Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout113 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff ReportU IL iTT C A STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 9 , 1997 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVED BY AGENDA rrEM d MTG. DATE 04.23.97 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING CONMIISSION DECISION ON A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE FANIILY HOUSE AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. RECOAD4ENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reason for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The conditions should be considered at the public hearing. (Action alternatives and requirements for findings for a variance are included at the end of the staff report.) Conditions included in the staff report which should be considered at the public hearing are: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.8 P) and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.8 P) to the bottom of the existing roof beam; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4"; 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on March 24, 1997, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining) to deny the request for a variance for 7 feet in height over the maximum 30 feet 1 e 01 Appeal of Planning Commission decision on a height variance for a single family house at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. April 23, 1997 allowed in the R 1 zone. In their action the Commissioners noted that the plans were not complete and did not show the relationship and impact on the attic area of the skylights and light wells connecting them; that the project does not qualify as new construction because of the timing of construction; increase in roof height would increase size of house over present FAR limit without review since existing attic areas are exempt from FAR calculation; roof leak in new roof can be fixed; have to find exceptional circumstances to meet legal requirements for granting a variance, there are only a handful of houses over 30', this one exists, is compatible with itself and works as it is, can find no exceptional circumstances; neighbor indicated that he would lose light if the roof was raised along the common property line; should consider additional condition prohibiting use of attic as bedroom since it would affect parking in the area, it is a narrow street. Also noted was increasing height given existing adjacent structures and fact that neighbors did not oppose was not a problem. BACKGROUND: The applicants and property owner, Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, are requesting a height variance in order to build a pitched roof over an existing portion of flat roof on their English Tudor style single family residence at 113 Costa Rica, zoned R-1. The existing roof has a 1/1 pitch roof ending in a flat roof at 29'-4" above average top of curb. The request is to extend the 1/1 pitch to a peak over the 824 SF flat roof area which would increase the height of the structure to 37'-0" (the maximum height allowed is 30'-0"). The skylights in the existing flat roof, which provide light into the second story of the house, would be removed. Skylights would be placed in the new pitched roof over the existing holes and the space between the new skylight and original hole walled in to create light wells to the second floor. These light wells would extend vertically though the 824 SF attic area created. The applicant is proposing to retain the present flat roof structure and surface covering, basically enclosing it with the new roof framing. History The house at 113 Costa Rica was built in 1992 after the original structure had been demolished. New construction and floor area ratio regulations were not adopted until May 1993, so this project was not subject to them. The FAR for the present house is .43, maximum allowed is .50. If the attic area (82.4 SF) created by the new roof framing were converted to living area in the future the FAR on the site would increase to .53. Since conversion of existing attic areas is permitted without tripping FAR, there would be no public review of the future change in use of this area. It should be noted that while we have no schematic plans showing the location of the light wells for the skylights, they will extend through the new attic area floor to ceiling. In addition habitable area is calculated where 50% of the ceiling area is at least 7'-6" and none is lower than 5'-0"; in this case 824 SF would qualify. More than 500 SF of living area in an attic would require a second exit. /m 113COST&.109 ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Variance Findings Monroe letter to Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, April8, 1997, setting appeal hearing Thomas Buckley letter, April 2, 1997, requesting Appeal. Planning Commission Minutes, March 24, 1997 Planning Commission Staff Report, March 24, 1997, with attachments. Public Notice of Appeal Hearing Resolution 2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1 City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2 City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3 City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. VARIANCE FINDINGS (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; (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. 