The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1211 Burlingame Avenue - Approval Letter� �.�$ l�Z.�}� Q.G �1-Cx,LZ�.��cC1"Y�.E SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 January 17, 1984 Ms. Lynae Folks The Personal Touch 1211 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Folks: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the January 9, 1984 Planning Commission approval of your Sign Exception application became effective January 17, 1984. This application was to allow an awning sign at 1211 Burlingame Avenue which exceeds Sign Code limitations. The January 9, 1984 minutes of the Planning Commission state the sign exception was granted on a 4-2 roll call vote, Commissioners Garcia and Giomi dissenting, Commissioner Leahy absent. It was noted in your approval that a certificate showing fire retardant treatment of your awning be filed with the Fire Department. Please contact Malcolm Towns, Fire Marshal, and submit to him the appropriate certification. Sincerely, l�Z �►.Q Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Chief Building Inspector Fire Marshal Joseph Karp (property owner) Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 9, 1984 4. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNIP�G SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE CP �1onroe reviewed this request by Lynae Folks and Danny Parodi to allow an awning sign for The Personal Touch which exceeds sign code limitations. Reference staff report dated 12/27/83; Sign Exception application received January 3, 1984; Sign Permit application filed 11/10/83; drawing indicating proposed amendment to existing canopy signage; applicant's letter to the Commission; Monroe letter to Folks dated October 6, 1983 advising of Council`s denial without prejudice of previous sign exception application; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (11/30/83), Fire Marshal (11/29/83) and City Engineer (11/28/83); Folks letter to Commission, 11/23/83; Monroe letter to Folks, 12/1/83; November 28, 1983 Planning Commission minutes; and December 12, 1983 study meeting minutes. CP discussed details of this request and the previous request, code requiremenis, staff review, applicant's comments. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Lynae Folks, applicant, addressed Commission: there are much larger signs in the area, our awning sign is flush with the building, it enhances the beauty of the Avenue, understand that decorative art cannot be judged as part of a sign, consider the bow and ribbon as decorative art. There were no audience corr�nents and the hearing was closed. Commission discussion: are the bow and ribbon on the awning a sign or a work of art; concern that the bow and awning be fire resistant; applicant advised the ribbon is sewed onto the awning material itself, the bow is bolted on, to take them off would create holes in the awning and a new awning would be very expensive; several Commissioners felt that the bow and ribbon the full width of the awning makes the whole awning a sign; aoplicant said they have attempted in this resubmittal to make the awning look less cluttered; concern about setting a precedent for other businesses on Burlingame Avenue; feel this is a fair compromise, awning is almost flush with the wall, could allow 50 SF on a wall, applicants are merely asking for identification, most other businesses have identification as big or bigger. C. Taylor found approval of this sign exception would not constitute a grant of special privilege since Commission has approved several similar signs in the same general area and will continue to look at all sign exception applications on an individual basis. Special circumstances applicable to this property: removal of the bow would render the sign unattractive and would also be unaccepta6le to the applicant because it would destroy the sign; without this sign the business location would not be seen because of the signage next door and the tree in front of the building. Further comment by one Commissioner: City Council denied the previous proposal on appeal, new application is also a nonconforming sign, existence of a sign is not an exceptional circumstance, drawings for this sign were not properly illustrated or to scale, don't believe there are special circumstances applicable to this property that would deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. C. Taylor moved for approval of this sign exception; second C. Cistulli. On roll call vote motion was approved 4-2, Cers Garcia and Giomi dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. RMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY IN SUB-AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVE REA AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, BY JOHN KOWALSKI 6. TWO VARIANCES TO FlLLOW AN APARTME�d1 AVENUE CP Monroe reviewe request for second floor residential use and vi ces from the re side yard and parking lot aisle width. Reference staff report a Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 9, 1984 be put in around the deck to protect view; applicant advised friends of the family built the deck extension; difficult to find hardship when deck was built without a permit and applicant was already in violation of lot coverage requirements. The Chair recognized Mr. Mourton for further comment: gave the applicant a private use permit in 1976 at her request since she said she did not have enough land for her children to enjoy the property, subsequently learned that the original deck violated lot coverage; he recorded this easement agreement to be sure it was clear the area was his property, the agreement can be revoked by either party with 30 days notice, have tried to give the applicant as much land as she can use; last winter the hill washed down and was a problem to the neighbors; have never seen anyone but children on the deck; raising deck 10' has made it visible; applicant does park cars under the deck; have never seen the garage used as a garage; think this applicant is aware of what is required by the city. Commission comment: since a�plicant was granted a use permit for some of Mr. Mourton's land in 1976, this is indicative that she does not have useable land, suggest additional landscaping might preserve the hillside and give more privacy on the neighbor's site. Mourton comment: do not believe further landscaping would help, applicant could look into two of my bedrooms from the deck. Commission: original deck runs 10' from the rear wall acro�s the back of�the house and 8' from the side wall of the house rear to front, a large deck prior to the extension; the deck extension was not built by a contractor, have no comment from the Chief Building Inspector, will the deck meet building code requirements; have sympathy for the needs of the mother but feel deck would be large enough without the extension. C. Cistulli noted there were no comnents/objections memos from staff. C. Cistulli moved for approval of the two variances. Motion died for lack of a second. C. Taylor moved that the two variances be rejected for the reason that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and no testimony given that the variances would be necessary for the property rights of the owner. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 3. AMENDMENT OF 11/9/81 SIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE A WALL SIGN AT DAYS INN, 777 AIRPORT BOULEVARD CP Monroe reviewed this request to relocate a sign on the rear of the existing hotel to the back of the new addition. Reference staff report dated 12/27/83; Sign Permit application filed 11/16/83; Sign Exception application fiTed 11/16/83; "no requirements/ comments" memos from the Fire Marshal (11/28/83), Chief Building Inspector (11/28/83) and City Engineer.(11/28/83); Monroe letter of action dated November 17, 1981; Planning Commission minutes, November 9, 1981; and plans date stamped November 16, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's justification for this amendment, Planning Commission findings and action in 1981 on the original Sign Exception request. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm, Craham opened the public hearing. Arthur Hansen, Days Inns of America, was present. There were no audience cor�nents and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm moved that this amendment to the 11/9/81 Sign Exception be granted, incorporating the findings made in 1981.. Second C. Giomi; motion approved on a 5-1 voice vote, C. Taylor dissenting on the grounds he has never heard justification for a sign above the third floor, C. Leahy absent. Appeal procedures were advised. - . . . -. _.:.._ . _s,�.