HomeMy WebLinkAbout120 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff ReportItem # �
Action
City of Burlingame
Floor Area Ratio Variance, Special Permit for Height
And Design Review for a Basement, First and Second Story Addition
Address: 120 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: 2/26/O1
Request: Floor area ratio variance, special permit for 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: 028-293-22C
Applicant/Designer: Alan D. Olin, AIA
Lot Area: 7,926 SF
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 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.
History: On January 22, 2001, the original proposal for design review and variances for FAR, height and
parking far a first and second story addition at 120 Costa Rica Avenue was before the Planning Commission
as a design review study item. At that time the Commission expressed concem with the FAR, height and bulk
of the project. On February 12, 2001, the applicant came back to the Planning Commission under design
review study with a revised proposal for design review, FAR variance and a special permit for height for a
basement, first, and second story addition. The Commission expressed concern about the fact that the FAR
variance had increased since the last review. Commissioners noted that the bulk and mass were still quite
large and asked for a floor by floor comparison of FAR from the existing to the proposed. More details on
the project history are listed below.
February 12, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On February 12, 2001, the Planning Commission
reviewed the revised plans, date stamped February 2, 2001, and continued this item to the February 26, 2001,
regular action calendar. These plans were revised based upon the Planning Commission's comments from
the January 22, 2001 design review study meeting. The Commission noted that the height variance had been
eliminated, but that the request for the FAR variance increased in square footage. Commissioners stated that
they want to avoid a variance for more square footage than allowed plus the existing basement/lower floor
area. The Commission expressed their concern with the bulk of the project and noted that there are some very
large rooms within the house. They stated that the revised project is cleaned-up and calmer, but that the mass
and size ofproject is still too large. The Commission stated their concem with the large square footage (FAR
variance) and instructed the applicant to reduce the mass and bulk. The Commission also instructed the
applicant to show the floor area with a floor by floor comparison to the existing, so they could understand the
changes from the existing proposal to the new proposal.
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped February 15, 2001, to address the Commission's
concerns with the project. The applicant reduced the amount of habitable space on the basement level by 296
SF, from 920 SF to 624 SF. With this revision the FAR variance request has changed from 1,492 SF (2°a
proposal) to 1,393 SF, a reduction of 99 SF. The total floor area for the house would be 5,403 SF (0.68 FAR)
Design Review, Special Pennit for Height and FAR Variance 120 Costa Rica Avenue
where 4,010 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The difference for variance is 1,393 SF. The existing
basement/lower floor is 1,674 SF. There were no other changes made to the project.
January 22, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On Monday January 22, 2001 a proposal for a design
review and variances far parking, floor area ratio, and height for a first and second floor addition at 120 Costa
Rica Avenue was before the Planning 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 g 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 could 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.
Previous Project Revision (February 2, 2001 plans): After the January 22, 2001 Planning Commission
design review study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped February 2, 2001). The
following revisions were made to the original proposal:
• a reduction of 358 square feet from the top floor by moving the master bedroom to the main living
level;
• combining the two front bedrooms on the second floor into one, therefore eliminating the need for
a parking variance;
• reducing the height of the building to 35 feet;
• dropping the floor level of the rear portion (the kitchen, breakfast, and family room) of the house
down one foot;
• excavating a portion of the existing basement (468 SF) and the space previously proposed as crawl
space (452 SF) under the main floor addition at the rear 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; and
• a new dormer on the south elevation.
These revisions reduced 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
�
Design Review, Special Per•mit for Heiglzt and FAR Variance 120 Costa Rica Avenue
requested increases from 1,402 SF to 1,492 SF. 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 (February 2, 2001) the remodel would add a family room, breakfast area, office,
storage room and one additional bedroom, for a total of four bedrooms 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. The existing
basement/lower floor is 1,674 SF. 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 beriveen the existing detached garage and a legal
two car garage.
Summary- Current Proposal (February 15, 2001 plans): The existing single family dwelling now contains
3,748 SF of floor area (0.47 FAR, 1,674 SF of which is in the basement), including the detached garage. The
existing dwelling currently has three bedrooms, including the room that is labeled den, on 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, which represents 0.21 of the 0.47 FAR. The basement area is counted toward
the FAR since more than 50% of the basement walls are above grade.
The existing main living level has 1,700 SF of floor area (excluding 100 square of covered porch), and the
applicant is proposing a 447 SF addition at the rear which includes adding another covered porch, a family
room, and breakfast area. The floor level of this addition would be dropped down one foot lower than the
floor level of the existing main living level. The applicant is proposing to construct an 859 SF second floor
that would add two bedrooms, a laundry room and a full bathroom. The existing basement is 1,674 SF, all
of which is unfinished. The applicant is proposing to add 353 SF to the overall basement area by excavating
below the proposed first floor addition. This area, along with 271 SF of the existing basement area is
proposed to be developed as habitable space, totaling 624 SF of developed basement area. This is a reduction
of 296 SF from the previous proposal (revision #1) which included 920 SF of habitable basement area. The
proposed addition would increase the floor area of the existing structure by 1,655 SF (44%), for a total floor
area of 5,403 SF (0.68 FAR), where 4,010 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. There
is an existing 347 SF detached garage with an interior dimension of 17'-8" by 19'-8". Should a legal two-car
garage be desired in the future, a parking variance would be required or an additional FAR variance would
be required for 53 SF, the difference in area between the exiting detached garage and a legal two car garage.
The applicant is requesting the following under this revised (February 15, 2001 plans) proposal:
• 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.2s.za.o6o�a��i��; ana
�
Design Review, Special Pennit for Height and FAR Variance 120 Costa Rica Avenue
• floor area ratio variance for 1,393 SF (5,403 SF, 0.68 FAR is proposed where 4,010 SF, 0.51 FAR is
the maximum allowed) (C.S. 2528.070(b)).
CURRENT PREVIOUS ORIGINAL ALLOWED/
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL pROPOSAL EXISTING
(2/26/Ol) (2/12/Ol) �Q D
(1/22/Ol)
SETBACKS
Front: IS` flr No change No change No change 15'-9" 15' or block
2nd�r No change 30'-6" N�A average
20'-0"
Side (left): No change No change No change 11'-6" 4'-0"
Side (riglit): No change No change No change 2�-6�� 4'-0"
Rear: IS` flr No change 64'-6" 59'-0" �9'-0" 15'-0"
2nd flr 78'-0" 62'-6" N/A 20'-0"
LOT No change 34.0% 34.7% 27.4% 40%
COVERAGE: (2,696 SF) (2,756 SF) (2,174 SF) (3170 SF)
FAR: 5,403 SF� 5,502 SF 5,412 SF 3,748 SF/ 4010 SF/
0.68 FAR 0.69 FAR 0.68 FAR 0.47 FAR 0.51 FAR
PARKING: No change No change No change *�'o covered in two covered in
detached garage
(17'-8" x 19'-8") garage
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
+ 1 unc. In + 1 unc. In
driveway driveway
HEIGHT: 35'-0"2 35'-0" 37'-0" *31'-6" 30'/2 �/z stories
DH Meets Meets Meets See code
ENVELOPE: requirement reqluir nient requirement requirement
�exasting nonconforrning condition
� Variance far floor area ratio for 1,393 SF (5,403 SF, 0.68 FAR proposed where 4,010 SF, 0.51 FAR is the maximum
allowed).
2 Special Permit for height (35'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
0
Design Review, Special Pennit for Height artd FAR Variance 120 Costa Rica Avenue
Table Summary of Basement Square Footages
Existing New SF Existing Total SF of Remaining SF Total
SF (habitable) to unfinished habitable of unfinished basement
be added to the basement to be basement basement SF
basement made
habitable
Original 1,674 SF Zero Zero Zero 1,674 SF 1,674 SF
Proposal
(1/22/O1)
Previous 1,674 SF 452 SF 468 SF 920 SF 1,206 SF 2,126 SF
Proposal
(2/12/O1)
Current 1,674 SF 353 SF 271 SF 624 SF 1,403 SF 2,027 SF
Proposal
(2/26/O1)
Commission information requested on 217 Chapin Lane at February 12, 2001 Design Review Study
Meeting: At the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission design review study meeting for 120 Costa
Rica Avenue, the Commission requested the FAR numbers for a similar proposal located on Chapin Lane
that was before them last summer.
On Apri124, 2000 the Planning Commission approved a design review and FAR variance for 1,215 SF for
a 669 SF second floor addition at 217 Chapin Lane. The lot size is 5,941 SF. The existing house is 3,547
SF, and with the addition the total floor area will be 4,216 SF (0.71FAR) where 3,001 SF (0.51 FAR) is
the maximum allowed. The house has a 1,816 SF lower level located above grade with a 7'-2" ceiling
height. It contains a 270 SF single car garage, a laundry area and bathroom, with the remaining area
unfinished. The conditions of approval prohibit the lower level from ever being converted to habitable
living area. The new 669 SF second floor was designed to be tucked into the existing roof structure.
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.
Findings for a 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
5
Design Review, Specia! Permit for Height and FAR Yariance 120 Costa Rica Avenue
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.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for height the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exteriar finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
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.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. 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
6
Design Rcview, Floor Area Ratio Variance & Special Permit for Height
120 Costa Rica Avenue
February 2, 2001 Sheet 1, and Sheets 3-8, and Sheet 2 date stamped February 15, 2001;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's December 18, 2000 memos shall
be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to design review;
4. that the basement area/lower level of the house with a 7'-0" ceiling height shall never be finished or
converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled off from the habitable basement
area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than 5' X 3' whose design meets all the requirements
of the California Building and Fire Codes for separation between two occupancies, living and storage; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c: Alan D. Olin, Architect and applicant
7
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 18, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CffiEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for application for design review and floor area ratio, height,
and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 120 Costa
Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-220.
SCHEDULED PLANI�IING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 18, 2000
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean � Date of Comments
c
��� �-L �- �1 �C� l v� C� � .
� I .
;
x
c
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 18, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for application for design review and floor area ratio, height,
and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 120 Costa
Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-220.
SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 18, 2000
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean � �'I � 8 ''A"`bate of Comments
d�.a; �. o �/6`.t'�� ' � .
