HomeMy WebLinkAbout1649 Adrian Road - Staff Report�
��� "T" �� STAFF REPORT
BURLJNGAME
0
°'04�
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COi1NCIL
Dl�TE
FROM:
FEBRUARY 2, 2000
CITY PLANNER
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 02.23.00
SUF3MITT�D
�Y �G�a�%,�n +�-
nI'PRO VED
BY
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Sign Exception at 1649 Adrian
Road, Zoned M-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should set hold a public hearing. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated
for the record. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The
criteria for the possible action alternatives and for a sign exception are included at the end of the
staff report.
Conditions of approval suggested to the Planning Commission:
2
3
L!
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped November 10, 1999, with
a free-standing pole sign with a height of 24'-0", with two side of copy have 168 SF of
copy per side (total of 336 SF of copy on a pole sign), and changeable copy including a
digital clock;
that the applicant shall obtain and provide verification of approval from CalTrans for a
changeable copy sign prior to application for a building permit;
that the frequency of change of copy for each statement on the changeable copy sign shall
be no more than once per day with no alternating of inessages;
that no off-site advertising of other commercial businesses, services, or products shall be
permitted;
5 if the sign exception application is not approved and the applicants do not approve the
decision made by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall remove the digital clock
within 30 days of the city's last action on the sign exception request; and
6. that the project shall meet all uniform building code and fire code requirements as amended
by the City.
-1-
Appeal of Planning Com�nissioii De�iial of a Sign Exception at 1649 Adrian Road, Zoned
M-1. Februury 23, Z000
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on January 24, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this sign
exception request for an electronic message unit sign which exceeded allowed height and sign
area and voted 4-3 (Cers keighran, Vistica, Osterling dissenting) to deny the requests. In their
action the commissioners noted: concern about the reasoning that because there are a couple such
signs in the area this sign must be approved, if all properties along this road had signs of this size
with changeable copy the corridor would look terrible, this sign is not good for the city; do not
see the finding for a sign exception, only one offered by the applicant is that the name of his
business does not make it clear what the business does; applicants real intent is to increase his
advertising, executives do not make decision on who will print the annual report, this decision is
based on relationships; fear that to attract attention they will do something outrageous on the sign
which could be detrimental to the city; there are a lot of small businesses in this area, if this firm is
entitled to such a sign they should be too, don't see the hardship; city can't control the messages,
no control on future owner; opposed to changeable copy, it is a dangerous precedent, compliance
with conditions is a problem, could become visually chaotic, these are the reasons that the
Planning Commission is required by code to review such signs; if tenant changes he can put
whatever he wants on the sign city is limited to regulating the size of the letters, the timing of the
change of the copy and the amount of illumination; not opposed to signage, need it to convey a
vibrant business life, am opposed to the scale of this sign.
Others noted: what is proposed is not as bad as other signs already in the area; there would be
only one message a day, often they will be community messages; this sign is smaller than some
around it.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Color Copy represented by Nabil Daoud, is requesting four sign exceptions in
order to install a free standing, two sided changeable copy pole sign on the primary frontage of
the business at 1649 Adrian Road, Zoned M-1. The exceptions to the sign ordinance
requirements are as follows:
1. A pole sign with an overall height of 24'-0" where a ma�mum height of 20'-0" is permitted
(CS 22.20.060);
2. A changeable copy sign which required approval by the Planning Commission or City
Council on appeal (CS 22.29.010);
3. A total signage area of 416 SF on the primary frontage where a maximum area of 200 SF is
permitted (CS 22.20.020); and
4. Three (3) signs on the primary frontage where a maximum of two (2) signs are permitted
(CS 22.20.040).
The applicant's request is for a new 24'-0" tall pole sign with a base sign area of 4'-0" x 20'-0" and
a clock appendage of 2'-0" x 4'-0" mounted on top (168 SF per face) for a total of.336 SF. There
is currently a pole sign and a wall sign on the Color Copy site.
-2-
Appeal of Planning Cominission Denial of a Sign Exception at 1649 Adria�z Road, Zo�icd
M-1. February 23, 2000
On-Site Signage History
The City's sign code, adopted in 1978, allows 2 signs and a total of 200 SF of signage on this
site. The maximum height of a pole sign is 20'.
For many years, prior to 1978, this site was occupied by the Good Guys. When they left the site
they took their signs with them, leaving in place the 31'-6" supporting poles. In 1988 the new
owner/tenant on the site asked for a sign exception in order to install a 35'-10" tall, 92.5 SF
double faced sign (185 SF total) on the existing poles and a 7.5 SF double faced ground sign ( 15
SF) at the entrance to the site. Total signage request was 4 signs (3 allowed) and 200 SF (200 SF
allowed). The Planning Commission reviewed this request and denied it. The applicant installed
the pole sign at 20'-0" to the top ofthe sign, 92.5 SF per face (185 SF total) and put the
remaining 15 SF of signage in a wall sign on the building.
Color Copy came to the site. They applied for, and received, a counter sign permit from the
Planning Department to reface the existing signs on the site, using the existing poles and 20 foot
maximum height. Some time later Color Copy installed a 2'-0" x 4'-0" double faced digital clock
on the top of the existing pole sign. This sign raised the height of the pole sign from 20'-0" to 22'-
0" and increased the area by 16 SF. No city permits (building or planning) were issued for this
installation. The Code Enforcement officer contacted Color Copy in February 1998 and informed
them that they should remove the illegal digital clock or file an application for a sign exception.
In November 1999 Color Copy made application to replace the signage on the pole. They are
requesting that:
- the double faced digital clock (2'-0° x 4'-0", 8 SF per face) be retained and placed
above the fixed part of the pole sign increasing the height of the sign to 24'-0° (20'-0"
maximum allowed);
- install new double faced fixed signage (4'-0° x 20'-0", 80 SF per face) with the
corporate name;
- install a new double faced reader board, changeable copy sign immediately below the
corporate name sign (4'-0" x 20'-0", 80 SF per face); and
- retain the 4'-0" x ZO'-0" wall sign on the building.
The total proposed signage with this exception is 3 signs (2 allowed) and 416 SF (200 SF
maximum allowed) with a 24'-0" tall pole sign (20'-0" ma�mum height allowed).
Should this sign exception not be granted the applicant is required to correct his on-site signage
to that allowed under the sign code: 2 signs, 200 SF, pole sign not to exceed 20'-0". The digital
clock should be removed because it exceeds the height and size limits of the sign code for this
site.
Applicant's Comments:
In his supplemental material (December S, 1999) submitted with the application Color Copy's
representative has stated that the copy on the changeable sign will include "special items
-3-
Appea/ of Ylanning Commission Denial of a Sign Exception at 1649 Arlrian Road, Zoned
�vl-1. February 23, Z000
advertising their business and messages advertising special community or city events". The
duration of each message would be about a day at a time.
Staff Comments:
Staff would note that because this pole sign with changeable copy will be visible from the right-of-
way on State Route 101 an Outdoor Advertising permit is required from the State of California if
the message is to include any off-site advertising notices, including community messages.
Currently the city's sign code prohibits the advertising "of a person, product or service other than
that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached..." (CS
22.48.040). On this basis the applicant could not include community messages with out a
determination by the city that such messages were not covered under the prohibition. If the
Council makes the determination that CS 22.48.040 does not apply to public service messages the
city has no control over the content or subject matter of such messages.
Other Signs in the Area:
Because the findings for a sign exception include granting of special privilege to a property, the
Commission inquired about number of signs existing on Adrian Road. In 1967 (before our
current sign code was adopted in 1978) a sign exception was given for the pole sign at 1635
Adrian Road. This sign has a total height of 48"0" and a sign area of 8'-0" x 40'-0" or 320 SF
on each face (tota1640 SF). DHL has occupied this site since 1994. The sign code allows
nonconforming signs to be refaced so all tenants since 1967 have enjoyed this sign exception.
The sign at 1601 Adrian Road, now advertising SonicAir, received a sign exception in 1974. The
exception was for a 34'-0" tall pole sign with two faces each 8'-6" x 26'-6" or 225 SF per face or a
total of 450 SF. Good Guys were also granted a sign exception for a 35' sign at 1649 Adrian
Road prior to adoption of the city's current sign code (1978). In 1988 the new tenant of the site
was not allowed a sign exception to use the remaining 31' poles, and installed a pole sign at 20
feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives, Sign Exception Findings
Planning Commission Minutes, January 24, 2000
William Spencer, letter, January 18, 2000, to Planning Department, in opposition
Planning Commission Staff Report, January 24, 2000, with attachments
Notice of Appeal Hearing, mailed February 11, 2000.
Resolution
Q