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