The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1205 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportMEMO DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 6, 2002 Planning Cominission City Planner Planner's Report Meeting Date: 11/12/02 FYI — REVISION TO AN APPROVED SIGN VARIANCE FOR 1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE. Summary: On April 22, 2002, the Planning Commission approved on the action calendar a commercial design review application and sign variance for number of signs for a new tenant at 1205 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, subarea A(April 22, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes). Building and sign permits have been finaled and the new tenant, Sephora, is now open for business. The applicant has revised the signage slightly from what was approved by the Planning Commission, but the nuinber of the signs approved under the variance has not increased. The Planning Commission approved 5 signs on the primary frontage where 3 signs are allowed and 6 signs on the secondary frontage where 3 are allowed. The existing hotel blade sign on the corner of Burlingame and Lorton Avenues represents two signs that were counted toward the Sephora signage since this blade sign is located beyond the primary frontage of the hotel, one side is counted toward the primary frontage (Burlingame Avenue) for Sephora and one side counted toward the secondary frontage (Lorton Avenue) for Sephora. A sign permit was issued for the re-facing of this blade sign on November 6, 2002, with the same area, but will include sign copy for both the Burlingame Hotel as well as for Sephora. Sephora removed a two-sided blade that was approved for location under this blade sign. Therefore, the total number of signs is not increasing and the area of signage remains the same. Catherine Barber Planner ATTACHMENTS: April 22, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES Page 6 of 12 Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was scconded by C. Auran. Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with added conditions. The motion passed on a 5-2 vote (Cers. Bojues and Keighran ). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m. 6. 1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED G1, SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIGN HEIGHT (SEPHORA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT; THOMAS BOND, THOMAS BOND & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that there is some confusion as to which blade signs count on each frontage. CP Monroe clarified that both sides of the Sephora blade sign located at the corner of Burlingame and Lorton Avenues count toward the secondary frontage on Lorton even though one side can be seen from Burlingame Avenue. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Tom Bond, 14471 Chambers Road, Tustin, CA, project architect, presented an old photograph of the building and a rendering of the proposal for commission's review, and noted that the current proposal looks remarkably like the original building. Commissioners asked: what do the projecting light fxtures at each letter look like; regarding the two projecting light fixtures proposed at the two arches along Lorton, could they be lowered to the center of the horizontal feature of the arches, would match focus of arch at the hotel entrance; in the photo of the original building, the arches are recessed, will they be recessed now; elaborate on the hardship for the variance requested for the number of signs. The project architect noted that the light fixtures to illuminate the lettering consist of a stem one inch in diameter that is 18 inches long with a light fixture at the end; at the height proposed the fixutres will be almost invisible; the location of the light fixtures on the arches is arbitrary, but he felt it would be better if it were higher than eight feet so it would be less of a temptation for kids to jump up or throw things over; a nine foot height is proposed, the idea is to illuminate the plaque sign below; the arches will be recessed by almost a foot; regarding the hardships on the property, the hotel gobbled up a large portion of the allowed signage, there is reduced visibility at this corner because of the street trees and foliage; visibility is limited for pedestrians, there is no ability for pedestrians to locate the tenant without the use of the blade signs; the logos on the arches on Lorton are there to provide a visual element to the archways. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25, 2002, site plan, floor plans and April 17, 2002 building elevations; 2) that there shall be 5 signs along the Burlingame Avenue (primary) frontage: 1) 29.16 SF wall sign above entry; 2) 3.75 SF awning sign above entry; 3&4) blade sign, (each side counted as one 6 SF sign), 12 SF total; and 5) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign (one side only, double sided sign, one side is counted toward each frontage); 3) that there shall be 6 signs along the Lorton Avenue (secondary) frontage: 1) 3 SF window sign; 2) new 3 SF window sign; 3) new 7.56 SF wall sign; 4&5) new blade sign, each side counted as one 6 SF sign, 12 SF total; and 6) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign; 4) that the basement area shall not be accessible from the Sephora http://www.burlin�ame.org/plannin�/plan comm/minutes/2002/4-22-02min.htm 11/12/2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES Page 7 of 12 tcnant space and shall be accessible only from an exterior door at the rear of the property, the basement area shall be used for storage for on-site businesses only; 5) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's memo dated March 19, 2002 and Fire Marshal's memo dated March 18, 2002 shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Commissioners noted that the hardship was well articulated by the applicant, there are already signs for the hotel, building is shared by two tenants so signage is shared; the signs as presented are nicely balanced, simple yet elegant; the amount (SF) of signagc is below the limit, would like to thank fellow commissioners for asking that the existing windows be retained and thank the applicant for revising the project accordingly; applicant did a good job on the project, the signs are elegant and the project will add a touch of class to the corner; hardships for the sign variance are that due to the corner building, the foliage along the street obstructs signs; placement and visibility is an issue because of historic value of the building, the proposed signage fits the fa�ade and adds to the character to the area. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 7. ll60 BROADWAY — ZONED G1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION (RAYMOND LEE, SPEAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LP, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report, 04.22.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and comments. She noted that since the remodeling of the building is now in progress, there should be an amendment to Condition No. 2 to read "that the final map shall be recorded with San Mateo County prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. Commissioners asked if Walgreen's leaves the site, with the lots merged, could a larger building be built. CP Monroe noted that a larger building could not be built because the parking is required for the building. Commissioners noted that there is an PVE easement on two of the lots but not the third; the City Engineer had noted that it is not a concern because it is not a City easement, it is a utility easement for Pacific Telephone and Pacific Gas and Electric only. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. The applicant Raymond Lee, Spear Design Associates was available for questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to recommend approval of tentative and final parcel map application to City Council, with the amended conditions as noted. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 vote. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2304 EASTON DRIVE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOSE L. AND MARIA R. REALYVASQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON http://www.burlingame.or�/plannin�/plan comm/minutes/2002/4-22-02min.htm 11/12/2002