The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About858 Burlway Road - Staff Report�, c�Tv o ��•;��' � : �`` � � � � • � -:=�i� � � n � u,,,��5; % L i ��Boo �9peww�c0 • • • ' � C � • ' ' � • DATE FROM: SUBJECT: March 11, 1996 CITY PLANNER SUBMITTED C;¢�l-}" G�.�n,1 t ,1�� AGENDA • APPEAL OF PLANNING COMIVVIISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE CITY PLANNElt'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON-CONFORr�IING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED G-M. REGOMIV�NDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. This request is for a determination that a non-conforming roof sign facing the freeway be allowed to remain in place. Two sets of conditions were proposed for consideration depending upon the selected action. Affirmative acrion should be taken by resolution so that it can be recorded with the property. Conditions If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: 1. That the roof sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. that an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. that no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable correction aze completed. If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: 1. that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. that the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any corrective work and have it inspected by the city within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. that the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' x 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet (facing Highway 101) of the structure,\and shall not be illuminated in any way; � �� -� � -� �-- �.� �� i��:� _ �,rv.��. w,�,� M� ��c� -� cE=, � c�,�-r�.�� d�-- �' �� ,oas��n� ITEM # 6 A MTG. 3.18.96 DATE , . 3:18.96 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION'S DECISION TO UPIiOLD THE CITY PLANNER'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON CONFORMIING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. page -2- 4. that there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. that the Ciry Council's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on February 26, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to deny the applicants request to retain the non-conforming roof sign because it would be a grant of special privilege not allowed by the code. The commission included the conditions suggested by staff if the action was to deny. In their discussion the commissioners noted the roof sign may have been installed 40 years ago but it is prohibited now, the building was destroyed and the new building should comply with all code requirements; in light of these facts how can it not be a grant of special privilege; the issue is the demolition of the building not the amortization of the sign; the potential tenant who wants the sign, It's It, already has a large sign visible from the freeway nearby. In support commissioners noted that the property owner has suffered a lot of financial loss, the sign has been there a long time, and the sign is not lit. BACKGROUND: Nicholas Crisafi is appealing the City Planners decision, under the appeal provisions of the abandoned, obsolete, unsafe or illegal sign section of the sign code, to keep a roof sign which faces the freeway on his property at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. Several months ago this warehouse/office structure was severely damaged to more than 50 percent of its value by fire. The inside was gutted and the roof destroyed. Because of the extent of the damage to the building it lost its nonconforming status. The nonconforming, freeway oriented roof top sign became nonconforming when the new sign code was adopted in 1978. - The roof top sign survived the fire although the steel support members attached to the roof were affected. (The sign sits on the parapet and is partially anchored into it.) 1'he sign is an 8' x 20' (160 SF) single face, piece of painted plywood set in a metal frame. Originally the sign appears to have been the "can" type interiorly lit with plexiglass faces. The plexiglass has been removed and replaced with painted plywood. There is no lighting at this time. There are no permits on file for the original installation of the sign. The applicant indicates that he believes the sign was installed when the building was built in 1954, before he bought the property. The shell of the building is presently under reconstruction. The sign and its support replacements did not appear on the plans submitted and subsequently approved for a building permit to reconstruct the walls 3.18.96 APPEAL OF PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD T�iE CITY PLANNER'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON-CONFORr�IING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. page -3- and roof. Planning staff noted in their plan check (November 17, 1995) that the roof billboard sign would need to be removed. Since the plans approved showed no supports for the sign or method of installarion (wind loading, structural calculations, etc.), construction on the site was red tag when the inspector saw supports for the sign were being attached to the repaired roof. In addition, no welding inspection had been preformed. The work on the roof,including the sign's support attachments, was completed after the stop order. Should the roof sign be allowed to remain, the applicant would have to submit construction drawings and wind load and structural engineering calculations for the pazapet and roof, documenting that the design and installation is safe. In addition, some existing construction on the parapet and roof may have to be �'✓�c-n rov�for inspection to insure that the construction inside and welding conforms to the plans retroactively submitted and approved. The inspector notes that construction in place which does not conform will have to be exposed and repaired. ATTACHMENTS: N.A. Crisafi letter February 27, 1996, to City Clerk requesting appeal Monroe letter March 5, 1996, to Nicholas Crisafi setting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 26, 1996, with attachments Notice of Appeal Hearing, March 8, 1996 � /M . 858-868l�.189 � 1 PENINSULA PROPERTIES 1241 �Vhicethorne Nay • Burlingame, CA 94010 •(415) 343-3313 FEBRUARY 27, 1996 CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 GENTLEMEN: RECEIVED F E B 2 9 ig96 CfTY CLEFK CRY OF BURU� IGAM� ON FEBRUARY 26, 1996 THE BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION TURNED DOWN MY REQUEST TO KEEP THE SIGN ON THE ROOF OF MY BUILDING AT 858-68 BURLWAY ROAD. I WISH TO APPEAL THIS ITEM TO CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, MARCH 4, 1996. SINCERELY, ' � � '�/�� N.A. CRISAFI HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL: �� ., HEARIfvG SHOULD BE SET FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18. � � � �� .- { � � � CITY CLERK euRuwcnH+E JUN[ (`��e (1�t�g u� ��xrXt�cgtt�e CITY HALL - SOi PRIMROSE ROAD rec (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 r�x� (415) 342-83B6 March 5, 1996 Nicholas A. Crisafi Peninsula Properties 1241 Whitethome Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Crisafi, At the City Council meeting of March 4, 1996, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. A public hearing will be held on Monday, March 18, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if yo� have any questions. Sincerely yours, ��'' `!� 1►'�C-- Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 858-868B.acc c: City Clerk � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 to another tenant; parking seems to be more than adequate as previously done, 28 spaces, tree is beneficial to street therefore should not be removed and office can be removed. C. Ellis noted approval of this application based on the fact that site visits indicated that there was no parldng problem on site, in fact parking area on David Road was half full in light of this he noted that the tree in space 30 should be retained and the parking variance granted for 29 instead of 30 spaces. With the conditions as amended which will replace all previous conditions. He then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 11, 1996 Sheet A.1, Site Plan with a total of 29 parldng stalls (23 standazd stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls) and Sheet A.2, Ground Floor Plan with a maximum of 6,400 SF of office area (29%) and Space #26 shall remain as a landscaped area (tree); 2) that the conditions of the Parks Directors' January 25, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' February 14, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with a maximum of seventeen (1'� employees including the proprietor on site at any one time, if the number of employees on site at any one time should exceed 17 or the property should be sold or leased to another tenant then the parldng variance shall become void; 4) that the city shall be notified within 30 days of a change in occupancy (number of people on site exceed 1'�, properly sale, or lease of premise to a new tenant so that the status of the parking variance can be reviewed; the removal of all office space exceeding twenty (20) percent has been accomplished and to verify that the on site parking meets the requirements of the uses within the building; 5) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconderl by C. Mink and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CE Erbacher commented the use of the public easement will be examined at the time of the building permit process. 6. AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S NOTICE TO REMOVE A ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M, (NICHOLAS CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANTI. Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the issues including that the structure was destroyed by fire, the properiy owner notified at the time reconstruction of the shell was proposed that the roof sign, now prohibited, would need to be removed; that the request was to retain the e�cisting roof sign (plywood set in metal box, no illumination, braced on to roofl. Conditions if the sign was removed or retained were suggested for consideration. -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 Chm. 7acobs opened the public hearing. Nick Crisafi, property owner, 1241 Whitethorne Way, explained that the bracing of the sign was installed without permit to prevent wind damage. The sign had survived the fire. He asked that the sign be approved, he would be willing to use the upper third for a"Welcome to Burlingame" message. It's It is leasing the building with the provision that they have exclusive use of the signage. Commissioners asked if Its It"s was going to also keep their large freeway oriented sign across the street; the applicant noted yes; There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners .comment: roof sign may have been installed 40 years ago but it is prohibited now, the building was destroyed, the new building should comply with all codes; in this light how could allowing the roof sign not be a grant of special rivile e• ro a lot of financial loss, the sign has been there all along is not lit and o key;nthis is the type of sign which caused us to adopt our sign code because they were not wanted; feel that demolition of this building is the issue here, not on amortization of an existing freeway oriented sign; Its it's already has a big sign nearby this might confuse people. C. Deal moved denial of this application noting this sign would be detrimental to the neighborhood and would be a granting of special privilege, by resolution, with the following conditions as stated in the staff report; 1) the Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) worldng days; 2) that an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; and 3) that no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable conection are completed. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was denied on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AND A FINAL PARCEL MAp TO COMBINE TWp (2) EXISTING PARCEI,S INTp ONE (1) PARCEL - A PORTION OF SMALLCOMB IlVDITSTRIAL pARK SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF ACREAGE LOTS AT 778 BURLWAy AND 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (DKBERT ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER A1VD ROBERT C. HUTTpN ASSOCIATES APPLICAN'I�, • , Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CE Erbacher summarized the request by Alamo Rent-A-Car; noted that this lot combination was required as apart of a previous planning commission action. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. George Corey, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that they had been working with the City for a year and a-half to see if Burlway Road could be abandoned, now Alamo needs to negotiate a loan so they have to have a pazcel � ITEM # 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME Removal of a Roof Sign Address: 858-868 Burlway Road Meeting Date: 2.26.96 Request: Appeal of the City Planners direction to remove a non-conforming roof sign because the building was destroyed by fire. (CS 22.26.030) Applicant: Nicholas Crisafi APN: 026-111-010 Lot Dimensions and Area: 130' X 183' ±; 23,790 SF Zoning: O-M General Plan: Industrial and Office use Adjacent Development: Warehouse and office buildings, property abuts State Highway 101 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance. Previous Use: Illegal roof sign Proposed Use: Retain roof sign Allowable Use: Remove roof sign Summary: The applicant, Nicholas Crisafi, is requesting, under the appeal provisions of the abandoned, obsolete, unsafe or illegal sign section of the sign code, to keep a roof sign which faces the freeway on his property at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. Several months ago the building was severely damaged by fire, gutting the inside and destroying the roof. It is presently under reconstruction. At the time of the fire there was an 8' x 20' (160 SF) single faced, plywood in a metal frame, sign mounted on top of the parapet and braced into the roof. The sign is not illuminated. There are no permits on file for the original construction or installation of this sign. Inspection indicated that the original sign appeared to be a metal can with plelcigla.ss faces and internal illumination. At some time the plexiglass was replaced with plywood. Since the plywood is opaque, the sign became unlit. Mr. Crisafi notes that the fire did not damage the sign or its box, although the roof was damaged along with the support bars. As a part of the reconstruction of the building he has replaced the roof anchor supports (see elevation attached). The sign and its support replacement did not appear on the plans submitted for a building permit for reconstruction of the exterior walls and roof. In fact the Planning Department noted on their plan check (November 17, 1995) that the billboazd sign must be removed. Because the sign did -1- Remoml of an lllegal Roof Sign 858-868 Burlway Road not appea.r on the plans neither Planning nor Building have reviewed the sign or its method of installation. The Building Inspector stopped work on the roof when he saw the supports to the sign being attached to the roof since this work was not included in the building permit and no welding inspection had been preformed on the structure. However, the work on the roof including the support attachments was completed after the stop order. Should the roof sign be allowed to remain, the applicant would have to submit construction drawings and wind load and structural engineering calculations for the parapet and roof, documenting that the design and installation is safe. In addition some existing construction on the parapet and roof may have to be removed for inspection to insure that the construction and welding conforms to the plans retroactively submitted and approved. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Commission should make a determination, by resolution, regarding whether the roof sign should be allowed to remain. If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable conection are completed. If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: l. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner sha11 obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any conective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; -2- Remomi of an Illegal Rooj Sign 858-868 Bu�lway Road 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and sha11 not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. Margaret Monroe /M 868BURI,&.159 -3- February 7, 1996 PENINSULA PROPERTIES 1241 Whitethorne Way • Burlingame, CA 94010 •(415) 343-3313 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Gentlemen: ��V�� FEB - 7 i996 CI i Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DFPT. I have owned the building at 860 Burlway Road for the past ten years. On this building there is a existing sign eight feet by twenty ieet. The sign has been an integral part of the building since its construction in 1956. In 1995 a fire destroyed the interior of the building. Prior to the fire I had 16,000 rentable square feet, including a second floor with six tenants. In order to conform with parking requirements, I am only allowed to rebuild an 11,000 square foot building. I have now leased the space to one tenant, with the provision that they could use the sign. The City Attorney as advised me that since the building was destroyed to more that 500 of its value it looses its nonconforming status. I am requesting that you allow me to keep the sign, as I have suffered enough of a financial loss from the inability to rebuild the building as it existed prior to the fire. At the southern end of highway 101 there is a sign that says "Welcome to Burlingame:. One of the thoughts I had was to put similar wording on the upper portion of the northern exposure of the sign. Sincerely, �� Nicholas A. Crisafi LOS AN6ELES OFFIGE 12100 WILSHIRE, SUITE I100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 (310) B26-4211 OF OOUNBEL ALFRED V. CONTARINO � LAW OFFICES COTCHETT SC PIT1�E SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER 840 MALCOLM ROAD, SU�TE 200 SU$LINdAME� GALIF08NIA g4010 TELEPHONE (415) 697-6000 TELEGOPIEB (41b) 697-p6TT January 22, 1996 Hor�orable Mayor Bud Harrison Councilmembers Rosalie O'Mahoney Mary Janney Marti Knight Mike Spinelli CITY HALL 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 860 Burlwav Buildinq - Burlinqame Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: � C � C) �P� WASHIN6TON, D.C. OFFIGE 2018 CLARENDON BLVD. ARLINGTON, VA 222p� (703) 525-6750 OY 60IIM6EL MARK P. FRIEDLANDER, JR. R�e�g�,�� J�� 2 3 1��y ciPY ��f; .