The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1080 Carolan Avenue - Staff ReportItem #g CITY OF BURLINGAME SIGN EXCEPTION Address: 1080 Carolan Avenue Meeting Date: 1/25/99 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) and include internal illumination in the new sign at 1080 Carolan Avenue, zoned R-4 (22.12.020, 22.12.030, 22.12.040). Applicant: Tom Win, Arrow Sign Company APN: 029-203-050 Property Owner: Northpark Properties General Plan: Service and Special Sales 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) existing 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 2-sided, internally illuminated 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, spot-lit, monument sign in the same location. Sign exceptions are requested for the following items: A sign exception is required for 4 signs on Carolan Avenue where 1 sign for each frontage in the R-4 zoning district is allowed; 2. A sign exception is required for 157.7 SF of signage where a total of 20 SF is allowed on the parcel; 3. 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 te� and the size of each sign on the property, and the exceptions required for the proposed signs on this site: Ezisting and Proposed Signage at Northpark Apartments 5ign Address New/Existing/ Existing Proposed Copy & 5ize Height or Location on Relocated Copy & Size Site Plan "A" New Two- "Northpark "1080 - Northpazk 6'-6" at 1080 Sided Sign Apartments Leasing Apartments Leasing existing; Carolan Ave. Office 1080 Carolan Office" (30 SF ; 2-sided = 6'-0" is Ave" (47 5F; 2-sided 60 SF with Internal proposed = 94 SF) Illumination) (*3) "B" (*1) Existing sign to Northpark no change 4'-0" Corner of remain Apartments Rental Carolan Ave./ Office Cadillac Way (21SF) "C" Existing sign to "Northpazk no change 4'-7" Between 1025 & iemain Apartments Entrance 1045 Cadillac at 1080 Carolan Ave Way Leasing Information 342-2301" (24.6 SF) "D" Existing sign to "Rental Office no change 3'-3" at Rollins Road remain • 1080 Carolan" South of Tennis Courts (6.7 SF) "E" Existing Sign to "Northpark no change 4'7" at Rollins Rd. be remain. Apartments 1080 existing; south of tennis Carolan Ave Office" courts (31 SF) Map 1(*1) Existing sign to diagram map no change at 1080 Carolan remain Ave. (5.5 SF; 1-sided) Map 2(*1) Existing sign to diagram map no change at 1050 Cazolan remain Ave. (8.9 SF; 1-sided) Total Number Total Existing SF= Total Proposed SF = of Signs = 8 191.7 SF 157.7 5F -(*2) * 1- A sign exception is required for 4 signs on Carolan Avenue wnere 1 sign ror eacn rrontage is allowed; *2 - A sign exception is required for 157.7 SF of signage where a total of 20 SF is allowed on the parcel; and *3 - 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 permits for the e�usting signs at this location Additional on-site directional signs are also located on the property which identify each building; these signs are exempt from sign code requirements because 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 existing 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. Staiiwould 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 January 19, 1999 is similar to the February, 1998, application except that the new monument sign proposes internal illumination, whereas the previously proposed monument sign was indirectly lit, and as revised in the 7anuary 19, 1999 resubmittal, the number of signs on Rollins Road is reduced by 1, and no map signs will be relocated. Study Comments: At the January 11, 1999 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission requested that the applicant provide a photo demonstrating how the internally illuminated sign would appear at night. At the time this staff report was prepared, the applicant had not submitted a nighttime photo, but indicated that this exhibit would be presented at the Planning Commission hearing on January 25, 1999. The Planning Commission also requested additional information as to why the sign needed to be internally illuminated rather than spot-lit. The applicant discussed this issue with staff and emphasized that the maintenance of an internally illuminated sign was easier than maintaining a spot-lit sign, especially because ground lights for a spot-lit sign would be installed close to a curb