Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1992.04.25372 CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COI'NCIL/PI,ANNING COMUISSION STUDY MEETING saturday, April 25, L992, 8.30 a.m. Hyatt Regency 9th Floor Mayor Frank Pagliaro convened the joint study session of the Burlingame City council and Planning conmission on the above date in the 9th floor neeting area of the Hyatt Regency hotel at 9:07 a.m. PRESENT: COTJNCILMEMBERS HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEIIIBI , OIMAHONY, PAGLIARO DEAL, ELLIS, GALLIGAN, GRA}IAM,PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PR JACOBS, KELLY, ESENT: MINK COLEMAN, 1 STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES,KIRKUP, MONROE ES PROCEDURE Mayor Pagliaro reviewed the agenda and suggested that we begin with second story rear setbacks, floor area ratio and city wide view protection discussions. City planner reviewed the staff material presented on rear setbacks. She noted that our current setbacks T^rere established in 1941 and reviewed three possibfe aLternatives for addressj.ng a number of complaints we have recently recej-ved. Mayor Paqliaro stated that he would like to see if we could address the ttchinese $rallrr problem that we have seen on properties such as those to the rear at 1649 coronado way. Councilman Lenbi thought that situation was a combinati.on of the slope of the lot with the house to the rear beinq higher,the shallow depth of the 100' Iot and the fact that the neighbor cut a1I bushes and protective shrubbery between the properties. He thought that some type of variable setback for a second story based on the depth of the rear yard might be appropriate. Commissioner Jacobs thought that we should be conditioningapplications to retain inportant trees and vegetation to soften the impact of the new structures. Councilwoman orMahony stated that the Beautification Commission wouLd be proposing, in the near future, an ordinance to address trees on private property. Council!'roman Knight favored the third alternative !,rhich qroul.d be a variable second story setback to encourage irregularity at the second floor and break up long flat plains parallel to rearproperty lines and still retain some cost reduction in using sornefirst floor foundations. she thought this would benefit rnany areas with small lots such as the Ray Park area. Councilman Lembi was concerned that we were adding more expenseto the cost of rernodels with some of the alternatives. Coromis- sioners Jacobs questioned why lre just dontt lower the floor arearatio. councilwoman otMahony indicated she was not in favor of afloor area ratio because it does not address the placenent of and need to address clever tricks which catch the eye. Commissioner DeaI noted that other items such as drainage requirements, sewer tests, sidewalk repair, and building code requirenents also addto the cost of additions. Commissioner El1is indicated that we could have the same problem at the rear of the house $/ith fAR. Comrnissioner Deal used the example of the problems of certain areas of San Mateo where they have FARS, but the additions accentuate mass and bulk rather than reduce it. Councilrnan Harrison favored the second alternative which would beto have the second story setback based on the depth of the rearyard. Councilman Lenbi agreed. Commissioner calligan thought it was irnportant to look at the front of the house; he felt thevariable rear setback would give the architect positive incentiveto break up the lines of the rear wall. Mayor Pagliaro agreed that the issue is not just bulk, but we need the variation. He suggested that sorne possible cornbination 373 of alternative two and three might be appropriate. coromissioner Ke1ly agreed with alternative three but suggested that we need to Iook at landscaping to provide some type of screening. Conmis- sioner Mink thought alternative three rrras more powerful than theothers. After additional discussion, Mayor directed staff to work on the concept of sone combination of alternative two which would j.ncrease second story setbacks based on the depth of therear yard and alternative three to provide some type of incentivefor variation in the second floor to break up vertical plains ofrear wal1s. Staff lrould return to the planning conmission with proposals for additional review. Mayor Pagliaro felt that hre needed to address floor area ratio on new homes and not on remodels. city Planner briefly reviewed thestaff material on floor area ratio and indicated there were issues of equity based on size of lots and that FAR does not address where the square footage is placed. Cornmissioner Jacobsstated that she likes the appearance of the additions she has seen in Palo Alto which uses floor area ratio. councilnan Harrison stated that he was also concerned with homes on new lots and thought the example of the current three Lots avoiding thedeclining height regulations and building to the rnaximurn indicat- ed a problem. Councilwoman Knight felt that the problen was more than just new hones and that she would like to Iook at FAR foradditions as well. councilman Harrison thought that the revision to the rear set- backs with sorne variation with some required additional vegreta-tion and landscaping may solve the problem. Councilwoman OrMahony stated she was against getting too restrictive onadditions because it lirnits new young farnilies. She does favoradditional landscaping requirenents. Mayor Pagliaro stated the new houses are not being buiJ.t for the young family narket. Commissioner Grahan thought that the current rules which alloq, as tnuch as a 31750 square foot house on a 51000 square foot lot weretoo permj-ssive. She favors FAR or some conbination of reductionof l"ot coverage and FAR. she cited the example on our tour ofthe houses on colunbus and Hale, noting they did not fit Burlinqame. Councilman Lernbi questioned whether vre are receiving complaj.nts about pre or post daylight plane construction. Cornmissioner Minkstated we would need some definitions concerning s/hat is a remodeled house because some of the current hones being rebuiltare really \^rhole new houses. Councilwoman Knight stated that shefelt there were problems with existing codes that allo!,red the houses at 1330 CastiLl-o and 1001 