HomeMy WebLinkAbout1301 Burlingame Avenue - Staff Report�..:a, ,�.
�
� � •��� .�,
�� =
Planner's Report
MEMO
Meeting Date: OS/27/03
DATE: MAY 27, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
RE: FYI - REVISIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT AND DISPLAY WINDOW
HEIGHT AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A.
Summary: On March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission Council approved an amendment to an
approved application for commercial design review for a new single-story commercial retail building at
1301 Burlingame Avenue. The amendment request included changes to the building height, to exterior
materials, and to display window size.
A Building permit has been issued and a construction is in progress on the site. In reviewing the design
of the building, the applicant has discovered that the height of the display window along Park Road is too
high for shorter pedestrians to view (see May 8, 2003 letter from Eight, Inc.).
In order to lower the height of the display window and to still use the approved gray Italian sandstone slab
veneer on the exterior of the building, the applicant will also have to lower the soffits at the rear entry, the
recessed storefront, and the overall building height by 6 inches.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the height of the building by 6 inches, from 26'-0" to 25'-6", to
reduce the measurement from the sidewalk to the bottom of the display window by 6 inches, from 4'-5" to
3'-11", and to reduce the height of the recessed storefront by 6 inches from 9'-6" to 9'-0".
Planning staff would note that because the proposed changes are minor and the building will in fact be
shorter than the approved height, it was determined that the changes could be reviewed by the
Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be
placed on an action calendar for additional review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Erika Lewit
Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
May 8, 2003 letter from Eight, Inc.
March 10, 2003 Planning Commission minutes
May 8, 2003 reduced size plans showing approved elevations and proposed elevations
eight inc.
675 california street
san francisco, ca 94108
v 415 434 8462
f 415 434 8464
eight inc., transmittal
attn Erika Lewit
tel
Eri ka,
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Ave., 2nd floor
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
650.558J252
from
subject
projed number
date
Robert Bradsby
Burlingame Apple Retail Store
22567
05.08.03
As we discussed at the planning counter last week, Apple would like to propose a small
change in the exterior of the building. Our client has asked us to lower the windows on
Park Road, the soffits of the rear entry and front recessed storefront and the top of the
stone veneer by 6". They felt the dimension from the sidewalk to the sill of the long display
window on Park Road was too high for shorter pedestrians.
When the clients proposed this change the construction had progressed to the point the
top of the CMU parapet, the openings for the windows and entries were built. Our best
option to lower the window sill and keep the stone veneer modules the same was to lower
all the joint lines by 6". To achieve this we are proposing to remove 4" to 8" of the CMU
wall below the window openings and add steel to the headers to lower the soffits by 6".
The top of the CMU parapet will remain as constructed but the top of the highest stone
panels will be 6" lower, now 25'-0" above the finished floor versus 26'-6" previously
approved by the planning commission.
Attached are 10 reduced sets of the revised architectural elevations, plan and building
section along with the previously approved images.
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert Bradsby, AIA
Eight Inc
R�CEIVED
MAY - 9 Z003
C17Y UF� BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
8
City of Bu��lingame Planning Conarnission Minutes
l 0, 2003
Comment on the motion: arbors do block vehicular line of sight at this r.�rner; and Engineering
Department is .k. with proposal; ors will enhance house; given the bu street adjacent these arbors
provide go transition from t street to the house.
Chair eighran called f a voice vote on the motion to ap ove. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent) voic vote. Appeal procedures were ad ' ed. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT
BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICEDI PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report March 10, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tim Colby, architect with 8 Inc., represcnted the project. He
noted that the Apple Corporation concept is evolving in the direct retailing area, he feels that the 2'x5'-4"
stone slab material now proposed is an upgrade over the brick proposed before; built a brick store in Texas
and did not think it was the quality to fit the company image; feel that the proportion of the building is better
as adjusted for the size of the material, the additional height is partially due to the need to center the sign on
the front and place the electrical service for the sign at joint, the same is true for the sign on the Park Road
side.
