HomeMy WebLinkAbout112 Crescent Avenue - Staff Report.
ti
"� , ��
� .. �. �
•_ ��
,. ` � �-,.
� � y�
e.
:M1
� � •
� �..
�n
t _ _ _
Existing House to be Demolished
PROJECT LOCATION
112 Crescent Avenue
ITEM �.
�
:.; �.
�
,
Address: 112 Crescent Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Item #
Meeting Date: 6/26/00
Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at 112 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1.
Property Owner and Applicant: Bo Thorenfeldt APN: 028-295-170
Architect/Designer: Eriko Stauber, Sinclair Associates Lot Area: 9,653 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density residential Date Submitted: 5/10/00 -
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: The applicant is proposing a new two-story single family dwelling with a total floor area of
4,389 SF (.46 FAR) where 4,560 SF (.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes a detached
double-car garage (441 SF) which provides two covered parki.ng spaces for the proposed five-bedroom
house. This project meets all zoning code requirements and only requires design review. I
Front Setback - lst floor:
Front Setback - 2nd floor:
Left Setback:
Right Setback:
Rear Setback - lst floor:
Rear Setback - 2nd floor:
Height:
DHE:
Lot Coverage:
FAR:
# Bedrooms:
Parkiqg:
Proposed
20'-10"
24'-0"
8'-8"
11'-0"
27'-0"
31'-9"
28'-10"
complies
29.2%
2,797 SF
.46 FAR
4,389 SF
G
2 covered
(20' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
Maximum/Req' d `
20'-3" average
20'-3"
7'-0�,
7'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
i�i7�i7�
see code
40%
3,825 SF
.47 FAR
4,560 SF
n/a
2 covered
(20' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Design Review 112 Ct-escentAvenue
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes in his May 15, 2Q00, memo, that a property survey is required '
to set the corners at the site and on the plans, that roof drainage shall be to the frontage street, and that a �!
special encroachmenf permit will be required for the proposed fence if it is located in the public right-of- ''
way. The Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal note in their May 15, 2000, memos, that the detached I
garage at the property line must be one-hour construction with no openings. j
Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On June 12, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this
project for preliminary design review (see attached June I2, 2000, P.C. Minutes). The Planning
Commission noted that this house has well appointed architectural characteristics and retains the Burlingame
charm. The second floor is mitigated by lowering the ceiling heights. They also commented that this is an
excellent example of a good design review submittal to show to other applicants.
The Commission expressed a concern with the proposed 4' x 8' ta11 front door and noted that it appears in scale
with the building, but there is nothing like it in the neighborhood. The Commission suggested that the
applicant study this issue, but did not require that the door size be reduced. The Commission also noted that
large scale evergreen trees should be integrated to soften the vertical edges and size of the house. The
commission recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action.
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 chaxacter 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 June 12,
2000, preliminary study session for the project, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements
of the City's five design review guidelines. I
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for the requested variances, 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
May 10, 2000, sheets 1-4, 6-7, and L2, and date stamped June 7, 2000, sheet 5, 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 arclutectural features or ehanging the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
Design Review
112 CrescentAvenue
3. that lazge scale evergreen trees be integated into the landscape plan so that they soften the vertical edges
and size of the house. The location and species of tree shall be approved by the Planning Department
with the advice of the City Arborist and the trees shall be installed before calling for the final
inspection required by the Building Department; 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. Eriko Stauber, Sinclair Associates, architect/designer
C�ty ofBurlingame Ptanning Cammissldn Unapproved llyfinuhas
i
a� ra, 2uoo i
design, created an appropriate r fline which compliment e existing building, is con ' tent with the parking pattern l;;,,
in the neighborhood, additi has a minimal impact o e neighbor; submitted a c ceptual landscape plan showing
new landscaping in the fr t yard, use of pavers; b use initially interpreted the eclining height envelope different, �
there is a declining heig nvelope encroachment fr the street level approximat a 6' x 6' square; proposed location�
of addition will not di pt their lifestyle and will ow them to live in the hous uring construction, only one wall will '
have to be opened; 1 not ha�e cost to vacate e house for four to six mon s, this is important to them; actual living, �
area is less than c ulated because porte co re is counted in floor area a lower level at rear of house has a floor,
to ceiling heig addition is cost-saving b ause the existing floor and f ndation will not be affected, will no ave to, '
demolish an ow away materials. Th ommission commented that y were glad to see buildi�ng material ot being, '
thrown a y, it is a concern, but a ears to be two houses joine y a single wall on one lot, the desi guidelines '
encour es additions to be inte ted into the existing house, e design does not belong; design 'ven by least ',
