HomeMy WebLinkAbout1460 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportP.C. 11/10/86
Item #4
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONDITIONS FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION IN THE PRIVATE PARKING LOT
ADJACENT TO 1431 CHAPIN AVENUE (APN 029-122-050), ZONED C-1
At the Planning Commission meeting on October 27, 1986 the Planning
Commission granted a sign exception to the Chapin Committee for a 12'
high, 10' x 6' double faced sign to be placed perpendicular to Chapin
Avenue in the planter area 2' behind the property line at the entrance
to the private parking lot (APN 029-122-050) on Chapin, zoned C-1. In
their discussion the Commission noted the need addressed by the Fire
Department and City Planner that the street addresses of each place of
business be placed clearly over their doors to facilitate emergency
response and public using the rear lot seeking the place of business.
The Commission granted the sign exception with three conditions:
(1) that the sign installed shall be a 60 SF (6' x 101) 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 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 shall have permission of the
property owner to place the sign, and that those whose names appear on
the sign shall bear the expense of removing the sign should they
terminate their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 or should their 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.
Unfortunately, the condition to place the address clearly over the
doors was not included. A site inspection indicated that some of the
businesses already comply.
Planning staff would like the Commission to consider adding the
following condition to the action:
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.
Procedure
It is the City Attorney's opinion that since the public hearing has
been held on this item and this item was a part of the previous
discussion, the Commission is not required to hold another public
hearing in order to act on this condition. The applicant has been
notified of the staff request to Commission regarding the entrance
identification signage.
-2-
Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reason for any
action should be clearly stated. In stating the reasons for the action
the Commission shall consider the facts regarding the identification
signage listed in the October 27, 1986 staff report.
Ma�rr Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Kevin Osborne, Chapin Committee
Wurlitzer Trustees
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A
LOT ADJACENT TO 1431
ZONED C-1
J/ P.C. 10/27/86
Item #4
DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE PRIVATE PARKING
CHAPIN AVENUE (APN 029-122-050),
Kevin Osborne representing the Chapin Committee, a group of 14
merchants who jointly share the parking on a group of properties owned
by Wurlitzer, is requesting a 12' high 10' x 6' double faced directory
sign to be placed perpendicular to Chapin Avenue in the 6' landscaped
area at the driveway of the shared parking lot. A sign exception is
required because the proposed sign is 120 SF (50 SF of signage allowed
in the zone) (Code Sec. 22.14.020). The purpose of the sign is to
notify the public of the 14 places of business who provide off-street
parking by way of the driveway and leased land behind it. All these
businesses represented on the sign pay rent to the property owner in
exchange for use of the lot.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the application. The Chief Building Inspector
(September 25, 1986 memo) had no comments. The Fire Marshal (September
26, 1986 memo) notes that any business which has its primary entrance
off Chapin Avenue should be considered for a Chapin Avenue address.
(This applies to two of the businesses represented on the sign - Oztec
Electronics and Charles Light Atty.) Also businesses with entrances
off the parking lot should mark them clearly with street address, to
assist in emergency response. The City Engineer (October 6, 1986
memo) objects to the request because those businesses listed as
fronting on Chapin Avenue have no street frontage and the right of
access across the other properties has not been clearly established
through common ownership or easement agreement. Because of the 8'
width of the planter the proposed 6' wide sign will be only 2' from the
sidewalk blocking view of cars and pedestrians as cars pull out of the
parking lot. The City Engineer suggests two conditions to the sign
exception: that all the properties continue to lease the property
fronting on Chapin and that the sign be placed at least 2' clear of the
inner edge of the sidewalk.
Planning staff has a number of comments. Several businesses fronting
on Burlingame Avenue and backing onto the properties which connect to
the property which fronts on Chapin have been using a property leased
from Wurlitzer for access to the paved parking areas at the rear of
their building for a number of years. In 1984 fourteen of these
businesses signed a lease with the trustees of the Wurlitzer properties
to jointly use the parcel fronting on Chapin (APN 029-122-050) for
parking and access to the paved parking areas at the rear or adjacent
to their properties. The lease agreement is month to month with a 30
day termination clause. Of the 14 participating merchants, two have
-2-
primary access on the parking area. Should the lease agreement be
terminated, these two businesses would have only indirect access
(through another business) to Burlingame Avenue. Because none of these
businesses have direct street frontage on Chapin Avenue, none have
Chapin addresses.
Planning staff has not considered this proposed signage "off premise"
because those wishing to be listed on the directory sign are all paying
for the use of the lot. However, should the lease be terminated, the
sign would become off premise and it would have to be removed since off
premise signage is not allowed under the sign code. Because the
addresses for these businesses are all on Burlingame Avenue, the
proposed directory sign should not include any identifying addresses.
Burlingame addresses on Chapin Avenue could be very confusing to
passers-by. However, the entrances to the various tenants' areas
should be clearly marked with addresses so that the Fire Department can
accurately respond to a call.
Applicant's Letter
In his sign exception request (August 27, 1986) the applicant notes
exceptional circumstances being that there are 13 businesses using the
parking behind 1432 to 1462 Burlingame Avenue; two of these businesses
are accessible only through the parking area. Together these
businesses are providing private parking to alleviate the parking
problems downtown. (Note: None of these lots were taken as credits
when the Parking District was created in 1962.) The merchants involved
would like to replace an existing 46 SF double faced sign with a new
double faced sign. The proposed 50 SF sign (note: actually 60 SF per
face) would meet all city requirements except that it has lettering on
both sides.
He points out in an attachment that the existing sign is in extreme
disrepair, on the directory sign each sign will be 9" x 30" or 1.9 SF
per face which is small; the sign is tasteful in design to be in
keeping with the street; the signage would mean more people would use
the parking provided; the Garden Center owner would like to see a
better sign; none of the property owners across the street object; no
other type of signage would permit identification of all the tenants
who have use of the parking.
Study Questions
At their study meeting on October 14, 1986 the Planning Commission
reviewed the application and asked several questions (Planning
Commission Minutes, October 14, 1986). The applicant provided a copy
of the lease agreement (cover letter October 14, 1986 from Schifferle
and map) indicating that 14 separate merchants pay the property owner
for the use of the lot fronting Chapin and portions of the three lots
behind 1460 to 1432 Burlingame Avenue. The lease agreement is
C19C
monthly with a 30 day termination clause. The City Engineer's memo
addresses visibility and placement of the sign. At minimum he would
like the sign moved back two feet. However, it would be best to
reorient the sign so that it is parallel to Chapin. If reoriented the
sign would not need to be double faced and would only be 10 SF over the
50 SF of signage allowed for the Chapin frontage. There appears to be
less than 20' between the driveway out of the public parking lot B and
the sign and also between the sign and the driveway to the leased
private parking area.
Because of potential parking abuse, the private lots accessed off
Chapin Avenue are supervised by a parking attendant. The attendant is
paid by the participating merchants. There is currently at least one
sign on each site identifying the tenant/merchant. On several sites
there is more than one sign. In total there are 19 signs and 310 SF.
The code would allow 250 SF of signage (secondary frontage on a parking
lot) and 27 signs (three per frontage). (See Planner's notes, existing
signage on secondary frontage, 1426-1462 Burlingame Avenue with
locational map attached, October 1986). In this area businesses are
accessed from the rear except for the two businesses which only have
frontage on the parking lot. All of the properties involved with
parking are owned by Mr. Wurlitzer. Only one of the properties whose
tenants are requesting to be on the sign are not owned by Wurlitzer,
1448-1454 Burlingame Avenue owned by Smitherman. The Smitherman
property does not extend through the parking area as the others do.
Neither the present sign nor the proposed sign will be lit. The
illumination referred to in the application is the parking lot and
existing street lighting. Thus there will be no change in lighting as
a result of the project.
The parking in the lot is not designated except that it is specifically
limited by the attendant to patrons of the 14 businesses. The
applicant (the 14 merchants) will be responsible for maintaining the
sign.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and take action.
Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reason for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that the sign installed shall be a 60 SF (6' x 101) one sided
directory sign with a maximum height of 12' from grade installed in
the planter area on the property of Parcel 029-122-050 parallel to
Chapin Avenue no closer than 4' from the inner edge of the sidewalk
to protect sight lines of cars exiting both from the private lot
and public lot B;
-4-
2. that the sign shall be maintained by the merchants whose names
appear on it, that they shall have permission of the property owner
to place the sign, and that those whose names appear on the sign
shall bear the expense of removing the sign should they terminate
their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 or should their 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.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Kevin Osborne, Chapin Committee
Wurlitzer Trustees
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1986
ITEMS FOR STUDY
5. SPECIAL PERMIT - PENINSULA PARENT, INC. - 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Requests: report on other uses at the school, number of people using
parking now and parking available in the neighborhood; number of
children presently on the site; is there a white loading zone; compare
parking impact of this use with the previous use in this building; is
this a non-profit organization. Item set for public hearing October
27, 1986.
