HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.04.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1987
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, April 13, 1987 at
7:30 P.M.
u nr_T_ r A T.T.
Present: Commissioners Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham,
Jacobs, Schwalm
Absent: Commissioners Garcia, Leahy
Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman,
City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer
MINUTES - The minutes of the March 23, 1987 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 2627 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1
Reference staff report, 4/13/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment,
applicant's letters. Three conditions were suggested for consideration
at the public hearing.
Discussion: applicant's comment that the new garage cannot be extended
to the rear because of the location of the kitchen window; if a fourth
bedroom were added in the future it might be necessary to relocate the
laundry to meet parking code dimensions.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Paul Chrisman, applicant, was
present; he stated his family enjoys living in Burlingame and would
like to modify the house so they could live in it for a considerable
time. Responding to Commission question, he advised he is a risk
management consultant and works in Burlingame, he does not work at
home. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission/staff discussion/comment: side yard requirements, change in
the regulations in 1941; this proposal makes the best use of all the
space, an eyesore will be removed (lean-to in the rear yard), two
off-street parking spaces will be added, many owners would have used
the street for parking and retained the patio area for themselves.
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1987
C. S.Graham found there were exceptional circumstances in the size of
the site and configuration of the lot; the variance is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owners, it
would be difficult for them with no parking; it would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and would not
adversely affect the zoning plan of the city. C. S.Graham moved for
approval of the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's April 1, 1987 memo shall
be met; (2) that the project as built shall be consistent with the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 6,
1987; and (3) that the two garages shall be considered required
off-street parking for this house and if a further bedroom is added at
least one of the garages would have to be remodeled to meet the parking
code dimensions in effect at that time.
Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers
Garcia and Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS, PORTION OF LOT 18
AND ALL OF LOT 21, BLOCK 4, MAP OF SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BURLINGAME
PARK (700 NEWHALL ROAD)
Reference City Engineer's agenda memo with attached map. CE Erbacher
reviewed this map which shows removal of property line between two
existing parcels, the lot combination would allow expansion of the
existing residence at 700 Newhall with removal of the existing
residence at 704 Newhall. Other city staff members had no concerns.
CE recommended the map be forwarded to Council for approval subject to
one condition as listed in his agenda memo.
There was some comment on zoning/building regulations regarding
setbacks on the new lot after the house is removed at 704 Newhall and
the lots combined. C. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was
not present. There were no audience comments and the hearing was
closed.
C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to
City Council for approval with the following condition: (1) that the
final parcel not be recorded until such time as the residence at
704 Newhall is demolished. Second C. Schwalm; motion approved on a 5-0
roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Leahy absent. Staff will forward to
Council.
3. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT AND RELATED VARIANCE FOR AUTO RENTAL
USE AT 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4
Reference staff report, 4/13/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
special permit and parking variance granted a car rental operation at
the Ramada Inn, 1250 Bayshore Highway on February 19, 1985. There has
been no car rental use on this site since April 1, 1986; property owner
was notified staff would proceed with revocation if no car rental use
was activated by April 1, 1987 (code provides that Planning Commission
may revoke a use permit and any related planning actions if a use has
ceased to exist on a property for one year or more).
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1987
Discussion/determination: there is no automatic cancellation of a use
permit; staff received no reply from property owner following
notification via registered mail of the revocation hearing nor in
answer to a previous letter; a brief discussion occurred with an
interested party who did not follow up; staff also contacted the
manager of the Ramada Inn to advise this action was imminent.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Property owner was not present.
There were no audience comments and the hearing was closed.
C. Jacobs moved for revocation of the use permit for a car rental
agency and five space parking variance by resolution. Second C.
S.Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and
Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
4. APPEAL OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT DETERMINATION REGARDING STAIRWAY
WHICH DOES NOT MEET BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS AT 856 EDGEHILL
DRIVE, ZONED C-2
Reference Chief Building Inspector's letter to Al Adelsberger (March
25, 1987) and Alfred Aldelsberger letter (March 24, 1987) appealing
building department determination. CE Erbacher reviewed the item,
noting the CBI found the required stairway should be modified to meet
all code requirements, stairway connects the lower area (basement) to
the upper (first floor) area. CE cited building code sections which
apply. Building department records indicate house was constructed in
1922 and stairway appears to have been constructed with the original
house; as late as 1954 this was a single story house with basement area
and the stairway was used for incidental access to the basement;
applicant wishes to use this stair for regular access from the basement
to the upper floor. Building Department states the stairway is unsafe
and must be brought to code or removed.
Commission discussion/comment: major repairs would be needed for the
stairway to be brought up to code standards; a site inspection
indicated there is a flu from the furnace which would prevent widening
of the stairs, moving them the other direction would necessitate
changing bearing walls upstairs, loss of headroom and other problems;
this is not a nonconforming use, it did not meet code when it was
originally installed.
Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Alfred Adelsberger, appellant,
was present and addressed Commission: he summarized construction,
repairs, alterations to the site from 1922 forward, including building
permits taken out, and stated the purpose of his discussion was to show
the existing stairway dates back at least to 1957, the appraiser had
considered both downstairs and upstairs to be apartments and they were,
in fact, lived in; seven permits were taken out since 1957, six of them
from 1974 on, most of these permits would have required an inspector to
go downstairs and become aware of the stairway; the type of work
recently done did not involve area around the stairway but it was
questioned as to safety. His measurements indicated the stairs are
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1987
too narrow but rise and run meet code; widening a portion of the stairs
would be a problem as well as extremely expensive since it would
involve removing the flu and relocating vents; relocating two bearing
walls would affect the size of some of the rooms and thus the number
of people they can accommodate under state law. In summary, Mr.
Adelsberger stated it would be very difficult to alter the stairs to
meet code, there have been five to six inspections over the years which
do not mention the stairway, the stairway will not be used on a daily
basis; this is a residential care home for the elderly, residents would
live on the first floor where there are two exits and would not use
this stairway; the downstairs (basement area) would be used by
employees when not on duty, in case of an emergency the stairway could
help them reach the first floor quickly.
Commission/staff/appellant discussion: there would be four elderly
residents living on the site; this property is zoned C-2, staff advised
residential care is permitted in C zones, the city is mandated by the
state to allow up to six persons in a single family home; appellant is
the owner of the company which operates this home. Responding to a
question concerning his liability in view of a stairway which is known
not to be up to code standards, Mr. Adelsberger stated he did not
believe the stairway was an unsafe structure or that a deficiency of
2-1/2" in width makes it less safe; he felt elimination of the stairway
entirely would add to his liability, only employees would use the
stairs. It was determined the first floor where the residents live has
two exits, front and back; residents are not bedridden but ambulatory
persons 65 years of age and older; the downstairs has three exits to
the outside; appellant purchased the property 3-1/2 months ago.
A Commissioner determined from the CA that if Commission does not
uphold the building department's determination the stairs will be
considered acceptable permanently. CE and Commission discussed
possible alterations to attain widening of the stairs, admitting this
would reduce the size of some rooms but is a physical possibility.
Blocking off the stairs had been considered by appellant but he wished
to retain the stairs for personnel access, therefore extra protection
for the people living upstairs. Construction of a new enclosed stair
outside was discussed; appellant felt actual footage between the house
and fence might be too narrow.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: can understand appellant's concern, records use the
word duplex loosely, it was a residence with downstairs apartment which
would indicate this stairway was not used; have a concern because this
is a changing use from R-1 or duplex to commercial, there is a safety
problem and a future use could be even more intensive.
Stating her concern about safety, that it would be possible to meet
building code and there are good reasons for this code, C. Jacobs moved
to uphold the determination of the building department. Second C.
H.Graham.
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1987
Comment on the motion: appellant should comply with the codes, it would
jeopardize the city and the residents to allow this appeal; stairs are
not safe, concern about their use in an emergency; Fire Department has
noted its reasons for these code requirements, in an emergency
situation with packs on their backs negotiating the narrow stairs would
be a problem; if the use is going to be intensified this house should
be brought up to code to ensure safety.
Motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Leahy absent.
Appellant was informed that determinations of the building code are not
appealable to Council.
5. MINOR MODIFICATION - 464 BLOOMFIELD ROAD
Item was not called up for further review.
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE REAR HALF OF THE KINDERGARTEN BUILDING
AT ROOSEVELT SCHOOL FOR CHILDBIRTH PREPARATION CLASSES AND AN
OFFICE, 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1
Requests: hours of office use; why use of this site rather than a
hospital; parking space need in daytime; list of all uses on the site.
Item set for public hearing on April 27, 1987.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT - ROOFTOP SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA -
1214 BURLINGAME AVENUE
Requests: why not more screening of the dish; photographs depicting
visibility from various angles; will the dish have writing on it, what
color; for what purpose will the dish be used. Item set for hearing
April 27, 1987 providing the requested photographs can be assembled in
a timely fashion.
8. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1100 BROADWAY
Requests: does this station have bathrooms; existing pole signs in the
immediate area; site plan showing location of signs. Item set for
hearing April 27, 1987 providing all requested information is received
by staff.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - NEW AND USED CAR SALES - 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE
Requests: hours of operation; lighting plan; what make of new car;
number of trip ends to/from site; division of the property, possibility
of using the whole site for extra parking; past use of this site;
clarify exit easement. Item set for hearing April 27, 1987 if all
information is received by staff.
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1987
PLANNER REPORTS
- Regulating Signage for Auto Dealerships
Reference staff report, 4/13/87 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
her summary page of suggestions discussed at the last meeting compared
with present code and noted there are several aspects of signage
regulation relating to auto dealerships which are addressed in the
present code but were not covered in Commission's previous discussion.
C. H.Graham suggested a change in his proposal: maximum size of face of
pole signs to be 48 SF rather than 24 SF. C. Jacobs commented she
could not vote for either of the suggestions in the summary table and
will contact the CP with her recommendations to be added to this table.
Staff will bring back to Commission on a future agenda.
- Commission Rules of Procedure - Timing for Election of Officers
Due to a recent change in Council's commissioner appointment policy
election of officers in April does not seem feasible. An amendment to
the rules of procedure was suggested providing for election of officers
at the first meeting of the Commission after May 1 of each year. C.
H.Graham moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-87
Amending Rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission. Second C.
S.Graham; motion approved on a 5-0 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and
Leahy absent.
- C. Schwalm reviewed Council actions at its April 6, 1987 regular
meeting.
- Commission discussed its current practice of observation of Council
meetings and agreed to continue this practice. Staff will prepare
a schedule for the remaining meetings in 1987.
- City Attorney introduced Ken Musso, new Fire Marshal who will be
attending all Planning Commission meetings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
- Materials received at League of California Cities Planning
Commissioners Institute, Sacramento, March 11-13, 1987
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles F. Schwalm
Vice Chairman