Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2000.02.26CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING MINUTES Sheraton Gateway Hotel - Balboa Room Burlingame CA Saturday, February 26, 2000 9:00 A.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the joint city council/planning commission study session to order on February 26, 2000 at 9:05 a.m. ROLL CALL Council Present: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY AND SPINELLI Planning Commissioner Present: BOJUES, DEAL, DREILING, KEIGHRAN, OSTERLING AND VISTICA Absent: LUZURIAGA Staff Present: ARGYRES, ANDERSON, MONROE, BAGDON (late). APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. STUDY ITEMS DESIGN REVIEW - DISCUSSION CP Monroe reviewed the staff report which summarized the current design review workload and volumes, the windshield tour of completed second story additions which were subject to design review, findings from the survey of design review applicants, the effects of the extension of design review to new single story housrs and some single story additions, and the revised design guidelines. She concluded with noting that Planning Commission Chairman Luzuriaga, who was absent today, had submitted a letter addressing the issue of processing design review applications. Discussion commenced with the processing of design review applications, noting C. Luzuriaga's suggestion that all design review applications come to the commission on a study calendar before they are assigned to a design reviewer and that the applicant be allowed to speak at the study meeting; the commission could then determine if the application should go directly to a consent or action calendar or should be referred, with some direction, to a design reviewer. CA Anderson noted that if this procedure were followed the study item would need to have public notice and the public, in addition to the applicant would need to be able to speak on the item. There was discussion about the proposal including concern about whether this would extend the review time, the benefits of having earlier input Into the design by the commission to provide direction to the design reviewer. There was consensus that staff should Ci' of Burlingame Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission Study Meeting Minutes P*ebrumy 26, 2000 implement this new process for design review and monitor its effects. CP Monroe pointed out that there were projects now going through the current process which would need to complete the current cycle. Discussion moved on to the windshield tour, design guidelines, and survey It was noted that the completed additions ;lended well with their neighborhoods. Commissioners pointed out that it was the details included in the design, like window proportion and size of trim, which make all the difference; these issues are covered in the recently revised draft of the design guidelines. CP Monroe noted that these revised guidelines would be distributed by staff, used at the counter and by the design reviewers and commissioners, each would annotate them and they would continue to be revised. It was noted that it would be helpful in addition to the flow chart in the design guidelines for staff to provide a step by step listing of the design review process for applicant's reference. CP Monroe pointed out that we presently use a check list but staff could add a summary sheet with the steps in the process for applicant's reference. There was some discussion about the survey of design review participants. The Council members found the survey to be useful, noting the good return; commissioner expressed interest in having a future survey of neighbors to see how they felt about the effectiveness of the design review process. The need to be vigilant about the effect of design review on the need for some existing measurable requirements was noted; and the desire by some council members to do as much as possible of design review by measurable standards with less subjectivity. Felt that city could hold off on the determination about the need for single story design review until we had more cases to evaluate. The benefit of two covered parking spaces for all new single family residential development was discussed. It was noted that with the requirement for detached garages, a two car garage has a greater impact on the rear yard and much of the lot is already devoted to driveway for access to the rear, more cars can be stored in the driveway with a detached one car garage. Hard to make people use their garages for parking, so less important if two car or one car. Discussion moved to the relationship of the roles of the Planning Commission and Council in reviewing projects. t was pointed out by a commissioner that the role of the Planning Commission was to enforce the zoning code so often cannot make findings that a request results from a hardship on the property; the City Council has more latitude; public does not understand this. There was discussion about the role of recommendations, it was noted that staff provides facts to form the basis of Planning Commission, and on appeal the Planning Connnission's action becomes a recommendation to Council. CA Anderson pointed out that staff recommendations are limited to the strict application of the code to the project requested, commission can add the community values which surround the application of the regulations and Council has even more latitude in terms of community values because of their role in making policy. It was noted that several of the surveys noted the perception of a conflict of interest among members of the planning commission because of their professions and the fact ftt their businesses were located in Burlingame; it was noted that a perceived conflict of interest should not prevent the council from appointing a local resident with expertise to the commission; felt that the perception was among a very limited number of people, arising out of comments in the newspaper during the last election; need to understand how to market this differently and how other cities handle this problem; City Attorney noted that commissioners give credit where it is due; clients are told that if commission member does their design the commission member cannot represent them before the commission or Council and cannot vote, discourages business; applicants can hire any architect because the regulations and process are similar everywhere. BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA/DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CP Monroe summarized the staff report noting that there were two issues to discuss one was the current development policy for downtown and whether it needed any adjustment which would affect parking demand; and second whether he city should .consider an in lieu fee to help pay for providing additional parking in the downtown area., P) Ci)p qfBurlinganie Joint City CouncillPlanning Commission Study Meeting Minutes Fcbrinny 26, 2000 Discussion about the parking study focused on whether Resolution 44-62 could be abandoned; the big difference between weekday and weekend parking demand caused by employees in the downtown area was noted; the adequacy of our current requirements for office parking were examined in light of the modular use of office space; the benefits of the mix of residential, office and retail uses and the limited amount of space allocated to parking relative to other more lively uses were noted; generally it was the consensus that the group did not want to change the present face of the downtown area; one way to preserve this would be to emphasize