The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1310 Burlingame Avenue - Staff ReportITEM #7 CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Address: 1310 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 11/12/96 Request: Special Permit for a 7% increase in floor area of a food establishment (C.S. 25.36.038, 2) at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Applicant: Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt APN: 029-152-190 Property Owner: Gensler Family L.P.I. Lot Dimensions and Area: 65' x 125', 8125 SF Zoning: C-1, Subarea A General Plan: Commercial, Retail Shopping and Service Adjacent Development: 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 and (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Previous Use: Sole Mio, eating establishment Proposed Use: Nathan's on the Avenue, eating establishment Allowable Use: Commercial retail and eating establishment Summary: Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt, applicants, are requesting a special permit in order to expand an exisring 2,577 SF food establishment at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The applicants are replacing an existing restaurant at the site, Sole Mio, with a new restaurant called "Nathan's on the Avenue." The existing restaurant has 2,577 SF of interior seating area, ldtchen and bathrooms. An existing 42 SF mechanical equipment enclosure will remain at the rear of the site. The applicants now propose to remodel the interior and expand the eating establishment by 208 SF at the rear of the building for needed storage area. The additional space will accommodate a new walk- in freezer, storage area and extend an existing corridor. The new food establishment would be 2,785 SF, representing a 7% increase in floor area. The front of the store along Burlingame Avenue will be remodeled to provide a patio area at the front of the restaurant (approximately 238 SF). A movable glazing system will be provided along the front of the building which will create an opening of the patio area to Burlingame Avenue. A gate located on Burlingame Avenue will be provided to secure the premise at night. This property owner did not take a credit for parking provided when the parking district was formed. Therefore, under present regulations, the structure may be extended to the rear property line without providing additional parldng so long as the use remains retail sales. No parlcing is required for first floor retail uses including restaurants in Subarea A. 1 �• .!. �ru. � .�� ,�� u•�. fKlO� i�!u : 'i. The restaurant will be open Monday through Sunday 10:00 a. m. to 10:00 p. m. There will be a maximum of five full time and two part time employees. The applicant projects the maximum number of employees and customers on site at any one dme is 90. The projected number of customers is 100 for weekday lunches and 130 for weekend dinners. The applicants do not anticipate an increase in the number of employees and customers within the next five years. Staff Comments: City staff reviewed the request. The Senior Engineer's October 21, 1996 memo notes that all waste water needs to flow into the sanitary sewer system and needs to be properly treated on site before entering the sewer collection system. The Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on this project. Study Questions: At their meedng on October 28, 1996 the Planning Commission asked for the number of seats in the patio area. In a telephone conversation with the applicant, he noted that there will be 14 seats in the patio azea. The Commission also asked what the tasks will be for the seven employees. The applicant noted that there will be one to two chefs, three servers, one dishwasher and the applicant's wife to help with serving and cashiering. Required Findings 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings for the special permit. 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 submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1996, Sheet A.1 and September 26, 1996, Sheet FS1; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 1, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the hours of operation of the business shall not exceed the hours of 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, with a maximum number of seven employees on site at one time; 4. that seating in the patio area sha11 not exceed 14 and any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 2 �pecial Permit for xpa cion Food �stablichrnent I310 Burlinrame Avenue 5. that the gate located at the front of the site on Burlingame Avenue shall remain locked in the open position during business hours; 6. that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the Donnelly Avenue side of the premise; and 7. that the project shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Etlition 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. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt, applicants 3 CITY OF B URLING.4ME PLINMNG COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 19SK no chimney/flew s wn on any elevation, if eplace interior how does it �ffect second floor and roof; page , fireplace intrudes into back; is the setback less th�n 4' (does it need a variance); c k all three houses; Set f action Tuesday, Novembe� �12, 1996, if information is receiv in time. % � 2. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, (GENSLER FAMILY L.P.I., PROPERTY OWNERS AND NATHAN AND MARILYN L. SCHMIDT. APPLICANTS). Requests: number of seats in patio area; occupational breakdown of number of employees showing how ratio of 7 employees to 90 customers will work. Set for action Tuesday, November 12, 1996, if information received. ACTION ITEMS 3. APPLICATION FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, SIGN EXCEPTION AND PARKII�� VARIANCE, AT 1041-1049 BROADWAY, ZONED G2, (DONALD Refe�:�nce staff report, 10.28.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed cri�eria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Five conditions were �riggested for consideration. � � Chm. Ellis opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, 1077 Broadway, addressed the Commission. He objeets to the staff report stating this is a code enforcement item and he did not request a master sign program, he will not need the benefits of a master sign program, he only applied for a pole sign. He feels the bunting signs should be allowed the same as they are on "auto row" so there is a"level playing field". Without selling used cars the auto sales business would not be viable. His employees now park in the CalTran right-of-way; to provide parking on this site for imaginary personnel would preclude his ability to do business. Commission asked why a letter was not provided by Mr. Gumbinger allowing the use of his plans. Mr. Harvey stated he told CP Monroe to delete Mr. Gumbinger's name from the plan. �P Monroe noted for the record that it is not city policy to delete or add to plans. The issue �'of use of Mr. Gumbinger's plans is between Mr. Harvey and Mr. Gumbinger. Staff requested ! a resubmittal from Mr. Harvey, one was not given. The definition of this area as "auto row" for signage is a City Council issue not a Planning Commission consideration. The sign height is needed because the building housing the stereo business Monney, blocks the field of vision and without visibility used car sales are difficult. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted the plans as shown are not representative of the conditions on the site and it makes it difficult to act. He noted that this application was an improvement over the previous application for Monney's because employee parking was designated and it appears employees will park elsewhere anyway; key to the new use is display area along Broadway, it is of little -2- L CIT /BURLINC�AMi, CITY OF BURLINGAME ��,. h,, V:• APPLICATION TO 1'I� PLA►NNING COMMISSION e, Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other_ � Project Address: (� � u� �.�� (�� - Assessor�'�s Parcel Numb�r(s):. QV � -�`(lA R -�'1c. � APPLICANT Name�N�� I �iAQ1�� • � n l�01,� n-�r City/State/Zi I� �i,i� r� ► � i �n �.�d � �b ��.�; �� PROPERTY OWNER Name� � Q �S_� �,i„ Aaaress: �,•T_�u� y�� ty/State/Zip: � � n , „ i � P::;; :e ��;: -� l"U -05 I I 1,t�+ . I S.i o �h>: � �� a�►� ) � `{-� � � r---- �� --� I O _ ___� � I • M� _ � � • �l `�--71 � � ,,,...�_ �--•.. _ �S �I-� - �� I t iiv,a►. �w�. ch> : 3 � �- - ►�. �� fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER � �7�� . (�_ . �'- Ll �II=R�►1� Name: � ��.�L 1'M �1'�C�'��0�� , Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: � C. L.t� contact person for this application. City/State/Zip � � q,�( �1 Phone (wl: � � 0 � !hl• AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. �, � � a � 9 .� A licant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. � � . ;; �. .., . . ., � l� `_� V't�. ` �- l � -L - � , roperty Owner's Signature Date ----------------------------------------------FO� OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------------ ��f �G� Date Filed: Fee: SEP 2 6 1996 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: i� —: l' K LI N C:fu'✓I E �_'�.'.��v��eia�G DEPT. �r� �. i OURlJN91.Mi COn��RCIAL APPLICATIONS I�• � �' PLANrIING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM •... 1. Proposed use of the � 3. 