Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1080 Carolan Avenue - Staff Report (2)Item # 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME SIGN EXCEPTION Address: 1080 Carolan Avenue Meeting Date: 1/11/99 Request: Sign Exception to install one new sign and replace one existing sign which will: 1) exceed the number of signs permitted on two frontages; 2) exceed the allowed sign area; 3) exceed the allowed height limit; 4) and include internal illumination in the new sign at 1080 Carolan Avenue, zoned R-4 (22.12.020, 22.12.030, 22.12.040, 22.12.050). Applicant: Vasco Morelli, Arrow Sign Company Property Owner: Northpark Properties General Plan: Service and Special Sales APN: 029-203-050 Zoning: R-4 Adjacent Development: Automobile sales, restaurant, car wash, Broadway Train Station and high density residential. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15311 - Accessory Structures, Class 11, construction or placement of minor structures accessory (appurtenant to) e�sting commercial, industrial or institutional facilities, including but not limited to (a) on-premise signs. Summary: Northpark Apartments, 1080 Carolan Avenue, zoned R-4, is proposing to install a new monument sign at the driveway entrance to the leasing office and clubhouse at the Northpark Apartments complex on Carolan Avenue. The new 2-sided internally illuminated monument sign will replace an existing 2-sided ground sign in the same location. The original sign will be relocated to the rear of the complex at the driveway entrance on Rollins Road, south of the tennis courts. Sign exceptions are requested for the following items: A sign exception is required for the height of the relocated sign being moved from the Carolan Road frontage to Rollins Road (6'-6" proposed, 6'-0" allowed); � 3. 4. A sign exception is required for 4 signs on Carolan Avenue and 2 signs on Rollins Road where 1 sign for each frontage is allowed; A sign exception is required for 220.7 SF of signage where a total of 20 SF is allowed on the parcel; A sign exception is required for an internally illuminated sign where flood-lit is allowed. The following table summarizes the number of existing and proposed signs, their text and the size of each sign on the property: . Ezistin and Pro osed Si na e at North ark A artments Sign Address New/Ezisting/ Ezisting Proposed Copy & Size Height or Location on Relocated Copy & Size Site Plan "A" New Sign "Northpark "Northpark Apartments 6'-6" at 1080 Apartments Leasing Leasing Office; 1080 existing; Carolan Ave. Office 1080 Carolan Carolan Ave" (32.5 SF ; 6'-0" is Ave" (47SF; 2-sided 2-sided = 65 SF with proposed = 94 SF) Internal Illumination) (*4) "B" (*2) Existing sign to Northpark no change 4'-0" Corner of remain Apartments Rental Carolan Ave./ Office Cadillac Way (21SF) "C" Existing sign to "Northpark no change 4'-7" Between 1025 & remain Apartments Entrance 1045 Cadillac at 1080 Carolan Ave Way Leasing Information 342-2301" (24.6 SF) "D" (*2) Existing sign to "Rental Office no change 3'-3" at Rollins Road remain 1080 Carolan" South of Tennis Courts (6.7 SF) "E" (*2) Existing Sign to "Northpark "Northpark Apartments 4'7" at Rollins Rd. be removed and Apartments 1080 Leasing Office 1080 existing; south of tennis Sign relocated Carolan Ave Carolan Ave" courts from site "A" Office" 6'-6" on Carolans (47 SF ; 2-sided = proposed Ave. (315F) 94 SF) (*1) Map 1(*2) Existing sign to diagram map no change at 1080 Carolan remain Ave. (5.5 SF; 1-sided) Map 2(*2) Existing sign to diagram map no change at 1050 Carolan remain Ave. (8.9 SF; 1-sided) Total Number Total E�cisting SF= Total Proposed SF = of Signs=9 191.7 SF 220.7 5F -(*3) * 1- A sign exception is required for the height of the relocated sign being moved from the Carolan Road frontage to Rollins Road (6'-6" proposed, 6'-0" allowed); *2 - A sign exception is required for 4 signs on Carolan Avenue and 2 signs on Rollins Road where 1 sign for each frontage is allowed; *3 - A sign exception is required for 220.7 SF of signage where a total of 20 SF is allowed on the parcel; and *4 - A sign exception is required for an internally illuminated sign where flood-lit is allowed. There is no record of a master sign program or sign pernuts for the existing signs at this location On-site directional signs are also located on the property. These identify each building and are exempt from sign code requirements if they are interior directional signs and are not visible from the right-of-way. Two of the directional signs on site plans (Map 1 and Map 2) have been included in the sign program because they exceed 3 SF in size which is the maximum size for directional signs. Those two signs are also placed adjacent to the public right-of-way. All the e�cisting signs have spot illumination (indirect), but the new 2-sided sign would be internally illuminated. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and City Engineer reviewed this application and in their memos dated (September 2, 1998, September 4, 1998 and September 8, 1998, respectively) had no comments regarding the proposed signage. Staffwould note that this application was originally submitted in February, 1998, but was withdrawn by the applicant before it was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The latest application submitted on September 1, 1998, is the same as the February, 1998, application except that the new monument sign proposes internal illumination, whereas the previously proposed monument sign was indirectly lit. Study Comments: At the October 14, 1998, Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission asked to see a representation of the sign in conte}rt on the site, or a perspective drawing or a well represented scale elevation. On November 24, 1998, the applicant submitted a photo montage superimposing the new monument sign in a planter strip at the main entrance to the apartment complex. In response to the Planning Commission's concern about the height of the sign, the applicant reduced the height of the new two-sided sign from 6'-6" to 6'-0", however, the applicant has not modified the lighting plan and still proposes internal illumination for this sign with the rationale that this type of sign is more resistant to vandalism and requires less maintenance. The applicant included other examples of this type of sign in their resubmittal package. Required Findings for Sign Ezception: In order to grant a Sign Exception relating to height, area, location or number of signs the Planning Commission must apply the following circumstances (Code Section 25.06.110 a-b): (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 the district in which the subject property is situated; 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 located or designed primarily to be viewed from, the strict application of zoning regulations is found to deprive subject property of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings based on the sign code requirements should be made for affirmative action. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 24, 1998; 2. that any increase in the number of signs on the primary or secondary frontages shall require an amendment to this sign exception; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and the of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski Planner c. Vasco Morelli, Arrow Sign Co. ' City of Burlingame Planning Commrssion Minutes October 14, 1998 resotve inside floor u ge the exterior is the issue; ave looked at an alte �five sketch but do no know depth of eav overhangs, but this might rk. There were no fu er questions and th tem was set for pub ' hearing on October 26, 19 8 provided that the inf ation is submitted staff in time. APPLIC ION FOR A REAR SE ACK VARIANCE F A FIRST FLOOR DITION AT 1157 RIDGE ROAD, Z D R-1. (CHARLES�& SHARON M. ER, CP Monroe briefly revi ed the project and the ommissioners asked: ere were two cars p�l'ced on the site at time of sit nspection both overh g the sidewalk so far at they blocked pede rian use of the sidewalk, t y only need one uncov red parking space, co d the corner be squar or something else e done to provide one arking space on site ' the driveway off of t sidewalk; what is the ep or vertical cut in th oof shown on Sheet on the left side of th ouse; clarify how staff dete ined that Cambridge as the rear of the lot ow would making C bridge the front chan the variance requests; ' the design were to r pect the setback req ' ements how woul t aff t the design; the way t e roofs are laid out is orrisome, is there a' pler solution; wh is the 'mension between the use and Highway R d, add to the plans; at are they going do with the existing landscap' g with the remodel, w will the edge alon Cambridge be trea d; not need a landscape plan, b a written descriptio r some indication of ow they plan to pl t the area; would like to have a or plan of the existi house so can see w changes are bein ade. There were no further stions and the item as set for public he ' g on October 26, 98, providing the informati is submitted in tim . APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHI'ARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERI CP Monroe reviewed the signage request briefly and the commissioners asked: would like to see a representation of the sign in context on the site, perspective drawing if possible or a well represented scale elevation; what would happen if the sign was 6'-0", to code, instead of 6'-6"; can the signs be externally lit, internal illumination is a problem in this area; does the applicant really need all that illumination. There were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on October 26, 1998, providing that the information is submitted on time. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT SERVICES FOR A CANDY STORE AT 270 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED G1, SUBAREA A. (CALIFOItNIA CANDY COMPANY, APPLICANT, AND SANDRA YORK VINCELETTE, PROPERTY OWNERI CP Monroe briefly presented the take out permit request and the commissioners asked: same application as before, can it be put on the consent calendar; will the bench on the street be relocated to the new frontage, will the applicant need an encroachment pernut; will the new conditions of approval encompass the requirements of the old permit; this application shows shorter hours of operation than last time, does the applicant intend to do this; does the former permit go with the -3 - Y CITY OF BURLINGAME � �'� PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 i�1�8�+ CARQLNPJ AVEt�UE AF'N:��E-�31-�8� Application far a sign exceptian for n�_tmber, PUgLIC HEARING are� and height of signs at 1080 C�rolan Aven�_�e, aaned R-4. NOTICE The City of P�arlingame F'lanning Commission an��o�_�nc�es the following p��blic hear,ii-�g on hlonday, 3anuary 11, 1999 at 7:�0 P. M. in the _, : y a .a�_�nci am er�s 1 ocated at 5�1 ' F'��imrase Road, B�.