Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout125 Crescent Avenue - Staff Report� :� \ \ ° \ e>r �. . (� °<« � �'�:\ ,� � � \ \ \� \�j���\:. City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 125 Crescent Avenue Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: Terry and Barbara Freethy Architect: Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-293-080 Lot Area: 8,207 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner. in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission voted to continue this item on the regular action calendar with direction to revisit the design of the fagade along the North Elevation and address the fencing issue along the right side property line (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped October 24, 2017, in response to the Commission's comments. Please refer to the letter and revised plans for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the action meeting. Project Description: This proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story house and attached garage and building a new, two-story house with a detached garage. The floor area will be 4,074 SF (0.496 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 4,126 SF (0.502 FAR). The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, including the front porch exemption. With this project, there will be four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. There is one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. In addition to a one -car garage, the accessory structure will contain a workshop/storage area (permitted). The proposed storage area within the detached garage is permitted as long as it does not exceed 10% of the area of the house (154 SF proposed where 345 SF is allowed). Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue An existing protected size Cedar tree (36-inch diameter) located at the front of the lot will be removed as part of. the project. A Protected Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Parks Division and will become effective only after Planning Commission approval is granted for the project (see attached). There is one existing landscape tree that will remain and the applicant proposes to add three additional 24-inch box landscape trees throughout the site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for anew two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 125 Crescent Avenue Lot Area: 8,207 SF Plans date stamped: October 24, 2017 Proposed ! Allowed/Req'd SETBACKS ........... ...................................................................... ........._...................................................... ............ .................................................................................................................. Front (1st fir): ...................................................................................................................................................... 2T-5'/2' ................................................................................................................. 27'-5'/z' (is the block average) (2nd fir), 31'-5'/" j 27'-5Y2' (is the block average) Side (left): j 5'-0" 5'-0" (right): 10'-0" 5'-0" Rear (1st fir): 62'-2" 15'-0" (2nd fir). 63'-8" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2793 SF 3283 SF 34% 40% .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FAR: 4074 SF 4126 SF' ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.496 FAR 0.502 FAR a................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................ i # of bedrooms: ............. .................. __....... .................... _............... _..... __ 4 --- ___......... _.......... _..... _........... _... .......... ............... _....... Off -Street Parking: _.... _................... ...................... _.......................... ............................................ 1 covered .__.............................. _...................... _..._._......... _............................................... __.......... _.................................._............ _.................. 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ................................................................................................ Building Height: 27'-0" 30 -0 .......... ................... _................ _.................... .......................... .............. d...... ....... __._.................... _...... ........ _......... __.... _.................... ...........___.___......._..........__...».........._........_..................._........................._...........__.................................._ ................... ...................... _...... ....... _...................... T DH Envelope: j complies CS 25.26.075 (0.32 x 8,207 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,126 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 28,_ 2017P_-lanning_Commission- Minutes). - The applicant submitted a response letter dated September 18, 2017, and revised plans date stamped September 26, 2017, for responses to the Commission's comments and a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. 2 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue Planning staff would note that the Conditional Use Permits previously requested for a toilet/shower and window within 10'-0" of the rear property line in an accessory structure have been eliminated with the removal of the full bathroom in the detached garage. 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: 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, a combination of cement plaster and vertical wood siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so, that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 Division date stamped October 24, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and L2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the'height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect 4 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue Attachments: October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter and Attachments, dated October 24, 2017 Diagram Submitted by Project Architect, date stamped October 10, 2017 Letter Submitted by Kathy and Iry Holmes, dated October 6, 2017 August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated September 18, 2017 Diagrams and Photographs Submitted by Iry Holmes, date stamped August 28, 2017 Email Submitted by Iry and Kathy Holmes, dated August 25, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 30, 2017 Tree Removal Permit, dated July 7, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 13, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017 5 Cityof Burlingame BURLINGAMECITYHALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGA'ME' BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 1'5303 (a). (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Plans 10.10.17 Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project architect to get a preview of the revisions. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Barbara and Terry Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture and landscape architect Stephanie O'Rourke. Commission Questions/Comments: > How tall is the wood -sided surface on the driveway facade? (Pearcy: Estimates a little over 10 feet.) > Would it be possible to move the foundation so the tree could be retained? (Pearcy: It is a tree that deserves a park -like setting. The canopy is 50 feet in diameter. Over time it has outgrown its location. Probably went in at a smaller size. To build with a tree that size it would need a 20 foot setback from the trunk, which would disrupt the consistent street face setbacks. It is difficult to provide landscaping with the root system and shade.) > Any possibility to push the garage back from the fence or lower the massing? (Pearcy: Has added screening trees to the east of the garage along the fence line. Three English laurels are proposed, which are thick canopy trees that grow vertically and retain leaves all year. There are also three existing trees on the neighboring property. The garage is set back 2 feet from the property line, has an 8-foot plate line. Gable is pitch is 6/12 to match the existing house.) -- > How--tallwill _ the laurel trees grow? _(Pearcy_ Starts in 24r inch boxes, 6-8 feet at planting.)(O'Rourke: Will grow to 15-25 feet) - > How tall will the plantings grow along the driveway? (O'Rourke: About 8 feet.) > Has the gate been pushed back to the point where the existing low landscape wall is? (Pearcy: It is at the transition of the existing brick wall and the existing wood fence.) Cityol'Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1013112017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Public Comments: Iry Holmes, neighbor to the north . - 15-foot high building will impose over the yard, compromise view, destroy quality of space. Character of the home will be gone forever. Two of the existing trees in the yard are deciduous so will not provide screening. Simultaneously three new home constructions will be going on around the house, on both sides and the rear. The other two sides are installing new high -quality fences, but these plans do not specify a new fence. Should place a new fence to match the others along the border. Kathy Holmes, neighbor next door to 125 Crescent Avenue - Large garage/workroom will significantly impact privacy and views. Existing Burlingame code falls short of protecting the privacy of its current residences. Current code provides incentives for building bigger homes on smaller lots, and incentives for building detached garages with lots of concrete. Needs more restrictive building codes. Two homes are currently under construction in the vicinity, built virtually to the property line with no regard to the privacy of the neighbors and no green space. Desires protection of privacy, space and views of current homeowners. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Would like to minimize the apparent massing of the structure in the back yard. Suggests the applicant lower the roofline or ridgeline, or move the garage back further from the fence. > The ordinances were crafted with the implementation of design review over 15 years ago. They were very detailed and meant to address the 'monster homes" that were being built at the time. The current design guidelines are creating some very well -crafted homes. > The proposed garage is 2 feet from the property line, which is a greater setback than typical. > The massing of the proposed garage is like many others that have been approved in the past. > The bathroom in the garage has been removed, landscaping has been added, and the gate has been adjusted. The tree in the front yard is the wrong type of tree for that location and has overgrown the property, and is next to two substantial street trees. > The proposed house is consistent with other well -crafted, nicely -detailed, well-proportioned houses that have been approved based on the application of the design review guidelines. > The community may choose to reconsider the design review guidelines in conjunction with the General Plan Update if desired, but that it is not the subject of this application. > The applicant has addressed everything that was brought up in the prior meeting. > Meets the pattern that the community has adopted. > Only concern is the driveway wall facade, but not critical. > Should add a condition that a new property line be built along the property line. The existing sheds will be taken down. > Have met the neighbors more than half way with the concessions, particularly the elimination of the CUP requests. However the unbroken siding on the north facade is a major concern, as well as eliminating the existing tree in the front. > Believes the garage will have minimal impact on the adjacent back yard, particularly with the ridge sloping away. > Needs to fix the wall on the driveway side. It is too long and tall, and not a good neighbor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion failed by the following vote: - - Aye: 2-- Terrones, Sargent-- -- - _ Nay: 3 - Gum, Kelly, Loftis Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the Action Item with direction to: City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10/31/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Revisit the driveway wall; and > Address the fence issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1013112017 The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the October IOt", 2017 meeting. Project: Freethy Residence Project Address: 125 Crescent Way Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. OCT 2 4. 2017 Date: October 24, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME North Side of Residence CDD-PLANNING DIV Due to concern that the two main level projections on the north elevation may be too tall and that this side of the building could benefit from more detail, we have made the following revisions: 1. Lowered the main level projection roofs by 2'-0". With this change the undersides of the projection rafter tails will be about 10'-4" above the driveway surface (previously 12' -4") . 2. Changed the stained vertical wood siding to painted horizontal wood siding (stained alternate). We feel that the horizontal orientation of the siding will have a subtler look with less perceived height. 3. Added a window at the eastern main level projection. Please note that we also added 3 windows prior to the last meeting (2 at the family room and 1 at the master bedroom). 4. Added a planter box under the upper level, center window. Please see the updated elevations and perspective views for revisions. We have also included the original north elevation (Sheet A5, dated 7113117) for reference. Wood Fence at Northern Property Line At our last Planning Commission Meeting, it was mentioned during public comments that the wood fence along the northern property line could be replaced as part of the project. Please note that this vertical board fence with lattice top was designed and built by the northern neighbor. It is relatively new and looks great. Also, the fence is not connected to the shed that will be removed, as previously assumed. We feel rebuilding this fence would be unnecessary and wasteful. Please see the attached photos showing fence condition. We hope you agree that these revisions improve the project. If you have any questions regarding the above responses or any other questions about the design, please call Mark Pearcy at 650,348.1509. Views showing condition of existing wood fence. Northwest corner of shed, showing fence is not attached to shed. EXISTING WOOD FENCE AT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE �'�,S � � V �jj��. 1�5 Crescent Avenue R 10/25/ 17 OCT 2 4 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSRION SHINGLE ROORNG, TTPIGAL Z CEMENT PLASTER, PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, STAINED. 4 STONE. 5 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUFRIIM CLADDWS (b PANELED WOOD DOOR, PAINTED. i &X& OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. a 2XIB RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. y EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. ee 5.5" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. 1) WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED. 12 WOOD BRACKET, PAINTED. 13 DOWNSPOUT. DOW B DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO BE 5.5' WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO BE 2.5' WIDE. TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER WALLS TO BE PAINTED. TRIM AT WOOD SIDNG WALLS TO BE STAINED, ALL TRIM TO BE WOOD RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. — I I I le 7 AT &ABLE ,m I I 1 1 1&12I I I 2.65,12 O 1 I I 1 I PLATE AT GABLE PLATE AT DORMER / / g G B EG E89 ///i /// 6 4' �B I R � \♦♦\ / UPPER LlVEI-bTi!' // — — — — — — — — - _UPPER If 1 61 BB 1 i I PLATE I 1 I DECUNING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST END I I TREWS, i OF RESIDENCE --r-1 b PAINTED I DECLINING HEIGHT I 1' ENI OF RESIDENCETEAST END I Z Z I 1 i I 1 1------------ -__—_ ------ S.B 1 � I AVE GRADE NORTH BIDE 10 O ? AVE�QRADE SOUTH SIDE EXISTING DECK AVE TOP OF CURD _ 57.T3 C4.-r 'u.-pow-wi ei _.. __.-MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURN 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.peareymchR@cNn.corn Q Z LLJ CL' Uwu- W > Q p�U y Z L.LI OGN Qq LLJ WN W U Z O W Lr) a� ? ad N ZD I1- LA.. — m Q Lssue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7113117 SHEET TRLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4' =1'4' A5 d a a �oc VIEW FROM SW CORNER OF RESIDENCE AT 129 CRESCENT AVE. WITHOUT PROPOSED SCREEN TREES ' �""'�, E I VE OCT 10 2017 C,TY OF 51iR li`It Div. a CDD r a tr VIEW FROM SW CORNER OF RESIDENCE AT 129 CRESCENT AVE. WITH PROPOSED SCREEN TREES 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 1 of 3 October 6, 2017 Mr. Kevin Gardiner Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010 emails sent to kgardiner@burlingame.org and Planning/Commissioners@burlingame.org Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Planning Commissioners, CO3kf1VfUNICATI0A' 1.LCL1 i 'ED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED UCT 10 ..;17 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-Pi..ANNIING DIV. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the revised 125 Crescent Avenue plan as homeowners of the adjacent property at 129 Crescent Avenue. Our previous Burlingame Planning Commission letter, dated August 25, 2017, remains unchanged relative to our strong objection to the detached garage. We are opposed to both in its proximity to our lot line and large 15' height. At the August 28, 2017 public hearing the Planning Commission asked the 125 Crescent owners to consider two specific detached garage recommendations: • Reducing the height of the garage/workroom to 12' vs. the 15' proposed, and • Moving the garage/workroom off the proposed 2' lot line, further into the 125 Crescent owners property. Following the hearing, the Architect emailed us new drawings. We emailed back our strong protest to the same garage height and lot line proximity. But these objections have not been regarded. Our objections are grounded on the fact this new large structure significantly impacts our primary view and privacy, and therefore the value of our home. The new 125 Crescent garage/workroom plan is still huge at 15' high x 20' wide, and they have not moved the building any further away from our property. Additionally the proposed landscaping does not adequately shield this large structure. The revised 125 Crescent plan states the current and proposed trees will obscure the garage view from us. This is not the case. You see from the attached picture below, a 15' x 20' garage/workroom two feet from our property line will be very visible to us. For perspective, sit at our kitchen island working on my computer every day looking at this view. It is a beautiful view filled with trees. If the proposed large garage/workshop is approved, my daily view will be one of their large garage and people coming and going from the garage/workroom. Their plan also states our current three backyard trees will obscure this view. This is not the case. As you can see from the picture below, our trees are set far back on our property with high branches, so they will block little. Our tree branches, which might slightly filter some of the garage/workshop, will likely be cut off to fit the 15' garage. The new cement driveway requires tearing down their full, large tree (which you see in this picture) to fit in the garage. And the smaller proposed three laurel trees likely won't obscure this large garage for several years. 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 2 of 3 COjtIiVIUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPAA,4TION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED OCT 10 2011 CITY OF BURUNGAME CDD-PLANNING DI'V. Current view from kitchen window at 129 Crescent Avenue. No garage. 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 3 of 3 Given that this proposed building is not only a garage but also a workspace, we would expect neighbors to be coming and going from this structure. As previously stated in our August 25th letter, and notated below, we ask you to consider our Privacy and Respect for neighbors existing conditions and utilization. 1. "Privacy a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines." "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and respect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 2. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pg. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization. Design... to maintain existing qualities......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create real or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. " We thank the Planning Commission for previously offering suggestions regarding the proposed accessory dwelling unit. We appreciate the City Planning Codes intent to watch over the current Burlingame residents from invasive new construction. You are the people who have the power to protect us — and all long-time Burlingame residents - from the impact of new construction overbuilding and encroaching on our existing homes. Finally, we ask you to further consider protecting us from the tall garage/workroom to be built just two feet from our property line. Sincerely, Kathy and Iry Holmes �_� Owners of 129 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 �'" OCT 10 2011 CO A1MUNICATION RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME AFTER PREPARATION CDD-PLANNING DIV. OF STAFF REPORT • City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BUR.LING4ME` BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, August 28, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones spoke with the owner at 129 Crescent Avenue in order to access the rear yard. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the owner of 129 Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the owner of 1575 Newlands Avenue. Commissioner Gum spoke with the owners to the left and right of the subject property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > One of the letters was from a neighbor regarding the existing property having a second dwelling unit. Is that permissible under the Municipal Code? (Hurin: The current code allows for secondary dwelling units. However an application for this property has not been received. There are many existing units in Burlingame so can't determine whether this one would be legal or not, but under the current code a second dwelling unit could be legalized or added to an existing home as long as it complies with the criteria in the code.) > Would a second unit be required to have parking? (Hurin: One parking space would be required unless the property is located within 1/2 mile of a train station, in which case it would not need additional parking.) > Would the parking space be required to be covered or could it be uncovered? (Hurin: It may be uncovered.) > Is this property within 1/2 mile of the train station? (Hurin: It is just within the 1/2 mile radius, so parking would not be required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Terry and Barbara Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: > What are the plans for the detached garage? (Mark Freethy: It is a garage with a work room on the side.) > Are there plans to use it as a dwelling unit? (Mark Freethy: No.) > What is the purpose for the shower in the garage? (Mark Freethy: Clean-up when coming in from the back yard. Saw dust clean-up, sweat clean-up when coming back from a bike ride. Convenience without having to come into the house.)(Pearcy. The owner is retired and does a lot of home improvement City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 10/2/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 projects.) > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Mark Freethy: The neighbors were provided with pictures of what is planned, but there have not been discussions.) > The lower walls on the driveway side seem blank. Any thought to windows on either side of the fireplace? The driveway wall is stark, and will be visible from the street. (Pearcy: Thought was to respect the privacy of the neighbors. The wall is on the north side so there is not a lot of potential for light. It has been broken up with two wall planes and three materials. The stained wood siding is meant to create a warm and friendly elevation.) > Why the changes in siding? (Pearcy: It's a cement plaster stucco building but if it was all stucco it could look harsh, so there is stained wood siding at logistical points such as the dormers and projections to warm things up. Also stained wood on the front door and garage door.) > Why horizontal siding? (Pearcy: It is stone, not siding. Just two siding types.) > Is the siding board and batten? (Pearcy. Vertical stained wood with a butt joint, center -matched. It will have a warm saw -texture finish that accepts stains.) > Has there been consideration of flipping the garage to lessen impact on the neighbor? (Pearcy: The garage needs to align with the driveway, and are trying to retain the existing deck. The garage has an 8 -foot plate so is low. The new house is further back from the side than the existing house.) > Could the driveway side elevation be pulled in 1 or 2 feet to add some landscaping? It is a new house so could be pulled it in a bit to get planting to soften the ground line. (Pearcy: Needs to have a 9'-6" driveway. It's a challenge on a 50-foot lot to get a center hallway and two rooms on either side. There is more flexibility in length.) > Are the existing brick walls along the side property lines being retained or removed? (Pearcy: On the right-hand side most would be retained but about 30 feet would be replaced behind the gate.) > Could the gate be moved back to retain some of the brick walls and their mature landscaping? (Barbara Freethy: Wants to consider the security aspect and have more land behind the gate. Doesn't want people to be able to climb a low wall into the backyard.) > Simulated divided lite windows? (Pearcy: Yes.) > Landscaping towards the front of the garage to shield the view from the neighbors would be helpful. A hedge would grow taller than the fence. > Could the garage be further from the fence line to provide space for foliage and screening plantings? (Pearcy: Wants to keep the existing deck and patio.) > Has there been thought to keeping the tree in the front? (Pearcy: It is a deodar cedar tree, belongs in a park -like space. Huge canopy - to have enough breathing room the tree would need to be back out of the drip line, 20 or 30 feet. It is park tree and not well suited to this location.) > Has there been consideration to lowering the pitch of the roof of the garage to lessen the apparent mass from the neighbors? (Pearcy: Wants to tie in with the main house, with a 6112 slope. Even a 4112 slope would look mismatched.) > (Mark Freethy: The neighbor sent a letter implying there is an illegal unit in the existing house. The unit was built originally with the house. It is a legal unit, with restrictions. It will be eliminated in the new construction.) Public Comments: Irvin Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Lives on the north side of the property. Submitted a letter. Per design guidelines pages 24 and 28, the project does not respect the conditions and qualities of existing homes, or support separation at the property line, neighboring yard is not respected. Current house has an attached garage and a large footprint, an attached garage can accommodate needs and there are many examples of attached garages on the street. Opposes the detached structure because of its length, height, and proximity. Concern with drainage from roof of garage onto neighboring property. Currently has 45 feet of unobstructed fenceline adjacent with views of trees and vegetation. Proposed garage is 15 feet high, 20 feet across, most attached structures are not as imposing or high. Structure could be flipped or moved back from property line to allow 15-18 feet of adjacency with room for landscaping. Offers suggestions in the letter. Shower, toilet and windows in the garage likely to be a prelude to an occupied dwelling. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10/2/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Kathy Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Negative impact of detached garages and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). State Senate Bill 1069 brings Burlingame to a crossroads to maintain the unique small-town character of Burlingame. Tipping point may be subdividing the single family living spaces with ADUs. Other cities seem to be maintaining their land. Should instead explore perimeter, uninhabited areas such as the Bayside instead of subdividing backyards of single family residences. Questions whether the detached garage in the project would be used as an occupied dwelling. ADUs encourage the noncompliant practice of renting out vacation rentals. ADUs mean more cars parked on streets and driving on roads, and more non property tax -paying households. Mark Gschwind, 1553 Newlands - Shower and toilet in detached garage suggests it is being prepared to be an occupied dwelling. Opposed to adding another unit to the neighborhood. There are parking impacts already. It seems like a nice house, but appears to have an open door to an occupied dwelling. Linette Edison - Lives in the house to the south. There is only a 5-foot side setback, and it is completely paved. Would prefer there be vegetation to help with the water drainage. Opposed to the bathroom in the garage. There are other properties on the street that have been converted over to apartments. City does not need many more apartments, would deteriorate property values. Needs to maintain balance between rental units and single family homes. Mary Streshly - Lives on the south side. Happy neighbors are remodeling. When buying into an R-1 single family, buy into a designated neighborhood for what it is zoned for. Disingenuous to ask cursory question whether the structure will be rented. No way to be promised that it would not happen. Police have been called multiple times to rental nearby. If it is zoned to have units, it is not R-1 - the neighborhoods need to be kept separate. Happy with the remodel, not happy to have rental units on the street. Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue - More and more giant houses being built. Past opposition to large houses, and large Safeway. Should re -look at standards such as the FAR and lot coverage. Small lots do not need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older neighborhoods in order to preserve character. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Handsome design. > Concern the house is pushing out to the edge of the driveway. Even a small amount of landscaping could soften the edge. > With the rest of the detailing a lower slope 4112 or 5112 roof on the garage could still fit with the rest of the house. Could help with the overall height of the structure. > Can't support a full bath in the detached garage. Can understand a toilet and sink to support a workshop, but does not see the logic for the shower. A shower would suggest a closet for clothes, which would then suggest the workshop becomes a bedroom, and then it becomes accessory living space that wasn't part of the original application. > Driveway elevation is stark. Described as warm because it is wood, but it looks like the side of a barn. There is no opportunity for landscaping to soften the edge. If it were pulled back to allow landscaping may not need to do much more work to the facade, otherwise needs to do work so the facade is less stark. > Should show downspouts on the garage as well as the house. > Landscape plan needs help on both property lines. Would help to soften the view from the neighbors. > Cannot support the shower in the garage since it would suggest becoming a living unit in the future. > The bathroom would probably need an ejector pump for the sewage system; should be shown on the plans to indicate whether it would be inside or outside the structure. > Streetside elevation is nice, sad to see the tree go as it is a cornerstone of the lot currently. City of Budingame Page 3 Printed on 10/ UM r Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > Supports the detached garage, except for the bathroom. One of the main, emphases of the design guidelines is the detached garage pattern. Can provide more separation and privacy between neighbors, particularly if the wall along the property line is finished nicely. The proposed development meets that pattern. > Drainage is addressed in the municipal code. Water is required to be controlled on the property and not flow onto neighboring properties. This will be verified during the Building Permit inspection process. > The south and north side elevations are markedly different. Perhaps they could be more similar or less stark. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 10/212017 The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the August 2811, 2017 meeting. Project: Freethy Residence RECEIVED Project Address: 125 Crescent Way Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. SEP 2 n 2017 Date: 9/18/17 CITY OF BURLINGAME Detached Garage GDD-PLANNING DIV.. 1. Due to neighbor concern that a bathroom could lead to a future garage apartment, the Freethys have decided to remove the garage bathroom from the project. The window within 10 feet of the property line has also been removed. See the revised garage floor plan on sheet A3 and south elevation on sheet A6. 2. The neighbors to the north expressed concern that the garage roof would be visible from their backyard. In response to this concern we have added a planting bed (approximately 3' X 18') along the fence line to the east of the garage with 3 evergreen screen trees (English laurels in 24" boxes). These trees are usually 6' to 8' tall at planting and mature to a height of 10' to 18'. It should be noted that 3 mature trees exist on the neighbor's property directly to the north of the proposed garage. These trees range in height from about 15 to 20 feet and overhang the proposed garage location. The combination of the new and existing trees will obscure the neighbor's views of the garage roof. See sheets Al, Ll and attached photos. 3. We feel the current garage design is the best overall look for the property and neighborhood. Lowering the roof pitch would create a look that would be inconsistent with the main residence (i.e. a 4:12 roof pitch has a bungalow appearance). Please note that the current design is below limits for plate & ridge heights, is held back 2 feet from the property lines and the eastern 6 feet has a lowered ridge (about 12'-6" high). The roof also slopes toward the northern neighbor. These design measures were taken with the neighbor's interests in mind. 4. Garage downspouts were shown on the original drawings. See keynote 9 on sheet A6. North Side of Residence 1. A few commissioners commented that the north elevation seemed stark and lacked softness. In general, we disagree with these comments and believe that a closer look will show that this is not the case. We are confident that the three stepped wall planes, shed dormers, wall materials (stained wood & cement plaster) and craftsman detailing (e.g. exposed rafter tails, barge rafters, outriggers, wide window trim boards, etc.) result in an elevation that has a level of variety, interest, warmth and detail consistent with other sides of the residence. To illustrate this, please see additional perspective drawings on sheet A8. We will also bring a wood siding sample to the next meeting. In response to commissioner comments we have added taller, more robust plantings in the 3 beds along the north elevation to further soften the elevation (7 Camellias in 15-gallon containers). These shrubs are usually 3' to 5' tall at planting and mature to a height of 8'. See sheets Al and Ll . We also added three windows (2 in the family room & 1 in the master bedroom) and relocated a window (in Bedroom 1) for more detail. See elevation 2 on sheet A5 and perspective views on sheets A7 and A8. 2. A commissioner suggested adding gable end detailing on the north elevation for consistency with the other three sides of the building. As illustrated on the drawings, the residence has a clear main gable running east -west along the driveway and a cross gable to south, creating a simple "T" layout. Since a gable end is not associated with the north elevation, adding a gable feature on this side of the building would look out of place and detract from the overall appearance. As noted above (item 1), we feel the updated north elevation is well composed and neighbor friendly. 3. In response to a neighbor comment, the drawings have been revised to show the low brick wall along the north-eastern property line remaining, in its entirety. The driveway gate will be moved to the west to the transition of the existing brick wall and existing wood fence. See sheet Al. South Side of Residence A planter bed has been added near the center of the south elevation to help soften this side of the building. The planter contains 2 New Zealand Christmas bushes. These.shrubs are usually 3' tall at planting and mature to a height of 6. See sheet L1. If you have any questions regarding the above responses, please call Mark Pearcy at 650-348-1509. 3 EXISTING NEIGHBOR TREES NEAR PROPERTY LINE. APPROX. 15' TO 20' TALL :� �"�111 "� � ;oar A � � �,.: �.•..r.. t� x�,4.'' �f • �..,t,, :,, .,,d� _-,)J�/l�tl. v� ,il ��#9~� T •{ ." i-{ „ • all i- 17 *.to7, iiA,.N fi -(� =r�. •e� ,a., �� ram.`'- Ui.. t ,`. � „uh +•.�. -+arr,.i � _ - `� 'V J�';L• K.t; � it :.. ��.• � y��,,.sd� ;*.1 �..5� %",v.9•�_ � �, i. .f APPROXIMATE FRONT (EAST) WALL OF DETACHED GARAGE ILI EXISTING SHED (see site plan) 125 CRESCENT AVENUE Rear yard looking northwest showing existing trees near proposed detached garage PHOTO 1 OF 2 •f - el- ,��-tiy,.��i f ',�rJ ��-r!• �..L•�7_ .`��_�;�' ��-�iswrJ4: ,1 ` 1.-: —� rA IN �1l •i..yA„ r4•. f i. � w duo Kit b T T ♦. -� ``` i� `--.�Sc11II V AL AIL f 5.EIDIt OF PROIP ram • r # �w G,,,d A d a 9A.t wo- Ca, -A �f1G actdtA 1 ` GARAGE I I 1 BATH I� 0 r I I WORKSHOP/ J STORAGE I rye./ I (V I I 1 I I yte V C r i � I<' GARAGE ROOF PLAN SCALE 11-T- • )*N r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L_ � ro eeruaw o �issnrANr � BATH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I GARAGE i wao ,,cwmrn II II II WORKSHOP/ 11 STORAGE II II II II II I I I GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/a'=1•-P "w- IV I MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Bmohel A— SUL�0—. CA 1410 .Nwn.. a 63¢w.1 Iv�e Dole D", ReNew SM17 CRYC--Ml 7/IS/17 SHM MLe ROOF PLAN & GARAGE PLANS SC&E: 17M'A• ROOF PLAN n A3 SCALE 1/�51'-0' vtea.x AUG"821i? CITY OF BURLINCAME. CDD-PLANNING DIV. 395": 1N3�S321�SZt r� nw �-° � 3�N3a1S32i AH1332�d I. i g �i 0 98 9 §I.:Hgi �9oa4 } yryryggglga p]O^�me`S EZ6-N�N GG � rR 9 I Y-or � ' S 6 , Meos,Vq► + ww V'lt LgSSI . t ITN ELEVATION Z \ NORTH ELEVATION .J �r4ti-r ary ;A cr. ® MARK Ct •f(/��•�/ ARCHITECTURE 165D a —whet Averua j Burfin=e, CA 94010 650.34 S. 1509 WAR 2 EAST EL -A O Cc� � Prof. U w r.�_._ tom' s P P. ,L W � uwZO Z J J W Q Q U Z- h Z W a W 4 U Q a = o W to D�? N�4 L � m Q i1 WE5T ELEVATI o " pole �Y u.•�•r• �a�•k.•• uawn cerca.,,..m nwv KEYNOTES 1 z P.ea,rx P.wrm. .. ooraxr .m..�,•.u+ a..m.n 4 N6ID u�'W OCOR, PaNftD 5 rs anwcfs'x, Panim b Tna auce.a'�G Pmrtm l wtroe fAy P.wlm. e of upe wm >ret rent 9 an S114T1111E WINDOW Q DOOR TRIM GARAGE ,wr, or rAn�-.n wmw wE. poc«n1 io EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • I� g r" r FREETHY RESIDENCE D j D A # 125 CRESCENT AVENUE (� 4 A.P.N. 028 yam: CALIFORNIA 03 m � o . 104 Wk I Ik NOW OR Saba, 7t jo .a A 3 a . rat 1� • � � ,. 'f.* :- I "�::��•. - _ ''.- . r— ,,art' ;-i fir' r d 4l -� _ L •` r� �^� .• � ,4 . is a�P �''" •; �� - it ` ,i ` ., i����ti"�rl � v� N _ . __ �-� .' tip• s�� ✓.L° c�.-r� .t(6., � �= � F Air 6. •� �,� t 'r+ . to �``�Y`{•��� " 1 ~ `+ a ti .1 s �',,y,,,��r�_ ��"�-� - . .� ,�r�a lip< \i ..v't�►1 "r `' is + • •..4 . .. �� -Ilk 08.28.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 125 Crescent Avenue Page 1 of 11 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED AUG 25 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message ----- From: Iry Holmes [mailto:Irv. Holmes(a)_challengedairy.coml Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:24 PM To: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner(a),burlingame.org>; GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners(aD_burlingame.org> Subject: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Mr. Gardiner and Planning Commissioners, Attached is a letter stating our comments and concerns to the proposed new construction at 125 Crescent Ave. We hope that these will be considered in your deliberations, and we intend to attend the Hearing on Monday evening to present them. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave. Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. [http://www.challengedairy.com/files/sig-logo.gifl CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If any reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return the message to the sender via return email, and delete all electronic or other copies made. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Challenge Dairy Products, Inc... COMNIUN[C,2TION It!'�;, t � Ij August 25, 2017 AFTER PREp,41Ur'; — V OFST4' FE!-j!T B�'� i �', rn VIED Y AUG 25 2017 Mr. Kevin Gardiner CITY OF Bi_IPUI GIAME Burlingame Planning Department CDD-PLANNP403 DIV. 