Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.11.08THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER Norberg - excused OTHERS PRESENT City Planner Swan City Attorney Karmel Fire Inspector Pearson Gene Mallot, Boutique Dave Keyston A special study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. of illness. REPORT BY CITY PLANNER Commissioner Norberg was excused because Mr. Swan reported that the Interim Emergency Zoning Ordinance was accepted by the City Council. Every apartment must have lk parking spaces per unit. He pointed out that three problems have arisen because of this action: 1. Apartment building plans received prior to November 6 had met the parking regulations at that time; but permits were not issued pending procedures pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 2. A number of apartment building plans have since November 6 been submitted based upon the parking regulations prior to November 6. Do these projects deserve consideration for parking variances? 3. If an apartment building had previously been approved with a variance, must the builder increase available parking? Discussion followed on whether outstanding variances are affected by the City Council's action. City Attorney Karmel advised that the answer is in two parts: If the principal variance dealt with the type of zone, then it is unrelated as it did not deal with parking spaces per unit. He said that the City had the right to alter and change parking regulations as long as the builder has not commenced work substantially and to his economic detriment. If he has a Building Permit and has not started to build, the city can change requirements. The members of the Commission discussed,what constitutes substantial project expenditures. Commissioner Sine pointed out that construction is a calculated gamble. City Attorney Karmel pointed out that the City can change the zoning of a property as there is no contract between property owner and City that the zoning will remain the same. He believes that the same is true in regard to a - 2 - to a variance where construction has not yet commenced. Commissioner Taylor said that.the primary reason for the emergency resolution. was that the parking problem in Burlingame was acute. And that this is more significant than the economic concerns of the individual builder. NEW BUSINESS 1. PARKING REGULATIONS FOR APARTMENTS City Planner said that since enactment of the emergency ordinance, it seemed wise to have comprehensive parking regulations for apartments. He presented basic premises and reviewed the rationale for the proposed parking regulations. Commissioner Sine, well aware of how builders operate, pointed out that there might be a great rush for studio and 1-bedroom apartments in order to beat the emergency ordinance. After discussion most of the Commissioners agreed that a 1.5 minimum is better to start with than 1.2. There was general feeling that if the.Pianner's recommendation of 2.2 spaces for four bedrooms was accepted, that this would be a wedge for contractors and it might invite more people living together. Commissioner Mink said that they should consider the community as being a single family residential one and not just a community of adults. Chairman Cistulli suggested that 4 bedrooms should be deleted and such proposals would come to Planning Commission if they arose. There was disagreement on this suggestion. City Planner Swan asked if it was the Commission's desire for him to ask applicants individually to put in 4 spaces for 4 bedrooms, but that it need not be included as part of the code. The City Attorney stated that the applicant could be told that the Commission established a general policy which is carried out by the staff. The Planning Commission considered alternatives and will have a resolution prepared for their action November 27. City Planner Swan suggested the following changes: Recommended Alternative Consensus of in Memo discussed 11/8 Planning Commission Studio �1.5 1.4 One Bedroom 1.4 1.6 1.6 2 bedrooms, 1 bath 1.6 1.8 1.6 2 bedrooms, 2 baths 1.8 2.0 2.0 3 bedrooms, 1 bath 2.0 2.2 3 bedrooms, 2 baths 2.0 2.2 2.4 4 bedrooms or more 2.2 4.0 4.0 Commissioner Mink stated that he accepted the basic premises for apartment parking: However, he pointed out that the Commission was ignoring two items: 1) that the number of bedrooms and bathrooms have no consideration in the formula, and that 2) generally speaking the number of people in an apartment is based on the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. After further discussion the Commission approved the following: Studio and 1 bedroom 1.4 3 bedrooms, 1 bath 2.2 2 bedrooms, 1 bath 1.6 3 bedrooms, 2 baths 2.4' 2 bedrooms, 2 baths 2.0 4 bedrooms 4.0 - 3 - A resolution with this recommended change is to be brought back for action at the regular meeting. 