� l a�S 6'�c-�t��ii t �i.a W � ; ns S
c
�,, N.e��''" e- b a,re rr�tin �j f v
.� d� `��
� �- - �
,�� 6� 6� � � ✓ e e
� ' ,, �,,p d�� �!'�i CS.� .
� , .!'�i ,�' ��,�„ � �L �r � ��� o d �►i
��(,�,� � r r s � ' ��.�'r`'e�cs �° � J't �
/[�""- � • t�
C<<� �
s� �
ROUTING FORM
DATE: December 18, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUB.TECT: Request for application for design review and floor area ratio, height,
and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 120 Costa
Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-220.
SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 18, 2000
THANKS,
Catherine/Erika/Maureen/Ruben/Sean 17 1�� �' Date of Comments
, l �'i f.
�� l. /
� � . �� �� �L; .-� � .� j � •� y
� h,s ;s C� �srd!..�r-c 6c= z f�i ✓cJ �--��%Gv ,
�v�� b✓�f���' f���� ��d% c�k� � �5 ��� u� ��� ��v�-, �I��U �
l�sc:-�-,�.,� �t��Y v�J�- 6e vsccL zs G�z �i,�<Q 6IE 5p���
�{v� � sv�s+27�� �P cP,l��� hEf�r�, / ��G ��
�lv � �rGY'� � S � i �1�� t ✓l�v�..� C •"e � L�l �( �� �DC�„�°�i
`/, �-fij✓�Q �f�Pif �"D� �Yvy4L'v!�-� (l"1�"�
(�%'�'i(IS l��5 T�r2H
�
�(� L�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
January 22, 2001
8. 1636 CORONADO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW _FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; VA�� AND ZOYA
ZT Lewit presented a summary descrip ' of the project. There were n uestions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the ublic comment. Vadim Ge olf , property owner, represented the project
noting he would respond to uestions. Commissioners ed that lot coverage calculation on the plans is
inconect. There were no o er comments from the flo and the public comment was closed.
C. Deal made a motior�to refer this item to the nsent calendar, applicant has done all the commission has
asked, reduced the FAR and setback the front f the second floor. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: the applicant 'ould be complimented on his response to the suggestions made.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vo' e vote on the motion to place the ' on the consent calendar for the
February 12, 2001 meeting. The otion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cer�. eiling ,Keighran absent) voice vote. This
item concluded at 8:28 p.m. _
9. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIV - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE AND HIL IDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST f1ND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (JO aROSA, DaROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; L�ARRY
AND GRACE NG PROPERTY OWNERS RE UEST TO CONTINUE APPROVED
CP Monroe no d that there was a tree issue on this site which will need to be reviewed by the Beautification
Commissio so this item will be continued until that information is available.
�10. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AN VARIANCES
FOR PARKING, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE MAIN FLOOR AND
A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OL1N, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TRACY AND TROY OTUS,
PROPERTY OWNERSI
CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the pubiic comment. Allan Olin, architect, and Troy and Tracy Otus, property
owners, represented the project noting they were there to answer questions.
Commissioners noted: this is a nice old house which is elevated over a basement area, is property owner aware
that when demolition for this proposed addition is complete most of the house will be removed (roof, ceiling
joists), as proposed the house is very tall (37') and big (exceeds FAR) because of the raised basement area, have
you considered putting some of the useable area below the first floor, this area is only one-half foot off ceiling
height: will have to do foundation work anyway; applicant needs to document for commission why these
options are not viable, identify phyical hardship on the property for variances requested. South elevation begs
for something to break up tall wall, dormer?; nice double hung windows on parts of the house but no consistency
0
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
January 22,2001
in windows you are replacing some casement some awning type with different detail, second floor windows are
quite different all windows should follow original existing. Done a good job from the point of view of design;
but height and full basement are problems. In case of the basement, has a 7 foot ceiling height, counts toward
FAR but ceiling too low to use as habitable area, could excavate basement and move space in attic to basement;
should commission consider a condition that the basement of this structure shall never be used for any living
purpose? Created a special permit for height up to 36 feet to allow room for architectural style, this is a request
for 37 feet, a variance, can the roof pitch be adjusted so that it complies with the special permit requirements.
Should be noted it is not just the height and FAR, it is also the bulk of the building which is an issue, given
the width of the lot and setbacks. It appears the front porch is falling off the structure, how will it be
reattached? As the FAR and height indicate this will be a very large house, there are ways to have almost as
much house within the code and maintain the style, should be transformed; for height could drop the roof pitch,
drop the second floor plate to 7 feet, could put split level at rear since a lot of the rear of the house will be
removed anyway, decrease the basement area by using some of it for split level at the rear. Variances must be
granted on the basis of hardships existing on the property. Will skylights be tinted. The garage is an existing
structure. Would like the applicant to come up with solutions, not the Commission, have identified the
problems, do not want to set a precedent, need to have unique findings regardingh the properiy for variances.
