Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1996.10.23CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING Wednesday, October 23, 1996 City Hall Conference Room A Mayor Bud Harrison convened the joint study session with the Planning Commission on the above date in Conference Room A at 7:08 p.m. CouNcll- pRESENT: HlRRtsoN, JANNgv, KNlcHT, O'MegoNv, SpINpLLI Sre,r'r PRpssNt: ARcvRps, CoLeuAN, MoNRos Pr-eNutNc covttvilssloN:CorrrurssroNERs CoFFEy, DEAL, ELLIS, GellIceN (lern 7:09), KEv, MrNK, Weu-FoRD (lern 7:29) 1. "NglcunoRgoop CotvtpRluLIry" a,up ZoNINc Cooe IupLptvtnNtetIoN. Mayor Harrison introduced the topic by stating that based on the discussion of the Poppy Drive issue of look-alike or "cookie-cutter" homes council thought it would be a good idea to have a meeting with the planning commission to discuss review. He felt that under the current zoning code, we already have the tools to implement some elements of design review and the planning commissioners should be considering compatibility in their review of projects. Councilman Spinelli generally agreed with Mayor Harrison and felt that while we do not a want design review process per se, the planning commission should look at compatibility. There was a consensus of the council that planning commission had the power to exercise discretion in the area of a structures compatibility with the neighborhood. Councilwoman Knight stated that the zoning codes as written give the planning commission the ability to look at mass, bulk, compatibility, etc. She felt the commission could say when things were too big. She felt we had the necessary teeth in current zoning regulations. Vice Mayor O'Mahony agreed and indicated we had the ability to control building mass and bulk; and it starts in the hands of the planning commission. Councilwoman Janney agreed. Councilman Spinelli thought it might be useful to add into the language for variances and conditional permits the more specific items identified for compatibility in the new ordinance concerning multiple lots. Mayor Harrison thought that application was the key. The city planner noted that the criteria for findings for a variance are slightly different from findings for a conditional use permit; and both are different from the multiple lot findings criteria. Commissioner Deal felt that the planning commission has been cautious about discussion of design/compatibility to date; and while he has no problem exercising discretion, so long as it is in a general sense, he did not want to get into selecting specific architectural styles, such as tudor. Commissioner Galligan felt we needed to discuss the issue of neighborhood compatibility and making sure the houses are not "cookie-cutter" and look different. He stated that we do not see the "monster homes" before the planning commission. When the builders comply with all the rules, there is no commission review. If we were to have design review, 64 we should have a list of four or five local architects who understand our local standards and neighborhood needs. He also felt there was a difference between apartments and condominiums. He also questioned whether we wanted to look at residential differently than commercial. Perhaps more design risks would be allowed on the commercial review. He stated that all the new homes are Mediterranean in nature, and we are losing variety because maximizing the present regulations results most efficiently in this design. Commissioner Mink felt each neighborhood is different and some were quite "cookie cutter" when built. He felt we shouldn't try to limit architectural styles. He noted size is the problem and we need to define clearly what we are trying to do. Mayor Harrison felt the council and city shouldn't try to change architectural styles and, in general, fewer rules were better. Commissioner Wellford questioned how legally one defined compatibility. City attorney indicated we needed a basis in the criteria for distinction and findings of fact to support action (nexus) were very important. Commissioner Key thought that most of the "monster houses" had the garages in front where certain neighborhoods have the garage located at the rear of the property. Commissioner Ellis asked what is Mediterranean. He felt the primary problem is in the older transitional neighborhoods like Bayswater/Howard. Commissioner Deal felt there were no incentives under the current rules to locate a garage at the back of the lot. He also felt is was not possible to build tudor homes because of height restrictions. He thought we should be looking at the "monster homes" (those that meet all code requirement), not just remodels, perhaps by reviewing new houses of a certain size. Councilman Spinelli thought we may need to revisit the issue of required covered and uncovered parking. The city planner noted that within the last year we had made a significant change to our rules requiring all "new construction" have two covered and one uncovered parking spaces; since major remodels are also considered new construction this change has had a substantial impact on location and size of off-street garages. Vice Mayor O'Mahony agreed that remodels are getting more review than the "monster homes" built within the rules. Commissioner Coffey asked how far we should review new projects if the neighbors are not objecting. He felt the neighbors need to get more involved in the review process. Commissioner Galligan thought we had consensus on three basic items: (1) clear direction on so called recreated lots; (2) that we are now reviewing mostly remodels; and (3) that we don't see the new homes designed within the current rules, and under the regulations current rules we never will see these "monster homes." He thought we may need to revise the code. Councilwoman Knight thought we needed to look at the effect of FAR and declining height over the last four years and evaluate the effects on design and mass. Vice Mayor O'Mahony felt there had been a rush on new construction before the FAR regulations went into effect. She thought that perhaps the first two criteria of the multiple lot findings needed to be added to our variance and special/conditional use permit findings. She also felt strongly that we should require building permits to be issued before issuing demolition permits in all cases. The city attorney noted that we would need to allow for certain exemptions for unsafe properties. In attempting to try and summarize the discussion to date, council felt that three items ought to be addressed: (1) we should add criteria numbers I and 2 from the multiple lot requirements into our variance and conditional use findings; (2) we should consider requiring a conditional Burlingame City Council 65 October 23,1996 use permit of all new construction if the square footage of structures exceeds forty percent of lot area; and (3) we should consider a code amendment to require issuance of a building permit before issuing a demolition permit for single family development. 2. Dtscussror{ or Issups RpLetlNc to TAKs-our SeRvrce Usps eNo rooo EsresLIsHNIeNts IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Mayor Harrison opened the discussion noting his opinion that he had a strong belief in the market place. Certain items pertaining to the mess caused by take-out have been addressed by the manager's memo. He doesn't see the need for increased regulation. Councilwoman Knight disagreed; she felt that establishments such as Starbucks and Noah's have been changing take-outs into destination restaurants. Councilman Spinelli agreed with Councilwoman Knight and felt we had been lucky to maintain the mix of restaurants and retail. He agreed with many of the items brought forth at the last study meeting by Gary Cohn such as take-out food sales should be restricted to food establishments. He also agreed that many retail establishments are becoming food establishments. We need to maintain the balance of retail and food sales and prohibit the selling of "restaurant rights." He felt these should revert to the city if the use has left and no change has occurred within a 6-month period. Councilwoman Janney felt there was a big difference between Starbucks and the Smoke Shop type uses. She felt that a coffee machine was incidental to the Smoke Shop, not its main profit center. Vice Mayor O'Mahony felt it was very important to protect our retail and food sales mix, and we should consider a moratorium on future fast food establishments. She also felt there should be no chairs on the street at take-out establishments. Councilwoman Knight noted that the take-out use going with the property is a problem because its hard to control what is sold over time. Commissioner Coffey thought there were three basic items we needed to address: (1) restaurants and that some restaurants are also take-out establishments; (2) that we need a definition of "fast food establishment"; and (3) definition of food uses incidental to retail uses. Councilman Spinelli questioned whether we might want to combine restaurant and take-out into one category then work on reducing the total number to a better balance with retail. Commissioner Key thought no tables and chairs should be allowed in front of take-out food establishments. City attorney noted that the tables and chairs are there with an encroachment permit which, with a 90-day notice, can be revoked. Commissioner Key thought tables and chairs should only be allowed on the sidewalk in front of restaurants. Commissioner Galligan stated we have problems with definition of take-out food businesses and food establishments, and our current definitions are based on whether items are prepacked or prepared on site. We needed to look carefully at definitions and determine what type of food business we are trying to promote. Councilwoman Janney summarized the issues: food sales incidental to retail; maintenance of downtown; transferability of use from one owner to another; take-out service with existing food establishments; and tables and chairs on street at take-out service food businesses. There was some additional discussion among the council and staff, and it was decided that staff should try to summarize the discussion and return this item to council at another date. It October 23, 1996 66 Burlingame City Council was noted that the status of the current moratorium would be addressed at the council meeting of November 18, 1996. A public hearing on its continuance would be held that night. 3. CouNcrr. CoralarNrrs Mayor Harrison noted that we are hosting the Council of Cities this Friday. He asked that Vice Mayor O'Mahony and Councilwoman Janney look at setting a date to meet with BART. FRorra rue FlooR There was no public comment. AnrounNueNr The meeting adjourned at9:22 p.m. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerkv Burlingame City Council 67 October 23, 1996