disru on, agrees with porte coc re, can support side setback v nce; addition has no reference to t existing house, '
the urpose of special permi or design review was to all for architectural character and s e, the requested
eption is not for axchitect 1 character; applicant noted th the proposed roof compliments the 'sting roof, create5 �
shadow, this is a stock use built in the 1930's. � i i
Further Discussion: C 'ssioner noted that all wind s need to be consistent type, can wo over the existing hous� ;
without removing walls and ceilings; concerne ith compatibility of structure, thu nail sketch looks good but �
plans lack detail, p e cochere almost appears to b a garage, creates a dark area, battere walls okay; appears that one ,
building has tw aracters. Applicant commen d that if the design review comment re of the existing house, there ,
is little than c be done to respond. Commiss' ner noted that the project needs to ange substantially, can withdraw
the project ' can't change substantially. Ap icant noted that from the comments ' seems like the project needs to go '
back to t drawing board, primary conce seems to be addition over the drive y, goal is to live in the house during '
const ion, may consider withdrawing e project, asked if fees will be refun d if project changes dramatically. City
Pla r noted that the unused fees uld be refunded, but that the applic could apply the paid fees to the revis '
pr ' ct and return back as a design iew study item; Commissioner aske if the existing house will be required t e '
dated and could the addition be ilt o$'those improvements, asked if oject can return to design review stud yes. ',
There were no other comment rom the floor and the public hearing as closed. '
;
C. Luzuriaga moved to ref this item to a design reviewer with e direction that: the proposed additi should be
integrated into the e�stin ouse better, since the proposed proje appears to have two houses joined b a single wall '
on one lot, the addition oesn't appear to belong to the house 11 windows need to be consistent, pr ect needs to be '
changed substantially
This motion was onded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Lu aga called for a voice vote on the ion to refer this item '
to a design re ew consultant. The motion passed n a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica bsent). The Planning '
Commission' ction is advisory and not appealable. his item concluded at 9:00 p.m. ,
112 CRESCENT AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE (BO THORENFELDT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; ERIKO STAUBER, SINCLAIIZ
ASSOCIATES_ ARCHITECTI
�,.
Planner Hurin briefly presented the staff repori. There were no questions about the project from the commission. , ,';
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Andy Romandus, project architect, represented the project and ',
explained the reasons for demolishing the e�sting house. The lot has a peculiar shape to it, decided it was better to have '
a driveway on the south end which resulted in a significant modification to the existing house, location of proposed
driveway and detached garage had a big impact on the floor plan of the existing house, therefore decided to build a new
vnapprovea Minutes -7- �
,,{
i
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
June 12, 2000 I
house; found if difficult to add a second floor and architectural details on the existing house, the new design encourages
permanent improvements so not fixing details in the future; Commissioner asked what type of brick veneer will be used
on the facade. Applicant noted that actual brick will be used. Commissioner asked the applicant if the dormer at the
rear of the house extends above the main roof ridge; yes; would applicant consider lowering the dormer below the main
roof ridge. Applicant noted that he would study the suggestion, there is not a lot of head cleaxance on the second floor, �
using attic space. Commissioner noted that older houses in this neighborhood have simpler roof forms, concerned about �
this bump; Commissioner noted that there are two bumps which. are symmetrical, dormer doesn't bother him, this house !
has a lower second floor plate and still provides volume, nice house and architectural characteristics, retains the �
Burlingame charm; concerned with the 4' x 8' ta11 front door, door appears in scale with the building but there is nothing �
like it's size in the neighborhood. Project mitigates second floor by lowering the ceiling heights, large scale evergreen �
trees should be integrated to soften the vertical edges and size of house; this, given the information included, is an l
excellent example of a good design review submittal to show to other applicants, plans show window detail and the way I
the skin of the building is going to be built, would be nice to make these plans available at City Hall for other applicants I
to see, is there a way to post these plans at the public library, open longer hours. City Attorney noted that the AIA!
association would not allow plans to be posted at the library. I
Daniel March, 1569 Newlands Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, this is a good project, existing house is built onl�
slab and does not comply with the character of the neighborhood, his front door is 42" x 6'-8", would like to seel
overgrown grass and weeds trimmed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.l
C.. Luzuriaga made a.motion to place this item on the corisent calendar for action at their June 26, 2000, action meeting.l
This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. � I
Comment on the moiion: the roof is fine, suggest applicant study the door size.
