Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, March 22, 2004 Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the March 22, 2004, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Auran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The Commission noted that on Page 5 of the minutes of the March 8, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, regarding the application at 1261 Balboa Avenue, a statement should be added that "given the mass and bulk of the house proposed it would be difficult to approve the lot split." There were no other changes and C. Osterling made a motion to approve the March 8, 2004 regular meeting minutes with the change noted. C. Keighran seconded the motion. The motion to approve the March 8, 2004 minutes passed on a 6-0-1(C. Auran absent) voice vote. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Since this is a special study session, the chair determined that the public comment should be moved to after the study session, and noted that comments would be limited to the subject of the study session. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 1. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN – STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (279 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe introduced Tom Ford with Design, Community and Environment, project consultant, who presented a brief summary of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the workshops and subcommittee meeting decisions which led to the Draft Specific Plan. He noted that there had been five public workshops and three meetings of the Planning Commission subcommittee. He then reviewed each of the plan subareas and highlighted some of the concepts proposed. He noted that there had been a comment in an earlier study session regarding bike lanes at the northern gateway on Rollins Road, and explained why they were not included; this concept was reviewed with Fehr and Peers, the traffic engineer working on the project, and it was determined that there is not enough right-of-way on the northernmost end of Rollins Road to include bike lanes and parking. Commission noted that California Drive, which runs parallel to Rollins Road, also connects to the BART/Caltrain station and useable bike lanes are proposed there. The traffic engineer suggested the use of what is called a "sharrow", which is markings in an auto travel lane showing that the lane is intended to be shared by bicycles and cars. The twelve-foot width proposed for the travel lanes on Rollins Road are a standard and required given the truck traffic on that street, it would not be appropriate to consider narrower travel lanes. To show how a planning concept works through the plan document, CP Monroe introduced a discussion of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 2 the Adrian Road Auto District and the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. This also demonstrated how a staff member or developer would use the plan to determine if a given project were appropriate in these areas. Commissioners made comments and asked for clarification as follows: El Camino Real North Area: • There is a strong pattern of residential uses along El Camino Real in Burlingame, this should be continued. • Like the idea of having narrow setbacks with raised residential entrances and front stoops on California Drive. • Is the first floor retail component along the east side of El Camino Real viable, will there be a market for the small, service retail space proposed, does it introduce a strip commercial experience that Burlingame has avoided; where will customers park, and if off-street, how will the parking be managed? • When referring to the BART station, it should be called an intermodal station, there are CalTrain and SamTrans services there as well. • Would like to see a plan view illustration of the El Camino Real/Trousdale intersection as proposed. • Would like to see more thought given to what happens on the west side of El Camino adjacent to the Burlingame Plaza shopping center, if the frontage road area is to be developed, it needs to be something that the owners of the shopping center would like to see there; if frontage road is to be abandoned and the entrance to the shopping center reconfigured, would like to see how it would look. • Need to have a visual simulation and plan view with aerial photo base comparing existing versus proposed improvements for the El Camino Real right-of-way in this corridor. • Think that the block east of the hospital along El Camino Real should be treated differently than the block to the north, should encourage medical uses or institutional uses such as convalescent hospitals; the California frontage of the block could continue residential. • In Subarea B-4, north of Trousdale, could there be an additional incentive for affordable housing if someone were to offer to keep the units affordable in perpetuity? • Subarea B-4 should also be considered for Senior Housing/Assisted Living opportunities. • Could a policy be added that would require that the sidewalks on El Camino Real in the planning area be connected with the pedestrian network on El Camino Real to the south. • Bicycle access should be encouraged along California Drive rather than El Camino Real. • Can El Camino Real in the planning area be narrowed even more, to four lanes, like the rest of El Camino Real in Burlingame? o Staff and the consultant noted that in meetings with Caltrans, it did not appear that they would be amenable to a change in the lane configuration or willing to give up right-of-way. • Will people actually use the parking proposed along the west side of El Camino Real in front of the Plaza shopping center, could that parking be eliminated to further narrow the street? • The illustration of the Magnolia/Trousdale intersection should be modified to reflect the revised hospital entrance (when revised plans are submitted). Rollins Road Area: • In some cross-sections, the sidewalks are shown as 5' wide, why are they so narrow? o Consultant noted that the sidewalks on Rollins Road are shown as 5' wide because that is the existing width, there is substantial cost in replacing all the sidewalks and there is not enough right-of-way to provide wider sidewalks without narrowing the roadway (which would eliminate either parking or make the travel lanes too narrow for trucks). • Need to revise the plan to show that the road connection between Rollins and Adrian Roads is a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 3 "floating" road, with the location to be determined as the area develops/redevelops and opportunity presents itself. • The plan needs to include a map of the proposed pedestrian trail system in the Rollins Road area; this could also include bicycle routes and paths; • Should look at the spur track right-of-way and drainage area between the Caltrain tracks and the Guittard properties, it would be a great area for a trail, path or dog run, can we provide incentives to developers to encourage them to incorporate a trail along this section. • Alternatively, a bike trail could be provided west of the Caltrain tracks along California Drive in the old street car right-of-way, which runs from Burlingame Avenue to the Millbrae border, this might be more accessible and continuous than the area east of the tracks. • There should be incentives provided for the properties at the Broadway/Rollins Road entry to make a gateway statement, on the northeast corner the gateway should extend to include all the properties north to the PG&E substation, taller buildings could provide an architectural statement if we give direction on design elements which would be acceptable; one of the parcels on the west side already has a building about 100 feet tall, could extend that statement to both sides on the north of the Rollins Road intersection, perhaps allow a 50' height and greater density than is now proposed; the future reconstruction of the Broadway interchange to become an urban interchange may affect the design of the gateway, maybe even phasing; gateway statement should also include a landscape element, need incentives to aggregate these parcels to get a safer access and circulation system and a more pleasing design with on-site parking and the properties on both sides of Rollins on the north side of Broadway should be included. • Don't see that the Broadway/Rollins intersection is a gateway, when coming into town, can't see the building on the corner now, don’t think just having a big boxy building there will be a gateway statement, need to define better what we mean by gateway. • Live/work option in northern Rollins Road Area should be kept, there is a need to provide a different type of housing, most people who are attracted to this type of housing do not have children, so it is not essential that the area be integrated with the rest of the city and the school system; still would preserve the economic base if only allowed live/work on a limited basis; • Need to be careful with the live/work option, how do we define what types of businesses would be allowed and how do we maintain the live/work use and not see it abused as housing only or for businesses not allowed in the industrial area; there is a very limited market for this type of housing associated with manufacturing or fabrication uses. • concerned with signage on Adrian Road, want to make sure the design guidelines establish that the types of sign lighting that are appropriate as well as the size and design. o Staff noted that the sign provisions in the guidelines are meant to be general and establish intent, the specifics will be worked out with an amendment to the sign code for the area. • concerned with the trees and other landscaping on the private property along Adrian Road, want to make sure species, location and management, both on private property and along the freeway edge are addressed carefully. • Need to add maximum height regulations and amend the maps and figures for the Rollins Road/Adrian Road areas, should be kept similar to existing heights, 35 feet review line. General: • Add titles to the graphic illustrations in the design guidelines to key them to the text. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2004 4 VI. FROM THE FLOOR Chair Bojués asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. John Ward, 792 Willborough Place, noted that he had submitted a letter on behalf of the owners of property at Broadway and Rollins Road, was encouraged by the Commission's discussion of this area and the possibility of offering incentives for land use, height and density in exchange for creating a gateway statement at this intersection; suggested that the Commission look at examples of live/work projects which have been built along El Camino Real in San Mateo to determine if that approach is feasible, there were conditions attached to those approvals that placed limitations on the live/work use, maybe it would be possible to see how effective they have been. Bruce Balshone, Pacific Resources, 500 Airport Boulevard, indicated that the live/work concept has been a disaster in San Francisco, residential lofts and industrial uses have turned out not to be compatible, negatively affecting the industrial area; in San Francisco residential went into industrial area because the land was cheap, but there was no use relationship between the lofts and the rest of the area, and the industrial base is being lost; in addition the redevelopment sponsored concept of mixed storefronts and apartments has also had mixed success in San Francisco, many of the retail spaces built remained vacant, now have either been used by non-profits or converted to residential use; there has not been the demand for the small space retail of the type included in these projects. There were no further comments and Chair Bojués closed the public comments. VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Vice-Chair S:\MINUTES\unapproved Minutes 03.22.04.doc