HomeMy WebLinkAbout1108 Vancouver Ave - Staff ReportT
ITEM #
PROJECT LOCATION
1108 Vancouver Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1108 Vancouver Avenue
Item # 0�
Consent Calendar
Meeting Date: 1/8/O1
Request: Design review and special permit for a new two-story single family dwelling
(C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1, and 25.57.010).
Property Owner and Applicant: Gary Ernst APN: 026-183-170
Architect/Designer: Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
December 11, 2000 Regular Action Meeting: On December 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed
revised plans, date stamped October 12, 2000, and continued this item to the January 8, 2001, consent
calendar (December 11, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted that the wall on the front elevation on
the left hand side scales at 10', but the right hand side indicates 9', and that the plans are not clear on the intent.
The Commission suggested that the applicant correct the plans and that the plate height be reduced by one foot
or more to reduce the bulk. The Commission also suggested that tall planting be used to protect the
neighbor's privacy and that the plans show the plant materials proposed.
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped January 3, 2001, to address the Commission's concerns
with the project. The applicant shifted the entire structure down by one foot, therefore lowering the finished
floor elevations by one foot. As a result, the overall height of the building was reduced by one foot from 34'-
3" to 33'-3" above average top of curb. Building sections were provided on sheet A.6. A revised Landscape
Plan (sheet L-1) was also submitted which indicates two additiona124-inch box size trees (Yew Pine Espalier)
to be planted along the left side property line. These revisions were not reviewed by the design review
consultant. No other changes were made to the project.
Summary (January 3, 2001 plans): In March, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the design review
for a new two-story single family dwelling at this site. Since then, the property was sold and the new owner
is now submitting for a new project with a different designer. The applicant is proposing a new two-story
single family dwelling with a total floor area of 3,384 SF (.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (.57 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed structure requires a special permit to exceed the maximum height by 3'-3"
(33'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). The project
includes a detached double-car garage (427 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed
five-bedroom house. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. The applicant is requesting the
following:
• Special permit for height (33'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1);
• Design Review (C.S. 25.57.010).
Design Review and Special Permit 1108 Vancouver Avenue
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Maximum/Req'd
1/08/O1 10/10/00
SETBACKS
Front - IS` floor: no change 20'-0" 17'-3" average
2„afloor: no change 20'-0" 20'-0"
Left : no change 4'-0" 4'-0"
Right: no change 10'-0" 4'-0"
Rear - Ist floor: no change 35'-0" 15'-0"
2nd floor: no change 55'-0" 20'-0"
Height *: 33'-3"* 34'-3"* 30'-0"
DHE: no change window enclosure see code
exception
Lot Coverage: no change 39.2% 40%
2,357 SF 2,400 SF
FAR: .56 FAR .57 FAR .57 FAR
3,384 SF 3,402 SF 3,420 SF
# Bedrooms: 5 5 n/a
Parking: no change 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
* Special permit required for height (33'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that a letter of opposition, dated October 10, 2000,
was submitted at the October 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting by James and Joyce Quinn (1116
Vancouver Avenue). A letter, dated December 11, 2000, was submitted by Stewart and Sheila Reed (1112
Vancouver Avenue) suggesting that adequate planting be provided to increase their privacy.
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed
this project for preliminary design review (see attached September 25, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Commission
recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action if the suggested changes were made.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns and suggestions:
• front porch is too small, the porch size is not consistent with the neighbarhood;
• turret is tending toward a tall, monumental entry and suggested that it be made more subtle;
• 10 foot tall window in stairway is too big;
• there are shutters on the front, but none on the sides or rear, should be consistent;
• reduce the size of the window in the closet over the front entry; and
• reduce the plate height and size of the closet.
�
Design Revrew and Special Permit 1108 Vancouver Avenue
After the study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 29, 2000, to address
the Planning Commission's concerns. The following revisions to the original plans were made:
• front porch was enlarged by 9 SF and its shape changed from semi-circular to rectangular;
• height of front porch element was reduced by 2'-6", from 25'-6° to 23' above adjacent grade, therefore
reducing the plate height in the walk-in closet above the entry;
• size of stairway window was reduced from 4' x 10' to 4' x 6';
• shutters were added to first floor windows on the side and rear elevations;
• size of closet window over the front entry was reduced from 2' x 4' to 1'-6" x 2'-6";
• size of window in bedroom #2 was reduced from 6' x 5' to 4' x 5'; and
• access door to rear yard was moved from the family room to the nook.
Action Meeting (based on September 29, 2000 plans): At the October 10, 2000, Planning Commission
meeting, two members of the audience requested that this item be taken off the consent calendar and moved
to regular action for discussion (October 10, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission expressed a
concern with the entrance of the house as shown on the revised September 29 plans, noting that it does not
have a welcoming facade and suggested replacing the turret with a porch. The Commission also noted that
this house meets all zoning requirements, but does not incorporate design elements in the neighborhood design
guidebook. The Commission referred the revised September 29 plans to a design reviewer with the direction
to retain the special permit for height and to address the grandiosity of the front of the house.
After discussion with the design reviewer, the applicant revised the plans, date stamped October 12, 2000,
to address the Commission's concerns. The applicant removed the turret at the front of the house, which
reduced the square footage on the second floor by 18 SF. The roof configuration at the front of the house was
revised so that the roof slopes from the second floor down to the first floor porch. No other changes were
made to the house.
Design Review (based on October 12, 2000 plans): In her memo dated November 17, 2000, the design
reviewer notes that the neighborhood is made up different architectural styles. The proposed house is in
keeping with an English Tudor style. The roof slope is very steep and gives the appearance of a smaller house
from the street. The exterior materials proposed are compatible with materials used in the neighborhood.
The reviewer notes that the proposed house, although larger than the adj acent single story houses, incorporates
much of the second floor under the steep roof. The side elevations are larger, but not as visible since the lot
slopes downward from the front of the lot to the rear by approximately 6' (5% slope). There are very large
heuses two lots away from the project site, and therefore the proposed house will blend in well with the
neighborhood. The proposed wood windows, wood trim, stucco and copper gutters will follow the
characteristics of the neighbarhood.