4. �2 g . EX� "_�li � S'� � �eJ Days and hours of operation. '� � ! O—" � O Number of trucks/service vehicles to be pazked at site (by type). � Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM- After AM- After AM- After Operation PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM PM 5:00 PM Weekdays � S_ � � � � Full-time Part-time � 2 Z, � �, Weekends � L 1 � Full-time �Y� Part-time 5. Cunent and projected ma�cimum 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 l D O � d n Weekends 12U 13 O 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): � O . , 7. Where do/will the owner & employees park? 2 ✓1 Y 8. Where do/will customers/visitors park? Q� Q.�J�"' 1A�-�� - 9. Present or most recent use of site. �'e-S 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary�� r� � i A� T� r� �� p� v`� �j A 1LeX' ��j Ij� �°F' i V 1r�2. �., S c� l� oU►,r,� �. I � � r(� � T 0� � B41RL1NGAME �� """� �` 61J��0o!l11� �L��UVII� U W��10IrU II ��IIU`� . `�a, 1 — The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be de�trimenta/ or. injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. �fiQoio�D G�cP,g�V�roN ullcc II��cT A�SS, DA�uy�r S�fAG�hl��/g b"7c �= �1'AE'�T �o�'QT��3 . 1'T l�S !9 = 3" c�5s �u � TA�+u ��A� l,v� �N��C� To A�MMeO� �lQ K� �vrP. C�t,t�l�Sv�B Gri► O�C�2 Tc vA,VT �tOL !T �cP�,uDS S�•• avOC6� �� l�l�L l T �� C�s .�it► /l�r��l 77'fA�d �2 4'G ��Z�� A�AcQ'�U7 P,QoP�c1 . • /�?odlSlo�1 !S /�A9�' �4� IAC�Tl4A/ O� �9�f � �ar� I��f�s?��S n�� G�G �� Ac'� fo T�r . 1��lNP�i�.S `1a �� l.��A� �- Cca� . �� To � wek�'��lA� �- �DE� �°Q� • G� � AMIr Ma�s��evv�1-ZI�Uy Sz�t�� No�Crr�� D�Iu�C�uS a� k�Qpa� �0�?!C-� Ae E�ii�LlC �Lr/[sla . • t.?u�r��r y eXrTwc� f �� s �C�kccu� . � �� f � �'�CCt /1,�'�MI�L-� lfNOE��/cz�. 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT • p9�s A�o� luvou� gf�io� �cr �►�� • S� 2A� A�=Q� y COr1P�7�B�L� �fi� . • N`a P�h2�tr� P�Q o, l� �b PA�tuc►r �u��v�Cp. • �CrG�� lc� I%ld�t � I?.1�2�� 7NAr�1 J�die:�l��"r.�� -. � D Mt�v�u�' �, gtL �tlU�� ' �U�SrrS 7a��,l� �`�acv�v � y �v��y ��r s~r�� 'u� . n ac�K a c_c�4�U��/�s�rt�vy -P � �, • coHo�t-tA�cC� �u �T 3. How 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 • �P� �ScaN �u � �'�t�v� cu �D.�s�� N � f��z f ��.s �a�r1—. C ��r� 17t� � stra/�J eti'�y . � A� S��a�c� �rr ��2 Or�� l�N� �uro lYa-i�cl �e�-�� un ,l.�rc� r� � ��r � C l ��v�c� ,�^�� `�vcov� ,� �'� Usg . d SM�2 i�! � -P�'�'A�C� -r ,�JAe�uT �fA��l�, ��vn?' , 2/82 ��s ��X'.� C/�VKHP�' �-J�I�G� ��P�S Q, ep.frm � lu ��%K-L�►'L�'-`i� � O `v�T•�? • W� {{Acl� ��1 lAt `fNP1 R�sZA�rLA�JT �uUC�, A�C C��. '['�►'z' DU�Z ft�Pu�ZIoN �Wtc�,..1�l2luc� hto�G ��sU�� i'o �t�- t MNl�p.�Ar't� ,�,G+� 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, genera/ we/fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structu�e affect neighborinp properties or structures on those properties7 If neighboring properties witl not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfarel Public health includes such thi�gs as sanitation (garbape), 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, stora�e of chemicals, situations which encoura�e the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 Will 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 patherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conserv�tion and development7 Is there a social benefitl Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 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 OrdinanceT . Ask the Plannin� Department for the peneral 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 neighborhood? 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 explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change to structure, say so. If a new structu�e 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. WII there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? 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 �eneral vicinity7 Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. tsres .P.r� (�, CITY , �� t BURiJN('aAME . �,- ;__ �:IT1� �i)F :U�L_II��(�Hf�./IE SPE��IHL F'Er�MIT �� F''F''LIC�HTI��)I`J�� / � The Pianning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. z. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be de�trimenta/ or. infurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/i�,health, safet , genera/ we/fare, or convenience. �j,,�, �,� ,� �� V��,c;� aJh.c.,Ji GN cw c,� �,(.,,�� ! i. � � . � �� c.u�.w c,ua� �,c.n, w,,,t,Q.�, crn. d:�n � � � w � �-1, r � `l�e_ �i-e.�-�.�z.c� • .��-e- � ��.� k c. � — yYt�c�,Q,�� .,� � � -F-�.e�v�.�,� o ��v • ,��Gan.n,�f, J�c;�� /tiC.e�u-� ; C�n � ,�-C,� �I�� 1, a,t, mou. f �t'ke. .;�.e��a vu�• . �/ �U,,� � �c.�1'�n�.��,��`'`'�--1,C� �,, n ��"�,� m�, Q�Nr�. G�a�7 �.e-' � G r1�'N'� �,�.L.C� �-o � v � c�u ��" ' � ,� �.v,�c,� • C�L � �--�—�b� �►�- ��`— "� � D - � a�, . � , n,j,t�,w rn.. � �� ,wY�.�l_.�,� � u.�c.� � �� ! . J. /' � We. �a�- f/l�w l�^� (� �a-b1-�..(,�.�-c.�--L �.e.. �n v�N�t�A �-�`�`-�t�'. �,�h�.�.,�,c�.b c��-- %�'-f %x- l��"' c�by ow�..�►r.°��.�.c�.�+ ��.�.�.�,�.�.:�.�d.-� �,,of��-�-�-�-� �� - �-%-�� ,c.� �b�z., . How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT � )_ ,_ ��'�� -f- h �.� ��, ' �.,�..� �0� ��. iAMr'�� .v� �C.I�L.e.. �-h.C.c� A,nl 11lJ�,u-�� I, �,� u , P� _ . �'`� � -�r � � n c.t- f�" .(,Je. Gv�-U I w-� C� � �i �� 'v c� �1 J�� c,��,�, �-j � `� .� G��Sc�n�l� �o�2�n��5. 3. How 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 ��w�1 P,9ae.� �l�,�� c� �� hl..� ,�,w�.�'� 11.�,�.. Il-�! ��►,�i-d�-�� . � o-Fu-L- c� � a-,� � �s-l-J �. ��-�'�`-' � �� ,Q.�� , �-�- �� h � . ��j1,a-r..�,�Q.. •�� Gt,�Q,(�-��" 1 rlUt�.r�tJ-�� Y►�! (.��- O'�`�'�-�,/.�-c-e�� l,�i' �!�-t��n5 -i. � � � �- GL20�f ti-�' i �, � r1- . �.t� t... A.t-�.1..��. �� % l GC,c.� (�Y�� , m�.�-- c��- C �i � . � (� u� �Ji�-e-A�"1 •n 5, w%u (% C�' i0'� a�-o � Qn.,c�0�-� — 1 rYl ��f c. �- �.F-� ��`�'� � . . -� �c,�:u. �.,�-� �...�c��- a�.�, � . � _ � , 2�s 2 (�, � �, � c�o /'U-�ou� �^�-' � � � � ( / � � e�► 2 S> �t,�•�-C� �1�-�-t�j �Ytd'u� � .p.fm, • , � � , '^ / � �� n�R I�tl�� c.��i � � � � vh,��.-, �.� � `� � �� '� ��. �(�l�.i.� �'V' �M n D�.�� n �.G�� ^}�`� I,C� G�1 � ��" ��Fi� W � � � . � +�.Q.t. /1ti.t- ti�0 � /�-v�/ 1. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious fo property or Improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we%fare, or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighborinp properties or structures on those properties? 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 structu�e or use within the structure not affect the public's heaith, safety or general welfare7 Public health includes such things as sanitation (garba�e), 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 diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection7 wll 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 flatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use flammable or haza�dous materials, o� potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). Generel welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conserv�tion and development? Is there a social. benefit7 Convenience. How would the p�oposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parkin� for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicappedl 2. How wi// the proposed use be /ocated and conducted in accordance with the Bur/ingame Genera/ P/an and Zoning OrdinanceT . Ask the Plannin� Department for the fleneral 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 "fit" 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 neighborhood? 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 neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term ai�port parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits". How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl 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 neighbo�hood 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. WII there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. � How will the proposed project be compatible with existinfl and potential uses in the �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 tp.�m, ��c��,�� SEP 2 6 1996 September 25, 1��60� �URLING�1:'�IE ".�,NN{NG C�EPT. To: The Burlingame Planning Co. Burlingame, California 94010 Re: Letter of Intent -"Nathan's on the Avenue" To whom this may concern: This letter is being written in regards to the new business venture that Nathan Schmidt and myself are establishing at 1310 Burlingame Avenue. As most people � know, we have owned business' in the downtown area �o-�/- approximately 16 years. After a brief retirement, Nathan has decided to return, and the response from the public has been overwhelming. This particular location will feature global cuisine. There will be full meals, yet Nathan wants to specialize in small plates of different ethnic foods. This space will seat approximately 84 people, and we want to have some outdoor seating to add to atmosphere. The restaurant will be remodeled somewhat and will add a lot of charm to the existing neighborhood. Nathan needs to have more storage/freezer/refrigerator space in the back to hold the foods he needs, and that is why he is asking permission to have tY115 area drawn up by our architects approved by the planning commission. This area would not affect the aesthetics of the property, the property line, or affect parking in any way. We are very excited about this future project and Nathan and I are looking forward to being back "On the Aveue." We feel that our restaurant will encourage more business to Burlingame and keep our locals patronizing our downtown area. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, �� . �1�m� �� ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: �_ CITY ENGINEER '` CHIEF BiJILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUEST FOR �� AT I� � � , �� u `� ��, SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION A�$Pd MEETING:_ ��• REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: �� Co THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah , �. , s'�� r" l Date of Comments ��'�-v�— Yv��6-�,�.-� �0 � Vt,c,�� -� �- �P.e � � � —il,.� � � ��i �d -�'� -�Q.UJL � � �� x �� 6�-w iJ-��Ci,v,, v''' ��.�:-..� S" Y �� _ -___,�..��-� � � , l��__� W' J/ �' w l./� � l� � V"'� V v�� I' V n - 4'/^ �A^ J//�^/ N! ^ � � � �� -.///�✓ ��- �S ✓� V �it.X --�j�-�,�,,�Q�c�` lM� (,vG��- vJ�ti.� lj�'lp,e—�i �- � �1 � �;��, 5-� �..�.e�- s�5' �-� , � � u� -k �.li�-�,,.� Gi; w�� :�-e,e�y �� -� �-�- ��-�-e� / �i' � . _ ��j.� `i�i ;-;��, � (v /z�/� � � ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: �_ CITY ENGINEER '-T CHIEF BiTILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: SUBJECT: AT I� CITY PLANNER/PLANNER REQUF.ST FOR cCU� �V/I/! c Y'G� i �' � C� � ,�1��1 t� ��- �re-, �i �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION A�BAT MEETING: ��• � REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: �� C� Cn THANKS, Jane/Sheri/I.eah �' s7�' 1 e �lf' �� Fi�17`- r�✓ z�f �v'�---- r C t,� �.�1� '� r� Z. .Se�vrc . � 1f-� C�( o n`� 6-2 Gl �t� ��@� �j�/ttti�t � � Date of Comments �,.�� 1��.� /l �P =-��' � � I � o '1,� `P No co �, .►, �,�- m--� ,��rs� �a�r �55 — � ��- o� �Gr, p � � �f a (v � �. � �� 0 ) � ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB7ECT: REQUFST FOR � __�� ,� �d� � AT %� i �i . , �� , ' .�.� J �� SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION A-E�6Pd MEETING:_ ��. � REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: �� Ca THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah Date of Comments �,_ �'=: �-r� �� - � �-�-� �� ,,� � � ;�i � �-r�� -� ��,L � � �-�.,�� %{ �� :-�� r�: '�`>>� ��r�,� cS occ,��,��€�� .�y c�t�;�`� �, ``_ �' L ��>, t� -� � v� ` �%\' �\r� f � i , _ j � �_�� 1 - �i'_ �)ri��.�� , �-_ , � � . . +�`�� -�l 15._,� ., l':, ��_.��.�:�� _, '"l �� - .,L; �'�.';f`.! � �- �I \ � �: , � :, �,.�,, . ��` � � � � '� , l_ l��- ��-- �l�.X f t�-ZI -�l � I�� t-c.�-t'l�t�e �o�.�t.� � � b h �(�.r o f �Lt-. , l�qco ,�� CITY OF BURLINGAME r� PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6URLINGA�IE � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � e�l�: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 1310 BLJRLINC3AME AVENLJE APN:029-152-190 Application for a Special Permit far expansion of a food e�tablishment at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces tha following public hearing on T�e Av_ Novembar 12_ 19� at 7:30 P.M in tha City Hall Couacil Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. MeffedNove[nbeC ], ]996 (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, describe� in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior fo the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additionai information, please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you. �, _.:� . Margaret Monroe ,,��.� ��' City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) • ., I' I IIl � . 4 � � �- . Jt .� ° � < . o � -,� - � �� o� ! � � r /ti r � � / y_ � . -� ;� � i �_. �� _ / i -��. � •� '� � ` � / .1�'�� ,. � _ � � » �: � ,� ' , / � � � � � � � � �� :�� _ r � '` � ��` ¢, �' s� � / P � �.. � , � _ :, �, � �Q' / ; ... ,�. �. � � . � � � � � � �R�' � � "" J I � -_: � � �" /� / 5 • f y q , . ' ,�y - ` / � �� / �(i� � s ' . ` / `i�. �� . ,. , w � � G . � � _. / �i� ! � . �� - n,,, � .� � .. � _ • �. � �;- � 3 ' �vv C J�� , � >4 , t ' -^ � �� `. i� Y .. � � � ` � �- '! � 0� �� ' \ � � ,� F � (''% �s , � ' ° � � -:� �� . � • � .ti � � y� � � , . �v e�, . ` /. .1 . .;`' _ q �, • .y � � � / . ' oo . � � ,, �` �'' . �'#�,, � � � ,� .• ��a `ox � - ♦ ��• x � s � � � '' �� ' �a � s�'� o� � � - � ti � ,'s �� (/ q ��''� °� ,.� � � . 'P� � ��'ba ` �� °,°��\ '�`'P� , � � * "`7�, ., •. � `7jy 1� ��j�y ` � � .. � � O� i �, v��r `3� . � �L'\ ; � /� � ; -�\\ _ J� �� y� �" � � � s O � o �� . -�� R . ,' � � -4-}-- . ••• ,1 �� .. . R , + � �'��' ,� • � ` ' ' / � , �'�. � r. � r � � � I + � v� � ,a. � • �` � � �� -' R � \ f I� � �'� � � � ` ` i� /� �* . . "� ,• , � ��. �i ` � .Y�.�Y �. _ 1► � , '�1 � , , � �O � ♦ � y I > � , � � � ' �4 �M� 4 �'� i "�' � ' +"� � � s i ' r„ + � • ' . . «. � ` j, � , \ - , , . . : �7� F�;"4 � , �,�,, � _ � . � �, . . � . ' � � a��f + � *� �. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATE�'.ORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for special permit for expansion of a food establishment at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A, APN: 029-152-190 ; Gensler Familv. L.P.I., c/o 405 Primrose Road �roperty owner• WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 12. 1996 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presenteti 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. 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 and (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said special permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit 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 ofiicial records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Chuck 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 25th day of November , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and special 1310 BURLINGAME AVENUE effective NOVEMBER 18, 1996 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped October 21, 1996, Sheet A.1 and September 26, 1996, Sheet FS 1; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 1, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the hours of operation of the business shall not exceed the hours of 10 a. m. to 10 p. m. daily, with a maximum number of seven employees on site at one time; 4. that seating in the patio area shall not exceed 14 and any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 5. that the gate located at the front of the site on Burlingame Avenue shall remain locked in the open position during business hours; 6. that all deliveries to this business shall be made from the Donnelly Avenue side of the premise; and 7. 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. PROJECT LOCATION 1310 Burlingame Avenue Item # � Commercial Design Review Study City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Item # Commercial Design Review Study Address: 1310 Burlingame Avcnue Meeting Date: 6/24/02 Request: Commercial design review to remodel an existing commercial building (C.S. 25.57.O10,b) Applicant: Maher Fakhouri APN: 029-152-190 Property Owners: Steven Gensler Area: 8190 SF Designer: Tiffany Rose Leichter, Kahn Design Associates General Plan: Shopping and Service Zoning: G1, Subarea A, BACA Previous Use: Food Establishment (Stella Mia) Proposed Use: Food Establishment (The Crepevine) Allowable Use: Personal Service, Retail, or Food Establishment Summary: The applicant is proposing to remodel an existing single-story commercial building. This project is subject to commercial design review since more than 50% of the fa�ade facing the street is being changed. The existing building, currently occupied by Stella Mia restaurant, contains 2796 SF of floor area on the first floor and 876 of floor area in a second level storage loft. There is no on-site parking. The applicant is proposing to remodel the exterior and interior of the building for a new food establishment. No change in use will occur since both the previous and proposed uses are full-service food establishments and the proposed restaurant will operate under the conditions of the existing use permit. The applicant proposes to change the front exterior of the building by adding new, stained glass clerestory windows where there is an existing awning. New retractable canvas awnings will be installed below the clerestory windows. Above the clerestory windows will be a stucco fa�ade similar to the adjacent buildings. Approximately 400 SF of the front portion of the existing building will altered to create an outdoor seating patio and entryway. The patio will be separated from the sidewalk by a 20 inch high tiled wall. The walls of the storefront and entry beyond the outdoor patio will be clad in aluminum. On the interior space, the applicant proposes to retain and re-arrange the existing 1269 SF of seating area. This will cause the existing kitchen, cooler and cook line areas to be re-arranged. The storage loft will be relocated and reduced from 876 SF to 320 SF. There are no changes proposed to the footprint of the building. The applicant will be operating under the existing conditional use permit for the site (see attached Commercial Application and Approval Letter, dated March 19, 2002, for operation details). The applicant is requesting the following: Commercial design review to remodel an existing commercial service building (CS 25.57.O10,b); Co�rarr:ercial Design Review 13/0 Burlingame Avenue Proposed Existing Allowed/Req'd. Use: Full