Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.03.30MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA March 30, 1998 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on March 30, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink (out @ 6:12) and Key Absent: Commissioners Luzuriaga (in @ 4:12; out @ 7:00) and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe and City Attorney, Larry Anderson AGENDA - There were no changes to the agenda. It was noted that there would be an opportunity for the public to speak on each item on which the Commission intends to take action this evening. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE 1589 AND CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 30, 1998 TO DISCUSS IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE 1589. CP Monroe noted that since the packet was distributed, the Subcommittee on Neighborhood Compatibility had met and refined further their recommendations to the Commission. This additional input to this agenda item had been delivered to the Commission under separate cover. C. Deal, chair of the Subcommittee, had indicated that he wished to present their report. Chair Key recognized C. Deal who noted that the Subcommittee's recommendation to the Commission was that the city institute a design review committee which would be advisory to the Planning Commission; it was hoped that many of the reviewed second story additions or new construction project with second stories could be put on a Planning; Commission consent calendar; all items could be appealed to the City Council; using a consent calendar could reduce the review load on the Planning Commission. He noted that additional work needed to be done after an interim action was implemented this included implementing the: concept of the "home improvement exception" which would provide incentives for property owners to include good design and would also make it easier to build some styles of architecture which our present regulations work against. We need to handle detached garages bettei, to reduce commission review time, perhaps some applications could go right to action. The problem is that the big houses, designed within the existing development envelope, which people are complaining about are not brought before the Planning Commission for review. so City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 C. Luzuriaga arrived at 4:12 p.m. C. Deal continued we need a detailed booklet describing what will be encompassed in design review. Want to be careful that it is understood that review of second stories does not mean that people cannot add second stories. Also that privacy is not an issue of review; on a 50' x 100' lot there is not much privacy that can be guaranteed. The booklet outlining the concepts is very important, needs to go to City Council to define concept. The Subcommittee is going for a new approach, because the past approach using measurable regulations has not worked. They favored the moratorium to stop present practice. Local contractors are going door to door, offering people all cash, no contingency sales and asking owners to sign a release; and in two days the contractor can have an application ready for submittal to the city. Want Council to feel comfortable with what doing, if not pass interim legislation, the moratorium will end, and the dike will break. Some people even say that these cash sales agreements are being written contingent on Commission and Council action on this item. Chair Key suggested that Commission go through draft sent out and see what want to add, take public input and then commission refine concepts. CA noted that tonight's actions are limited by the public notice which addresses design review of second story additions and new construction with second stories in the R-1 zoning district. Commissioner discussion: need to address the problem is this a temporary or permanent solution; see as a piece of a long term solution, it may change as study continues but this system will work and has worked in other places; subcommittee members are experienced with design review boards and the resulting problems, commission needs to understand what is going on with the DRB and tell committee to correct direction if necessary; like to be on DRB but have too many conflicts; however, commission should have observer at each DRB meeting. Am unclear about idea of design decisions being able to appeal directly to City Council bypassing Planning Commission; think appeals should be charged for so not frivolous. Commissioners noted: no project of the DRB should go to City Council until the Planning Commission has seen it; this approach creates a decision making body therefore it increases bureaucracy, we need to define the authority of the DRB; don't want more bureaucracy, but unavoidable since regulatory guidelines alone do not seem to be working; agree but hope not get to point where define colors or unreasonable extend review time; city has code, if meet requirements project is accepted, if petition beyond ordinance then need mechanism to do and that is bureaucracy; Planning Commission not slowing down process, people who are asking for more than the code is allowing are slowing down process for themselves; if DRB is appealed it should be to the Planning Commission. -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 Have a cause and effect; what is the cause? codification added a bunch of regulations, all right for what they did but missed points, problems not anticipated, then can amend code to rectify; so the "what" is lack of directive codes that require neighborhood consistency/compatibility not cookie -cutter; hard to codify; people who follow the code as written are causing the problem. Discussion on example ordinance: the more we look at this the more issues arise, concern that this is a major issue and concerned about time frame, tremendous ramifications for the whole community would like more information on what action brought this about (cause); short time frame for preparation is unfair, need input from residents; not sure understand why this needs to be done in 35 days instead of correctly; when bought my house went to the Planning Department to see what I could do with my house and I was horrified; interim ordinance should be seen as a "free test drive", it can sunset and be removed; it is correct that if the moratorium ends the flood gates will be open and there will be serious ramifications; this interim ordinance will give us breathing space to go to the drawing board. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, spoke she reviewed the history of this issue back to 1993 noting that 18 months ago she asked the Council to establish a DRB which would look at all second stories and a more consistent FAR; she felt that some regulations are effective, average front setback, like to see an average height also, detached garages should be excluded from FAR because a two car garage is a big burden for a 5000 SF lot; feels that the most effective DRB would be one advisory to the Planning Commission; applicants know rules ahead of time so can choose for themselves to make the process harder or easier. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there is no way to codify taste, need some ability to look at project. Should discuss example ordinance as a way to focus on issues: need design review for all residential uses, hearings long because Commission addressing design, need to have resolved before meeting; design review good place to tell site overbuilt even if within code limits; unclear about what is meant by "internal consistency" of a structure's design, concept good, OK to change style of building with addition as long as architectural style is consistent throughout the structure. CA noted that the only issue before the Planning Commission tonight is changes in the R-1 district, can come back later with a regular ordinance addressing all residential development. Section on possible Planning Commission action should include denial without prejudice. Design review committee should be advisory to the Planning Commission, commission should appoint members; whether this is interim or not depends upon what Council is comfortable with; planning commissioners should not be a member of the DRB; concerned about "home improvement exceptions", if DRB makes recommendations to Commission they can include recommendation on minor exceptions to code; DRB authority should be set out in ordinance. CA advised that may not be necessary to have in ordinance, but Planning Commission can direct that DRB also help applicant to come up with a better application. Concerned about termination of appeal period, not tie to next council meeting OK why select 10 days, suggest 7 days which -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 is generally typical spacing between Planning Commission and Council meetings, only one who would be affected is council members who may not see item when a meeting is cancelled or there is a fifth Monday; issue of how changes to projects submitted before moratorium needs to be discussed in detail; idea was if amend project and greater than 2700 SF need to go through DRB. Commissioner noted that there was some merit to a different approach, designation of someone in the industry to be the DRB consultant, paid by applicant. Could be more effective than volunteers, provide review service in a more timely fashion, if applicant elongates process they will pay for it. Discussion: it's all right to change the architectural style of a house with a remodel if the resulting structure fits in the neighborhood; review lines need to have! "user friendly" terms; concern about appeal process. CA pointed out in this ordinance all applications would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and commission action would be appealable. If a commissioner sits on the DRB then would be uncomfortable unless he would abstain at commission action, potential appearance of conflict of interest; there are astute professionals in other arenas who can understand and bring different outlooks to design review. CA pointed out that if the DRB was composed of less than a majority of engineers and architects they might individually be barred from bringing projects to the city. Commission discussion: Prefer the approach of one professional architect paid by applicant fee who would bring recommendation to the Planning Commission, easier than DRB for interim ordinance. Not need member of Planning Commission to sit on DRB, do need member of commission to attend so not lose sight of what is happening at the DR13, commission member should report back to commission on how the process is working; not like the idea of a single individual doing the review because it is my experience that there is less flexibility in the review process, ends up with that individual's design element, lot of volume for one person to review; it needs more than one person to determine "taste"; need to be careful who is picked for the review board; need continuity in review; concerned about Brown Act requirements and this process; a DRB will have to meet to coincide with commission meetings so will delay processing time possibly as much as 4 weeks; suggest that individual who review could be one of those on a pre -selected list; would put a lot of power over what would be built in town if have a single individual doing all the review; if use people from a pre -selected list need a way to assign, so applicants can't select their preferred. The Commission discussed briefly the remaining steps in this recommendation on neighborhood consistency to Council process: report on progress needs to go to City Council meeting on April 6; on April 20 the City Council must act on the moratorium, one alternative is for Council to adopt interim legislation by urgency. CA Anderson noted that if council were to adopt interim legislation it would be appropriate if it were consistent with the State moratorium requirements and expired March 1, 1999. For action on an interim ordinance the Council would need a draft ordinance with findings and alternatives noted. -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 Given the outline the commission decided to discuss the concepts in the exhibit ordinance one by one: the findings should be amended to include the fact that the current city zoning regulations, if used to their maximum, mandate a specific style of residential construction, because this is having an adverse effect on the residential neighborhoods it is necessary to encourage development of traditional style homes. Commission polled itself on the concept that new regulations should apply to all second story additions, regardless of size or impact; the vote was 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent). On the criteria for design review the commission felt that the one addressing the architectural style of the structure should be clarified to indicate that "all parts of the design fit" with the overall design, this would allow a remodel to change the overall design style of the structure. On procedure commission felt that the actions of the commission should be clarified to include approval, denial, denial without prejudice of any submission by the applicant. On the issue of how the review panel should be constituted commission was divided, on a polling 4 commissioners (Cers. Coffey, Key, Galligan, Mink) felt that review and recommendation to the commission should be done by an individual architect chosen from a preselected list; 2 commissioners (Cers. Deal and Luzuriaga) felt that a subcommittee of the commission should be created whose responsibility would be to review relevant applications and recommend to the commission. There was some additional discussion that the reviewers could be designers or architects, want someone who can get the project through and make it better. The reviewer does not have to be a resident of the city, but someone who understands the design issues in the city. If a subcommittee is used, then the commission should have an observer at the meeting to be sure there is adequate control of the issues reviewed by the board; at least one commissioner felt that a neighborhood representative was an inappropriate appointment want design related professionals, engineers, landscape architects, architects, designers, but should be city residents. One commissioner noted that the reasons for votes of commissioners on such issues are not always clearly understood; it is important that the reasons for any action be clearly transmitted to the commission. CA Anderson noted that he needed to do more research before April 13, on the various legal implications regarding the composition of the review body and the effect on pending permits and applications. C Mink left at 6:12 p.m. The commission then discussed current applications in the application process and how much change they could incorporate before they were required to go through the new design review process: lot of last minute submittals, if changed they should be required to go through the design review; problem is that people change their minds about what they want, minor changes have always been allowed; if bad project submitted to make deadline, don't want to allow change where design review would help project; any change to the footprint should go to DRB, change to interior not a problem. It was the consensus of the commission was that any change to the -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 zoning envelope should be used as a trigger to see that projects submitted after March 1, 1998, are reviewed under the design review process. CA Anderson pointed out that there would be a need to appoint a subcommittee, individual or group of individuals quickly upon adoption of an ordinance. As structured, it would be the planning commission making these appointments. Commissioners discussed if the recommendation should go to the Council as an interim ordinance or a permanent ordinance which the Commission would continue to work on and come up with more refined solutions. CA Anderson suggested a March 1, 1999, sunset clause in any ordinance, on or before that date the city could re -approve the ordinance or put it into the zoning ordinance, the problem is that an ordinance adopted by urgency is not a part of the zoning code, so this process could be permanently free standing of the zoning ordinance. Moreover, the March 1, 1999 sunset would fit within the legal allowances of a moratorium which if extended could go to March 1, 1999. Commission voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) to include a March 1, 1999, sunset clause in any action they recommended to city council. The next step is for the subcommittee to meet and bring to the April 13, 1998, planning commission meeting a revised draft of an ordinance to propose. Commission noted that the packet also included an implementation, hand-out document which was suggested to be distributed to DRB members or individuals, applicants, commission, and council members, to held define the intent of the design criteria included in the ordinance. Commissioners felt that they needed to discuss the contents of this document before they recommended it to City Council. Commission agreed to look at the concepts in the general areas defined since this is a "work in progress"; document about as good as can expect with 5 weeks to come up with and general since neighborhood are different; concerned about section on windows, seems directive in statement that "aluminum and virryl windows should be avoided", do we want that level of detail; seems only section on windows has that level of detail; this document and design guidelines are not mandatory, designer's objective is to work in as many as possible, reviewer will decide whether community intent is met. CA Anderson pointed out that there is some need to provide a method of consistent design review. Concluded that the subcommittee needed to get together and discuss the design guideline document, redraft if necessary and bring back to the April 13 meeting. Need to have some guideline to give to City Council and for staff to give to applicant. Commission decided wanted to pursue the discussion of the design guidelines. Chair asked for a ten minute break at 7:00 p.m. C. Luzuriaga left. Commission reconvened at 7:10 p.m. Commissioners went through the design review document: statement on windows should be broader, don't understand issue of privacy, intent was to state that could. not deny second story 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 additions because they affect privacy of neighbors. CA Anderson noted that neighbors would use guidelines in their positions on projects too. Landscaping requirements should include interesting paving treatments for driveways, reduction of concrete in :front yards, meandering sidewalks approaching front doors, and other methods to visually increase the expanse of the front yard. Garage is the most significant single design item; big issue with neighborhood consistency because of the different treatments in different neighborhoods; commission needs to look at different number of building styles, and where people park, may need to revise parking standards, but subcommittee needs to focus on parking, problem is narrow streets and increasing on street parking. Basics in this document are good; the intent items, like inability to deny application because of privacy, need to be collected together; like the concept of something to work with, a place to start review. Need to acknowledge: that it is not the intent of design review to stock construction of second floors, or to maximize privacy. People need a reasonable expectation of what the review can do. Applicants need to begin by talking with their neighbors, this should be added to the guidelines. Commission discussed when to review the proposed changes and elaborations of these documents. They decided that the commission would meet at 6:00 p.m. before their next regular meeting on April 13, 1998, to review the revised documents and make a recommendation to council. C. Coffey noted that he would not be at the meeting of April 13. REVIEW OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS IN SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL AREA AND INTHE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. Chair Key noted that there were several people in the audience for the commission's second item revision of the requirements for food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area and in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Several Commissioners noted that, in the face of the moratorium issue, they had not had time to thoroughly review this item. C. Galligan, chair of the subcommittee on food establishment regulation noted that the subcommittee had met on Friday and made some revisions to the document included here, the purpose of including it was to let the commission know the direction of their thinking; the specific wording is still being worked on. The general approach is to establish within these two areas five categories of food establishment and identify where the existing food establishments fit. The designations by type are "soft" until the merchants themselves :have had time to input. Chair Key opened the public hearing since there were people in the audience who had come for this matter. Cliff Woods, 234 Primrose, Chicken! Chicken! spoke. He; noted that he had had some experience in his previous career drawing distinctions among similar items and felt that simple was better, i.e., fewer categories; he noted that Round Table Pizza did not appear to be included in any of the lists; why were the conditions of take-out food service included in only the specialty restaurant category. Commissioner noted that currently there is no differentiation and the potential for traffic and parking problems accruing from that is what has led to the need to look at a greater differentiation among these uses. The general feeling is that the present -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 1998 balance is acceptable, so the ordinance would not look to a substantial change in composition or direction. There were no further comments form the public and the hearing was closed. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT Chair Key asked for a motion to adjourn. C. Galligan moved for adjournment; the motion was seconded by C. Coffey. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. MINUTES3.30 F:11 Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary