The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3 California Drive - Staff Report� � � cirr '�? O� ' � AGENDA BURLINGAME 17 EM n �; �, STAF� REPORT MTG. �n DATE � �� To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SU9MITTED � l��r��,�� A,,,,,,(�� BY I•• IVI.U�l�IK DATE: OCTOBER 2%, 1986 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED 9Y S�e�E�T: REVIEW OF A SIGN EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP, BY JOE PUTNAM AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, AUTO ROW RECOMMENDATION; City Council hold a public hearing and take action. Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. that the signs as installed shall be consistent with the plans (date stamped September 9, 1986) and sign permit description (date stamped �ugust 19, 1986) submitted to the Planning Department; 2. that the 20' high, 97 SF per face, double faced pole sign proposed for the corner of California and Peninsula shall not overhang property line more than 4' nor shall it be closer than 8' from the top of sidewal�c; and 3. that a change of copy or any addition of signs to this site would require amendment to this sign exeption. In order to grant a sign exception the Council must find the following conditions exist on the site (Code Sec. 22.06.110 a and 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 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 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 privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. -2- Action Alternatives: 1. Council can uphold the Planning Commission approval of the sign exception as conditioned and based on findings related to the property. 2. Council can reverse or modify the P13nning Commission's approval by disallowing some or all of the signage request fo.r the site. The reasons for Council action should be clearly stated. 3. The Council can deny without prejudice the sign application directing the applicant to revise his request and resubmit it to the Planning Commission. If Council pursues this alternative they should give clear direction to the applicant, Planning Commission and staff about what kind of changes they would like to see in the sign program. BACKGROUND: Joe Putnam is requesting a sign exception in order to install signage at the new Mazda dealership to be located in the building at 3 California Drive (corner of California and Peninsula) zoned C-2, Auto Row. His sign request is for five signs (four allowed) and 355.5 SF (300 SF allowed) of signage on the primary, or California Drive, frontage and for four signs (four allowed) and 118 SF (100 SF allowed) of signage on the secondary, Peninsula Avenue, frontage (Code Sec. 22. 16.040 and 22.16.050). The signage request for the California Drive frontage includes two pole signs, one 40 SF double faced on a 16' high pole advertising used cars and a 97 SF double faced (48.5 SF per face) pole sign on the corner on a 20' pole. The other two signs are wall mounted signs, both 27' off the ground and both 59.5 SF in area. Double faced signs count as two signs; however, in this case because of its orientation one face of the sign on the corner of California and Peninsula is counted as being on the secondary frontage. The proposed signage on the secondary frontage includes the 48.5 SF side of the 20' pole sign along with two wall signs mounted on the wall 14' above the sidewalk. These signs identify the service entrance, one is 9 SF, the other is 6 SF. The fourth sign on this frontage is a wall mounted sign on the showroom. It is 59.5 SF mounted 27' above grade. All signs proposed for this site are interiorly lit. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on October 14, 1986 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously with proposed three conditions to approve the sign exception for five signs and 355.5 SF of signage on the California Drive frontage and 118 SF of signage on the Peninsula Avenue frontage. In their action the Commission found that this was not a grant of special privilege since this proposal is one of the lowest ratios of signage square footage to street frontage currently -3- in the Auto Row area. It was also noted that the sign is necessary on Peninsula for the service area which is set back from the street, and the architectural design of the building resulted in the signage on the face of the building being too high to be easily and safely seen and thus requiring the pole sign at the corner. The Planning Commission staff report attached includes a letter from the applicant, city staff comments and a table of