Cha.irman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at their June 26;i
2000 action meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. i
1225 CABRILLO NUE - ZONED R 1- APPLIC ION FOR DESIGN RE FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STOR ADDITION (JAMES C. AND MI LLE FOWLER, PROPER OWNERS; GUSTAVQ
Planner in briefly presented the staff report. ommissioner commented t the proposed addition is at th
maxim allowed floor area ratio which is ok, b he garage is substandard, if i he future a garage needs to be b',
to co , the property owner will have to app for a variance and it will exc d the FAR allowed and will req ' e�
v' ce and would like to direct staffto impl ent a policy which would ded t the maximum allowed floor ar from
�house to accommodate construction of �onfornung garage in the futurq�do not want applicants to take �aa
a noncoriforming garage to make theJ�louse bigger, in this case it woy�d be 23 SF. �
Cha.irman Luzuriaga opened the pub ' hearing. Gusta.vo Kubichek, a icant, represented the project, ed that whe�
the property owners bought the use they wanted to expand, thi eighborhood is orientated for f'ly living, nee�d
room for growing family, disc sed the parking situation with owners, parking is necessary, gle-car garage }s
required, property has a long veway which can accommodate eral cars pazked tandem, can ad ess garage remodel
later, the design respected etbacks on first and second floor wners need four bedrooms, one estroom downstair�,
three bedrooms upstairs f family. Commission noted tha e concern was not with the ins' e of the house but with
the exterior and aske he applicant to discuss the ext or. Applicant noted that he t� to minimize number Qf
windows on side elev ions to reduce impact on neighbor Commissioner asked what the oposed plate height is, nQt
Unapproved Minutes -8-
_ _ _ . _ _ ___ _ _. . ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
: � ,.,�'--`� . . �
� ,
+
, - , _ ,,
,
, .„ ,
� � � � � � , 1 �� �r
� � � � � � � ROUTING FORIVI � ���� � � , '�,,:
� , .
� .
_ �
� ; �,
. .- � ., � � �
DATE: May 15, 2000 � ,;�
,,��
TOs CITY ENGINEER . I
CHIEF BiJILDING OFFICIAL �
(
� FIRE MARSHAL
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR � ' � ,
CITY
ATT
_ ORNEY �
FROM; CITY PLANNER/PLANNER � '
' j ;
SUBJECT: Request for Design Review for a New Two Story Residence at 112 � �
� . Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-170. ' I
I
. SCHEDULED PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION MEETING: June 26, 200Q , ,
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, May 15, 2000 � �. � '
. � � �
THANKS • ,
� �
1Vlaureen/Janice/Ruben � �� Date of Comments ;
� �
�
�; a � 4 � �
`�-�� .�- �- �
. ��-- �,.� �,;� a�--�' �,,�� ��,,,
� '- � � �
� ��.ti.,�
�� � .�-.�� _
. i '
�7 , �' ��''�G � . T GwC/(t � ^.
����Z��. . i
� �� � � � �
, �� � li� �r .s . �„f �
(� � .
� %
.. �
�-, � �rv�.�' �,,.� �---- -.� ���,.t,.� -Pe � � . ,
� ,,.
�� � ! �
i
�
. . . �t ' � 4 �'ti: ` . � � . . . � . � . ,�.
i . . .. ' .. . ' .. _ ." .. . . . ` .
�
i� ' . . � �. .. , ' � I I
,�� . .. . .. . ,. _ . .�:� I
I . . . . _ .. '^ . . . . I
i. . . . . . . . � - . ' .. . � � I I
1
I
_ ,
DATE: May 15, 2000
TO:
FROM:
ROUTING FORM
CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BiTILDING OFFICItiL
� FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
. _ . _ iw.
_ ,�
��.
. � � � � _ ���,�
,. ,
,
_ „I,,
-� � � � � i
, �
�
,
{ I
I
. I
� i
� I
SUBJECT: Request for Design Review for a New Two Story Residence at 112
� . Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-295-170. I i
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: June 2b, 200Q {
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, May 15, 2000 �
;�
THANKS,
�'
Maureen/Janice/Rube� .� �s�ate of Comments� �
c �
�i��.c9�� �4r ���P�i� L�Nc� ; ;
�1c15� ,f��� � ffi� Go�s� � ��- . � '�
�
,� ���i�b � � -
i
. ;
. ��� �
. , .�
� . �,
' t , , ,;, i
. , ., . �
,,. , ; � ; , ' �.
, , ,, i
, _ . .II
, ,
' . , !
� , � '
, .� , . .
.. . „
� � � � - � �;� � . , � j
_ . . ,. � ., �. �;.
. ,
�.
"' . �
. . I
: i �
. . , I i
. i ;
i
�� .:�
__
�
_ _ , . �
, , ... . , ,
; ,r,,
� ROUTING FORM '
- , ,.,
� ; � ;
DATE: May 15, 2000 �
TO: CITY ENGINEER " ` ;
CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL � " ���� �� � ,
� FIRE MARSHAL P � ;
_SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR � ,
CITY ATTORNEY � � �: � '� j
— �
FROM. CITY PLANNER/PLANNER - � �
. i ,
SUBJECT: Request for Design Review for a New Two Story Residence at 112 � ',
� . Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, AAN: 028-295-170. i i
i
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: June 26, 2000 �
I
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, May 15, 2000 _
THANKS, . , �
_ I
. � I
Maureen/Janice/Ruben � ` `� Date of Comments
. -���-c ' ' _ ��
� ��,�. �S �1 �1� �� � ��- � � ,1 � , �
� �
r��.� � a� 1. h� c�s ��� �.
. � �
�
_ ,� �:
�
: �
_
- . _- . ;
. �� . � ,
_ .
. ;: �. :. . �. � � . : �
� �
. . _
� . �
- ���
� �� � � . � � ��� ����, ��
.
.
� � ��� . � � . � �
� ,a,
_ . - _ 1;
.: � . . , �
. . ,
: - j �
_� , �
��
__1_ ___.
;1�` CiT 0.
BURLINCrAMi CITY OF BURLINGAME
�!." �_...� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMNIISSION
��. .e._,,
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other ADRB I
Project Address: 112 CRESCENT
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): LOT 48 f�% �_ 2q,S �-- ��-- C�
APPLICANT
Name: BO THORENFELDT
Address: 1325 HOWARD AVE BOX 506
City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Phone (w): 650-558-9495
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: SAME AS APPLICANT
Address: i
City/State/Zip: I
Phone (w):
(h�; 650-558-9498
fax:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:SINCLAIR ASSOCIATES. ERIKO STAUBER#
Address: 15 N. ELLSWORTH AVE SUITE 100
City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94401
Phone (w): 650-348-6865
rn�:
f�; 650-348-5062
(h):
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application. I
PROJECT DESCRIP'rION: TEAR DOWN OF EXISTING ONE STORY HOUSE TO BUILD NEW
TWO STORY HOUSE.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given �
herein is true and correct to the best of y owledge and belief
�
. � � � �a G �
Applicant's Signa e te i
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commissi n.
�
'�a l %-�� C� � 10 � �
Property Owner's i ature ate
�____,.�_�__�_��--------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY --------�E �� �.�i�{� ___
v v
Date Filed: 5� t O, o o Fee: $ 5oc� +�# 3� o
M AY 1 0 2000
Planning Commission: Study Date: �` � 2� bo Action Date: �� 2� �o�
LINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
i
I
i
;
L J
� CIT�' OF BURLINGAME
A copy of thz application and pl�lns for this project may� be i�eview�ed prior
ro the meetin� at the Plannin� Department at 501 Primrose Road,
B�u•lin�ame. California.
Ifi <<ou cha[lenge the sublect application(s) in court, you �na}F be timited to
rttisin� onl}� those i�sues yo« or someone else raised at the public hearina,
clz�cribed in the notice oc in «%rittel� correspondence deliverecl to the city
at or prior to the public hearin�.
Property ownea•s who receive this notice are responsible for informin� their
tenants about this notice. For additi�nal information, please call (650)
5�8-7250. Thank }ro�i.
N,Iargaret Monroe
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer tn other sicle)
� c�rr
,�� �s CITY OF BURLINGAME
euRUN�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�� ;• BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
.L'i...� 4�.rr�,�.-;yyi"' ��[� -1 .,, 1 S
nL. L� .4.f".f �'iC.���'F� i�F't1�ii��LJ��.�t1.,.'fE'�Fi
���_���,� �� ��: �����.:��:��z�rt �.ar�� �t���s��� ����x��� �r��t� PUBLIC HEARING
� �-�E�F ��:���-�-����-�r� �.�s,��t: ��t��►��y ������.�►� �� ��` NOTIC�
�.�r r;S�E�t:i; �:�Jr3"i:t�� ysii7�s'� i —I.
ir,e iic�y� t;�= ��E�r�!?r�uame (��Iarrr�i��� 4am�a:.�itr�
�:t�7n�,�,rfc�- lx;.e' ;���.l.na�:a.r;y p�.t�,lic� 'r�ear-•iny crn
t=� o tt d 3 y s J��n e i�� ��i�fd at 7: 0� F�. i�. :i � t rr � {:I�i:f�z.�i,
I_. -i i: }i l-i•y .� 1 S ,- P• r_ ' - '" L. .� � , .
�, ti;c��� �,;:�.tstc�;�� ict�:�ii:ts� �i: �i�r'+$ }. �y{t
f.; � T. 1. � f.'��N.1G �.
1-r til't"va2 rt��;tCI. ;�i�.kr �, l.is�.'s;7f�?� ��t11Y'L+'t"'i�Zct.
i-��I.�`{.�}'
�saii?d J�tJ�? �� �t�Q��� ..... .
(Please refer to otlier si�/e)
�� � "
�� ..
be limited to
iblic hearing,
:d to the city
ming their
call (650)
�
;
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A co of the a licat�� an�;���ns fcir tfiisa`pro�e�`t�nay be reviewed prior
to they meetingpat����e� lan�ng�D�par�'nent a����l Primrose Road
�� � �, �, �� ,
Burlingame, Cal�o ":�`�` "'-� T�� - � � ��
� �� ��.�
�� ���
If you cha
raising on
described
at or prior
Property a
tenants ab
558-7250.
A e. � �` a� � i� � �
� -�����s . ,
Margaret o � �
City Planner
�
PU
(Please refer to other side)
� � �(�. CITY o� CITY�OF BURLINGAME ��- ��
r � PLANNING DEPARTMEN►
I euRUN�nMe 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
i �b„n,,,,,,,�."`� TEL: (650) 558-7250
,
i
I 11� GRE$CEN3 AVENUE AF�N3Q��8-�95-17�
�
�tetion on an application for de5ign review PUBLIC HEARING .
i for a new two-stvey single fa�ily dweliir+g at ND'�'�CE
112 Crescent Aveni�e, zoned R-1.
I" The City of Hur2inga�e Rianning Gomwission i
; announces 'the fallowing puhlic hea�^ing on �'
� Monday, JUne ':26, 200f9 at 7:0@ , P. M. in . the ��,, p tll. ; �
ICi`ty Hall Cauncil Cha�bers located at 5�f �Z����; ;
' : �ri�rose Raad� Bur.linga�e,� Califoi^riia. `
� . �'�,�3?.' i '
' ` i
� Mailed-�une'lfi, 28�' `� i
- •
I,,
� Please re er to other side
, (
f
)
, �
�
i
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 desi�n,
review for a new two-story sin le family dwellin� at 112 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN• 028-295-170a
Bo Thorenfeldt, �ro�erty owner;
WHEREAS, , said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City.of Burlingame on
June 26, 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 DETERNIlNED 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. 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
struciures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building, of two or more such
umts. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review 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 of�'icial records
of the County of San Mateo.
• • 1'
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 26th day of June, 2000 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMNIISSIONERS:
NOES: CONIMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMI�RSSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
112 CRESCENT AVENUE
effective July 5, 2000
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 10, 2000, sheets 1-4, 6-7, and L2, and date stamped June 7, 2000, sheet 5, 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 ar second floors, which would include �dding 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 large scale evergreen trees be integrated into the landscape plan so that they soften the vertical
edges and size of the house. The location and species of tree shall be approved by the Planning
Department with the advice of the Ciry Arborist and the trees shall be installed before calling for the
final inspection required by the Building Department; 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.
; � _� �
.�„� � � � E , ,
! ,,, �
� �� � � � ` � i
_ .,
, .