The reviewer comments that the designer followed the Commission's suggestion and removed the turret at
the front entrance. The Commission mentioned that the front porch is small, but after review of the
neighborhood the reviewer noted that small porches are typical in this neighborhood. It is the design
reviewer's opinion that the design represented in the most recent submittal (date stamped October 12, 2000)
is consistent with the design guidelines. The most recent revisions (plans date stamped January 3, 2001) were
not sent to the design review consultant.
3
Design Review and Special Permit 1108 Vancouver Avenue
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighbarhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exteriar finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's
December 11, October 10, and September 25, 2000 public meetings, and that the proposed 33'-3" height
enhances the architectural style of the building, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit
criteria listed above.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's December 11,
October 10, and September 25, 2000 public meetings, the project with revisions suggested by the Planning
Commission, including the screening plantings, for the reasons noted in the minutes of the various reviews
is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested special permit and design review, and
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
January 3, 2001, sheets A.1 - A.7 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit;
0
Design Review and Special Permit
1108 Vancouver Avenz�e
2. that two additiona124-inch box size trees (Yew Pine Espalier), as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet
L-1, date stamped January 3, 2001) shall be planted and maintained along the left side property line to
screen the left side of the house;
3. that project shall include wood stucco mold trim around the windows;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof
height ar pitch, shall be subject to design review;
5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements ofthe California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
a Chu Design & Engr., Inc, designer
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes December I1, 2000
� 6. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST,
PR(1PFRTY (IWNFRI
C. Bojues noted that he lives within the 300' of the project and stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report,
12.11.00, with attachments. Planner Hurin discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department
comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, was present to answer questions.
Commissioner noted that there are 9' and 10' ceiling heights, not in keeping with the architectural character to have
a high ceiling, did not address before because higher ceiling was not called out on the plans; applicant noted that
intent is to have a 9' ceiling in the house with the exception of a 10' ceiling at the rear of the house in the family
room and nook, there are a set of steps from the kitchen to the family room; commissioner noted the wall on the
front elevation on the left hand side scales at 10' but the right hand side says 9', not clear on the designer's intent,
applicant noted that the intent is to have 9' plate height at the front of the house and 10' plate height at the rear, next
time will indicate the plate heights on all elevations.
James Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue, submitted a letter on behalf of the neighbors at 1112 Vancouver Avenue
Chairman read letter into the record, letter noted that they are satisfied with the current changes, want to have
privacy, would like to see adequate planting to protect privacy; Mr. Quinn reminded the Commission that he
previously submitted a letter regarding the height variance and design review, would like to underscore his concerns,
house will have four feet of extra height, skylights are below the 30' maximum height, see no reason for added
height, noted that at a previous meeting the architect said he would reduce the building height to comply, single
story houses are predominant in the neighborhood, elements used will make the house stick out and not blend in
with the neighborhood now, there is one two story house which is set into the grade and appears to be single story,
noted that the neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. Przybocki wanted to share their concerns with the project but were not able
to attend. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this site has had a difficult time with the design review process, this is a nice looking house,
only concern is that the plans need to be redrawn so that a 9' plate height is shown, plate height needs to be reduced
by another foot or so to reduce bulk, noticed that the bulk of the building is increasing, special permit for height is
in place to address architectural features, would suggest placing the project on the consent calendar if the plans are
revised.
Chairman Luzuriaga moved to continue this item to the next Planning Commission consent calendar on January 8,
2001, if the information as directed is submitted in time. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Discussion on the motion: Commission suggested that the applicant use tall planting to protect the neighbor's
privacy and that the plans show the plant materials proposed.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues
abstaining) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
��
7. 1328 DRAKE AVEN ONED - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
nAND SECOND STORY ADD ION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND
Reference staffreport, 12.11.00, with atta ents. City Planner Monroe discussed the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Four con i' s were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Bo che, property owner, represented the project noting that
the all of the Commission's concerns have been addressed, ore articulation has been added, reduced the number
of bedrooms from five to four with the elimination of the fami m at the rear of the house, only adding a second
Unapproved Minutes page -5-
C'iry of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes
VII. ACTION ITEMS
October 10, 2000
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY
ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE
APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES
ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT.
Two members of the audience asked that 1108 Vancouver Avenue be taken off the consent calendar and moved
to regular action for discussion. C. Bojues noted he lives within 300' of the project and would abstain from 1108
Vancouver Avenue. C. Dreiling requested 1322 Carlos Avenue also be called off for discussion. No items
remained on the consent calendar.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4A. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY
FRNCT� PRf1PFRTY (IWNFR�
C. Bojues noted that he lives within 300' of the project and stepped down from the dais. Reference staff report
10.10.00, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed cnteria and Planning Department
comments. Commission asked no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuciaga opened the public hearing. James Chu, applicant and designer, was available for questions.
The following commented on the project from the floor: Stuart and Sheila Reed, 1112 Vancouver Avenue; Erin
Pryczbocki, 1104 Vancouver Avenue; Bill Van Dyke, 2101 Roosevelt Court. A letter was submitted from James
Quinn, 1116 Vancouver Avenue. Issues of concern were the special permit for height, feel it isn't necessary and
will dwarf the two single-story houses adjacent to the proposed dwelling; too many windows at south side of
structure gives the house the look of an apartment complex; feel commission has not given this proposal the same
scrutiny that it gave the previous project proposed at 1108 Vancouver.
The applicant responded he could clip the roof and be within the required height if Commission wanted this
change; there are only three windows on the south elevation, two of which are in bedrooms and required for
egress by the Building Code; has already reduced the size of stairwell window. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: special permit for height was created to enhance design and this proposed design is
good example of where extra height is necessary, only a small portion of the peak is above the 30'-0" height limit,
support the special permit; concern with front entrance of proposed house, it does not have welcoming facade,
want to see a porch instead of a turret at front of house, turret is not round like a typical turret, but rectangular
which makes it bulky, applicant has not addressed the grandiosity of the front of the house; proposed house is
pushing the limits of what is allowed and represents a new species of monster-home which meets all zoning
requirements, but does not incorporate design elements in guidebook; feel turret feature is fine and large porch
would not necessarily fit with rest of design; reducing the size of the windows at the front of the house would
improve the facade.