2. R-2A DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECOND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (TOWNHOUSES AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) City Planner Swan read from the existing regulations the alternatives for lot coverage: 1) shall not exceed fifty per cent of total area of lot 2) shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the total lot area at a corner lot and shall not exceed fifty (50) per cent of an interior lot 3) shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the total lot area at a corner lot and shall not exceed fifty-five (55) percent of an interior lot In response to a query from Commissioner Mink as to what is the rationale for restricting lot coverage, the City Planner replied that there are setbacks and need for open spaces for light and air. He asked the Commission to select a figure that could be used for the City's policy. Chairman Cistuili opened discussion of Alternate A. There was disa reement as to what would happen if two lots (one a corner and one an interior were combined. Mr. Swan said it depended on what the Planning Commission wants the interpretation to be. Commissioner Taylor asked why it was necessary to worry about percent of coverage of lot; he thought it was more important to provide specified open spaces and meet the setback and yard requirements. Thus he emphasizedopen space and not coverage as such. It was agreed that the building height shall not exceed 35 feet. Parking should be provided in accordance with the standards just approved by the Planning Commission. City Planner Swan recommended adoption of the R-2A District Regulations as the Commission's policy to serve as a guide. The City Planner was requested to prepare a new format as the fourth draft for approval by a Resolution at the regular meeting. 3. C-4 DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PROPOSED WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL The City Planner proposed that a Special Permit be required for any building over six stories in height or 75 feet. This height is permitted in R-4 districts and perhaps this should be a limitation for all of the City. He points out that this is more lenient than the proposed ordinance to require automatic sprinkling equipment in any building that is four or more stories in height. The City Council has asked the Fire Chief to prepare a formal ordinance for early consideration. Commissioner Sine asked why only the 75 feet buildings are to be considered; why not all of C-4 to come before the Planning Commission. He said he was interested in the continuity of development and stated that some should not be disregarded only because of size. In reply the City Planner noted alternatives suggested in his Memo to the Planning Commission of October 11, 1972 on C-4 regulations; namely, that the code be amended by adding the following: "Six stories or seventy-five (75) feet without a Special Permit" and "Adopt an urban design theme ZM for the C-4 District and establish a procedure for rigorous review of all improvements including signs, vehicle access, loading zones, parking layout, landscaping, and particularly the areas for public access." Chairman Cistulli suggested that everything come before the Planning'Commission. Commissioner Mink raised the question whether the Planning Commission is a policy -recommending body to the City Council to establish ordinances or whether it is quasi-judicial to administer ordinances if particular clients are unable to live within the restrictions. He recommended that this lay body should set policy guidelines; empower the staff to administer the City within these ordinances; and that the Commission should not serve as administrators. Further, Commissioner Mink asked the opinion of the City Attorney if it was appropriate if an applicant disagreed with the Code as interpreted by the staff, if he could appeal. City Attorney Karmel replied that the City could not have a rule that no building should be built except with the approval of the Planning Commission. He did not think they could say you cannot build until you come before the Planning Commission. But he said that it could say ybu cannot build before meeting regulations of C-4 District; this then will guide the Planning Commission as to whether or not it would give its approval. In other words, establish new guidelines. Commissioner Mink said it was necessary for the Commission to look ahead and recommend workable ordianances that can be administered fairly by competent staff. The Commission should be interested in creating a long-term environment around the Bay. He said guidelines must be published, well-known, and available; that this is a "Planning Commission" and not a "Reaction Commission". Mr. Keyston suggested that until the Ordinance, is developed perhaps all applications should go before the Commission. These first four of five projects may help in developing the Ordinance. Commissioner Sine agreed with Mr. Karmel that the developer needs guidelines. City Planner Swan pointed out` that. Environmental.;Mpa-ct Reibxt: Standards- have -been recommended.to determine which projects have a significant effect on the community: for example, height over 35 feet; more than 15,000 sq. gross floor area; project with more than 50 off-street parking places; employment of more than 50 people; service of food for more than 50 people; apartments with more than 15 living units except those constructed under R-3A District regulations; and Signs that are larger than 50 square feet of_gross area. Mr. Keyston suggested that the Commission not confuse environmental impact with guidelines wanted for Burlingame. City Planner Swan was asked to comment on his illustration for Proposed Waterfront Commercial (C-4) District Regulations. He spoke about the use of slope intercepts to locate a building so it is not too close to the street, the water or the side property line. Intercept lines regulate building height with respect to the distance from property line. Such a design standard is used to provide adequate light and air and also retain human scale. He pointed out that this is difficult to write into an ordinance. Commissioner Mink moved for adjournment. There was discussion on canceling meeting of November 29. Applications received prior to November 27 can be discussed after the regular meeting and set for Public Hearing on December 11. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary