The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About132 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff Report (2). �; ,� , -� . / CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCES Item # 3 Variances for Two F..zisting Substandard Side Setbacks and Determination of the Point of Departure for the Declining Height Envelope Address: 132 Costa Rica Avenue Meeting Date: August 26, 1996 Request: Two side setback variances for existing substandazd setback conditions (C.S. 25.28.072, 3a) caused by a first and second floor addition triggering new construction (C.S. 25.28.065) requirements and determination of the point of departure for the declining height envelope (C.S. 25.28.075) at 132 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Craig and Carol Rossi APN: 028-293-250 Property Owner: Same Lot Area: 7,495 SF Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density, Single family residential Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Changes to Plans Reviewed at July 22, 1996 Meeting: At the 7uly 22, 1996 Planning Commission meeting the commission denied this application without prejudice (August 6, 19961etter to Craig and Carol Rossi from the City Planner). The application was for three side setback variances for existing substandard side setback conditions along the north property line. The second story addition at the rear of the structure added 1,337 SF and a new detached gazage added 581 SF. At the July 22, 1996 meeting the commission directed the applicant to redesign the new addition at the rear of the house to meet side setback and declining height envelope requirements (P.C. July 22, 1996 Minutes). The applicant has made these changes with the new project (August 12,1996 plans). The changes to the project include: A) The first floor of the rear addition has been set back 5'-0" from the side property line complying with the 5'-0" side setback requirements. The existing first floor wa11 that is cunently 3'-6" from the side property line will now be replaced 5'-0" from the side property line. No side setback variance is required for the frst floor of the new addition. B) The second floor of the rear addition along the north property line will be built 7'-9" from the side property line in order to meet the declining height envelope (August 12, 1996 plans, Sheet A-3 Rear Elevation). This sets the second floor addition back 2'-9" from the first floor wall on that side of the building. No variance to declining height is required with the new plans. VARIANCES 132 COSTA RICA AVE The applicant is also requesting a determination by the Planning Commission regazding how the point of departure for determining the declining height envelope was calculated. When determining the point of departure, Planning policy has been to use existing grade elevations at the two corners of the property along that side of the lot (C.S. 25.28.075). For this site, elevations of 56.1' at the front corner of the site and 55.1' for the rear corner were used (as shown on August 12, 1996 plans Sheet A-1 Site Plan). When you average these elevations along the side property line, the point of departure for the declining height envelope is 55.6' (56.1' + 55.1' = 111.2' = 2= 55.6'). This point of departure was used for determining the declining height envelope (August 12, 1996 Sheet A-4 Rear Elevation). The property owner has calculated the point of departure using the average of 19 elevations along the side properly line (August 13, 1996 letter, survey and section). His lot has a high point (56.1') along the side property line that is not reflected in the point of departure used with the two property corner elevations. If he calculates the point of departure using 19 elevations as shown on the survey, the average elevation for the north side of the lot is 56.1'. This raises the point of departure by 6" (56.1'- 55.6 =.5' or 6") and decreases the side setback of the second floor by 6". The setback for the second floor would then be 7'-3" versus 7'-9" as calculated from an elevation with a 55.6' point of departure. Using the applicants method of calculating this point of departure, the second floor gains an additional 9 SF for the length of the approximately 18' long addition (0'- 6" X± 18' _± 9 SF). The applicant feels the additional survey information with 19 elevations along the side property line, should be used in calculating the declining height envelope point of departure, in order to increase the second floor area. Staff has tried to use a consistent methodology for calculating the point of departure on all properties in the interest of reproduceability and fairness to all. Summary: The applicant is requesting two side setback variances for existing substandazd setback conditions at 132 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. A 1,275 SF first and second floor addition at the rear of the house is proposed in order to expand a bedroom and create a new family room on the first floor, and add a new master bedroom and bath on the second floor. The new addition is a 62 SF reduction from the July 11, 1996 plans (1,337 SF - 1,275 SF = 62 SF). The applicant is also proposing a new 581 SF two car detached garage in the rear corner of the lot. The addition to the primary dwelling and the new garage causes the house to be reviewed under the new construction guidelines for setback, height, lot coverage and parking requirements. The variance requests are for two existing substandard side setbacks along the north side property line. The existing living room is 4'-0" away from the side property line, where 5'-0" is required based upon the average width of lot at 52.25'. The chimney in the living room is 2'-0" away from the side property line, where a minimum of 4'-0" is required for new construction. The new addition meets all other current zoning side setback and declining height envelope requirements. The original house and detached garage is 1,766 SF. The addition of 1,275 SF to the primary dwelling tripped the new construction requirements because it is 500 SF over 50 % of the original dwelling size. The proposed garage was not a factor in meeting the new construction requirements. A new garage was required 2 VARIANCES 132 COSTA RICA A VE because the new addition needed to meet new construction requirements for two covered and one uncovered parking stalls. PLANS OF PLANS OF 8/12/96 7/11/96 EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Front Stbk: (lst) (2nd) Side Stbk (L): (lst) Side Stbk (L): (2nd) Side Stbk (R): (lst & 2nd) Rear Stbk: (lst) (2nd) Lot Coverage: FAR: Height: Dec. Ht. Env.: Parking: __- - - --- --- _ 24'-0" 2�4'-0" same 5'-0" min 80'-0" 80'-0" none 20'-0" 5'-0" to new 7'-9" 14'-6" min. 43'-6" 43'-6" 37.9 % .45 26.67' complies 2 covered 1 uncovered 5'-0" to new G� 14'-6" min 43'-6" 43'-6" 38.1 % .46 25.41' complies(?) 2 covered 1 uncovered * 2'-0" to chimney * 4'-0" to liv. room none 12'-6" 49'-6" none 23 % .23 single story no 2nd story 1 covered 1 uncovered 5'-0" 5'-0" 7'-9" (meets DHE) 9'-6" min. for driveway 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % .52 30'-0" must comply 2 covered 1 uncovered * Side setback variances for existing chimney and living room wall. All new work complies with setback requirements. Meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff comments: The Chief Building Official noted (August 5 and 12, 1996 comments) that the bedroom must have one window for egress (within 44" of floor, 24" minimum clear opening height, 20" minimum clear opening width and 5.7 square feet minimum clear opening area). The Fire Marshal noted that the bedroom requires a minimum of one window that must meet egress requirements (August 5 and 11, 1996 memo). The Senior Civil Engineer had no comments (August 6 and 12, 1996 memo). Planning staff would note that the garage back-up aisle provides 21'-0" of distance in front of the garage. Staff has analyzed the maneuvers in and out of the garage and has determined that the vehicle from the second stall can enter and exit in three maneuvers from the garage because the garage door has been relocated 2'-0" toward the right side property line. Study Questions: At the meeting of July 8, 1996, the Planning Commission studied the applicant's request for three side setback variances for a first and second floor addition at the rear of the house. A number of questions were asked about the dimensions shown on the plans, including information necessary for determining declining 3 VARIANCES 132 COSTA RICA AVE height. The applicant revised the plans and resubmitted them for the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1996. The clariiied dimensions showed that the second story addition would need to be pullerl back to meet the declining height requirement. The Commission denied the applicants request for the three variances without prejudice and suggested that he reconsidered the location of the wall adjacent to the side property line of the proposed addition at both the first and second floors where it exceeded current code setback requirements. Problems with the elevations used to determine the height of the structure were also discussed. The applicant has revised them twice; once for the July 22, 1996 meeting which caused the elevation of the ridge of the existing roof to be adjusted to 26.4 feet. The more recent set of elevations is a multiple of points along the side property line closest to the new addition. These elevations show that the front and rear of the lot, as it currently exists, are lower than the middle. This probably had to do with grading for drainage when the house was originally built. Today we would require the entire lot to slope toward the front since all roof and hard surface drainage is required to flow to the street. This unusual condition on the site could affect the take off for the point of departure for measuring declining height if an average of elevations along property line is used instead of the customary front and rear corners of the lot. At study the commissioners asked about the size of the garage. The applicant noted to staff that the requested 580.5 SF is smaller than the maximum detached garage allowed which is 600 SF. He intends to use the additional 139.5 SF for storage. The 139.5 SF is less than 10% of the existing primary dwelling (1,766 SF). The proposed addition is large enough that it alone triggers the deiinition of new construction. So, it would make no difference if the garage were built later, rather than with the improvements to the house. After the July 8, 1996, meeting the applicant noted that moving the existing wall of the downstairs bedroom in 18 inches to meet the 5 foot setback requirement would impose a financial hardship on his project. After the denial without prejudice the applicant has submitted plans (August 12, 1996) that show the wall of the proposed addition setback from the side property line 5 feet. He also shows the second story wall to be setback from side property line 7'-9" to meet the declining height requirement as taken from the 55.6' elevation point of departure required by staff. At the meeting of July 22, 1996 when the Planning Commission denied this application without prejudice, they noted that the exceptions requested at the front of the house where no work was to be done were minimal. However, the proposed exception at the rear, where the wall would virtually have to be removed, was more of an issue since it would have to be rebuilt anyway. In addition, no declining height exception had been requested, so the plans should be conected to indicate how declining height would be met. Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must iind 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; 4 1%►;7/►►lrf�7C`1 I32 COSTA RICA AVE (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial - property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improve- ments 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings made for the variances requested. Reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. 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 and date stamped August 12, 1996, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4; 2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' August 5 and 11, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Officials' August 5 and 12, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the face of the exterior north wall for the second story addition at the rear of the site shall be a minimum of 7'-9" from the north side property line; 4. that there shall be no less than 21'-0" between the new detached two car garage and the back of the new addition to the primary dwelling for the purposes of exiting the gazage in three maneuvers or less, and if by maintaining the minimum 21'-0" separation the setback to the gazage from the rear or side property line is decreased to less than 1'-0" a survey shall be required and accepted by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building permit; 5. that the right edge of the garage door shall be located within 2'-6" of the right side property line to facilitate the most desirable exit pathway from both pazking spaces; and 6. that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. JaneGomery Planner c: Craig and Carol Rossi, property owners B:\132COSTA.SR Auguat20, 1996 5 Bur.ingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 fence will be replaced exacdy where it is now. The City Attorney noted the property owner on Newhall is free to build a fence on his property any time he wishes. There were no other comments and-the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that cunent construction regulations will probably not allow radiant heat so would need a gas line, would be opposed to gas service to a detached room, therefore heat may be a problem; this building began as a garage converted into a garden shelter, now going to a living area, this is not a gradual maintenance over time but an application to legitimize something that does not need to be done at all; there will be a problem if the cunent garage, which is substandazd in width, needs to be made conforming; the locatiom of the present garage limits the ability to add on to the house; here an existing nonconforming`condition is being interpreted as something one is entitled to, repair is acceptable, reconstniction is not; objection is not to using existing small room at rear for recreation purposes; problem is demolition and reconstruction which is what condition of structure requires; presence of a bath room in structure is also a problem for future use; concerned about size and concept of this as a"guest cottage" which implies use for living purposes beyond recreation; neighbor at rear can place a fence on his property line at any time; repair could be done gradually over time without coming to Planning Commission, use could not be changed without permit. �, C. Wellford noted that there are six exceptions to the code required for this application, the area is very big for a hobby room, reducing the size would also reduce the number of exceptions to 3 or 4 and eliminate the possibility of it becoming a guest cottage, and allow the cunent garage to be replaced to present dimensional standards. He then moved to deny this application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed on a 6-1 roll call vote (C. Ellis dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. '•., 7. APPLICATION FOR THREE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCFS FOR 1ST AND 2ND STORY ADDITIONS TRIGGERING NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 132 COSTA RICA, ZONED R-1, CRAIG AND CAROL ROSSI PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTSI Reference staff report, 7.22.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that a request for a variance for declining height envelop was not requested as a part of this application, so one cannot be considered tonight. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Craig and Cazol Rossi, 132 Costa Rica Avenue, the property owners were present for questions. They noted that they were requesting variances for the existing condition on the property. Noting that they were unaware that they needed a declining height exception but would meet that setback if they needed to. It was noted by staff that the declining height exception came to light when the applicant provided addidonal site elevations after study. If no variance has been noticed and the project is approved the applicant would be required to redesign the project to meet the declining height requirement for the site. Susan Scott, 137 Costa -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1996 Rica spoke in favor of the project noting it appears to be aesthetically sound and an asset to the neighborhood. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: it was noted that the variances for the living room wall and chimney are minimal, but the variance for the rear bedroom wall is not necessary because the entire wall will be removed as a part of adding the second story, this setback should comply; in fact the room can be made bigger and still meet setback requirements. C. Deal, stated based on the discussion, he moved that variances be granted in order to retain the existing setbacks at the front of the house for the living room and fire place since the change would have no affect on the neighborhood but the variance for the side setback for the rear bedroom should be denieri since there were other ways of achieving the living area without the setback variance and the project must comply with the declining height envelope. Motion was by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 11, 1996, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4; 2) that there shall be no less than 21'-0" between the new detached two car gazage and the back of the new addition to the primary dwelling for the purposes of exiting the garage in three maneuvers or less, and if by maintaining the minimum 21'-0" separation the setback to the garage from the rear or side property line is decreased to less than 1'-0" a survey shall be required and accepted by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building permit; 3) that the right edge of the garage door shall be located within 2'-6" of the right side property line to facilitate the most desirable exit pathway from both parking spaces; 4) that the plans shall adhere to the Declining Height Envelope; and 5) that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan. Commission discussed the motion further noting that the project should be reconsidered by the applicant since there was another way to do the bedroom and the declining height issues had not been addressed properly. C. Deal then amended his motion to a motion for denial without prejudice. C. Galligan, the second, concuned. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEALTH SERVICE AT 340 LORTON, ZONED, C-2, SUBAREA B(DON SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER AND GINA LAROCCA. APPLICANT.1_ Reference staff report, 7.22.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. corrected 8.8.96 -4- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 1VIINUTES Monday, July 8, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regulaz meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Acting Chairman Key on Monday, July 8, 1996 at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: " MINUTES - Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Mink, Wellford and Key Commissioner Ellis City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the June 24, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. AGENDA - Item No. 2, 1010 Cadillac Way and Item No. 4, 839 Walnut Avenue were continued to the meeting of July 22, 1996. The order of the agenda was then approved. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY \, 1. APPLICATION FOR THREE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR 1ST AND 2ND STORY �tf ADDITIONS TRIGGERING NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 132 COSTA RICA, ZONED R-1, (CRAIG AND CAROL ROSSI. PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTSI Requests: show on plans to scale the second floor plate height; on Sheet A-4 show the declining height envelope including an accurate plate height; clarify the side and rear elevations on the plans so they are consistent; why is the garage so lazge and how will the extra space be used; what is the size of the original house; can the project be phased with the addition now and the garage later, and if done independently will new construction be triggered; how long must one wait between additions before increased F.A.R. is not an issue, since most of it will be removed; can the back bedroom wall be redesigned to meet the side setback requirements; Item set for public hearing July 22, 1996, providing all the questions can be addressed by that time. -1- (`�ll�� f1�i#� uf �urling�tme QTV HALL - SOi PRIMROSE ROAD rE� <415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CAUFORNIA 94010-3997 v�x (415) 342-8386 August 6, 1996 Craig & Cazol Rossi 132 Costa Rica Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Ms. Rossi, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the 7uly 22, 1996 Planning Commission action to deny your three side setback variance applications without prejudice became effective August 5, 1996. This application was to allow for a lst and 2nd floor addition triggering new construction at 132 Costa Rica, zoned R-1. A denial without prejudice allows you to return to the Planning Commission with a revised project within a reasonable time (60 days - October 7, 1996) as determined by Planning staff. Sincerely yours, ��C��1.