' � ` , '� ;�{, ° �� � ' t�
w�c rw`�' q :,
� h :� � � f �� � �
� �
� ao q����' �� ��t �: '' m° , °� �.: � �� �p�"�', ' � 1� c, � �_
,.
,
� i ;
. . :.
�, � .y,�. � �yy., �� �`: p
.
�..J . �� . r�.�, # . *�`P' �4�,,� .��b ��'.. # E' f 3 . i {
„� -i ��? �,�� � ,I'. ' ,v �f� ~ �; , c:,. � � ���. �� ���a,� ��
. 5. `� �� � i-.U� �,� ,
i � �`.�i �< ¢r�y �Aa�"': `� �
�` �, � �� � §�
� 's w� S"�.
�", � "� . . �� `'�, "�; �- � ��� y� � $ � �� a :
�e3w, �r /,, � ,��. '� — �"�� �4�` �" ' �� �.� x.�t� �
` `�C! -..
,
.
. � n�► iF ` � , T �u
�� . J' . . � s:' �i;�„ _ ���''^ ,� ,. � � 3t'� u y,...�:
.. � � � � .���,�;'' :��a+a�, �:' � ..«.�. �'i � .,� .-f,% . . a`:�a. �'��•
� `� . � . �y`�a '��' H��s, „ � �°. ��'�� --''�...., "� ��`.-.s �'�' �; ,� , �q'��• .
i �'z � �x • y��� .�"�4� "�; �`" �'I� ��� '� '� � a � p �� e�� �� ; r�� ���.:.
t , ��� �r��„�. � � � � _�§1" _,�y ft''3` � , ,- . :.P �.::�s. ...:w�r �,=,.� ��r � �
r.
� �
, � d
_ . 4 .a
� �` - � ��Fy:�°°� � �°��°�� �� .- � � '
� � . � .
/��, a �
` �L^ gn 1 . .. b�, � . �, ��, . C�; . �� .
E
R "'?.i � . �y'
�a � �� ��
�
4 I,
���� , � . , #_� .. . � ;
O� �✓ �6� N° . .,
<t �1
�
r .,�ti J . �...� �;r � �.;� .:.`� �,�. �.�� "�s�� ���.
�� s
�.;�°¢
� . r. �� �
��' � � � � 3 ������� � � � �� e� � ,� �£� � ; �� ; � � � .�..
�r `� � � '��� �r � � � � � � �'�
�t �, �-�, a � � .�g'�� ��",� � �,�� �. " � � •
„ � . i/'l. . 'J � �`L5: �°` .e,.�y � . ,. � � ; �` � 4 �R{A Y'r � a � � `'°;�'�t �3�' a
4
� � � � 4F�
.,L .. . .. �� ,,�. � �° �.a�. _ �.. ^�, &�� .� s�� � ��� � i ..
F R., a �:: 'a •�' ..� � ?T's- �'d � �, � $ �, � �. �.� ��^�" r
ri �X a $� , r � � ��
� �`�" ' . � � E' -
� 3 �.� `�. � �� �k � � �� � ,� a `;� � �; �" � "`�� � � ` � � �
w,� d:,� v � � ',a� -,t;' �. . �p � . � �`�Fi ��� �/�� �� � 'a
� ` h&g a . � f "i a 4 . ya +y„ . � y. -. . F` ��
� c
� F � �
� �,' �. �p.
+ � "�A�
� r r. F �at � •• . .
� ��,.e � � :� �� � � � � e �
� . . � , �'� - �'�'� � � �,.,�� ' /C � �-
F .
,. e
, , ,.
,
{ _
; w ..
' • � � ��
_ „ a. '�� �
� �
�:. ,
.. E � . �. � L a�4
,- .. �� a. . _ "s . .. ' I , . T � - + _
� � . . � � ' � :.. ? , � � � � � � 63 �. .�.^': ���\ / � � . �'"'^�
:�� � a '4e �` �,'�c", � . , � ��;. ..,� A.' Y .� e�..
. F ° w Y
�" .� � �; i� ,; �n a.
� f
� �� �r�_ �, b � � � � � ; � � ,�' � �� ��'�^�4p` i-� � � �, w � ' vp
b :. %s' � �. ft%:i k �. l 3�.:'���'� � � � -'4a=. .�..� ,� �� I
- '��� . � � ��� , � � ', d r � -� r rE �, <�,� ���. .r�� +� � �r +..»� �`" � .�.. _
#� 4� �y �� � Is�f �4 ""'�w� F.,£:� �;,5 �� . _ «r g,.� !:,
�;� L�+1�J � °��''�' at°� " ��;� � �„ ,�
� �Nl., � F� ; �� � K,
�� �, � � ,� ���K � a� �# �y � �
'` '� "� � � �'�� �;_ ',<� °� � � ��,
�c_ g ,�';. �,.� �•, Q ro. � � ,� , � _ /�� I �� ;�
��m ' �* � � � ��4 ���.� ''`'a s�,�; �, � � � + N ��,,��
t ,� �- �� � � ° .� ,
r'"�" -'� p�� °� C _ � �� ; '� i.!}� � �. `.re ,tr�s w � ,a -
� ,�.� ' � �� � � � r � �4 ����
-¥a � .�,y ; _ , a- � _
4.
' '�",� a � � '�*,� � a '. 6�� ��,d' -, - ,�'4�'.�.� �,. ,{M ,.t� _ � � .�?F.�'� ' 1 / � �' _
� �'8 � .� '� 'iEi �� � Yr_� �'� �,. . . `. z �` � s' 4!
's � � u � � � , at �` � �' - r µ .. �. I
� � �� � � �y _ '4�s,�e� � 4 . y6;� �, . � ., .
y �� ,r s i� y3 ,�' ' q a° v'"' � � �`�' ��' �,.5,� � f $ s 3 ,� � ' (� '#' �F .� y'1t9 i � �
.
gr � �... � �._ � �
�. =. � � 4 : 1 � A �{ji d ' "�' v � d- "y A
i d
��� �,�, . .b 6. � �.
S � �r������ � ���� ¢y'��^��� �19:� � o������G. i � '�� �� ��r..� v/ �j,.. .
C 5-� �F � �'!g'y.[,�,: ��� �� � �S��. �� $i$ �' ��.� �� F �.
y � � a`
( z .T � T � �,, a'� . �"[ `{� ' .,..'a„ *q;�� �� ,. �+.. e �
� � � ,�^i. ; ,,, ;'kt,«�' „, � ��a; " 'F� * � f �I� �
��� . � � � �: � �'"' � "� ���_�.
.�jY��1 �°' "+�;. �� �';�: �; � � a„� °.�`
"�'� � � . ��- �'�� .k'; �� �
a��� + _ •� � .. ' . �.i� .. : ��,'� . ..
x x� a� :
. � � . � �W� �7''"° �$
, � �
4
�x� ; -7 . ,r��� �'� , :. .. - v � �'��j� � .. � ..
�,�.� - � � F� _ �� . , ' �i� a. � � � p �
r � .t9� " � - � ,N, -; ° .. d �,� a' �:
� g, t� ,. W .: �. � � �� � � � � � �. ^,F;�3 4 7 ' �
�` Jw
.� � . :.�,('� k i ' � q..
Y � ���-�.1 , j � � �a.. °¢ �
`�' �, �-� � " � � �. � .� � �
�,���, ` � � . � k � � - ����� °,�-�;�.
� o.s_ � �,t� "��i�� . a ar ��a�a��
A t.
' _ - � : .. . '_ p ?.=s �
� .n ����� �; # e � . i �.�%�i. � �6 �epc�' � �� f�,r.i��. �.: p r N�_.. " �7 � v ', � �� .
.
,k �'' '"� � "'�'�a � , ��� ' y ;� m , '`yaw�� ` � ; a". � -P"a, "�
v `���� � ,�-� � �.;.`�- � $ .,�. �'� �. � ��;�. � � �,,,..� "�, r '�4:
� µ `TM�� � � ,�� , �� � x;� � � : a,� ��, .P.1
� �, � � �r,� � �'q � "'` �` 1. ,,o � r � � � �!`
° � * .°� ��' �� ��r ��y z . `��V, , �,,� � O��/
f:r"� � �W.i. �t � :x�. /` � � _+ `�' .
II . �.r-� �g �-n..'x � ,�-. � .,.d• � � �" �.. t' �� ��1�`�'° '�� "tirG;Q _.. ��.. ��� .
x ... � �sy.t+1 .. �� •� ' � . ... i: J .. ��� `� � � ..:
��P , P ,
g � I
I �
s
� � �
� . .. � � `� � .. �_ .. _ _ . . _ . _. _
City of Burl��game
Plan Review Process
P�AIVNING DEPARTMENT 558 7250
Plan Review Comments
lans approved :[ Without further co ment
By . --� � � . ( ] With conditions listed.