existing signage programs approved in the Auto Row area. EXHIBITS• - Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 1986 - Planning Commission Staff Report, October 14, 1986 w/attachments - Notice of Public Hearing, City Council meeting, mailed 10/24/86 MM/s cc: Joe Putnam, Putnam Mazda, Inc. John Slate, Dynamic Advertising CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, October 14, 1986 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher Chairman Giomi welcomed new Planning Commissioner Shelley Graham and presented her with a Planning Commissioner's badge. MINUTES - The minutes of the September 22, 1986 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved; item #3 has been continued. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE SIGNAGE THAN IS PERMITTED BY CODE AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 10/14/86, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this exception request for number and amount of signage on the primary frontage and amount of signage on the secondary frontage, property located on Auto Row. She discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joe Putnam, applicant, discussed his need for the additional signage in order to be competitive with his new Mazda dealership, the directional sign on Peninsula is necessary to indicate the availability of service and the service entrance, the sign on the corner is necessary for identification since the only other sign at the intersection is placed on the building too high to be easily seen. He stated he had no problem with the conditions of approval proposed by staff. The Mazda logo was noted, a small white square; applicant advised this is a required part of the sign design, sign is flat, letters do not protrude and it is interiorly lit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm found this exception would not be a grant of special privilege, this site has one of the lowest ratios of square footage � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 14, 1986 of signage to street frontage when compared with signage granted to others in the area; he felt the request met all the requirements..�or an exception. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the sign exception;•rwith the following conditions: (1) that the signs as installed sha�� be consistent with the plans (dated Seotember 9, 1986) and sig��permit description (date,stamped August 19, 1986) submitted to the''Planning Department; (2) t�at the 20' high, 97 SF per face, double faced pole sign proposed for�the corner of California and Peninsul�'shall not overhang property '-ine more than 4' nor shall it be cl�ser than 8' from the top of sidewal ; and (3) that a change of copy o any addition of signs to this site ould require amendment to this ign exception. Second C. H.Graham;;motion approved unanimously o roll call vote. Appeal procedures w�re advised. ,� 2. TENTATIVE AND FI AL M�P TO COMBINE LOTS, R UBDIVISION OF BLOCK 15, LYON AND HOAG SUB IVISION OF THE TOWN OF URLINGAME (100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE) CE Erbacher reviewed t� construction is under w ,y tentative and final map, it is a lot combination � C. Garcia moved to recomm Council for approval; sec on roll call vote. item. To exoedi e processing because , the map shoul be considered as both a it will combi all parcels in Block 15; since �p, no discr ionary conditions may be placed. nd this te ative and final map to City � d C. H.G ham. Motion approved unanimously 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP/CE TIF RESUBDIVISION OF LOT l, B O AT 1821 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED R Application continued. ATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE 11, MILLS GARDEN COURT N0. 2 -3 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THREE\SPECIAL PERMITS AND THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONVERSION F AN EXIST�NG WAREHOUSE TO AN OFFICE-AUTO RETAIL CENTER, 107 BROADWAY, ZO�ED M-1 Reference staff repfarrt, 10/14/86, with`�ttachments. CP Monroe reviewed her staff inemo, npting the applicant and��property owner is requesting an extension to-October 7, 1987, he is un�ertain at this time about the future of th�roject. Responding to Commi� sioner question, CP commented on the city's plans for intersectibn studies. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applican�t was not present. There were no audience comments and the Dublic h�aring was closed. C. H.Graham moved to grant the requested extension �o October 7, 1987. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll ca�l vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 14, 1986 of signage to street frontage when compared with signage granted to others in the area; he felt the request met all the requirements for an exception. C. Schwalm moved for approval of the sign exception with the following conditions: (1) that the signs as installed shall be consistent with the plans (dated SeAtember 9, 1986) and sign permit description (date stamped August 19, 1986> submitted to the Planning Department; (2) that the 20' high, 97 SF per face, double faced pole sign proposed for the corner of California and Peninsula shall not overhang property line more than 4' nor shall it be closer than 8' from the top of sidewalk; and (3) that a change of copy or any addition of signs to this site would require amendment to this sign exception. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL M�P TO COMBINE LOTS, RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 15, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION OF THE TOWN OF BURLINGAME (100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE) \ �.,� CE E acher reviewed the item. To exoedite process� because constr ction is under way, the map should be consa,d'ered as both a tentati and final map; it will combine all p cels in Block 15; since it is a lo combination map, no discretionar conditions may be placed. C. Garcia mo d to recommen d t his tentativ� and final map to City Council for ap oval; second C. H.Grahai►�..r' Motion approved unanimously on roll call vote . <<r� 3. FINAL CONDOMINIUM M� RESUBDIVISION OF LOT AT 1821 OGDEN DRIVE, Application continued. 4. REQUEST FOR EXTENSI TO ALLOW CONVERSIQ'�] RETAIL CENTER, 1�70 /CERTIFIC.�E OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE �,,� BLOC�R 11, MILLS GARDEN COURT NO. 2 L��a� N OF THREE SP AL PERMITS AND THREE VARIANCES OF AN EXISTING EHOUSE TO AN OFFICE—AUTO BROADWAY, ZONED M— Reference staff �'eport, 10/14/86, with attachm�s. CP Monroe reviewed her staff inemo�%'noting the applicant and propert owner is requesting an extension to October 7, 1987, he is uncertain �� this time about the future of th-e project. Responding to Commissioner question, CP commented dn the city's plans for intersection studies. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. H.Graham moved to grant the requested extension to October 7, 1987. Se�ond C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were adviszd. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Tuesday, October 14, 1986 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: Commissioners Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm None City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome Coleman; City Engineer Frank Erbacher Chairman Giomi wel omed new Planning Commissioner Shelley Graham and presented her with Planning Commissioner's badge. MINUTES - The minutes of the September 22, 1986 meeting were unanimously pproved. � AGENDA - Order of the a enda apg°t�oved; item #3 has been continued. ITEMS FOR ACTION ��. 1. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW RE SIGNAGE THAN IS PERMITTED BY CODE AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, Z ED -2 — � Reference staff report,;110/14/8 with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed this exception request for number and amount of signage on the primary frontage and amount �signage on he secondary frontage, property located on Auto Row 'r She discusse details of the request, code requirements, staf review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting que tions. Three condi ions were suggested for consideration at,�the public hearing. Chm. Giomi op�ed the public hearing. J e Putnam, applicant, discussed his need for he additional signage in or r to be competitive with his new Mazda dq�alership, the directional sign n Peninsula is necessary to indicate th�e availability of service and th service entrance, the sign on the co ner is necessary for identification �since the only other sign at the i tersection is placed on the building �oo high to be easily seen. �e stated he had no problem with the conc%'tions of approval propos d by staff. The Mazda logo was noted, a s 11 white square; appli�Cant advised this is a required part of the si design, sign is flat,' letters do not protrude and it is interiorly 1`i'�. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Schwalm found this exception would not be a grant privilege, this site has one of the lowest ratios of of spe�..ial square footage '��7'�L�LQ� � P.C. 10/14/86 Item # 1 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE ON THE THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE AND AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 3 CALIFORNIA DIVE, ZONED C-2 AUTO ROW, BY JOE PUTNAM The applicant, Joe Putnam, is requesting a sign exception in order to place signage for the new Mazda dealership to be located at 3 California Drive, zoned C-2 Auto Row. He is requesting a sign exception for 5 signs (4 allowed) and 355.5SF (300 SF allowed) on the primary California Drive frontage and for 118SF (100SF allowed) of signage on the secondary, Peninsula Avenue frontage (Code Section 22.16.040 and Code Section 22.16.050). The sign code in the Auto Row area allows one additional sign over the 3 permitted in the C-2 zone for each 100' or portion of 100' over 200' on the primary and secondary frontage. Thus this site with a 277' frontage on California Drive and a 233' frontage on Peninsula is allowed 4 signs on both the primary, California, and secondary, Peninsula, frontages. The signs request on the California Drive frontage includes a 16' high 40SF double faced pole sign (sign 1), a 20' high 97SF pole sign (one face on each frontage) at the corner of California Drive and Peninsula (sign 2); and 2 27' high, 59.5SF signs mounted on the walls of the showroom building (signs 3&4). The signs on the Peninsula Avenue frontage include the second face of the 20' high, 97' pole sign (sign2), a 14' high, 9SF wall mounted sign (sign 5a) and a 14' high, 6SF wall mounted sign (sign 5b) all signs are interiorly lit. Staff Review City staff have reviewed the request. The City Engineer (August 25, 1986 memo), Chief Building Inspector (August 22,'1986 memo) and Fire Marshal (September 2, 1986 memo) had no comments. Planning staff would point out that sign 2 should only be allowed to project 4' over the property line at a height of no less than 8' from the top of sidewalk. Applicant's Letter On his sign exception request and in his letter of September 8, 1986 the applicant states that they recognize that their request is over the maximum signage allowed but feel any less signage would be detrimental to their business and to the city. They need this sign at the corner of California and Peninsula since it is a crucial, heavily traveled intersection. The projecting service entrance sign is necessary on Peninsula so people are aware that they cannot only buy Mazdas in Burlingame but also have them serviced here. They need to have service highly visible to compete with Redwood City and San -2- Francisco. They have provided an area for off street service write up to reduce congestion on California and Peninsula and it is important that the patrons be able to find this area. On the sign exception form the applicant notes that this is a new business, that they need the signage to be competitive, they believe every other auto dealer in town has an exception and for them not to have one would cause economic hardship. Findinqs for a Siqn Exception In order to grant a sign exception the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 22.06.O10a&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 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 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 privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Study Questions At their meeting on September 22, 1986 the Planning Commission studied the application and asked for additional information (Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986). The comparitive table of signage on primary frontages for other auto dealerships shows that this application, if granted, would exceed two existing permits on California Drive and two existing permits in the Rollins Road area. The provisions of the Sign Code regulating signage in Auto Row (California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Peninsula) are more permissive than the regulations for the C-2 zone. The Auto Row regulations allow 1 additional sign for each 100' or portion of 100' above the base 200' and 3 signs. Since this site has a primary street frontage of 277' and a secondary street frontage of 233' it is entitled to 4 signs on each frontage. Planninq Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Findings should be made for affirmative action. Reasons should be clearly stated for any action. The following conditions should be considered at the public hearing: -3- 1. That the signs as installed shall be consistent with the plans (dated September 9, 1986) and sign permit description (dated August 19, 1986) submitted to the Planning Department; 2. that the 20' high, 97SF per face, double faced pole sign proposed for the corner of California and Peninsula shall not overhang property line more then 4' nor shall it be closer than 8' from the T� c �0 - w,.