Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1993.02.10506 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING Wednesday, February 10, 1993, 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Bud Harrison convened the study session of the Burlingame City Council on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7'.32 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS HARRISON, KMGHT' LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO STAFFPRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, MONROE REPORT FROM COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO STUDY REGULATION OF RESI- DENTIAL MASS/BULK Mayor Harrison welcomed the large standing-room-only audience. He briefly reviewed the history of the appointment in October of a committee to review six different items concerning regulation of residential mass. He noted that the group which mailed notices to all residents conceming tonighfs meeting is a different group than the Burlingame Homeowners' which was formed approximately a year ago. He asked Mike Nilmeyer, the chairman, to begin his presentation. Mike indicated different members of the committee would make presentations on each of the six items outlined in the study. The committee included Mike Nilmeyer, Bob Blunk, Jerry Winges, John Simmons-Wellford, Bemard Transano, Thomas Gilman, Wayne Gehrke, and Tom Byme. Mike Nilmeyer began with reviewing slides on the city's existing regulations conceming lot coverage, setbacks, and declining height. Bob Blunk reviewed the FAR section of the report. He noted that the committee had reviewed ordinances in other cities which use FAR. From these, they had identified a simple formula approach which would facilitate administration of such a regulation. The formula approach proposed for council consideration is one which would use .32 FAR plus 1,000 square feet for interior lots, and .32 plus 700 feet for corner lots. It was suggested that a maximum size house of 8,000 square feet be considered. John Wellford reviewed the section conceming garages and the pros and cons of detached garages and attached garages as well as their effect on the hardscape at the front of a lot. Tandem garages and stepped double garages as a way to address reduction of mass were also reviewed. Tom Byrne discussed the report on rear setbacks reviewing a fixed rear setback versus a variable setback. Jerry Winges reviewed the slides concerning how to soften the mass of development on corner lots where two sides of the building are prominent at one time. The committee has suggested a slightly smaller FAR be considered for corner lots and a bigger second story setback on the street sides also be considered. Tom Gilman outlined the proposal conceming a design review board and the concept that if a project exceeded the FAR guidelines a design review procedure would be used. Wayne Gehrke outlined the six guidelines proposed for design guidelines including respecting existing neighborhood patterns, minimizing bulky appearances, respect view access, respect privacy, design to retain solar access, and recognize that comer lots are visually prominent. Mike Nilmeyer gave a summary report and indicated that the purpose of the report was to provide alternatives for council consideration. Council followed up the presentation with questions on various aspects of the report. It was noted that currently 55% of the existing lots in Burlingame are 6,000 square feet. Council- woman Knight thanked the committee and requested that copies of the committee's report be made available to the public. Councilman Pagliaro asked if the committee had discussed applying declining height to all four sides of a building. He noted that the diagrams show a 40% maximum lot covenge on the first floor which limits the amount of square footage left for the second floor. He asked how the committee arrived at the .32 FAR. Committee responded that .32 represents the slope of the graph line of the existing residential buildings, by using .32 they were trying to develop a line which would encompass the majority of the existing built environment by matching the slope of the line. The size is adjusted by adding square footage to the .32. 507 Councilman I€mbi questioned whether there were floor plans available urider the proposed FAR to indicate what kind of house--i.e., 3 bedroom/2 bath/family room-could be built within the FAR proposed. He felt there was a difference between new construction and additions tb existing homes and we had to look at how to handle second floor additions. He indicated that his home was approximately 2,200 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot, but it is too small. He liked the proposals conceming garages but was concemed that the stepped double car garage approach would increase the cost of construction. He also asked whether design review would be for the whole project or only the portion over the square footage limits. Committee indicated that their concept was if the project exceeded the FAR, the whole project would be reviewed. Mayor Harrison questioned how subjective a design review board is. Councilwoman O'Mahony was also concemed about the subjective nature of design guidelines. The committee pointed out that guidelines are not rules. She was also concerned with the cost of the various second story setbacks and that the proposed FAR would leave a very small second story if built to the maximum 40% on the first floor. Councilwoman Knight stated that our current regulations allow too much to be built. We needed to review the informa- tion from the committee and take action. She was concemed with design review and asked whether the planning commission can act in this capacity. Councilman I-embi noted that we needed to carefully review any additional regulations and that we should look at a larger room and handouts for the public at the next meeting. Mayor Harrison called for a break at 9:45 p.m. Council reconvened at 10 o'clock. Councilman Pagliaro stated he needed additional time to review this proposal. Mayor then opened the floor to public comments. Gloria Barton stated that there are two basic questions being asked: Is FAR going to hurt property values, and are houses too big? She lives on a 6,000 square foot lot and could almost double the size of her existing house under the proposal by the committee. The notice mailed out by various realtors regarding the threat to property values caused by instituting an FAR has many people worried. Other residents noted that more restrictions add cost and people are building for their needs, and they were against additional regulations. Another also against the FAR proposed feeling it would generate another level of bureaucracy. A Mills Estate resident questioned the effect of this proposal on the curent hillside ordinance. Tim Auran stated that he represented approximately 30 homeowners who had sent out the notice conceming tonight's meeting. He was concemed about the effect of the proposals on property values. He also felt the city should do additional