and sidewalk area where they would be vulnerable to damage. Staff requested that the applicant prepare a written explanation to accompany the stai� report. No additional information was provided at the time this staff report was prepared. Required Findings for Sign Ezception: In order to grant a Sign Exception relating to sign area, location, number of signs and illumination, 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 sha11 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 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. Tom Win, Arrow Sign Co. City of Bur[ingame Planning Commission Minures lnnunry 11, 1999 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) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions on the staff report. Chair.man Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Mog, Arrow Sign company, represented the project. He noted that they had made some changes in the program since the commission's study meeting on December 14,1998. They had reduced the new monument sign on the Carolan frontage to the allowed height of 6 feet. They were no longer going to relocate the present sign on the Carolan frontage to the Rollins Road frontage (sign E) because when they removed it the sign fell apart. The monument sign will have interior illumination which can be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner and will better withstand weather, vandalism and time; the whole face would not light up, this is a more subtle illumination which would result in a"halo" of light around the lettering; but the main reason for interior lighting is protection from vandalism; want to replace the swan logo shown on the application with the address. Would like to relocate the two signs on Carolan which are maps of the locations and numbers of the building on the site away from the street frontage. CA Anderson noted that these address maps may be required at their present locations by the fire department and may not be able to be relocated further into the site. CP Monroe noted that there seemed to be enough change to this application that the content of the request was no longer clear. Applicant asked how many parcels made up this site, staff noted that the site was one parcel. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Deal moved to continue this item to the next meeting, January 25, 1999, in order to clarify exactly what the sign exception request was. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: concerned about the use of internal illumination would like a better explanation; could a picture taken at night of a similarly lit sign be submitted; how are the letters illuminated, use opaque vinyl with an outline of light around the copy, the logo swan will have a translucent vinyl color, swan may be replaced by address. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken a continuation is not appealable, this item will not be renoticed because the public hearing is still open. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO ADD AN ENTRANCE PORTICO TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AT 889 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (STEPHEN SUTRO, APPLICANT AND ANN JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER) -12- Ciry of Burlingnme Planning Commissron Minutes , , Jnnunty 11, 1999 how tall is 525 Almer, 3 stories, 35 feet, all have 9' ceilings, would like new perimeter fencing. How many parking spaces are provided at 525 Almer, on-street parking difficult, rule when have guest try to arrange with a neighbor to have them park in side garage, more spaces available on the street during the day but in the evening and week-ends when everyone home from work street is full. Concerned about the property line fence in poor repair and show underground driveway two-thirds the length of 525 Almer, concerned about liability, want 7 foot wood fence between properties; condominium board feels that because of the damage from the Black Acacia and the fact that it is a dirty tree it should be removed; setbacks of project are OK since they meet the city requirements, no other objections to the project. Project Architect comments: design was done to save the two trees, if commission wants will remove the Black Acacia, prefer that you do not delay action; if neighbor wants new fence will be willing to do; the building design met with no neighbor objection except the Oak tree, think the Oak tree should be saved. Mr. Sorenson commented when the owners lived in the house at 525 Almer they did annual maintenance on the Oak, has not be taken care of for 15 years since they moved out. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: made site inspection at the Sorenson's unit, diningroom and kitchen over look rear yard of new project, parking lot is next to Black Acacia, Oak is a gorgeous tree, provides nice canopy for condominium open space at 525 Almer, neighbors and residents will be able to see trough the tree for light and air and the Oak is in scale with the new 35 foot building proposed. Concern is parking, have minunum to meet zoning code requirements for the number of dwelling units, no consideration made for deliveries, one guest space for 8 units, too few, inadequate when account for the fact that the neighborhood is principally multi-family some of these structures built when on-site parking requirements were less. Project has large sized units and only one guest parking space, parking structure makes it hard for visitors to use, unfair to increase on-street parking demand, building needs to be scaled down; exterior design seems poorly integrated; made site visit at 5 p.m. on Sunday there was no on-street parking available; concerned about the aesthetics of the exterior design; walked the block, looks massive and dense, majority of buildings in area three stories, this building is four stories, no exterior consistency in design, no on-street parking, need to decrease mass. CA Anderson noted regarding a process question that denial could include the negative declaration too. Chairman Deal moved to deny the residential condominium permit and project for reasons of inadequate on-site parking, oversized for the neighborhood with individual dwelling units being too big, and three stories being more in keeping with the neighborhood than four stories. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the condominium permit; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Chairman Deal moved to deny the tentative map because the condomiriium permit was denied. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the tentative map; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised for both actions. -11- .. N ��r � � � ~ `''� � � � T r � � � � � ��4 j �� .� , �� 1 f �n 4 � � � � r �� 4 ��_;s,-, v;:�: �;� - y ,_ � � i � �. � � �, � � � � ��o�� .�� ,��.�:��: � � ......�.�,,,_..,...._......__,_.....__�.,:,...�,.�_...-..,...__:._._...: �_..._._.......�......, LEASIN� iOFFICE � � � � I � ; . �,;� .,.:�� (':•:,.::•:•.:..:•.: Monument SignaBe s� a�a�� _, � � :.::.� f;;:::�::::�:�::::: 4" Standard Pipe �..:::..:..•..:.:•..;.. 1 �� . M 2" 1 u �� YP• 12,� � Top Vlew Slde VIeW 8c�o 8/4" c 1' �� .,� ��'�a��e�` � ��r�� .R�t��T��TS LEASINC OFFICE Opposite Face N 0 T T 0 8 C A L E Sign Specifications Manufacture one (1 ) double-face, internally illuminated Monument sign ltem Consbuction Decoration Co/or Cabinet Alum. Matthews Gloss White Cab. Trim Q Alum. Matthews PMS #423 - Med Grey sides & bottom Gloss finish Base Alum. Kelly Moore Beaver #X 39-3 ( Med. Grey ) texcote finish Address 12" Push-thru 3M Wedgewood Blue oval #7755-187 bkgrd,(opaque) Numbers & outline are show-thru white "Northpark"& 1/2�� 3M Black ( opaque ) "Apts" Copy push-thru "Northpark" 1st surface 3M Slate Grey #3630-61 Dropshadow vinyl on cabinet "Leasing" 1 st surface 3M Black ( opaque ) Copy & arrow vinyl Rule 1 st surface 3M Wedgewood Blue #7755- vinyl 187 ( opaque ) �� JAN 1 9 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING GEPT. Northpark AparVnents 1080 Carolan Ave. - Burlingame, Ca Sheet 1 Date: October 1, 1997 Sales; Jim Mog Design; R, Cardinio Design #70964 Customer Approval: 0 Revisions A 11-24-97 Enlarge sign, change base B 2-20-98 Add footing detail C 10-16-98 Reduce OAH 6"( from base ) D 1-18-99 Eliminate'Swan' logo replace w/address This is an origlnal unpudished dra�inp prepared far you hy Arrow Si�n Co. in a sipn propram desgned for your business. It Is notto be shown to anyone outsid 01 your araanlzatlon nor to Ge reproduced, copied or