6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT MUSIC CLASSES - 1430 PALM AVENUE
Staff will inquire whether recitals are planned with a large number of
people coming to the site at one time. Commission requests: is the
nursery school still in operation; what other church activities occur
on the premises during music class times. Item set for public hearing
October 27, 1986.
7. SPECIAL PERMIT - FLOWER SALES - 290 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Requests: drainage control; limitations on signage; will applicant
require some type of lean-to during inclement weather; clarify length
of the stand; research nature of complaints raised about a flower stand
in front of Levy Bros. in the past; is there any correlation between
this application and a temporary, movable use such as a hot dog wagon;
disposal of garbage during the day and at the end of the day; will
applicant be renting space from the Department of Transportation;
number of employees and hours they will work; will stand have no cover,
and perhaps be placed under the portico of the station during wet
weather; will stand be removed every evening. Item set for public
hearing October 27, 1986.
SIGN EXCEPTION - SECONDARY FRONTAGE - TENANTS AT 1426 TO 1462
BURLINGAME AVENUE - BY THE CHAPIN COMMITTEE
Staff has asked applicant to provide a copy of the portion of the lease
agreement addressing joint lease for the lot now used for access and
parking. Commission requests: determination by CE regarding
ingress/egress visibility; distance between sign and curb cuts; are
there other alternatives; how does one get to the business after
driving in and parking; who owns the property they will park on; does
current sign have lighting, will the new sign be lit; is there signage
on the individual stores facing Chapin Avenue now; does present sign
illumination run from dusk to dawn, is it visible to residential uses
across the street; will parking in the lot be designated; who will
maintain the sign. Item set for public hearing October 27, 1986
pending receipt of lease agreement information requested by staff.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT - DISH ANTENNA - 150 ANZA BOULEVARD
Staff will attempt to determine details of the structure surrounding
the base of the antenna and how much it will cover of what is visible
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
October 14, 1986
from the street. Commission requests: is there a garage under the site
of the antenna installation; location of the antenna, location of the
restaurant and entrance to the restaurant; sketch indicating extent of
exposure of the antenna; landscaping plan, including landscaping on all
visible sides of the antenna; are there alternative sites for this
installation. Item set for public hearing October 27, 1986.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT - CAR RENTAL AGENCY - 1177 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Requests: status of underground parking garage; who uses the Sheraton
parking lot; number of parking spaces approved when the hotel was
approved; number of spaces used on a typical day; available parking at
the Sheraton at various times during the week. Item set for public
hearing October 27, 1986.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its October 6, 1986 regular
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Leahy, Secretary
SIGN EXCEPTION
Application to the Planning Commission
1. PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION
Name
Firm
CHAPIN COMMITTEE
Date filed
$75 Fee received by
Receipt No. /�_lIf
Public hearing scheduled AL
c/o OZ TEK VIDEO, Mr. Kevin Osborne
Telephone
Firm's Address1462 Burlingame Avenue, Burlincame, CA 94010
ATTACH DENIED SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
(415) 342-4843
2. Has applicant read Section 22.06.110 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes
[Me
X
3. Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to your property
which do not generally apply to other properties in your area, and the extent to
which you may deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are not entitled.
There are 13 businesses who utilize parking behind 1432-1462 Burlingame
Avenue. The parking area is private. Two businesses are accessable only
through the private parking area. These businesses provide private parking,
lessening impact on Burlingame's parking shortage. They would merely like
to make the existence of this access to their businesses apparent to the
public at large. The thirteen businesses have agreed to replace an existing
sign with a sign which is 46 sq. ft. larger than permitted by sign ordinanc
4. Describe why the exception is necessary now to preserve the continued use and
enjoyment of the property.
The proposed sign would have two sides, each approximately 50 sq. ft.,
and would fit in all respects the dimensions reg fired by City
ordinance, except that it would be lettered on both sides. The two sided
iettering requires an exception.
5. What hardships would result if your request were denied?
At least two businesses are without any frontage on a Burlingame Street.
Other businesses have narking which may not be known to shoppers, who
then would park on the already stressed parking of Burlingame Avenue.
SEE ATTACHMENT
6. EVALUATION BY CITY PLANNER
Code section(s) relevant to this application
An exception has been requested because ...
SIGN EXCEPTION: 1462 BURLINGAME AVENUE
"Hardships", cont'd
1. The existing sign is apparently 54± sq. ft.,
and is lettered on both sides. It is in extreme disrepair.
