HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-08-14 #4 CITY OF
Community Development Department – Planning Division
P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184
Meeting Date: August 14, 2012
Agenda Item:
Case Numbers:
AP12-004
Project Planner:
Sarjit Dhaliwal – (415) 485-3397
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: 125 Mitchell Blvd – Appeal of Zoning Administrator approval of a Use Permit for, (i) a
3900 sq. ft. indoor play area (units D and E) for young children on weekdays from 9:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m., on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and reserved for open
private parties and special sessions on Saturdays from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. and
Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., (ii) a 1,000 sq. ft. music studio (unit I) to conduct
one-on-one music lessons in an existing office space, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven
days/week (by appointment and scheduled times), and; (iii) a reduction in the number of
parking spaces from 16 required spaces to 8 spaces for the indoor play area use; APN:
155-152-14; Light Industrial/Office District (LI/O); Stanley Knoles Tr., owner; Kurt
Jacobsen, applicant; Steven Wasserman, appellant; File No. UP12-005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project proposes a 3,900 sq. ft. indoor play area for young children and 1,000 sq. ft. music studio for
one on one lessons in an existing industrial/warehouse building. The project also requests parking
modification to reduce the number of parking spaces from the required 16 spaces to 8. The proposed
use and the parking modification are subject to a Use Permit at the Zoning Administrator (ZA) level.
On June 13, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, accepted the public testimony
and took it under advisement and continued the hearing to June 14, 2012 to make a determination on
the project. On June 14, 2012, the Zoning Administrator approved the project subject to conditions of
approval (Exhibit 4).
On June 20th, an appeal of the ZA’s decision was filed by a representative of two neighboring property
owners. Therefore, the appeal and the project have been forwarded to the Commission for consideration
and action. The appeal cites 12 points of appeal which primarily raise concerns with the project’s
inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; insufficient onsite parking and
loading/unloading areas; and the project being detrimental to public health, safety and welfare.
All the issues raised by the appeal were adequately and thoroughly considered and reviewed by the ZA.
The project complies with the applicable provisions of the General Plan; is a conditionally permitted use
under recreational uses and public and quasi-public uses in the Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) zoning
district; adequate parking is available onsite due to the other onsite uses generally being warehousing
uses and their hours of operation; and is consistent with the General Plan policy for encouraging mixed
uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find and determine that the points of
the appeal cannot be supported. As the property is already developed and the project does not propose
any physical changes, the project does not need to comply with the current development standards
required for the LI/O Zoning District, with the exception of the parking requirement for the proposed use.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 2
Findings to grant the requested parking modification have been made, based on the nature of the
proposed and a recommendation by the Public Works Department.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal (AP12-004)
and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s conditional approval of the project.
PROPERTY FACTS
Address/Location: 125 Mitchell Blvd. Parcel Number(s): 155-152-14
Property Size: 79,113+ sq. ft. Neighborhood: North San Rafael
Commercial Center
Site Characteristics
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land-Use
Project Site: LI/O (Light Industry/Office) LI/O (Light
Industrial/Office)
Light
industrial/warehousing
North: LI/O LI/O Vacant
South: LI/O LI/O Light industrial,
warehousing
East: Office Planned Development
(PD 1444)
Office, commercial, light
industrial
West: LI/O LI/O Light industrial,
warehousing
Site Description/Setting:
The subject property is located north of Mitchell Blvd and north of the intersection of Mitchell Blvd. and
Mark Drive. Mitchell Blvd. dead ends east of the subject property. The property is fairly level and is
currently developed with an approximately 28,763 sq. ft. building and 49 parking spaces with
landscaping in the front (Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map). Other existing onsite uses are as follows:
Front Building
Unit Area Use Hours of operation
A-B 3,300 sq. ft. High Definition Home Inc. (entertainment systems
showroom)
M-F 8:00 a.m. – 5:00
p.m.
C 2,944 sq. ft. Zep Solar R&D (showroom) M-F 8:00 a.m. – 5:00
p.m.
D-E 3,900 sq. ft. Jack and Jill’s (children’s play area) (proposed project) M-F, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.; Sat., 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.; Sun. 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
F 2,944 sq. ft. Northgate Door Inc. (warehouse) M-F, 8:00 a.m. - 4:30
p.m.
G 1,750 sq. ft. Corner Office (office furniture) M-F, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30
p.m.
H 1,750 sq. ft. Vacant
I 1,000 sq. ft. Marin Music Studios (proposed project) 7 days, 9:00 a.m. –
9:00 p.m.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 3
Rear Building
Entire
bldg
13,000 sq.
ft.
Zep Solar R&D (warehouse) M-F 8:00 a.m. – 5:00
p.m.
Neighboring uses in the area consist of office, commercial, warehousing and light industrial uses.
