The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1251 Broadway - Staff Report1 �l v � CITV �� O� 4GENDA BURLINGAME I T EM a �-� �� STAFF REP4RT ""T�. 3_16-92 1�me �� r D A T E To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ��- BY �ATE: MARCH 6, 1992 -_ - FROM: CITY PLANNER BYPROVED APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD S�B�E�T: ESTABLISHMENT AND THREE SPACE PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SPECIALTY RESTAURATIT AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAT 1�RF.A RECOMMENDATION• The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and findings for a conditional use permit and variance are included at the back of the staff report.) Conditions considered by the Planning Commission were: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 26, 1991 Floor Plan and Site Plan; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's December 27, 1991 memo (provide handicap restrooms) and the Fire Marshal's January 6, 1992 memo (if building renovations exceed $50,000 the building will require a sprinkler system) shall be met; 3. that this business shall operate Monday through Friday 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. and Saturday and Sunday 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with a maximum of ten employees, including the owner, on site at one time; 4. that the project shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors on neighboring properties; 5. that an enclosed and ventilated garbage storage area shall be identified at the rear of the site and that garbage cans shall be kept in the storage area until such time garbage is picked up and upon pick-up cans shall immediately be returned to the storage area; 6. that no banner signs shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall obtain building permits for all signage; 7. that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and t r � :� , A 2 8. that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six months (August, 1992) or upon complaint. �lanning Commission Action At their meeting on February 10, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-3 (Commissioners Ellis, Graham and Kelly dissenting, Commissioner Deal abstaining) on a motion to deny the request for a use permit for an eating establishment and a three space parking variance at this location. Under the rules of the Commission a tie vote is a denial of a request. At the public hearing staff clarified that the ordinance allows a maximum of 21 eating establishments in the Broadway area, there are presently 20. An eating establishment is a place that sells food and/or beverage at retail and has table(s) and chair(s). In their discussion the Commissioners noted that many of the comments from the public were about changing the retail composition of Broadway and noted that the business people working through the Chamber of Commerce would be more effective than the city in doing this; they should join together to work for the type of street they want; Broadway is a more local serving area than Burlingame Avenue so on Broadway the people want to park closer; if any business is successful on Broadway there will be a lot more traffic; this restaurant is not a destination restaurant, it may be a redundant use (just like some other) but that is a marketplace not a planning problem; the site has been vacant for a long time and no other retail uses expressed an interest in leasing it; others noted Broadway has an additional traffic problem because the street is also an entrance to the freeway; there are residential areas close to Broadway which would have to absorb the parking and traffic impacts of this use; operation of this use at commute hours will be detrimental to the traffic flow in the vicinity and to the safety of cars and people moving through the area, this is particularly so because Broadway is an access to the freeway; the site is on a corner with restricted traffic and the narrow, one way street pattern compounds the circulation problems. BACKGROUND• Steven Webb, applicant and Kwok Leung and Chui Fong Wong, property owners are reguesting a special permit for a food establishment at 1249A Broadway, zoned C-1 (Code Sec. 25.36.038-2). The change in use of this site from a shoe store and real estate office to an eating establishment represents an intensification of use so a three space parking variance is also required (Code Sec. 25.70.030). The proposed 1,265 SF coffee shop will have 36 to 40 seats. There is no on-site parking. The previous uses required four spaces, the eating establishment use would require seven. The new business would be open Monday through Friday 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Saturday and Sunday 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. He would have a maximum of 10 employees on site at one time, including the owner. The business would sell coffee beans and coffee making equipment, foods related to coffee, coffee in cups and 1 ► � • ! ' ? 3 light breakfast and luncheon items. The facility will be handicap accessible. Several letters regarding this application were received after the Planning Commission staff report was prepared. One, Joana Glud (February 10, 1992) was in opposition. A second (February 13, 1992) from Mary Ann Titus requests her name be withdrawn from the previous letters of opposition to the project because she misunderstood and thought the request was to expand the total number of eating establishments allowed on Broadway. Finally, the applicant notes that this is a new and independent business not associated with any other existing such coffee shop. EXHIBITS; - Action Alternatives, Variance Findings, Special Permit Findings - Council minutes, March 2, 1992, continuing appeal hearing - Richard L. Pierce, attorney letter to Judith Malfatti (February 25, 1992) requesting appeal be set for March 16, 1992 - Richard L. Pierce letter to Judith Malfatti (February 13, 1992) requesting appeal hearing - Margaret Monroe letter to Steven Webb, March 3, 1992) notifying of appeal hearing - Mary Ann Titus letter to City Council, February 13, 1992 - Planning Commission minutes, February 10, 1992 - Joana C. Glud letter to Margaret Monroe, February 10, 1992 - Planning Commission staff report, February 10, 1992, with attachments - Notice of Appeal Hearing for March 2, 1992 - Second Notice of Appeal Hearing for March 16, 1992 - Council Resolution - Project Plans - Attached separately 47 letters from merchants regarding application at 1249A Broadway 1�IIri/ s cc: Steven Webb Richard L. Pierce, Esq. Kwok Leung & Chui Fong Wong (property owners) Frederick R. Strathdee, architect ACTION ALTERNATIVES City Council may vote in favor of an applicant�s request. If the action is a variance, use permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant�s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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; (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. SPECIAL PERMIT FINDINGS (1) 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; (2) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (3) 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 qeneral vicinity. BIIRLINGAME, CALZFORNZA March 2, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers after a dedication ceremony for the Plaque for 30 Year Employees in the lobby. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Frank Pagliaro. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Pledge was led by former council member Gloria Barton. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COUNCIL ABSENT: MINUTES KNZGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO HARRISON The minutes of the Study Meeting of February 12 and the Regular Meeting of February 19, 1992 were unanimously approved on motion of Councilwoman O'Mahony, second by Councilman Lembi. ASSEMBLYWOMAN JACKIE SPEIER Mayor Pagliaro recognized Assemblywoman Speier who lived in Burlingame for many years; she noted that with reapportionment she was our assembly person; told of difficulties with the State budget deficit; there will be a challenging year ahead. `�MaYor Pagliaro continued an appeal hearing to the March 16 meetinq at the request of the appellant. CONTINUE APPEAL HEARING. 1249A BROADWAY AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR CARIBBEAN GARDENS. 1306 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY City Attorney reviewed his memo of February 27, 1992 which recom- mended council approve the permit until July 1, 1992. The applicants intend to operate a night club on a Caribbean theme at the site of the former Safari Run. Attached to his report were comments from the Police Department and the Planning Department which suggested private security service be provided; litter at the site was a problem previously; questioned whether there was dancing on the mezzanine before and the number of seats to be provided; and concern about lighting in the parking area. The property owner had sent a letter stating that more lighting would be installed in the parking area and litter problem would be handled. City Attorney recommended conditions that (1) private security be provided, (2) liqhting of parking areas be improved, and (3) litter control be maintained at site. The permit would be reviewed at the annual review of all amusement permits in June or earlier if there are any problems or complaints. Mayor Paqliaro asked if previous business had permission for parking at adjacent businesses, staff said parking after hours is "catch as catch can;" he also asked about safety of dancing on the nezza- nine, staff noted fire departnent has reviewed this request and approved it. Councilwoman Knight hoped their security would police all the parking lots. The applicant, Orwin Miller, was present along with business partners and family nembers; council relayed its concerns about the previous problems with businesses on this site; site has a bad reputation; have had virtual riots at the site; he responded to council questions about previous experience in business in P7ew York; asked if Miller planned to advertise on radio; recalled previous complaints about music beinq so loud it was heard in the adjacent movie theaters, it is a different type music and ampli- AGE�TEM 5 A RICHARD L. PIERCE ATTORNEY AT LAW P. O. BOX 712 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 TELEPHONE: (4]5) 361-8076 February 25, 1992 Ms. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Malfatti: ��ITG. DATE: 3/2/92 Re: Date of Appeal to City Council of Denial by Planning Commission of Request for Special Permit and Parking Variance for 1249A Broadway This will confirm our recent telephone conversation whereby I informed you that applicant Steve Webb elects to appeal the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council at the meeting scheduled for March 16, 1992, instead of the meeting to be held on March 2, 1992. As we were recently informed, all members of the Council will not be present on March 2, 1992, and for that reason we elect to be heard on March 16, 1992. If you need any additional information, telephone me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, �— ichard L. Pierce please feel free to RLP/mkw RICHARD L. PIERCE Attorney at Law P.O. Box 712 Redwood City, CA 94064 Telephone and Fax: (415) 361-8076 ��E� �ED Ff � � � �992 �rr oF eu KAAfN/ly� ��IHE _ . .� February 13, 1992 Ms. Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 •- � ': �" ::�� ' r. � I .� . L <. _ C� ��t�, _...._ ...._.._ Re: Appeal to City Council of Denial by Planning Commission of Request for Special Permit and Parking Variance for 1249A Broadway Dear Ms. Malfatti: This letter will serve as notice of appeal by Applicant Steven Webb of the denial by the Burlingame Planning Commission on February l0, 1992 of Mr. Webb's application for a Special Permit for a food establishment and a parking variance at 1249A Broadway. We request that we be given the opportunity to appear before the City Council at their schedule March 2, 1992 meeting. If you need any additional information, please telephone me at your earliest convenience. Thank you. �-� � � C��}- C� y��. Si ely, � ,�- ichard�L. ierce -_� ��_ �.C'�.E V-Z.�� Q�.0 ��Z'.�.��iYYC.e CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 March 3, 1992 Mr. Steven Webb 1633 Madison Avenue Redwood City, CA 94061 Dear Mr. Webb: At the City Council meeting of March 2, 1992 the Council continued the appeal hearing on your project at 1249A Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area. A public hearing will be held on Monday, March 16, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. We look forward to seeing you there. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �Qi��'��' ' "" � �- Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Richard L. Pierce, Esq. Kwok Wong, Property Owner Frederick Strathdee, Architect City Clerk TH� �I LD IRIS 1324 BROADWAY AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 415 • 344-4489 �- %��,�� ' �f . �z� �� l r � � f �: .1 =x i.: �� °-,;. �- �FCEIV �.E E p��r, /� ; i y� z e _141992 'r�VN H��Gq,�E �� c�� %'��°� � /° � %'�2-c.�-yr.� p� ,a.��,�% � ��.c�'..�.s�r, �r� �i-+�.�- ,� • • � 7 Tf _ !�- �,�5 l�� / � � .C�f�2. � � c'.'��<:� . / o� �`� �O-a-�w C ��z� `L .�lj�-cs-e -SJ�D'�l � u��`�-�-8-� � �`��' L / �� ?�,�..�,( -�.� t"� , - a� z�- ' � �P �� ► c� f� �"� ��. � Z�� ' � �.S �{� � ��.-�-�+� �c�� . �, , . ' � � ��,�� Z� � °��, �-�� -��- � ��, . _ . _ �� , �► , �2 � � �:.�� w-P � � s/�, . `� , G� ,�� c�.a �,�-�� . �-�c� � � �:�:�' � j�-� � , � � ��/! w a._- ��,�''`r'� G L�C�bG��f%+�� r � �" �'Zt-GJ G'" � �� ,�'�, C��- i�� / ,, 6Yvx�� '' � Cv,r.c�c�✓� c� �� Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 10, 1992 to a hospital, there is sufficient parking, the service will fill a need; the M-1 district is in transition, today there is less warehouse activity. She then moved for approval of the special permit-�by resolu�tion with the following conditions: (1) that the projec�t,,,sYf"all be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning De�rtment and date stamped January 3, 1992 (8-1/2" x 11") Floor Pl �''and (8-1/2" x 14") Plot Plari;-..(2) that the medical clinic parki�g' spaces shall be marked and directional signage for the media� clinic shall be provided; (3) that fhe emergency medical clinic shall operate Monday through Friday 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with a maximum of three employees; (4) that the proje�t shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that this permit and on-site parking shall,,.�i"e' reviewed for compliance in one year (February, 1993) and/or upo��complaint., Motion was seconded by C. Graham . R�r� ,,�� Comments in favor o�`��he motion: another wave of the future is putting services closer t6�the people who use them, this will be good for the industrial area'�and reduce congestion; this is an ancillary use, they must comply.�with all health and safety requirements for installation of the X-ra ''machine. Mo ' n was approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Mink voting no. App�al ocedures were advised. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT - 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1. BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Reference staff report, 2/10/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, required findings, study meeting questions. The following communications were noted: 47 letters in opposition signed by Broadway merchants and February 7, 1992 letter in opposition from Joana C. Glud, 1130 Paloma Avenue with a business at 1134 Broadway. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to a question, staff advised improvement costs are determined at the time a building permit application is made. Chm. Kelly opened the public hearing. Richard L. Pierce, attorney representing the applicant, Steven Webb and his architect, Frederick Strathdee, was present. He advised they would comply with all the suggested conditions of approval; this proposal will comply with all the required findings; the applicant was the general contractor for similar coffee shops in San Mateo and San Carlos, this experience led him to want to operate one himself, the other cities have been very pleased with the addition of these coffee shops; the proposed site has been vacant over a year, the property owner feels the proposed establishment will upgrade that portion of Broadway. Regarding the need for a parking variance, there are three public lots, P, Q and R, available nearby providing a total of 72 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 10, 1992 spaces in addition to available on-street parking, they do not believe this business will add to traffic problems, it is a unique establishment and will enhance the Broadway area. Frederick Strathdee, architect, stated the applicant was fortunate to find a location on Broadway, this business will help in creating an upturn for business in the area; the facility will be handicap accessible, many in the area are not; it will provide a quality product and service. Architect distributed pictures of the coffee shop facilities in San Mateo and San Carlos. Applicant advised the planters along Paloma are existing and do not encroach into the sidewalk area; he hopes to get a clientele among other shoppers on Broadway, patrons in the other two cities are very often people on their way to work, picking up something to go; it is not a franchise; he hopes to have walk-in trade, people stopping by for a snack or simple lunch, something to go along with a cup of coffee. They did a personal survey and considered what is unique, it would be the only food establishment in the area which opens before 11:00 A.M. that has handicap facilities; they plan to reserve handicap seating in the rear. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition: the incoming president of the Broadway Merchants Association (Broadway Stationers, 1174 Broadway); a resident at 956 Laguna Avenue, (previously had a retail store on Broadway, moved to Burlingame Avenue); one of the owners, Il Piccolo Caffe (1219 Broadway); Ross Bruce, AVR Realty (resident, 500 Almer); Peter Campanile, Tower Deli.(1184 Broadway). Their concerns: this shop will be much larger with more seats than the ice cream shop it is replacing, size of this establishment seems excessive for the area; parking/traffic impacts, Broadway is also basically a freeway entrance; one of the existing restaurants on Paloma has two busloads of people coming to Broadway every afternoon; the spaces in city lots are generally filled up at present, applicant is proposing 10 employees, where will they park, customers of the Broadway area shops cannot find parking now; there are too many eating establishments in the area now and there is no need for another coffee shop; there is already one that has a successful growing business with a loyal clientele and the same menu choices applicant is proposing, started this business for a long term investment; want to improve the business mix on Broadway with more retail shops, it is still a service oriented street, allowing a new food establishment will not help mix of business. Speaking in rebuttal, applicant's attorney noted Broadway has too many vacancies now, this business will be a magnet to draw people to the area, this site has been vacant for a year, no other retail use has proposed to be a tenant; not all of the applicant's 10 to 12 employees will be on the site at one time and they will be asked to park farther away. Applicant Webb commented not everyone coming to his cafe would be driving, there would be people walking to work, to the bus or train. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 10, 1992 Christie Burns of San Bruno added, in opposition, that there were some inaccuracies in the applicant's statements, there are five places which are open before 11:00 A.M., three are coffee type places, how will applicant control where employees park, all they will be doing is taking away a piece of the existing business pie on Broadway, not adding to it. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. CP advised an eating establishment is an establishment which sells food and/or beverages at retail and provides tables and chairs, (the number of such establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area is 21) and discussed food establishment regulations in the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue areas. C. Deal advised he would abstain from discussion and voting since he lives close to Broadway and has had a business association with the owner of this building. C. Galligan commented on the application and made findings: a successful retail establishment would create as much parking shortfall as a successful restaurant, testimony this evening seemed to be from people with long standing businesses on Broadway, this proposal is in�pressive and it would add quality to Broadway; have avoided Broadway for many years because it was too dangerous, if this business is successful it will put a lot more cars on the street; it is a redundant use, there is a similar existing establishment in the immediate vicinity, this proposal could divide the number of existing customers; intensity of use would be substantially greater than the eating establishment it would replace; parking could impact the residential neighborhood. C. Galligan moved to deny the special permit and parking variance, seconded by C. Jacobs. The Chair complimented the people in the audience for coming out this evening, he suggested their comments were about changing the composition of Broadway and noted the city cannot do this, the business people themselves working with the Chamber of Commerce should get together and work for the type of street they want Broadway to become. Comment on the motion: share the concerns about parking but do not have a need to go to Broadway often and look for a parking space, Burlingame Avenue is different and has changed dramatically, people come from outside the area to shop on Burlingame Avenue, the same thing could be done for Broadway, there will be a lot of traffic if a business is successful on Broadway, the merchants speaking this evening seemed to be sending the wrong message if they want progress; the city had long discussions/studies of restaurants and finally reached a designated number of eating establishments for the Burlingame Avenue CoYnmercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area; do not consider this proposal a destination restaurant, there are some on Burlingame Avenue, on Broadway and on the bay, this is a redundant use but that's the marketplace and there is no way to determine the saturation point, do �l � Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes not think it will have a great incremental traf f ic . Page 6 February 10, 1992 impact on parking or Further comment: concerned about the intensity of this use, parking problems are not only the problems of Broadway itself but it is the entrance to the freeway, it is not fair to compare Broadway with Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame Avenue has more room, there are apartments surrounding Broadway, this coffee shop would be a nice addition but the area is too dense; the site has been vacant for a long time, any type of business could have gone in and now someone wants to come in with a coffee shop, do not think applicant's business will have a greater impact. Speaking to the required findings, with an establishment