Susie Kosvitch, 144 Costa Rica spoke in favor of the project. This is a beautiful house, when it went on the
market the neighbors were worried that it would be demolished, glad applicant is interested in pursuing it; house
sits high it was built that way, gives it character; the houses on either side are big; this house occupied by an
elderly lady and has been decaying overtime, it will cost a lot to restore it; it would be a hardship to the
neighbors to loose a neighbor who is willing to restore it There were no further comments from the floor and
the public comment was closed.
Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the commission has given the applicant lots of direction and that the key issues
aze FAR and height, would make a motion to continue this item and for the applicant to address the issues noted
by the commission and return to design review study. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman
Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a future design review study meeting.
The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m.
11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES FOR SIDE
SETBACK AND A RATIO, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A OND STORY ADDITION (AMY AHLL, GORDON HALL &
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT t�ND DE NER; JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPERTY
CP Monroe presented a summary of the pr ject description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comm t. Amy Hall, architect, and Justin and Alexandra Kromelow,
property owners, represented the project noting th ere there to answer questions.
Commissioners discussed the proposal: on the front elevation new dormer over the existing entry will not
work with a 9 inch separation between elements of the structure, ca this be done physically, have an existing
converted shed roof, changing this to a gable end would benefit the desi and could support the encroachment
it would represent; do not see the hardship on the property for the floor area ratio variance request, the lot is
�
Alan D. Olin, Architect
2086 Mills Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 233-0344
February l, 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, I will now itemize the 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.
D) The guestroom, office, storage, and bathroom were moved to the
lower floor level (formerly the basement and crawl space). These
rooms were designed to conform to the current City standards for
basements that do not count for floor area, therefor actually
reducing the FAR variance request to less than one half of the
original amount (579 square feet vs. 1,402 square feet). These
spaces were placed on the lower level because they will not be used
on a daily basis.
My clients' and I respectfully request that you reconsider our project and allow this
uniquely historic Burlingame home to be saved and enhanced in order to preserve
the character of the past for the generations of the future.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Olin, AIA
Clty of Burlingame P[annit:g Commission Unapproved Minutes
February I2, 2001
shall only be used for storage related to the business on the first floor, and there shall be no office use on
the second floor; 2) that there shall be no more than two employees on site working in the food
establishment portion of the business; 3) that the food establishment portion of the business may not be open
for business except during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., seven days a week; 4) that the and any
improvements for the use shall meet all Ca ' ia Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Editi s amended by
the City of Burlingame; 5) that any e sion of the seating area, kitchen, food prep ion area and service
area, change in the number of ployees in the food establishment or upgrad' of the kitchen area shall
require an amendment to s permit; and 6) that this permit shall be r ewed for compliance with its
conditions in one year ebruary, 2002) and upon complaint therea .
The motion was s�conded by C. Vistica. It was noted that is is a limited use, a nice building, and that
two additional days of business would not be detrimen to the neighborhood, this is a low impact use.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the otion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Bojues, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures ere advised. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m.
The commission took a break and reconvened 9:30 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
9. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - Z ED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND
PARKII�G VARIANC OR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREII.ING, CSS
ARCHITECTLJRE PLICANT AND ARCHITECT• TRICIA GODOWSKI PROPERTY OWNER
The applic request that this item be continued to the February 26, 2001 design review study meeting.
0. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA
RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE
BASEMENT LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR AND A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OL1N, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; TRACY AND TROY OTUS PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Alan Olin, the applicant and architect, represented the
project. Commission asked the applicant to go through the changes in the square footage. The applicant
explained that since the last meeting he has revised the project, including removing 358 square feet from
the attic and building in the basement area below the new addition and under part of the existing house. He
is reclaiming a portion of the existing basement, 468 square feet of existing basement would be used as
habitable space with 452 square feet added to the rear of the existing basement under the new addition.
Commission asked applicant to clarify how much existing basement is counted toward FAR but not
habitable? The applicant replied that 1,209 square feet is existing as basement but is not habitable.
Commission asked about the access to the basement area through the exterior side door along the driveway.
The applicant said that this door is a major source of water intrusion into the existing basement, and the door
would be removed. Commission asked if there would be a door connecting the habitable portion of the
basement to the existing unfinished portion of the basement. The applicant explained that there would be
one step up to a 3' by 5.5' access door in to the existing basement area. The new basement would be 2'
lower than the existing basement. Commission noted that the existing basement area is 1,674 square feet,
9
Ciry ofBurlingame Pla�tning Commission Unapproved Mi,7utes
February 12, 200I
and asked the amount of the requested FAR variance. CP Monroe stated that the FAR variance request is
for 1,492 square feet. The applicant explained that he designed the revised project to eliminate the mass and
square footage from the upper level, and put some of the square footage into the basement. Commission
noted that existing basement area that is left is 1,209 square feet, when the variance request for 1,492 square
feet, why is the new area being counted? The applicant stated that he designed the new basement area to
be 50% below grade, therefore it should not count toward FAR and the FAR variance is really only for 579
square feet. CP Monroe explained that to be excluded from FAR the entire exterior wall of the structure
must have 50% of the lower wall below the dirt (grade), the proposed excavated rear basement portion is
below but the front portion is above, can not just take new portion, must look at the entire area. Commission
wants to avoid a variance for more square footage than previous proposal. The applicant gave an example,
stating that in Burlingame a deck 30" or higher counts towards lot coverage, but if you have part of the deck
below the 30" it does not count toward lot coverage. In an effort to keep the bulk and mass limited, part of
the existing basement was lowered and the crawlspace was used since it doesn't add to bulk and mass. So
this new basement area that is more than SO% below grade should not be counted toward FAR. The
applicant stated that the basement definition doesn't define the percentage of the basement required to be
50% below grade. If the new basement is not counted it would reduce the FAR variance request by more
than half.
