Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff Report (2)_ � Item # 9 DSR Study Calendar Second Review City of Burlingame Floor Area Ratio Variance, Special Perniit for Height Asid Design Review for a Basement, First and Second Story Addition Address: 120 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 2/12/O1 Request: Floor area ratio variance, special permit far height and design review for an addition to the basement and main floor, and a new upper floor at 120 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040) Property Owner: Tracy & Troy Otus APN: 028-293-220 Applicant/Designer: Alan D. Olin, AIA Lot Area: 7,926 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 January 22, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On Monday January 22, 2001 a proposal for a design review and variances for parking, floor area ratio, and height for an addition to the main floor and a second floor at 120 Costa Rica Avenue was before the P1aru7ing Commission. The key issues of concern to the Commission were the FAR, height and bulk of the project. The Commission commented that with the proposed FAR and height (37 feet) the house would be very tall and large. However, they felt that relatively the same amount of living space could be developed by excavating the basement and putting the attic (second floor) living area in the basement, since the basement is only one-half foot short of ineeting the required ceiling height. It was noted by the Commission that this request was for 37 feet in height, a special permit was created for height up to 36 feet to allow for architectural style. The Commission suggested that the roof pitch be adjusted to comply with the criteria for a special height permit. In addition to dropping the roof pitch to address their concerns with the proposed height and bulk, the Commission suggested the that the bulk of the second floor could be addressed by reducing the second floor plate height to 7 feet and that the rear portion of the house be lowered and developed as a split level. This would decrease some of the duplicate FAR in the basement area since much of the rear would be removed during construction anyway. The Commission also noted that the south elevation needed a dormer, or some other element, to break up the tall wall. The Commission commented on the difference in the second floor windows and suggested more consistency in the windows, they also asked if the skylights would be tinted. Summary (February 2, 2001 plans): The existing single family dwelling now contains 3,748 SF of floor area (0.47 FAR) including the detached garage, and has three bedrooms, including the room that is labeled den. The existing house has one main living level that is approximately 6 feet above grade, over a basement. The unfinished basement has an area of 1,674 SF with a 7'-0" ceiling height. The basement area is counted toward the FAR since more than 50% of the basement walls are above grade. The applicant is now proposing to extend the basement towards the rear. The revised plans, dated February 2, 2001, include the following changes from the original proposal: 1) a reduction of 358 square feet from the top floor by moving the master bedroom to the main living level, 2) combining the two front bedrooms on the second floor into one, therefore eliminating the need for a parking variance, 3) reducing the height of the building to 35 feet , 4) dropping the floor level of the rear portion (the kitchen, breakfast, and family room) of the house down one foot, and 5) excavating a portion of the existing basement (468 SF) and the space previously proposed as crawl space (452 SF) under the main floor addition in order to create 920 SF of habitable area in the new and existing basement to relocate the guest bedroom, office and bathroom to the basement level. The revised plans also include a new dormer on the south elevation. ' Design Review, Floor Area Ratio variance & Special Perrnit for Height /20 Costa Ricn Avenue These revisions would reduce the proposed height from 37 feet to 35 feet, creating a special permit for height instead of a height variance, and would eliminate the need for a parking variance. However, the FAR variance request would increase from 1,402 SF to 1,492SF. The 6% increase in FAR results from the 452 SF addition to the basement area and the fact that the relocation of living area in the converted attic area does not offset the increase in basement area, even though 468 SF of the existing basement area will be made habitable. Over half of the total basement area has walls that are more than fifty percent above grade, therefore the entire basement level is counted toward the FAR. With the revised project, the remodel would add a family room, breakfast area, office, storage room and one additional bedroom, for a total of four bedrooms. There is an existing 347 SF detached garage with an interior dimension of 17'-8" by 19'-8". The addition would increase the floor area of the existing