HomeMy WebLinkAbout1600 Willow Ave - Staff ReportItem # �0...
Consent Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1600 Willow Avenue
`,
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permits
Item # Zq�
Consent Calendar
Address: 1600 Willow Avenue Meeting Date: O1/24/OS
Request: Design review, special permit for a basement and special permit for height for a first and
second story addition.
Applicant and Property Owner: Jim Keighran APN: 028-133-150
Designer: JD & Associates Lot Area: 8,569 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to
existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of mare than 50% of the floar
area of the structures before the addition.
History: On August 10, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a height variance application for a
first and second story addition at this site (August 10, 1998 P.C. Minutes). Building plans for the
approved first and second story addition were submitted to the Planning Depariment on August 4, 1998
and were approved on September 15, 1998. The project was built accarding to the plans approved by
the Planning Commission.
Summary: The existing two-story house, with a detached two-car garage, contains 3,973 SF (0.46
FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add 143 SF on the second
floor and reduce the existing detached garage by 164.5 SF. The applicant is also proposing a 483.1 SF
addition to the existing 238.5 SF basement area at the center of the house. The basement addition will
include a large recreational area, a 25 SF bathroom area, a new utility room and three new starage areas
with ceiling heights under 5'-0". Because the finished floor above the basement is less than two feet
above existing grade, 700 SF of the 721.6 SF basement is exempt from the floor area calculation (CS
25.08.265, b, 2 and b, 3, E). A special permit is required for the basement because it has a ceiling
height greater than 6'-6° (9'-0" ceiling height proposed) (CS 25.28.035, fl. With the basement and
covered porch exemptions, the proposed house and detached garage will still have a total floor area of
3,973 SF (0.46 FAR) where 3,992 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed (19 SF below the maximum
FAR allowed).
With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from four to five. The existing 598.5
SF (21'-0" X 28'-6") detached two-car garage will be reduced to 434 SF (21'-0" X 20'-8") and will still
provide two covered spaces (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions for each space). One uncovered 9' x 20'
space fls provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following
application is required:
• Design review for a second story addition (CS 25.57.010, a, 5); and
• Special permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6° (9'-0" proposed)
(CS 25.28.035, fl; and
■ Special permit for building height (35'-0" existing, 31'-2" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum
allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
Design Review and Special Permits
Table 1— 1600 Willow Avenue
Lot Area: 8,569 SF
1600 Willow Avenue
EX[STING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
Setbacks:
_._._ __... : _.... _.__... _ .... _....... __ ....
Front (2"d flr): 18'-6" 30'-7" 20'-0"
_.._ .. __. _ _... _;.... _ _. _...... , _. ___ _ _ _ ......... . _. __. .
Side (right 2i°): 19'-0" 15'-6" 12'-0"
(left 2"d): : 7'-6" 10'-3" 7'_0"
_ _._ . _.. . _.. _....... : _.. __... _.
Lot Coverage: ; 2,783 SF 2,618 SF 3,428 SF
i
32% 31% 40%
_ _ _ _ _. . _.. __ _.... . _.... _ ...
FAR: ! 3,973 SF 3,973 SF 3,992 SF
0.46 FAR 0.46 FAR 0.47 FAR'
_.... _.. __ .... _ ......... _. _ _ _ __
# of bedrooms: 4 5 ---
_... __...... . '__ __.__ _.. ___ . __ _.__ _. _.. __ _._...__ _.......
Parking: I 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�20� X 2��-6��� �Zo� X 20�) (Zo� X Zo�)
' 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_.......... _ ._. _. _. . _. . _...... __ _. _ _..... _.... _.
