The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1108 Vancouver Ave - Staff ReportItem # 1 Design Review For New Two-Story Single-Family Residence _ � �:. . _: �`F -:�sS.r. .. ..''...�C,s.Y �._ ... 1108 VANCOUVER- PROJECT SITE 0 City of Burlingame ITEM # 1 Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1108 Vancouver Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Request: Request for Design Review for new two-story single-family residence with detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Peter Lam, AIA APN: 026-183-170 Property Owner: Dmitri Nadeev Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: August 18, 1999 Project Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review for the construction of a new two-story, five-bedroom, 2980 SF single-family residence with a detached 438 SF 2-car garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1010 SF one-story house, with two bedrooms and a detached 600 SF, two-car garage, and construct the new two-story residence. . . � � �Z.�i EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front: Ist flr 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rear: 1 st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• �• ` 24' -4" 4' -3" 10' -6" 45'-0" 45' -0" 34.5 % (2076 SF) 3418 SF/ 56.9 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20'-11" x 20'-11" + 1 unc, in driveway 27' -0" 16'-0" 15' or block average; Average = 18'-6" - 20'-0" 3'-0" 13'-0" 54'-0" 27.8% (1670 SF) 1610 SF/ 26.8 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30' ) + 1 unc. in driveway 1-story 4' -0" 4' -0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (2400 SF) 3420 SF/ 57 % FAR 2 covered in garage (10' -0" x 20' -0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' /2 1/z stories Design Review for New Two-Story House PROPOSED DH meets requirements ENVELOPE: EXISTING N/A This project meets all other zoning code requirements. I108 VancouverAvenue ALLOWED/REQ'D see code Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that a property survey is required to confirm the corners of the parcel, and all roof drainage including the garage shall be drained to the front street (Vancouver Avenue). The Fire Marshal notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that the garage walls within 3'-0" of the property line shall be 1-hour construction, and that no openings in the walls are permitted within 3'-0" of property lines. The Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: After reviewing the original applicant and three sets of revised plans (see Design Review History below), the Design Review Consultant summarized that the plans are not in conformance with the Design Review Guidelines and that the proposed modern design is not sympathetic to the more traditional and smaller houses in the neighborhood. The exterior design appears to be driven by a particular floor plan which results in a large apparent mass, and the exterior design elements fail to harmonize with one another. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommended that the applicant further revise the plans to better harmonize with the neighborhood. Design Review Project History: Between August 18, 1999 and October 12, 1999, the applicant submitted four different sets of plans with designs for a new two-story single-family residence for review by the Design Review Consultant. Upon review of the most recent submittal, the Design Reviewer still recommended that the house be redesigned. Upon review of the first submittal, the Design Reviewer stated that the design is not sympathetic to the neighborhood or to the adjacent houses (September 2, 1999 memo). Other issues relating to the symmetry of the second story, complexity of the roof plan, compatibility of design features including pillars and diamond-shaped windows, and the garage design were also questioned. The applicant was directed to revise the plans and resubmit for further review. - After receiving this initial written analysis, the applicant and property owner met with the Design Reviewer and planning staff to review the comments made by the Design Reviewer and to discuss the findings required by the Design Review Ordinance. - After reviewing the second submittal, the Design Reviewer made further recommendations to conect plan inconsistencies including floor area enors and need for FAR variance, inconsistent roof plans, chimney placement, and design issues including simplification of ornamentation, elimination of asymmetric design features (notch in second story behind balcony), and reduction in mass and plate heights (September 30, 1999 memo). 2 Desig�a Review for New 7'wo-Story Hotrse 1108 Vancouver Avenue - The applicant then made design changes and fa�ced a third set of plans to the Design Reviewer who reviewed the plans and fa�ced comments directly to the applicant (October 12, 1999 memo). These comments reflected some improvement on the removal of ornamental detail, but still recommended reduction of the second story plate height, questioned the proposed roof shapes and the raised concern that the design of the garage did not compliment the house. The final submittal was reviewed by the Design Reviewer with the understanding that the property owner wanted to proceed to the Planning Commission for their review of the proposed new house (October 14, 1999 memo). The Design Reviewer summarized his comments by acknowledging that the applicant had made improvements to the plans in response to previous design concerns, but the house still did not relate to the size and style of houses that exist in the neighborhood around this project site. The Design Reviewer noted that there has been little attempt to break up the mass and reduce the visual impact of the new house, which appears to be designed around a particular floor plan. The fnal recommendation of the Design Reviewer is that the house be redesigned. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Peter Lam, AIA, applicant Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Application to Planning Commission List of Front Yard Setbacks along Vancouver Avenue Memo from Fire Marshal, Date Stamped August 23, 1999 Memo from City Engineer, Date Stamped August 23, 1999 Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped September 3, 1999 Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped October 5, 1999 Memo from Design Reviewer, Dated October 12, 1999 Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped October 14, 1999 Site Plan from Original Submittal, Date Stamped August 19, 1999 Front Elevation from Original Submittal, Date Stamped August 19, 1999 Site Plan from Second Submittal, Date Stamped September 24, 1999 Front Elevation from Second Submittal, Date Stamped September 24, 1999 Front Elevation from Third Submittal, Date Stamped October 12, 1999 Site Plan from Fourth Submittal, Date Stamped October 19, 1999 Front Elevation from Fourth Submittal, Date Stamped October 19, 1999 Aerial Map of Site 3 1� i CYTY OF BURLINGAME Bli r+uncN.Mi , � APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance x Other �� S�G � Z-.�� . ��% Project Address: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��U 3 �� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: ,�L��/Z ��"� Gf(- Name: � M/ �R / /C%A �E-�✓ Address: �� _ � — � 1� S � City/State/Zip:s ��it/��NGlSC o �/�� O Phone (w): �`/S '7�7 ,ff'/X ¢/ (h): fax: �' %% 7 �Z � Z ARCIiITECT/DESIGNER Name: �5�� Pl �r'� Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): C4�� Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �' Ul C.� '��/ Z��' � �� IG�" n � O'L� AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATLJRE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �� Appli ant's Signature Date I laiow about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Comn}issi�n., , � D�-�9- ��9� s Sign ure Date �-FOR FFICE USE ONLY ---___ Date Filed: � �� °l Fee: ��O, o o-E- � Soo � o0 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: PROJECT: 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE FRONT SETBACK OF SAME SIDE OF BLOCK 1170 VANCOUVER AVE. 1160 VANCOUVER AVE. 1150 VANCOUVER AVE. 1140 VANCOUVER AVE. 1132 VANCOUVER AVE. 1128 VANCOUVER AVE. 1124 VANCOUVER AVE. 1120 VANCOUVER AVE. 1116 VANCOUVER AVE. 1112 VANCOUVER AVE. 1104 VANCOUVER AVE. 19'-10" 19'-8" 18'-1 " 19'-0" 22'-1 " 22'-4" 25'-4" 13'-11" 15'-2" 15'-2" 15'-0" AVERAGE: 18'-6" �� :� I � 0 � � «, � rn `, � i . H I -�-�- IRUN kAIIING � r�ECI_INING -- _ ENVELtIPE �� RaiSEG —�— _'I�1-'.l.'. TIh'_ � -- - // / i �� I z � �r � I � c� I � �,i i�, I I /fi-.� � s i- l� I i�1 q ,� --- - - -� � �'� ��'�. , - ----� � J � % � > � ��' � � � � � �,o�_iu woc�o PNL DOOf� ,. �� s.o \�\� - — — � - _ /\\ \ SiUCCO � i"'� � � j� -- � - 6., GUTTE� � �-�� — -_-z-- 10�� FA�CIA I - I ' 4" STUCCO TRIM � �,. oll - �T . � I� FASCI,A AND GUTTER I rx� � � � ' \ 2ND FL(�OR � 68.0 - - � `. - — _ - - _ _ _ � — -- - � - - 1' 6" �I �,� - •' x iL � �x �,, '� � .' I � � � � , �TUCCO COLUMN �" �' � � I GROUND FLOOR �' �� , _ - __ _ t� - I AVE TOF OF I CUR ' S` `; WEST E�EVA�TION (�RONT) �k- - -- — ---- 1 -- � � � , � , -�-� �� ;' � � `(�'� , � � �,AR i�E ' -_,i� �_ � i _�; � _ � � � �,,I , �,� ��µ? �_ritv�__'I �-, II I � z'I � �'`�- i I, � �Flfvi�H FLOOR � �� ,� �' 3 _,k w;_� " ` � � � � �/, i+ , � R ; �� - ' � - I - - - � -�-�'' � `� �-�� — - L -- -- y.�-- —+-�i--�r.�<, � iN�_ c =r �'i �,� I �- i ; T;: B� � E r, , �` F E -- i _� _P,NI�`_'_�APE� � `_�� i�- - - -� ,�. � � � � . - _ - �i �vC; G I I ' � � �`R�� : C�;_2; I� _� , .. �. ,.. � - +r ---- ---�—G.--y.. . �. � I --- — I I �----- � I �: 'S,`,' I w I ��I' _ �I '��'I�I �� ,_. _ �� -J-LY�--- -- � -_- � � \� r--- - - - / � I -�'P�' '"J I � � z 3�c� SQ�, N J 1 � �L 0.� a 5°G/ / a i � :� �� Z � � z A i — `J�'� NO � �R°� � = +F� � � w / �� 5 j �Nc� � � c� �— A ' '�6 �CJ' GR� � I /`,n No , - - - �i ,R_ EXISTING BL TO BE REM� UPPEF BUiI L�NE L�,WcR BUI� 2�% �•, '� 1 �� I I I li � f� i I E_ I � I i ,� ' I �-- �I �� I ,I i I �� ' ;� � � I i jll �i I Y I I : �I , . L, _-_� I I BI1t1MAti p�_��r ir � i I%�a� II � F , � ,J �I a -- ---- --- , � � t'� i I I Q � I � I � O � Q � �� -� � � ' UPPER ROOF � 3 FLAT CONC � �' I TILF ' I I � I � I��' I i �I� � r � � �� i_iPP R pri �F � FLAT CON� � �� I� L iI�F- Ir � I � �� I � � � i � I ji_�i'[I FLPI _ , L �� - 1 - � �_ �r- �i>r � I �-7'-�, �_- `-- I,- _. . ; �' � � ' - J _ _ �_—.� �� , �r. ''` � _''J�E�F ��'� -- I --r � � � - ��-- -�-- I- � h�? � h�'' � i � � � - �-;ti; � �y i , -�a , , � I Pa✓��;I I I'�ANGSCAPE � �� ANDSCAPE I � �� 4� ; � _, . _. - � _ 5�0�`'� LI FROPERTY iljTlr;^ ,= 50 N5� n4'W I � � �iy��-�,. � .. I M�. i 9, � 49�- I � - �� 4� 'JJALK ' � � �• 0 8"� Pr� E I ' �� -- � - -- ' ' - ; �- . �-< --T� --L - L .'