2. The new sign, the design of which is submitted
herewith, would have not more than 14 individual signs, in
a sort of directory form, which would identify businesses which
provide parking in the private lot. Each small individual sign
would be approximately 9" by 30". The sign would conform to
the general appearance of the street, and would not be garrish
or outlandish.
3. The new sign, if approved, would provide
businesses with parking access a means to so notify their
customers, and would assist in alleviating parking stress on
various City streets.
4. All businesses which are served by this lot
desire this new sign. The owner of the Garden Center has stated
that he would much prefer a new sign, done well, to the sign
presently in place. The Garden Center is on one side of the
parking area entrance, and a City parking lot is on the other
side.
5. An informal poll of other property owners who
would be across the street from the new sign indicates that
no one, business or individual, would have any objection to
the construction of the sign as presently designed.
6. In the event that the sign is disapproved, due
to the fact that it is 45 square feet more than permitted by
sign ordinance, businesses served by the parking area would
suffer. No other form of sign would permit all of the tenants
who have access to the private lot to so notify their customers.
RECEIVED SIGN PERMIT U'J'�'En Date filed �
i�S
y � � Application to the City Planner Received by ,4- 6,tre4lo s
n0u 1 Form S-2 Rev. /1/77/-0a,tAXa0£ CJ� - CS,d $TdTs
CITY of BMINGAME 0.0 FsL£ Y4 5-1/ Sg 6 Q - 3l0 t/ - g' Fo va
PLAN1HUtA K". 1. PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION >=1C P / a - Krci
Name U/ OE; So N Telephone S 3 y`1 Y3
Firm C7f�ApiA� lAN.�(� F_ F C 0 01 C46C'7-Aa A,�.^ c ?ni c
Firm's Address /Z/�Q �, ,gy,pLi V , J-(,c q q p / o
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature Date
2. BURLINGAME BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION REQUESTING NEW SIGNAGE
Name of business establishment/organi z i on C NA b ) A), Q 1
tie
Nature of business
Name of business owner m N Telephone
Address 28(1RL -) AN e 41)F Zoning district
3. OWNER OF BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND
Name it, S �' ScC ok
1 1—f N
Address !;t/ 02
I know about the proposed sign, or signs, and hereby authorize the above pelican to
submit this application. Signature 4AJc03eo Z-F—OE C o!' ArRM/SS10.tiDate
4. PROPERTY INFORMATION Building
Lot width Building width height
Lot depth Building depth Setback
5. SIGNAGE INFORMATION
N F W S516 " Number of existing signs on property
T-5 CRf P ZA C Number of existing signs to remain Attach photo(s)
�
£z i s 4 i A) G, Number of proposed new signs
S!G v Sign construction details (SEE PAGE 2; please complete all parts)
6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
j/ Site plan showing size of property and location of all signs.
Elevations drawn to scale of not less than 1/2" = 1'-O" for all signs.
Show sign positions on building elevations if relevant.
Color rendering or perspective of all signs.
7. TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY PLANNER
Maximum signage permitted by Title 22: Primary frontage Secondary -S� S F
Total signage proposed by this application: Primary frontage Secondary /ZO S
This application is consistent with all Title 22 requirements, and a Building Permit
may be issued. (yes) X(no)
-7,50 Wi eA Signed
�CGOn ✓✓J%� �u� e . Date_ / �(o
SIGN PERMIT FEE to be collected by Building Department: $
n r r
RtpLACt.AtAA O 1 OLO V 6&'&O
SIGN A: ( )Existing, no change (Existing, new copy ( )New sign
Sign type: ground sign _V wall sign
pole sign other (please specify):
projecting sign
s
Overall height la- Width of sign face ( / Height of sign face
Area of sign ���F; Background color L414itf. Copy color RC4CK
Copy D�iC E� TORy 1
Type of illumination � S Hours to be i11uminated 'DaSf� — 10 u1 n)
Sign material: letters AW57')C (/!iW G body or sign surface 1 y/t'(.00
Method of support ConlC•4ZCr single/double faced_Djugu' FpC £O
Permit to: erect ftACV-tmTalter paint move
o F 4PLI3 5trAJ
SIGN B: ( )Existing, no change ( )ExA ting, new copy ( )New sign
Sign type: ground sign all sign
pole sign other (please specify):
projecting sign
Overall height Wi
Area of sign ii
Copy
Type of illuminati
Sign material: etters_
Method of s port
Permit to: erect
f sign face
ound color
Height of sign face
Copy color
Hours to be illuminated
body or siqn surface;
single/double faced
alter paint
move
SIGN C: ( )Existing, no change ( )Existing, new copy ( )New sign
Sign type: ground sign wal 'sign
pole sign er (please specify):
projecting sign
Overall height Width of ign face Height of sign face
Area of sign Bac round color Copy color
Copy
Type of illumination / Hours to be illuminated
Sign material: letters body or sign surface
Method of support single/double faced
Permit to: erect alter paint move
SIGN D: ( )Existing, no change ( )Existing, new copy ( )New sign
Sign type: ground sign wall s'gn
pole sign oth (please specify):
projecting sign
Overall height Width of si face Height of sign face
Area of sign Backgro d color Copy color
Copy
Type of illumination / Hours to be illuminated
Sign material: letters, body or sign surface
Method of support single/double faced
Permit to: erect alter paint move
-2 -
EXISTING SIGNS AT
REAR (SECONDARY FRONTAGE) OF 1426-1462
BURLINGAME
AVENUE
Tenant Name
Sign #
Type
Size
(Sq.Ft.)*
Area
Totals
1426
Robert W. Gates
1.
