Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.02.27CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING Saturday, February 27, 1999 Sheraton Gateway Hotel — Portola Room Mayor Mary Janney convened the joint city council / planning commission study session on the above date in at 9:01 a.m. COUNCIL PRESENT: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: BOJUES, COFFEY, DEAL, KEIGHRAN, KEY, LUZURIAGA, VISTICA STAFF PRESENT: ANDERSON, ARGYRES, MONROE 1. DESIGN REVIEw ISSUES — DISCUSSION The city planner gave a brief introduction about some of the issues that have arisen out of our experience with design review including first floor additions, new single story houses, multi -family and commercial uses. She noted there were a number of issues on the agenda beside the discussion about design review and asked for council and commission to prioritize which of these issues we should be addressing in the coming year. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that she liked the direction that the city is currently moving with design review. She was concerned about workload on both the commission and staff. She would like to have a consultant such as Martin Dreiling assist with the writing of the design guidelines. She felt that these guidelines should be strongly recommended but not mandated. Vice Mayor Knight distributed copies of the city code and indicated that she feels the planning commission has the authority under this section for design review. She ]likes some of the handouts we have done to date but feels that we should do more. She brought up issue of commercial design review. Felt we should do more where commercial interfaces with residential as it does on Howard at Myrtle. Also of concern is where multi -family interfaces single-family. With description in staff report understand first floor single-family issue, feel it is valid to look at: design review. She did feel that we needed some form of minor modification so that people did not have to go through the design review process for minor changes to approved design review permits. The city attorney noted that concerning apartment rental units and commercial development; presently, these can be built with just a building permit and no planning commission review. CEQA review is required for more than four units but design is not a CEQA issue. Councilman Spinelli felt that the areas where multiple -family interfaces single-family is a problem and apartments should have the same review standards as condominiums, and that some commercial areas adjacent to residential and specific retail areas such as Broadway and Burlingame Avenue should also be reviewed. Councilman Galligan thought that the number one concern with design review was time. He thought that if staff made recommendations as in other cities, that this would reduce the amount of time that the commission would need to take on individual items. Planning Commissioner Deal noted that the workload issue for professional designers and contractors is that there is too much work for everyone. So long as the Economy stays strong, he 1 does not see a reduced workload for the commission. Councilman Galligan noted that we may need to add additional staff and give more authority to reduce the amount: of time the planning commission spends, and he reiterated his concern that staff make recommendations. Planning Commissioner Coffey noted that the addition of a consent calendar to the planning commission agenda may help in the long run, but he thought we could save some time by reducing some of introducing staff comments that precede the public hearings that have already been covered in the written staff reports. Councilman Galligan felt we should look at some code revisions so that if we want garages in the rear of property, the code should clearly state that. He also thought that design review for one story houses should be required only when the roof ridge exceeds a certain height. Vice Mayor Knight thought we did need to revise our design guidelines to address air, light, and privacy, also does not want design review to focus on style of bay window or color of house. Planning Commissioner Deal noted guidelines need to be more mandatory; he also thought we should look at single family new construction to avoid future problems. Some current single-family homes are massive with 10-to-12-foot plate lines and we needed some method to require review. He suggested that single story review could possibly be implemented by a subcommittee to review these applications prior to planning commission meetings. Councilman Galligan felt single story additions subject to design review could be limited to those with a roof height over a given number. Councilman Spinelli said design review needs to consider impacts on existing development on all sides, including the house to rear. Planning Commissioner Coffey thought that the single story issue was really about parking, and that any new single family construction should have a minimum of a two -car garage. Councilman Spinelli thought we should be requiring in the code parking in the rear. Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed that we should require garage space in the rear of property when possible. She also thought that single story design review should be required if the addition is over 750 square feet. She agreed that we also need to increase our parking requirements for single family and multiple family developments especially where next to existing single family and commercial uses and would like to see design review for apartments. She did not feel general commercial design review on the bayfront was necessary because there was so little land left. Planning Commissioner Vistica felt we should be expanding our commercial and apartment design _review program. Planning Commissioner Luzuriaga agreed that apartments should be reviewed the same as residential condominiums. Planning Commissioner Key agreed and thought additional parking requirements and design review would help. Mayor Janney summarized the need to look at first floor plate heights, parking requirements, and garage placement; she reinforced that we need to allow multi family building along El Camino and other transportation corridors. 2. ADEQUACY OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS Councilman Spinelli noted that apartment dwellers are parking in R-1 areas all over town. It was noted that you could have two to three cars per one -bedroom apartment because of roommates. He felt that we should be stricter on parking for apartments. Vice Mayor Knight noted that we need to address the double standard for apartments and residential condominiums. Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed on the need to revise parking for apartments; she felt there should be guest parking required at a ratio of one space for every five units. We also need to look at more red zones to protect sight lines near corners in multi family areas. Planning Commissioner Key noted that guest parking needs to be at grade to accommodate drop-off and deliveries. Vice Mayor Knight noted that if we made changes in guest parking outside of a security gate, she did not feel one space would be enough. She also would support higher on -site parking requirements for Februray 27, 1999 2 Burlingame City Council single-family houses. Planning Commissioner Keighran noted the square footage at a house or apaz�ert �ou�a be used to determine the required number of parking spaces. The commission and council next discussed parking in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. It was noted by Councilman Galligan that the council has decided to do a parking demand study of the area. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that we need to be sure to accommodate the anchor stores because they are a part of the health of the avenue but we need to require: them to participate in the community life of the avenue and any additional parking provided. She also felt we should end the first floor retail parking exemption in Subarea A. Mayor Janney noted the success of the city is a strong partnership with the business community and hotels. Councilman. Spinelli felt that we need to look at some type of parking project involving bonding and requiring Safeway and Saks to participate. We also should talk to the post office concerning acquiring their staff parking area adjacent to the current city lot. He did not feel we should overbuild with structures like San Mateo. Vice Mayor Knight noted that she liked the surface parking idea including the post office site but felt we should also be looking at some type of transportation system management (TSM) for employees to reduce parking demand. We can't just keep building parking but could improve access from transit to places of employment in commercial areas by extending the Free Bee shuttle route. 3. FUTURE OF BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA Vice Mayor Knight noted her concern about the future of auto row, especially because of its importance to the city's economy. Councilman Spinelli noted that the Regan building next to the train station is changing ownership and possibly use to go to retail. We should look at trying to address the parking issues in this area as well. There was a general consensus that we ought to continue with the policy of pedestrian -oriented retail and service commercial activity along Burlingame Avenue. 4. UPDATE OF R-3/R-4 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Councilman Spinelli noted that some new areas might move from commercial to high density residential and we needed codes in place which reflect what the city expects for this use. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted we need to be particularly concerned about the interface between uses. Planning Commissioner Deal noted that we may want to look at some limit on a size of unit as related to parking because units are now getting so large more people :live in them. He also felt that we should look at allowing more height than the 35-feet review line if by adding height we can improve the design and setbacks for a project. There was a general discussion that parking should be increased for R-3 and R-4 projects and that we currently have a double standard when comparing apartments and condominiums. Attention should be paid to other items such as trash rooms, storage, bicycle racks for apartments as well as residential condominiums. There was some agreement that more flexibility was needed in development standards, especially height, if result was a better looking project; height might be an incentive to provide other amenities in the project. 5. SECOND UNIT AMNESTY The city planner explained the discussions from prior years concerning second unit amnesty and the Burlingame City Council 3 February 27, 1999 need to proceed with this because of our housing element review which. will occur in 2001. Vice �- Mayor Knight and Councilwoman indicated their support for moving forward with second unit amnesty program in this year's work program. There was general consensus among the group. 6. SUMMARY OF LAST YEAR'S WORK PROGRAM Councilwoman O'Mahony felt that we needed to look at adding more staff to assist the planning commission. Planning Commissioner Key wanted the council to be aware of work proceeding on the food establishment regulations, noting that they would be coming to the planning commission and council soon. Councilman Galligan again stated that goal is stability on commission, we needed to make better use of commission's time and that possibly more staff would help. Planning Commissioner Luzuriaga thought it would be helpful to hire Martin Dreiling to help create and do the artwork for the design review guidelines document. Vice Mayor Knight wondered whether some type of time limit for the planning commission meetings might help. Overall for the work program, she noted that she had the same priorities from last year's meeting: restaurant regulation, revise multiple family regulations, second dwelling unit amnesty. She supported the idea of hiring a specialist to assist with the drafting of the design guidelines. 7. COUNCIL / COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commissioner Luzuriaga felt it would be useful to have some type of training for the public, perhaps through the recreation department, on what the city's objectives are for the design review process. Council and commission thought this would be a good idea. The city planner attempted to briefly summarize the work program priorities which came: out of the discussions for the morning. It appeared that council and commission want to proceed with extending design review to single family first floor additions and new construction and to multiple family uses but not to commercial uses at this time. Review parking requirements for single family development and for multiple family residential uses. Second, to review the R-3/R-4 zoning district regulations. Thirdly, we should be reviewing our parking requirements for multi farnily and commercial development in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Fourth, to proceed on the second unit amnesty program if time allows. 8. FROM THE FLOOR Two of the public members in attendance thanked council and commission for what they did. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:36 a.m. Judith A. Malfatti v City Clerk Februray 27, 1999 4 Burlingame City Council