�r,lingame, Califarni�. Mailed Ue�e�ber 's0, 1998 (Please refer to other side) � �=' � �.; .� ,� �"�� � A copy of the a� to the meeting Burlingame, Ca �� If you chall�n�� 3 ..,p, IillSlrig 011ij� �Q, described u�th� at or prior t� t�i� � Property o tenants abo� �, � 696-7250 CITY OF B URLINGAME ��I ���iYs;;�c5r`fti'rs prnject may be reviewed prior �',�p4nm� ;,Department�t .SOI Primrose Road, �,�3 ; . `n� d y . r; � �. � � � �:� r = �.� �� g :, Mazgazet Mb��R � �` ;: � ` � City Planner '� �° � ' ' :, �, �� ��� � � , � �� RUB �� (Please refer to other side) be limited to blic hearing, d to the .city ming their call (650) .. ��� ��� � . , �YICE � � � :7 .� � .,$,��,��,. , ; � = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y R E P O R T = � San Mateo (CA) *******************************************************�***************�****************��***� * Date :12/29/98 Prepared By :PLANNING * * Time :16:55:10 Prepared For:JANUARY 11, 1999 PC MEETING * * Report Type :SINGLELN.TCF Company :APN: * * Sort Type :PARCEL Address :1080 CAROLAN AVENUE * * Parcels Printed :20 City/ST/Zip :BURLINGAME CA 94010 * *************************************************************************�*�****************** ******************************* * Search Parameters * ******************************* Parcel Number...20 026 233 020 thru 026 233 110 026 231 120 026 231 190 026 231 250 026 231 270 026 231 140 026 231 260 026 231 280 026 240 300 026 240 040 026 240 310 026 240 360 026 240 340 026 240 290 026 234 010 thru 026 234 020 MetroScan / San Mateo (CA) Parcel Number Owner Name Site Address YB 026 231 120 Clover Trust 1997-1 1147 Rollins Rd Burlinga 026 231 140 City Of Burlingame *No Site Address* 026 231 190 Clover Trust 1997-1 *No Site Address* 026 231 250 Sa Properties Co 1095 Rollins Rd Burlinga 026 231 260 Sa Properties Co *No Site Address* Burlin 026 231 270 Ironwood Associates 1011 Cadillac Way Burlin 026 231 280 Northpark Prop Et Al 1011 Cadillac Way Burlin 026 233 020 Tateosian Donald D& N 1041 Broadway Burlingame 026 233 080 Hannay E James 1010 Cadillac Way Burlin 026 233 090 Hannay E James *No Site Address* 026 233 100 Tateosian Donald D& N 1100 Carolan Ave Burling 026 233 110 Tateosian Donald D& N 1049 Broadway Burlingame 026 234 O10 Peninsula Corridor Jpb *No Site Address* 026 234 020 San Mateo County Trans *No Site Address* 026 240 040 Molakidis Alfred G 935 Rollins Rd Burlingam 026 290 290 Lewis John B Trs Et A1 1028 Carolan Ave Burling 026 240 300 Molakidis Alfred G 1025 Rollins Rd Burlinga 026 240 310 Molakidis Alfred G 1017 Rollins Rd Burlinga 026 290 340 Cammi.sa Lary F& Vicky 1016 Carolan Ave Burling 026 240 360 Harvey Michael R& Kry 1008 Carolan Ave Burling Owner Phone 650-342-1020 650-342-1020 650-342-1020 650-508-6200 650-344-8718 . 650-344-8718 650-344-8718 650-340-7300 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, Bvt Is Not Guaranteed. � CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) Ruben G. Hurin , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, that acting for the City of Burlingame on the 30th day of December, 1998, he deposited in the United States Post Office a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the addresses attached hereto and made a part hereof, to wit: that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to NOTICE OF HEARING pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Burlingame that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses attached hereto. 1080 CAROLAN AVENLTE a 4 Ciry of Bur[ingame Plnnning Commission Minute's Jnnuary 25, 1999 in area much closer to front property line than this one, fits in well; today children's toys are much bigger and need more space to play also have more yard equipment. C. Coffey noted am in favor of the variance because of the placement of the play structure, the plum tree, it does not affect any aspect of the neighboring properties or neighborhood and this is a young family which needs the additional space and move approval of the variance, 2 conditional use permits and special permit based on the findings made, by resolution, with conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Discussion on the motion: would you consider a condition that if the property is developed with this project it will limit the future expansion of the main structure and a two car garage shall be required; not convinced on the side setback variance, have to find exceptional circumstances - which do not apply to other properties, a 6" plum tree and play structure don't seem to qualify; difference between a conditional use permit where only need to show not detrimental to the neighborhood and variance where have to show hardship on the property, lack of effect on neighboring properties is not a hardship. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion was denied on a 2-3-1-1 (Cers. Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica dissenting, C. Deal abstaining, C. Bojues absent) vote. C. Luzuriaga then moved denial without prejudice of the side setback v�ariance, conditional use permits and special permit for the reasons stated by the commission with direction to either move the garage back 2 feet and eliminate the variance or relocate away from the property line and reduce the width of the garage so the side setback requirement is met. Comment on the motion: another alternative might be to make the structure narrower and move it over to meet the setback requirements. Chairman Deal called for a vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal Abstaining, C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. r� 'APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER, AREA AND HEIGHT OF � SIGNS AT 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED R-4. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND FRIEDKEN BECKER, NORTHPARK PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER) - CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 11, 1999 Chairman Deal returned to the chambers and took over the gavel. Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked why sign E was still in application, previous sign E had been two signs, one of these, the relocated one, has been eliminated, so sign E is now one sign. Staff noted that in the past the city had problems with an illegal banner sign located on the tennis -5- � s Ciry of Burlingnme Planning Commissian Minutes Jnnunry 25, 1999 courts of this coinplex, asked that a condition be considered to add a prohibition for banner signs on this property and a mandatory review of the sign exception if a banner is installed. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Mog, Arrovsr Sign Company, with Tom Newin, Arrow Sign Company Permit Manager, spoke. He noted that the reason returned to existing signage on Rollins frontage was that the existing monument sign on Carolan fell apart and could not be relocated; asked before January 11 meeting why wanted internal illumination, that letter is in packet; key reasons are sign is more resistant to vandalism by pedestrians and others, face will be less brightly lit, cars and trucks will not run over exterior light fixtures; way the sign is designed the interior light will only be visible in an outline around the opaque letters set in an opening in the opaque sign face; submitted pictures taken of a similar sign at night, noted that sign will create less light than indirect illumination; commissioner asked if the face of the sign will be white, glossy plastic like a 7-11 sign; no will have a high gloss white paint on an aluminum face, the only plastic is what the opaque letters are mounted on for the "halo" effect, that plastic is mounted inside the metal box. There were no more questions from the commission or comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the sign exception because the argument for protection from vandalism is sensible, the interiorly lit sign will not be boisterous, the swan logo is removed and the lighting concept is an interesting experiment, and the prohibition of banner signs as suggested by staff should be added to the conditions which are: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 19, 1999; 2) that any increase in the number of signs on the primary or secondary frontages of the property shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that any banner sign on this property shall be removed promptly or this sign exception shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and the 1995 edition of the California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the sign exception. The voice vote was 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. ; REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF REVISED PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR � 'DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS. Reference staff report, 1.25.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. C. Key moved approval of the revised Planning Commission Calendar for Design Review applications for the reasons stated. Motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the calendar. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent) . � S� � �,R,.,.,�,,E City of Burlingame Sign Permit Application �, — , Planning Department (415) 696-7250 �,.. 1. APPLICANT (PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) Name Mike Johnson T le hone 510-533-7693 ARROW SIGN Company & Address 1051- 46th Ave, Oakiand Ca Fax # 5].0-533-0815 / certify under pena/ty of perjury that the infoimation given herein is true and correct to the best of my know/edge and be/ief. / understand a bui/ding permit is required before a sign can be insta//ed. Signature Date 2. BURLINGAME ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION RECEIVING NEW SIGN(S] 1080 Ca�olapaAveApBurlingame , Assessor s Parcel # building width: building depth: lot width: lot depth: 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name Friedkin-Becker Tele hone 510-465-7500 Address 300 Grand Ave Oakland Ca. 94610 / know about the proposed sign(s1 and authorize the applicant to submit this application. '� Date 4. SIGN INFORMATION (photos help) # of existing signs on property:_ # of existing signs to remain: C✓] complete the back of this sheet proposed new signs: total # signs: d �����:� 5. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION FEB 2 5 1998 C� Site plan of property with all existing and proposed signs labeled. CITY OF BURLIN�tiME [.7 Elevations drawn to scale of all new signs and existing signs to remain. P5'11��'G DEPT. correct sizes and locations. Dimension all lettering. • TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF . Primary frontage: Secondary frontage: ❑ Sign exception required. u Proposed with this application: ❑ Building permit may be issued. Approved by: Date: Maximum sign area & number of signs permitted by Title 22: Fee to be collected by Building Dept: Remamberl A building permit must be iseued before the si0n can be installad.