e#�ibited in any fashion. . . � Arrow Sign Company 1051 46th Avenue Oakland, California94601-4436 510,533,7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 i �,. �L01 A7(lA � `yN� 2.75" 4'-612�� Cl 1051 46th Avenue Dakland, CA 94601 Phone 510.533.7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 Jo6 Name: NorthparkApartments Address: 1080 Carolan Ci1y: Burlingame, Ca. Date: Novem6er 13,1998 Sales: Jim Mog Design: R. fardinio Design: 70964 Sheet: 1 Filename: Northpar-Elevation fustomer Approval: Revision Drne Desoiptian A 1-18-99 Eliminotelogo,moveoddress Si�n Elevation Photo N 0 T T 0 S C A L E Thh Is on orlglnal unpuhllshad drmvinp pmpamd for you 6y Artaw Sign (n. in slgn pmpram designed for your b�cinea. It is not ro he slawn ro onyone omsl� of your argonl�uAon nor ro 6e repmduad, ropled ore�hl6Ged m any fmhion. Site Plan Northpark Apartrnents 1080 Carolan Ave. - Burlingame, Ca , Sheet 2 Date: January 6,1998 Sales: Jim Mog , , Design: R, Cardinio Design #70964 Customer Approval: Revisions This is an otlpnal unpublishad d�inp prepareG for you Dy Arrow Spn Co. In a sqn proaam desipied fa yaur buslness. It h natm he sAOWn m�yone oulside a1 your orpantraton nar tc be reproduced, copted a e�Ciibited in arrytashlon. RROW� Arrow Sign Company 105146th Avenue Oakland, California94601-4436 510.533.7693 Fa�c. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 �7•1Ga'�!1. � r � ► 4r � *:. r � � 1 �� •��.r:�. rnit�t �y� �j`-r.� • • • � .1� ' � 1 � 1 1 `I � �.� Type a[ App�a�Son:�pccial Pcrau.t,._Yariancc�.�' � Pibjp0�a9�.dC�i'Cg9; xaSO Garol.an AV�. I�turiiritrgr�a� Ga. A.sse�sor'� Parccl %Iumber(g): Ar�r�c�rrr �ay�v M,� re I t�� N�; ARRQW SIGN CQ. �a�� o�rn�. ' 4 • •_ ► ' •• � ,� ��; 1051 46tih Av� ACidress: �Dp �rand Av� �h,1C��p; oakland, CA 94&01-44�6 P�ono (w}� �� 533�76A3 . /t � : .� � . _ _'^ ��% �c; 5�C?-533-4815 AR��C'�/b�S�GNE�t ��G; �,RR6W S��N - AGdt�s: CitylSt�tt�IZip:� , Phouc (w): .,_. �� fax: G'�t�►f�t�bO�Zip:Qaklnrifl � Ca� P�oue (w): 511L_�.� 5 r 7� n n � \'�/' _/1. \ � - �� JRA• Plos�se indiaata with a�t astcrisk '� th� coat�ck persan for this applicati..on. � Mike John�on p�QJ�x p�CgZp�'�(1�: xd .�E 4Y E�ISTIIv S�G�' _A�i4 TQ INS ALL — , , , NEpP S „�'„ SAME PT AnR T��,_,'�Q MQV��1? �T�c=N O TT�F,. b'tFiE�_ s znE aF ��vp�Rm�r . AF�7DA.�TISIGNA�: T h�tcby. ccutiPy u�de� Penalh' of �tjury that t�c informatiosl �ven t�rein is tzue and correct to th$ best af s}ty� Irnowl�dge and b�li,cf. , � ApQl�cant's � t knaw �bout �th� propos�d a�an. and hareby .au orir.e tha above a�plic�nt to submit thi� app]icadon tcy tl�..o klatu�in��o�mi�ssl�u' : �/" F . � S�:$�Cltl"C ` - Di1LG FO�t OF�IGS U9B ONLY � �te Fi1,ed: �ea: � ' ��1 ` � Co ' �s1.on: Shedy Aate: •4�ctio�a Daf,�: �� ! � _.. ,r.... � /.NH,-IWfI.`1 N�t� htoZlati �TBQ-EE�-0L� 5� �0L 866I/8ti/80 ' BURLJNGMtE City of Burlingame Sign Permit Applicafiion � - ,, Planning Department ( 650 ) 696-7250 �... - . � 1. APPLICANT (PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM) L� L�.�+rt �� ,f � Company & Address �' �-� �� ry ��a �`�--4"�� t� �' �ax�# � d �- 533 - o�� J�- / certify under penalty of perjury ihat the knowledge and belef. ;/understapd �'buil Signature Nam � r��--s�3-�7C;p3 tion given herein is true and correct to ihe best of my mit is required before a sign can be insta/led. —�— � 2. BURLINGAME ADDRESS OF BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION RECEIVING NEW SfGN(S) � 3. � � � .. ..� �0�� ,�Yr ��_/-�o.� �� Assessor's Parcel # building width: building depth: lot width: lot depth: PROPERTY OWNER Name Telephone Address / know about the proposed sign(sl and authorize the applicant to submit this applicatron. ✓ Date 4. SIGN INFORMATION (photos help) # of existing signs on property:_ # of existing signs to remain: Q complete the back of this sheet Z._ �,",�... nou�..<: proposed new signs: ,=.�-�> � tota I# s i g n s: '- (�t�v�.� �•-�- c-��-�--� 5. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION C� Site plan of property with all existing and proposed signs labeled. C� Elevations drawn to scale of all new signs and existing signs to remain. Show correct sizes and locations. Dimension all lettering. • TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF . Maximum sign area & number of signs permitted by Title 22: Proposed with this application: Primary frontage: Secondary frontage: L�,Sign exception required. � � �� , �'. � �_.... � _. . ❑ Building permit may be issued. Approved by: Date: __- - - - 1998 Fee to be collected by Building Dept: ftememberl A building parJ� must ba iseuad bafore tha sign cen be inctallad. �f�Y O; [3�Jf�L{j�Ji.