Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1525 Adrian Road - Staff ReportMlD PACIFlC ENGINEERING� INt. Redding Office z9�5 Innsbruck Dr, Suite A Redding, CA q6003 53o-Z46-9499 Ph 53o-Z46-95z7 fax Sacremento Office 84o Embarcadero Dr, Suite zo West Sacramento, CA 95605 9i6-9z7-7000 ph 9�6-9z5-�qn fax EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TEST REPORT Client: Client Contact: Address: Project Name: ProjecY Location: Contractor: Approved Documents and Plan Date: Observations: Project Engineer: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed: MPE No.: Date: Plan Check Number: Subcontractor: EARTHWORK ❑AODITIONAL COMMENTS ATTACHED The Work ❑ WAS ❑ WAS NOT The Work Inspected ❑ MET ❑ DID NOT MEET Inspected in accordance with the requirements The requirements of the Approved Documents of the Approved Documents. Material Sampling ❑ WAS ❑ WAS NOT ❑ N�A Performed in accordance with Approved Documents Signature of Special Inspector Print Name � Title Date This report presents opinions formed as a result of our o6servation of activifies relating to special inspedions. It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with the plans and specifications [hroughout the duration of the project irrespedive of the presence of our representafive. Our work does not indude supervision or diredion of the ac[ual work of the coMractor, his employees or agen[s. Our firm will not be responsible for job orsite safety on this project. This report is subjed to torrection at any time. revised tj���q EARTHWORK OBSERVATION ANDTEST REPORT Page t of z s� J� ��� f/� i-, City of Burlingame ITEM # s Special Permit for Office Area < 20%, and Parking Variance Amendment for Total Number of Stalls and Number of Compact Stalls Address: 1525 Adrian Road Meeting Date: 2/26/96 Request: Special Permit for 29 % Office, and Parking Variance Amendment for Total Number of Stalls and Compact Number of Stalls at 1525 Adrian Road, zoned M-1 (C.S. 25.44.030 22 and 25.70.030 i and k). Applicant: Greg Caplan, Speedmark Transportation, Inc., and N.N. Gabbay, architect APN: 025-273-010 Property Owner: Anthony and Annie Tsou Lot Dimensions and Area: 0.97 Acres General Plan: Industrial and Office Uses Zoning: M-1 Adjacent Development: Warehouses and auto repair CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances: and 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11 (b) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to; (b) Small parking lots. Previous Use: Medical supply company Approved Use: Freight forwarding company of electronic and computer equipment - Speedmark Transportation (Special permit approved on November 28, 1994) Allowable Use: Trucking and motor freight terminals with a special permit Summary: A trucking/freight forwarding company (22,100 SF) is proposing to convert 2,000 SF of warehouse into office area at 1525 Adrian Road. This will increase the total amount of office area by 9% to 29% (6,400 SF). In this zoning district a special permit is required for ofiice area over 20%. Because of the intensification of the office use on the site a parking variance amendment is required for total number of stalls and for compact number of stalls. History: This freight forwarding business (with 20 % office) was granted a special permit, for the use and a parking variance for four stalls, from the Planning Commission on November 28, 1994 (December 6, 1995 letter from M. Monroe to Larry Weinstein and November 28, 1994 P.C. Minutes). In February, 1995 the Planning Commission reviewed a parking variance amendment for this same address and use. The applicant requested a parking variance for one additional stall (total5) to save a tree at the entrance to the parking lot. To preserve this tree, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT 1525 Adriun Road one compact parking stall was lost. With the approval of the parking variance amendment the total number of parking stalls on site was reduced from 29 to 28 (February 7, 1995 letter from M. Monroe to L. Weinstein and February 13, 1995 P.C. Minutes). Special Permit for 29% Office: The applicant, Speedmark, Inc. is now requesting to convert an additiona12,000 SF of warehouse area into office area. The office area on site will increase from 4,400 SF to 6,400 SF (29%) while the warehouse azea will decrease to 15,700 SF (71%). The previous special permit and parking variance application both had 4,400 SF (20%) of office, within the allowed 20 % maximum. There has been an increase of three employees from the 7anuary, 1995 application (11 employees to 14 employees). Speedmark projects that they will have 17 employees in five years and that this is the maximum number that will ever be required for their business. The maacimum number of employees and visitors projected to be on site at any one time is 18. Variance for Number of Stalls: By converting warehouse to office an increase of five parking stalls will be required. This is the difference of 2,000 SF of office at 1 space per 300 SF minus warehouse at 1 stall per 1,000 SF (2000/300 - 2000/1000 = 5 stalls). With the addition of 5 stalls for the new square footage to the approved 28 stalls from the February 13, 1995 parking variance amendment, the new required parking total will be 33 stalls. The applicant is proposing 30 stalls by adding one compact and one standard stall to the approved 28 stalls for a total of 30 stalls. (They will remove the tree they previously asked to retain). The required number of stalls is 33. Since the proposed total number of stalls (30) is three less than the required amount (33 stalls) an additional parking variance amendment is required for three parking stalls (33 - 30 = 3). If this were a new building it would require 37 parking stalls for the total amount of warehouse and office area. The applicant has indicated that the ma�cimum number of stalls he will need for his business is 22. He will be providing 30, one of which is located in an easement. Two stalls have been added to the existing 28 sta11 pazking lot to achieve the 30 stall total. One compact stall has been added where it was previously deleted to save a tree at the parking lot entrance. The Parks Director notes (January 25, 1996 memo) that the landscaping removed along David Road should be replaced with six (6), 15 gallon trees with groundcover. Another stall has been added in the 10'-0" public utility easement to the south of the building. The City Engineer had no comments regarding placing required landscaping, parking or paving in this easement (January 16, 1996 memo). Variance for Dimension, Compact: The February 13, 1995 parking variance amendment granted a parlflng variance for a total of 28 parking stalls, 3 of which were compact (11 %). The present request is for 30 stalls with 4 compact stalls (13 %). Three (3) compact stalls are allowed for 30 stalls. Thus a parking variance for one compact stall is required; four (4) compact stalls are proposed where three (3) are allowed. 2 SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT Use: Office Area: Proposed freight forwarding co 11/28/94 Approval special permit granted 2/13/95 Approval freight forwarding co. 1525 Adrian Road Allowed/Req'd special permit for motor freight- trucking * 6,400 SF (29%) 4,400 SF (20%) 4,400 SF (20%) 4,400 SF (20%) Total Parking: * 30 Compact Parking: * 4 (13 %) 29 4 (14%) ►f�:3 3 (11%) 33 4 (12%) * Special permit for 29 % office area and parking variance amendment for total number of stalls and reduced number of compact stalls. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: City staff have reviewed this application. The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and the Chief Building Inspector (January 16, 1996 memos) had no comments. The Parks Director indicates (January 25, 1996 memo) that the removal of the last tree along David Road would leave no landscaping on that side of the property. He recommends that six (6), 15 gallon trees and groundcover with irrigation be planted to meet cunent landscape requirements for a building of this size. Planning staff would note that as presently configured with office and warehouse this building would require 37 parking stalls 3 of which could be compact. The applicant is proposing to provide 30 on-site spaces (one in an easement) 4 of which will be compact. If the previous parking variances had not been granted the variance request for this project would be for 7 parking spaces and one compact stall. Because a total of 4 spaces have been granted with previous variances. The applicant notes he is asking for a 3 space pazking variance and one compact stall. Study Questions: At the Planning Commission study meeting on February 12, 1996, the Commissioners asked several questions for clarification about the project. What is unusual about the property besides its shape which would justify a variance? The applicant notes because of their need for first class office space, in their recent search in Burlingame they found no other suitable site. Their business requires an ofiice area directly adjacent to the warehouse azea so the staffs of the two areas can interact d'uectly. They are willing if they ever relocate the business or sell the property to remove all finished office space over the code allowed 20 percent. 