HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 014-2010RESOLUTION NO. 14-2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
APPROVING 1) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 2) A VARIANCE FROM SECTION
25.28.050(A)(3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING SIXTY FOOT LOT
FRONTAGE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT, AND 3) A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP
FOR SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, ON PROPERTY SITUATED
WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE LOCATED AT 12 VITA
LANE (PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION —APN: 027
093 300)
RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT:
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2009, Denham LLC, owner of the property located at 12 Vista Lane,
City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California; submitted applications for approval of a Variance
from section 25.28.050(a)(3) of the zoning ordinance, requiring a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet
and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for said property, in order to divide the property, :,ontaining a land
area of 21, 212 square feet, into two lots; one lot containing 10,537 square feet and the other lot
containing 10,675 square feet, each lot having a frontage of 55 -feet on Vista Lane; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame reviewed the requests as a
.,study item" at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 28, 2009; and at that time requested
clarifications to the application prior to scheduling the matter for a public hearing and action; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Variance, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map
approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the staff report prepared for the matter, all
oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing and all documents and other
evidence submitted regarding the matter; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, based upon the analysis included in the staff report, and all
oral and written testimony submitted during the public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission
moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners
Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting); and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution memorializing
its recommendation to approve the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and
Terrones dissenting); and
WHEREAS, after the Planning Commission's initial review and approval of the project, staff
discovered that this minor subdivision would not qualify for a categorical exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act because this subdivision required a Variance for lot frontage. Consequently,
the Community Development Department - Planning Division prepared an initial study for this project,
and, based upon that initial study, it was determined that the proposed project would cause no significant
environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Division prepared and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the project; and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance, and Tentative
the Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the initial study, staff
report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public
hearing, and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, based upon the analysis included in the staff report, and all
oral and written testimony submitted during the public hearing on the matter, the Plann;ng Commission
moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests on a vote of 3-2-1 (Commissioners
Cauchi and Terrones dissenting and Commissioner Vistica recusing); and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2010, the City Council of the City of Burlingame conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance
and Tentative the Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the
staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public
hearing, and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby makes the following findings
regarding the request for a Negative Declaration, Variance from minimum lot frontage requirements, and
for Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding:
A. Pursuant to Negative Declaration (ND -553-P), on the basis of the Initial Study and comments
received in writing or at the public hearing, and the following supporting information there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the
environment: that the creation of two lots will not subdivide an established community and
displace any existing housing units or residents; that the project will not generate significant
adverse effects on the water or air quality, increase noise levels substantially; that the project
will not have any significant adverse impacts on the flora or fauna of the area or on traffic,
land use, or public services and infrastructure; and the project will not significantly degrade
the aesthetic quality of the area.
Variance Findings:
B. There are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions applicable
to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The
subject property is an isolated "finger' of property under the jurisdiction of the City of
Burlingame that projects into a neighborhood consisting of properties lying within an
unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo. The surrounding properties are subject to
development standards applicable only to properties lying within the unincorporated County
area that are not applicable to the subject property. The Parcel Map results in lots that are
similar in size, shape and orientation to other existing developed properties lying with the
surrounding County jurisdiction. The City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot frontage
2
RESOLUTION NO.
of 60 -feet for lots exceeding 10,000 square feet; the lots created by the Parcel Map exceed
this threshold, and are consistent with existing development patterns in the vicinity.
Additionally, the topography of the property, with a down slope from Vista Lane rearward,
dictates a lot orientation as shown on the Parcel Map in order to ensure buildable home sites.
C. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship. The total area of the property included in the Parcel Map is 21,212 square feet, and
far exceeds the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area required for the area. The Parcel Map
results in the creation of two lots of similar size, shape and configuration to surrounding
properties within an unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, and subject to County
regulation. Approval of the Parcel Map will provide the property owner with similar
development rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
D. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience. Approval of the Parcel Map will result in lots of similar size, shape and
configuration to other lots within the vicinity that are in the surrounding area, most of which
are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo. The additional lot will not create
significant additional traffic on Vista Lane and the property owner has indicated his intention
to provide a wider paved area along the property to provide an improved path of travel in front
of his properties. Additionally, the City of Burlingame's Design Review process will provide
the opportunity to further evaluate vehicular ingress and egress on the resultant lots to further
minimize any potential impacts upon traffic circulation in the neighborhood. Finally, the
creation of two lots will result in two structures of less mass and bulk and less impact on
neighboring properties.
E. The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses of properties within the general vicinity. Approval of the Parcel
Map results in two (2) lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed
lots within the vicinity, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo
and subject to less rigorous development standards. Development of the two (2) lots will
result in a lesser structural mass upon the subject property since each lot will be developed
independently with two free-standing structures subject to development standards applicable
to each of the two (2) lots. Additionally, development of the lots will require Design Review
approval by the City of Burlingame, prior to site development; this process will ensure that any
potential impacts upon adjacent development can be minimized to the extent feasible.
Parcel Map Findings:
The Parcel Map was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Engineer, based
upon a memorandum prepared by the Public Works Department, dated September 10, 2009.
RESOLUTION NO.
G. The Parcel Map results in a lot configuration of each lot that is consistent with the existing
pattern of lots within the surrounding neighborhood in which the property is situated.
H. Approval of the Parcel Map will not create impediments to public safety access within the
neighborhood in which the property is situated; the Parcel Map will result in the creation of
one additional home site within an established residential neighborhood.
I. Approval of development upon the lots created through approval of the Parcel Map must be
reviewed separately through the City of Burlingame's Design Review process; an evaluation
of development impacts, including site preparation, grading, drainage, utilities, and
architectural compatibility will occur as part of that discretionary process.
J. The property is not subject to creek lot requirements set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code
Section 26.08.075.
K. The lots created by the Parcel Map are consistent with the policies of the Burlingame General
Plan and implementing zoning regulations, which set forth policies and standards for the
single-family development that will be permitted to occur upon the two lots.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME THAT the requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance from Section
25.28.050(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring sixty (60) foot lot frontage in the R-1 District, and
Tentative and Final Parcel Map for subdivision of a parcel into two lots, on property situated within a
Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone located at 12 Vista Lane (Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No.
2 Subdivision — APN: 027 093 300) are approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County
Recorder's Office, and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department
of Public Works;
2. that the conditions of the city Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the City Arborist's
September 3, 2009 memo shall be met;
3. that no developmental approvals are part of this mapping action;
4. that the maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer
easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted in the final map;
5. that all property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map;
6. that a final parcel map for the subdivision must be filed by the applicant within two years as
allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance; and
7. that the final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Vista Lane and Adeline Drive,
including the centerline of right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and any existing
monuments in the roadway.
13
RESOLUTION NO.
$u--- 40pk-��-
Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16`h day of
February, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members: BAYLOCR, BROWNRIGG, DEAL, REIGHRAN, NAGEL
NOES: Council Members: NONE
ABSENT: Council Members: NONE
City Cler