Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/03/2003 MINUTES April 3, 2003 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 Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero ABSENT: Commissioner Meloni, Commissioner Sim, and Commissioner Teglia STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: City Attorney: Police Department: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Allison Knapp, Consultant Planner Bertha Hernandez, Admin. Asst. II Kimberly Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Sergeant Mike Newell, Planning Liaison AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes Continued The minutes were continued because two of the four Commissioners present were absent on the meeting of March 20th. Motion Honan/Second Ochsenhirt to continue the minutes to April 17, 2003. Approved by unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. 2. 345 East Grand Sand Hill Property Company/Owner Sand Hill Property Company/Applicant 345 East Grand Ave. P03-0016 Continued (Recommend continuance to off-calendar) Planning Commission Action for time extension of previous freight forwarding business and warehouse use in the Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.97.070. Motion Honan/Second Giusti to continue the item off calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. S;\M[l/\,lA.tes\fLI/\,IAL[zec;{\::?003\D4-03-03 RPC,c;{OC 'PlAge i of 5 PUBLIC HEARING 3. Ergur, Necati/Owner Realm of Blessings/Applicant 713 Linden Ave. P02-0054 and Categorical Exemption Class 1 Section 15301 Leasing of Existing Facility Six Month Review of Use Permit Modification to convert an office building to a church within 200 sq. ft. of a residential area in accordance with SSFMC 20.22.030 and 20.81. Chief Planner Sparks presented the staffreport and noted that this is a six-month review. He pointed out that the church might be vacating the property. He recommended that the Commission continue the review to May 15, 2003. Commissioner Ochsenhirt asked if staff is in communication with the tenant. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff has contacted the tenant over the last two or three weeks. Motion Ochsenhirt /Second Giusti to continue the item. Approved by unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. 4. Zoning Amendment City of South San Francisco-Owner/Applicant Citywide P03-0007 Continued Amendment to the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.79, Residential Second Unit Regulations, to amend the existing development standards for second units for consistency with the Housing Element and State Law. Chief Planner Sparks noted that a question had been raised regarding the size of second units, particularly in areas such as Old Town where many second dwellings already exist which contain more than one bedroom. He clarified that while the ordinance will apply to all residential zones the primary impact will be in R-1 Zones. Areas zoned R-2, R-3 and other are already allowed to have an additional residence that need not necessarily be subject to the second unit ordinance under discussion. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report and asked that the Commission continue the public hearing to April 17, 2003 for further discussion and action. Assistant City Attorney Johnson recommended that the definition of general compatibility be added to the proposed ordinance. She suggested that the ordinance be changed to have the garages be accessible rather than requiring an owner or applicant to park in the garage. She pointed that there is an additional Assembly Bill (AB 1160) that would propose to further amend the government code and eliminate the requirement parking for the second unit and the owner occupancy would also be eliminated. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff agreed with the Assistant City Attorney Johnson's memo. He pointed out that parking in the setback has to be provided unless a finding is made that it is not allowed anywhere else in our jurisdiction. Chairperson Romero noted that AB 1866 Section 65852.2(e) parking requirements also states that parking in the setback may be allowed if the Commission finds it is not feasible to do tandem parking for regional, topographical or life safety conditions. He asked if the Commission could make this finding or the other stated by Chief Planner Sparks. Assistant City Attorney Lawson stated either of the two findings would effectively prohibit parking in the setback. Chairperson Romero asked if this would be on a case by case basis. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that this would be done in the ordinance under the findings and this would be an item to add to those findings. Commissioner Honan asked for a clarification on requiring a second unit application to go through Design S; \MLV\..utes \fi.V\..1A LLzeGl\:::W03 \0-'1--03-03 R"PC. Gl DC. "PlAge ::2 of 5 Review. Assistant City Attorney Johnson stated that the statute allows architectural review, which means that design review is permitted. She added that design review has to be consistent with a ministerial approval by having the Commission adopt specific and clear standards to prohibit anyone from saying that this is not a permitted use. She added that what staff wants to do is incorporate what the Design Review Board already looks into objective standards in the ordinance. Chief Planner Sparks added that the Design Review Board is an advisory body to the Planning Commission and staff. Their meetings are public but are not hearings. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the statute is made to encourage a second unit to provide necessary housing at an affordable rate. She added that when cities get further direction from HCD the ordinance may need to be amended. Public Hearing opened. Joe D' Angelo, 310 Evergreen, pointed out that two second units have been approved since 1980. He asked if SSFMC 20.79.040(e) could be changed to not count the storage area as living space. He asked for clarification on chapter 20.79.040(f) with regard to entrance to second units being the same driveway. Chairperson Romero noted that this would avoid having multiple driveways. Mr. D'Angelo suggested changing the work "shall" to "may" with regards to having a new address and utility meters. He asked what the second unit-parking requirement would be. George Mozingo, Governmental Affairs Director for San Mateo County Association of Realtors, 850 Woodside Way, commended staff on the proposed ordinance. He pointed out that although there have been only two approved second units in South San Francisco; there probably are illegal units. He suggested that the City consider an amnesty period to allow the illegal units to be compliant with health and safety. Chairperson Romero referenced the memo from the Assistant City Attorney Johnson, page 4, second paragraph. Assistant City Attorney Johnson pointed out that the memo is attorney / client privileged communication and cannot comment on certain information on the document. Chairperson Romero asked that Assistant City Attorney Johnson indicate when she cannot answer and the question would be withdrawn. He asked if Chapter 20.79.040(k) with regard to requiring people to park in the garage is now being changed to encourage people to park in the garages. Assistant City Attorney Lawson noted that this is correct. Assistant City Attorney Johnson clarified that this is primarily because it is not required anywhere else in the City but for the private restrictions in the CC &Rs. Secondly, off-street parking is allowed in many neighborhoods, and thirdly the legislation encourages second units in any jurisdiction that makes the addition of these units to be burdensome. Chairperson Romero asked if a one car garage residence asking to build a second unit will be required to provide the additional garage space. Chief Planner Sparks responded that this was correct. Senior Planner Lappen noted that it is in 20.79.040G) second unit requirement page 3 of the draft ordinance. Chairperson Romero suggested that this needs to be included as part of the regulations and needs to be clarified. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that this is a requirement that the Commission will have to look at and see ifit is restrictive or burdensome. Chairperson Romero noted that if seems restrictive and burdensome. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that in the draft ordinance revised by the City Attorney's office this requirement was removed and the requirement is to have the existing garage accessible for parking of a vehicle. The ordinance also allows tandem parking and alternative forms of parking to satisfy the parking requirement. Chairperson Romero noted that off-street parking is available to the public but if a driveway is expanded it is no longer available to everyone but the residents of the primary and secondary units. Commissioner Honan pointed out that the subcommittee is trying to avoid a parking chaos. Chairperson Romero was concerned with requiring garages to be built because there are other ramifications if driveways are required to be enlarged. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the requirement can be satisfied by parking adjacent to the garage as long as there is no encroachment on the setback or in the garage s: \M ~II\-ute>; \fLlI\-/A L~zed\::?003 \04 -03-03 R"PC-. doc "P/Age 3 of 5 provided that it be a minimum of20x10. Chairperson Romero pointed out that as long as there is space for the off-street parking then it doesn't matter if it is covered or not. Commissioner Honan pointed out that the subcommittee was looking at aesthetics. Chairperson Romero noted that Design Review Board could see if it is aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Ochsenhirt pointed out that the purpose of the ministerial approved is to make it desirable for homeowners to consider a second unit. He pointed out that a design review step hinders the accomplishment trying to be reached. He added the parking requirement is not recommended to remove with the new Assembly Bill. Chief Planner Sparks pointed out that this bill has not been signed by the governor and needs to go through a series of hearings before it is adopted by both bodies of the legislature and it should not be part of the Commission's discussion until after it adoption. Commissioner Ochsenhirt asked about a restricted covenant running with the land and if the new owner must keep the second unit. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that when the second unit is constructed it becomes part of the primary residence and cannot be sold separately and it is recorded as a deed restriction. She added that if someone does not want the second unit they can go through the demolition process and remove the kitchen and then the deed restriction would be removed. Senior Planner Lappen noted that they wanted to make sure that the two units would not become rental and this is why they looked at owner occupancy and wanted to have alternative housing. Chairperson Romero noted that the design review process is an assistance program and is not a burden to applicants. Commissioner Honan pointed out that the design review proves is a benefit to the homeowners. Commissioner Ochsenhirt pointed out that it is great to have Design Review Board advise staff and the Commission but do not want it to look hard. Chairperson Romero asked for concurrence on 20.74.040G, to have a separate address for the additional unit. Chief Planner Sparks recommended that there be a separate address to keep state housing numbers current and first response purposes. Consensus of the Commission to have a separate address for the second unit. Chairperson Romero asked for concurrence on section 20.74.040(0) to not require separate meters but leave it to the discretion of the applicant. Commissioner Ochsenhirt encouraged to have a separate meter for the unit because many times people are asked to show proof of living in the City and a P. G. & E, phone bill or any other correspondence serves this purpose. Consensus of the Commission to make the separate meters optional to applicant hv usinJ! the word "mav" rather than "shall". Commissioner Ochsenhirt pointed out that Mr. D'Angelo's comment on living space and what could be subtracted from living area square footage, he did not suggest this be done because when property is appraised closets and storage area are counted as living space. Chairperson Romero would like to revisit the 900 square foot maximum size of a unit at the next meeting. The Commission thanked staff and the Assistant City Attorneys to make the ordinance work. Assistant City Attorney Lawson asked that the Commission may want to consider the amnesty provision brought up by a member of the public. She also asked that the Commission consider adding appeal language to 20.79.050. Consensus of the Commission to add the appeallanf!uaJ!e to the ordinance. Chairperson Romero suggested that the amnesty provision be agendised for discussion at the next meeting. Motion Ochsenhirt /Second Honan to continue the Public Hearing to April 17, 2003. Approved by s: \/V\LiI\-utes \fi.iI\-Cl LLuG!\::?003 \04 -03-03 RPG. G! DC "PClge 4 of 5 unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Items from Staff Assistant City Attorney Johnson asked that the Commission review the projected items that will be going before the Commission in order to allow the City Attorney's office to identify FPPC conflicts. Chairperson Romero asked that the Commissioners notify staff and the Chair that they will not be present in the future. 6. Items from Commission Commissioner Giusti thanked staff and the Council for allowing her to attend the Planners Institute that was very informative. 7. Items from the Public None 8. Adjournment Motion Honan/Second Ochsenhirt to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote with three members being absent. 9:05 P.M. T~Cp~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco ~~Q~ William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting May 1,2003, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA TCS/blh/pc S; \MLVvutes \fi-VvCl LLzed\2.003 \0-4--03-03 RPG.d oc PClge50f 5