` _ —� - _ _ 's� — —%r — --T i-�T. tii � � `� NEw u1�i � s. ` �� % JJATFR� `� , � � � �, �., �;� �� _,-.,�, TREE ` METEF . � �` �' i '��. ��.,FF m _� � � 09 0 21'-� ° G�oJ�° �EAS E M E NT � G�O�� ? ------------N--------- - � R � �� I � I `�� GAR GE o � , I ol II c� I I N II � � � `�i u � F�nT coNc. w u � T�I�E � FINISH FL00 z � �` g"� ORANGE TREE � I � � +51.8 � � ��. /� � B � -------- �I . � p � � �� I \`__� IInSEE � I � - � �a LAN SCAPE ' � � PLA � � � `�' a , 9 0 � z 5, �0 5' �� I ' GR�J G�O �'-3�� 35 -0" 10'-9�� I . �R�J�O � G 0 I j 5�i J�� 0 y��J�o �� J — — — — G � —1------- 3 I � � 5tio�`'o 5 I � �R �� I � I � I � ------ � �s�o � I ��°� o� ��, � � 08 �_ ��- 5 w� I BITUMAN ROOF � i GROJ�O �I � � > � � _ � � I � q0 � I I i Q 5 ��° � � o�° I I � � UPPERI Rb0 0 FLAT CON�. I � � TILE ' I v� i -� � N � � �;��Zy l�1qq � o i 0 � ry � � � � N w U Z w � 8 0 0 � 0 w � �� M � O N I � � �i i o ;'� i � � I 1J, � w \\ � � � z �� i I U P P R00 F- � G��J�� J �I I IGRD FLR � FLAT CONC. � TILE � � t�7.50 6�o � � I L--- --�_ .�L�'�-i -- — � v � O � �` - - � 55 JC�O I d R I � O T ��° �� LO ER ROOF = G % i r--- - ---�_ ---h6o�o 56?�� 1r� I I ��° G�° I I - - P.V RS � P E � � � ILANDSCAPE - LANDSCAPE � � ' I �6 I .-- - � 5g J�p � 5�0�� L� _ FRC�PERTY IINE___�_-- 5�� N55'04'W ____. ��`o f - �- � �� _-_ � ,� `�,� �� I 4' WALK �� // �,� 1 I � i � /� NEW D �� ss � - � i, 1 �'-0' �. ��.. TO E EX I TO ur L� 1'- WEST E�EVATION ( F�RONT Se P-�-�,�,.� z�-1, � � `� °� 85.0 STUCCO, Tl'P. PNL DOOR �; o> .� a N O � � � � N O � � � � i� ro u 0 � � Q � � � C � � 7 C7 Q � � � O � � i N N � U 0 ' � — -- — -- — �1-- — — — — — o � rr. H� � iROr� P,AILING .+ � .— __' l ' � � I � ``�Gf� � � � �� '• I i� , 6� "' 2rvo rtoo� (� ' G. — _ . I — � J� � �o � �� u 4 I C I '� cRouNo nao � i — eR.i EO — s��cco. 1vF. — — — — — — --- — e�^o� � 17 I . STUCCO 6� CUrif17 �10' fA5C1A 75,� 4' SR1CC0 1RiM �- _ �� ,� �_a i;" �,!� �' �� ' �..... �,- � i�� t �� t �..s..��. �...._ . �� ■ � ��. • � ..i • � •��• � • • � .� . i ��>r- �EASEMENI � j�o�"' � 3 ----------------�------ � � , � � � � ( l'�. GAR GE OI 1 U I � N ' � �-� R00 0 I � � � �� .z J� � � �� FINI H FLOOR r� � \Y8"¢ ORANGE TREE � +s .s � � /� / � � i � �� rf �� a r � w � —EXISTING B � �� i i � w � �I '� � TO BE REti a. ��_�� cn I ' L-� LANqS E / ' �1 I ( � PLAN I� � .*�------ w � � Z � j;a�� 9�� - in � J � � G �� GR� a 4'-6" � 35 -C�' 10'-6,. I � � � 53':N� w I ��°J z o �,3� �o w - - SR JN� �ELOJ�� — — - �' E.�- - �'RO� � . ----- ---------� .G 5� � ! � 5�p�� U I � ' � � vP .� - Z � I � I � � ------ �co g'S� J�0 . i I GFi� 0 � �p I� _I. I � w�i � I 5�5�0 �� 0 i� � ��V � �� '�- , 1 8 ❑ � �� i i i �- -� r� i Q i�' � o � � I I I c� I � --EXISTING E ` 5^0�� I � a TO BE REI G� � � � � T�� _ � - � � � �- I i--UPPER Bl; �- — I/ LINE UPPER R 0� ' /� i, i� �I FLAT CON�J I � � ri�E �� z � UPPER ROOF! �' f�� i I h�j 4 NO ' J � TILET CONC. i+5-.50 �,Ei�J I F- � — J .� � � - -- - �- — — - —� '- �._p I h6 �,�N� W �.i�.p � i �O . .. . �� i --- � � � �- �C' �� c yh��0 � � 0 G�oJ�, � J�,o � I �ewEct aoeF � `LC� L�C,`,` `�_ —' _ �'� —1— LOWER Bl I I G---- _�_�---o d � � �_ _ _ (�Q,�A^ �y q `p 6��0 I � -- �_ G��JaO G6��JC10 � �"I 1� 'c� , G � �� ._ �� c�'D�✓ � Z� N � I � ��j��'�� . o� � � I LANDSCAPE -� __ - LANDSCAPE � ' I �� I I � � _'�.` � �6 � i �!-��- '- � g� 9�O 5�°�� LI _ PROPERTY Lil�i�� _�i _50' N55�O4_W _ _ ^ G�OJ ( ��'`�T� - \ — — '.ar...,_i_�.� ��\ �� i� —� �� o I I 4' WALK �/ �� // �\ 0 8"0 PO E I I � ��'� // �� 0 i �` ' � � � � ,�� \ /� NEW D�� Ss '� 1'-6"� TREE h5' WATER� \ /� 12'-0' �� •.'�?,,. " � c „�T�., � ' . "_- 0 � � � � �TCH � '� I t� c� • o - I 0 I �, � I� G �=.� o G+o�x..r � z , �`i R � � i _ _ __ . WEST ELEVATION (FRONT � .��vv ,vvt iVr VF CUKtf 5:� STUCCO, TYP. PNL DOOR �s. a _-�� *� :• S � . �- F ' � F'I � �- ,`� i '� � � i = � .� '�e .— ...��— � . , � �� — �:� � _ � __ , .�. . � � l� � R �X's"� �Y�.� t�; TS` a -. ��:�- �� i"_. _'y�� ;. t.-.` iT 3 -r y_ � r _r a�� ,� �/ . t�r� Y�� , .%Y l M .�. / +�-� , �Jr �� ` .� :.z �1 ��._r.. � � y�, �� P . c l ,s•- ��' i��'�'�/!{;y, � .. :�,t �►.:�, � _ , ' �� ::� . ' . � -� �� : � � `+ .��-�. . . �� 3 , �,� = �.s .�.:_� Tl _� ry . �' _ ;: . . _. �;; �:.� _ � City of Burlingame ITEM # 13 Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Addressss: 1108 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: January 10, 2000 Request: Request for Design Review for new two-story single-family residence with detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Peter Lam, AIA APN: 026-183-170 Property Owner: Dmitri Nadeev Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residendal CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Fxempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: Original Submittal: August 19, 1999; Resubmittal: December 20, 1999 Project Summary: This first application for design review was originally submitted on August 18,1999. After three revisions, the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their hearing on November 8, 1999, where it was denied without prejudice. The applicant has substantially redesigned the project and resubmitted revised plans on December 29, 1999. After meeting with the applicant on site and comparing the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing residences in the neighborhood, the Design Reviewer has recommended approval of this project. The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review for the construction of a new two-story, five-bedroom, 2965 SF single-family residence with a detached 438 SF 2-car garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1010 SF one- story house, with two bedrooms and a detached 600 SF, two-car garage, and construct the new two-story residence. PROPOSED ERISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D r: : . Front: Ist flr 2nd flr Side (left): Side (right): Rear: I st flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: � 24'-4"" 4'-6" 10'-6" 46'-3" 44'-9° 35.4 % (2123 SF) 16'-0" Block Average = 18'-6" - 20'-0" 3'-0" 13'-0" 54'-0" 27.8 % (1670 SF) 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (2400 SF) PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• DH ENVELOPE: 3403 SF/ 56.7 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20'-11" x 20'-11" + 1 unc. in driveway �� meets requirements 1610 SF/ 26.8 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30') + 1 unc. in driveway 1-story N/A 3420 SF/ 57 % FAR 2 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' stories , -- _•_� -, This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that a property survey is required to confirm the corners of the parcel, and all roof drainage including the garage shall be drained to the front street (Vancouver Avenue). The Fire Marshal notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that the garage walls within 3'-0" of the property line shall be 1-hour construction, and that no openings in the walls are permitted within 3'-0" of property lines. The Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: The plans date stamped December 20, 1999 were forwarded to the same Design Reviewer who had reviewed the previous design review submittals for this site. He determined that this revised project is significantly improved over the previous submittals and the size and detail of the revised residence is substantially more compatible with the character of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommended approval of this project as proposed. In his comments, he noted that there is no single dominant style of house in this particular neighborhood, but the proposed design included design elements which aze common to the adjacent houses, and can also be seen on other houses along this street. The rear detached garage is consistent with the typical garage pattern in this azea. 1fie Design Reviewer noted that the applicant reduced the mass and scale of the reviewed project by reducing the plate heights of both the first and second story, reducing the overall height of the residence by 2'-8", reducing the width of the second story, and reducing the mass of the residence by eliminating one of the bedrooms. The proposed house with appro�cimately 3000 SF (without the garage) would still appear lazger in scale than the adjacent houses which were both constructed around 1925 and include less than 1700 SF in living area. Although the new house would be larger than the adjacent houses, it has been redesigned to relate better to the scale, proportion and design of the neighboring houses. The Design Reviewer reviewed the landscape plan that is required for new residences, and determined it to be satisfactory and proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components of the proposed residence. November 8, 1999, Planning Commission Hearing: At the November 8, 1999 the Planning Commission Hearing, the Commission denied that project without prejudice because the findings for design review approval could not be made, cidng the following issues: 1) house design has improved since project was originally reviewed at the study meeting, but it still is not compatible with adjacent, older houses; 2) concerned about bulk of front elevation; 3) work with neighbors for alignment of windows; and 4) roof pitch and materials should be designed to be more Design Review 1108 VancouverAvenue consistent with existing styles in neighborhood. In response, the applicant significantly redesigned the project by reducing the height by 1'-6", reducing the mass of the structure by eliminating one bedroom (the structure is now a four-bedroom house). The roof shapes have been simplified to appear similar to the gable-roofed houses adjacent to this site, and wood trim and attic vents have been added beneath the gables. The house has a more prominent front entry with fewer ornamental details. The applicant met at the project site with the Design Reviewer and Planning Staff on December 8, 1999 to review a draft redesign and discuss common elements with other houses in the immcdiate neighborhood. 'lfie rendering submitted with the application material date stamped Uacember 20, 1999 includes the houses on either side of the project site and demonstrates the similar details used in the proposed project and exisdng houses. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1603 adopted by the Council on September 23, 1998 aze 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. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested design review permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 December 20, 1999, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the first floor that would affect the sacond floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice 7agelski Planner c: Peter Lam, AIA, applicant 3 9x 121.24�2.� MEMORANDUM R �. � �- � { � _� . _ - - � - GUMBINGEf � DEC 2 7 1999 � /�SS��,�S �� ciT�� oF euR� ��v,_;,r,r,_ � �.� _ P�AN�,,�nG �:�_-�? � � ��; -��AI�CHITECTS DATE: December 21, 1999 TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner City of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA RE: 1108 Vancouver Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED December 20, 1999 (Received December 21, 1999) BACKGROUND Sent Via Facsimilc 342-8386 Refer to the Memoranda dated October 14, 1999 and November 2, 1999. These latest drawings represent the 4"' revision to the original submission. DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. COMPATIBLILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF TI� EXISTING CHARACTER OF TI� NEIGHBORHOOD. There is no single dominant architectural style in this particular neighborhood; only a comucopia of styles including one story spanish bungalows and cape cod cottages as well as two story pseudo english tudors and mediterraneans. In the latest revised submittal, the applicant's architect has tned to incorporate architectural elemcnts such as gable roofs with horizontal siding across the gable ��alls and decorative attic vents to recall the architectural style of the two adjacent homes. In fact, the gable roof form and decorative attic vent are the only two architectural elements which are common to many of the houses in thc neighborhood regardless of architectural style. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The proposed detached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood. 3. ARCHITECTLJRAI. STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF TIIE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF Tf� STRUCTURAL DESIGN The�arctutectural style of the proposed house, as shown on the latest revised dra�vings, is more in harmony with its surroundings than any of the previous renditions. The mass and bulk of the structure have been reduced as follows: • The height of tl�e first floor plate has been reduced from 9'-6" to 9'-0". • T'he height of the second floor plate has been reduced from 9'-0" to 7'-6". • T'he overall height of the house has been reduced from 28'-11" to 26'-3". • The overall width of the second floor has been reduced from 32'-0" to 29'-10". • The number of bedrooms has been reduced from 5 to 4. Poul J. Gumbinger, FAI,q President & CEO Noemi K. Avram, AIA Associate 9812124/2.7 Janice Jaleski_ Planncr Re: 1108 Vancouver A��enuc Page 2 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE W1TH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. Because of the reduced height and bulk as well as the increased side setbacks to the second floor (T-6" on left, 12'-6" on right), the proposed structure better relates to the e�usting adjacent houses. The gable ends and decorative vents also recall the adjacent structures on each side; refer to perspective sketch. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The proposed landscape treatment is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Design Review for the proposed new house be approved by the Planning Commission. Time: 4 Hours \ \ City njBurlingame P ning Commission Mintit�s `�� November 8, 1999 � \ replaced; should t e existing dwelling'he demolished, the variances approved declining height velope, floor ar� rati side setback an or number of pari�g spaces shall au�tomatically expire, d the owner ma apply for a new varianc or may improve th property so that rt'�onforms to the Zon��g Code requirem ts for declining h' ht envelope, floor area`r�atio, setbacks and king. In this case, "demolished" mear� removal of great than ten (10) per nt or more in square fo age of the e�terior alls than was appr ed in the design r�riew application; a 6) that any imp vements for the use sha meet all Caliform Building and Fire odes, 1998 Editi as amended by t City of Burlinga e. he motion was ap oved by a 6-0-1 'ce vote (C. Dreih absent). Appea rocedures were vised. 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, PROPERTY OWNERl 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. 3 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1999 Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. The applicants architect, Michele Woodruff-Wilson, 1800 Bear Gulch Road, Woodside, submitted a letter from Frank Pagliaro, a neighbor across the street in support of the project, he noted that the proposed garage is consistent with the neighborhood and asked for approval. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: existing carport is an eyesore, can support new garage on side, unfortunate cannot incorporate 2-car garage, but there is no room, support new garage, cannot support increase in FAR for the sun porch, don't see a hardship, want to improve aesthetics, but house is already over FAR, new garage does increase FAR, but is needed, but to add a sun porch is not a hardship; notion of 4 variances puts a flag up that something is not quite right, this is a nice solution for the parking; design reviewer recommends approval, in terms of the architecture, agree, but it takes more than correct design to make a good project, there are issues to be addressed with respect to excess FAR; swimming pool in the wrong place does not constitute a hardship for increasing FAR; justification for parking and declining height envelope variances are based on existing conditions, difficult to make same findings for sun room. C. Dea1 moved approval of the variance for setback for a one-car garage, for declining height envelope and for floor area ratio for the gazage, and denial of the floor area ratio variance for the second floor sun room addition, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, with the added condition that if this structure were torn down and a new 5-bedroom house built, then a two car garage shall be provided and all setbacks shall be met. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. On the motion: variance for one-car garage is justified because it is based on an e�sting condition, house is now 5 bedrooms, very little area left to place garage, there is no alternative to the 6" side setback for garage; the declining height envelope variance is for replacement of an architecturally improved roof encroachment that existed before; commissioners noted that by approving this, they will not have an opportunity to see the change to the rear elevation, not necessary to go back through design review, applicant has done a nice job with the architecture, trust that will continue the quality with this change; look at it differently, this is an architectural treasure, taken it in right direction, see FAR variance differently, house is now nonconforming in FAR, if 1 SF is added would need a variance, would be willing to support FAR variance for sun room; 80 SF added to rear would have no impact on neighborhood, contributes to architectural design; solidly in favor of design, removal of the sun room will enhance it even more; are we granting an aesthetic variance, findings require a bit more than that; can a condition be added that the variances are granted based on existing conditions, if existing condition changes the variance does not continue for example if pool is removed or structure substantially remodeled. CA Anderson advised that such a condition has been developed for the side setback based on previous commission discussions on this issue, states that the reason variance is granted is based on existing conditions on the site, and does not carry on if existing structure is demolished or substantially removed; the motion was amended to include a condition that the other exceptions granted would not continue if existing structure is demolished or substantially removed. Chair Coffey 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 October 6, 1999, Sheets 1, and 3 through 9; 2) that the left side setback variance is pernutted only for construction of the garage, all other portions of the structure shall meet the side setback requirements; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 20, 1999 memo and the City Engineer's September 20, 1999 memo shall be met; 5) that the variances for declining height envelope, floor area ratio, side setback and for number of parking spaces are being granted because of a pre-existing condition on the property, which would impose an unfair burden on the owner to conect or remove as part of remodel; however, this condition could probably have been corrected if the structure were demolished s City ofBurlingame Planning Commtssion 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 grivacy 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. � CATION FOR �VARIANCES F NG AREA FOR g�iEW 3-iJIVIT, �R-3. (FRANK PA�iACCI, APl LANDSCAPIN AND FOR VEI� CORY APARTME BUII,DING AT A�T AND PROPER Y OWNER) - C. Deal noted � item. He stepped discussed the re he had a There from the dais. � reviewed criteria Je�re no questions Chair Co ey opened the pu ic asking for a ariance for parkin narrow parcel, ard to develop a maneuvers, two a affect, these e stalls.. hip with t e applicant which ;e staff repo 11.08.99, with Planning Depa the commission. hearing. The ap� maneuvers, vanan pr osal without va sta would be for comments it, Frank Pana i, 1664 Foothill P�] for landscaping b cause of required os to public trans� ces; pro�ect is cl �es and deliveries, on�, can exit in 3 GINTHE BURLING AVENUE, '1NUED FROM CTOBER $200 and b� ts. City Plar e conditions abstain from�t, and Commissi suggested for Circle, noted th they are �idth of driveway, his is a �rtation, regarding p king nane�yvers if you back i to � City ofBurlingame Planning Commrssion Minutes Novernber 8, 1999 Commissioners asked what type of window and trim is proposed. The applicant responded that windows would be either wood or wood clad trim. In opposition: Steve and Ann-Tina Barisone, 1007 Burlingame Avenue, own and live in apartment building next door to site; concern with the large garage openings on east side of building, noise and fumes would be funneled between the two buildings, noise already gets funneled there, would increase; have living rooms and bedrooms that face in that direction; concerned with building height and articulation of architecture, would like it to fit the decor of the rest of the street, be compatible with neighborhood; other apartment buildings are like cottages, this building looks like a commercial building, it could be changed to conform, could be 2-story. There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commissioners asked: have the code requirements for garages changed. CP Monroe noted that existing garages next door are nonconfornung because they back out onto the street, current coded does not allow backing out for multi-family, must e�t in a forward direction. Commission comments: gave direction to mimic apartments next door, would have been an asset, could ask for a variance to back out on to street; has an urban feel with garage in front, could be two stories above but should follow those lines, this proposal mimics El Camino apartments with cantilever, would like to get away from that; would like to see more articulation on east and west elevation, doesn't blend well with existing structures, could extend redwood siding; do not have problem with parking variance, there is a hardship since the lot is only 35' wide; would rather see maneuvering on- site entering street in forward direction; neighbor's concern with open wall should be addressed, doesn't have to match adjacent two buildings, this architectural solution is close, will work with more articulation, suggest break in material to break up east and west elevations, like to see something with heavier texture such as shingle siding, substantial overhangs with braces; see this project as maximizing everything with minimum parking, not concerned with maneuvers as much as with number of parking spaces, no parking for delivery vehicles, important that landscaping be provided to code; parking meets code, wouldn't be expecting a lot of deliveries for 3 units, parking is sufficient, maneuvers can be justified by narrowness of lot. C. Luzuriaga moved denial ofthe project, without prejudice with the direction given. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. On the motion: would love to see project mimic ones in neighborhood with garages backing on street, if not, add more detail to structure, enclose garage to avoid cantilever look, current application is not in format to support; still feel strongly about landscaping, should meet code. 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. Deal abstaining and C. Dreiling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERNIIT FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 508 PENINSLTL.A AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (ROGER WONG, SJ SUNG & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND SJ SUNG PROPERTY OWNERI A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Reference staff report, 11.08.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commission. Ej �� G��R�� b To FI' ��' �zdo�. T Lvul�� (�} (`. �- B cJ Z � :� I `7 .� �T—_._ _ I ��0� f}�. �S Ltsw � Yz E I� �y �-Fr. � �PooF �Z/ �� s MA DE . L EV � L l o/`�Ji9 Tc/ / �/L"/C�H%j o l�o s D�t�S E S �Zno� p/7C1� Low��2Cp �°'y �� ' � !� `�"� '' l L � � — — — M/n�lM/z E �l• ��u� —� :o . I � ��C;E, o� � �L�,�OQ O �4, 0 2ND FLOOR I — — -�: i wl 0 0 � � � r i � � w a n 0 � ai co GROUND FL00 I= - � --- � � — . _ �� ND �h� -- — ,.RAi'ED � � STUCCO, TVP. sa�Rr� �� coi�EiZs To� Mfti�tr n��Ui��3oFzH�oD. ��> GASEM'( VJ��Jnows� Mlricr-( -� Ab�. N�«H(3o�L . � i�leilei �� M�-ss �s M�,�..�iu= o,�y . 4 �l�v/,✓Lf o�c/L-2oo/y SCT�S?3c� z�t��1 /UI°/Lf ��Mol/�U L�Lco.�/y (r Co LJM�v • ��awE �- ,�� is caNT,�✓✓t o ro SE�Aav sr��zy �o N��E M/}SS �yvlNUvw �/L [.l�ih'j � ✓lE'^i � f-�Z� M ��-�� w� y y�, c-r/,4��i �U To /��P /2o-a � j � Mi ti, ^�� z-c � �T� � /� ��K '� CONCRETE � � .s — _ TILE_FLA7 _77.70 � 6" GUT7ER _ _ __ _ _��10�� ASCIA _ 75�,(}5 ieleilei �� 4' TRIM wwoows, _ _ _ _ _b7.05 � � I I I I-� III / II' � STUCCO I I m ft1 LJI IJ L�J �Lfi-NT � n� C2 ( o h11 N( M I ZL' /� � _ c�- � .. ". , _ � _ � '_' �. fr � 5 p , — — —.— —'_ — _ V ..- f. .. _.— — _ _ AVE TOP OF CURB 55.55 WEST ELEVATION (FRO Front Elevation of Plans Denied Without Prejudice by Planning Commission at Hearing on November 8, 1999 (� ,� !, ROUTING FORM DATE: August 23, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story residence at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 23, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben Date of Comments � f � l;v�, � l,S c,� � � t -. � � a � � L , S(�- C� f�e l hc�r � �.S � uc i��. � . � - i�o a P�.�l � � � � „t,� � � c.� � �-.�'� � � ��o� �� , * ROUTING FORM DATE: August 23, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story residence at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 23, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Rub en �J 2) �� Date of Comments � �il��'2� /�.��2�,�2� ,�-� �is �wr�-�C �— C�+-�e��-- 2��-Q ��rZ � �� w�.� � �-�-t-� V�-� �a � � ��/�`),, - � � L -� . ,-�Sz ck"��c-�r,ua�Q _,l'/€ X�- �t�-� -�% � ��) / - ,� ��. � � e �� , = . � � ,,.. �, �, V , � ' ,:; ;��:: ;p . , - , r ' ' ` �' . , � `�� . r . a. � � ��- � : �-,��' �-; � �'� . � + �.�� - � xs ; �,a/�'�; ` � °i �, i �- ��[ 'e �%` ' �� • ��'�'P� ' ��... � '1TL �- ' ,� -�., � �� '"� � ��.r - , �w�. ,L`. � � . . a� f� a�.^ `�i"'_.F "�- � �� ' - - -. . '�l � . ; ; �; <� `� �; _ �-�9 i .':. � .- � ' S ys .. '. . � i i � �. . . � �. , . _ t� Q� , J��j�� - . � . r � }✓ T b � � , .5 . •. . .t? Z r .E� �� • - _ ' � }�iyE�,, `' � . s.r • � r 1 � y� Y� x 4}.. �. � � � ��t �` � :. � '� � . � c . ��t� � �� '- � d' _ �. • •.; l �: ._ . .�� -.;� J �� ' • 4 - �� `� � � f a' . � � � � �'�� < <:� �'"`�'` t� � �o r s • ^ r�er: {�, �' - �� ,,i - �- 8 � � .F;� � '� ,' .�`;i'f � \��r ; . '�'r. � � � �p «`� � � ;�. � `;� ' � " ! T � .��l�� -:,F'' j-• I • �,�'. `S . -� •�'��. - l � ; �':� � , �^i� .,s'.^ � sro , -. � .M� ..4 _ , _.r i� �F . . .�.'} . ��; L�.. ' _ ' .. _ 'I " ' 1 . .• .:.� E. _ . =t d� .r Y y i•� - ��r _ ` �g; - - � .1�1�. �f'� �� i. . '� �l�i�'":' a :4,�!ii . , - �{ .. . ' - � • _ y.'' yyc. � �{'�- \ � � t.�� . � :+ � .. ,� . ! .� �.- �: . .• � , ' i 1 " 1„0�� \ " • . �- �j � ~�� . ;�• � _ � • t � � � .L .ia t. `C':l - � _..--• -.��..�i.. y_; h - � . _ �_ _ ; n,. . , �e._,. '�+ �, . - - .� . i;. _ .... +,:: . . � - .- � , ?` ; - �� _- .,-- +s , �.. - _ `,; _ . ,:��s��. ��v`� r ` ;��` - . - �. � '# ,_ , s i 1 � �� a �r �v Y�P�a[5 F � a�' �� • >ae. '.'� . E ! ; 0 .. _ ..----_ _ _ .. : , u . _ _ . _ . �.. _ 1..._ . 1..._.> ._;-;�:-;.�,. _ _ CITY OF BURLINGANIE A copy of the applicati�n and plans� far this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at °ihe Plannin� Department at`� 501 Pr•irru�ose Road, Burlingame, Cali€ornia. If you chall�nge th.� sublect application(s) in court,`-you mayo;be limited to r-aising only those�issues vou or someone else raised at_the public hearing, described i�' t�Eqotice �r.in_ti��ritten correspoudence delivei-ed to the city at or prior t� the�pjz`�lic he�inv. � t .. r� <. Property o�ers"��ho`�reccive this notice are respoilsi��e%r iriforming their � tenants ab�y thi no�tice:�., For additional informatiori ple�se call (650) �. 696-7250. T�ank �u. � �� li s� �i��F.�= .�� k I� � Margaret M2 � City Planner i W��'ga�"'�'�'"� -��? .s.;i PU k �� , � � �. ----- f� :��`� -�._; --�, �� /i � V�C ..�. .. .,_� wvi4/� _. r^ B�l�_HEARING``NOTICE (Please refer to otlier side) ,�r�' `�T� o CITY OF BURLINGAME BURIJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �.r- BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 1108 VANCOUVER AVEhJUE APN:l26-183-17� � •6Y, � . . �'; � , � 's -— I I. t � ,t k � f�pplic�tion for� design review for a two—story residence with a detached garage at 11�8 PUBLIC HEARING ; ' Vanco�_�ver� Avenue, zoned R-1. (kesubmitt�l of NOT��',E ' a project denied withot�t prejudice.) The City of B�.trlinga�e Rianning Commission �nnounces the foliowing public hearing on Monday, January 10, 2000 at 7:@0 p.M. in the 1 Y a ounci aw ers located at 501 ' F�r�imrose Road, Bur�lingame, Califor�nia. : Mailed ➢ece�ber 29, 1949 i _ _ xs'r� r ;es{3- � (Plea,re referto other side) � '" � �� ,�;s.:r �.• .�,r , r ,.. • � ;� n, _ _ �. , . . � y f . :,.. .. � r. . . , RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WI�REAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for De�ien Review for a new two-story residence at_ 1108 Vanco ,ve� A�Pn„P Z�„P,� R 1, D itri Nadeev, �pggy Qvvner, APN: 026-183-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on �[ 7anLary 10 �, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, TI�REFORE, 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 Section 15303 is hereby approved. 2. Said design review application is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review 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. DAVE LUZURIAGA, CHAIltMAN I,� Keig�an , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Ciry of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the l Oth day of January 10 , 000 , by the following vote: AYES: COMIMISSIONERS: NOES: CO1�Il�IISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COIvIIvIISSIONERS: ANN KEIGHRAN, SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1108 Vancouver Avenue effective January 19, 2000 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 20, 1999, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the first floor that would affect the sacond floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the condiflons of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame ITEM # 1 Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1108 Vancouver Meeting Date: October 25, 1999 Request: Request for Design Review for new two-story single-family residence with detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). � Applicant: Peter Lam, AIA APN: 026-183-170 Property Owner: Dmitri Nadeev Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF General Plan: L.ow Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: August 18, 1999 Project Suminary: The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review for the construction of a new two-story, five-bedroom, 2980 SF single-family residence with a detached 438 SF 2-car garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1010 SF one-story house, with two bedrooms and a detached 600 SF, two-car garage, and construct the new two-story residence. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Froni: lst flr 2nd fl,• Side (left): Side (right): Reur: lst flr 2rtd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• : ' 24'-4" 4'-3" 10'-6" 45'-0" 45' -0" 34.5 % (2076 SF) 3418 SF/ 56.9% FAR 2 covered in garage (20'-11" x 20'-11" + 1 unc. in driveway 27'-0" 16'-0" 15' or block average; Average = 18'-6" - 20' -0" 3'-0" 13'-0" 54'-0" 27. 8 % (1670 SF) 1610 SF/ 26.8 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30') + 1 unc. in driveway 1-story 4' -0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20' -0" 40 % (2400 SF) 3420 SF/ 57 % FAR 2 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30'/2 �/z stories Design Review jor New Two-Story Ao«se PROPOSED DH meets requirements ENVELOPE: EXISTING N/A This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 1108 Vancouver Avenue ALLOWED/REQ'D see code Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that a property survey is required to confirm the corners of the parcel, and all roof drainage including the garage shall be drained to the front street (Vancouver Avenue). The Fire Marshal notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that the garage walls within 3'-0" of tfie property line shall be 1-hour construction, and that no openings in the walls are permitted within 3'-0" of property lines. The Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: After reviewing the original applicant and three sets of revised plans (see Design Review History below), the Design Review Consultant summarized that the plans are not in conformance with the Design Review Guidelines and that the proposed modern design is not sympathetic to the more traditional and smaller houses in the neighborhood. The exterior design appears to be driven by a particular floor plan which results in a large apparent mass, and the exterior design elements fail to harmonize with one another. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommended that the applicant further revise the plans to better harmonize with the neighborhood. Design Review Project History: Between August 18, 1999 and October 12, 1999, the applicant submitted four different sets of plans with designs for a new two-story single-family residence for review by the Design Review Consultant. Upon review of the most recent submittal, the Design Reviewer still recommended that the house be redesigned. Upon review of the first submittal, the Design Reviewer stated that the design is not sympathetic to the neighborhood or to the adjacent houses (September 2, 1999 memo). Other issues relating to the symmetry of the second story, complexity of the roof plan, compatibility of design features including pillars and diamond-shaped windows, and the garage design were also questioned. The applicant was directed to revise the plans and resubmit for further review. After receiving this initial written analysis, the applicant and property owner met with the Design Reviewer and planning staff to review the comments made by the Design Reviewer and to discuss the findings required by the Design Review Ordinance. - After reviewing the second submittal, the Design Reviewer made further recommendations to conect plan inconsistencies including floor area errors and need for FAR variance, inconsistent roof plans, chimney placement, and design issues including simplification of ornamentation, elimination of asymmetric design features (notch in second story behind balcony), and reduction in mass and plate heights (September 30, 1999 memo). 2 Design Review for New Two-Story House 1108 VancouverAvem�e - The applicant then made design changes and faxed a third set of plans to the Design Reviewer who reviewed the plans and falced comments directly to the applicant (October 12, 1999 memo). These comments reflected some improvement on the removal of ornamental detail, but still recommended reduction of the second story plate height, questioned the proposed roof shapes and the raised concern that the design of the garage did not compliment the house. The final submittal was reviewed by the Design Reviewer with the understanding that the property owner wanted to proceed to the Planning Commission for their review of the proposed new house (October 14, 1999 memo). The Design Reviewer summarized his comments by acknowledging that the applicant had made improvements to the plans in response to previous design concerns, but the house still did not relate to the size and style of houses that exist in the neighborhood around this project site. The Design Reviewer noted that there has been little attempt to break up the mass and reduce the visual impact of the new house, which appears to be designed around a particular floor plan. The final recommendation of the Design Reviewer is that the house be redesigned. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Peter Lam, AIA, applicant Attachments: 1. Application to Planning Commission 2. List of Front Yard Setbacks along Vancouver Avenue 3. Memo from Fire Marshal, Date Stamped August 23, 1999 4. Memo from City Engineer, Date Stamped August 23, 1999 5. Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped September 3, 1999 6. Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped October 5, 1999 7. Memo from Design Reviewer, Dated October 12, 1999 8. Memo from Design Reviewer, Date Stamped October 14, 1999 9. Site Plan from Original Submittal, Date Stamped August 19, 1999 10. Front Elevation from Original Submittal, Date Stamped August 19, 1999 11. Site Plan from Second Submittal, Date Stamped September 24, 1999 12. Front Elevation from Second Submittal, Date Stamped September 24, 1999 13. Front Elevation from Third Submittal, Date Stamped October 12, 1999 14. Site Plan from Fourth Submittal, Date Stamped October 19, 1999 15. Front Elevation from Fourth Submittal, Date Stamperl October 19, 1999 16. Aerial Map of Site 3 Sep-03-99 06:56A Gumbingar Associates 650 579 1402 P.O1 98121.24/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2, 1999 TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner Cit}• of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA . RE: 1108 Vancover Burlingame PLANS DATE STAMPED August 19, 1999 (Received September 1, 1999) PRELIMINARY COMMENTS = GUMBINGE � = ASSOCIAl� - _- .�, � .5, -.,:� : �,�„�,�, . �� ,,.;, _. ��4�a � '. •11�ij;O.1L02'7"r.11-li�5'0.09� A�CI--IITECT, Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 • The proposed design is not s}�mpathetic to the neighborhood or to the adjaccnt houses. • The second floor mass needs to be setback equally on both sides. • The roofs are too complicated and need to be simplified; too many roof forms and too many gables. Why the "Bituman" roof at the rear? • The elevations are not consistent with one another. • Thc front colwnns are too heavy in appcarance. e Qucstion the use of diamond grid windows on front elevation. • The garage design is not consistent with the house as to roof pitc� overhang and fascia treazment. Why is the garage door so high? RECOMMENDATION The plans shall be cevised and resubmitted for further review. Time: 1 % hours RE�Ei VE c/T SFP 0 3 1999 PCA�N N� � N�ti f� t_ � . �p �: �'6�; �+,c�{,C� P��..ii J � U-,r_,�r•�+.'FA:a C _c:yc.M A. �'«� X��. �.t. -- �- - = - 9812124/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 30, 1999 TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner City of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger; FAIA RE: 1108 Vancouver Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED September 24, 1999 (Received September 27, 1999)- COMMENTS Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 I. SHEET No. A 1.1 (Title Sheet) • 2"a Fioor Area shown on Project Data doesn't agree �v�th floor area shown on Second Floor Plan, Sheet No. A22. 2. SHEET No. A2.1 (Site/Roof Plan) • Roof plans for house and garage don't agree with Exterior Elevations, Sheets No. A3.1 & A32 3. SHEET No. A2.2 (Floor Plans) • As discussed at meeting, "notch" between RB 2& RB 3 should be eliminated. (not functional because of lack of access to balcony) • Fireplace chimney� shown on second floor plan doesn't coincide with fireplace sho�tin on first floor plan or eJcterior elevations. • Variance required for increased FAR. 4. SHEETS No. A3.1 & A32 (Elevations) • Elevations are too busy; banding doesn't appear to be completely worked out. Ornamentation should be simplified. • Design Reviewer still recommends 8'-0" plate height for second floor in order to rcduce mass and impact on lower adjacent structures. • Roof overhangs on sides should respect breaks in exterior wall surfaces. • Garage elevations still don't relate to house. RECOMMENDAT'ION R E C E f�` E�� The plans shall be revised and resubmitted for further review. OCT 0 5 1999 Time: 1.5 hours (9/2/99) Time: 3 hours (9/29/99) Tota1 Time 4.5 Hours CITY OF BURLINGAf�IE PLANNING DEPT Paul J Gumbinger, FPJA Presioeni £u CEO Noemi K. Avram, AIA Pssociate GUMBINGET� ASSOCIA�S � c� F?�� r ! En��. ,wt 300 San ti�t��. C� ��u01 � f��50) i9-�d02 • TEL (Gill 5 -0cq� t-N�Od. C]��Il?kX75SCt:�001.com Af�CHITECTS Oct-12-99 08:57A Gumbinger Associates 650 579 1402 P_10 98121.24/2.7 MEMORANDUM -.tif'E1+iiiCYP , �IMIi! w = = GUM�NGH � = = ASSOCIAI�S __._._ �� r;, ,:� ,..,��,.. � �., ;�� .,��,•,�,�., �:� � � F �„ �: -, , . , , � ,; .� E.:,�:�� .,��,..�,�.,�, ,. � � AI�G--IITECTS DATE: October 12, 1999 TO: Pcter Lam Architects, LTD Sent Via Facsimile 41i-777-5242 FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA RE: 1108 Vancouver Avenue BurIingame The following are comments in response to your Fax Memo of October 1 I`h with attached floor plans, elcvations and roof plan 1. Offset between BR2 & BR3 is better defined. 4. 5. 6. 2. Fireplace chimney shown on second floor plan doesn't appear to coincide with e.�cterior elevations. 3. Banding is better; however, still don't understand need for wide bands under front gable roofs. 8'-0" plate height still recommended for second floor (ceilings can be "popped" for greater height). Why arc roofs a[ second floor insets treated differently on each side of house? A"rectangular box" garage is not desirable. Garage design needs to compliment house; check need for parapet wall on property line with Building Official. Time2 Hours CC: Janice Jagc►ski, City of Burlingame 0 "l�.i _I (iUrf'i?fl.l��a F�l�+ �.�ta, w•i �� ;t :. r � V ,, r�, h ; �vn ;n , =J� n'�� r'i.Y, Oct-14-99 11:43A Gumbinger Associates 98121.24/2.7 650 579 1402 P_O1 � � � -.= GUM�NGE1� -� � ASSOCIAIES � t0 E1' ;tir0 r..✓e-''u�� _ria �i�.� SCr'✓�]t,-. .. -�.._., F,, .5�) 5' .:l • -=L If,; � ,�� , _ E� Sn.^, y`i�r�^�Sa: •. �� i �n, . _ R E C E i`� �� A�CHITECTS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 14, 1999 TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner City of Burlingame OCT 1 4 1y99 CITY OF EUR�1��f�9E PI_P.N�JING DEPT FROM: Paul ]. Gumbinger; FAIA RE: 1108 Vancouver e Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED October 12, 1999 (Received October 13, 1999 BACKGROUND Sent �'ia Facsimife 342-8386 • The Design Reviewer received the original plans on September 1, 1949. • A memorandum dated September 2, 1999 containing Preliminary Comment� �� sent to the staff planner. • On September 21, 1999, the Design Revie�ver met w�th the applicants, appli�ants' architect and staff planner. • The Design Reviewer received a set of revised drawittgs on September 27, L999. • A memorandum dated September 30, 1999 containing futther comments (Sheet by Sheet) was sent to the staff planner • A fax memo w�th revised floor plans, eleva2ions and roof plan from the appllcants' architect was received on October 11, 1999. • A mcmorandum dated October 12, 1999 in response to Far Memo and dra�4ings was sent to the applicants' architect and staff planner. • Revised dra�vings �vere received October 13, 1999. COMMENTS The applicant 6as responded to many of the Design Reviewer's concerns; i.e. r�ducing the 2"d floor plate height, simplifying the roofs and omittiog most of the banding. But t�e fact remains that the proposed design, as pointed in the Design Reviewer's first mer{�orandum, is not sympadietic to the neighborhood or to the adjacent houses. The st}•le is mo�crn in a traditional neighborhood. T'he exterior design appears to be driven by the floor plan. There has been little �ttempt to break up the mass to reduce the visual impact. There is a composite selection o$elemcnts which don't appear to harmonize with one another. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review recommends that the house be redesigned to better harmonize ��ith the neighborhood. Time: 1 hour ':�..' Cu^�•c:�',�� =�ia Pir'-5 �• �r t J C i C .� �i^,' �. ::� rCn'� %J� %�.S:�:iJ'P � I i. ��_______'__'..___-_-�.... _".