Height: i 35'-0" 31'-2"z 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: i complies complies CS 25.28.075
` (032 x 8,569 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 3,992 SF (0.47 FAR)
2 Special permit for building height (35'-0" existing, 31'-2" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum
allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
Staff Comments: See attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on January
10, 2005, the applicant submitted a revised basement plan to all Planning Commissioners and to
Planning Department Staff. The revised plans showed the inclusion of a direct vent gas fireplace, a
31.5 SF bathroom with a 7'-0"ceiling height and access to three storage areas less than 5 feet in ceiling
height. The Commission asked a couple questions about the basement and the roof height, they stated
that the project was well designed and then they moved to place this item on the consent calendar with
the changes proposed in the basement (January 10, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes). The
2
Design Review and Special Permits
1600 Willow Avenue
following are questions asked by the Commission and a response to each question provided by the
applicant:
1. Will the half bathroom have a pump?
• The designer stated that the City will require a pump and a backflow water valve to be installed.
2. Is the existing roof height going to be lowered?
■ The designer clarified that the existing roof height is not changing, but that the new roof area
will be lower than the existing highest roof.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria far design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's January
10, 2005, design review study meeting, that the project is well designed, the exterior of the addition is
articulated and there is interest in the roof design, the project is found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's five design review guidelines.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for a basement and for height, the
Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or
addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and
neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
3
Design Review and Special Permits
1600 Willow Avenue
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary
and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal
that is proposed is appropriate.
Special Permit Findings for a Basement: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the
Planning Commissions January 10, 2005, design review study meeting and that the proposed basement
is less than 2'-0" above adjacent grade and is not visible from the street, and if built to the California
Building Code and Department of Public Works requirements, the bathroom as proposed will provide
convenience to the basement use without allowing the basement area to be used as a second dwelling,
the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above.
Special Permit Findings for Building Height: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of
the Planning Commissions January 10, 2005, design review study meeting and that the height of the
proposed roof addition (31'-2" above average top of curb) is below the existing roof height (35'-0"
above average top of curb), the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed
above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permits. The
reasons for any action should be clearly stated 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 Department date
stamped November 29, 2004, sheets 1 and 3-7 and date stamped January 10, 2005, sheet 2; and
that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit, an that the wastewater evacuation system from the basement half bath shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building Code and the Burlingame Department of Public Works,
including that any future failure shall be the responsibility of the homeowner;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors or basement, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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; all new windows shall be true divided
4
Design Review and Special Permits
1600 Willow Avenue
light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as
close as possible;
5. 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;
6. that prior.to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyar shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Officials November 3, 2004 memo, the Fire Marshal's
November 5, 2004 memo, the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's November 8,
2004 memos and the City Engineer's November 9, 2004 memo shall be met;
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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California
Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Erica Strohmeier
Zoning Technician
c. Jim Keighran, applicant and property owner
G
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ame.org
�� CIT7 �
T
BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
'°�,..�
Type of application: Design Review F Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit � Other Parcel Number:
�
Project address• % � ;,J � -, - � �
APPLICANT
Name: J (/�( ��.E%T1"`"-�
Address: � ioG� �[)� Lf 1�W �l•U
City/State/Zip:� (�(,�a��e, �� �Q�/
I
Phone (w):�� — � (o —�d �
�fl�
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
�
N am e:�����- SD�C� f�"['ES
Address: t22� �hLO/'ra. l! (J�
Citylstate�ziP$URL./�tlG�4/�l�', -l�/� 9'�Olv
Phone (w): ��.. �i'��� ¢
(h):
cfl: �5�-37�—��f4g
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
���
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
RECEIVED
NOV - 1 2004
t
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: U»Sh1 �T ��CANI D
CITY Of BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
�DIT/ad �
AFFADAVIT/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: Date:
I know about the proposed applicatio hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: � , Date: �l
Date submitted: � �
�
PCAPP.FRM
. 1i. � �� � • 1 I
,i � �
. '•f
. ,�1 ` � : . ,.
� �, � �� . • -�e--�- • �- �a �
��
� � �� � ��f �
�� ����
1
L� .