of this size, particularly operating during the commute hours, it will be detrimental to the vicinity and general welfare, it is unfair to compare Broadway with Burlingame Avenue, Broadway is too close to the freeway with a restricted intersection, it will impact circulation, streets are narrow with impossible circulation patterns, the project is good but let�s not make the problems any worse. Application was denied on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Graham and Kelly dissenting, C. Deal abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised: Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:06 P.M. 5. \REVOCATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A HEALTH CLUB AT �INCKLEY ROAD _ 7[n�rFn �,r_� Reference ff report, 2/10/92, with attachments. CP M�foe reviewed history of t' health club use on the site and aff's repeated attempts to obt 'n compliance with the condi ' ns of the special permit, specifical requirements for handica acilities and striping of the parking lot. etter dated Febru 7, 1992 from Thomas A. Nuris, applicants� attor was noted. felt it would be appropriate to set a time limit for co etion o all violations and that 45 days after receipt of a building pe it s suggested by the attorney was too long given�what has transpired Commission/staff discuss' : appli t striped the lot but not according to the plans f July 2, 1 , striping will have to be redone; regarding han 'cap accessible fac ities, the plans submitted February 6, 1992 w e revisions to do the things in a different manner; handicap quirements of the UBC sho d have been in place prior to applic s' opening the business; the J 2, 1991 demolition plans were ch ed against the schematic plans whi were approved by the Plannin ommission and found to be in compliance, applicants have submitted�dditional revised plans for the handicap impr ements to the restroom� and locker rooms (February 6, 1992) and are req�esting 45 days for completion after a building permit is issued. � I /`�! � r �/ `�/�� ' V ri� �F8 1 0 1492 �� ,1� �� ,��; CITY OF BURLING�4ME � i PLANf�ING DE�T � �z�-��t/ �� tv � �i�� / �U:.�,, � ��-�,c�� . �/�� ' Z�% �.. G'C C�l'i�� ,i� . � ✓�'G%�Z,�11 �� C��-- L� ,� p. �,� �-c./ ,c�,' v Cvu�� -C�� /�� `�1-r�% c� , � �i� � `� �'� /d S�9- � ��l�c/ . ��., �' � � � . , � ��u, �� c� �� G�rn�- � �� ,�� Q� � c.�1,��2r�� QL�� - �c?/�> � � � % Liy�J G�� •� � J— 2 / �� '�-� �" U/L-�`�� , ' j� � G �J 2�, � ��LG�z�C,L�,r1 _ �� s � . J G� �� _ �� J C �,u� �,��.,� � ��.Q �� . � �v �� c� .�� ^ . c� � � ��`� . ,� �, �'� � . �`.`� . . �� r,�-u.� - �� `�� _�2'� ' �,� ��`�� , , o-�-� G��°�e' �c,�_ � ��--� �,�� i��C _ - ,�� . ��.J � ; � � �� , . ��,.' � �� ,�� ea� ; � � � � �'� ��.r �.E�, � �.�'� ��`�o-��' , �'t/ ��,� . ��rr l/� � � . � , �c f C�� G�'� ��" � � c..�Z �, J , �..� �n�� n� �� -"� '. ��`�-- , � �� . ��- � - _—f. C� Cy��;��,C�..�' � �jG�,:,,�� C �� , �,�� —�� - � L� �� / � � 'l �:��,`� j��Gc � C�� 9�� , �� v /�� ` �� P.C. 2/10/92 Item # 3 I��7��L� ��a�►i►i��I�7�ri��7 FROM: PLANNER SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THREE SPACES FOR A RESTAURANT SPECIAL- IZING IN GOURMET COFFEES AND RELATED ITEMS AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Steven Webb, applicant, Kwok Leung, Chui Fong Wong, and Leung Wong property owners and Frederick R. Strathdee, designer are requesting a special permit for a food establishment and parking variance for three spaces for a restaurant specializing in gourmet coffees and related items at 1249A Broadway, zoned C-1 in the Broadway Commercial Area. The proposed restaurant requires a special permit since it will be located at a site not previously used as a restaurant (C.S. 25.36.038-2.). This restaurant will be replacing the ice cream shop (Le Perche or Kristina's ice cream and desserts) that used to be located at 1199 Chula Vista. Therefore the number of restaurants will remain the same as in 1984 (C.S. 25.36.038-1.). The original ice cream shop had six seats and about 560 SF of space. The ice cream shop is now a beauty salon, Ciaobello, and has been in operation since February 6, 1991 (more than six months) waiving its use as a restaurant in the future (C. S. 25. 36. 038- 3.). The new coffee shop/restaurant will have approximately 36 to 40 seats with 1265 SF of space. There will be no on site parking provided for the new restaurant. The previous retail and office uses required four parking spaces. A parking variance for three spaces is required for intensification of the use on this site. The new restaurant would require 7 spaces at one space for each 200 SF of gross floor area. Existing public parking is provided on the street and in public lots along Paloma and Capuchino Avenues. Lots P and Q off Paloma provide a total of 42 spaces (Lot P 14 spaces + Lot Q 24 spaces = 42 spaces). Lot R near the corner of Capuchino and Broadway has 34 public parking spaces. The restaurant will occupy the old Footlights shoe store and adjacent real estate office space. Adjacent to the restaurant at 1150 Paloma is an existing chinese restaurant, A Taste of Hong Kong. Staff Review The Chief Building Inspector in his December 27, 1991 memo indicates that handicap restrooms must be provided for the restaurant. The Fire Marshal notes (January 6, 1992 memo) that if the building renovations exceed $50,000 the building will require a sprinkler system. The City Engineer (January 6, 1992 memo) has indicated that this restaurant will probably attract customers from outside the area increasing the demand for parking along Broadway. E Applicant's Letter In his variance and special permit application the applicant notes this is a tenant improvement similar to other uses in the area and compatible with the commercial district along Broadway. The proposed use will be a first class operation in both appearance and management that will attract shoppers to the area. Findinqs 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; (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. Study Meetinq At the January 27, 1992 study meeting the commission asked the applicant to identify which meals will be served and what the anticipated number of people will be on site at any one time. The applicant notes in his January 31, 1992 letter that no dinner meals will be served only lunch items and snack foods that compliment coffee. The applicant indicates they are not sure what the number of people on site will be since they have 'walk in' clients who purchase coffee and pastry for their morning commute. The commission asked if the business is new for the applicant and where they have been located in the past. The operator of this business has opened "Coffee Club Too" at two other locations. One in San Mateo at 94 Third Avenue and the other in San Carlos at 749 Laurel St. The San Mateo Planning Department indicated that this use is permitted at that location and did not require a use permit or parking variance. The San Carlos Planning Department stated that the club was exempt from parking requirements and did not require a special permit. (letter date stamped 2/3/92 from Michael Laughlin of San Carlos Planning Department). They indicated that "Coffee Club Too" was a successful, high class operation which has been open for about one year. They did comment that they had some problems with banner signs when the restaurant initially opened. Since that time they have received a sign permit and are complying 3 with the code. In response to this comment the Planning staff has added condition #6 on banner signs for this special permit. The applicant has indicated that they will be operating a first class establishment which will benefit the Broadway commercial area. The proposed business will be successful without overburden- ing the neighborhood and will offer quality products for the community. These are the unusual circumstances which support the granting of the special permit. -�� • •!