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame 94010 emails sent to kgardiner@burlingame.org and Planning/Commissioners@Burlingame.org Re: Adjacent Neighbor Input to Public Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave, Burlingame Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Commissioners, We (Kathy and Iry Holmes) have lived at 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame for 23 years, adjacent to the proposed site for new home construction at 125 Crescent Ave. Please know, we do not object to the Freethy family having a nice, new home. Respectfully we would like to convey our objection with several aspects of this newly proposed home plan, specifically: 1. The Detached "Garage" Apartment (see attached photos) a. The new design proposes a detached "Garage" Apartment, calling for a Conditional Use Permit for a shower, toilet and 4 sets of windows. As background, the current owners have created and rented an apartment upstairs in their house for we believe 20 + years. Renters have included both couples and singles. We suspect the in-house apartment has not been legal due to the long-standing R-1 single-family dwelling zoning. This in -home apartment has a separate entrance, and likely a kitchen. We have never lodged a formal complaint, because we wanted to be "good neighbors". But we have been unhappy with this situation for years. Therefore, if 20 + years is any indicator, we believe the owners of 125 Crescent will likely rent the current proposed detached "Garage" Apartment given it's proposed size, plumbing, windows and design. With the square footage and roof elevation, it is essentially another mini -house directly next to our backyard, and we oppose this. b. The proposed "Garage" Apartment drawing place this structure immediately next to our backyard, with virtually no separation or privacy, 2 feet from our lot line. c. This imposing, dominant structure will significantly alter and destroy the visual quality of our primary living space and kitchen. We will look at this mini -house all day long, because the "Garage" Apartment sight line is immediately outside our kitchen window and eating area. No 7-foot proposed fence or foliage will hide this wide, tall and "in your face" edifice. This dominant structure will compromise the current sight line and peaceful feel we have worked years to plant and maintain in our lovely backyard. d. Renters of the proposed "Garage" Apartment can ONLY access their apartment alongside our dining room and living room windows and backyard patio. Therefore several times a day they will walk beside our home space. This would become a source of unnecessary/unwanted activity, noise and a disruption of our privacy. e. The new tenants would NOT likely use dedicated space for their car(s), given the "gated" driveway single -car design. Therefore street parking would be required. Our 125 Crescent neighbors current garage has only been used for storage and never a car in our 23 years of 1 residence. Therefore, one could legitimately conclude their proposed "garage" would be used for housing people and not a car. Recommendations i. Move the detached "garage" apartment to the LEFT SIDE of the property at 125 Crescent. The neighbors to the left of 125 Crescent already have a detached garage on their property. Therefore two detached garages would be next to each other, not disrupting privacy, space or views. Additionally, there is no gas meter in front of 125 Crescent, and the tree on the street side could be replaced with a more attractive tree, accommodating a left side driveway. There is no current right or left side pattern to the homes on Crescent Avenue. The current owners of 125 Crescent have some hardscape they have poured in the last two years on the left side of their yard. But we respectfully suggest, since it was just poured recently, it can possibly be replaced to the right to help maintain their neighbor's privacy. OR ii. Move the "garage" apartment to the middle rear of the backyard at 125 Crescent. If the owners want a large "garage" apartment, then it seems more appropriate for the owners to be able to view this structure, versus imposing this structure on our backyard privacy and views. OR III. Re -configure the garage "apartment" to an attached garage, consistent with 125 Crescent's current structure and the designs of approximately 50% of the garages on Crescent Avenue. (Page 20 in NDG.) Note: Several photos are also attached of very attractive attached and set -back garages throughout Burlingame. Page 22 in NDG, provides notations for "Low Impact Attached Garages. "There are examples of attached garages which do not dominate the front of the residence." 2. Privacy (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines." "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and respect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 3. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pE. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization. Design... to maintain existing qualities ......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create real or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing 2 E C E AUG % 5 Z017 GITy 05 i3URUNG, iVF€ condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. Recommendation See Recommendation in point 1 above. In addition to altering the "Garage" Apartment we ask for consideration of potentially enhancing the architectural and landscape elements on the north/right side of the house. The proposed design feels mostly like a wooden flat structure with little window coverage. In contrast, the view of our house from our neighbor's right side is an attractive one, we believe. The right side of our house is lined by large picture windows and attractive foliage planted along the entire side of our house, We have worked hard to maintain lovely landscaping throughout the entire side of 125 Crescent Avenue's views. We would be most grateful for the same consideration. b. We appreciate the visual freedom of low fences in most neighbors' front side -yards throughout Burlingame. This creates the imagery of uncluttered, open space. The proposed new design of a 7-foot fence, which extends an additional 20 feet alongside the right of our home, creates an imposing barrier in the front of the neighborhood. It detracts from the current foliage we've planted. Foliage intended to inspire a natural, attractive property line. The current, low, creeping fig covered brick fence is a more pleasing view and attractive fence for the neighborhood, versus the proposed 7 foot high fence extension from its current location. Recommendation Enhance the beauty of the right side of 125 Crescent with more interesting architecture, windows, landscaping, and maintaining the current low, brick fence where it is currently placed. Do not allow for a 7-foot fence until the current break midway through the lot line. Lastly, we wonder if you would indulge us in a philosophical side bar ................ We moved to Burlingame 23 years ago from San Francisco. We left behind a dense, non -family oriented, concrete filled, expensive area in search of a small, quaint town with low density, green spaces, family atmosphere and a spirit of community. We have been long-term, active supporters of our small-town Burlingame. We have and continue to participate in boy -scouting, our church community, our schools and by serving the poor and marginalized. We understand now there are significant pressures on Burlingame government to enlarge our quaint town. These housing shortage demands also have tax -based interests and incentives. Several in Burlingame government told us "there are federal and state mandates. People want to move to California. There is pressure to build more. To build apartments in the middle of homes." But we honestly ask if this housing shortage, and the increased prices and new developments are doing more to serve the rich coming to and changing our special gem of a town, than to serve the existing hard-working members of Burlingame. Therefore, we ask philosophically and with complete sincerity: What is in the best interest and fairness to the current residents, supporters and volunteers that make up the community of Burlingame? How much do we want to tarnish our charming little gem by over -crowding it? How much does building apartments in the backs of homes alter our precious family -oriented neighborhoods. How much 3 AUG 25 207 CITY OF: E3UJHL4i`.)GAME CDD-PI..AP•iMP,4'1:_ DIV. does encouraging more concrete in the form of driveways and "detached garages" take away green space and backyards in the interest of satiating a never-ending "housing shortage"? How much do we want to saddle Burlingame with the headaches and density of mixed -use properties in the middle of downtown to satisfy a housing shortage. The housing seekers will keep coming. The demand will not stop. But when will more building be too much in Burlingame? When will the long-time Burlingame community supporters and volunteering home owners pack up their tents and move on in search of that quaint small town they yearned for in the beginning? What will this little gem of a town look like in 10 years? Will we have controlled the insatiable development giant, or will development have slayed us? Do we have the strength, courage and zeal to protect Burlingame from over -growth for our families for generations to come? We thank you for your service, and for indulging us in this philosophical side -note. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame 4 �' AUG � 5 2017 CITY OF BUR IN AME CDD-PIANNINO DIV. w Jot F T.r,i •?,'l �7". .I1x ,�. 1 }1S•n'.�^i .%K' ,!'.Y {;'. -i Cd .• `i \.{• }'[1�.1t• .'q' - •'�\T � r .%• ice• `•�. _10 _ r ' � .Kti iq. ...y1. • •y j� , 's. , • F,, r j" ~ •� f '3 ire r \4 t,� f 7 -,r •dh 1 ' I r 69fcE1Ait 1 rf ! F. 00 114 -- iYn � � �. ;r�„' fit. ,r•': ��'!� r u1 ltilff, � ,'ti��}tl,� \•1, , j} 7,�,, '!v r 1 A�^, L •'1 1 � '1,�'N ai.. 4 r- .may • _1 rIV j. //,iir t;,�1��'•�iY �i�- )- I�rV r ♦yy �, ' 1�11.�••111 �F vp Al tq s t V Willim ,Ary BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name:-�Yi'At 12�°t i Name: .s rN-L Address: 2 s= IQ,��ig� Address: City/State/Zip:---P---L4P-X-11-4 CFA f-1 f� -. 'r-441 eity/State/Zip: Phone: • 29 S • 9 ,;!!� 0-4 Phone: °`` E-mail: fro �- , <dWma; C-1 1�,.A E-mail: ARCH ITyEC�T/DESIGNER � I� Name: -1y' ice- -- l iQ- G Y( Address: 6 L--}-f P'.�^VIF- , RECEIVED ED City/State/Zip: 11-4 C-rtfl �F-- , "I-4 cP 1 G�) JUN -1 2017 Phone: �-S'4� • 3 -4 ,?>- • (50`1 rr ' E-mail: rn12— �r�"-�-+ 45_- Is•P�"--�I P2 • rL e_j CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part f tq h' 1PI nning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. "C` (Initials of Arrc�hitect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �r1riv 11 t "n " I r I s r,44_9 --. C rk �`; J Yam- "I r vim# "� t't��t.t./A- i C� 4--- N-- rd,.-C4 wf 2 r- 'h mil, _ AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: /AS. ps-!�W /'" 4 0---4 A-e hr Date: I am aware of the proposed applicatio an er by aut size the -above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. I Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: S: t HANDOUTS►PC Application. doc Terry and Barbara Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA Date: May 30, 2017 Letter of Explanation About us RECEIVED JUN -- 1 2017 CITY OF BURL INGAME CDD-PU.%NNING DIV. We are Barbara and Terry Freethy. We bought our home at 125 Crescent in 1985 just in time for our wedding. We were excited to live in Burlingame as Terry had grown up in the city, attending St. Catherine's Elementary School and graduating from Burlingame High School. Barbara grew up in Southern California but fell in love with her husband and Burlingame in the early 80's. We have lived in our home for 32 years and raised two children there, Logan and Kristen Freethy, who attended elementary, middle school and high school in Burlingame. We love the Burlingame Park neighborhood, but we have outgrown our home and the outdated floor plan of a house built in 1929. We believe a new house would not only improve our lifestyle but would also be a great asset to our charming neighborhood. About our plans Our proposed home has an inviting front porch, entry and living room facing Crescent Avenue and Pershing Park, with a great room located adjacent to the backyard. We plan to have a master suite and 2 bedrooms on the upper level, with a guest bedroom on the main floor that could function as a master bedroom in the future. We have chosen to build a 4-bedroom home in the event that one of our children decides to live here and raise a family. Our proposed home uses craftsman building forms that will integrate beautifully with our Burlingame Park area. The major building forms are a simple two-story gable with a perpendicular cross gable. A pattern of shed dormers, step -backs and projections add a degree of variety and interest without detracting from the overall concept. The street elevation is composed of a vertical, two-story gable element on the right with the contrasting horizontal forms of the front porch, shed dormer and cross gable on the left. The same forms are revealed at the rear elevation with a different interpretation. The side elevations are stepped back more than required by declining height envelopes to allow daylighting and privacy at side yards while maintaining a nice level of architectural interest. It should be noted that the proposed residence is less imposing on the neighbors than the existing building. Exterior detailing will include features common to craftsman homes in the Burlingame Park area such as wide trim boards, barge rafters, exposed wood beams & columns, brackets, exposed rafter tails, trellis elements, gridded windows, paneled doors, etc. The predominant exterior wall material will be painted cement plaster, softened by stained wood siding at the shed dormers, projections on the north side, and near the front door. The front entry door and garage door will also be stained wood. The front porch floor and column bases will be stone. Our front yard is currently dominated by an oversized and poorly located Deodar Cedar. We plan to remove this tree and have reviewed the process with Bob Disco at the Parks Department. Removal of this tree will allow us to locate our new home in a reasonable way that is consistent with other homes in our neighborhood and also develop a more attractive front yard. Our proposed front yard has a similar layout to our existing yard but with many enhancements that will make it much more attractive and inviting. For example, a new, curved stone entry walk will lead visitors between a pair of low stone columns and through a landscaped area to front porch. An existing brick curb that borders the yard on the sidewalk and driveway sides will be replaced by a stone curb. Areas that are currently brick paving along the sidewalk and planter strip will be replaced with plantings. The driveway will remain on the north side of the property and our plan is to reuse the existing pavers for our new driveway, partly to reduce off -haul during demolition. We also plan to keep the low brick walls that are located along the side property lines in out front yard. In our backyard, we're proposing a detached one -car garage with an additional area that will be used for a workshop or storage. Adjacent to this area we'd like to include a bathroom with shower. Terry has worked as a carpenter in the past and enjoys home improvement projects. The work area will provide a great space for his projects and the bathroom will provide the perfect place for him to clean up before going into the house. One of Terry's past projects is the backyard deck that has been integrated into the new house design. We also plan to keep an existing patio area to the west of the deck. Aside from the new garage and driveway, new work in the backyard will be minimal. We are very excited about our proposed project and think it will be a great addition to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer Terry and Barbara Freethy City of Burngome Terry Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA.94010 DearTerry, I reviewed your requestfor the removal of the Cedar tree-in`front-of:the house at 125 Crescent Avenue:and based on the information you have provided, I have m" ade the following determination: This Cedar is growing 3W from the existing house and causing damage.to the foundation and exterior stucco. With the proposed building Improvements to the property, the roots from this treew'ill .need to be cut to accommodate the new foundation causing thistree to become unstable. The permit will be issued after the Planning Commisslon has approved the project. Therefore, I Intendto issue,a permit for the removal of the cedar tree. The tree is subject"to the provisions of the Burlingame -Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 060(d)(1), (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to -disease, danger of falling; proximity, to existing or, proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and'interference with public services Replacement with one, 24-inch box standard single stem size landscape tree (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property defined in Section 1106 090 ff you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressedeny IAA�Proklaiy1&"1�f�7� .. Adjacent property gwner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any, of its conditions or findings, must be, filedin writing to our office by July 1-0, 2017 as provided° in.Section" 11.06.080 of the .Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordlnance (Burlingame Municlpol Code Chapter 11,06). The permit will be 'issued on October 25, 2016 if.n.o appeal has been received'by that date;. Sincerely;; 12 Bob Disco Park Su'perintendent/City Arborist Enclosure. CC: Property Owner 112 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1569 Newlands Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 117 Crescent: Avenue 121 Crescent Avenue 129 Crescent Avenue 133 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 'tea` PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 6 LINGARIE y PERMIT APPEI.CATION Parks &.Recreation Department tl 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date; �� (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: 12 -- S hereby applies for a permit to remove .or prune more- Species:`"* Location on Property J=j2.,pt-4: ' -1";A 0 Work to be Performed: Removal Reason Work is Necessary:: -.C, canopy of the fo Circumference: Trim More Than U3 of the Crown Is this TreeRemoval Request Part of a Building Project? YES z NO Note.A photograph of the: tree(s).and a schematic, drawing ofthe' location of the trees) on the property must be submitted along with $75 00 for City. of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any focuinentation you may/cave, (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of darndged structures, letters of concern fro eighbors, .etc). Ownerl(Print)_ . ('ekil Phone: Address Ve i, (' � . EmaiI (if different than above) ---- ------------- - - ------ . --- --- - ---- -------------- PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------- ---- Payment Rec..f Z PaymeutMethod Cli �r { s This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune:the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the- ,provisions of the Urban Reforestation. and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal 'Code Chapter 11.06). By signin this permit, the appplicant acknowledges receipt of a copy o Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions ang all conditions listed below and that all appeals have expitd o beeltr9solveda CITY ARBOXIST -_ 1`-:- �.0' - ?. r CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be. required and maybe planted anywhere on; the property. If eondifions arse not met within the allotted time its specified in Chapter 21.06, 0904)(5), payment of S 700for each tree into the tree replacement fund will lie required. NO replacements) required. Contact the Parks Division .at (650) 558-7330 when removals) are completed. XXV, BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until afterPlann ng Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE 1 - 19 I PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work Should be clone by qualified free pprofessionais and a copy of tlrisl.ermff must be available at the job site ai allt Imes when work Is be perrtnetl o8l2orsrevised RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 Crescent Avenue, Zoned R-1 Terry and Barbara Freethy, property owners. APN: 028-293-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, 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: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe 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 set forth in the staff report, 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, _ , 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 13th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 24, 2017 sheets Al through A8, 1-1, and 1-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the 'construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption -and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME MOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 CRESCENT AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 028-293-080 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingaine A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge ,the subject application(s) in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 1141 CAI, e TS4 8 154 Off State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ❑Not for Publication DUnrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 125 Crescent Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-293-080 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 125 Crescent Avenue is a two-story residence with a one-story portion at the front and a two -and -one -half -story portion at the rear. It is located in the Burlingame Park neighborhood on an 8,300 square -foot rectangular parcel on the west side of Crescent Avenue, between Barroilhet Avenue on the south and Howard Avenue on the north (Figure 1). The vernacular residence features Spanish and Gothic Revival elements and a rectilinear plan. It was constructed in 1929 and the architect and/or builder is unknown. The wood -framed, stucco -clad residence is set back on the lot, allowing for a deep front lawn, and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The main and contiguous rear volumes are capped with flat roofs, while a rear one-story extension is capped with a shed roof. Windows primarily feature wood casings and wood frames with wood sashes and muntins. A driveway on the east side of the property extends from the street to an attached one -car garage located at the rear northwest side of the residence at the ground story. A gable -roofed concrete masonry unit (CMU) shed is situated at the far northwest corner of the parcel. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull on March 13, 2017, unless otherwise noted. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ❑O Building ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary fagade, March 13, 2017 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Ohistoric 1929 (original building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Terry Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 3/31 /2017 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None *Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map 1XIContinuation Sheet x❑Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑R��� I VED ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) JUN —1 2017 CITY -OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Paae 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assianed by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update *P3a. Description: (continued) The primary facade of 125 Crescent Avenue features a main one-story volume that faces northeast onto Crescent Avenue and a setback two -and -one -half -story volume towards the rear (Figures 1 to 2b). The left (south) portion of the one-story facade features three tall and narrow ten-lite windows, each terminating in a Gothic -style pointed arch with decorative wood muntins; the center window rises slightly higher than the other two windows. The right (north) side of the one-story facade features a stucco -clad chimney that projects out a few feet and is flanked by two windows of a similar style, which both align with the taller center window on the left side. These windows also feature planted wrought -iron flower boxes. The chimney tapers slightly and extends above the roof line about six feet. A decorative wrought -iron grille is centered on the northeast plane of the chimney, which is inset within a narrow, arched niche and aligns with the top of the windows. The one-story primary facade terminates at a flat parapet (Figures 3 to 4). The two -and -one -half -story volume at the rear south and west sides of the residence contains two facades facing Crescent Avenue, which extend above the primary volume's roof, and appear to each feature a pair of single -hung wood -sash windows, similar to others observed at the side and rear facades of the house; these windows are not visible from the street, but are shown in the three-dimensional aerial photograph (Figure 2a). Figure 1. Current aerial photograph of 125 Crescent Avenue (outlined in orange). Source. Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. IJ Figure 2a. 3D aerial perspective of 125 Crescent Avenue (indicated with arrow), looking northwest at primary facade. Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure32b. 3D aerial perspective of 125 Crescent Avenue (indicated with arrow) shown to better depict the rear volumes. Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull. Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 ❑O Continuation ❑ Update Figure 3. Left (south) portion of primary fagade. Figure 4. Right (north) portion of primary facade. The northwest facade of the subject building contains three bays, two of which are projecting at the center and right (west) sides 1 (Figures 5 to 8). The left (east) side bay features a Gothic -style arched window followed by a small partial -height arched window with a projecting wood sill. The elevated front entry of the residence is located in the northeast -facing plane of the projecting second bay. The wood -paneled door is also arched and has Gothic -style hardware and an arched viewer behind a decorative wrought -iron grille. The entry is accessed by six stone -paved steps that lead to a small landing and stone threshold. A wrought -iron railing aligns with the northeast -facing plane of the second bay on the right side. The second bay's northeast -facing plane features from left (east) to right (west), a semi -circular, tri-partite 12-lite window with wood muntins, followed by a partial -height, single -hung wood window, and a clerestory greenhouse window. The northeast -facing plane of the projecting third bay contains a wood -paneled single car garage door at the ground story beneath a decorative iron grille. The second story features a centered single -hung, eight -over -eight window with a wrought -iron balconette. A louvered wood vent sits beneath a flat parapet, which extends the length of the northwest facade. A full -height wood gate at the eastern corner of the projecting third bay provides access to a narrow side passage and the backyard. The northwest -facing plane of the third bay features two single -hung wood -sash windows with ogee lugs — one at the ground story and one at the second story, which sits slightly further east. The northwest facade steps down to a single story at the far right (west) side (Figures 9 to 10). N Figure 5. Left side of northwest fag raised entry. first bay, showing Figure 6. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 13 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. r,. Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Date March 24, 2017 1XI Continuation ❑ Update i4,r� Figure 7. Northwest facade, showing three bays (center and right bays are projecting) and garage, looking west. Figure 9. northwest facade, third bay, looking east towards gate. fs. Figure 8. Detail of second bay semi -circular window Figure 10. Northwest facade, third bay, and one-story extension at rear northwest corner, looking east. The rear (southwest) facade is comprised of four discernible bays: far -left, center -left, center -right, and far -right. The far -left -side bay features a projecting one-story portion at the ground story (an in-law apartment), which contains a sliding, fully -glazed vinyl - framed door leading to a rear stone -paved patio. The second story of the far -left side features a centered pair of single -hung wood - sash windows. A louvered wood vent sits beneath the flat parapet, which extends along all portions of the rear (southwest) facade. The southeast -facing plane of the far -left bay features a horizontally -oriented sliding wood -sash window with an inset screen. The second story contains a single -hung window, similar to the windows on the southwest -facing plane (Figures 11 to 12). The center -left bay projects out about six feet in front of the center -right bay. The center -left bay's southwest -facing plane features two pairs of eight -over -eight single -hung windows on the ground and second stories. The southeast -facing plane's ground story contains a fully -glazed, 20-lite wood -framed double door, recessed a few feet beneath the second story, which features a single - hung, six -over -six wood -sash window. The center -right bay features a steel -sash sliding window with steel muntins behind the lites and an inset screen at the ground story (Figures 13 to 17). The far right -side bay contains a wood paneled -door at the ground story and a single -hung, wood -sash window at the second story of the northwest -facing plane. The rear door is accessed via an elevated wood deck (three wood steps from ground level) and two additional wood steps to a narrow wood landing adjacent to the door and parallel to the southwest facade. The southwest -facing plane of the far -right bay features a single -hung, wood -sash window centered at the ground story and a pair of single -hung, wood -sash windows at the second story with inset screens (Figures 17 to 18). As shown in the perspective aerial photograph, the rear of the residence contains a two-story volume on the north side (as previously described) and a two -and -one -half -story L-shaped volume on the south side, which extends a half -story above the center of the building (Figure 2b). The north and west -facing planes of this portion feature four single -hung windows, which look out over the roof of the two-story rear volume, and are not visible from the backyard. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 [K Continuation ❑ Update Figure 11. Rear (southwest) fagade, left (north) side. NMI'F Q It + Py '• Figure 13. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side at ground floor. Figure 12. Left side, south -facing plane. Figure 14. Rear (southwest) fa(;ade, center -left side detail of windows at second floor. - ; r Figure 15. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side Figure 16. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side south -facing south -facing plane, ground story. plane, second story. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial 'age 6 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue `Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 121 Continuation ❑ Update 11111111100M.- right side, ground story. Figure 18. Rear (southwest) fagade, right (south) side. The southeast facade of the residence faces a narrow passageway that leads from the front to the rear yard, accessed via a gate at the northeast corner of the facade. At the left (west) side, the facade features a slightly projecting bay window, which extends from the ground level to the roof. Each plane of the volume features single -hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs. The center bay of the facade features two pairs of single -hung windows at the ground and second stories, respectively. The right (east) side contains a narrow, arched window, similar to those of the primary and northwest facades, at the ground story (Figures 19 to 20). �Y_ , Figure 19. Southeast facade, looking east at gate. Figure 20. Southeast facade, looking west at gate. A gable -roofed, concrete masonry unit (CMU) shed sits at the rear northwest corner of the parcel, featuring a fixed wood -frame window, a solid wood door, and wood siding on the south -facing plane (Figure 21). The subject lot features deep front and rear lawns, mature trees and perimeter planting beds. The front lawn is bounded by a brick retaining wall with a low iron railing at the east side. Low brick walls also bound the property at the north and south property lines, which transition to tall wood fences at the wood gates on both sides. A stone -paved driveway on the north side of the property extends from Crescent Avenue to the house's attached garage (Figure 22). The rear yard features a stone patio that spans the width of the lot adjacent to the residence. A raised wood deck (three to four feet) with wood railings is constructed adjacent to the south side of the rear (southwest) facade and extends to the center -left bay with access stairs leading to the deck on the west and north sides (Figure 23). A stone path leads from the rear patio to the rear double doors of the far -left bay. The stone patio extends nearly to the western property line with portions of grass, mature trees, and planting beds along the perimeter (Figure 24). Wood fencing bounds the property along the northwest, southwest, and southeast property lines. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1 zo crescent /Avenue "Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. "Date March 24, 2017 O Continuation ❑ Update Figure 21. Rear shed. sigure 23. Rear yard at deck, looking northwest. Figure 22. Driveway, looking southwest. Figure 24. Rear yard at patio, looking northwest. The surrounding neighborhood is strictly residential, with mostly one- and two-story homes. The properties immediately south and north of 125 Crescent Avenue are one- and two-story homes, respectively. Directly across from the subject property is Pershing Park, which fills a large portion of that block (Figure 25 and 26). Figure 25. Pershing Park across Crescent Avenue. Figure 26. Crescent Avenue looking north. State of California The Resources Agency; Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREAtiON HRI# BUIL6I.N. STRU -TURF3. •AMID OBJECT RECORD , I I I J Page 8 of 13 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue B1. Historic name: 125 Crescent Avenue B2. Common name: 125 Crescent Avenue B3. Original Use: Single -Family Residence B4. Present use: Single -Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular with Spanish and Gothic Revival elements *136. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Based on an original building permit, 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 by an unknown architect (Figure 27). A building permit indicates that a rear addition, likely at the second story, was constructed by owner, Stuart E. Brown, in 1946. A Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map from 1949 confirms the original massing and footprint of the building, as well as the second story addition (dashed in the Sanborn map). The next depiction of the subject building is a plan sketch attached to an appraisal report from 1952. It is described as a "two-story building with a basement and garage, a 7'x9' porch, and a two-story bay window." Generally the footprint appears as it does today, except for additions at the center -left bay and at the rear of the attached garage. Other permitted alterations include reroofing of the in-law apartment in 1982 and interior alterations and a bathroom remodel in 1986. In 1989, plans were submitted for a second story rear addition to convert a studio apartment to a fourth bedroom. A confusing note was found in the Historic Society files from April 1992, which reads, "House [at 125 Crescent Street] has been demolished — new structure going up — foundations: and framing up and sheathing." Either the indicated address was incorrect or the note was pertaining to the new rear construction, which likely occurred a few years following the permit drawing submittal. Unpermitted exterior alterations to the building were observed to include the single -story rear extension at the far -left bay (in-law apartment), one ground story window at the rear far -right bay with replaced aluminum sash, a fully -glazed double door, and a wood -paneled door, also both at the rear. The detached rear shed is not depicted on either the 1949 map or 1952 sketch, and its construction date is unknown. The residence's stucco cladding is in decent condition and was also likely refinished recently. The following building permits are on file at the Burlingame Building Department: Perimt# . Dale Owner - Descptton = . 1607 Aril 1929 L.H. Stevenson Original building permit. Electrical contractor: Meansser Plumber: Dubienthal E930 June 1946 S. Earl Brown, Rear addition. Builder: WF Tourtelotte $1000 1-83 1982 Velia Leoni Reroofing of in-law unit 0-966 June 1986 Terry Freethy Bathroom remodel and basement sheet rock, interior alterations Variance May 1989 Terry Freethy Planning approved variance for parking and side yard setback for a second story addition (Plans submitted in April 1989). Description on variance: "[Rear section] had been a studio apartment and will be converted to a fourth bedroom; the property shall be used for 1 dwelling unit in the future. E13-0003 2003 Terry Freethy Roof tip with solar *137. Moved? ®No DYes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *138. Related Features: No 69a. Architect: Architect unknown b. Builder: Unknown *1310. Significance: Theme . N/A Area Burlingame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Single Family Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) See Continuation Sheet. 1311. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *1312. References: See Page 13 B13. Remarks: None *614. Evaluator: Cassie Rogg, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: March 31, 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2017. Burlingame Park. Property shaded in yellow. Modified by Page & Turnbull. C T NO if ,-� .lL'�O4 Y�� L9 AF1 �`!J';fl:14.@8 9"'•' g: State of California The Resources Agency,' I?rimary -- DEPARTMENT OF PAkKiAk6 RECREATI6N HRI # , CONTMUAT10N S1EET ; Trinomial Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Tumbull, Inc. "Date March 31, 2017 0 Gontinuation u upoate *810. Significance: (continued) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845.Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi -rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake and Fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of the San Mateo Rancho. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Buringame's death, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."' The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.2 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was subdivided in 1905, through the early -twentieth-century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are variations of the Craftsman style or of different revival styles (often altered). 125 Crescent Avenue An original building permit confirms that 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 by an unknown.architect, though the electrical and plumbing contractors are noted (Figure 27). It is possible that the orginat owner, L.H. Stevenson, was a developer - builder, but no further information was found about him. The earliest depiction of the property is a Sanborn map last updated in 1949, which likely reflects the main residence's original footprint, as well as the 1946 second story addition shown with dashed lines (Figure 28). The rear of the house was altered in the early 1950s and a single -story extension was also added at an unknown later date. One historic photograph of the property's primary facade was found dating from c. 1960, which portrays the facade and site landscaping generally as they exist today, except for the paving material appears to have been replaced. Based on site observation, two rear doors and a window have been replaced. Overall, the residence is in decent condition, but the shed is in poor condition. ' Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 2 Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park" (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). >tate of California —The Resources Agency Primary # )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # :ONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial 'age 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue Recorded by Page 8t Turnbull, Inc. "Date March 31, 2017 El Continuation ❑ Update Ptumhiag Permit No-- .... .Stint_. f.-�[.� :f....z ...... . Conttactor��G�aw�-G ya _ � Block ..� SuKM� .� No. Fixtures- __/1 Fce. /�.—..1)ate'��iQ%w�yf Setboek 6 INSPECTION �57 sewEH elNAL C..t. 'q!�1_�,/-/{ Fee v. �V .... Address Electric Permit No. Builder Contractor. //�ra'Y¢/�:, 'Addrc.s 4P4-,0d... Lights_.3.�e.. Sw, Z.7` Pg-2 ,� Cir /i... -Date Inspection..Fee,. li per.... .... :.. ..:.. .... -9 4 ..:.. - : .Facture Permit No.. Contractor 4L i No. Fixtures .33 Fee ' I ( 1Sace'Inspeettou:: oy L. . t�l I I ilg I rf ' ' � . ji is Figure 27. Original Building Permit. Source: Burlingame Building Department `------- r7i n { � or Ifi � t O Figure 28. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 — November 1949). Property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page 8r Turnbull. Figure 29. Appraisal document sketch, 1952. Residence outlined in orange. 1946 second story addition shaded yellow, c.1950 additions shaded blue. Source: Burlingame Building Department. Edited by Page 8t Turnbull. Figure 30. 125 Crescent Avenue, primary facade c.1960. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. State of California —The Resources -Agency. Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIaN HRI # GaNTINtJATIt3N "!-EET Trinomial Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Tumbull. Inc. *Date March 31, 2D17 u continuation u update B10. Significance (cont'd): Owner and Occupant History Research has identified three long-term owners of 125 Crescent Avenue. Though L. H. Stevenson is indicated as the owner on the original building permit, he likely sold the property to Stuart Earl Brown shortly after the house was constructed, based on the city directory listing in 1930. Stuart resided there with his wife, Hazel, until 1961 and worked as an accountant at the Dollar SS Company, an international steamship shipping company. Hazel participated in and occasionally hosted meetings for the Burlingame Business and Professional Women's Club for several years. The property was unlisted in city directories for a few years until 1965 when it was sold to Angelo G. Leoni, who resided there with his wife, Velia. The Italian natives had immigrated to Burlingame around 1950 and had three children. Angelo worked as a janitor in Burlingame and passed away in 1980. Velia lived at the subject property until her death in 1982. No further information was found regarding their lives or occupations. In 1985, Terrence and Barbara (Beharry) Freethy purchased the subject property and moved in shortly after marrying. Terrence graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997, though.he is not currently practicing. Barbara Freethy, a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, began working in public relations before launching her writing career as a Romance novelist, publishing her first book in 1990 under the pseudonym Kristina Logan (a combination of the names of her children, Kristen and Logan). Barbara has written over 52 novels to date and has been published by Harper Collins, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster. She has had recent major success selling a -books through Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In 2011, she started a self -publishing business, Fog City Publishing, and in 2012, her novel, Summer Secrets, hit #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List. Barbara has won several awards for her romance and women -specific fiction, including the Romantic Times Reviewers Choice Award and the Romance Writers of America RITA Award for Best Contemporary in 1997 and 2013. In 2014, she had sold 4.5 million copies on Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP), making her the highest -selling KDP author that year and one of the most successful self -publishing authors ever. Terrence and Barbara still reside at 125 Crescent Avenue. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 125 Crescent Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources a YeaOwl fnrnarshrp ; Nanfe(s) si)wners (known cRmers trt bold)y ; ©crJpaon" 1929 L.H. Stevenson Orifinal short-term owner, occupation unknown 1930-1961 Stuart Earl Brown Hazel D. Stuart an accountant at Dollar SS Co. 1965-1982 Angelo G. Leoni(Velia) Angelo a janitor in Burlingame 1985- Present Terrence Freethy (Barbara) Terry a lawyer, Barbara a Romance novelist Evaluation (Significance): The property at 125 Crescent Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file, affiliated with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A/Califomia Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was constructed in 1929, during a major wave of development of the Burlingame Park subdivision. However, the property does not retain strong significance within this content. The property does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the National Register or California Register. Therefore, it does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B/California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The first long-term owner, Stuart Brown and his wife, Hazel, lived at the property for 31 years, but little additional information was uncovered about them that would indicate significant contributions to history. The second long- term owners were Angelo Leoni and his wife, Velia, who resided at 125 Crescent Avenue for 17 years, and similarly, littleadditional information was discovered that indicated significant contributions to the local community or broader history. The third and current long-term owner -residents are Terry and Barbara Freethy (since 1985). Barbara continues to be an acclaimed best-selling author and self -publisher of romance and women -focused fiction. Though she likely has and continues to write at home, it cannot be said at this time that the subject building is particularly representative of her life or associated with her career to the extent that the 3 Known owners are those who were specified either in city directories, permits or assessor records as homeowners. City directories did not consistently specify who was a homeowner versus a resident or renter, so it is possible that all names listed in the table above were homeowners. State of California —The Resources Agency; Primary;# DEPARTMENT`OF. OA kk& AND RECitEATIOFt . HRl # CQNTINUATIC}N -SHEET ` Trinomiat . Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 © Continuation ❑ Update subject building would be considered significant under Criterion B/2. Furthermore, 125 Crescent Avenue cannot be said to meet Criterion Consideration .G (Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years) as there is not yet significant historical perspective to determine exceptional importance. Therefore, at this time, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The main portion of the house and garage appear original from 1929. At least two major permitted rear additions were constructed in 1946 and c.1989, though it is likely another rear addition was constructed in the early 1950s. There are also unpermitted replacement rear doors and at least one rear window with replaced vinyl sash. Though electrical and plumbing contractors were listed on the original building permit, the original architect is unknown. As no architect is known to have been involved, the building cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. Despite retaining likely original features at the primary (northeast), northwest, and southeast fagades, including arched and semi -circular doors and windows, stucco siding, .wrought -iron balconettes and grilles, the building's massing has been significantly altered at the rear. Further, the building is vernacular with Spanish and Gothic Revival elements, does not possess high artistic values, and does not appear to be a particularly strong representation of any architectural style such that it would rise to the level of individual significance. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register Criterion D/California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the residence at 125 Crescent Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. Conclusion The residence at 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 during the major wave of development in the subdivision of Burlingame Park. The flat -roofed, two -and -one -half -story vernacular residence exhibits Spanish and Gothic Revival architectural style design features and appears generally unaltered on the primary (northeast) and side (northwest and southeast) facades. The building is rectilinear in plan with at least one unpermitted and two permitted rear additions. Two doors and at least one window at the rear (southwest) facade have been replaced. The detached rear shed was constructed at an unknown date. No significant events are associated with the. property. The Brown family were the first long-term owner -occupants of the property, but do not appear to have made a significant contribution to history in association with the property. The Freethy family are the second and current long. -term owner -occupants, and although Barbara Freethy is notable in the fields, of self -publishing and the Romance genre of fiction, it remains too early to appreciate the extent of her professional contribution to history such that the property would be considered significant in association. The building does not embody the work of a master, exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to a degree that it would be individually eligible. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "U" has been assigned to the building, meaning that it was "Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation "4 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early -twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and surroundings neighborhoods as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. 4 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin M. User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 El Continuation 13 Update " 512. References: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. Ancestry.com. Barbara Freethy. hftps://en.wikpedia.org/wiki/Barbara Freethy Accessed March 29, Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 125 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA. uninaame City Directories. 1929-1982. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan! February 19, 2008. Condon-Wirgler. Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007, Fajardo, Liz. Inspection, "Secretes of a Romance Novelist." January 1998. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003 Palo Alto Times. Obituary, "Angelo G. Leoni." March 31, 1980. "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982 San Mateo County Assessor Grantor -Grantee Index. Self -Publishing Review (SPR), "Self -Publishing Success Story: Barbara Freethy." August 14, 2014. http://www. selfpublishingreview.com/2014/08/self-publishing-success-story-barbara-freethy/ Accessed March 29, 2017. Water Tap Record. 125 Crescent Avenue, Lot 8, Block 7. Apnl 24, 1929. City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 125 Crescent Avenue Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Meeting Date: October 10, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: Terry and Barbara Freethy Architect: Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-293-080 Lot Area: 8,207 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Project Description: This proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story house and attached garage and building a new, two-story house with a detached garage. The floor area will be 4,074 SF (0.496 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 4,126 SF (0.502 FAR). The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, including the front porch exemption. With this project, there will be four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. There is one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. In addition to a one -car garage, the accessory structure will contain a workshop/storage area (permitted). The proposed storage area within the detached garage is permitted as long as it does not exceed 10% of the area of the house (154 SF proposed where 345 SF is allowed). An existing protected size Cedar tree (36-inch diameter) located at the front of the lot will be removed as part of the project. A Protected Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Parks Division and will become effective only after Planning Commission approval is granted for the project (see attached). There is one existing landscape tree that will remain and the applicant proposes to add three additional 24-inch box landscape trees throughout the site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: 0 Design Review for anew two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 125 Crescent Avenue Lot Area: 8,207 SF Plans date stamped: September 26, 2017 Proposed Allowed/Req'd SETBACKS i _._.---._.._..__.:____--_.—__.__._____.._.__.._...___..___._...._._......._._...__. ............ .... _..__._..__............ _-.............. ...... __._.._..._.____.._..__..__.___.._...-------.__..._..__.___.._.._..._..___._._._.._—'-'_- Front (1st fir): 2T-5'/2' 27'-5'/2' (is the block average) (2nd fir): _..___._ ... ___.._... .................................. _r. 31'-5Y2' 27'-5Y2' (is the block average) Side (left): 5'-0" ' 5'-0" (right): 10'-0" 5'-0" _�.--._ Rear (1st fir): I 62'-2" 15'-0" (2nd fir): 63'-8" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: ! 2793 SF 3 3283 SF 34% 40% _.___.......—___._._.__.._—._.... _-_....... .............. _......_._.._..__._..__._____._...---.._...___.._..._.._�_-.--.-=.__.� FAR: j 4074 SF 4126 SF' 0.496 FAR 0.502 FAR # of bedrooms: ' 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered E (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: j 27'-0" I 30'-0" DH Envelope: i complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 8,207 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,126 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 28, 2017PIanning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated September 18, 2017, and revised plans date stamped September 26, 2017, for responses to the Commission's comments and a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. Planning staff would note that the Conditional Use Permits previously requested for a toilet/shower and window within 10'-0" of the rear property line in an accessory structure have been eliminated with the removal of the full bathroom in the detached garage. This space intentionally left blank. 2 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 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: 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, a combination of cement plaster and vertical wood siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 Division date stamped September 26, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and 1-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 3 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the frarning. inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner c. Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect Attachments: August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated September 18, 2017 Diagrams and Photographs Submitted by Iry Holmes, date stamped August 28, 2017 Email Submitted by Iry and Kathy Holmes, dated August 25, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 30, 2017 Tree Removal Permit, dated July 7, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 29, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017 4 CITY- 4 J o� `t- 9nownrr Monday, August 28, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers a. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design. Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones spoke with the owner at 129 Crescent Avenue in order to access the rear yard. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the owner of 129 Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the owner of 1575 Newlands Avenue. Commissioner Gum spoke with the owners to the left and right of the subject property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > One of the letters was from a neighbor regarding the existing property having a second dwelling unit. Is that permissible under the Municipal Code? (Hurin: The current code allows for secondary dwelling units. However an application for this property has not been received. There are many existing units in Burlingame so can't determine whether this one would be legal or not, but under the current code a second dwelling unit could be legalized or added to an existing home as long as it complies with the criteria in the code.) > Would a second unit be required to have parking? (Hurin: One parking space would be required unless the property is located within 1/2 mile of a train station, in which case it would not need additional parking.) > Would the parking space be required to be covered or could it be uncovered? (Hurin: it may be uncovered.) > Is this property within 1/2 mile of the train station? (Hurin: It is just within the 112 mile radius, so parking would not be required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Terry and Barbara Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: > What are the plans for the detached garage? (Mark Freethy: It is a garage with a work room on the side.) > Are there plans to use it as a dwelling unit? (Mark Freethy: No.) > What is the purpose for the shower in the garage? (Mark Freethy: Clean-up when coming in from the back yard. Saw dust clean-up, sweat clean-up when coming back from a bike ride. Convenience without having to come into the house.)(Pearcy: The owner is retired and does a lot of home improvement City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on IOIV2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 projects.) > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Mark Freethy: The neighbors were provided with pictures of what is planned, but there have not been discussions.) > The lower walls on the driveway side seem blank. Any thought to windows on either side of the fireplace? The driveway wall is stark, and will be visible from the street. (Pearcy: Thought was to respect the privacy of the neighbors. The wall is on the north side so there is not a lot of potential for light. It has been broken up with two wall planes and three materials. The stained wood siding is meant to create a warm and friendly elevation.) > Why the changes in siding? (Pearcy: It's a cement plaster stucco building but if it was all stucco it could look harsh, so there is stained wood siding at logistical points such as the dormers and projections to warm things up. Also stained wood on the front door and garage door.) > Why horizontal siding? (Pearcy: it is stone, not siding. Just two siding types.) > is the siding board and batten? (Pearcy: Vertical stained wood with a butt joint, center -matched. it will have a warm saw -texture finish that accepts stains.) > Has there been consideration of flipping the garage to lessen impact on the neighbor? (Pearcy: The garage needs to align with the driveway, and are trying to retain the existing deck. The garage has an 8 -foot plate so is low. The new house is further back from the side than the existing house.) > Could the driveway side elevation be pulled in 1 or 2 feet to add some landscaping? It is a new house so could be pulled it in a bit to get planting to soften the ground line. (Pearcy: Needs to have a 9'-6" driveway. It's a challenge on a 50-foot lot to get a center hallway and two rooms on either side. There is more flexibility in length.) > Are the existing brick walls along the side property lines being retained or removed? (Pearcy: On the right-hand side most would be retained but about 30 feet would be replaced behind the gate.) > Could the gate be moved back to retain some of the brick walls and their mature landscaping? (Barbara Freethy. Wants to consider the security aspect and have more land behind the gate. Doesn't want people to be able to climb a low wall into the back yard.) > Simulated divided lite windows? (Pearcy: Yes.) > Landscaping towards the front of the garage to shield the view from the neighbors would be helpful. A hedge would grow taller than the fence. > Could the garage be further from the fence line to provide space for foliage and screening plantings? (Pearcy., Wants to keep the existing deck and patio.) > Has there been thought to keeping the tree in the front? (Pearcy: it is a deodar cedar tree, belongs in a park -like space. Huge canopy - to have enough breathing room the tree would need to be back out of the drip line, 20 or 30 feet. It is park tree and not well suited to this location.) > Has there been consideration to lowering the pitch of the roof of the garage to lessen the apparent mass from the neighbors? (Pearcy. Wants to tie in with the main house, with a 6112 slope. Even a 4112 slope would look mismatched.) > (Mark Freethy. The neighbor sent a letter implying there is an illegal unit in the existing house. The unit was built, originally with the house. It is a legal unit,- with restrictions. It will be eliminated in the new construction_) Public Comments: Irvin Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Lives on the north side of the property. Submitted a letter. Per design guidelines pages 24 and 28, the project does not respect the conditions and qualities of existing homes, or support separation at the property line, neighboring yard is not respected. Current house has an attached garage and a large footprint, an attached garage can accommodate needs and there are many examples of attached garages on the street. Opposes the detached structure because of its length, height and proximity. Concern with drainage from roof of garage onto neighboring property. Currently has 45 feet of unobstructed fenceline adjacent with views of trees and vegetation. Proposed garage is 15 feet high, 20feet across, most attached structures are not as imposing or high. Structure could be flipped or moved back from property line to allow 15-18 feet of adjacency with room for landscaping. Offers suggestions in the letter. Shower, toilet and windows in the garage likely to be a prelude to an occupied dwelling. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 10IV2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Kathy Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Negative impact of detached garages and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). State Senate Bill 1069 brings Burlingame to a crossroads to maintain the unique small-town character of Burlingame. Tipping point may be subdividing the single family living spaces with ADUs. Other cities seem to be maintaining their land. Should instead explore perimeter, uninhabited areas such as the Bayside instead of subdividing backyards of single family residences. Questions whether the detached garage in the project would be used as an occupied dwelling. ADUs encourage the noncompliant practice of renting out vacation rentals. ADUs mean more cars parked on streets and driving on roads, and more non -property tax -paying households. Mark Gschwind, 1553 Newlands - Shower and toilet in detached garage suggests it is being prepared to be an occupied dwelling. Opposed to adding another unit to the neighborhood. There are parking impacts already. It seems like a nice house, but appears to have an open door to an occupied dwelling. Linette Edison - Lives in the house to the south. There is only a 5-foot side setback, and it is completely paved. Would prefer there be vegetation to help with the water drainage. Opposed to the bathroom in the garage. There are other properties on the street that have been converted over to apartments. City does not need many more apartments, would deteriorate property values. Needs to maintain balance between rental units and single family homes. Mary Streshly - Lives on the south side. Happy neighbors are remodeling. When buying into an R-1 single family, buy into a designated neighborhood for what it is zoned for. Disingenuous to ask cursory question whether the structure will be rented. No way to be promised that it would not happen. Police have been called multiple times to rental nearby. If it is zoned to have units, it is not R-1 - the neighborhoods need to be kept separate. Happy with the remodel, not happy to have rental units on the street. Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue - More and more giant houses being built. Past opposition to large houses, and large Safeway. Should re -look at standards such as the FAR and lot coverage. Small lots do not need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older neighborhoods in order to preserve character. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Handsome design. > Concern the house is pushing out to the edge of the driveway. Even a small amount of landscaping could soften the edge. > With the rest of the detailing a lower slope 4112 or 5112 roof on the garage could still fit with the rest of the house. Could help with the overall height of the structure. > Can't support a full bath in the detached garage. Can understand a toilet and sink to support a workshop, but does not see the logic for the shower. A shower would suggest a closet for clothes, which would then suggest the workshop becomes a bedroom, and then it becomes accessory living space that wasn't part of the original application. > Driveway elevation is stark. Described as warm because it is wood, but it looks like the side of a barn. There is no opportunity for landscaping to soften the edge. If it were pulled back to allow landscaping may not need to do much more work to the facade, otherwise needs to do work so the facade is less stark. > Should show downspouts on the garage as well as the house. > Landscape plan needs help on both property lines. Would help to soften the view from the neighbors. > Cannot support the shower in the garage since it would suggest becoming a living unit in the future. > The bathroom would probably need an ejector pump for the sewage system; should be shown on the plans to indicate whether it would be inside or outside the structure. > Streetside elevation is nice, sad to see the tree go as it is a cornerstone of the lot currently. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > Supports the detached garage, except for the bathroom. One of the main emphases of the design guidelines is the detached garage pattern. Can provide more separation and privacy between neighbors, particularly if the wall along the property line is finished nicely. The proposed development !meets that pattern. > Drainage is addressed in the municipal code. Water is required to be controlled on the property and not flow onto neighboring properties. This will be verified during the Building Permit inspection process. > The south and north side elevations are markedly different. Perhaps they could be more' similar or less stark. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 10/2/2017 3 t The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the August 281h, 2017 meeting. Project: Freethy Residence Project Address: 125 Crescent Way Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. SEP 2 n 2017 Date: 9/1 1 /17 Cl-TY, OFF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV l . Due to neighbor concern that a bathroom could lead to a future garage apartment, the Free'thys have decided to remove the garage bathroom from the project. The window within 10 feet of the property line has also been removed. See the revised garage floor plan on sheet A3 and south elevation on sheet A6. 2. The nei hbors to the north expressed concern that the garage roof would be visible from their backyard. In response to this concern we have added a planting bed (approx mately 3' X 18') along the fence line to the east of the garage with 3 evergre.n screen trees (English laurels in 24" boxes). These trees are usually 6' to 8' tall at planting and mature to a height of 10' to 18'. It should be noted that 3 mature trees exist on the neighbor's property directly to the north of the proposed garage. These trees range in height from about 15 to 20 feet and overhang the proposed garage ocation. The combination of the new and existing trees will obscure the neighbor's views of the garage roof. See sheets A 1, Ll and attached photos. 3. We feel the current garage design is the best overall look for the property and neighbo rhood. Lowering the roof pitch would create a look that would be inconsistent with the main residence (i.e. a 4:12 roof pitch has a bungalow appearance). Please note that the current design is below limits for plate & ridge heights, `s held back 2 feet from the property lines and the eastern 6 feet has a lowered ridge (about 12'-6" high). The roof also slopes toward the northern neighbor. These design measures were taken with the neighbor's interests in mind. 4. Garage downspouts were shown on the original drawings. See keynote 9 on sheet A6. 1. A few c immissioners commented that the north elevation seemed stark and lacked softness. In general, we disagree with these comments and believe that a closer look will show that this is not the case. We are confident that the three stepped wall planes, s ed dormers, wall materials (stained wood & cement plaster) and craftsman detailing (e.g. exposed rafter tails, barge rafters, outriggers, wide window trim boards, etc.) result in an elevation that has a level of variety, interest, warmth and detail consistent with other sides of the residence. To illustrate this, please see additional perspective drawings on sheet A8. We will also bring a wood siding sample to the next meeting. In response to commissioner comments we have added taller, more robust plantings in the 3 beds along the north elevation to further soften the elevation (7 Camellias in 15-gallon containers). These shrubs are usually 3' to 5' tall at planting and mat re to a height of 8'. See sheets Al and Ll . We also added three windows (2 in the family room & 1 in the master bedroom) and relocated a window (in Bedroom 1) for more detail. See elevation 2 on sheet A5 and perspective views on sheets A7 and A8. ?. A commissioner suggested adding gable end detailing on the north elevation for consistency with the other three sides of the building. As illustrated on the drawings, the resid nce has a clear main gable running east -west along the driveway and a cross gable to south, creating a simple "T" layout. Since a gable end is not associated with the north elevation, adding a gable feature on this side of the building would look out of place and detract from the overall appearance. As noted above (item 1), we feel the updated north elevation is well composed and neighbor friendly. 3. In response to a neighbor comment, the drawings have been revised to show th low brick wall along the north-eastern property line remaining, in its entirety. The driveway gate will be moved to the west to the transition of the existing brick wa�l and existing wood fence. See sheet A1. South Side of Residence A planter bed has been added near the center of the south elevation to help soften this side of the building. The planter contains 2 New Zealand Christmas bushes. These shrubs are usually 3' tall at planting and mature to a height of 6'. See sheet Ll . If you have any questions regarding the above responses, lease call Mark Pearc at g 9 P p Y 650-348-1509. Fl+ i-ttic cr1's5'1 C,,^" AAd Sit bask-• I (X 1 '7 f 0.f ovr U aAk H� I --------- oL d d-e d r-- ------, � -I I gedx ° � l �� —' GARAGE ROOF SCALE:11411'-0' PLAN G _`. � � N I I IIII 1 I I I � _J 1 1 I I I I I , 5 I I I L----------------- -. j MARk PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 16500ailaiial A�emle w Z�� w Z � j a `u G U w w w Lu 2:. w U o w,��y;y LL N m 6 4�uc Dale D,JanFW— 5=/17 CRYCom-4 7/I3/17 L- r_______________________.� i SHEFSTIRE I ROOF PLAN - L------------------------ & GARAGE PLANS sCue ,7+•=ra� ROOF PLAN _ RCnLF: I/1'`1'�O' pp �ayy, pri � � R O Jy Pd`? rq®(Il.-'„`Sid,( (py Illyyypq'q'glll p�RV1YpyLi A3 AUG � 8 2017 Cl-fY O1= l3URLINCIAAiE CDO-PLANNING DIV. P AI NTIFGFND ffiL8S 1.ALL SHWLOBE STAKEDUMO TWOETAKESTS I.LwilxsTAONEn,w TYICMaIw evo. en[r[NYxTLE Low 24'aoa-1 2.OLM' EWwx HILV n0.1[VITL[i9 OLly[ LOW 24• aoa•1 2.A00TAL flREES EAGK E AND NS rOF NEW RANI&AND NEW CONPOSIEO SOL 3. PIANOALLTRETO S i. C[xal peovuo Teee lio. Low 29• aox-1 Jtypees I.AHloo2ANTRoI xWA[P xeO LOW I OALLpN•0 .24VOALL SIHGLEOE 54EE AR HITE8TO 8E SITE BIEHEETY SSEE ARCIIIIFOTIxiAL SITE RAN SHEET AlAI FOR OTHER WFgaJIR10N. l,p[n,EA[Il rvOYY OWARx Low .O owltoxd oM vAP.Low S ullox •^' -1 T.Lnv[NoeR IHlocorC LOYh 1 oAlbx-i B.M[Y[xol101nOl uoCL[A vwn. L,W ! GwLI•ax•O I.NANn1xA YYLr lTx2AY Low�[ALLON•I1 - --- - --- --- - --- 1O.OL[w•LITTLe��LI[•LowlGLLON•[ r•y■�J�V��'/'J�{��y����� II.BGVEOLwLOW1 oAL I R.TYLBwoNlw allvex Low•1 owLLou32 Ild TIL[AonIA IILV[n bW 1 1 owLLON-IT ■ / Sao Y Mis YL O[i® h WLY>� /CII�. fiMi •.aw•s i',h����....am..,.e ...e a. au[We1m Yxuxm[ traliiJl'll1(i114 TRFF PI ANTNP' ' �auloreel.[orm� . - . RNR11R PI AN — �,�[ T R,xL lat ONYor i3,A`ii' YIKoe \. r Nx.l eoxxluxw E,au wm �[�Lro wnlr rwnw YR aaWweTOI lo. ION YmvsR a» l,l..[.m Ii.%,kivi.)•W iA aNJa-$sFR�'ust �•ti .. S',�'T7��=s�Y•.'i .a��.,!e:10 �`SP..�.rr._:,'.t� . HFRRAP:FI't11R PI •AIT PI 11-3 aswF amrnc s E.�YLY Ya• PF wooMow tl�alvq 5 r.TA1YIlo — Il Shl W U Z W �ZU J(j W Wg W U) Z > L) 3: I•- ' CO W W m IL July 13, 2017 scale va paper size 24x36 L1 151 ptnyi v., f i s per vvQ'%I r- j ' `50UTH ELEVATION I n.•mo• � \NORTH ELEVATION .J l ll.l�r-o• - . k-t - ,,-Ae g'g MARK PEARCY ---R. C-H-I T-E-C T u-R-E 165D Dart 7hM Avenue .i eur4ngane, CA 94010 650.348.1509 �Tr� wvm P�Nuc��°clm°.cwn I EAST ELEVATION �� ,. rc4*5 L prof, ne, — wi 11 cic..w�� aw z W � z Z � J W U Z u7 g U<Q w CD ru �za U�. ,o z cv = a UIEEiT ELEV TIO I,!r.' Cgyawmv�l� >/lalll KEYNOTES i� calrD.lncw raxe wows '�� cenan rwrzla rArnea. a racm mw DDDw; r°.DEv D °w urtwDonl rA,rtm aw• w.uu r.maq r.wlw 1 Dmwen wA+/ew tAN• PAwrep. D .8. 11pY G%a Irbf, rPNf®. � DauDYDvt SHEEr m� °Fl "RnoIw�ow6l o GARAGE ne>u" EXTERIOR new rP DD °n°D .Im rA°rten ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/n•i'A' A6 s � y„ `1 V� � 5 I c � A S p�p S � i Im— X D ; �� CJ1 4 O m Z N RRE BSeo a� i N•r• ^PE n 'i'rr FREEMY RESIDENCE x 125 CRESCENT AVENUE J. m m BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA to 4; n"o e A.PN.028-293-080 .'o o m < .4F - jvz Ilk 1A 9-1 , -7, -Will, -4, M vlt 2� •-+w.. "may -a . L.. 6 - f•,'.7 ii' .►• — .�• � i __ . e r. 7 3r sFAT e` :Y ♦ 1 - - � -_ ...��'J^^_ -- •RY.!'7 .ter "'��`�.y -r.,.:'�.w� � •J'R �.�.�.��-,..gy,.+�t �A ,�.� �.v�'"�'.��s �.�' gel i -...tin.. .-. . , •r A 1 Y E f 3 - 1t �VYAA-7-7- DO- TVI ........... A'A � �\ � ._ �_ � `�•_.• _�.. _ -,.. ,�,.,'-a^��,._ : 5 - 3 Yea -ram '� N-': f - - � to !�` sk- �Xlllls, a mow 77— ,•�d���l�tlj i4tSirls N�� lg rj�]�}M. f� L' i }l(ir�f� 1 17, � r SEE -� o � { Q E, I i � +�f.-; { +�r�',_•, %�•� -�'^' ���' E �: �'c:-j � _ � e-_ fir � „fir 1::�, � a1 i �(j-�, •mil 1. -'=''its �•icv,_,+ � ` ``�:. - � � �=- ` �" �� .��I�'=>! � - �+ � i'¢ '_ '�� � �'��'i� -Y.,_ `�. \ `.` � } >' ,�y j'.ir •�r - �, , �• • ail { L ra l II t t 1 1 { L I ° .• :r"�� ,�, v � V ek.1�� 'eye' M1 iC:- i't r .n ay li e; i+ ,� :. ie{ � ,.&.: �p.L 9„ti Mf.•t 11ru6„ ...... 4�.. _`A "'Z '?``S+„ ':. ,`t�"`,Yi gas %�4 lS�•Ir.•�w , p ', � � ����� fly ' p t'� •T , �i t ti, ,�f �r � •� - 1 1 , '�•t1fi�'''k��� Lit .+h"J�Y_ +�{d'�✓f.' •w ! � �' , � r�1 �tl,y�'�!� i�h��t�{n;tia�rrfyl` rr��,� •�,.. � �+;`•� '�� Y� i '�• Co r r� tit < R a¢ „a ,Ni y', �, . �. �" � r�$6� � 1 of (, a 1`',1�.� n ; �,''. ""� :►t r �. 'tyy.jj+. �. 170 `� I ��,u � � r � .� Yr� ` , �r >r� 5��€a,��7,� � . , fit._ �► " �, , Sf4e4'ti" rl��•+rIIJU i�J �.y;��f+ ji yXT(��Wf i vy � r ( ,� .y,,�.� � f e `e r.,. �� � �1+�� � s'�pr� �`, • ;...♦ ..... � . Y�� L,�y ?'��{' �d �^"' (T!':'� I,�,t•r{� � 4:d � '.a.' -_,, � 1�a4 �r', - Iti� �� Al ;� r�, 1.►� 'r '� �� C•t♦f�' , �, � 'a rl ktwa�s..""`"` r i i I °ii �•`dl4 r t " u�S�;'��!♦��vx @' s i!' } a - ` } a. r+ - 77' t ' Y w. '?•� ' i e�i t 4y � � � ti � � t (rJ r . an •.'a v �'� l L .,:'! %',,Y• - '�•�'` j �I , 0 ry�Ari`yJ i�t� �� r� s,' ♦ a r .! .9 r \• t �°'�,w'4 �A r L>°'""'1° 1, r 1 A ei (1 ii { rain `` P y1"^ •� t ►�. •J �.{�:.a.'�y,. �. ". }c•' «'' y • 1 ' ` 1 y i�{},�. .....- }" ^'>h f i 6, r l� �y i� '•r '�• �--•eve � F { .t...-..-�"`""" iw, • ,� ' , v ,� '. „� ' /aYy '�'�' '� rt 5 1 'ir',�r.. r 6 � ;H. 'w � r. �ii .hy a � �k ,,..�,,_v c •� }� �'�_ y�..Pi1fr'SY'L �}f� "'��.. y�- k`t w'.4�irrc+, r.. �'`'"' � "�' r��'�• � ly,.., r �. /• it F "1 I �;yr $' A•�.' ..� �I.�y •.�..1, ,'.•i ^'� „I� ,e .,Y, 5..,t W. , . r - 1'� � i e'4� .d's •'b� ',Awl �� • � ' % �t { ,erg, � S ,$ ... i�;�;{•^' � '�.\ � � '� i .r �X '�2' �L* ew.•�t'` aft '� .. _ _, .,, �. +,p��i `u � � , � j� { . 1 r 08.28.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 125 Crescent Avenue Page 1 of 11 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED AUG 25 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. ----=Original Message ----- From: Iry Holmes [mailto:Irv. Holmes[cD-challengedairy.coml Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:24 PM To: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner()-burlingame.org>; GRP -Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners(o-)-burlingame.org> Subject: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Mr. Gardiner and Planning Commissioners, Attached is a letter stating our comments and concerns to the proposed new construction at 125 Crescent Ave. We hope that these will be considered in your deliberations, and we intend to attend the Hearing on Monday evening to present them. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave. Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how' attachments are handled. [http://www.challengedairy.com/files/sig-logo.gif] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If any reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return the message to the sender via return email, and delete all electronic or other copies made. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Challenge Dairy Products, Inc... August 25, 2017 Mr. Kevin Gardiner', Burlingame Plannin 501 Primrose Road, emails sent to kear Re: Adjacent Nei Department Burlingame 94010 COMMUNICATIONRr',`�:"'� AFTER F CTy;'-'r and Planning/CommissionersOBurlingame.org or Input to Public Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave, Burlingame Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Commissioners, E� �, �-� � r� yam,,, ms, �� �_;.: ��. AUG 25 26-% CI T Y Ci= SUP ,i:a.1 . L:: l..jA[v31, CC, �-i=L_A1i,Jfl`-JG ill` . We (Kathy and Iry Holmes) have lived at 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame for 23 years, adjacent to the proposed site for new home construction at 125 Crescent Ave. Please know, we do not object to the Freethy family having a nice new home. Respectfully we would like to convey our objection with several aspects of this newly proposed home plan, specifically: 1. The Detached "Garage" Apartment (see attached photos) a. The new design proposes a detached "Garage" Apartment, calling for a Conditional Use Permit for a shower, toilet and 4 sets of windows. As background, the current owners have created and rented an apartment upstairs in their house for we believe 20 +years. Renters have included both couples and singles. We suspect the in-house apartment has not been legal due to the long-standing R-1 single-family dwelling zoning. This in -home apartment has a separate entrance, and likely a kitchen. We have never lodged a formal complaint, because we wanted to be "good neighbors". But we have been unhappy with this situation for years. Therefore, if 20 +years is any indicator, we believe the owners of 125 Crescent will likely rent the current proposed detached "Garage" Apartment given it's proposed size, plumbing, windows and design. With the square footage and roof elevation, it is essentially another mini -house directly next to our backyard, and we oppose this. b. The proposed "Garage" Apartment drawing place this structure immediately next to our backyard, with virtually no separation or privacy, 2 feet from our lot line. c. This imposing, dominant structure will significantly alter and destroy the visual quality of our primary living space and kitchen. We will look at this mini -house all day long, because the "Ga age" Apartment.sight line is immediately outside our kitchen window and eating area. No 7-foot proposed fence or foliage will hide this wide, tall and "in your face" edifice. This dominant structure will compromise the current sight line and peaceful feel we have worked years to plant and maintain in our lovely backyard. d. Renters of the proposed "Garage" Apartment can ONLY access their apartment alongside our dini g room and living room windows and backyard patio. Therefore several times a day theywill walk beside our home space. This would become a source of unnecessary/unwanted activity, noise and a disruption of our privacy. e. The new tenants would NOT likely use dedicated space for their car(s), given the "gated" driveway single -car design. Therefore street parking would be required. Our 125 Crescent neighbors current garage has only been used for storage and never a car in our 23 years of residence. Therefore, one could legitimately conclude their proposed "garage" would be used for housing people and not a car. Recommendations i. Move the detached "garage" apartment to the LEFT SIDE of the property at 125 Crescent. The neighbors to the left of 125 Crescent already have a detached garage on their property. Therefore two detached garages would be next to each other, not disrupting privacy, space or views. Additionally, there is no gas meter in front lof 125 Crescent, and the tree on the street side could be replaced with a more attractive tree, accommodating a left side driveway. There is no current right or left side pattern to the homes on Crescent Avenue. The current owners of 125 Crescent have some hardscape they have poured in the last two years on the left side of their yard. But we respectfully suggest, since it was just poured recently, it can possibly be replaced to the right to help maintain their neighbor's privacy. OR ii. Move the "garage" apartment to the middle rear of the backyard at 125 Crescent. if the owners want a large "garage" apartment, then it seems more appropriate lfor the owners to be able to view this structure, versus imposing this structure on our backyard privacy and views. OR lii. Re -configure the garage "apartment" to an attached garage, consistent with 125 Crescent's current structure and the designs of approximately 50%of the garages on Crescent Avenue. (Page 20 in NDG.) Note: Several photos are also attached of very attractive attached and set -back garages throughout Burlingame. Page 22 in NDG, provides notations for "Low Impact Attached Garages. "There are examples if attached garages which do not dominate_ the front of the residence." 2. Privacy (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines." "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and respect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 3. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pg. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization. Design... to maintain existing qualities......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create Teal or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing 2 c� A MiEi GiTy C t , �,NIV condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. See Recommendation in point 1 above. In addition to altering the "Garage" Apartment we ask for consideration of potentially enhancing the architectural and landscape elements on the .north/right side of the house. The proposed design feels mostly like a wooden flat str cture with little window coverage. In contrast, the view of our house from our neighbor's right side is an attractive one, we believe. The right side of our house is fined by large picture windows and attractive foliage planted along the entire side of our house. We have worked har to maintain lovely landscaping throughout the entire side of 125 Crescent Avenue's vies. We would be most grateful for the same consideration. b. We iappreciate the visual freedom of low fences in most neighbors' front side -yards throughout Burlingame. This creates the imagery of uncluttered, open space. The proposed ne design of a 7-foot fence, which extends an additional 20 feet alongside the right of our home, creates an imposing barrier in the front of the neighborhood. It detracts from the curr nt foliage we've planted. Foliage intended to inspire a natural, attractive property line. The current, low, creeping fig covered brick fence is a more pleasing view and attractive - fenge for the neighborhood, versus the proposed 7 foot high fence extension from its current location. Enhance the beauty of the right side of 125 Crescent with more interesting architecture, windows, landscaping, and maintaining the current low, brick fence where it is currently placed. Do not alllow for a 7-foot fence until the current break midway through the lot line. Lastly, we wonder if you would indulge us in a philosophical side bar ................ We moved to Burlingame 23 years ago from San Francisco. We left behind a dense, non -family oriented, concrete filled, expensive area in search of a small, quaint town with low density, green spaces, family atmosphere and a s irit of community. We have been long-term, active supporters of our small-town Burlingame. We have and continue to participate in boy -scouting, our church community, our schools and by serving the poor and marginalized. We understand now there are significant pressures on Burlingame government toenlarge our quaint town. These housing shortage demands also have tax -based interests and incentives. Several in Burlingame government told us "there are federal and state mandates. People want to move to California. There is pressure to build more. To build apartments in the middle of homes." But we honestly ask if this housing shortage, and the increased prices and new developments are doing more to serve the rich comingto and changing our special gem of a town, than to serve the existing hard-working members of Burlingae. Therefore, we ask philosophically and with complete sincerity: What is in the best interest and fairness to the current residents, supporters and volunteers that make up the community of Burlingame? How m ch do we want to tarnish our charming little gem by over -crowding it? How much does building apartments in the backs of homes alter our precious family -oriented neighborhoods. How much 3 4- AUG Lb CITY OF vi�H�'•'l 1_i' i` does encouraging more concrete in the form of driveways and "detached garages" take away green space and backyards in the interest of satiating a never-ending "housing shortage"? How much do we want to saddle Burlingame with the headaches and density of mixed -use properties in the middle of downtown to satisfy a housing shortage. The housing seekers will keep coming. The demand will not stop. But when will more building be too much in Burlingame? When will the long-time Burlingame community supporters and volunteering home owners pack up their tents and move on in search of that quaint small town they yearned for in the beginning? What will this little gem of a town look like in 10 years? Will we have controlled;the insatiable development giant, or will development have stayed us? Do we have the. strength, courage land zeal to protect Burlingame from over -growth for our families for generations to came? We thank you!for your service, and for indulging us in this philosophical side -note. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame 4 R E AbG 5 CITY OF Bi!RUNIGAME CDD=Pl_ANNING-1 DIV. 1 �i'�`'1 a , t �T 3• � ri :�� AL / v •fly\/y,D. ` ,-f' y ,'[` � `', � f ''�,, >�'���� .1 , .. � .. _ _ . !k k WA Y �'• ' Qk � .- �' t ! kM. _ �. f �. . _ . J ice';,. '•t � '^£3 ,!Q, tub;"`W - f M- � BURUNGFME'. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT Name: Address: 1 2r G{g City/State/Zip: -�tl� 1-4 Phone: E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNEt Name: I ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: O -2-4 ' 2'1 3 • o g Q ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: f i V r--; PROPERTY OWNER Aral 12k." Name: Is a ry`-e-- Address: Olty/State/Zip: �i 804 M 1° `6 Phone: a . mall .CAM E-mail: C Address: 10 S4J - f--(Q. t(L } f I=--^VfF-- . City/State/Zip: 1 +-4 67^1-11 �- , C lAi `� --91 0 Phone: fro E-mail: IT Burlingame Business License #: ( (a RECEEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. I hereby grant the City of B 'rlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's we site as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to slrch action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCR PTION: �� � l ` I �'�► '� � �� �� I -s ) 1�'u s l AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belii f. Applicant's signature: " FVV- �'�S �e ' r A-eJr- Date: I am aware of the proposed ap licati an r by aut rize th bove-applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: . I G(r (I Date submitted: S: JHANDOUTS�PCApplication.doc Terry and Barbara Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA Date: May 30, 2017 Letter of Explanation About us RECEIVED JUG! -- 1 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING', DtV. We are Barbara and Terry Freethy. We bought our home at 125 Crescent in 1985 just in timle for our wedding. We were excited to live in Burlingame as Terry had grown up in the city, attending St. Catherine's Elementary School and graduating from Burlingame High School. Barbara grew up in Southern California but fell in love with her husband and Burlingame in the early80'sJ We have lived in our home for 32 years and raised two children there, Logan and Kristen Freethy, who attended elementary, middle school and high school in Burlingame. i We love the Burlingame Park neighborhood, but we have outgrown our home and the outdated floor plan of a house built in _1929. We believe a new house would not only improve our lifestyle but would also be a great asset to our charming neighborhood. About our plans Our proposed home has an inviting front porch, entry and living room facing Crescent Avenue and Pershing Park, with a great room located adjacent to the backyard. We plan to have a master suite and 2 bedrooms on the upper level, with a guest bedroom on the main floor that could function as a master bedroom in the future. We have chosen to build a 4-bedroom home in the event that one of our children decides to live here and raise a family. Our proposed home uses craftsman building forms that will integrate beautifully with our Burlingame Park area. The major building forms are a simple two-story gable with a perpendicular cross gable. A pattern of shed dormers, step -backs and projections add a degree of variety and interest without detracting from the overall concept. The street elevation is composed of a vertical, two-story gable element on the right with the contrasting horizontal forms of the front porch, shed dormer and cross gable on the left. The same forms are revealed at the rear elevation with a different interpretation. The side elevations are stepped back more than required by declining height envelopes to allow daylighting and privacy at side yards while maintaining a nice level of architectural interest. It should be noted that the proposed residence is less imposing on the neighbors than the existing building. Exterior detailing will include features common to craftsman homes in the Burlingame Park area such as wide trim boards, barge rafters, exposed wood beams & columns, brackets, exposed rafter tails, trellis elements, gridded windows, paneled doors, etc. The predominant exterior wall material will be painted cement plaster, softened by stained wood siding at the shed dormers, projections on the north side, and near the front door. The front entry door and garage door will . also be stained wood. The front porch floor and column bases will be stone. Our front yards is currently dominated by an oversized and poorly located Deodar Cedar. We plan to remove this tree and have reviewed the process with Bob Disco at the Parks Department. �emoval of this tree will allow us to locate our new home in a reasonable way that is consistent w1th other homes in our neighborhood and also develop a more attractive front yard. Our proposed front yard has a similar layout to our existing yard but with many enhancementls that will make it much more attractive and inviting. For example, a new, curved stone entry walk will lead visitors between a pair of low stone columns and through a landscaped area to front porch. An existing brick curb that borders the yard on the sidewalk and driveway ides will be replaced by a stone curb. Areas that are currently brick paving along the sidewalk and planter strip will be replaced with plantings. The driveway will remain on the north side Ipf the property and our plan is to reuse the existing pavers for our new driveway, partly to reduce off -haul during demolition. We also plan to keep the low brick walls that are located along Ithe side property lines in out front yard. In our backyard, we're proposing a detached one -car garage with an additional area that will be used for a workshop or storage. Adjacent to this area we'd like to include a bathroom with shower. Terry 11as worked as a carpenter in the past and enjoys home improvement projects. The work area as provide a great space for his projects and the bathroom will provide the ce perfect plaIIor him to clean up before going into the house. One of Terry's past projects is the backyard decl� that has been integrated into the new house design. We also plan to keep an existing patio area to the west of the deck. Aside from the new garage and driveway, new work in the backyard will be minimal. We are very exited about our proposed project and think it will be a great addition to our neighborhood. Thank you for ypur consideration. Sincer Terry and Barbara Freethy City of Burlingame Parks & recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 Bt7R RrJ - � • phone: (650) 558-7330 e fax: (650) 696-7216 jzborba@burlingame.org July 7, 2017 - Terry Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Terry, I reviewed your request for the removal of the Cedar tree in front of the house at 125 Crescent Avenue and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: This Cedar is growing 30" from the existing house and causing damage to the foundation and exterior stucco. With the proposed building improvements to the property, the roots from this tree will need to be cut to accommodate thenew foundation causing this tree to become unstable. The permit will be issued after the Planning Commission has approved the project. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the Cedar tree. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 060(d)(1), (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling; proximity to existing or pl oposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public services; Replacement with one 24-inch box standard single stem size landscape tree (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the.private property as defined in Sermon 11.06 090. lfyou agree with the conditions, please sign_ the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressed en`ve%pe`hyluly 19,2017 Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of Its conditions or findings, must be filed Inwritingto our office by lulyl9, 2017as provided'in,Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on October 25,2016 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Enclosure CC: Property Owner 112 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1569 Newlands Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 117 Crescent Avenue 121 Crescent Avenue 129 Crescent Avenue 133 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 yew PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL BL LINGAniE L PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Brdrlir:game, CA 94010 Date: 3 _ (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:_ �"� Q'G j '�' VIF— hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: ..PF_<P-%" f=— Circumference: 06y'l Location on Property j r­r-'N- r Work to be Performed: R oval Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessar j3�"r',�,2� Is this Tree Removal Req,est Part of a Building Project? YES NO Note: A photograph of th� tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $751'00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentationlyou may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborlst, pictitres of dainaged structures, letters of concernn frr eighbors, etc). Owner (Print) _ eci 6C�il Phone (9V 2 S ca/y j Address 1 c I -$CCU �"h(ue i..(' Email �'Q�/ �y Cd /►� (if different than) above) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. 4 7— 1 Paytnent Method CI-Qck �+Q{33 This permit allows the app4ant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Pr tection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a opy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have ex it or bee olved RE OWNER SIGNATUQ CITY ARBORIST ,�.�� CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of S700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removals) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE �• PERMIT EXPIRES 1 t + t� DATE COMPLETED This work should be dlon� by qualified tree pprofessionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job (site at all times whet work is being performed. 08/101Srevised RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 Crescent Avenue, Zoned R-1. Terry and Barbara Freethy, property owners, APN: 028-293-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 10, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and (categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited) number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe 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 set forth in the staff report, 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, 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 10th day of October, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent AYenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped (September 26, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and L2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height orl pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any r�_cycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demollition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall Inot occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets f approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all condition:ithout of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the Project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance -which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition pf a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the prooject shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 20116 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWIN� CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRI07 TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective October 20, 2017 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of Ithe new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design; shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. U I Y Ut- bUKLINUAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD neoP9 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 09/2 PH: (650) 558-.7250 • FAX: (650) 69 1.1 www.burlingame.org Site: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following�ubli�hearir�o�- _-N-O'I'ICE_ _ TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, (A: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 CRESCENT AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 028-293-080 Mailed: September 29, 2017 (Please refer to other side) FtA' A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Comm`u'nity' Development'Department'at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,'California If you challenge the subtect ap hcationls 'in co P, it ou m �) ,' y ay be limited to raising only those issues you)or someone else raisedlr, at the public hearing, described in the notice or,;in.wntten correspondence delivered,to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who'receive this° notice are 'responsible for.informing their tenants about this notice g For additional information, please call' .650 558-7250 i) Thank you. William Meeker Community Develo ment.Direc p for PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame Item No.9a Design Review and Conditional Use Permits Design Review Study Address: 125 Crescent Avenue Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 I Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage. I Applicants and Property Owners: Terry and Barbara Freethy APN: 028-293-080 Architect: Mark Percy, Mark Pearcy Architecture Lot Area: 8,207 SF General Plan: Low (Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible f r listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located wit, in these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resourcesllunder any criteria. Project Description:1 This proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story house and attached garage and building a new, two-story house with a detached garage. The floor area will be 4,074 SF (0.496 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 4,126 SF (0.502 FAR). The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, including the front porch exemption. With this project, them will be four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. There is onelcovered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. In addition to a one -cad garage, the accessory structure will contain a workshop/storage area (permitted) and a bathroom. The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permits for 1) a window located within 10'-0" of the rear property line and 2) for a shower and toilet in an accessory structure An existing protected size Cedar tree (36-inch diameter) located at the front of the lot will be removed as part of the project. A Protected Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Parks Division and will become effective only after Planning Commission approval is granted for the project (see attached). There is one existing landscape tree that will) remain and the applicant proposes to add three additional 24-inch box landscape trees throughout the site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for anew two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); Conditional Use Permit for a window located within 10'-0" of the rear property line (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)); and Conditional Uses' Permit for a shower and toilet in an accessory structure (C.S. 25.60.010 Q)). Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 125 Crescent Avenue Lot Area: 8,207 SF 125 Crescent Avenue Plans date stamped: July 13, 2017 Proposed j Allowed/Req'd SETBACKS E Front (1st fir): j _.___...___._...__......_.-._..._.......... 27'-5'/z" -___...._...._._..__.--- 27'-5Y2' (is the block average) (2nd fir): 31'-5'/2' 27'-5'/" (is the block iaverage) -� Side (left): 5'-0" I 5'-0" (right): ' 10'-0" 5'-0" Rear 1st fir): 62 -2 15 -0 (2nd fir): 63'-8" 20'-01' Lot Coverage: 2793 SF 3283 SF 4 34% 40% FAR: j 4074 SF 4126 SF' 0.496 FAR 0.502 FAR i _.......... ___._._......_..-_._._._...._.___._._.�.� _ -- # of bedrooms:: 4 --- Off -Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: j 27'-011 j 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies i CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 8,207 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,126 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, March Pearcy Architecture, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 30, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Applications Tree Removal Permit, dated July 7, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed August 18, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation b Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017 prepared Y 9 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: r PROJECT ADDRESS:l2S G'�� N'�v--, APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: .1`�`(� iQv� Name: _ Address: Address: City/State/Zip: - 't�f I��-I 1� GTE j`�"j 'i-441 4aty/State/Zip: Phone: �S� 2S S • 8 d�!°`f� Phone: E-mail: r� ma i /L i E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNERto Name: i�l�-- Address: 1 LO QV F,(Q�-OI C+f VgF-- City/State/Zip: 1 *-4 ��1-11 �- , C--A'-1--910 Phone: -4 E-mail: Burlingame Business License #: (604 a(( DECEIVED JUN - 12np CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part f t Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: _Pto," I I �I an ® P__ Z-� 1-s 1 ' q i��-s (�� ►^--t A `i_ G-:2 CSC' / -/- a- AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:_ AS Prue'C3A CVJ A -ems Date: I am aware of the proposed applicati an ei by aut rize th bove applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: (. Date submitted: S: WANDOUTSIPC Application. doc Terry and Barbara Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA Date: May 30, 2017 Letter of Explanation RECEIVED JUN -1 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING �DIV. About us We are Barbara and Terry Freethy. We bought our home at 125 Crescent in 1985 just in time for our wedding. We were excited to live in Burlingame as Terry had grown up in the city, attending St. Catherine's Elementary School and graduating from Burlingame High School. Barbara grew up in Southern California but fell in love with her husband and Burlingame in the early 80's. We have lived in our home for 32 years and raised two children there, Logan and Kristen Freethy, who attended elementary, middle school and high school in Burlingame. i We love the Burlingame Park neighborhood, but we have outgrown our home and the outdated floor plan of a house built in 1929. We believe a new house would not only improve our lifestyle but would also be a great asset to our charming neighborhood. About our plans Our proposed home has an inviting front porch, entry and living room facing Crescent Avenue and Pershing Park, with a great room located adjacent to the backyard. We plan to have a master suite and 2 bedrooms on the upper level, with a guest bedroom on the main floor that could function as a master bedroom in the future. We have chosen to build a 4-bedroom home in the event that one of our children decides to live here and raise a family. Our proposed home uses craftsman building forms that will integrate beautifully with our Burlingame Park area. The major building forms are a simple two-story gable with a perpendicular cross gable. A pattern of shed dormers, step -backs and projections add a j degree of variety and interest without detracting from the overall concept. The street elevation is composed of a vertical, two-story gable element on the right with the contrasting horizontal forms of the front porch, shed dormer and cross gable on the left. The same forms are revealed at the rear elevation with a different interpretation. The side elevations are stepped back more than required by declining height envelopes to allow daylighting and privacy at side yards while maintaining a nice level of architectural interest. It should be noted that the proposed residence is less imposing on the neighbors than the existing building. Exterior detailing will include features common to craftsman homes in the Burlingame Park area such as wide trim boards, barge rafters, exposed wood beams & columns, brackets, exposed rafter tails, trellis elements, gridded windows, paneled doors, etc. The predominant externr wall material will be painted cement plaster, softened by stained wood siding at the shed dormers, projections on the north side, and near the front door. The front entry door and garage door will also be stained wood. The front porch floor and column bases will be stone. Our front yard is currently dominated by an oversized and poorly located Deodar Cedar. We plan to remove this tree and have reviewed the process with Bob Disco at the Parks Department. Removal of this tree will allow us to locate our new home in a reasonable way that is consistent with other homes in our neighborhood and also develop a more attractive front yard. Our proposed front yard has a similar layout to our existing yard but with many enhancements that will make it much more attractive and inviting. For example, a new, curved stone entry walk will lead visitors between a pair of low stone columns and through a landscaped area to front porch. An existing brick curb that borders the yard on the sidewalk and driveway sides will be replaced by a stone curb. Areas that are currently brick paving along the sidewalk and planter strip will be replaced with plantings. The driveway will remain on the north side of the property and our plan is to reuse the existing pavers for our new driveway, partly to reduce off -haul during demolition. We also plan to keep the low brick walls that are located along the side property lines in out front yard. In our backyard, we're proposing a detached one -car garage with an additional area that will be used for a workshop or storage. Adjacent to this area we'd like to include a bathroom with shower. Terry has worked as a carpenter in the past and enjoys home improvement projects. The work area will provide a great space for his projects and the bathroom will provide the perfect place for him to clean up before going into the house. One of Terry's past projects is the backyard deck that has been integrated into the new house design. We also plan to keep an existing patio area to the west of the deck. Aside from the new garage and driveway, new work in the backyard will be minimal. We are very excited about our proposed project and think it will be a great addition to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer Terry and Barbara Freethy Conditional use permit application for a bathroom (with toilet and shower) 'lin detached garage building at 125 Crescent Avenue. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Public Health: The proposed bathroom in the detached garage building would be one of 4.5 bathrooms in the proposed project that would utilize the City's sanitary sewer system. There would be no public health issues. Public Safety: The proposed bathroom will be low use and not introduce dangerous or injurious j activities that might require increased fire or police services. General Welfare: The location of the bathroom is at the rear of our property and about 50' away from the nearest residence. The bathroom will be a low use and therefore will have minimal, if any, effect on light, views and noise for neighboring properties. Convenience: Since the bathroom is not accessible to the public and located at the rear of the property it will have no effect on public convenience. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use will be a one -car garage with a side area that would be used for a workshop on storage and an adjacent bathroom. This building is located in the rear of the property and will comply with the City's R-1 District requirements for height, floor area, lot coverage and location for accessory structures. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character, of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The detached garage building, where the bathroom is located, is consistent with the neighborhood pattern of small detached garages located near rear property corners. The detached garage will!also conform to the neighborhood pattern of detached garages matching the character and aesthetics for the main residence. Personal statement: We would like to include a bathroom (with toilet and shower) in our detached garage building so that we can clean-up before entering the house after doing projects in the yard or garage. Because of the location at the rear of our property and the low use of the bathroom, we do not believe it will have any negative impacts on the neighbors or neighborhood. RECEIVED JUN i-1 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Conditional use permit application for a window (within 10' of the property line) in a detached garage at 125 Crescent Avenue. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Public Health: The proposed, small window will not create any public health issues. Public Safety: The proposed window will not introduce dangerous or injurious activities that might require increased fire or police services. The window is about 4' from the rear property line and on a wall that is perpendicular to the rear property line (facing south). This location is not considered a fire risk by the building code. General Welfare: The small, 2'x2' bathroom window will have translucent glass, be under a 2' roof overhang and located below the tops of perimeter fences. The location of the window is at the rear of the property, about 50' away from the nearest residence and does not face a neighboring residence. Because of this, the window will have minimal, if any, effect on light, views and noise for neighboring properties. Convenience: Since the bathroom is not accessible to the public and located at the rear of the property the window will have no effect on public convenience. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use will be a one -car garage with a side area that would be used for a workshop or storage and an adjacent bathroom. This building is located in the rear of the property and will comply with the City's R-1 District requirements for height, floor area, lot coverage and location for accessory structures. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The detached garage building, where the window is located, is consistent with the neighborhood pattern of small detached garages located near rear property corners. The detached garage will also conform to the neighborhood pattern of detached garages matching the character and aesthetics for the main residence. Personal statement: We would like to include a bathroom in our detached garage building so that we can clean-up before entering the house after doing projects in the yard or garage. We would also like a window in this bathroom for proper light and ventilation. Because of the location at the rear of our property and the low use of the bathroom, we do not believe the window will have any negative impacts on the neighbors or neighborhood. RECEIVED JUN -1 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIU, City of Burlingame Parks & recreation Department ingame 850 Burlingame Ave., Burl' CA 94010 BURINGAME phone.- (650) • / (650) • • • •R crborba@burlingaine.orb' July 7, 2017 Terry Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 DearTerry, I reviewed your request for the removal of the Cedar tree in front of the house at.125 Crescent Avenue and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: This Cedar is growing 30" from the existing house and causing damage to the foundation and exterior stucco. With the proposed building improvements to the property, the roots from this tree will need to be cut to accommodate thenew foundation causing this tree to become unstable. The permit will be issued after the Planning Commission has approved the project. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the Cedar tree. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter11.06 060(d)(1), (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public services; Replacementwith one 24-inch box standard single stem size landscape tree (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the.private property as defined in Section 11.06 090 Ifyou agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressed egvelope byJuly 19; 2017 ; Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writingto ouroffice bylulyl9, 2017as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter11,06). The permit will be issued on October25, 2016 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, 'Bob Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Enclosure CC: Property Owner 111 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1569 Newlands Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 117 Crescent Avenue 121 Crescent Avenue 129 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 133 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 8; ZLINGAp1E PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department t_ L; 8S0 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date:_ -7 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: 1Z,5 '�' 1..� V ice_ hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: -P'FF -f� P� G -�f�� Circumference: ae.p' `:t-' Location on Property Fr-cpN-r tz_� Work to be Performed: Removal i-' Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: S. g_t=:' 1---T--j,�.re.� r Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report front an Independent Arborlst, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern fro eighbors, Owner (Print) t?�U( LILT Il Phone (925�o(��-I Address I -scI? i Alue i.�('�_ Email q {�, i d ferent than above) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERMIT -- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. : ZjtllPaymentMethod O-Qc 1k This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above Iisted tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expir or beenresolved,A SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: OA% 24 - Inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be %— required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of S 700for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT.Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE t - 19,11 PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED Tit is work should be done by qualified tree professionals anti a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o8l2oisrevised Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware ofjthem as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 8) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 9) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 10) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 11) Obtain a survey of the property lines. 12) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: July 17, 2017 650 558-7270 CITY O 4Po Project Address: Project Comments - Planning Application 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line 2016 CRC § Table R302.1(1) or 2016 CBC Table 705.2 2) Provide details on the plans which show that all roof projections which project beyond the point where fire -resistive construction would be required will be constructed of one -hour fire - resistance -rated construction per 2016 CRC § R302.1(1) or 2016 CBC §705.2. 3) Indicate on the floor plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one -hour fire -rated construction. 2016 CRC Table R302.1(1) § or 2016 CBC, Table 602) 4) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2016 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed.:• 5) RESIDENTIAL: Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawings sped the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows. 2016 California Residential Code 2016 CRC § R310 or CBC 1030. Note: The area labeled "Office / Nook" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 6) Guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2016 CRC R312 or 2016 CBC § 1015.3. 7) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but yourshould be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 8) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the !plans on which each Measure can be found. 9) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 10) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 11) Obtain a survey of the property lines. 12) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one 'foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: June 7, 2017 650 558-7270 CITY O 9PoanT Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No further comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Landscape plan approved if proposed trees are single stem Irrigation plan approved Reviewed By: BD 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Date: 7.28.17 CITY O� Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 126 Crescent Avenue zoned R-1 APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window withinten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Protected Tree Removal Permit submitted and approved for removal of Cedar tree. Permit will become effective after Planning Commission approval of project. 2. Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist required. (Attached) 3. 3 new 24 box landscape trees proposed must be single stem variety and properly staked. The followingcomments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as the � Y � Y will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Landscape plan approved if proposed trees are single stem Irrigation plan approved Reviewed By: BD Date: 7.6.17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: sidewalkfFeRtiRg site, (2) plug all existing sanitaFy seweF lateFal cenneetions and install a new 4" lateFal, (3�-" wateF line eenneetiens to eity wateF mains fGF seFviees OF fiFe line aFe te be installed peF Gity standaFd pFeeeduFes and specificatien, (4) any etheF URdeFgFE)Und Utility WE)FI(S WithiR eity'S Fight of way. Please shew en the site plan. 2. Please GE)Afiffn that all pFE)pesed haFelseape iffiffevements (eelumns, fenees, etc.) aFe plaeed behind the ffepeFty line. 3. No further comments. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 4. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 5. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 6. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 7. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 8. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.orR/sites/default/files/Countvwide%20ProRram%2OBM P%20PIan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" 9. An erosion control plan will be required. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/18/17 650-558-7245 � CITY O 03 gPOwAT Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard i procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. Please show on the site plan. 2. Please confirm that all proposed hardscape improvements (columns, fences, etc.) are placed behind the property line. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 3. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 4. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 5. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -.City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 6. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fges. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit.for,review and approval! 7. Insert the `Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/defa ult/files/Countywide%20Program%20BM P%20Plan%20Sheet- June%202014%20UPdate.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobaV.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" 8. An erosion control plan will be required. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. i Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 6/2/17 650-558-7245 CITYY Avowal Project Comments - Planning Application f-' Project Address: 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal: Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 4. If an electronic gate crosses the driveway, provide a Knox key switch connected to the gate to allow for fire department emergency access. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 6/27/17 650-558-7617 CITY O Apo Project Address: Description: Project Comments - Planning Application 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a, written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. This project may be required to comply with the C.3.i provisions of the San Francisco Bray Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Required Site Design Measures for Small Projects. If the project will create and/or replace >2,500 ft2 to <10,000 square feet of impervious surface, then one or more site design measures listed on the Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects must be installed. Please complete, sign and return the Small Projects Checklist, which can be found at the link referenced http://flowstobay.org/new development - RETURNED 7/13/2017 1 2. Label all pervious and impervious surfaces and site design measures for stormwater i I - DONE 3. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. If applicable,, please read"Requirements for Architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturaIcopperBMPs.pdf - Not applicable for this project addressed now, bu The following comments do not need to be .t you should be aware of them as they will need to beaddressedat time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz6D-veolia.com s Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: July 20, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 i CITY O Y A wowwTe Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-080 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story house with new detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for a full bath and window within ten feet of property line in an accessory structure. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. This project may be required to comply with the C.3.i provisions of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Required Site Design Measures for Small Projects. If the project will create and/or replace >2,500 ft2 to <10,000 square feet of impervious surface, then one or more site design measures listed on the Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects must be installed. Please complete, sign and return the Small Projects Checklist, which can be found at the link referenced http://flowstobay.org/newdevelopment 2. Label all pervious and impervious surfaces and site design measures for stormwater. 3. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. If applicable, please read "Requirements for Architectural Copper." A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay. org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturalcopperBMPs. pdf The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz(cDveolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: June 15, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 c + PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage at 125 CRESCENT AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 028-293-080 Mailed: August 18, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tenants -about t-his -notice. --- - - - For additional information, please call (650)'558-7250 Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE <­11Yu': j @V Itl P,i In i 11 a, j upVl , r ull +1 t li m Ir 8m..0 � I I�rumn an„I,: r l °1hrt;,ll� la rY' wm'" :v S'r I'., �Glh o'^,dl a iuplu IIIVIµr LIVIS II'pl r I' it{w up'I';Rr lhl IOIuVp dr d" �w:'ll Ilf'r raV4thll il{rlllr II ,IN.Fflmll�,� r;r„,. is a '4' r m' I �. �} '?Q I'd�p �,$''+�,,� xµ d'•�. ;`^`r$ i r II mr .. ? dF Oe..:.: , @ rdl ( µl (uI,Il,S �IJ,lo°',1 �I Ills al, V:k r d h"�hu:a,. ; `il >,i`II �✓ v. {! f a.. IGd" 7p , t ^I , I -- 13�@u' w�,. ,r Cy6AM1 !'srtv ImluyAlm 4 e r< 'r: 411 '. 3 7up;^rP ,CIF III'�I I"`U,V, Ihi J. '4� 11 Ip 1 H7 4ril :tl u1O} r. , f , h P+++ IVCI@IIV+IWIIllllll�?'�41IIIrWl111i1 yr' Ih ,In r.• ^ , t.,.:..i e+ " ll74 !''V"aG'pQ, �4M y 5 aIILIr IT, ,,NI• ., �.<.fi{ r z , fi" 'r9,, ' S'll C7r Ihu tiw lull uu.l i* NY iV' All, ::n 9f7Prtlrp�r Ir I�IVT + '�fuk".a"I41". 'WI.; r�J 'I I�"" rVyn;i s> �In rRa�Ir QA wTl �'' @lllluh", �p a d i pN !:`IV %! 1 r,^:r Cam✓ 4E r 1i hulVl r , .IVI. r , !I ,XNM:I ^� V I,,"..,� p °'W aw.l" ` Ifp �! 6�1 VII IN. r� 6Y , w� s r w 4" ar"'.:, "� a d 1 ;. 1 �{ II �+ 'III, 3 , p"' n1I4,7:1@Ili" ,I" m0 au ( '"�"„.•', :EW " V '.'� plll, ilk '.,i"om. 17j mn AA„@ 7 W rr S ar 4 : d „ � pl $� Y%I I n � �,,. n rw ry, 1 ,„ rl S A i4 '� yd.. Vw n'. �• '.S .,�'" .. ^ �I „�.,, d•I �* Wt� '': 111 w li@Ih, +x+uVM ,nyj? II ��I 7iM r, �I-�Ilrlu�,ll4011�,I!:II;' �rh VVr¢ 'FJ ...,�,..E'_ti.:. . {r .. YVrw •,-r''�':;'d d,QI @FY : }I 7 mL^ '' b Ii ' r"lp iCf'l3� l rYlI u r 1 *y ; I l r ACm �b� „a iel},,.r Q{ °o�'th, ti I�AX@l.:u...,'.',"a IV A�,° ,dva:l:':: ulu r � v r III r." }�'dh IXu, ��U sV ar �� ',r n I d �I ,�i '`VrI , , � r,:.. upAparl � I blow I ;p „YII@IAVI % {"fRIVuVr�dr �� Oil' °n hp IVI VV+III _ v,Id,lfrFIAItirW't � I Ilk "s 1 A u'w a wduh� F:. A,I„AlAl r, Pmll4ul- m1Wl �. �4d 6 v Vgr✓1;,' �r h! ww' s 1M�� i Illy „ l � :I III 1d �� Ihgl;r r A 16" C� ul I,VxNSuplu„ ti,,. r.`4k Mlr �J V iyt (y i �, I,IaI li IW«il�'"I r ,1 . A 91 BI hl ryl I I r ' �i'_ a yIr�lp�1�'"� �id^:,.I Yi� I v "'W^L,\IV � �.,� 1'� ..dIi ^„! 6 _� .. �M W v lul +✓rVMV,:�I'� : �� „MIn 'rl` l V :..� iIIII p I �L'9IO.X,l,lxiI A � � ,a �,. : NCi Vy 11 p1 IVI Ip rY I1I5'41 LI lIluIh � �i�:,•l rl 1 4 " i�% ' V, Nj r IalI y? H. 15 ,,:, I .fG uuVllu@ 'Ll NII la ml p0 III . ' I 1 V e - .,V, ,'1y tr%.. lullidlrypv� II V yy II , 'r:. � I u r �II@WplrlrY :VV1�1�111u@@;;V:'I'InVY, l,. Iji Ntlo rA"plll@ti . .;. NI�p'9'il 4 dPI A I "lu u`I�I, 'T Sdi lll'�11�IIk �`'I'llti.11 ' .q ' LI,"Y' Y Qd ll� IVI IV ,p,lr,.:l of I11 IiN, IV 'w 1i I�,�Vl 4-11 ` Vl to Vlldl!'Ihli; JI #lP 'u VIV Ir, u "f � �. Wyya r � � : u .. , �.. I ,4:1 �I _ � u . ,_ .:,.�..:� a._:.,.-,.'u .a ,. _..... llul:"WL,....u,. i a I .�✓~.u.;ru�.:.. l.�_w"...� � _lllLl..w: r.":1:. ..du __..., ..:.on. .". 1�u�,��,✓u..r.W,�,yrVVuu..,..�.,,_u:. uW, _r_.. ar.._ 1w.�.W�l� @�. �. 11 , .. .y. ..u.,"�.. v� . ,. �.0 �,.,_. °'�Q��V "u..w,_.._ ^_ .._. IVuI°. .._..._w _ ..