Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1993.03.24531 CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING Wednesday, Much 24, 1993, 7:30 p.m. Burlingame High School Auditorium Mayor Bud Harrison convened the study session of the Burlingame City Council on the above date in the Burlingame High School Auditorium al7i32 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS HARRISON, KMGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO STAFFPRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, MONROE MASS/BULK IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TOOLS FOR REGULATING MASS AND BULK City planner reviewed the staff report which addressed council concerns from the October 10 meeting. The report expanded on the topics of alternate floor area ratios, analysis of the baseline built environment, a review of recent additions to houses, and examples of floor plans designed within various FARs (floor area ratios) on 6,000 sf lots. John Wellford, a member of the technical committee, showed slides of a remodel on a 6,000 sf (square fooQ lot using the example standard of .32 FAR + 1,000. Next, Mike Nilmeyer, chairman of the technical committee, reviewed a second example of a remodeled house on a 7,500 sf lot. He discussed the floor plan, room size, and elevations for the 3,350 sf house with a .45 FAR. The example FAR would allow .45 FAR on this lot. Council members briefly questioned city planner and members of the technical committee about various aspects of the staff report. Mayor Harrison indicated the council has received many letters on both sides of the issue: some urging adoption of the FAR as proposed by the committee, and others indicating they felt an FAR was not appropriate or the example FAR was too strict as proposed. Referring to the mass and bulk diagrams, Councilman Pagliaro noted that at the last meeting, the council discussed the problem of the "pill box" (small) second-story additions the example FAR would allow on remodeled/existing houses. He thought it might be better to apply an FAR only to new homes where there was unlimited choice in design and not to remodeled homes. He thought we may need to fine-tune existing regulations for remodels. Council discussed how this was a study session, and there was a need for specific and not general comments conceming the proposal of .32 + 1,000 sf FAR or altematives to it. Councilman Lembi stated that he agreed with Councilman Pagliaro. Council is trying to solve the "monster home problem, " but we need to be fair to all concerned. Styles of homes and space needs have changed over time and it would be very difficult to arrive at a magic number. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that she hoped we would not put any numbers in concrete tonight. Fairness is the issue; change is difficult for all. She agreed that new homes seem to be a large part of the problem. She felt that the appeamnce of mass and bulk would not be solved by FAR alone. She supported the suggestions of the technical commit- tee to require a fixed percentage of landscaping in the front yards. She also stated she would like to avoid design review because of its subjectivity. The community needs to find a way to solve their problems and not throw stones at each other. She would also like to see a summary report about FAR mailed to all Burlingame residents since there is a need for every one to understand the problem and the effect of the situation. 1 Mayor Harrison welcomed the audience of approximately 200. He stated it would be difficult to make everyone happy tonight so he wanted to start on a positive note and announce that following San Francisco's action, the city would be ending water ntioning at its next me€ting. He complimented Burlingame residents on the effectiveness of their water conservation. Briefly, he reviewed the history of the appointment in October 1992 of a technical committee to study six different items concerning regulation of residential mass and bulk. The technical committee made its report to council at the February 10 study session. 532 Councilwoman Knight stated that tonight was a good example of why the city council should be on cable television so that more people could be made aware and involved in the decision process. She wondered whether council is changing its decision to apply FAR to both remodels and new homes. She would like to see the planning commission provide more design review. Although she is interested in public comments, the longer we discuss this issue, the more large new homes will be built. She felt the hillside area construction permits have worked to inform neighbors and reduce over building. Mayor Harrison stated he was against design review because it is too subjective. He also is concemed about the effects of new homes. Perhaps if a new home was defined as a change of 50 percent to the existing home that would encompass the major remodeled homes as new under the FAR regulation. At 8:40 p.m., the Mayor opened the floor to public comment. Twenty-three different speakers addressed the council under a 3-minute time limit. Mike Beltran, 1120 Cabrillo, indicated that it was very difficult to pick the correct number, but the proposal of.32 +1,000 was too large and we should be more conservative' Tom Byrne, a member of the technical committee, felt that there was a lot of misinformation going out. We should look at other technical solutions such as setbacks and landscaping in addition to FAR. Todd Becker, Hillside Drive, showed overhead-projector charts on a comparative study he had done concerning FAR regulation and value in a number of peninsula communities. One table showed that Burlingame has the second highest FAR of the cities compared. He noted many other communities have design review. It was his opinion that cities with FAR were retaining their value better than others. Councilman Lembi commented that property values in these communities and Burlingame are influenced by many factors, including the recession, and not just the presence of FAR. Steve Gettel, an appraiser, 2709 Hillside Drive, felt that values would be affected if there was a large change in the curent FAR. Homes on smaller lots would be affected most and their values would be decreased whereas larger lots may actually increase in value. Reverse equity loans may be more difficult to obtain for owners of smaller lots. Mike Gaul, 1237 Laguna Avenue, showed slides of current new and remodeled homes. He agreed there was a problem as illustrated by a number of slides, but the problem was as much design as size. He felt the proposed .32 + 1,000 FAR would not solve the problem. He showed additional slides of homes which exceed the example FAR but are good additions to their neighbor- hoods. Stan Vistica, 24 Arundal Road, stated that the question is how to preserve the current neighborhoods. He felt we needed to obtain additional information on the characteristics we value in our neighborhoods. Then we need to study and update our current zoning codes to address enhancing these characteristics in the future. Sharon Cheek, 825 Edgehill, indicated that if the FAR is approved as proposed because of her studio, she could not expand her current small home. She felt this was particularly unfair because there are larger lots across the street which would allow larger additions. She also thought the data on the number and size of remodeled house on which the council is making its decision is quite limited and should be expanded. Councilman kmbi commented that the total number of new homes built in Burlingame in the last three years are less than one-half of one percent of the total single-family dwellings. Councilwoman Knight noted that Ms. Cheek has a problem because her area on Edgehill has a special mixed-use zoning and that the lots are unusually small. Adrian McNamara, 2941 Dolores Way, representing the Homeowners' Association, stated that his group did not start this study or select the technical review committee, but they supported the recommendations of the committee. He reviewed past minutes of the council discussion of this issue over the last year and urged council action. A resident of 300 Bayswater indicated that he was in construction and the change as proposed would adversely affect the city leading to all homes looking the same. FROM THE FLOOR _ PUBLIC COMMENTS s33 Dave Fish, 506 Almer Road, a renter looking for a house to buy, noted that with a current FAR of .75 he would not buy in Burlingame. He is not afraid of small homes since he would be a first-time buyer. John DeWolf, 1212 Edgehill, indicated that the council did not favor design review but had not suggested any altematives. He suggested possibly a neighborhood design review board or that applicants be required to send postcards to the neighbors notifying them of impending construction, and a sign should also be posted in the yard. This would provide a review process for proposed. changes so that neighbors would not be surprised Maury Gersh, 1616 Granada Drive, stated that he has lived in Burlingame since 1957. He has seen the view from his house lost over time. He felt concern for the human factor was missing in the discussion. Dennis O'Brien,2204 Poppy Drive, stated he wanted to see the size of the rooms that would result from the proposed limitation. Mark Sherwood, 1352 Bernal Road, stated he does not want to live in the house between two large remodeled houses. Pushing the houses out to the street makes the neighborhood too unfriendly. Karl Vorsatz, 1645 McDonald Way, stated that the proposal for .32 +1,000 FAR was too restrictive. He noted the soccer enrollment shows the large number of children now in the city. Under the proposal, he could not expand his home. These other families must have the ability to expand or they will leave. He did feel that the current .75 FAR was too large. Don Schnider, 228 Bloomfield Road, stated he did not see any examples from the Burlingame Park area. He thought lots of properties in Burlingame Park would exceed the example FAR. He felt that FAR may work on corner lots but not on interior lots. He thought council should adopt guidelines; and if the guidelines are exceeded, the project would be referred to the planning commission. Donna Gaul, 1237 l-aguna, supported a more liberal FAR than was proposed and suggested that there may be a need for a city-wide vote. Ann Deighran, 1531 Vancouver Avenue, indicated that of the examples shown, one did not include a garage and the other had very small bedrooms. She felt the effect of FAR was much greater on small homes; therefore, smaller homes should have a larger FAR. Tim Finnegan,2308 Hillside Drive, stated that the graphs presented show that the proposal is approximately 20 percent smaller than the current allowed construction; this is too much of a change from the existing. Paul Herken, 1148 Cabrillo, indicated that he lives in one of the new large homes and felt it was an asset to the neighborhood. With many families having two workers in the house, there was a need to have space to allow for live-in help. There needs to be some kind of case-by-case review. Alan Hom, 1325 Paloma, stated he lives in a small, 1,200 sf home. He is in favor of the FAR as proposed. Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston, stated she had five children, and a 2,000 sf house was too small. If families are going to spend $350,000 for a home in Burlingame, they needed to be able to expand their property. She felt it should be a requirement for all homes to have a second story. Karen Key, 1412 Drake Avenue, felt the current proposal of .32 +1,000 would make her existing home built in 1923 non conforming. Since this could affect the sale, she felt this was unfair. Mayor Harrison closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Councilman Pagliaro stated that we have been working on this issue for approximately nine months and, in his opinion, we are not moving too fast. He was willing to consider an FAR for new homes but was not ready to consider FAR on additions unless they were defined as a certain percentage of the existing dwelling which would then be classified as a new home. We do currently review each proposed construction on a case-by-case basis. Councilman Irmbi stated he has seen home values rise and fall dramatically in the past years. The current mass/bulk problem is being caused by development in less than one-half of one percent of the single-family lots. He was concemed that small lots were affected more than large lots. He felt the examples shown did not allow enough for garages and decks. He noted that the proposed .32 +1,000 is approximately a 36 percent reduction from the existing. He could agree with a proposal for an FAR of.32 +1,500 for a 2-year period. This would grant more area for smaller lots. He also felt we needed to deline how much of a remodel would be equal to new construction. 534 Councilwomah O'Mahony felt that we needed much more public information and she would favor .32 *2,000 for lots of 5,000 and 6,000 sf. She felt landscaping was very important and the 40 percent requirement for front yards should be addressed. In time,.given more public awareness, she might support the proposals suggested by Councilman Irmbi and Councilman Pagliaro. Councilman lrmbi stated that if the proposal was .32 + 1,@0 he would support putting the matter to a city-wide vote. He had given the matter much thought and he felt the .32 + 1,500 would work. He also suggested reducing tha;t to .32 * 1,200 on corner lots. Councilwoman Knight stated that Millbrae has an FAR of .55 for all lots as compared to our proposal which would be more generous. She felt that if there were three votes, she could support the .32 +1,500, but we needed to define what percent of a remodel would equal new. She would also support preparing design guidelines to hand out to applicants and noted we have a variance process for those needing exceptions. Mayor Harrison stated that he could support the.32 +1,500 on new construction with a 2-year review period. After additional discussion, council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for introduction that would include an FAR for new construction of .32 +1,500 sf on interior lots; an FAR for new construction on comer lots of .32 + 1,200 sf; front and rear setback recommenda- tions of the technical committee; and definition of how much of a remodel would constitute "new" construction and therefore be subject to FAR regulation. Council also directed staff to prepare design guidelines to hand out to potential applicants and applicants to encourage better design. Finally, council members noted that the effects of the new FAR regulation should be reviewed in two years to determine if it was effective in addressing mass and bulk in on-site family residential development. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk Mayor Harrison indicated that staff should prepare this proposed amendment to our zoning code for introduction in April and that the public hearing would follow the introduction. (_