Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Vista Lane - Staff Report (2)4 City of Burlingame Variance for Lot Frontage Address: 12 Vista Lane Item No. 2b Action Item Meeting Date: October 13, 2009 Request: Application for Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots each with 55 feet of lot frontage where 60 feet of lot frontage is required (CS 25.28.050, (a) (3) and (h). Applicant and Property Owner: Denham LLC APN: 027-093-300 Land Surveyor: MacLeod and Associates Lot Area: 21,212 SF (current) General Plan: Low Density Residential Parcel 1 — 10,537 SF (proposed) Zoning: R-1 Parcel 2 — 10,675 SF (proposed) CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15315. Minor Land Divisions, Class 3 — Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. History: On March 12, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed this application and provided comments (see attached March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant provided responses to the Commission's comments in a letter dated March 14, 2007 (attached); however the applicant deferred the application for several months and on September 24, 2007, the applicant withdrew the application from the planning review process prior to being scheduled for an action meeting. The applicant is now resubmitting the same application for Planning Commission review. Because more than two years have passed since the initial application was submitted, the application is being brought back as a study item. Please refer to the "Study Meeting" section on pages 4-5 for responses to the Commissions' earlier comments. Summary: The subject lot was part of a larger lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive and had 110 feet of street frontage on each street. The property was in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County until 1979, when it was annexed to the City of Burlingame. In August 2005, the original lot which extended from Vista Lane to Adeline Drive, was subdivided into two lots: one lot having frontage on Adeline Drive (110 feet street frontage) and the other lot on Vista Lane (110 feet street frontage). This subdivision was approved by City Council on August 1, 2005. Recently, an application for construction of a new single family dwelling was approved on the Adeline Drive lot. The applicant is now proposing to subdivide the upper portion of the lot (with frontage on Vista Lane) into two lots (refer to the staff report for the tentative and final parcel map prepared by Public Works, Engineering Division). The existing lot located in the City of Burlingame measures 21,212 SF in area and is surrounded on three sides by properties located in San Mateo County (unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners, the existing lot slopes downward approximately 34.92 feet from front to rear (18% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross -slope of approximately 8 feet. There are no improvements on the lot other than an existing water tank. When future development is proposed, the top of the water tank would be demolished and the portion of the tank below grade would be filled with soil. The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, shows how the existing lot would be subdivided into two lots. The existing 110 foot wide lot would be divided in half to create two 55 foot wide lots, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 would have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,537 SF in area. Parcel 2 would also have 55 feet of street frontage and would measure 10,675 SF in area. There is a minor difference in lot sizes because the property line along Vista Lane is slightly curved. Code Section 25.28.050 (h) requires that all lands annexed after May 31, 1960, and classified for residential uses shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF (10,537 SF and 10,675 SF proposed for Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, Code Section 25.28.050 (a) (3) requires that lots of 10,000 SF or more shall have an Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane average width of not less than 50 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot) and shall have frontage of not less than 60 feet (55 feet proposed for each lot). Since each lot is proposed to have less than 60 feet of street frontage, a Variance for lot frontage is required. Code Section 25.28.050 (e) notes that Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 (variance findings). The following application is required: • Variance for lot frontage at 12 Vista Lane, Parcels 1 and 2 (55 feet lotfrontage proposed for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 where 60 feet lot frontage is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.050, (a) (3) and (h). The Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shows possible footprints on each proposed new lot. As shown, the footprints would be in compliance with setbacks, lot coverage and driveway slope. Planning staff would note that the possible footprints shown are for the purpose of evaluating whether or not the proposed new lots can be developed. Approval of the Variance for lot frontage does not approve the possible footprints shown. Anyfuture development on these lots would require submittal of an application for Design Review. Staff would note that there is an existing protected tree in the middle of Parcel 1. The possible footprint shows that the house would be designed around the protected tree. An arborist's report would be required at the time future development on this lot is proposed. New 4-inch sewer laterals and 6-inch storm drain lines would be brought in from the lot to the rear of the site by way of private sanitary sewer and storm drain easements across the rear of Parcel 2 and an existing easement on the property to the rear. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Engineer and City Arborist. The Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator had no comments at this time. Study Meeting (September 28, 2009): At the Planning Commission study meeting on September 28, 2009, the Commission had several questions regarding this application (September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). Below are the questions and responses from staff: 1. What are lots widths and frontages for the adjacent lots within the County? • Please refer to Exhibit "A" for a map showing lot widths and frontages for all parcels abutting Vista Lane. 2. Why was the 60-foot frontage requirement adopted? • Please refer to the explanation on page 5, Comment #3 under "Study Meeting (March 12, 2007)." 3. What will be the side -yard setback? Will a variance be requested? Lots that are 55'-0" to 60'-0" wide require a minimum side setback of 6'-0" (Code Section 25.28.072, c, 1). Lots greater than 60'-0" wide require a minimum side setback of 7'-0". Based on the "Possible House Footprint" shown for each lot on the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map, date stamped August 10, 2009, the structures are in compliance with setback requirements. The proposed projects will need to comply with the development standards if effect at the time they are submitted, unless a Variance is requested. The possible footprints shown are for the purpose of evaluating whether or not the proposed new lots can be developed. Approval of the Variance for lot frontage does not approve the possible footprints shown. This space intentionally left blank. PA Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane 4. Provide San Mateo County development standards that apply to the adjacent properties for comparison. • Please refer to Exhibit "B" which provides a partial zoning map for this area in the County. The parcels in the County abutting the project site are zoned R-1/S-9. The properties on the west side of Vista Lane (11 - 23 Vista Lane) are zoned R-1/S-10. Below is a table providing basic development standards for the City of Burlingame and the two zoning districts in the County (see also Exhibit "C" for Regulations for "S" Districts - Zoning Regulations - San Mateo County). City of Burlingame County of San Mateo j County of San Mateo R-1 i R-1/S-9 R-1/S-10 Street Frontage: - 55'-0" see below see below 50'-0" i 75'-0" Avg. Lot Width: — -- 50'-0" Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 20,000 SF Setbacks: I Front (1st fir): 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" 20'-0" (2nd fir): 20'-0" or block average 20'-0" I 20'-0" Side (left): 6'-0" 10'-01, 10'-0" (right): 6'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" k Rear (9st fir): 15 0" 20 -0" 20 0' (2nd fir): — - -- — 20 0" 20 -0" 20 0' Lot Coverage: - -- 40% I 30% I 25% ............... __----- _.. . _.......... FAR: (0.32 x lot area) + 1100 SF (att gar) none none ........... ..-........ ............ ..-- (+ up to 400 SF for det garage) _ _._..... ....... ...... I Parking: 2 spaces for 1-4 bedrooms 1 space for 0-1 bedrms 1 space for 0-1 bedrms 3 spaces for 5+ bedrooms 2 spaces for 2+ bedrms 2 spaces for 2+ bedrms Height: 2 5 stories 3 stories 3 stories 30 0" 36 -0" 36'-0" -h- - DH Envelope: CS 25.28.075 complies CS 25.28.075 Building height shall be measured as the vertical distance from any point on the finished grade to the topmost point of the building immediately above (Zoning Regulations - San Mateo County). 