�P.�:: _. _ The above building was damaged by fire in 1995 and I attach a memo which explains the refurbishing. One of the collateral issues raised by the City Planning Department is the matter of a siqn that was on the building rp ior to the fire. The sign was not damaged as such. The City Planning Department claims that more than half the building was destroyed - and hence, the new code requires that the sign be removed. Without disputing that more than 50� of the building was destroyed, at this time, that a request is made of � LAW OFFICES COTCHETT SC PITI3E January 22, I996 Page 2 the City to waive this requirement for the following reasons: 1. The sign is dignified and has been in place for many years. 2. The building was leased after the fire with a proviso that the new tenant could use the sign. 3. The tenant is taking major space in an industrial area that will provide a number of good obs over and above simple warehouse space. 4. The owner of the building, Mr. Nicholas�Crisafi is a long time owner of the property in Burlingame and has done much over the years to support the beauty and health ot the City. There are many more reasons for this request, but it is not worth burdening you with more. It is respectfully requested that this waiver be granted. :ted, Enclosure cc: Jerome Coleman, City Attor Nicholas A. Crisafi �� CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: City Council _, i' :; FROM: City Attorn SUBJECT: Sign on;�" �--- - 860 Burlway DATE: January 25, 1996 You have receiv�d a letter from Joseph Cotchett concerning the roof sign facing the freeway on 860 Burlway. As you are aware, the building was gutted by a fire and all that remained was the precast concrete walls. There has been a sign on top of the building for some years . It is a four by eight foot sign, double faced with plastic faces and changeable hand-set lettering. It has been considered non- conforming since roof signs are now illegal and since it is totally oriented to the freeway; it is not visible from Burlway or any other nearby streets. The Planning Department informed the property owner, Nick Crisafi, that the sign must be removed because the building was destroyed to more than 500 of its value and therefore looses its nonconforming status. Mr. Cotchett's letter followed. Mr. Cotchett asks that the requirement for removal be "waived" for a variety of reasons. The only comment staff would make on those reasons is to question the description of the sign as "dignified" and to note that considerable signage is allowed on the site so long as it is not a roof sign. The sign code allows 130 square foot at signage on the primary frontage (Burlway Road) and 75 square feet of signage on each secondary frontage (facing into a parking lot). As to the waiver request, there is no provision in the code for exceptions to the provisions concerning rebuilding of nonconforming structures; it would be necessary to amend our code to provide for such a procedure. However, there is a procedure for a hearing when an owner does not remove an illegal or obsolete sign after notice from the city planner. (Chapter 22.26 of the sign code, attached to this memo.) That appears to be the current situation, and we suggest that staff contact Mr. Crisafi so that a date may be set for such a hearing before the Planning Commission. I am attaching pictures of the sign, taken on January 23. I am informed that on January 25 a building inspector was on the site to check the roofing work and noticed that reinforcements to the sign were being installed in the roof . He told that contractor to cease that work since the sign was not legal and, more importantly, because there were no plans for the substantial steel that was being installed. Upon visiting the site the next day, January 26, it was found that the installation of the bracing had nevertheless been completed. cc: City Planner Building Inspection .: . . ..,. � .;..� n .� �'�� ` — . - � � A�v ��mu.v .. . . . _ .. _ _. .+ :`:`k . �. : ,—� .1.: � .wL+ � ' w . . . -. .:�;A;__::...': ,� � r�. „ < ^, _ (;..��:� ��r� ; ... , '.:�.°.'�' �<' . ;�:r � F`�u� . k3s� �? 6: .:�+'iu-. ri r'�4" ' � . fw �� }f ':� �s x: K ' fi ' _ i � , ' .; —.... . . \ � - : �;_ e�� • _.... -_"'.`� __.��._ . � +r.ar.m.�'�Na3t+u-t,_---_.�...�.__�_- :�. .. � I .�Y � �.___�.. .- ,_..a .,-,.. �.. �' � � — � � r{ � /1� � � , r� ��!' _ � ' . � � . f ' ( .� �� __— -* ` y � 4% -�k� {. C�� i � _^fi "S. � ` _ i : �! � .� �.. -F�. - � � �� .•N^ k� {` �c�.. � " ' � r . . ��. �� . . �;..a F ��. >'.-=` s'�-�.. � '� _ - -s;tir - � � .-��c � . - . _ cx �;•^` - �,� - " ' " °� :"2� y'��. � � � . ' "' e.tp ::1 "�`'j 22.26.010 C6apter 22.26 ABANDONED, OBSOLETE, UNSAFE OR ILLEGAL SIGNS 22.26.010 General requirements. 22.Z6.015 Abandoned and obsolete signs. 22.26.02o Notice. 22.26.030 Heating. 22.26.040 Removal of sign. 22.26.050 Abatement as puhlic nuisance. 22.26.010 General requirements. Every sign shall be erected and maintaine� in conformance with the terms of this tifle and any conditions specified by its sign permiG Every sign shall be maintained in a safe and secure condition, and shall only advertise a bona fide establishment eusting on the premises, or products or services available where the sign exists. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); January 17, 19'1'n. 22.26.015 Abandoned and o6sotete sigt�s. Any sign wlrich no longer advertises a bona fide establishment existing on the premises shall be taken down and removed, or ihe advertising copy shall be painted out, within thirty days by the owner or tenant of the building, swcwre or property upon which the sign may be located (Ord. 1096 $ 2(pazt); January 17, 197'n. 22.26.020 Notice. Whenever any sign is found by the city planner t,o be• in violation of any provision of this code, he shall give writien notice w the owner and tenant� if any, of the properly whereon it is locared to remove or alter such sign. He may cause any sign which is an immedi- ate peril to persons or property to be removed sum- marily without notice. (Ord. 1096 § 2(part); January 17, 1977). 22.26.030 Hearing. If the owner or tenant fails to comply wimin thiriy days after such notice, or if a sign is summarily removed, a hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission. Written nodce of the timme and place of such hearing shall be given by the city clerk to the property owner and tenant at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing. At the heazing, the planning commissiaa shall confum, modify or rescind the notice given or action taken by the city planner. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed as provided in Sections 22.06.150 and 22.06.160 of this tifle. (Ord. 1096 § 2(part); January 17, 197�. 22.26.040 Removal of sign. Within ten days after the decision becomes final, the sign or signs described in such notice shall be removed by the properiy owner or tenan� If such removal is not completed wit6in that time, the building official shall cause such sign to be removed, and the cost thereof shall be paid by such owner or tenant The owner and tenant shall be jointly responsible for the payment of such cos� The building official shall submit w the owner or other person in possession of the premises a statement of his cos�s for removing or altering the sign. The amount of the cost may be appealed as provided in Section 22.06.140. Upon failure to receive full payment within thirty days from the date the statement is submitted or within thirty days after conclusion of any appeal proceedings, whichever is later, the city atxorney is authorized W provide for the collection of the amounts payable in any lawful manner. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); January 17, 197�. 