4e (fi#V of Purfiugttme CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX (415) 342-8386 April 8, 1997 Tom and Jean Marie Buckley 113 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Buckley, At the City Council meeting of April 7, 1997, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Margazet Monroe City Planner MM/s 113COSTA.ace c: City Clerk CAA OWN (1\)� f S 61 qj j c k it f I 1, 'I RECEIVED A P R 2 -1997 ( CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. - HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL: { HEARING SHOULD BE SET FOR THE NEXT MEETING, APRIL 23 (WEDNESDAY). CITY CLERK MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 24, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on March 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commission s Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Key, Mi , ellford and Ellis Absent: None Staff Present: C. Planner, Margaret Monroe; y Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, rank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, ith Marshall MINUTES - The minutes of the March 1997 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - The ord of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. APPLICAMON FOR A FROINr SETBACK AND PARKING RIANCES AT 1112 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, ANIEL BIERMANN, APPUCANT AND ROBERT AND ANN Requests: alp ' t rovide information on the nu er of houses on both sides of the street for this block which a ree bedrooms and �te parking space; what is the hardship on the property which prey is ovided a two car garZee was set for public hearing on April 14, 1997 providing the infor ation requested is available i ITEMS FOR ACTION ><�APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 3.24.97, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 1997 consideration at the public hearing. C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant so would abstain from the discussion and vote on this item. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Tom Buckley, 113 Costa Rica, noted that the staff presentation of the project was complete and he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that he did not understand the skylight portion of the application since the light wells do not appear on the plans nor do their dimensions or how they would be implemented; applicant noted that the light well would extend from the existing skylights vertically to the new roof where a skylight would be installed, the existing skylights would be removed and their locations finished off, the light wells would direct light into the existing second floor of the house; understand that this proposal does not meet the standards of new construction because of the sequence of construction; applicant noted that had persuaded wife that cropped roof would look OK, have decided that she was right and not best appearance, now want to correct; if increase height of roof add habitable area which would increase size of house over present FAR without any review although skylights limit useable area some. William Ward, 120 Occidental, spoke in opposition noting that the original design cut off the peak of the roof to comply with the code, now asking to exceed the code; beautiful house as is; his problem is with the process being followed i.e., designed a certain way to avoid review, then come back and ask for exception after built. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: asked why the FAR would not apply if area converted to habitable area in future, staff noted that existing attic areas are exempt for FAR calculation, also would not meet new construction criteria. Two reasons given for request the flat roof leaks and want to look like a true Tudor, two different reasoning; roof leak in a new roof can be fixed. If one looks at the site and surrounding properties, this one would not have impact at 7 feet taller; neighbors were notified, neighbors did not oppose. C. Coffey moved to approve height variance. Motion died for lack of a second. Further discussion: ambivalent, know applicant, built a fabulous house, works well with entire block but need to look at Council direction, here benefit from guidelines having flexibility but with a variance need to meet the finding requirements of state law. With a handful of exceptions no one has a house over 30 feet. Popularity with neighbors is not a test for a variance; test of unusual circumstances is not met; need clearer direction about where more flexibility for design is appropriate presently do not have latitude to do; this is a variance request and cannot find exceptional circumstances to justify. C. Galligan moved to deny the application for a height variance for the reasons stated suggesting that the City Council may wish to give more direction; seconded by C. Wellford. On the motion it was noted that the house is well designed and nicely detailed; don't know why property needs this, compatibility is consistency with self, and project works as it is; talked to neighbor Mr. Furesz at 117 Costa Rica Avenue and he said that he would experience loss of light if the roof was raised along their common property side; should consider adding condition that attic area never be used for habitation, its a small street, if add bedrooms will add more parking and traffic, now can't see the streetscape for watching out for the parked cars. Chairman called for the vote. The motion to deny the application was approved on a 5-1-1 (C. Coffey dissenting, C. Deal abstaining) roll call. Applicant was informed that the item could be appealed until the council meeting on April 7, 1997. -2- City of Burlingame HeightVariance Address: 113 Costa Rica Avenue ITEM #2 Meeting Date: 3/24/97 Request: Height variance for an extension to an existing roof where the total height proposed is 37'-0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit (CS 25.28.070). Applicant: Tom and Jean Marie Buckley APN: 028-316-100 Architect/Designer: J.D. & Associates Lot Area: 8,324 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Summary: The applicant is requesting a height variance for the extension of the existing roof which will exceed the 30'-0" maximum height limit located at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing roof has a pitch of 1/1 and culminates into a flat roof. The flat roof has an area of approximately 457 SF. The proposed roof will continue the existing 1/1 pitch and will result in a hip style roof which will measure 7'-8" above the existing flat roof. The total height of the residence will measure 37'-0". A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 30'-0" height limit. As proposed, there is no plan for habitable area in the attic area and the area of the roof extension does not qualify as new construction, and therefore, floor area ratio limits do not apply. In addition, the plans submitted on February 3, 1997 indicate that the existing built-up roof and roof beam will remain (illustrated in Sections A and B) which limits the space which could be used for habitation in the attic area. New skylights are proposed in the new roof over existing skylights in the present roof. These skylights will be connected by enclosed light wells extending through the newly created attic area. The construction of the light wells will further limit the area which could be used for habitation in the attic. Because the attic is not considered new construction, if the attic is developed into living space in the future it will not be subject to the floor area ratio limit, although if the habitable area exceeds 500 SF, a second exit will be required to be added at that time. The residence at 113 Costa Rica was constructed in 1992 with building permits after the original residence was demolished. At the time the building permit was issued in 1992 for the new residence, floor area ratio and new construction standards were not in effect (they were adopted May 3, 1993). The existing floor area for the residence is 3,587 SF (FAR for this lot would allow 4,164 SF). In an attic areawhere there is a sloped roof, habitable area is calculated where the ceiling height exceeds 5'-0". With the new roof addition, the attic area has a potential to exceed 5'-0" for approximately 824 SF of the total attic area. If the attic area is developed at a later date there is a potential for approximately 824 HE4GHT VARIANCE 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE SF to be added to the residence, and the resulting residence could be a maximum of 4,411 SF, or approximately 247 SF more than the maximum allowable floor area for a lot this size (4,164 SF max FAR). If the attic were to be developed into a living space of more than 500 SF, two exits would be required to be provided from that floor. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REO'D Height: 37'-0"' 29'-4" 30'-0" (measured from the (94.81) (87.14) (87.81). average top of curb 57.81') 21h stories Floor Area Ratio: 3,587 SF 3,587 SF . 4,164 SF 1. A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 30'-0" height limit. 2. The attic area was not included in the floor area calculation. This project is not considered new construction, and floor area ratio limits do not apply. All other zoning requirements have been met. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the plans submitted for this application are the same (with the addition of the new roof) as the plans previously submitted in 1992 for a building permit for the construction of a new single family residence to replace the residence that had been demolished at 113 Costa Rica Avenue. There are notes and revisions on the plans which pertain to the previous application; please disregard any notes that do not relate to the new roof extension. Planning staff would also note that the existing built-up roof and roof beam as shown in Sections A and B of the plans submitted February 3, 1997 are proposed to remain. The retention of the existing roof framing limits the height of the attic area to a maximum of 64" as measured from the ,second floor top of plate to the bottom of the existing attic beam (a height of 5'-8" is created if the measurement is taken from the top of the floor in the attic). Habitable area (7'-6" min. habitable height) could be created in the future if the existing flat roof and framing are removed and the existing roof beam is relocated or removed to create an area that measures 7'-6" in height. A condition requires the retention of the existing roof and beam. In addition to the framing, two skylights will be installed above the existing skylight locations in the present roof (the existing skylights on the flat roof will be removed) and light wells will be constructed in the interior of the attic to direct light from the roof to the second floor. The addition of the light wells will serve to reduce the habitable area in the attic due to their location and mass within the attic space. The Chief Building Official, Senior Engineer and Fire Marshal also reviewed the project and had no comments. Study Questions: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their study meeting on March 10, 1997 and had questions regarding the proposed roof addition. The residence at 113 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed in 1992 and as built met the height requirement of 30'-0" (existing roof height - 29'-4") at that time. In order to comply with the 30'-0" height requirement the owners elected to install a "cropped roof line" or modified Tudor style roof which culminates into a flat section at the top. The applicant is now requesting to extend the pitched roof because the existing flat roof construction has been a problem in terms of leaking. The owners are requesting a variance to increase the height of the roof to correct the leaking problem and to be more compatible with the Tudor style architecture of the residence. A Tudor style residence is typically two stories with a strong vertical emphasis. A steep pitched roof, stucco walls and wood trim are also details typically associated with this style of architecture. The area in the attic created by the roof extension will be "dead space" and is not intended for habitation, since the existing beam and roofing will be retained. 2 NEI GHT VARIANCE 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.81') and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.81') to the bottom of the existing roof beam ; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37'-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4"• 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Kristin Johnson Planner c: Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, owners/applicants 3 0 March 10, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on March 10, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - AGENDA - Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan 5 p.m.), Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis None City Planner, Mar et Mon roe, ity Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbache , Assistant Bill Reilly The mireCites of as 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were order ofthe agenda was approved. There )4ere no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Requests: Why are they proposing to add the new roof at this time; how do they intend to use the habitable area created. Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997. APPLICATION FOP DE SETBACK AND D AY WIDTH VARIANCES AT 1432 CASTILLO AV E, ZONED R-1, (LISA A TUART HOSMAN, APPLICANTS AND ies . How much of this structure 1 actually be replaced, such as new electrical, plumbing, ation, exterior walls etc.; what 1 remain after demolition in preparation for construction. Item set for public hearing on Map& 24, 1997. -3- BURU!49AMi CITY OF BURLINGAME Imo' APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application:Special Permit_C Variance Other Project Address: 11/�3 G457A ff A &!9 L Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 6 ZB - 3/6 - /0 0 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name—T[-);;m Name: Address:_ // �; G657A &C d Address: City/State/Zip: & 11& �2Q/OL CA 9�f�JiU City/State/Zip: Phone (w): --0 S I Phone (w): (h): M 5 S-7 9 —'+43 C) (h): fax: ARCH T/DESIGNER Nam AS�;Oc i A,-Fr Address: _ I Z2 P2 M&m A, A Vf- City/State/Zip:. gU2l_l&GA H& CA q10/0 Phone (w): 343-CaOK (h): fax: 375—P3 44-f5 fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. RECEAVED FEB - 31997 "CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: x T/., yG DUJ�z�e�G AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. s Signatuiie / I Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Date Filed: Fee: Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: RESPONSE TO CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION QUESTIONARE n Our existing Tudor style house was designed with a "cropped roofline" due to the height limitation. This height limitation places a restraint onto this particular style of architecture, and our property, which other properties in the vicinity do not have. A steep roof is an integral part of a proper Tudor design. It is one of the elements that helps to "create" the look. There are many other style homes in the area which do not require a steep roof and therefore the height limitation is not detrimental to their uniqueness. 193 As a property owners, we decide on which style of house we want to live in. The height limitation imposes a restriction on height which effects this particular style while not effecting others. The additional roof area is needed in order to complete the Tudor look which we have chosen. C. The additional roof area will enhance the neighborhood by completing the Tudor look and therefore the general aesthetics of the neighborhood. d. The mass of the building will not be appreciably effected by the addition of roof area which is meant to complete the Tudor look Our goal is to have a better looking home, a more complete looking home, and therefore is compatible with the goals of the neighborhood. RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1997 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ROUTING FORM DATE: �,� �� I , cica TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR������ SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben 2 * Date of Comments ROUTING FORM DATE: L 4- 11 , i I r r -� TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben Nc �nwu�M-r Date of Comments CITY OF BURLINGAME Bl1RL- irvcariE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE,, APN:028-310-100 Application for a variance for height at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The City of Burlingame Planning Conunission announces the following public hearing on Monday. March 24 1997 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingaino, Callforniti. Maite4 March 14, 1997 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this ,project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the 'Planning Department-at~501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s)"in court;°kyo raising only -those issues you or someone else raised at described in the notice or in written correspondence d at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners Who receive this notice are -responsi tenants abo>"t thistnorice. y For additional informal 696 7250. ou y# tt I Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NG (Please refer to other side) CE be limited to blic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (415) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for a_ height variance for an extension to an existine roof where the total height proposed is 35' 0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit at 113 Costa Rica Avenue zoned R-1 APN: 028-316-100; Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, property owners: WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 24, 1997, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Charles Mink, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE effective APRIL 7, 997 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.8l') and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.81') to the bottom of the existing roof beam ; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37'-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4"; 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. CITY OF BURLINGAME BURIJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sol PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE APN:028-316-100 Application for a variance for height at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on We,dnesdU, April 23, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed April 11, 1997 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. 