Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1460 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter.�;J � <�, . vovember 19, 1986 C�.�.E lnz�� .Q.0 �axx'Zia'r.��xx'I'C.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMRCSE ROAU BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 9401C� Mr. Kevin Osborne Chapin Committee 1460-B Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Osborne: TEL�(415) 342-6931 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the October 27 and November 10, 1986 Planning Commission approval of your Sign Exception application became effective November 18, 1986. This application was to allow a directory sign in the private parking lot adjacent to 1431 Chapin Avenue (APN 029-122-050). The October 27 and November 10, 1986 minutes of the Planning Commission state your Sign Exception was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the sign installed shali be a 60 SF (6� x 10') double faced directory sign with a maximum height of 12' from grade installed in the planter area on the property of Parcel 029-122-050 perpendicular to Chapin �venue no closer than 2' from the inner edge of the sidewalk to protect sight lines of cars exiting both from the private lot and public lot B; 2. that the sign shall be maintained appear on it, that they shall have to place the sign, and that those shall bear the expense of removing their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 terminated by the property owner; by the merchants whose names permission of the property owner whose names appear on the sign the sign should they terminate or should their lease be 3. that the sign shall not be lit and no addresses shall appear on the directory sign as a part of the business identification; and 4. that each business with access to the private parking area behind 1426-1462 Burlingame Avenue place a sign no smaller than two square feet indicating their street address on or 3bove their entrance, and that compliance with this condition be implemented within 30 days. Erection of the sign will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely yours, I�,� �+� � Mar ret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Wurlitzer Trustees Chief Building Inspector Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 ,seller or if the operator shall fail to comply with the conditions of �this use permit; and (8) that this use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in three months (February 1987) and each year thereafter. Second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: of any business which might go into a train station a flower business is the only one I would approve, the flower stands of San Francisco are an enhancement to the business area; agree with this statement, a flower stand will enhance the appearance of the station, it could not add to the parking problems as there is no place for autos to stop, it will be for the use of foot traffic and passengers of Caltrain; the newspaper stands in that area look much worse than a flower stand will; cannot vote for this proposal, business tenant in the station is located within the walls, not imposing on pedestrians or street traffic, have a concern about loading and unloading the vehicle especially at 6:00 P.M. Motion approved on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham, Schwalm and Giomi dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT - LIGHT AUTO REPAIR U5E - 1875 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Application continued at the request of the applicant; no date for hearing was proposed. � 4. AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION IN THE PRIVATE PARRING LOT ADJACENT TO 1431 CHAPIN AVENUE (APN 029-122-050), ZONED C-1 Reference staff report, 11/10/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed Commission discussion and action at its October 27, 1986 meeting; a condition to place street addresses clearly over the doors of the rear entrances to the private parking lot off Chapin Avenue had been discussed by staff and Commission on October 27 but was inadvertently omitted from the action. CP requested Commission consider adding this condition to those previously approved. Discussion: Fire Department request which this condition would address; does this relate to the sign application, it may be a matter for the Fire Department; staff felt it does relate to the issue of signage, how does a member of the public find the store he is looking for, three of the businesses do not have entrances on Burlingame Avenue; the additional condition would require the street number and name (Burlingame Avenue) be placed at each rear or main entrance. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Kevin Osborne, representing the Chapin Committee, addressed Commission. He stated he was not arguing about the condition as it applies to the three businesses which are not accessible from Burlingame �venue, they are still trying to get Chapin Avenue addresses; his studies in police science have shown the 911 computer will show there is an entrance off Chapin for any of the other businesses with Burlingame Avenue addresses, all of the businesses have their names on their doors at the rear and do not feel there is a problem in finding the back entrance; most do not wish to pay for Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 �any more signage nor do the Trustees of the property; the three businesses with entrances ofi Chapin would be shown as such on the computer. Responding to a request from the Chair, Bob Barry, Fire Marshal stated the Fire Department would like to hav� addresses above the doors, the computer holds much data but an emergency call would come in as a Burlingame Avenue number, signs in the rear would help in a confusing situation. Further Commission discussion: would prefer the requirement for businesses to put an address on their back doors be implemented in another manner without attaching a condition to a sign permit; the directory sign was specifically conditioned not to include any addresses, only the names of the businesses; almost �very site has a wall sign with the name of the business, but no address; think Fire Department felt street and number would be more helpful as they might not know where the emergency was once they got to the rear. A Commissioner suggested leaving the existing sign for the time being until this problem is resolved; staff advised many businesses are not listed on the existing sign. Applicant commented the businesses interested in a Chapin Avenue address are just the two or three which don't have entrances off Burlingame Avenue; he felt the Fire Department and customers who come to the Chapin side would see the sign at the entrance and after entering would see the business names over each door; the applicant stated he thought a specific business name is included in the 911 computer data as well as the Burlingame Avenue address and the fact that there is access off Chapin. A Commissioner did not think a 2 SF sign was asking too much in the interest of safety and to help the Fire Department; applicant replied perhaps not for the three businesses with main entrances on Chapin but many of the other businesses have been at this location for many years with no problems. The cost of a 2 SF sign was estimated to be $125.00 at a minimum and permission of the Trustees of the estate would be required. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statemen� these businesses were willing to pay for a large directory sign and now are objecting to only 2 SF more for each business; if there were an accident or some other obstruction on Burlingame Avenue the Fire Department would need the rear entrance; although the businesses already have identification signs they should also have their street addresses on their rear entrances, C. Jacobs moved to add the following condition to the October 27, I986 conditions of approval for this application: (4) that each business with access to the private parking area behind 1426-1462 Burlingame Avenue place a sign no smaller than two square feet indicating their street address on or above their entrance, and that compliance with this condition be implemented within 30 days. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: this will be not only a safety factor facilitating emergency response but a help to customers using the back lot; there was some discussion on this matter at the previous meeting, Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1986 had thought it was included in the previous ackion; if this is so important, believe it should be required of all businesses with back doors, object to adding this condition as a part of a sign permit. Motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. At the request of the CP a motion wa� made, seconded and passed unanimously on voice vote to allow the applicant to proceed with erection of the directory sign with the following notation by the CP on the building permit: "The street address of each property with a door/entrance off the private parking lot shall be placed on or above the door/entrance at a minimum size of 2 SF or as allowed by the Fire Department if such is required by the Planning Commission and/or City Council." CONSENT ITEMS 5. Minor Modification - 228 Dwight Road 6. Minor Modification - 479 Chatham Avenue Consent items accepted on motion made, seconded and passed unanimously on voice vote. Recess 8:55 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW COMPLETION OF A GARAGE - 1337 BERNAL AVE. Requests: who drew the plans dated 7/1/86 and were these the plans approved by the Building Department; did applicant complete the building permit process; are there any plans available showing the pitch of the roof; what is the window in the face of the building above the plate line; history of the 1136 Balboa garage; roof line of the house, is it a tile roof; is applicant buildinq the garage himself. Item set for hearing November 24, 1986. 8. AMENDMENT OF SIGN PROGRAM - CROSBY COMMONS - 1375 BURLING�ME AVE. CP briefly discussed proposed changes to the approved master sign program. Item set for hearing November 24, 1986. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT - DISH ANTENNA - 1501 BAYSHORE HIGHW�Y Requests: why do they need this antenna; list of other dish antennas in the immediate area; which building on this parcel is proposed for location of the dish; is it visible or isn't it, where is it visible from; what business is this company engaged in. Item set for hearing November 24, 1986. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 27, 1986 � 4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE PRIVATE PARRING LOT ADJACENT TO 1431 CHAPIN AVENUE (APN 029-122-050), ZONED C-1, BY THE CHAPIN COMMITTEE WITH WURLITZER TRUSTEES (PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 10/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's justification and comments on the request, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. � Discussion: need for clear identification for the Fire Department of the two businesses with 8urlingame Avenue addresses but with primary entrances off Chapin (the parking lot>. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Kevin Osborne, representing the Chapin Committee, commented: requiring the sign parallel to Chapin would greatly limit visibility, present sign is perpendicular to Chapin, sign would not be visible if it were moved flat against the wall especially with the existing tree; there are now three businesses with Burlingame Avenue addresses and primary entrances off Chapin, a Chapin Avenue address would help in emergency situations and for customers; they would be glad to comply with the CE's suggestion the sign be placed 2' clear of the sidewalk area. Commission/applicant/staff discussion: parking tickets are validated the merchants; many people are aware of this parking area but if the sign is moved back will it be seen; CP's suggestion was to turn the sign parallel and at least 4' from the sidewalk; CE noted the wide driveway and had no concern if the sign were kept at least 2' clear the sidewalk; staff's desire to have all businesses listed on the directory sign identify themselves with an address sign over their doors; visibility of the directory sign, perpendicular and parallel; tree would affect visibility if sign were turned. by of Speaking in favor, Dick Gates, Hillsborough: without a directory sign it is difficult to direct customers to the parking i:n the rear; if sign were placed parallel to Chapin and moved back it would be less visible than the existing sign. There were no audience comm�nts in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion: safety factor of the proposed si�gn if placed so it can be seen coming down Chapin from either direction; CE advised it would be safe if placed at least 2' from the sidewalk and approximately in the center of the planter area. C. H.Graham moved for approval of the sign exception and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Sign Exception with the following conditions: (1) that the sign installed shall be a 60 SF (6� x 10') double faced directory sign with a maximum height of 12' from grade installed in the planter area on the property of Par�cel 029-122-OSO perpendicular to Chapin Avenue no closer than 2' from the inner edge of the sidewalk to protect sight lines of cars exiting both from the private lot and public lot B; (2) that the sign shall be maintained by the merchants whose names appear on it, that they sh�all have permission of the property owner to place the sign, and that th�ose whose names appear on the siqn shall bear the expense of removing the sign should Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1986 they terminate their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 or should thezr lease be terminated by the property owner; and (3) that the sign shall not be lit and no addresses shall appear on the directory sign as a part of the business identification. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Garcia dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ERECT A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE, BY EMBASSY SUITES AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 Reference staff report, 10/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Discussion: size of other antennas in the area compared to this request; concern that location of the dish is adjacent to the lagoon. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Jim Delany, Director of Antenna and Facilities Engineering, Comsat Corporation, addressed Commission: his company has installed approximately 1,100 of this type of dish, it has much higher frequency than C-band antennas, a C-band dish would require 24' diameter for the same quality reception; this installation is for TV reception only but has the future capability to transmit and receive for teleconferencing, the transmit package is well within FCC guidelines and very safe. He discussed Comsat's practice of sending out a team of engineers for selection of a site, they are aware of communities' concerns about aesthetics and visual impact on the public, concern about view from the lagoon was considered; this team worked closely with the architects, the least expensive location would have been in the parking lot but this and other areas would be visible from the street, mounting on the roof was not feasible structurally; in order to cover the satellite arc it was necessary to be clear of the hotel building; this location by the front entrance was chosen because it was the only area to rneet criteria that had been established. Commission/applicant/engineer discussion: poplar trees proposed for screening are deciduous; installation will be visible to Victoria Station on the other side of the lagoon. Steve Hegel, Assistant General Manager, Embassy Suites, discussed revised plantings, trees in front would hide the upper portion of the dish, lower portion of dish would be covered by 6' shrubbery around the 4' wall, the dish and wall would be the same color as the hotel; from Victoria Station a portion of the dish would be seen but the lower portion would be covered by shrubbery and the wall; it is an operational necessity to have the upper portion of the dish visible. Mr. Delany advised a 4' wall is the highest level the lip of the dish can look over. Applicant stated the present TV reception is a bonus, future transmit capability will be a necessity for all hotels. Responding to Commissioner question if yews or cypress trees could be planted far enough from the wall so that screening could go over 6',