HomeMy WebLinkAbout1199 Broadway - Resolution-E
4-_y-
4
,.. t
to
.? w -
0
aa....-
u s
O`as
m
0 -�
w�
0
0—
0
E
� a
CL
O .�
L
t u p
U
u �►
>`
V
V
.n 0
T V 6 p
(D
s r. 00 E
RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 81
RESOLUTION GRANTING PARKING VARIANCE
1199 BROADUAY, BURLINGA T
RESOLUTION by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame
as follows:
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1980, an application was filed
by Garvis S, Bezdjian for a variance from parking requirements for
I
a building to be constructed at 1199 Broadway, Burlingame,
California (APN 026-192-220); and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 1980, a public hearing cn said
variance application was held by the Planning Commission of the
City of Burlingame, and said application was denied by the
Commission; and
10EREAS, said denial was appealed in the manner pro-
vided by the ordinances of the City of Burlingame, and a hearing
on said appeal was held by the City Council on January 5, 1981;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND DETERMINED:
1. The action of the Planning Coirn.iission in denying
said variance is hereby reversed, and said variance is hereby
granted by this Council, subject to the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
2. As required by the ordinances of the City of
Burlingame, the following findings are made:
(a) That there are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property, including the
size and location of the lot, making below ground parking
unfeasible .and financing restrictions eliminating the
possibility of second story parking,
1/12/81 II 1
(b) That the variance will add to the preservation
and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner in that
the property is currently unproductive; it will also add to
the enjoyment of the property rights of adjacent areas
since the detrimental affects of the vacant lot will be
eliminated,
(c) That because of the conditions hereinafter set
forth regarding types of tenants upon the property, the
granting of the variance will not be mateirally detri-
mental to the public health, safety and welfare of the
City or of the quiet enjoyment of others.
(d) The granting of this ordinance does not adversely
affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City since
the uses allowed are within the City ordinances.
3. This variance is granted subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Those conditions set forth in the memorandum of
the City Engineer dated December 3, 1980, and the memoran-
dum of the Park Director dated December 1, 1980? both
directed to the City Planner and maintained in his file.
(b) Tenants of the property shall be restricted to
the retail sale of commodities or goods; it is the inten-
tion of this condition that all other types of businesses,
including the providing of services such as food sales,
beauty shops,laundromats and offices, shall be prohibited.
-If any uncertainty exists as to the classification of pro-
posed business, the person requesting the use shall file
an application with the Planning Commission as provided
for special permits by Chapter 25,16.
4. This resolution shall be recorded by the City Clerk
with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo,
Mayor
2
0 a. ..
a
x, EVELYN H,
HILL, 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 19th day of
January,
1981, and was
adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILI,1EN:
Amstrup-Barton-Crosby-Mangini-Martin
i
NOES;
COUNCILMEN;
None
ABSENT;
COUNCIL1•1EN;
None
City Clerk
'
CT
O
0
• ; `' f F,:. P.C. 2/27/84
Item #3
MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO PARKING FOR A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1199 BROADWAY
The applicant, Garbis Bezdjian, is requesting a parking variance to provide eight
on -site parking spaces (17 required) to build a 6,570 SF commercial building at
1199 Broadway (Code Sec. 25.70.030i). The project meets all other zoning code
requirements for development in the C-1 zone. The property is located on the corner
of Laguna (one way north) and Broadway (two way). A public easement (city) which
contains a water main, sanitary sewer main, a gas main and power poles extends along
the east side of the property. This easement is proposed to be used as one of the
two accesses to the off-street parking at the rear of this project. Any use of this
city easement requires an encroachment permit. The City Council acts on encroachment
permits. Encroachment permits may be conditioned.
History of the Projects On Site
In 1978 or 1979 the applicant submitted a proposal for a mixed use (office above retail
on first floor) project. With review of that application an encroachment permit was
granted and recorded in August, 1979. Subsequently, the mixed use project was dropped
and a second project showing a one story retail use on the site was proposed. The
Planning Commission heard and acted on a parking variance for this retail project in
December, 1980. The variance request for nine parking spaces was denied by the
Planning Commission on a 3-4 vote. The Planning Commission decision was appealed,
and on January 5, 1981 Council approved the variance with five conditions: (1) that
the final working drawings for the Broadway Plaza be consistent with the plans filed
with this application; (2) that the conditions recommended by the City Engineer in
his December 3, 1980 memo and by the Park Director in his December 1, 1980 memo be
met to the satisfaction of each department; (3) that ingress be from Broadway with
no left turns allowed into the alley, with egress on Laguna; (4) that on -site parking
be limited to employees only; and (5) that tenants of the property shall be restricted
to the retail sale of commodities or goods; it is the intention of this condition
that all other types of business, including the providing of services such as food
sales, beauty shops, laundromats and offices, shall be prohibited. If any uncertainty
exists as to the classification of the proposed business, the person requesting the use
shall file an application with the Planning Commission as provided for special permits
by Chapter 25.16. The Council acted on the project by resolution (Res. No. 5-81) so
that the conditions made on the project would be recorded with the deed.
Following the Council's action in March, 1981 the applicant asked the Council to
review a proposed change in the facade of the project. This change would result in
altering the irregular appearance of the shop entrances so that they provided an
unbroken glass exterior. The Council agreed to the change. Construction was not
begun and the Planning approvals for this project expired in March, 1982.
In 1983 The Southland Corporation submitted a proposal to place a 7-11 store on this
site. This proposal provided 120% of the parking required for the retail square
footage proposed. Planning Commission denied the application on August 8, 1983.
The denial was not appealed.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed the present project proposal. The Fire Marshal (.January 26,
1984 memo) has no comments. The City Engineer (February 2, 1984 memo) comments on
-2-
both the project and encroachment permit. On the project he notes that the developer
will be required to leave the pedestrian access in good condition and provide on -going
maintenance, that required transformers will be placed underground or 15' from the
street frontage and out of the alley. The memo discusses placement of electrical
panel and trash receptacle and protection for utilities if the alleyway is used.
Under city code the City Engineer also makes recommendations on encroachment permits.
Regarding the encroachment permit the City Engineer reviews the conditions previously
established in 1979 as well as the conditions discussed but not adopted in 1980.
(Note: Since the City Council takes final action on encroachment permits, the City
Engineer only mentions them here so that the Commission can be aware of how the
conditions might affect the project. The Planning Commission may recommend adjustments
to the conditions of the encroachment permit if they wish.)
Applicant's Comments
For his justification for his request for the parking variance the applicant submitted
a copy of the letter he wrote with.the project the first time, November 1980 (date
stamped January 13, 1984). In his letter he discusses that the only exception to the
code required by the project is the parking. He points out the previous use on the
site was a filling station which generated a significant amount of traffic. The
driveways for the station also eliminated on -street parking. The previous mixed use,
office -retail project, with adequate off-street parking was dropped because of the
cost of placing the parking on site below grade. The current vacant lot is unproductive
to the applicant and the city and a potential policing problem. To require on -site
parking the retail space on site would have to be reduced by another third, making
the area for parking larger than the retail space on the site. A substantial further
reduction of retail space would make the project economically infeasible and would
affect the value of the property.