Commission asked if the applicant was being penalized 1,209 square feet due to the Code definition of
basement? CA Anderson responded that the issue before the Commission is design review, not the variance.
Commission noted that this is an extreme FAR variance and asked that it be reduced. Commission clarified
with staff that if more than 50% of the perimeter of the building is below grade then it is defined as a
basement. CP Monroe concurred and noting that this defuution will change in about 45 days. The applicant
stated that the existing house can be used to justify the variance, if the basement didn't count they would
not need a variance, the exiting house is forcing the variance request. The variance is requested because they
are trying to retain the existing architecture. The applicant stated that the redesign has eliminated two of
the variances, removed the stairs, and this is a compromise the Commission asked for, the question is should
the new basement count towards FAR. Commission asked if the area under the lower floor is used. The
applicant answered that area under the first floor addition is now developed, it was crawl space before
(previous proposal).
Owner, Tracy Otus addressed the Commission. She explained that this redesign is not the floor plan they
want, their boys will share a bedroom, they don't have a master suite, they wanted to be on the same floor
as their kids, they need to have a guest room. They are not trying to tear down the building like so many
people want to do these days. They have special circumstances, they also have the support of their neighbors
and have letters of support. She feels that they are being penalized for the basement area that is not
habitable, they need an office for her husband to work out of at night, they just can't remove any other space.
Owner, Troy Otus addressed the Commission. He explained that their hardship is the existence of the
house. They put some of the mass from the top into the basement, but these are rooms that aren't used daily.
If the basement isn't counted they are below the requirement. They have compromised.
Commission stated can not be sympathetic, there are many large rooms in this house that can be reduced
so that the house without the existing basement does not exceed the maximum FAR for this site.
Commission is concerned with bulk of this project under design review, not number of bedrooms.
Commission believes design is good, but rear is still large. New proposal is cleaned-up and calmer, looks
well, but mass and size is too large. CA Anderson stated that the Commission needs to address design
concerns. Commission is concerned with square footage, bulk is moving within the structure, where is the
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
square footage going? Commission asked for the applicant to show floor area, floor by floor, so they could
understand the changes from the existing to proposed. Commission noted that variance is larger.
Commission instructed applicant to reduce mass and bulk. Applicant stated that he feels this comes down
to basement definition and asked if filling-in the existing basement to reduce the FAR by 1,209 square feet
would make sense to the Commission? Commission responded that this suggestion would do nothing to
reduce the mass and bulk.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Ed Bonert, 124 Costa Rica, Mary Ann
Nickels, 116 Costa Rica, Jean Marie Buckley, 113 Costa Rica: they support project, saw the proposed plans
and have no problem, feel that this house is a charm, just because it is large doesn't mean it is unsightly,
looks large from outside but house is small inside, addition to rear will give good balance, deep lot can
handle large rear addition, this house is the beauty of the block. There were no other comments from the
floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Chairman Luzuriaga instructed the Commission to give clear concise direction to the applicant. He noted
that this property has a unique situation with approximately 1,700 square feet of unusable basement, needs
more consideration and direction from Commission. Commission feels that project is going in the right
direction, but there is a problem with granting such a large FAR variance, would like to vote on a project
they can stand by and justify alone, but filling-in basement will still result in a large FAR. Commission
asked staff to report on a project in the last block of Chapin that was approved last suiruner that had a similar
situation. Commission noted that this is a large lot and shouldn't need an FAR variance, the existing north
elevation has a nice consistent fabric, the new south elevation is larger and plainer, and proposed north
elevation has a large mass of windows, the same problem seen on monster houses; not generally
unapprovable but nothing to link elements together, fragmented parts, may result in not having a 1,000
square foot family room. Commission acknowledged that sending proposal to design review consultant may
not be appropriate since the architect knows what he is doing.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the February 26, 2001 regular action calendar or on the
next available calendar at a time when all the information has been submitted to the Planning Department
and reviewed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: Commission asked if the new basement area would count toward FAR under the new
ordinance, CP Monroe replied that the entire basement would count towards FAR under the new ordinance.