structure by 1,754 SF (47%), for a total floor area of 5,502 SF (0.69 FAR), including the detached garage, where 4,010 SF (0.51 FAR), is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. Should a legal two car garage be desired in the future, an additional FAR variance would be required for 53 SF, the difference in area between the existing detached garage and a legal two car garage. The applicant is requesting the following for the revised project: • design review for basement, first and second story addition; • special permit for height (35'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum height allowed) (C.S.25.28.060(a)(1)); and • floor area ratio variance for 1,492 SF (5,502 SF, 0.69 FAR is proposed where 4,010 SF, 0.51 FAR is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.070(b)). CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSED EXISTING (2/12/Ol) (1/22/O1) SETBACKS Front: Ist flr No change No change 15'-9" 15' or block average 2nd flr No change 30'-6° N�p 20'-0" Side (left): No change No change 11'-6" 4'-0" 2'-6" Side (right): No change No change 4'-0" Rear: Ist flr 64'-6" 59'-0" 79'-0" 15'-0" 2i:d flr 78'-0" 62'-6" N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 34.0% 34.7% 27 40�0 40% (2,696 SF) (2,756 SF) (2,174 SF) (3170 SF) 2 I �' IJesign Review, Floor Area Ratio Yarimice & Special Permit for Height 120 Casta Rica Avenue CURRENT PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL pROPOSED EXISTING (2/12/O1) (1/22/O1) FAR: 5,502 SF' S,412 SF 3,748 SF/ 4010 SF/ 0.69 FAR 0.68 FAR 0.47 FAR 0.51 FAR PAItKING: No change No change *ri,�,o covered in two covered in garage detached garage (20'-0" x 20'-0") (17'-8" x 19'-8") + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT: 35'-0"z 37'-0" *31'-6" 30'/2 �/2 stories DHENVELOPE: Meets Meets Meets See code requirement Requirement requirement *existing nonconforming condition Variance for floor area ratio for 1,492 SF (5,502 SF, 0.69 FAR proposed where 4,010 SF, 0.51 FAR is the maximum allowed). z Special Permit for height (35'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that the new higher ceiling habitable basement area is separated from the existing 7 foot ceiling basement area by a wall with an access door in it. The furnace will remain in the existing basement area. The applicant provides no additional information regarding the size of the access door or how the user will gain access to the bottom of the door opening which will be at least 1 foot above the finished floor of the new basement area. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Alan D. Olin, Architect and applicant 3 _ __ ______ ___ _ _ �r__._ Alan D. Olin, Architect 2086 Mills Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 233-0344 � ;,, . February 1, 2001 To: Planning Commission City of Burlingame Re: Design Review 120 Costa Rica Ave. Dear Planning Commissioners, .` With your direction from the January 22"° meeting, we are submitting a revised �design for the addition and remodel at 120 Costa Rica Ave. Before I begin to describe the revisions and their impact on original application, I would like to better explain the original design and add to my initial findings for a variance. The current structures at this property are nonconforming and in fact dictate the necessity for a FAR variance. With the existing house being very narrow (28'-29' wide), very tall (31' high), very deep (62' long), and yet only a 2 bedroom/1 bath dwelling, it could not be replicated in Burlingame today because of the current zoning and building codes. And, at the same time I'm sure most of the people in the local community would agree that this structure is definitely worth preserving. In the original application, the addition was designed to have a total of three children's bedrooms, a master bedroom, and a guestroom. One of my clients' top priorities was to have all the family bedrooms on the same level, the upper level. Another top priority was to maintain the character and design integrity of the existing building. While I feel I accomplished all of their priorities, it was obvious at the last meeting that the Planning Commissioners wished to see an alternate scheme. My clients' are extremely disappointed that the original design was not accepted. However, in a good faith attempt to compromise,l Vvill now itemize t,he.revisions to the original application. A) Two of the children's bedrooms were combined to reduce the total number of bedrooms to four and thereby eliminating the need for a parking variance. B) The master bedroom was moved to the main floor level in order to reduce the upper floor level square footage by 358 square feet. This substantially reduced the overall building mass and the building height by two feet, eliminating the need for a height variance. C) The kitchen, breakfast, and family room floor level was dropped 12 inches to eliminate the need for a second set of stairs from the upper floor level in order to further reduce the building mass.