Parking is a problem on Broadway, however the parking situation was not created by the
applicant; and the impact of this project on the parking problem will not contribute
to the existing parking problem. The retail uses being proposed are those which are
not "one purpose" or destinations, but those which will be attractive.to those with
other reasons for coming to Broadway. If desired the on-site.parking can be limited
to those owning or working in the stores on site; the city can .meter the lot if they
wish. The new access will add two on -street spaces because of.the reduction in
driveways. Of the remodeled or new buildings on Broadway, only the new Home Savings
building has been required to provide on -site parking. Zoning will not be affected
since the request does not affect the use, but only the parking and conditions for
future use.
Special circumstances identified are: the
surroundings. A strict application of the
privileges enjoyed by other property
zoning classification but who do.not
give more advantages to the property
give advantages more consistent with
public convenience will be served by
site.
Study Questions
small size of the site, its location and its
code woulddeprive the applicant of the
owners in the area who are subject to the same
provide on -site parking. The variance would not
owner over other owners in the area, but would
those of existing property owners. Finally, the
allowing an attractive development on this
At study the Planning Commission expressed a number of concerns.
-3-
Encroachment Permits
Under the municipal code encroachment permits are granted by the City Engineer and
appealable to the City Council. In fact, the City Council reviews all encroachment
permits for city held easements before they are granted. The Planning Commission
has been made aware of the City Engineer's recommendation on the encroachment permit
because staff felt it might affect the review of the project. However the Planning
Commission is not involved in approving the encroachment. permit. The Planning
Commission may make suggestions regarding the encroachment permit if they wish.
Uses of the Structure
Technically the proposed building is in the C-1 zone; thus any use suitable in the
zone is appropriate. However, the applicant has offered (and also offered in 1980)
to allow only uses which were supportive of the major destination uses already
located on Broadway. This was an attempt to offset the traffic impact and inadequate
parking. In January, 1981 the Council defined these uses as follows:
"that tenants of the property shall be restricted to the retail sale
of all commodities or goods; it is the intention of this condition
that all other types of businesses, including the providing of services
such as food sales, beauty shops, laundromats and offices, shall be
prohibited. If any uncertainty exists as to the classification of the
proposed business, the person requesting the use shall file an application
with the Planning Commission as provided for special permits by Chapter
25.16."
Map of Parking
The Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission's staff have prepared a hard copy of available
parking and time limits along Broadway and the adjacent streets. Staff will have
this map available at the meeting. Please feel free to stop by and see it before the
meeting or call staff if you have any particular concern.
- Trash Receptacle
The plans submitted do not show a trash receptacle. Staff suggests that the Commission
condition the project with the standard they would like to see.
- Pedestrian Hazard on Sidewalk
The only change in grade staff could identify on the plans was at the handicap,ramp
on the corner of Laguna and Broadway and at the driveways (one on Laguna and one on
Broadway). According to the City Engineer these driveways meet city standards and
pose no greater hazard than any other driveways in the city. The handicap ramp at
the corner is required to meet State handicap access requirements.
- Location of Transformers
Underground transformers were not required unless the facility was being placed along
the street frontage in plain view, because of the number of existing poles in less
visible locations on the site. Underground transformers are more expensive to install
than above ground ones.
-4-
Parking Area Lighting
The two fixtures shown on the plans are adequate to light the rear parking area provided
a large enough bulb is used. The area will be required to be lit to the existing
city standards for parking areas.
- Drainage
All drainage on the site will be required to be brought to the public street (_in this
case Broadway). Final plans will not be approved until the provisions for the on -site
drainage meet city standards.
Variance Requirements
To grant a variance .the Commission must make the following findings which relate to
the particular property (Code Sec. 25.54.020):
a. that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable
to the property or class of uses in. the district, so that a denial of
the application would result in undue property loss;
b. that such variance would be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a property right of the owner of the property involved;
c. that the granting.of such variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of such
property or improvements; and
d. that the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city.
Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. At the hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
1. that the project be built according .to the plans submitted and
date stamped January 6, 1984;
2. that the project receives an encroachment permit;
3. that,the final plans for the project meet all the codes and standards
of the City of Burlingame;
4. that an enclosed trash receptacle, accessible to BFI, be provided
and maintained on site;
5. that if the parking lot is to be closed off to the public use at a
given hour in the evening, the parking lot lights also be turned off
at that time to reduce the impact on the adjacent residential use;
6. that a six foot fence or wall be provided on property line between the
project site and the adjacent property facing on Laguna; and
-5-
7. that the final landscape plans be approved by the Parks Department.
k iafr4CO- "I
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
2/21/84
cc: Garbis S. Bezdjian
Page 8
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984
ITEMS FOR STUDY
11. VARIANCE - 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE - BY DOMINION-STOPPA FOR SARTI & SARTI, INC.
Requests: garage depth of structures on adjacent sites, any reports of flooding in the
past two or three years; sketch illustrating the variance request. Item set for
hearing February 27, 1984.
12. SIGN EXCEPTION - 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE - FAMOUS AMOS COOKIES
Is this an awning or a canopy? Set for hearing February 27, 1984.
13. PARKING VARIANCE - 1199 BROADWAY - BY.GARBIS BEZDJIAN
Requests: regarding use of the easement and required encroachment permit, would like
criteria and policy of the city regarding encroachment permits; clarify proposed
uses of the structure; map indicating available public parking giving time limits and
estimated number of spaces; designated area for trash receptacle, covered/uncovered;
possible pedestrian hazard on sidewalk with difference in grade, Sheet A2; regarding
CE's condition #4, why not require transformer underground; are two small lighting
fixtures in the back adequate; is drainage to the street. Item set for hearing
February 27, 1984.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its February 6, 1984 regular meeting and
February 8, 1984 study meeting.
An.1ni 117NMFNT
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nannette M. Giomi
Secretary
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1984
been received from other tenants; the parking plan as submitted showed 24 spaces,
actually there are 27 which can be used. A representative of Winston Management
Company who manage this building - there has always been plenty of parking on the
site, with the addition of this company there still is no problem, there are 27 spaces
available. There were no further audience comments and the hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: available on -site parking; the three spaces shown in the public
utility easement cannot be counted; spaces for the deli have been designated, spaces
for Winston Management are designated but not lined; the potential for problems when
the adjacent vacant parcel is developed; property owner advised there is no
difficulty in going around the building at the present time and that would not change
with a building on the vacant parcel; paving the rest of the site could increase
available parking, property owner and building management felt that it was not necessary
at the preseni., time since there has been an excess of parking; concern about this
business which is a change of use away from M-1 and which would generate more traffic
than M-1 calls for; this is not good planning, Commission direction the last .few months
has been to redevelop the M-1 area into a higher and better use (office); a detailed
traffic analysis of the M-1 district would be helpful, find it difficult to deny
this application until presented with facts to support a finding there is a traffic
problem in the area; it appears three or four more spaces could be generated on -site;
applicant advised he has a two year lease.
C. Taylor moved that this special permit be denied. Second C. Giomi; following roll
call, motion failed on a 3-3 vote, Cers Garcia, Leahy and Schwalm dissenting, C. Cistulli
absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
8. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1500 SHERMAN AVENUE
Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) and attached map. CE recommended this
final map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Giomi moved .for approval and
recommendation to City Council of this final condominium map. Second C. Garcia;
motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Cistulli absent.
9. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE
Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) with attached map. CE discussed front
setback discrepancy with original approvals discovered after construction had begun
and staff's determination that construction should continue. CE recommended this
map be forwarded to Council for approval.
C. Giomi moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this final
condominium map. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote.
10. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS, 1555 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY (CIF
OFFICE BUILDING)
Reference CE's agenda memo (February 7, 1984) with enclosed map. CE recommended this
map be forwarded to Council for approval. C. Garcia moved for approval and recommendation
to City Council of this tentative and final parcel map. Second C. Giomi; all aye voice
vote.
Recess 10:02 P.M.; reconvene 10:07 P.M.
FRANK B. INGERSOLL,JR.
ROBERT R.THOMPSON
ALBERT J. HORN
DAVID C. CARR
ARTHUR H. BREDENBECK
NORMAN 1. BOOK,JR.
OUENTIN L.COOK
ROBERT A. NEBRIG
RICHARD C.BERRA
L.MICHAEL TELLEEN
LADE E. ANDERSEN
KEITH P. BARTEL
CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL,THOMPSON & HORN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
216 PARK ROAD LUTHER M. CARR
P. O. BOX 513 J. ED McCLELLAN
CLARENCE E. MUSTO
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940010 OF COUNSEL
November 17 1900 TELEPHONE
y �415) 342 -7461
v t L)
Planning Department J AN 13 1984
City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall PLANP. DEPT.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Application of Garbis S. Bezdjian
Project: 1199 Broadway
Gentlemen:
This letter is in supplement to the application above for
variance. The only variance sought is from the provisions of
Section 25.70.303(i) which would require a total of 16.43 park-
ing spaces for the subject project based upon the gross floor
area. The project design provides for eight on -site parking
spaces.
It is the position'of the applicant that he qualifies for
a variance under Section 25.54.020 based upon the following
facts:
(a) There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the subject property so that a denial of the ap-
plication for variance would result in undue property loss;
(b) Such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a property right of the owner of the property;
(c) The granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injuri-
ous to the property or improvements of other property owners,
or the quiet enjoyment of such property or improvements; and
(d) The granting of such variance will not adversely affect
the comprehensive zoning plan of the City of Burlingame.
Until recently, this property was improved with a filling
station, owned and operated by the applicant. During such use,
traffic in and out of the station was extensive. Further, dur-
ing such use, there was little public parking on the street on
Broadway or Laguna adjoining the property because of the drive-
1
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
Page 2
November 17, 1980
ways into the station.
With the gasoline shortage, the applicant closed the station
(thereby relieving the traffic congestion related to the station
-- and the gasoline lines such as have been in evidence at the
Standard station one block away).
The applicant intended to build a new structure with office
and retail.space rentals and adequate on -site parking'to satisfy
the zoning requirements. Because of the size of the lot and the
problem of access to the street, below ground level parking is
not feasible. On -level parking and second story parking were
planned in the projected structure. In spite of the best.efforts
of the applicant, however, such a structure was not possible to
build due to economic reasons. Financing.for the project was
not available due, primarily, to the ratio of unproductive (non -
rental) parking space to the rental space. For these reasons,
the larger project has been abandoned.
At the present time the sight is totally unproductive to the
applicant and to the City. It has been impossible to keep per-
sons from improperly parking on the empty lot, despite many
attempts to fence the same. A vacant lot on one of-Burlingame's
main streets is unsightly and harmful to the City and the area
merchants.
The new project has been planned to provide eight parking
spaces, despite the fact that this requires both space and access
to Broadway (at the expense of rental space). The five planned
retail stores within the structure are.of fairly minimum size
for productive rental. In order to provide the number of spaces
required by the code, the applicant would necessarily have to re-
duce the rental spaces almost one-third (at which point the park-
ing on -site would be larger than the rental space). Such a plan
is simply not economically possible and would result in the in-
ability of the applicant to develop the property at all.
At the present time the property has a value of approximately
$650,000. Unless it can be developed for the permitted business
use, with a parking variance, such value will be greatly diminish-
ed. Such circumstance constitutes undue property loss (satisfy-
ing condition (a) of Section 25.54.020).
With the variance, the applicant can devote the property to
its proper business use, since the development would then be
economically feasible. This circumstance satisfies condition (b)
of Section 25.54.020.
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
Page 3
November 17, 1980
It cannot be denied that parking is a problem in Burlingame,
and the Broadway area is no exception. However, such parking
situation was not created by applicant and the subject project
will not, in any material way, contribute to the problem.
The retail stores planned for this building exclude uses
frequently associated with "one -purpose" traffic (persons who make
a special trip to the business area to visit one destination,
such as a bank, grocery store, restaurant, barber or beauty shop,
etc.). The applicant plans retail stores of the "boutique" type,
visited by persons who come to Broadway with many destinations
in mind ("shopping"). Therefore, it is not contemplated that the
five new retail stores will generate much new traffic or add to
the parking problems.
The applicant is willing to restrict the eight spaces to be
provided on-site;to the public (no parking by operators or staff
of the retail stores will be permitted). The applicant is even
willing to have the City meter the parking in the lot to promote
public use if the City desires to do so.
In addition to the eight on -site spaces to be provided, the
new structure will actually add at least two new spaces on the
streets beyond those available under the prior service station
use.
It should be noted that of new building uses on Broadway,
only the Home Savings building has provided any parking. The
new use at Broadway and Paloma (although technically, we assume,
a building "conversion" and not a new structure) -generates a
great deal of automobile traffic for the restaurant and other
businesses and provided no parking. It would seem an undue im-
position upon this applicant to help alleviate problems created
by others.
The applicant believes that the facts stated above demon-
strate that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare and would certainly not
be injurious to other property, thus.satisfying the requirements
of condition (c) of Section 25.54.020.
Finally, the.granting of this variance will in no way ad-
versely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the City (condi-
tion (d)), since it is not a variance in use, but only in condi-
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
Page 4
November 17, 1980
conditions for use.
In conclusion, the applicant believes that the variance
should be granted because of the special circumstances appli-
cable to this property, including its small size, location and
surroundings. A strict application of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity, who are subject to identical
zoning classification but who do not provide on -site parking.
The variance would not give the subject property or applicant
more advantages than the surrounding properties or owners, but
would merely be more consistent with them. The public conveni-
ence will be promoted by allowing an attractive building to be
built on this property.
Yours very truly,
to"L �1/C . CRJt/
David C. Carr, for
CARR,McCLELLAN,INGERSOLL,THOMPSON 8 HORN
Attorneys for Applicant
DCC:mmm
February 2, 1984
MEMO
TO: Planning Department R EC E I V E
FROM: Department of Public Works - Engr. Division FEB � -:1984
Re: 1199 Broadway Parking Variance clu By,
Staff has reviewed the subject site and the plans submitted with the variance.
