The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1211 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Reportn P.C. 1/9/84 Item #4 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: SIGN EXCEPTION FOR A 71 SF AWNING SIGN FOR THE PERSONAL TOUCH AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE The applicants, Lynae Folks and Danny Parodi, are requesting a sign exception for an awning sign at 1211 Burlingame Avenue. The proposed sign is 71 SF; 50 SF of signage is allowed on the site (Code Sec. 22.14.020). The lettering on the awning is 24" in height, 8" is allowed (Code Sec. 22.28.040). The signage request is for a brown stripe or ribbon to cross the face of the awning with a brown bow at the point where the ribbon stripes cross. About 20 SF of lettering is located in the upper left hand corner of this face of the awning. City staff have reviewed this request. The Chief Building Inspector (November 30, 1983 memo) and City Engineer (November 28, 1983 memo) had no comments. The Fire Marshal (November 29, 1983 memo) notes that a flame proof certificate must be on file in the Fire Department. The applicant previously submitted a request for a sign exception for this awning. At that time there was lettering in the lower left hand area of the sign as well as in the upper left hand area. The Planning Commission denied this request, and on appeal the City Council denied the request without prejudice. A denial without prejudice allows the applicant to reapply for a subsequent review without staff having to determine that the new application is significantly different from the previous one. The applicant reapplied keeping the awning as a package with ribbon as it was originally designed with removal of the ±20 SF of lettering on the lower left hand side. The applicant submitted a letter addressing the second sign permit request (November 10, 1983). In her letter she points out that they were unaware of the city's sign code at the time they installed the sign which led to the subsequent request. They are proposing in this revision to remove all lettering from the sign except the business name (the bow and the ribbon will remain). Since the bow and ribbon are sewn onto the canvas of the awning it would damage the awning to remove these items. They cannot afford to replace the canopy. In their review the Planning staff have defined the sign to be the entire face of the awning, 71 SF, because, in our opinion, as stated in the original staff report, the ribbon and bow are an integral part of the sign's message. The lettering now proposed on the face of the sign is ±20 SF (plans not to scale). The actual area covered by the ribbon and bow is estimated by staff to be 23 SF. Therefore 43 SF of the awning is actually covered by sign (50 SF of signage total is allowed on this site). Except for the "of Burlingame" all lettering appears to exceed the 8" maximum height for signage on an awning. At study the Commission asked if the bow was to remain on the sign (it was not shown on the sign permit submittal diagram). Lynae Folks reported to the Commission that the bow and ribbon stripes were to remain on the sign because they were sewn to the awning canvas. It would damage the awning to remove them. -2- The applicant also requested previously that the Planning Commission delay action on this item until they had had an opportunity to review the sign code for awnings and canopies. The Commission determined to go ahead with this item because, despite much conversation, it was very uncertain when there would be review of the awning and canopy portion of the sign code or what the nature of that action might be. To grant a sign exception the Commission must find exceptional circumstances going with the property as follows (Code Sec. 22.06.110): a. any exception granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situate; and b. because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, street frontage, location or surrounding land use; the size or height of the building on which the sign is to be located; the classification of the street or highway on wi�ich the sign is located or designed primarily to be viewed from, the strict application of zoning regulations is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing before taking action on this item. At the hearing they should consider the following condition: 1. that the condition of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 29, 1983 be met. �G�'�(c��r�r�, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 12/27/83 cc: Lynae Folks/Danny Parodi Joseph Karp (property owner) 0 S�IGN EXCEP`F ION Application to the Planning Comm�.,s�iq,q �� V�� r �IAN � � .��. Date fi led �OMMUNICATION R��i1i�� $75 Fee received by AFTER PREPARATI�N Receipt No. Public hearing scheduled 1. PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS ��j�� Name LVnae 1 olks Telephone 348-��000 Firm '�'he l�er�sonal '�ouch Firm's Address �_;�11 :k�ur�in��;�,_me Avenue, Lurlin{�;ame ATTACH DENIED SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 2. Has applicant read Section 22.06.110 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes It:, No 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. ' I"n P e,� r��i- i� n a l � i� n i i rn c i- a n � r� � -�� t�'"`A,�''- a�,�} � 9 9 b� �' a��g� is that the si�m �lY•eadv exi�ts �n �n Pf'f'�rt tn �t�;�F by cit�� ordinances. we are reg^ue� i n� t'rie b��rd �ppr�vP� the c�i�-n�e� to ori�inal desi�rn of ��vninF� (�PP l�-I-t�r) 4. Describe why the exception is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. �1'he av�nin�� desi��n ha�, b�come associatc,d wi ;il nur 'nu��i nP�,c and r�emoval of such would cLeny u�� -tlie u� of' th�t P,�t�rl; �=;y��r, as.