The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1301 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportItem # -_:� Regular Action City of Burlingame Amendment to a Previously Approved Application for a Mitigated Negative Declaratio�t and Commercial Design Review For a New, Si�:gle-Story Commercial Building Address: 1301 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 03/10/03 Request: Amendment to a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Commercial Design Review of a proposed new, single-story, 4,342 SF commercial building located at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned GI Subarea A(C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Robert Bradsby, 8 Inc. APN: 029-202-060 Property Owner: Avtar Johal Family Trust Lot Area: 4,544 SF General Plan: Shopping and Service Commercial Zoning: Gl Subarea A Adjacent Development: Retail with public parking to the rear Current Use: 2-story commercial building, currently vacailt, formerly a bank Proposed Use: Single-story commercial building proposed by Apple for computer retail sales. Allowable Use: Retail Sales are permitted in the G1 Subarea A zone. CEQA Status: Refer to Negative Declaration ND-526 P and Addendum. Project History Summary: On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the application for commercial design review for a new, single-story retail building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue and on January 6, 2003, the City Council upheld this Planning Commission approval. The existing 2-story, 7,411 SF commercial building located on the site at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road was demolished in February and construction is currently underway. On February 18, 2003, the applicant applied for a commercial design review amendment to change several exterior elements of the approved building. Current Request: The applicant proposes the following changes to the approved exterior of the building (see memo from Eight, Inc. dated February 18, 2003): 1. the approved tan-colored brick with soldier coursing at the parapet and above the windows would be replaced with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray Italian sandstone slabs; 2. the approved 45' length x 3'-4" height display window on Park Road would be replaced by a window 45'- 4" length x 2'-8" height; 3. the approved 3'-4" square clerestory window on Park Road would be replaced by a window 5' width x 5'- 4" height; 4. the approvcd height of the building would be increased from 21'-2" to 26'-0"; and 5. the applicant would also like to eliminate the approved roll-up door at the rear elevation. He has provided the Commission with two drawings of the rear of the site, one to show the new materials with the approved roll-up door and one to show the new materials without the roll-up door (see Sheet A3.1 of the full-size plans). The approved interior uses and site layout of the building will remain the same as in the previously approved plans. Amendrnerat to a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Cornmercial Desigr: Review 1301 Burlingame Avenue for a New, Single Story Commercial Builc�ing The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Commercial design review amendment. PROPOSED AMENDMENT APPROVED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS: same none none LOT COVERAGE: 4342 SF 4544 SF same 96% 100% LANDSCAPINC: same none none HEIGHT: 2�'-0" 21'-2" (three proposed AC units on the (three proposed AC units roof will extend to 26'-7" in on the roof will extend to 35'-0" height as measured from 25'-5" in height as average top of curb) measured from average top of curb) PARKING: samc 0 spaces 0 spaces EXTERIOR 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray tan-colored brick with FINISH: Italian sandstone slab soldier coursing WINDOWS ALONG display: 45'-4" length x 2'-8" display: 45'-4" length x 3'- PARK A VE: height 4" height clerestory: S' width x 5'-4" hcight clerestory: 3'-4" x 3'-4" USE retail sales and supporting retail sales and same services on the first floor personal service on the first floor Staff Comments: See attached. Projeet History: On July 26, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a new, single-story commercial building. No on-site parking was required because the first floor of retail establishments in G1, Subarea A ofthe Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area is exempt from parking requirements (C.S.25.36.040,c,3). Commercial Design Review was required for the proposed new, single-story building. Based on the size and the prominent location of the proposed project, the City Engineer required that the demolition of the existing building be included in the environmental review for the proposed project. (For reference see Table 1 comparing the initial July 26, 2002 application with the January 6, 2003 approved application and the proposed February 18, 2003 amendment at the end of the Project History section.) Based on the initial July 26, 2002, plans submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commissioners voiced the following concerns at the environmental scoping and commercial design review study meetings on August 12, 2002, and October 15, 2002 (see 8.12.02 and 10.15.02 minutes): � Amen�lment to a Mitigated Negative Declaratiort anct Cornmercial Design Review 1301 Burlingarne Avenue for a New, Sirtgle Story C'ornrnercial Building • can the height of the building be reduced; • step back the long wall on Park Road and/or add articulation; • add view to activity on the inside, from Park Road to enhance pedestrian interest; • select a softer exterior material and/or design especially along the Park Road side; • reduce the parapet height and relocate mechanical equipment, even screen it, on the roof to reduce the mass of tlie building especially along Park Road frontage; • lowering the building by 5 or 6 runs of brick would make it possible for bigger street trees to screen the mass of the structure on Park Road; and • rear of the building looks industrial, needs to look more like retail, add more articulation, highly visible from Lot J and Park Road. On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the proposal for the construction of a new single- story, 4342 SF commercial building. The approved project included 2, 411.5 SF of retail space and 1,930.5 SF of floor area for supporting services such as office, storage, and restrooms. The approved commercial building would be built from lot line to lot line, except for a recessed entry at the front of the building and an alcove door at the rear of the building off City Hall Lane. The retail use would be for the sale of computers and computcr related merchandise. There was no basement or mezzanine level in the approved building. The retail space on the first floor is exempt from parking requirements in Subarea A(C.S.25.36.040,c,3). As part of the proposed project, the applicant offered to undertake streetscape improvements as recommended by the city's Public Works Department. The improvements included new trees with ornamental grates, one bike rack, one bench, ornamental trashcans, and a new sidewalk. The applicant agreed to give an in-lieu fee to the City for a future a bulb-out at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. The approved fa�ade of the building was a tan- colored brick, with a brick soldier course at the top of the parapet and above the windows along Burlingame Avenue, continuing around to the Park Road street frontage. The approved design included recesscd storefront windows and fi-arneless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display window along Park Road. The approved building was 21'-2" tall as measured from the average top of curb. The approved project was called up for review by the City Council. The City Council approved the project on January 6, 2003. Table 1 2.18.03 PROPOSED 1.6.03 APPROVAL 7.26.03 INITIAL AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL SETBACKS: same none none LOT COVERAGE: 4342 SF same same 96% LANDSCAPING: same none none HEIGHT: 26'-0" 26'-0" 21'-2�� (three proposed AC units (three proposed AC (three proposed AC units on the units on the roof will roof will extend to 26'-7" in on the roof will extend to