Commissioners asked: the parapet appears to be about 4 feet taller, can one row of stones be removed; need
to center the logo on the front at a joint in the material, CP noted that parapets must be a minimum height
according to the CBC, at about three feet. Applicant noted that a taller parapet would better screen the
mechanical equipment on the roof; this design is the best given the proportions of the stone, and works well
with the windows, raising the one closer on Park Road to eye level. Commissioner asked how the new height
related to the building next door; architect noted the building next door was 2'-3" lower than the new
proposed height, the new structure being taller than the building next door is good at this corner, a better
termination for the block. Commissioner expressed concern about the building being a large billboard,
glitter in the stone material will shout at pedestrians, counter to the "village" iinage; the fa�ade looks like an
office building. Material is an improvement, no problem with height, the scale works better, roof top
equipment is covered, the four street trees will further mask the building. There were no more comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted had some concern about the height, trust applicant's evaluation of the proportions,
especially the front, am comfortable; previously enthusiastic about breaking from the style and scale of the
existing buildings; the project is good and the stone is an upgrade from the brick, and the project is
consistent with the Negative Declaration prepared so move approval of the requested changes by resolution
with the following conditions: 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
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
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 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; 8) 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; 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�d i�ll'OU�1
January 5�"; construction solely wilhin 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, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 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;l7) 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.
Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: cannot support motion as stated because of the height proposed, the previous
design made a different statement on Burlingame Avenue, with this change that subtle quality is lost, this is a
different design.
5
City o�'Bu��lingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the change in the exterior material,
windows on Park Road, and height of the building. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojues and Keele
dissenting, C. Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15
p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW SfiUDY ITEMS
6. 3000 HILLSIDE,�RIVE, ZONED R-1 — LICATION FOR DESIGN REV�I�, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTI�N PERMIT AND FLOO AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A W ENTRY CANOPY
AND DECK DITION (TECTA ASS IATES, APPLICANT AND DESIG�dER; RABIH BALLOUT,
PROPERT OWNERSZ27 NOTICEXS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERI]?�E BARBER
briefly presented t�e project description. There were no qxiestions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the pu ic comment. Ahinad Mohazab, appli t and architect, explained that an
approximately 250 SF porti n of the crawl space on the lower le 1 where the furnace is located has
sufficient ceiling height to e counted toward total floor area. Ow r did renovation in 1996 now wants a
covered entry. At that ti e did face lift of ranch style house, pu turret on, stucco applied to outside and
gutted the inside of the use. The floor area was increased by e losing rear balcony. This is first variance
request. CP Monroe ted that 1996 was before design revie and before revision�-to how floor area was
calculated. Did not ant a deck at the rear that would encroa into setback so des' ` ed deck off of the side
of the house. The ea under the proposed deck also counts� ard floor area, tho ght extending the balcony
to the ground w ld reduce the mass and provide an are�'for bbq. Commissi,,tin asked why the deck was
angled? Appli ant responded that they were avoiding s�arp corners and that e edge of the deck parallels
the property 1' e on the east side. There were no other �Omments from thefl, �or and the public hearing was
� �y"
closed. �` f
C. Keigl�an made a motion to place this item on�Ehe consent calendar./This motion was seconded by C.
Comment on motion: good looking addition; ctim of topography ith 143 SF of floor area counted that is
under the deck and 250 SF of floor area t at is counted that is n the basement, attached garage also
decreases maximum allowable FAR by 400 F; project adds char ter to the house; visual impact ofproject
is minimal; project abuts Mills Canyon, w ich reduces concern ith mass and bulk that comes with FAR
variance; would like to add condition t t the variance is o attached to this building and that if the
building is ever demolished the variance oes away; would li to see applicant consider eliminating angle
on deck by squaring it or rounding it o.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on he motion to pl��this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Ost rling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded a 8:35 p.m.
C�
��':��
���� ii
� �;> � „����,, . I
'� �_
Planner's Report
MEMO
DATE: JUNE 23, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
Meeting Date: 06/23/03
RE: FYI - REVISIONS TO DISPLAY WINDOW HEIGHT AT 1301 BURLINGAME
AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A.
Summary: On March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to an approved
application for commercial design review for a new single-story commercial retail building at 1301
Burlingame Avenue. The amendment request included changes to the building height, to exterior
materials, and to display window size. On May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed an FYI
item for changes to the building and display window height for the approved building at 1301 Burlingame
Avenue.