-ij.lrViE PL.ANNJ�!G Df=PT. SIGN A: 1�New sign SEgn type: � ❑ wall sign �ground sign ❑ po!e sign ❑ projecting sigr ❑ awning sign ❑ other � existina: no change ❑ existing, new copy ;�tuNJivl�Ni Sf�% Sign Specifications: 5�� ( Sign area �c : � sf � �� (Length S' x Height.� % _) overall height from ground clearance from ground to sign bottom ❑ single face ❑ two-sided COPY��)�f? ��H�� .irkP-�t�� l.�'�-��c- o�-;�� COPY COLOR(S) ��--l��c.- METHOD OF SUPPORT t� �'a ILLUMINATION TYPE3��'� HOURS � itiZ�: SIGN B: C�lew sign Sign type: ❑ wall sign �� ground sign ❑ pole sign ❑ projecting sign ❑ awning sign ❑ other ❑ existing, no change ❑ existing, new copy �l`',�;'''r��'�T s��-"-� Sign Specifications: � � ��`" Z Sign area �f �� . sf �,y (Length ; ` x Height `� ? ) overall height from ground clearance from ground to sign bottom ❑ single face ❑ two-sided L�}�CIn:�4- COPY I�`,' �rznk-��'�-2.-�-. A-PI�P;rv��_:.� �:� �-��-`=- COPY COLOR(S) �'�� METHOD OF SUPPORT (�/� ILLUMINATION TYPE �"�i HOURS 1�'ti � c�2N • SIGN C: ❑ New sign Sign type: ❑ wall sign ❑ ground sign ❑ pole sign ❑ projecting sign ❑ awning sign ❑ other_ COPY METHOD OF SUPPORT. SIGN D: ❑ New sign Sign type: ❑ wall sign ❑ ground sign ❑ pole sign ❑ projecting sign ❑ awning sign ❑ other COPY ❑ existing, no change ❑ existing, new copy Sign Specifications: Sign area sf (Length x Height ) overall height from ground clearance from ground to sign bottom ❑ single face ❑ two-sided COPY COLOR(S) ILLUMINATION TYPE HOURS ❑ existing, •no change ❑ existing, new copy Sign Specifications: Sign area sf (Length x Height ) overall height from ground clearance from ground to sign bottom 0, single face ❑ two-sided COPY COLOR(S) METHOD OF SUPPORT ILLUMINATION TYPE HOURS ��, ... O� RLJNQeM6 City of Burlingame � SIgCI EXCepfI,0I1 AppI1C�tI0Il � ; ,, Planning Department (415) 696-7250 ... � . . ADDRESS OF PROPERTY RECEIVING SIGN(S)_ ,lU 3 O ��*„ ,.� � � 1• Applicant (person completing this form) Name V ��c:� �v�'?�=Z�-- 2. 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 deserve special consideration to which your neighbors are not entitled. ��Il� I�I I IiVL ('%?=1� l JLIU�I�/( /�t)7/�,U s Com an & Address ° � � � /�.Ji�� l J ! G �vL P Y ��i s t L ti C � r�►xc.�-,..�, ��Y�� Fax #�70 .s �33 �S i� / certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is tiue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ; `�� j �, 1 ,! � S i g n atu re ��s,� �- '� �,,.- _ G � - � Date �i- � � � Has the applicant read Section 22.06.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code? yes no _ C'= 7�l32/�Jv� r= !<)r=�=l1Lr-� T2� ( � /iJ�� 'ft_� _� ` r �� - 1 � _ 1�'i�vil...i�1 y1 (� % (;��i� < �� / �Jr�] � c_r (�t � � �,ti= r= Z�" r vl /�'77 � �v 4. Describe why the exception is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. � � lS( /�N (�.J�tJ iv l-',�..,� r 5. �? �-7�Ull_J c S73 7C� i �LJ/%!�7 r �'S /��,�T�S L U • TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF . Planning Commission Action Date Fee �—r ��• �- � �� =;�--. • • ��c.� �Yd• I�rirvt � 1 t`Lv-..� ��r.i-. Signed Date Notes: - crrY o� �uR� ��;�.,,�r�� P�a��rv� a�p-r. What hardships would result if your requested were denied? c_c �°,_:, �' .:'�.c5 7.".t��: .'�,r k�, a'Y N T� 2514*16 et� '�!''�F.r�'XS . . .. �+'��'�`'�:::� �. ....'.s�k.a a,. �,. ��. � .�� 'ty '- : v�'" "`�;y ��''w �T;"'r_�,,:, �^ ,�,r"" E �'' r �, ;' � . i!t � �;,li�' Ay. } � � . °, � ��:� �x;, ,� u � ` � o �,., 4 � 1 a .y. `�, -Y _, � ,�,+t, „�,; . S*. � � .. �, F t',4S 'r�' �, t'�' t - t i �� '� - `a ,�i, ��' � . s 3'l; 4 � t 9�m� s. i i i i � 'n�. Ary ,; .: ., ...- '�• �t ,.. � � . .�. �� . � � ' , ., ,. s � . , � }k�'; .: ') . „� , � r'i_ F �' - 4W� d s, _. �'S/ �` r � . ..:`"�,�� Q,� <;w,�� t� y�Y^`— �� . ��. I, �., �r ;:�" � ,�.i' � �ro'A��'�, c.. , i s t u � .e "'�i �iti�.�",.o."" t�: .. � ..�� + +�' � �' � ��' 'i 5: `:". i¢>i1�':�.`.._ . 