Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-05MINUTES Apri/ 5, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION TAPE 1 CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke and Vice Chairperson Giusti ABSENT: Chairperson Prouty STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Girard Beaudin, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Office Specialist Building Division: Barry Mammini, Senior Building Inspector City Attorney: Sky Woodruff, Assistant City Attorney Engineering Division: Sam Bautista, Senior Civil Engineer Fire Prevention. Phil White, Fire Chief Brian Niswonger, Assistant Fire Marshall CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chairperson Giusti requested that the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned in memory of Richard Cecil and Mary Jean Escovil. AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR None None 1. Approval of Regular Meeting minutes of October 19, 2006, November 16, 2006, December 7, 2006, January 4, 2007 and February 1, 2007. 2. Kaiser Medical Office -Time Extension Kaiser/Owner Kaiser/Applicant 230 Oyster Point Blvd. PCA06-0008: UP04-0031, PM04-0003, DR04-0077, & TDM04-0004 (Continue to Apri/ 19, 2007) Time Extension for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a single-story medical office building on Oyster Point Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.24 and 20.81. Commissioner Teglia noted he would abstain from the approval of the January 4~' minutes and Commissioner Sim abstained from approving the minutes of February 1St Motion Teglia /Second Moore to approve the Consent Calendar with the abstentions as noted. Approved by majority voice vote. Chairperson Prouty -absent. Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING 3. Stonegate Estates Planned Unit Development Modification Stonegate Home Development/Owner -Applicant Stonegate Estates & Hillside Avenue P07-0010: PUDM07-0001 DR07-0006 & MND-01-012 (Continued from March 15, 2007) Modification of a Planned Unit Development and Design Review allowing exterior window and door changes to several dwellings and the addition of several new retaining walls and modification of an above ground tree well, situated on the Southeast corner of Hillside Avenue and Stonegate Drive in the Medium Density Residential (R-2-H-P) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.84 & 20.85 Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved by the City Council on July 14, 2004). Public Hearing Opened. Senior Planner Carlson gave a brief presentation. Kent Raff, Stonegate Estates Project Superintendent, gave a PowerPoint of the elevations with before and after pictures of the changes on building plans A, B and C. Commissioner Teglia noted that the window moved all the way to the corner on plan C looked strange. Mr. Raff noted that the window is over exagerated on the drawing and sits 8 inches from the corner. Commissioner Teglia asked what the issue was with keeping the window in its originally approved location. Mr. Raff stated that a bed with a headboard would be partially on the window. Commissioner Teglia noted that page C.1 had two windows on either side originally approved. Mr. Raff stated that they were on the elevations but were deleted by the structural engineer on the floor plans to incorporate structural members there. He stated that the approved floor plans do not show these windows and the architect forgot to remove them from the elevations. Commissioner Teglia stated that the elevations are an integral part of the Commission's approval and was concerned when an artist's rendition is changed after the Commission's approval. Commissioner Teglia asked staff if the Design Review Board (DRB) had suggested to keep the chimneys in their originally approved location. Senior Planner Carlson replied affirmatively and added that a Building Inspector is present to answer any questions of the Commission. Mr. Raff stated that by moving the chimney five feet from its location, it would be in the center of the living room, dining room and master bedroom. Mr. Dauo added that the chimneys cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Raff stated that they can leave the chimney in place for aesthetic purposes but it would not be functional. Commissioner Sim stated that a cross section of the site would help the Commission to view the chimneys in relation to the character of the street. Mr. Raff stated that the chimney is slightly visible from the rear elevation. Mr. Dauo reiterated that the chimneys will only serve as decoratives feature if the Commission wishes to keep them in their approved locations. Commissioner Sim felt more comfortable in recommending approval of what the Commission had previously approved. Commissioner Moore echoed Commissioner Sim's comments. Commissioner Sim stated that he is comfortable with the windows being moved on plans C.1 and C.2, but asked that the developer be consistent with the windows on the lower level to keep the character of the building. Mr. Raff stated that the windows on the bottom level are dictated by the utilities in terms of the location. Mr. Dauo stated that the C.2 and C.3 plan reflects the approved window location. Commissioner Sim was concerned with the Commission making reactionary decisions and stated that he was most comfortable with recommending approval of the current approval. He added that he understands moving certain elements to meet building codes and life and safety requirements but is not convinced about moving an element s:\r~~wutes~~Lwa~Czed MLwutes~zoo~\o-~-os-off izpc n~tCwutes.doc page 2 of ~ Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 merely to allow space for furniture. Commissioner Teglia suggested moving the window higher than the headboard and suggested that there needs to be consistency with the window placement. Mr. Raff stated that the bedroom window can be made smaller if the Commission