Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1998.05.02CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING Saturday, May 2, t998 Main Library - Lane Community Room Mayor Mike Spinelli convened the joint city council i planning commission study session on the above date in the Lane Community Room at 9:04 a.m. CouNctI- rRESENT: GelllceN, JANNEy, KNIGIII, O'MeuoNY, SPINELLI Pr.eNNwo CorraulssroN: Coprsv, DEAL, GeLltceN, KEY, Luzuru,q,ca, Srepp PRsssNt: ANoensoN, ARGYRES, MoNRop 1. CoNcppts roR RBvrsroN or Fooo EsreslrsHrvrsNr REcuLertoNs N SuseRpe A eNo BRoeowev Corr{N,tBRcteI- ARges The city planner reviewed the work of the planning commission subcommittee concerning food establishments. The committee has suggested a tiered approach using four different types of food establishments. The concept would be to try and limit the number of food establishments by type but that the total number of food establishments in each area would remain the same. All food establishments, no matter what their type, except incidental sales, would require a conditional use permit. For food establishments to relocate, there must be a vacancy for the type of food establishment and the former site must have been replaced by a business which is not defined as food establishment. If vacancies occur, a lottery would be held to fill them. Councilwoman O'Mahony was concerned about how incidental food sales would be defined. Planning Commissioner Galligan explained why the committee wished to distinguish between prepackaged foods and processed or prepared food for incidental sales. The object is, again, to try and maintain our retail mix and not allow gas station mini-marts to become destination restaurants. Councilwoman Knight was also concerned about incidental food sales and wished to be very strict on the issue because of their potential for litter. Councilman Galligan questioned who has the right to the restaurant permit. He felt it should be with the restaurant and not the property owner. It was noted that the lottery approach puts the vacancies in the hands of the tenant not the property owner; although once the restaurant has located, the property can continue in that type of restaurant use until the use on the site changes. After discussion, there seemed to be support for the approach of the committee. The committee and commission will work on a draft ordinance for council consideration in the near future. 2. DrscRnpeNcy sprwspN ZoNrNc RBcur.erroNs F'oR ApeRrl4pNr DsvsI-opN4pNr eNo RnsrnpNrIel CoNoouINIutvts The city planner noted that we have not reviewed the R-3 and R-4 regulations for a long time. Staff felt that as a minimum we should have the current condominium regulations which are 33r. implemented based on a planning commission, approved by the council. Councilwoman Knight was concerned that there was no public review required of apartments. A number of council members and planning commissioners noted that guest parking is a problem and felt it should be added as part of required parking. There was a concern that we did not want to add cost to the development of rental housing (apartments) and we needed to support our housing element, but work was needed on guest parking, storage, and open space. Some felt we should have design review for condominiums. It was also suggested that we would look at roof height regulations so that we get more variety in the types of roofs that apartments and condominiums can use. After further discussion on priorities, the matter was referred back to staff for additional work prior to returning the condominium resolutions to the council. 3. HousINc EI-pNaeNr IN,IpLp}t,IgNrnrIoN: INIThTION Or SECONO UNIT AI\4NESTY PROCRAIVI The city planner noted that the second unit amnesty program is part of our adopted housing element work program and that it was discussed at last year's commission and council meeting. Councilwoman O'Mahony and Councilwoman Knight suppofted the idea. Planning Commissioner Coffey noted that we needed to incorporate some type of penalty incentive to encourage people to bring current units up to code sooner. Planning Commissioner Galligan thought it should be a "carrot and stick" approach with a low fee for the first year and higher fees in second year. There was discussion that possibly after an amnesty period, the applicant would lose the right to the unit. There was more discussion as to which year to use as a departure point for beginning the program. There was general consensus that the city should move forward with this type of program in order to implement part of our housing element and retain lower cost housing in the cify's inventory. 4. CHeRcrNc ron AppBeL HeeRINcs Staff noted that there are currently no charges for appeals of planning commission decisions to the city council. It has been noted that some appeals are occurring where the person appealed because they changed their mind about the project or they do not appear at commission, feeling the real decision will be made at council on appeal. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she would like to see an appeal charge and suggested an amount of $200 plus noticing fee. Staff noted to establish an amount, we must be able to justify the amount of staff time spent in preparing documents and noticing. Councilwornan Knight was concerned that she did not want to limit a homeowner's ability to appeal a project and thought that a charge might discourage this. It was suggested that if a council member calls up a project that there is no charge for appeal so any resident could call a councilmember. A planning commissioner noted that he would like to see a charge for appeals to put some teeth into the planning commission decisions. Currently, a number of applications are just passing through the planning commission because they know the project can be appealed to the city council. After additional discussion, there seemed to be a concensus that staff should develop a fee for appeals from the planning commission to the council and that both commission and council May 2, 1998 332 Burlingame City Council would consider this matter further 5. CouNcrr- / CourvrrssroN CouupNrs The city planner distributed the materials that are being handed out for neighborhood compatibility and the design review process. It was noted that we have selected two architects and one has signed his contract and began reviewing; we anticipate a total of up to four. We also have received three applications this week. In discussing the priority for the work program, Councilwoman Knight noted that her priorities included restaurants regulations being #1, council action on the planning commission's resolutions on condominium regulations #2, and housing element and appeal hearings being lower. Other council members stated that they felt we could move quickly on setting fees for appeals and adoption of the planning commission resolutions. There was also a discussion amongst the planning commissioners, initiated by council, about whether the commission should stay at seven members or be reduced to five. Most of the commissioners favored staying at the current level of seven because of the increased flexibility in the light of occasional absences, reduce possibility of delaying actions, fewer people to serve on special study subcommittees and more diversity and points of view to bring to decisions. FRorra rnr FlooR Cathy Baylock commented on the council discussions of each item. She felt the council and commission were heading in the right direction, she just wished some of the items had been implemented earlier. AorouRNvtpur The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. V Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk Burlingame City Council 333 May 2,1998