extend to 30' in height as measured from 25'-5" in height as height as measured average top of curb) measured from average from average top of top of curb) curb) Amendn:ent to a Mitigated Negative Declaratio�� arid Comnzercial Uesign Review 1301 Burlingame Avenue for u New, Single Story Comrnercinl 6uilcling 2.18.03 PROPOSED 1.6.03 APPROVAL 7.26.03 INITIAL AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL PARKING: same same 0 spaces EXTERIOR 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray tan-colored brick with g�� x 16" masonry FINISH: Italian sandstone slab soldier coursing WINDOWS ALONG display: 45'-4" length x 2'-8" display: 30' length x PARKAVE: height display: 45'-4" length x 3'- 3'-4" height 4" height clerestory: 5' width x 5'-4" clerestory: 3'-4" x 3'- hei ht clerestory: 3'-4" x 3'-4" 4„ � USE retail sales and same same personal service on the first floor Mitigated Negative Declaration: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project. The initial study for the proposed project showed that there would be potentially significant impacts, unless mitigation was proposed, to aesthetics and cultural resources, and air quality, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, during demolition and construction. A summary of the Declaration follows and the full document is included as part of the staff report: Transportation and Traffic The Public Works Department has identified a potential short-term impact on traffic circulation and pedestrian safety during construction. This site is in the center of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District and since the proposed structure will be built lot line to lot line, there is no on-site space for construction vehicles and staging City Hall Lane, the alley behind the site will be used daily by contractors to drop off tools and workers. Construction vehicles will be parked during working hours at remote public parking lots, not in the adjacent lot. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to reduce the impact to less than significant include: routing construction traffic along Carolan Avenue, Howard Avenue, and City Hall Lane, not undertaking construction that blocks the public right-of--way between November 3, 2002 and January 5, 2003, and providing flag men in City Hall Lane for traffic control when a debris box is in place. Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed application is for one single-story commercial building to replace an existing two-story commercial building. The new structure will accommodate about the same number of people as the previous use, the change in emissions generated here over emission from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The only known health hazard on the site is the asbestos that is part of the existing building. That demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit. Noise During the demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new building, ambient noise levels � Amenclmenl to a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Comn:ercial Desigri Review 1301 Burlir:game Avenue for a New, Single Story Cornmercial Building could potentially impact the surrounding, primarily retail uses. All construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling on the site shall be permitted on weekends or holidays. There shall be no demolition of the exterior of the existing building, nor any construction of the proposed building, during the time period between the holiday periods (November 3 through January 5`"). Compliance with these standards will reduce the impact of the project to a less than significant level. Aesthetics The proposed structure is a modern, one-story commercial structure using a gray stone slab exterior material with full-size windo�vs along Burlingame Avenue and a display window along Park Avenue. Commercial design review is required to determine if the proposed building is architecturally consistent and consistent with the commercial neighbarhood setting. The building will have to obtain Planning Commission design review approval before demolition of the existing structure, except for asbestos removal or reconstruction takes place on the site. Cultural Resources The project site now contains a commercial bank structure that was built in the late 1920's. The applicant has provided an historic resource study prepared by Thomas Rex Hardy, AIA. The study notes that the building today is a simple stucco box with rectangular door and window openings, and does not have the original wall finish. The only existing elements that might be considered original are the clay tile roof and small plaster cornice at the eaves. These undistinguished features are not considered to possess historic or architectural significance. The study includes an evaluation of this building using the criteria for evaluation established by the National Park Service for qualifying for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is the opinion of the author of the study that this structure does not possess architectural or historic significance based on the criteria for listing on the National Register and the California Register of Historic Resources. No local information was found which would suggest that the building had any local significance. The study notes that as a result of numerous major alterations, including the apparent wholesale removal and changes to the interior, the building retains a very low level of integrity in its physical features. As a result, this structure does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the structure should not be considered to be an historic resource as defined in Section 21084.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the mitigated negative declaration and addendum (ND 526-P), finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Commercial Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 2, 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 5 Ame�z�tmefit to a Mitigated Negative Declaratio�: cn:cl Commercial Design Review 1301 Burlingame Avertue for a New, Single Story Co�nn:ercial Building 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 thc 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for an amendment to commercial design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. The Planning Commission should also review and approve the addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The conditions of approval for the commercial design review amendment, with conditions from the previously approved application shown in italics, are as follows: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 18, 2003, sheets A3.0 through A3.3, with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray Italian sandstone slabs, a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and 45'-4" length x 2'-8" height display window along Park Road, and a 5' width x 5'-4" height clerestory window along Park Road; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission conzmercial design review approval before ciemolitiort of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or coristruction of the new buildin.g takes place ora the site; * 3. that demolition of tlae existing structures and any grading or ear-th nzoving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Marzagement District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Depart�raent; arzd th�at the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit; * 4. tlaat any ch�anges to tlae size or eravelope or approved of building, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), movi�ag or changing windows an�l architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to corrlrraercial design review; * 5. that the conditions of the Fire Marslaal's, Buildirig Official's and Recycling Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos arzd the corzditions of the City Engifaeer's August 6, 2002, September 10, 2002 and October 28, 2002 mernos shall be ntet; * 6. that the demolition and coristructio�a on the site shall follow the constritictiori logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the menio and diagranas regarding eonstruction stagirtg ancl date starnpecl Septemher 4, 2002, nnd demolitiort and site coristruction plaris date stamped October 22, 2002; * 0 Amendment to a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Co»zrnercial Design Review 1301 Burlingarne Avertue for a New, Single Stor}� Gommercial Builclirzg 7. tlaat tlte debr•is ho.x in tlae allev shall be lirrailed to a 10' x 24' debris box, artd shall only be irt place for a two week period during derrtolition, and the alley and fire lane shall rtot be cornpletely blocked, there shall be udeyuate space for a vehicle to marzeuver around the debris box; and that flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; * 8. that an encroachment perrnit shall be obtained frorn the Public Works Departnaent for the scaffoldirig iyt the pzsblic right-of-wav along Burlingarne Avettue and Park Road; 9. that the pedestricarr access provic�ecl ulor7�g Burlinganie Avenue and Park Road shall not block any ori- street parking spuces; 10. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J,� 11. that trzick czccess to the site shall not use Burlingame Avertue or Califorraia Drive, trucks shall access the site from Howard and the Citv Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to tlte site shall be via Carolara Avertue; 12. that no co�astruction th�at woulc� imp�ct the public right-of-way (such as sccaffolcling, pedestriart barricades, tra�ck loaclirag artd unloadirig and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3r� through Jaraz�an� St1i; construction solely withiri the building naay occur during this time as long as tl�e public alley arad right of way are riot impacted or blocked; 13. that all constrz�ction slaall be dorie ira accordance with the Califorriia Building Code requirements as americle�l by tlte City of Burlingarrie, arad limits to hours of construction imPosecl bv the City of Burlingame Municipal Coc�e; these hours are between 7: 00 a. m. and 7: 00 p. m. on weekdays, 9: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10: 00 a.m. to 6.•00 p.m. ori Suradays. There shall be no construction ofz Si�ndays or holidays and no hecivy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends oy- lzolidays; 14. that the metlzod of corzstructiorr� a�ad materials usec� in co�astruction shall irtsure that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 c�BA; 1 S. that tlae coratractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction " form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstYates how 60 percent of constructior� demolition material will be cliverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall fie reqi�ired to implenl�ent this plan; 16. that tlae eoyztr•aetor sh��ll prepctre, laave approvec� a�cl shall implerriertt a plart that insures that all ri�n�off created during construction a�ad fi�ture discharge fro�n the site shall rneet National Pollution Discltarge Elirninatiora System (NPDES') standards; 17. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted uratil the1� are fi�lly investigated by a professional accepted as qt�alifie�l by the City Planner anc� the recommerac�ations of the expert lzave been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 7 An:e�rd�rie�a[ to a Mitigated Negative Declar•ation and Conzmer�cial Desigri Review 1301 Burlingarne Avenue for a Nex�, Sin�le Story Coir:mercial Buildir:g 19. thut theproject sltall rneet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. * Conditions already met Erika Lewit Planner Robert Bradsby, Eight Inc. City of &�rlingame Planning Commission Mi�iutes Augt�st 12, 2002 11. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE- STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: �RIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that this public comment session was for both environmental scoping and design review for the project proposed now. Commissioners asked: can the awning shown on the rear of the building overhang the public right of way to the extent shown, staff noted that an encroachment permit is required for an awning overhanging the public right of way and public works will review the proposal; why were the last subcommittee minutes on this project not included in the staff report, staff noted it was an oversight; what is a"bulb out", staff noted that bulb outs are a part of the streetscape design for the area and funetion to extend the sidewalk at certain intersections in order to narrow the walking distance across the street for pedestrians and slow up traffic, examples can been seen on Broadway at Chula Vista across the street from the new Walgreens; why is the bank use nonconforming, in the late 1960's early 1970's there was a significant increase in the number of banks on Burlingame Avenue, to the point that it was felt that they endanger the retail character of the area, so Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting banks in Subarea A; since this site was used as a bank at that time and has been used as a bank continuously since, it can continue to be used by a banking use; but when the banking use has ceased for 6 consecutive months or the building is removed, the site looses its nonconforming status and can no longer be used for a banking use. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Tim Kobe, architect, 8 Inc., represented the project. He reviewed the project and the public improvements to the sidewalk which would be included with the construction; he presented a rendering showing the proposed exterior concrete block material and a picture board of the material as used on several buildings in Japan; he noted that the exterior material is a block material with a brushed finish and tight joints without caulking, the inaterial is attractive as well because it speeds up construction, would like to be well along in construction before the holidays; in response to previous concerns the design was changed and extended glass along Park Road increasing the active area on Park to 33 feet and added a clear story window on the Park Road side to provide natural light in to the storage area and further break up that wall; at rear have recessed access door and roll up door with awning; the proposed height of the building is consistent with the existing height. Discussion with commissioners: building no longer has mezzanine, previously looked at retaining the building, architect noted that they looked at four different options for cladding the building but decided before that they could not keep the existing building from a cost stand point; are the signs typical, yes no longer use the colored apple, thesc signs are lit fi�oin behind in a deep light box which will be routed into the concrete and the can will only project about one inch from the finished surface of the wall; are the new Apple stores always this concrete block material?, no have evolved to this masonry unit, one like this is proposed in Dallas and here, there are only about 4 street location Apple stores; concerned that a building that looks like this may not be suitable for some other retail use years from now, would like to see an example; troubled by the length of the wall on Park, this does not look like other Apple architecture in Cupertino for example, Steve Jobs wants the street stores to go with this high tech looking material; are there any exceptions? Michigan Avenue in Chicago, located in the Northwater Tower and Palo Alto. Can you address how this material is consistent witli the character of Burlingame Avenue; architect notes that the unit is masonry which has permanence like the other buildings on the Avenue, it is not passive like stucco, it is similar to brick which is a frequently used building material on the Avenue but brick is not suitable for a high tech company, this building may not be seen as expected but it will have an elegance with the way it is built, it does not reflect an existing style but translates the qualities of the Avenue, is a good fit. Can you 13 City� of Bur•lingainc: Planning Comrnissioiz Minules August 12, 2002 explain the awning at the rear, one of the doors has no cover to protect from the elements and wanted to add fornl at the rear of the building; why no awning at the front, found in Palo Alto by recessing the front doors 2 feet had effect of widening the sidewalk and announcing the store, large span of glass