3�'>$�;;:::f �. r �� . R�SOLi�TION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and SIGN EXCEPTION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WI�REAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for � a sign exception for the number of signs on a front�ge the total s�uare footage of si�ns, and interior illumination of a sign at 1080 Carolan Avenue� zoned R-4, APN: 029-203-050; Northpark Pro�ertv. �ronerty owners and Arrow Sign Com�any, applicant: WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 25, 1999, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, Article 19, Section 15311 - Accessory Structures, Class 11, construction or placement of minor structures accessory (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or residential facilities, including but not limited to (a) on- premise signs is hereby approved. 2 Said sign exception is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for sign exceptions are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. JERRY DEAL, CHAiRMAN I, David Luzuriag,�, 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 25 th day of Januarv, 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: NOES: CONIMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COIVIlVIISSIONERS: DAVID LUZURIAGA, SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and design review. 1080 CAROLAN AVENUE effective February 1, 1999 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 19, 1999, Sheets 1-3; 2. that any changes to the size, design, location, number of signs or type of illumination shall be subject to an amendment of the sign program and review by the Planning Commission; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Jnnunry Il, 1999 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) Reference staff report, 1.11.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions on the staff report. Chair.man Deal opened the public hearing. Jim Mog, Arrow Sign company, represented the project. He noted that they had made some changes in the program since the commission's study meeting on December 14,1998. They had reduced the new monument sign on the Carolan frontage to the allowed height of 6 feet. They were no longer going to relocate the present sign on the Carolan frontage to the Rollins Road frontage (sign E) because when they removed it the sign fell apart. The monument sign will have interior illumination vJhich can be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner and will better withstand weather, vandalism and time; the whole face would not light up, this is a more subtle illumination which would result in a"halo" of light around the lettering; but the main reason for interior lighting is protection from vandalism; want to replace the swan logo shown on the application with the address. Would like to relocate the two signs on Carolan which are maps of the locations and numbers of the building on the site away from the street frontage. CA Anderson noted that these address maps may be required at their present locations by the fire department and may not be able to be relocated further into the site. CP Monroe noted that there seemed to be enough change to this application that the content of the request was no longer clear. Applicant asked how many parcels made up this site, staff noted that the site was one parcel. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Deal moved to continue this item to the next meeting, January 25, 1999, in order to clarify exactly what the sign exception request was. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: concerned about the use of internal illumination would like a better explanation; could a picture taken at night of a similarly lit sign be submitted; how are the letters illuminated, use opaque vinyl with an outline of light around the copy, the logo swan will have a translucent vinyl color, swan may be replaced by address. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue; the motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since no action was taken a continuation is not appealable, this item will not be renoticed because the public hearing is still open. APPLICATION ENTRANCE P� AT 889 CAL�FC 'ISIDE CO TO A DRU� 'TBACK AND LOT COVERAG � XISTING COMMERC /RESID , ZONED C-2. (STE N SUTRO, A CES TO ADD AN ��'RUCTURE CANT AND ANN -12-