C. Vistica made a motion to approve the project, by resolution, with the conditions listed. C. Luzuriaga seconded
the motion.
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission minutes October 10, 2000
Comment on the motion: also a concern with a new style of monster-home, but this project meets all zoning
requirements and Commission has approved many like it before. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote
to approve. The motion failed on a 2-2-1-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Keighran dissenting, C. Bojues abstaining, Cers.
Osterling and Deal absent) roll call vote.
Commission comment: applicant brings many houses before Commission, feel referral to a design reviewer is
too extreme when design changes can be made by applicant with direction from Commission; would requesting
a substantial change in design from the applicant require the project to start over? CP responded if denied the
project would have to start over; referring the project to a design reviewer is not necessarily a long process,
reviewer is given 8 days to assess project.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer with direction to retain the special
permit for height, but address the grandiosity of the front of the house and other issues discussed. C. Keighran
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Bojues abstaining, Cers. Osterling and Deal absent)
voice vote. This decision is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
4B. 1322 CA� OS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR,DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW
TWO-S'Tt)RY SINGLE FAMILY DW,ELLING AND DETACHEIYGARAGE (CHU DESIGI & ENG.,
Referen e staff report 10.10.00, with,�ttachments. CP Monro�esented the project, revie�/ed criteria and
Plann� g Department comments. Commission asked no questi s of staff. �
�
airman Luzuriaga opened t public hearing. James C, applicant and designer, as present to answer
questions. Commission ask the applicant: big conce with original design was t e mass and bulk of the
second story, how was this, ddressed in the revised pla s? Applicant responded th a bay window enclosure
had been added on the se�nd floor to break up the �s and bulk of the wall on th 'ght elevation. There were
no further comments fz6m the Commission or the dience and the public heari g was closed.
Commission discu �ion: this design pushes
is merely repeat� n the second floor, creat:
to first floor t side property line to re�
Commissio�xpressed during study he�ii
reduced. % i
of what is
a massive, bulky structure,
; the impact on neighboy
design has more simpli�ti
i
�e�d by code; the first story footpnnt
i effort made to bring roof line do
applicant has addressed conc�4ns
look and grandiosity of entra�ice is
G K ghran noted in this case ch�iiges were made, front is no� grandiose as it was, left eleva �'on has more
arti lation to break up mass, adc�d bay window, moved to appr ve the project, by resolution, wi the following
c nditions: 1) that the project,�hall be built as shown on the�ilans submitted to the Plannin epartment date
stamped September 29, 200� sheets A-1 through A-4 and s et L-1; 2) that any changes to ylie size or envelope
of the second floor, which�would include adding or enlar ing a dormer(s), moving or c ging windows and
architectural features or anging the roof height or pitch shall be subject to design revie ; 3) that the conditions
of the Chief Building ficial's August 28, 2000, mem and the City Engineer's Au st 28, 2000, memo shall
be met; and 4)that t project shall meet all the req ' ements of the California Bui ing and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amende�by the City of Burlingame. . Vistica seconded the motion,�
�
C"ity ofBurt�:game ; lanni�Comnrissioii Minutes / / September 2S, 2000
'Comment on t motion: made good point t t small office space is nee d, could ask for a parking var�ance to
provide it the if wanted to. CA Anderso oted that the current polic 's to require an in lieu fee for parking not
provided i his area.
i"
Chai an Luzuriaga called for a v ice vote on the motion to d ermine that there is no nonco orming use in the
bas ent area of the building 340-348 Lorton Avenue a that the basement area can b used for storage for
te ants on the site. The moti passed on a 7-0 voice vote Appeal procedures were advis . This item concluded
t 12.15 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., 1NC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY
ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe presented the project description. C. Bojues noted that he lived within the noticing area and would not
participate in this action. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. Member of the
public asked why a commissioner who lived nearby could not participate, who would know the area better. CA
Anderson noted that the voters had directed in the Political Reform Act that decision makers who might be affected
by living within a given distance of an action by the body on which they serve, cannot vote.
Design issues discussed were: design fairly good, disturbed by the reduction of the front porch, getting too small
for a person to stand on; porch size is not consistent with what is in the neighborhood, concerned with the turret
which also is tending toward a tall, monumental entry, needs to be made more subtle; the architectural style is all
right, this project is acceptable but do not like the pattern of the windows, the 10 foot tall window in the stair well
is to big, there are shutters on the front but not on the sides or rear; elements on either side are all right, could add
dormer and articulation with materials as have on the front elevation; mass is broken up all right; reduce scale of
window in the closet over the front entry, reduce the plate height and size of the closet. There were no further
comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public comment.
C. Keighran noted that the entrance needs to blend with the houses in the area, be more subtle; the nice articulation
with materials at the front should be added to the other elevations to improve the rest of the house; feel that these
are minor changes which the designer can address so would move to put this item on the consent calendar. Motion
was seconded by Chairman Luzuriaga. Motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote and was set for October 1 l, 2000, if all
the information is submitted in time. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 12:30 a.m.
Minutes -15-
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Property Owner:
Applicant Name:
Designer:
Project Address:
Planner:
Date of Review:
Design Guidelines
Gary Ernst
Ernst Development
Chu design & Engineering
1108 Vancouver Avenue
Ruben Hurin
17 November 2000
RECEIV��
NOU 1 7 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEP?
1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF
THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The area of Vancouver between Carmelita & Broadway Avenues has quite a
diversity of homes. There are exterior materials of stucco, wood siding and
shingles. The roofs in the area are mainly a low slope with either mission tile or
asphalt
shingles. There are one and to story homes on both sides of the street. Roosevelt
Avenue has many similar homes of stucco and clay tile roofs, all built around
the 1930's.