at front is pedestrian friendly as well. Awning extends three feet with 8 foot clearance, is that sufiicient in a fire lane; will do what the Fire and Public Works Departments require. Has the streetscape sidewalk color been established, staff noted yes it has been installed at several locations on Burlingame Avenue and on the cross streets. When discussed before limestone was a possible exterior material, would prefer, the Park Road side is a very long wall on a corner with high visibility to a lot of pedestrian traffic, stone would be a softer exterior. Architect felt that some other materials discussed such as aluminum would not be suitable in Burlingame. Could you lower the building by 5 to 6 runs of brick which would make it possible for the street trees to screen it from view. Rear of this building looks industrial, architect noted that there was some relief because one door was inset. Cannot see this design on Burlingame Avenue, cannot find any consistency on the Avenue or Park Road, doesn't seem to be consistent with any commercial area in Burlingame; architect noted difficult to say it is consistent in a literal sense, does have a sense of permanence, will age well, it will reflect its time and become a classic in the future, material will be consistent with brick when done, concrete is an honest material. The building material is seismically qualified. Russ Cohn, 605 Lcxington Way and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue spoke: As President of the Burlingame Historical Society and Apple user would like to address CEQA issue and request a CEQA required documentation of the historic value of this structure, Historical Society documents indicate that this building was built in 1916 as a Wisdoms/Bonner hardware store; from 1927 to 1932 it was used as a Bank of Italy which became Bank of America under Giannini who lived in Hillsborough. In 1977 the bank was occupied by Western Federal Bank; hope that Apple will take a second look at retaining the historical value of this building and think about a different project. Feel that there should be a full historical analysis of this building, worked in it once and know that there is an old bank vault in the basement; as Jane Jacolos says corners are the most important part of cities, they are where a lot of interaction occurs; the Fox Theater was removed and replaced with a mall, has never been successful, would like Apple to consider that Burlingame's downtown is over 100 years old, with nearly every building still standing, we do not want to be a prototype, Burlingame is firmly rooted in its past and in its trees; feel that there is evidence that if you pull the current skin off the building you will find the original 1916 Corinthian columns. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment for environmental scoping and design review were closed. Commissioners comments: it is necessary to have an historical analysis to determine the significance of this building as a part of the CEQA evaluation; design review discussion covered a lot of ground including: � Can the height of the building be reduced; • Step back the long wall on Park Road and/or add articulation; • Add view to activity on the inside, from Park Road to enhance pedestrian interest; • Add lentils over the window opcnings on the Park Road side; • Select a softer exterior material and/or design especially along the Park Road side; • Reduce the parapet height and relocate mechanical equipineiit even screen it on the roof, to reduce the mass of the building especially along Park Road frontage; • Lowering the building by 5 or 6 runs of brick would make it possible for bigger street trees to screen the mass of the structure on Park Road; • Rear of the building looks industrial, needs to look more like retail, add more articulation, highly visible from Lot J and Park Road. 14 City of Biu�liragarne Planrzir:g Canniission Mir:utes August 12, 2002 This item should be continued to a future meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to decide what changes they would like to make, this site is an important part of Burlingame Avenue; understand modernist approach however more can be done to make this building user friendly and to treat the corner in a pedestrian friendly manner; am not convinced about the exterior material proposed, hard pressed to say Burlingame is ready for a concrete block building in the downtown area, installing a mock up wall would be a good idea, understand better what the finish would look like, stone cladding would be better on Burlingame Avenue, it is more "noble" and would appease the residents; history is relevant, people in Burlingame take pride in historical features and this is a prominent location. Chair Keighran moved to continue this item to give the applicant an opportunity to come up with alternatives based on the input from this meeting; the CEQA document should include an historical analysis and evaluation of the impacts of demolition and replacement of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: The CEQA review should also include analysis of the impacts of the demolition and replacement of the building; feel should reconsider location of repair services with view into it from Park Road, security can be addressed, this is a good site for Apple, they are a Pioneer and can do classical on the outside and Apple magic on the inside, the contrast can be very effective. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion on the CEQA direction and continuation of the design review study to a time when the applicant wishes to return with alternatives. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojues absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of August 5, 2002 CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of August 5, 2002. The commission noted that there were still issues to be resolved regarding definition of different views. Also that a broad representation of interests on the Bayfront SAP Advisory Committee would be important. It was noted ti•om the minutes of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting that the address of the house with the vents was 1108 Vancouver and that another way to address FAR might be to change the parking requirements to two covered spaces for four bedrooms. - FYI- window change on DSR approved at 1480 Benito Avenue Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes. - FYI- window change on DSR approval at 1 11 Pepper Avenue Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. APPROVEUMINUTGS08.12 Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Secretary 15 City q/�Burlingame Plannirzg Comf�iissza� Approved Minutes October I5, 2002 14. 1381 HILLSIDE CIRCLE — ZONED — R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLEN HARTOG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KURT AND JULIA DEGROSZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Planner Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Andrew Young, project architect, was present to answer questions. Explained that this is minor project, owners wanted to expand the kitchen and master bedroom, but keep the project in character with the existing house. A lot of the floor area in this house is inhabitable basement area and covered deck area. / There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. � Chair Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues . Comment on motion: architect has done a fine job with this project; this is a small addition that blends well with the existing house. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this itcm on the consenl calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 15. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE- STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (CONTINUED FROM AUGLJST 12, 2002 MEETING) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bob Bridger, Apple Computer retail sales, stated that they are eager to be part of the Burlingame community. Tim Kobe, Apple Computer, store designer, stated that since the last meeting they have had a historical study done on this property by Thomas Hardy, who is here tonight to answer any questions. This study concluded that because of all of the previous alternation made to this building, interior and exterior, it would not be consi�lered historical. There was no historical value found on the interior of the structure. Revised Apple proposal focuses on exterior material, using dark charcoal color brick, with two bands of soldier coursing, follows around the building from the top of the windows at the front and one at the parapet line. Brick proposed will not fade, an extra pallet of bricks will be stored for future repairs or in-fill. This particular size brick was picked based upon the average size brick found on Burlingame Avenue buildings. The grout to be used in between the bricks is 10-15% lighter than the brick, providing texture. The height ofthe structure has been lowered 4'-10" from the previous design. The mechanical equipment has been relocated to the west side of the roof to screen it from view from the street. The linear �lass area display window along Park Avenue has increased to 45 feet long to increase visual interest for pedestrians. Needed to keep existing floor plan to allow for storage of materials and to retain the graphics panels and product displays that would be located against the wall, opening up the Park Avenue wall to the interior would not allow for those displays. The metal awning at the rear of the building 16 City o�'Biu�liiigame Plannirag Corn�nission Ap�roved Mi�zc�tes October 15, 2002 has been removed, because it projected into the fire lane and was too high for protection if it met fire requirements. Applicant tried to find balance between respecting the existing structural environment and being unique, tried to keep it simple and elegant; sometimes that does result in departing from the norm. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, had a question regarding the historical survey. If the existing fa�ade were striped away, and the old architectural features were still in tact, would it change the conclusion of the historical survey? Thomas Hardy responded that because of the method of fastening of the existing facade the old architectural details are beyond repair, and he would not change the conclusion of his historical analysis. Mr. Cohen requested that the applicant please salvage any historical and architectural finds during demolition send them over to the historical society. Asked if Apple sign would limit future use of the site because it is partially inset in the brick? Applicant explained that there will be extra bricks kept on-site for infill and repair. Would window along Park Avenue temp vandals? Applicant noted that there would be a security system in place and that the glass used for this window would be very thick glass that is difficult to break. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: design is a departure from what is normally seen on Burlingame Avenue; concerned with Park Avenue fa�ade, long monochromatic expanse, can this be broken up; design is a very strong statement, minimalist approach, introducing other types of materials might help; but bricks are nice, gray gives warm feel, each brick has some color. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the environmental review has been completed and Planning Commissions concerns have been adequately addressed and reviewed by Staff. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on motion: design fits Burlingame Avenue, support quality of design and materials; concerned with Park Avenuc side of building but notice that the existing windows along Park are not pedestrian friendly, this fa�ade will also be softened by installation of 4 trees and new sidewalk; the lowering of the height of this structure definitely helps; window along Park Avenue is at a pedestrian scale; would like to get feedback from the community on this project; simple, eloquent design, intriguing addition to Burlingame Avenue, could have lasting effect. The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns that should be addressed in the environmental document: • What procedures will be taken for safety of pedestrians during construction,; • What traffic controls will be used; • Where will delivery and construction vehicles be parked; • Where will debris boxcs be localed; and • What routes will delivery trucks be taking to and from the site during construction. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the environmental document has been completed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:20 a.m. 17 City of Burlingame Plan�iing Co�nrnission Mina�tes November 25, 200? contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interce�tor; 33) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during lhe rainy season (October 15 — April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 34) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent dehris from entering; 35) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to conlply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 36) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 37) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 38) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise lcvel within lhe building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 39) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 40) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 41) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 42) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 43) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pun�.ped to Almer Road; 44) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump puinp shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 45) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 46) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and Vistica absent). C. Keele moved to recommend approval of the tentative condominium map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the tentative condominium map. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 8. 808 EDGEHILL DR1VE — ZONED C-R— APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW, THREE- STORY, DUPLEX ON EDGEHILL DRIVE AND AN ATTACHED SINGLE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE (MIKE JALILIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY��VNER; CJW ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (30 NOTI�ED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN This item was continued to the December 9, 2002, meeting. 9. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED G1, SUBAREA A-APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT City o��Burlifigarne Planreing Corniriission Minutes November 25, 2002 Reference staff report 11.25.02, with attachments. Planner Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission asked if the City's construction hours permitted construction on the weekends. CA Anderson noted that weekend construction is allowed by the City, but that the Commission could modify the City's standard construction hours. Acting Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Tim Kobe, Eight Inc., was present to answer questions. The Commission asked: will there be additional signage along Park Road in the blank space beyond the display window; is the color of the brick the same yellow that is shown on the photo boards; will this color compliment the city's designated color for the sidewalk improvements, will there be automated displays in the display window; why was the brick color changed from black to tan and were any other colors considered; would the applicant be willing to forego construction on the weekends, which is the biggest shopping tiine for Burlingame Avenue. The applicant responded that the proposed signage was meant to be minimalist; the color of the proposecl tan brick is very similar to the bricks seen in Council Chambers and the color will compliment the color dictated by the City for the sidewalk; Apple has a design team that creates displays for the window on Park Road, the designs may be automated and will be changed frequently to coincide with advertising campaigns; there did not seem to be overwhelming support among the Commissioners for the black brick so the color was changed to tan, red-tinted bricks were also considered; and applicant would agree to construction hours imposed by the Commission. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concern about restricting the construction hours, think it would be better for the merchants on Burlingame Avenue if the construction was completed as quickly as possible. CP Monroe noted that condition # 13 should be modified to clarify the City's standard construction hours and to prohibit heavy equipment operation or hauling on weekends. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 15, 2002, sheets A0.01 through A3.1 and C 1.0 through C6.0, with tan-colored brick, a brick soldier course below tlie parapet and above the windows on each elevation, and a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and a 45' long, 3-foot tall display window along Park Road.; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission commercial design review approval before demolition of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or construction of the new building takes place on the site; 3) that demolition ofthe existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the pernlit; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope or approved of building, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to commercial design review; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's, Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos and the conditions of the City Engineer's August 6, 2002, September 10, 2002 and October 28, 2002 memos shall be met; 6) that the demolition and construction on the site shall follow the construction logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the memo and diagrams regarding construction staging and date stamped September 4, 2002, and demolition and site construction plans date stamped October 22, 2002; 7) ttial the debris box in the alley shall be limited to a 10' x 24' debris box, and shall only be in place for a two week period during demolition, and the alley and fire lane shall not be completely blocked, there shall be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box; and that flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; 8) that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from 10 Cit�f of�Bu��linga�ne Planning Co»i�riission Mira�utes November 25, 2002 the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road; 9) that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block any on-street parking spaces; 10) that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J; 11) that truck access to the site shall not use Burlingame Avenue or California Drive, trucks shall access the site from Howard and the City Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to the site shall be via Carolan Avenue; 12) that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3"� through January 5`n; construction solely within the building may occur during this time as long as the public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked; 13) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and to the limits on hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays; 14) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 dBA; 15) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 16) that the contractor shall prepare, have approved and shall implement a plan that insures that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 18) that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 19) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: Commission appreciates the hard work and cooperation of the applicant. Acting Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. 10. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY — ZONED O-M — APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT OF THREE NEW WALL SIGNS (ALAN FORD/MARCO ACOSTA, SIGN RESOURCE, APPLICANTS/DESIGNER; SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, PROPERTY OWNF,R) (17 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANN�R: CATHERINE BARBER _ This item was continued to the Dccember 9, 2002, meeting. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS / 11. 1384 HILLSIDE CIRCLE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIM AND NANCY LOCKE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, AIA EASA ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 11 ROUTING FORM 1�7:r�� TO: FROM: February 21, 2003 _City Engineer ✓ Chief Building Offiicial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for commercial design review amendment to change exterior materials and windows and raise parapet height at 1301 Burlingarne Avenue, zoned C- l, Subarea A, APN: 029-202-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, February 24, 2003 �n i Y r�� r � vl � �cv0 �,u �' �iG� �ro .�a� �- w ��r � �c `�i k�w �� li Reviewed Date of Comments: Z/�� _� JUL-25-2002 THU 04�42 PM EIGHT INC FAX N0. 415 434 8464 I P. 08 � CT'f'Y Of Bt IItL.uZGAWiE PLANNQdG DEPAR7MEATP 501 PRIMROSE ROAD r(6J0) SSL7L50 F(650) APPLYCA7'ION TO THE PLANNING COMMI �_ '' Type or application: Y)esign Rerviav��_ Conditional vsc Pccmic 'Va�i�ta Special Parmit �ther Parxl Num6er. 029 i Projectaddress: 1301 B�rliqaame _Avt APPLYCANT Name: Robe t BraAsby Address� 675 Califarnj,,� St• , City/Statc/Zip:San Francisco CA 94'i08 Phouv (w): 415 _ 439� . 8462 (h): 510 _ �50 .0222 (�: 4t 5_434 _8464 O� PROPERT'Y OR'NER Name• ' � A L Address: , ' N h�l� City/State/7,ip• N Q/ a Phone (w)• 6� - 3�/ 2� � 0 �)� �� ARCAI3'ECr/DESIGIYTR Name?�obert Bradsby/8iaht Inc. Address: 67� c-al,itern� a st _ City/StateJZip: San Ftancisao CA 94108 Phonc (w): 415 4 3 4_ S 45 2 Piease indicate with an as1 the contact person for tf�is �)= (�: 41iC.434.8464 __ PRUJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolitic replacement with 1 story, 4535 1 bui AFFADA'VYT/SICNATURE: T hercby ccr�ify under penatty of perjury that thc info� given hercin istruo and co ct the st my kuo � e and belaef. Applicant§ signatura: Datc: `� ' I{mow about the proposed application and horeby a rize the above applicant to s� application co the Planning Commisai�� Property owner� �ate• � - ZS �t� rcwr RECEIV D JUL 2 6 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. eight inc. 675 california street san francisco, ca 94108 iri_�..�.r�iL.L F E B 1 8 2003 eight inc., transmittal attn tel Meg, Meg Monroe Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Ave., 2nd floor Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 415.433.3700 from subject project number date 0; !sln;�INGAME ,�`d,�11��G DEPT. Robert Bradsby Burlingame Apple Retail Store 22567 02.15.03 As we discussed on the phone Friday, Apple would like to propose a change in the exterior cladding material for the new building. They are proposing what we feel is an upgrade from the approved brick veneer to an imported Italian sandstone. The stone proposed is a warm gray with a honed surface. The material has a fine crystalline structure, uniform graining with minimal veining. Viewed in the sunlight the surface creates a subtle sparkle from the very small silver, gray and black flakes. Pietra Serena has been used for centuries for Florentine architecture in their streets and important buildings. We will be using the Italian quarries to produce uniform slabs of generally 2'-8" high by 5'-0" to 5'-4" in width. Our design intent is to use stones that are as close to a consistent a module as possible. The east and west facades will have a corner detail so that the stone panels show 7" thick at the corners of the building. The slabs will be attached to the concrete masonry structural walls with a series of concealed metal clips designed for the seismic requirements of this part of California. The building's plan would not change from the approved design in regards to area of the sales floor, area of the "back of house", width of recessed storefront, location of rear entry or number of windows on Park Road. The horizontal display window on Park is proposed to be wider by 4 3/4", the sill raised 15" and the overall height reduced to 2'-8" to correspond with the stone panel modules. The clerestorey window on Park has been enlarged from 3'-4" square to 5'-0 wide by 5'-4" high. This opening has been lowered to fit within the panel modules. The side windows will have a 3/4" steel frames surrounding the glass. The stone will have