tv [untitled] May 27, 2011 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT
building at the rear of the lot and had maximize the development potential and letter thought to subdivide them out. -- and later thought to subdivide them out. the project sponsors have been very agreeable to deal with and i know this is a difficult situation, but i have found them to be nothing but courteous during these times and we have paid to them the same respect to the department. that said, we felt the need to deny the application because we felt it was not consistent with the planning code. there is not a pattern of these smaller lots, a predominant pattern in the district. we found at less than 2% of the 1000 lots within 1,000 feet, 1868 lots within 1,000 feet of the property, that less than 2% were smaller than 1100 square feet in size. also, as the product sponsor stated, their alternative is
here. they can go through the condominium process. they have not exhausted all of their remedies to achieve the goals that have separate ownership, that means available to them. i am assuming they qualify for the condo, it would have on our occupancy for that time, sounds like approximately 10 years. that i think summarizes most of the points i want to make. some of the other sites that were pointed out by the product sponsor, many of them were nowhere within 1,000 feet of the property and were in different neighborhoods of the city. there were some that were close by, a few properties on cortland. however, those are very distinct and they are 3 lots. there is a different development pattern. as we get closer to mission, one cortland, there are existing subdivided lots, front to rear,
and having them divide it on a through lot. with that, i will conclude my presentation and be available for any questions the commissioners may have. commissioner hwang: from an applicant's perspective, what would be the difference between -- why would one be averse to going down the condo route vs splitting the lot? more fees, more time, more trouble? >> fees maybe -- well, i cannot say because you have to go through some of the process going to raise subdivision. or the condominium forces going to the public works. in terms of the requirement, the process, the time, i don't think it is any more lifey, -- i don't think it is any more lengthy. given what i know about condo conversions, those are generally
processed quickly and probably would've been a corker process, at least, than having to go through -- would have been a quicker process at least in having to go through the variance and then the subdivision. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, the smaller building, what use to beat i guess a bungalow, runs pretty much to the rear property line? so the only setback with respect to the property line would be the portion of adjacent to the other building? >> rebuilding would have approximately 3-4 foot setback. i can put that on the plans, on the overhead. so the yellow is the rear
building you are refering to. the 9 foot yard, in which the stairs go around. there is 4 foot 6 inches at the rear, and this is probably 3-4 feet to the property line. it would be constructed. the building which was built, completed in 2000, occupies nearly the entire front lot and would leave a 5 foot rear set back. commissioner fung: okay, so when they did the new buildings and it satisfied the rear yard requirement so that the existing bungalow wound up being nonconforming use at that point? >> well, that building would have been non complying at that time, as well, because of publication on the property. even if we were to have had the lot here, even if we had
presumed that the frontage on newman, it would still be substandard if this was the rear property line. this was noncompliant at that time, existing, and they wanted to build this structure at the front, it met the rear yard requirements in that this is the front of the property, this is the rear, maintaining 45% of rear yard, which is the requirement in vernal. vernal does not allow averaging four rh-2 and rh-3, so it is more restrictive. had theythe bungalow is non-com, but it is also illegal use. >> that is correct. >> therefore, there were no planning entitlements outside
the project review done by your department. >> that is true. have there been a subdivision and a development, it would have required a very inferior -- have required its. goo>> are there any nsrs on the lot? >> i am not aware of any. >> i am confused by the answer you gave. it seems the question was is the process as simple or difficult
as the various processes they are now going through? i am understanding there is a lottery that is considerably longer. >> no. i am estimating in terms of cost and time, but in terms of the actual process -- this is not subject to a lottery, because it is exempt from the lottery. i believe they have requirements to be eligible to retire all they have to do is apply. there is no waiting list for this property. the various process is a much more cumbersome process to go through in that you have to meet the findings of hardship. for the condo process, you are going through and just doing a separate lots.