study on the curent built environment because it is different than it was in the 1960s. Another resident thought that these regulations did not fit the needs of the city and would cause hardship. Richard Ames asked if under the existing ordinance he could rebuild his existing nonconforming home if it was destroyed. City Planner noted that our current code allows this. He felt that we needed a design review board but we should not enact additional regulations. A resident who has his business in his home noted that he had purchased in Burlingame rather than San Mateo because the city did not have the same regulations as San Mateo. He felt that as a real estate appraiser an FAR would decrease property values; and if this passed, his home would be limited and he would not be able to remodel his house. Council discussed continuing this item to the March 17 study session and continuing some of the items on that agenda to a future date. Councilman lrmbi requested that additional examples of floor plans of what floor plans and room sizes were possible with the proposed FAR be provided for that meeting. He felt strongly the need to protect property rights. We need to be fair in how we address the needs of our rbsidents. Councilman Pagliaro asked for examples of residential designs with the FAR as proposed on 5,000 and 8,000 square foot lots. He was also concerned that the committee was donating a great deal of time to this effort. The city should cover the cost of preparing the materials for the next meeting. The Council concurred. 508 Mr. McNamara indicated that he had been trying to study the effect of FAR on property values. While it is difficult, some sample data showed that property values in Burlingame were down more than in San Mateo where they had FAR. Councilman Lembi indicated the comparison was poor because of the size of the homes for sale in each of these markets. San Mateo's market has more lower-valued single-family homes which moved faster last year. The Mayor directed this item be placed on the study session agenda for March 17. He suggested that city try to obtain a larger hall at Burlingame High School for this meeting. NTR City Manager briefly reviewed the staff material. Councilman Pagliaro stated he felt our current ordinance was inadequate in tight of the recent studies on the effects of second-hand smoke done by the EPA. He would propose a simple ordinance which would ban smoking in all enclosed areas except private homes. He thought we should be 100% non-smoking and that other cities such as San Mateo and Belmont are also considering revising their ordinanc- es. He thought that Burlingame should be a leader in this area. Councilwoman Knight stated that she agreed with Councilman Pagliaro's proposal. She thought it was a definite health and safety issue and that with inadequate regulation, thele may be possible liability under the federal ADA act. She stated that counties cannot regulate for cities and that the state had been ineffective because of the tobacco lobby. She has reviewed some material which stated that intemational travelers coming to this country are restricted by the airlines from in-flight smoking. She supported a 100% smoking ban. Councilman IJmbi stated he could support a ban on smoking in the work place and restau- rants but would favor exempting bars and wanted to draw the line with hotels. He felt it was important not to restrict our hotels or cause economic hardship. He thought hotels should have smoking in private conference rooms and lobbies. He suggested the city might want to consider a 6-month ban in restaurants and hotels, but we should review the whole impact of any revised ordinance in six months to a year. Mayor Harrison stated that he thought that govemment is regulating too much, and at this time, he was not in support of any chalrge to our existing ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed with Mayor Harrison and stated the we have too many laws. She would agree with a compromise that Councilmen Lembi and Pagliaro could propose. Mayor then asked Dan McHale of the Chamber of Commerce to review the deliberations of his group. Dan McHale stated that the customers of various businesses are requiring a stricter non- smoking control than the cuffent Burlingame ordinance and indicated he would like to have the chamber work with the city to draft a workable, revised ordinance. A representative of the Califomia Restaurant Association stated that her group favored state-wide regulation. A city ordinance would cause an economic hardship. If the city enacts any stricter ordinance, it should do something positive for the restaurant business. Roxy Stone indicated that the Hyatt opposed any additional smoking ban. She had sampled 1992 actual business and felt that for a one month pedod, over $600,000 in revenue would have been lost if we had additional regulations. She has also contacted the World Cup Committee and a southern Califomia meeting planner. They both indicated that a smoking ban would hamper their activities. She felt that very large economic issues needed to be considered. Ron Karp stated, as a local restaurant owner, he was concerned with action at this time. He felt we should wait for state action. He asked why hotels should be exempt. He thought enforcement was a difficult issue and didn't think Burlingame should be a leader in this area. Larry Lyons, representing the office council, stated that office buildings let tenants decide where the smoking and non-smoking areas should be; he questioned who was going to enforce any additional iegulations. Nathan Schmidt, of Nathan's Reskuranq requested that the council wait until the economy improves before considering any additional regulations. A representative of the tobacco 2.RDINI 509 education coalition stated that this was a health issue, the EPA reported it was a seriQus issue that people are dying from, and only a total ban would work. Mayor closed the public comment at approximately 11:45 p.m. Councilman Pagliaro stated that Burlingame should be a leader in this area and we cannot wait for the federal and state govemments to act. It's an issue of dollars versus lives, and this may be one of the most important issues the council considers. He would agree to a compromise to allow smoking in hotel rooms and in rooms privately rented but wished to ban smoking in public areas and restaurants. He would agree to exempt bars and private rooms in some restaurants. Councilman Irmbi stated that he felt the city should exempt hotels from any increased regulations and leave the hotel regulations as is. After additional discussion, the council directed staff to draft a revised ordinance for introduction at our March 1 meeting and hearing at March 15 meeting. The proposed draft would ban smoking in restaurants and offices and continue the existing regulations in hotels. Mayor asked for additional comment frori, the floor; there was none. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjoumed at 12:01 a.m. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk