Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1996.04.20412 CITY OF BURLINGAME JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING Saturday, April 20, 1996 Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Burlingame Mayor Bud Harrison convened the joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission on the above date at the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, Burlingame, at 8:56 a.m. CouNclI- pRESENT: He,RRlsoN, JANNEy, KNIGHT, O'MeuoNy, SpInpLLt CouulssloN pRESENT: CorFEy, DEAL, ELLIS, GeLLtc,q,N, Kpy, MINr, WpLLroRo Srerp PRpsput: ARcvRps, KtRt<up, MoNRop OrHpRs TIU AuneN Mayor Harrison gave a brief introduction noting that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss policy issues that have arisen during the past year between the planning commission and council. The city planner reviewed the three agenda items to be discussed: zoning implementation, M-l district regulations review, and amnesty program for existing accessory units, part of the housing element implementation program. 1. ZoNrNc Iupr-punNrerox-Polrcvlssuss A. ATMs es FneNcw- INsuruuoNs The first item discussed was automatic teller machines (ATMs). The planning commission discussed this issue and their recommendation is that as long as the ATMs are inside an existing use, a permit would not be required; but if they are on the outside of the building or in an unregulated lobby, a conditional use permit should be required. Councilwoman Knight noted that because of the relationship between Safeway and Wells Fargo, ATMs were becoming staffed mini-banks inside of grocery stores. Mayor Harrison thought, in general, we have too many regulations and the planning commission recorlmendation seemed acceptable. Vice Mayor O'Mahony felt that if staff were present at the ATM, it created a different situation from a "money machine. " Commissioner Mink felt that the future was to provide limited banking functions within existing uses. Commissioner Ellis felt the issues were really traffic and parking, and was the ATM a destination or something done as a part of a trip to the primary use. Commissioner Galligan agreed with Vice Mayor O'Mahony that if the machine is staffed, we have a different situation. The direction to staff was that if ATMs were simply "money machines" inside or outside existing uses, they did not need to be identified and reviewed as a financial institution and there was not a problem; but if the ATMs or installations are staffed by a person or persons, they should be viewed as another use on the site and reviewed as financial institutions and a conditional use permit should be required where the code deems it necessary. B. Terg-our PsRMrrs eNn Fooo EsrenLIsHIvIpNrs Currently take-out uses require a conditional use permit in C-l, C-2 subarea A and B zones I 473 City planner reviewed the history of take-out regulation. Commissioner Key pointed out some of these uses sell prepared food so function like a fast food restaurant even if they have no seating, and we need to rethink our existing regulation. Councilwoman Knight felt that Noah's and Starbucks have become a destination take-out. Need to look at these as a land use issue with traffic impacts. Commissioner Galligan also noted that some food establishments like La Salsa do not have any public restrooms; we should have minimum public accessible toilet requirements for both food establishments and take-out since they serve the public. Councilman Spinelli felt we needed to be sensitive to the function of these uses in order to continue to maintain our balance between retail and restaurant uses on Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner Ellis felt any restaurant could have take-out so possibly we need to limit take- out to just food establishment/restaurant facilities. Commissioner Coffey felt there is a difference between "take-out" and "take-home" and that tables on the sidewalk, such as Starbucks, creates a particular impact. Commissioner Wellford felt we needed to review the definition of food establishment/restaurant. He thought we should add a restroom requirement. He noted we are having problems with businesses such as World Wraps, which is really a fast food establishment because such uses employ more people and do a high- volume, high-turnover food business. Commissioner Mink noted that the teenagers in the area consider Burlingame Avenue the "Burlingame food mall. " This type of food serves an important function if you need a cheap date. Councilwoman Knight thought we should include take-out with our food establishment/restaurant limitations. She felt this was an urgency matter. Vice Mayor O'Mahony agreed with Councilwoman Knight about the urgency and that possibly take-out should not be allowed to have outdoor seating; we need to be more selective. Commissioner Deal noted that establishments such as Subway on Broadway are having impacts in residential areas where people take out food and use nearby residential lawns as picnic areas. Commissioner Ellis noted that the number of a given use does not always reflect the impact since some can be very popular. Councilman Spinelli felt we needed to review all of the take-out and restaurants when the location changed so that the right did not become a saleable item. Commissioner Galligan felt we are creating "monster restaurants" and that restaurant use needed to be limited. Councilwoman Knight thought we should consider expanding our limiting of food establishments from subarea A to B. After additional discussion, it was concluded that we should exclude Howard Avenue from any numerical limitation on food establishments in order to encourage development in that area. The city planner summarized the discussion noting that staff would prepare for planning commission review a regulation that would address as food establishment both take-out and restaurant uses and not allow the use to be transferrable from location to location. Staff would do a base study of the existing locations and evaluate extension of the limitation of number to the Chapin, Donnelly, Lorton portion of subarea B, with less regulation on Howard Avenue to encourage future restaurant development there. She suggested that the approach be tied with a 5-year sunset provision to establish a time for reevaluation of the appropriate number and limitations. After additional discussion, council felt this should be an urgency matter and staff should look at implementing a moratorium on both new take-out permits and food establishment relocation and expansion as soon as possible. C. FAR CelculerroN BespusNrs eNo Arucst.E The first issue was how basements should be included in FAR calculations for new 47 I construction. After discussion no action was directed. Staff noted there was some ambiguity in the wording of the current code regarding when attics would be included in FAR calculations. It was the consensus of the group that if a remodel which would qualify as new construction did not affect the envelope at an existing attic area, it should not be counted in FAR. However, if a house was considered "new construction" then all habitable attics should be included in the FAR calculation unless the work being done was for major maintenance such as seismic repair. Staff noted changes to code would be suggested for commission/council review. 2. Pnopospo Cueucps ro M-l (r.rcsr tNnusrruel) DrsrRrcr The city planner reviewed the concept of performance zoning that was integral to the proposed M-l district revisions. Planning commission has reviewed the draft prepared by the committee after 18 months of review. The question was "where did council want to go now." Mayor Harrison was comfortable with the proposed draft and thought it should be directed to a council agenda for introduction. Councilman Spinelli questioned how the zoning might change if BART were to go to Millbrae Avenue. The city planner noted that the proposed code changes protects the light industrial area and that this may need to be re-reviewed if BART becomes a reality. Vice Mayor O'Mahony wondered how the property owners were noticed about the discussions so far. Commissioner Coffey felt it was difficult to get a feeling from the property owners, but we need to figure out a way to notify tenants. Councilwoman Knight felt that mixing of the office and industrial uses causes traffic problems such as those that the Traffic Safety Parking Commission have been reviewing concerning trucks blocking sight lines from driveways. Commissioner Coffey felt that given the airport orientation of the area prohibiting auto rental in the M-1 district was a problem; auto rental should be a conditional use with the same performance criteria as used in the O-M district. It was noted that the O-M and M-l districts had very different locations relative to access to the airport so uses/criteria in one did not necessarily mean that they were appropriate in the other. After additional discussion between the commission and council, it was noted that the majority of the commission favored the prohibition of auto rental. Councilwoman Janney thought she might be a little more flexible. It was noted by a commissioner that uses included might vary depending on how long it would be before the regulations were reviewed again. Commissioner Key felt that a 5-year review of the M-l zoning would be appropriate. Council and commission concurred. The direction to staff was that the proposed revisions to the M-l zone as recommended by the planning commission be forwarded to council for introduction. 3. ArvrNpsrv PnocneM roR ExlsrNc Accsssony LIvlNIc UNrrs The city planner discussed the housing action program in the Housing Element and reviewed the purpose of the arnnesty program. The program would not be allowing new second units. The focus is on existing units and how to legitimize them and make them safe. Staff provided a review of three different approaches and asked council and planning commission direction. Councilwoman Knight liked some of the provisions of the Los Altos ordinance: upgrading existing units, maximum occupancy of two people, encourage occupancy by a relative, not limit size since already in place. Vice Mayor O'Mahony liked some of the Daly City ordinance including the two year period to bring units into compliance. She felt we should limit the number of occupants to two people and was not pleased with all of the Los Altos 47s requirements especially deed limitations and supervision of rents. We should encourage this program but make sure we are creating safe housing. The idea of higher fees for legitimizing these units after an arnnesty period seemed appropriate. Commissioner Galligan thought we needed to address the issue of number of persons by not limiting it to adults thus providing for children and that a 1960 construction date would be a good place to start. After that date, possibly a use peflnit would be required up to 1980. This way a converted garage that left no covered parking on a site could be reviewed. He felt that if size became too large, we need to review. It was noted that the housing code would apply, not the UBC and this is not as strict. He felt it very important that we have both a carrot and a stick to encourage compliance, possibly a flat fee now and a 10-times fee later. He thought it was important to have an owner live on site. Commissioner Wellford thought that the UBC ought to apply. The city planner explained that the housing code would achieve safe and sanitary standards and conditions while allowing units that don't meet the letter of such things as required ceiling heights, or glazing limits to remain without extensive reconstruction. Consensus seemed to be that if parking had not been provided for 30 or more years, the issue was probably moot with the neighbors. Concern was expressed that availability of parking and the number of people living in a second unit should be related. Legitimizing the use would allow its replacement after a fire or disaster. After some additional discussion it was agreed staff should develop a draft amnesty program and return it to the planning commission for additional specific discussion. FRou rse FlooR Mayor Harrison asked for public comments or additional comments from the commission and council; there were none. couNctl covrtvtpurs There were none. AuouRNupNr The meeting adjourned at 1l:07 am. v Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk