Loading...
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