5. What is the relevance of the rendering provided, will more information be provided, or will a complete design be reviewed? • At the March 12, 2007 Study Meeting, the Planning Commission noted that they wanted to see what the treatment would be between the buildings and the street and how the lot frontage would be developed. The Commission also requested that the applicant explain the building envelope massing for each of the lots and how that would relate to the area between the building and street. The applicant addressed these requests by providing a rendering. A separate design review application would be submitted in the 3 Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane future consisting of complete set of plans, including a site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan. 6. Why was the cul-de-sac design not supported by the City? The design would have allowed the lots to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. The City of Burlingame does not maintain Vista Lane since it is in San Mateo County jurisdiction (the subject site adjoins San Mateo County right-of-way). In a letter dated December 11, 2006 (attached), Assistant Public Works Director Syed Murtuza notes that "The City does not have a need for the right-of- way in front of your project. Dedication of right-of-way between private property and County road creates an island and is not acceptable to the City. The right-of-way should be dedicated to San Mateo County." Furthermore, he notes that "The proposed cul-de-sac ingress and egress deviates from City standards. However, if the County accepts such an arrangement, the City will not have any objections." The Public Works Division also points out that it would not support the cul-de-sac design because it does not meet subdivision requirements and creates a non-standard street configuration. The cul-de-sac design would require County approval because the subject site adjoins their right of way. In addition, it may also require annexation of the private property into the County. 7. Requested an interpretation of whether or not the ability to split the lot represents a substantial property right that should be preserved. • The City Attorney will provide a response at the public hearing. 8. Six letters have been submitted by the neighbors; provide exhibit showing the locations of these neighboring properties. • Please refer to Exhibit "D" for a map showing locations of neighbors which submitted letters of no objection/in support and in opposition to the proposed lot split. Planning staff would note that letters of no objection/in support from neighbors at 1920 Hillside Drive, 289? (address not legible) Hillside Drive and 2814 Summit Drive are located outside of the map area. In addition, the neighbor at 2871 Hillside Drive requested that her name and addressed be removed from letter of objection dated March 28, 2009. 9. What will happen if the neighbors prefer an alternative arrangement for the properties? • The applicant would need to process a revised request for a lot split. Study Meeting (March 12, 2007): At the Planning Commission study meeting on March 12, 2007, the Commission had several comments regarding this project (March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated March 14, 2007 and is attached for your review. Below are comments which required responses from staff: 1. Request that staff provide conditions of approval and any other information regarding approval of the previous subdivision which split the original lot into two lots. • Attached is the approval letter for the previous subdivision (letter dated August 23, 2005), the staff report to City Council with conditions of approval, memorandum from the Engineering Division (dated June 30, 2005) and the August 1, 2005 City Council Minutes and July 11, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes regarding the previous subdivision. 51 Variance for Lot Frontage 12 Vista Lane Z Can adjacent property owners located in San Mateo County object to view blockage when applications for new houses are submitted in the future. Any person from the public may comment on future applications for new houses at this site, and notices will be sent to all properties within 300 feet of the subject property, regardless of jurisdiction. With regard to view blockage, Code Section 25.61.060 notes that review of the Hillside Area Construction Permit "shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties" and that "emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit." 3. Request that staff explain why there is a requirement for a minimum 60' lot frontage. In the years leading up to 1988, City Council members expressed concerns about the subdivision of existing large lots into two or more smaller lots which were then redeveloped with structures not in keeping with the pattern and character of the existing development in the area. At that time, the larger lot areas were subject to the same physical development standards established for the typical 5,000 SF minimum lot. The minimum required street frontage for all lots, regardless of their size, was 50'-0" and the maximum side setback requirement was 5'-0" (for all lots 51'-0" or more in width). The development standards for a 5,000 SF lot when applied to larger lots allowed smaller setbacks than were originally used, often causing new homes to crowd in on existing structures. An amendment to the zoning code was proposed at that time due to the increasing amount of development and remodeling occurring in the 1980's in older, larger lot areas, it was determined to be appropriate to clarify the physical development standards for the larger lot areas in the city. The most direct approach to providing better guidance to the developer, when considering construction in the large lot areas of the city, was to adjust the length of the street frontage and side setback requirements. Asa result, the zoning code was amended to establish new minimum street frontages for larger lots (55'-0" minimum street frontage for 7,000 SF to 9,999 SF lots and 60'-0" minimum street frontage for 10,000 SF + lots). In addition, the minimum side setback requirements for wider lots were established (6'-0" for lots 54' to 61' wide and 7'-0" for lots greater than 61' wide). Together these measures would encourage and maintain the spaciousness for development in the larger lot areas without deterring development or remodeling. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance for lot frontage the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 6 Variance for Lot Frontage Planning Commission Action: 12 Vista Lane The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the Vesting Tentative & Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorders Office and copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; and 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Denham LLC, applicant and property owner Attachments: September 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Syed Murtuza, Assistant Director of Public Works, dated December 11, 2006 Exhibit "A": Existing Lot Widths and Street Frontages for Lots Abutting Vista Lane Exhibit "B": Partial Zoning Map for Lots in San Mateo County Surrounding Project Site Exhibit "C": Regulations for "S" Districts — San Mateo County Exhibit "D": Map of Neighbors that Submitted Letters of No Objection/In Support and In Opposition March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response to Commission's Comments, letter dated March 14, 2007 Letter Submitted by Marc D. Bender, dated September 25, 2009 Correspondence Submitted after the March 12, 2007 Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission Variance Form Rendering Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped August 10, 2009 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed October 2, 2009 Aerial Photo 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes September 28, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MACLEOD AND ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER) a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 09-04 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED — PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated September 28, 2009. Commission comments: ■ What are lots widths and frontages for the adjacent lots within the County? • Why was the 60-foot frontage requirement adopted? (Meeker — directed Commissioners to the explanation on page 3 of the staff report.) ■ Provide San Mateo County development standards that apply to the adjacent properties for comparison. ■ What will be the side -yard setback? Will a variance be requested? (Meeker — will comply with the City's requirement, unless a variance is requested.) ■ What is the relevance of the rendering provided, will more information be provided, or will a complete design be reviewed? • Why was the cul-de-sac design not supported by the City? The design would have allowed the lots to meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. ■ Requested an interpretation of whether or not the ability to split the lot represents a substantial property right that should be preserved. ■ Six letters have been submitted by the neighbors; provide exhibit showing the locations of these neighboring properties. • What will happen if the neighbors prefer an alternative arrangement for the properties? (Meeker —the property owner would need to process a revised request for a lot split.) This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at T 21 p.m. 4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 December 11, 2006 Denham LLC & Hoya Int., LLC Attn: Alex Mortazavi 851 Burlway Road, Suite 710 Burlingame, CA 94010 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Re: Subdivision Map for 12 Vista Lane, PM 06-07 Dear Mr. Mortazavi, CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670 After reviewing the plan received on November 29, 2006, there are a few items that need to be addressed prior to processing the subdivision map. The project ingress and egress is directly on Vista Lane which is a county road. The City does not have a need for the right-of-way in front of your project. Dedication of right- of-way between private property and County road creates an island and is not acceptable to the City. The right-of-way should be dedicated to San Mateo County. The proposed cul-de-sac ingress and egress deviates from City standards. However, if the County accepts such an arrangement, the City will not have any objections. The dedication of right-of-way to the County in the City limits may require approval from Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Upon submitting the necessary documentation indicating County approval, staff will proceed to take the project to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions, please call Victor Voong at (650) 558-7242. Trull Yo , r. Syed a, P.E. Assis t Director of Public Works Cc: Jim Nantell (City Manager), George Bagdon (Director of Public Works), Larry Anderson (City Attorney), Meg Monroe (City Planner), Senior Civil Engineers; Victor Voong (Assistant Engineer) u:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\12Vista.Wpd PARCEL 3 14 .091 k6j.47'W Z'P4' R, 549 . .4Z'- A� C�4 . 4;4. 0 SO .12 L.L ui - C2 EXHIBIT "A" !y ASSESSOAS MAP COUNTY [K' SIN MATED CALIF: BURLINGAME NIL LS AYb. •S RSM /6/2l-23 ii_i911 TAX CODE AREA _ _ _ _ ��_ 9 b end 47 OF — C) PARCEL J I r- / //p(��y PARCEL P� j I'o ' o l V 7 G \ /d' 14 'I� /3 /2 � I 1 I I ♦ t 1� / -O 091 L1� Ir' �[ In rdt r.aY r~AL/0 9I _ I j —I �' ARdt Lor llJ� Floo i, PARCEL Un M I I /7 I ° SPARCFL C� R /d I (\ M x 2 x to x- A 6�` s 1 I _ 'a'° I /3 I s 7 rout M BK-27 /0 Pg• /0 N Nafrwl PARCEL �rry 17 1 I I r9„r d ,yJ• /7 /6 �� o � ie/a2 � LL R I F Y ©�ti ry „p •, � ye ' t if!/ J}' „ �ti LANE � y°j ;�•P 21 ye BK-27 // Pg.O m %0 W $uz zQ r -� BK-27O a,. PARCEL MAP VOL 62/68-69 P9 // W1 PARCEL MAP VOL 5140 Assrs"s MAP CouvrY or sAN MAT£o our BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTR/CT BURLINGAME HILLS NO2 95M MIM-/9 l-li CHAPTER 20. "S" DISTRICTS (COMBINING DISTRICTS) SECTION 6300. REGULATIONS FOR "S" DISTRICTS. In any District with which is combined any "S" District, the following regulations as specified for the respective "S" Districts shall apply: District Minimum Building Site Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Yards Required Maximum Height Permitted Maximum Coverage Permitted (%) Average Width Ft. Minimum Area Ft. Front Ft. Side Ft. Rear Ft. Stories Ft. S-1 50 5,000 500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-2 50 5,000 1,000 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-3 50 5,000 1,250 20 1 5 20 3 36 50 S-4 50 5,000 1,650 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-5 50 5,000 2,500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-6 50 5,000 3,500 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-7 50 5,000 5,000 20 5 20 3 36 50 S-8 50 7,500 7,500 20 5 20 3 36 40 S-9 50 10,000 10,000 20 10 20 3 36 30 S-10 75 20,000 20.000 20 10 20 3 36 25 S-11 100 1— 5 ac.' 1— 5 ac.' 50 20 20 3 36 15 S-12 175 2 112 — 5 ac.' 2112 — 5 ac.' 50 20 20 3 36 10 S-13 250 5 ac.' 5 ac.' 50 20 20 3 36 10 S-17 —2 _2 _2 —2 _2 —2 —2 _2 _2 'See Section 6300.1 for precise lot area requirements in S-11 and S-12 Districts. 2See Section 6300.2 for precise requirements in the S-17 District. Maximum coverage limitations shall apply to all structures except: (a) Structures in C, H, M, or P Districts in which there are no dwelling facilities. (b) Greenhouses, lathhouses, or other structures used exclusively for flower growing. SECTION 6300.1. LOT SLOPE REGULATIONS. The following additional regulations for determining lot area requirements and lots per gross acre shall apply in S-11 and S-12 Districts. 20.1 EXHIBIT "C" LEGEND aNeighbors In Opposition Neighbors No Objection / In Support 66 @ 2856 tB66 �@S 2 2848 2@�,8 ti 1B 6 �0ti 288@ wo h� Z@32 Jg �2828 O ?@z9 7@.iJ F z@16 O 78 z@3y R 2@zs 77 2888 i2 286D 2858 2856 ^� 2866 2852 2848 2@QQ tiB4 HILLSIDE DR 9� g 0 2865 28g6 2867 2861 2851 2849 0� ZBI, Z@4S h 1 , BO ,onc 1BBg ryBg1 ryBg6 1gp6 2gp4 Bg1 ti vg6 121S8 112 11fi 112 126 126 124 119 17) 125 115 ill P Lane EXHIBIT m- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes VI. STUDY ITEMS March 12, 2007 1. 12 VISTA LANE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE (DENHAM LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MACLEOD AND ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEER) a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 06-07 — PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG b. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS WITH 55-FOOT WIDE STREET FRONTAGE WHERE 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED — PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Chair Brownrigg noted that he expressed an interest in this property several years ago and spoke to the applicant about it at that time, but has not discussed the site in any detail with the applicant since then. C. Vistica arrived at 7:15 p.m. Commissioners asked: ■ Request that staff provide conditions of approval and any other information regarding approval of the previous subdivision which split the original lot into two lots; ■ Would like applicant to consider a reduction in the maximum allowed floor area ratio on these two lots since a variance is being requested for substandard lot frontage; ■ Would like applicant to address the maximum building height allowed since the lot has a significant downward slope, this will be a very tall building at the rear if height is measured from average top of curb level, should consider limiting the building height based on the existing contour of the lot; ■ Applicant is requesting approval for a subdivision without any mitigations, applicant should address how the two lots will function together, regarding drainage, access, etc.; ■ Can adjacent property owners located in San Mateo County object to view blockage when applications for new houses are submitted in the future; ■ Request that staff explain why there is a required for a minimum 60' lot frontage; ■ How will lower lot off Adeline Drive be accessed; how would this proposed subdivision affect access to the lower lot; and ■ Would like to see what the treatment will be between the buildings and the street; how will the lot frontage be developed; applicant should explain the building envelope massing for each of the lots and how that will relate to the area between the building and the street. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (415)Q96.-7230 'Augast 23, 2005. Denham LLC 851:.Burlway Road #610 Burlingame, CA 94010' The City of Burlingame CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 CORPORATION YARD . (415)696-7260 Re: Tentative and Final Parcel Map at 2843 Adeline Drive/12 Vista Lane, PM 04704 Dear Sir: The _subject Tentative and Final Parcel Map was approved by the Burlingame City Council at their meeting2: of August I, 2005. In accordance with City Code, the Final Map must be filed within two (2) years of this approval. date unless an extension is granted. Sincerely, CITY OF BURLINGAME George Bagdon Director of Public Works Victor,V-6o�, P.E. STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 21, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS Agenda. Item # Meeting Date: 8/01105 SUBMITTED BY \ APPROVED BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND.FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 2843 ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE - PM 04- 04. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the subject lot split as a Tentative and. Final Parcel Map with the following conditions: 1. Developmental approvals are not part of this mapping action. .:.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. 3. All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the map BACKGROUND: At their meeting of July 11, 20.05, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached tentative parcel map and recommended Council approval with the conditions listed above. The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel map to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. - EXHIBITS:.. Tentative Parcel Map; Staff Memorandum; July 11, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes c: City Clerk, Applicant Dougla ell Senior CivifEngineer ;\A -Public Works Directory\Staffi Reports\04-44.doc P.C. of =11- o s M re-h*-y� ITEM # 9 0 MEMO TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: JUNE 30, 2005 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 2843 ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE - PM 04-04 Site Information: Zoning: Existing Lot Size: Proposed Lot Size: Required Lot Size: Required Street Frontage Background: R-1 43,251 + Square Feet Parcel A = 22,315 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 50 Feet Parcel B = 20,936 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 50 Feet 10,000 Square Feet 50 Linear Feet This parcel map application proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots. All proposed parcels will meet the required fifty foot (50') street frontage (C.S. 25.28.050a-1). The Engineering Department has reviewed the map for utilities and easements and has the following comments: 1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 2. The maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer easements and associated pipelines shall be noted in the final map. 3. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. This mapping action should be considered as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the lot split to speed processing. Staff will see that the Final Map is properly prepared. Page 1 of 2 The Planning Department will require environmental review when applications for the single family dwellings for the lots are submitted. The Fire Department requires that all structures shall be constructed within 150 feet from the street. This application is a Categorical Exemption Section 15315, "Minor Land Division" under C.E.Q.A. Attachments: Assessor's Map, Drainage Map, Tentative Map s:\apublicworks\planning\03-10.mmo Page 2 of 2 o 7/ 73 35. 95 j3.05' Nj0'OI' E ADEL /NE oBo � F Sd Zo p t.E � i i S yl i � O� o A A A O � W � � O N C 1 O W W N N, � N W C , O C. •V m O J\�lr T�r f a m ,e nn a JWr B.H. W O N � 23z� � 1J30'S7'20'E . — — —Z31.Ib•— — — ,JI 0 N I^ 2112G 3 w op m to ��•_ / IZB.OG' v �. f. Va 114.88' _� A 1 ti n zI N m Eo 611 d. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF CITY COUNCH MEMBER OR CITY CLERK CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider adoption of a procedure to be used if Council wishes to consider appointment to a vacancy in the office of City Councilmember or City Clerk. After Council discussion, Council requested that this item be continued to the September 6, 2005 Council meeting. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 10 BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION, 215 CHAPIN LANE DPW Bagdon requested Council to concur with the Planning Commission and approve the Tentative and Final Parcel Map with conditions. b. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL INTO PARCEL j� A AND PARCEL B BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS, NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 2843 ADELINE DRIVE/12 VISTA LANE — PM 04-04 DPW Bagdon requested Council to concur with the Planning Commission and approve the Tentative and Final Parcel Map with conditions. C. RESOLUTION NO.56-2005 APPROVING A CONTRACT TO EXTEND THE OCCUPANCY AT 1369 NORTH CAROLAN FOR NINETY DAYS DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 56-2005 to extend the occupancy at 1369 North Carolan Avenue by 90 days with additional conditions. d. RESOLUTION NO.57-2005 APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. FOR FY 2005-06 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OF WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 57-2005 approving a Professional Services Program Management Agreement with Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. e. RESOLUTION NO.58-2005 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AND RESTATEMENT OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE PENINSULA CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 58-2005 approving first amendment and restatement of the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2005 Approved Minutes f. APPROVAL FOR ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the attendance of the Chief Building Official at a conference in Detroit, Michigan for the International Code Conference annual business meeting and code adoption final hearings. g. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL SIDEWALK SALE FOR DBID, AUGUST 19 AND 20,_2005 EA Shinday requested Council approve the Annual Sidewalk Sale for the Downtown Business Improvement District on August 19 and 20, 2005. h. INTER -FUND LOAN FOR WWTP ELECTRICAL COGENERATION PROJECT FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 59-2005 approving a $1.1 million loan from the City's General Fund to the Sewer Fund to finance a capital improvement project to purchase and install an electrical cogeneration engine at the wastewater treatment plant. i. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #12051-13081 duly audited, in the amount of $4,570,689.36 (excluding Library checks 12134-12153 and 12742-12774), Payroll checks #162449-162715 in the amount of $2,422,364.50 for the month of June 2005. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 10. XCounciled on various events and mmittee SINESS O'Mahony/expressed her thanks to Burlingame and to thezommunity. Councilwoman Mahony thanked CA 12. NEW USINESS The was no new business. / meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. Coffey for his service and his staff for the Coyote A a. Commission Minu s: Library, May 24 and June 21, Planning, July 1 and July 25, 2005 b. DeparhnerWkeports: Building, June 2005; Tra June 2005 c. Letteyi`rom Comcast concerning programniiing changes brochure. City of ), 2005; 4 Burlingame City Council August 1, 2005 Approved Minutes July 11, 2005 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 9. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL (APN: 027-093-110) INTO PARCEL A AND PARCEL B, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE, PM 04-04 (42 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG C. Brownrigg noted he would abstain for personal reasons. He left the chambers. Reference staff report July 11, 2005, with attachments. Asst. Dir. PW/CE Murtuza presented the report noting that this request is for a lot split. Commissioner commented: generally have a problem with lot splits because maintaining the diversity of lot size is important to the fabric of Burlingame, but each of these lots has street frontage, is very large, and will continue to contribute to the diversity of the city. Should be clear that approval of a lot split does not guarantee future approval of a variance. CE noted that future development of these lots could require substantial grading, so there are other issues as well. CA noted that there is no entitlement to develop on the sites given the areas shown on the map either. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Ward, represented the applicant. Noted two points this is a minor subdivision and the second phase of site planning and architectural design would need to return to the commission. Noted that three neighbors on Vista Lane are in support, submitted petitions, will work with all neighbors. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. C. Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 15 DENHAM, LLC• March 14, 2007 To: Ruben Hurin, project planner CITY OF BURLINGAME RECEIVED 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997 MAR 1 6 2007 RE: 12 Vista Lane Subdivision CITY OF BURLINGAME inquiries PLANNING DEPT. Commissioners' iri Response to Planning q Dear Mr. Hurin, Our response to the Planning Commissioners' comments and inquiries expressed at meeting of March 12 is as follows: 1. The original subdivision request was filed in October 2001. The first staff response was dated November 30, 2001. It took until June 2005 to appear in front of the Commission due to an added requirement from City Engineer that the soils report be prepared and delays incurred in resolving legal issues over an encroachment by adjacent neighbor. Final parcel map was approved by the City Council in August 2005 after almost four years of effort. The following conditions were imposed by City Council's action: A) Developmental approvals are not part of this mapping action. B) The maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted on the final map. C) All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the map 2. The variance is requested in response to the Commission's desire to reduce the amount of impervious surface and provides for better overall site planning. Variance is not required for the subdivision under the cul-de-sac alternative. The future residences will be designed to conform with Burlingame's Architectural Design Review policies, including but not limited to mass, bulk, lot coverage and FAR. The Commission has full discretion to impose limitations or restrictions during such proceedings. 3. Same response as item #2 applies. Please note that the proposed building pads for the lots shown on variance alternative are closer to Vista Lane and therefore would create a larger backyard on the most gently sloping terrain of this property. Due to the amount of square footage required to accommodate the cul-de-sac, the building pads with that alternative are pushed further to the east and would require greater height at rear of structures. 1 DENHAM, LLC. 4. The drainage, sewer, driveway construction, from both a planning and engineering standpoint, will comply with City's rules and regulation and can be addressed as conditions of approval. 5. Residents living in the surrounding unincorporated area have the ability to voice their opinions in public hearings on a proposed project within the city limits. In contrast, the same opportunity does not apply in terms of projects in the unincorporated area as the County does not have a design review process in place. It should also be noted that the County has very liberal rules pertaining to development of single-family homes in Burlingame Hills as witnessed by recent construction of very large hillside residences in this vicinity. 6. We researched it and could not find an explanation as to why this rule was adopted. 7. The lower lot has an approved driveway access off Adeline. Please review attached approved map. Development of the two lots off Vista will not affect the approved driveway access or have other impacts for the lower lot owned by Applicant. 8. Same response on item#2 applies. A conceptual architectural perspective will be provided prior to public hearing to show how the two lots will function together. Regards, DENHAM, LLC. 851 Burlway Road Suite# 710 Burlingame, CA. 94010 RECEIVED MAR 1 6 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 2 �j A.P.N. 027-093-110 I .p'Gy6'�a ZONING: R-1 P• -------------------------- a�A UTILITIES: _I_ _ _ _ _ .Ja cuPBscurren <A7,4 w 1M GAS: PG & E ELECTRIC: PG & E SEWER: CITY OF OUR TELEPHONE: SBC CABLE TV: COMCAST S s , ZI A.P.N. 027-091-090 FlRE PROTECTON: Cf ffi 1 rc L WATER: CITY OF BUR LANDS OF CHRISMAN 0 H ,o "° �,„. LAND SURVEY( s..QAND CIVILENG��T !s"t; J 1, f�. ..I ,�L..� ..,� _ V • \ `•1 i f�/C 7EC) 96770 5LE00 AND STREET s„.� f 3!` e . 965 CENTER STREET SAN CARLOS , CA. 94 s m TEL. 650 593-8580 Q 1 QED �.,✓i%ie f x 9 - a � s 'oo'E a " � 3g S ' 5. CITY UMIT LINE p T D E B • «'' 11 .o A = 36 6'00" R-12:00' L a 79.419' 1 A.P.N. 027-091-080 a 2 6 R 42 l LANDS OF GAUL P S IB E I ? EV L P T R 8 N, r xe � e. s� zD � a>0•R 4 sa 56'00•ECITY LIMIT LINE — i�------------ -- —�— �• 395.81' — Wnwcer ' N a ¢ A.P,N. 027-091-070 120.0 c �a' �.