recommended doing so. Commissioner Sim noted that he is willing to entertain a smaller sized window. Commissioner Teglia felt that a smaller window may look odd in comparison with other windows on the building. Commissioner Sim asked why there can't be consistency in the placement of the windows, particularly the lower level windows. Mr. Dauo stated that on the wall there are beams that limit the locations of the windows. He pointed out that they are trying to keep the changes to a minimum in order to make the master bedroom functional. Commissioner Sim felt that solving the functional issues is understandable but the Commission has not seen aesthetically pleasing solutions. Mr. Dauo stated that they can leave the window in its originally approved location because they have constraints on the timing of these approvals due to the project being under construction. Mr. Raff stated that the window will not be visible for the public because it is on the side elevation. Commissioner Zemke asked if the window can be eliminated. Mr. Dauo stated that the simple solution would be to eliminate the window, but he would prefer to keep the window. Commissioner Teglia stated that the windows need to be consistent and this means that the window will likely need to stay as approved. He stated that if the developer can find a solution to move the windows together, they can do so. Mr. Dauo noted that this is a good possibility. Commissioner Teglia suggested using a series of trims and patterns to tie in the facade. Mr. Raff stated that they will line up the windows. Mr. Raff proceeded to show the site plan changes made to several lots within the project. He pointed out that in order to preserve the pine trees and to prevent the roots from going under the sidewalk they have added a retaining wall. Commissioner Teglia asked about the 12 foot section of the retaining wall and if the functional difference from the original plan was a slope versus a retaining wall. Mr. Dauo noted that that the 12 foot section is already installed. Mr. Raff stated that the height varies from 2 feet to 4 feet high. Commissioner Zemke noted that whatever the applicant can do to save mature encouraged. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the DRB has not seen the plans for the walls and is concerned with the finish and the softening of the entry with landscaping. Commissioner Teglia asked what staff's position on the wall is. Senior Planner Carlson stated that he would prefer to have DRB review it. Commissioner Teglia stated that there is not enough information to approve the retaining wall change and asked that the concept be approved with the condition that staff review and approve the specifics of the wall and softening its impact with landscaping in coordination with the DRB. Commissioner Teglia asked if staff had issues on the 12 foot extension of the wall at the main entrance of the site. Senior Planner Carlson stated that the Engineering Division needs to review to make sure that it does not create a sightline issue. Commissioner Honan asked what the resolution to the heating duct in the storage area of unit C was. Fire Marshal Niswonger stated that there was concern by they Commission that the storage area would be used as a bedroom and noted that Code Enforcement does not support it. Mr. Dauo stated that the heating duct was installed in the shop and a half bathroom and understood that the full bathroom was not permitted because of this concern by the Commission and Council. He felt that the elimination of the shower met the Commission's concerns and did not feel that a heat duct would result in the shop becoming an illegal dwelling. Commissioner Honan asked what the size of the shop was. Mr. Raff stated that it is approximately 9 feet by 18 feet. Commissioner Honan felt that heating is not needed in a shop or in the half bathroom. Fire Marshal Niswonger stated that Code Enforcement is dealing with numerous cases of illegal units in garages and felt that the size of the room conducive to conversion. He stated that it is best to discourage it and recommended the Commission not allow it. Commissioner Teglia asked Senior Building Inspector Mammini if the chimneys can't be built as approved Senior Building Inspector Mammini replied in the negative and added that a five foot area where the two buildings s:\MCwutes~~%wal~zed r~twutes~2oo~\oa -os-off Rpc r~~wutes.doc PG7GQ 3 D f 6 Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 come together needs to be maintained. The code rates this as assembly and the code does not allow any penetrations within five feet in each direction on the roof to impede the spread of fire. Commissioner Teglia noted that this was previously approved by the Commission. Senior Building Inspector Mammini stated that this was probably overlooked during plan check though the appearance of the chimney could remain for aesthetic reasons, with the ducting running inside the building horizontally and outside a vertical wall. Public Hearing closed. Motion Teglia /Second Zemke to approve resolution 2663-2007 recommending approval of P07-0010: PUDM07-0001 DR07-0006 & MND-01-012 adding Conditions of Approval to require aligning the windows, eliminate storage room and half bathroom heating to deter conversion to an illegal unit, the chimneys will remain and that the retaining wall be subject to review and approval by staff and the Design Review Board. Approved by majority voice vote. Chairperson Prouty -absent. 