Should the Commission decide to approve the variance, the following conditions
of approval should be attached:
1. The applicant to apply for and receive on behalf of the owner, a Special
Encroachment Permit for use of the alley area before the variance be-
comes effective. The previous Special Encroachment Permit was conditioned
on the following:
FCE:mg
a. The alley area to be one-way into the site off of Broadway with
left turns from Broadway prohibited. Owner to install and main-
tain pavement markings and "No Left Turn" signs to the City
Engineer's satisfaction.
b. The owner to post and maintain "No Parking" signs in the alleyway.
c. The owner to post and maintain a "Low Clearance" sign at the en-
trance.
d. Barricade gates be installed on the Laguna exit and also parallel
to the alley from the Broadway entrance. These gates to be locked
to prohibit night parking without a key and are to be maintained
at all times by the owner.
e. An asphalt traffic bump to be installed and maintained in the alley
area prior to the turn into the property.
f. The owner to install and maintain a 40' guard rail in the alley area
adjacent to the building opposite this site.
2. All damaged or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the site to
be replaced by the applicant.
3. If other than Standard P.C.C. sidewalk is installed, that the owner shall
maintain any City walks that may be damaged by the street trees.
4. If a transformer is required, that it be installed underground or at least
15' from the street frontage and not in the alley area.
5. Electrical panel to be installed flush with exterior of the building,
clear of the parking backup area.
6. An enclosed trash area shall be required.
7. If the alley is used, lowering of water meters and traffic lids is required.
r
Frank C. Erbacher
City Engineer
DATE: /—/ep-6W
MEMO TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
t,TRE MARSHAL
-B4*EG:F8R-ff- PARKS'
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Pr��osc�% GS%D 5F Co�m�G"`'� S�Gftfr� ayf
//p9 Bi2a�%vay .
An application has been received for the above project for review by the
Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for
STLI�Y
at their meeting. We would appreciate having
your comments by
Thank you.
Helen Towber
Planner
s/
att.
M ► n-r rn�r� Cc�4-e, S .
iY1. i tJ�N ram('
1,..•j{ep• �' ♦ � y �`y,. ,;... .. ���� d x;�:e�'�'ta %/� /'y'p•'* t' by ��t c^�: � � .d+�
'�' •. `i. � t "IA.i. � '•at.y. ' �„�, "3, z �. {�. • �� • •,�// '* �,.' �.: �r i' � -`tip tt7
�® ,a>y� ', ""i4 ' t 'r �k 1 his+ / / r°� f •'
�"•: "fie R f � � �'" x .��; •I � r+ ' f�
V-1
.�;�y' S-,• 4a�,,/ .y ."'t�.x 'F'„ 'tjll- ~ f'( �+[ °X ,.tf45S"ty.� l �" i.,:•. !' gftY
fJ �r.. .a. �c .7 .`' „ • . I., .s'r0i � !"\ •'" ,F� �` S • �+"�s". _ t^e, d 't T 'ii;,> - : ; �, ��
�.•r• f! l3•. 1 ..:!'� *� 4 01"': -:p^� �r i`"' 3y. �. i .:k .` !
,fit , ! �, r�'�� vl- �+��.. '` { � � �.. ��. .•� •� Ix. --. �.A :v:' � �na �+, �k�' 7�i'. / �':: .`i-.
• I lr i�% r♦ Qa.
, A of
'. 1, Y}.. ��� •��.� Y'.�� ',•.ta,�,� y ,` tr..' 5 +L4; .t' S%f. �.; ii tf '7
���.��♦�i t "' '.,r,�`.. • f'" O♦�. ',t` •Y•'. ,� ej r.. G{','e r'� "`!•�;'4f• l `
,�,, l.`•!` ^}��{,�,�., yr5 �. ' .9�5".. • ��,''� `:I �R_ �',r.i♦.I 4�2.^ t�i '�'►� i/ ������;,"+§' L •�,.J'e' •i?�•�L�;f. ,,..+[.� "`:i�a 'Y .
er4MAIME
t r
�) •-`//;,» � "` r4i`` ` 1� \ ' �'�� . �` >�"4'i` i,x -+i� r. _ ; ,.;k, / • �� `�f!' Yr>� ',F � ' m ,�' � `;."i` .,k� �z "�' .y��/ a. ,•;;,
alr_"ti �f �.F / rbr � '�i • tn` s R�„�yy��;;����e4`�� { .Y' E� .. °'!�'?'�ajj,,��,( gg
'Y '4#. /� �:�_♦_ `,' '�,g` tyr{4:. K7y, �� a$.` y.yp,•!�'41--'ii1.3E;.
��•t ,iY p�.' r `�.4 •dfA � ') S^- a «•_ �°J'i' t. • �r '�s. t^ 'ter a r }: ,� 1� ' ..Y
',{�G`oA}lt '\' t � �� .- °' ' - � ` .�.5 {: • •L.�. �V�'', -q i� � s \ � "•,��f . ;�-.. - � (_ 1- da� � L . �Y
*•t P ��jfy,
? f is N \ \5 +Ly �. :9 r,/��►` rpr�t
a .fit �',� ��� ��,�"= it Jrr ���� •\ !F. �'�r`�' r� �M��\. t �:ri" .I .+ la,.
t+ R '��. �}'�S �*�t41. ��'.ti �. e �r{q,"y�' •. �a • �:�:I .i'. •. ';y �� t3.t 9fi
A` � J� ���,�,z t• •-' •�' ♦ +� r"' •'I•.� Y".t�
+�i., �4✓r . r�...t �l;�i : £s y •i'=ii�cK Y.,, Y s�./ .j'g �.. ��1 � } �y �'•..,�V„
S w �! O,y� ♦\ fig. `a,�Af � '� .� �,�� y i � ,fit w ti ♦ �„,�.
AF
119
0-1
,: ��°' ��!�r��„ tr= I f �o', ., i � {��, #s. � a +�.` �r"ts' _ c, � �^"�p:cry�`� "'��� W�K� 'r t` ' fih'•,��.
.I <; �dv ♦"+ ,,j\.`^\ 1.:'S{ice / •i A�* V � �i }` �' \. �e f'., �j i3. .. 1r Mt , �'
y,
� • ♦ � %Cf ¢ �• r�1 `V,�",��RA.y { T � . tw «z"F4 � � :�. ;«i`�„e � �;'� `^ �"� `� • `,�R °�� rt a '+�
�� D � ,,�Y �^e, s Cs�`d +e►1 „' �•�,•� � J�•� '.'�LFt •�'t t,
�'�1,r`lyt.„,^/ ,•? k� •�'a ��.f '� . °
'+at{// 1 /J • I t U +' '�., ♦ I • �"�s�'+fY �rP�Lt M '�''-
•411• l ♦ .":� / F' �� �tl � � �ra.4` •., E �•a ^t. 1 R^_. ti t A 'ey
_`�''4`,. � a s z '.� .^ / �..- ram" J��. �. `"� k .s �, t+ar � � �i�. °t :� �1�N.�*� ,• �'
tN ��� J ,a ;;". i ,',r,.+y J .tlFy .w:r .Ftb i � C '� .�•v- 1� ., 5, t •°
•�i:� �•,�%�t � , "I • � .. tiS�� •� 3 W�,i'y t'�w•t ` r , �, tits � .���t�t ' �' ' '..s t � � ��
- Vim+ .ry'.��, �':L+�r ,t rPt'� . � �',i. ,, �,�`>� `';,' ` ��s ;•.sci� - +,y,yf j� {•, � 1y„+t 'wp Y w -1' y+F+� '}
NGAME I ,
Czhr &tya of Nur6jp=
March 8, 1984 SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
Mr. Garbis S. Bezdjian
40 Berryessa Way
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Bezdjian:
TEL:(415) 342-8931
Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the
February 27, 1984 Planning Commission approval of your Variance application became
effective March 6, 1984.