22.26.050 Abatement as public nuisance. Any sign erected, constcucted, altered or enlarged contraiy to the provisions of this tifle shall be and the same is de�lare� w be unlawful and a public nuisance; and the city att,omey W the city shall, upon notice of the city planner. immediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law, and shall take such other steps and shall apply w such couRs as may have jurisdiaron to grant such relief as will abate and remove such sign, and restrain and enjoin any person, fum or corporation from seuing up, erecting, maintaining or using any such sign. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); January 17, 197�. 338 � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlI�OSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26. 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 860 BURLWAY ROAD APN: 026-111-010 AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S NOTICE TO REMOVE AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ROOF SIGN RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a roof sign at 858-868 Burlw� Road, APN: 026-111-010 ; property owner: Nicholas Crisaf'i, 1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 26, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RFSOLVED and DETERNIINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CFiAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOFS: CONIlvIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: f►`�� IG��/ EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and approval roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 4, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and para.pet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any conective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: RES OLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AND REQUIRING ITS REMOVAL RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an i11eQa1 roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ;�ro�erty owner: Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on _ February 26, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERNIINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is denied subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the removal of such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regulaz meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February , 1996 , by the following vote: AYFS: COD�IlVIISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY i• �� • . : Conditions of approval categorical exemption and removal of an illegal roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 4, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable conection are completed. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIl��OSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 18. 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 860 BURLWAY ROAD APN: 026-111-010 AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S DETERr�IINATION AND NOTICE TO REMOVE AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you JUDITH A. MALFATTI CITY CLERK FRIDAY, MARCH 8 1996 If it is detei-mined that the sign should be removed then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING AN II,LEGAL ROOF SIGN AND REQUIRING ITS REMOVAL RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an ille�al roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ;�roperty owner: Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and . WHEEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 26th , 1996 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was ap�ealed to Ciry Council and a hearing thereon held on March 1, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hea.ring; NOW, TI�REFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMIlVED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is denied subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the removal of such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, 7UDITH A. MALFATTI, Ciry Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of March , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES : COUNCII,MEMBERS : NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: . . EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and removal of an illegal roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 18, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) worlcing da.ys; , 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable conection are completed. � If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: , � • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ROOF SIGN RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN• 026-111-010 ;_ nronertv owner: Nicholas Crisafi. 1241 Whitethorne Wa�; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on _ February 26 , 1996 , at which time said application was denied; . WHEREAS, this matter was a�nealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on _ March 18. 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small, structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18TH day of March , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCII.MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCII.MEMBERS: CITY CLERK ,, � � s EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and approval roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 18, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any conective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action sha11 be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. �. . If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AND REQUIlZING ITS REMOVAL RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an illega�roof sien at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ; pro�erty owner: Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorne Wax; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 26th , 1996, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was a�nealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on Anril 1, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is denied subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the removal of such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the lst day of A�ril , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: � � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and removal of an illegal roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective APRIL 1, 1996 1. The Council should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof sha11 be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable correction are completed. If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: RES OLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ROOF SIGN RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a roof sign at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ; propert�owner: Nicholas Crisafi. 1241 Whitethorne Wa�; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 26 , 1996 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was a�pealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on April 1, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemprion per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual sma11 structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. I►�I:�i�� I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the lst day of Avril , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK , ,. , F EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and approval roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective APRIL 1, 1996 1. The Council should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within t�n (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any corrective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Council's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. ,5 � CITY ,j' M,/• :' � O �� ' : 37 � � �\', .u�.� � ■ � • . � o<��, �° 'PPOwGTCD • � � � � : � � � � � � oATE' March 11, 1996 AGENDA ITEM �i MTG. 3.18.96 DATE � , , � �j�a` 1 1 � .I;I� APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY sus.�ecT: APPEAL OF PLANNING CONIlVIISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE CITY PLANNER'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON-CONFORNIING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. This request is for a determination that a non-conforming roof sign facing the freeway be allowed to remain in place. Two sets of conditions were proposed for consideration depending upon the selected action. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution so that it can be recorded with the property. Conditions If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: 1. That the roof sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. that an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. that no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repai.rs and inspection certifying acceptable correction are completed. If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: 1. that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. that the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any conective work and have it inspected by the city within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. that the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' x 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet (facing Highway 101) of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 3:18.96 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMNIISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE CITY PLANNER'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON-CONFORNIING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. page -2- 4, that there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. that the City Council's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on February 26, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to deny the applicants request to retain the non-conforming roof sign because it would be a grant of special privilege not allowed by the code. The commission included the conditions suggested by staff if the action was to deny. In their discus�sion the commissioners noted the roof sign may have been installed 40 years ago but it is prohibited now, the building was destroyed and the new building should comply with all code requirements; in light of these facts how can it not be a grant of special privilege; the issue is the demolition of the building not the amortization of the sign; the potential tenant who wants the sign, It's It, already has a large sign visible from the freeway nearby. In support commissioners noted that the property owner has suffered a lot of financialloss, the sign has been there a long time, and the sign is not lit. BACKGROUND: Nicholas Crisafi is appealing the City Planners decision, under the appeal provisions of the abandoned, obsolete, unsafe or illegal sign section of the sign code, to keep a roof sign which faces the freeway on his property at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. Several months ago this warehouse/office structure was severely damaged to more than 50 percent of its value by fire. The inside was gutted and the roof destroyed. Because of the extent of the damage to the building it lost its nonconforming status. The nonconforming, freeway oriented roof top sign became nonconforming when the new sign code was adopted in 1978. The roof top sign survived the fire although the steel support members attached to the roof were affected. (The sign sits on the parapet and is partially anchored into it.) The sign is an 8' x 20' (160 SF) single face, piece of painted plywood set in a metal frame. Originally the sign appears to have been the "can" type interiorly lit with plexiglass faces. The plexiglass has been removed and replaced with painted plywood. There is no lighting at this time. There are no permits on file for the original installation of the sign. The applicant indicates that he believes the sign was installed when the building was built in 1954, before he bought the property. The shell of the building is presently under reconstruction. The sign and its support replacements did not appear on the plans submitted and subsequently approved for a building permit to reconstruct the walls f : •• APPEAL OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE CITY PLANNER'S DIRECTION TO REMOVE A NON-CONFORMIING ROOF SIGN AT 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. page -3- and roof. Planning staff noted in their plan check (November 17, 1995) that the roof billboard sign would need to be removed. Since the plans approved showed no supports for the sign or method of installation (wind loading, structural calculations, etc.), construction on the site was red tag when the inspector saw supports for the sign were being attached to the repaired roof. In addition, no welding inspection had been preformed. The work on the roof,including the sign's support attachments, was completed after the stop order. Should the roof sign be allowed to remain, the applicant would have to submit construction drawings and wind load and structural engineering calculations for the parapet and roof, documenting that the design and installation is safe. In addition, some e�cisting construction on the parapet and roof may have to be rove for inspection to insure that the construction inside and welding conforms to the plans retroactively submitted and approved. The inspector notes that construction in place which does not conform will have to be exposed and repaired. ATTACHMENTS: N.A. Crisafi letter February 27, 1996, to City Clerk requesting appeal Monroe letter March 5, 1996, to Nicholas Crisafi setting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, February 26, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 26, 1996, with attachments Notice of Appeal Hearing, Mazch 8, 1996 � /M 858-868&.189 PENINSULA PROPERTIES 1241 Whitethorne �Vay • Burlingame, C� 94010 •(415) 343-3313 FEBRUARY 27, 1996 CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 GENTLEMEN: RECEtVED F � � 2 9 i996 CtTY' CLEFX CtTY OF BURU� iGAM� ON FEBRUARY 26, 1996 THE BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION TURNED DOWN MY REQUEST TO KEEP THE SIGN ON THE ROOF OF MY BUILDING AT 858-68 BURLWAY ROAD. I WISH TO APPEAL THIS ITEM TO CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, MARCH 4, 1996. SINCERELY, --- , � �`'� �i � r// / � N.A. CRISAFI �� HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL: . HEARING SHOULD BE SET FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 18. .�� c� �� CITY CLERK (`��.e f�t#� .of ��xxXtxt��tzrce CITY HALL - 50i PRIMROSE ROAD re�� (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 r�x� (415) 342-8386 March 5, 1996 Nicholas A. Crisafi Peninsula Properties 1241 Whitethorne Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Crisafi, At the City Council meeting of March 4, 1996, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. A public hearing will be held on Monday, Mazch 18, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, r l�(.� WJ '' `t1� 11'�£— Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 858-868B.acc c: City Clerk A p^"btla'rec�cledPpOm i� CTTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 to another tenant; parking seems to be more than adequate as previously done, 28 spaces, tree is beneficial to street therefore should not be removed and office can be removed. C. Ellis noterl approval of this application based on the fact that site visits indicated that there was no parking problem on site, in fact parking area on David Road was half full in light of this he noted that the tree in space 30 should be retained and the parking variance granted for 29 instead of 30 spaces. With the conditions as amended which will replace all previous conditions. He then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped 7anuary 11, 1996 Sheet A.1, Site Plan with a total of 29 parking stalls (23 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls) and Sheet A.2, Ground Floor Plan with a maximum of 6,400 SF of office area (29%) and Space #26 shall remain as a landscaped azea (tree); 2) that the conditions of the Parks Directors' 7anuary 25, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' February 14, 1996 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 a. m, to 5:00 p. m. Monday through Friday with a maximum of seventeen (1'� employees including the proprietor on site at any one time, if the number of employees on site at any one time should exceed 17 or the property should be sold or leased to another tenant then the parking variance shall become void; 4) that the city shall be notified within 30 days of a change in occupancy (number of people on site exceed 17), property sale, or lease of premise to a new tenant so that the status of the parking variance can be reviewed, the removal of all office space exceeding twenty (20) percent has been accomplished and to verify that the on site parking meets the requirements of the uses within the building; 5) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use sha11 meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Mink and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. CE Erbacher commented the use of the public easement will be examined at the time of the building permit process. 6. AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S NOTICE TO REMOVE A ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M, (I�TICHOLAS CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the issues including that the structure was destroyed by fire, the property owner notified at the time reconstruction of the shell was proposed that the roof sign, now prohibited, would need to be removed; that the request was to retain the existing roof sign (plywood set in metal box, no illumination, braced on to roo�. Conditions if the sign was removed or retained were suggested for consideration. -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1996 Chm. 7acobs opened the public hearing. Nick Cris�, property owner, 1241 Whitethorne Way, explained that the bracing of the sign was installed without permit to prevent wind damage. The sign had survived the fire. He asked that the sign be approved, he would be willing to use the upper third for a"Welcome to Burlingame" message. It's It is leasing the building with the provision that they have exclusive use of the signage. Commissioners asked if Its It"s was going to also keep their large freeway oriented sign across the street; the applicant noted yes; There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comment: roof sign may have been installed 40 years ago but it is prohibited now, the building was destroyed, the new building should comply with all codes; in this light how could allowing the roof sign not be a grant of special privilege; property owner has suffered a lot of financial loss, the sign has been there all along its not lit and low key; this is the type of sign which caused us to adopt our sign code because they were not wanted; feel that demolition of this building is the issue here, not on amortization of an existing freeway oriented sign; Its it's already has a big sign nearby this might confuse people. C. Deal moved denial of this application noting this sign would be detrimental to the neighborhood and would be a granting of special privilege, by resolution, with the following conditions as stated in the staff report; 1) the Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2) that an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof sha11 be called for as soon as the sign is removed; and 3) that no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable correction are completed. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and was denied on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. - 7. AN APPLICATION TO APPROVE A TENTATIVE AND A FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE TWp (2) EXISTING PARCELS INTO 01VE (1) PARCEL - A PORTION OF SMALLCOMB INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF ACREAGE LOTS AT 778 BURLWAy AND 1380 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4, (DKBERT ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT C. HUTTON ASSOCIATES, APPLICAN'I'� Reference staff report, 2.26.96, with attachments. CE Erbacher summarized the request by Alamo Rent-A-Car; noted that this lot combination was required as apart of a previous planning commission action. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. George Corey, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that they had been working with the City for a year and a-half to see if Burlway Road could be abandoned, now Alamo needs to negotiate a loan so they have to have a parcel � ITEM # 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME Removal of a Roof Sign Address: 858-868 Burlway Road Meeting Date: 2.26.96 Request: Appeal of the City Planners direction to remove a non-confornung roof sign because the building was destroyed by fire. (CS 22.26.030) Applicant: Nicholas Crisaf'i APN: 026-111-010 Lot Dimensions and Area: 130' X 183' ±; 23,790 SF Zoning: O-M General Plan: Industrial and Office use Adjacent Development: Warehouse and office buildings, property abuts State Highway 101 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance. Previous Use: Illegal roof sign Proposed Use: Retain roof sign Allowable Use: Remove roof sign Summary: The applicant, Nicholas Crisafi, is requesting, under the appeal provisions of the abandoned, obsolete, unsafe or illegal sign section of the sign code, to keep a roof sign which faces the freeway on his property at 858-868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. Several months ago the building was severely damaged by fire, gutting the inside and destroying the roof. It is presently under reconstruction. At the time of the fire there was an 8' x 20' (160 SF) single faced, plywood in a metal frame, sign mounted on top of the parapet and braced into the roof. The sign is not illuminated. There are no permits on file for the original construction or installation of this sign. Inspection indicated that the original sign appeared to be a metal can with plexiglass faces and internal illumination. At some time the plexiglass was replaced with plywood. Since the plywood is opaque, the sign became unlit. Mr. Crisaf'i notes that the fire did not damage the sign or its box, although the roof was damaged along with the support bars. As a part of the reconstruction of the building he has replaced the roof anchor supports (see elevation attached). The sign and its support replacement did not appear on the plans submitted for a building permit for reconstruction of the exterior walls and roof. In fact the Planning Department noted on their plan check (November 17, 1995) that the billboard sign must be removed. Because the sign did -1- Remm�al of an Illegal Roof Sign 858-868 Burlway Road not appear on the plans neither Planning nor Building have reviewed the sign or its method of installation. The Building Inspector stopped work on the roof when he saw the supports to the sign being attached to the roof since this work was not included in the building permit and no welding inspection had been preformed on the structure. However, the work on the roof including the support attachments was completed after the stop order. Should the roof sign be allowed to remain, the applicant would have to submit construction drawings and wind load and structural engineering calculations for the parapet and roof, documenting that the design and installation is safe. In addition some existing construction on the parapet and roof may have to be removed for inspection to insure that the construction and welding conforms to the plans retroactively submitted and approved. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Commission should make a determination, by resolution, regarding whether the roof sign should be allowed to remain. If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof sha11 be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable conection are completed. If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any corrective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; -2- Remom[ of an Illegal Roof Sign 858-868 Burlway Road 3. That the sign sha11 be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. Margaret Monroe /M 868BURL8c.159 -3- PENINSULA PROPERTIES 1241 Whitethorne Way • Burlingame, CA 94010 •(415) 343-3313 February 7, 1996 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Gentlemen: ��1 V �!� FEB R '� i996 CIIY OF BURLfIVGAI�IE PLANNING DF_PT, I have owned the building at 860 Burlway Road for the past ten years. On this building there is a existing sign eight feet by twenty ieet. The sign has been an integral part of the building since its construction in 1956. In 1995 a fire destroyed the interior of the building. Prior to the fire I had 16,000 rentable square feet, including a second floor with six tenants. In order to conform with parking requirements, I am only allowed to rebuild an 11,000 square foot building. I have now leased the space to one tenant, with the provisio�. that they could use the sign. The City Attorney as advised me that since the building was destroyed to more that 50% of its value it looses its nonconforming status. I am requesting that you allow me to keep the sign, as I have suffered enough of a financial loss from the inability to rebuild the building as it existed prior to the fire. At the southern end of highway 101 there is a sign that says "Welcome to Burlingame:. One of the thoughts I had was to put similar wording on the upper portion of the northern exposure of the sign. Sincerely, �� `�� L�� Nicholas A. Crisafi t� 0 LOS AN(3ELES OFFICE 12100 WILSHIRE, SUITE I100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 (310) 826-4211 OF OOVNSEL ALFRED V. CONTARINO LAW OFFICES COTCHETT SC PIT13E SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER 840 MALCOLM ROAD, SUITE 200 BU$LINGAME, GALIFOENIA 84030 TELEPHONE (415) 697-6000 TELEGOPIE$ (416) 697-0677 January 22, 1996 Honorable Mayor Bud Harrison Councilmembers Rosalie O'Mahoney Mary Janney Marti Knight Mike Spinelli CITY HALL 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 860 Burlwav Buildinq - Burlingame Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: �� C� c� c� �P� WASHINdTON� D.O. OFFIGE 2018 CLARENDON BLVD. ARLINGTON, VA 222p1 (703) 525-6750 OF OOIINSEL MARK P. FRIEDLANDER, JR. RE��$�.�� J�� 3 1;�°�; ciTY C' �LF: �'Y:. . .. _, _ The above building was damaged by fire in 1995 and I attach a memo which explains the refurbishing. One of the collateral issues raised by the City Planning Department is the matter of a siqn that was on the building rp ior to the fire. The sign was not damaged as such. The City Planning Department claims that more than half the building was destroyed - and hence, the new code requires that the sign be removed. Without disputing that more than 50� of the building was destroyed, at this time, that a request is made of , : •� , LAW OFFICES COTCHETT 8C PITF�E January 22, 1996 Page 2 the City to waive this requirement for the following reasons: 1. The sign is dignified and has been in place for many years. 