Chauman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar
when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR
SIDE SETBACK VARIANC , SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (AMY HAI,L, GORDON & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUSTIN
AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPER Y OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. A�
project and noted that a study model of the original
There were no questions of staff.
and architect, Amy Gordon Hall presented the
�and changes to the second was created for
11
4rc c�r w
"�R���.M� CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� APPLICATION TO TH� PLANNING COMIVIISSION
��_..�
Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance�Other
Project Address: �20 CdS� ICLF AU� . i�uie[,rNC�►^4E_ Ci}
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): OZS' Z`�3- ZZO
APPLICANT �
Name: �[.An/ D. O,u�! , fi//a
Address: �0� /�/GGS f1(/l�
City/State/Zip: /�� G�he,� ,CA 99ni.r
Phone (w):_ �iSO � ?�i3 - 03�f4
�h�: ��
fax:
,�
ARCHITE ESIGNER
Name: �LA�/ D- OuN , ihA-
Address: �/L(.$�,�f j/E
City/State/Zip: /t'%FiN�O i'H12i� . r�1 J'��
Phone (w):_ �'.Sa - 233• 03�{1i
(h) � �/
fax: �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �Tf.s�?d?1�L �X/S7/��' Mih�,l �[�1'L , iJ�D 353 S.f -�
ld��t, O� MAi�/ � ADD /, 2�� S� U��E/L ��✓L
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: �'�r�' 7,�Ll�' DTUS
Address: �/ZL .��RN�1G /%!/� .
City/State/Zip: i��JRG/n/ _ Cjl � �/b
Phone (w):
rn�: 3�� 2�'l
f�:__ 3�7• �3oy
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
.;� � D.�e� �2 s �
Appli t's Signature Date
I know about the proposed
application to the Planning C
ation and ereh�1
sion.�
, �-%;
the above applicant to submit Yhis
Date Filed:_ � � ' = � ' � -
� �/
dl
s Signatur� Date
�-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Fee: $ 3�S_ t� l�v f$ S��
Planning Corn:r.ics:on: Stu�y Date: Action Date:
01/12/2601 17:01 6503472851
- �- FECORDING REQUES'IEp ev
oAoea�x �`� ��1ic Title Cbtripany
�83355 /EsC#283355-cmi
qrN 028-293-220
� WHEN R�COti�EO MAILTO
Name � ��� ��y �� � '�'1C�7 Q�US
�vee� 120 Costa Rica Avenue
A�a,aaa �rlingame, CA 94010
c�ry
srace
Zip
�
OTUS & ASSOC.
PAGE 02
... _ .. - ------ - _ __ . .
DOC t# 200fd-11933'� {
09/26/2000 08'00R DE Fee'10.00
Paga 1 of 2 Doc T Tex Paid
RocordGd in Officidl Records
County cf San 1lateo
Warrcn S1oGum
A99essor-County Clerk-Recorder
Reeordad By OLD R6PUBLIC TTTLE CQ%PANY
IIII I IIII I IIIIII III II II IIIIII III IIII I IA
9PACEA90VETHI� LWc FOF qECOROEFi'S UBc �`
C�rant 1'1nn.�1
�
The under9i�e.cii grantar(sj deciare(sj: - - __ .
Documentary transfer tax is 5 1,127.50
( X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) cqz�puted on full value iess value of liens and encu�lbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporalcd area: (X ) City of Burlingarr�
� ) Realty not soid. ........................................................................_.....
......_ ...._ ............................_............
FOR A V.�i]A$LE CONSIDERA,TION, receipt of wk�ich is hexeby acknowledged,
Thomas G. Porter , Trustee of the 1997 Edith M. Arrark Revocable T�ust
hereby GRANT(S) to 'Ilaran TY�oy Ott,�s and 'P�g�, ptus , husband and wi�e as Joint Tenants
that �ropezry in the City of Burlingatr�, San Mateo Co•anty, State of Califoxx�ia,
described as:
**:t Se2 °r.,`�l1]�i� A" attached 1�1e�2to c� �T+c1de a p12-t hP..2�.�Of .***
Mail Tax Statements to G�'antee at addx�ess al�ve
Date ��I�tember 18, 2000
tee
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF � T�O ClRI�7l1 P�. IPF�LITO�
� QD � C0�741P,4- � 1^E�A8�31
On � before me, the NOTaRy AUCiLIC-GAGiFOaNl,2 �
undeni ned, a Notary Public in and for said Slate, p onally appeared � ���--
��J/f.j �. /Q�,e�,.� COMMP. EXP_ JULY 6, 204d '�
persnna(ty known [o ¢�e (or pro�ed �o me on thc basis of sutis[actory
evidcnce) to be che nerson(s) whase name(s) is/are yubscribed [o �he a�ithin
instrumenc and aclrnowledged to me cha[ hc/shelthey exccuted the same {n
his/herltheir xutlioriud cepaci ies), and that by his/herhhcir signaturo(s) on
che instrument the pecson , r t entity upon behalf of which the per6on(s)
ac[cd, acecuteQ lhe ins meRte
WITNESS
9igneture
Name
(rypcd ar printed)
Fii+IS�laO 8/9E
�
(�'his area for official notarial seal)
CIRINA HA, IPPQl.4'i S' "�
U - c�e�;ie�. � 1253,:�x; ,
U '° !;�� A'OTA�YPU3LICd:AGVf!1,, . )
SAN ►JIA7E0 COJi�'( *'' "• �
COCJIPSt. EJ:P. JULY 6, S!i �i� �� i'�
1rylAlUt, �AX �'1'A'1'LM�NTS A5 DIRrC�'ED ABOV�
61/12/2001 17:01
6503472851
OTUS & ASSOC.
