HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.12.29BURLINGAME SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DoubleTree Hotel
December 29,1998
12:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the meeting to order at 12:20 p.m.
Roll Call
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
Minutes:
Agenda:
From the Floor:
ACTION ITEMS
Deal, Boju6s, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica
none
City Attorney Anderson, City Planner Monroe
The Commissioners approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting of
December 14, 1998, by acclamation.
There were no changes to the agenda
There were no comments from the floor.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF
PROCEDURE
CA Anderson briefly presented the proposed revisions to the commission's rules of procedure. He
noted that since the commission study of this item he had added two sections: procedures for the
implementation and use of a consent calendar and a procedure for appeals including fees.
Commissioners commented: revision seems well done, it reflects what the commission does; asked
if a member of the public calls when does a commissioner have to state that, CA noted depends upon
what is said and if it is information which could influence the commission's decision, chair is very
good about noting that each of you visit the sites; should rules of procedure list appropriate types of
contact, it is not necessary, each commissioner is responsible for disclosure.
C. Key moved for approval of a resolution to adopt the revised commission rules of procedure. The
motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote and the motion passed
on a 7-0 vote.
HOW TO CALCULATE FAR, THE LOW CEILING ISSUE
CP Monroe noted the key points of the staff report explaining that the issue was how to address in
calculating FAR living areas in existing houses which did not meet the currently required 7'-6" ceiling
height, but were not below grade enough to be called a basement.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 29, 1998
Commissioner discussion: if such an area has been developed as living, area and is not a basement,
it should be counted in FAR calculation; FAR calculation should include improved areas only, low
ceilinged storage areas should be exempt; building code will allow continued use of such areas so long
as they do not present a life safety issue; such areas have a negative effect since they are and will
always be substandard living space, but also have a positive effect since with the improvements they
are additional living area, would like to have a special permit process to review such situations when
these improved areas too far out of the ground to be called a basement cause the FAR to be exceeded;
could such special permits be put on the consent calendar, yes.
The consensus was that if the area does not meet the definition of basement, even if it has a ceiling
height of less than 7'-6", it should be included in calculating the FAR. However, the space counted
should be that which is improved, not low ceilinged storage areas. The commission should consider
adding a special permit provision to address FAR exceptions created by such existing living areas when
houses are remodeled or additions are made.
DISCUSS THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
CP Monroe noted that the Design Review Subcommittee had met recently with the Design Review
Consultants and a revision to the current review process had been discussed. The Design Reviewers
noted that they would like to assume more responsibility for completeness in plans and to have their
recommendations required before an item can go forward to the Planning Commission.
Commission discussion: feel that the design review process is subjective and applicants need a way
to proceed through the process when they have reached an honest disagreement; feel that just because
a Design Reviewer gives a positive recommendation does not mean that the commission cannot deny,
since the commission has a broader view of the project and its setting as well as code requirements.
Consensus was that the design review submittal calendar should be revised and that submittal dates and
initial review dates should be set, but dates for commission agenda placement should be left open to
be determined by the results of the design review. Placement options could be study/action or consent
calendar depending upon the project and its review.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ONE STORY HOUSE ADDITIONS OR REMODELS.
Chairman Deal noted that he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda. He had Faxed to the
commissioners and staff a proposal for extending design review to first floor additions. His reasoning
was that the present regulations allow a loop hole, for construction of large one-story houses with
attached one car garages which are out of character for the neighbors where they are located; moreover
if additions are made later (or living area extended into attic areas) there is no option to expand
parking on the site, forcing a variance or impacting on street parking. Present regulations designed
to create incentives for people to meet neighborhood patterns and character, these new one story
projects get the maximum without providing any of the amenities. He suggested a Design Review
Committee of the Planning Commission made up of three commissioners with one alternate. This
committee would review all first story residential projects and determine which ones could go forward
to get a building permit and which ones would be required to be reviewed by a Design Reviewer and
go to the Planning Commission for approval. The committee would meet for 45 minutes before each
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 29, 1998
Planning Commission meeting. If they were not able to review all the projects then they would meet
for an hour on the Wednesday following the commission meeting. CA Anderson noted that such a
standing committee of the Commission was required to comply with the Brown Act and would have
to have the agenda of projects to be reviewed posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Commission discussion: prefer to have regulations to direct people, it is less discretionary than
review; what are we trying to stop, construction of single story single family houses built to the
maximum FAR with attached garages which are very marketable but have no design review and do
not follow the neighborhood pattern; on what basis would a project be denied, because it is not
compatible with the neighborhood; even with reduced FAR a one story house with high ceilings and
a steep peaked roof is a big house; need to stop this before it gets started, can we modify the code that
these houses cannot add a second floor or change the parking requirements; can we place a disclosure
on the deed, so future buyer would know could not add; charming neighborhoods are disappearing
quickly, need to close loop hole; objective is a two car garage, no compatibility with neighborhood,
some neighborhoods have only one car garages; are we too lenient with parking requirements, have
an on street parking problem; can we limit roof height for one story buildings, need to allow for
architectural design; requiring two covered off street parking spaces for fewer bedrooms would result
in more two car garages on the street, prefer the long driveway to house cars; could limit review to
percentage of FAR allowed; issue is where does design committee review begin with a green house
window or a minimum square footage of addition.
Commission discussion continued: to make it simple need to look at all first floor additions; if look
at percentage of FAR then people with big houses and lots get an advantage; can we use a sliding scale
of square footage; think Commission Design Review Committee should review early in the submittal
process before any fees are paid and focus only on those that need to go on for additional review;
could begin this process and then review after 6 months or so to see if committee could suggest
additional exceptions; see that this will delay all single family applicants two to three weeks, problem
is the developer not the homeowner, so homeowner should get some waiver; problem now is developer
but that will change.
Commission consensus: direct staff to prepare a draft- of an ordinance f'or commission review at the
January 25, 1998, meeting. The ordinance would create a Commission Review Committee composed
of three commissioners and one alternate. The Committee would review all applications for additions
onto or new one story houses with the exception of any addition of 2,50 square feet or less. The
committee will meet for 45 minutes before each planning commission meeting and, if the reviews are
not completed, meet again on the following Wednesday from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The meeting
agendas shall be posted 72 hours in advance in City Hall and the public will be allowed to speak from
the floor at each meeting. The ordinance shall sunset 12 months from its date of adoption unless
reapproved by the City Council.
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.
MINUTE12.29
-3-