The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About116 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff ReportItem # 3c Consent Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 116 Costa Rica Avenue � _ _R ��:{ _. City of Burlingame Design Review and Variaizces for Side Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Item # `.-- Consent Calendar Address: 116 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 3/25/02 Request: Design review and variances for side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio for a first and second story addition. Applicants and Property Owners: Gary and Mary Ann Nichols APN: 028-293-210 Designer: Jerry Deal, JD & Associates Lot Area: 8,226 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - addirions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. History: On August 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a design review application for a second story addition (August 10, 1998 P.C. Minutes). The approved project was never built and the approval has expired. The scope of the project has been revised and is now considered a new project. Summary: The existing 2'/z-story house contains 5,050 SF of floor area (0.61 FAR) (excluding chimneys, 100 SF covered porch and 100 SF basement exemptions), with a detached two-car garage. Included in the FAR is an existing unimproved 1,862 SF basement which has a 6'-9" ceiling height. Because the finished floor above the basement is 42" above grade, the basement is included in the FAR calculation. The basement is also counted as a story since it rises more than two feet above adjacent grade. The upper floor of the house meets the criteria of a half-story. The applicant is proposing to add 261 SF on the main floor and 599 SF on the existing upper floor, bringing the total floor area to 5,874 SF (0.71 FAR), where 4,132 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house is nonconforming in floor area ratio (5,050 SF, 0.61 FAR). A floor area ratio variance is required for the addition. There is no work proposed in the existing basement. Without the basement, the proposed first and second story addition would comply with floor area ratio (4,112 SF, 0.50 FAR where 4,132 SF, 0.50 FAR is allowed). The existing lot coverage is also nonconforming (41.4%). With this project, the lot coverage will be increased by 30 SF to 41.7% which requires a lot coverage variance. With the proposed additions, the number of bedrooms will not change (five existing bedrooms, existing family room qualifies as a bedroom). The existing 22' x 2T (594 SF) detached garage provides two covered spaces and one uncovered (9' x 20') space is provided in the driveway. This project requires the following applications: • Design review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 5); • Variance for second floor side setback along the left side property line (3'-0" proposed where 5'-0" is required) (C.S. 25.28.072, c, 1); • Variance for lot coverage (41.4% existing nonconforming, 41.7% proposed, 40% maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.065); and Design Revaew and Variances for Side Setback, Lot Cove�•age and Floor Area Ratio 116 Cosza Rica Avenue • Variance for floor area ratio (5050 SF, 0.61 FAR existing, 5874 SF, 0.71 FAR proposed, 4132 SF, 0.50 FAR inaximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070, b) (without the basement, the proposed floor area would be 4,112 SF where 4,132 SF is the maximum allowed). Table 1-116 Costa Rica Avenue PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Side (left): 3'-0" on second floor' 3'-0" on first floor* 5'-0" Side (right): 20'-0" 0'-6" to porte cochere* 5'-0" Rear (lst flr): 65' to bay window 48'-0" to deck 15'-0" �Zlt[% fIY�: 69'-0" 96'-3" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,436 SF 3,406 SF 3,291 SF 41.7%Z 41.4%* 40% FAR: 5,874 SF 5,050 SF 4,132 SF 0.71 FAR3 0.61 FAR* 0.50 FAR # of bedroo�rts: � 5 --- Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered �zo� X zo') (Zo� X zo�) (io� X Zo') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered �� X Zo�) (9� X Zo�) (9� X Zo�> Height: 24'-10" 25'-7" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: window enclosure does not comply* see code exemption * Existing nonconforming in first floor left and right side setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and declining height envelope. ' Variance for second floor side setback along the left side property line (3'-0" proposed where 5'-0" is required). z Variance for lot coverage (41.4% existing nonconforming, 41.7% proposed, 40% maxiinum allowed). ' Variance for floor area ratio (5050 SF, 0.61 FAR existing, 5874 SF, 0.71 FAR proposed, 4132 SF, 0.50 FAR maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070, b) (without the basement, the proposed floar area would be 4,112 SF where 4,132 SF is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: See attached. 2 Desigr2 Revieiv and Varaances fo�- Sitle Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio 116 Costa Rica Avenue March 11, 2002 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on March 11, 2002, the Commission expressed a concern with the second floor stairway which requires a second floor side setback variance. The applicant noted that the existing side setback is 3'-0" and he felt that aesthetically this was the most appropriate place on the exterior design to locate the stairway (March 11, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes). The neighbors adjacent to the proposed stairway spoke noting that they are in support of the project. Their laundry room is next to the proposed stairway and therefore they are not concerned with loss of privacy. At the meeting, the applicant submitted seven letters of support from property owners in the neighborhood. There were no changes made to the plans. The Commission noted that the variances are appropriate and each was reviewed closely, and they are important to preserve the character of the existing stnzcture. The applicant has made every effort to work with the existing house and preserve its character. The Commission moved to place this item on the consent calendar. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 11, 2002, design review study meeting, the fact that the proposal is to remodel one of the earliest houses built in the city, and that the addition is in keeping with the character of this existing house, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the Ciry's five design review guidelines. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio, 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; 3 Design Review and Vnria�zces for Side Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Rario 116 Costa Rica Avenue 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. Findings for Second Floor Side Setback, Lot Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio Variances: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 11, 2002 public meeting, that the existing first floor along the left side property line is set back 3'-0" and the second floor would match the existing setback, that the variances are necessary to preserve the character of the existing structure, that the existing unimproved basement which is an integral part of the exterior design of the building rises 42 inches above grade, and therefore is counted towards floor area ratio (if the basement were not counted the proposed project would comply with floor area ratio), that the existing basement is not habitable (has a ceiling height of 6'-9") and is not being expanded and will remain unimproved, and that a large portion of the house would have to be demolished in order to meet the floor area ratio requirements, the project is found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and variances for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio, and 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 March 4, 2002, sheets 1 and 7, and date stamped February 20, 2002, sheets 2 through 6, and 8, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the existing basement area shall not be converted to living area and that if this building is ever demolished the variances granted for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall be voided and no longer go with the property; 3. that any changes to the size ar envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dornler(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height ar pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the second floor side setback variance along the left side property line shall only allow an interior stairway to be built; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Chief Building Official's February 25, 2002, memos shall be met; 4 Design Review and Vc��iances for Side Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio 116 Costa Rica Avenue 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c: Gary and Mary Ann Nichols, applicants and property owners � � Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March II 2002 Com � sion asked wh 's a 9'-0" ceiling hei t needed in the basem ; designer noted e ceiling height in th existing house ' 8'-6" wanted to ke same, the basement ill contain a rump room and exercise quipment will stored in the base nt, the ceiling height i the basement will t affect the bulk of the building, the ade will be excavat to the accommodate e new basement are , the existing basement has a T-5" iling height, walk ough laundry room d step down three eps to new basement area. Appli t noted that portio of the basement will b ack-filled to a ceil' eight of 5'-11"to comply � h F , asked what is requ'xed to backfill; staff su ested a concrete floo s needed which cannot be re oved sily. The applican ould check with the ilding department fo rat proof requirements. Further discus 'on: Commission point� out that the first floor vel is the same throughout e house, noted that there i sump pump in the ex ting basement, and ne sewage pump will be ad d adjacent to the powder om, suggested that th aundry room should relocated to a more cen al location, but it is entir up to the applicant; C ission asked if the covered deck is counted ' FAR, staff noted that b ause it is uncovered an �s less than 30 inches a ove grade, it is not count in FAR or lot coverage; generally discourage sec d story decks, but give he size of the lot, the dist ce from the property line, and the consistency with e design the deck is app priate. Robert Smith, 37 Cabrillo Avenue, project, and at he would like to se propertieS. There were no other cor�S that his lot is also one a d a half lots wide, is in support the y effort to protect t oak tree which is located bet en the from the floor an e public hearing was closed. C. ownrigg noted no change ere suggested and mad a motion to place this item on t consent calendar ting that this is an elega design which conserves e older house, but that it is the maximum FAR limit, and therefore aske at the applicant careful adhere to these plans. This ion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistic called for a voice vote the motion to place this i m on the consent calen . The motion passed n a voice vote 7-0. The anning Commission's actio is advisory and not appe able. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 9. 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE � NI� FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY AND MARY ANN NICHOLS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if this revised project is completely different than that which was approved in 1998; staff noted that the previous project included a second story addition at the rear of the house. Commission asked if staff has confirmed that the basement is unimproved; staff noted that they have not been in the basement, but that the applicant has indicated that the basement is unimproved, basement is only used for storage and to house mechanical equipment presently, water regularly flows into the basement. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman V istica opened the public comment. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, noted that this is an unusual circumstance, no FAR variance was required four years ago far the previous design, codes regarding basements have changed since then, basement ceiling height varies from 6'-8" to 7'-0", there are ducts hanging from the basement ceiling, currently have water problems in basement, the proposed addition 12 .