� _ ® �21; LANDS OF LUCERO 225.D0 d .81' A.P.N. 027-093-090 LANDS OF LABRIE�.n a LAND - Q°N DEGCRWTIM O Mo 'PG9 VESTING TEtiTAT'VE PA PRELIMINARY GRADING / D CIVIL NG. 5304 r VISTA LANE i< Ne. 35048 Fxp tY-31-GGG P. s-aD-zoo ! � A.P.N. 027-093-1 $�fF OF CAV��� 4rf OF CA�a CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO CO PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC GRAPIUC SCAU MAcLEOD AND ASS' CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANC 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS C/ NT i IX lB6f) DRAYM B•h MP ! bvh - m !1' DESIGNED BV.. WO DATE 0.1/2G/OS DREDKED BM. DGN JAW. MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. September 25, 2009 Via E-Mail (hurin�&urlingame.orp and U.S. Mail Ruben Hurin Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Hurin: THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TEL: (650) 347-5000 FAX: (650) 340-6350 RECRVED SEP 2 `� 2000 GiTY OF B=, N-'NGAME PLANNING DEPT. In my letter to the Planning Commission on March 30, 2007, I noted the serious traffic and safety implications on Vista Lane and Hillside Drive associated with the proposed development of two (2) single family homes at 12 Vista Lane if the lot is subdivided. The residents of each home would typically have at least two vehicles. So, subdivision of the lot would ultimately result in a minimum of four (4) vehicles entering and exiting this area on a daily basis, instead of two. The proposed driveway for the subdivided lot would be directly across the street from the garage entrance to 2784 Hillside Drive. Vista Lane is a very narrow street with a steep downhill grade. The only entry onto Vista Lane involves a sharp turn from Hillside Drive. Vista Lane is essentially a one -lane road, given the size of average vehicles driven by residents in this area. The paved area on Vista Lane in front of the subject property is 157 inches wide. An average minivan is 71 inches wide. I have enclosed the photograph of Vista Lane that I have previously submitted, on which I have marked the approximate width of a minivan near the proposed entrance to the subject property. Since there is inadequate space for cross -traffic in this area, drivers on Vista Lane are already forced to maneuver around each other in a difficult manner with limited visibility due to the grade of the street. Ruben Hurin Re: 12 Vista Lane Burlingame, CA September 25, 2009 Page 2 The addition of the two (2) extra vehicles associated with allowing the proposed subdivision would have drastic safety implications, given the already unsafe nature of Vista Lane. Approval of Denham, LLC's variance application would create significant potential liability for the City of Burlingame, since this would greatly increase the risk of accidents and personal injuries in this area. You are on notice of these safety concerns since they have been raised in opposition to Denham's application for a variance to allow the proposed subdivision. In the unfortunate event that an accident occurs in this area due to the increase in traffic associated with approval of the application, the victims would likely seek compensation from City of Burlingame. The Planning Commission should consider these risks when deciding whether to approve the proposed variance. Even beyond these liability concerns, the safety of all residents on Vista Lane must be seriously taken into account. Since Vista Lane is a cul-de-sac, residents must drive in this unsafe area whenever they enter or exit their homes. Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. MARC D. BENDER marc@mballenlaw.com Enclosure cc: Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosure) ��!_ ♦ _ f STY �, 12 Vista Lane Correspondence Submitted After the March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Study Meeting RECEIVED APR 0 3 Z007 4/02/07 CITY OF BURLINGAME Ruben Hurin PLANNING DEPT. Planning Commission City of Burlingame 401 Primrose Rd Burlingame Ca. (4010 Re: Lot split of 12 Vista Lane Dear Mr. Rubin, I am writing this letter because I understand you are in charge of this project. I would like to voice my disapproval of this proposed plan. My wife and I have lived on Vista Lane for 20 years in May of this year. We have seen many things change on this block over the years. Our property was the one chosen by the city to use as an easement to put in the water main for the fire hydrants on Vista and Adeline Drive. We worked with the City of Burlingame in order to make it as easy of an install as possible. The worst part of the whole plan was the fact that the access to Vista was hampered by the equipment working on the street for 2 months while the water main was installed. This street is not very wide and for two cars to pass each other it is extremely tight. Put in some construction equipment moving on and off that lot at the top of the hill and it creates some real concerns. I know that a house will eventually get built on the lot, but I don't think that there should be two. The City requires that the frontage of a lot to be 60 feet and according to the proposal there is not that amount of room to split the lot into 2 lots. Originally that was one big lot that was split into two. The original plans showed that only one house was going to be built on that lot closest to Vista Lane and that another could be built on the lot on Adeline. What has changed that would allow two houses to be built at the Vista Lane lot? The access to the street is still the same and we don't think that having two houses on that lot is the safest thing for the rest of the neighborhood. I worry about the lack of street parking and adding two more houses adds to that problem. I worry about increased traffic on an already narrow street. Mr. Rubin I hope when you evaluate this project you keep in mind the original proposal of building just one house on that lot from the original splitting of that lot. When the lot was owned by the Sisters of Mercy I didn't worry about houses being built there, I just loved the view from the top of the lot. I know that there will be some sort of development on the lot, but please let it be just one house and lets not over crowd an already tight street with more cars and traffic. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns on the project and look forward to your decision and respons7to objectionsto this project. Sincerely,�� Frank and Monica Verducci MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARL D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. April 2, 2007 Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail Ruben Hurin, Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Hurin: THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TEL: (650) 347-5000 FAx: (650) 340-6350 I have enclosed a photograph of the Thomases' view from their kitchen that would be completely blocked if a two-story house is built on 12 Vista Lane which extends beyond the oak tree on that lot. The kitchen is on the lower floor of the Thomases' house and is where they eat all of their meals. The view photograph enclosed with my March 30, 2007 letter was taken from an office on the second floor of the Thomases' house. This view would also be impacted if two houses are built on 12 Vista Lane. If you have any questions please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, MICHAEL B. ALLEN LAW GROUP, INC. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. marc@mballenlaw.com Enclosures cc: Larry Anderson (w/ enclosure) Art and Eileen Thomas (w/ enclosure) Denham, LLC (w/ enclosure) RECENED E' APR 0 4 Z007 CITY OF BURLINGANIE PLANNING DEPT, ' vmA •'I e ,ti ` Pft 1 �S t ' _ sue. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. ALLEN & BENDER TEL: (650) 347-5000 MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Fax: (650) 340-6350 JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 marc@mballenlaw.com March 30, 2007 Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail Ruben Hurin Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road RECEIVED Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane Burlingame, CA APR 0 ? 200( CITY OF BURLINGAME Dear Mr. Hurin: PLANNING DEPT. This letter provides further support for the denial of Denham LLC's application to subdivide the lot located at 12 Vista Lane. Denham has indicated in its application that County frontage requirements are different from Burlingame's requirements. Under Burlingame Municipal Code §25.28.050(a)(3), any lot over 10,000 square feet must have at least 60 foot frontage on "a public street". Since this code section does not limit its application to frontage on Burlingame streets, it must apply to frontage on any public street. Pursuant to Government Code §66411, regulation of subdivisions is vested in the legislative body of the local agency where the subdivision is located. Therefore, the frontage requirements under the Burlingame Municipal Code govern this subdivision, not the San Mateo County Code or Ordinances. The proposed subdivision of 12 Vista Lane violates Burlingame Municipal Code §25.28.050(a)(3) because it would involve 55 foot street frontages. A variance should not be granted regarding this frontage requirement since no exceptional circumstances exist with respect to the subject property, and the creation of two (2) parcels would significantly affect public safety due to the increase in traffic on Vista Lane. Vista Lane is sloped downhill and is narrow in the area in front of the subject lot. (See enclosed photograph). The only way to access homes on this street is to drive past 12 Vista Lane. The addition of two houses in this portion of Vista Lane would create serious traffic problems on both Vista Lane and Hillside Drive. The views of neighboring residences would also be adversely affected since houses on the subdivided lot would have to extend beyond the existing oak tree on the lot. I have enclosed a Ruben Hurin Re: 12 Vista Lae March 30, 2007 Page 2 photograph of the current Bay view from the kitchen of my clients' property located at 16 Vista Lane. This view would be significantly blocked if 12 Vista Lane is subdivided. The proposed subdivision would be subject to various requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including submission of an environmental impact report, initial study, negative declaration and public hearing process. Denham's proposed subdivision is not exempt from CEQA requirements, since a variance is required and the subject property is part of the division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years. (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §15315). Please note that 12 Vista Lane was initially part of a larger lot that was subdivided in August, 2005. Therefore, if the Planning Commission is inclined to grant the variance despite the safety concerns and impact on neighboring views referenced above, it would not be appropriate to approve the subdivision of 12 Vista Lane without first undergoing the investigations required by CEQA. I understand that Denham has submitted an alternative proposal to build a cul-de-sac which would provide access to two (2) houses that would be even farther back on the subdivided lot. This proposal would involve more blockage of neighboring views and would still result in an increase in the number of vehicles on Vista Lane on a daily basis. It would also require an additional 2,300 square feet of impervious surface, which would be contrary to the Planning Commission's policy of minimizing the amount of impervious surface within city limits. The proposed cul-de-sac would have to be built over the area where a large abandoned water tank is located. (See enclosed photograph). Denham, LLC would most likely be required to remove the tank and install adequate weight -bearing support under the cul-de-sac, which would trigger further environmental review and tremendous engineering concerns with respect to Vista Lane and the surrounding hillside properties. The proposed cul-de-sac would also be subject to CEQA requirements since the subject lot is part of a larger subdivision within the past two (2) years. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A Professional Corporation MARC D. BENDER Enclosures RECEIVED cc: Larry Anderson Art and Eileen Thomas Denham, LLC (w/ enclosures) (w/ enclosures) (w/ enclosures) APR 0 2 2007 Steve Schefsky Niall McCarthy Jerry Warren (w/ enclosures) (w/ enclosures) (w/ enclosures) CITY OF BURLINGAME Pi-ANNING DEPT. 9\<«. � ..q-k, 7/�/� : 7 \» \\� \\� RECEIVED APR - 2 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME (� Cd� PLANNING DEPT. RECEIVED Tim Auran, Chairman City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Michael Brownrigg, Vice Chair City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Ralph Osterling City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Stanley Vistica City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 March 28, 2007 David Cauchi City of Burlingame Planning ComMARid 8 2007 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNING DEPT. Jerry Deal, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Margaret W. Monroe, City Planner City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed Variance for Subdivision of Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills, No. 2 Subdivision, 12 Vista Lane Dear Planning Commissioners, We are writing to you regarding the proposed variance for the further subdivision of Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills, No. 2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane in Burlingame (the "12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision"). As homeowners of the surrounding homes, we would like to voice our legal and environmental concerns with the 12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision. First and foremost, as a prerequisite to the variance application for the 12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision, the applicant must first follow the legal requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA applies to any public agency's decision to authorize or approve projects that could have an adverse effect on the environment. See Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. CEQA requires a full and complete analysis of potential environmental impacts, including without limitation, the preparation of an initial study, a negative declaration, a public hearing and a comment process. There are certain exemptions to CEQA; however, no such exemption applies here. A misstatement was made that this variance application for the 12 Vista Lane No. 2 Subdivision would comply with "Categorical Exemption, Section 15315 "Minor Land Division" under CEQA for four or fewer parcels". This is patently false. Section 15315 of CEQA states: "Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the Parcel was not involved in a division of a 1 larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent." CEQA Article 19, Section 15315 (Emphasis added). Section 15315 of CEQA fails to apply to this variance application for the following three separate and distinct reasons: (i) the division is not in conformance with the General Plan and zoning and a variance would be required; (ii) the parcel was involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years (i.e. the parcel was divided in August 2005); and (iii) the parcel does have an average slope greater than 20 percent. After complying with the requirements of CEQA, the applicant must also comply with the requirements of Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, which requires in part that: "... a variance may be granted provided that the commission finds, after a full investigation and public hearing, that ... the following is true:...(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unreasonable hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience..." Neither of the following conditions is true here. For instance, the applicant, Denham LLC, is a corporation which is in the business of developing properties for profit. Among other properties, the applicant owns a very large home at 20 Vista Lane and 8 multi -million dollar condominiums in downtown Burlingame (most of which are currently vacant). In contrast, building two massive homes on the sites would pose significant safety and general welfare issues for the neighborhood, as the sites are on a steep, hilly terrain, with many underground springs (which have already caused flooding for residents on Vista Lane and Adeline Drive). Thus, approval of this variance would cause irreparable harm to the environment and surrounding properties. Conclusion and Request The applicant must comply with CEQA, including the preparation of an initial study, a negative declaration, a public hearing and a comment process, before applying for a variance. Approval of this variance without complying with CEQA would violate state and local laws. If such approval was to occur and we were forced to initiate legal action to enforce CEQA, Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure would authorize us, as a private attorney general, to recover our attorney fees from the City of Burlingame. We kindly request that you require the applicant to first comply with CEQA before hearing its request to further subdivide 12 Vista Lane (which had just been subdivided less than 2 years ago) and deny its application for a variance. Regards, The following owners of homes around 12 Vista Lane: Homeov ANddress: ignatur Homeowner: +Address: Signature: Z,l �,i �S f>vAK k (A w WL'k CA �'All to Homeowner: Homeowner: Address: Address: Signature: Signature: Homeowner: Homeowner: Address: Address: Signature: Signature: Homeowner: Homeowner: Address: Address: Signature: Signature: Homeowner: Homeowner: Address: Address: Signature: Signature: 3 RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 TO: BURLI GAME PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has;presented two alternatives for the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one -requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007. Name. Address 281 r (• 1 l S son,10- schl) Date 7nn zCL696C099 YVJ V5:90 !ooziosiCo RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPT. I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007. Namet&C, 7 Address Date RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2007 TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. We are residents of unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007. Name Address g g� i� �!� Dr. I d i q Date /,_L00 c m t Y anool P.iail - biscetto@bcgtobat.riet http_1/as.t117 ATAT Yahoo £ mg S6aTCir. Wah 54i ep#� # �., *. /el.one; brsr�eto sbeaIotLt... f4allfrome zu L L�.�.+Z S n Out, A fire^ rt MALL Mail ` Addre"es — Calendar — Notepad — Moll For Mobile - #Tnii lyuradea -A2 Cheek MS[l Comtsase � Search tstZ 5eartta Yet Check Crater Mall ledltj mail.tmeswiich.., KDldars [Add - Edit] Inbox Draft Sent Bulk(1) [Empty] Trash [E-pty] My Foldars {Hide] 948 howard AOL_Mail al and archdloses aiioto baseball basketball gals Boyd cautfi$ld crescent-Chetc-.. debbie sharp granma hillside project tart Johnson. lunardi rtnsc sports moat for auntie ann pauis private pictures poker #3arty puderman san raymundo school south city prop--- t muss tenrlis travel yed'Y Seamb Shortcuw My Photos View Attachment j8ac�c to 6rRetnal M�ssaae-yrtnrah!e-t5e�r7 I LfTstiY'� it*t' File name. Vist4j-,ine�_supportars-doo I Fite Save to Yahool Briefcase - Dovinioad F type; appllcationimsviord Need 14alp4 TO. BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMl$SION I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have baen informed th Burlingame Planning Commission N-r'li conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed b subdivision io create now homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, H+ understand that the applicant has Presented two alternatives for the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one requiring variance and the other a aul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would r ik that thi tatement be included in the public record of the Commies" srs'hL eduled rii g. 2007, Name i' Address f 4-1 r Bate r... RECEIVE® MAY 2 4 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I I of 2 4/5120 1 1.02 �M TO: BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED MAR 3 0 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I am a property owner in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills and have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision to create new homesites at 12 Vista Lane. As to the proposed subdivision, we understand that the applicant has presented two alternatives for the Commission's consideration in terms of providing access to the new homesites, including one requiring a variance and the other a cul-de-sac. We have no objection to the subdivision nor to the alternatives and would request that this statement be included in the public record of the Commission's hearing scheduled for April 9, 2007. Name ��:'A � b-) h Address �� lih W� Date KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA ARCHITECT UCc C 17697 205 PARK RD., SUITE 207, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH. (650) 342-0237 FAX (650) 342 5114 March 28, 2007 Planning Commission RECEIVED City Of Burlingame MAR 3 0 Z007 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, California 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME. PLANNING