PAGE 03
Oxder No. : 283355
E�BIT ��A��
The l.and referred to is situated in the StaCe of �aliforni,a, County oi 9an Mateo,
City of BurJ.ingame, and is described as folJ,owa: '
LOT 22, HLpCK 7, as delineated upOn �hat certain Map entiLled �'NAAp OF SUSDZVISTON NO.
2 OF BTSRLINGAN� PARK, CAL.", filed for record in the Office of Che Recorder of the
County of San Mateo, State of California, on October 16th, 1905 in Book °B" of Maps,
a�t Pa�e 17,-�d a copy 2z1�'�=ed in'Boo7c�3 of' 1�taps at Page �77.. _. ~_
A,P.N. 028-293-220
J.P.N. 28-29-293-22
,��. _ ---... _.....---.._._..._ .. _------ ..
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 28m0i oe;� s�3�
Alan D. Olin, Architect
2086 Mills Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 233-0344
December 15, 2000
To: Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Re: Design Review
120 Costa Rica Ave.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The existing dwelling and garage, located at the above address, are both over 73
years old and are architecturally very unique. We wish to preserve and enhance these
incredible buildings, as opposed to starting over as many people do these days. We
do not foresee any cost savings with this approach, indeed because of the detailed
craftsmanship we are going to restore and match, our project expense will probably
exceed that of most new homes in Burlingame.
By taking the approach of remodeling and expanding, we feel we are preserving the
character of Burlingame and, at the same time, allowing for one more family to
remain in this desirable community.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Olin, AIA
��, ciTr � .. .. . . .
t
� � ��;�N�AME CIII�' OF BURLINGAME `
4�. ,. SPECIAL PERMIT`APPLICAT(ON
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.501. Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why tlze bleiad of mass, scale and dominant structural characte�istics of tlze new
construction or addition are co�asistent iviilz the existing structure's desig�a and wiih the existing
street ar�d nei�glabo�hood. ���� �-; � j '��� ;` ��- ��'��„�-�_ _
2. E.rplai�z Iaory tlze va�iery of roof lirae, fucade, exte�iorfinish materials and elevations of tlae proposed
new structure or addition a��e co�asistent ivith tlie existing st�uct�u•e, street and neiglaboi•lzood.
_��� %'' '��"�-`�; r_".i�' � �;r-y�,��.
3. Hoiv tivill tlze proposed project be coresiste�at ivitlz the residential design guidelines adopted by tlae city
C. S. 25. 57) '
? � j�'� �`�'`; �'�:�i f��f;` i�.�"��F'��1 sF
4. Explain Izoiv the removal of any trees located ►vithire the footprint of any new structure or addition
is necessary a�ad is consistent ►vitla tice city's reforestation requirements. What mitigalion is proposed
for the removal of aray trees? Explain �vlzy tlais mitigalion is appropfzate.
<, �C � I�✓�_� � C•� � RJ�, f
sp. fi-in/11 /98
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and do�ninant structural characteristics of the
new construction or addiiion are consisient wiih tJae existing structure's design and
with ihe existing street a�id neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, lett, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety cf roof lifae, facade, exterior fiizislz f�aaierials and elevations
of tlae proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood?
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposai "fits" in the neighborhood.
How wili the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed projeci be consiste�it with the reside�ztial desig�i guidelines
adopted by tlte city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
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.
4. Explain how ihe rernoval of any trees locaied widzira the footprint of a�ay new structure
or additio�z is necessary a�ad is consistent with the city's reforestation requireme�zts.
Wlaat mitigution is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explai�z why this mitigation
is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees wili be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 1 1.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removeci, say so.
sp, fim/1 1 /98
Alan D. Olin, Architect
2086 Mills Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 233-0344
February 1, 2001
To: Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Re: Special Permit for
120 Costa Rica Ave.
Response to questions l, 2, 3, & 4.
1). The proposed project shall retain the same architectural style and roof pitch
as the original dwelling. Therefore, the proposed roof shall be approximately
4 feet taller than the existing roof and about 35 feet above the curb height.
The proposed design will allow for a 7 to 8 foot plate height at the upper
floor. In reality, a very small section of the new roof shall be higher than the
original structure.
2). The proposed project will be compatible, if not superior, with the existing
building and with other traditional style homes in the immediate
neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood will not be changed
because historically many traditional styles require steeper roof pitches,
similar to many traditional homes currently in Burlingame.
3). Both the original dwelling, as well as the proposed project, are and shall
remain compatible with the neighborhood. This historically significant
structure shall be updated and enhanced in order to preserve it for the future.
The existing detached garage matches the architecture of the existing
dwelling. Several of the surrounding properties have detached garages in the
rear yard, similar to this project.
The architectural style of the proposed project will match the existing style of
the original dwelling. The mass and bulk of the addition/remodel shall
enhance and compliment the original dwelling by eliminating weaker
elements of the existing design, such as the small attic dormers.
The homes on either side of this project are currently two stories tall with
approximately the same mass and bulk as our proposed design.
The existing hedge along the driveway and the many trees at the rear yard
will help to provide privacy for the immediate neighbors, as well as the
residents of the proposed project.
4). It will be necessary to remove several small trees (less than 6" in diameter)
directly behind the existing dwelling in order to build the proposed addition.