This application was to allow construction of a commercial building at 1199 Broadway
with eight on -site parking spaces rather than the-17 as required. The February 27,
1984 minutes of the Planning Commission state your variance was granted with the
following conditions:
1. that the project be built according to the plans submitted and date
stamped January 6, 1984;
2. that the project receive an encroachment permit;
3. that the final plans for the project meet all the codes and.standards
of the City of Burlingame;
4. that an enclosed trash receptacle, accessible to BF.I, be provided and
maintained on site;
5. that if the parking lot is to be closed off to the public use at a
given hour in the evening, the parking lot lights also be turned off
at that time to reduce the impact on the adjacent residential use;
6. that a six foot fence or wall be provided on property line between the
. project site and the adjacent property facing on Laguna;
7. that the final landscape plans be approved by the Parks Department;
8. that a use permit be required from the Planning Commission for all
proposed tenants; and
9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 2, 1984
be met.
All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to
the Building Department.
Sincerely,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
cc: Chief Building Inspector (w/att.)
City Engineer (w/att.)
Director of Parks
Assessor's Office, Redwood City
(Lots 25 & 26, Block 2, Easton Addition; APN 026-192-220)',
slL�
44 !Imiv P."55ir
6-7'Z � ' vb.A
21
2y -
k
N yN
,-QN
MN
`
\SI
t
�
t
t
t
�
�
N N
N
u
N
N�
�l I
I
ts.
*y
February 2, 1984
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works - Engr. Division
Re: 1199 Broadway Parking Variance
RECEIVED
FEB 2.- -1984
CITY OF BUR�INGAME
KM1NUsr APT,
Staff has reviewed the subject site and the plans submitted with the variance.
Should the Commission decide to approve the variance, the following conditions
of approval should be attached:
1. The applicant to apply for and receive on behalf of the owner, a Special
Encroachment Permit for use of the alley area before the variance be-
comes effective. The previous Special Encroachment Permit was conditioned
on the following:
a. The alley area to be one-way into the site off of Broadway with
left turns from Broadway prohibited. Owner to install and main-
tain pavement markings and "No Left Turn" signs to the City
Engineer's satisfaction.
b. The owner to post and maintain "No Parking" signs in the alleyway.
c. The owner to post and maintain a "Low Clearance" sign at the en-
trance.
d. Barricade gates be installed on the Laguna exit and also parallel.
to the alley from the Broadway entrance. These gates to be locked
to prohibit night parking without a key and are to be maintained
at all times by the owner.
e. An asphalt traffic bump to be installed and maintained in the alley
area prior to the turn into the property.
f. The owner to install and maintain a 40' guard rail in the alley area
adjacent to the building opposite this site.
2. All damaged or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting the site to
be replaced by the applicant.
3. If other than Standard P.C.C. sidewalk is installed, that the owner shall
maintain any City walks that may be damaged by the street trees.
4. If a transformer is required, that it be installed underground or at least
15' from the street frontage and not in the alley area.
5. Electrical panel to be installed flush with exterior of the building,
clear of the parking backup area.
6. An enclosed trash area shall be required.
7. If the alley is used, lowering of water meters and traffic lids is required.
Frank C. Erbacher
FCE:mg City Engineer
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984
a'nd-what_A*s common open space area ,_-fjep-l-proposa no rea y or consideration.
Following roll camo.�imim o°"`aeny t variance -.passed on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli,
Schwalm -an d-1 y or dissenting. Appeal procedures were a` RI -Ted: --mow -. s
PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1199 BROADWAY, BY
GARBIS BEZDJIAN
CP Monroe reviewed this request to build a 6,570 SF commercial building with only
eight on -site parking spaces rather than 17 as required by code. Reference staff report
dated 2/21/84; February 14, 1984 study meeting minutes; Project Application & CEQA
Assessment received 1/6/84; Negative Declaration ND-351P posted February 17, 1984;
applicant's justification for variance (November 17, 1980 submitted with previous
project) date stamped January 13, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (2/2/84) and
Fire Marshal (1/26/84); aerial photograph of the site; documents from previous appli-
cations for this site in 1983 and 1981; and plans date stamped January 6, 1984.
CP discussed details of the application, history of -projects proposed for this site
and fact that this proposal was the same as the 1981 proposal, staff review, applicant's
justification for variance, study meeting questions, code requirements. Seven conditions
were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Commission discussed on -street parking removed by this application and by a previous
gas station use, public utility easement, encroachment permit. Chm. Graham opened
the public hearing. Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, discussed the mixed use project
approved in 1981, his inability to proceed with that development, the 7-11 store
proposal for the site which was denied by the city in 1983, and his present proposal.
The following members of the audience spoke in favor of this application- A15�rt
Kapkin, 110 Park Road; John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue; Clyde Williams, 110 Panic Road;
H. A. Clover, 2985 Summit Drive. Their comments: applicant is only asking for what
was approved in 1981 prior to the 7-11 store proposal which was denied; the lot is
flooded in winter, it is an eyesore, city is losing sales tax money, proposal has
potential for providing the types of stores needed on Broadway; applicant should be
able to get a return on his investment in this property, believe he would build a
good project and keep it well maintained; trade and shop in Burlingame, would like
to see improvements made in the community, sorry to see stores leave, this vacant
lot is an eyesore, support this proposal. There were no further comments in favor.
Those speaking in opposition: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue;
Gene Mitchell, 10 Crystal Terrace. Their comments: think project is a good one, but
have concern for pedestrian safety in the alley, suggest if approved a 5' pedestrian
walkway along the 1169 Broadway building be required; in opposition because of traffic
congestion on Broadway, if the project provided public parking would be in favor; if
the city is going to solve the traffic problem, parking regulations should be followed;
if this application is granted the city will receive similar requests and the traffic
problem will get worse. In rebuttal the applicant stated his proposal provides
one-half the required parking; he would not be bringing new people to the Broadway
area, customers would be people who come to Broadway regularly. There were no further
audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/concerns: the project will create eight parking stalls but they
are not public parking, there is employee parking available within a block of the
site; concerned about traffic onto and off this site and opposed to losing two to
four public spaces on the street by curb cuts; considering the traffic involved with
this proposal and the curb cuts, would rather grant a total variance to the site;
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
February 27, 1984
`gave difficulty finding exceptional circumstances with this particular property,
could set a precedent, a 50% variance is a great deal of parking but the arty has a
good parking ordinance and Commission should follow it; Burlingame Avenue has parking
exception for first floor retail, believe retail uses are entitled t a variance;
if trash receptacle is provided, one parking space would be elimin ed; regarding
setting\a,,precedent, Commission considers each project on its ow,merit; this lot
is substandard in some respects but Commission should balance 5ncerns against the
use to which ,the lot could be put; this site should be develoa ed and feel this is a
good proposal;,\this is not a new proposal, has been approved previously, think a 5'
walkway a good idea, Broadway merchants have never shown/feadership in starting a
parking district,his developer will provide approximely one-half the parking
required, in favor of the project; the lot may be anAeyesore but Broadway is a complex
street, very congeste , feel the variance will set, precedent, applicant should
develop the lot in a ner that provides the regiiired parking.