3 SPECIAL PERMIT AND PAR%ING V.ARIANCE AMENDMENT 1525 Adrian Road Presently the site does not meet ADA accessibility requirements. However, if this project is approved the plans submitted to the Building Department will meet ADA accessibility requirements. The applicant prepared a pazldng occupancy study for Wednesday February 14 through Friday February 16. Data was collecterl three times each day: 9:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. This study showed peak occupancy Wednesday and Friday at 9:30 a. m when there were 14 cars on site (28 on site parking spaces provided). The lowest number of parking spaces occupied were 10 on Thursday at 1:00 p. m. In response to comments about the lack of maintenance of the landscape strip along the David Road frontage, the applicant notes that there is an irrigation system in place. It can be easily reconnected. He notes that they are willing to meet the Park Director's planting requirements and will upgrade and maintain the landscaping on the David Road frontage to the same standard as on the Adrian frontage. They will develop an irrigation plan and submit it to the Parks Director for comment if required. The applicant's architect undertook a study to determined how the pazking could be laid out to retain the tree on the David Road frontage. The new layout would provide 33 on site parking spaces (the number required is 33). However 66 percent (20% allowed) or 21 of the 33 would be compact. There preference would be for this new parking layout, because they would like to retain the tree and provide the required 33 parking spaces on site. The present conference room (shown as a conference room on the original and iirst amendment floor plans) is presently being used for office area. When the new office area is added they will return this area to a conference room use. The applicant also noted that the Commissioners wondered why the number of employees changed from the first two requested to this one. They note that they had not included the warehouse personnel in their previous application. They do not see their staff of clerks increasing, but they do expect an increase of one in the sales staff and two warehousemen. Since they note that they presently have 14 employees on site, they would expect a maximum of 17 employees on site. In addition in their letter of February 14,1996, Greg Caplan, Coordinator from Speedmark Transportation Inc., notes that the company would agree to remove any ofiice square footage over 20 percent of the gross floor area of the structure; and it would be acceptable to them to make this removal a requirement of approval of the parking variance. � SPECIAL PERMIT AND PAR%ING VARIANCE AMENDMENT 1525 Adrian Road Required �ndings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; and (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 5 SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARRING VARIANCE AMENDMENT I525 Adrian Road Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitterl to the Planning Department and date stamped 7anuary 11, 1996 Sheet A.1, Site Plan with a total of 30 parking stalls (24 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls) and Sheet A.2, Ground Floor Plan with a maximum of 6,400 SF of office area (29%); 2. that the conditions of the Parks Directors' January 25, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' February 14, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the business shall be open 8:00 a. m. to 5:00 p. m. Monday through Friday with a maximum of seventeen (1'� employees including the proprietor on site at any one time, if the number of employees on site at any one time should exceed 17 or the property should be sold or leased to another tenant then the parking variance shall become void; 4. that the city shall be notified within 30 days of a change in occupancy (number of people on site exceed 1'�, property sale, or lease of premise to a new tenant so that the status of the parking variance can be reviewed, the removal of all office space exceeding twenty (20) percent has been accomplished, and to verify that the on site parking meets the requirements of the uses within the building; and 5. that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Jane Gomery Planner c: Speedmark Transportation, Inc. Greg Caplan, coordinator, applicant C:\WP51\FIL,FS\1525ADRI.SPV - 2/16/96 �� Ar� c�r : . DURlJN4AMi CITY OF BURLINGAME ��� APPLICATION TO T�� PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application:�_Special Permit�Variance_Other � `� sa- � � ��; Project Address: 1525 ADRIAN ROAD � �, �_,� � � �� �.. �.� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 0 2 5- 2 7 3- O 10 J A N 11 1996 CiT`r OF 6URLI�,IGr�M� APPLICANT PROPERTY O WNER P LA N iv 1 N;:, �� ��' i, Name: SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION, INC.N�e: MR. & MRS. ANTHONY/ANNIE TSOU Address: 1525 ADRII�N ROAD Address: 1549 DE ANZA BLVD. City/State/Zip: Phone (w): BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Clty/State/Zip; SAIV MATEO , CA 9 4 4 0 3 (415) 652-0288 Phone (w): rn�: (415) 345-0188 --------------- fax: (415) 652-0288 �)� --------------- f3x: ( 415 ) 652-0290 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: N.N. GABBAY Address: 19 SOUTH B STREET #7 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. City/State/Zip: SAN MATEo , CA 9 4 4 01- 3 9 0 7 * GREG CAPLAN Phone (w): (415) 579-4611 COORDINATOR -------------- SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION, INC. rn�' 1525 ADRIAN ROAD f�: (415) 579-4617 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL# (415) 652-0288 PROJECT DES CRIPTION: FAX #( 415 ) 6 5 2- 0 2 9 0 CONVERT WAREHOUSE SPACE INTO OFFICE SPACE. RESULT WILL YIELD TOTAL OFFICE SPACE b10RE THAN 20o OF ENTIRE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATiJRE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. ;�,) � `,"'`' �y1� � ' i � � 6 Applicant s ignatu e Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. � ;; ,� i � ' I � � -'� Property Owner's Si ature Date ----------------------------------------------F OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------------------- Date Filed: Fee: Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: 4r� : ' °�"""4'"` COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS �' '� PLANNIl�TG COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM ... 1. Proposed use of the site. ( CURRENT USE ) FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY 2. Days and hours of operation. M�ND�Y THROUGH FR I DAY (�: 0 0 t� . M. TO 5: 0 0 P. M.) 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). NotvE ALL TRUCKS ARE HERE ONLY FOR LIVE LOFIDING/UNLOADING AT OUR FOUR DOCK DOORS. 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays 14 0 15 0 17 0 Full-time Part-time � 0 G 0 0 0 Weekends 0 0 C 0 0 0 Full-time Part-time � 0 0 0 0 0 5. Cunent and projected maa�imum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays � o �% 0 8 0 Weekends 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. What is the ma�cimum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 18 7 E: � 10. Where do/will the owner & employees park? IrJ oUR Two ov-�zZ�E Lo�s. Where do/will customers/visitors park? IN ouR Two ora-szTE Lol Present or most recent use of site. PRESENT USE: FREIGHT FORWt'�RDING COMPANY List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary). N�L " ���, c�rr � BURLINGAME V`�� U II OOD UI�JWL��OV�1JlrVOVOL�, �.