Painted Wall Sign
7'
x
18'
126.0
2.
Painted Logo
2'
x
16"
2.66
3.
Mounted letters
8"
x
30'
19.8
4.
Plywood Wall Sign
over awning
2'
x
12'
24.0
SUBTOTAL, 1426 BURLINGAME
AVENUE;
172.5 SF
1432
Holiday Travel
5.
Awning Sign
6"
x
9'
4.5
4.5
1436
Norlund Antiques
6.
Awning Sign
6"
x
8'
4.0
7.
2'
x
8'
16.0
SUBTOTAL, 1436 BURLINGAME
AVENUE;
20.0
1440
Granny's Place
8.
Plywood Wall Sign
2'
x
4'
8.0
8.0
1442
Paper Caper
9.
Plywood Wall Sign
1'
x
4'
4.0
4.0
1444
Plagmann's
10.
Plywood Wall Sign
2'
x
2'-6"
5.0
5.0
1444-B
Charles Light, Atty.
11.
Plywood Door Sign
20"
x
16"
2.2
2.2
1460
Coiffeur Ambassador
12.
Plywood Wall Sign
4'
x
4'
16.0
16.0
1460-B
Oztek Electronics
13.
Plywood Wall Sign
4'
x
7'
28.0
14.
" " "
20"
X
24"
3.3
15.
Plywood Wall Sign (in
entry)
3'-6"
x 6'
21.0
16.
Plastic Wall Sign
( in entry)
20"
x
24"
3.3
17.
Plywood Door Sign
(in entry)
16"
x
20"
2.2
18.
Plex. Wall Sign
16"
x
9'
12.0
SUBTOTAL, 1460-B BURLINGAME AVENUE
69.8
1462
Talbot's
19.
Plywood Wall Sign
2'
x
4'
8.0
8.0
TOTAL SIGNAGE ON SECONDARY
FRONTAGE,
ALL TENANTS (APPROXIMATE);
310.0 SF
*NOTE; Sign Area judged visually in the field; numbers are approximate. (October 1986)
TOTAL SIGNAGE BY PARCEL FOR SECONDARY FRONTAGE;
PERMITTED EXISTING (APPROX.)
1426 Burlingame Avenue
50 SF
172.5 SF
1432-40 Burlingame Avenue
50
32.5
1442-44 Burlingame Avenue
50
11.2
1448-54 Burlingame Avenue
50
0.0
1460 Burlingame Avenue
50
93.8
310.0 SF
(October 1986)
4
4, 4.
N)
Q5
A V
i
-6=
k-
n
CHAPIN AVENUE
S14CRPINCT MAC. r-
PARKING GENT6RW-
00
01- -1
nct�;r�V�u
h u U 151986
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
BGME
AVENUE
"MALL TENANTS"
STREET
1.
Charles Light Atty. .
1444-
2.
Coffier Ambassador
1460
3.
Granny's Place
1440
4.
Holiday Travel
1432
5.
Mary B Fine Gifts
1452
6.
Norlund Antiques
1436
7.
Oztek Electronics
1460-
g.
Paper Caper
1442
9.
Plagmann' s
1444
10.
Robert Gates
1426
11.
Talbot' s
1462
12.
The Bit of England
1448
13.
