Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042404JointPC-CCminUNAPPROVED MINUTES Saturday, April 24, 2004 Joint Study Meeting Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission 1. STUDY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A joint study meeting of the Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission was held on April 24, 2004 at Burlingame City Hall in Conference Room A. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony. 2. ROLL CALL Council Present: Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony Council Absent: Baylock Commissioners Present: Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Commissioners Absent: (Keele left at 11:20 a.m.) Staff Present: CM Nantell, CP Monroe, CA Anderson, DPW Bagdon, SP Brooks, AE Gomery 3. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Commission and Council discussed the following topics and gave direction to staff as follows: CURRENT PLANNING a. Current Planning: Workload Projections and Issues CP Monroe noted that the Planning Department is primarily a current planning operation, until recently, have not done a lot of advanced planning. The department's main operations consists of processing applications, providing public information and some code enforcement. Given heavy work volumes in recent years and long Commission agendas, thought it might be time to do a thorough review of the regulations with an eye towards streamlining them and the review process. Council and Commission comment: In looking at the data, it appears that some projects come before the Commission three or four times, would like to see suggestions on how that number can be reduced; how many applications have been on the agenda more than twice; the table shows that code enforcement activity has gone down over the last few years. CP Monroe noted that fewer than ten percent of applications are brought to the Commission more than twice. She explained that we now have a code enforcement officer and enforcement activities that are interdepartmental are now handled by others, reducing the Planning Department's time commitment. It was noted that the number of variance applications processed has been reduced significantly. City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -2- Continued discussion: The Code regulations for setback, declining height envelope, floor area ratio (FAR) are clearly spelled out, if we are dealing with zoning, should be staying with the code, if the FAR regulations allow a certain square footage buildout, Planning Commission shouldn't be taking it upon themselves to reduce it, if the floor area regulations are to be reduced, it should be brought to the Council as an ordinance change. If someone buys a property and the code says you can build 3000 square foot house and then designs the house to be 2999 SF, and it comes to the Planning Commission who asks to reduce it by 10%, the whole project has to be redesigned. Realtors will start telling buyers that you can't count on the code, and buyers will be wary of Burlingame and values will decline. CM Nantell noted that it appears that this discussion is evolving to the residential mass and bulk issue and suggested that we move that item forward on the agenda and continue to talk about it at this time. b. Residential Mass and Bulk – An Ongoing Debate Council/Commission discussion: Burlingame's floor area ratio ordinance is a model for the Peninsula, the rare aberrations where the design doesn't fit the neighborhood and the structure needs to be reduced are par for the course; a house can be built to the maximum floor area and may not look big if it is designed properly, the heart of the issue is design review, saying that a house needs to be cut back by 10% is like fly swatting, it can be taken out of the back and the mass and bulk of the house will still look the same, will not impact the streetscape; the bigger issues are creek side lots and reemerging lots, we are working on code changes to address these situations, our current policy on design review and FAR is being emulated throughout the Peninsula, we should nurture the lots that can be built on. When looking at mass and bulk through the design review process, the Planning Commission has the discretion to occasionally ask for a reduction in FAR, can't rely solely on the code, it is intended to be used hand in hand with the design guidelines, the application of the code standards depends on the circumstances. With design review, a project may be maxed out on FAR with a design that works well and fits in, that is not the issue, we may need to look at the design review guidelines and refine them, consider incentives like providing porches because it softens the look of a house, a porch shouldn't count in the floor area calculation. Other commissioners are concerned about open space, on average most projects are not maxed out on lot coverage, it should be at the discretion of the Planning Commission whether FAR is an issue on a specific project, FAR can also be addressed with landscape screening which can be elaborated on a landscape plan. It is not necessarily an issue of FAR, it's mass and bulk, might want to consider eliminating the declining height envelope, that issue can be addressed through asking for more articulation on the side walls; yards are not typically too small, the driveway and area in front of the garage are useable yard space, a lot of the older houses, even large ones, seem less massive because of articulation. Concur that we need more direction than to tell an applicant to reduce floor area by 10%, agree that there are additional things to address mass and bulk, such as giving direction on porches, propose that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission look at refining the design guidelines. It would be helpful to give people examples of good design, perhaps with a recognition program; concur that the guidelines give some direction, felt that within the guidelines could say that a house doesn't fit, what is difficult is the cumulative impact of large houses like what we are seeing with the project at City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -3- 1537 Drake and the impact of the next house with the maximum FAR on the same block, with 70 to 80 homes built to the max in one neighborhood, it feels more crowded, maybe the FAR regulation is okay, but could work on lot coverage and consider reducing it, encourage basements so that houses are not built setback to setback; this diminishes the attractiveness of Burlingame as a residential community. Agree that the design review process is working well and is the envy of the Peninsula, it has been in place for several years now and it might be good to go back and tweak the guidelines, concerned if we see 70 to 80 houses built to the same size and shape, stucco with composition shingle roof, homogeneous house pattern, that is not what we are trying to preserve, we haven't been seeing houses with porches and other small elements at the front to break up the mass, should be encouraging variation in the houses we see, don't know if the issue is FAR so much as lack of diversity, design review is not about the plan of a single house, but fitting it in with each particular neighborhood. Agree that we should modify the design guidelines and keep the FAR regulations as they are now, Palo Alto has regulations that encourage basements which helps get away from the postage stamp back yards, need to look at that and other alternatives so that we are giving sound guidance. We have not requested that many projects reduce the FAR by 10%, it is a fairly small percentage, but the 1500 block of Drake has been hit hard, an architect has come in with a house that would be okay on any other block, but because of the cumulative impact on this one block, the proposed house does not fit; would like to see guidelines that encourage large porches, and other design elements without impacting FAR, and would like to see a requirement for a two-car garage for any house with three or more bedrooms; would like to see some massages to the design guidelines. There are plenty of examples of good design, can take pictures of the good projects and add them to the design guidelines; in discussing basements need to be aware that they are expensive to build, $200-300 per square foot, in addition to the economics, should look at the issue of bedrooms in basements, do you want the children sleeping in the basement when the parents are upstairs, it is a safety issue, there is also a liability issue with basements, the developer is liable for ten years and there could be mold and drainage problems because of our high water table, if it is not done correctly it could impact neighbors with shoring and underground water flow; there are more disadvantages than advantages. Having photos in the design guidelines may be a good idea, it would give direction to new architects, as kids get older, having some separation with bedrooms in basements can be a good thing; we now have a cadre of architects who understand what we are looking for, would be good to tighten up the design guidelines, it would be a realistic thing to do and could be done in a short time frame; some people who buy a lot may not want a big back yard, should have the choice, need to keep in mind that the driveway is part of the yard space, could establish a subcommittee to look at design guidelines, and some of the code requirements that need to be tweaked based on recent decisions on design review projects. Should discuss in more depth, happy with FAR requirements now, but if we're concerned about the cumulative impact and equity, may need to look at FAR, but explore other ways to address mass and bulk issue first. If you look at the cumulative impact on a block, the first one on the block gets the best, with the most FAR, second one doesn't, have a problem with the fairness of that, if the owner wants a bigger house and less yard, it is not for us to decide, when we talk about the maximum profit of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -4- developer, all houses built are for families. If we show examples of twelve houses that the Commission likes, you will get the same twelve houses, it will decrease the diversity; also struggle with the "I have mine, you can't get yours" equity issue. Agree with characterization that there is a cumulative impact, but it also raises issues of accountability and predictability of numbers, the key is balance, so that all the needs of the community are served and people who live here and those coming in know what to expect. Basements don't have to be sleeping rooms, they can be recreation rooms, storage, play areas, if we are worried about mass and bulk, at least basements are invisible, let's consider that option, at least it might encourage people to take the junk out of the garage and put it into the basement. In Palo Alto, sixty percent of new construction is built with basements; when the issue of basements was discussed in the neighborhood consistency subcommittee, the idea expressed was that basements should not be mandatory, but could be offered as an option. The consensus of the discussion was to look at the issue of mass and bulk, starting with a look at the design guidelines and discuss some code regulations to provide incentives for architectural elements that break up the mass and bulk as well as looking at encouraging basements. c. Revise the Second Unit Amnesty Program: Add More Incentives for Affordable Housing CP Monroe noted that the second unit amnesty regulations were amended last year, and at that time the Council directed that the program be reviewed again to waive the off-street parking requirement for the second unit as an incentive if the unit is affordable. Council/Commission discussion: The suggestion was brought up to help make the program successful, parking is now a disincentive, the units are already there so whatever parking is not on site is being accommodated now, hoping to bring more people forward and keep the housing costs low; the incremental increase in on-street parking would be small and the total impact would be minimal, would like to encourage more applications to come forward; one of the concerns is safe housing, if the units are brought up to code it will increase safety for the tenants. It was concluded that this code amendment would be a good idea and would not take a lot of staff time to prepare, but should depend this year on the work program priorities. d. Demolition Permit Process and Historic Buildings CP Monroe described the demolition permit process and noted that it is not a discretionary permit, if an applicant meets the requirements, a permit must be issued. Since there is no discretion, there is no notification procedure and no CEQA action required. There is a better chance that application for a demolition permit will be delayed when a planning approval is required for a project. Generally such projects are also subject to CEQA. Council/Commission discussion: A lot of the older commercial buildings are unsound, the Regan building on California Drive had no reinforcing and was unsafe, with land so valuable would be reluctant to change demolition regulations. Would like to see this as part of the work program with City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -5- a higher weight on commercial buildings; would be a good way to keep track of the existing building stock, there is an effort to see the City grow, but it should grow in the right way. ADVANCED PLANNING a. Zoning Implementation for the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plans and Housing Element Work Program Update and FY 2004-2005 Projects CP Monroe noted that now that the Bayfront Specific Plan has been adopted and with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan expected to be completed by July, there are some zoning regulations which need to be revised and updated to implement these two plans. She noted that this is not really an optional work item, because State law requires that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan, including the Specific Plans. The main thrust of this work item would be to make sure we update the zoning regulations to include uses envisioned in the plan, and that the regulations related to development are consistent with land use direction and the design guidelines of each plan. Council/Commission discussion: It was noted that staff will also be working on the hospital project, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and Council has been working with the applicant and this has been a refreshing and rewarding experience; would like to compliment the efforts of the applicants and their willingness to work with the Committee to revise the project to match the vision of the community, we are making great strides. Would like to see an analysis of the impact to services of the proposed changes in the planning areas. Staff clarified that the hospital site is now zoned unclassified and is designated for institutional uses. A parcel which is owned by the applicant on Marco Polo but which is not part of the proposed hospital project is proposed to be designated for residential uses, together with the rest of the properties along Marco Polo in that block. The remaining area on the hospital site that is not a part of the current project will be submitted with a development plan for City consideration later. b. Community Visioning/Comprehensive General Plan Update CP Monroe described the community visioning process and noted that it is usually the first step in an update of the General Plan which is a blueprint for future development. The first question to ask is if there is a problem with the current blueprint; we have recently completed a visioning/blueprint process for the Bayfront and North Burlingame areas as well as a comprehensive Housing Element update. Council/Commission comment: The visioning suggestion was made, but given the current workload it may not make sense to do at this time, the key issue is downtown Burlingame and the disconnect we have seen between development proposals and the vision of the citizens for this area; visioning is important, the existing general plan and the principles expressed are great, but it was written in 1969 and at some point we will have to go through an update, but think we might find that the visioning now would validate the current plan. The existing plan is compliant with State law, the Housing Element was certified in 2002, the question is, does the plan reflect the community's values, and in recent applications, we have found that it is still valid. City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -6- c. Specific Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and its Environs. CP Monroe noted that the concept for preparing a Specific Area Plan came up in two contexts, the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and its parking issues, and the multiple family development activity happening in the residential areas surrounding the commercial area. The Burlingame Improvement Committee (BIC) was recently formed to implement the 1996 streetscape program for Burlingame Avenue. It was noted that although there has been discussion regarding funding the streetscape program using the Business District Improvement capital improvement program (CIP), the decision on funding will come through the budget process in June. CA Anderson noted that the parking revenue received must be used for some parking purpose which has been defined to include parking structures, sidewalks and streetscape, but this money cannot go to the general fund nor can it be used to fund programs that are not parking related. DPW Bagdon clarified that at the budget study session, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2004-2005 was reviewed and $500,000 was shown for Burlingame Avenue streetscape; the City Council will take action on the CIP in the June budget hearings. Because of the recent rate increase and concern expressed about the fee increase there will be a study done in the fall to see how the parking behavior in the area has changed and determine if there is still a parking deficiency in the core area. It could be decided at that time whether to build parking or to fund the streetscape program. Council/Commission Discussion: would like to see the area studied, would like to encourage Howard Avenue to mirror Burlingame Avenue, see the parking changes implemented to drive vibrancy to Howard, that would also give direction to Safeway on what the vision is for Howard; regarding Auto Row, now that we will be encouraging auto-related uses in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, may see some changes to Auto Row on California Drive and see land use changes and people being attracted to California Drive, want to make sure that the parking issues on California Drive are addressed to encourage safe parking patterns. Continued discussion: agree that we should be encouraging development on the Howard Avenue corridor, the area is underused now, should look at the uses and streetscape for that area, there is limited parking, but if the streetscape on Howard is improved, it could be a magnet for new uses, the streetscape on Burlingame Avenue is not too bad, would rather see attention paid to Howard, which is also included in the 1996 streetscape plan. Studying downtown makes a lot of sense, Planning Commission and Council have spent a lot of time looking at proposals that don't match our vision for the area, residents have expressed concern that the village feel of the area has been compromised by chain stores, important to maintain a mix of uses; for the residential areas, the new inclusionary housing regulations allow a height of 46 feet as compared to the current 35-foot review line, this is a big change. Concur that Howard is underdeveloped and could be tied better to downtown, also need to look at the residential densities and height, should it be 46', the density may be appropriate because people can walk to downtown, the train station, but it needs to be balanced, need to look at all the information; also if we want to talk about preserving historic commercial buildings, there are some charming buildings on Howard Avenue, but a lot of new uses require a parking variance, may want to look at providing parking incentives to discourage demolition. City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -7- Discussion continued: See merits of a specific plan, but would like to see the Business Improvement District (BID) born, don't want to do anything to jeopardize that, there might be different priorities for improvements based on the BID, must not derail the merchant's efforts, need to let them know that the area is in the City's priorities and that we are supportive, but think we are putting the cart before the horse, maybe the efforts on the streetscape could be put off six months and then get the BID and the BIC involved together in the process to implement the streetscape plan. DPW Bagdon noted that when the Broadway Streetscape Plan was implemented, Public Works worked with the BID on the particulars of the streetscape implementation (made some changes and adjusted scheduling), that was a positive experience and would like to approach Burlingame Avenue the same way. The BIC was created before the BID movement got started and was intended to create a group to assist in implementing the 1996 streetscape plan. We looked at starting implementation now because we have just raised the rates and want to show the benefit from that. Would like to involve both the BID and BIC as a resource for the streetscape process. Continued discussion: At this point we need to take a deep breath and wait until it is determined that the BID is in place or not, then we can revisit the issue in September, this is an important issue, but want to get the BID going first. Not sure it has to be mutually exclusive, don't see the need for extensive land use planning on Burlingame Avenue, that part could go ahead, need to look more closely at the Howard Avenue area. Regarding the height issue in the residential areas, the zoning code allows a conditional use permit for 46 foot height, should respect that, this is a great area for seniors because can walk to downtown, the Planning Commission should honor that code provision. Would like to see all three shopping districts addressed together in some way so there can be a link, Burlingame Avenue, Broadway and the Burlingame Plaza. Briefly the cost of a specific area plan was discussed and it was noted that at present there is no money for advanced planning in the Planning Department budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2004- 2005. The consensus was that if this program was placed on the work program for FY 2004-2005, the second parking study to determine the effectiveness of the recent rate increase would need to be completed and a determination made on whether the funds in the Business District Improvement CIP need to be used right away for additional parking or can be used for streetscape improvements. This study will not be done until the late Fall. Meanwhile the decision on the BID will have been completed. In the interim if the BIC wishes to meet on the streetscape improvements on Burlingame Avenue (Subarea A) they can do so but they should take no action that would commit funds until the BID and parking study results are known. The priority for land use planning appears to be Howard Avenue (Subarea B), Auto Row and the residential areas adjacent to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The timing of this study will depend on the availability of funding which will not be clear until the December or January time frame. d. Develop an Bicycle Transportation Plan and Be Eligible for Implementation Funding CP Monroe noted that this issue was first raised last summer when we were made aware that in order to be eligible for certain funding sources, a community needs to have a bicycle committee and an adopted bicycle plan. Last year, in filling a position on the Traffic Safety and Parking (TSP) Commission, the Council appointed a member with bicycle interests and a bicycle subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee consists of two TSP Commissioners and one Planning City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -8- Commissioner. The next step would be to draft a Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City, which would be incorporated into the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In order to be eligible for certain outside funding for the 2005-2006 funding cycle, the plan would need to be adopted by Burlingame, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans by December of 2004. In determining the priority for allocating funding for bicycle projects from the various funding sources, scores are given based on a list of criteria, including community support for the project, whether the project is part of a local or regional plan and whether the community provides matching funds. The more local funds that are included, the higher the ranking. The matching funds could come from Measure A or Gas Tax funds, would not have to come from the General Fund, however they may end up being diverted from money set aside by the Public Works Department for local roadway resurfacing. Council/Commission comment: This project makes sense, we don't do enough to promote bicycles in this community, the only issue is priorities, if we do this project what else would not get done. Commissioner Keele left at 11:20 a.m. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue; Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive; John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue; and Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way made the following comments: think the Planning Commission is working hard, this meeting has been enlightening on all the issues, what a neighbor does affects the property values for the area; appreciate the guidance regarding the Burlingame Improvement Committee and the Burlingame Improvement District, want to know if the BID is not formed, will the BIC still have a role in the process. Interested in the discussion on mass and bulk, there should be an effort to balance smart growth, the interest of developers and the interests of long time residents. Concerned with neighborhood character and would like to see the reassessment of floor area on the list of projects for this year; have observed the process and it does not work well, the developer goes to the Planning Commission and the project is whittled down in size, the neighbors also leave in frustration; have concern for all parties. The basement issue might be worth exploring, there might be a way to get a solution to the problem, kids grow up fast, like the idea of separation provided by basements. Need to look at the cumulative effect of residential development; one on one the FAR formula works, but need to address cumulatively, it's always good to review the regulations and make the model better; the regulations need to be fair to all residents, if one gets the maximum FAR, the next one will expect it, and the overall cumulative effect is significant. Don't think there is a problem with FAR, the problem on Poppy Drive was three buildings that didn't fit in, if it sticks out like a sore thumb can understand, but can have a nice house within the existing regulations, don't think we should discipline those that do it right. What is inside the house is nobody's business but the person who owns the home, if they want to have five or six bedrooms, that is their business, the problem is how it looks outside, not what is inside. The basement concept is a good one as long as it is not mandatory, in addition to the cost to construct, there could also be problems with seepage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission/City Council Joint Meeting April 24, 2004 Unapproved Minutes -9- We may or may not have a vision statement, but I don't know what it is, would be nice if there was a nice, short, concise statement of where we are headed; as for as the BID, we need to encourage that effort, it would be best if we don't do anything related to streetscape now, it looks as if the BID will happen; but the streetscape plan for Howard and Burlingame Avenues is eight years old and nothing has happened, it would be relatively inexpensive and it shouldn't be put off too long. Have heard some excellent dialogue on tough issues, the most difficult is the cumulative impact versus equity for existing owners, this is not a simple issue and will take a lot of time and thought, the equity issue was similar when considered regulations for food establishments on Burlingame Avenue; there are a lot of different concepts which should be reviewed, but can't ignore the changes that take place gradually over time. 5. WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES Based on the discussion of issues noted above, a consensus among the City Council and Planning Commission members was arrived at and the following work program was identified: • Residential Mass & Bulk – form a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review issues related to residential mass and bulk, including revising the design guidelines and looking at adding incentives for architectural feature which benefit design objectives. • Zoning Implementation for the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plans – this item would include elements of the Housing Element Work Program and would be undertaken by staff with subcommittees of the Planning Commission. • Specific Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Area – work on this item will be delayed six months to see the outcome of the BID process and to determine available funding. • Bicycle Transportation Plan – Commence work with bicycle subcommittee of Traffic Safety and Parking Commission and Planning Commission to develop a plan to meet the December 2004 approval date necessary to seek project funding from the next Federal/State funding cycle. Two items among those discussed were identified for staff to consider as alternatives should other items be stalled or time and opportunity become available: • Revision of the Second Unit Amnesty Program – to allow second units without any on-site parking provided the unit is affordable. • Review the Demolition Permit Process – to see if there is a feasible way to address the removal of buildings not subject to CEQA. It was agreed that because of budget limitations in FY 2004-2005, any item not included in the FY 2004-2005 Work Program or which did get into the work program but could not be completed, would be included for consideration again next year. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.