Cabril1o, both built withbuilding permits and no other review. Commissioner calliganthought that mass alone was not the probLem, but that separation betv/een house, side setbacks, are a major consideration. He feltwith the new construction, side setbacks are snaIIer, chinneys can encroach and the garages are no longer separate fron thehouse; so it appears that the construction is lot line to 1otline. He suggested that there be sone threshold nunbers on sizeof house such as between 3,500 and 4,000 square feet, whereplanning commission review would be required. He felt that, at some point, big houses begin to look nore like hotels. Conrnissioner Kelly indicated we need to be careful that hrith FAR we do not increase the tirne for plan check. Commissioner Deal agreed that we need to revier^r al,I large houses, Mayor pagliaro stated that for 1egal reasons hre r,rould need certain criteria forreview of large houses. After additional discussion, Mayor Pagliaro directed that staffand planning cornmissj,on look at developing a regulation for floorarea ratio for new houses including a definition of ner^, house andestablishing a linitation before additions can be made to newhouses. In addition, consider developing criteria for reviewingadditions which create rrlargert houses. 2. FLOOR AREA RATIO 374 3. CITY WTDE VTEW PROTECTION counciLnan Lembi described the problem he sa!, in sloping areas where a trslotr view exists over a one story house between twoexisting trdo story houses. Councilnan Harrison thought thatrather than extending the hillside area construction overlay area, we needed some simple measurable way to identify a projectthat would cause loss of such a view. councilsronan orMahony feLtthat she did not hrant to open this Pandorars box. It was a realquestion of what is measurabl,e and what is a view. such itens astrees blocking views are also a real problem. Cornrnissioner crahan agreed what is a view: Is it trees, blue sky? Commis-sioner Mink thought the city was being very j-nconsistent in its approach on one hand trying to protect views, and on the other hand pruning city trees to grow ta1Ier and effectively block views. After additional dj-scussion, no action was taken on this itern. 4. EXTERTOR LIGHTING TN STNGLE FAMTLY RESIDENTTAL AREAS Commissioner Galligan suggested that we use a nuisance approachto this problem sj-rnilar to San Mateo, rather than trying torequire more regul-ations. City Attorney noted that there was aproblen between definingr public versus private nuisance. Thecity does not currently participate in the county rnediation program which could be an assistance in these types of com-plaints. Commissioner Kelly noted that in the past couple ofyears, we have seen more of these types of problens which couldbe resolved if the neiqhbors would sit down and talk to eachother. Councilwornan Knight noted that we provide some protectionto residential areas from cornmercial area lighting such as cardeaLers, but hre have no protection between residential proper-ties. After additional discussion, the Mayor directed that the councilreview the current urgency ordinance in Septernber and that thecity obtain information on joining the current county widemediation service. After additional discussion, it was decided that if the planning comnissi-on wishes to discuss the issue of transitional zonesbetlreen cornrnercial and single family uses further that it shouldforward i-ts comments to council. 6. USES IN THE M-1 (LIGHT TNDUSTRTAL) DISTRICT Planner noted that lre are currently processing about 1.4itional use permits per month in the t1-1 zone and a s-yeary shows that we have been approving 938. She suggested thatreflects a possible change in land use policy, and rrre mayto re-evaluate the policy and look at changing some of theitional uses to perrnit. She also thought that hre needed toew our land use policy in the M-1 area since we are no longer city cond studthis wish condrevi 5. TRANSTTION AREAS Councih'ronan Knight indicated that she did not favor addressingthis issue at this time because of conflicting state requirenentsfor increased density versus residential requests which wouldrequire down zonj.ng. Conrnissioner E11is did not feel this $ras abig issue at this tine and that you need to have transition areasin some places. cenerally, the cities transition areas areIogical . Comrnissioner Deal- felt that there were parking problems i.n sorne of our transition zones. Comrnissioner Gal1igan agreedand thought that the city parking requirenents for nultiple unitsare 1o!, compared to neighboring cities. He also felt there was aproblen with required guest parking. He felt we should be noreflexible in assigning parking in condoninium projects, reducingthe number of spaces assigned to a specific unit to one andIeaving the rest of the required parking for anyone, includingquests, to use. 375 as involved in heavy manufacturing and distribution activities.Traffic and parking concerns will continue to be a major problenin the district which need to be addressed. Councilwonan Knight noted that in attendinq the Traffic Safety Parking Cornrnission meetings she had become aware that there are problems with on-street truck parking in areas where there are also offices. She thought we would need to be very careful concerning allowingretail uses in this area because of the traffic and parking concerns . Councilman Harrison noted that he has been rneeting r^rith theOffice Council and they are also revielring this issue. He indi-cated that they will be coming forward lrith proposal on thismatter in the near future. He suggested that staff neet with theOffice Council representatives to consider this. Comrnissioner Mink indicated that historically we have required a great manyconditional uses in the M-1 area because r^re were unsure of the developrnent pattern. Now that the pattern is set, perhaps we should review our perrnitted versus conditional uses. Councilwon- an O'Mahony stated that she favors allowing retail sales in thisarea to generate sales tax. At approximately 11:09 a.n., a nunber of council and commission-ers noted a slight earthquake. FROI,I THE FLOOR Mayor Pagliaro asked for none . ADJOURNMENT The rneeting was adj ourned any comnents fron the floor; there were at 11:10 a.m dith A. Malfattiity Clerk