BACKGROUND
A 15,596 sq. ft. building (Building A) and a 13,167 sq. ft. building (Building B) for light industrial uses
were constructed on the property in 1985. In June 2010, the 49 parking spaces originally provided for the
project were allowed to be reduced to 45 spaces.
On June 13, 2012, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, accepted public comments, and
continued the project to June 14, 2012 to make a determination. On June 14, 2012, the ZA approved the
project with conditions. Minutes from this meeting outlining the proceedings, findings for approval, and
conditions of approval are attached (Exhibit 4).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed use consists of two components:
(i) A 3900 sq. ft. indoor creative play area (units D and E) for children up to 8 years of age on weekdays
from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and reserved for open private
parties and special sessions on Saturdays from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. The children would be generally dropped off for a play time of about 1 to 1.5 hours. No
alcoholic beverages will be sold on the site and all activities will be indoors. There will be no ‘jumpy’ or
‘bouncy’ type play structures.
(ii) A 1,000 sq. ft. music studio (unit I) to conduct one-on-one music lessons in an existing office space,
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days/week (by appointment and scheduled times).
The project also requests a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 16 required spaces to 8
spaces for the children’s play area use. The 1,000 sq. ft. unit I was originally approved as an office and is
therefore, grandfathered for 4 parking spaces currently required for an office use. Therefore, the parking
requirement for the music studio is met with the 4 grandfathered parking spaces.
ANALYSIS:
Appeal Points:
Within the statutory appeal period, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s action was filed along with the
required filing fee. The appellant, Steven J. Wasserman, representing the property owners at 136 and
148 Mitchell Blvd, submitted a letter dated June 20, 2012, which is attached (Exhibit 3). The appeal letter
cites numerous points of appeal. In addition, the appellant submitted a follow-up letter dated August 8,
2012 (Exhibit 9). Given that this follow-up letter from the appellant was submitted after the staff report
had been prepared, the points have not been addressed in this report. The points of appeal remain the
original points raised in the June 20th letter. Below in bold italics are all of the appeal points presented in
the June 20th letter followed by a staff response:
Appeal Point # 1. The proposed use is not in accord with the general plan, does not meet the
objective of the housing, nor the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 4
Staff Response: The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan 2020 in that the proposed
use: would contribute in serving the community’s need to bring up children and learn music (Goal 1),
would provide a mixed use in an area developed with light industrial/office uses (LU-17), use is a
conditionally permitted use under recreational uses and public and quasi-public uses in the Light
Industrial/Office (LI/O) zoning district (LU-23), will serve the convenience and necessity of the City’s
residents (NH-137), would contribute to the City’s economy by locating in, and maintaining, an
existing industrial building (EV-8), would provide commercial recreational/educational facilities to
serve community needs by encouraging commercial recreational/educational facilities open to the
general public (PR-13), and will not result in a new noise generating use (N-4).
Additionally, the proposed use is a conditionally permitted use under recreational uses and public
and quasi-public uses in the Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) zoning district. Therefore, the use is
consistent with the LI/O zoning for the property and therefore, the purpose of the site.
Since the proposed project neither displaces existing housing, nor proposes new housing, it is not
subject to review for consistency with Housing policies of the General Plan.
Appeal Point # 2. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity and to the general welfare of the city.
Staff Response: The proposed use, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because:
i. The proposed project has been reviewed by appropriate City departments. Conditions of
approval recommended by other departments have been applied to minimize potential
adverse visual, design, and safety impacts to the project site and adjacent properties.
Specifically, the project has been conditioned (condition #4) to require the applicant to inform
his clients of: a) appropriate location for on-site parking and the pick-up/drop-off zone; and b)
prohibition of parking on adjacent private properties. Additionally, condition (#11) has been
added to require parking modification, if there is a parking impact. Building Division and Fire
Prevention Bureau have recommended conditions to ensure public safety within the building.
ii. The proposed project does not propose any use or activity that is prohibited in the LI/O
Zoning District, but is permitted with a Use Permit under Section 14.06.020 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code; and
iii. No significant new noise will be generated. Additionally, no noise would impact any residential
uses because the surrounding uses are industrial/office uses.
Appeal Point # 3. The proposed use fails to comply with each of the applicable divisions of
the zoning ordinance.
Staff Response: As stated above, the project is consistent with the applicable use provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance. The project would not result in public health, safety and welfare concerns and
would not generate any new noise. With approval of the parking modification, the proposed project
would comply with the parking requirements. Since the proposed use does not include any new
development, it does not need to be reviewed for compliance with property development standards
such as setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio.
Appeal Point # 4. The proposed use is not in accord with the requirement of available parking
on the site, fails to provide sufficient parking for the proposed use and failed to provide a
parking/traffic study. The Applicant advised that there would be two permanent employees
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 5
and a part time employee. Children, eight years old and younger, must be accompanied by a
supervising adult who will need parking. On June 11 at 10:30 a.m. there were only four
available parking spaces at the site. At the hearing on June 13, the agent, Jerry Syderhoud,
indicated that the use was mostly drop off so not much parking would be needed. That was
disputed by the Applicant.
Staff Response: The proposed music studio (unit I) was originally built as an office for use by the
property owner, and is therefore, grandfathered for four (4) parking spaces at 1/250. The current
parking requirements for an office use and music studio being the same (1/250), the proposed music
studio would not need any additional parking spaces. The play area component of the project is not
consistent with Chapter 18 in terms of Parking Requirements. Required parking for the 3,900 sq. ft.
play area is 16 spaces (1/250) whereas the business would provide 8 spaces grandfathered for the
originally approved warehousing use at 1/500. However, pursuant to SRMC 14.18.040.B. this
requirement may be modified so as to provide adequate parking which is fair, equitable, logical and
consistent with the intent of this chapter. Such modification is subject to review by the Community
Development Director and the Traffic Engineer. The previous use at the subject location was a
printing company which involved deliveries and pick ups, thereby, needing loading/unloading areas.
Additionally, the neighboring use in the building is a garage door business which does not use its
parking spaces most of the day since their employees leave for offsite work in the morning to return
only late in the day. The request for parking modification has been approved by Zoning Administrator
based on a review of the above facts by the Community Development Director and the Traffic
Engineer.
On August 2, 2012, the applicant submitted a supplementary detailed description (Exhibit 6) of the
project operation. According to this document, the business operation involves two components:
‘drop-in play times’ (Monday – Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm; Saturday, 8:30 am – 12:00 noon) when
parents or guardians would come with the children to play with them; the other part involves
‘reserved parties’ (Monday – Friday 5:30 pm – 9:00 pm, Saturday 12:30 pm – 9:00 pm and Sunday
10:00 am – 5:30 pm). Demand for parking spaces on the property would peak Monday – Friday, 9:00
am – 5:00 pm during which time parents/guardians would come with the children to play and other
businesses would be in operation too. According to the applicant’s observation (Exhibit 6), 9 – 19
parking spaces would be available for his business during this time. The business would have 8
designated parking spaces onsite. Considering parking required for 1-2 employees, the business
parking needs would be generally consistent with the 9 – 19 available parking spaces. As detailed in
the document, more parking spaces are available Monday – Friday after 5:00 pm and on weekends.
Based on the discussion above, it is determined that there would be no parking issues for this
business.
Appeal Point # 5. The proposed use has no provision for loading and unloading children eight
years old and younger.
Staff Response: The property is served by two driveways located to the east and west of the subject
building. All loading and unloading would take place in the parking spaces located west and east of
the subject building. The volume of onsite traffic being low, loading/unloading would not raise safety
concerns. Further, the project has been conditioned (condition #4) to require that the applicant inform
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 6
his clients of a) appropriate location for on-site parking and the pick-up/drop-off zone; and b)
prohibition of parking on adjacent private properties. Additionally, condition (#11) has been added to
require parking modification, if there is a parking impact.
Based on the above discussion, loading and unloading the children would not be an issue.
Appeal Point # 6. The proposed use makes the area unsafe for children. There are many
trucks in the area because this is a light industrial district with businesses that require very
large trucks for delivery and pick-up. While there on June 11 at 10:30 a.m., there was an
extremely large UPS cab/truck between the two buildings at the site and two or three large
trucks moving along Mitchell Blvd. and Mark.
Staff Response: Mitchell Blvd. and Carlos Drive are not through streets and terminate in this area.
The subject property is located at the terminus of Mitchell Blvd. east of which there are two office
buildings. There may be an occasional delivery truck in the area but there is not a high volume of
truck traffic in this area. The proposed use is an indoor use. All parking and loading/unlading for the
proposed business would be onsite and would therefore, not be impacted by traffic in the street.
Appeal Point # 7. The proposed use is significantly different than the use of San Rafael
Gymnastics on Carlos regarding location, traffic and time of operation. The proposed use is
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. Sunday for the primary applicant. While San Rafael Gymnastics had classes after
school on weekdays and then on weekends.
Staff Response: Although the proposed business operation on Monday – Friday would start at 9:00
am, it would have enough parking during the peak parking demand on the property until 5:00 p.m.
(staff response to Appeal Point #4 above). On weekends and after 5:00 pm on weekdays, all (or
most) of the 45 parking spaces on the property become available for the proposed use, since the
other onsite uses would close at those times. Therefore, even if the working hours for the proposed
business are different than San Rafael Gymnastics on Carlos Drive, the proposed use would have
enough parking spaces onsite.
