HomeMy WebLinkAbout1761 Adrian Road - Staff Report (2)Item No.
Consent Calendar
�
�--�- :� ���' .
s_ .� ,� •';
_ T-_ ��,
�. _
- � — 1
�. _ .� "
� a-,��..�� �.�� y � �.���y ���
j� �.: ' ' -._•4f�ert :
:� �,i t ����� i � �'" �; ,�:�' ;a
��,����, r ln ''�„,� a'�'��,
� � : _ �°�e'��: c�'�Pi
�. � $ A . ,"" FF
� p
. �'_' ..., ..(.�.���..s�., iS-
� ��� �y�
���i ��le _�' � T� ��� i �j�
�. - � $eGar. :;3�'' y l �'� '�t
�
�� @111 — � - � y, -, �y.
' _,,,r<e..�..._ ' ' ..... � � _ � � ,'_-
�.a..- - ' .. .` .��a""`..----� -- `— - _ w
.. ..:a �:-:. .�..
s; �
. . � . . �.n L9y
PROJECT LOCATION
1761 Adrian Road
City of Burlingame
Commercial Design Review
Address: 1761 Adrian Road
Item No.
Consent Calendar
Meeting Date: March 8, 2010
Request: Commercial Design Review for changes to the farade of an existing commercial building.
Applicant and Designer: Scott Mommer, Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. APN: 025-169-200
Property Owner: Public Storage, Inc. Lot Area: 3.036 acres
General Plan: Industrial and Office Use Zoning: RR
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan — Adrian Road Auto Row District
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and
electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review.
History: On May28, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permitto allowoperation ofa
self-storage facility with an on-site manager's unit and Side Setback Variance for construction of additional
storage buildings at the subject property. On July 12, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit Amendment and Parking Variance to allow rental and storage of four trucks in conjunction with the
existing self storage facility.
Project Description: The applicant, Scott Mommer of Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc., representing Public
Storage, Inc., is proposing changes to the fa�ade of an existing commercial building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned
RR. Public Storage, Inc., a self-storage facility, currently occupies all five existing buildings on this site. The
existing self-storage facility is approximately 125,944 SF in size (five buildings) and contains an on-site
manager's unit which is used for 24-hour supervision of the site.
The front fa�ade of the existing building contains scored concrete, which also wraps around the front corners of
the building, a series of rectangular windows, a glass and metal front door system and a canopy and brick
veneer on a portion of the front facade (see existing building elevations on sheet 7). Several of the existing
rectangular windows and some of the scored concrete will remain and be integrated with the proposed fa�ade
alterations.
The applicant is proposing changes to the front and side fa�ades of the main building located at the front of the
site. The existing brick veneer at the front of the building will be replaced with scored cement plaster to match
the existing fa�ade, adding "boxed" columns with a cement plaster finish, vertical and horizontal metal siding and
a cornice trim cap and sheet metal cap along the building parapet. Metal awnings are proposed along the front
and left sides of the building. False roll-up doors are proposed at the front, right corner of the building (front and
right side facades). The proposed changes to the fa�ades of the building include extending the height of the
parapet at the front of the building by 8'-0" (overall building height would increase from 20'-0" to 28'-0", where
35'-0" is allowed). This project is subject to Commercial Design Review because it includes changes to more
than 50% of the front fa�ade of a building located in the RR zoning district. The project requires the following
application:
• Commercial Design Review for changes to the fa�ade of an existing commercial building (CS 25.44.070).
Parking: The existing on-site parking is nonconforming; there are 61 parking spaces on-site. The current code
would require 131 parking spaces for storage (124 spaces at 1:1000 SF ratio), manager's unit (two spaces),
retail (one space at 1:400 SF ratio) and rental trucks (four spaces). Planning staff would note that at the time the
self-storage facility was approved in 1980, a parking study was provided and it was determined that the existing
on-site parking would be adequate to accommodate a self-storage use.
Commercial Design Review 1761 Adrian Road
With this application, the retail area at the front corner of the building will be enlarged (see sheet 5); the small
front office is considered retail for parking purposes since it is associated with the retail sales and rental of
storage rooms). A portion of the existing manager's unit and five small storages rooms would be eliminated to
accommodate the enlarged retail and office area (185 SF net area). The difference in parking demand from
converting existing storage space (1:1000 SF parking ratio) to retail (1:400 SF parking ratio) is 0.27 parking
spaces. Since less than 0.5 parking spaces are required, it is considered de minimis and therefore no additional
on-site parking is required.
Landscaping: There are no changes proposed to the existing on-site landscaping which includes three large,
mature trees at the front of the site and various other trees, shrubs and turf throughout the property (see
Landscape Plan, sheet 8). The proposed changes to the farade and interior alteration do not require additional
on-site landscaping.
Planning staff would note that although the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Area Plan recommends
planting Eucalyptus ficifolia (Red Flowering Gum) along Adrian Road, the Parks Supervisor recommends
planting Chinese Pistache trees instead, noting that this species is more appropriate for the goal of establishing
future automobile sales and service uses in this area. The applicant is proposing to install two, 15-gallon
Chinese Pistache trees at the front of the site, consistent with the recommended alternative street tree in the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for Adrian Road. Chinese Pistache trees were also approved and
installed at the recently completed BMW service facility at 1625 Adrian Road. Planning staff would note that the
Community Development Department and Parks Division will be reviewing the recommendations in the Specific
Area Plan in the near future and will process a request to make amendments as necessary.
Table 1— Compliance with RR District Zoning Regulations
Lot Area: 3.036 acres Plans date stam ed: Februa 16, 2010
EXISTING PROPOSED ' ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Use:
self-storage facility
_.
30'-0"
_ __
61 '-3"
10'-0"
_
74,755 SF
56.5%
125,944 SF
0.95 FAR
_. _ _ _
20'-0"
61 parking spaces
no change
_ _
28'-0" to boxed columns
22'-6" to awnings
_
53'-10" to awnings
no change
_
74,800 SF Z
56.5%
_ _
125,989 SF
0.95 FAR
_ _ _
28'-0"
self-storage facility with
conditional use permit
Front Sefback:
Side Setback (left):
(right):
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
Heigh f:
Parking
at least 20% of the building
to have a zero setback '
10'-0"
10'-0"
79,349 SF
60%
0.50 FAR
0.50 — 1.0 FAR w/CUP
35'-0"
up to 60'-0" w/CUP
no change 1 space for each 1000 SF
of storage; 2 spaces for
'' manager's unit; 4 spaces
for rental trucks
' Variance to build-to line not required since proposed awnings and boxed columns are design enhancements
to the existing building; there is no increase in floor area proposed with this application.
