Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061305PCJointminCITY OF BURLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 13, 2005 Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Galligan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Baylock, O'Mahony, Nagel; Mayor Galligan Commissioners: Brownrigg, Cauchi (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Deal, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica (arrived at 6:30 p.m.); Chair Auran Absent: Councilman Coffey Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. FROM THE FLOOR It was noted that if there is not sufficient time at this meeting for public comment, the Planning Commission will be meeting immediately following and the public is welcome to make any comments they wish at the From the Floor at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. IV. DISCUSSION ITEM 1: UPDATE ON THE COMMISSION'S PROGRESS ON DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTING ZONING FO RHTE BAYFRONT AND NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLANS AND ON THE MAJOR REVISON TO THE SIGN CODE. CP Monroe reviewed the briefing paper she handed out on this issue summarizing the status of the work of the three Subcommittees of the Planning Commission assigned to work on the zoning implementation for the two Specific Plans and the Sign Code. The briefing paper included the currently projected public review schedule for the zoning amendment and sign code which will come to the Planning Commission and City Council for study and action. She asked if the Council and Commission wanted to schedule a study meeting in September for presentation of the new sign code. Mayor Galligan asked Councilmembers Baylock and Nagel if they would agree to join the Planning Commission subcommittee working on the sign code. If , after they come up to speed on the proposed changes, they agree with the commissioners on the subcommittee that a joint meeting is needed they should report back to the Council with a proposal. Members of the subcommittees on zoning noted that the proposed zoning, especially for the North Burlingame area is also taking a new approach which will result in a dramatic change in the appearance of the area. A Councilmember noted that it would be good to encourage more height in the El Camino Real area close to BART. CITY OF BURLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 2005 2 ITEM 2: FUTURE LONG TERM PLANNING FOR THE BULINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. CP Monroe referred to the briefing paper for this item noting that it was divided into two related topics: (1), the economic study for the downtown area; and (2), proposals for future downtown vision and development presentations. Economic study: it was noted by the CP that City Council had directed staff in April to prepare an economic study which could be a precursor to preparing a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area of Burlingame and would provide an opportunity to look at the economics of mixed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The downtown area was defined as the area bounded by Peninsula Avenue (south side), El Camino Real (west side), the rear of the properties along Oak Grove Avenue (north side) and the railroad tracks (east side). In April the council set out two general purposes for the economic study: (1), to develop a baseline for the economy of the downtown area, to determine the "attraction" capacity by land use and type of business for the area, and to project the demand by use for the next 20 years or so; and (2), as a subset, to evaluate the alternatives for the mix and density of uses appropriate for future development of the combined lots at El Camino Real, Howard Avenue, Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane. Staff has been directed to bring a proposal for how to proceed with the economic study to the City Council at their meeting on June 20, 2005. Discussion points made by one or more participants regarding the economic study of the Downtown Area: • In the interest of time let the Planning Commission prepare the RFP and involve the community when the consultant has started. • A key interest expressed in the discussion about the economic study was evaluation of the viability of a mixed use (scale and size) on the Safeway site so may need a broader based committee to prepare the RFP to get credibility for the study. • Need to determine what is an economically viable use on the Safeway site. • The study will be funded from the Parking Enterprise Fund because of its focus on integrating public and private activities in the BACA. • A wider area than the Safeway site needs to be evaluated in the economic study. • Would like to incorporate different combinations of land uses on the Safeway site and what is necessary for a reasonable project for the developer. • Important to remember the broader vision for the area, and not get too focuses on the Safeway site. • Include an evaluation of the revenues to the city from proposed uses and the "costs" to the city for maintaining the infrastructure based on the impacts of different mixes and uses. • Determine the critical mass necessary for mixed use on a site and how the public spaces work into that. • Determine the role of the land value of the parking lots and how to arrive at that value. • How should parking work with mix of residential and commercial uses, should it be shared., and how much parking is really needed. CITY OF BURLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 2005 3 • Look at land uses which will bring people into the downtown area, such as movie theater, boutique hotel or bed and breakfast, etc. • The current location of parking lot location in the downtown area is haphazard. • What is the cost of below grade parking, above grade structure parking, what is the appropriate mix? • The economic study will need to listen to the public and provide education for the public. • The economic study should give some idea about the size and economic impact of a project and whether we should allow a use at that size at a given site. So if the study says OK can come back with a project. • Hate to see large land use decisions made only on a financial analysis, such decisions should be based on goals set by planning for the entire area . • Should shorten time to prepare RFP so can get going. Staff noted that some of these issues identified may go beyond the economic study; and these concerns will be carried over to the Specific Plan study for the downtown area. Discussion about Proposals for Visions and Future Projects in the Downtown Area: Many of the land use density issues and allocations are part of the downtown vision which will be a focus of the Downtown Plan to be undertaken in a year and a half from now. If the idea is to proceed with the economic study now, should we tell applicants to wait for submittal for a year and a half to three years? It was generally noted that an education component is key for both the economic and specific plan. Points made in the discussion were: • It might be best to wait for these public presentations until the economist is hired so s/he can listen as well. • Feel the more presentations the better. • Educate the public, good to see the previous Ionescu and Dreiling presentations together. • Could make presentations at the first 30 minutes of Council meetings so would be televised and repeatable (video taped for rebroadcast). • Could do developer presentations in group forums. • Where does an AIA design charrette fit into this? • Feel that a design charrette is a part of the planning program. Needs some lead time to plan since these opportunities book up a year in advance. Beyond the thought that it would be useful for the public and city officials to hear from architects and developers with "visions" or proposals for the downtown area, the group arrived at no specific decision about how to do it. There seemed to be consensus that having public presentations before the city embarked on a specific plan for the downtown area was appropriate. ITEM 3: PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 2005-2006 CP Monroe referred to her third briefing paper noting that the city's planning activities are divided into current and advanced planning She commented that there are a significant number of current planning projects in the pipe line for Commission action and the present advanced planning zoning program to CITY OF BURLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 2005 4 implement the specific plans adopted in 2004 will not be completed until the December/January time frame. Commissioner Auran suggested that another item be added to the department's work program for 2005-2006; tweaking the design guidelines and bringing the R-1 zoning district into more consistency with the residential design guidelines. This would speed up project reviews. It was suggested that a commission subcommittee be appointed to look at the R-1 zoning district; and that it would be appropriate for the subcommittee to include representation by the design reviewers. There was general consensus on this item. Mayor Galligan noted that the Commissioners needed to get to their meeting and encouraged any members of the audience who wished to comment on the discussion at the joint meeting to attend the Planning Commission meeting and speak from the floor at the beginning of the commission's agenda. Mayor Galligan adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.