Appeal Point # 8. The proposed use is very different from the previous user which was a large
printing company. That previous use had no children eight years old and younger at the site.
There were many deliveries which confirms that delivery trucks are constantly in the area of
the proposed use.
Staff Response: The difference between a new use and old use is not relevant. What is relevant is
whether the new use is allowed by the Zoning district in which the site located. The proposed use is
allowed with a Use Permit in the LI/O district, which allows the project to be evaluated for compliance
with health and safety requirements and compliance with the applicable requirements of the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The children, who would utilize the proposed use, would stay indoors.
All drop-off and pick-ups would be on site. Any vehicles onsite or offsite would be moving slowly, out
of necessity from being either on smaller sites or on shorter length of Mitchell Blvd in this area. The
delivery trucks that used to service the printing company (now closed) would not need to come back
to serve the play area use. Therefore, the proposed use would at least eliminate need for delivery
trucks from serving the subject site. Due to the limited number of businesses at this end of Mitchell
Blvd. the number of delivery trucks in the area would be limited and would be, ideally,
loading/unloading on the respective properties. Based on the above discussion, the number or limited
presence of delivery trucks in the area would not be an issue for the project.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 7
Appeal Point # 9. There are no residential areas close to the proposed use.
Staff Response: Although there are no residential areas are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use, there are residential uses not too far away from the property. The proposed use will serve the
convenience and necessity of the City’s residents, would provide a desirable recreational/educational
service for use by younger residents of the City.
Appeal Point # 10. The proposed use should be in a residential neighborhood, close to a
school, park, etc., not in a light industrial zone.
Staff Response: It would be ideal if the proposed could be located in a residential neighborhood, or
close to a school or park. However, recreational uses are commonly found in shopping centers and
light industrial areas. Additionally, the proposed use is a conditionally permitted use under
recreational uses and public and quasi-public uses in the (LI/O) zoning district. Therefore, it is
consistent with the intent of LI/O District. Further, the project would provide a mixed use in an area
developed with light industrial/office uses.
Appeal Point # 11. The proposed use has no provision for facilities for food to be consumed
on the premises. The Applicant advised that parties would be a proposed use.
Staff Response: There would be no cooking facilities at the business. However, a major part of the
business would be having scheduled parties for the children. All food for the parties would be brought
from outside.
Appeal Point # 12. The previous location of this business, 217 Western Ave,, Petaluma was a
mixed use area with houses on the same block and all adjacent blocks, across from a church
and park, by a thrift store and by a restaurant.
Staff Response: Please see discussion under Appeal Point #10 above.
San Rafael General Plan 2020/Zoning Ordinance Consistency
There are a few and pertinent General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance requirements that are
applicable to this project which are discussed in the project approval Findings in the Zoning Administrator
minutes (Exhibit 4).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to Section 15301 (Operation of existing public or private structures or faiclities) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of
the CEQA.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE
Notices of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission hearings for the project were
conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A
Notice of the Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to appellants, all property owners and
occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject site and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days
prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. Since the project does not involve new
construction, a public notice was not posted onsite.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case No: UP12-005 Page 8
Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, staff received one phone call from a neighbor and three letters
from neighbors regarding this project (Exhibit 7). The phone call and the letters expressed concerns that
the use would result in parking and traffic safety problems in the area. For the Planning Commission
hearing, staff has received four letters (Exhibit 8). One letter is from the appellants’ representative
clarifying that he is not the appellant but an attorney representing the property owners at 136 and 148
Mitchell Blvd. Two other letters express concerns about the location of the use in an industrial park and
traffic and parking problems in the area. The fourth letter expresses concern about any potential
interference the project may cause with ground phones, cell phones, internet, fax etc.
The appellant’s concerns are discussed in the Appeal Points and Analysis section above.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project (staff
recommendation).
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the approval with certain modifications, changes or additional
conditions of approval.
3. Continue the appeal hearing to allow the applicant/appellant to address any of the
Commission’s comments or concerns.
4. Grant the appeal, overturning the Zoning Administrator approval, thus denying the project
and direct staff to return with a revised Resolution with findings for denial.
EXHIBITS
1. Vicinity/Location Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Appeal Letter dated June 20, 2012:
4. Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes, including findings and conditions , June 14, 21012
5. Original Project Description Submitted with the Project Application
6. Supplemental Project Description Submitted on August 2, 2012
7. Public Correspondence received prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing of June 13, 2012
8. Public Correspondence received prior to the Planning Commission hearing of August 14, 2012
9. The Appellants’ Representative’s letter dated August 8, 2012 received on August 9, 2012
10. Reduced copy of the building plan
11”x17” Building Plan Distributed to the Planning Commission only