��--� � Margaret Monrce City Planner MM/s 132COSTA.dwo c: Chief Building Inspector �,^�°�,�,°� �J August 13, 1996 TO: City of Burlingame Planning Coirunission FROM: Craig Rossi RE: 132 Costa Rica Ave. Subject: Detennination of "point of deparlure" for declining heigl�[ envelope ;�'a K''� �' ��p` �"` 'j� �� '�_r f;v=� 1K �- A U G 1 3 1996 , ;��= fKl,i{iLiR!GA��iE ,- ;�� . . 1-,�Pr When developing my declining height envelope elevation, I referred to [l�e planning ordinance that stated diat a line project 12' up from the side property line. It did not state how to deternune the point of departure. My first interpretation was to assume that the property line elevation at the proposed area of work be used. On my project, that would be a height of 56.1'. The planning department informed me that an average of the enUre proper[y line must be calculated. I then referred to my survey and calculated the average elevadon by taking the elevation every 8' along the property line and averaging all 19 points and came up with an average of 56.1'. The planning department also rejected tliis method stating tl�at only 2 points should be used, 1 at each corner. When I explained that my method was mucli more accurate, I was [old that it did not matter and U�ey were only allowed to use the less accurate two point method. Wl�en I requested that I be shown where the ordinance states that only two points be used to dcternune the point of departure, I was told it was not in the ordinance but, "that is the way we always do it" and I was invited to appeal to you. 75% of my lot is above 56' and in some areas above 57'. The back end of the lot drops down and the 55.1' corner elevation the department used in calculating the average elevation is actually in a tree well. I think it is unfair to insist on using a less accurate method for calculating the properiy line elevation wlien a more accurate meQlod has been provided. I consulted with a licensed Civil Engineer and he conCirmed that my method was far more accurate than choosing only two points. I request that you allow me to use the 561 instead of 55.6 for a point of departure in my declining height envelope calculation. My blueprints show the planning departments method with a point of departure of 55.6' I have attatched my alternate method which uses 19 points and a poin[ of deparwre of �6.1'. In both cases, I comply with the declining height envelope but would like to use the far more accurate method which gives me .5' less setback and tl�us 9 additional square feet of floor area on the second IIoor. I am not requesting a variance on declining heigl�t envelope, but asking for a deterniination for the method of calculalion which is presently not covered Thank you for your consideration. � Craig R � Homeawner AVERAGE ELEVATION CALCULATION 56.1 56.5 56.8 57.1 56.8 56.5 56.4 56.4 56.3 56.2 56.1 56.1 56.1 55.9 55.8 55.7 55.5 55.3 55.1 1,066.7 Total / 19 points 56.1 = Avera e elevation _ - - - --- � � ��- � � _.. �_ �� - iI - _I� =�J� - �i i:��r _�1��: _� r. � i; F �i� :� i�; � ! �f-,E � -E, - - -- - _ _ _ � i! � FLtn��l= F IPJ -� _ �__ i P�=!iPll !.�F iFJTEF'',E�.TI!_�hi rC!F:' ��_:L!I�dIIJ��; HEI�.:HI Ef �''.�CLUI-,E - � � �� 1 I � � ii �--�, � J� l��L -_� I - � '��j � ,; ;, � i:', ,�-E--%--,r_,1=�1�_ � �' ! i �_ J i_. , '� �:-1 � I! i - � , —_: =_ - �', : —, =-a�F = -. III ', —1' JI� _�L ; � i I � �� ; T'j I �� I ii 11. !� �,� -� � 1 I � 1 I � , � _ _ i �i 1 ,, �,II,, I � ,C��I ��I��I,II, �, 1��,��1 � �� , �11, �. � ; � ; �,,,- �: �� i� �� , i , � � ��I !' �� li ii i ll �� ' 'j' j�lll','', j II �i II � I�I il'i 'i' ' � � �' ��' jI �� . i;,� ;; �� ,�,, j��: j�' � ��i i�IIII 1 �� ;,, ; ' ' . i i �I '' ll -I' J� -=�� t� +��i i,_,{_ii iis: = ii . ..L}i I� �i fu'� _� _�t y.,. ��— ., -- --- � I ; .- - _ i � �, i I r i i ' I' ��----� i � � � i i ,; - 1 - --� - - - - -- -- -- _ -- - -- . - ---;�- -, � i � i -.� � — ��i F��_n��T i;� (>E�AF�TnF�C `�� . I �� ,,� � � � � ,� ..� � y /tr� c m ! �R�NQ�M� CITY OF B�J1tLINGAME ��a APPLICATION TO 7� PLANNING COMIVIISSION Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance X Other ProjectAddress: 132 cosTA xzca avE, suRLZNcartE Assessor's Pazcel Number(s): D 2�{ — a 9 3—�- S� APPLICANT N�TTIe: C R A I G & C A R O L R O S S I Address: 132 COSTA RICA AVE City/State/Zip:_ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone (w): (415) 982-6292 �h�: (415) 548-1346 (415) 777-1505 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: ENA & AssoczATEs Address: 1 � � 3 c L o v z s A v E. City/S tate/Zip: S A N J 0 S E, c A Phone (w): f408) 265-4732 rn�: ��CRAIG ROSSI PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADDITION OF FAMILY ROOi1, �1ASTER BEDROO�I AND NIASTER BATH TO EXISTING HOUSE. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my lrnowledge and belief. Applicant's Signature PROPERTY OWNER CRAIG & CAROL ROSSI Name: Address: 132 cosTa xzcA avE. City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone (w): (415) 982-6292 �- �h), (415) 548-1346 (415) 777-1505 Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. Date I laiow about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. ,., /, 1 � � ,`; � C� �� %i `'� � � �. _ l i _ '-� {{,.. Property O ner's Signature Date -------------------------------------=--------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------------------------------- Date Filed: Fee: Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: �, CIT`/ O.a Ar BURLINGAME �.� ', . �� CIT� �i)F EUF;LIf :G,�ME �. �'�F�II�f`�(_E I�PF'LI�_f'�TI��)f`�JS � R�.� 4N �.?�.,: � i 7�: � AUG121996 7'he Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by�the Git�r!��oRa�itaat�ce (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d1. Your answers to the following questions will ��sis��'�I�et�#a�nning 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. �� Describe the exceptiona/ or extiaordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your pioperty which do not app/y to other properties in this area. ; w: THIS STRUCTURE IS 60 YEARS OLD AND HAS--'�F_-� EXISTING AREAS, (CHIMNEY, LIVING ROOM -�-AI-�—&E-1� THAT SIT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE CURRENT SETBACKREQUIREMENTS ALLOW. •�re��n ?i S�.�r�Cct,� tr', d� �i� c�, � I�(' }1�.e c�mm��s�� :�q„�.�� u-e �,:�.�� pl�za-e�� -� z- �� 1�:� r� ��-�� b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t from the denial of the app/ication. WE HAVE DESIGNED OUR ADDITION TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ADD ON IN A WAY THAT [dE CAN CONTINUE TO LIV� IN OUR HOUSE. REBUILDING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO PICK UP SMALL AMOUNTS OF SET BACK AREA WOULD REQUIRE US TO MOVE OUT AND SPEND CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONAL MONEY. BOTH OF THESE WOULD NOT ALLOtd US TO DO THIS ADDITION. 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/ we/fare, or convenience. THE EXISTING SET BACKS HAVE iaORKED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 60 YEARS, [dE [dILL HAVE ALL NEW WORK COMPLY TO CURRENT CODE BUT FEEL THIS OLD EXISTING STRUCTURE IS NOT DETRIPIENTAL TO THE GENERAL WELPARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT BE IN THE FUTURE. � How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT WE HAVE DESIGNED THIS ADDITION AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DETACHED GARAGE TO MATCH THE SPANISH STYLE CHARM OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE SIZE OF THE NELJ HOUSE WILL FIT THE SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD r1UCH BETTER THAN THE 3 LARGE HOMES BUILT ON COSTA RICA IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. 12/92 vx.frm a. Describe the exceptiona/ or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your property which do not app/y to othei properties in this area. Do any conditions exist bn the site which make other the alternatives to the variance impracticable or, impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cuttinp . throuflh the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existin� structures7 How is this property differe�t from others in the neiphborhoodl b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ pioperty iight and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might resu/t 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 exception? (i.e., havinQ as much on-site parkinp or bedroomsl) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceptiont 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/ we/fare, 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, liphting, pavin�, landscaping sunlighUshade, views from �eighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or peneral welfarel Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharpes into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underpround stora8e tanks, storape of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseasesl. Pub/ic saferi. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protectionl Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed7 Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherines, 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 meaninp community pood. Is the proposal consistent with the ciry's policy and goals for conservation and development7 Is there a social benefitl Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parkine for this site or adjacent sites)1 Is the proposal accessible to particular sepments of the public suCh aS the elderly or handicapped7 d. How wi// the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and chaiacter of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinityT How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhoodl If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designad to match existinp architecture or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood7 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 chanpe 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 neighborhoodl 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 use7 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 vicinityl 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. ,zres�...e,,,, RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST AT 132 COSTA RICA AVE. 1. Plate height on 2nd floor is 6' above the finished 2nd floor ��hich �i�e marked in green ink on the plan. 2. The 7'-6" elevation abo��e the 12' decliiung height standard has been shown on the plan iu green i�ilc. 3. There were some elevatiou enors on tl�e elevation plans. We ha��e made correction with green ink on the plans. 