HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1991.04.27196
CTTY OF BURLINGAI,IE
CITY COT'NCIL/PLANNING COMI,TISSION STUDY MEETING
Saturday, April 27, 1991
Holiday Inn crowne Plaza Board Room
Mayor cloria Barton convened the joint study session of the
Burlingame City council and Planning Conmission on the above date
in the Board Roon of the Holiday Inn crovrne Plaza at 9:05 a.m.
PRESENT: CoIJNCILI,IEI.IBERS BARToN, HARRISON, LEMBI , o I MAlloNY,
PAGLIARO
PLANNING CO}ID,{ISSION
PRESENT: DEAL, ELLIS, GALLIGAN, GRAHA}{, JACOBS, KELLY, }TINK
STAFT PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEI,TAN, ERBACHER, KIRKUP, MONROE
OTHERS PRESENT: MARTI KNIGHT, IRV AMSTRUP, KAREN KEY, CAROL TANZI
1. DISCUSSION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDI'RES
I"layor Barton called the neeting to order and asked the Clty
Manager to start the discussion. city l.{anager indicated that
this was the annual neeting for the comnission and councj,I to
discuss various policy matters and procedures. During 1990-91,
the Planning Corrmission had acted on over 200 itens which was a
17 percent increase from the previous year. It appears that
there have been fewer appeals to the city Council of recent
cornrnissi-on decisions,
First itern on the list of possible discussj-on topics suggested by
the cornmission or council was the sign code. Councilman Pagliaro
summarized the two issues suggested by staff which included
revisinq the current code for changes in sigm technology such as
fixed signs with novable letters (the I'f lip-o-maticrr signs) and
the definition of secondary frontage for signage. It was the
consensus of the council and comnission that our code should be
revised to address new sign technology. In reviewing the currentpolicy for change of copy in the sarne siqn area, it was agreedthat the current staff interpretation of the code to allow a
change of business name as change of face without a new sign
exception was acceptable. In a discussion on the secondary
frontage for signs, Councilmembers Harrison and orMahony feltthat the bay front should be considered as right-of-way and
eligible for secondary frontage signage. Councilrnembers Barton
and Lenbi expressed concern that we did not wish to become a
billboard city on the bay side. During discussion, it was
suqgested that it may be possible to allow only hotels to use bay
frontage as a secondary frontage and that we have a cornnitnent to
these hotels and their success. After additional discussion, it
was felt that we should revise our code to allow bay frontage
signage for hotels with possible limits on fetter size and
require public review.
The city Planner outlined the current lack of flexibility in our
code concerning use pernits. she noted the code enforcement
problems that occur because of the processing tine problen
resulting in illegal activity or requests that bypass normal
procedures such as the Marriott tent. councilman Pagliaro felt
that rre should devise sone method of fast tracking these perrnits
to council but it should be council that nakes the final
decision. The potential parking and traffic inpact of various
temporary uses were discussed. Councilwonan Orllahony suggested
that the city needed to do a better job of advising all the
hotels of the city requirements and the need for use permits.
Ptanning Commission indicated that it had no problem with the
Planning Commission being bypassed for City Council action due to
time constraints.
The next item discussed was hedges. Should side and rear
197
property line hedges be allowed to be taller than our current 6-foot timit for a fence. Planning Conmission has discussed a
proposal to a1low an 8-foot high hedge along side and rear
property 1ines. Councilnan Pagliaro pointed out that there was a
difference betvreen hedges along a frontage and betvreen neighbors.It was felt that the current city practice of enforcing only on a
conplaint basis was probably appropriate and the code does nt
need to be changed. Council requested that staff revise the
proposal discussed by the Planning comnission for increasing thepernitted height to 8 feet on side and rear property lines behind
the front setback and present it to Planning Conmission and
Council for review.
The commj.ssion and council next discussed decks and lot coverage.
The ts/o issues considered included counting a covered deck withinlot coverage and how high off the ground a deck should be to be
counted toward 40 percent 1ot coverage. There was general
agreement among the council and cornmission that any deck or patiowith any covering--i.e., canvas, corrugated plastic--should be
considered as lot coverage. During the discussion of whether a
deck over 30- inches high would count as 1ot coveragTe, twodifferent viewpoints were expressed. Councilnan Harrison feltthat a deck over 3O-inches high should not count as Lot coverageif this v/as attached to the first floor of the residence withlimitations such as not extend into the side setback or attach to
a property line fence. Cornmissioner Graham indicated that ourcurrent 40 percent lot coverage is allowing nore density than weshould. The city shouLd look at greater regulation of density
using such itens as floor area ratio (FAR) . A number of
cornmissioners conmented that sone houses are just getting too bigfor the lots they are on. After additional discussi-on, it was
agreed that the commission and council should look at furtherregulation of density by adding floor area ratio, reducing lot
coverage, or some combination of 1ot coverage and FAR.
The next itern discussed was the present and future uses in the M-
1 district. city Planner reviewed the current importance of the
M-1 district to our sales tax base and the changing character.
The City Manager pointed out that action at the state leveI may
change the way saLes tax is distributed therefore influence thefuture revenues frorn the industrial area. Mayor Barton indicated
she felt that we should not have retail sales in the M-1district. we needed to protect our existing retail areas--the
Plaza, Broadrray, Burlingane Ave. Councilman Lenbi agreed that we
do not need to change the existing policy regarding retail salesin the ll-1, but there is a need to review specific appJ,ications
on an individual project basis. Commissj,oner Ke1Iy agreed thatthe recent application approved for retail sales on o1d Bayshore
was very linited by the conditions of approval. Commissioner
Galligan discussed the possibility that retail sales may start asa srnall portion of a business but become the major activity.
Council and commission agreed that this was an issue which neededto be watched carefully.
In discussing the cityrs housing policy, Mayor Barton indicatedthat the recent articLe distributed to council concerningresidential hotels and their place in the affordable housing
market was interesting. Comnissioner GaJ,ligan stated that as aresult of recent state J-egislation, the city needed to dosomething. Commissioner Mink thought we shouLd pick a particutartarget group such as starter housing or housing for seniorcitizen, and the city should become rnore proactive. councilwonan
OrMahony thought that we ought to look at the possibility of sonetype of inclusionary zoning to increase the nurnber of affordable
housing units. Councilman Pagliaro would like the city to
consider helping various employees to acquire housing similar tothe program in the county. He felt that housing was increasingtya probLem for the school districts as weII. It was a benefit tothe city to have its enployees live in the city. council askedthat there be rnore discussion on this at a later meeting.
The next issue discussed was that of the cityts annexation
198
The rneeting was adjourned at 11:43 a.m.
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk
vmw
policy. CounciLnan Pagliaro thought it was clear that the
Burlingame Hil1s area should continue to be a single family area
and that we ought to look at prezoning. There was a discussionof what type of conditions the city may require upon annexationto insure that the infrastructure is brought to an acceptable1eveI. Council asked that staff review this matter further and
present a list of alternatives for regulation and for addressingthe infrastructure issues for council consideration.
2. COUNCIL/COII{MISSION COMMENTS
Councilman Harrison relayed the comments he had received recently
concerning the building department. one comment he reported was
from a citizen who stated that they thought it would take six
months for approval given the reputation of the city; but they
were surprised approvals were obtained for their project in two
to three weeks. Commissioner Graham stated that based on her own
recent experience, she felt that there was a leadership problem
in the building department and that the right hand was not aware
of what the left hand was doing. Commissioner Deal said that in
this city he is not aware that it would take six months for
approvals; but two to three months was possible and that this was
too long. He stated that the city may be requiring too much
detail on p1ans, noting that the outside plan checkers require
more documentation than city codes require. Councilrnan Lembi
stated that he had relayed complaints he had heard concerning the
building department, and it appeared that there had been
improvement for a period of time but problems are again arising.
Commissioner Galligan suggested that it might be a good idea to
call in an outside group such as members of the American
Institute of Architects to review our current policies and
procedures and to make suggestions for improvement. Commissioner
Graham felt that a more common sense approach to plan checks was
needed. Council agreed that this matter should be discussed
further at a later time.
Councilman Pagliaro asked that staff place on the next agenda
C/CAG policy issues and expenditures. He indicated that he would
be sending a memo to the council on this matter. Mayor Barton
indicated that we needed to attend a SamTrans meeting on May 2 to
protect the city's interest.
ADJOURNMENT
(.