A Building permit has been issued and a construction is in progress on the site. In reviewing the design
of the building, the applicant feels that the approved length of the display window is not proportional to
the length of the wall along Park Avenue. The applicant is proposing to shorten the length of the display
window on Park Avenue by 15'-0", from 45'-5" to 30'-5". No changes are proposed to the height of the
window from the ground. No other changes are proposed to the building. The skin will be put on the
structure as soon as the applicant gets direction regarding the window.
Planning staff would note that because the proposed change is minor, it was determined that the changes
could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for additional review and/or public hearing with
direction to the applicant.
Erika Lewit
Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
June 17, 2003 reduced size plans sheet A3.0 showing approved elevation
June 17, 2003 reduced size plans sheet A3.Oa showing proposed elevation
March 10, 2003 Planning Commission minutes
�� CITY p
4 �
BURLINGAME
�''�,.
Planner's Report
MEMO
DATE: MAY 27, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
Meeting Date: OS/27/03
RE: FYI - REVISIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT AND DISPLAY WINDOW
HEIGHT AT 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A.
Summary: On March 10, 2003, the Planning Commission Council approved an amendment to an
approved application for commercial design review for a new single-story commercial retail building at
1301 Burlingame Avenue. The amendment request included changes to the building height, to exterior
materials, and to display window size.
A Building permit has been issued and a construction is in progress on the site. In reviewing the design
of the building, the applicant has discovered that the height of the display window along Park Road is too
high for shorter pedestrians to view (see May 8, 2003 letter from Eight, Inc.).
In order to lower the height of the display window and to still use the approved gray Italian sandstone slab
veneer on the exterior of the building, the applicant will also have to lower the soffits at the rear entry, the
recessed storefront, and the overall building height by 6 inches.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the height of the building by 6 inches, from 26'-0" to 25'-6", to
reduce the measurement from the sidewalk to the bottom of the display window by 6 inches, from 4'-5" to
3'-11 ", and to reduce the height of the recessed storefront by 6 inches from 9'-6" to 9'-0".
Planning staff would note that because the proposed changes are minor and the building will in fact be
shorter than the approved height, it was determined that the changes could be reviewed by the
Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be
placed on an action calendar for additional review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Erika Lewit
Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
May 8, 2003 letter from Eight, Inc.
March 10, 2003 Planning Commission minutes
May 8, 2003 reduced size plans showing approved elevations and proposed elevations
— qFlESTOFiY WIPOOW REf.ESSED SS GU1ZN6 CFiANJQ.S .— F'FtOP. LIkE
5i . ^-- RECESSEO SS GiAZING DISPIAY WtNDOW gi�• '..
�-� _ � �H��'�'�-� 811TT.K�IJT �N Gt�SS------- - .-.
APPLE REfAIL STORE
1301 BURIJNGAME AVE
BURLINGAME, CA
PARCEL N0.029202060
OIM�R
AYI�AR JOFiPI
TENAPfT
APPLE COM?VTER L;OMPAPIY
� v�nraair� r�w�v z.u.a3
� � ���� �� ,
Q OF SIC�J — . .--- —. _- __� � _ _ �— FEOF'RENE G-OSI� AT SIESMIC
�' JT RECEa"SEO BEHIPD SlONE
4 �',; . --lRMAfL[SS (iASS DOORS
� --- -- -- — ---- ----� --��-- j
� - i -
i i , � i �
i � FRONT
i � - ' — �c�o eut-r �u�zeo & SIDE
� . _
� i; i � ; i r/ --- � � � � sro�r-aorrr wtow iaow
: �, ELEVATIONS
�
�
i
1
I
�
� .a..r
� APPLE RETAIL STORE
i
�
� 13URLINGAME AVE.
� BURLINGAME, CA
� � i � — I
�-- -�- ---� ---- -- ----- - -- _� ; i - ,
� .� - - - �- — -,- . -- - II — NTERNALLY iLLUMNJAiEO i t .y.' � \
i : j � $IGM �
�
� N: '.� . .... . ,I'
j �p -���— _-_� ._.-�- i � _. --STONE VB�I�R ! 2z55/ F7NB
_ ;,, _ _._,- �
. —�� _ _ a � �.
. - � �_�-- � � OQ.07.00 M
�/ / f � / / I:` j vr n�c �w. c,�ass
� j / / � - - - � i .. —SiONE SOFFtT
" .-_- � � � q � - { ' I � —� DOSTNG AQU�CENT BIALDING I
V U � �'�
- / � 'I �
_ � i
— �- -- - i __.
,.-. i ' µ•�ro•
� a', i � -f ' »...».,
K ' � X w �
NOtE� DA�NS�ONS StKNM N� Td CENTEPoJNE OF JOMfIS M STONE PNNHS .
�1� NDHfH ELEY�TION - BIRN('�AE AVEIJLiE
,uo N.=,4 �E�EIVED �A3.o
J U N 1 7 2003
CITY OF t3UHL�NGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
ss , z� .
F3FN�hED GtiR01� -�- - - BRUSriED CHFiOME Q
RQOF OFiAM f�CESSED FIRE DEPT r +, j -''
CNEFiFIOW SPIXJT COlMJFCTICN NO'E �lMENSi(XJS SH,]LNi AI� TO CE3JTERLINE O� !GNP' IN STOf:t PANtLS
r�2 \ E0.ST Ei.EVA?lON - PA(iC ROJID
� wan
w..,. a.
— CLQ�STOHY WIFDQW RECESSED SS GI�IZNC ChU1N�15 ^ PROP. LINE
_� . — RECESSED SS GU�➢NG �ISf'lAY WMOOVY —� S�n,' •
��E REra� sro�
1301 BURLINGAME AVE
BURUNGAME,CA
PAACEL N0.029202060
�
I
I aNn�a
j AVfAF JOFiK
I
�� iEt�lAtJi
I APPLG CAMRfTER CAMPNiY
�
PLAYl�1fIVG REVIEIY 2i9.03
i
i
;+�n � ...i.o' .
� �,APPLE RETAIL STORE
;-_�3,,^ ,
I I
�— _ . � � � �, BURLIN(3AAAE AVE.
�
' � I I � -- � BURLINGAME, CA
�- - -------�-- ---- -- }_ _ - - - _ , -�- --- i �
�- -- ; �,
� 1.=-_--.� ._ __y;� --rr���riuun�a�n�
, ; � +{, siGri
��
�.� __.. - il �..�.. R....
— �' i _ —STONE vB�ER zz5�67 aws
- . - -- - . � t� � ' aa o�wr
a oF Sic�l — ��_— — F __- — t�O�t� cxc)st� �T S�StinC az.o7.m nc
JT RFCESSFO CiEHIND SiONE �
4 � — � FRAMELFSS C�-Ai DOOFtS '
�„ _ _ .._ _. i_ _-- �
� � I � �, � FROA,NT
I I
- � � - - ---{I �� i 1 - - -�� -� RECESSED &fii GLAZED ��' � h1�T. SIDE
_ � i i ' � i i _ , I �� T� �"� � ELEVATIONS
; Q1 ' ; % � � � , ��l _ .{ -_ —�� �R i
� — '� � � � --�,, j � — �s,.� „�� � ;
-� + ' ' --,�� � �
, ;
�n � W'=1'-O' 3fi x ?I'•
I�� r. � „ _.�,�. �._d- �.�
�. , � � � � RECEIVED
N07E:OMi:NSIONS SFf01M� N€ TO C8(iEFiIkJE OF JOiNTS IN SiONE PANELS
� MOflTH ElFlATlClfd -� 9i1�IC�AE AVENUE
�N° „�-'� JUN 1 7 2003 ;�.a a
--- ----- _ — __ _ -- -- _ _ -- -- ---- -- -- -_. - . - -- -- - _ _ _ _; _ __ ---- -- - ---- ; --�
�
� � �
CITY OF BURLINGANiE
PLANNING DEPT.
iir'.USI�fD CI-6iOlAE - - - - BRUSHED CHROME �
i,
Fi00F �iAW F�ECFSSED FIRE DEPT � y� ` �
�FLOW $POIJT COfMJEC710N nS;iE: '�NS�ONS SViCrMi Af1E TO CENTERL!�IE OF ,�IINiS !t� STON= F'ANF1S
/ 2\ FAST ELEVATIIXi - PIJ�( ROAO
City of Burlingume Plannirag Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
Comment on the motior�: arbors do not ck vehicular line of sight at this er; and Engineering
Department is o.k. wxfh proposal; arbor will enhance house; given the bus reet adjacent these arbors
provide good trar�sition from the stre to the house.