___._. � � il , , �I� I M I (nl i [� OI �;.i . i -"�I\ �JE I I C'J � ' I I J, I� f-il � i - -- � CJ I � � _ i �p��. i-�r�;- cl 7li i , ��r '_ _ I I �� ,� �� _,F- . � F , , i+NiS� ��_,r� i �; ,� i ' I � � 4��I � I :_ ,'� - - -1-- --- � --- � � j _ fLl;l � ; i : i =j�l<?�r�;� a i,�� , G 1.. I }% i II -_� �� -v _ � �; � I i, ---- �� Z � C;.r, ,�� G� I I � I ' l, � - �� C� I� �! I /�v� , ( 9 , � 99 �'' Q QI� a ,�i I � ,� N i � 0 i 0 �� ' - _ __ i -_--_-____-..._--.Y ___� � ^ � � � � '� �'r'� ' I w �� I � � � � � �--- ui;-� I Z ,��ti(' �� - , r� —�c��j�`�N� � /FO \ —J_ L_--_ _L_ �G� —\— — — ,,�-- a'� {�� I � I � '�',1;NG�� I��- „ � � , _ �. �. ; . � � � I I -- - - � , �� ` w� I� ------ - _ � i�,.�: �,� I', ------ � I �� "c � ' i � - ' I �i�� ,G� �� ; ; I = � I �I r— ' �� - � I � �� I� i � � �i�,":�,�, -� i,. �' � � i �� ,aV II : � I i � /�� , i il V. 'L � -��- --- - ,� � I �� I � I � � I' a ��.:� � � I � n Sn!:; G- � � � L,� ��J a �ao�N � ' I �� I � � � u��EF roo� � � � � ! F�o,r ,_r,Nc � � � i ' ni_F ' � / i i � �� ; I � � _ �i� � � � I I 'k—'ic- EXISTING TO BE P,E UPPEF, B �iNc r �� W ,. � U i Pp r�� I!.�— I /u�; � Z I � �I I.�; S` [i F LR 5`%;ae '�- �� FLAT CON� , , . � � �Ro, I � � TILE �� -- ` ' SO �' - �� L - - �- - -�a i - � - � - � r - 5G �?`' w �I �----� � ;, I —�-�r 1- � ' ' I �� I�+T� �� -11 �-I,- � ; 5�,��' ri �� , ' _��o�� .��`�� ! ��EP PqOF � � � � I —r — - � i T � /�- _ - _ �-' , .- i p / Ti r `6�� I � '� _ � � ,:=�f )N�. 5y. J�� 0� � � I- - . �� G � � P.1V_RS I ! � � � I LANGSCAPE �.. . �NDSCAPE I I� I R I h�pJ�� LI FROPERT'r LI1iI�:__, 50� NSSO4'W ��R��N� . i �_��-,,��- i-< - - - � - - - - - -- � I a' w,a�� ' " ,� ' �, 8"a PO�E 1 ` � , `, � � \ � ___— -- :.:..-Y---- ' ��, , � N Ew �i7 wATER� `� , ��. � i�'_�i" , "�1ETER • . rr r: �C�WE� E � � � - 1 -6"¢- TRE 5.0 3 FT. HI -- IRON RAILING DECLINING — �NVELOPE ` -'�_/ / RAISEG - � _?�I�.�_.G, Tl"'r' � i / / � i �,� z i= I Q w Ia �� ti ,7 ` 5�.5` �-.�� s i- 1�, I i� q �,,�_��, ��„�,,,, PN� Di�i>P W��T E��_��//�T��_�N � I o9 o z�'-o.. G�o�`jO �EAS E M ENT � G�o�� -----------i--------- � i i �I � � � �� GAR GE �o I � ol i � I I� � �I I � FLiAT CONC. w p � TII�E z� ,— N � � FINISH FLO( J % � g"Q ORANGE TREE �' � � +51.8 �, . �� // � �, � I— --------- �I ;� p� o� \� � � II� � �� _ —'; II n SEE I � — � �_� LAN SCAPE ' � PlA � � � z h� e�0 5, J�,o I I G��v G�0 ��_-�•� � 35 -0" t0'-9.. I � � � � I 5�0�� I �F � 5S J�O o � L �a 5�' J�� 53 � v - � ``�� — —1'--- — -- c,'S � � � S��Jc � 0 w � � �Ic i I � � � :� N � � Z� � -- �� i�--�� (7i�'� // �} � ��1`�� o � � 4' WALK � �� / ��A i I I / � �\ r o ' g"m PO E ; ' . � i, I � �' � �_ �4� O � � I ��0�� 'II i �� II � 1108 F— ' IBITUMAN ROOF i _ J I I � � �I ---1 �- i � � i I II � � I UPPERI RbC FLAT coh� TILE I I I o i � N �n EXIS I TO E ,I I � N w U z w B O O � � w � � o�� t° u� �� M j IN Q � O Q � � EXI TO r � � I I�UF LiP ;i ','� i � � I I � W � z \ � ' —� �— ��I � � UPP ROOF I 0. J 55' vN� � �FLAT CONC. I IGRD 50LR G�o I� TILE � '� L--- --� ,-�-�-- — r 6�� w � �'�' �,�� e I � T hF�J�O � � � J - ° I ,� 5 ��° � LO ER ROOF -�C�C��'�� GF` --- -=��'`'�---- I o �, � i —�-- - 56 ��p 56 J�0 ��o�a� � � ! �-;-��`_�� GR� G�`O I � PAVERS � � � � LANDSCF�PE `' LANDSCAPE l' I � I I _� !'.-�.'� � -' '' �55 J�O I 55�J�� I PROPERTY ��:C1NE�L-`��'�- 50' N55'04'W _.._ —_ c,�� — �L — — — — --�r°--= � — � � - — /� NEW D� �ss � i, 1�,_�„ �� c��.., � STUCCO, TYP. PNL DOOR WEST E�EVATION ( �RONT 85.0 S�P-}-e„�,�„� z�t , �� °� RHIJLV ""�•" •'""" i --- -- --��- - -- o J rT. Hi � IROI� P,AI�ING .� — . -� -� — --' l° � ' � I � ,2.rr�. tJ ti t� ��L�' 'Gl n •�� N 2fv0 f�ppF � � G, - - . � - 1. 1 i � � � QJ � � �� tv L' � 4 IO � C I �� GROUNG R�JO � � t 1+� i EO — SiuCCO. NG. ---- --------8�_0, ,� � --�e SrUCCO 6- CUT/f R !10' FASCIA iS� 4' SRICCO iRIM �_- - - _ ��.��._ � - - - - - - - — F B.9 _ /� 1 �� ^ -"5 " � -- I . — 1_6.. I I - I � 5 7.5 SDUD YK70D �\'C TJP 0� CURB SS.SS vNL OOOR WEST ELEVATION ;FRONl') //o�}' �/Q�u,��c�, /��///%% ��`"" �EASEMEN I � %G�� 3 --------------�----------- ''' ' � I � � � � I �� GAR�IGE oi i �� = � Roo � �i . i � -� N w � "� , = �� FIN! H FLOOR � „ � g"� ORANGE TREE � +s.a �, � /�' �1 I � a ' � �� EXISTING B� �\ � �� I w ; I.'�� TO BE REti � �, l. e_: � - - � � � v' SEE �—� 1 � \ � �� LAN SCAPE ' �I i � � P LA . �w � ----- , I � Z � ','`'� ��o�`'� � �o � �R` �R v �, 4�-6" � 35 -0 �0 -F�� I � � 53 �iN/ w � G��V z �j� �G W g'�� NO }3 �0 . 4�0� �'- C4tOJ SFvOv - - _ _.� c>._ _ G . � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � O h� I I i G�p�ao I� CJ� I , I I� Z � i � i � ------ I-� 539 �O I � I I Ga�� I �' I y I I o , L wi � �� i h�5 �,o i � � ,�i � � 8 � � � -� �� I � �o I � � > �cMn I, � '- - � � I a - � o o � � i Q �� —EXISTING E ' S4p�N0 � I �-- 70 BE REi �� , � � T�� _'� _ '�-'� I i UPPER Bl, �. _ I � LINE ' // � � i� I FLAT�CO�� I � � TI�E �/ ;J I I w \\ z �� / � _ UPPER ROOF�� s �� i I 5g �' ,�p � J I T ET CONC. � i /� i GFyOV� I� J,_�..��__ . l .. - - - �._ - - - -� _,T . �. � ' h6� t0 W . _ . �L L. .�-� - - - � 9 � � � \ � r J t_ � ' . . 550JN� � a. �oJ�, R JNo � I�ewEa �oec J �� LLLL` � �_ G� --1 LOWER Bl �'�--- i i r---- �_,_._�� o � � �� 0 � �� g6 � JNO g6 � J�� o �o�� ,� ��_��.�-� c,�o a�° I pc�-o�.iAZ�[�9� .°' : � j I iF' � � � N � � I o� � � I LANDSCAPE ,�� LANDSCAPE � I I � �.��LC_i � �� __��, � qb � �_L�_��.i_�.0 � 59�0 5 ��°�� LI _ PROPERTY �� 50' N55'04_W __^ �R°J � ,�1�LLL. �� _ � \\ �/�^ �\\ o � I 4' WALK �/ �\ / \\ 0 8"0 PO E 1 �' / � � �. � , � � i h5ry� WATER �� /// N?W 0' \�� SS�,,- ��-6"� TREE . c . ._Y�., � _- O I � O I ,TCH �o � I I� N - O ` I 0 I o� ��I �.� o�+d� �z, ��a� WEST ELEVATION (FRONT 0 STUCCO, TYP. PNL�DOOR � , .� �� ," �_ . . Item # :'' Design Review For New Two-Story Single-Family Resi�lence 1108 VANCOUVER- PROJECT SITE , STUDY ITEMS MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers �� APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1108 VANCOiJVER AVENCJE, ZONED R-1. (T. PETER LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI NADEEV, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. C. Boju�s noted that he lived within 300 feet of this project and he would abstain from any discussion of this project. The commissioners then asked: why is there a parapet wall on one side of the proposed garage structure; will the second floor casement windows shown meet the emergency egress requirements for bedrooms; the applicant should reconsider the design fo the house, as shown it does not tit the neighborhood; the driveway paving width is shown at 9 feet, is 10 feet required; what type of windows and window trim will be used throughout; none of the houses in the neighborhood have second story balconies or stucco columns, would the applicant explain how these are compatible; it is good that these plans are more schematic, means that there is more room to change the design at less expense; neighborhood compatiblity is an issue, applicant should e�lain how the height, bulk, mass Y1t with the adjacent properties; there are inconsistencies in the drawings which need to be tixed, the roof plans do not match the elevations, there are appendages shown on the elevations which are not shown on the proper elevations; the balcony on the front of the building and the columns it sits on need attention, the balcony violates the roof plane of the gable roof, they need coordination; the quasi-columns holding up the balcony are not appropriate forthe eharacter of the neighborhood, there is nothing similar with such a large entry and large columns in the immediate area; items which need addressing for compatibility are: balcony, large entry, massiveness of the columns, purpose of the garage, garage door size- needs to be split into two single doors; the windows are inconsistent in terms of size, scale and proportion. There were no further questions from the commission and the item was set for public hearing at the meeting of November 8, 1999, providing the applicant is able to respond the the questions in time. APP�,,ICATION FOR GEN�RAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE I.AND USE DESIGNATION FROM SHOPp�NG AND SERVICE EOMMERCIAL TO OF�ZCE USE, REZONING FROM THE G1, SUBAREA A ZONE DISTRICT TO THE G1, SUBAREA B-1 ZONING'�?ISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A REAL ESTATE OFFIC�'s.ON THE FIRST FLOOR-0F AN EXISTING �FFICE BUILDING AT 320 - 350 PRIMROSE ROAD, ZONED G1, SUBAREA A. (PRIMROSE PLAZA PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWN�R) � CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report��d the commissioners a�slced: how many full time and part time employees would in the bank,'�aompare this to the pt'e�osed number of employe�for the new use; does a conditional use permit go with the propeny the tenant; what i�the total square footage ix;the building and the total square footage of leasable space; if the buil were to conform parking how much would need to be provided on site. There were no f�trther questions from the commission. Th�m for public hearing on Wednesday, November 10, 1999. t , City of Burlingame ITEM # f� Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1108 Vancouver Meeting Date: November 8, 1999 Request: Request for Design Review for new two-story single-family residence with detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Peter Lam, AIA APN: 026-183-170 Property Owner: Dmitri Nadeev Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: August 18, 1999 Project Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of Design Review for the construction of a new two-story, five-bedroom, 2980 SF single-family residence with a detached 438 SF 2-car garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1010 SF one-story house, with two bedrooms and a detached 600 SF, two-car garage, and construct the new two-story residence. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D FY : :C� Front: Ist flr 2rtd flr Side (left): Sirle (right): Rear: Ist flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: PARKING: HEIGHT.• �: • 21'-10"" 4' -6" 9'-6" 46'-3" 44'-9" 34.5 % (2076 SF) 3418 SF/ 56.9 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20'-11" x 20'-11" + 1 unc. in driveway 23'-0" 16'-0" Block Average = 18' -6" - 20' -0" 3' -0" 13'-0" 54'-0" 27. 8 % (1670 SF) 1610 SF/ 26.8 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30') + 1 unc. in driveway 1-story 4'-0" 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (2400 SF) 3420 SF/ 57 % FAR 2 covered in garage (10'-0" x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' stories PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D DH meets requirements ENVELOPE: N/A see code This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that a property survey is required to confirm the corners of the parcel, and all roof drainage including the garage shall be drained to the front street (Vancouver Avenue). The Fire Mazshal notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that the garage walls within 3'-0" of the property line shall be 1-hour construction, and that no openings in the walls aze permitted within 3'-0" of property lines. The Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: The Design Reviewer reviewed the most recent set of plans that were revised in response to the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the Study Meeting on October 25, 1999. He determined that the design of the project had improved from the eazlier submittals and that the applicant had addressed many of the Planning Commission's concerns, but the proposed new house still does not appear to be compatible with the architectural style of the existing houses in that neighborhood. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer did not make a speciiic recommendation. However, he stated that the proposed new house does not appear to be compatible with the architectural style of the existing neighborhood, which is one of the five findings required to approve a design review project. Study Meeting: At the October 25, 1999 Planning Commission study meeting the Commission stated they were concerned that the design of the proposed house was not consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. In response, the applicant removed the columns and balcony from the front elevations; reduced the height of the structure by 4'-0" to 23'-0" and changed the roof pitches to hip roofs to reduce the apparent mass of the new house. The design of the house was further modified by moving one side of the second story further back by 2'-6". A stucco relief band was added around the base of the house and additional landscaping has been added to the front yard to minimize the visual impact of the new house. The garage was modiiied in response to the Commission's concern that the parapet roof was inconsistent with the design of garages in the neighborhood. The applicant removed the parapet and proposes a gable roof. The garage retained the double garage door, and the applicant explained in his letter date stamped November 1, 1999, that they do not wish to use a double door on the garage because the middle post would be too easy to damage while driving in and backing out of the garage. The revised drawings indicate that the garage will also be located at a lower elevation than the top of curb, and will appear 4'-0" lower than the sidewalk. The driveway width was increased to 9'-6", in response to the Commission's observation that the originally proposed 9'-0" wide driveway was too narrow. Other issues raised by the Commission were addressed in the revised plans and accompanying letter, date stamped November 1, 1999, that were submitted by the applicant. The casement windows in the second story bedrooms are designed to be large enough to serve as escape windows. Design Review 1108 VancouverAvenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1603 adopted by the Council on September 23, 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. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested design review permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 November 1, 1999, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the iirst floor that would affect the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Peter Lam, AIA, applicant 3 ARCHITECTS LTD 665 - 3rd Street Ste 330 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 (415) 777-1818 Fax: 415-777-5242 To: The Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, Ca 94010 Re: New Residence 1108 VancouverAve Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED NOU - 1 1999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT This is a response to questions raised at the study session of October 25,1999. I. The parapet wall is for fire protection. We are eliminating the wall and use other means for fire protection. 2. On the original plan, the windows shown on the side and back elevations are large enough for escape windows. On the new proposed plan, there are escape windows from the bedrooms. They are casement windows. 3. Redesign of the House: I) The roof height is lowered by 4 feet, to 23 ft. II) Roof ridge is made level to match neighborhood houses. Roof pitch is lowered from 6:12 to 4.5:12 to minimize height and bulk. III) Changed gable roof design to hip roof. Hip roof recedes as roof goes up, thus minimize bulk. The neighborhood has both kinds of roof. But for second story, and keeping roof style consistent, roof design is kept to hip roof design. IV) Upper level mass is minimized by having one room set back 2-1/2 ft. more than the other. The balcony is removed, so is the column. V) With the balcony removed, the lower roof is continue to slope up the second story wall, minimizing the second story height and bulk. VI) The 1" raised stucco line is moved up closer to the 1 St floor window sill. The base/foundation planting would help lower the building visually. VII) Garage: The garage grade is 4 ft. lower than the side walk. From the street, the garage door size would have minimal impact. Separating the garage door into two would be impractical. The middle wall can be damaged easily. We hope we have addressed the concerns of the commission with this revised design. Submitted by, �/�� T. Peter Lam, AIA Nov-03-99 09:12A Gumbinger Associates 650 579 1402 P_O1 � � 98121.24/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE� Novcmbcr 2, 1999 TO: Janicc Jagclski, Planner City of 8urlingame .sa*s�,cr. � _._ �UM�NGEI� = _ �SSOCIA�S � ri,i,,.�n,��. �,".,�,., „; ,�� .��,n;��., „ .... �� F„ i-. � , . • �i , , �� , �s�,a ,,�;� . ,. . ,. ;, . . PiRCHITECTS FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA RE� 1 l08 Vancouver Burlingamc REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED November 1, 1999 (Received November 2, 1999 BACKGROUND Refcr to Mcmorandum datcd Octobcr l4, 1999 Scnt Vi� Facsimilc 342-8386 COMMENTS Thc applic;ant appears to have responded to many of the Planning Commissions c;oneerns. The roof has been lowered and simplified to reduce the mass and bulk; the balcohy, columns and banding have bcen eliminatcd and the ��indows have been changed. RECOMMENDATION Although thc latest design, after thrce; (3) revisions, is definitely an improvem�nl ovcr thc original submission, the proposed ne�v house still doesn't appear to bc compatibli� with thc architectural style of the e�tisting neighborhood. Time: 2 hours RECE�VED NOV - 3 �� C�pLANNIN� ��fiM� ,:,,�, _��•r.,��•,:N� -aiH F��:,�;<n• � �� \. ..,� i�i k:-z.n: 7:' i a:A �\:v, . �., ab :� _f��m_-- �' :°�.;'; �'. +` � ��j_4.. .�''�,+`}�f. � 3 3� � � a � � .� M1 : ` � �Fs�� ':L� � `' " e (y.g � � ~ � � r �� _ �.� � �� -. _ ,s�. �.----.��' _. ..:_=-�, � � � _ ,. s iylp+i"�i�.�ti a � � � s�: i/ + `�. �t' — � ..i.r.s,�+F 11/�� .- ��:-'.� - �'S'(? � � _ . � _ . j�e ��<;r� } � �� ` � , i !'+i �i�'7 �n4�, n Z � '� - �K' i ; � ��' �� 'Tt �� . • � _ ='. � }� , �.., --„`r `` ,�. •�di ,► �.�� . -i � i . . J�. . � . ' "� _� i � � �-. City of Burlingame �TEM # �3 Design Review for New Two-Story Residence Address: 1108 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: March 13, 2000 Request: Request for Design Review for new two-story single-family residence with detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant: Peter Lam, AIA APN: 026-183-170 Property Owner: Dmitri Nadeev Lot Area: 50' x 120' = 6000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. Date Submitted: Original Submittal: August 19, 1999; Resubmittal: December 20, 1999; Denied Without Prejudice January 10, 2000; Resubmittal February 11, 2000. Project Summary: The first application for design review at this address was submitted on August 18,1999. After three revisions, the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their hearing on November 8, 1999, where it was denied without prejudice. The applicant substantially redesigned the project and resubmitted revised plans on December 29, 1999. After meeting with the applicant on site and comparing the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing residences in the neighborhood, the Design Reviewer has recommended approval of this project. The Planning Commission reviewed the project as revised in December at their hearing on January 10, 2000, and denied the project without prejudice. After the project was denied without prejudice the second time, the applicant redesigned the project and resubmitted plans on February 11, 2000. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the project was assigned to a different design review consultant who reviewed the history of the application, visited the site, and reviewed the current proposal for a new two-story residence at i 108 Vancouver Avenue. With the current application (February I 1, 2000 plans), the applicant is requesting approval of Design Review for the construction of a new two-story, four-bedroom, 2982 SF single-family residence with a detached 438 SF 2-car garage at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 1010 SF one-story, two bedroom house and the detached 600 SF, two-car garage, and construct the new two-story residence. SETBACKS Front: 1 st flr 2�zd flr Side (left): PROPOSED 18'-9" 21'-10" 4'-6" EXISTING 16'-0" 3'-0" A LLO W ED/REQ' D Block Average = 18' -6" 20'-0" . � , Desrgn Review for New Two-Story Ho:�se PROPOSED Side (right): Rear: lst flr 2nd flr LOT COVERAGE: FAR: 10'-6" 46'-3" 44' -9" 35.4 % (2123 SF) 3420 SF/ 57% FAR PARKING: HEIGHT.• DA ENVELOPE: 2 covered in garage (20'-11" x 20'-11" + 1 unc. in driveway 29' -0" meets requirements EXISTING 13'-0" 54' -0" 27. 8 % (1670 S F) 1610 SF/ 26.8 % FAR 2 covered in garage (20' x 30') + 1 unc. in driveway 1-story N/A 'This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 1108 VnncouverAvenue ALLO W ED/REQ' D 4'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 40 % (2400 SF) 3420 SF/ 57% FAR 2 covered in garage (10'-0° x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway 30' 2 '/z stories see code Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that a property survey is required to confirm the corners of the parcel, and all roof drainage including the garage shall be drained to the front street (Vancouver Avenue). The Fire Marshal notes (August 23, 1999 memo) that the garage walls within 3'-0" of the property line shall be 1-hour construction, and that no openings in the walls are permitted within 3'-0" of property lines. The Chief Building Inspector had no comments on the project. Design Reviewer Comments: After the original project was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission at their hearing on January 10, 2000, the applicant faxed sketches of a modified design to the new Design Review Consultant. In his initial written analysis (date stamped February 7, 2000), the Design Review Consultant identified several components of the draft that required further study and revision. These changes were made and resubmitted on February 11, 2000. In his final memo, dated February 17, 2000, the Design Reviewer commented that the revisions made to the plans (date stamped February 11, 2000), improved the design of the house, and that the house substantially conforms with the Design Review Guidelines. He noted that the steep roof pitch and connection of the second story roof line to the first story improves the scale of the new house set between older, smaller existing residences. The height of the new house would be taller than the adjacent houses, but the design of the new house is understated and should not stand out. The small windows and traditional sills are also appropriate for the neighborhood. He noted that this latest redesign is a vast improvement over the previous submittals. Design Reviewer Recommendation: The Design Reviewer recommended approval of this project with the conditions that the construction of the new house be carried out in a traditional manner consistent with high quality, and that the stucco texture is done in an appropriate traditional finish. � , Design Review for New Trvo-Story House 1108 Y'aricotrner.4veiJne Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1603 adopted by the Council on September 23, 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. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested design review permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 February 11, 2000, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the first floor that would affect the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; 4. that the recommendation of the Design Review Consultant's February 17, 2000, memo be included in the construction of the new residence, using traditional stucco texture and high quality architectural details on vents, railings, trim, and stucco; 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. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Peter Lam, AIA, applicant 3 City ofBur(ingame Planning Commission Mrnutes Januory 10, 2000 On the m�tion: 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 moSaon, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans su itted to the Planning Depa ment and date stamped January 5, 2000, Sheets A-1 through A-2, except that all t skylights in the detached age shall be placed at ast 10' from nearest property line; 2) that the conditions of th hief Building Official, me o dated October 18, 1 , that the conditions of the Fire Marshal, memo dated Octob 18, 1999, and that the co rtions of the City Engi er, dated October 18, 1999, hall be met; 3) that the size of the aste line from the garage all be limited to 0'-2"; that the height of the detached garage to the peak of the roof all be no greater than 15'- ' at any point as measur from average adjacent grade; and 5) that any improvements fo he use shall meet all Calif nia Building and Fire C es, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Luzuriag�called for a voice vote on� motion to approve. T�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 DMITRI NADEEV, PROPERTY OWNERI - 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 with 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 ihe size and scale ofthe 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 RECEIVED Y[%iriges Arehitecture c� 1'lartnirig 1290 Howard Ave. J'2rite 311 Blrrlirlgame, CA 9�010 FEB j� 200� MEMO: CITY OF BURLINGAME Date: 2-7-00 P L A N N I N G D E P T. Ylannine Commission Citv of Burlin�ame 501 Primrose Road_ Burlineame. CA 94010 ref. ll08 Vancouver RESUBMITTAL 2-17-00 (SEE BOLD COMMENTS BELOW THESE ORIGINAL COMMENTS. I have visited the site. the street and the surroundin� nei�hborhood and have reviewed the plans for the second story addition. I have also reviewed the history of this proiect and the previous submittals. I have the followine comments regardine the desi,�n ,�uidelines and the latest submitted faxed elevations dated 1-31-2000. Since many of the points have been made before, 1 will deal only with the changed plans and elevations. Positive: 1 ThP h�iµ�Q µ1Rs��;; ha� hRP�; �han�Ara ni;mPrCI,IS ti:?1PS tn rASYnnwl tn r:'Pl':O'JS L',OmmantS 1 llllllli tI1G 1CLLGJI 1G-�GJl�ll lJ Q VQJL 11I1�J1U�GII1C11L UVCI 1118 �JICVIVUJ SUUfIl1LlQ15. 2. The use of small windows and traditional sills are appropriate for the neighborhood. 3. The change to a steeper roof pitch and the connection of the lower roof to the upper roof on the west elevation has unified the design and improved the scale of the building in relation to its neighbors. 4. The design is understated, simple with a straightforward rectangular plan. This will not stand out from its neighbors except for the increased height. 5. The design seems in general harmonious with the feeling of other styles in the vicinity. Needs more study or clarification: 1. It is not clear what is happening with the triangle and or recess over the entry porch. 2. The south (right) elevation, as well as the north needs appropriate landscaping to soften the stucco walls and the height, where there are no windows. No landscape plan is presented and needs to be confirmed. 3. There could be another vent detail at the upper gable on the west elevation above BR 3. Looks blank. 4. Where is the roof plan? 5. What are the details at the eave and the windows'? 6. What are the chimneys made ot? 7. The rear deck and porch could be a lot more attractive and a better transition to the yard. 8. What are balcony rails made of? Design? Summarv: • Recommend approval of the overall massing and general concept. � ri.,.-:�..t,e +:,,�.. ., ,;+�, .. ..i„«., .,e. ,.+ a...,. ..:...... ....a i,�.. a,..,:i.. .,i,,,,,..t,o a�:.,o..,.,., � ..+t, ,,:ao 2-17-00: I. I have reviewed the resubmittal attached. lt is my opinion that the applicant has responded positively to the points made above, and I believe the design to be in substantial conformance with the design guidelines. 2. Recommend approval of the design. 3. Verify tha� details are carried out in a traditional manner consistent with high quality. Also be sure that the stucco texture is done in an appropriate traditiongl fnish to assure that the house looks traditional and not stucco suburbaq ranch style. Jerry L. Winges, ��A � . ROUTING FORM DATE: August 23, 1999 TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIl2E MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story residence at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 23, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben Date of Comments �•f � (�,I�I.S W�� l�-. �j � a� t' L, S(� C � � � �.�W �%S �UGi'L� . � I� P 2(�.t �. ` � vt,t. �� w ��L.�� - � ( � � �a O � +�.1-- � � . � DATE: August 23, 1999 ROUTING FORM TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL FIItE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story residence at 1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 23, 1999 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben �/2 3� Date of Comments I ) , � � ��,�� - ��- � � .�.�� --�� a 2� °� .�-� - - �.�-. � �;�,�.�Q .� �-- �� -� � E� �;� -'� °"�� '.$ a � � `� , � � - _... ....- _ � � � _ �"- a _. . - . ��,g, �t � � : �, ` .. - � �'�'� � . '`.�: �4 '`'�'i . � �Ef _I`. . f d I�. �[ ,�l,:� . . '"` . . S � ,p N �� / 6 - '� S � . - �� '. ��.�. .,� �./� . . . S.r . _ -: i ��. �. .3 �:t ♦ . . : �y .:,,r-:" _ , cf� .�.' x+� � 9 �34" . . ... - ' . 5 '� .. .. %'�i� lz� - t'•' �� ' � - . .. f . . f `.;`. � j, i'" � a_ a:p _�i..;�`•. �:.n .e . . , , � , :'v` _ � �, ,- ,., 5 - '� - - � � � - � r S� . _ ��. ..rf�� i � ' ` � . �:. _ z • �.�., �t%`: � : + � �t�_, ..�i. j . . � 4 � �� , `' .. .. �' � ��r � . �( ' • , . '°�l- ��. `c� . ... �+�'� ' _ �� ii_ I ..- � �� , �'�''f. . � . � _. � �_� • .. � ' ; �� K .. �p� ' S'� . . - . � , � .� � " ��" i Lr � 1 `{ ��y�[` `!� ,� . y ' , . . . � •. - . ��y ?'i� . �-� tlY i�u/ � . � ' - .. . \ ' ..: . " � ..!"`yr: . -y\ 1 : . ;. � �A �- t � � ,:s � � -'?s� � 4 � - ' t� .. �yb . .� � . _ ,.. , ". . ��4�, $ : ��' . ,, ` � � " � __�� ' .ia . ( ��q�' � D � +Y�/ \.5�. �- - .. ._.�� a . `4� " � � - . ° � M� � i `e '-�...�. � = f _ ` ``i., . ._ .>s� �, . \ . = � _ , � :�;, i �t__ _ . ' _ � , - ..f� . _ 1 .. � :(�.i .� � . . . s � :� �'. ` ` T " - �,,.� a ., , . .. � , . , ?S , � . . . �4 � - ::.( ] _- . . ' • •S . _ �T�p _ ' ' � � �\ . 1, . �'�� . � .�� . S ��._ ' __:. +`5 S` -�,v � g:. . `' �x * ; . �"y e _ . . $ . . . . ... . � � - R.� � -. • C " � R�� ,_ � f r F.q �.. :� `` . %• � . � ■ !� ] � t , CI�' Or B;�''t1L,1CJ�f�.lvi� A copy of the application and plans for this proj�ct may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Dep�rtment at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 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 r.otice or in wntten correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for infornung their tenants about this notice. For additional inforniation, please call (650) 696-7250. T`tiank you. �4argaret Monroe � City Planner PUBLI� HEARIt�G iVOTICE (Please refer to other side) • CITY OF BURLINGAME rC �Jfi�7 pLANNING DEPARTMENT 6URLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 696-7250 1108 VANCOUVER AVEfJUE APN:0�6-183-17� story residence at 11Q�8 Vanco�_iver� Aven�_�e, NOTICE zoned K-i. (Res�.�bmittai of a prv.ject denied with��_it prej�idice. ) Gpplication for design review for a new two�UBLIC HEARING Y anno�_mces the foilowing pubiic hearing on Fi�3:Di1� Monday. Marrh 13. 2000 at 7:00 P. t4. in the F�p�Y City H�11 Cotmcil Chambers located �t 5�1 F�I:Di3k F�rimrose Road, Bt�rlingame, California. �� The Cit of Purlingame Rlanning Commission Mailed March 3, t@@0 (Please refer to otlter side) .' RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desien Review for a new two-story residence at 1108 Vancouv .r Avenue zoned R-1 Dmitri Nadeev propertX owner. APN� 026-183-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 13 2000, 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 Section 15303 is hereby approved. 2. Said design review application is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review 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. DAVE LUZURIAGA, CHAIRMAN I, Ann Kei hran , 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 13 th day of March , 2000 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ANN KEIGHRAN, SECRETARY .� y � . EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1108 Vancouver Avenue effective March 20, 2000 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 11, 2000, sheets A 1. l, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, or to the first floor that would affect the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's August 23, 1999 memo, and the City Engineer's August 23, 1999 memo shall be met; and 4. that the recommendation of the Design Review Consultant's February 17, 2000, memo be included in the construction of the new residence, using traditional stucco texture and high quality architectural details on vents, railings, trim and stucco; 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.