�� .� � . The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submit- ted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 26, 1991 Floor Plan and Site Plan; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspectors' December 27, 1991 memo (provide handicap restrooms) and the Fire Marshals' January 6, 1992 memo (if building renovations exceed $50,000 the building will require a sprinkler system) shall be met; 3. that this business shall operated from Monday through Friday 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. and Saturday and Sunday 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with a maximum of ten employees, including the owner, on site at one time; 4. that the project shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors on neighboring properties; 5. that an enclosed and ventilated garbage storage area shall be identified at the rear of the site and that garbage cans shall be kept in the storage area until such time garbage is picked up and upon pick-up cans shall immediately be returned to the storage area; 6. 7. 8. that no banner signs shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall obtain building permits for all signage; that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these conditions in six months (August, 1992) or upon compliant. Jane Gomery Planner cc: Steven Webb Kwok Leung, Frederick R. Chui Fong Wong, and Leung Wong Strathdee CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular called to P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was order by Chairman Kelly on Monday, January 27, 1992 at 7:30 Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Graham, Jacobs, Kelly Commissioner Mink Staff Present: Jane Gomery, Planner; Sheri Saisi, Zoning Technician; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the January 13, 1992 meeting were approved with the following addition prior to the action items: "The Chair noted there were only five Commissioners present, approval of an application requires four affirmative votes and applicants have the option of a continuance. All applicants wished to be heard this evening." AGENDA - Item #10, special permit and parking variance at 1524 Rollins Road, will be heard following Item #6. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA Requests: clarify if ineals will be served; if so, what meals and number of people on site at any one time; will they be serving dinner late in the afternoon; is this a new business for this applicant, if he is relocating where was he located previously, is size consistent with his previous location, information from that city regarding their experience with the operation; what are the unusual circumstances to support the variance request. Item set for public hearing February 10, 1992. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL CLINIC AT 1541 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 13, 1992) Requests: what services are provided; clarify number of parking spaces; extent of the emergency services, will they be offered to people outside the industrial area; will this business be operated in � # � Y L: YV � L7 �j 1633 NIAI.JL�ON A i�� 1V UE �Fr��c�or� c�rr�; c� �4o�r 'i'O: CI`I'�' dF �URLiNGA.ME PI�ANr�?i1G GQMMISSYON oa�rL : JANL:��r � o, 1�� z ��'�EIVED ��aN � � 199� CIN OF BURLINGAME r�N�!NC DEf�T RE: SP�:�I.i?.L F�'Zl'''I7'?' FO.FZ A t'QOU Eui'.FiBLISHM.�,AtT A1�II3 ��CKZ2+G '�'ARIA!`dCE 12," �A F:i�CADSa.�:Y. , '.�.TJRZ�Ii�TC2�M� �'rz r�;�p�an�s ::c� fi:�«-� t��.ie��;fi i o.r:� �s�Gd �t tl-Ae P�_d2?,I]l1l.t"'� �'omm,�ssior: Mes�ing reld Mc�1�c��r•, �� nu�ry � 6, 1392 : 1. I'u ],1 z��a 1, wi 11 r.at be f ea�ur�•d , The f c�od it�ms to be servzd in� iucie m.�zffi.n4 r�ar1e.� �, carrc�t� �ake, chA�s�a cak�e, cook��s, and oth€�r suc�xi it�ms :,-1�? c�h camp3imen�. coffee, a� w€�li a.s a quich� ancl "�t��.aP of tk^.� d�:;j�'' c,�urinc� iun��a�zin� 1-icurs. Nc� dinner wi11 be 3BY'VE�. We rio�,F *�, deve.��,•; � c.1i��yt�le tn r��uiarly �arsum� our prc�ucts in t� �+ �s�ar,.�_isi�m�n'-; hc,�aev�r_, �.t z� ani�ic?pa�ed that �he �r:ajority �f th� c:us�:;,racr;; w� � l j ur�.ha�e i�e:�►� Por r.onsu�r��tic�n awav f�-�m tne pr�:m�,we�, suct� ��-, ptar�hasir.� �oft'e� �ar_ their morning �o��mute. Be.r,at?se ��' �`iis, it is d�_ffi�ult t� estimate the z�um�er of pe'rson� who wi�.1 �e ;�n �it� ��t any ane ��.ime. 2. Th�.:� i� �* raew 3��;s�ness v�nt:Uxa althr��h, �s a�erie�al c�n�ra��or, a��;l.ica�•�t h,�.s �,�?�n invc�3.ved in the ;��7�ning c�f s+�ver�� similar. �stakr4i�p��;�:� ir� th� mid�-p�r�ins�zla �x�k. Thi� n�w busir,ess will b� ��a�t�err��a �ft�?1- r;fiYAr�� sa��es>ful_ si.ani�.�r e�;�er�pris�s which. :.�ffer hi�17Mq'13�:�;�.y ��r;.��;ucts i.n �.n ar�hitectur�alZ�� and aesti�,e�:ically pleaain� >.�r�vi.r.�r�:��-�n*+ Th� ��r;s?d size �,s �qnsistent wi�kh co.r��ra�:t E� �,hops . 3. 1'hF �inu5us.:� r;,l•c�.��,:g�anc� �h;.r.h �upppr�s yrani�ir�g af the v3riance is the �esirr� of tl��e: a,pp1.�.�an� te �pen ��irst-class est�bla.shnent ��'=��ng t�,�t�-qua,i.ty pz�du�:ts, service, and �u�rc�undings. Ap�.�J.i�,ant 3:.elievE��. t.i'�� si�e ar�d l�c�tion at �249A �r�aciway is such t�za� �he ��r�;��^��;� husirie5s y�c��.i].d be suycessful wi_thaut aveA�i�ur�lan �_t�� t:•1{Y r�4ighk�vx•h�o�. Ln a�ditior,, �he estak�lishment wili er��.anc:e t�h�. ;�»au�� x,d clesi� �:�i:tity of the "Br�as�way �^orric�or" wl-ii��+ wi11_ bez�ef�t '�h� busir,�ss �.nd th� genpral �a.�munity. I:�.�ak ��:�w�r� °t:� r,,��, ��;��i,G }1�arir,g cn r^ebruar� 10. �n the m�ant.zme, if I c�r;. an�wer. ��c�i�.��ri�3. �11�5't1G+t1S c�� p�-avide fu;:ther ir�formation, p1ed�� :c�nt��fi. ma. ain4erely, , � ��„ > , , � STEVE, WEBS � �i STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMI88ION I. Project Address: 12�9A Broadway II. Project Description and Permits Requested: Special Permit for a food establishment and parking variance for three spaces for a restaurant specializing in gourmet coffees and related items at 1249A Broadway, zoned C-1 in the Broadway Commercial Area. The proposed restaurant requires a special permit since it will be located at a site not previously used as a restaurant (C.S. 25.36.038-2.). This restaurant will be replacing the ice cream shop (Le Perche or Kristina's ice cream and desserts) that used to be located at 1199 Chula Vista. Therefore the number of restaurants will remain the same as in 1984 (C.S. 25.36.038=1.). The original ice cream shop had six seats and about 560 SF of space. The ice cream shop is now a beauty salon, Ciaobello, and has been in operation since February 6, 1991 (more than six months) waiving its use as a restaurant in the future (C.S. 25.36.038- 3.). The new coffee shop/restaurant will have approximately 36 to 40 seats with 1265 SF of space. There will be no on site parking provided for the new restaurant. The previous retail and office uses required four parking spaces. A parking variance for three spaces is required for intensification of the use on this site. The new restaurant would require 7 spaces at one space for each 200 SF of gross floor area. Existing public parking is provided on the street and in public lots along Paloma and Capuchino Avenues. Lot P and Q off Paloma provide a total of 42 spaces (Lot P 14 spaces + Lot Q 24 spaces = 42 spaces). Lot R near the corner of Capuchino and Broadway has 34 public parking spaces. The restaurant will occupy the old Footlights shoe store and adjacent real estate office space. Adjacent to the restaurant at 1150 Paloma is an existing chinese restaurant, A Taste of Hong Kong. III. Proverty Identification: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 026-193-300 Lot No: 25 and Ptn of Lots 26 & 27 Block No: 3 Subdivision: Easton Addition Lot Size: .20 Acres Zoning: C-1 General Plan Designation: Shopping and Service IV. Existinq Site Conditions and Adjacent Land IIses: Existing vacant tenant space that was a shoe store and real estate offices. Surrounded by commercial properties along Broadway and adjacent to an existing restaurant on Paloma. Surrounding land uses are zoned C-1 with a shopping and service General Plan designation. V. CEOA Status: Categorically exempt per CEQA Code Sec. 15301 Existing Facilities Class 1(a) Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. VI. Project Data: Proposed New Construction: remodel of 1265 SF tenant space to create a restaurant Existing Area: existing vacant 1265 SF retail and office space Proposed Percent Increase in Area: no change Front Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Lot Coverage: Building Height: On-Site Parking Spaces: Required ------no change-------- 6.33 say 7 * 0 Proposed * A parking variance is required for the difference between the retail sales (632 SF at 1:400 = 1.58) and office (633 SF at 1:300 = 2.11), and the proposed restaurant use (1265 SF at 1:200 = 6.33) for a total of three spaces (6.33 - 2.11 - 1.58 = 2.64 say three spaces). PLAhNING DEPARTML-N I CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 �RIMROSE ROAC APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION gURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA :aaoie Type of Application: v Special Permit ✓ Variance Other - �--,--.. - - -. ..-,� - ' ';',�,°�� Project Address IZ,gy d Fbi�Aaw+�.�{ G,�-; �� ,- e �T.—' 11 �t � Assessor' s Parcel Number ( s) �� -- �'�t 3-- 34„��y �i, ��1,��,�� LANf\!f\i:; ��: `' APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER � F-oy� � ,�W� K � �U.f/G �' �� .-• �,�r? �l�e Name : S 'T ��/ � N w ��, � Name : /''' E�' . � F' �� .� �J<� / �.� Address : _, - ,��,1jGi��J.� ��• City/State/Zip REOWooD GL'rY� �A 94D6� Telephone :( Work ) 4l5 - 36 3-� 35 3 (Home) ARCHITECT DESIGNER Address: ; �'�.y J�, :F ,��; �-�_ ` � fo� City/State/Zip '�f^ r��f . " , ' �..__ '/y1 � -, Telephone ��) Name: FR�DEn-tc.tc. 1'Z. S�Tt1.l��-�tp�� Address: 231� F3R-OADWA� s��-rc 30 jZED uJ o o D G l T`� ,�-A� 9�-t U(0 3 Telephone ( daytime ) : '-f �'� - 3� �% - 9 Z-y �f (Home) - >% Please indicate with an asterisk (,*) who is the contact per,son for this �roiect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION [L�ST AUYVAnJ T S�cc��LtZ1t�lU. IN Tt-�E Sf4l...E OF C+rpt�p.1�1�T' Go (�`�CC. � ANO iL�LAT�� lT£M,S �;�.., -_ �; ^ / �r F ;�. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: r,'>�,i/� `�./,% � ; � �', L�, ;'� Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this ap�lic.ation. � i �" , ��_ � � � � , ;, �-- --� �-�,..� � � , /� '��ti � __� j r rty Ow�i�r�-s Signat�tire Date �. � I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and cc�rr ct to th� best of my knowledge and belief. -------------------------- OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------ Date Filed: Fee Receipt # Letter(s) to applicant advising application incomplete: Date application accepted as complete: P . C . study meeting ( date ) / -- � � - �r "L.P . C . publ ic hearing ( date ) .:,� ,� � , �;' �� P.C. Action �)� iL' , ` /) Appeal to Council? I��e � No Council meeting date '3 - � _ � � Council Action -�� ,< , '"? ,�" t ° � T�� •3 ` � _ ii,' i ' % � � i , i 1 � � , ' / i � ' � '� ' . � i �' , i . � i / . . . � _--. . - .� , , � r � �� r� ' CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR f_ jT /_` � _'"' �'.., � L"�_ . _ VARIANCE APPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a variance, the Planning �_`:Gfl �n#n3s�sion is required to make findings (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Please answer the following questions as they apply to Ci�t"'�'��our prop�rty and application request to show how the findings :��a�.-bc made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. a. � Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. TH�S � S a 'T�u�.►JT � nnp t�c�v ��J►E.�JT • �T � s N oT posS 1 Ac..0 'r'tiCC�E'�RE To cc N STr1-V � i AD�iT� o�JAL p� ST 2��ET (' �! IZ..Ic i►u Gr . w L !►.0.E. o N L 1r A S I� I N C�- 'F 0 fL TFF �. S I4 M C G � N S 1'p � PL 1� T l v tJ /i L RC A A�( C; I v C, TJ TO T k� C O�j'4}8fL � U 5 1 N E S S�S /►J Tr' 6 AR�}�.. Explain why the application request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. �'PPtiovr�L o'F Tt�c VARI�Nc.c ►s N��-�.S�,n.Y i►J O Iti-P c1�- ► O "P.� � P...'E3 t_.E TO EsTR I� L � S H T Ek 1� U SE � a,�H�.►�w�sc -��5 SP�,�E w��.� ��,�.�� r- wc 88 L►E�C� ?�'r�. tOJiEU�� u Sc W �t-l.. t^�AVE ,4, f�AYplJ.i4/3l.E t �n p�lc- r� W 'r H t. F' l�.o � a s�D L o �,ar i o N '� � � r�.o u N u��v 4 Af't�6'l�. c. Explain why 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. 'TH► S U S c W l� �. N o Z- T� � IJ ET rt 1 M t �JTI�e � � T'a �"'C" A �-T V� l...t_ `,C N c. L.� 'j'U 6 N H A�J G.E T th Z. �+2 U+� L.l r�. w � �. �. p� �-ltc �1zEA./�.ND W��L �aop�Fv��Y LNFl.VE1JC.0 lNC1Le�ASED usc taY �oc.�c,. ri.a�ao�r�'S ol= T�� OVCRf4Ll� ]driv�.awyY G O M IVL E l�. � 1 li C.. /4 R'S� . d. Discuss how the proposed 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. T1-►�= pt�-�Pos�.p T�n-o �C�T wl.l..L '[3� THt�T O� q Tt. N� N T � N► (� RO V C M�.1J T i�J �4 N lT � S GU 1� (��-A 13 � 4"d cT►}�rt_. 1,' f•N U ►+� 1NTcN1��.,0 TU T3c 11N� I�VE S� fLV 1 G� P�n�- l-1 c. C�- Z'►-4 I\ N 't� � L pJ CT � N ��irT� ��- -� � cx�SrlrvC� t�u�l.a�NU. 5ES IN 'Ci�� !l G11UtT� �N tTg hR-EA o F urr�c.T c.oMp�TlTtOol7 �` GITY p � � euRUN.�nMiE �..o.M..�°� � CITY OF BURLING�ME � SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR . SPECIAL PERMIT t1PPLICATIONS In order to approve an application for a Special Permit, the Planning Commission is required to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Please answer the following questions as they apply to your property to show how the findings can be made for your application request. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional information for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. 1. Explain why 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. �TH 15 F A�c�L�'tY W ll�l.. �OM.'PAT/tiT3l.� TO O'iH�fL- u s e,. �' i N -� N E v� c � N i�- -� �c, tJ a � 5 t►�'C�r.� �a c.a 'ro F3 r �7 N � G2, v c- t N t T s A, iL�,�a, o F SE.ti. V t c�, (2-ATHEEi- "C �k AU BE1NCrt IN Di��cT �-oMp�TtT�ON wLT� o�'ttcRS , wc_ h�-G C�O(��FVL THc SOG£SS OF '11�1� FI�.O.ltC-"j WILL h1� VS A�TTR.I�c.T i��D� T�0lJAC. p�T TR.J�►FFt C ArJ.D SNOPpt,�S ?O � C1C OV��C.L. i�32oAowaY b ho�p � u t� c onn H�Rc� A � corz,n.� por� Discuss how the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. TNE pR-oposc.a us�.. � 5 � N coN. p �..� �t►ac.` W�Tti � Fo R- S A`� S.�. r� o Foop 1�JRD�Ap W A � ��,,�°� TEN ANT I Mp R-C�V�.ME.►JT 1N �� x�STIAJtt T3V�LpINC�, -r'ti- c w� s+} � s �' o t-} J� Y E t�- F i 2s T ��SS �'Y PE DEC 2 f �tg�t T�k E- Cot EW£fLA�... Q l..i.N s�R.v � c C. u a c s d r� CITY OF �3URLli`�1G�E�� PLAN�f1G DEPi 3. Discuss how the proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing neighborhood and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Per Code Section 25.52.020 (3), the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of Title 25 (Zoning) in the operation of the use. -r ��= P�-� 'P o s �. P � p-o � ca c.T w�`�. g� T H A-T o p a � lt C 1 L t'f � i3 0�'�4't- 1 t�J � p p c� iLr� i..� c..� 14� N � M H-1J f� Grff M�1�J�1 wN�c,-tt w��c. AC.so li�..p h�'TI1.14�T I�DDITlDUKL sNO��J't-S j�-p�,,, T�k� c�s.N �rzra �. �- o k, �n � rZ �r A L, A:n.� a TH c PD-d J�cj� /C �o �-PtT�p I1J . ��` c�Tv �� syR H�w�e � �no.�...� r� � CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONlt�IERCIAL APPLICATIONS l. Proposed use of site: c��R-nn�T �.o��c. SA.�s /'.N p Rt=t-A-TEI� IT�M S , �� .�: � r:.,� � � ��c 2 r� ,G�; 2. Days/hours of operation: CANTIG�p��T6,,�p� M-[-' : G� q,M _-7 PN CITYOr�GURLtn�cSa-�/5�N t '7 �,.� - �s pN► . t'LEtI�!i�If�G D�P"i 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles (by type): d 4. Current and Projected maximum number of employees at this locaLion: Existinct In 2 Years In 5 Years After After After 8AM-5PM SPM 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekdays 3 • fulltime � �' 3 � ^ 3 artime 3 l ¢ � �' � Weekends 5 3 � 3 � 3 fulltime artime 3 � `�' � 4 I 5. Current and o'ected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: 6. 7. 2 Existincx In 2 Years In 5 Years After After After 8AM-5PM 5PM 8AM-SPM 5PM 8AM-5PM 5PM Weekda s �Sv -Zoo Sb Zoo -2Cp �75 25C3 �S Weekends �Sv - Z� Sc� Zo�- 2�'0 7S ZSG -75 Maximum number of employees and visitors/customers which can be expected to be on the property at any one time: 3S Where do/will the employees park? s�v� sT��S Ai.►�/o2 1� c_V (3�.� C T RA N�p G fL T AT 1 D 1�1 Where do/will customers/visitors park?_ _ aLoN c.� 13�-o Aa w�� _ A I�l O STiLt.£T Php—K1 qJ Cr S P/�c�S O N S � A-c �T2� T5 9. Present or most recent use of site: l T Is OU�2 uN�ST,,�umi��, ?'N� Z �DK.IOIL VS�S Wt2E �N 1MPOb�.TED FOosp sTOrtt /�ND a� rR��or�,. srtop , 10. List of other tenants/firms on the property: A o��,zsN� pAr�-T o� TH E ta u � � o � W �� c v rL.�. a n� � �. Y t� o us� A G N � t�f GSE f2-EST /` v �z.li� AJ 9` � � � � ' � � �� . C��'�� c � �, ,G�� ci�� ar �� ,��, � u:tiEt�1� Ptlat�i\!I`; D'�� I This special permit ap�lication is for the vacant Broadway-area food service business permit which was previouslv held bv : Kristina's Ice Cream � Desserts 1199 Chula Vista, Burlinqame Approximately 560 square feet with seatinq for six. This property is now beinr, leased and operated as a beauty salon Proposed project 1249(A) Broadway "Coffee Stop" Gourmet Coffees � Desserts Sc�uare footaae: 1265 Projected number of seats : �36�' 1 � � � �, � �� . ' ( � , y ROUTING FORM . ��DATE: ' TO: C' CITY ENGINEER � l-=' CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL � PARRB DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT: REQIIEST FOR � r . ., . . ... . _ AT 0 SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: I Z THANKS, Jane S eri/Leah 2 Date of Comments ^� ;.��'^"� ' !�N�`�'r �G� ��,y,.�-� G�j�' � y - 0 � � � � S � � . ; � � . � ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AT :��-��1 CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR� CITY ATTORNEY CITY PLAIJNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN REQIIE3T FOR ��/.��1e�Y� �( �'-�� -- �.��►� � _ , � SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �/ REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: �� THANKS, Jane S eri/Leah �: P��,NG �h � ��i- ��N�'C %� �i �� N �� • Na � �'1 o,.�s �-��- ?�' ,g�. � G 2 Date of Comments � �� so �o � �� S�'��K��• �^-�'' . 0 � , �� , �. • �'- � f ( �l ' y i ROUTING FORM . ��DATE: ' TO: C� CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BIIILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MAItSHAL PARRS DIRECTOR � CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN SUBJECT : REQIIE3T FOR ��5,y` � r• .. ... . . , _ AT 1 SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �� REVIEWED BY STAFF IN MEETING ON MONDAY: � Z THANKS, Jane S eri/Leah Date of Comments � � f��,� /`� � C <� �� e�-�.`�, � , ` L,.,�'�� .� �� z��,�� l ��'� �.�� - ; �s.� �� <�c%-�-� � �>�� '��- G� �'� • `� � � �� t�� - -L'� � �- �,� � � �G��%�� /'��"� ` � � ,� Qe�c��.�..ti � � ,y�v�t'�� / . CC j"� � ✓ /�¢� /�� /�� — .�,,-.�-� - y, �� G�� ,� � �-�_.____ �;'�?�-••�"_`•-._'.r",� ' SAMPLE OF LETTER RECEIVED ' � ''r � ' . � , FROM 47 BROADWAY � MERCHANTS . `►, � � . . _ Ms. Margaret Monroe City Planner . City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 .�: .Z �� February 3, 1992 �ECEIVED FEe s - i992 �'�NINC OEP�T. E Dear Ms. Monroe, � � .� I am adamantly opposed to the request put forth to you regarding the application for a permit to open a food establishment at 1249A Broadway. This street aIready has far too many restaurants, delis, coffee shops and food stores. Broadway would be far better served with an alternative business. Thank you. Sincerely, , � wc.�� '�'srory s � �� ` � *��a�. � �� . �..�� , , � M : � .... :, � � � � � ,�' ' �.�R . �..J , , ,r, �. {- ij � • �ie ' �, 'i . ` � 4 wa�.w':� �r � - �-AG ��r i a �� ;,�; + """1 � �� '� " i��.:��r �� ; � ��14�a+h � e �� f: ��'�� F w �.E�'. S r':d , �.---------. lr . f;, _ r.�t: �; .. . ' � ,� t � -. 1 .w • � } p � . , .r+'Ja. 1 � y � , -� . � . ,j�.,� , �, +^ j f ' � #`*�"� u �. .+,� : �• � `T �'n.li ..�... ;.; �yw � � � � � ~' � � �� . .,, .. M' . . . � �, r• �I�� "�_ ��.��^�' � M � �V \ 1��:'I ' � �' ' M'' ! ' � x r�, r �,�.. TM . _ i ,,, •..� ' ,.� . . ' y..y .. .�� 0 i � � �� .��''' � � P�,. � � i AJ� �"�-.. ... �� ,.. , ,� , _z ,. t • �� i � � ` —,.� � , � �� . . � �.t .Tq�i'tcle'�5"k.,. 'i+ � . `� , "rr'"' �i�~_�' I';, �� .,r .��n.+, ,. � . � ; ? ,.- _ r � � ��. � , � � 11'F'' i� `� r' ' I ': r� : , � �f � :. , ., � `a s�p �m +� Iq � � . y I , f � �, � .:� J� � � J , � , � � ••��. .r � _ "�` a+�, .;,c'� i ,t�' �``,'� t ' �230� •� � 113� � ' � 'r ia�. '� a,, ; 32 `` ` �� „� �$ �`•. a� , '� ��4 � , { ; , �, a� � ., � � •:k=;� � .. :,� . - �� ` ...<� ��f a� t----�----' sl,�_ � � ,r' . �� t s gF Z43N � e�1 p+h� � i� �Si%"�' � ' � 7 .� F�.`• � Y. .y ��/_ � �� .� ' �� ,�y �� :, �� : "; ��' .:� � • L+9 R � .�� _ . � � � ;� i . - � �.+ �.�, �a.. '� �*� �'i .; . `� ;,:.11�!'�� • _ �: . . � .. — . ► � �� ,�,�, , �,�..�_ ��` � _ � y..,..; `.... S �.,a.... y �� r � � � � � ':- �"' , � �. � � ►� _. �� . � ... .�� T.. _.�. � ;�`�� ! �� fN►Y� .�i�:�_.. � ••-- 1 , i � �� , ,; ,. , ,,. . CITY OF BORLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRI�INGAME� CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION announces the following public hearing on Mondav, the lOth ciay of February, 1992, 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. 1249A BROADWAY APN: 026-193-'300 APPLICATION FOR A PARRING VARIANCE AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1 IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER January 31, 1992 n �S� RESOLUTION NO. �2ESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit and parking variance for a food establishment at 1249A Broadwav (APN 026-193-300�; (property owner: Kwok Leung & Chui Fonq Wong, 732 Jackson Streetf San Francisco. CA 94108 ); and WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 10, 1992 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. . It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. �� .� 1 � !� � �..� r CHAIRMAN - , I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the lOth day of February , 1992 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY ' � r � � . .�+` ' CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME� CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COIINCIL announces the following public hearing on Monday, the 2nd day of March, 1992 , 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. 1249A BROADAAY APN 026-193-300 APPLICATION FOR A PARRING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1249A BROADWAY� ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER FEBP,UAP,y 21, 1992 n � � r .�+ �, a CITY OF BIIRLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BIIRLINGAME, CA 94010 (415) 342-8931 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING The CITY OF BIIRLINGAME CITY COIINCIL announces the following public hearing on Mondav, the 16th day of March. 1992 (continued from March 2, 1992) ,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. 1249A BROADWAY APN 026-193-300 APPLICATION FOR A PARRING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1249A BROADWAY, ZONED C-1� BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER MARCH 6, 1992 RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application has been made for a special permit and parking variance for a food establishment at 1249A Broadwav (APN 026-193-300), (Property owner: Kwok Leung & Chui Fong Wong, 732 Jackson Street, San Francisco, CA 94108 ); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 10 , 1992 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 16 , 1992 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of March , 1992 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: CITY CLERK C�,�.e C�z.