Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout132 Costa Rica Avenue - Staff Report,--�-;, � �-�`n,.,,-� � �`i �'i� �_( � �_ CITY OF B URLINGAME VARIANCES Item # 7 Variances for Three Existing Substandard Side Setbacks Address: 132 Costa Rica Avenue Request: Three side setback variances for existing substandard 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 at 132 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. Applicant: Craig and Carol Rossi Property Owner: Same Lot Area: 7,495 SF 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. Summary: The property owners are requesting three side setback variances for existing substandard setback conditions on their property at 132 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1. The property owners are proposing a 1,135 SF first and second floor addition at the rear of their house for the expansion of a bedroom and creation of a new family room on the first floor and a new master bedroom on the second floor. The applicants are also proposing a new 580.5 SF two car detached garage in the rear right corner of the lot. The addition to the primary dwelling and the new gazage causes the house to be reviewed under the new construction guidelines for setback, height, lot coverage and parking requirements. Meeting Date: July 22, 1996 APN: 028-293-250 Zoning: R-1 The variance requests are for three 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 of 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 and an existing bedroom is 3'-6" away from this side property line, where 5'-0" is required. The new addition meets cunent code side setback and declining height envelope requirements. PROPOSED Front Stbk (lst): 24'-0" (2nd): 80'-0" Side Stbk (L): 5'-0" to new EXISTING same none * 2'-0" to chimney * 3'-6" to bedroom * 4'-0" to living rm ALLOWED/REQ'D 15'-0" min. 20'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" � v.�xr�ress Side Stbk (R): Rear Stbk (lst): (2nd): Lot Coverage: FAR: Height: Decl. Ht.: Parking: PROPOSED 13'-6" 43'-6" 43'-6" 38.1 % .46 25.41' complies 2 covered 1 uncovered EXISTING same 49'-6" none 23 % .23 single story 1 covered 1 uncovered Meets all other zoning code requirements. 132 COSTA RICA AVS ALLOWED/REQ'D 9'-6" min. 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % .52 30'-0" 2 covered 1 uncovered * Three side setback variances for existing substandard setback conditions along the north side property line. All new work complies with setback requirements. Staff comments: The Senior Civil Engineer commented in his June 17, 1996 memo that the second parking space does not appear to be accessible. The garage may need to be moved back. The Fire Marshal and the Chief Building Official had no comments on this project. Planning staff would note that the garage back-up aisle has been increased by 8'-0" providing a 21'-0" back up aisle in front of the garage. Staff has analyzed the maneuvers in and out of the gazage 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 Meeting: At the July 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commissioners asked several questions (P.C. Minutes July 8, 1996). The plans have been noted with the declining height information in green ink. Declining height envelope is a regulation which prohibits habitable area being built outside of the determined envelope area for the project. The applicant has designed his addition with a sloping ceiling over the master bathroom in order to come under the required envelope for his project. The plate height of the wall at the intersection of the forty-five degree angle is at 6'-0" and the ceiling slopes up to a height of eight feet underneath the envelope area. Often this method of coming under the declining height envelope is used for storage/closet areas as well as bathroom and stairs because these areas are not required by the California Building Code to have a 7'-6" habitable ceiling height. The elevation numbers have been conected on the drawings because they were off by 1'-0". All elevation numbers now match and the overall height of the proposed addition to ridge is 26.4'. The applicant has proposed a garage that is 580.5 SF which is smaller that the maximum allowable detached garage of 600 SF. A two car garage is required for new construction and the minimum size of a garage using exterior dimensions is 441 SF. The extra 139.5 SF in this garage is to be used as storage area. The 139.5 SF is less than 10 % of the existing primary dwelling. The original house is 1,766 SF. The addition of 1,135 SF to the primary dwelling tripped the new construction requirements because it is 252 SF over 50 % of the original dwelling size. The proposed garage was not a factor in making the new construction requirements a requirement. E VARIANCSS 132 COSTA RSCA AV8 The new garage was a result from the addition to the primary dwelling tripping the new construction requirements. If the garage had been the determining factor causing new construction to be applicable, a year would be the minimum amount of time the applicant would have to wait prior to building the garage to avoid being called new construction now. 1fie applicant states in his responses dated July 11, 1996 that moving the existing wall, of bedroom #�3 on the plans, in an additional eighteen inches to meet the requirerl5'-0" side setback requirement would impose a iinancial hardship on his project. He is trying to add what his family needs, not rebuild what they have. 