Wilford Travel
1454
0
SCAUr 1 = 1 -e
e
UN/TED -s��
o —
Le.N Nxb�
�WJPEIJ
Z wAY DRNE
<- PRorERTy
cl,vf
,PROPOSED VOv KCL �iqc Ep sIG,J
8 -4, C Pl.Ahf7E P-
f
sin qLl<
DATE.- YZAM
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
.-2 IEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
DIRECTOR OF PARKS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
Go-& pia Q S
S�• AsiG /" tb A&Al f `
/SSG Z AtNe-ya�
An application has been, received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for <J'7Z1Oy
at their meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by
Thank you. U ,� h
O `
/4C'/J 0 ALI" /'/Y� 12-/
,01
Helen Williams
Planner
s/
att.
TO: Meg Monroe, City Planner
FROM: Bob Barry, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: 1462 Burlingame Avenue
September 26, 1986
k1E(i1�'VHF
S EP 2 9 1986
CI OF KMN NUDF.P D.
I have reviewed the plans submitted for this project and have the
following comments:
1. Any businesses which have their primary entrance off Chapin
Avenue should be considered for Chapin Avenue addresses (as
opposed to Burlingame Avenue).
2. Any businesses which have entrances off the parking lot must
clearly display the address numbers above the entrance to the
business.
Bob Barry
RECEIVED
TO: PLANNING
FROM: ENGINEERING OCT 22 19%
CITY OF BIALINGAME
DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1986 PLANNING DEPT.
RE: SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE SIGNAGE THAN IS ALLOWED
1462 BURLINGAME AVENUE
I have reviewed again the above request. I have the following comments on
this request.
1. The City Attorney has reviewed the submitted lease agreement.
He has indicated that, for signing purposes, my original
request that there be permanent easements or a lot combination
for this signing to be approved is not necessary.
2. This sign is too large when placed as proposed. The planter
area is 8'±, not the 8' 6" as indicated. The 6' 0" sign, if
placed as far as possible from the sidewalk, leaves only 2'
clear for drivers to see vehicles and pedestrians. This is
minimum but adequate since it is a wide driveway, but the
location of the sign must be revised or the size reduced.
Based on these comments, I have the following conditions which should be
attached to any approvals:
1. That the proposed sign be placed at least 2' 0" clear of
sidewalk area.
2. That if the lease of the parking terminates for any of those
addresses listed on the sign, then that address on the signage
be removed.
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
FCE:dj
cc: City Attorney
1
184
IT
M-
(12 3
/X
Pro pos24
1� s l (`
T
$ 10-7 -A-Ign !
40.IMO hVMAAI-4#(l
--)I-vm �
9Iv W-Vd
no od
3vlrv-I/!-y (Vld v� Nv 3Uj v v(�u!r,-j
livowl?la 1v ?jlt wed N1
jY�l h21L/ a L15 vk
y
-11
Irk
o�
qTis 1"21110 M
- - hunt-dd 91VAIV4
oa, tag M� n �yd
F
P1-r/1t,l /fosE /,a.
W
0
%A
s
w
w
CL
0
y
o�
1— lL
w
N
F-
CAC
J
VIA
Q
J
�
3
�
o
W
y
N
v
N
3
D
Q
q
�
o
Q
v
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK
NORTH COASTAL PEAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE • TELEPHONE (415) 945-7486
710 SO BROADWAY, SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
October 14, 1986
Kevin Osborne
1460 B Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Parking Rights
Dear Mr. Osborne:
The following tenants have a right to park in
the Wurlitzer parking lot as of this date:
Charles Light
Ambassadors
Grannv's Place
Holiday Travel
Mary B. Fine Gifts
Nordlund Antiques
Oztek Electronics
Paper Caper
Plaggmans
Gates
Talbots
Bit of Enaland
Wolford Travel
Trimm Wav
Sincerely,
, 1
t
Fred'. Schifferle
Real Estate Officer
FAS/lac
1
1 1
I r-f I IV11#1
11'+Ir/ 1/ rl�•1 11 `� L
1•+�ll'1 rl/ U•1 Ir, ltr 1/, 1 _1 �
1 1`/11 .. •f 11 u 1 II Irll I.1 .1 )I lr1 1•r 1\r.+ ♦. 1\11 Irr � �_
•�r t•Ittl `r 'r t/ rl, 1 1/ Ir 11 `r M Irlr I'�1 r 111� •` .,
.^ 11'�'i, Ill.' ..li\ I r /l irclll larl fl, III I
`1 lll•) I• I\1 rlllll rf 1\. 1•r1•Irr 11
.. 1,1.r I` -'If •,'r `r n ••I t�,,I11) rl tirl 1 1! •rrr 11 Irr• 11 1.1 1 t' �
„ 1 rItrr`t I• r-.1` 1 .I r.rl rl 1.11 11, lrll I•/Il r+ ►11.1 rrrl Irrlll� —�. '� ; V 1
\7•.If I III l•1 rl Illllrll , J..a•
t•1 1 rll rltl•1 l\r//Ir•+ 1\1 •Irl\•nll/II 11 Itll rlrl rf I1r1 ( �� �� �
1//Irr ,! Irl •Ilr•I.1 (• rll• Ilr.,rl rri/ If 1`rl •tri.r•1 11 rll•1 1
••`I`rrr! lrl 1 •1 1 „ 111• rl l•1 1 lrr ll/,Irrll 1/,,/I•rl rl 1•tlr•11 ( `� It
`�il•r 1/, rt t•. •rrl ••r 1\rrll t/r•rr rl r/,J l/1 1 t•1 /r•.••1.1 1./.,1 IN
•��1 • •,/t`I/•tr•11 Il.i i.r/.rl Irrt\ t / 11 Ir 1.11 11,11 I111( , -�� �
`�•� I`•�• tI ),` /rl 11, 1; lrr11 1•r•ir l.r l\ 11' on/ I/' rrtl ` .