1' N Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for a height variance for an extension to an existing roof where the total height proposed is 35'-0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-316-100; Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, property owners: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 24, 1997 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was annealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on April 23, 1997 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 23rd day of April , 1997 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE effective APRII. 23, 1997 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.8l') and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.8l') to the bottom of the existing roof beam ; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37'-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4"; 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame HeightVariance Address: 113 Costa Rica Avenue ITEM #2 Meeting Date: 3/24/97 Request: Height variance for an extension to an existing roof where the total height proposed is 37'-0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit (CS 25.28.070). Applicant: Tom and Jean Marie Buckley APN: 028-316-100 Architect/Designer: J.D. & Associates Lot Area: 8,324 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Summary: The applicant is requesting a height variance for the extension of the existing roof which will exceed the 30'-0" maximum height limit located at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing roof has a pitch of 1/1 and culminates into a flat roof. The flat roof has an area of approximately 457 SF. The proposed roof will continue the existing 1/1 pitch and will result in a hip style roof which will measure 7'-8" above the existing flat roof. The total height of the residence will measure 37'-0". A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 30'-0" height limit. As proposed, there is no plan for habitable area in the attic area and the area of the roof extension does not qualify as new construction, and therefore, floor area ratio limits do not apply. In addition, the plans submitted on February 3, 1997 indicate that the existing built-up roof and roof beam will remain (illustrated in Sections A and B) which limits the space which could be used for habitation in the attic area. New skylights are proposed in the new roof over existing skylights in the present roof. These skylights will be connected by enclosed light wells extending through the newly created attic area. The construction of the light wells will further limit the area which could be used for habitation in the attic. Because the attic is not considered new construction, if the attic is developed into living space in the future it will not be subject to the floor area ratio limit, although if the habitable area exceeds 500 SF, a second exit will be required to be added at that time. The residence at 113 Costa Rica was constructed in 1992 with building permits after the original residence was demolished. At the time the building permit was issued in 1992 for the new residence, floor area ratio and new construction standards were not in effect (they were adopted May 3, 1993). The existing floor area for the residence is 3,587 SF (FAR for this lot would allow 4,164 SF). In an attic area where there is a sloped roof, habitable area is calculated where the ceiling height exceeds 5'-0". With the new roof addition, the attic area has a potential to exceed 5'-0" for approximately 824 SF of the total attic area. If the attic area is developed at a later date there is a potential for approximately 824 HEIGHT 'VARIANCE 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE SF to be added to the residence, and the resulting residence could be a maximum of 4,411 SF, or approximately 247 SF more than the maximum allowable floor area for a lot this size (4,164 SF max FAR). If the attic were to be developed into a living space of more than 500 SF, two exits would be required to be provided from that floor. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Height. 37'-0t" 29'-4" 30'-0" (measured from the (94.81) (87.14) (87.81) average top of curb 57.81') 2'/i stories Floor Area Ratio: 3,587 SF 3,587 SF 4,164 SF 1. A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 30'-0" height limit. 2. The attic area was not included in the floor area calculation. This project is not considered new construction, and floor area ratio limits do not apply. All other zoning requirements have been met. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the plans submitted for this application are the same (with the addition of the new roof) as the plans previously submitted in 1992 for a building permit for the construction of a new single family residence to replace the residence that had been demolished at 113 Costa Rica Avenue. There are notes and revisions on the plans which pertain to the previous application; please disregard any notes that do not relate to the new roof extension. Planning staff would also note that the existing built-up roof and roof beam as shown in Sections A and B of the plans submitted February 3, 1997 are proposed to remain. The retention of the existing roof framing limits the height of the attic area to a maximum of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate to the bottom of the existing attic beam (a height of 5'-8" is created if the measurement is taken from the top of the floor in the attic). Habitable area (7'-6" min. habitable height) could be created in the future if the existing flat roof and framing are removed and the existing roof beam is relocated or removed to create an area that measures 7'-6" in height. A condition requires the retention of the existing roof and beam. In addition to the framing, two skylights will be installed above the existing skylight locations in the present roof (the existing skylights on the flat roof will be removed) and light wells will be constructed in the interior of the attic to direct light from the roof to the second floor. The addition of the light wells will serve to reduce the habitable area in the attic due to their location and mass within the attic space. The Chief Building Official, Senior Engineer and Fire Marshal also reviewed the project and had no comments. Study