�r,K and 3. that a change of copy or any addition of signs to this site would require amendment to this sign exception. r `�� , U�. Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/rmr �.�.. .. � r � iG 1� uu� � y 19$6 CITI' Of BURUNGAME PLANNIfVG DEPT. SIGN PERMIT Application to the City Planner Form S-2 Rev. 4/1/77 PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS1APPLICATION Name � E�_, � � 4- i--� Firm l� U V��_w. �, c c)� v : Date filed g ' � �f � � J� Received by �� Telephone �% ?_2 — �' D 9'� Firm's Address ,,� 7,� �� f y,� + 3^ GJ � � A C' �� I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature � � Date p — 1 �'� ��_ 2. BURLINGAME INESS/ORGANIZATION REQUESTING NEW SIGNAGE . Name of business establishment/organization �j�'Ty� d� �,� �. da Nature of business Q Q� Name of business wner .�.� Telephone Address , S Zoning district — 2 3. OWNER OF BUILDING, STRUC RE OR LAND Name �U e cJ Address � /�,\ 4. 3 I know about the proposed sign signs, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this ap icati � Signature Date PROPERT NFORMATION / Building Lot width 2`7%'- Z� Building width height Lot depth � 3 3•� 7� Building depth Setback SIGNAGE INFORMATION Number of existing signs on property � Number of existing signs to remain �"') Attach photo(s) Number of proposed new signs 7 c 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. Slq �49e ��1D�OS�G'� �� TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY PLANNER u�� / ��4�/ 6�/� Maximum signage permitted by Title 22: Primary frontac� e��OO SFsecondar�I /S eXCee�S � U� v/ Total signage proposed by this application: PSma�r�n�r ntagd a3,�.7.� S�e� ridar �� '��e� �� /�`-� This application is consistent with all Title 22 requirements, and a Building Permit �� ,p�� 4 i/ �� ay be issued. (yes) �(no) U` ' U � Signed �� Q�G! ��%�U�f� o� �s�9�9e Date �C7G "'•Z/'� � � bot�j ,��%�G� SIGN PERMIT FEE to be collected by Building Department: $ Gt`IR� Se�o�c�a r'y �iID�?�qeS. ,r/ See ►-�v� sed �; �, �f c�s�� r� � �� G SIGN A: ()Existing, no chan9e ()Existing, new copy �ew sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign / pole sign � other (please specify)�� project�g sig.aT� /� �.� / Overall height -j�Width of sign face__y'�'��-�-��4i�'ight of sign face ( 7� Area of sign %� ack round color �,2—; Copy color (,C��,t �- Copy ' , � Type of illumination p. ��t#burs be illuminated � t'�' v _�d � Sign material: letters body�br sign surface U rs�t Method of support L' � sip'gle/double faced • n/� P mit to: erect � alter � paint move � ' y SIGN B: \� ()Existing, no change (�xisting, new copy �New sign I� �/( Sign ty�ie: ground sign wall sign ` M - (..� l � �� i� i i / / h� -1 i ��C��h � i pole sign �� other (please specify): ,�� projecting sign� ,i�l ^�D �f Overall height Width df sign face�_Height of sign face Area of sign . BacJcgr�nd color Copy color� Copy � Type of illumination ours to be illuminated � Sign materia}: lettersr� � body or siqn surface; Method of support � single/double faced Permit to: er�ct alter paint move SIGN C: ()fCzisting, no chang ()Existing, new copy (�New sign Sign type: � ground sign ` wall sign� pole sign — � other (pleas pecify): projecting sign� � Overal,] height�� Width of sign face�Height of sign face�� Area of sign Back round color Copy color (,(, Co¢y �'�ype of illumination Hours �be illuminated � �� Sign material: letters body or sl'�qn surface , Method of support single/doub� faced �� C�,� Permit to: erect�alter pain�T move SIGN D: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy �(�New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign � �\ pole sign other (please specify): � projecting sign� / i � �( Il Overall height Width of sign face�_Height of sigr�face Area of sign . `�`Ba�round color Copy color �opy Z �-�m� rn z � - z Type of illumination � �urs to be illuminated - Sign material: letters � body or sign surface i Method of support single/double faced Permit to: erect�alter paint move -2- ., O SIGN A: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy (�New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign pole sign � other (please specify): projecting sign � �i � i/ � // Overall height �� - � Width of sign face �y - 2 Height of sign face �� Area of sign � Background color 81 u e Copy color_� �j �{-� � � . /�'�� i N�7'E.' TNiS S/GN �►P�FA•e5 /N Ti+JO � o c A Tio.vJ Type of illumination int�eripr I��Vn�Hours to be illuminated_ Sign material : letters p�QS'f'1 C body or sign surface� Method of support� �e � �Q�e single/double faced� Permit to: erect�_alter • paint . • ; C�(!i � - . " O SI6N B: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy a;New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign pole sign � other (please specify): orojecting sign 3 Overall height��-�� Width of sign face-�, �'/Height of sign face�/� Area of sign �%r% SF Background color (3�l�e Copy color G{l%jj fe Copy �% d� z i� IL} Type of illumination_�1�%C�''iDI' /��Unl• Hours to be illuminated�'Q�Q.