To either side of this proposed house are small cottage-like homes. This proposed
home is more of an English Tudor. The roof slope is very steep; however, this
gives the appearance of a smaller house from the street. The materials are
compatible with the area.
2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
This design proposes a detached garage, which is predominating in this
neighborhood. Being a two-car garage, this reduces the impact on the street.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND
BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
The proposed design, although larger than the adjacent single story homes, tucks
much of the second floor under the proposed steep roof. The street elevation
illustrates a smaller scale due to the steep roof slope. The side elevations are
larger, but not as visible from the street, as the lot slopes down to the rear of the
yard. Two houses away are very large homes, so this design blends into the area
better. The wood windows, wood trim, stucco and copper gutters will follow the
flavor of the neighborhood.
Ernst Development
11 OS Vancouver Avenue
Page 2 of 2
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
As previously mentioned, there is no real pattern to this neighborhood. Across
the street are a two-story and a single story homes. These houses are at a higher
elevation to the street, so the height of this house is not overpowering to these
homes.
1112 Vancouver Avenue, to the left, is a single story house. It will have the
morning sun blocked due to the two-story home being built. One consolation is
that the steep roof slope will allow some sunlight through. The second story is set
back from the 1112 Vancouver Avenue, with a driveway in between the two
houses.
1104 Vancouver Avenue, the house to the right, will not be as impacted, since it is
located on the south side of the larger home, therefore, it will not have the sun
blocked. There is a driveway between the houses to add separation. The first two
rooms (one of which is a kitchen) of 1104 Vancouver, will be looking directly
onto the new house. Luckily, it is a well-designed elevation, and there are shrubs
proposed.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
The developer is proposing a landscape plan, since most ofthe landscaping will
be removed. There is a street tree in the front yard.
COMMENTS:
The house is well designed. The designer took the advice of the Planning Commission
and removed the original turret at the entrance. The PC discussed the proposed front
porch being small, however, that is typical of the neighborhood.
The house is tall, but the portion that is high, is very small, and does complete the design.
As previously mentioned, there is no real pattern on Vancouver Avenue, so I looked at
Roosevelt for some consistency. I believe this proposed design would be appropriate
residence for the neighborhood.
�-���7�f./ / �
Catherine . . Nil eyer A
ROU'1'ING FORM
DATE: August 28, 2000
TO: X CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLAnTNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling at
1108 Vancouver Aven�ie, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-170.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMM[SSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW Bl' MEETING ON: Monday, August 28, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Erika/Ruben
$ Zg 2CO°Date of Comments
/• Pv s
/ /� (/ • GL�i (/
!s �
�.
� ���
�� � �
�� s � Gc�
2 ���
� ,,�-��..qe a ��-e-��•
dtic��� /
�/
t aG�� �e--
3 � �f'""` — -�f i,� �
�
� �,M
/
�i� � °�
BURUNQAMi.
` �\�. .o��
CITY OF BURLING�ME
APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMIVIISSION
Type of Application: �Special Permit_Variance_Other
Project Address: �� a� `������- �`��
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): b2.Co - I S 3- I �O
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: �,R-+�5+ �����T, �►-�C. Name: C��-�l �+��i'
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w): � � a - � � �q
(h):
�vc��—g5��
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �-tit� '�st�.,� ���,{z.. , Ir.1C.
Address: �� W • '`�'a� ���
City/State/Zip: �� µa� , c�. . 9440 3
Phone (w): '�45-�I2�,c�
(h):
f�: 345 - � z84
Address:
City/State/:
Phone (w):
(h) �.
fa1c:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
-�F j-P��-lE5 � t�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � � ��'-�� � �� � �'� ���Ll�l�� ; � �.�R.M ,
1} ��i 't��T�-} , LI V l ti1E� �-p� � t r.�C� � 1UTc� � 1.1001� l'F�-6�1, l l.-y 12-F� ,
I�.v►,1�R��, 2 C.A.r2 '�T�Ch-1�D E�R��
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and corre�ct to the best o� my knowledge and belief.
App'�icant's Signature
Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
,�_�s-��
Property wner's Signature Date
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -----------------------------------------
Date Filed: `�' �" "� Fee: `��45 � 't `��
Planning Commission: Study Date: `�' ZS � o D Action Date: ��• � c• o �
12•ii• o0
l• �•o(
Sep 14 00 11:13a Gary ErnstlCindy Cocco
P�ost-it' Fax Note 7672
T� j�2�,,.be�,
��„ �`'-}y °f �u,rl �nqan.2
��
F�. r�q� - 37qo T�a��e�
�
(6501 364-8517 p.l
No. ol Pages Toda s Dale
From � ����'f'(00 iime �� : ,ZO K►+
�� y C��
Company �-n�. De.v.�hc, . .
Laalion
Dept. Cnarge
Faxp �T • �D�� �7e�epiwne� �S-�F53q�
. . Dispositron: ❑ ��oy � ReMn � Callld µcMip
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Fidelity National Title Company
-Burlin3ame
Escrow No. d008912-Jq
Title Order No. 04008912
When Recorded Mafl Document
and Tax Statement To:
Mr. Gary Ernst
Ernst Development
939 Lakeview Way
Redwood City, CA 94062
G
DOC q 2000-090573
07/25/2000 08:00ii DE Faa:13.00
Page 1 of 3 Doc T Tax Paid
Recorded in 0(ficial Racords
County of San 11aleo
Jarren Slocum
Rssessor-Couniy Clerk-Recorder
Rerorded By FIDELITY NGITIONRL TITLE
I III I II IIIIIIII IIIII III IIIII Illllll III IIIII IIII illl
\.� _
���� GRANT DEED SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE . J�
The undersigned grantor�s) declare�s) ►�GMCou,V�- J
Documentary transfer tax is 3836.00
( X 1 computed on full value of property conveyed, or
f ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale,
[ 1 Unincorporated Area City of Burlingame
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Dmitri Nadeev and Luidmila
Nadeev, Flusband and Wite
hereby GRANT�SIto Erust Development, a California corporation
the following described real property in the City of Burlingame
County of San Mateo, State of California:
SEE EXHIBIT ONE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
RECEIVED
SEP 1 4 2000
i�
DATED: July.i$, 2000
NF'�^� Yo RK
STATE OF CYttIFgRhlher—
COUNTY OF N�iYYo�zK'
ON ��`h .�.��u before me, Dmitri afi ev `
� ���+ o✓ � personally appeared /
D r! �t E i,
� � � �e Luidmila Nadeev
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the person�s� whose
name(sl is/are suLscribed to the ovithir inst:ument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person�s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(sl acted, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and officia eal.
Signature �
IS.:T�.�.4 ^I. ?'.'� .
NOTARY FL'RL!r.. c;-,,: �i vew York
Kn. 01G�Gp2;^02
r.�_Qu,�;r�ei:�, �(i.�^: County
. - . �;n' �:} �^��
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
FO-213 (Rev 7/96) GRANT DEED
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
'� CITT 0�
��•
BURLJNGAME
CITY :OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.501. Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
l. Explain wlry the blend of mass, scale aizd dominant structural characte�istics of the new
construction or addition ai�e co�isisteizt �vith the existing structure's design and with tlae existing
stf�eet and neighbo�Izood.
THE PPOPOSED TWO STORY RESIDENCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, BUT IS
CONSISTENT WITH FROPERTIES THAT HAVE SIMILAR GARAGE PATTERN. THE PROPOSED HaGH WALL AND
BUIJC OF i'HE fvfP,SS OF' THIS FRENCH ECLECTIC (TOWERED & ASYMMETRICAL STYLE) ARE MOSTLY PUSHED
T�JWAF� TF'E REAR OF THE LOT, AWAY FROM THE STREET. WITH LOWER PLATE HEIGHT AND STEEP ROOF
PITCN, Tf �E F��OPOSED WILL FIT WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE "WEST SIDE".
2. Frplain Izow tlae vaiiety of roof lii�e, facade, exteiior finislz mutetials and elevations of tlte proposed
ne�v structure o�� ucl�Iitio�z ure consisterzt ivith tlae exisfing structui•e, street and neiglzbo�liood.
l'I-iE PROPOSED RFSIDENCE IS LOCATED WITHIN A VARIEfI' OF STYLES AND SHAPES IN THIS
NEIGHBORIiOGU. THE STYLF WITH ROUNDED TOWER, STONE TRIM ENTRY, DORMERS, AND EXPOSED
FikFfEN THII_S WILI_ BI_END WELL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
3. Hoiv ivill t7ie proposed project be consisterct ivith the reszdential design guidelines adopted by the city
(C. S. 25. 57) ?
TH� PHQPSOED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH DEfACHED GARAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY DESIGN
�iEVIEVJ GUIDEI_INES. THE EXISTING/PROPOSED ZONE IS R-1, LOW DENSITY WHICH ALLOW ONE DWELLING
PER LO"f.
4. Explai�z lzoiv the removal of any trees located within the footprint of arey new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with tlae cily's reforestation requiremenis. W{zat mitigation is proposed
for tlte removal of aiay trees? Explain wlay this mitigation is approp�iate.
NO NiAJOR THEk WIl_L BE REMOVED, WITH NEW LANDSCAPING FOR THE ENTIRE LOT.
sp. frm/II /98
1. Explain wlzy tlae ble�a�l of rnass, scale and dorrci��ant structural claaracteristics of t/ae
raew construction or a�lclitio�a are co�asisient with the existing structure's design ataJ
witla the existirig street a�z�l neighborlaood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties7 If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variery of roof line, facade, exterior finish ntaterials and elevatioizs
of ilze proposed new siructc�re or ad�liiion are consistent with the existing structure,
street and neiglzborliood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood?
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood7 Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will tlze proposed projeci be consistent with the residential desigfz guidelines
adopted by the city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelinesl
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.
4. Explain how the rernovcrl of any trees locaied withifa the foolprint of a�ay new structure
or additio�2 is necessary and is cofzsistent with ihe cily's reforestation requirements.
W/iai miligation is proposed for the removal of ajay trees? Explain wlzy tlzis mitigation
is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal7 If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 1 1.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
sp. frm/11 /98
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
October 10, 2000
Burlingame Planning Commission
City Hall
Burlingame, CA
REC�IVED
OCT 1 0 2000
Dear Commissioners:
CITI' OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
I am strongly opposed to approval of the plans of those
cu�reni.iy SeeKi�l� i.o coi�s�-ruct a new T2S1der.ce at 1108 Var.couver
Avenue.
I have seen the plans of the contractor that are before
your Commission. The structure shown thereon is far from being
in harmony with its surroundings. Moreover, it would require
a height variance.
A short while ago, a previous applicant's plans went through
four or five design reviews before it met with the Commission's
approval. The process should be allowed to work in this instance
as well. The current plans seem plainly deficient and inferior
to the earlier iterations presented in that matter. It would
be a travesty to approve the odd looking structure now being
submitted.
Sincerely,
� �kr'� ��,% �c � cc,�titJ `���
�,dames T. Quinn
✓
Joyce A. Quinn
1116 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
� ��
� : . _ .'
Y:r�. . ,7 � -
1; _' ; .��H�: �:
.. :�5�' .. . ... _ . . !' .. ..". . .. . �. Y..:.K� . . . ..�.1_.. ... .. r. .. . ... . . r.. . .. .�.- -_T'�. . . -r ... -. r F:��.rt`�vY' : �,n'rx!t.h?t�•
� _ �_ �' '''_
., Y ! - . '-� �' � ,,,,;�r ! . - r
' . .t':-' 9'' /'.` . . . , .. - , _ � .. ., � � . . .� . _ . ". . ., '__ _ .
. . . .. " ! � . . . . . . . .
,..:...�.. �. . ;..... �.., -....'./'-.� .:-..�': . . .... � ...� _ ....�.... .. . _ . ... ... . . �.. . . ,. . ... . .. .. ' � .. '. . _ ..