Service Food Full Service Food Food Establishment allowed with Establishment Establishment Conditional Use Permit (Stella Mia) (Crepevine) Parking: no change 0 first floor food establishment use is exempt from parking requirements/ second floor storage is existing, non-conforming with a 1-space (0.88) deficit * Floor 0.13 FAR 0.15 FAR 3.0 Area: 3296 SF (includes 3672 SF (includes 24,570 SF 1 S` floor and 1 St floor and storage storage loft) loft) * Since the use on site is not being intensified and there is no increase to the footprint of the building (and the floor area in the 876 SF storage loft is being reduced to 320 SF), unmet parking requirement is reduced from 0.88 parking space to 0.32 parking space. After the remodel, the non- conforming parking allowance for this site will be reduced to 0.32 permanently. Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that signage is shown on the plans to provide a complete picture of the proposed fa�ade design, however it is noted on the plans that all signage must be approved under a separate permit. Signage is not being considered as a part of this application. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Tiffany Rose Leichter, Kahn Design Associates 2 � ; CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Address: 1310 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 10/28/96 Request: Special for a 7% increase in floor azea of a food establishment (C.S. 25.36.038, 2) at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned G1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Applicant: Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt APN: 029-152-190 Property Owner: Gensler Family L.P.I. Lot Dimensions and Area: 65' x 125', 8125 SF Zoning: C-1, Subarea A General Plan: Commercial, Retail Shopping and Service Adjacent Development: 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 and (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Previous Use: Sole Mio, eating establishment Proposed Use: Nathan's on the Avenue, eating establishment Allowable Use: Commercial retail and eating establishment Summary: Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt, applicants, are requesting a special permit in order to expand an existing 2,577 SF food establishment at 1310 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1 Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The applicants are replacing an existing restaurant at the site, Sole Mio, with a new restaurant called "Nathan's on the Avenue." The existing restaurant has 2,577 SF of interior seating area, ldtchen and bathrooms. An existing 42 SF mechanical equipment enclosure will remain at the rear of the site. The applicants now propose to remodel the interior and expand the eating establishment by 208 SF at the rear of the building for needed storage area. The additional space will accommodate a new walk-in freezer, storage area and extend an existing corridor. The new food establishment would be 2,785 SF, representing a 7% increase in floor area. The front of the store along Burlingame Avenue will be remodeled to provide a patio area at the front of the restaurant (appro�cimately 238 SF). A movable glazing system will be provided along the front of the building which will create an opening of the patio area to Burlingame Avenue. A gate located on Burlingame Avenue will be provided to secure the premise at night. This property owner did not take a credit for parking provided when the parking district was formed. Therefore, under present regulations, the structure may be extended to the rear property line without providing additional parking so long as the use remains retail sales. No parking is required for first floor retail uses including restaurants in Subarea A. 1 I!. I/! �'/I ! � i � I / ' / The restaurant will be open Monday through Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There will be a maximum of five full time and two part time employees. The applicant projects the maximum number of employees and customers on site at any one dme is 90. The projected number of customers is 100 for weekday lunches and 130 for weekend dinners. The applicants do not anticipate an increase in the number of employees and customers within the next five years. Staff Comments: City staff reviewed the request. The Senior Engineer's October 21, 1996 memo notes that all waste water needs to flow into the sanitary sewer system and needs to be properly treated on site before entering the sewer collection system. The Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal had no comments on this project. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Nathan and Marilyn L. Schmidt, applicants 2