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Comn2ission Minutes
January 24, 2005
• How much landscaping would be morder to reduce the number of compact parking spaces and
reduce or eliminate the varian request;
• Revise the articulation at corners of the structure to reduce or eliminate the side setback variance, do
something different f what is shown;
• At the front of th uilding on Cowan, add arches, articulation and window detail to increase the human
scale and cre a base piece for the building;
• There is clear way to access the front of the building f the disabled accessible parking spaces at
the re , is there a building code requirement which s not been met?
• T fic Engineer should comment on any chang o parking proposed.
�ommissioners conunented: Feel that the irection given regarding parking may seem contradictory,
applicant needs to study and present the a rnatives, including the impact on landscaping; it was noted that
this use is a great idea and consiste ith the newly adopted Bayfront plan; discussed putt' disabled
parking on tl�e public street, staff i ed that the requirement is that disable accessible park' e on the site it
serves; parking allocation nee to be considered in the light of whether all the empl es will ever be there
at the same time; not enco ging building to be reduced to meet on-site parki , ut they are intensifying
the use significantly w' lout adding any parking, like to see parking pr ided to code since they are
increasing the use; s ort adding landscaping within parking areas as p inoted in the specific plan as long
as it does not und y restrict parking and access.
Chair Ost�na moved to set this item on the action
answered, the Planning Department has had time to revi
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Motion �
appealable. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
en when the long list of questions have been
the responses, and there is space on an agenda.
approved on a 6-0 voice vote. This action is not
VIL ACTION ITEMS
COrisellt CalCndal' - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be roattirie. They are acted oii sirnultaneoa�sly u�iless
separate cliscussion and/o�• actiorz as requestecl by tlre applicant, a member of the public w• a commissiaier pria� to tlre time the
canmission votes on the rnotion to adopt.
2A. 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT AND FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT (JIM KEIGHRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (104 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
2B. 2101 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW MEFFORD, WINGES ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
2D. 1812 C MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ART CLASSES (NANCY CALL TORRES, APPLICANT; WJ BRITTON, INC. PROPERTY
OWNER) (10 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting on items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue because the
2
City ofBurliragame Planning Commission Minutes
Janumy 24, 2005
applicant is a relative and 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive, because she lives within 500 feet. C. Brownrigg noted
that he would abstain from voting on item 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive, because he lives within 500 feet.
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Annette Doherty, property owner of item 2c, 1613 Mc Donald Way, asked that her project
be removed so that she could discuss one of the conditions with the commission.
Chair Osterling set item 2c, 1613 McDonald Way, as the first action item on the regular action calendar.
C. Bojues moved to approve items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue, 2b, 2101 Adeline Drive and 2d,1812 C
Magnolia Avenue. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion. Items 2a, 1600 Willow Avenue and 2b, 2101 Adeline
Drive passed on a 4-0-2 (Cers Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining) voice vote; and item 2d, 1812 C
Magnolia Avenue passed on a 6-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30
p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTIO
2C. 1613 MCDONA WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK V CE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES,
STEWAR SSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY,
C� Monroe presented the staff report including the 10 co rtions of approval proposed. Ten conditions were
suggested for consideration. Commissioners had questions of staff.
Chair Osteriing opened the public hearing. ette Doherty, property owner , noted that she has spent the
last two weeks researching windows, d would request that the requirement for true divided lights in
condition one be changed to "simu ed divided light windows with permanently fixed ree dimensional
grids permanently attached on inside (wood) and out side (simulated material ". She noted that these
windows are a single plate glass in a wooden frame with a three dimensi al, divided light like grid
attached on the inside an outside. These simulated paned windows are s stantialiy cheaper and have a
much reduced chance at the seals on the glass will fail. Commissi er asked if these windows had the
divided lights plac between the two pieces of glass? No, the gri ' on the outside of the glass on both the
inside and outs' e, the grid is fixed and cannot be removed. e difference in price is substantial, true
divided light indows for this proj ect would range from $7 , 00 to $89,000 and the simulated divided lights
with exter' r fixed grid would range in price from $43 0 to $55,000. Unfortunately her budget will not
allow for true divided lights. There were no mor omments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: the "simulated �vided lights as described will provide the more traditional look
which the design guidelines promote ey will have depth and will look inside and out like "true divided
lights", individually paned window . Could staff put some thought into a"term of art° to use in the future so
that simulated divided light windows as described can be included when true divided light windows are
proposed, directed and/or required.