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 aze 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 substanrial 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 Commiccion Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Afiirmative action should be taken by resolution and 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 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 caz 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 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 pazking spaces; and 3 VARIANCSS 132 COSTA RICA AVS ` 4. that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Leah Dreger Planner c: Craig and Carol Rossi, property owners 4 (� CITY 4,t, O'� I BURLING!�ME �, ,I �•�.i .. •... c�;�-r�, �i)F EUF��f;c;,a�,.�lE �. ���i����:E ��������aTic.�r��s The Planning Commission ls required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-dl. 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 extraordinaiy circumstances or conditions app/icab/e to your pioperty which do not app/y to other properties in this area. THIS STRUCTURE IS 60 YEARS OLD AND HAS THREE EXISTING AREAS, (CHIMNEY, LIVING ROOM AND DEN) THAT SIT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN THE CURRENT SETBACKREQUIREMENTS ALLOW. b. Exp/ain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia/ property right and what unreasonab/e property /oss or unnecessary hardship might �esu/t from the denia/ of the app/ication. ° WE HAVE DESIGNED OUR ADDITION TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ADD ON IN A WAY THAT [dE CAN CONTINIIE TO LI4� IN OUR HOUSE. REBUILDING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO PICK UP SMALL APIOUNTS OF SET BACK AREA WOULD REQUIRE US TO MOVE OUT AND SPEND CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONAL MONEY. BOTH OF THESE WOULD NOT ALLO[d US TO DO THIS ADDITION. c. Exp/ain why the proposed use at the proposed /ocation wi// not be det�imenta/ or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity oi to pub/ic hea/th, safety, genera/ we/fare, oi con venience. THE EXISTING SET BACKS HAVE i+IORKED IN THE NEIGHBOBHOOD FOR 60 YEARS, WE WILL.HAVE ALL NEW [dORK COPIPLY TO CURRENT CODE BUT FEEL THIS OLD EXISTING STRUCTURE IS NOT DETRIPIENTAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT BE IN THE FUTURE. � How wi// the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and charactei of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the genera/ vicinity7 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 NEL� HOUSE WILL FIT THE SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MUCH BETTER THAN THE 3 LARGE HOMES BUILT ON COSTA RICA IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. 12/9z ver.frm ROUTING FORM ;, DATE: ; (-!��_ / /; i `� `%�- i TO: � � CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR .fA � c �(r r_,%_= 1' ��. Z,t_ r�-1�t�c�� � , �. . -�'! ;�r�/' ��CL��LcC.i�1z.1-; ,!�.�.�<«1� �/ c � r�� AT / � � ��-� �« ti' c � �:` �_�, Cri-t���fzc�C�c�yz; /� il��i SCHEDULED PLANrTING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: ','Lt-�� �C % l� '� � 7 '��l REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: ������-� / �%/%� THANKS, Jane/Sheri/Leah �u � ( t�-�-�' �.����� ! _ � J —{� Q v- n --�o W�-'' � �l' �;C � -%�— l h Date of Comments f'�✓�.;C � �-G >f".t"' ��' � e G1.� C.�/'.,2-t y�rG�2_ �'-� �% 1 ._ j"� � �a va �� �it.��� G�-�-� ,� � �.'2�+,'r�r�J i j ROUTING FORM ;, DATE: ���"u � 7 / ��/L i TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR � �sxAL PARKS DIIZECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNERIPLA.NNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR � �� tf � .:J�-_ �� t�_c �� �;2`� �t;�:-z�-�� � �> , � (- C� ) t�t ��C -�� -�72� (;�'� C d,t.L. z( cil I t i c�� � C� C 1�L> l.'1_ L C,�� �� C'_ � T ' _ � � � d:. � ( �t. � �, t - �i,- SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: `� �ti��r ���l �1�° � ✓ �� ; REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: �� i �FJ l/ % l�� �; THANKS, 7ane/Sheri/Leah � C'�i��li�l��l j� ,����� � Y �� � Date of Comments CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (41� 696-7250 NOTICE OF HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMNIISSION announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF TULY, 1996 at 7:30 P.M, in the City Hall Council 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 THREE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR EXISTING SUBSTANDARD SETBACK CONDITIONS CAUSED BY A FIKST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TRIGGERING NEW CONSTRUCTION REQUIItEMENTS 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 norice 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 informiug their tenants about ThIs notice. Please post this notice in a public place on your property. Thank you MARGARET MONROE CITY PLANNER JULY 12, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AND VARIANCES FOR TI3REE 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 three side setback variances for existin� substandard setback conditions at 132 Costa Rica Avenue. zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-250 ; Crai� and Carol Rossi. 132 Costa Rica Avenue,�roperty owner : WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 22, 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 DETERM11�1ED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption per Article 19, Section: 15303 - 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 aze approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached 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, Charles Mink , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of 7ulv , 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption and variances 132 COSTA RICA effective AUGUST 5, 1996 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 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 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; and 4. that the project shall meet the California Building and Fire Code, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.