HomeMy WebLinkAbout1108 Vancouver Ave - Approval Letter�a� CITY O�
BURLINGAME
� �A.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Planning Deparunent
City Hall - 501 Primrose Road
Budingame, Califomia 94010-3997
Tel. (G50) 558-7200
January 20, 2000
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 January 10, 2000 Planning Commission
denial without prejudice, of your design review application for a new two-story residence became effective
January 19, 2000. This application was to allow a new two-story single-family residence 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 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.
Si cerely yours,
� ��V �7
Margar onroe
City Pl er
NIM: smg
1108vanc.dwo2
c: Peter Lam AIA
Chief Building Inspector
City ofBurlingame PlanningCommission Minutes 3anurrry 10, 2000
On the motion: in regards to condition #3, the commissioner noted that a 2" water line is large and suggested that it only
include a limit on the size of the waste line to 2".
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion, 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 January 5, 2000,
Sheets A-1 through A-2, except that all the skylights in the detached garage shall be placed at least 10' from nearest
property line; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, memo dated October 18, 1999, that the conditions of
the Fire Marshal, memo dated October 18, 1999, and that the conditions of the City Engineer, dated October 18, 1999,
hall be met; 3) that the size of the waste line from the garage shall be limited to 0'-2"; 4) that the height of the detached
garage to the peak of the roof shall be no greater than 15'-0" at any point as measured from average adjacent grade; and
5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1 vote (C. Keighran
absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DNIITRI NADEEV,
PROPERTY OWNER� - RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Reference staff report, 01.10.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from
the commission. C. Bojues noted that he would abstain from action on this project, he lives within the noticing area.
He then left the dais. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that for this item three votes would be a majority for action. Because
of the reduced number of commissioners he gave the applicant the opportunity to continue the item to another meeting.
The applicant chose to go forward.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, the architect for the project, indicated that he would be
pleased to answer any questions on the project. Commissioners asked: this submittal represents an improvement over
the previous submittal but concerned about the relationship of the second floor addition to the first floor, the front works
all right but at the sides it is awkward, and the rear looks like a different building; applicant noted tried their best to work
within the mix of housing styles in the neighborhood; windows add a human scale, why are there so few on the new
second floor, felt that could screen the addition wi'th landscaping along the sides which would also soften the facade, side
setbacks are 5 feet at first story and 7 feet at second, neighbor is 10 feet away, commission is aware rarely see sides in
full as one sees them in plan elevation. There were no further questions or comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: agree that this project is a whole lot better, but feel that a couple of elevations need more work,
addition of some windows and trim, the rear elevation needs more work, provide more information ori the type of window
trim detail and eave detail; the rendering does show the adjacent houses and the flavor of the neighborhood as well as the
size and scale of the adjacent houses, there is no continuity between these houses and the proposed new house, could be
addressed though such items as: the roof pitch and how the roof works, can it be made steeper and brought into the first
floor, could add smaller windows, chimney goes across the roof may not be desirable; addition centered on first story by
declining height, could break this image by going straight up to the second story next to the driveway; not opposed to
size but project has a tract look, needs a steeper roof and to include more details typical of existing houses in the
neighborhood, needs better fenestration; so for these and the reasons stated by the commissioners, move to deny this
project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
On the motion: direction to the applicant should be taken from commissioners comments, commission is reviewing a draft
of the Design Guidelines, could these be sent to this applicant for reference, yes; if this project is resubmitted it should
go to a different design reviewer for a second input, commission agreed.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the design review for a second story without prejudice.
The motion passed on a 4-0-1-1 (C. Bojues abstaining, C. Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
C. Bojues took his seat again.
0