�ocia.tion. 5. What hardships would result if your request were denied? �iPl�� AC`Pi71P1'1�' (1� '�Vf!'il YIT��yrn�t� �f �iico i c� ��,�-mnnAl.c,��r l.oss becau �e anv otriPr chnn;'P�; vJrnal n r1F�trn� -�P a�vnin � mat�rial 6. EVALUATION BY CITY PLANNER Code section(s} relevant to this application An exception has been requested because ... u SIGN PERMIT Application to the City Planner Form S-2 Rev. 4/1/77 1. PERSON/.COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATI Name .t � N f-tL t�t7/yJ� s�L[� F i rm ��C %2 Firm's Address %�� C) Date filed ��0 3 Received by Telephone 3 � �`�UC� U I hereby certify under penalty of perjury i�hat the information given herein is true and correct to t e best of my knowledge and belief. Signature �� Date � � �7 2.. BURLINGAME BUSINES /ORGANIZATION REQUESTING NEW SIGNAGE /� „ Name of busiriess esta�i ishrrieni.juryanizacion T(-�C p��l4��/��, T��-l� Nature of business _�( �5 � i��'ar1iZ-(/�S Name of business owner Address �� ]i �Uf2 3 Tel ephone � L/� "�/ Gl� �� Zoning district OWNER OF BUILDING, STRUCTURE.OR LAND Address I know about he proposed sign, or signs, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this lication. Signature Date u—�d��-lV� _ PROPERTY INFORMATION Bui�lding Lot width Building width height Lot depth Building depth Setback 4. 5. SIGNA6E INFORMATION Number of existing signs on property � Attach photo(s) Number of existing signs to remain 9 Number of proposed new signs Sign construction details (SEE PAGE 2; please complete all parts) 6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION � Site plan showing size of property and location of all signs. Elevations drawn to scale of not less than 1/2" = 1'-0" 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 �� 5� Secondary Total signage proposed by this application: Primary frontage %� SF secondary This application is consistent with all Title 22 requirements, and a Building Permit may be issued. (yes) �(no) Signed 7l/ErA/ �X�PTl DA/ i�4'�l !iP-E� oa te L�DE SEG . Zl �/�. O2p sj ZZ . 28. DiFo SIGN PERMIT FEE to be collected by Building Department: $ r , SIGN A: (�Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy ()New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign pol e s i gn other ( pl ease speci fy) : �L(/��ii%� projecting sign f- / i �� i .. Overall height -� �� Width of sign face �3 � Z Height of sign face S—✓� Area of sign �%l SF Background color Copy color CoPY T.lIL �GYION� �/1�cG�i ffii)'�f A�lp�t/CS� Type of illumination fyOyjG Hours t be illuminated Sign material: letters pRl�i7�' body or sign surface G'�tssli'sPJ A,�v%►i�(' �— i�eihod of suppori sii�glejdouble raced s/�6Jl+G Permit to: erect alter paint move SIGN B: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy (;New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign pole sign other (please specify): orojecting sign Overall height Width of sign face_ Height of sign face_ Area of sign Background color Copy color Copy Type of illumination Hours to be iiluminated —� `;ign mater�a�: ',ettcrs_ uvc;y ur sic,n surfacej P�ethod of support single/double faced Permit to: erect alter paint move SIGN C: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy ()New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign pole sign other (please specify): projecting sign Overall height Width of sign face Height of sign face Area of sign Background 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 sign pole sign other (please specify): projecting sign Overall height Area of sign Copy Type of illumination_ Sign material: letters Method of support Permit to: erect Width of sign face Height of sign face Background color Copy color Hours to be illuminated body or sign surface single/double faced alter paint move -2- 0 c_/�' � �� 1 �-- � -=�c� �,I�-� ��-- V�'`�=--�v� � `� L=X,t�`�� 1�� _5„ 13'-� Z " ?�olAG Aw^/�NG A�A .• 7/ SF APPRvX/MA7E A�EA oF LET%Ei2/�I(� :�a SF 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE • BURLINGAME CA 94010 (415) 348-4000 , ti Vi4 � PtiI�LIi•tGA�::� 1LAT1T1IT1G COPv'ii�iI��ICPd In an effort to abide by the city's sign ordinance we respectfully request the City's Planning Commissiori to grant a si�;n exception c?ue to the following exceptional circumstances. '��]e now realize we were at fault in putting up the sign without getting an approval from the Planning Commission. Gur lack of knowledge concernin� the city's sign ordinances certainly was i�he culprit for this whole situation. Since the amount of letters on the can.opy seems to be the main bone of contention, �ve are suggestin�; that the major portion of the sign be nainted out. Therefore the only printing on the canopy would be our business name, ie, The Personal Touch of Burlingame. As the attached drawing indicates, it exceeds the sign limitations by a very small amount. This is the only alternative open to us since the cost of replacing the canopy would cause an extreme hardship to us monetarily. `�Je hope the Planning Commission will be sensitive to this issue and vote in our favor for a sign exception. 