public transit access. Implementation of the parking study was discussed. Need to implement the parking management program before add any more public parking; moving employees out to the periphery is a good start to providing more parking. It was noted that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission would be discussing the changes in time zones, the change in hourly rates and how to educate the property owners, merchants, and employees about the need for changed behavior and better parking management of existing parking spaces. PWD Bagdon noted that this is the first of a two part study; phase one looks at the problem and phase two develops an implementation plan including hard improvements, management measures and a financial plan. New modes of access such as BART were noted and the need to provide better access to the downtown area. There was consensus that class/group activities should be discouraged in the downtown area because of their parking impact. It was also noted that now is the time to require a financial contribution from businesses whose intensification would cause a large parking impact. There is a need to place a value on each parking variance given the cost of providing just land for more parking in the Broadway area. Cost per space is so high now that paying for a number in advance might be prohibitive, could the applicants be required to pay over time at a fixed percentage of interests so that the in lieu fee became an annual contribution to the city. CP Monroe noted that in lieu fees are often associated with the granting of variances, the variances go with the land, would the fee go to the merchant or property owner? Others noted very large monthly parking in lieu fees can put businesses out of business; CM Argyres noted that fees should not be so low that developers have the city provide parking rather than doing it on their own sites. Could an assessment district be formed; CA Anderson noted that the voting requirements have changed since 1960's, then it was 50% protest, now it is 51% positive vote for formation. Councilman Galligan suggested that we establish a in lieu fee based on an annual payment. He suggested $35000 based on amortizing $35,000 per parking space over 15 years at 6%. Could increase what people pay to raise revenue; noticed that past increase along Burlingame Avenue moved employees out of those spaces. Commissioners noted that there was still a need to look at office parking requirements; management would just relocate problem; it was noted that the city needs to move on an in lieu fee soon and gave direction to the CA to bring a suggestions back to Council for further consideration. There was a brief discussion of single family residential parking; it was noted that there used to be a shuttle bus service in the single family areas which was taken over by SamTrans. HOUSING ELEMENT DISCUSSION It was pointed out by CP Monroe that the state had mandated all the communities in the ABAG area to complete updates of their housing elements by June 2001; the city's present housing element was certified°ih December 1994. One of the primary implementation programs in the current Housing Element was a second dwelling unit amnesty program; at issue is whether a priority should be placed on implementing that program this year. In the discussion it was noted that the area along Rollins Road where the General Plan amendment was being considered is suitable for affordable housing which could improve the appearance of the area; there is also an area zoned C-2 in the auto area of Rollins Road which might be suitable for future housing. CP Monroe asked whether Council wished to proceed with the Housing Element next year because the item needed to be budgeted. The consensus was that the staff should proceed with the amnesty program before this Fall and consider a Housing Element up date by June 2001. COUNCIUCOMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioners asked the City Council if they could clarify to the public the difference between the duties of the Planning Commission and that of the City Council, noting that the Commission must make finding for exceptions t<t CrryofBurlingatneJoint City Conncil/PlanningConinumionSluiyMeeling Minutes Febnrmy26, 2000 based on hardships on the property while Council has more latitude. Council agreed that this was true, and it was an important distinction for the public to be aware of. PUBLIC COMMENTS aide Coles, 1342 Alvarado; Bill Wholer, 1508 Arc Way; Ken Castle; David Hinkel, Broadway merchant, and Emile Jernavo, 1413 Burlingame Avenue; spoke. Four years ago interviewed a member of the Planning Commission to do design work for his house, did not select him, expected retribution when came before Planning Commission with application but experienced no problem, in future it would be better if stuck to facts about conflict of interest not perception; if there are facts, debate the facts and get on with business; do not feel that we charge enough for public parking, increase public parking rates and encourage people to walk; if can subsidize reinstated community shuttle. Would like to see the Planning Commission plan for a community that is not car dependent; make plans with 50 or 100 year goals and evaluate each decision on their basis; reduce the number of public parking lots in the future and use the current parking areas for green areas; monster houses should not be a part of the plan, we need design review; if have to choose between professionals and conflict of interest, prefer professionals; do not want regulations to say have to have two covered parking spaces, it takes up too much space on the small lots. Public comment continued: Would like the City Council to have an annual vision statement, not go from issue to issue; not look at office on Bayfront but should have a plan which insures public access; need to interact with the community, public comments should be with each item on the agenda; there is a public perception that the public bodies do not want public input, controversial items should not be put on.the consent calendar, want to speak on each item as it comes up, there should be a special meeting to discuss the agenda items; design review needs to be fair, want the Chair of the commission to say why an item is denied, do not want a command performance from the neighbors; the perception problem is based in the way things are done, need to remove that subjectivity; need to be careful about conflict of interest, anyone with a business in town might have a potential conflict but prefer professionals on the commission, they just need to be forthright at the beginning that a conflict exists. Mayor asked if council had an open session when should iE be; Saturday morning is not convenient, evening sessions are good; once a year have a state of the city address that atlines the big issues and take input from the public, let attendees and staff have dialogue, try and see what works. Broadway is grateful for the additional parking, it will be a benefit for the city in the future; the real benefit of the new site is the traffic diversion from the residential neighborhood; thankful that the streetseape improvements will begin next month; on 301 Airport it is time to take a hard look at how much more traffic we can bear in the corridor. In lieu fee is interesting. Am here about the second dwelling amnesty, have waited over two years for the Council to look at; have a unit that I want to retain. There were no more comments from the floor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:17 p.m. JOINTM11C.niu