Questions: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their study meeting on March 10, 1997 and had questions regarding the proposed roof addition. The residence at 113 Costa Rica Avenue was constructed in 1992 and as built met the height requirement of 30'-0" (existing roof height - 29'-4") at that time. In order to comply with the 30'-0" height requirement the owners elected to install a "cropped roof line" or modified Tudor style roof which culminates into a flat section at the top. The applicant is now requesting to extend the pitched roof because the existing flat roof construction has been a problem in terms of leaking. The owners are requesting a variance to increase the height of the roof to correct the leaking problem and to be more compatible with the Tudor style architecture of the residence. A Tudor style residence is typically two stories with a strong vertical emphasis. A steep pitched roof, stucco walls and wood trim are also details typically associated with this style of architecture. The area in the attic created by the roof extension will be "dead space" and is not intended for habitation, since the existing beam and roofing will be retained. K HEIGHT ,VARIANCE 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Comnussion Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings for the requested variances. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.81') and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.8l') to the bottom of the existing roof beam ; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37'-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4" 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Kristin Johnson Planner c: Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, owners/applicants 3 March 10, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on March 10, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - AGENDA - Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan 5 p.m.), Key, Mink, Wellford and Ellis None City Planner, Mar et Monroe- ity Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbache ,Assistant F' e Chief, Bill Reilly The mix6tes of as 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting were order of the agenda was approved. There /ere no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AT 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE ZONED R-1 (JEAN MARIE AND TOM BUCKLEY APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Requests: Why are they proposing to add the new roof at this time; how do they intend to use the habitable area created. Item was set for public hearing on March 24, 1997. APPLICATION FO E SETBACK AND DRIV AY WIDTH VARIANCES AT 1432 CASTILLO AV E, ZONED R-1, (LISA A TUART HOSMAN, APPLICANTS AND ies : How much of this structureXI actually be replaced, such as new electrical, plumbing, ation, exterior walls etc.; what 1 remain after demolition in preparation for construction. Item set for public hearing on Mapeh 24, 1997. -3- 4r`• CITY .UR CITY OF BURLINGAME ` APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION Type of Application: —Special Permit_C Variance Other Project Address: &/� g451L�&`Gfi 829L%lGAs"lr Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 40 ZB _ '3/6 - 10 0 APPLIICA—NT PROPERTY OWNER T Name: I m A ry Name: Address: 1177 CD57A R/GAl Address: City/State/Zip: 11.t�2A�tF" 9(71Ld City/State/Zip: Phone (w): Clll-,0 5 I Phone (w): (h): L4-f 5 S-79 - 443 C) (h): fax: ARCH �T/DESIGNER Nam _*��lL Address: 1 Z.2 g2 FAV44 A AVVE City/State/Zip: DUP- -ikaA M& CA g4010 Phone (w): 343-- 0014- (h): fax: 375-8 44?) fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. RECEIVED FEB - 31997 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: F%bF IUD C'1 7y EX 1 S Tl V!Ce AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 's SiQnatute / I Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. s Date Filed: FOR Date ONLY Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: RESPONSE TO CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION QUESTIONARE a. Our existing Tudor style house was designed with a "cropped roofline" due to the height limitation. This height limitation places a restraint onto this particular style of architecture, and our property, which other properties in the vicinity do not have. A steep roof is an integral part of a proper Tudor design. It is one of the elements that helps to "create" the look. There are many other style homes in the area which do not require a steep roof and therefore the height limitation is not detrimental to their uniqueness. R1 As a property owners, we decide on which style of house we want to live in. The height limitation imposes a restriction on height which effects this particular style while not effecting others. The additional roof area is needed in order to complete the Tudor look which we have chosen. C. The additional roof area will enhance the neighborhood by completing the Tudor look and therefore the general aesthetics of the neighborhood. d. The mass of the building will not be appreciably effected by the addition of roof area which is meant to complete the Tudor look Our goal is to have a better looking home, a more complete looking home, and therefore is compatible with the goals of the neighborhood. RECEIVED F E B 1 91997 i;ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ROUTING FORM DATE: G TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AT SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben 2 * Date of Comments ROUTING FORM DATE: 1 I G G TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ' �'. n nAT : SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Maureen/Ruben Date of Comments ?il CITY OF BURLINGAME BURUNcnmE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 113 COSTA RICA AVF.N11i;. APN:029-316-100 Application for a variance for height at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday_ March 24, 1997 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed March 14, 1997 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information,please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you , _d Margaret Monroe , City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) /Zo I �� I C,9 112 Iz/ 117 '4vEAj F � J I.E `-� • /6 40 y 06ok G� 4.. ,,/" # o PEPPER - �, 4 A✓Er,1 UE IPo 10 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION and VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a variance for a height variance for an extension to an existing roof where the total height proposed is 35' 0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit at 113 Costa Rica Avenue. zoned R-1 APN• 028-316-100; Tom and Jean Marie Buckley, property owners: WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 24, 1997, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less is hereby approved. 