►'►•}..' �Z��q•h, Sign materia}: letters ��QS}i �, body or siqn surface� G �U rn ✓1� � Method of support �-��C.I �� single/double faced �)�j�e FqcecO Permit to: erect�_alter paint move 3 S C: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy (�()New sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign� pole sign other (please specify): projecting sign Overall height•2% � ��Width of sign face �7 � �� Height of sign face 3'" b�� Area of sign J�q• 'J� .S�gackground color _�1(J� Copy color ((�h% � copy M�zD(� � Type of i 11 umi nati on ; n+er• ,I � � �►1� • Hours to be i 11 umi nated �j;QD �� - � Z�Q� UYN Sign material : letters }'��G�S}�� _ body or sign surface O�� U!''Y1 � Y11 ' Method of support bUj �-C�.�,V�C� single/double faced �� QPermit to: erect X alter paint move SIGN D: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy (h'fNew sign Sign type: ground sign wall sign� pole sign other (please specify): projecting sign ' I 3-�� Overall heightZ %- D�� Width of sign face / 7/ 0�� Height of sign face / � Area of sign �/• :J SF Background color �i(ie Copy color W%'ZI�'�'('� CoPY Pu reve�� Type of illumination !Yf'fe!'`. ///(1►Y�. Hours to be illuminated 6:QQ �Y►1 - �2� Sign material: letters P�4 S�I C. body or sign surface � i l V Method of support 6U �) d� nQ single/double faced ( � Permit to: erect �C alter paint move -2- � _ � ,. SIV� PERMIT Date filed_ Application to the City Planner Received by Form S-2 Rev. 4/1/77 1. PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION Name Telephone Firm Firm's Address I k�ereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Si gnaCt�re Date 2. BURLINGAME BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION REQUESTING NEW SIGNAGE . Name of business establishment/organization Nature of business Name of business owner Telephone Address Zoning district 3. OWNER OF BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND Name Address I know about the proposed sign, or signs, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. Signature Date 4. PROPERTY INFORMATION Building Lot width Building width height Lot depth Building depth Setback 5. SIGNAGE INFORMATION Number of existing signs on property Number of existing signs to remain � Attach photo(s) 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 relevcnt. Color rendering or perspective of all signs. � � 7. TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY PLANNER \� Maximum signage permitted by Title 22: Primary frontage condary Total signage proposed by this application: Primary frontage condary This application is consistent with all Title 22 requirements, and a Buil ing Permit may be issued. (yes) (no) Signed Date SIGN PERMIT FEE to be collected by Building Department: $ �., - �l `J SIGN A: ()Existing, no change ()Existing, new copy (X)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 �' O// Area of sign Background color ��L° Copy color L(��1'}� Copy �, r V i Type of illumination 1Y1+ i V • Hours to be illuminatedfj��Ql�'( —1z��Qr{vVj Sign material: letters_ a�Q S}j�, body or sign surface � U � Method of support (�Ul �C�iVl�single/double faced S1 CP 5 L Permit to: erect j� alter • paint move �� SIGN B: ()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 B�U e Copy color W hj �e. CopY If Type of illumination I1�}�l^((9� 1 U►'4►.Hours to be illuminated ��QPyh— ��.