DEPT. RE: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, Ca. Dear Planning Commissioners, My wife and I and our family have lived at 2855 Adeline Drive for the past 12 years. My property extends up to Vista lane and I have frontage and access from Vista Lane. I have been informed that the Burlingame Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 9 to consider a proposed two -lot subdivision at 12 Vista Lane. I have reviewed the plans for the two alternatives prepared by Dan Macleod and Associates. It is my professional opinion that even though the subdivision with a cul-de-sac alternative is allowed under City guidelines, I believe the variance alternative represents better site planning and will reduce the impervious surfaces, creating a great opportunity for landscaping that will visually enhance the streetscape. I fully support this subdivision as it is proposed. Rospect ally yours, Kamran Ehsanipour Property owner E-mail: kamran@ehsanipouccom Websfte:. www.ehsanipour.com .ARCHITECTURE •PLANNING •ENGINEERING • INTERIOR DESIGN •CONSTRUCTION MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 marc@mballenlaw.com March 22, 2007 Via Facsimile (650) 696-3790 and U.S. Mail Ruben Hurin Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Hurin: _FEL: (650) 347-5000 Fax: (650) 340-6350 I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who reside at 16 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California. I understand that Denham, LLC has applied to the Burlingame Planning Commission for approval to divide the lot located at 12 Vista Lane into two (2) parcels, and for a variance of the requirement that lots in the R-1 District have at least 60 foot street frontage. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas vehemently oppose Denham's application. Vista Lane is a steep downward -sloping street. The only entry onto Vista Lane involves a sharp northbound turn from Hillside Drive. The subject property is located close to this entry point. The creation of a second parcel on this lot would result in increased traffic on Vista Lane. The driveways on the proposed lots would create considerable vehicular congestion and greatly affect the safety of Vista Lane. Residents would be forced to maneuver around cars at the top of Vista Lane on a daily basis in order to enter or exit this street. Vista Lane has always been a quiet cul-de-sac with homes on large lots that have views of the San Francisco Bay. The configuration of the proposed houses on the divided lot is not compatible with neighboring homes on Vista Lane or Hillside Drive. The proposed homes would also block the Bay views of several neighboring residents. The Planning Commission must consider the impact of this project on neighboring views, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code §25.61.060. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas have lived at 16 Vista Lane since 1973. Their Bay view which they have had for over 30 years is very important to them. Mr. Thomas is a retired Navy officer who spent a significant portion of his career as a pilot of boats across the Bay. The rear portions of the proposed houses on 12 Vista Lane would completely block the Thomases' view and greatly reduce the amount of sunlight on their property. If the lot were divided into two (2) parcels, it RECEIVED MAR 2 6 Z007 CITY OF BURLINGAME Ruben Hurin Re: 12 Vista Lae March 22, 2007 Page 2 would be impossible to reconfigure the proposed houses on the lot in order to accommodate the Thomases' view and preserve their sunlight. Other neighboring residents would also be affected in a similar fashion. Denham's application for a variance of the 60 foot frontage requirement should be denied because it does not meet the criteria set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code §25.54.020, due to the safety issues, incompatibility of the proposed houses and loss of view as referenced above. Further grounds for denial of the application may be raised at the hearing on this matter. I understand that you recently informed another resident on Vista Lane that the hearing on Denham's application will take place before the Planning Commission on Monday, April 4, 2007. Please contact me to confirm that this item will be on the agenda for that meeting. I encourage you to visit this property prior to the hearing. Mrs. Thomas will be available from March 26, 2007 through April 3, 2007 if you would like to come to 16 Vista Lane to see the Thomases' view and the potential impact of construction on the subject property. Please call me to arrange this site inspection. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A Professional Corporation MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. cc: Denham, LLC Steve Shefsky Niall McCarthy RECEIVED MAR 2 6 Z007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DINT. MICHAEL B. ALLEN, ESQ. MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. JONATHAN D. BISHOP, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE WESTLAKE BUILDING 520 S. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 840 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 marc@mballenlaw.com March 20, 2007 Ruben Hurin Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Hurin: TEL: (650) 347-5000 Fax: (650)340-6350 I represent Arthur and Eileen Thomas, who reside at 16 Vista Lane which is adjacent to 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame. Please send me copies of all future hearing notices and staff reports regarding the pending application for tentative parcel map and variance for lot frontage by Denham, LLC. with respect to 12 Vista Lane. Additionally, please call me to discuss the status of the pending application and inform me of the next hearing date and time. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN & BENDER A Professional Corporation MARC D. BENDER, ESQ. RECEIVED MAR 2 3 Z007 cc: Art and Eileen Thomas CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD •BURLINGAME, CA 94010 a p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review Variance Parcel #: D� ! J 5. ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 12- /15,TZ (—oAZAF 1g1J&/ in%4 AJ E- 0 Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: r> EA g Address: City/State/Zip: r?11 KCLIA/&nM r, LI ` 010 Phone: (1,-K-ol) G,19 �49�L Fax: NµoM 414 E-mail:�A►�.n n�+ ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: T)E7/fff.Av,1 LLL Address: 12A 44`'" City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax: Name: M?AnJ M1 EQD Address: t"' CZ5:2 Fz= City/State/Zip: Lrn S (/e • q!5-o 707 Phone: �/ S n 1_'� C y Fax: E-mail * Burlingame Business License #: l 43-7 S CEIVED U G 1. 9 2009 Y OF BURLINGAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION:_ S141I i 51 - i CANNING DEPT. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certif under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: �//sl I am aware of the proposed ap ca ion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: g . io - 01 ,k Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:\Handouts\PC Application 2008-B.handout � CITY- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org . � CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION u ;)-0OG JNGAME DEFT, The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. A--rTA c, 4F-D b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity Handouts\Variance Application.2007 RECEIVED u;, a 0 2009 A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable td yj r property which do not apply to other properties in this area. As background, the applicant purchased the subject property eight years ago from the Sisters of Mercy who had annexed it in the 1979 along with other parcels, wanting to,, keep all of their holdings within the City limits of Burlingame. This decision created a unique circumstance with a finger of land under city jurisdiction and the surrounding properties on the three sides of the subject site in the unincorporated area. The lower portion of the subject site is served from Adeline Drive and that section of street was annexed to the City at the same time, while the western or upper portion of the annexed property is served from Vista Lane, which is owned and maintained by the County of San Mateo. This situation thus becomes an underlying issue as the city considers the applicant's request for subdiving the one-half acre into two lots to be accessed from Vista. It should be noted that the county's policies for development in the Burlingame Hills area considered more "liberal" when compared to the City of Burlingame, e.g. policies encourage second units which are not allowed in the city, except as legally grandfathered (existing and non -conforming structures). The minimum frontage required for parcels in the county's S-9 zoning district (neighboring properties) is only 50 feet. Five out of the nine lots facing Vista Lane have less than 50 feet of frontage. The City's zoning code requires that any lot annexed after May 31, 1960 shall have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and further requires a minimum of 60 feet of public street frontage. The applicant's parcel is approximately 21,000 square feet, considerably larger than most parcels within the City of Burlingame, far exceeding the minimum lot size threshold of 10,000 square feet established by the annexation policy. The policy does not address the unique circumstances now facing the applicant whose property lies within the city limits, but fronts on a county public street. After several meetings of the City Engineers, Public Works Director, City Planner and City Attorney, it was concluded that a subdivision of the subject site could be approved without a variance by providing access from a cul-de-sac off Vista Lane. (See attachment "A") the cul-de-sac will be open for public use, and would privately owned and maintained. While the cul-de-sac scenario meets the minimum street frontage requirements, it would require an additional 2,300 square feet of impervious surface. The planning commission has expressed a public position that minimizing the amount of impervious surface is preferred from an environmental standpoint. The condition described above is an exceptional, unique, and extraordinary circumstance which applies only to this property in the City. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from denial of the application. As previously stated, it was determined that while two lots off Vista Lane could be created without a variance by building of a cul-de-sac. This alternative would not represent the best site planning as 2,300 square feet of additional asphalt paving or other impervious surface would be required. This alternative also creates an unnecessary visual and environmental impact as well as a reduction in useable front yard landscape area. A variance request is being made because without creating the cul-de-sac, each of the two lots will have 55' (feet) of frontage versus 60' (fee) required under the annexation policy. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Properties on Vista Lane and throughout the surrounding areas, whether in the unincorporated County or City of Burlingame, consist of single-family homes. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the neighborhood character and will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. D. How will the proposed project be compatible with aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The future residences will be designed to conform with Burlingame's Architectural Design Review policies. The aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the future residences will be compatible with those in the general vicinity and will comply with all Burlingame's land use regulations. 1 I I o LL-P-H3027-O O IQ0 I dQG�D�'°P P DL nMbGQM l � a I m�Gi D e FOUND 3 4' IRO ' $ q" I 'I PIPE WITH PL.ASTI FOUN 3 4' IRON > - sry e L FOUND BRASS TAG •\76 S l' w 2tq 1' PLUG A TACK ' - PIPE^ 41H PLASTIC a gq. CfTYlCOUNff 190 - FOUND 3/4' IRON y voglkS 5304 RETAINING WALL 9M1 PLUG AND T($K, a LIMIT LINE 0 c� 76.65 PIPE NTH PLASTIC CHAIN ENCE •LS�i36�' "ems 530 \ m 76-O,Z 9 - PLS 5304D TACK O 5 3456'00' W �°� t - 200.45' ENC i % - - w PORaRY �Js a 2f0 208 206 20y 88.00 —. — — 820- n — — — — CI ® B ING c # N GRANT ELEV.= 2)2 0 — + � \ � S66'22'00•E �, 8.01 (A65UM I 27q 127 - EX 5 WIDE 5 6 g n — — y N ��l �\ PER 6 PM I78PROPOS OT UNE GARAGE =10.38 �1 I =430' I p 59'27'44• 4• N TRENc 21278 I� i MOTE TED TREE BY PROS 9E I �•D / 30.45' �."' c DRAIN O o: / - x P O O E `- Q I [1i=04'03'2- ?76 (J 212� �TICp _i.-��. CITY AR CiRI$T '�m� a, I uG'i ,J oA EL I I 09.5 PF lop I 66 O 1 3 P T EXI�N \ LOT 216.6 R=27' TG ROPOI§En FlRE TRUCK - �NEW mtp I :1 NE TO E�+EDU4 BE Pv 55.43 O D POSIS E HOUSER€M VEb.;' PROPOSED p=1 37'7.8" ob 4" SE ) I27 `�OT LINE "'i`'F O P�iINTTERAL r� 1C W I \ rr ) Oo�d STORM DRAIN OQ - , `�J' I- I STRE BE DEDICATED 216.05 ss x s I TD CIT FOR PUBLIC USE PROPOSED ✓oT`I ' q hD 218.95 SS LV,� LOT LINE 'e FT' p 5 34'S6'00" W 5242' ��JJ �s ° 180.0 0 11' 6 p = 36'26'00' I 3 6:'1' 70• 215 00„ 0 — 125.OD C y / WATER Razj b1T0 R=27' FL I o LQ58.34 � •AND SDE rOR E � 9 I p=123'48'10' Fj8 � BEN i_ 0 PA CEL (A R=10„ a 209.5 P OP S D w P OPOSEO L=10. TG - C NCRETE p=ST .43. ob?° ,g; ,� ARC L 2 G LLEY ry66 21 960� 74 /213.8 ti �°YOSSIBLE HOU E y0P0� ± S.14 I A v 0 D AIN �o I FOOT RINV� I � Ss Jam`' N 6' TORM I° I m 00 + N GRAIN GARAGE I � o R soD' _ ' — _ N o 213.8 FF=213.8 I rv� I o' I m M1 p= 351'55• 6 ry 10 .0 NEW 4• RWER 3 rn I 0 6� S49'56'OD'E ,4 ^ 1 y LATER S / 28.3-- 8' CITY F - I AM ' 7/ SS S Y — — — — N 34-56'00• E "o — — 203 — C _ OUND 3 " IRON �`,p a 'O� m RETAINING WALL .�?./� " - ---i - - - 19204' - IPE NTH P C �844'59' E UNT LIMIT LINE •ems m FOU D 3 ON 176.0 p OD'12'21' ;LUG AND TA PIPE. NTH ACK 3 0.37' S' P.S.S.E ;IS 3451• i . J PLUG AND_ TACK NEW 4' SEVER AND L = 225.00 moo$ •� 5304 LATERAL P.SD.E VELr FOUND BRASS TAG 2 I m dQap� p� f�NJddC MG^pG�JM Wp���b °@ UN/NCORiORA TED SAN MATEO COUNTY CONCRETE DRIVEWAY Ls 5304' r'iI�;I LEGENDS OWNER AND SUBDIVIDER: COEP EDGE OF PAVEMENT - DENHAM LLC & HOYA INT., LLC (AN BURLINGAMt CT DEFT. - GIT`,' OF Co CONCRETE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT UP JOINT POLE CA. 94011BURLYAY, SUITE 710 BURLINGAME, - P I EB ELECTRIC BOX PSSE PRIVATE SANITARY TEL(650)579-4994 -GRAPHIC SCALE SEWER EASEMENT SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PRIVATE STORM ZONING: R-1 G.B. GRADE BREAK PSDE DRAIN EASEMENT i IN FEET 1W TOP OF WALL TIN TOP OF WALL 3 mcL = 10 IL gENO GN oE9GRron°N ° BY By �Br� 'w BYWD DAM,e.. UTILITIES: TREE 220 NEW CONTOUR IANp HYDRANT ELECTRIC. PG & F 49 b oo f O ` C yo `TG b G. VESTING TENTATIVE & FINAL PARCEL MAP 2 �.^y_` BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B" PER INV. INVERT SEWER:LONE: AT OF BURUNGAME �o o� . PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 76. PAGES 78 & 79, RECORDS OF WM WATER METER CABLE N COMCAST WV FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY. DO WATER VALVE WATER: CITY OF BURLINGAME • No. 35 48 rt No, 04 — E— ELECTRIC LINE P• CAVIL z007\p gyp. t2 3t-z°D7 'F CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATED COUNTY CALIFORNIA —G— GAS UNE - 'lf OF CAL��Q� �9tF OF CAL\�Qap PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC —SS— SANITARY SEWER ULAND SURVEYORNE , ® STORM DRAIN UNE AND CIVIL -ENGINEER:MACLEDD G° HO A°, SSOCOA lI E S TG TOP OF GRATE MacLEOD AND ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND SURVEYING 965 CENTER STREET C.O. CLEANoui SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 - 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA 94070 (650) 593-8580 FF FINISH FLOOR TEL(650)593-BSBO FL FLOW UNE ATTACHMENT °°A" WITH NO VALIANCE DRAWN BY. A" �: ,-.,°' 42-TND. DESIGNED .1VPG OAIE: 11/26/O6 �742-TENT W,\Proi.da\Pm)-01\1742-01\174 TE T.DWO I d1ECKED BY: DGM I APP'D. SHEET, 1 OF 1 lo + I 4 _ g y _ �tl dN �0 P.C. ITEM # MEMO TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 SUBJECT: STUDY MEETING FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 12 VISTA LANE - PM 09-04 Site Information: Zoning: Existing Lot Size: Proposed Lot Size: Required Lot Size: Required Street Frontage: Background: R-1 21,212 ± Square Feet Parcel 1=10,537 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 55 Feet Parcel 2 = 10,675 + Square Feet Street Frontage = 55 Feet 10,000 Square Feet 60 Linear Feet This parcel map application proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots. Both proposed parcels do not meet the required sixty feet (60') street frontage (C.S. 25.28.050a-3). Applicant has applied for a variance for two lots with fifty-five feet (55') of street frontage which is being processed concurrently. The Engineering Department has reviewed the map for utilities and easements and has the following comments: 1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. Page 1 of 2 2. 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. 3. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. This mapping action should be considered as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the lot split to speed processing. Staff will see that the Final Map is properly prepared. This application is a Categorical Exemption Section 15315, "Minor Land Division" under C.E.Q.A. for four or fewer parcels. Attachments: Assessor's Map, Tentative Map U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM09.04.wpd Page 2 of 2 e A1RCft 7 PwRCFL L `- PARCEL / 1'Ii,1o'^!I NllyrK, O� II /T I �W a � 1 I1 rsvx a �Sy I I ,A II PO I I mc.w• c 3 I I 2/ 01, TAX CODE AREA I II IX i.:—,i ��, 092 � 1 i ` i pxxllc n• / /! , /3 091 /2 S 4j � i � ALY /0 _ m!r sRA Lx!I nirzi-c wRwoo � I �r1 I I— � � : < wRs or wvE ✓ I 1 I �I 7 E 61 31 5 IA' 3e.H io I �°� l�xa Kar am iyli m',�y,�� mn!' xs�c Its � nAx' tcJY an' un' lcrepi vc�' war lG.GY m.Ir tA.rh' z «<y n. i1i PM¢ �I�SIpE asi!'aec /as PARCEL MAP VOL 62 68-69. PARCEL MAP VOL 5140 _ _ _. ^ vI1o1 —A-i mil / c mn 7 RSM m 1 /8-/9 e Project Comments Date: August 17, 2009 To: ® City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ® City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ® Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ® NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ® City Attorney Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No. 2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300 Staff Review: Reviewed by: Date: 11310 7 r--p Comments Date: August 17, 2009 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300. Staff Review: August 17, 2009 No comments at this time. Reviewed b _ Date. r / / 1 Project Comments Date: August 17, 2009 To: 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 D-Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300. Staff Review: August 17, 2009 No comments at this time. Date: 3 Reviewed by: -. Date: To: From Project Comments August 17, 2009 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 X NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Subject: Request for Variance for Lot Frontage and Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Split of Parcel A into Parcel 1 and 2, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No.2 Subdivision at 12 Vista Lane, PM 09-04 at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-300. Staff Review No comments August 17, 2009 For additional assistance, contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650) 342-3727. Reviewed by:9r� Date: d81 ?1�22,,oj CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 = '+ PH: (650) 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 696 3790 v- www.burlingame.org Site: 12 VISTA LANE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY, October 13, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a lot split of Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No. 2 Subdivision, 12 Vista Lane — PM 09-04, and Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 feet of street frontage is required at 12 VISTA LANE zoned R-l. APN 027-093-300 Mailed: October 2, 2009 (Please refer to other side) 0161-116504325 Em biiad rror 94010 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City ®f Burfinggme A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director (Please refer to other side) I`