2 Additional 45 SF in lot coverage due to boxed columns at front and left side of building.
-2-
Commercial Design Review 1761 Adrian Road
Table 2 below and on the following pages indicates whether the proposed project complies, partially complies or
does not comply with the intent of the applicable North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Design Guidelines
for the Auto Row Area. A copy of the design guidelines for this area is included in the staff report. This project is
required to comply with the guidelines set for the Auto Row Area. Design guidelines which have been partially
met or not met are identified with italics in Table 2.
Table 2— Compliance with North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
S ecific Plan Desi n Guidelines — Auto Row Area
Design Guidelines Compliance
Floor Area Ratio (Auto Service):
0.50 FAR review line Existing nonconforming (0.95 FAR existing; there is no
1.0 FAR maximum change in the floor area ratio proposed)
Build-To Lines:
0'-0" required on Adrian Road ; Not applicable - proposed awnings and boxed columns are
' design enhancements to the existing building; there is no
' addition to the existing building proposed.
Minimum Parcel Frontage:
20% of building frontage should be at build-to line on ' Not applicable - proposed awnings and boxed columns are
Adrian Road '. design enhancements to the existing building; there is no
addition to the existing building proposed.
Maximum Building Height:
35' review line/60' maximum on Adrian Road ' Complies (28'-0" proposed)
Building FaCades:
Building faCades should avoid long, single planes in excess '; Will be reviewed by Planning Commission as part of
of 100 feet. Building fa�ades should include elements that ' design review process.
em�hasize a scale that relates to the human form. Large ',
window areas on the fa�ades of auto sales buildings should ',
be carefully integrated into the overall design of the building !
fa�ade.
Building Materials:
A variety of materials is encouraged to articulate building ', Will be reviewed by Planning Commission as part of
elements, such as the base, the ground floor, and upper ' design review process.
floors, if any. These basic components of a building should '',
be articulated by means other than the exterior finish. Such '
means can include delineation of rooflines or pediments, !
pier and column bases and building entries as well as
smaller details, such as windows and awnings. Where large ;
areas of glass are used on the fa�ades of auto sales :
buildings, the glass should be one component of a carefully ';
considered palette of materials. Colored glass should be !
coordinated with the other colors used on the building.
-3-
Commercial Design Review
1761 Adrran Road
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, City
Arborist and NPDES Coordinator.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 22,
2010, the Commission had some questions for staff, discussed the proposed design to the fa�ade of the building
and voted to place the item on the Consent Calendar (February 22, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes).
1. Is fhere any way fo see if the 1980 parking study done for the se/f-storage facility is still applicable
today?
■ The original Conditional Use Permit application in 1980 included an informal trip generation study
provided by Public Storage, which is based on traffic volume data for a similar development in Castro
Valley (see attached letter from Public Storage dated April 15, 1980). At that time, the Director of Public
Works noted that "the Engineering and Traffic Departments have no requirements for the project. We
anticipate no traffic problems from this use, the site over any other permitted use." At that time the City
Planner also noted that "the average number of vehicle trips per 1,000 SF of storage lockers is only 20%-
50% of typical light industrial development."
Although this information is useful, it has been 30 years since this particular informal trip generation
study was prepared and most likely is outdated. Trip generation studies which are prepared now typically
are based on technical data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). For example,
for the proposed intensification of self-storage proposed on the adjacent property, an updated trip
generation study, based on ITE data, was provided and will be used in the environmental review of the
project.
2. Provide general idea of proposed signage and whether it meets sign code.
The applicant is considering several sign options. At the design review study meeting, the Commission
asked if the wall sign shown on the rendering was allowed by the sign code, since it could have an affect
on the design of the parapet at the front of the building. The applicant notes that the wall sign shown on
the rendering is approximately 136 SF (4' x 34'), where the sign code allows a maximum of 300 SF is
allowed based on the building frontage, and therefore would be in compliance with the sign code
regulations for this zoning district.
The following is a list of comments and questions asked by the Planning Commission at the design review study
meeting. The comments included consideration of suggested changes to the project as well making no changes
to the proposed design. After considering the Commission's comments, the applicant decided not to make any
design changes to the project and is a requesting approval of the project as proposed.
■ Concerned with how the proposed design fits in with the context of the neighborhood, design looks post
modern, has office park and big box look; existing buildings in area simple, modern 1960's style; what
are you trying to achieve with the proposed design? (Mommer - Most buildings in area were built in
sixties, tried to articulate building and comply with the design guidelines for this area, proposed design
provide a more natural look to area).
■ Like awnings, provide human scale.
• Heavy cornice at top of parapet provides big box look, but think some changes could be made to achieve
a better design.
• Commend applicant for making improvements to this old building.
■ Not sure if the articulation is appropriate, the design elements seem tall and top heavy.
■ Concerned with parapet, seems top heavy; consider reducing height of parapet to the point just above
the top of the sign (shown on rendering).
• Consider maintaining a strong horizontal line at the top of the building without the general strip mall look;
can increase parapet somewhat, but not as much as proposed.
��
Commercial Design Review
1761 Adrian Road
• Like project as proposed, existing large mature trees and two additional trees will mitigate height;
applicant is trying to get more visibility from freeway.
• Appears that the increased parapet as proposed would also screen the existing roof curved roof behind
the parapet which is now visible.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinar�ce No. 1652
adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows:
1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas;
2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of
the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street
frontages;
3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the
surrounding development;
4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing
development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby;
5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among
primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features,
and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and
6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the
existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 22,
2010, design review study meeting; that the proposed exterior alterations to the front facade consisting of
replacing the existing brick veneer at the front of the building with scored cement plaster to match the existing
fa�ade, adding "boxed" columns with a cement plaster finish, adding vertical and horizontal metal siding and a
cornice trim cap and sheet metal cap along the building parapet, incorporating metal awnings along the front and
left sides of the building and extending the height of the parapet at the front of the building by 8'-0" (overall
building height would increase from 20'-0" to 28'-0", where 35'-0" is allowed), will enhance the appearance of the
building at the pedestrian level; that the increased parapet as proposed would also screen the existing roof
curved roof behind the parapet which is now visible; that the existing large mature trees and two additional trees
will mitigate the increased parapet height; that the proposed alterations to the building provide for articulation in
the mass and bulk, fenestration and a variety of building materials consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan Design Guidelines for the Auto Row Area; for these reasons the project is found to be
compatible with the requirements of the City's six Commercial Design Review Guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 16, 2010, sheets 1 through 8;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior
walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
-5-
Commercial Design Review 1761 Adrian Road
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshal's February 10, 2010 memos, the Park
Supervisor's February 6, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's February 15, 2010 memo and the NPDES
Coordinator's February 11, 2010 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
T�iE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
R�ben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Scott Mommer and Art Lucas, Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
�
Commercial Design Review
Attachments:
February 22, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes
Informal Trip Generation Study prepared by Public Storage, Inc., letter dated April 15, 1980
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Design Guidelines for the Auto Row Area
Application to the Planning Commission
Staff Comments
Photos of Surrounding Buildings
Pfanning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 12, 2010
Aerial Photo
1761 Adrian Road
-7-
C/T1° OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 22, 2010
4. 1761 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR
CHANGES TO THE FA�ADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LARS ANDERSEN &
ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented
the project description.
Commission comments:
Is there any way to see if the 1980 parking study done for the self-storage facility is still applicable
today? (Hurin — could provide parking study information at next meeting).
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Scott Mommer, 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue, Fresno, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
• What will happen with existing cell tower? (Mommer—will need to look at building materials and how
that affects reception; antennas will either remain in place or be relocated on the roof).
■ Explain function of false roll-up doors. (Mommer—false roll up doors will not be functional; this is an
elevation branding for Public Storage, a trademark).
■ Concerned with how the proposed design fits in with the context of the neighborhood, design looks
post modern, has office park and big box look; existing buildings in area simple, modern 1960's
style; what are you trying to achieve with the proposed design? (Mommer - Most buildings in area
were built in sixties, tried to articulate building and comply with the design guidelines for this area,
proposed design provide a more natural look to area).
■ Like awnings, provide human scale.
■ Heavy cornice at top of parapet provides big box look, but think some changes could be made to
achieve a better design.
■ In looking at the northwest elevation and northwest partial elevation, is there no awning proposed
along the right side of the building? (Mommer— unable to add an awning at this location because of
the setback requirement).
• Provide general idea of proposed signage and whether it meets sign code (Hurin — staff will provide
allowed signage area for this zoning district).
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
• Commend applicant for making improvements to this old building.
• Not sure if the articulation is appropriate, the design elements seem tall and top heavy.
■ Concerned with parapet, seems top heavy; consider reducing height of parapet to the point just
above the top of the sign (shown on rendering).
• Consider maintaining a strong horizontal line at the top of the building without the general strip mall
look; can increase parapet somewhat, but not as much as proposed.
10
CiTV OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 22, 2010
Like project as proposed, existing large mature trees and two additional trees will mitigate height;
applicant is trying to get more visibility from freeway.
Appears that the increased parapet as proposed would also screen the existing roof curved roof
behind the parapet which is now visible.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
I►�[.T�
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 4-1-1(Commissioner Terrones dissenting; Commissioner Vistica absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
11
C
PIJBIIC STORAGE Inc.
April 15, 1980
� ������ ������
11828 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California 94566 (415) 828-4805
E�EC�IVED
Mr. John Yost APR 16 1980
Planning Department
Ci ty of Burl ingame CiTY QF BURIiNGAME
501 P r i m ros e Roa d W.ANNINB DEPT.
Burlingame, Ca. 94010
Re: Variance and Use Permit
Public Storage Miniwarehouse Project
1761 Adrian Rd., Burlingame
Dear Mr. Yost:
Enclosed is the information you require to issue a side yard variance and a use
permit for a miniwarehouse project in a warehousing area:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Variance application.
Use Permit Application.
Six (6) copies of plot plan and space layout.
Six (6) copies of front building elevation.
Two (2) copies of traffic count for Redwood Storage.
One (1) set of five other PSI renderings.
One (1) set of color samples.
Public Storage proposes to construct a building on the south property line. This
building will back directly to the neighbor's building that is already on the prop-
erty line. This layout effectively uses the land and does not create a dark dead
spot between buildings. � have set back this building 130 feet from the sidewalk
and added extra landscaping and parking to maintain the feeling of open space that
now exists.
The Burlingame area has been surveyed by Public Storage and it shows a shortage of
small private storage. Based on this survey and the location, we have agreed to
purchase this site. We feel this type of project falls in line with the basic
planning program of the city.
This planned development would construct public storage rental spaces in individual
units on an average of 100 square feet per unit. The total site occupies approxi-
mately 130,000 square feet of land area and the proposal calls for constructing approxi-
mately 85� f:eef in a total net huilding area of approximately 95,000 square feet,
Yiguring z5,uu0 square reet or haiiways.
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Miami • Atlanta • Toronto • Seattle
-2-
We have reviewed the traffic volume data for a similar deyelopment in Castrp Valley,
California (Redwood Private Storage), as counted and reported by the California De-
partment of Transportation in early 1977. The Castro Valley site had 213 rental units
and occupied approximately 22,000 square feet of floor space. The facility was lo-
cated on a site of approximately 40,000 square feet of land area.
This week-long study indicates that traffic generation/attraction is generally
greatest on weekdays and that the average weekday trip qeneration/attraction was
56 trips per day (a trip is defined here as a one-way automotive movement with either
its origin or destination on the site).
Using this average of 56 trips per day to and from a 22,000 square foot facility
equates to approximately 2.5 trios per day per 1,000 square feet of building area.
This trip generation/attraction rate is substantially below general averaqe rates
for industrial-manufacturing facilities which averages are between 4.5 and 12.2
trips per day per 1,000 square feet of building area. (As reported in the lOth Pro-
gress Report on Trip Ends Generation Research Counts-California Department of Trans-
portation.)
The proposed project contains 4 times the number of spaces that Redwood Private Storage
has; therefore, we project four times the number of trips per day. Public S�torage
miniwarehouse project in Burlingame should have 112 (224 trips) visitors on week-
days and 77 (154 trips) visitors on weekends. And additional trips would be generated
by the small office area during weekdays.
The earlier Transportation Department report also indicated the average weekday
peak hour occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. and accounted for approximately 160
of all daily traffic for the facility. The report also indicates facility-oriented
traffic during the normal P.P1. commute peak hour (5:00-6:00 PM) accounted for approxi-
mately 9� of the total average weekday traffic for the facility.
I have enclosed four pictures of renderings of existing projects for qeneral information.
Each of these successful projects are designed around 25 ft. wide driveways. This size
has proven to offer ample room for unloading cars and trucks and the low volu�e of
traffic moving around the site. The number of vehicles on site at one time will average
less than three, figuring ten minutes per trip. Public Stor��e uses steel reinforced
concrete corner columns, thus eliminating bumper posts that reduce clear travel at
corners.
Enclosed, but not
building has been
color. Any trim
pumpkin orange.
requested, is a set of standard Public Storage colors. The existing
recently painted the almond shell color. Ide planto keep the existing
repainted will be oxford brown and the preifnished roll-up doors are
Public Storage will be happy to furnish any additional information as required.
Sincerely,
�%. �� E-1 .: �, „ 1
�,(��.,, Cf 7,j GtiW „�.
Dan L. Erown
DL6/rce
Encl.
-.����� .1:.