4. Genentech Building 31 Carla Boragno/applicant Genentech, Inc/owner 1631 Grandview Dr. P05-0005: DR05-0003 & UP05-0002 (Continued from March 15, 2007) Use Permit to allow construction afive-story office building (Building 31) with a total floor space of 150,972 square feet at 1531 Grandview Drive in the Genentech R&D Overlay District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.39.60, 20.40.050, 20.40.060, 20.81 & 20.85 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen gave a brief staff report and added that the conditions of approval would incorporate the direction given by the Planning Commission during the study session. Recess called at 8:57 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:06 p.m. Abhijeet Mankar -Johnson Fain Architects, and Lisa Sullivan -Genentech Inc., gave a presentation on the project. Commissioner Teglia noted that the curtain wall has a glazing effect and the interior courtyard has a higher grade presentation. He felt that the curtain wall is combined with GFRC on the street side and felt that the curtain wall should be extended out into the streetscape. Ms. Sullivan noted that the GFRC wall is seen from the courtyard and the facade is a combination of the two. Commissioner Teglia suggested dressing up the building corner that is approached by making a right onto DNA Way. Commissioner Moore noted that the recommended changes from the study session would be incorporated as part of the conditions. There being no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Motion Zemke /Second Moore to approve P05-0005: DR05-0003 & UP05-0002. Roll Call: Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, and Vice Chairperson Giusti Noes: None Absent: Chairperson Prouty s:V~%wutes~~CwalLzed MCwutes~2oo~\o4-os-off Rpc Miwutes.doc page ~ of 6 Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 Abstain: None Approved by roll call vote. 5. Genentech Childcare Facility GENENTECH INC/applicant GENENTECH INC/owner 444 Allerton Avenue P06-0024: UP06-0008 & DR06-0020 (Continued from March 15, 2007) Use Permit allow construction of a 51,000 s.f. childcare facility serving approximately 500 children, comprising six separate buildings, at 444 Allerton Avenue located in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32 and 20.81. Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Chief Planner Kalkin added that the Commission had received modified conditions of approval from the Fire Department. Richard Prakopcyk -Director of Site Planning CHU2A and Steven Williams gave a presentation on the project. Commissioner Moore asked if the paint to be used at this facility was going to be safe for children. Mr. Williams noted that they would research the paint types and ensure they are safe. Commissioner Sim asked if the suggestions offered during the study session were considered. Mr. Williams noted that the parapet was considered but prefers the dialogue between the upper roof and lower roof and also like the formality of the entry as initially proposed. Commissioner Sim noted that this childcare center, compared to the Gateway Childcare Center, looks more boxy. Commissioner Teglia noted that the trees don't always break up the boxy look. He added that the front elevations on the PowerPoint were not impressive and the building needs to reflect the elevation that was shown during the study session. Commissioner Sim felt that the front administrative building could be reinforced by other elements other than asymmetrical elements. Mr. Williams noted that they are relying on the building colors to be more dominant and felt that the glass was less important and in response to the Commission's comments they will look at a blue green tint for the glass that will fit in with the colors on the campus. Commissioner Teglia noted that the glass looks aqua blue in one of the renditions and is looking for a similar color. There being no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Honan asked that the Fire Department clarify the conditions of approval that are being added. Fire Chief White noted that in response to the comments presented by a neighboring business the conditions have been modified to identify mitigation measures and provide safety for the occupants of the facility. Motion Teglia /Second Zemke to approve P06-0024: UP06-0008 & DR06-0020 with the amended Fire Department conditions and that the final buildings materials, choices and colors be a true to the artist rendition. Commissioner Sim stated that the final materials choice should return to the Commission. Amended Motion Teglia /Amended Second Zemke to request final review of materials. Roll Call: s:~MLwutes~~%wa~Lzed r~n[wutes~2oo~\o~-os-off R.pc MCwutes.doc page s o f 6 Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2007 Ayes: Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, and Vice Chairperson Giusti Noes: None Absent: Chairperson Prouty Abstain: None Approved by roll call. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF None Chief Planner Kalkin responded to the following Planning Commission issues raised at previous meetings: Bell Market roof equipment -She noted that a memo has been given to the Commission regarding the roof equipment. Traffic controls on Allerton & Forbes -She pointed out that this intersection is not currently included as a signalized intersection on the East of 101 traffic mitigation plan. She stated that the 494 Forbes EIR will give the Commission the opportunity to review the mitigation measures at the corner of Allerton and Forbes. 111 Chestnut -She thanked the Fire Department /Code Enforcement Division for addressing the Commission's concerns with regard to weed abatement at the site. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Teglia asked that staff return with an update on the permit for 111 Chestnut and noted that it may have already expired. He added that the Planner's Institute Conference was very educational and highlighted the presentation on mansionization. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC None AD]OURNMENT 9:55 P.M. Motion Teglia /Second Moore to adjourn the meeting. Adjourned by unanimous voice vote.. Sus alkin Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco f-- - Mary Giusti, Vice Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla s:\M%wutes\~tv~.alCzed M%N,utes\2oo~~o-4-os-off R.pc r~Cwutes.doc Page 6 o f 6