r 1, 11•l �,1 Ir 1 Irlrl•I. 111 •r 1••lrlt/If 11•r 11 ••II lrl 1 1\r,ll M .
✓1 •;/y rill •rrl, rr llrlif 11.1 rlrls 111 11' 7/' I111 17,�/ 1•rl 1/ � R� �
w NI•t rl I+Il..ly, � 1
l wIr
1 if? N'
tj'\
-w 1" Of.
c, hr Tits of Wuriirtpmr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
NOTICE OF HEARING
Sign Exception
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th day of October, 1986 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to exceed permitted signage on a secondary
frontage at 1460 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1.
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
MARGARET MONROE
CITY PLANNER
October 17, 1986
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
October 27, 1986
SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE PRIVATE PARKING 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 Burlingame 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 by
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 of
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.
Speaking in favor, Dick Gates, Hillsborough: without a directory sign
it is difficult to direct customers to the parking in 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 comments in opposition
and the public hearing was closed.
Further discussion: safety factor of the proposed sign 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 101)
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 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 shall have permission
of the property owner to place the sign, and that those whose names
appear on the sign shall bear the expense of removing the sign should
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
October 27, 1986
they terminate their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 or should their 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 proced�txres were
advised.
5. SPECIAL;, PERMIT TO ERECT A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE, BY
EMBASSY',SUITES AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Reference stgf report, 10/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
details of thk request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
questions. Four conditions were suggested foF'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 t�he public hearing. .:,'Jim Delany, Director of Antenna
and Facilities EnginVering, Comsat Co poration, addressed Commission:
his company has installed approximately 1,100 of this type of dish, it
has much higher frequ cy than C-baa"d antennas, a C-band dish would
require 24' diameter the same`q ,uality 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 iscussed Comsat's practice of sending
out a team of engineers for q6lection of a site, they are aware of
communities' concerns about *esthetics and visual impact on the public,
concern about view from the 1-4goon was considered; this team worked
closely with the architec s, bbe least expensive location would have
been in the parking lot bJut this and other areas would be visible from
the street, mounting on, -the root4,'was not feasible structurally; in
order to cover the satellite arc it was necessary to be clear of the
hotel building; this,docation by the front entrance was chosen because
it was the only area'to meet criteria that had been established.
Commission/applicant/engineer discuss3^Q n: poplar trees proposed for
screening are deciduous; installation 411 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 portionwould be covered by
shrubbery,�and the wall; it is an operational nebessity to have the
upper po 'tion of the dish visible. Mr. Delany ad�yised a 4' wall is the
highes level the lip of the dish can look over. Applicant stated the
pres TV reception is a bonus, future transmit capability will be a
nec ssity 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 61,
Page 6
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1986
they terminate their lease on Parcel 029-122-050 or should their 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.
SPECIAL PERMIT TO ERECT A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT GRADE, BY
EMBASSY SUITES AT 150 ANZA BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4
Re erence staff report, 10/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
de t ils of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting
ques ons. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the
public hearing.
Discussio • size of other antennas in the area compare to this
request; ccern that location of the dish is adjaceto the lagoon.
