Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1990.04.18CITY OF BURTINGAME CITY COI'NCIL STUDY MEETING wednesday, April l-8, 1990, 7:30 PMcity HaIl conference Room A PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS BARTON, STAFF PRESENT: COLEMAN, KIRKUP, HARRISON, LEMBI , OIMAHONY, PAGL]ARO MONROE 1. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMITS - VIEW DEFINITION The city Planner briefly reviewed her staff memorandum with the com- ment that the terms under discussion were "view" and I'distance'r. Councilman Pagliaro said it was dif f j-cu1t to be specific and that byhaving a specific distance measurement the Council could Lose con-trol . He suggested adding the words 'rsignificant" and "existingrr toqualify views in Section 25.61.060. councilmembers Harrison and Lembi concurred. Councilmember Barton stated she felt this added nothing to the code since "significant" was different to each per- son. The City Planner suggested specific amendments to place "significant" and trexistingrr in Section 25.61.050, and the Councildirected that this amendment be prepared for introduction at a regular meeting. 2. CREEKSIDE CONSTRUCTION LIMITATION Public Works Director introduced his memorandum noting that a spe-cial permit was recornmended as the method for review because it was a familiar process. He briefly described the three areastion for consideration: (1) enclosing a creek within a pivert; (2) construction over a creek; (3) placing of suppothe 100-year flow line. Councilmember o'Mahony stated areas were the core of what was discussed in February, whi posed by 90 percent of the people at that meeting, and sh comfortable with taking any further action. of pert th ch e regula-or cuI- s withinat these vras op-was un- Councilmember Harrison stated that it was clear in February that the engineer would decide on these issues and he did not favor going forward with these changes. Councilmember Barton felt that this wasnot adding any new authority. Councilmember Pagliaro feLt thatthese three issues had to do with public safety and access to the creek for flood control and prevention. The Publ"ic works Director indicated that under existing ordinances an engineering revier,, wouldbe given as part of a building permit for any work proposed in a creek . After further discussion, Councilmember Harrison stated that hewould support requiring a special permit for enclosing a creek in apipe or culvert but not the other two recommendations. Staff were directed to prepare a draft ordi-nance for further consideration at a subsequent study meeting. Mayor Lembi announced he would abstain from this item. The city At-torney reviewed his memorandum and the results of the survey. Heindicated that there were now sixteen returns out of forty; nine in-dicating they were interested in an assessment district and seventhat they rrere not. He indicated that there were about sixty par-cels in total, and the City had not heard from the oil companj.es,the banks, or one property owner who owns about one-eighth of theproperty in the area. Council suggested that a registered letter besent to those who had not responded. The City Attorney noted thathe $rould see that that the local- managers of the gas stations and banks were contacted. It was requested that the City Manager main-tain contact with the owner of the Rhinette property. Councilmember O'Mahony stated that owners might be reluctant to respond to the City's inquiry because they do not know the size ofthe financial corunitment. Concern was also expressed about develop- 07 Mayor Lembi convened the study session of the Burlingame City Coun-cil on the above date in Conference Room A of Burlingame City HaIl,at 7:30 PM. 3. BROADWAY PROPERTY OWNERS SURVEY REEURNS 08 ing figures that might be misleading. Councilman Pagliaro statedthat some options would no longer be available if the City did not proceed in a timely fashion. The City Attorney stated that he $rould attempt to develop projected figures for the cost of a project and what the price might be per property. 4. HISTORICAL BUILDINGS PRESERVATION METHODS The city Attorney introduced his memo and requested direction from the Council. councilmembers Harrison and Barton indicated that they did not wish to become involved in a specific historical- preserva- tion proqram. Councilmember Pagliaro f el"t that if we did not do so, the city would lose its heritage. He suggested a review of projects affecting designated buildings before the Beautification Commission, with appeat to the Council. fn response to a question from Councif- member Harrison, the buildings on the present list which \.rere un- reinforced masonry were identified. City Planner noted that any review process would probably include some adaptations of currentbuilding and zoning codes to allow use of preserved buildings. Councilmember Barton noted that many of the buildings on the list had already been modified. Council concurred in the suggestion by Councilmember Pagliaro thattypical preservation ordinances be gathered and presented to the Council at a subsequent study meeting. 5. COIiNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Harrison discussed a letter from Bruin Realty dated Aprit l-7, 1990, concerning their project at 347 Primrose Road. He stated that the Kohn's vrere upset over public reaction to theproject and that he wished to qive them an opportunity to present the case to someone. Councilmember Barton stated that discussing the matter at this time was out of order since the matter should go through the Planning Commission and a public hearing. CouncilmemberHarrison stated that he would like to hear the matter, that there ought to be a way for Council to give it a preliminary reviewi he inquired how this could be done. Councilmember Pagliaro indicatedthat the property owner vranted to get the Council reaction beforegoing to the Planning Commission with their new proposal. Mayor Lembi stated that the system should aIlow obtaining opinions from Councilmembers before projects are formally proposed. The City Planner noted that described in the letter are for ber of square feet, a use permiparking variance. She noted Planninqr commission had been con required permits for the project staurant use of a specified num-r the real estate office, and athe current proposal before the ed and that this new proposal thearet fo thattinucould be submitted to the Planning Department and presented to the Planning Commission as a part of the current process. The Councilindicated agreement with the Planner's suggestion. councilmember Pagliaro indicated that we may need to deveLop a system to open com- munication for these type of projects. councilmember Barton ob-jected noting that it is difficult to give guidance without making a comnitment, such as this case \"rhere the applicant wishes a commit- ment for restaurant and office use in exchange for preserving a por- tion of the old building. She noted she believes the 1a$, does not allow a Council member to make a commitment before a public hearing. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 PM udith A. Malfatti 1 vmy city Clerk