2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Charles Mink, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variance 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE effective APRIL 7, 997 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 3, 1997, sheets 1,2,3,4 and 8 with a maximum ridge height of 37'-0" as measured from the average top of curb at the front of the house (57.81') and a maximum attic height of 6'-4" as measured from the second floor top of plate (79.81') to the bottom of the existing roof beam ; 2. that the new roof material shall match the style and color of the existing composition shingles; 3. that the height of the roof (37'-0") and the height of the attic space (6'-4") be established by a survey and accepted by the City Engineer prior to calling for the framing inspection; 4. that the new roof shall be constructed over the existing built-up roof and that the height measured between the second floor top of plate and the bottom of the existing roof beam measure no more than 6'-4"; 5. that the new skylights shall be positioned above the existing skylight locations in the flat roof and that light wells shall be constructed in the newly created space which enclose the new skylights and open spaces where the existing skylights have been removed; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ITEM # 1 City of Burlingame HeightVariance Address: 113 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 3/10/97 Request: Height variance for an extension to an existing roof where the total height proposed is 35'-0" and exceeds the 30'-0" allowable height limit (CS 25.28.070). Applicant: Tom and Jean Marie Buckley APN: 028-316-100 Architect/Designer: J.D. & Associates Lot Area: 8,324 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1 - operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structure, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, including but not limited to: (e) additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Summary: The applicant is requesting a height variance for the extension of the existing roof which will exceed the 30'-0" maximum height limit located at 113 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing roof has a pitch of 1/1 and culminates into a flat roof. The flat roof has an area of approximately 457 SF. The proposed roof will continue the existing 1/1 pitch and will result in a hip style roof which will measure 7'-0" above the existing flat roof. The total height of the residence will measure 35'-0". A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 30'-0" height limit As proposed, there is no plan for habitable area in the attic area and the area of the roof extension does not qualify as new construction, and therefore, floor area ratio limits do not apply. Because the attic is not considered new construction if the attic is developed into living space in the future it will not be subject to the floor area ratio limit, although a second exit will be required to be added at that time. The residence at 113 Costa Rica was constructed in 1992 with building permits after the original residence had been demolished. At the time the building permit was issued in 1992 for the new residence, floor area ratio and new construction standards were not in effect (they were adopted May 3, 1993). The existing floor area for the residence is 3,587 SF (FAR for this lot would allow 4,164 SF). Portions of the proposed attic area exceed 7'-6" which is the minimum ceiling height for areas considered habitable by the California Building Code (CBC). In an attic area where there is a sloped roof, habitable area is calculated where the ceiling height exceeds 5'-0". On the plans submitted, the attic area which exceeds 5'-0" is approximately 824 SF of the total attic area. If the attic area is developed at a later date there is a potential for approximately 824 SF to be added to the residence, and the resulting residence could be a maximum of 4,411 SF, or approximately 247 SF more than the maximum allowable floor area for a lot this size (4,164 SF max FAR). If the attic were to be developed into a living space of more than 500 SF, two exits would be required to be provided from that floor. HEIGHT VARhANCE 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE PROPOSED Height. 35'-0"' (measured from the (92'-9") average top of curb 57'-9") Floor Area Ratio: 3,587 SF EXISTING ALLOWED/REO'D 28'-0" 30'-0" (85'-9") (87'-9") 2'/2 stories 3,587 SF 4,164 SF 1. A variance is required for a residence which exceeds the 0'-0" height limit. 2. The attic area was not included in the floor area calculation. This project is not considered new construction, and floor area ratio limits do not apply. All other zoning requirements have been met. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the plans submitted for this application are the same with the addition of the new roof as the plans previously submitted in 1992 for a building permit for the construction of a new single family residence to replace the residence that had been demolished at 113 Costa Rica Avenue. There are notes and revisions on the plans which pertain to the previous application; please disregard any notes that do not relate to the new roof extension. The Chief Building Official, Senior Engineer and Fire Marshal also reviewed the project and had no comments. Kristin Johnson Planner G]