� � City of Burlingnme Planning Commission Unapproved Mrnutes March 11 2002 complies with FAR regulations without the basement, basement counts in FAR since it rises 3'-6" above grade, new design creates 30 SF of additional lot coverage, the existing house cunently exceeds the maximum lot coverage by 245 SF, deck at the rear is more than 30 inches above grade, could lower the height of the deck and comply with FAR but would be very expensive to do so, existing side setback is 3'- 0", only the staircase requires a variance, but because it qualifies as a window enclosure this area complies with declining height envelope exception, 120 Costa Rica Avenue has a similar problem with FAR and was granted a variance. Mary Ann Nichols, property owner, 116 Costa Rica Avenue, submitted letters signed by seven property owners in the neighborhood in support of the project, would like to stay within the craftsman style of the house. The Commission expressed a concerned with the second floor stairway and asked if it could be placed so that a side setback variance is not required? Can the applicant describe the exceptional circumstance on the property for the side setback variance? Designer noted that the existing side setback is 3'-0" and he felt that aesthPtically this was the most appropriate place to the exterior design to locate the stairway, a 5'-0" setback is possible but would loose square footage in the house. Ed Bohnert, 124 Costa Rica Avenue, Troy and Tracy Otus, 120 Costa Rica Avenue, spoke noting that they are in support of the project, reviewed the proposed plans, their laundry room is next to the proposed stairway and there is no privacy issue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted that there are a number of variances requested, but feels that these variances are appropriate given the effort to keep what exists now, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: when returns a condition should be added that the second floor side setback only allows a stairway to be built, should be noted that these variances were looked at very closely and that it is important to preserve the character of the existing structure. Chzi:man Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 10. 520 DRIVE �ZONED R-1 — APP�CATION FOR 1 t►� Hurin brie�]'y presented the proje�.Ydescription. There we�no questions of staff. Chairman V' tica opened the pub � comment. Tom Hall dorf, property owner, 9 W. Maple Way, Woodsid , noted that all of the 'ndows will be replaced ith true divided light wi ows to match the st � e of the und-top window on t e front of the house whi will be retained, intent ' to match the additi with the isting character of t spanish style house b' t in the 1930's. The mmission had the llowing mments and concern to be addressed by the plicant and noted on t plans: 13 Ciry of Burlirsgrurse Planning Cormnistion Minutes August 10, l998 j�DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (CHRIS GILMAN, APPLICANT AND GARY & MARYANN P. NICHOLS, PROPERTY OWNERS) DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1617 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PHILIP ANASOVICH, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND KARL E. & DEBORA A. BAKHTIARI, PROPERTY OWNERS) SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AT 1234 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED G1, SUBAREA A, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (ANN BURATTO, APPLICANT AND KEIL SONOMA CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) EXTENSION OF A SIGN EXCEPTION AT 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (AD ART ELECTRONIC SIGN CORPORATION, APPI.�CANT AND WILLIAM WILSON & ASSOCIATES PROPERTY OWNER) C. Key moved approval of the consent calendar, with iindings as noted in the staff report and by resolution as required; C. Coffey seconded the motion. Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1, WITH FINDINGS BY RESOLUTION. (JAMES C. & RYAN KEIGHRAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Chairman Deal then asked for a motion on 1600 Willow Avenue. C. Key moved for approval and C. Coffey seconded the motion. A roll call vote on the motion was called for. The motion to approve the request passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Deal and Keighran abstaining) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. TION FOR SID�SETBACK AND ARKING VA STORY AD ION SUBJECT O DESIGN P , ZONED 1. (TONY PAN ALEONI, APPLI SPITERI ROPERTY OW RS Reference staff reviewed crit . conditions rf �port, 08.10.98, ia, Planning De recommended� had no questi s �ti attachments. CP �rtment comments, consideration. CP�' � �S FOR A FIRST ND T AT 1117 CA LLO AND ANTH Y AND Commission study meet: ssed the reque , questions. our staff repo . The ROUTING FORM DATE: FebrLary 20, 2002 TO: � City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review, floor area ratio variance, and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-210. ROUTING FORM DATE: TO: FROM: February 20, 2002 City Engineer � Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review, floor area ratio variance, and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R- l, APN: 028-293-210. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, Fe �,.s fl5c� �r ��/� . N��c-�r i �,'°'� 25, 2002 C EiG�/� G /� C� / Gfr j I S /�/ �10� c�% �-� �f�9�v �T�✓"'l� si'��c — . �%� ^ Z � Reviewed By: Date of Comments: � S� � ROUTING FORM DATE: February 20, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official �Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review, floor area ratio variance, and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-210. CITY OF E3URLINGAME PLANNING DGPARTMENT 501 PRIMROS� ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �� CITY O� BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO "THE PLANNING COMMISSION Q ' Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance %� Special Permit k Other Parcel Number: Project address: � � � ��'�T� �`� �'��'� �� APPLICANT Name: ��f' � ^n�R--Y �t� ��t��-S Address: IL� Ca�� City/State/Zip: �uj� ►-i � � r�'*2� ,� �F=F' �� Phone (w): �h); 3�-�- — 7 S �� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER � Name: �-1� � �i-Ssc�l'�''+T�S PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: � Phone (w):� (h): �� Address: �'�--2-� f'�9-L'�'m,� ,��- City/State/Zip: g�ry��. � y�'�� Phone (w): 3 `� � � � `'�`r Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. (h): (fl� 3 �S - � `�-`�-� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: I�� S T fr S�`'�= �`�t� i=-L-ti'�7Z ��-t")�� ` I i�'�1 AFFADAVIT/SIGNATUItE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given hereir_ is true and correct to the best of my knowle�dge �fid'�elief. ��) , i �;: � �� Applicant's signature: %`^ �'��'' � - - � �='�— Date: � —�� = = � � I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to sizbmit this application to the Planning CommissiQn. � , % l,'� /� � ;j � Property owner's signature: k' � � �� ;✓ `� Date: ? _ �� '� R E C E I V E D Date submitted: ? ZLJ`�� 7 FEB 2 0 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME ° L A N N I N G D E P T. [�Carr.FRM RECEIVED �'ARIANCE APPLICnTro'v - CITY UF BURLINGAMF, :�llclwis r��[J�n�c I 1� Costa Rica Avenue Rurlin�amc. C'A. fVIAR - 1 2002 ;;ITI' OF BURLINGAME PI_ANNING DEF'T. tiidc �ctback �arianre - to allow the second flcx�r dormcr to align with ttx first (lcx�r hC�Uµ Drscribr thr rxc�ptrona/ or rxlraorArnary circurreslancrs or condilions applicab/e to y�our propertj� M�hick Qo nof opp/y� [o olhrr properlies in Ihis arra. ThiS is an csisting non conforming side setback which is in a l�xaUon whi�h wiil nut tx dctrimcntal ta our prop�:rty c�r to thc ndjoining ptc�crt�. AciJitic�nall� ihc varianc c is onlv for a small darmer. � F_xpinin wh�� l►r vnrinnce �rqursr is nrcrssary jor �hr prrsrrvntion and cn)o�'n�rMt oja subs�Qneia! prnprrty rtgl4[ and K�hat aKreasonablc pruprrt�• la�s nr unnrcessnry /rard�•hlp mlgh� resu/t jronr the denia/ oj�hr app/icotion. V4'iihnut the variance thc dormer would need to be eliminated 3 F�a-�/ain K�hy rhr proposed use at tkr pioposerl location wi/l not br delrimrntal or injarlous lo proprrty� or fnepro►Ynrtnla in rNe ►ticinit}� or 10 pKb/ic kra/th, snjrty, ,qenrrul we jnre or convrnrrncr. 