Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.11.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, November 27, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Giomi, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the November 13, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. TWO VARIANCES AND THREE SPECIAL PERMITS IN ORDER TO USE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR DWELLING PURPOSES AT 919 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Requests: what are the exceptional circumstances to support the variance request; could second unit be rented since this property is zoned R-2; is there a place on the site to construct a garage; clarify property lines; distance between accessory structure and house, could stair go in back of the house; when did applicant purchase property, what conditions existed in the accessory structure at that time; could accessory structure be enlarged to provide a usable covered parking space; how is accessory structure being used now; why is water and sewer service necessary in the accessory structure. Item set for public hearing December 11, 1989. 2. PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE USE AT 1550 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: response from applicant addressing exceptional circumstances applicable to the property to support the variance request; clarify parking, portion of the parking lot to be restriped; location of other health clubs and spas in the city east of the Southern Pacific main line; will this business be open to the general public or by membership; number of customers per day seems small, how can this business operate profitably; what kinds Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 27, 1989 of activities will be available on the premise. Item set for public hearing December 11, 1989. 3. GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC AREA PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING IN THE ANZA AND BAYFRONT PLANNING AREAS CP reviewed this study item with the use of the overhead projector to indicate the area being addressed. She discussed the proposal, long term airport parking as an interim use; present zoning; goals and policies of the Specific Area Plan; planning implications of general plan amendment and zoning modification; environmental review (Negative Declaration ND -427P). Commission requests: map of vacant and underused land in the area east of 101, including existing long term parking lots, number of parcels and size of each; present regulations for lighting, bayfront access, landscaping; why not limit the amendment to the Anza Area; possibility of considering a minimum parcel larger than one acre, perhaps five acres, concern about number of driveways; does the term structure include underground parking; could a use permit limit storage of cars or other vehicles; vehicular trips per acre generated by airport parking versus other land uses in the area; could airport parking use be limited to one zone within the planning area, could contiguous parcels be limited to one driveway, what revenues does the city derive from long term airport parking; how will noticing be done. This item was set for public hearing December 11, 1989 if staff has heard from the Office of Planning and Research, is able to respond and can meet public noticing requirements. ITEMS FOR ACTION 4. VARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 608 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 11/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, letters in support from Michael J. O'Connor, 612 Vernon Way and Jean Weinmeyer, 600 Vernon Way. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner questions, CP advised if this were a standard 50' x 100' lot the side setback requirement would be 4'; because of its configuration the family room is counted as the third bedroom which makes the parking requirement one covered and one uncovered space. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Lori Horn, applicant, discussed her project: regarding the side setback variance, the property is on a curve, a small section was added to the original 50' x 100' lot which triggered a 6' side setback requirement and Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 27, 1989 makes the lot frontage larger than other lots in the neighborhood; she wants to continue the existing side wall of the house to the rear to make it aesthetically pleasing, the neighbor on that side had no concerns. Regarding the parking variance (photographs were submitted), applicant stated there is ample parking for four cars, she puts two cars in the existing garage and there are two additional parking spots in the driveway, the fireplace extends into the garage 1.5' x 4'. Regarding the lot coverage variance, she will exceed lot coverage by only a small amount but that amount would make the difference between adding a bathroom or enlarging the kitchen; applicant compared her figures with the city's figures, there is only a small difference. She has looked into alternatives for a second story addition to meet code, would like to keep a one story house and preserve the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Her neighbors at both sides are in support, neighbors at the rear are renters who come and go; her rear yard is larger than others in the neighborhood, she has ample area to make the proposed addition. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission/staff discussion/comment: compliment applicant in proposing an addition which will fit into the neighborhood; CP advised if this became a four bedroom house in future parking requirements would be the same, with five bedrooms two covered and one uncovered spaces would be required. C. Kelly commented he was in favor of this request, could find no problems, there are exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house, the chimney extending into the garage, width of the lot given the added piece; if the easement had not been granted when the original lot was subdivided, 41 would have been an adequate side setback. C. Kelly moved for approval of the three variances with the following conditions: (1) that the final plans shall show the exact placement of all existing and proposed doors and windows within 4' of property line and include the location of an existing structure or fixed points on the site from which this measurement can be confirmed; (2) that the proposed addition shall be built in conformance with the set of plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 31, 1989; and (3) that all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code applicable to this addition and structure shall be met. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: am in favor of the project, applicant has done a great job in defending her proposal, however she wants it both ways, can't claim she's hurt because the lot is larger and then claim the right to more square footage because the lot is larger, her proposal stands on its own merits as being a good solution. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 November 27, 1989 5. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A RETAIL BUSINESS AT 1039 EDWARDS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 11/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP clarified the terms 'warehousing' and 'retail sales'. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Steven Donohue, applicant, stated no additional parking will be needed, only he and his wife will operate this business, no customers will come to the site, this is not a retail sales outlet; his business fits the requirements for the area; he and his wife will handle delivery and pickup which does not require people to come to the site; it is a membership program; his business location address is not on his stationery, only a post office box, in order to discourage people coming to the site, tapes are not on display for walk-in trade. Residential deliveries and pickups are done at night; he has been doing this out of his home in South San Francisco and now is requesting a permit to do it properly. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Giomi stated she had very little problem with this low key operation, it will not be open to the general public except on a membership basis; people will not come to the site, therefore it will not impact traffic or parking in the area; because of the low intensity use it will not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity nor to the public health, safety, welfare or convenience; it will be conducted in accord with the general plan and the purposes of the zoning code and will be reviewed for compliance with the conditions. C. Giomi moved for approval of the special permit by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the city; (2) that the project shall operate from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with only two persons on site to conduct business, and one delivery truck shall be used for this business; (3) that no retail sales or video rentals to the public may occur directly from this site; (4) that any change in the operation of this business shall require an amendment to this permit; and (5) that this business shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six ( 6 ) months (May, 1990 ) and every two ( 2 ) years thereafter, or upon complaint. Motion was seconded by C. Mink. Comment on the motion: have no problem since this use is so close to a warehouse operation; would expect applicant to understand if there is a change in the business, change of hours or number of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 27, 1989 employees or vehicles, he must come back to the Commission for amendment of his use permit. Motion was approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY, ZONED R-4 Reference staff report, 11/27/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, history of use of the site and building, parking provided; applicants wish to purchase but are concerned about the nonconforming status of the site, rezoning to M-1 is being requested; neighboring properties are zoned M-1 except for Northpark which is zoned R-4, the general plan land use designation is service and special sales. Negative Declaration ND - 428P was prepared, it focuses specifically on the impacts of permitted uses in the M-1 zone which could go on this property without a special permit and city review since these are the ones with the greatest potential for impact on the adjacent residential use. The conclusion of the negative declaration was that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. CP discussed parking provided including 10 spaces leased from the Northpark apartment complex (by variance in 1986), parking requirements have increased since this complex was built, there has been no recent study of Northpark parking but staff has received no complaints. CA has determined that parking goes with the use on the site, not with the building, it could be rebuilt as office with the 10 Northpark spaces, if the use changed the variance would no longer be in effect. CP concluded her review with a summary of Planning Commission action. Commission discussion/comment: applicant is requesting rezoning to M-1 because it is the least restrictive use of the property, what is the most restrictive zoning which would allow the office building; staff advised C-3, however state planning law would not allow the rezoning of a single isolated parcel. Responding to another question staff advised restaurants are not allowed in C-3, they are allowed in C-1 and C-2, the Velvet Turtle is in R-4; C-2 is heavy commercial and allows all uses in the C-1 zone. Rezoning the restaurant, gas station and this property to C-2 was suggested, this would not be spot zoning or planning, it would be even better if more properties were included, perhaps the properties across the street could be rezoned to C-2 including the auto sales and service businesses; concern about environmental assessment and noise going from R-4 to M-1, the major noise generator in that area is the Bayshore Freeway which has the highest CNEL in the city, do not Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 November 27, 1989 think 5 dBA increase at property line allowed is a reasonable protection given the high ambient noise level in the area. Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Al Covarelli, applicant, was present. His comments: their business is basically a paper mill, they are purchasing agents who process purchase orders, they act as agents for hotel owners and do all the purchasing for the hotel, the work is done on computers, it is quiet, there are nine people in the office and two outside agents, one in Northern California and one in Southern California. He advised he did not want to buy this property as a nonconforming use, if there was a disaster he couldn't put it back as an office with the present zoning, he needs an office building, not an apartment building; his purchase of this site is contingent on the rezoning. Responding to Commissioner questions, applicant stated rezoning to something other than M-1 would be fine with him as long as he could retain an office use, it is a concrete block building, he has not had a problem financing a nonconforming property. A Commissioner commented he was not concerned with the office use of this building but rather that some future owner might go to the limit of what is allowed in M-1. Applicant said he would not object to rezoning with conditions. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: have a basic concern with this property, Northpark is huge, the city is limited in property zoned R-4, am opposed to M-1, are C-3 uses quieter? Staff advised C-3 allows only office use and promotes certain kinds of office use, medical, dental, real estate and financial. Continued comment: am not convinced R-4 zoning should not be retained on this lot, the businesses on Rollins Road face the freeway, this would be the first lot oriented toward the more residential street frontage, how can we help the applicant and maintain the integrity of R-4; regardless of the general plan designation, there is a lot of noise in that area now, with rezoning could get a lot of incompatible uses, Northpark is very close, am opposed to giving up this R-4 lot. Responding to Commission question, staff advised if R-4 zoning were retained and the existing building substantially damaged the owner would probably have to demolish the existing building and construct an apartment building, parking would be a restraint to the final number of apartment units. Further comment: would be in favor of what the applicant is attempting to do, to continue with the current occupancy by changing the zoning so that he can have an office use and rebuild for office use if something should happen to the structure; not in favor of M-1, am in favor of maintaining the use, it is an appropriate use and acts as a good buffer, if a C zone is needed for this use then Commission needs to consider C zoning for other properties, think a C zone would be better than Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 November 27, 1989 M-1 for many properties in that area; have a problem with R-4, there is a need for a buffer between M-1 and R-4, office is a good buffer, opposed to M-1, staff has concerns about C and spot zoning with C, would like to accommodate the applicant in a positive manner. Possibility of approving M-1 this evening was suggested, then at the next opportunity changing the whole area to a C zone. Staff warned of the consequences and incompatible uses which might occur before procedures for changing to a C zone could be accomplished. Commission comment: am not comfortable with M-1, to rezone to a C and not spot zone will require other lots be included and necessitate further hearings, etc. CP suggested Commission could make a positive recommendation to City Council by stating that rather than M-1 some other zoning is more appropriate and that it should include a larger area, Commission could be specific about the area, the proposed C zoning should have contiguous lots; the negative declaration could still be approved. Commission discussion continued: cannot recommend to City Council without a study of the whole picture; a lot of things were done in good faith in this area previously, applicant's proposal is for an office building which was associated with the operation of Northpark and expected to continue forever, unfortunately forever lasted less than 10 years, it was a good faith action originally, now Commission should look at the future and not just patch up. C. Giomi moved to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration ND -428P with the finding that based on the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Graham absent. C. Mink moved to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning of the 1011 Cadillac Way property from R-4 multiple family residential to M-1 light industrial for the following reasons: that the existing use of the surrounding properties is more appropriately a commercial zone than an industrial zone, e.g., restaurant use, automobile sales and repair; that the general plan service and special sales designation of the subject property is more compatible with the uses of the C-2 district than the R-4 or M-1 zoning districts; and that a larger area should be considered for rezoning to a district more effective in implementing the general plan designation of service and special sales and provide a more compatible transition between uses over time. Motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: R-4 is not appropriate, neither is M-1, C-2 probably is; the whole area would serve to buffer the Northpark apartments from the greatest noise source which is Bayshore Freeway; will support the motion, not Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 November 27, 1989 comfortable but am not in support of the M-1 rezone request; will support the motion with the understanding further study will be undertaken. Motion was approved on a 4-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting, C. Graham absent. Staff will forward Commission's recommendation to City Council. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - 1990 City Council Calendar PLANNER REPORTS - 1990 Planning Commission schedule - approved unanimously on voice vote. - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its November 20, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary