The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1327 Broadway - Staff ReportItem #9 CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Addre�s: 1327 Broadway Meeting Date: 5/27/97 Request: Special permit and parldng variance for expansion of a food establishment for outdoor patio seating (CS 25.36.038, 2) at 1327 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area. Applicant: Gerard Mitchell APN: 026-211-300 Property Owner: Bill Nerli Lot Dimensions and Area: 5,225 SF Zoning: C-1 General Plan: Commercial, Retail Shopping and Service Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential, Commercial, Retail and Food Establishment CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 consists of operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Previous Use: Behan's Irish Pub, eating establishment Proposed Use: Behan's Irish Pub, eating establishment with outdoor seating Allowable Use: Commercial retail and eating establishment Summary: The applicant, Gerard Mitchell, is requesting a special permit and parking variance in order to expand an existing 1,566 SF food establishment for outdoor seating at Behan's Irish Pub, 1327 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area. The proposed seating area is located behind the existing 17'-3" X 19'-10" storage structure. The applicant is proposing to expand seating and service into an unimproved outdoor area located at the rear of the property. The paved patio azea measures 16' -2'/z" X 24' -10" , 403 SF in area and would accommodate two picnic tables. The existing restaurant has 1,566 SF of interior seating area, kitchen and bathrooms. An existing 342 SF accessory structure (used for storage) will remain between the restaurant and the outdoor seating area. The proposed patio seating is immediately adjacent to an apartment building. The food establishment with outdoor seating would be 1,908 SF, representing a 22 % increase in floor area. There will be no on-site parking provided for the expansion of the food establishment (403 SF). A parking variance for two spaces (1:200, parking ratio for food establishment) is required for 1 i.!. rrr. ��.� '� i� tr.�� .i�� rr � �i� y,�r iu r. ��,� the addition of the outdoor patio seating on this site. Existing public parking is provided on the street and in public lots along Paloma and Capuchino Avenues. Lots P and Q on Paloma Avenue 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 pazking spaces. There is an existing 10'-4" high block wall at the rear of the property adjacent to the apartment building and an existing 6'-0" high wood fence along the side property line adjacent to the service alley. A new 7'-0" high wood fence will be provided along the side of the property which would enclose the patio area and sepazate it from the existing parking area used by other tenants in the building. The fence will have a gate that allows access from the alley at the rear of adjacent properties to the storage structure. The applicant noted that the parking area behind the building is not striped and is not designated for customer parking. The restaurant is open Monday through Sunday 10:00 a. m. to 2:00 a. m. The ma�cimum number of employees is two, one full time and one part time. The applicant projects the maximum number of employees and customers on site at any one time is 50 (96 on St. Patrick's Day). The projected number of customers is 20 on weekdays and 50 on weekends. In five years, the applicant projects the number of customers will increase to 25 on weekdays and 55 on weekends. The restaurant cunently has an amusement permit for entertainers on Saturdays and recorded music on Sundays from 9:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (June 4, 19961etter from City Clerk to Behan's Irish Pub). The amusement permit will be reviewed again in 7une, 1997. Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector, City Engineer and Fire Matshal had no comments on this project. Planning staff would note that the Police Dept. has had a limited number of calls for service at this site but is concerned with the possible noise impact on the adjacent residential apartment building. The Police Dept. was also concerned with how the business operators would enforce the limited hours of use (daylight hours only) for the outdoor seating area and enforce using the gate for emergency exit only. Study Questions: At their meeting on Apri128, 1997 the Planning Commission asked several questions regarding this project (P.C. Minutes April 28, 1997). Public notices have been posted on the adjacent commercial and residential properties. In a telephone conversation with the applicant, he noted that the outdoor patio area will be available to customers only during daylight hours, so there will no noise impacts on the apartment residents between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. The Commission also asked how will an employee know that there are customers in the outdoor seating area who need service. The applicant stated that the waitress will periodically monitor the patio azea and that the business owner may install a camera to monitor the area. Space heaters will not be installed in the outdoor seating area. There will be approximately 15 seats (two picnic tables) in this area. It will not be used for overflow, special parties or events. The outdoor patio area will be used for daylight enjoyment and be limited to daylight hours. �a i ' .t. rii . i �.� "t , � � ! r.t � i i � � � � � i i i Y.�.� �.0 ' �. ' r �.t . � Required �tindings 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 conductsd 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. Required Findings for 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. 3 i .t. ��r . � �.� � � e � � � �_� � i � � � � r � i i � r.�.� �.n �. : �i �_� , � Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings for the special pernut and variance. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitteti to the Planning Department and date stamped March 26, 1997, Sheet 1 with the outdoor storage and seating area fully enclosed by a wall or fence, use of the gate shall be limited to emergency exit and access to the storage area; 2. that the use of the outdoor patio area by customers or employees shall be limited to daylight hours, shall not be used for overflow, private parties or special events, the seating in the patio area shall not exceed 15 and in no event shall there be any use of the outdoor seating area after 8 p.m. any night of the week; 3. that the outdoor patio area shall not be used for any form of live entertainment or recorded music amplified by outdoor speakers or other similar devices; 4, that the business owner and operator shall provide a security camera with a screen inside which can be seen by the bartender and would allow continual surveillance of the outdoor seating azea; 5. that the business shall have a maximum number of two employees on site at one time; 6. that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this special permit and parking variance; and 7. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of approval in 3 months (August, 1997), each 7uly thereafter and upon complaint. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Gerard Mitchell, applicant 4 Burlingame P;anning Commission Minutes April 28, 1997 APPLICATION FOR MINOR MODIFICATION AN��OT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2012 DAVIS DRIVL�; ZONED R-1, (Rp� & DIAN DELANTONI, PROPERTY OWNERS_ AND SCOTT SULLIVAIV AIA, APPLICANT) Requests: property already over lot co�erage, proposal increased nonconformity, are ther other alternatives; how old is the shed, can you tell when the assessor identified its presen , aze the breezeway/porch counted in lot coverage; the proposed addition will change the a s within the structure in such a way that to get to the bedrooms one will need to go thorough th iving room, why is this better; why does the applicant need two laundry rooms. Item set for ac ' n on May 12, 1997 if the questions have been addressed. ; APPLICATION �OR A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 235 PARK ROAD,ZONED C-1, (W. GREGORY 1 .�TITTTT T ,d rrY :� • � �. . � �_ _ _ . _ __ _ _. . Requests: How would the size of signage and number be aff ted if all the signs on the awning were measured as one; what would be the effect on size and si number if the three Kerns signs over the door on the primary �rontage were measured as one. I m set for action on May 12, 1997. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RESTAURANT AT 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT AND BILL NERLI PROPERTY OWNER) Requests: Public notice should be posted on the adjacent property as well as mailed; how will the applicant handle noise impacts on the apartment residents between 10 pm and 2 am daily; how will the employee know that there are people behind the storage area who need service; will space heaters be installed in the outdoor seating area; how many seats, specifically, will be put in the outdoor seating area; will private parties be held in the outdoor area; what will be the real use of the area, overflow, special parties or events; will the hours of use of the outdoor area be limited. Item set for action on May 12, 1997 if the answers to the questions are available in time. DETERMINATION REGARDING NON-AUTO RELATED USES IN G2, SUBAREA D, AUTO nn\v 7r,,.7,--,� r, ., /� Chairman Ellis introduced this� item and asked if the applicant was ' the audience. The applicant was not present so C. Ellis moved this item back to number 16 o e agenda. PLANNER REPORTS ,/ ;, Chairman Ellis asked CP Monroe to report on tl�"last Council Meeting. ,' Chairman �ilis then called for a five minute�"break in the proceedings. The commission reconvened at 7:30 p�ii1. � % �' / �►� MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLAI�TNING COMMISSION May 12, 1997, 7:30 P.M. �ALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on May 12, 1997 at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, and Ellis Commissioners Mink and Wellford City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the April 28 minutes were conected to show the date April 28, 1997 on each page, they were then approved. AGENDA - Staff noted that three of tonighYs applicants have requested to have their items continued from tonight's meeting: item 10, 800 Maple Avenue; item 11, 2012 Davis Drive; and item 13, 1327 Broadway. Commission continued these items and set them for public hearing at the meeting of Tuesday, May 27, 1997. Staff noted that they would renotice the three items for public hearing on that date. The Commissioners agreed that with the addition of these three action items the May 27, 1997, meeting would be a long one and it should begin at 7:00 p. m. C. Key made a motion to start the May 27, 1997 meeting at 7:00 p.m., and C. Galligan seconded. The Commission voted by voice 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) to approve the motion. Staff will notice the changed meeting time as required. The revised order of the agenda was then approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Ellis noted that there are five commissioners seated this evening and that this is the meeting each year when new officers for the Planning Commission are elected. C. Deal nominated C. Key for Chairman. C. Galligan moved to close nominations. His motion was seconded by C. Coffey. C. Key was elected chairman on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). C. Galligan then moved to nominate C. Mink as Vice-Chair. A motion to close nominations was made by C. Ellis; and his motion was seconded by C. Coffey. C. Mink was elected Vice-Chairman by a voice vote of 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). C. Coffey then nominated C. Deal as Secretary of the Commission. C. Galligan moved to close nominations. His motion was seconded by C. Ellis. C. Deal was elected Secretary by a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent). -1- Burlingame Planning Co»vnission Minutes May 12, 1997 signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 26, 1997; 2) that the 5'-0" easement adjacent to the building at 235 Park Road shall remain accessible to the public for access across the premises to the public parking lot behind, and any alteration of this condition will require a revision to the sign permit; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Discussion on the motion: it was noted that this sign program appearerl to be consistent with others in the area; it was noted looking at these widely spaced logos on the apron as individual signs is a better approach since it discourages the applicant from putting lots of words on the apron which would not look as good. Chairman Key called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the sign exception. The commission voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Mink and Wellford absent) to approve the motion. Appeal procedures to May 19. 1997, were advised. PLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION F A RESTAURANT AT 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT ;' AND BILL NERLI. PROPERTY OWNERI The applicant requested a continuance. The commission voted unanimously to continue this item to Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 211 CLARENDON AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (LEWIS A AND K. A. SALZMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERSI. Reference staff report, 5.12.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. The applicant was not available. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted for the record that this application is request for an one year extension, as such it must now comply with any applicable changes made to the California Building and Fire codes since the original date of approval. C. Ellis moved to grant this one year extension of a side setback and parking variance noting the conditions of the May 20, 1996 approval, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall meet all the conditions of approval from the May 20, 1996 approval as stated in the May � �--- �c� �� v�o��(� V�'�v �- �- City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca 94010 Margaret Monroe Re: APN 026-211-300 Dear Ms. Monroe & Planning Commissioners �i � � �- v l� � � �1(,� /�-� �� o I am the owner of 1143/1145 Paloma at Broadway. This is a 5-unit residential apartment building. I am strongly against any outdoor patio seating at 1327 Broadway. We have had at least five complaints from tenants in the past 12 months from excess noise coming from the said area next to our building. The police have been called by our tenants on all instances. The noise is the worst during special parties such as Monday night football and St. Patrick's just to name a few. The approval of this permit would severely effect the peaceful liv:ng of the five tenants. I would strongly urge the commission to not approve the said permit. Sincerely, �'_ �u��k�/�: �� Guenther Leopold, Own�r Lu��;�.-il::WiG;;��i1i�J ;�t;�l�l�t� Af?ER PF�EP,�RAT��'� �� _ - R�� V �� MA Y 1 2 �gg� c�r� o� ��.�w�v�.A��,�� .�� . \.Y�l1.e �.YZ.I-� �� .l�l.a L.�L��.P TEL: (41� 696-7203 � SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 FAX:(415) 342-83Bfi AMiJSEMENT PERMIT June 4, 1996 Hugh and Mary Mitchell Behan's Irish Pub 1327 Broadway Burlingame CA 94010 To Whom It May Concern: At its meeting of June 3, 1996 the Burlingame City Council reviewed your Amusement Permit for entertainers on Saturdays and recorded music on Sundays from 9:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. with the following conditions: admission shall be limited to adults 21 years of age or older; the establishment shall be posted with a"Maximum Occupancy 49" sign; violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the Police with full cooperation from employees and management; no variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without amendment to the permit; no part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the Police; and the amusement permit is non-transferable. Your permit was renewed for one year and will be reviewed again in June 1997 or earlier ii there are complaints. Sincerely, Judith A. Malfatti City Clerk cc: City Attorney Police Chief /4�` CIT � BURL1NCrAMi' C�Y OF B VIWINGL �L�11J �,�'::�i APPLICATION TO T�-IE PLA►NNING CONIlVIISSION Type of Application: � Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: � 2' 2� 1�' (� `7 �' D 1n� AY �� V R l-1 iJ C!� v�t � Assessor's Parcel Number(s): � Z' �� Z��- 3b o APPLICANT Name: G��' R i� M l 1-G N E L l— Address: �� 2�7 i3 RC' �'` p W�'� City/State/Zip: � v R L l�l C-� � M E, GA Phone (w): � 44 -�Z � S 9 4-o I o (h): �'42-` � � `F� fax: N ��` '�' ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: �� P H�E N i-� t Ei 61 I N S PROPERTY OWNER Name: �ILL NERLI Address: � Z S G t.-�( D ES D� L�, D►e . City/State/Zip:_ N I I�LS $o Ro v� �}� G f� Phone (w) :� 4�-� a Z o �h�; � 4S -- � 0 2 0 fa�c: N ��' Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: I�- G L�`1�`E-r� Do N(�D, City/State/Zip: � u� L ��`'� E� �� 40 10 Phone (w): ��' � O 4 I �h�:3�-3�g� fax: ��2-24�`� contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � N G Lo s� (z � o F .-t N G� � ST I N C Pa T- i o � R E� w � T�4 �� c G� � T�t�E P- D D r n a r�t o F t-w c� P f G N I G TA-13 t��-S -� �, G- c� S�(� � N 6� oo D W G-��-�-E 2. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. i�__� ��/�� .7-�.r-��- Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. �►�1 R, N E RU D I�� ± 3►rl E� KS f� E�d f�t PI�'RavP�t_ 1n) � 0 H3TP� � rl E D v G�F�s� t�L`f — P l� EP�'E A C�u I SE . Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed:_ 3,�2 ��a7 F�; �� 5�-- Planning Commission: Study Date: `{- Z g q Action Date: S�� 2- �q % �� \� �� U 11 �� Juu�y�Ya�yflY YYVYL� � BVRLINGAME i ��'°....o:�Ti-'o �U LS��lN� ��OV`0�� !/"QU 0 �� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.0201. 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 oi improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. /� fJ OGG u Pi�cN C 5' � N G I� C"�S � �� G E-�4-,c� N E l� a'F V�i � I S (`� oT R� E l Y�! y 50 u G H-'t �' r F-��PG�' ' F!> R E A L L G� ( 5' i r 1� E j C O l� A I Tl D t� S W 1 L. l.. FZ �-y�n A� �^! V N G H� N EI � D� 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT ,�� ST 1 i�l� V 5E W( LL (��r� t ry V NGl-i�N�j�D 13Y �� Dl '170N d� pr ��NGE � P(GN IG � f3 L E�', , TE-; l S l S Go N S( S� r.� T W l'�-i � rc � ST 1 N C-� Zol�lcv� * l��ivE12AL Pt,!°�N � No GE+�N�E, 3. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and charactei of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinityT T� E P R o Pc7 S� D�E� G E ( S-�-}-�-E a N�--Y l Tt w� � I� fl� p '1� �1�"E S I T� ,'W �4 l G N � S L O GP�'�' p f� 'j- '�-E � N p br P• ��t fi ►�-- t►J y P�R�A . Tl-� I S �EN GE w( L(_ S E 1�2v�' Tz� N io� P. � Ex i s-r-� N�, S� ��, E s�� -i-�c� � i v��c �, � � N� O F T� t 1�� (� I N F l-� f� `T'I D`t' �('t' E� 2�NG� s t 2/92 sp.frm 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 pub/ic hea/th, safety, gene�a/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties7 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 welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbaqel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encourape the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl �II alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? 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). Genera/ we/fare 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 benefit7 �onvenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sitesll Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning Ordinance7 Ask the Planninp 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 existing neighborhood7 If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If chanpes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 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 exp(ain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? 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 chanpe 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 use7 If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existin� and potential uses in the �eneral vicinity? Compare your 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. , zrez �p.frm �r� " „ ot j� � j�� BURLINGAME V�� II UI�JIII1��IlU��11NYIIL�-� ::�, �,.;. �9�G��(N�C� �G�'��C�� U D�f�N� The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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 or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to other properties in this area. /� �- �-- !� � c� 1� �'i� � S � +`-' 7�-i-� ,�c�' �� - �� o N c: � � �,'�►�- l� c �ti �-� r� T�-t- E c� E � c��r E �, w C �� T,�� - �� t; (� �- ,�- r'� j►'`� C t� �S c-17 o C�'u P��ct�' C�_ p� i, L �c� �--� i> ( I� c' �" S L,' t(_. � I��Y�,6r( N �ti I��G� 1 �X I S' j_ b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. ' f�� ,� �/ �m- �� L� � (�, F'-�_ v 1�- � � (� `f "�� I> G j N fa (, c� c_r� Z r c r.: "l�kn-T N �- � � � P � r �� a � � `=m �� p�Yz i' i ,,,� . %rt �-_ j�1 � � �, t-f -r�o ►2-5 �-� �ct�c� <� c�'�� o N �� i 7� 1� �'- �- 1 ^� � c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ oi injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fa�e, or con venience. �T-�-I� v�= t W � L L i� � t�.� � N �( T i� N a w � t-�-rr-�'� �� T �ii�N P�C-�('�� r►� c--� f�t� I r�-> ��- (��--5 � d. Ho w wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT f`T C i r� t��^�z-T � � 1 ?i-� �� >�; � j `I'E�vt �� . 12/92 vx.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary 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 impossible and are also not common to other properties in the areal For example, is there a creek cuttinp throuph the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement af existiny structures7 How is this property different from others in the neighborhoodl b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right 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 exceptionl (i.e., havin� as much on-site parkin� or bedroomst) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception7 Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property7 c. 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 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, liphting, pavinp, 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 (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? 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►. �eneral we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaninp community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit7 Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped7 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/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodt If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existinp architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl 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 or bulkl If there is no chanpe 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 use7 If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the peneral vicinityl 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. ,sres�...r,,,, �r� o. i DURUNQAM[ COMI��RCIAL APPLICATIONS �F°• `° PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM ,,,. 1. Proposed use of the site. I� U� 2. Days and hours of operation. %'� o�`l �� i— 5 v N(?!t Y 1 b p.►^� ~ 2- a,M . 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type). -�� 4. Cunent 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 1 � 1 1 � 1 Full-time Part-time 'l 'I 1 1 1 1 Weekends •� ,� ,� ,� ,� ,� Full-time Part-dme '[ 1 1 1 1 1 5. Cunent and proiected maximum 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 I o 2 O i� 2 0 ( S 2 S Weekends 2 O S o 2 0 � 0 2 S �S 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): ��f= �' �� % `"'`�`-�� f �x < <, . Pn,-+e��K'� � � - o �l E D r�`� P C-FL '�(G-� � �.� , o N E S P.� E I N t� C P� I(�. o� 7. Where do/will the owner & employees park? s i't� - E� A R E LY N� E� E f� 8. Where do/will customers/visitors park? P U R' L l G P�t R l� l til � 9. Present or most recent use of site. � v� 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary). � �,E� ��G�,}..�p �� l,�N tii � r! E) Go t�-� M► SS I o� S � P PLE (�n E ry T,4 � �o R vvi Go� T1 nl V �D � � D : oTH-E-+� TE�r �r� T'S . . . . . '( •�-�'� 1 fZ ST Y L I S'I- - 1 0 � N �r� - � �c-� Pw�E ES - k,1 c � N�s t� �Y -- S�-ry R D P�Y 8: o a A. r-t ,- 2:?, o P. t�t . 2.. u(�-`f GI.E�N Et� - '� C� La t� � � _ � EM pi.o`� EES _ �,oN��-� -- �� Y -� � 30 � , rn. _ � ; 3 a P. (�'� . SP�-[vf��•Y 9 : oo P�a'"� , " � ; oc' P (''� . ROUTING FORM DATE: 3 0? � TO: � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL _ _ PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR _ �Qf,l1LC.� P � , � — � -� �a�d ��`4u.b l,c,o ��e� r AT J".�� Q0.G�.(.C)�- SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY:— �✓�,�'C�. 3I � L�1--6 � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben „ �- %�; /� /��/ � , �7,��. .' ��-. � llZee��., j �U.J Gy �-rr�� ✓'�' _. / l'�� Date of Comments � ROUTING FORM DATE: 3� % TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER S U B J E CT : R E Q U E ST F O R .QGa r.��i�µ__� -�� v� � -- � � �a�d ��`�-a.b I�,o k�a� _� r � AT _ I � � �_ � OQ,LI.GC�C�,(/� -- ------ SCHEDULED RLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF F�EVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY:— _��'�. 3l � —l.� � THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben Date of Comrl�ents � C7 C�B �'" �'`"`C �2 %` . � �� ROUTING FORM DATE: 3 � '7 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �GU P __ -�,. ��(�j,��/}1 —� -� �o�d ��`4-a.b t�,o I�c�-- � r � � AT 1�� raQdu�a�n SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben ��L�� / 3 Date of Comments bJ � C��.��. � � �. �� .� � /� � � � ' R �� 1 � ` � .,.� � - � � � �' .., � � — 1 �� _ r .s.� " � / � �� b '�~ � �. _ � �� , ' _ -�._ .. J - � � , W . � � W ` �� "`'�`:�� ` '��.�.�,' � R } -3 1U �. � � � % �► W � _ , � - ,_ 4 ,,,� � _ s _ — _ � � �,�. . � .,'.7 , 1 s-�*, � , i.- µ � '�► � � ■ ' �' + • • 13ZZ ^ � ' • a F � � 13/ V � , ■ tr . '� � 1 a �� r3I� �a 3 �b . ' �� /� ; ,+'µ� �E2,a , �doa , . O� � r �.. ,. � _ --� s ' # ��O�i O � � y . . r - �.. -...,..o....... � ` ` ' Y .«. . _. . � . ..�� ►� _.4�,. . � ` ., � 1 �I �'� � � �� 1 i � f i'fi ' j�� r �%Ji+6 �, � ; � ` ►355- " 1305 ,., �- � ,. 132"1 • �310! ' (3Z3 �aol � ' ' , 13z1 � �� .•• II$l. T�� ` - ` _ �' � I I 5$. i � F�:�+�-�s• irl.� � � � � q .►' ` � � �� ; ` ! 44 �� , �.�� "'� � � ..-�.�.. " -;�, ' 11 e _, . , M . �r ,.,, . � � ' �` . :tt� i � ; '�' 1 :�' r `� � 0 1 � , ? � . �t.. , � � , � � �" ,. .� � . dw� � Q . � � � ::v � � , _ _ ._.�... - �.�,� � � ;�� 1 _ � - : � Y� 1 . �" r-' � � � ' � 1 t. �. . __ � r � �-Z CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL�e PLANNING DEPARTMENT �501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 1327 BROADWAY APN: 026-211-3U0 Application far a special pennit and parkin� variance far expan,sion of a fooci estr�blishment for P U B L I C H E A R I N G� outdoor patio seating at 1327 $roadway, �,�ncd NOTICE C-1, Broadway Commercir�l Area. 1`ha City af Burlingame Planning Comnussioxi atmotu�cc� the following publie hearing c�n MondaY. May 12. 1997 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Coiu�cil Cl�ambers located at 501 Pruiuose Road, Burlingamo, California. Mail�i May 2, 1997 (Plea.re refer to otiter side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed. prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the nocice or in written correspondence c�elivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monrce ....:�.� �':�� City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) • CITY OF BURLINGAME r��E» PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 l�#27 BR(�Ar)WAY APN: 02G-Zl 1-300 l�p�Iication for � spccisl gcrrnii anc3 parking vsu-ianee far expansion of a fcx�d establisbment Cor outdoor patio seating at 1327 l3ro�dway, 7AI1Cd C-1, Brc�ciway Gommer�;ixl Ar� (CONTINUED FROM MAY 12,199'7). '1'he City of Burlingame Planning Cc�mmission announces the following public hearuig on Tue.edaX,�,y 27�,19� at 7:DQ P.M. in tt�e City Hall Council Chatnbers lcx;atc�d at 301 �'rimrase Road, Burlingame, Califomia. Mailed May 16, 1997 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice aze responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe � - - ; -'� `�,�'" City Planner ' PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: � ' _• ��• r:- � •�• :� � .�� .�� - .�- • � - 1" 11 .�� . .�1' . �.1 • , �.� •1 � �.�.� _.� 111'1 i �.� .. •�'_� i �.� �. �1111� • •�\ �• �� i �' 1' 1. '/� • �� •1 � �� 1�-y � � �' - WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Mav 12� 1997 , 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 RFSOLVED 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. Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 consists of operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. 2. Said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit and parking variance 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, Charles Mink , 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 12th day of�_, 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, special permit and parking variance. 1327 BROADWAY effective May 19, 1997 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped Mazch 26, 1997, Sheet 1 with the outdoor storage and seating area fully enclosed by a wall or fence, use of the gate shall be limited to emergency exit and access to the storage area; 2. that the use of the outdoor patio area by customers or employees shall be limited to daylight hours, shall not be used for overflow, private parties or special events, the seating in the patio azea shall not exceed 15 and in no event shall there be any use of the outdoor seating area after 8 p. m. any night of the week; 3. that the outdoor patio area shall not be used for any form of live entertainment or recorded music amplified by outdoor speakers or other similar devices; 4. that the business owner and operator shall provide a security camera with a screen inside which can be seen by the bartender and would allow continual surveillance of the outdoor seating azea; 5. that the business shall have a maximum number of two employees on site at one time; 6. that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this special permit and parking variance; and 7. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of approval in 3 months (August, 1997), each July thereafter and upon complaint. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: � •• � • �-- � .�• -� . � .�� . �-- ..- . �- �' n .�� , � �• .�,� • ,�,� •� • �� - .� ��'� C •,�„ •�-� : �,�., •n��- , : -,, :'► 1 • 11 : ►- �- �, - �M - . �• •.•� : •�1 1 � ��-r �. �' - WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on �y 27� 1997 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a signiiicant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per Article 19. Section 15301 E�cisting Facilities, Class 1 consists of operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (a) interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. 2. Said special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit and parking variance 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, J� L. Deal , 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 27th day of�_, 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, special permit and parking variance. 1327 BROADWAY effective JUNE 2, 1997 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 26, 1997, Sheet 1 with the outdoor storage and seating azea fully enclosed by a wall or fence, use of the gate shall be limited to emergency exit and access to the storage area; 2. that the use of the outdoor patio area by customers or employees shall be limited to daylight hours, shall not be used for overflow, private parties or special events, the seating in the patio area shall not exceed 15 and in no event shall there be any use of the outdoor seating area after 8 p. m. any night of the week; 3. that the outdoor patio azea shall not be used for any form of live entertainment or recorded music amplified by outdoor speakers or other similar devices; 4, that the business owner and operator shall provide a security camera with a screen inside which can be seen by the bartender and would allow continual surveillance of the outdoor seating area; 5. that the business shall have a maximum number of two employees on site at one time; 6. that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this special permit and parking variance; and 7. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions of approval in 3 months (August, 1997), each 7uly thereafter and upon complaint.