=,{ , . _,' ��G���f�C�C� �pp��C����Oo �l� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances o� conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. DUE TO THE EXI,STING ��NGULAR CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY bVHICH CFiUSES THE MAII4 PARKING AREI� i0 Nt�:RROW D04dN 11T ONE END TO 55' , WE Ct�NI101 OBTAIN MORE THAIJ 30 PnRKING SPACES. b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preseivation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denial of the app/ication. D7E FACE THE H�';RllSfIiP OF i>LiPdG WiTHOUi EIQOUGH OFFiCE SP7�CE DUE TO LIi�IIT�iIOPdS BA;:iED OPd OUR i�V[-�IL[-�BLE PHRKING SPt'1C�S. nVAILABLE ON—SITE PARKiNU iS MORE iHAC7 ENOUGH TO D1EET CURRENT ��ND PP.OJECTED Oti�NER/EMPLOYE�/VISITOR lOiALS. MORE SPACES ARE REQUIRED NOT FOR ACiUAL USE, 3Ui OIQLY ^10 S�iISFY iHE C�TY'S REGULr,T � OIdS . c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be det�imenta/ oi injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or con venience. 1H� PROPOSED OFFICE EXPAPISIOIQ WOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT 4dHATSOEVER ON PRCPERTY IN THE V�CIIIITY OR ON THE GENERAL PUBLICo BECi�USE THE USE OF iHE LOCATION WILL NOT CHF;NGE FROh1 THE CURRENT USE. d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining pioperties in the genera/ vicinityl THE PRUPOSED PROJECT IS ENTiRELYL�I�THIP1 THE �II�LD�_PdG STP.UC'lURE. NO CHALJGES ti��LL BE V i S_BLE TO CUTSIDE P�:R�IES. THE?E F]Ii�L i70i' Br, t�i�Y FXiRii TRi�FF�C G�i1ERt,TED BY THE COMPLETED PRO�ECT lND id0 OId—Si'r:E�T PfiP.KING 6�ILL BE USED BY EMPLOYEES. IPd OTHER L10RDS, LOCL�L T�AFF�C/P�>RK�tdG S�iU��il0i1 6d�Li� NGT BE �FF�CiED BY THIS PP.O�iECi . 12/92 ver.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or exbaordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossibie and are also not common to other properties in the areat For example, is there a creek cuttinfl through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7 b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substanfia/ property iight and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. � Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptionl Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious to property or improvemenis in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfarel Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health li.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal►. General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefitl Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sitesl? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl d. How wi// the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If use will affect the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass o� bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use7 If you don't teel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity7 Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. ,zrez,,...r,�„ ���, c i rr o BURLINGAME ��� �� ����01175��11•VII� wa �r..�,,�...�. OL��qO�//'V� ���UV'll� II ����lb� 0 ��U'P16r1 The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or. injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. THE PROPOSED OFFICE �XPANSION WOULD NOT H�1VE ANYEFFECT G7H�TSOEVER ON PROPERiY ITd tHE VICINITY OR ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC, B�CAUS� THE USE OF THE LOCfiTIOPd 47iLL NOT CHANGE FROM THE CURREIdT USE. 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning Ordinance7 THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT CHANGE. ti9� ARE STILL A FREIGHT FORtiJARDING OP�P.t�T.iON VJHICH IS CONSISTEIQT WITH THE ZONIPdG OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR WH�CH USE A SPECIAL PERMIT HAS �'1LREADY BEEN ISS'IEU. 3. How wi// the proposed pioject be compatib/e wiih the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinifyT 7'HE P.-.ZCFG��ED PROJECI IS E::Q��'IRELY WITHIN THE BUILDING `.�TRUCiURE. i1U CHANG�S WILL BE VISIBLE TO OUTSIDE PARTIES. THERE FdILL NOT BE ANY EXTRA TRAFFIC GEPIERATED BY THE COMPLETED PROJECT AND NO ON—STR�ET PARKING WILL BE USED BY EMPLOYEES. IN 01HER WORDS, LOCAL TRAFFIC/PT-�RKING SITUr'�TION WII�L NOT BE EFFECTED BY THtS PROJECT. 12/92 ep.irm 1. Exp/ain why the p�oposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not bQ detrimenta/ or Injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience: How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighborinp properties or structures on those propertiest If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garba�el, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and thines which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). S'ienera/ welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and developmentl Is there a social benefit7 �onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning Ordinance7 Ask the Planning Department for the general plan designation and zoning district for the proposed project site. Also ask for an explanation of each. Once you have this information, you can compare your proposal with the stated designated use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would "fiY accordingly. 3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing neighborhood and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existinp neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was tha addition desiened to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existinfl and potential uses in the peneral vicinity? Compare yoa�r project with existinp uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. 12l92 sp.f rm 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. BURLINGAME.CA94010 TEL:(4�5)259-9�81 FAX: (415) 259-9187 January 11, 1996 City Of Burlingame Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, This letter is submitted by Speedmark Transportation, Inc. and the owners of our building at 1525 Adrian Road, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony and Annie Tsou. It is intended to describe the reasons why we are requesting a special permit and variance for the above mentioned location. Speedmark Transportation is an international freight forwarder and Non- Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC). Essentially we act as an agent for air and ocean carriers, tendering freight to them in large quantities as gathered from any number of inedium and small size shippers. We began searching for our own building over two years ago. Quickly, we realized the scarcity of available buildings in Burlingame and surrounding locales. The few other buildings available could not compare to 1525 Adrian in the areas of location, quality of standing office space, and on- site parking. Mostly, it was the possibility of molding this building into our vision for an ideal office that attracted us. When we saw it, our search was over. 1525 Adrian building was purchased for Speedmark on November 30, 1994 and we began operating our business here on March 20, 1995. In this building we house our U.S. Headquarters (UAC), which is responsible for administration, policy, and accounting functions. Also housed here is our San Francisco Bay Area operation (SFO), which is responsible for daily operation of freight movement, customer support, and account generation. As our office space is currently configured, both UAC and SFO employees, who have completely different job functions, sit side-by-side in an area intended solely for the use of UAC. Also, some UAC members work in a space intended to be the conference room for SFO. Optimal arrangement is not possible in the current office layout. In other words, as currently configured, our office is not ideal. However, it would be more than suitable with our desired modifications. �525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. B�R��N�AME.�A94o,a TEL: (415) 2539187 FAX: (415) 259-9�87 This situation creates hardships for us in the following ways: 1) Most importantly, our current configuration does not p�ovide our ope�ations staff with direct access to the warehouse. Our SFO staff is now working in the front of the building. The work of the SFO staff starts with the freight in the warehouse. Naturally, the closer our staff is to the freight, the faster and more efficiently they can complete their work. 2) Furthermore, the SFO staff must answer the dock doorbell when drivers arrive. As our warehouse doors are in the middle of the building on the side, people now must walk half of the length of the building to greet the drivers. Sometimes the drivers are impatient, so by the time the staff person gets to the dock door, the drivers have waiked around to the front of the building looking for anybody to help. At this point they are sent back to the dock by the receptionist, who has seen the staff head in that direction a moment ago. When we first moved, this all seemed a bit comical, as you may well imagine, but it became old and cumbersome very quickly. In fact, many shippers have received complaints from the drivers about our slow service. As we are a service company, with no tangible product to show how good we are, our reputation is our most valuable commodity. Unkind words from the drivers always make their way back to the people who choose forwarding services. We do not need this kind of word-of-mouth advertising! lt onlyserves to jeopa�dize our business. 3) The SFO operation can be a fast-paced and loud environment, making it difficult for the UAC peopie to concentrate on their work in a more quiet and reserved atmosphere too which they are entitled. 4) UAC typically discusses va�ious topics such as employee salaries, company,nrofits, business relationships, and business plans, that are not the business ofSFO employees. UAC members feel they cannot talk amongst themselves for fear of being overheard and inadvertently revealing confidential information. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to productive and efficient work. 5) There are occasions when both groups of employees need to use a conference room. As the SFO conference room is occupied by UAC people/desks, one of the two groups is forced to use the lunch room table for their meeting. This was not our intention when the building was purchased. 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. g�R��N�AME,�A94o,o TEL:(4�5)259-9�81 FAX: (415) 259-9'187 6) lmage is an importani part of our business (�ust one of the reasons we purchased thisstandalone facilit}�. When overseas quests, customers, U.S. agents, and others are brought to our offices for a tour, we would like them to see our administration (UAC) situated together in one area, thereby presenting a picture of cohesiveness and uniformity. Also, the image of a larger administration, thereby a stronger company, would be presented. Similarly, our operations staff located in their own area would present a picture of a large and successful business. Should we be allowed to build the additional office space as requested in our plans, the above situations would be remedied. Most notably, the SFO staff would be located steps away from the dock doors, enabling truckers to be met much more quickly than at the present time. Our business is good and will continue of grow. Of interest to you, we believe, is that future growth does not mean future employee levels higher than now on-site. In other words, future growth will not be people intensive. Like many businesses, freight forwarding has been truly revolutionized by the advent and progress of computers. Traditionally, a highly paper intensive business requiring many clerks to handle the document flow, freight forwarding is now dominated by computers and exchange of data electronica�ly. Work done previously by three clerks can now be handled by one and those same three clerks can do vastly more than their old volume. In fact, the entire industry, including airlines, ocean carriers, U.S. Customs, air and ocean ports, etc. are moving towards the "paperless environment". No hiring is foreseen for the next several years (excepting replacement should anyone leave). All optimistically projected growth can be handled by current staffing levels. As evidenced by our Commercial Application, we have Fourteen (14) people employed here, including the owner. We have Twenty-Eight (28) parking spaces on-site. Our location at the intersection of Adrian and David Roads, provides free on street parking along two sides of our building. Even without considering the on street parking, we have enough on-site spaces for all of our employees and visitors. We do understand that any variances or special permits allowed are granted to the property, not the current owners. So you have no way to be sure future owners/occupants, if any, will have the same staffing/visitor levels that we do. You may concede that our position is tenable, but still 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. B"R��N�AME.�A94o,o TEL: (415) 259-9�8'I FAX: (4�5) 259-9187 worry about future ramifications. We would be willing to agree to tear down this additional office space if/when this building is not used for its current purpose. We would even include that stipulation in any sales agreement. Now, we know this is not a practical solution for the City as it is not easily enforceable, but we offer if simply to show our willingness and desire to complete this project as directed by the City. We are willing to accept whatever enforceable stipulation you may want to attach to this project. We only want to show you that your fears of this finished project bringing more traffic and on-street parking usage to the area are unfounded. Overail , our goal is provide first class office space to the employees already on staff. We have spent the past (10) years in rented warehouse/office space in one location or another. Now we want to reward those loyal employees who have helped us grow to the point where we could afford a facility of this type. That is the main reason we invested here! We sincerely appreciate your situation. You must look out for the good of the community as a whole, and cannot say "yes" to every Special Permit/Variance that comes your way. After all, if a project is O.K. with the planning commission, than a Special Permit/Variance wouldn't be required. Special allowances can't be granted to all who ask. Even so, we believe that our circumstances are such that you will able to allow us to build as per our plans, since our project won't interfere with our neighbors or have a deleterious effect on the local parking situation. To that end, we graciously invite any or all of you to tour our facility, at any time, so you can see firsthand our working environment. We would be pleased to see you here. Sinc�rely, 1 \ � � XI �nd Lu Gen`�ral Manager \ � ROUTING FORM , DATE: ����,'I ��i,'� L C�.�''a- I! 1 � l� C�' (e i , TO: CITY ENGINEER , CHIEF BiTILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL � � PARKS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR � ; � ,� � � � ��- C,C. "I"� C�- ���1;' l; r' o� i- �' ,r'; t i, AT ' � Z :� ,-i?.�� .!'t C,l 2 , j� � ��� � �.aVl - 1 `�-'�'� _ � -�-Y ��- � � �-�,,��� � �t � +^�� � � �J'd,v�c E�. �� �c;vt, .c.Z� � C.f l �M �/ � � } , � n 1 � "-'�'' �.Q�, �i �.�r� ('��.,��� �� Ct,�r � � �_. � i �� / SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: ��' �/� . -� Cc , i C REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: `��,Z� �L�.���,�- ,-� �� � f�<l' �' THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �- z�— i� Date of Comments � -- / f .�,^�, f ` / �d(la.f D� � GG(.S� �%�i5 /7\� l� ��c.. � 1JG�(/l� 1�C�. �� dP v� �� w� l,tt� o u� d ��cc r�2 �S S�� ��I y �v a `GW o�G�p; �j ` p',v � a 5' �� C� . �� ���xl5 Tr .�-� J�;J �cw�ti f y ` �o�� `� � � ��-2 a � r� D� ute-Q_c�JS . .L. Lt� o �,� � c) � u �r �P�s � is ��-f-- � s�- �� A. ia � y J�a. V ��� ��_ P� e ��� w % �. r� � l �� �.l �� s � e �-s �wd �- � r� �d� � � � ��-�; ��� � w�.��-�, cc�a� (c� �nti e N�,u.GC� e��s� Gu. r t�e,v�- ��dsc�e /� �c�.<���-�,--�3 � r- a S u. �n Gcs �i�s a Cr � � � �� � �� ��`"`��`"�'.��� �� ,- ���1 J A hl � � 1996 � GT"r` i.iF F' '"'_::vGAME P�_;=`�.N��.::.; �FPT. _ . �_ . .�• r �., ROUTING FORM DATE: % Q116 TO: CITY ENGINEER �_ CHIEF BiJILDING INSPECTOR FIItE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: CITY PLANNER/pLANNER REQUEST FOR � AT ! 5 Zs � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSIO � ON MEETING:_ � l QQ� REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON��A3�Y� �� C�� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah Date of Comments �i �`_'- I �ily ; � ' � / : ( l,(..� � v 1 j 41 � r � ; �,, / 2 zce�ss�s/� ��ia�cr�v,Spac�s rca���Ye� Dae �+�s� � � Y2'! SJ�ace G✓/�, �� C/�ar� o����%°7y�'k �/.�/ozG�i�?y �cc��f��S�e ---�/�— �o Ko`�-�ier� cr�saG�a/� !' � �S �I�OC�/'� S � �( �C�'��� !�'Le. C�l K2r[o �' �L� 8'1' � � ����� �-N ��-Oj�°c�' ✓alu�OH, �%(,.B��e 2cG � ss .S � a�'�s • ��2�, S r�t a y d r W1 ?� h d�- r1 P.�� }"-o/ �'j �. c or �"Ev�� 'Ly,�' 3 • ��� �f �rar�e.� �o., ha,�ic� P��'��� spa�.s � r��` � �Ivs� 6e. 2c�essi5�� � f��.�f�d/�� � �/�/�� ROUTING FORM DATE: Q�d TO: CITY ENGINEER X CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR � , �. AT /5 2_s � SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:_ 26, l Q�,� �-�� , REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON�4$I�T: � l� / f�',( � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � � � Date of Comments �� � � - �-������ � ��� �• ROUTING FORM DATE: / `I9� TO: �_ CITY ENGINEER���� CHIEF BUILDIN INSPECTOR _ ,1C. FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT � AT / �' 2 J` L ('-c�c-�r�v �� • SCHEDULED PLAI�tNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �-���`�-�-�G � / �1 `� `��.u,�A�:e� , REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING O � U �/ 4 p� THANKS, Jan /Sheri/Leah �� � - � �_ Date of Comments ,�, �d �� � rn� �. CITY PLANNER/PLANNER REQUEST FOR � C� ����v� � ; ,� � ��� �� I ( ���1 ..`..�,y__...-�.. ,t� (`�I�P (�t#g a.f �urlin�ttz�e CITV HA�L - 50i PRIMROSE ROAD re� (ai5) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT � BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3 99 7 rwx (415) 342-8386 December 6, 1994 Larry Weinstein � DESIGN-BUILD SOLUTIONS 200 Poinsettia Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Mr. Weinstein, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the November 28, 1994 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit and Parking Variance application became effective December 5, 1994. This applicationcaas to allow a special permit for freight forwarding business and parking variance for the number of compact stalls at 1525 Adrian Road, Zoned M-1. The November 28, 1994 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door with a total of 29 parking stalls (22 standard stalls, 5 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2. that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors� October 17, 1994 memo, and the Parks Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3. that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; and 4. that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. December 6, 1994 1525 Adrian Road page -2- All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, �l D�r,.2�- e- Marga et Monroe L�' City Planner MM:smg 1525ADRI.ccs c: Gary Hirsch Mr. and Ms. Tsou Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (Lot 1 2& NWLY 40 FT OF LOT 3 BLOCK 7 LESS SWLY 20 FT.; ApN: 025-273-010) ROUTING FORM DATE: �' - �o " ��- t" TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INBPECTOR �— FIRE MARBH�IL PARBS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: —��_" AT CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEBT FOR ,`�_Y �/ A %r � � � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTI6i� MEETING: _ �� �� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: _ OC�, 1J THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �G �G��� � Iv��' � `� Date of Comments � � i i � r rf-� /c� '� — — ������.��-�-�� ��� � `'J �� � �,-,F� v � :� 5�� �' �J��s �,'' � S� r��'� -��°zL� l�'�-��;�-�' � - h a�,�2� ��-�il�� s�'����s - `1 ���yv��.-� ��. G��}�-�. .���5 ,,�.k, h� v�s� �,� �'v�-�'� G'-vss- lo � ' n � S� i'� � 5 (� S U CJ ✓ j; ���t%'i� �-�,,�1 �`?-r-^c` �. 1 s S�a-r Ac �`�� d �� [� 6 � Y ' � �� ��� J � 1����%��1�1 ROUTING FORM DATE: '(� , �j - C9 � ^/ 1�-- TO: �` CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR • CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TEC$21ICIAN SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR , ��� �l� c� T ll'l� , �� .n, ., n., r . ,�, .. AT � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION A�TI6pF.MEETING: �� �� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: _ O�, �� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � 1 ��¢ Date of Comments � � � W: l I-t'i,.e � 15-P; ,� d.t�� ��.�-y �.-e ,,� ; dz�. � l� S 0 Gt,ri E� c.ca ` �_ a-���— � �' �. n�; u,�-� ,� � �.��.� �,-� s �.�.�.� � � �l--Q r..�.�,� �s ��-�-� � -� .�� ���� , Z , ��d; � � � � � �,�,c v�-� � � b � � -t' w � � G��"-r ) � � � �S tl� Q�c i`fr'� c..� �Q.e- �Jl,e_n�u� �� `�a � � � �d v� o�^- -rl-..A �r}-�-� h r �Le � � �P,,.� Y � .,��� l `I., t�I --�� � s i� l G�' �F' 1� � OC�`� -�C �C� S i �n'' • �.,� -�i st�, -h��.. �� 1 �'J -�'h�--�-- � � � �� .� �, }�-Pi��v; a C:'-Gi., [..�.5 � � �c,�'_ti�, xov�rnvG Fox� � � ,( ( -�'Vl � r ��- r �,c.,�' � I�"�'��� � DATE : • C' � ''��)�� � � d ' I „ ""' TO: CITY ENGINEER �� r� CHIEF BIIILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL � PARRS DIRECTOR • � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: � AT CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIEST FOR ,`tiil_P>/ /1 %r � �i ( "f� "� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACT�6I� MEETING: ��� ,� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY• _��U� �� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �� - � � Date of Comments �"t- f S � I.S -�c'�J— O iU � Cr, � � � � v-� �-�F - � � w�� . � � ` � S , � �� ��� �u c� ���-t-�-��� , � � � � � "` � w�� � Z�- u� d� Sif� �� �� �t'o �� f'� F-e a l�-e ti� r�s �r� �-{� d-,�S' o �-- {-� � � f�e � _ � - � �i�..i.:� ! tt , I `• _. I5'J�F `1 �%) � ,�� � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes - November 28, 1994 Commission noted for the record that if the modification of the primary residence is going to further increase the non-conformity of the structure, that was not the intention of the code change allowing expansion of the primary unit in circumstances where this situation e�cists. The intention was to achieve a conforming structure that is the primary residence. This application has more problems than just the carport. Another concern is that with a new application there is a problem that goes back 55-60 years. Because with a 6' wide driveway between buildings there is simply no way to put a caz in the back of this property without destroying the other structure. Motion was seconded by C. Jacobs and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4• PARKING AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCFS AT 1237 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 fFERESHTEH & KEIHAN EHSANIPOUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTSI CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 12, 1994 PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING 5. SPECIAL PERMIT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AT 1000 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (JOSEPH & 7ANETE BOJUFS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND �' APPLICANTSI CONTINUED �p DECEMBER 12, 1994 PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING X�6. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY HIRSCH. PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGN-BUII.D SOLUTIONS APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 11/28/94, with attachments. Planner Gomery discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Larry Weinstein, Design-Build Solutions, was present to explain his clients project. The commission's suggestions at study session were appreciated and the now proposed reconfiguration of the paridng lot for 29 spaces is preferable and allows more turnazound space. The two trees that aze to be removed will be replaced in the front of the building with two 30" box trees. Tfiere were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted this application is in accord with the general plan. There is an abundance of on-street parldng in this area. C. Deal then moved approval of this application, by resolution, with findings incorporated by reference and with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door with a total of 29 parking stalls (22 standard stalls, 5 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors' October 17, 1994 memo, and the Pazks Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; and 4) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. -3- � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes - Motion was seconded by C. Kelly and passed on a 7-0 voice vote. November 28, 1994 7. TEN�'ATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAPS TO RESUBDIVIDE EXISTING PARCELS INTO TH�tEE (3) PARCELS AT 1500 TO 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 (CHRISTOPHER ice staff report, 11/28/94, with attachments. ACE Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Works Department comments, and study meeting questions. �vo conditions were suggested for Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Dan MacLeod was present to answer any questions from the commission. There were none. There was no other public comment and the public hearing was closed. C. 7acobs recommended approval of these Tentative and Final Parcel Maps to City Council with the following conditions: 1) replace or repair all damaged sidewalk, driveway, and curb and gutter fronting these sites to the City Engineer's approval; and 2) approval should be as both the Tentative and Final Parcel Map��and staff will see that the proper Final Map is recorded. 1ldotion was seconded by C. Mink and passed on a 7-O voice vote. Appeal procetiures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of Novernber 21, 1994. �JOtirRNMENT Chairperson Galligan welcomed the new Mayor, Marti Knight. The meeting was adjourned in Loving Memory of Bill Key at 8:40 P.M. r.�rtrrasii.zs Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary � „�.--,�. . ��P (�t#� rr� ��zr�tn�ttxnE CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD r[� (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 9 4010-3 99 7 rwx (4i5) 342-B3B6 February 7, 1995 Larry Weinstein DESIGN - BUILD SOLUTIONS 200 Poinsettia Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Mr. Weinstein, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the February 13, 1995 Planning Commission approval of your Parking Variance amendment application became effective February 6, 1995. This application was to allow a variance amendment for the total number of stalls and compact number of stalls at 1525 Adrian Road, zoned M-1. The February 13, 1995 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 10, 1995 and November 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door and a tree to be saved at the southwest driveway entrance, for a total of 28 parking stalls (22 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2. that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 and January 12, 1995 memos, the Chief Building Inspectors' October 17, 1994 memo, and the Parks Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3. that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; and 4. that a planter area with proper irrigation shall be created to support the tree and should the tree die it shall be replaced with at least a 24” box tree; 5. that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. � T,.e. ,� e.,r �. v.. . . � ti� . � February 7, 1995 1525 Adrian Road page -2- Al1 site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. Sincerely yours, ���(�L� Marg ret Monroe City Planner MM:smg isunnxz.�. c: Gary Hirsch Anthony and Anne Tsou Chief Building Inspector Dir. of Parks Chief Deputy Valuation, (Lot 1 2& NWLY 40 Ft of APN: 025=-273-010) Assessor's Office Lot 3 Block 7 Less SWLY 20 Ft.; �; _� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1995 C. Deal noted this project will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and is not obtrusive, the roof ridge of the stair well would closely match the new roof ridge. He then moved approval of the this application, by resolution, with the following conditions; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 28, 1994, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and amended by Building Data Sheet and South/West Elevation dated January 17, 1995; 2) that the property owner shall receive an encroachment pernut for the fencing on the public right-of-way; and 3) that the project shall meet all Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Code requirements as amended by the City. Motions was seconded by C. Kelly and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Following the vote the commissioners noted that they hoped the applicant would consider the safety issues and modify the design accordingly. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 (GARY HIIZSCH, PROPERTY OWNER AND LARRY WEINSTEIN DESIGN - BUILD SOLUTIONS APPLICAI�''�'� Reference staff report, Planning Department suggested. 1/23/95, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, comments, and study meeting questions. If approved four conditions were Chm. Galligan opened the public hearing. Larry Weinstein, 200 Poinsettia, San Mateo expressed a preference that the tree remain, it is one of few on the street, it is a nice specimen in good health, they would develop the space that was to be a parking space as a planter area with landscaping and water to support the tree. He agreed to a condition specifying the tree be replaced if it dies. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted this is a good project that will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, she then moved approval of the this 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 and date stamped January 10, 1995 and November 21, 1994, Site Plan revised to show access to the roll up door and a tree to be saved at the southwest driveway entrance, for a total of 28 pazldng stalls (22 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls); 2) that the conditions of the City Engineers' October 7, 1994 and January 12, 1995 memos, the Chief Building Inspectors' October 17, 1994 memo, and the Pazks Directors' October 31, 1994 memo shall be met; 3) that the business shall be open 8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with a maximum of fifteen employees including the proprietor, on site, at any one time; and 4) that a planter area with proper irrigation shall be created to support the tree and should the tree die it shall be replaced with at least a 24" box tree; 5) that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motions was secondeti by C. Ellis and approved on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MIMITES February 12, 1996 amount of total sales seems to be key; key issue how to deal with a high volume of take-out from a single business. Take- out OK but classes are not; allow high volume take-out to replace sit down, but not allow retail with classes causing lazger parldng turnover (gym use). The number of customers a day and number of employees increased substantially during the review process; how valid is an approval before the business has experience. A real problem with on street litter is the tables on the sidewalk and the fact that they are not bussed by the business; take-out the same as retail, want people to buy food and get out." a' �,'. � AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved. It was noted that Item #1, 260 El Camino Real is continued to the March 11,1996 meeting, and Item #2, 2 Anita Road has been continued to the February 26, 1996 meeting. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. / ITEMS FOR STUDY / 1. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A SNACK SHOP IN THE CHEVRON STATION AT 260 EL CAMIINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (CHEVRON, USA, INC., PROP�RTY OWNER AND NANETTE NAMES, REPRESENTING R. H. LEE 8c ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTI. APPLICATION CONTINUED TO MARCH 11 I996 MEETING 2. APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 2 ArIITA ROAD, ZONED R-3, (MARK AI�TD SANDRA CURTIS, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICAN'1�. APPLICATION CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26 1996 MEETING. 3. APFLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF OFFICE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1, (ANTHONY AND ANrTIE TSOU, PROPERTY OWNER AND GREG CAPLAN APPLICANT) Requests: what is unusual other than the shape of the property, the applicant should respond; are they required to meet ADA requirements, how do they; do a parldng lot occupancy count, how many spaces are in the lot now; landscaping on David frontage needs maintenance; how 5•E MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, Ciry of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on 'hiesday, February 12, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL \ Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Key, Mink, Wellford and 7acobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher and Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES - Commission asked that the criteria for percentage of take-out- be expanded to read: "Commissioner comment: It was noted that there is no criteria for what percentage of business constitutes take-out; said no to Gymboree gym because of parldng impact when as a support to retail sales of clothes, it benefits the mix of businesses on the avenue better; percentage of take-out from this site seems big, healthy fast food is very populaz, have 9 employees when a non-take-out restaurant might have 3 or 4, staff alone indicates the greater volume of traffic over a non-take-out restaurant; have 200 or more visitors a day, in part because of take-out, has a large impact on parking; when eating establishments were limited in number but allowed without parking on the avenue, it was assumed the more traditional, sit down restaurant not take- out; this site is designed as a take-out, but they did not get a take-out permit in advance of getting a building permit; have given take-out permits to others based on litter control, no basis in code to say no; more traditional sit down restaurant patrons occupy a parldng space for an hour or more, less turn over; all restaurant seem to have some take-out, the CITY OF BURZ,INGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES Fehruary 12, 1996 would additional landscaping be maintained, schedule, irrigation location; need more detail on tree, how can parking be relaid out around the tree increasing number of spaces, would this affect the number of compact stalls; applicant has revised request 3 times in a year, is this the last conference area needed for employees, and what would be the space needs for future growth; Item set for public hearing Wednesday, February 26 1996. ACTION ITEMS 4. APPLICATION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND THREE (3) SIGN EXCEPTTONS, AT 1300-1304 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED G1 SUBAREA A, (RENATO ROCCUCCI, ET AL, PROPERTY OWNERS AND , GURDIAL 70HAL, APPLICANT. Reference staff report, 2.12.96, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the request and reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. ` \ CA Coleman expla%ned it is appropriate if commission wants to require removal of the roof sign in approving the Master Signage Program because it is part of the sites signage request and the removal of the awniri� would compel the removal or folding back of the support bar. Commission discussed the condition of the roof sign including broken lighting and need for paint. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Gurdial Johal noted he has owned the Wine Shop since 1993. He asked that the comit�ission consider the signage allotment as if these were two separate businesses. He noted that`the window sign they wished to retain idenrifies the business. Wine Stop, as well as shipping costs�and prices. It has been there since 1993. There were no other comments and the public hearing���vas closed. C. Mink moved that this application be denied without prejudice, stating that any exception allowing the roof sign would constitute a grant of special privilege not given, other businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Approval this motion would require the removal o�,the roof sign. D'uection was given to the applicant that if denied then this application could come back with signage conforming to cunent code and get a sign permit. Motion was seconded by C. Wellford. On the motion the commissioners noted that at the study meeting the applicant was �sked for additional justification for,retention of the roof sign and the size of the master signage p ram, he provided no additional reasons for consideration; the roof sign constitutes a grant of sp�ial privilege because others don't have and cannot have, giving the applicant an unfair advantag�. The roof sign, if fixed up, would cQntribute to the character -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Febntary 12, 1996 of Burlingame Avenue, it's a part of the historic fabric, but not in its present condition; the era �of the roof sign is past; having two distinct stores within a single store front should be cansidered, there is a difference between a liquor store and a wine store. The signs on the awnings cannot be seen from the sidewalk, in fact can only be seen from Pazk, would like to see a program closer to sign code requirements. Sign code was revised because of the proliferation of signs and the fact that they hid the shops; the roof sign is inappropriate today, few remain today, present approach in this application is inappropriate; application needs to go far beyond what is there, need a significant explanation of what they will do to the roof sign to refurbish it in order to retain the antique, how they will reduce other signage to better meet cunent code requirements with the roof sign retained and what aze the special circumstances for retention of the sign. There aze lots of awnings on Burlingame Avenue but not lots of signs on them, these signs can be easily removed. Antique is usually defined as 100 years old. Since there aze two stores on the site it might be appropriate to consider the total signage of 100 SF rather than 60 SF dictated by the street frontage. The Commission called for the question. The motion to deny without prejudice amended (with the agreement of the second) to include the removal of the roof sign and submittal of a new master sign plan within 60 days or the action would change to denial and the city would proceed with code enforcement failed on a 3-4 (Cers. Deal, Ellis, Galligan and Key dissenting) roll call vote. C. Key then moved that this application be denied without prejudice and that the revised application include a plan to renovate the roof sign including an estimate of the cost of repair and the repair program for the roof sign, the new master plan should incorporate the roof sign into the overall signage program, and that a resubmittal of a new master sign plan should be submitted within 60 days or the denial without prejudice would change to a denial and the city would proceed with code enforcement. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Motion was seconded by C. Deal and passed on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. PLANNER REPORTS - CP reviewed City Council regular meeting of February 5, 1996. - Comrnission asked that take-out policy be agendized for the 7oint PC/CC Meeting. / � SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC February 14, 1996 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, RE�E� �E� F�B 2 0 1996 CITY OF BURLIN PLANNIN� pEPAMF Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions raised by your panel at the Study Meeting of February 12, 1996. Below you will find direct and accurate answers to the questions posed. 1) What is unusual besides the configuration of the lot? We need to work close to the airport. Our location is perfect for our business and we like the city of Burlingame. If we cannot provide first ciass office space to our current employees, we may have to consider moving to a nearby city. We know the real estate available in Burlingame from our search for this building and can't find any location better than 1525 Adrian. We do not want to move, but we have a standard for working space that has not yet been reached in this building. It can be reached, with your approval. The hardship we face is that the current office space in this building does not include an area directly adjacent to our warehouse. The interaction between our office staff and warehouse staff is paramount to running a successful operation. It can't be achieved without being allowed to construct the requested office space. 2) Have ADA handicapped requirements been met for the restroom area? Currently, we are not up to ADA code. We are able to alter the configuration of that area of our office to meet ADA requirements. This has been verbally confirmed to me by our architect. Should our project be approved, the plans submitted to the Building Department will show the changes from our current layout. �525 ADRIAN ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL:(4�5)259-9181 FAX: (415) 2539187 '1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDII�IARK TRANSPORTATION INC. B"R��N�AME,�A94a,o TEL:(4�5)259-9181 FAX: (4� 5) 259-9187 3) What about the condition of the landscaping on the David Road side? Without question, the landscaping on David Road is in a sad state of disrepair. However, the irrigation system is in place and can be easily hooked-up. As mentioned by Commissioner Galligan, our Adrian Road landscaping is well maintained and pleasant. We can and will certainly bring the David Road side up to par with the Adrian Road side and we will keep it that way. We will comply with the Parks Director's request for six 15 gallon trees. We can make an irrigation p�an and submit it to the Parks Director if so required. 