Chm. Giomi op ed the public hearing. Jim Delar�, Director of Antenna
and Facilities ngineering, Comsat Corporatioa,,"faddressed Commission:
his company has i stalled approximately 1,1 of this type of dish, it
has much higher fr uency than C-band ant has, a C-band dish would
require 24' diamete for the same quali reception; this installation
is for TV reception o y but has the f ure capability to transmit and
receive for teleconfere cing, the tr smit package is well within FCC
guidelines and very safe. He disc sed Comsat's practice of sending
out a team of engineers fo selec ion of a site, they are aware of
communities' concerns about es etics and visual impact on the public,
concern about view from the 1 oon was considered; this team worked
closely with the architects, least expensive location would have
been in the parking lot bu this nd other areas would be visible from
the street, mounting on t e roof s not feasible structurally; in
order to cover the sate ite arc it as necessary to be clear of the
hotel building; this 1 cation by the ont entrance was chosen because
it was the only area o meet criteria t t had been established.
Commission/applic t/engineer discussion:\capability
r trees proposed for
screening are de duous; installation willisible to Victoria
Station on the ther side of the lagoon. Hegel, Assistant
Gen/level
ag Embassy Suites, discussedd plantings, trees in
froide the upper portion of the 1 er portion of dish
wouered by 6' shrubbery around thal the dish and wall
woue same color as the hotel; fromria ation a portion
of h would be seen but the lower powould e covered by
shrand the wall; it is an operationcessity have the
uppion of the dish visible. Mr. Dedvised a ' wall is the
higvel the lip of the dish can look. Applicant stated the
prereception is a bonus, future trcapability 11 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 61,
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1986
4. SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE PRIVATE PARKING LOT
ADJACENT TO 1431 CHAPIN AVENUE (APN 029-122-050), ZONED C-1,
BY THE CHAPIN COMMITTEE WITH WURLITZER TRUSTEES (PROPERTY OWNER)
RefeYence staff report, 10/27/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed
detail's 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 Pire Department of
the two businesses with Burlingame Avenue addres s but with primary
entrances off Chapin (the parking lot). Chm. omi opened the public
hearing. Kevin Osborne, representing the Cha n Committee, commented:
requiring the`-�sign parallel to Chapin would reatly limit visibility,
present sign is� perpendicular to Chapin, sign would not be visible if
it were moved flat against the wall espe ally with the existing tree;
there are now three businesses with Bur ingame Avenue addresses and
primary entrances'off Chapin, a Chapi Avenue address would help in
emergency situations and for custome they would be glad to comply
with the CE's suggestion the sign b placed 2' clear of the sidewalk
area.
Commission/applicant/s.tf disc ssion: parking tickets are validated by
the merchants; many peopb a aware of this parking area but if the
sign is moved back wiAret
een; CP's suggestion was to turn the
sign parallel and at rom the sidewalk; CE noted the wide
driveway and had no cthe sign were kept at least 2' clear of
the sidewalk; staff'shave all businesses listed on the
directory sign identis with an address sign over their
doors; visibility of r sign, perpendicular and parallel;
tree would affect vissi were turned.
Speaking in favor, ick Gates, Hillsb ough: without a directory sign
it is difficult to direct customers to e parking in the rear; if sign
were placed pa ral el to Chapin and moved ack it would be less visible
than the existin sign. There were no au 'ence comments in opposition
and the public earing was closed.
Further discussion: safety factor of the propo8k�d sign if placed so it
can be seen oming down Chapin from either dire ion; CE advised it
would be sa e if placed at least 2' from the side lk and approximately
in the cent�er of the planter area.
C. H.Gra0am moved for approval of the sign exception "land for adoption
of Commi*'ssion Resolution Approving Sign Exception with',.the following
conditions: (1) that the sign installed shall be a 60 Sb! (6' x 101)
doubl(�// faced directory sign with a maximum height of 12' rom grade
installed in the planter area on the property of Parcel 02-122-050
perpendicular to Chapin Avenue no closer than 2' from the 1"hner 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 shall have permission
`of the property owner to place the sign, and that those whose names
appear on the sign shall bear the expense of removing the sign should
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING Sign Exception
RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame that;
WHEREAS, application has been made for a Sign Exception,
for a directory sign in the private parking lot
xxx adjacent to 1431 Chapin Avenue (APN 029-122-050
and
! WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said
application on October 27 ,1986
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by
this Planning Commission that said Sign/Exception
is approved,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
It is further directed that a certified copy of this
resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of
San Mateo.
I
Nannette M. Giomi
Chairman
I, ROBERT J. LEAHY, 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 10th day of
I
November ,198 6 , by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Robert J. Leahy
11/2/84 Secretary