�� .a.� �a�x�.I�.��rxrr.e ,n, . `.1 _.,��t..__ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME� GALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-8625 March 17, 1992 Mr. Steven Webb 1633 Madison Avenue Redwood City, CA 94061 Dear Mr. Webb: At its meeting of March 16, 1992 the City Council held a public hearing on your appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a special permit and parking variance for a food establishment at 1249A Broadway. Following the public hearing Council continued its decision to the City Council meeting on Monday, April 6, 1992. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, j�,,►��' Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s cc: Richard L. Pierce, Esq. Kwok Wong, Property Owner Frederick Strathdee, Architect City Clerk BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA April 6, 1992 � CLOSED SESSION A closed session regarding property acquisition and litigation was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A at City Hall. All council members were present. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meetinq was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Mayor Frank Pagliaro. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Pledge was led by Sandy Burnett, San Mateo Times reporter. ROLL CALL COUNCZL PRESENT: COUNCIL ABSENT: MINUTES HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEMBI, O'MAHONY, PAGLIARO NONE The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 16, 1992 and the St�dy Meeting of March 18, 1992 were unanimously approved on mot�on of Councilwoman O'Mahony, second by Councilman Harrison. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 1133 CHULA VISTA - PARKING FUND Mayor Pagliaro announced council had reached a decision after several closed sessions and a study session regarding parking on Broadway and the.purchase of property for a parkinq lot. Coun- cilman Harrison not�d there was money in the parking fund for purchase of this prop�rty; he moved the city purchase 1133 Chula Vista for the price ofe�630,000, that there be no demolition until the city sells the�'p�rking lot on Rhinette, and effective July 1, 1992 the parking ftrz�d be abolished and henceforth parking funds go into the general fut%d,. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. � Councilwoman Knight said she would ote she agreed that any money spent on pa k Broadway area, but with all the other m before the city she did'not feel the ci on this parking lot.. against this proposal; ing should be in the �jor capital projects t�;should spend the money Councilman Lembi said the city is coming out of�+rhe recession, and sales tax income is up; this purchase will be� positive addition to Broadway and assist the merchants and re'sjdents. Mayor Pagliaro commented council had pledged to help the mer- chants on Broadway. Councilwoman O'Mahony was pleased to support this m��tion, Broadway has been waiting too lonq for a parking lot, ,Cflis purchase will have 48 parkinq spaces, the Rhinette lot o�has 26 and is not used; the parking fund has the money for t s purchase. The motion carried 4-1 on roll call vote, Coun- ilwoman Knight voting no. CONTINUFD APPEAL FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKIPIG �'ARIANCE FOR A RESTAURANT AT 1249A E3ROAD��AY - RESOLUTION 7G-92 APPROVING Sa�tE City Planner's memo of March 23 recommended council take action; the public hearinq was held on March 16 and council continued action to tonight's meetinq. The applicant, steve �:ebb, and the property owner, hwok Leunq and Chui Fonq ��7ong, are req�esting a special permit for an eating establishment and a three space parking variance. The Planning Commission voted 3-3 for denial of the request; under rules of the commission a tie vote is a denial of a request. � Councilwoman O'Mahony said she thought long and hard about this project and decided it was a good project for Broadway. She moved to grant the special permit and variance with conditions in staff report. Councilman Harrison seconded the motion and com- mented we would never solve the traffic circulation problems on Broadway because of the location of the freeway access; this project will enhance Broadway and would not be detrimental or injurious; council has given other businesses larger parking variances. Councilwoman Knight, at the last meeting, had moved to deny this request because the project would create more traffic and parking problems; she thought it would be detrimental to the area and could find no extraordinary circumstances to grant a variance. Councilman Lembi said there was nothing that would alleviate the traffic flow problems since Broadway was the access to freeway; and if people can't park they will not stop. The motion carried 4-1 on roll call vote, Councilwoman Knight voting no. TABLISHMENT OF BUSZNESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS BID May Pagliaro announced that council would hear protests abo� the Ds but because this is a new proposal, council would l�sten to con�erns and allow time to think about the proposal, co� cil would nat take action until the meeting of April 20. He �rbted council is neutral in this matter, this is a proposal from the merchants associations. � ' The City Attorney reviewed his memo of March 19 which recommended council hold two separate public hearings on formation of the districts. Business improvement districts are formed under Street and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq. �ouncil can determine to form both districts, or one, or neither; it can revise the assessments, zones and purposes and can reduce the area of the proposed districts. The only limit on action is that a district cannot be formed if council receives written protests from a majority of the value of the assessments. He announced that any more written protests must be received at the beginning of the hearing; written withdrawals of protests must be received by the end of the hearing. Councilman Harrison told the audience that another reason council is not makinq a decision tonight is that written protests handed in tonight will have to be counted to determine if there is a majority protest. Mayor Pagliaro had some questions on the wording of the ordinances; wondered if the district would have to get approval from council before it could increase assessments; asked about fines for unpaid assessments; City Attorney and Finance Director reviewed how business license fines are collect- ed; the city will incur expenses in collecting these assessments, would the city be repaid; �lection of the Board of these dis- tricts; can the BID be eliminated by a vote of council. Council- man Lembi wondered who hears appeals for assessments, city council or the Board of the district. PROTEST HEARING FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BID (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTI David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez and owner of Earthbeam Foods on Broadway, reported the idea of a BID was presen�ed to the Broad- way Merchants Association over a year ago, they cided to adopt the proposal a�d requested help from the city in ring a consul- tant; the merchants held open meetinqs on this; see s the best possible �ethod to effect real lasting change, makei'3aong term improvements, provide liaison with city and provide a�united approach to improving Broadway; they propose to clean s�dewalks, advertise and promote the area, provide for commercial r'ecruit- ment and retention of business and improve parking enforc�ment.