Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report (2)_ � " ;; - {' - - � - �� - �- ; �.'� , '� - :i � - ,:; . � _ TO DATE > 1 � �l Y �,/\jL � CITV �� O� AGENDA � BURLINGAME 1 T EM p ���;��r:. STAFF REPORT DATE 12/4/89 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY MITTED I j� ^�� � n „ n NOVEMBER 29, 1989 �T� ������� �, CITY PLANNER APPROVED FROM: 6Y SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUBJECT: AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1011 CADILLAC WAY FROM R-4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDATION: City Council set the public hearing on this request for January 3, 1990. BACKGROUND• The property at 1011 Cadillac Way originally a part of the Northpark apartment complex is presently zoned for multiple family residential use (R-4) but developed with a nonconforming 5,300 SF office building. The prospective buyer of this property now separate from Northpark apartments is requesting a rezoning of the property to M-1 (light industrial), the same zoning designation as the property adjacent to the east and across the street. The Northpark apartments would remain R-4. With the rezoning to M-1 the office use would no longer be nonconforming. Rezonings require adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning map, thus final action on the request is by the City Council. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and made a recommendation as city procedure requires. EXHIBIT - Planning Commission Minutes of November 27, 1989 MM/s cc: Al and Jean Covarelli (applicants) David T. O'Neal (property owner) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 November 27, 1989 employees or�,�,u��icles, he must come back to the Commis�s',ony for amendment h� use permiti". � ,,,.� Mo n was a rov on a 5- roll call e, C. Graham absent. .A�ppeal proced r were advised. Recess 8:45 P.M.; reconvene 8:55 P.M. � 6. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 1911 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. There �ere no comments from the floor.. - 1990 City Counci��alendar � PLANNER REPORTS - 1990 Planning Co ssion sche e- approved unanimously on voice vote. - CP Monr reviewed Council actions at�its November 20, 1989 regul meeting. � G� The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patrick J. Kelly Secretary