� -�
�
� � , ��
.�b
;
��t��i������.� J�2�,�,�, ���,
J �
�� G, .�/� � �� -h �--��� � -� � � -��y ;
J
� ��, �, ��,. S v.-�
c� l��" ,%�!i L�� ��'
-� L� �
f� �z ����� � J� ���
/ � .� �� �
���r`Jh��•�<-�� h�G�-� t
//G � �J�'��� C� � i� � �'
�?�� �'���� G�
I�E��.��t��� ,:
oEc j 1 zoo�
CIfY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
� (
� Gv � �-� �' � �,=7� � �� �_ I I �.. .E>c�.T
�v ��. l� ��� � ''"° �
�- ��r � � �' ' �.
-1, �-� i � �, � �.S �? S ��� � �`�
G L7�
� �s �<� � l � � �� d �
_; �, -���� %��'- ,
��� �� '� � f v���1 �� �� � ��-
�� �
i� ��% � � � > I li'=� G'`� i.c�
�h� � U
CG;�� ,� �j'1 �,� �- '� � ` '�"
'�fl , i vl � G,�'l � (% , J
�� V.� �%.�`1 U``t� d �(o(�`� �"� �7
�� �'- � h� ,�� ,,v h v�
�'�.`�' � � �, �,�Jv , � �=
�� �� � �;� � � � �, h � s �� ��`'���
�
f� Q l�� �
G����''' � ' �r L� �`'L j �
, -rG� �� �v�
-��� ���; e _ h���� �-� v>e L�,s -��U� ���-�
�'�'i��. � � � �;<����s ��
�%Z.� yJ t� Y��I G�' UG'°� �.� �, ���,� ,
�h� ,Si � � � e 7``f �fD
,.
' � ^� r:�
������
� i - `'
I
.:..::.:� {r.:=:. ��:�.:r�, . ..}:.... � . �. :.:�'� - i`??"'s;»`�A, .,-P�"��.,.:�'Pc+c�+7a?n"'^!g"r'r.i'. i�--'>r:rr...-':s..i,-.:.-v.+.-:— i]^��'('l�n'+'aus?aF��:
jjF/ f f .,
r :
' � . -"� :�:.;: r �.'�:., : .� �.-_?''. ,r. ..ii::.� f ,..;-, f �.'._ � .._i..� _ F.F�,.rv• _ . , � _ ,f. . �_.•' r
.... ,..
r
. . ---. �� ,.. .� .� , .
, . . _ .'.i�.,. . -. . .,.. _ _ r .-. . . . �. ... _-. .- . ..
. ' . . � . . . . � . . . . ' � . . . . . ' � � . . _ . - . . . _ `'. . , . ' . . . .
j
1
. �
, � ... ... . _ ,I__ --__ _ . . —. .— _ . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . , _ . ... . .. .
� �����
� ��,.
, �.
;
,
�
_-�
�i� � ��'.
-' �
���� i ���
�.� ��.
��� ; J �.� �� �
���'�
j�' "T� o. CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� � PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLJNC�sAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� D'..� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1108 VANCOWER AVENUE
Application for design review and special
permit for height for a new two-story sia�gle
family dwelling and detached garage at 1108 PUBLIC HEARING
Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-l. NOTICE
(APN: 026-183-170)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, January 8, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed December 29, 2000
(Plec�se rc,fer ro o�her side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
P�" '?itl't�'�.'�.',i'�'�''�';� 'q�,�''S�qi�'L:"�`R'?�
A copy of the application �i��d plans for this pi-oject m�iy he reviewed prior
to the meetin« at tlle Plaiuling Dep�irtment at� 501 Pr-imrose Road,
Burlin�ame. Califoi-nia.
lf you challenRe the subject application(s) in court, y>ou ivap be limited to
raisin� only those is�ues you oi• someone else raised at the public hearin��,
described in the notice or in l��iitte�n con-espondence deli�°ei-ed to the city
at or prior to the public hearin�.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for infonnin� their
tenants about this notice. For addiCional information, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
MarDaret Monroe �,�! �, � _ _ . <; � ^�
Citv Planner � � � � � "
PIJ�LIC HEA►RONG NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n
review and special permit for hei�ht for a new two-story single famil�in� at 1108 Vancouver Avenue
zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-170; Gary Ernst, prope owner;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 8, 2001, 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
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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review and special permit is approved, subj ect to the conditions set forth in E�iibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permit are as set forth in the minutes and
recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, 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 8th day of Januarv, 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, and special permit.
1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE
effective January 17, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped January 3, 2001, sheets A.1 - A.7 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area
of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that two additiona124-inch box size trees (Yew Pine Espalier), as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet
L-1, date stamped January 3, 2001) shall be planted and maintained along the left side property line
to screen the left side of the house;
3. that project shall include wood stucco mold trim around the windows;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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;
5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and
6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
. w ��,� �.���`,.
ad" ; '
. � . �,� � '�_ `�# '�'�,q f' -
�� �k + , y,� :� . �
. � . � ``' �,- ;;�, y. g -
. � Y•Z � s. L « �t� f �'- � ' . �
� � V� `
��^ - • ,, - -,� �. " `�-he.:. � J � �� �
� ��` _ - ��, '_4 . 4� � �
- .� - ,� `Rx .; �` �` � ` �,
., ,� � `"��� ,.
� �a.� ; ' �
�' -�' • � ^ ,��3
�} � � s� � � � 1 ^ � � '� � �., '-
.��'� � -:_; � • .�•., " ' , � �"`:
,�,9� �Q- �.- g , . ,� : , - �
- t,� � , - 4. ��'��+ �� � � i�
�� . Q � : � �ti � ^� " �
� .�- p ���' �Q t ` ,,,. ' �"> _
..,r �;��. � �� ,s �' � _ � -�
�, ,;� 2 <
,,� � �- .�¢� - ' '�� ��/� � {� �t
� - �ai� � '�'' V f s
5 „�
- � �= .�,, , .� !� � W*
� �� � �:� � �-i , V �
1_.:: M1_ � � � , � ,�
�
'R-1 �. .��.. -.�.,
Y
�r � .. ' 4 �� �. � �
� t � �
� � � � �_'::.- . � . �:
� � �
� - - � �I� W..� '.<-� � . _—
�/ ��
.. Y � � .. � � * . # ,
�
s � 'P,OOS�V�LT -._ ` � �,� � � i1�S ��.
�1-bd0 L , �:.�; /
4y� �. ��;, ,�9
� �:
_ � � , , � ;�
•.��, - � � 03
� Y .
��:.,,' ���/� ,.. � �;r - ' � ,�.
�+ ��� 1/� � ��. -
�� � �
_ .}� �
�� . + ���z �►
� . � �
. -._ ''�8 ..
�:
, , +�� � �_ �- . - _:=iia "
, �� �'�o� y �i
..� � �
,�„ . � �,� „ �/ ,`
,� � � ` _ � ¢ * �� �� , �"� `
,, . -
. /,
� �� � � �f � - Y� .
_ k �" �
�� `�''� _ -' ` \ ,
`5j'` .� { � ��� �� ``�
� � � ' � �,
'`:. ' - �_' . � - � � ��
.. � � '' �a. � .'w ~ `� iaT : � � �� � = , '4 -'
' . "�:. � � �//� .: �. 4 �• ` �� ,
o v � \
�w - ,
GQ'� �_, r��
-;�� � }��-�
Ju�a" ��
]ii
` �� ,
_ � �_. _ � r :_ �.e���.
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Item #
Action
Address: 1108 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 12/11/00
Request: Design review and special permit for a new two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.28.060, a,
1, and 25.57.010).
Property Owner and Applicant: Gary Ernst APN: 026-183-170
Architect/Designer: Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Summary: In March, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the design review for a new two-story single
family dwelling at this site. Since then, the property was sold and the new owner is now submitting for a new
project with a different designer. The applicant is proposing a new two-story single family dwelling with a
total floor area of 3,384 SF (.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed
structure requires a special permit to exceed the maximum height by 4'-3" (34'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is
the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). The project includes a detached double-car
garage (427 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. This
project meets all other zoning code requirements. The applicant is requesting the following:
• Special permit for height (34'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Maximum/Req'd
12/11/00 10/10/00
SETBACKS
Front - IS` floor: no change 20'-0" 17'-3" average
2nd floor: no change 20'-0" 20'-0"
Left : no change 4'-0" 4'-0"
Right: no change 10'-0" 4'-0"
Rear - lstlloor: no change 35'-0" 15'-0"
2nd.Jloor: no change 55'-0" 20'-0"
Heiglzt*: no change 34'-3"* 30'-0"
DHE: no change window enclosure see code
exception
Lot Coverage: no change 39.2% 40%
2,357 SF 2,400 SF
�
Design Review and Specia! Permit 1108 vancouver Avenzre
Current Proposal Previous Proposal Maximum/Req'd
12/11/00 10/10/00
FAR: .56 FAR .57 FAR .57 FAR
3,384 SF 3,402 SF 3,420 SF
# Bedrooms: 5 5 n/a
Parking: no change 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
* 5pecial permit required ior height (34'-3" proposed where 3U'-0" is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that a letter of opposition, dated October 10, 2000,
was submitted at the October 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting by James and Joyce Quinn (1116
Vancouver Avenue).
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed
this proj ect for preliminary design review (see attached September 25, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Commission
recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action if the suggested changes were made.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns and suggestions:
• front porch is too small, the porch size is not consistent with the neighborhood;
• turret is tending toward a tall, monumental entry and suggested that it be made more subtle;
• 10 foot tall window in stairway is too big;
• there are shutters on the front, but none on the sides or rear, should be consistent;
• reduce the size of the window in the closet over the front entry; and
• reduce the plate height and size of the closet.
After the study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 29, 2000, to address
the Planning Commission's concerns. The following revisions to the original plans were made:
• front porch was enlarged by 9 SF and its shape changed from semi-circular to rectangular;
• height of front porch element was reduced by 2'-6", from 25'-6" to 23' above adj acent grade, therefore
reducing the plate height in the walk-in closet above the entry;
• size of stairway window was reduced from 4' x 10' to 4' x 6';
• shutters were added to first floor windows on the side and rear elevations;
• size of closet window over the front entry was reduced from 2' x 4' to 1'-6" x 2'-6";
• size of window in bedroom #2 was reduced from 6' x 5' to 4' x 5'; and
• access door to rear yard was moved from the family room to the nook.
2
Design Review and Special Permit 1108 Vancozrver Avenue
Action Meeting: At the October 10, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, two members of the audience
requested that this item be taken offthe consent calendar and moved to regular action for discussion (October
10, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The Planning Commission expressed a concern with the entrance of the house as
shown on the revised September 29 plans, noting that it does not have a welcoming facade and suggested
replacing the turret with a porch. The Commission also noted that this house meets all zoning requirements,
but does not incorporate design elements in the neighborhood design guidebook. The Commission referred
the revised September 29 plans to a design reviewer with the direction to retain the special permit for height
and to address the grandiosity of the front of the house.
After discussion with the design reviewer, the applicant revised the plans, date stamped October 12, 2000,
to address the Commission's concerns. The applicant removed the turret at the front of the house, which
reduced the square footage on the second floor by 18 SF. The roof configuration at the front of the house was
revised so that the roof slopes from the second floor down to the first floor porch. No other changes were
made to the house.
Design Review (October 12, 2000 plans): In her memo dated November 17, 2000, the design reviewer notes
that the neighbarhood is made up different architectural styles. The proposed house is in keeping with an
English Tudor style. The roof slope is very steep and gives the appearance of a smaller house from the street.
The exterior materials proposed are compatible with materials used in the neighborhood.