'fhe pn�posed usc is residential as is lhe existing use and thc use a�5 dc�cribcJ in thc Gcnc;rfll Plan. 4 How wi/l Ihe p�oposed proj�c! be eompatib/t wilh lhe arsthrlics, niass, bu/k nnel chorac�rr ojtlre ears�ing awd potraNa/ �rsa oe adjoining proprrti�s Jn thr gtneral viciaityl This is a neti �1�rmer whieh is small and in an area that �ill not crratc exc�s�iv� mass ur bulk. T6'd 84b8 SL£ STb S31CI�OSSti '8 Qf Wd LT: T0 Z0-T0-21t1W VARIANCE APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME Niehols residence 1 16 Costa Rica Avenue Burlin�ame, CA. Lot Coverage variance for �,429 sq.ft. where 3,291 sq.ft. is allowed which is 138 square feet over the maximum allowed �vithout a variance. The lot co� erage includes the following �i�hich does not contribute substantial mass: port cochere 139 sq.ft. deck 385 sa.ft. total 524 Describe the exceptional or eztraordinary� cireuni,rtnirces or conditio�zs applicnble to }'our propert�� whicly do not apply to ofJrer properties in t/tis area. We� l�ave an esisting rear deck of 615 square feet which is approximately 39" above ;rade. Decks over 30" in height are counted as if they were buildings. The reduced deck are «ill be 38� square feet. The height of the deck �vas a reflection of the raised floor height. 2 Erplain wJt�� /he variance request is neces.rary for the preservation und enjo>>ment of a substnntial propern� right anr[ what unreusonnble property /oss or unnecessrrr�• /tardsltip nzinhf res►ilt from !he deninl of 1/:e app/ication. Witho��t the variance the entire deck would need to be removed and reduced in height by 9". We feel this is a very detrimental solution with very little gain for reduction in bulk. We are seeking relief from this unreasonable property loss through the variance process. 3 Ezplain wh�� the proposed use at the proposed [ocution wi!! not be detrimenta! or injurious 10 property or improvements in the vicinih� or to public /tealtlz, safetp, reneral we/fare or carve�tie�tce. The proposed use is residential as is the existing use and the use as described in the General Plan. 4 How wil/ fhe proposed project be conzpatible with the aesthetres, ��Tass, brrlk and c/:nracter of �he existing ru:d potential uses o�a udjoinin�; properties iia t/te genera/ vicinity? This is an existing deck which matches in character the nature of the neighborhood and the hottse itself. RECEIVEQ FEB 2 0 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. VARIANCE APPLICATION - CITY OF BLJRLINGAME Nichols residence 1 16 Costa Rica Avenue Burlin;ame, CA. FAR variance for �,864 sq.ft. where 4,132 sq.ft. is ailowed Note that �vithout the crawl space included in the FAR calculation, the total FAR would be �1,102 sq.ft., ��hich is less that the �,132 sq.ft. allo�ved. De.rcribe the excepilonrrl or e.rtrnordinary circumstunces or cofrditions appGcuble to>>our propert>> wfrich do not apply to other properties in this area. The e�isting basement is defined as non-habitable and not to be used for living purposes since as per the UBC all spaces have headroom less than 7'-0". Additionallv ductwc�rk and other pipes protrude below this height. A further problem is that this area floods during the rainy season. Water which flows across the concrete slab is diverted to a sump pump s��stem and taken out of the basement area. The first floor is raised approximatel� 42" above the adjoining grade. The Burlin�ame Zo�iing code counts this area in the FAR calculations even though it is not useable as living space. 2 E.rplain wh�� Nte variance req�rest is necessarJ� for the preservution nnd e�tjo��ment of a suhstu�ttial propertti� riglzt und what unreasnftable property� loss or a�n�recessar>> /:ards/aip migl:t result frorn 1he denial of tlze applicatio�:. Without the variance we could not add onto our home and therefore would suffer an unreasonabie propert} loss if the cra�vl s�ace / basement is cow�ted in the FAR as if it were living space. The Burlinaame zoning code was changed to include basements. The intent �vas to include this kind of living space into the FAR for ne�v construction. Unfortunately this zoning addition counts our crawi space toward our allo�ved floor area. This zoning cl�an�e has caused an unreasonable propert}� loss for us. We are seeking relief from this unreasonable propern� loss through the variance process. 3 Expinin wh�� tlre proposetl use rrt the proposed loeatioiz will not be �letrimentn/ or i�rjtrrious !o propert�� or irnprovements in the viciiritp or to public kealtlr, suJet}�, genera! welf�re or conve�aience. The proposed use is residential as is the eaisting use and the use as described in the General Plan. 4 How wi1! tfie proposed project be con:patible witfr t/te aeslhetics, n:ass, bulk und character of tl:e e�istina an�l potential uses on a�ljoining properties in the general vicinitp? This is an addition which matches in character the nature of the neighborhood and the house itself. RECEIVED F E B 2 0 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. March 10, 2002 To Members of the Planning Commission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. Tnank you. r�� u�,�. ��, � I�E(��`�'�,�.� MAR 1 1 2002 Address: 125 Costa Rica Avenue Bil111T1gSLI1@ CITY OF BURLINGArvIE PLANNING DEPT. March 9, 2002 To Members of the Planning Commission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. � - " - - � ,� � J ��_��` MAR 1 1 2002 Address: 113 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame �Ii'f Of BUkLiivi;AME PLAf�NING DEPT March 9, 2002 To Members of the Planning Commission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. Thank you. V G ��`'"1'�'`� Address: 132 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame ��1'��.� �V1AR 1 1 2002 �;ITY OF ��l�r;L�l'+(itiIVIE PLAiJN�NG CcF i Mazch 9, 2002 To Members of the Planning Commission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. Thank ou. fs� �- � ��,�o-.�� . � Address: 112 Costa Rica Avenue Blli'lltlglrile ��.��.I''� �� MAR 1 1 2002 ��ITY OF BUrt�IP�i:AlviE�. PI.ANNiNG DEFT. March 11, 2002 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Re: To Whom It May Concern: 116 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 This letter is written to support the design plans the aforementioned residence is putting forth to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission. I have reviewed the plans and the proposed variances and believe that the addition and design to the Nichols' residence will enhance the architecture of their home and of the integrity of Costa Rica Avenue. The character, charm and detail that the Nichols has spent to maintain the classic architecture of their home is impressive. Both my husband and I support the changes the Nichols plan to undergo. -- incerel , � / , ' u,y'��,� ,7��-� R�Marie Bu ley ident 113 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)579-4430 i mbucklevC�a,smuhsd. k 12. ca. us ��L�E�'��&�_ MAR 1 1 ZOQZ �fTY OF BURLIfV�Hfv1E PI_ANNING DEPT. March 9, 2002 To Members of the Plannuig Corrnnission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. Thank you. � ;' �� Address: 100 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame �� MAR 1 1 2002 �iT�Y OF �UR��I`��Ai�iE al.?iJ!ViNG DEPT March 10, 2002 To Members of the Planning Commission; I have reviewed the plans for the property located at 116 Costa Rice Avenue, and approve of the changes/additions to the house. Further, I support the Nichols and their need for any variances necessary for the project. Thank you. � ^ -:��.� 1��: ��-� ��,�I�� P�IAR 1 1 2002 Address: 128 Costa Rica Avenue Burlingame "�l'; oF BUR��I'�'GaME �'� P.NIV�NG DEPT. r� CITV o CITY OF BURLINGAME �` PLAPINING DEPARTMENT euRUNGaME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURUNGAME, CA 94010 �'^, TEL (650) 558J250 116 COSTA RICA AVENUE Application for design review and variances for second floor side setback, pUBLIC HEARING lot coverage and floor area ratio for a first and second story addition at 116 N OTIC E Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 028-293-210) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces-the fol�owing public hearing on Monday, March 25, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed March 15, 2002 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be revie�ved prior to the iueetinR rit the Plannin� Depai-�mznt at 501 Priinrose Road, Burlingame. California. If you challenge the subj2ct application(s) in co�ict, you may be liinited to raising only those issucs you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or i❑ ��ritten con-espondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearins. Property owners ��ho receive this notiee are responsiblc. for infornling their tenants about this notice. For adc�itional fnformatioii, please cnll (650) i58-7250. Thank vou. Mar�aret Monroe � ��~ F "`r,.". »'�- � ,,'4�''T: � City Planner � PU�LIC HE�4RING NOTICE (Please r-efer to otlier side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RESOLVED, by the Plarming Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and variances for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio for a first and second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-210; Gary and Mary Ann Nichols, propertv owners; WHEREAS, said matters were heazd by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 25, 2002, 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. 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and variances for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio are is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variances for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio 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. � I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of March, 2002 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variances for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio. ll6 COSTA RICA AVENUE effective April 1, 2002 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 4, 2002, sheets 1 and 7, and date stamped February 20, 2002, sheets 2 through 6, and 8, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the existing basement area shall not be converted to living area and that if this building is ever demolished the variances granted for second floor side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio shall be voided and no longer go with the property; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the second floor side setback variance along the left side property line shall only allow an interior stairway to be built; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Chief Building Official's February 25, 2002, memos shall be met; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. ' f� : � �\ \ .� " /�:��._ � \ .,�, � ,��,/ � � ` � � ,a f "� � ��A `� � ii• ^�, � � 4..f , �� };�- -�i � � . ' - � , � `��:� �F �. s� �,tax _ �� -..- � �\ ��.. / � S�- ' � _ . � ,? � ,� '., � �� , ,�� ! � �� - � - _ _ .. � � � �fi�,, _ � �F � .�.:c �`..� � .,(; � ?{�.�y 0 ��.�0, ' � � Y�w,� .c K.,_ i. �:�. r. , r��4� \ _ �� h i_ /� , '�Y � t 1{ . • ` ,+ >.; � I Y/ �\ r .� ('t �' .�rylp� ,. ' �;^ � , 1.. ��-j . ,'�:, .�.♦ `T 1 � �s j/�� ' *� 1� \ "ti !' «� �r. � .. � Y. . � � � � �.'� " �t' . 'M� �'�:� , �Y Li. � .� � .r;�- ,;� �. �1 • �' .� �'°.," .� '".^_P �� s';� .` r, .� f ` .i g+ ��. ' t' ,,€��. �� i � .�6' • �.� '!`�+ � '' _ �- � /,ee, ��i� Y - e .. . '�� ' e%��f� �e:t* . / ,l t-T .,t` .. j {�, � ��4 � 9 .t:� �;~ �''� �t .-� : � , ..r.� ,� _•.y'� . � .. � a�,� . .. . � ' � _ A ��-t� '..f i � ' �; � � / y� � . / �'" `� � . � :� Ls . � � . ,y � �-. \�/ /�'� 14_ tjl �y .� '�' � � 1 I .� . p". L �'` �' � 1h' I ;� . � '. { .'f� `\ � �/ S �1 }fT , � l�- .� �7, , k � ...� .1"`� � � • ' . ha �" .�y _ , � . . ' 3 , '!'it ; . � y � ;��T � •�� ,. +� , t%: �' � ! �_ �' �� • ,� , ..s � • �` �`i•: �'� '� ;�r ti♦ � �� , i�ti f '.� �� -','�t .. f� � m [ '� { _ .. 3 X ` � ��,r y-� . �I .`�i.st�' . � � .• . -6:. } '"iv, � ( � �' .. P C7't /a� 7.` } l� r � .✓`� ., � d �� 4 - � � �.Y .c2 _ � . J � � , �{� `•.e . �, t. 'F . �r . , ..� .� +1t.t: R � }"��J � ,- S s r�' �� . � �l.i; Sg, �• � ' � _l��T �� 4 + f - p 1 � , t S� / t� .� .. '� � ,� .is ��'� i � � `� ''� �•. ��; �� F �} , y, � ' � �+� � R �� /i �� - 4 I � q � �3 t: . �'� _ �' � ' j I ��j`,+' w _ gr� �� .�".a .�� :�x'�' � � � � �i Tii�_ � �� r• , : . . ^ � '�` �� - � �� . " � � .�� . �", i � � �` : J � ,h . �7 . ��'� ` . �,1 ,� t , � ' � .' . .�1 `t' . L� � � :-: , � i�.: / .�, ♦ 1� J �,��/ � �j �� .` �"�, i�'� ?-_ .`— • �J �� \ si°�`'Y , �y� � �T .'.>''.y� , j ��I" 'r �� Q, ._ _ � '. 'I . l,t ^ � r��w _'"�,f , . ' r' . , . �r � �``�. E�," P � � ,�.y' _ ,.,4� �1' � � � t; �,' _ ''� �` - � " ` -: - . J .�-.: �' �_ * " - , - . t< < . ;. , �`� �-.� _ . � .�� .� o`�� . '� � � �•:� ��d �� b. . � t�• -- � �i' � � � x��;�'! ,. � ,� .:. , � j � , . ��/, /� � �� t �� .F .,f ` � - r �� v . � I� '� .I` .i� � � , A� „"` ; ` .: �' �. �� a..