can convince them in terms of materials, perspectives and color renderings. Commissioner Zemke noted that the bay window is too massive and was unsure of how it would look if moved from one side to the other. Commissioner Sim clarified that he is not looking at moving the window but at further detailing the bay window by articulating the sides, corner details and exploring different materials. Commissioner Sim noted that he supports having the Design Review Board look at it, and asked Assistant City Attorney Woodruff for guidance on how the motion would be worded. Assistant City Attorney Woodruff noted that the motion would be to approve the PUD with an additional condition that the applicant work with staff to go through a design review process to address the design concerns articulated by the Planning Commission. On the question: Vice Chairperson Teglia asked that the motion also include a requirement that the applicant fulfill their promise to remove the second story of the garage. Motion Sim /Second Oborne to approve PUDM08-0001 based on the attached Finding and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval with the additional Conditions of Approval: 1) that the applicant work with staff and return to the Design Review Board to address design concerns. 2) the applicant will remove the second story of the accessory structure. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Oborne, Vice Chairperson Teglia, and Chairperson Giusti Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Commissioner Prouty Recess taken at 8:55 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:00 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS s:\M~wutes\~~waltzed r~Cwutes\os-2o-o8 R.pc M'w,.utes.doc Page ~ o f 8 Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2008 ITEMS FROM STAFF None Chief Planner Kalkin informed the Commission that the City Council has set Saturday, April 19~' for the joint Zoning Code tour. Vice Chairperson Teglia noted that there is a conflict on this date due to the Victorian Tea taking place in the Plymire Schwartz house. Chairperson Giusti and Commissioner Zemke echoed Vice Chairperson Teglia's concerns. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that the details will be given in the near future. Chief Planner Kalkin announced that Associate Planner Smalley has given a formal resignation and wished him well in his new position with the City of Richmond. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Chairperson Giusti noted her concern with the uncovered heating units on top of the new recreation building being that the City had required the Pacific Market to cover theirs. Chief Planner Kalkin noted that she would report back to the Commission on this item. Commissioner Prouty noted that the Building Division needs to have enough staff to make sure the inspections are done properly. Chief Building Official Kirkman added that the time on a job site is becoming less because construction is not slowing down in the City. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None AD70URNMENT 9:10 P.M. Motion Teglia /Second Prouty to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. 4 Susy alkin Mary usti, Chairperson Secretary t the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SK/bla s:V~tCwutes\~%wal%zed M%wutes\os-2o-o8 RPC MCwutes.doc page 8 of 8