C. Taylor moved that this'application for a parking variance to allow a 6,570 SF
commercial structure at 1191 roadway with tight on -site parking spaces rather than
the 17 as required be approve subject to tte following conditions: (1) that the
project be built according to t q plansibmitted and date stamped January 6, 1984;
(2) that the project receive an en�roae ment permit; (3) that the final plans for
the project meet all the codes and stafidards of the City of Burlingame; (4) that
an enclosed trash receptacle, acces 'ale to BFI, be provided and maintained on site;
(5) that if the parking lot is to e c c�sed off to the public use at a given hour in
the evening, the parking lot ligp s also`Te turned off at that time to reduce the
impact on the adjacent residential use; (6) that a six foot fence or wall be provided
on property line between the project site and the adjacent property facing on Laguna;
(7) that the final landscape/plans be approved,by the Parks Department; (8) that a
use permit be required from"the Planning Commission for all proposed tenants; and
(9) that the conditions o /the City Engineer's memo of February 2, 1984 be met.
Addressing findings nec ssary for variance approval;,,C. Taylor incorporated into the
record November 17, 1990 letter from David C. Carr (dste stamped January 13, 1984)
setting forth exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property,
that such variance it' necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property
rights of the owne , that it would not be detrimental to a public health, safety or
welfare and that the granting of the variance would not adv sely affect the comprehen-
sive zoning plart'of the city. Second C. Schwalm.
Comment on the motion: would like to see the parking on site be available to the
public, empl yees in these shops to find parking in the long term arking lots nearby.
A further cc�omment: opening these spaces to the public with the grea r amount of
turnover w511 generate conflict with traffic on Broadway.
Followi g roll call, motion approved on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli., Garcia nd Graham
dissen ing. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recegs 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M.
4C/ SIGN EXCEPTION - AWNING SIGN AT 1109 BURLINGAME AVENUE - FAMOUS AMOS COOKIES
Withdrawn by the applicant.
,. . t
Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984
have difficulty finding exceptional circumstances with this particular property,
could set a precedent, a 50% variance is a great deal of parking but the city has a
good parking ordinance and Commission should follow it; Burlingame Avenue has parking
exception for first floor retail, believe retail uses are entitled to a variance;
if trash receptacle is provided, one parking space would be eliminated; regarding
setting a precedent, Commission considers each project on its own merit; this lot
is substandard in some respects but Commission should balance concerns against the
use to which the lot could be put; this site should be developed and feel this is a
good proposal; this is not a new proposal, has been approved previously, think a 5'
walkway a good idea, Broadway merchants have never shown leadership in starting a
parking district, this developer will provide approximately one-half the parking
required, in favor of the project; the lot may be an eyesore but Broadway is a complex
street, very congested, feel the variance will Get a precedent, applicant should
develop the lot in a manner that provides the required parking.
C. Taylor moved that this application for a parking variance to allow a 6,570 SF
commercial structure at 1199 Broadway with eight on -site parking spaces rather than
the 17 as required be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the
project be built according to the plans submitted and date stamped January 6, 1984;
(2) that the project receive an encroachment permit; (3) that the final plans for
the project meet all the codes and standards of the City of Burlingame; (4) that
an enclosed trash receptacle, accessible to BFI, be provided and maintained on site;
(5) that if the parking lot is to be closed off to the public use at a given hour in
the evening, the parking lot lights also be turned off at that time to reduce the
impact on the adjacent residential use; (6) that a six foot fence or wall be provided
on property line between the project site and the adjacent property facing on Laguna;
(7) that the final landscape plans be approved by the Parks Department; (8) that a
use permit be required from the Planning Commission for all p-ropuzed tenants; and
(9) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of February 2, 1984 be met.
Addressing findings necessary for variance approval, C. Taylor incorporated into the
record•November 17, 1980 letter from David C. Carr (date stamped January 13, 1984)
setting forth exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property,
that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property
rights of the owner, that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare and that the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the comprehen-
sive zoning plan of the city. Second C. Schwalm.
Comment on the motion: would like to see the parking on site be available to the
public, employees in these shops to find parking in the long term parking lots nearby.
A further comment: opening these spaces to the public with the greater amount of
turnover will generate conflict with traffic on Broadway.
Following roll call, motion approved on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli., Garcia and Graham
dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 9:00 P.M.; reconvene 9:05 P.M.
4:-'rSI-GN-EXCEPTION----AWNING•-SIGN=AT-1109.
Withdrawn by the--&v cant.
COOKIES
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1984
aIgd what is common open space area, feel proposal is not ready for consideration.
Following roll call, motion to deny the variance passed on a 4-3 vote, Cers Cistulli,
Schaim and Taylor dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
3. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AT 1199 B�OADWAY, BY
GARBIS BEZDJIAN
r
CP Monroe`,reviewed this request to build a 6,570 SF commercial" building with only
eight on-si"te parking spaces rather than 17 as required by,eode. Reference staff report
dated 2/21/84;, February 14, 1984 study meeting minutes; roject Application & CEQA
Assessment receyved 1/6/84; Negative Declaration ND-351p'posted February 17, 1984;
applicant's justification for variance (November 17, 180 submitted with previous
project) date stamped January 13, 1984; staff revievv$�,.'''City Engineer. (2/2/84) and
Fire Marshal (1/26/84); aerial photograph of the ss rte; documents from previous appli-
cations for this site in 1983 and 1981; and plan°date stamped January 6, 1984.
CP discussed details o� the application, histofy of -projects proposed for this site
and fact that this proposal was the same as Mite 1981 proposal, staff review, applicant's
justification for variance, study meetingustions, code requirements. Seven conditions
were suggested for consideration at the p. lic hearing.
Commission discussed on-stree parking Femoved by this application and by a previous
gas station use, public utilit��ease nt, encroachment permit. Chm. Graham opened
the public hearing. Garbis Bezdgia , applicant, discussed the mixed use project
approved in 1981, his inability t`o�proceed with that development, the 7-11 store
proposal for the site which was ¢e6rvted by the city in 1983, and his present proposal.
The following members of the 4* dience `spoke in favor of this appli..lation: Albert
Kapkin, 110 Park Road; John Benson, 1401\Paloma Avenue; Clyde Williams, 110 Park Road;
H. A. Clover, 2985 Summit Ave. Their comments: applicant is only asking for what
was approved in 1981 prio to the 7-11 store proposal which was denied; the lot is
flooded in winter, it is an eyesore, city is�^l�osing sales tax money, proposal has
potential for providin the types of stores needed on Broadway; applicant should be
able to get a return n his investment in this property, believe he would build a
good project and kee it well maintained; trade an shop in Burlingame, would like
to see improvements made in the community, sorry to ee stores leave, this vacant
lot is an eyesore, support this proposal. There were QAo further comments in favor.