�i�E �- 337
1P GEN�RqTION_ST,UDY TRq
REDWOOD STORAG
LOCaTION __ CASTRO VALLEY_r__�Q.LIFQ_RH�A
oUTOMeTIC COUNT
MONDAY 7uEsn_qY WEDNES�dY____THURSDAY FRIDAY._
--- 02-24-77 ---02-25-77
RC�.�tOVED
_ .__ __APRl� 598� STUOY oo=
Clry QF BURLINGIWE
�N��O�' DIRECTION BOTN
avERAGE_____.SnTUR�ar___. .SUNOAY avERaG�� '
WEEKDAY 02-Z6-77 02-27-77 DAY OF�*;rr
02-28-77 03-01-77 03-02-77
HOUR .___COUNT�_%._COUNT �_COUNT___%_SOUNL-9S_-COUN.t__�_COUN7_ `�_COUN7-._-�-.COUNJ %C.OUNL-
----- ----- ---.- ----- ---.- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---.- ----- ---, ---
o- i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.
i- z_-_o_o.o o._o.o __o...__o...o o_o._o o_._o.o o___o,o___ _.o_.o,o _n_.o.o o n.
2- 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 D.0 0 0.
3- 4 0 0,0 • 0 0.0 0 (1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.
4- 5___. 0^0 ,.0 0_0 � 0 _0_0. 0 _0_0_, D 0___..0 , 0___0 __0., 0 _.0____ 0..0 0_0 . D__0__0.
5- 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0,0 0 O.D 0 0.0 0, 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.
6- 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1�.5 0 q.0 1 1�9 0 0.0 0 0,0 1 2.
7� .8 z--z'� 5--���- 3---5.9 0__O.D -�---3.4----�----3.6!_-..._1_._ 2.9 0__0.0 _? _3.
g- 9 3 4,1 2 2.b D 0.0 ? 7.7 0 D.0 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0,0 1 2.
9-10 4 5.5 6 8.5 1 Z.0 0 0,0 2 �.4 3 5.4 6 17.1 J 7.7 3 5.
70-11 _9_12,3 7-_9,9 3_5.9 2_7,7 4 6,9------S---A,9 2---_5'_7 _3_.7.7 a__7,
11'12 -- -- 3 4.1 2 2.8 2 3.9 2 7.7 2 3.4 2 3.6 -D 0,0 1 2�6 2�
12-13 5 6.B 11 15.5 6 11.8 5 19,2 8 13.R 7 12.5 3 8.6 11 28�2 7
13-14 -- -. 3--.4' 1 6-._ B. 5---4..---- �• B.. 3_1 1.� 5 --4.-..5 •,9--- 4-- -�' 1-----2.- 5. 7- 3--�-�? �-�'
14-15 15 Z0.5 13 18�3 2 3.9 1 3.8 13 22.4 9 lh.l 2 5.7 4 10.3 7 13.
15-16 2 2.7 3 4�2 6 11.0 3 11.5 1 1.7 3 5.4 2 5.7 7 17.9 3 5.
1�-17 10 _13,_7 1�_1.4,_1_ R 15,.7 3_11..�.5 3__5..2 7 12..5 _1___. 2,9__,_2 5�1 S_9,
17-18 10 13.7 4 5.6 2 3.9 0 0.0 7 12.1 5 A.9 6 17.1 2 S.1 5 9.
19-19 1 1.4 0 0.0 h 11.R 1 3,R 8 13.8 3 5.4 5 14.3 0 0.0 3 5.
19-2�.-----.1__._1�4 0-0..� -h_��lr� �-_�.� 2---3'4 -- ��--3.6 1----2.9 _2-5._1 �__3�
20-Z1 S 6.B 2 2�8 ? 3.9 0 Qs0 2 3.4 2 3.h 2.5.7 1 2.6 ? 3�
21-22 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.R 0 0.0 0 0.� D 0.0 0 0,0 D 0.
22-23. ----�..---0 �,0 0_0..0 -�--�' � -�---�.0_ 0__ 0. �-----� -- �.0---'...�_-..5. 7------�---� � �----0. _0.
��-z4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0.0 0 D,0 0 0.0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 D.0 n D.
'-'-' ___'_ _ "'_ '_'_- - "-' '_ "' _'-- '---- "--- ----- '---- --'-- -'--' ____- "-'^ '_-'- ' '
TOTAL _____ 73._100.0 71__100.0.____51 100.0_______26_ ]Op.O ______Sf3 1_00.0____ _ 56_10�.� ___ 35_100,0____39 1_00.0 __ 51 lOD.
DE7AIL PERCENTAGES MAY VOT ADD TO TOTaL RECAUSE OF ROUNDING.
CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES
• �
■ ���■■■■■ u����o ■■
I��I' ���I�'I' I
�
Y1�Y� YYYY
�
��ot� �
' _O ��q.
� _' .
� ,I_J �
D. Auto Row Area
This secuon includes guidelines and standards
for specific design and development conditions
for buildings in the Auto Row Area, the bound-
aries for which are mapped in Figure 6-1.
1. Area Image
A unif��ing thematic concept should be devel-
oped for this area as automobile sales uses are
established on parcels along Adrian Road. This
could be achieved by the adoption of a unified
approach to the transition space between the
public sidewalk and the private outdoor auto-
mobile sales areas. Approaches to this could
include:
♦ A special district-wide fence material or
stj-le.
♦.� series of bollards in a unified sri-1e or
design.
i A change ui Lhe ground plane lecel.
♦ Landscaping ox raised planting beds.
iSL NUKIH tiUFCLIf`1ldA1YlE%ICULLIfVS F(UAU SYECIYIC YLHI`i
CHAPTER B: DESIGN GUIDELINES
The auto xow area-wide concept should work at
the pedestnan scale of the business pauon as
well as the scale of the adjacent U.S. 101.
Therefore, the concept could include a unified
approach to:
♦ Showroom fa4ade design.
♦ Design rreatment of the sueet-facing exteri-
or sales areas, such as �*arying gxound planes.
♦ Design of freestanding signs.
2. Build-to Lines for Auto Row
Area
Build-to lines on Adrian Road aze specified as
zero feet However, onl�� 20 percent of a parcel's
build-to line will be occupied bp a building. Tlus
will help to define the pedestrian xealm on the
sidewalk as well as place the automobile show-
room closez to U.S. 101 passers-by. Up to 80
percent of an automobile dealership's frontage
couid 'oe occupied by cne extexior sales area.
I
min 20%
100 %
NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN OJ
CHAPTER s: DESIGN GUIDELINES
3. Fronf Setback Areas
a. Landscaping
Except for dxivewaps, all areas between the
sidewalk and the front fa�ade of buildings
should be adequately designed and main-
tained, including installation of an izrigation
system for planted areas.
b. Fencing
Fencing in the area between the sidewalk and
the building can be semi-txansparent and in
keeping «�ith an overall design concept for
the Auto Row Axea, as discussed in Section
D.1, above. As an alternative to fencing, dif-
ferentiation of the sidewalk area from extexi-
oz automobile sales areas could be estab-
lished by use of paving materials, building
components ox changes in elevation.
4. Building Fa�ades
i
Building facades are encouraged to avoid long,
single-planes in excess of 100 feet. Building
facades should be encouraged to include ele-
ments that emphasize a scale that relates to the
human torm. Large �ti�indow areas on the
facades of auto sales buildings should be
encouraged to be carefull5- integrated into the
overall design of the building facade.
rj�{ f`NGF(11-I ESUt(LIIVG.4IYICIItVLLIIVJ IiV.4U Jf Cl.l�ll. I'L%aiV
CHAPTER B: DESIGN GUIDELINES
5. Building Materials
A variety of matexials is encoutaged to artic-
ulate building elements, such as the base, the
ground floor, and upper floors, if any.
These basic components of a building are
encouraged to be axticulated bp means other
than the ea:teriot finish. Such means can
include delineation of rooflines or pedi-
ments, pieL and column bases and building
entries as well as smaller details, such as win-
dows and awnings. �Vhexe large axeas of
glass are used on the facades of auto sales
buildings, the glass may be one component
of a carefully considered palette of materi-
als. Colored glass should be coordinated
with the other colors used on the building.
6. Signs
The Adrian Road �,uto District benefits from
good esposure to [he Ba�-shore Freeway.
Signage for businesses on Adrian Road is
encouxaged to demonstrate to passing
motorists that the Adrian Road businesses offer
higher qualit�� automobile products and servic-
es.
a. Scale
Signs, particularly those that are fieestanding,
should relate ro the massing and height of the
buildino rl,ar ir serces.
'�_ �.•.��
I��I�I �I
�� ��.�.
���.��� ����i�i�
I�l���I���II_I�I�I�
Buildings should incorporate a variety of
materials that work well with glass
fayades typical to auto showrooms
Signs can be incorporated into the build-
in� nr fraacTanriinn�� hi�f ehQiil�l raflgr.t tha
archiiecture �i ihe building
NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD Sr ECiFiC PLi+N $�
CHAPTER B: DESIGN GUIDELINES
b. Materials
Signs, particulaxly those that are freestanding,
should employ materials and colors that axe in
keeping with a palette developed for the
buildings which the sign serves.
c. Illumination
Illuminated signs should be designed and
constructed to avoid glaze and excessive light
falling onto adjoining properties or U.S. 101
and should comply with City and State regula-
tions.
7. Surface Lighting
On-site lighting should be designed, installed
and maintained to direct light only onto the
property on which the light source is located.
All lighting fixtures and other means of illumi-
nating signs, structures, landscaping, parking,
loading and sunilar areas shall be focused,
directed and arranged to prevent glare or duect
illuminauon on adjouung properties or streets.
The use of inercuzy vapor utility yard lights os
othet light fixtures with high intensity discharge
lamps or bulbs should be discouzaged. The
only exception may be those which axe
designed to limit or control light disection or
shield the light source from neighboring prop-
erties and streets.
(}O ivGRTn BURLiNG,vivSEiROLLiN3 ROl+D SFECiFiC rLlaN
0
.'"`'��
�� ��i
i a �___
u�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BUFiLINGAME, CA 9401 O
p: 650.558.7250 - f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
❑ Parcel #: �2 S � (p � . 2�� r, �
❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1761 �drian Road
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person� PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send elec4ronic copies of documents�il OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
Name: Attn: Scott Mommer Name: Public Storage. Inc. - Attn: Jim FitzQatrick
Address: 4694 W. JacQuelvn Avenue
City/State/Zip: Fresno, CA 93722
Phone: (559) 276-2790 ext.12
Fax: (559) 276-0850
E-mail: smommer(a�larsandersen.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contaot Person ❑
OK 4o send e{ectronic copies ot doc�men� C
Address: P_O. Box 25025
City/State/Zip: Glendale. CA 91221
Phone: �818) 244-8080 e�.1476
Fax: (818) 241-9489
E-mail: jfitzpatrick publicstoraae.com
Name: Lars Andersen & Associates. Inc. (Art Lucas)
Address: 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue
City/State/Zip: Fresno. CA 93722
Phone: (559) 276-2790 ext.24
Fax: (559) 276-0850
E-mail: alucasCa�larsandersen.com
* Burlingame Business License #: _ _ 23373
�a���l�%��J
� �r�l 1 3 2010
':ITI' GF F3URLWG�^�lE
.,; ,,,,,,,,,; �.�._,-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Exterior facade u�grade to Building "A" which includes parapet
heiaht extensions, awninqs cornice treatments and new paint
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby c ify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. /(
ApplicanY� si�rnat��e: � Date:�J �j��} �
I am aware of the propos�application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to�the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: Date: ((' 1�"��
Date submitted: � � "" � 3— � �
,t l�eeification that the preject architectltlesEgner has a valid Burlinaame business Iicense will be reauired by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
n o����� ...�.L ....� �..... �h....e ...:�A �.. Y�., :..a:..�te sti., ...,..��.-a ..�.o.... F... tl,�o .,..,.o,.f c��u.,..,�..�a��or n....r����,,., 91N1R 0 hon.inrd
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
February 8, 2010
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Commercial Design Review for changes to the fa�ade of
an existing commercial building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR,
APN: 025-169-200
Staff Review: February 8, 2010
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC).
2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business
license.
3) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
4) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
5) All work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance.
6) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new
walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit
is issued for the project.
7) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency
Standards. Note: All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after
January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 Ca�ifornia Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to
http://www.enerqy.ca.qov/title24/2008standartls/ for publications and details.
8) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details
if your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
11) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2007 CBC for existing buildings
including:
a. Accessible paths of travel
b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all required entrances and
exits.
c. Accessible countertops
d. Accessible bathrooms
e. Accessible parking
12) Specify the total number of parking sp ces on site
�_ _� - _ — �'--
Reviewed by: Date:��T �c �Z���
�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
February 8, 2010
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Commercial
an existing commercial
APN: 025-169-200
Staff Review: February 8, 2010
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
B Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Design Review for changes to the farade of
building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR,
Verify existing fire lanes and turnarounds prior to Planning Commission approval.
Turning radius appears unobtainable by fire department apparatus. Fire Department
files do not indicate rear parking identified.
Reviewed by: ��`%��/�,
Date: �'s- �`,,Qr j �
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
February 8, 2010
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
x City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Commercial Design Review for changes to the farade of
an existing commercial building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR,
APN: 025-169-200
Staff Review: February 8, 2010
Project Comments
Date:
��
From
February 8, 2010
d City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Commercial Design Review for changes to the fa�ade of
an existing commercial building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR,
APN: 025-169-200
Staff Review: February 8, 2010
No comment.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 2/15/10
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
February 8, 2010
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7273
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Commercial Design Review for changes to the fa�ade of
an existing commercial building at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR,
APN: 025-169-200
Staff Review: February 8, 2010
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also
be down loaded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the
construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3` or larger as
appropriate) for readability.
For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at
(650) 342-2727.
Reviewed by:
�Z� �G�
�
Date: O.�- � / ! �,,� /,�
'���.,`�s1a�. �ii„���rR.��no r�o�
���°�� ��� Pollution Prevention — It's Part of ihe Plan
„�.._ �£
��'=�= ��� It is your responsibility to do the job right!
� -,c� ��, y Runoll� from streets aad otlier paved areas is a major source of pollutiun in local creeks, Sau Frazicisco Bay and tUe Pacific Ocean.
\� , Construccion activities can directly affact die heatth of our wa[ers unLess contractors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other
construction waste away from storm drains and creeks. Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance with local stormwater
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
GeIIe7a1 h'"�� � ordinancerequircments Remembcr on�oingmonitonn andmainte an f� tall d t l�' 'a1
Construction
& Site Supervision
��,�.
w�� u.
�M F�P Qef,Nd.mry�n�e�lwi
y mm.�.m .m �v vm
a�c•. eMmfiluxo-
rt�.pvaa Miea
�v �.L�.yw � v.r...W.0 uW
�� �r�. �
�tµ W -n.,. ry
!e[�ts��w<o�e1�� ^q
"°�+ww1NTWd1Y.R�i ��m�+vw
Eq�m1Y ta
mlm �•.w..varm.Wm.wrv+�•e
!4e �m*�+nle ��cfal. r�ear.e rWTA�. nnv.r.
�t+v+Vm�nL w �mve.vn�elmrN �.
6uw.yeW6.ncM1�aMn•dWn �n
� a�me.. orw ...n.m e.wum. e.rM. p.yei�y
ww� ,.e
������.�.�«� ��.
wm��.��F��o,ov,.�. ��.�,a.
� , , g n ce o ms e con ro s is cruci to proper �mplementataon.
Heavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F resh Concrete Painting & Application Landscaping,
Equipment 1:;tivities & Mortar Application of Solvents & Adhesives Gazdening,
Operation = and Poo1 Maintenance
i ��� �� ',; , � � �f�
�„�` r' ,� -`°' �.�.�,���� �„ --
.� ;��F . . i �m.
. .... � i ���
.mb=.Ym mise ew.e �_dt !m M.mw..
aliv�,vp�,eN�loV�vinWeloYln[wwpKni !� a114'ym�Emelwad��m6wane�vwOfiom " �
. . . �vw�� -. . ,p.ymy p �'�n��aamu..awmunmrntaw� wre a��sae..4mane�e..ri-we.uw.ew
. . . RL+uJYm�nwlvm4����osMib.m 1{�Y
�„e.h'arlercv�u..rJkl�valciaw.v �,,,�E . � �M� WctnaimeLUWv�ow�tNliom �e fi �ma e:,�mNMa�at.aNmu .uvb. �,o. 'mai�
"`'�m^ .km eueu�nauv i�Na�el�vimmt ae�eipbrtv umwvex. �Y � eimodP mimm mm �m'e �iY(enou ruwuwe..�n.. �.Wfw aWweur.�woo��w
.<wn.ama•�v�L��maw�^e •. mw�.� e„m�J.� uxGwlopnl�utia¢uelmnmilrmomw r�mw��•.wwm � J�� e.stmam+e�nwrc�.
��lNWP�u1¢y+.<i4� ""�`wm�>�wnxwWrf��iv+vak�.m��� usaWeaiiu:s•mvnc.qNena+pata. '^"".n1.nLL�m�wov�m �ueKsw4��a�maniam�'�a.m Wnmmua JSfJ.aWCV++VaeauumwP�F�atm.h.aea
`.c"�TP e. �mm w+W.un«�.�m
wm r�•r. m riw. i..lu�tmoowJitlwmti..n�ert.aW...... JT� mr . �eNrbw g mw+��'e� (�i^�aew=e..an�..�.�e..uaw.i...rt..y
w.n�,�.. nwmrur rv..w..w..ti �N. a..w„ovyna�.�.vm..m..�n.z.eenwn.o, " W.mm�nomNuet��..¢•J �aM � r.mid�.�ww.�twe. v�.e.e.�.�nne�rv. dww i �.u.�..m..a,. ��.uwd..�.
�arv+v�amav:o o�ma,o.di�a.,wwi,w�ea�m n��.�...���,.�..��m.,�...�n...,�e ' .aemm�. �<w•m.�.e�xw�n..or.,..�m.ee��iw�
.ve..w. a . m. �� �nan��.,�.�...�..aa ��r.�.,n � owa.w�
� � ,�.. .�w.ss�m�.�.+M. ' w .� ..
�wealtlu�a�.�Nnmmu.v�e � Jhwe��mnwiw..oi.mv�rvsuueimaw ' 4muw.ee Gnp��me ww+��+.ue�o�w.�btr�ry.:u�.�
'� y.xloJembro.rvnmwra�or ,aw .I..,,,�,,.Nv. n .�,«ye � u�., lws�.�,k�m�lmn<nQaa�.mcnd.m. ��.,...w.s��«aw�md'i�.�:aw J wwaa�row�wn�.,.,mUwa.�f�a
o �w,.�.�.�.,�e,.. �s.�.a.�.....do, . � .a.m...m>. �.m�eo-�m.� �m.am.s,„..ro.e
w� �am.+:�.�,.rydm. �re,,,�.m..•we�.W,.w;.......r�a � , �'`m'� -i A-a�.� �wm�.n,w,� �n..�.a,.,...,,m.�. � . . o..m:n� Haea�.n r � w...�ao�-o...�.'.....m�a
tltl.e�.rs4� .ae.s.um n.�a y.�, yutWw�i nm�m�•6 � - h � ��P
� w1bG k q����omnb nN�rtm-.x m.Fhp�m�m�idmx I a v �•+�mml m e. eun vmeasy`.�nc.a.hwaen � •. �(pea r�.�.�.�nwv. wwdeo..;m
P).�6u.n� lwm�yv�umauu mmW`wlr4,m1 y.p� olnm,. •r 4� u Oeu�hu�aw�pow �ee��nonwihluR� leu� u1e�m�ntlw�
un iv. mpm.�W�uteev . +enm.;.�� a r .nnb �. waam���n �Gv�vexw".allo ���e...rkn,�wk�
n.e�nn.«. � �o�ee„aeN.wwimwsrc.u..� wv ra.a .uvno�e nVu uouMm�amwrmm�ume�ml. vmbnmo¢ol�aombp�n �dro�M wl.[k.Oc.t.tmu.n�.i�nm��.n m. u m+� r.•we
a�*�u.aa+�.++s'M1.�nmeFe� ui&viyo6Ww hi0uqtt
�^MnwaW�wm.nuWr.vncn. WOAyyvyb.��erNtmqYme-'�°b'�'^<mnxem�J W.mwmue .a��+�.i.l�+��ewk,oyo.ram�nuuwum JSbonble�wNe Ress.We�4c.am.