2. The building was leased after the fire with a proviso that the new tenant could use the sign. 3. The tenant is taking major space in an industrial area that will provide a number of good obs over and above simple warehouse space. 4. The owner of the building, Mr. Nicholas Crisafi is a long time owner of the property in Burlingame and has done much over the years to support the beauty and health of the City. There are many more reasons for this request, but it is not worth burdening you with more. It is respectfully requested that this waiver be granted. ;ted, Enclosure cc: Jerome Coleman, City Attor Nicholas A. Crisafi ._--�`. � CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: City Council _�' �, DATE: January 25, 1996 i FROM: City Attorn'��.J i� �---- i SUBJECT : S ign on;•-'8 6 0 Burlway . /� You have receiv�d a letter from Joseph Cotchett concerning the roof sign facing the freeway on 860 Burlway. As you are aware, the building was gutted by a fire and all that remained was the precast concrete walls. There has been a sign on top of the building for some years. It is a four by eight foot sign, double faced with plastic faces and changeable hand-set lettering. It has been considered non- conforming since roof signs are now illegal and since it is totally oriented to the freeway; it is not visible from Burlway or any other nearby streets. The Planning Department informed the property owner, Nick Crisafi, that the sign must be removed because the building was destroyed to more than 500 of its value and therefore looses its nonconforming status. Mr. Cotchett's letter followed. Mr. Cotchett asks that the requirement for removal be "waived" for a variety of reasons. The only comment staff would make on those reasons is to question the description of the sign as "dignified" and to note that considerable signage is allowed on the site so long as it is not a roof sign. The sign code allows 130 square foot at signage on the primary frontage (Burlway Road) and 75 square feet of signage on each secondary frontage (facing into a parking lot). As to the waiver request, there is no provision in the code for exceptions to the provisions concerning rebuilding of nonconforming structures; it would be necessary to amend our code to provide for such a procedure. However, there is a procedure for a hearing when an owner does not remove an illegal or obsolete sign after notice from the city planner. (Chapter 22.26 of the sign code, attached to this memo.) That appears to be the current situation, and we suggest that staff contact Mr. Crisafi so that a date may be set for such a hearing before the Planning Commission. I am attaching pictures of the sign, taken on January 23. I am informed that on January 25 a building inspector was on the site to check the roofing work and noticed that reinforcements to the sign were being installed in the roof. He told that contractor to cease that work since the sign was not legal and, more importantly, because there were no plans for the substantial steel that was being installed. Upon visiting the site the next day, January 26, it was found that the installation of the bracing had nevertheless been completed. cc: City Planner Building Inspection � = �--�o -= = �� _.,:W �._,`.:<: �,�:u, � 4h� _ . . ._ �,;:�,�_.�_. , ..,, . ;�. w� '�,�:.�:': ,. �, ,..:� �a �� t: :�= :� . r.� . ,} � 9:. �� . - j:� ' : h I;'� �-•_�� ... .. I. � �� ::; r �,� —� �r� : , r. __ �_ . .. „ ,��. ' �. i; , '� , � �� ,!: r � � ,(� � �, _ —'�:+,' ,n r �t . " . ti .:! I i�� i:l � . 4-� -. .. _ 'i �" , *� i � ��t �.-' i `l r'r� � $�, t }�. k- �, � � 4kr� t � E$ ! � �y�i �� 4l" }[ t': � � i ; �:_, �-- �. �r `� �' t- t. .=r� '_ . `� ,; _� �:;� ` �a ..i `�� 22.26.010 Chapter 22.26 pBANDONED, OBSOLETE, UNSAFE OR 1LLEGAL SIGNS 22.26.010 Genera! requirements. 22.26.015 Abandoned and obsolete signs. 22.26.020 Notice. 22.26.030 Hearing. 22.26.040 Removal of sign. 22.26.050 Abatement as pu6lic nuisance. 22.26.010 General requitements. Every sign shall be erected and maintained in conformance with the terms of this tide and any conditions specified by its sign pecmi� Every sign shall be maintained in a safe and secure condition, and shall only advertise a bona fide establishment existing on We premises, or products or services available where the sign exists. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); JanuarY l7, 197�. 22.26.015 Abandoned and obsolete siga4. Any sign which no longer advertises a bona fide establishment existing on the premises shall be taken down and removefl, or the advertising copy shall be painted out, within thiity days by the owner or tenant of the building, strucwre or property upon which the sign may be located. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); January 17, 197�. 22.26.020 Notice. Whenever any sign is found by the city planner to be• in violation of any provision of this code, he shall give written notice w the owner and cenant, if any, of the property whereon it is located to remove or alter such sign. He may cause any sign wluch is an immedi- ate perii to persons or property to be removed sum- marily without notice. (Ord. 1096 § 2(part); January 17, 1977). 22.26.030 Hearing. If the owner or tenant fails tp comply within thirry days after such notice, or if a sign is summarily removed, a hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission. Written nodce of rhe time and place of such hearing shall be given by the city clerk to the property owner and tenant at least ten days prior to the date set for the hearing. At the hearing, the planning commission shall confum, modify or rescind the notice given or action taken by the city planner. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed as provided in Sections 22.06.150 and 22.06.160 of this tifle. (Ord. 1096 § 2(part); January 17, 1977). Z2.26.040 Removal of sign. Within ten days after the decision becomes final, the sign or signs described in such notice shall be removed by the property owner or tenant. If such removal is not completed witlrin that time, the building official sball cause such sign to be removed, and the cost thereof shall be paid by such owner or tenan� The owner and tenant shall be joindy responsible for the payment of such cos� The building official shall submit w the owner or other person in possession of the premises a statement of lus cosrs for removing or altering rhe sign. The amount of the cost may be appealed as provided in Section 22.06.140. Upon failure w receive full payment witliin thirty days from the date the statement is submittsd or within thirty days after conclusion of any appeal proceedings. whichever is later, the city auorney is authorized to provide for the collection of the amounts payable in any lawful manner. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); 7a�►uarY 17, 197'n. 22.26.050 Abatement as public nuisance. Any sign erected, constxucted, altered or enlarged cont�ary to the provisions of this tifle shall be and the same is declarefl to be unlawful and a public nuisance; and the city attorney to the city shall, upon notice of the city planner, immediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner pmvided by law, and shall take such other steps and shall apply W such courts as maY have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and remove such sign, and resaain and enjoin any person, fum or corporation from setting up, erecting, maintaining or using any such siga. (Ord. 1096 § 2(Part); JanuarY 17, 197'n. 338 ��°`1 CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY. FEBRUARY 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Ha11 Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 860 BURLWAY ROAD APN: 026-111-010 AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S NOTICE TO REMOVE AN II.LEGAL ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 '� , 'i� , , , ► ` . #� � ,�� t � § i � ,; �: � ��.� � � � w � � � � � � � ? Q � i �- � I i �� " �� F � � �- �- . ;� ;; ' � +s. , ' ,. _ . $ • � A �L�R, M . , • . �� (858- 8�8� �: 8�0 8 (00 - . �� •r ,�a � � � y,� � 3> + �vRL Wq� � �~ c a� � �..: �►� S(�5 . � � �¢ � Ir� � m�� , �� , �'� �� : � � 833 � � �� ..� ;� � � . � �. ��, :,.::� � T�� ; � w�... . �. �� r ; � ., ��. � :, ,� � �y�� ,� �,,t.� � �. "� u �� . `��, �. ��°� �' � 82 (v ,�, Ro�� .: ,� .� o M z - � — — _r_._ .= _ _ — — — � � .� �.. 8� y' 5 M � � r`� � , � �1�� -�'�'� i� , '� , � � � -, �x�� r : ._ � � �_� � � . � � � �-� �� . � � � �� • � � € s 3� . � � �� , ,, . . . ,. . ., - � � �,. � � � � � . ,r , � : � . � ,. v� � � ; � - -� �� , , � c"$r , � �M r i t�-- � s� � ...�-..