you are not subdividing and actually doing separate lots in that fashion. it is straight forward. had it command at the same time as this, it would have been completed by now. hopefully that clarifies my response triggered -- my response. >> if they were to do the sections of the code, it would not deter them? >> they would not needed. >> i have a couple of questions. if a lot were to be split, with each new small-lot peace -- be rh2. >> that is correct. >> sometimes cases go down to
the neighborhood design review boards. would they go there? >> i would think not, because those types of discussions only happen when there is construction. goowe did not find out there wod be a negative impact. however, we are looking at a plan overall and trying to protect those. >> the you know if the property is within the jurisdiction of the boards? >> i do not have that information. >> thank you president -- thank you. president goh mention that the
zoning would remain rh2. is any modification of zoning ever done? >> no, if it does not change. it will forever be until there is a zoning change, and it would otherwise allow two dwelling units. >> if it were to be split, would they still meet the requirements, or would they try to double it? would it continue to me that? >> the proposal would meet the parking requirements. that is my understanding. the variance was not for parking. the variance was for the rear yard space. >> they said they have three
parking spaces. >> i think it is the same as that case, the parking in the new building and not involve old building. the you know the dates of the place across the street? >> i do not know. i can take a look at my ipad and see if i can find it. >> it is different, because both buildings have sparking a. >> is there any public comment on this item? rebuttals comes after public comment. >> i am an architect, but i am
here as a friend and neighbor of the appellants, and before i speak about this appeal, i want to talk about the context stereo -- the context. it is a unique area. we have a specific planning code. we have small homes and small lots and narrow streets. the typical lot size where i live is 25 by 70. that is 1750 square feet, and that is the size of most floor plans in other neighborhoods, so we already have small lots, and we have many substandard sell- offs -- lots in the neighborhood, so the map i want to show you is this one, and
this is the property, and you can see the subject property. there is the property across the street, and there is another property here, so what is compelling to mae is this demonstrate they allowed the property owner to slip a lot, and it has been my observation -- to split the lot, and it has been my observation you grant the same rights to everyone equally, and i think this is compelling, that they are sandwiched between two properties. the end result -- the other thing that is a difference is that all the neighbors support
this. and i am running out of time, so i want to say, i do not know if you have a chance to look at this, and the appellant did not hire a consultant. they did not submit this, and i think this is very compelling, so i think it's got sanchez had a chance to review this, -- if scott sanchez had a chance to review this, maybe he would have a different opinion. there is going to be minor construction. all the neighbors support office, and i think this is a great example. you should give them the same property ricghts, so thank you very much. >> next speaker.
reaction my name is a and caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street. i am directly -- >> my name is anne caesar, and i am a resident of hanover street. i just want to present my voice to the board and say i have no objection to this, and the consensus within my household and with my other neighbors is also that we have no objection to the slot being split, and i would ask the board please -- to the lot being split, and i would ask the board to please grant what they request. >> x speaker please. -- next speaker please. >> i live directly across from
jack and vicki, and my lot is actually 23 by 70, and i am between a two other parcels that are actually double costs -- double loss, and i have no objection to having them split, and getting the conflict resolved in a timely manner. >> any other public comment spam of seeing none, we will move to revive phone -- any other public comments? seeing none, we will move to rebuttal. >> with regard to the option of condominiums, it is $30,000, and it takes two years. condominium loans are harder to get. the prices you can get for selling a condo are lower, and
you could have a permanent legal entanglements between the homes that share no common properties and gives homeowners legal rights. we also feel it is not the appropriate designation, and whatever decision you make does not make a difference with what happens to the structure. we feel the most important is a lot split. the smallest 863 square feet. ours is a 1100. there was no rear yard. there was no parking. both of our homes have parking. in that neighborhood, there were three lots less than 1000 square feet within a quarter mile. in our case, there are 22.
it is a different neighborhood common -- it is a different neighborhood. also, we did submit this to the neighborhood associations and received no negative comments at a time of the building of the house and now for the lot split. i know what you are charged with is doing a balancing act, which is weighing the hardships for property owners against any public harmo to the community, and there is no public harm to the community, and it seems commonsensical, so we would ask that you find that balance. >> mr. sanchez.
>> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, and in response to the information, the property across the street -- it does not appear those were subdivided recently. those buildings were built previously. the building in front was built in 1930, both prior to the lot size requirements. the building on the north side of the lot was built between 188 the aunt 1907. that is the information i found -- 1880 and 1907. they have done a good job of differentiating this, and also a stablishing there is
neighborhood support for this. the department cannot just make a decision based on the fact there is neighborhood support. we have to look at the impact of the general plan, and i think issue is the similarity between the two, and that is a fair result large building developed. -- that is there was a large building developed. have there been a subdivision, that would have resulted in a smaller building. had the front building been smaller, had it been closer to being a code-compliant in terms of the rear yard, it would have been more justifiable, but a concern i have is that we have a property that has expanded the development potential and then once to gain another benefit of doing the subdivision after. -- and wants to gain another benefit of during the subdivision after.
i am available for any questions. >> would you agree that the appellants did of predicted job -- a pretty good job of condo conversion? >> i disagree, because this is the process available to san franciscans. anybody with a two-unit building in one building, they have to go through the process. it is a fair process, and i see no reason why they cannot go through that. >> i am not being argumentative, but in terms of the effect they would have in terms of being able to get a loan, in terms of someone new, and there would have to be agreement as to how to paint and building, it is not actually comparable. >> i would agree the benefits of the owner are greater for what
they are seeking. >> the other question i would have -- it would mean we would protect future density. >> the board could limit the development potential of other property to no more than a single family dwelling. >> how would you limit it in terms of building expansion? >> the board could place a condition that there be no further expansion. they could still apply for a variance, but ultimately, the matter would have to come back to the sword to change any conditions. good -- to this board to change any conditions.
>> hair is the matter submitted. >> i will start. i know we are often opposed to variants, but i think there is a striking reason to grant it. i know one of the findings was extraordinary circumstances she modified, but i think the ownership is essentially the american dream, and we would be a entangling these folks forever. i think we have heard from members of the public that this could fit within the neighborhood, so i would very much support this application for the very and superior -- for the variants. >> i have a couple of disclosures. one is that i have known him for many years and did hear from him before the case, and he
asked, can i talk to you? i said, no, and so he wrote a letter we all received in our pocket. the other thing is i am a neighbor. i am not close to the propertiey, and the third is tht i sat on the review board before i was appointed to this commission, and it was a board that did not cover this area, so i do not have a conflict there very good i am going to respectfully disagree with -- have a conflict there. i am going to respectfully disagree. it is important to know that our standard of review is abusive discretion, and i do not find a abuse of discretion. i find compelling the 1998 dwelling of the property as
maximizing the potential in that if the split had happened before that, the new building would be a lot smaller, so to build a new bid building -- big building and choosing to build it as a second building and asking for a split, i do not find compelling. i find troubling the vote of the small new lots would-be -- that both of the small new lot of would-b -- new lots would be rf. we heard those were waved a former reagan in 1994 are planning code -- they were
before our planning code. i was looking of the findings. even if we were inclined to overturn it, we would have to find all five requirements met, and i do not think that is possible. those are my comments for now. >> i would agree that the development code can show -- development potential of this particular lot has been met. the question islais whether thet split with a couple of conditions -- one is no increase in density -- if there was an acceptable position for this
board and for property owners, the lot slick has very little -- lot split has very little benefit in terms of how it is handled. i would support that condition vire. i would agree but the building built in the 2000 tehran region in -- era max down the slide triggered by would support -- era maxed out. >> many of the statements made b y president goh also resonate
with me, especially the -- i don't know if that wa s a failure to consider a lot split prior to construction, or if that was considered at all. the maximum use was evidence it was built to its full potential, rather than more modest. never having done a condo conversion, it is useful to hear that on both sides of tehe issue.
it probably does carry greater home value, so i don't know what offsets what. being more new than president goh, i am aware of the small lot issue, and i am sympathetic in that regard. i am not sure where i am going to land. it is pretty mixed. >> were we to overturn it, we would have to find discretion, and the other way to overturn it is to have