4. The garage has beeu reduced in size and reconfigured to make parldng access easier. It meets the requirement of being less than 600 square feet. 5. Our espansion is 252 S.F. larger than 50°/a of the existiug 1,766 S.F. (garage escluded) 6. We would prefer not to alter bedroom #3 to increase the set back by 18" because it w711 cost us close to $10,000 dollars in additional demolition, excavation, concrete, franung, drytivall and plasteriug. :��-p� ��,�� JU� 1 1 1996 c;rY oF eu DLAN��N`� DF_pTME ROUTING FOR1�� DATE: J � TO: CITY ENGINEER �_ CHIEF BiJILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIItECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJ�CT: REQUEST FOR / �n . ►1 SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: THANKS , Jane/Sheri/Leah � � Date of Comments G�IG( �� U�✓Ce� �,. c��a55 !�-��s��'% ��yrz� �S6/� �/ ��'t S e Go�► �� o o'� �D l� ✓�o e� wi u5 ��h e�� „� cv EE�G�i K�' �„� 1 Q?s � C y� �'' c � 6 k � av✓ ?A-" n4i ni � u w. w, C�•Ys Ccl�� K Q� t� � i �VC�ss/Y'L`SC�C` i�Uliie W(�� 2H� /- 2 v"�n r a� w► �`"`'- G% a°^ o�,oe-Y,�� . � �(�2�. ��rh� ��Gv`-� � �C2 �, .�/ G' $(Lv Z�C �Pi�("' tM l yl"' ��` G�Pd�' p`OB�6�'t ac �C �' i-w� K�1F�'� B`� 4' G'S v� ✓c��a � ��ss �1 l �9.-P� �U�,�.� s�ll ��p1�� - �� /r y� ROUTING FORM � l% %l `l�> DATE: =�-�l �C- l ��C TO: J CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR � FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR 'C ,�f�C., , jL,c I f/-z�—�-%- � t L� ��C�� G'V'� �2C-c ��-c�JL, AT / 32 ��- '��, c-�� . SCHEDULED PLAI�INING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: �� ,�, �C� -, / ✓ REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: ''.� �_� l y � �%�� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah � 1� 'i ��, , (14V1 iA si�'�S � �S �� M�s� �� 8'S^�� -'C�� ' I l�' Date of Comments r, (�1 ��"�l ��` ��/�. c�� ,�• S / _ ��s�- , �,,",� �,� �� . �� S �� b � ROUTING FORl�2 DATE: � � TO: �_ CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUIIIDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER REQUEST FOR REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY THANKS , Jane/Sheri/Leah � � / � � ` � '� Date of Comments �� ' , � :� � ��'1M iNt.�,,,� � `��&' C.�L-z> �- SCHEDULED PLAI�TNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: � I 1 / 0 W �� t �'� / � I � / ii� f W ? � a or ot c �2 / � °�F `" - _ �� _ .� �. ,, ; �.� � C � sT� �.. �; -� �„ �&. _� �:� � . � � -� � � r O C��DF kr,�, L R�� 9 133 3}- A ` ArEK�E �Z� .. ,zg 13Z !3L 1 �� ►t. � �� RESc�,�r � .�g �33 �3 �- rF. ! y� ��.-.�„ _.� 7 W � Q t_o �,� r , �' - � �: ^ =. � � <, . � �� . � o :� � � � 3 0 � �� 9V�'�u �-� F CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRI1VIItOSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (415� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COD�INIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST. 1996 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Councff Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. A copy of the application and plans may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 132 COSTA RICA APN: 028-293-250 APPLICATION FOR TWO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS TRIGGERED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS; AND A DETERA�IINATION OF THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT 132 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in the notice or in written conespondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. The property owner who receives this notice is responsible for informing their tenants about ThIs notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER AUGUST 16, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, VARIANCES FOR TWO EXISTING SUBSTANDARD SIDE SETBACKS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for variances for two existing substandard side setbacks at 132 Costa Rica Avenue. zoned R-1, APN• 028- 293-250; Crai� and Cazol Rossi. 132 Costa Rica Avenue,�ro_perty owners and a�plicants� WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 26� 1996 , 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 RFSOLVED 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3(a+e), Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is hereby approved. 2. Said variances are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attacherl hereto. Findings for such variances 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, Chazles Mink , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, variances for two existing substandard side setbacks 132 COSTA RICA AVENUE effective SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 12, 1996, Sheets A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4; 2. that the conditions of the Fire Marshals' August 5 and 11, 1996 memo and the Chief Building Officials' August 5 and 12, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the face of the exterior north wall for the second story addition at the rear of the site shall be a minimum of 7'-9" from the north side property line; 4. that there shall be no less than 21'-0" between the new detached two car garage and the back of the new addition to the primary dwelling for the purposes of exiting the garage in three maneuvers or less, and if by maintaining the minimum 21'-0" separation the setback to the gazage from the rear or side property line is decreased to less than 1'-0" a survey shall be required and accepted by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building permit; 5. that the right edge of the garage door shall be located within 2'-6" of the right side property line to facilitate the most desirable exit pathway from both parking spaces; and 6. that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.