-�.,t j a�Y a,� � �� _ _ x s r a:: , -f ` ;�< �# �::: F , If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ROOF SIGN RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road. APN: 026-111-010 ;�roperty owner: Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 26, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMI��IISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY i- i: Conditions of approval categorical exemption and approval roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 4, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any corrective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action sha11 be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AND REQUIRING ITS REMOVAL RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an illegal roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ; property owner: Nicholas Crisaii, 1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 26, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the sta.ff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is denied subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the removal of such roof sign aze as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Karen Kev , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of February , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and removal of an illegal roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 4, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof sha11 be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying acceptable correction aze completed. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIlVIROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 18. 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 860 BURLWAY ROAD APN: 026-111-010 AN APPEAL OF CITY PLANNER'S DETERNIINATION AND NOTICE TO REMOVE AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AT 860 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED O-M. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you JUDITH A. MALFATTI CITY CLERK FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1996 If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING AN ILLEGAL ROOF SIGN AND REQUIKING ITS REMOVAL RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for an illegal roof si�n at 858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ;�roperty owner: Nicholas Crisafi�1241 Whitethorne Wav ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 26th , 1996 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was a�pealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 1, 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the sta.ff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): E�sting Faciliries: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is denied subject to the conditions set forth in E�ibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the removal of such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 1�:��:3 I, 7UDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of Mazch , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCII,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCII,MEMBERS: EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and removal of an illegal roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 18, 1996 1. 1'he Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; , 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for as soon as the sign is removed; 3. That no occupancy of the building shall be allowed until the removal, necessary repairs and inspection certifying accepta.ble conection are completed. � If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: RES OLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXFMPTTON AND ROOF SIGN RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a roof si�n at _858-868 Burlway Road, APN: 026-111-010 ; uronerty owner: Nicholas Crisafi, 1241 Whitethorne Wa�; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on Februarp 26 , 1996 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was apnealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on _March 18 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual sma11 structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance is hereby approved. 2. Said roof sign is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such roof sign are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18TH day of March , 1996 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCII.MEMBERS: CITY CLERK �i � EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and approval roof sign 858-868 BURLWAY ROAD effective MARCH 18, 1996 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the properly owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any conective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; 3. That the sign shall be one sided, painted on plywood inserted into a metal frame, with an 8' X 20' exterior dimension, located on the rear parapet of the structure, and shall not be illuminated in any way; 4. That there shall be no occupancy of the building until conditions one and two have been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector; and 5. That the Commission's action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. �� CITY OF BURLINGAME Removal of an Illegal Roof Sign Address: 858-868 Burlway Road Meeting Date: 2.26.96 Request: Appeal of the City Planners direction to remove an illegal roof sign because the building was destroyed by fire. (CS 22.26.030) Applicant:Nicholas Crisafi APN: Lot Dimensions and Area: Zoning: General Plan: Industrial and Office use Adjacent Development: Warehouse and office property abuts State Highway 101 O-M buildings, CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 (1): Existing Facilities: demolition and removal of individual small structures except where the structures are of historical, archaeological, or architectural significance. Previous Use: Proposed Use: Allowable Use: Summary: Illegal roof sign Retain roof sign Remove roof sign The applicant, Nicholas Crisafi, is requesting, under the appeal provisions of the abandoned, obsolete, unsafe or illegal sign section of the sign code, to keep an illegal roof sign which f aces the freeway on his property at 858- 868 Burlway Road, zoned O-M. The building was severely damaged by fire, gutting the inside and destroying the roof, several months ago. It is presently under reconstruction. At the time of the fire there was an 8' x 20' (160 SF) single faced, plywood in a metal frame, sign mounted on top of the parapet and braced into the roof. There are no permits on file for the original construction or installation of this sign. Mr. Crisafi notes that the fire did not damage the sign or its box, although the roof fell in and the support bars were damaged. As a part of the reconstruction of the building he has enlarged and replaced the roof anchor supports (see elevation attached). The sign and its support replacement did not appear on the plans submitted for a building permit for reconstruction of the exterior walls and roof. In fact the Planning Department noted on their plan check (November 17, 1995) that the billboard sign must be removed. Because the sign did not appear on the plans neither Planning nor Building have reviewed the sign or its method of installation. The Building Inspector stopped work on the roof when he saw the supports to the sign being attached to the roof since this work was not included in the building permit; however, the work on the roof including the support attachments was completed. Should the roof sign be allowed to remain, the applicant would have to submit construction drawings and wind load and structural engineering calculations for the parapet and roof, documenting that the design and installation is safe. In addition some existing construction on the parapet and roof may have to be removed for inspection to insure that the construction conforms to the plans retroactively submitted and approved. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Commission should make a determination regarding whether the roof sign should be allowed to remain. If it is determined that the sign should be removed then: 1. The Commission should direct that the sign should be removed within ten (10) working days; and 2. That an inspection for any required repairs to the parapet or roof shall be called for � th� n d-�� e�pires . G�S ��'1 /�S t�e. ��7 �C ��,r�r If it is determined that the sign should be allowed to remain then: 1. The Commission should direct that the property owner shall submit wind load and structural engineering calculations for the roof and parapet for plan check to the Building Department within ten (10) working days; 2. That the property owner shall obtain a retroactive building permit and undertake any corrective work and have it inspected within thirty (30) days of submitting an application for a building permit; and 3. That the action shall be taken by resolution so that the entitlement to the roof sign is recorded with the property for future owners. Margaret Monroe