Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/17/2003 MINUTES April 17 , 2003 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TAPE 1 7 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Bertha Hernandez, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Lieutenant Mike Newell, Planning Liaison City Attorney: Police Department: AGENDA REVIEW Chief Planner Sparks noted that the applicant for item #4 had not arrived and the agenda items might need to be rearranged. Should the applicant not be present the item will have to be continued. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of March 20,2003 and April 3, 2003. Approved 2. Zoning Amendment City of South San Francis'co-Owner/ Applicant Citywide P03-0007 (Recommend continuance to May 1,2003) Amendment to the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Unit Regulations; Chapter 20.06, Definitions; Chapter 20.14 R-E, Rural Estates District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.16, R-1 Single-Family Density Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.18, R-2, Medium Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.20, R-3 Multi-Family Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure, to amend the development standards for residential second units to be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element and State law. 3. Zoning Amendment Modification City of South San Francisco-owner/applicant Citywide ZA-01-021/MOD1 (TDM) & ZA-01-041/MOD1 (TOD) s: \Mi.VclA.tes;\fi-VcC! Li.zed\2003\04-iT-03 R.."pc-.doc "PC!ge i of T (Recommend continuance to May 1,2003) Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt revisions to Chapter 20.27 Transit Village District; Chapter 20.14 R-E, Rural Estates District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.16, R-1 Single-Family Den~ity Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.18, R-2, Medium Residential District Use Regulations; and Chapter 20.20, R-3 Multi-Family Residential District, to require a use permit for all projects that generate 100 or more vehicle trips per day (ADT); and Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management to include child care as an additional measure not originally listed in the chapter. Motion Meloni / Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. Items 2 and 3 approved by unanimous voice vote. Item number one approved by maj ority voice vote with Commissioners Giusti and Ochsenhirt abstaining from approving the minutes of March 20,2003 and Commissioners Meloni, Sim and Teglia abstained from approving the minutes of April 3, 2003. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Jonas Ruiz & Frances Tomacruz-Applicant/Owner 407 Baden Ave. P03-0008/UP03-0002 and Categorical Exemption Class 3 Section 15303 New Construction of Small Structures Approved Use Permit to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 2 apartment units over 2 ground-floor commercial spaces in the Downtown Commercial (D-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.26.030 and 20.81.050. Staff report presented by Chief Planner Sparks. Jonas Ruis, applicant, explained that they are proposing to develop the property to have retail space on the first level and two units on the second floor. They will provide 7 parking spaces, four of which are for the two units on the second floor. Public Hearing opened. Alex Ku, 107 Valleyview Way, noted that he supports the second unit housing regulations. Chairperson Romero noted that this item was up for discussion after the public hearing for 407 Baden and asked Mr. Ku to speak on the item then. Kim Carelly, 436 Baden Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned with the loss of parking on Baden due to several additions taking place for residential and commercial properties. These additions require driveways, which are taking away from the street parking. Public Hearing closed. Commission and applicant discussion: Commissioner Giusti asked what type of business would go on the first floor. Mr. Ruiz noted that it would be a Laundromat service, which is needed in that area. Chairperson Romero and Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt discussed the placement of the garbage cans with Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz noted that there is an area in the plans allotted for the garbage cans and that they will have cans, and not bins. He pointed out that a Laundromat would not generate much trash due to the type of use. Chairperson Romero questioned why the garage is being removed and being replaced with covered parking. He asked if this was allowed in the zoning ordinance. Chief Planner Sparks noted that it meets current standards and that dwellings on lanes have different parking requirements. s: \/V\Lv\'utes \fLv\'(). LLzed\:2003 \0-'1--1.7-03 RPC. d oc. p().ge:2 of 7 Chairperson Romero asked what the measurements were for the 20 X 30, 700 square foot, units. Aris Ruis, architect, noted that the dining / kitchen is 8 x 8 feet; 2 full bathrooms are 5 x 7 feet; the second bedroom is lOx 8 feet; and the master bedroom is 10 x 14. Chairperson Romero asked what materials would be used for the addition. Aris Ruiz noted that they would match the existing stucco wall finish and the shingles on the roof. He added that the commercial space would match the existing building. He pointed out that the use permit requirement is for the two dwelling units because the area is Downtown Commercial. Commissioner Giusti asked how far back the architect would have to excavate on the slope. Aris Ruis said that it would be the depth of the dwelling, which is 36 feet and 10 feet away from the property. Commissioner Sim asked what the handicap requirements for parking are on the commercial use. Aris Ruis noted the building division would grant a hardship on the handicap-parking requirement because of the property location and topography. Commissioner Giusti asked if the 7 parking places would be available for the residents or for the apartment units. Aris Ruis noted that 4 spaces would be for the residential units and 3 would be for commercial during the day. Commissioner Teglia asked why three stalls are covered and if they were dedicated for residential or commercial. Aris Ruis noted that one covered parking stall be provided for each unit. Commissioner Teglia pointed out that the plans show that the addition is on the sidewalk and asked if anyone had looked into making sure that the building would not end up next to the sidewalk as in the past. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this was checked with the Engineering Division. Chairperson Romero asked if there was a setback from the property line for the three story apartment building. Aris Ruis noted that the DC Zoning District allows to build on the property line but they will be providing a five foot side setbacks. Chairperson Romero asked if there would be enough lighting for the units and if there would be skylights in the units at all. Aris Ruis noted that the windows from the living room and bedrooms would provide enough lighting for the units. Commissioner Honan asked what the approximate number of free parking spaces along Baden Avenue is and how many permits have been given out for the two City parking lots on Baden. She was concerned with the number of cars that will be in the area and lack of parking. Chief Planner Sparks added that there would be not more than 40 spaces but does not have the specific number. Lieutenant Newell pointed out that Finance sells the public parking lot permits and would have the number of permits sold. Chairperson Romero pointed out that these units would be ideal for children but there is no area designated for them. Aris Ruis noted that the balcony was partially intended to allow the family to congregate rather than in the parking lot. Commissioner Sim asked that there be more articulation on the side wall. Motion Meloni / Second Sim to approve the use permit. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Recess taken at 8:04 p.m. Recalled to order at 8:10 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff a. STUDY SESSION None Direction s: \M~iI1-L,(tes\fi-iI1-Cl L~zed\2003\04-iT-03 RPc.doc "PClge 3 of T Zoning Amendment City of South San Francisco-Owner/Applicant Citywide P03-0007 given. Amendment to the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Unit Regulations; Chapter 20.06, Definitions; Chapter 20.14 R-E, Rural Estates District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.16, R-1 Single-Family Density Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.18, R-2, Medium Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.20, R-3 Multi-Family Residential District Use Regulations; Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations; and Chapter 20.85, Design Review Procedure, to amend the development standards for residential second units to be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element and State law. Chief Planner Sparks and Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report. They noted that the staff report is organized so that individual issues are defined in a manner to allow the Commission to indicate consensus. Alex Ku, 107 Valleyview Way, noted that there are issues with the recommendations on the second unit for residential projects. He recommended that Chapter 20.79-040 (n), Owner Occupancy requirement be deleted; 2079.040 (h), number of bedrooms, be increased up to three bedrooms; 20.79.040 (e), size of unit, increased from 900-1000 square feet. Joe D' Angelo, 310 Evergreen, noted that the state has recognized second units as a valuable low cost housing for residents. He added that the City should require owner occupancy and allow a detached or attached unit, as well as separate entrances. He asked for clarification on the parking requirements and if they will require a shared or a separate entrance for the units. He added that the maximum square footage be increased to 1,000 square feet. Senior Planner Lappen took the Commission through each of the bulleted points. Owner Occupancy Commissioner Honan asked that Assistant City Attorney Johnson give her legal opinion on requiring an owner to live on their property or not. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the bill allows Cities to require owner occupancy of at least one unit. Consensus to have only one unit (either the main house or the second unit) rented and the other unit must be owner occupied. Residential Second Unit Performance Criteria Consensus to permit residential second units in all residential zones. Consensus to permit only one residential second unit on a lot. On whether or not to permit second units only on lots with no more than one single-family dwelling: Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that this would be contrary to the previous consensus unless there are many areas zoned as multi-family residential areas with only one dwelling on it. Chairperson Romero pointed out that a single family dwelling in a multi-family residential district permitting a second unit is contradictory to the previous consensus. Chief Planner Sparks noted that multi-family residential zones allow more than one dwelling unit on a single parcel without the constraints of the second unit ordinance. Senior Planner Lappen clarified that in a substandard lot in a multi-family residential zone that has a single-family house. Under current requirements it could not get a second unit on the lot due to the size, but would have the possibility of qualifying the second unit. .s; \/V\~lII-lAte$ \fLlII-Ci. L~zed\:2003 \04 -i 7-03 RPG. doc pCi.ge 4 of 7 Consensus to permit second units only on lots with no more than one single-family dwelling. Consensus to limit residential second units to no more than one bedroom. Consensus to permit second units on the second story of an existing single-family dwelling. Consensus to require that all second units comply with existing lot coverage, FAR, setback, height and bulk standards that currently exist in the appropriate residential district. On whether or not to require that all second units shall be subject to the City's design review process, established in Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code: Commissioner Honan asked that the Assistant City Attorney Johnson explain what the legal implications are. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that there is a direct contradiction in the state law which architectural review yet requiring approval to be ministerial. She pointed out that the requirement for going through the Design Review process could lead to discretionary review. She added that a revision to chapter 20.85.020 (b) limits the design review to be of specific criteria that does not require Design Review Board criteria. Chairperson Romero asked how the Design Review Board process would be different than the allowed architectural review by State Law. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the contradiction between the two has caused confusion but it does allow architectural review as long as it is done with objective standards. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the City has fully disclosed design guidelines. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board may want to enhance the appearance of a neighborhood through the project by requiring something different and the Design Review Board will not have that discretion on second units anymore. Commissioner Meloni pointed out that the architectural review is in the law and it does not violate the law. If it does violate the law due to new amendments, then it could be changed. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that the legislature intended for architectural review to be ministerial. It is not supposed to be burdensome for a person that wants to add a second unit by removing the review process. She added that an objective criterion needs to be proposed to streamline the process and make it easier. Chief Planner Sparks added that there have been onerous second unit requirements in many jurisdictions. He added that the proposal is to subject the newly required second units to the same review standards as a single- family dwellings, which are also ministerial but to go through the Design Review Board. Commissioner Honan added that Chief Planner Sparks could approve something and asked if he could recommend that the Design Review Board review it and gives recommendations. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that with a ministerial approval the criteria need to be defined as well as the process. She added that the history of the law has created such amendments to eliminate the review process. Commissioner Teglia noted that the Design Review Board is a valuable service to applicants and have the opportunity to get good suggestions. He pointed out that sending an applicant through the Design Review Board process would require for them to have plans and all the necessary materials. He added that the having the applicant go to the Design Review Board is valuable and suggests that it be kept in the requirements for second units. He added that if the legislature still allows architectural review, the Design Review Board can offer comments on the proposed second unit and the applicant mayor may not accept these comments. He pointed out that Design Review will not impose anything but they will offer constructive comments. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt concurred with Assistant City Attorney Johnson in regards to the intent of the law and the approval being ministerial. He also felt that the architectural review should remain in the process because it is helpful to everyone. S: \/V\[V\,utes \fi.v\'Cl L[zed\::2oo3 \D4 -i.T-03 RPC-. doc PClgesof T Commissioner Meloni asked that the there be a set of standard like having roofline look like the surrounding roof lines & windows. He added that five members can be more objective than one person and they can point out that that the second unit does not comply with the standards. Chairperson Romero pointed out that the State has indicated that second units cannot be reviewed by the Commission but does allow for architectural review. He pointed out that when it is clearly stated that they do not want Design Review Board review and recommendation then it can be removed. Consensus to require that all second units shall be subject to the City's design review process, established in Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code. Consensus to require a separate address for the second unit. Consensus to make the requirement to have a separate meter or utility hookup for the second unit optional. Consensus to eliminate the requirement that would permit unit size up to 30 percent of the floor area of the primary unit and permits the size of second units to be from 400 to 1000 square feet and remove the handicap bonus. Consensus to include a specific reference to the General Plan policy that states: "Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum." Consensus to include entries, hallways, and closet space in the square footage calculation for residential second units. Off-Street Parking On whether or not the additional parking space for a second unit must be enclosed (that is, effectively, a garage.) Chairperson Romero felt that an enclosed parking should not be required unless they are at the 1800 square feet that the Municipal Code allows and then they will be required to add an additional parking space. Commissioner Meloni asked if the combination of the primary and secondary unit would have to be at 1800 square feet, then the additional space would have to be included. Chairperson Romero repied that this is correct. Commissioner Teglia asked if the setback standards will remain. Senior Planner Lappen noted that it would. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the City allows the homeowner to build up to 1800 square feet with a one-car garage. When the square footage goes from 1800 to 2500 a second parking space or carport will be required. Consensus to require an additional parking space for a second unit and that the space does not have to be covered or enclosed. Consensus to change the parking standards throughout the City to allow tandem spaces to satisfy the parking requirement (one care parked in front of the other for a total of two cars.) Chief Planner Sparks noted that this would be allowed for the primary unit and the second unit should have a space that is not tandem. Consensus that a tandem space satisfies the requirement for the primary unit only. The additional space for a residential second unit cannot be a tandem space. Process On whether or not existing illegal second units should be granted amnesty as part of the revision to the Municipal Code: s: \MLV\-lA.te.c;\fi-V\-Cl LLzed\2003\O-'l--iY--03 RPc-.doc PClge G of y- Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that this might mean that if the units meet all the design standards they be approved without purchasing the required permits. Commissioner Meloni noted that there are liability issues because the illegal unit does not meet City standards or building codes, tracking problems, and possible lawsuits. Consensus to not grant amnesty as part of the revision to the Municipal Code for existing illegal second units. Commissioner Teglia asked if restrictions regarding the garage being reserved for parking spaces will be included in the regulations. Senior Planner Lappen replied that it would be. b. Additional Staff Items Chief Planner Sparks asked if the Commission would like to meet at 6:00 or 6:30 to discuss the Fairfield Development. The Commission agreed to meet at 6:30 p.m. 6. Items from Commission None · Commissioner Sim asked how the public gets protected in the instance where a change to a private property affects the surrounding neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that there are many few things that can be done to a property that can be determined as a nuisance. She added that there has to be proof that it is visually damaging that it is causing the property value to go down. · Chairperson Romero asked if the Commission had received the memo on timliness and attendance at the meetings. The Commission did receive the memo. Chairperson Romero asked that everyone cooperate and let either him or Chief Planner Sparks know if they will be absent. 7. Items from the Public None 8. Adjournment 9:40 P.M. Motion Honan / Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. T~~~~ V~~~ William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting May 1,2003, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCSlblh S: \MLlICutes. \fLlIC!A LLzed\2003 \04 -i.7-03 R"PC-. d DC "PClge.T of .7