�Q(�� Sign material: letters PI0. S�1� C. Tbody or siqn surface � Method of support �)i ,y�Lj single/double faced Permit to: erect ��alt� 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 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 -2- �� r t< < SIGN PERMIT Date filed Application to the City Planner Received by Fprm S-2 Rev. 4/1/77 1. ' PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION Name Telephone Firm Firm's Address I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature 2. BURLINGAME BUSINESS/ORGANIZATION REQUESTING NEW SIGNAGE . Name of busirtQss establishment/organization Nature of business Name of business owner Address 3. OWNER OF BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR LAND Name Address Telephone Zoning district I know about the proposed sign, or signs, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. Da Secondary Secondary � Building Permit SIGN PERMIT FEE to be collected by Building Department: $ � � Signature Date 4. PROPERTY INFORMATION Building Lot width Building width height Lot depth Building depth Setback 5. SIGNAGE INFORMATION Number of existing signs on property Number of existing signs to remain Attach photo(s) Number of proposed new signs , Sign construction details (SEE PAGE 2; pleas� complete all parts) 6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION Site plan showing size of property and locatYon 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� Total signage proposed by this application: Primary frontage This application is consistent with all Title 22 requirements, and may be issued. (yes) (no) Signed , 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE PROPOSED SIGNAGE SIGN 1 - pole sign 2'-10" x 14'2" = 40 SF Double Faced SIGN 2 - pole sign 4'-4 3/4" x 22' = 97 SF Double Faced SIGNS 3& 4- wall signs 3'6" x 17' = 59.5 SF Single Faced, 3 signs SIGN 5a - wall sign 6' x 1'6" = 9 SF Single Faced SIGN 5b - projecting sign 4' x 1' 6" = 6 SF Double Faced CALIFORNIA DRIVE NO. SIGNS SF 1 80 1 3 wi7 178.5 TOTAL SIGNAGE PROPOSED 5 355.5 SF TOTAL SIGNAGE PERMITTED 4 300 SF PENINSULA AVENUE NO SIGNS SF 1 1 1 3 4 97 �] 12 118 SF 100 SF SiGN EXCEP�' ION Application to the Planning Commission 1. PERSON/COMPANY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION --� _ , �� Name Firm Firm's Address D filed - _�y ,-�: $75 Fee received by `��w Receipt No. ��i Public hearing scheduled Telephone3 � �— c/3 � , A ATTACH DENIED SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 2. Has applicant read Section 22.06.110 of the City Ordinance Code? Yes ;—_ 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. n„P tn thP llseci�ign beinQ needed in both directions, we need an exception for the used car sign. We need the sign to be competitive to operate a viable business. I beleive every other auto dealer in the town probably has a variance. With out this exception, it would cause economic hardship on Putnam Mazda. 4. Describe why the exception is necessary now to preserve the continued use and enjoyment of the property. this is a new business. 5. What hardships would result if your request were denied? Economics to our new dealership, which would make us uncompetive with dealers in Redwood Citv and San Francisco 6. EVALUATION BY CITY PLANNER Code section(s) relevant to this application An exception has been requested because ... � ■m = September ci, 1986 PUTNAM MAZDA, INC. Home of Red Carpet Serv�ce 3 Califomia Drive (415) 347-4800 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 �r��IVf�fi� �: �� , - i986 City of Burlingame RE: Attn Signage at 3 California Dr. Planning Commission Building Dept. CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. This letter is to request an exception for the signage for our new Mazda Dealership on the corner of California Drive and Peninsula Avenue. We realize that the total signage we are requesting is over the city standard limit, but feel that any deduction of signs would be detrimental to our business along with revenues for the City of Burlingame. We are requesting a pole sign on the corner of California Dr and Peninsula Avenue. This sign cannot be eliminated since this is a crutial intersection and is highly traveled. On Peninsula Avenue�we feel it is imparitive to have a projecting "Service" sign along with a sign to show the "Service Entrance". We feel that Peiiinsula Avenue is a highly traveled street and is as important as California Drive if not more important. We need consumers to be aware that they can not only purchase "Mazdas'' in Burlingame but we also have a convenient Service Department. We feel that in order for us to be competitive with Redwood City and San Francisco we need. to be highly visiable. We feel the "Service Entrance" sign is extremely important, as we have provided an area for off street service write-up. This off-street area will alleviate congestion and confussion on Peninsula Ave. and California Drive. DATE : l _ L' � }- 2� %C 'T MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER �� CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL DIRECTOR OF PARKS FROM: PLANNING OEPARTMENT SUBJECT: � ( '� l�� %�i � � ''P ��; � �'� - � � � n�P�r � �1 i-� �x� � ��l �J� �'�-r,r ��-�'' 5�� a � � � � �' -� , � � � � � �v� �l�r � � �- � r �' ;�-^� � An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for S`� u G�l�( � at their (��'� • ��, {'`�� meeting. We would appreciate having your commen ts by � � � �- - 2 � � � �?