4) Can we reconfigure the whole parking lot to yield more spaces? Our architect (N.N. Gabbay) has measured and determined we can actually have 12 regular spaces and 21 compact spaces (without moving the tree) for a total of 33 spaces. So the variance hinges on the number of compact spaces allowed instead of the number of actual spaces allowed. 5) Can we leave the tree standing? As evidenced by our past variance request, we would like to save the tree. We were only considering its removal in order to gain a space and thereby come closer to having the spaces actually required by our ratio of warehouse to office space. Now that we can reach 33 spaces, it seems that the tree can be left standing. 6) Why did the second conference room become permanent work stations? We intended to house staff in the second conference room as a temporary measure until our office could be expanded, As the expansion has not yet happened, the conference room is used as a desk area. We really do need the conference room as explained in our letter by Wayland Lu dated January 1 1, 1996. We need to get our staff out of the conference room and into the space we are planning. It will increase our efficiency and morale in the office. 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDINARK TRANSPORTATION INC. B�R��NGAME.�A94o,o TEL:(415)259-918� FAX: (415) 259-9�87 7) Why the difference in the number of employees on this application and our previous application? The last application did not consider the warehouse personnel needed to handle our new warehouse. Now we have those people on staff and can handle our current volume. As mentioned previously, our clerk staff will not need to increase as computers will do a bulk of the paperwork. Our only future staff hiring might be an outside sales person and one or two additional warehouse employees. Other points: 1) Parking Lot Count will be submitted to the Planning Department subsequentiy. 2) We would agree to have attached to our deed that any square footage above 20% of our total building space be removed with the sale of the building. We cannot think of any better way to show how sincerely we wish to move on with this project while at the same time making the Commission feel comfortable that the privileges granted to us will not be abused by future unknown parties. Currently, our intention is not to move from this building once the project is completed. However, since the future cannot be so easily predicted, we are willing to accept the deed attachment as a means of moving toward completion of the project. 3) Commissioner Galligan noted that we are a light intensity usage site. We ask you to come by at any time and see for yourself. You will neve� find our parking lot full. You will neve�find trucks lined up on the street to get to our dock. "Never" is a strong word, but because it is accurate we can state it here. Our customers and visitors will always have space c�vailable to them on our lots for parking. We only wish to add a few walls to the inside of our building so our staff can work more efficiently in the resulting office space. Such construction would not have any effect on our neighbors, the neighborhood, or future occupants of this building. 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. B�R��N�AME,�A94a,o TEL: (415) 2549�81 FAX: (415) 259-9187 5) We can sincerely and emphatically state that should this project be allowed, the commission can be assured that Speedmark and the owners of this building will not step in front of the commission for years to come. If we have to assign an actual number of years, we will. We'll do whatever the Commission deems necessary in order to finish this project and allow all of us to spend our valuable time on others issues. We appreciate your consideration and hope for your positive response. � cerely, � Gr Ca lan Coordinator 1525 ADRIAN ROAD SPEEDMARK TRANSPORTATION INC. BURLINGAME,CA940�0 TEL:(415)259-9181 FAX: (415) 259-9187 1525 ADR/AN ROAD: PARK/NG L OT COUNT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1996 9:30 A.M. 14 CARS 1:00 P.M. 1 1 CARS 4:30 P.M. 12 CARS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1996 9:30 A.M. 12 CARS 1:00 P.M. 10 CARS 4:30 P.M. 1 1 CARS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 9:30 A.M. 14 CARS 1:00 P.M. 12 CARS ��C�I!/E� FEB %: 1996 CITY OF BURLIIVGAME PLANIVIr�� �F;:T. 4:30 P.M. 12 CARS t • : ♦ /54� ���- ` • ' ;, `. �� : . :w �;�"�' -�, .,', HDR��w/ �� .. , 1525 isll �: : 4 ,. � Q n0) K , �- � �������•_ � � ' i � ��� , �� - � � _, ' � � ? 1 s � ~ � , � 1�� - ��� - - .. � . � � � � `�y y �1.. ; ! f� -� ,� �� : . 4 � �:. '" � 'a_ „ � . �,� O '-� � > ..:� -s�= Q 0 a� a- ,,w • �2cs{ o i So/ � - - • �', �_ , - 7 , �� ;i - - t T A �_ r a y � � � ��' ��� ] " F ... ,.: �-�� . � � � � �� �� � i i T ` /53a f'�OL�—��JS v � Y �' • I 52 4- _ �� � � � `� � � /� �• � � � ,.� . �� J' �` Roq � �— , '� >y . �, � -�, . 1 ��-����' ��� - I /�� � ,� , F;;..� .,�� _ �..- - � t ,� .�•• � �- -e� � r� ��� � �� ''�`�``�'`�r : � �.� f , t �, ' �� �'���� ' T �:,:-•- � , � ,�. � CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRINIltOSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY. FEBRUARY 26, 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 1525 ADRIAN ROAD APN: 025-273-010 AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE OFFICE SPACE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES AND PERCENT COMPACT AT 1525 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED M-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for infoi-ming their tenants about this notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT 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 special permit for office area <20% and a pazkin� variance amendment for total number of stalls and compact number of stalls at 1525 Adrian Road, zoned M-1, APN: 025-273-010 ; property owner: Anthony and Annie Tsou. 1549 DeAnza Blvd ; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 26. 1996 , at which time it revieweti 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 categorical exemption per Article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1(a), Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances: and 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11 (b) consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to; (b) Small parking lots is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit and parking variance amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attacheti hereto. Findings for such special permit and parking variance 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, Karen Kev , 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 26th day of February , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, special permit and parking variance amendment 1525 ADRIAN ROAD effective MARCH 4, 1996 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 11, 1996 Sheet A.1, Site Plan with a total of 30 parking stalls (24 standard stalls, 4 compact stalls and 2 disabled accessible stalls) and Sheet A.2, Ground Floor Plan with a ma�cimum of 6,400 SF of office area (29 %); 2. that the conditions of the Parks Directors' January 25, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Inspectors' February 14, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the business shall be open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with a maximum of seventeen (17) employees including the proprietor on site at any one time, if the number of employees on site at any one time should exceed 17 or the property should be sold or leased to another tenant then the parking variance shall become void; 4. that the city shall be notiiied within 30 days of a change in occupancy (number of people on site exceed 17), property sale, or lease of premise to a new tenant so that the status of the parking variance can be reviewerl, the removal of all office space exceeding twenty (20) percent has been accomplished and to verify that the on site pazking meets the requirements of the uses within the building; 5. that the use and any improvements to the building or site for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.