The reviewer notes that the proposed house, although larger than the adj acent single story houses, incorparates
much of the second floor under the steep roo£ The side elevations are larger, but not as visible since the lot
slopes downward from the front of the lot to the rear by approximately 6' (5% slope). There are very large
houses two lots away from the project site, and therefore the proposed house will blend in well with the
neighborhood. The proposed wood windows, wood trim, stucco and copper gutters will follow the
characteristics of the neighborhood.
The reviewer comments that the designer followed the Commission's suggestion and removed the turret at
the front entrance. The Commission mentioned that the front porch is small, but after review of the
neighborhood the reviewer noted that small porches are typical in this neighborhood. It is the design
reviewer's opinion that the design represented in the most recent submittal (date stamped October 12, 2000)
is consistent with the design guidelines.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit far height, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
�
Design Review and Special Permrt
1108 vancouver Avenue
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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 by resolution and include findings made for the requested special permit and design review, and
the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
October 12, 2000, sheets A1-AS and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. Chu Design & Engr., Inc, designer
0
i
City of Burlingame
Design Revrew and Special Permit
�
Item # """ -�-
Consent Calendar
Address: 1108 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 10/10/00
Request: Design review and special permit for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1108 Vancouver
Avenue, zoned R-1.
Property Owner and Applicant: Gary Ernst APN: 026-183-170
Architect/Designer: Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Summary: In March, 2000, the P1aruling Commission approved the design review for a new two-story single
family dwelling at this site. Since then, the property was sold and the new owner is now submitting for a new
project with a different designer. The applicant is proposing a new two-story single family dwelling with a
total floor area of 3,402 SF (.57 FAR) where 3,420 SF (.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed
structure requires a special permit to exceed the maximum height by 4'-3" (34'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is
the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). The project includes a detached double-car
garage (427 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. This
project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Staff Comments: See attached.
Pro osed Maximum/Re 'd
Front Setback - lst floor: 20'-0" 17'-3" average
Front Setback - 2nd floor: 20'-0" 20'-0"
Left Setback: 4'-0" 4'-0"
Right Setback: 10'-0" 4'-0"
Rear Setback - lst floor: 35'-0" 15'-0"
Rear Setback - 2nd floor: 55'-0" 20'-0"
Height: 34'-3" 30'-0"
DHE: window enclosure see code
exception
Lot Coverage: 39.2% 40%
2,357 SF 2,400 SF
FAR: .57 FAR .57 FAR
3,402 SF 3,420 SF
Design Review and Special Pernrit
1108 �ancoz�ver Avenue
Pro osed Maximum/Re 'd
# Bedrooms: 5 n/a
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed
this project for preliminary design review (see attached September 25, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The commission
recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action if the suggested changes were made.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns and suggestions:
• front porch is too small, the porch size is not consistent with the neighborhood;
• turret is tending toward a tall, monumental entry and suggested that it be made more subtle;
• 10 foot tall window in stairway is too big;
• there are shutters on the front, but none on the sides or rear, should be consistent;
• reduce the size of the window in the closet over the front entry; and
• reduce the plate height and size of the closet.
After the study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 29, 2000, to address
the Planning Commission's concerns. The following revisions were made;
• front parch was enlarged by 9 SF and its shape changed from semi-circular to rectangular;
• height of front parch element was reduced by 2'-6", from 25'-6" to 23' above adjacent grade, therefare
reducing the plate height in the walk-in closet above the entry;
• size of stairway window was reduced from 4' x 10' to 4' x 6';
• shutters were added to first floor windows on the side and rear elevations;
• size of closet window over the front entry was reduced from 2' x 4' to 1'-6" x 2'-6";
• size of window in bedroom #2 was reduced from 6' x 5' to 4' x 5'; and
• access door to rear yard was moved from the family room to the nook.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
2
Design Revietiv and Specia! Permit 1108 Vancouver Avenzre
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed
is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's
September 25, 2000 preliminary study session for the project, that the proposed 34'-3" height enhances the
architectural style of the building, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed
above.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's September 25,
2000, preliminary study session for the project, the project with revisions suggested by the Planning
Commission is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested special permit, and the reasons for any
action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stainped
September 29, 2000, sheets Al-A5 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floars, 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;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 28, 2000, memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. Chu Design & Engr., Inc, designer
-,
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Perfrzit
Address: 1108 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 9/25/00
Request: Design review and special permit for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1108 Vancouver
Avenue, zoned R-1.
Property Owner and Applicant: Gary Ernst APN: 026-183-170
Architect/Designer: Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 6,000 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density residential
Item # �
Design Review St dy
Summary: In March, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the design review for a new two-story single
family dwelling at this site. Since then, the property was sold and the new owner is now submitting for a new
project with a different designer. The applicant is proposing a new two-story single family dwelling with a
total floor area of 3,393 SF (.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed
structure requires a special permit to exceed the maximum height by 4'-3" (34'-3" proposed where 30'-0" is
the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb). The project includes a detached double-car
garage (427 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. This
project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Front Setback - lst floor:
Front Setback - 2nd floor:
Left Setback:
Right Setback:
Rear Setback - lst floor:
Rear Setback - 2nd floor:
Height:
Proposed
20'-0"
20'-0"
4'-0"
10'-0"
35'-0"
55'-0"
34'-3"
Maximum/Req'd
DHE: window enclosure
exception
Lot Coverage:
FAR:
# Bedrooms:
Parking:
Staff Comments: See attached.
39.1%
2,348 SF
.56 FAR
3,393 SF
5
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
17'-3" average
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
30'-0"
see code
40%
2,400 SF
.57 FAR
3,420 SF
n/a
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. Chu Design & Engr., Inc, designer
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGI1\TEER
X CHIE� BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling at
1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-170.
SCHEDULED PLANl\�ING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BI' MEETING ON: Monday, August 28, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Erika/Ruben � �� Date of Comments
�� C v ..,.,. ,.� p-ti, 73
G'`/1 C�
ROU'1'ING FORM
DATE: August 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
x FII2E MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORI�TEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling at
1108 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-183-170.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSIOIv ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 28, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Erika/Ruben � �.L�'�'� Date of Comments
/v � �