� ,� � t ; :. � � � �� '� � • ' � � ' �. �`; .: ,�„ r .�a.� . '� , � � �`� �J'�+� �a t� \ y��.I •'�.,t % ` '�y� � • Vy • e�� . _ �`r`-1 �, \ . !�.. �� 'S � �" � . V� S.. - , � � ,4 .�::d� '.•� ' � �4 ` ��. r � '�"� -� .�«� � � ' ;�� . i:� r � � � � o ` �r � _�,� � � _ v� �, � ii a� . � �.'��- . � v� y�. ^' �_ y � n�'.` • �� j� .�� ' 4 . _ " � � `•ri � - '� .� ^ . �` � �> ��_y��1 �. y� � , � � �.a . .4`. �� . -.,� *� \: . '�}�� t�. �.'''i , \ ��, • � `. � . � -;'b1�� . . +�j �r. 4 - j4,� }�_ ¢.. ._-t - ., r _ ti':r `r�� '�i�:�'!1'� .�� ',{.. w��R' .�iW�y�� ' i�..,'.� ' �� ,+• i-�^-�✓ �, � �t - ''r F / ►rV .e�':. "'� .: U .. . �,. .s �� F.�..� y y �,y� # R � � � ,' � =s � 't..-� . ' � ' i4 +-. � y`� l � ��,"�� _. , � 1 -t.� �'� ,'� � 1 � - / 4d f�, .. '�}� � ij �. j � '• 4 � iF 4_} X' } ,� �. � �r'"'i. ' .�� \ '\ .�-+T� �i. '� " .. , , . � ' ' �6..�4 - � �"�� ,�,.� -,.''�`�` �..'�'` n � � �= � >:'� � ',;�,�� ''% P , , `��i '' i , , ,'�4 � :� tf. ri 1 c� 1 r;s l� .�t i rE- t . � :. � it`� � � ;ufi # ^`�� ` ''�"�,.� / t f - -- El�..� �' �-�i✓��.' �p �6. � 1 �; ... .� _ ..�� • ,`-�`�' j : ��- 4 � �; r� �_�� - _ - �,.- ' T : � � .� � ��r� " y � .i :�"`� .��{�� t� FY�� .4�j�4r` ,�A4 ♦ a.�_ . . � ��;�� H,� _�.; - ..__"�;c. �f` = �: City of Burlingame Design Review and Variances for Side Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Item # 9 Design Review Study Address: 116 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 3/11/02 Request: Design review and variances for side setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio for a first and second story addition. Applicants and Property Owners: Gary and Mary Ann Nichols Designer: Jerry Deal, JD & Associates General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-293-210 Lot Area: 8,226 SF Zoning: R-1 History: On August 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a design review application for a second story addition (August 10, 1998 P.C. Minutes). The approved project was never built and the approval has expired. The scope of the project has been revised and is now considered a new project. Summary: The existing 2'/2-story house contains 5,050 SF of floor area (0.61 FAR) (excluding chimneys, 100 SF covered porch and 100 SF basement exemptions), with a detached two-car garage. Included in the FAR is an existing unimproved 1,862 SF basement which has a 6'-9" ceiling height. Because the finished floor above the basement is 42" above grade, the basement is included in the FAR calculation. The basement is also counted as a story since it rises more than two feet above adjacent grade. The upper floor of the house meets the criteria of a half-story. The applicant is proposing to add 261 SF on the main floor and 599 SF on the existing upper floor, bringing the total floor area to 5,874 SF (0.71 FAR), where 4,132 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The existing house is nonconforming in floor area ratio (5,050 SF, 0.61 FAR). A floor area ratio variance is required for the addition. There is no work proposed in the existing basement. Without the basement, the proposed first and second story addition would comply with floor area ratio (4,ll2 SF, 0.50 FAR where 4,132 SF, 0.50 FAR is allowed). The existing lot coverage is also nonconforming (41.4%). With this project, the lot coverage will be increased by 30 SF to 41.7% which requires a lot coverage variance. With the proposed additions, the number of bedrooms will not change (five existing bedrooms, existing family room qualifies as a bedroom). The existing 22' x 27' (594 SF) detached garage provides two covered spaces and one uncovered (9' x 20') space is provided in the driveway. This project requires the following applications: • Design review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 5); • Variance far second floor side setback along the left side property line (3'-0" proposed where 5'-0" is required) (C.S. 25.28.072, c, 1); • Variance for lot coverage (41.4% existing nonconforming, 41.7% proposed, 40% maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.065); and • Variance for floor area ratio (5050 SF, 0.61 FAR existing, 5874 SF, 0.71 FAR proposed, 4132 SF, 0.50 FAR maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070, b) (without the basement, the proposed floor area would be 4,112 SF where 4,132 SF is the maximum allowed). Desig�i Revr�ew and Uczr•iances for Sicle Setback, Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio 116 Costa Rica Avenue Table 1— ll6 Costa Rica Avenue PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Side (left): 3'-0" on second floor' 3'-0" on first floor* 5'-0" Side (riglzt): 20'-0" 0'-6" to porte cochere* 5'-0" Rear (Istflr): 65' to bay window 48'-0" to deck 15'-0" (2nd flr): 69'-0" 96'-3" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3,436 SF 3,406 SF 3,291 SF 41.7%2 41.4%* 40% FAR: 5,874 SF 5,050 SF 4,132 SF 0.71 FAR3 0.61 FAR* 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 5 --- Parkiiig: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered �20� X 20�) �20� X 20�� io� X 20�� 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 24'-10" 25'-7" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: window enclosure does not comply* see code exemption * Existing nonconforming in first floor left and right side setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and declining height envelope. ' Variance for second floor side setback along the left side property line (3'-0" proposed where 5'-0" is required). 2 Variance for lot coverage (41.4% existing nonconforming, 41.7% proposed, 40% maximum allowed). 3 Variance for floor area ratio (5050 SF, 0.61 FAR existing, 5874 SF, 0.71 FAR proposed, 4132 SF, 0.50 FAR maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070, b) (without the basement, the proposed floor area would be 4,112 SF where 4,132 SF is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: See attached. Ruben Hurin Pl anner c: Gary and Mary Ann Nichols, applicants and property owners 2 I m CITY OF BURLINGAME Design Review Address: 116 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 8/10/98 Request: Design Review for a second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Gary Nichols Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 8,268 SF General Plan: Low density residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential APN: 028-293-210 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The applicant is proposing a second story addition to a single family dwelling which is subject to design review at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing bedroom and bathroom and add an exercise room and half bathroom on the second