m acimAa«uJ�mw�ub�eat�otWe•�m�. rnlwk M. mvkw�linnr�ae .aw.-�..w�maw4wurwm.�¢wtlairiou � wwu30.M
UMb.�lwuwidhuN'e� pmCmR*IY Wrmm�iFe0.m�uJwuerP��V wwW. � m�mnun.w.'•mv.m•un. ��'�'�°�M.vliUbrvtev..moew�i�LmrtY. Jvxy�M'v p�+av�ud�� �wr�uJ�uiu d x Ia'+=r,awk�ne�vma
� •vmwm¢w �wavaa�uw vM wvWu la.w•�or w�...��'wR� .Vwi wn.�� ��ur�.ev��r.wi�•... �•��'O�°s•prol«�o-.ua.u�:...ti.�mkfi�.5m
M���m�h-u.N�ee.....qe q���o.�.re� . u.naf.�.d.e.e�nawn �..w..w�lun,d•w•o�.mxr� �.s�iw� mansurosmS Na�•+.n� pwe vayntiroo�•d`nfnw� In�omvam��u•am��is...u.r�en�.brm
u��enw�rtlluuellbwi�4u1�1�Y 11+. Iw. La he+.4.0 W.�v � I. tr.ln
bv..t)Call � rtPu.iWu.o�uo�mJ W wt�.lau�.tlmyY +v . u w uv�wwiLL � I e�am �r.�T4��al'efceoN9d4 Imm�WvasmryxioJbrbvNuW.w��vY
� �� �rt t P+. M �ia.v(��ae�MM�l�ew.lr..+¢rwr.misaiAm�blW
c�u.�.tm�ioisssm»oaam��.�'b �u.�a..mH......,m�n.�.� .
c���,��x���`,: �wb��e �
ae.,.�a�,,._.��� . �,.. wa��esw���
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day� 'e'�.�.��::r u��,p^���°A� �'s,��� e°�e�°,��°�°°�°°
�v �e'tn- b�.me..e M m.....e. mm.m p�
�' w��Y.
�' q �
� �
�:
• • �
A��
— '� ''-�
M �
h
�
J- � 1 �
7 .
h "�
e �� �
�..—. �
1 a►�
�..,.�.- � +�
_--�
�
�
`.�
� •�,,
�
���
+
��
��
—'�
,-�,
; h +r1
....�
..y ��Ib��
�F�
�
.f.,'.�"� .
��
���
� �
� T
'���
�
"*�� �
_��
lor ..
r� .+y.�..� .
.. ��
l
� "7
�
��
�
_+—*
I
• � l
'3 � �
I
''� �. � .�
�-�4r ''�1 `
�
i
n
�w,a,re�w, •w�� . . .
� ' ��p ,�p�.. �reOW�' �t
��
1��.
�
^0�
V.
. `
.. • .�� � �
.:. � � i':' r
�
x:,,' � �
• � '�% ,�+
r
� di �r :i� , _ ' I
'� ���� `���;� � ;
� � � "�{ri�
.,�� - _ .
� « , . � r •�",�
r� � � � i,
� .� �
f }A�.� •�
�::
L� .�4 +� �
■
. �....,..n+r�+Yrrn w""'r'�"'w`i'.�rY'''t'Y.`�w
•
.
�
0
e +,r
, i,.;
• r _
� G i *
a ,I
� , � �i� .. nrrw� r -t�l'�'�' Y •. "�? � "!!""'.�
�� ��� � w, � �A
r�`r . � •..-o:. ,Y ^ .
. . . �W .' 'L, -W� +�' ,��;� �
` ��
1'�. ^ r � .;:. ,'.,, � r� nt) r �V� ,Wn�@�
i - „.� .� �'� � ry�
j� " �� � � .., , Lp ,1�•� k•G: � - '.V ` r 4. . . N''., �. , � H:9: . ,:��„�.
"'�.�h � i `�, .aim - '�i f
�', � r 7, a
�` � _-�� �#, -
- L ,..� . . � �i:�A� �'�` .. �! :,:1�' . I . �� �. '�r'�N.�.�' - ..,.
•.r w. � _ � •i�
"�°���"�' «�
^ �1 � �
,;�,� _ , �#
,�`, '. , p�.u_ �
���
; �} x _ i.� �:`, r �5r'
. . '
I� Jl�l � ��'�� . .
... a �� -+^�� }�y , . . . � . N . .. .
. .^m.,• I � � �� ` �y �y ' 'br"u,1�� � � ���,,%����,�,r� t � F, � � � ..i �" �. e _,�i A," +� � J
_.i. . _._.. „7'����� 1W�5 ' �M�x2� �`�MlliYC� - y�F , �.{ � �
. , .:d��,.,.,, ,�,,,,, F t
• _ �`.�'�"'"'"'.. - .� � . �t� � , .. ...
---- - -
1731 ADRIAN 1745 ADRIAN 1761 ADRIAN
.������fi�
s
ADRIAN ROAD ELEVAiION PHOTOS
LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC �oe No: oso�s
�a N 1 3 2 010 DR. BY: A. FOX
� CML ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS CH. BY: A. LUCAS
OFBURLINUknr1[= 4630 WEST JACQUELYN AVE, SUITE 119, FRESNO, CA 93722 DATE: 11-17-09
^NM�IC f?F.^T
WWW.LARSANDERSEN.COM 559-276-2790 FAX 559-276-0850 SCALE: N A
_ .. . ' � � ' . � p.�.� *��,ctri.}'7 �y;� r �'d�' (: ',N'Yffiw. ��y Y�
i�$g� ��
�,,� � � ,. _„� �� �'� ,�.
��
��5� � �_9e.i �:�ti:��
�� t'� ..'...� ,� \,:��i�l �.nd �wt� ^���'���r+` .4 . � � �..;� I1
�, �,f�� `';t tti �.. �
x W�q r '•,3 .'.�( ,
� �i�� � � �
�: ! � . .: !'_.i "e�l•
�9� .rr � ' .
� '� '� ��"� 1 � � ��p�Y + , ; �'rdY�, fi � � ' 4 - ., ",�""w��w��mewa�l�°.!� _,
,�„��'�' !� �IRI� !'� 1 e;a � f � �' _ _ . 1 .