However, the current rear yard is somewhat "overgrown" with trees and shrubs.
The removal a few small trees shall not have any impact on the City's
reforestation requirements.
CIT1' OF EU�LING�,ME
VA�I�NCE �,PFLIC�TIONS
The Plannir�g Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary ciicumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not app/y to other properties in this area.
5i� �I�rn�K.� ��s�
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary fo� the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ p�operty right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might resu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication.
s� ��v k���s�s
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, or
con venience.
s� �j-/'r�HEp �SPO,iIS�
d. How wi/I the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT
s�� �u� R�PoNs�s
12/92 ver.frm
a. Describe the exceptiona/ oi extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area. �
Do any conditions exist on the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or
impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area7 For example, is there a creek cutting
through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of
existing structuresl How is this property different from others in the neighborhood7
b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessa�y for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship
might result from the denia/ of the app/ication.
Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception7
(i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses
allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship
on the development of the property7
c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be detrimenta/ or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ welfare, or
convenience.
How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those
propertiesl If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting,
paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the
structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare7
Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbagel, air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater
systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground
storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or
communicable diseases).
Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm
systems or sprinklers be installedl Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need
for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use
flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal).
General we/fare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's
policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefit?
Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or
parking for this site or adjacent sites)7 Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as
the elderly or handicappedl
d. How wil/ the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character
of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining pioperties in the genera/ vicinityT
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood7 If it does not
affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match
existing architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl If use will affect
the way a neighborhood/area looks, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it "fits".
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk7 If there is no
change to structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with
other structures in the neighborhood or area.
How will the structure or use within the structure change the character of the neighborhood? Think of
character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use.
Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this usel If you don't feel the character of
the neighborhood will change, state why.
How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity7 Compare
your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity,
and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. 12/92vr.frm
Alan D. Olin, Architect
2086 Mills Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 233-0344
December 15, 2000
To: Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Re: FAR Variance for
120 Costa Rica Ave.
Response to questions A,B,C, & D
A). The existing dwelling currently includes a 1,677 square foot full basement
(7'-0" head height). According to the current Burlingame Zoning Code, the
basement area must be included in the FAR calculations because more than
50� of the basement is above grade. A vast majority of the homes in
Burlingame do not have this situation.
There is also a furnace, a water heater, as well as ductwork and several
plumbing lines (extending below the basement ceiling) that would prohibit
the use of this basement as habitable space. If the existing basement is not
included into the FAR calculations, this project would be 261 square foot
under the allowable limit.
B). The existing dwelling includes two bedrooms and one bathroom. The
applicant proposes to add three additional bedrooms, two and half baths and
a family room to accommodate a growing family's needs. Without the ability
to remodel and expand, we would be forced to demolish this 73 year old
house and start over. This is not our desire, as we wish to preserve and
enhance the character of this building.
C). All of the addition will be towards the rear of the property. Great care was
taken to not change the front fa4ade of this dwelling.
D). Both the original dwelling, as well as the proposed project, are and shall
remain compatible with the neighborhood. The architectural style of the
proposed project will match the existing style of the original dwelling. The
use is and shall remain single family residential.
0
,�i�' c�T� o CITY OF BURLINGAME
surtuHcnr.�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� �';; , _ BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL:(650)558-7250
120 COSTA RICA AVENUE
Application for design review, floor area
ratio variance, and special permit for height P U B LIC H EA RIN G
for an addition to the basement level, main
floor and a new upper floor at 120 Costa Rica N OTIC E
Avenue, zoned R-l. (APN: 028-293-220)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Mondav, February 26, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed February 16, 2001
(Please refer tn other side)
z�"�"*?:,�,3_.� -. t.:�'".,b:r:�
CITY OF �URLINGAME
A eo}�y of the application �nd plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the meetin� at the Pla�miu�r Deparm�ent at SOL Primrose Road,
Burlin��ame, C�liforni�.
If }�ou challen�re the s�ibject application(s) in court. you may be liinited to
� raising only those issues you or someone else rai�ed aC the public hearin�,
-- described in the notice e�r in written cor��espondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hEari�g.
Properry owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional infoi-mation, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
Margaret Monroe � $�- ;.'��, j "
City Planner � _ _ F ._.�. _ _ `- - -
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
���. �.� ;�
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design
review, floor area ratio variance, and special permit for height for a basement, first and second story addition
at 120 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1, Troy and Tracy Otus, property owners APN• 028-293-220;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 26, 2001, 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
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review, floor area ratio variance and special permit are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, variance and special
permit 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, Joe Bojues , Acting 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 26th day of February , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: CONIMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ACTING SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permit, and variance.
120 Costa Rica Avenue
effective March 5, 2001
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 2, 2001 Sheet 1, and Sheets 3-8, and Sheet 2 date stamped
February 15,2001;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's December 18, 2000
memos shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope
of the basement, first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor
area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the basement area/lower level of the house with a 7'-0" ceiling height shall never be
fuushed or converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled off
from the habitable basement area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than
5' X 3' whose design meets all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes
for separation between two occupancies, living and storage; and
5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.