Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1990.02.07475 CfTY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING wednesday, February 7, 7990, 7:30 PM City HalI Council Chambers Mayor Don Lembi convened thecouncil on the above dateHaII at 7 :32 PYl. study session of the Burlingame Cityin Conference Room A of Burlingane city PRESENT: COTJNCILMEYIBERS BARTON, HARRISON, LEMBI , OTMAHONY ABSENT: PAGLIARO STAFF PRESENT: ARGYRES, COLEMAN, KIRKUP, MONROE, TOWNS Mayor Lembi reviewed the purpose of study meetings with the audience and advised them that their opportunity for public hearing on itemsis at another time. Study sessions are for the Council to discuss among themselves and with staff the issues on the agenda. ].989 DRAINAGE STUDY AND ORDINANCE PROTECTING CREEKS AND AI\iIENDING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1 City Planner began to review the history and reasons for interim ordinance and draft proposed permanent ordinance.of the size of the audience, the Mayor decided to moveto the City Council Chambers. the current Because the meeting The Planner continued. The draft ordinance attempts to addressthree different issues identified by Council concerning creeks: subdivision of creek side lots, creeks as amenities, and \,raterfIows. Councilman Harrison asked the Public Works Di-rector to ex-plain what a 100-year flow was and how such a line was establishedfor a property. Staff then reviehted the maps generated from the 1989 creek study including the types of improvements in creeks andculverts that currently exist. The draft ordinance has been proposed as a document for Council to react to and should be viewed as the most conservative alternative in trying to address the issuesraised previously by the council. The variance procedure is in- cluded to allow for the great variety of individual circumstances \.rhich exist on creek properties throughout the city. Council ques- tioned staff concerning definition of top of bank, whether it might be appropriate in some locations to build over creeks, whether some structures over creeks should be allowed and what kind of clearanceshould be considered, and whether a use permit might be more ap-propriate than a variance procedure for exceptions. Councilman llarrison expressed hls opinion that creeks are amenitiesfor the property owners and that decks and structures such as bridges should be allowed. He liked the concept of a use permit. Councilwoman Barton concurred with the 15-foot setback requirementin the draft ordinance. Councilwoman orMahony felt that we neededto review the soils conditions by the individual cases. The Planner reviewed the problem of implementation of individual reviews and the required cost for individual property owners. She pointed out thatrelying on the generalized cross sections for implementation would reduce these costs to property owners. Mayor Lembi felt that we should a11ow construction over creeks forbridges and decks but that some type of clearance needed to beprovided. Councilman Harrison and Councilwoman o'Mahony thoughtthat possibly a 10-foot setback would be sufficient whereas Council- woman Barton and Mayor Lembi thought the 15-feet in the proposed or- dinance was more appropriate to protect the bank vegetation involved and reduce erosion. City Attorney agreed to reviev, the possibilityof using a special permit versus a variance procedure. Council con-curred that the 100-year flow lj-ne in the proposed ordinance was anappropriate criteria. City Planner revj-ewed the second part of the ordinance concerningsubdivisions. The draft ordinance would require that 60 percent ofthe area of the lot must be outside the creek setback area and con-tiguous to a public street to aIlow subdivision. Councilwoman Bar-ton stated that she was against using area within a creek or creek 476 setback for development. Staff reviewed two examples of sion which were proposed recently to demonstrate the effectdraft requlations. Iot divi-of the The consensus of the Councj.l was that the staff should prepare aI- ternative provisions to the proposed draft ordinance which would aI- low construction over creeks with some defined clearance above the l0O-year flow for bridges and decks as long as the construction did not affect the creek's capacity. Council did not !,rish other struc- tures to encroach into the 100-year flow or setback areas. City At- torney would review the possibility of some type of special permit requirement . After reviewing this item, the city Council- took a break from 9 p.m. to 9:12 before considering the second item. 2. HfLLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT City Pfanner revj-ewed the existing ordinance and City's experience in this area. Councilman Harrison stated that the current ordinance was very subjective and that interpretation by the Planning Commis- sion and Council has caused twelve different opinions at tj-mes. He would Iike to see a change whj-ch would reduce the conf Ij-ct between neighbors and the favored development of some kind of parameters like those used in the minor modification. one idea lvould be to allow a minor modification for 20-25 percent blockage of a 180 de-gree view. Another alternative woutd be to allow buildings some number of feet over the elevation of the property line. Councilwoman Barton felt that the reason the ordinance exists \ras that people were losing vj.ews. She thouqht it urould be verY dif- ficult to choose which 25 percent of a view you would lose. This has been a very difficult ordinance because one neighbor may be gaining a view at another's expense. Councilwoman orMahony said that her experience was limited but in reviewing the property at Hunt Drive, both views and light access were affected' Possibly with better design a more comPatible addition might be possible. councilman Harrison suggested that we re-think this issue and have staff provide some ideas based on their experience with review to date. Mayor Lembi thought the ordinance was subjective but that the issue was very difficult to define. He thought there were problems of definition with what is a long-distance view and what criteria should be used as a measure. He also would like staff to review this as a starting point but h,as not sure that any solution was evi- dent. Councilwoman Barton saw this as a no-win proposition but that the Council needed to continue to try to balance the interest of the various neighbors. Mayor Lembi felt that the question was how toget a fair compromise but that in the past nine months experience this has not been happening. The uphi11 properties seem to have developed more rights than the downhill properties. Councilwoman Barton stated that she is satisfied with the existing ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony thought there were problems of definition and that possibly we could look at the definitions of habitable areas, Iong-distance views, short-distance views, and hrhether any nev, parameters limiting interpretation were possible. city Manager suggested that staff will try address these issues as besl they can and that the item be placed on study again in month's time . 3. EARTI{OUAKE SAFETY ]MPROVEMENTS AT FIRE STATIONS The Fire Chief reviewed the current problems with the fire station Iocated. on California Drive and the seismic problems it presented. Three different alternatives seem appropriate: 1) Remodel and sej-s- mically retrofit of the existing structurei 2) Demolition of the currenl station and construction of a new station; or 3) construc- tion of a new station with the exterior appearance of the old sta- tion. He indicated that the architect has stated that the remodel costs coul_d be close to $1.8 million and that the other alternatives range up to $2.5 million. Councilwoman Barton stated she felt very strongly about trying to preserve historical buildings in Burlingame. The Fire Chief statedthat it would cost approximately $7,000 for additional study on theaffect of retrofitting the existing structure on available interior space and the operations. Mayor Lembi thought we should consider a ne$, building that was made to Iook like the o1d. Councilman Har- rison thought we needed to review the needs of the city for the 21st century and that a new structure should be considered. Fire Chief introduced the architects from Nilmeyer Associates that had reviewed the building. The architect reviewed the current problems for the building and the need for space. Given that in a moderate earthquake the current building may shift affecting the doors and trap fire engines, we have real safety problems that needed to be addressed. After additional discussion, it was the Council's conclusion that we should address the need for a new structure. councilwoman o'Mahony felt that option three--building a neh, station to look like the current station--was the direction we should foIlow. She also stated that there would be a big need to educate the public about the reason for this action because of thehistorical significance of the structure. Council agreed and the consensus was that this would be a toppriority item for the upcoming capital improvement program. Manager stated that in order to fund this project from the general fund it may be necessary to phase the funding of this program over two fis- ca] years which should match any future construction schedule. 4. COI'NCIL COMMENT There were no council- cornments. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 PM. lfattil-City Clerk 477 vmy