��� - �. 1 '+"
�. � ;� � 'S�R' .
;.�:;�.. � i` � � �, , y. �
1811 ADRIAN
SHEET NO. 1
OF j SHEET
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Commercial Desiqn Review for chanqes to the front faGade of an existinq commercial buildinq
at 1761 Adrian Road, zoned RR, Public Storage, Inc„ property owner, APN: 025-169-200;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
March 8, 2010, 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:
On the basis of the Initial Study and 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, per CEQA Article 19, 15301 - Existing
facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior
alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical
conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is exempt from environmental
review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Commercial Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial Design Review are set forth in the
staff report, 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.
Chairman
I, , 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 8"' day of March, 2010 by the following
vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Commercial Design Review.
1761 Adrian Road
Effective March 18, 2010
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped February 16, 2010, sheets 1 through 8;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or
adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshai's February 10, 2010
memos, the Park Supervisor's February 6, 2010 memo, the City Engineer's February 15,
2010 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's February 11, 2010 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approvai is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Commercial Design Review.
1761 Adrian Road
Effective March 18, 2010
Page 2
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are buiit as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
� . CITY OF BURLINGAME
�,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�BURLINGAME, CA 94010
`� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (65(
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1761 ADRIAN ROAD
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces
the following public hearing on MONDAY, MARCH 8,
2010 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers,
501 Primrase Raad, Burlingame, CA:
Application for fommercial Design Review for changes
to the fa�ade of an existing commercial 6uilding at
1761 ADRIAN ROAD zoned RR. APN 025-169-200
Mailed: February 26, 2010
(Please refer to other side)
015�!`;�504325
� �'� ��.���'
as �
�
�
:"�aiied �ror.a 5-�1 i�
�� POSTAG�
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
� � � � � �.� ♦� . �11i 6.�Ay. � .. ; � � ��, � � ��
. � (` , i . \ � , , *` ,��
� ' . �� /�.�, �•� � �n
'� �,� ,� � _ �•� /��t � / . � • ' �� ,, �,�. .
�� .t :C _.r. 1 ' - ! _ . �� ' Ft�J¢� . � ,/' '� ��;j'
����������y a
.'' �i � � ,� 'r ': v� � �� _ �� �,w ����_ �� '
���.R� � , � � � a .� . F �� �, ,�„ � '
�_T �� ^ \ �F , : � � w.`r_ .^ ��..
[
� \` � i; � r ^• pt
� ��K RFt. � �\� a \' F � /�\"4t4'� �y\^� `r�
^� � � � ,\ " �, , + ��� ��� ��/
�\ a � �� '4, � � �f
> \ '�Y ,� ', - °_ r :.
�. � ,� /- ,; � �g w s,�,• � S�, „ �,`` ��_t
� A � � � �'.. � � �
♦ , ��
��,�-'��` v�� � ,
, _ � � �� � 4 � F
� ��/• �. A � M 1 � ,/� i
� !' �' r1'� � ��' � .d' . L+�, \� �' � �et! L ,'' O A ' F/
. t, �y, lt.. ;,� , �� \ + +�yy � * -� � f � .
♦ i' '!. �+�! -,ti - � 1 ".t-,_ `�\ �
f �.�� A � \ ,, � ,� . �.�A \ . . �...` ._ ,� �.� �, -�
/' .`'�s,, � �R"'�, '�` �� 0. 1 _ � F
� ,�' � . ^ �' � ` �i '1� � � � Y . �\ � . .
/ , � a '�� .. � ' � �� �� , � �`�, � y �
.. A � ,� �. � ` ...;� . \ �. .
.fi. , 1 h. l�``� ' ., � �. \ � � � �
`�� i � �~ �� �^ �� ^ \ .: � I
1i f x � � ' ` �, �,� �� ` '�. � �' �' �a ,
.
. . �.i�'� � :� '� �.�
� � ,�� ,� � r
�y M ,y� � � t � � � � -..,� ~ \ � TM ��
r��Lls'��Z` � '/� � ' �,, . ^q ���� y _ f }��I
F/ IKf ��r - ' fF n - �k
F �k Fy� "'� ���+t . ". F �
i FF�k�6I'��/� FF�r:� °� . - - �� � � t� _ .
� ,' /M ��1' /T f��i/ `^� � � � �✓ •f - � .4 •�� � ,� � I
I � �.�FFY' '� F F P�,FM � �..rf I � ,,� .,� � ��'r � ���
. F . -, � ,,� � � . - �
/ �
Ci ° f��'M � � ' � - 2
- � � ��F� F�"f��`%'er <<`r9`F/��.M � ' � ! �w�^ r,. ,!►t �� � '' ��I
' / � .r ���� ����F� �� b ;'� � � � � � � �.. � � � �
' � i .o'.. ��` �`{t�'t �� , ,�ii . . _ � .,.�_ :
. _ �'�♦ �'� ��r • � 1..'� -= n, I,o. ,� 1� " r - - � �
. . $. ` C .±. . ..., �, . . � � +d
. . ,,'A �- . !, �. . _ - �
- �., � r�A '•`'"'� �, t���
' ' F � . � f '.� � it r . �f� � �
% ..,," �"^ � � ,� o �� -� i
�,�, � �' ,e ''t ��` {' "P,' �� ��+s�� ' ,
- a . . . .;�� ^.
-, y , ,. � .�' �a' �\\ r �`•f,��f� ,9f,'�
rc,; , , � . ` �
` � > * � Y' �\ f ! r �j.f!-
1
1 '� .
.. �':' q ' ^ � :r �� J � � tE�
,��, _' '+� . ^ '� r/ � �, "' , r
�. � , � �f �� l � , ', ' � - `2 � �
,�+o � ,`�� �; ^ k �� ' r . ' . � ^ , ,
� � ' _� � . .,Z.
� � � � � � � �'` '+ � ��
�� � .:.� ' � � . �t' � � •� �
., w
�F -� ^s, �f r'� �� �. �s. �� '` • � • � /`ry
�� ,IJ �, �^ � t ��i � '.�E� � ^�
� �.� � '� ..� � �
�s� � '-.\�� ' ,�
� , � ,.e;.
� . � �, .�' �� • "� i „ . � ^ � `�,?� �s � � �y� i
.'� � � � � � ;' . ^ , .
� � � , F� �
__ 'yk,, �. ��..�, � ;`�
' ,h . . '�'ir'',.�:i�
.�� F f F �.,.i�. ^.
_ . . s T �'�, ' �! .d �?, r,
/ �T
R ��
/
������r� � 1761 Adrian �oad l f`
I . .. �� � «<,�-�� • .
�FF _ , �
, .
,
_ „ ^ �:��, .. � ,�.. ,