�
�
Chair Kei an called for a v'ce vote on the motion to appro . The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterlin bsent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW S1NGLE-STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT
BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report March 10, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tim Colby, architect with 8 Inc., represented the project. He
noted that the Apple Corporation concept is evolving in the direct retailing area, he feels that the 2'x5'-4"
stone slab material now proposed is an upgrade over the brick proposed before; built a brick store in Texas
and did not think it was the quality to fit the company image; feel that the proportion of the building is better
as adjusted for the size of the material, the additional height is partially due to the need to center the sign on
the front and place the electrical service for the sign at joint, the same is true for the sign on the Park Road
side.
Commissioners asked: the parapet appears to be about 4 feet taller, can one row of stones be removed; need
to center the logo on the front at a joint in the material, CP noted that parapets must be a minimum height
according to the CBC, at about three feet. Applicant noted that a taller parapet would better screen the
mechanical equipment on the roof; this design is the best given the proportions of the stone, and works well
with the windows, raising the one closer on Park Road to eye level. Commissioner asked how the new height
related to the building next door; architect noted the building next door was 2'-3" lower than the new
proposed height, the new structure being taller than the building next door is good at this corner, a better
termination for the block. Commissioner expressed concern about the building being a large billboard,
glitter in the stone material will shout at pedestrians, counter to the "village" image; the fa�ade looks like an
office building. Material is an improvement, no problem with height, the scale works better, roof top
equipment is covered, the four street trees will further mask the building. There were no more comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted had some concern about the height, trust applicant's evaluation of the proportions,
especially the front, am comfortable; previously enthusiastic about breaking from the style and scale of the
existing buildings; the project is good and the stone is an upgrade from the brick, and the project is
consistent with the Negative Declaration prepared so move approval of the requested changes by resolution
with the following conditions: 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
4
City� of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
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 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; 8) 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; 12) that no construction that would impact the public right-of-way (such as scaffolding, pedestrian
bamcades, truck loading and unloading and parking reductions) shall occur between November 3rd through
January Sth; 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, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 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. The motion was seconded by C.
Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: cannot support motion as stated because of the height proposed, the previous
design made a different statement on Burlingame Avenue, with this change that subtle quality is lost, this is a
different design.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2003
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approvc the change in the exterior material,
windows on Park Road, and height of the building. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojues and Keele
dissenting, C. Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15
p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW S UDY ITEMS
6. 3000 HILLSID DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRU ION PERMIT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A NEW ENTRY CANOPY
AND DE ADDITION (TECTA ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RABIH BALLOUT,
PROP TY OWNERS 27 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Barber briefly presented the projec�escription. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public co ent. Ahmad Mohazab, applicant and architect, exp ned that an
approximately 250 SF portion of e crawl space on the lower level where the furna is located has
sufficient ceiling height to be c nted toward total floor area. Owner did renovation j 1996 now wants a
covered entry. At that time d face li$ of ranch style house, put turret on, stucc �pplied to outside and
gutted the inside of the ho e. The floor area was increased by enclosing rear ba ony. This is first variance
request. CP Monroe no d that 1996 was before design review and before r isions to how floor area was
calculated. Did not w t a deck at the rear that would encroach into setbac so designed deck off of the side
of the house. The ea under the proposed deck also counts toward floo ea, thought extending the balcony
to the ground w ld reduce the mass and provide an area for bbq. ommission asked why the deck was
angled? Appli ant responded that they were avoiding sharp co s and that the edge of the deck parallels
the property �ne on the east side. There were no other comme s from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the �6nsent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Auran. � �
Comment on motion: good looking addition; v�ctim of topography with 143 SF of floor area co ted that is
under the deck and 250 SF of floor area at is counted that is in the basement, attac garage also
decreases maximum allowable FAR by 4 SF; project adds character to the house; visu impact ofproject
is minimal; project abuts Mills Canyo , which reduces concern with mass and bulk at comes with FAR
variance; would like to add conditi that the variance is only attached to this uilding and that if the
building is ever demolished the v ance goes away; would like to see applican onsider eliminating angle
on deck by squaring it or round' g it off.
Chair Keighran called for vote on the motion to place this item on �e consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6- -1 (C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
C