floor (437 SF), bringing the total floor area of the house to 3,191 SF (.38 FAR) (not including the existing 594 SF detaclled double car garage). The new second floor would have two bedrooms, ai1 exercise room (considered a potential bedroom) and two and one-half bathrooms. Lot coverage would not be increased and would remain at 3,301 SF (39.9%) (including the detached garage and canopy at the front entry). There is no new work proposed on the first floor which has a kitchen, breakfast room, dining room, living room, three potential bedrooms and one bathroom. The existing two story house is 25'-3" tall, measured from average top of curb. The proposed height to ridge will match the existing second floor roof. This project does not meet the definition of New Construction since the proposed addition is 16% of the existing gross floor area (50% required). The existing two-story house now contains 2,754 SF of floor area (not including the existing detached double car garage) and has two bathrooms and iive rooms which qualify as potential bedrooms. The proposed addition increases the number of potential bedrooms in the house from five to six. The existing family room on the first floor and proposed exercise room on the second floor are considered potential bedrooms for parking calculation purposes. The code requires two covered and one uncovered off-street parking spaces for five or more bedrooms [C.S. 25.70.030 (l,c)]. The existing garage has 21"W x 26"D clear interior dimensions, where current code requires 18'-0" x 20'-0". A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. Design Review for a Secoi�d Story.4ddrtion Front Setback (2nd) Rear Setback (2nd): Lot Coverage: New Construction: Building Height: Parking: Declining Height: Accessory Structures: '• •'• 1 30'-8" 82'-2" no change no no change no change complies no change Meets all other zoning code requirements. EXISTING 40' -8" 94' -0" 39.9% (3,301 SF) no 25' -3 " 2 covered (21' x 26') 1 uncovered complies detacl�ed two car garage ] 16 Cos�a Rica Avenue ALLOWED/REQ'D 20'-0" 20'-0" 40% (3,307 SF) see code 30'-0" 2 covered (18' x 20" 1 uncovered C.S. 25.28.075, 6 see code St1ff Comments: The Chief Building Official, Senior Engineer and Fire Marshal reviewed this project and had no comment. Design Reviewer Comments: In his co�nments the design reviewer notes that this neighborhood and street contain varied styles of homes and that there is no consistent architectural style nor similar scale to the homes. The overall design, windows, detailing and roof slopes and shapes are an extension of the existing home. The bulk of the new second story has been minimized by setCing the addition back from the lower walls on all sides, and breaking up the massing and minimizing lengths of walls at the front of the house. The proposed bay window in the bedroom on the second floor with metal roofing seems more compatible with the style of the rest of the existing house than does the existing Spanish style bay window in the living room on the frst floor. The reviewer notes that some attempt should be made to change one or the other of the bays to be consistent in design and materials. The applicant has revised the plans so that the new second floor bay window is consistent in design and material (Spanish tile roof on bay) with the existing first floor bay window. The reviewer comments that the proposed addition will have little effect on tl�e adjoining houses since both are two story dwellings. The reviewer also notes that it would be possible to improve the appearance of the house and property by changes to the landscaping in relationship to the window placement and height at the hrst floor. The applicant notes that because the comment regarding landscaping was unclear as to a specific recommendation, no landscape revisions have been proposed. The applicant commented that the property owners planned to address landscaping after the construction on the house was complete. 2 Design Review for a Second Story Adclition 116 Costa Rrca Ave�vre It is the design reviewer's opinion that the overall mass and bulk and design of the addition are in substantial compliance with the intent of the design guidelines. The reviewer notes that the overall design can be improved by changes to the existing windows and lower bay roof, elimination of the existing Spanish tile or addition of more on other areas of the house, improved landscaping and careful detailing or upgrading of window trim and frames, vents and other elements. As noted, the applicant has revised the new second floor bay window at the front of the house to be consistent with the existing iirst floor bay window by using Spanish tile on the roof of the bay. The applicant also added an 18" octagon window on the second floor wall on the north elevation. Staff would note that the design reviewer did not review the revisions made to the plans. The reviewer's analysis is based on the plans initially submitted for design review. Design Revie�v Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the comments of the design reviewer's analysis of the project as summarized in the staff report and in the memo dated July 26, 1998, the project has been found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review guidelines. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should include findings, and 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 July 30, 1998 Sheets 1-4; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer (s) ar changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3 Design Revietiv for a Seco�rd Story Additio�r 116 Costa Rica Ave��ue 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben G. Hurin Zoning Technician c. Gary Nichols, applicant and property owner 4 A�� cir w /BURIIN¢AMi CITY OF BURLINGAME� � "� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COM�I�II,SSION `�,..,,� �.,�f Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance Other � 1 r� � ��' ,�-� `� ,��1 Project Address: �/ i, rr L� ��T j�- /�-�`� �--- Assessor's Parcel Num APPLICAl�T , , PROPERTY OWNER / ^ � Name: `�-`� �� Name:_ ,/ _ '' ,../G=�C�I_=// , ' Address: i� ;� �� 5�� L L � Address: � ,/G'1 � ;� ,(� l �/� City/State/Zip:�;�, ��ll^ �`� 1_ ,� � i ;% �%�ity/State/Zip ,�, ' � i . �r` l.�-� `' Y � ; '- T Phone w : �/l� / - � `� � /,� , /- % � � ( ) , ,��— Phone (w): , : , � . � ,� (h). �' �, y,, � �' 1- (h). � �7 �,� ,_4l- `- fa�c: _ � _ '�� ',�� / fa3c:_ � �' � � ��; �/ � ARCHIT T/DESIGNER Name: �%� (.