The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1108 Vancouver Ave - Approval Letter�� CITY Q� 6URLINGAME �' $„ CITY OF BURLINGAME Pianning Depar[ment Ciry Hall - 501 Prunrose Road Burlingame, Cali(ornia 94010-3997 TeL (650) 558-7200 November 16, 1999 Dmitri Nadeev 550 Davis Street, Apt. #25 San Francisco CA 94111 Dear Mr. Nadeev, Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the November 8, 1999 Planning Commissior action to deny your design review application without prejudice became effective November 16, 1999. This application was to allow a new two-story single-family residence with detached garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, 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) as determined by Planning staff. The $250.00 appeal fee (appeal withdrawn) will be refunded to under separate cover. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, 1(�l(��jG/��i�1%.�► �--- Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/smg c: Peter Lam, AIA Chief Building Inspector w . � City ofBur/ingame Planning Con:mission Minutes and replaced; should the existing ratio, side setback and for n variance or may improve th ro November 8, 1999 [ling be demolished, the variance pproved for declining height envelope,�oor area of parking spaces shall au matically expire, and the owner may a- iy for a new so that it conforms to t Zoning Code requirements for declinin eight envelope, floor area ratio, setback nd parking. In this case, "demo ' ed" means removal of greater than ten ) percent or more in square footage of e exterior walls than was appro d in the design review application; and 6) at any improvements for the use shall eet all California Building and re Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by t City of Burlingame. The motioniwas approved by a 6-0-1 voi�ote (C. Dreiling absent). Appeal procedu� were advised. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, AppLICANT AND DMITRI NADEEV, PRnPRRTY (1WT�TRR1 Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Bojues stated that he will abstain from this item because he lives within 300' of the property. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked: what the allowable area is for a two-car garage. CP Monroe noted that the maximum area for a detached garage is 600 SF, the minimum needed for 2 cars is 20' x 20' interior dimensions, about 400 SF. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Andy Harader, architect representing the applicant, stated that he would like to reiterate the changes made since study: the roof height was lowered, the roof ridge leveled to match neighborhood, the roof pitch was lowered, the upper level mass was minimized, balcony and columns were removed, windows were installed to light upper hallway, changed to a hip roof, added landscaping, used wood casement windows to match neighboring structures to harmonize with the look of neighborhood, no variances requested, all issues addressed; submitted 5 letters in support from adjacent neighbors, at addresses 1132, 1140, 1160 and 1170 Vancouver and 2028 Carmelita; did a survey study, angle of substantion is less on this house than on many houses in neighborhood; though issue raised was mass, the new setback is 10' greater than exists now, will enhance the look of neighborhood. Commissioner questions: project has been through design review several times, each time applicant changed some aspects, but house is still not compatible with neighborhood; need help to understand what happened, how were things addressed, what thought processes went into design, seems like a series of knee jerk responses; is top of roof flat or is it 4/12 pitch across, shown different in site plan, there are no flat roofs or concrete tile roofs in area, project is a programmed response, given a lot of direction, project is still not there yet. Applicant response: there is house recently constructed in neighborhood that is reflected in this design, windows similar, has addressed specific issues of design reviewer, dealt with the scale, style of house, dealt with setbacks, considered how it will look from side yard; noted portion of roof is flat. Commissioner comments: since we saw this at study it is a whole lot better, closer to what we're looking for, but think that if it were to be worked on a little more, could get closer to style of neighborhood; this style comes from newer, less expensive developer type house, in this neighborhood looking for more historic style; beauty is in eye of beholder, but there are things still unresolved on this plan, inconsistencies in roof plan, and with one roof to the elevations, should be corrected, in terms of mass and scale, very close to good project, attention to detail would help; reference older architectural style which is more eclectic, don't look at more recent 1980's styles. � City ofBur/iregame Plattning Commissior: Minutes November 8, 1999 In opposition: Sheila Reed, 1112 Vancouver Avenue, Erin Przybocki, 1104 Vancouver, James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver, Mike Buettner and Vicky Laury, 1115 Bernal; our home is one of few which has not been remodeled, concerns are with privacy new large windows in living areas opposite our bedrooms; home built in 1924, Cape Cod style, moved here because of charm of neighborhood, proposal's modern style clashes with older homes, new home would tower over adjoining homes and windows intrude on living areas of our house, would like revision, agree with commissioners, should make home compatible with neighborhood; as is, will stick out like sore thumb; addresses submitted of those in favor are from far end of block; new houses in area should not serve as model; concerned about bulk; does not conform with neighborhood; back of house will face directly into our house, concern with privacy. Applicant response: in one case, people are accustomed to convenience of no growth, house will be an improvement, can't appease everybody, can add trees, vines, shades to address privacy concerns. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: suggest applicant and designer look at neighborhood, it is a distinct neighborhood, don't want to see stamped out homes; can't tell somebody that you can't have a second story, but should have applicant work with neighborhood regarding alignment of windows; floor plan could change to change overall appearance on exterior, location ofthe house and garage are fine; very evident what is consistent with Easton Addition architecture; Cape Code, Tudor, Bungalow; trying to make sure project is compatible, cannot support; there is great improvement from first to second proposal, most of commissioners questions addressed, it's getting there, flat roof with tile does not match neighborhood, look at materials; small lots can't guarantee privacy, but window placement can be more proportionate; instead of stucco, use wood siding or stone; main concern was with mass and bulk, have seen improvement; are inconsistencies in drawings, which will affect several parts of exterior and make it difficult to build what is shown. C. Vistica moved denial without prejudice of the project. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. On the motion: appears applicant is changing elements, but not changing architectural approach, house still doesn't fit in neighborhood, designer needs to focus on materials, presence of home. Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion was passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Bojues abstaining and C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR V ANCES FOR LANDSCAPING AND R VEHICLE MANEUVERING IN THE PARKING AREA FOR A W 3-iJNIT, 3-STORY APARTMENT BUII.D AT 1009 BURLINGEIME AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (FRANK P CCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNE )- CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER C. Deal noted that he had a business re tionship with the applicant which exce ded $200 and would abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. Re rence sta� report, 11.08.99, with attach City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria nd Planning Department comments. Five co ditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions f m the commission. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. The applicant, rank Panacci, 1664 Foothill Park ircle, noted that they are asking for a variance for parking maneuvers, variance fo landscaping because of required wi of driveway, this is a narrow parcel, hard to develop a proposal without variance ; project is close to public transportatio , regarding parking maneuvers, two are affect, these stalls would be for guest and deliveries, one can exit in 3 maneuve s if you back into the stalls.. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME Facsimile Transmission Record DATE 11.15.99 TIME 10 am NUMBER OF PAGES � (including this cover sheet) FROM M. Monroe RECIPIENT' S FAX NUMBER: (415) 777-5242 Please deliver this transmission to: NAME Peter Lam ,K�1u17�►�•1 DEPARTMENT Planning REGARDING 1108 Vancouver We are transmitting from a Hitachi HiFa�c 17 automatic facsimile. If you do not receive all pages we have indicated on this transmission record, please call (415) 558-7200 ASAP. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS: _X WE WILL RETAIN WE WILL DESTROY WE WILL MAIL TO YOU