Those speaking }-fi opposition: Ross Bruce, 500 A1mer Road;.�Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue;
Gene Mitchell, 0 Crystal Terrace. Their comments: thinkVroject is a good one, but
have concern or pedestrian safety in the alley, suggest iNapproved a 5' pedestrian
walkway ion the 1169 Broadway building be required; in opposition because of traffic
congestion n Broadway, if the project provided public parking would be in favor; if
the city i going to solve the traffic problem, parking regulations should be followed;
if this a plication is granted the city will receive similar requests and the traffic
problem �All get worse. In rebuttal the applicant stated his proposal provides
one-half the required parking; he would not be bringing new people;to the Broadway
area, ustomers would be people who come to Broadway regularly. TfAere were no further
audi ce comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion/concerns: the project will create eight parking'stalls but they
are not public parking, there is employee parking available within a block of the
site; concerned about traffic onto and off this site and opposed to losing two to
four public spaces on the street by curb cuts; considering the traffic involtied with
this proposal and the curb cuts, would rather grant a total variance to the site;
the Tits vf Nurlingamr
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
NOTICE OF HEARING
-�' (-P, ,
TEL: (415) 342-8931
PARKING VARIANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 27th day of February, 1984 , at
the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers 501. 'rimrose koad,
Burlingame, California the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will conduct
a public hearing on the application to allow anew 6,570 sgtiare fc'-.�t-coir4nercial
structure at 1199 Broadway with only eight on -site parking spaces rat-,1er than 17 as
required, zoned C-1, by Garbis Bezdjia,i
At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard.
For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department.
N Ffi i:, ric 84,
MARGARET MONROE CITY 0 BURLINGAA
CITY PLANNER
2. �" L
February 17, 1984 _
PROJECT APPLICATION
Ef CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received (1/6/84 )
Staff review/acceptance ( )
1. APPLICANT Garbis S. Bezdjian
1199 BROADWAY
ONE project address
BURLINGAME BROADWAY PLAZA
project name - if any
343-4659
name telephone no.
40 Berryessa Way, Hillsborough, CA 94010
applicants address: street, city, zip code
Same 343-4659
contact person, if different telephone no.
2. TYPE OF APPLICATION
Special Permit ( ) Variance* (X ) Condominium Permit ( ) Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION VARIANCE to construct a one story 6570 SF
commercial structure on the corner of Broadway and Laguna Avenue
with 8 on -site parking spaces rather than 17 as required. The
building will have 5 shops which range from 1140 to 1325 SF. Access
to the parking behind the building is via a (public) alley off of
Broadway; cars would exit onto Laguna. From 5-10 employees will
work on site and ±80 customers are expected during an average week-
day. The nearest off-street public parking is on Paloma (500' away
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) and on Rhinette
Ref. code sections): (25.70.030 ) ( Chap . 25.36 ) away).
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 026-192-220 ) (25 & 26) 2 ) ( Easton Addition )
APN lot no. block no. subdivision name
( C-1 ) ( 10,841 )
zoning district land area, square feet
Garbis S. Bezd-Tian/Maida M. 40 Berryessa Way
land owner's name Bezdjian addr ss
Hilllsborough, CA 94010
Required Date received city zip code
(yew (no) ( - ) Proof of ownership
(yeEF� (no) ( - ) Owner's consent to application
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Vacant lot (former service station) on the easterly corner
of Broadway and Laguna Avenue
Required Date received
(yes) # ( 1/ 6/ 8 4 ) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and
curbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on -site parking; landscaping.
(yes) ( " ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us4'on each floor plan.
(yes) k ( " ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
(yes) 4rg4 ( " ) Site cross section s) (if,relevant).
(other) ( 1/'13/84 ) letter of explanation
*Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL
Proposed construction, Below grade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF)
gross floor area First floor ( 6570 SF) Third floor ( - SF)
Project Code Project Code
Proposal Reouirement Proposal Requirement
(Laguna) Front setback
(Broadway) Side setback
Side yard
Rear yard
Lot coverage
Building height
Landscaped area
On -site pkg.spaces
61%
100%
22'
SP over
525 SF
none
8
17
M
r
(SEE AERIAL PHOTO)
s_
r O
O r t
•r
� 3Y
U--0 (1)
rO o
Cc,
M to
m�r ro
Q S-
N Li-. U
Q)
o -)
0 x cc
+-) r0 U
N � •r
4-
O U •r
00 0)
U •r
QJ Ln
t 0
4-) Rs
0 s a--)
r 4-3 r
S_ N U
C aJ (3) •r
r = S_ 4-
4-3 4-
roL os-
6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
Full time employees on site
Part time employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
IN 2 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
5
5
5
0
80
20
80
0
one
none
182
50
20
-
1+ 1
none
IN 5 YEARS
after
8-5 5 PM
5
5
5
0
80
20
80
0
none
none
182
50
20
-
1+
none
*Show calculations on reverse side or attach separate sheet.
7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Public alley and AVR Realty to the northeast; residences to the
southeast on Laguna; shops to the west and north on Broadway.
Required Date received
(yes) (no) ( ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
(yes) (no) ( ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office space)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( )
no. company vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( ) Other application type, fee $ ( }
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 ( ) Project Assessment $ 25 (X )
Variance/other districts $ 75 (X ) Negative Declaration $ 25 (X )
Condominium Permit $ 50 ( ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ _( )
TOTAL FEES $ 125.00 RECEIPT NO. 0279 Received by H . Towber
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signatures j. �.J /jam d:�y� Date
(Applicant)
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-351P
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on February 17 1984,
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion: The construction of the proposed 6,570 SF -
commercial building will meet all City codes except on -site parking. The present
design provides 50% of the code minimum (8 rather than the required 17 spaces);
these parking spaces can be reserved for long tern employee parking; short term
customer parking-c n be providedI-on-street at meters or off-street in several nearby
�,, AK CITY PLANNER 2/17/84
—'��ature bf Pro/ ssing Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, a determination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTING Date Posted: _ &a. / 7- / %ffT
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to the Council Chambers. �7
Executed at Burlingame, California on
Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No
YN H. HILL, 'CITY CLERK, Y OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION
Project proposal/plans have been circulated
for review by:
date circulated
reply
received
memo attached
City Engineer (1/18/84 )
(yes)
(no)
(yes),
(no)
Building Inspector ( " )
(yes)
(no)
(yes)
(no)
Fire Marshal ( " )
(yes)
(no)
(yes)
(no)
Park Department ( — )
(yes)
(no)
(yes)
(no)
City Attorney ( — )
(yes)
(no)
(yes)
(no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns
Mitigation
Measures
With 5-10 employees on site and
Determine if on -site parking to
80+ customers each day, will 8
be reserved -for employees or
parking spaces be adequate? How
customers. Review other parking
does the project compare with
available on street or in public
existing shops in the area?
lots.
The parking lot is entered via a
Request review by the City
public alley off of Broadway.
Engineer; is this proposal safe
What is the effect on traffic
and acceptable?
and on -street parking?
Does the applicant satisfy the
Review application; make
four legal requirements to grant
findings.
a variance?
Where will the trash container
Request info from applicant.
be located? Accessible to BFI?
3. CEQA REQUIREMENTS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review? Yes. See Negative Declaration ND 35(P
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed (
) Study by P.C. ( )
Decision to prepare EIR (
) Review period ends ( )
Notices of preparation mailed (
) Public hearing by P.C. ( )
RFP to consultants (
) Final EIR received by P.C. ( )
Contract awarded (
) Certification by Council ( )
Admin. draft EIR received (
) Decision on project ( )
Draft EIR accepted by staff (
) Notice of Determination ( )
Circulation to other, agencies (
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received (1/6/84 )
Accepted as complete: no(X ) letter to applicant advising info. required ( )
Yes( ) date _ P.C. study
Is application ready for a public hearings (yes) no) Recommended date (a a 7—Ycf)
Date staff report mailed t�pplicant ( 2 Date Commission hearing ('2 -;;:z-7
Application approved (i/ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) (no)' /
Date Council hearing ( ) Application approved ( ) Denied ( )
Mwick M60 aQ
signed date
BURUNGi
JVHE6
lht Crttu cf 'durfinjjante
SAN MATEO COUNTY
CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TEL:(415) 342-8931
March 3, 1981
Mr. Garbis Bezdjian
40 Berryessa Way
Hillsborough, CA. 94010
Dear Mr. Bezdjian:
We wish to advise that at their March 2, 1981 meeting the City Council
reviewed the design change requested for your project at 1199 Broadway.
There was no objection to the change in the shop entrances and amendment
of the final working drawings.
Sincerely,
J,.
John R. Y t
JRY/s City Planne
cc: Chief Building Inspector
City Clerk
Park Director
Mr. Denis Henmi
2950 Clay Street, San Francisco 94115
David C. Carr, Esq.
COUNCIL INFORMATION
March 2, 1981
MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DESIGN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 1199 BROADWAY
Garbis Bezdjian, who owns the vacant lot at the corner of Broadway and Laguna Avenue,
recently applied for a parking variance to construct a one story 6,575 SF commercial
building with 8 on -site parking spaces (rather than the 17 required by code). The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application December 8, 1980; after
discussion Commission feelings were divided, and a motion to approve the project failed
to pass on a 3-4 roll call vote. Mr. Bezdjian appealed this denial to Council, and a
new hearing was scheduled for January 5, 1981. At the conclusion of this second
hearing, the parking variance was approved with five conditions:
1. that the final working drawings for the Broadway Plaza be consistent
with the plans filed with this application;
2. that the conditions recommended by the City Engineer in his December 3,
1980 memo and by the Park Director in his De, -ember 1, 1980 memo be met
to the satisfaction of each department;
3. that ingress be from Broadway with no left turns allowed into the
alley, with egress on Laguna Avenue;
4. that on -site parking be limited to employees only; and
5. that tenants of the property shall be restricted to the retail sale
of commodities or goods; it is the intention of this condition that
all other types of businesses, including the providing of services
such as food sales, beauty shops, laundromats and offices, shall be
prohibited. If any uncertainty exists as to the classification of
proposed business, the person requesting the use shall file an appli-
cation with the Planning Commission as provided for special permits
by Chapter 25.16.
During the past month Mr. Bezdjian's architect has prepared several studies of the
front elevation of the building, and would now like to change the original irregular
appearance of the shop entrances to a simple, unbroken glass exterior (see the attached
exhibit and "Broadway Plaza" plans by Kwan/Henmi date stamped February 17, 1981).
Total floor area of the five shops will remain unchanged, as will the 8 on -site parking
spaces. A possible advantage to the new design is that the original 9' sidewalk width
on Broadway will be increased by 4' to a new width of approximately 13', allowing
better pedestrian circulation.
Staff has no objection to the design change. The size and on -site location of the
commercial building are consistent with the plans reviewed by Council during the
January 5, 1981 public hearing. Unless there is some specific concern with the
appearance of the present plans, a building permit will be issued for this design
after the working drawings are completed.
JZ X. q,-Jr
JRY/s 2/25/81 John R. Yos
cc: Mr. Garbis Bezdjian City Planner
40 Berryesssa Way, Hillsborough 94010
Mr. Denis Henmi
2950 Clay Street, San Francisco 94115
EXISTING
ALLEY
c -
i
AUTO
ENTRANCE
t
- Neu Desun
BROADWAy
' New Sidewalk Paving Hand:capa--J,
Ramp
PLOT PLAN / FLOOR PLAN
SCLLS : 1/0" V IT19W 7Fwa•""Mu- rAV1NGs
5
% CONSENT CALENDAR
1. JPhC - ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Memo of February 24, 1981 from Citv Manager informed Council of
a request for an'additional $5,000 contribution from all cities
involved. This is to be used toward expenses of the authority
and an accounting of expenditures will be requested for
Burlingame's records.
City Council Minutes 2. PROPOSED DESIGN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED COMMERCIAL BUILDING
March 2, 1981 AT 1199 BROADWAY, GARBIS BEZDJIAN
City Planner's memo of March 2, 1981 explained that this design
change is for the front elevation of the building to present a
simple unbroken glass exterior instead of the original irregular
shop entrances. An advantage would be that original 9' sidewalk
would be increased in width by 4', allowing better pedestrian
circulation. Staff had no objection to this design change.
3. MAP CHANGE FOR 977 EL CAMINO TO REMOVE WIDENING OF SANCHEZ
Mayor Martin requested this item be removed from consent calendar.
4. ORDINANCE - INTRODUCTION
a. ORDINANCE NO. 1200 - "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PARKING
LIMITATIONS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE CENTRAL TRAFFIC
DISTRICT."
5. RESOLUTIONS
a. RESOLUTION REGULATING PARKING LOTS K AND L, BURLINGAME
AREA OFFSTREET PARKING DISTRICT
Mayor Martin stated the intent of this resolution was to
accompany the second reading of Ordinance No. 1200 and
its consideration should be delayed until the next meeting.
It was taken off consent calendar.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 16-81 "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1980 WASHINGTON
PARK IMPROVEMENTS - JOB 016"
Councilwoman Barton asked this item be removed from consent calendar.
Councilman Amstrup moved approval of consent calendar with exception
of Items 3, 5a, and 5b, second by Councilman Mangini, carried
unanimously.
MAP CHANGE FOR 977 EL CAMINO TO REMOVE WIDENING OF SANCHEZ
Memo of 2/10/81 from Director of Public Works and memo of 2/5/81
from City Engineer reviewed one condition of this condo permit which
owner has appealed for removal. This condition was that Sanchez
Avenue be widened 5' to permit installation of right turn lane at
Sanchez and El Camino.
In response to Council questions, Director of Public Works explained
that because of State objections to the right turn lane and delays,
developer had asked to put in temporary curb and gutter because
of weather conditions. He also asked for removal of this condition
and had been told that Planning Commission and Council must.approve.
Planning Commission had approved deletion of right turn lane, and
curb and gutter had been installed with understanding it would be
removed if Council did not approve. Council discussed this con-
dition and also questioned the status of the sidewalk which has not
yet been installed behind the street trees. Staff said the last
condominium unit would be held pending satisfaction of all map
conditions.