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE • BURLINGAME CA 94010 (415) 348-4000 � ' � ;' � �� r1, � y --� � C�.�.e C�� .�.� ��x�.�xxr.��xxYr.e SAN MATEO COUNTY GITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� GALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931 October 6, 1983 Ms. Lynae Folks The Personal Touch 1211 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Folks, _ We wish to advise you that at their meeting of October 3, 1983, the City Council denied without prejudice your appealed application for a sign exception to have 71 SF of sign�ge and signage on an awning or canopy which exceeded a space of 8" in height. Denial without prejudice means that you may submit an alternative design for signage which may require a sign exception to the Planning Commission for action. You must request a new sign or remove the current non-conforming sign within 30 days. If there has been no action in 30 days, the matter will be referred to the City Attorney for additional action. Planning staff will be glad to discuss with you further the details of this particular Council action, we can be reached at 342-8931. Sincerely yours, 1�� Margaret Monroe City Planner P�M/ b cc: Joseph Karp � City Clerk City Attorney Chief Building Inspector . ,. : ,. . . .':.� DATE: ��- �' �3 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER :-EHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT �i%jh ��t'��i � �— -G�CCGc�o �o,C� Sf ,��1-r.j . An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �.� y at their �Z � z��3 meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by 95��D . Thank you. T` �, Helen Towber Planner S� att. �i !�rlh, � ��r L� �J /2// ��t�ii�ires l�rA� �� '�..� � � ��/9�� .,c ,��' � d��/ � �� s� �✓Ui�SiC�s-? i ._..�. � • f / /� '' � � v�\y �"�j t'o LSi�r d� �l �►J� /1/'4 L -C��`".,� / /`!L �C!/ � / �, /,� �� /� G`� N' K�G%r f vi >., j� /% C-or' / t� rry1 ° � / �� , / . , ��G;��l / -� . � - � l , ��L��' �` � � ��/� i �ti/�� . . � , DATE : // � �� - �O� MEMO T0: CITY E��GI��EER CF�IEF QUILDING INSPECTOR _-FiRE '�1ARSHAL FROM: PLA��NING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: �� x�� -�i�' cGcs% lii�-+�C S �- � �,; � �� f /2// � ��ii�is2s �i An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �.� y at their � Z��z��3 meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by �5�� • � Thank you. Helen Towber Planner Si , � � - . att. '°��9 a er-� c►� �r�� a n c �vS7 6e. �� r� � � �� c� �� c�—� c�� e.�� . ,(Y1.�U r�o�s F� .� �. DATE: ��- �' �3 MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ��`h �X�� --�cGc�o �` � Sf � �� c�l � � �2�� %�•�.�i:�.j �.�,� An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �.� � at their �Z�� z��3 meeting. We would appreciate having your comments by �s�/o • -� ` T�: us � il �'� fp: 11� br► Thank you. �d� �: ��r� c��v of �++��±t;,,,�� "+�JQi�I'R,: � . ... . �/ �� / � Hel en Towber %�,' �/�� .1��/ Planner �� s / � A/ �fi . � �� yi � �E�r/�rj att. � � � �r�, h��yr � �"h /�� .rd`" Cl�'� � �`'� �� 4 � �` �� j��/sl' cv�'� cJ/A' � City Planning Commissio�n Ci�Ly of Burlin�ame 501 Primrose Road �3urlingame, CA 94010 �E�EIVED NOV; � � �1963; 11/23/�3 CI P�N�URLIpN�GATME It is our understanding that the City Council plans to review the city's sign code.as to how it pertains to awnings and canopies. Since the outcome of this decision would directly affect our application for a sign exception, we would like to request that our application be held until the m�.tter has been finalized. �incerely, `-�--�c�SZQ-� 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE • BURLINGAME CA 94010 (415) 348-4000 �.�Q l�Z.��? .Q',C ��-iZ'��YC.��'CYl'C.e SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL�(415) 342-8931 December 1, 1983 Ms. Lynae Folks The Personal Touch 1211 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Folks: Your letter of November 23, 1983 (date stamped November 28, 1983) requesting an extension to the determination on your revised sign exception was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 1983. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff should continue to process your revised request for signage at 1211 Burlingame Avenue. The request will be on the Planning Commission agenda for study December 12, 1983 and, if found complete by the P1anning Corrrannission, scheduled for action January 9, 1984. In discussing the matter the Planning Commission indicated that they had not yet decided when they were going to take up the issue of signage on awnings and canopies. A letter from the Chamber of Commerce suggests that because of the Christmas shopping season they will not be able to get information on local opinion� to the Commission until late January. Since the Commission had previously discussed encouraging public input into the decision, it could take a number of months after they decide how to proceed before the issue is resolved. Please call me if you have any questions. We look forward to seeing you at the Planning Commission study meeting on December 12, 1983. Sincerely yours, ��L � I �, (1�`Q, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 November 28, 1983 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Letter from Lynae Folks, The Personal Touch, November 23, 1983. Commission asked staff to put this sign exception application on the December I2, 1983 agenda for study, public hearing will be held in January, 1984. - November 25, 1983 letter from Steve Traylor, President, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, re signage on awnings and canopies. Commission requested discussion of awning and canopy signage be put on the agenda for January 23, 1984. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Nannette M. Giomi Secretary Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1983 recommending denial to the City Council. C. Taylor moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3-83; second C. Leahy. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. C. Taylor moved for adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-83; second C. Cistulli. Motion approved unanimously on voice vote. Staff will forward to Council. ITEMS FOR STUDY .�2. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW AN AWNING SIGN AT 1211 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BY LYNAE FOLKS It was determined the three dimensional bow is still a part of the application. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A SAVINGS AND LOAN OFFICE AT 1174 BROADWAY, BY PORTOLA VALLEY SAVING AfJD LOAN 14. VARIANCE FOR THE ABOVE WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Requests: clarification of the proposed parking and of the access rights to that area. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 15. AMENDMENT OF 11/9/81 SIGN EXCEPTION TO RELOCATE A WALL SIGN AT 777 AIRPORT BLVD., BY JAMES FLATHMANN, ARCHITECT FOR DAYS IfJPdS OF AMERICA, INC. Item set for hearing January 9, 1984. 16. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY AT 333 LORTON AVENUE, BY JOHN KOWALSKI 17. TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 333 LORTON AVE., IN SUB-AREA B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: provide the applicant with a copy of Code Sec. 25.54 listing findings necessary for variance approval and request a letter from him addressing these legal findings; clarify turning radius at rear of the parking lot and safety of the side entrance on the driveway into the laundromat; request applicant provide an explanation of his statement that the unit is being built for "security reasons". Item set for hearing on January 9, 1984. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its December 5, 1983 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, flannette �1. Giomi Secretary Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Month from BC�C Approval 8 12 18 28 Page 9 December 12, 1983 Item Completed Pick up building permit/begin foundations Final foundation inspection Final framing inspection Complete construction/occupancy permit 11. that on-site security will include patrol of the public access area as well as the building; 12. that ground response spectra for the site as identified in the geotechnical report shall be incorporated and the final tower design shall reduce potential seismically induced ground shaking effects to meet the City Engineer's requirement; 13. that new high energy efficiency equipment shall be used for both existing and proposed buildings including variable air volume HVAC systems ��ith economizer cycles, automatic temperature control system, installation of distribution piping systems, use of high engergy light sources wherever possible, controlling lighting with a local manual switch; 14. that no room in the hotel be rented to a person or business for a period exceeding 29 days; Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. CP advised signage proposals will come to Commission as a separate item. Ramp to the garage area was questioned, architect advised it is a two way ramp. Comment: exiting from garage is poor with sharp left turns to get out, this could be improved, landscape median should be adjusted to help exiting. C. Taylor found the applicant's attorney had described conditions applicable to this property to establish there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances so that denial would result in undue property loss; that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner; that it would not be detrimentalto the public health, safety or welfare and it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The landscaping, in fact, would be a benefit to the community as well as the project. C. Taylor then moved for approval of the parking variance with the same 14 conditions as listed above and with an added condition: (15) that, at the city's request, Ramada Inns or any future operator of the site will remove the landscaping in the parking areas for which the �arking variance was granted as shown on page C-1.1 of the plans, and in- stall 10 parkinq sapces to the standards shown on the plans. Motion was seconded by C. Cistulli; motion ap�roved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 3-83 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN - ADELINE DRIVE - EL CAMINO REAL VICINITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 4-83 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING NORTHWEST CORNER OF ADELINE DRIVE AND EL CAMINO REAL CP referred to Planning Commission action at its November 28, 1983 meeting rejecting a request for General Plan amendment and rezoning of lands at 1508 Adeline Drive and 1501 E1 Camino Real. Commission was requested to take action on these resolutions