—`` Date : 3/�/d1
Buii ' �
ding Department 5
58 726C
Job Address : li2 CRESCENT gVF;NIIg
Job Description : REV TO 2000945 APplication Number : 2010216 ;
APpI' n Date :_a � 2 � i o � ,.,. Check Date :�� o r
Resubl Date.: • • • BY � � �
„ [ ] Not A d
. Recheckl Date : pp �
Resub2 Date : . . . Recheck2 Date : . . . By : [ l Not Appd
Resub3 Date ; . . Recheck3 Date : � � � By � [ ] Not -Appd
. .. . By : [ ] Not Appd
I �P
' �� c
' (Jue 5
�
�_
. �!�:
� µd 'fl�✓�
co.n �
a.✓e� �.� �ay.�p J; �-
� w�n i
� .
WM1r'1 l� 1 �"1 �
ry � c�.(,
>> For each correction, 'cloud' change on original sheet & provide a revision marker at each doud and in revisi�., tir.,,.� ,.,;.., i.,_._
tPLNG
_ __--- _- .�. �=,��:��.� ;�.�.•-��-� -a -� �:
-�--- -�-�----- -- - :1:�:� � ����<:.� ..��,� -,�,��,,��u:�
City of Burlingame Plan Review Process Building Department 696-1600
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 696-�25o i
Plan Review Comments �
Job Address:112 CR�SCENT AVENUE A lication Nu • 200094 �
mb 5
PP e r . �
Job Description: NEW HOUSE
Appl'n Date: 7/25./00 .. ..Check Date: 8 I ov ..By: ►Z� [] Not Ap�d
Resubl Date: ..Recheckl Date: ..By: [] Not Appd
Resub2 Date: ..Recheck2 Date: ..By: [] Not Ap�d
Resub3 Date: ..Recheck3 Datec ..By: [] Not Ap�d
[✓l�Plans approved: [r�j�Without further comment [] With conditions listed
BY :�, --�� - Date : 8l�' o c�
� ;
• T{��s prole�{- waS aP��ed b,, `+� Pta.,h�'.,., Co►.►„�..s�ss;on . i
d t,a. ca
� P I a ti s s„ b h. �+{ e d -1-a -�-I�,c_ $ �� i:d ;�.
�ans ���„{d
'" 0"VI
,
�v, n., ,' ss� o
` {..� u � r -� �,..v�v�
��/ �� � � A.nni�y�
���� .
��.
i S �-e.+. + w �
�
►► For each correction, 'cloud' change on original sheet &.provide. a revision marker at each cloud and in revision block with date...
� � e o., .
1 PLNG PC ' i
City of Burlingame
Preliminaty Design Review
Item #
Address: 112 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: 6/12/00
Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at 112 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1.
Property Owner and Applicant: Bo Thorenfeldt APN: 028-295-170
Architect/Designer: Eriko Stauber, Sinclair Associates Lot Area: 9,653 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density residential Date Submitted: 5/10/00
Summary: The app�icant is proposing a new two-story single family dwelling with a tota.l floor area of
4,389 SF (.46 FAR) where 4,560 SF (.47 FAR) is the rnaximum allowed. The project includes a detached
double-car garage (441 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed fi�e-bedroom
house. A landscape plan has been provided for your review. This project meets all zoning code
requirements and only requires design review.
Staff Comments: Attached
Front Set6ack - lst floor
Front Setback - 2nd floor
Left Setback
Right Setback
Rear Setback - lst floor
Rear Setback - 2nd floor
Height
DHE
Lot Coverage
FAR
# Bedrooms
Parking
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
Proposed
20'-10"
24'-0"
$�_$��
11'-0"
27'-0"
31'-9°
28'-10"
complies
29.2%
2,797 SF
.46 FAR
4,389 SF
G�
2 covered
(20' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
' Mazimum/Req' d
20'-3" average
20'-3"
; 7�_0��
� ��_0��
15�_���
20'-0"
30'-0"
see code
40%
3,825 SF
.47 FAR
4,560 SF
n/a
2 covered
(20' x 20' )
1 uncovered
(9' x 20' )
�
c. Eriko Stauber, Sinclair Associates, architect/designer