�. Thank you. Helen Towber Planner 5/ att. �� Y' i f/� - /�/dI7�/// v�J� . � � , �/ � '�C��7.dZi /� I��/ ��%x� � /�D C��%�x�� ZS �6 � ��'/'`�-� . � ., , �-; DATE: l l' �� 2� lC � MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL DIRECTOR OF PARKS FROM: P�ANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: �� ',/ �� (�%�i /�%''t Y` � I/� — ��v - � �� '��-� ��l � �X�� °. � 5�,��1a � P !�' i� ��!v�� ic� r� -� r� n�� ,�� An application has been received for the above project for review b the � Y Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for � � G at their �(' • ��, +' ��/�meeting. We would appreciate having your corrn�ents by �(��-{ . 2T�� , ('� �� , D Thank you. � - �`v � pl.rar�� 0'/� � �u �. / i w�y. / lJG� �-� �/�r P n / � . Qi �/ / :Sln � REC�IVED � -.��u ;.,� i986 ' Hel en Towber pnr�� Planner s / � � � �-r f' n / _ � att. /� o O� � ��;ro�� . � ��J(= 2� ;: , If. � i� C'�� ,�'� � ?P�n ��. � � ��cEivE� ��vu ;�5 �c� � , DATE : / _ /' � � 2/ %c .. MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILOING INSP FIRE MARSHAL DIRECTOR OF PARKS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: '� /i� �� ;� --r i I/� — � — � q'�- � �� n��7 ��l �r� �X�� ,� �'�r,f ��. ►- ��a - � �. � � , / S� � � =�' � � � v�� ' � r � =L-^ �. An application has been received for the above pro�ect for rev�ew b the � Y Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for �'�U G at their �(' � � c�, ��r� meeting. We would appreciate having your commen ts by � (� � -}- - 2 � � C% ��. Thank you. Helen Towber Planner s/ att. -�-� i��f � �,�� nc, o��S. � � \.. - \..� Page 6 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 STUDY ITEMS J� 6. SIGN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE SIGNAGE AT 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE THAN IS l` PERMITTED BY THE SIGN CODE CP Monroe reviewed this request. Commission requested the following information: a comparison chart showing other signage in the auto row area; staff to confirm code limits for the number of signs on the frontage and the total number of signs zequested. Item set for public hearing on Tuesday, October 14. PLANNER REPORTS - 1800 EL CAMINO REAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION The negative declaration prepared for the three-story office project at 1800 El Camino Real was discussed; significant effects called out in the EIR have been mitigated by the current design. - 1070 BROADWAY -REQUEST FOR PERMIT EXTENSION Request by Mike Harvey for one-year permit extension for project at 1070 Broadway will be on next agenda. - HOOVER SCHOOL SITE SALE The School District has notified the city that the Hoover School site is up for sale. - CP Monroe reviewed Council Action at its September 15, 1986 regular meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Giomi asked the Planning Commission to think about initiating a rotation of commissioners to cover the City Council meetings and then having that Commissioner report back to the Commission at their next meeting. CP Monroe said she will make a list of the remaining Council meetings for this year. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:53 P.M. . � CITY BURLINGAME ��yyN e ��uhc° � itr LI�U ut ��lII ltTi�cSTTiP SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL !415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING SIGN EXCEPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tuesday, the 14th day of October, 1986 , at the hour of 7: 30 P.M. , i n the Ci ty Hal l Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlinqame, California the Plannin� Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a publ i c heari ng on the appl i cation to exceed permitted signa e �t 3 California Drive, zoned auto row, C-2. At the tir�e of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET ��10NROE CITY PLA�I�IER � . . T�'ic��s�:�. CITY BURVNGAME �,� e � VH[6. U.hr Ltt�? IIf �.�1i11tTtI��TTTiP SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL: (ai5) 342-6931 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SIGN EXCEPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 3rd day of November, 1986 , at the hour of 7:30 P.P1., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application to exceed permitted signage at 3 California Drive, zoned C-2 Auto Row. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER October 24, 1986