�; ,,'��:�i`'� " Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: � > `I Z�h�i � � �' - �'� � G ��%�'� ; �� contact person for this application. City/State/Zip:( i� �,,: ��C ,� 7� ��j (�� _ � '� � Phone (w): ��-' �_,� � k�' S�,S' �;/L . (h): fax: ; � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��-�� ' -�'' �` 1'>> y �� AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under pena�ty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to th�best of my knowledg�d belief. L �,_ _ �"/j ./ � ;� -� �'�/ tl (pplicant's ign�itire Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Co mission. . � � � �� ; / � ; �, , --,% _��' �- _' — c .' r� Property Owner'� Signature Date ` ------------------------------------------- =-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------�.,.�:�_ �_��_,� , r��. a. � . .�.T � Date Filed: Co ' 23 • �l� Fee: � 3'a �- a5�b d�os�+ . JUN 2 3 1998 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: �� n �`� � ri-ry nF B��ft��N��Ay,;E PLANNINi; GEPT. � ROUTING FORM DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: _CITI' ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL �FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-210. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: August 10, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, 7une 29, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Ruben �-� y-%�' Date of Comments /�� ,-..� � /� L, ��, ��^-+ /�i C�.�-��Q &�a . a ROUTING FORM DATE: June 24, 1998 TO: CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL _SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR _CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUB,TECT: Request for design review for a second story addition at 116 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-210. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: August 1 O, 1998 STAFF REVIEW BY NIEETING ON: Monday, Jtu1e 29, 1998 THANKS, Maureen/Ruben �� J �f�E'-_��ate of Comments C�-.�- v�- ��S �-�S I l�./ o c o� m.� �-�s, Sy�� N%�,c.�.�� / (r Wifiges Architeciure & Planrlir�g 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311 Ba�rlin�ame, CA 94010 MEMO: Date: 7-26-98 Planning Commission City of Burlingame ! U L 2� 1998 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 116 COSTA WCA I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the plans for the second story addition. I have the following comments regarding the design guidelines. 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the e�sting nei�hborhood: • This neighborhood and street contain many varied styles and types of homes. • There is no consistent architectural style nor similar scale to the homes, however the variety of homes together with the street trees and front yard landscaping give a pleasant feeling to the street. 2. Respect the Parkin� and Gara�e Patterns in the Neighborhood: • No changes are proposed to the existin� parking and garage which is in the rear of the lot, consistent with the rest of the street. 3. Architectural Stvle, Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistencv of the Structural Desi�n. • The overall design, windows, detailing and roof slopes and shapes are an extension of the e�sting home. • The bulk of the new second story has been minimized by setting the addition back from the lower walls on all sides, and breakin� up the massing and minimizing len�ths of walls at the front of the house. • The existing front bay window with it's Spanish tile roof slid underneath the low sloped gable is odd and seems an aberration with the rest of the existing house. • The proposed bay window in the bedroom on the second floor with metal roofing seems more compatible with the style of the rest of the e�sting house than does the existing bay. However, it does not relate to the lower bay. Some attempt should be made if possible to change one or the other of the bays to be consistent in design and materials. • Possibly the depth of existing overhang over the round bay below could be changed to improve the appearance of the existing lower floor round bay window. 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side • The proposed addition will have little effect on the adjoinin� homes since both are currently two stories. 5. Landscanin� and Its Proportion the Mass and Bulk of Structural Comqonents • No changes to the landscaping are noted on the plans. • It would be possible to improve the appearance of the house and property by changes to the landscaping in relationship to the window placement and height at the first floor. Summarv: It is my opinion that the overall mass and bulk and design of the addition are in substantial compliance with the intent of the design guidelines. However, I think the overall design can be improved by changes to the existing windows and lower bay roof, elimination of the existin� Spanish tile or addition of more on other areas of the house, improved landscaping, and careful detailing or upgrading of window trim and frames, vents, and other elements. Je L. Winges, AIA � �� ` i•fi/ a � GRESc.�NT cos r�, �. Il4 124 ,Z ��S �I�A �Zi ,,1 � �� I �FN �q � zouE : R-1 r, ,z, ►►� AV�NvF i j3 1os f� - I� - -� � � .. _ . cu � N � � � �D � � - o- ,,z � ,�� ,00 I lt� �l/� loy �r � ti / M �D � / / � 1 � W _ h � � e � r I / � � � 1 � �� CITY OF BURLINGAME 6URLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT �`-� �°�� -. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 � TEL: (650) 696-7250 116 C05TA kICA AVENIJE APN:O�A-�93-��10 Applicatian for design review for a second PUBLIC HEARING story �ddition �t 116 Cast� Rica Rven�_�e, zoned R-1. NOTICE The City of Purlingame F'lanning Commission announces the following public he�ring on Monday, August 10, 1998 at 7:00 P. M. in the i y a oimci amhers loc�ted at 501 Rrimrose Ra�d, au�^lingame, Califarni�. Mailed August 3, 1998 (Please refer to otlier sideJ � - ..4 � � .�'�f� +�5 -:.r.-�a�3�+�',y ::ae-*?'aCaT ...s�32�..�.'��..�_i%'.a.:e-.�'i E . � _ J:�4:. ..:.i �,-�^�:.. c.�, .>> ...., _ ....7"s.v.sa.i�? ��: rf Ls: >e�ts .._02....�.,� .. --� �_- :. a� � :r=`�: ��i.A� -i ;.,:� -.P�'.v+%� f� `"1 . ' . CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the applicarion and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at -#fie Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califomia. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues,�oa or someane else raised at thepublic hearing, � described in the notice or:,in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public.hearing. r.�.� Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for infonning their _� ,,, tenants about this notice, For additional information, please call (650) 696-7250. Thank you: � � ` . .. ' i - ,t � .. . . . Margaret Monroe "� 1G� _ �, ,�� tzk.�`':� ,.:.� ?�,,.� : City Planner �� . ` ��` ''��': `§`' ` � 3� , . . _��;�;.��: �- � �� PUBLIC"HEARING NUTICE -�� v . . _ _. . w.�,.. „� . �:��:- . , ; :��, ; (Please refer to other side) � " , `' __ __ _ _:;�.a�'`�t��' -^''�" .i