approximately 3/8" open joints between panels to allow air to ventilate the cavity between the stone and the structural wall. The stainless steel cap flashing at the top of the parapet has been eliminated as have the stainless steel soffits at the recessed entries and windows. Several factors have lead us to increase the height of the parapet from 21'-1 3/4" to 26'-0" at the corner of Park and Burlingame (the other corners of the building would be somewhat less as the sidewalks slope up from that point). We increased the height because of a desire to increase the slope of the roof by 50% for better drainage. Previously we had a very minimal parapet of 8" from the roof high point at the west property line. We wanted to provide better screening of the roof top mechanical equipment which, even though located at the rear third of the roof, probably would be visible from the parking lot to the south. If this lot is eventually converted to a parking garage, this problem would be exacerbated. The interior clear height of the building is required to be at least 18'-6" by the property owner. The parapet height is also determined by the module which best provides panel joints at the head of the storefront, the head of the side display window and yet will also allow our illuminated logo sign to be in the center of an even number of panels above the recessed storefront. v 415 434 8462 f 415 434 8464 � eight inc. 675 california street san francisco, ca 94108 v 415 434 8462 f 415 434 8464 We have shown two alternate rear elevations for discussion with the commissioners. One elevation shows the previously approved roll down service door moved slightly east to correspond with the stone module. The second elevation shows that door removed. We would like to propose elimination of this door as the opening creates problems with water infiltration to the building and safety. The floor level at that part of the interior is lower than the existing paving in the alley. We will have to provide a curb at the threshold to keep water out. This curb will inhibit the movement of pallets of materials in and out of the building, and a dangerous condition with potential for tripping for anyone carrying material. Our back of house configuration currently brings all deliveries through the recessed door vestibule adjacent to the west property line. Eight Inc regrets the disruption caused by this proposed change, but we feel that the stone is an improvement to the building. Attached are 10 copies of the proposed elevations, plan and building sections which illustrate the proposed changes as well as reduced copies of the previously approved submittal for reference. Thank you for your consideration, Robert Bradsby, AIA Eight Inc E3 ��. irr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME �� E PLANNING DEPARTMENT """"�r"' 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ,� BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �...�,,,„,.''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1301 Burlingame Avenue Application for commercial design review amendment for a new single-story, retail building at: 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1. (APN: 029- 202-060). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, March 10, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: February 28, 2003 (Pleasc: refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE � A copy of the appli to the meeting a . Burlingame, Cal� If you chal raising onl; described i at or prior t CITY OF B URLINGAME �'ri a'rc� �ns� "�"t�ts proje�t ay be reviewed prior 1�'g Plat��g� D�a�nent 1 Primrose Road, �. ' _ �;?`�� : � �ibject application(sj ii� court,� u� es you or someone else raised�a�t i; :� € - - t .�a Property o ers� � o rec�i� � this notice are responsi tenants ab t thi , noti��.��tiFor additional informatio 558-7250. ank �ou. ��ro, n , _ � +� -��..,, --• Margaret o �o�` � � �� ,, �� City Planner � �Q� �,,% � \�`� �'/ � i:: i � P U��l_�t�►R� �C� �N.�TI C E � be limited to blic hearing, :d to the city ming their call (650) (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW ONE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a miti ag ted negative declaration and commercial design review amendment for a new one-story commercial building.at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Avtar Johal Family Trust, property owner, APN: 029-202-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 10, 2003, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the 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 mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-526 P and Addendum, is hereby approved. 2. Said mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ralph Osterlin�, 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 l Oth day of March, 2003 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment 1301Burlingame Avenue effective March 17, 2003 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 18, 2003, sheets A3.0 through A3.3, with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray Italian sandstone slabs, a recessed storefront windows and frameless glass doors along Burlingame Avenue, and 45'-4" length x 2'-8" height display window along Park Road, and a 5' width x 5'-4" height clerestory window along Park Road; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the project shall obtain Planning Commission commercial design review approval before demolition of the existing structure (except for asbestos removal or reconstruction) or construction of thc new building takes place on the site; 3. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the permit; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope or approved of building, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to commercial design review; 5. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's, Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's July 29, 2002, memos and the conditions of the City Engineer's August 6, 2002, September 10, 2002 and October 28, 2002 memos shall be met; 6. that the demolition and construction on the site shall follow the construction logistics plan date stamped June 29, 2001, and the memo and diagrams regarding construction staging and date stamped September 4, 2002, and demolition and site construction plans date stamped October 22, 2002; 7. that the debris box in the alley shall be limited to a 10' x 24' debris box, and shall only be in place for a two week period during demolition, and the alley and fire lane shall not be completely blocked, there shall be adequate space for a vehicle to maneuver around the debris box; and that flagmen shall be available for traffic control while the debris box is in place; that an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for the scaffolding in the public right-of-way along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road; 9. that the pedestrian access provided along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road shall not block any on-street parking spaces; 10. that employee vehicles shall not be parked in Lot J; 11. that truck access to the site shall not use Burlingame Avenue or California Drive, trucks shall access the site from Howard and the City Hall Lane alley, access from US 101 to the site shall be via Carolan Avenue; page-2 Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review amendment 1301Burlingame Avenue effective March 17, 2003 12. that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedestrian barricades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3`a through January 5`h; construction solely within the building may occur during this time as long as the public alley and right of way are not impacted or blocked; 13. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays and no heavy equipment operation or hauling shall be permitted on weekends or holidays; 14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building does not exceed 45 dBA; 15. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan; 16. that the contractor shall prepare, have approved and shall implement a plan that insures that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 18. that all signage on the site shall require a separate application for a sign permit; and 19. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -s',= v' '� ' f,'' . , t \�� . � . �r' � } �r4 � J?../'' � . �. �,� � • -'11� .-� �' . �, . �� * .� � �h,, \\� � �4 s �t I�{' r �. � " �� / � /t l��S '�. � `� � l . � � . P,,� r y �j i �� aM � � � -,lr� ,,.• ��-� r '... � � i ,. \�p � '`' � t * � ''� .�''� � �� y .: ' '1 ,. � .. �' � . � � ��►� ��'�� ` �: =�, �, ''� ' , . s ,s �.� 1 �il� �'� '� ::..�. ' ` ; :�, ,s • � ' , r , . �- .� •.�,, �, , .� ` �, "'` �' '�� '� ,,�� , ,t•'� �`� � °,. � ` -T ; a� �_,,.� ' � "°��:/ <><, .� ,�. '� . �'` �� -=i-i �? " .`� ' 7 � � � � � � X�.� , � �� . � � - \ . . � �� , �, ; ,�, ,� ,, �,� �.. ,� �;r,�'''�}.-.,,, � \ ��- ��. "C"^;+6' • ' `�"�, '� ; � ^' �;'� .! ` ` ; `� �� h t� � . � ` � , ;Z, ., r,; �^ �� +.. � , .� ,° ` �� ¢�,�� `�,L; . '�.� ..r .� t. _ �^ �. !�„ � '-� :. '„�3� � ��'� �� y;,; � ..��,� \ "/` .. � � ♦ A� , �!' ^ _�. �.`. �� ,� , , . ,�'� � � ��- �, l� ^ �� , �j; ',,, s'. � �� / �t j 4�� . � �, �� !��► . . ; � , ��,,�� . -�, `- `�1� "�^��, :+�'. , ��•''� '.�°� •` �'y,.� �. .'` � �'', + �,,► `.:� � \ � � � ��' " =,�� n �e�., • � R �� .;.�:�� n ,.. t � � ,.� \� � i°,. � �; a i �f . � r �+ ,.,� ��s► . �`��/�' � ' ` � ''�,.:�� _ . , �Tp � � 4 � � ; W . N , � ,,'9 w ` ` � P ' ` �'� l'! �� ,,;�.,t, `'� �' "" „ . � , ' � ;�� \ �' .r.. � ` .� � T� � . � ,� � ^ . \' � �� , r , 4, - `�_, . �T'T �i`��nj`= � �� ,, �_ �t �V `� . � • • t y �� •?~w's+ I` '� � :1 - .! I;�.. , '� ;�`�.5� . �� ..�P � /�� i ��+,l� �+ f. �� . � � � � �1 � ' � r,; , 1�. . .�'� '�1 �� - �` ` � ` � � `�. ' . � # .. :.,� , , � :�, i'' �. �W'i �k ,. . � � . �� . , ` �q,';, <;. ' � `�r�;` .�' �� ' � ,� r�; _�r � ; .? \�.•. , r ..� 4�.`: �� i1. n tis ,' � � k � ,�,ar' , � � r�w. *�. •' ` � � r, ♦ ,'..n + � \ ' �• ,,.' n� �' �' +�<: . � r_ � t � ��tiP,� ' '91 ` ' / �,, � � �,,, . �� '�� + - `, ,,� , - ' :`'� ,� �,�,s . ,� �"` ' \\ �!'� � � ^� �,� '' ��1'� `� , .. ,��1�� ' �," � �� + ;��:,,.s.' �� .��.� �,a '� � ��. „-,,� L' �': ;�� j��D."� �_ . r �3 ..�! , ��' r W � :" % . . . . . . . �^. 1 �+�r.,� r �/ . ` � :�:� '� �� f �� . �� /,: � '� �'D"�` �' �, � � .:. � ,� ��w'�� ^�., "♦ � �� ,�� .,� � , �� "�; ' � "w q�ro �.� • �`�`� � .y d� ��.�,� � i' �'� � � ;�t'x f �*yF� � !� . {.. ','l �. :' S � � � � � ti � �� , �.,. I.�Y . + ��'�!'M1� ` �,y� � � � . ili .-� ,.� . ` + � . � �, � � . � � � �� . . . .,7�eII� �ew� I� ✓ �., .,." ��,. � �, .��T!Ir �'�,��!� 4, �� ' _ . �, � , �,i • " . r � �,v;, " . �i � � h ; 9� � . � � . ;•, ., ri�ri ,i �� * �:: « ��`,- '^ 1Y 4.�;♦ ` � �'� \ � ;� � �� ;:� `,�• ` ! s,��,�c►` % r '� �`' , �. !"� � '� ,^� � 3 � �r� �� T ..*,. ," � � � '. . � \ � .l. {`�.. ,�} ar� � -� .r'��, - , �/ � �y♦ ��^ � � � \ �t► r , � � �� t ,s'\� � � �\ '.Y ��M .. � 4� /�/ �, � ♦ � -�� 'v�d `T�� " ~ ✓R!. .,;T �x'r,,;r �! . 1, d .• , , :� �' A `�;'�t �. �� , :r ' � !I �� \ �I, r?:"`` � , ��-,� �� K!� � -„ � , , . - �,, '` .A� �., .)�' , ' '.�"r < ,>,�, ' �f' " ' , �: d � ,/l�,I � �n ,� � ' ' � ��. , � , .. � r \ `, , j s> . `'t!1 . .r ., � ; � , ; `+� y . � ' ��"� '"t�, •; \.', ,� S :.N�, .s.b.' ` � .n � �,"� � � � . . � ' � 1'�''�-(� v %�,' ' +`\�' ��r� . y � � . � � � �r i, r �',�, +�' v �' �",�, � � �� ^� � . �� • ..� �. !a , ..( . . � ,�,,..e. - �;� � ' � r, ,;� . � . •. „ . •. � . � , „\ •..,,� ` , �`` � `� . .� " ' 1,�.�s. ,'. � -+� , � � � 1 \:- - ` „ahb� t � �t �\o� at,;;\ ��> + � ' Jw \ �fj1� S � � �°�t\. .',a � � � � � `' . , fi . . r .. c: ,. • A j � y . ��...,}� ` � �� ''i� . r r , �,�1 � '� �. •�' �� r ,f � r �' � , r�+' • � �� ^cl � � � �1, j �. . � � • I.-� ` I�.S��l' �,• . ° � � �� y. � s.�?. . - • , \ � ', �,:;.z; + •i,� i` t�,� _. � ;,�� „�'` f'� A �,.,��,A- •:' " ,�" 4 ,�. ;'.. � ,;, '� � \ �. S�' � s� �� r '� • `. F9 r . a ,. . , '� � � ��'. � _�� ' � f' � �.s � ,� � � �� . � �� \ ��.., ��i . , .,�� lCf ` � � .�':1 ,{ *� ;ry... „ �, �:ill..�r,,,�� \ ,� r. � } 5 � •'� . , +��1 �. /� � �Y �`�re � .� �'^�! 'f� ��I\ '♦ , �� `. . � �A� � ,�!'S�� , � =-?"�• �M''�+:' _ ' . . ��M � ir. •� _ �� . 9 �:��. wJ�i`��,i'. ♦ � � ^. ADDENDUM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SINGLE-STORY RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUILDING A. INTRODUCTION This Mitigated Negative Declaration addendum has been prepared in compliance with Section 15164 of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidclines), which permils a lead agency (the City of Burlingame) to prepare an addendum to the previously prepared mitigated negative declaration if some changes or additions to that mitigated negative declaration are necessary, but none of the changes are sufficiently substantial to warrant preparation of a new (or "subsequent") mitigated negative declaration pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. As approved by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this addendum may be included in, or attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it need not be circulated for public review. B. SUMMARY On November 25, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a single-story commercial retail building at 1301 Burlingame Avenue. On January 6, 2003, the City Council upheld this approval. On February 18, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for an amendment to the approved project. The addendum for the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the revised project proposed at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame. The revised project differs in the following key respects: • the approved height of the building would be increased from 21'-2" to 26'-0", where 35'-0" is the maximum allowed by code; • the approved tan-colored brick with soldier coursing at the parapet and above the windows would be replaced with 2'-8" high x 5'-5'-4" wide gray Italian sandstone slabs; � the approved 45' length x 3'-4" height display window on Park Road would be replaced by a window 45'-4" length x 2'-8" height; • the approved 3'-4" square clerestory window on Park Road would be replaced by a window 5' width x 5'-4" height; and • the applicant is proposing to eliminate the approved roll-up door at the rear elevation. He has provided the Commission with two drawings of the rear of the site, one to show the new materials with the approved roll-up door and one to show the new materials without the roll-up door. The proposed amendment to approved height is below the maximum 35 feet allowed in theC-1 �one district and the building is still single-story. There is no change proposed to the footprint or floor area of the building. Therefore this proposed change is covered by the analysis of Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-526 P). C. AESTHETICS The proposed the changes to the exterior of the building will be subject to commercial design review by the Planning Commission to determine architectural consistency for the project and for the neighborhood ADDENDUM FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION page -2- setting. At this particular location, the land is flat and the area fully developed; the proposed increase to height will not affect any distant views or vistas. The sequence and methods for demolition for the existing building and for construction for the proposed building will remain the same with the proposed amendment. Because the building replaces an existing structure of about the same size and there is no significant increase in the amount of glazing than in the existing building, there will be no significant increase in light and glare on site from the proposed commercial use. Exterior lighting provided on for the building will be required to conform to the City's Illumination Ordinance (1477), which requires all illumination to be directed onto the site. The Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-526 P for the proposal identified potential impacts in the arcas of aesthetics, air quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and cultural resources. All of these potential impacts were determined to be less that significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. With the proposed changes in the project, no additional impacts are anticipated and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable to the revised project and will be included as conditions of approval.