3
Ciry of�Bi�rlingame Planrzi�ag Commission Unappi�oved Mii2utes
Janumy 10, 2005
8. 1600 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JIM KEIGHRAN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (104
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Keighran stated that she would be abstaining from participating on this item because she is related to the
applicant and stepped down from the dais and left the chambers.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment Jim Keighran, property owner, and Jerry Deal, designer, 1228
Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, represented the project. Applicant noted that he has lived in this house since
1998, now have two kids and want to have two more in the future, would like to expand his house for his
growing family, would like to have all bedrooms on one floor, he is removing a portion of the garage
accommodate the proposed addition. Designer noted that there is a change to the basement floor plan not
shown on the plans, would like to add a direct vent fireplace and 25 SF half-bathroom in basement, designer
submitted a revised baseinent floor plan showing these changes. Commission asked if the half-bathroom
will have a pump. Designer commented that the City �vill require a punip and backflow water valve to be
installed. Commission asked if the existing roof height is beulg lowered? Designer clarified that the existing
roofheight is not changing but that the new roofportions will be lower than the existing l�igl�est roof. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the project is designed well, the addition is articulated and there is interest in the roof
design, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the changes proposed in the
basement. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m.
9. 2101 ADELINE T
�ECONDSTORY
; DEAN AND
�RICA STROF
fED R-1 - APPLICA'
(MATTHEW MEFFi
�SULA WILLIAMS,
OWNERS) (65 NO ED) PROJE
Cers. Brownr`i`� and Keighran stated tha ey would be abstaining fro articipating on this ite because
they live within�0 feet of the subject prop y and stepped down from t dais and left the cham ers.
lnr. Hurin briefly pres�ted the project descriptiot�� There were no questions of'�taff. °�
�. '��.
Chai Osterling opened the�pi�'blic comment. Dean WiI�ams, property o�vner, and �thew Mefford,
archite 1290 Howard Avenue #�`i 1, Burlingame, represente��he project. Applicant noted t�t�,the intent is
to develo� e interiar of the house a�l\ enlarge an existing bedraom to make it a master be om, also
adding a fami room next to the kitche , resently the existing seco�ti story portion of the hou looks
nfinished, this p�ect will complete the se nd floor, addition integrat�into the existing architec e,
usi the same exten materials throughout to r tch, project conforms to tlre,zoning code. Commission
asked i e new window nd eave detail will match existing; yes. There were no other comments from the
floor and th ublic hearing was closed.
FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRS ND
� INGES ARCHITEC PLICANT A
0
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME
Keighran Residence
1600 Willow Avenue
Burlingame, CA.
Special pernut for a basement
1 Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural chnracteristics of the new
constrzsction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's c�esigrr and with the
existing street crnd neighborhood.
The basement is below grade ( the floor above is no more than 2 feet above the
existing grade). Therefore its mass is no more than a typical foundation.
� Explain how the vcrriety of roof line, facade, exterior f nish naaterials and
elevation.s of the proposed new strt�cture or additron are consistent with the existing
structure, street and nerghborhood
There is no roof line associated with the basement. The exterior finish is a combination
of stucco and concrete foundation. These materials are consistent with the existing
dwelling and with other stucco applications in the neighborhood.
3 How will the proposed project be eonsistent with the residential design
guidelines aclopted by the eitv (C.S. 25.57)?
The basement conforrr�c to the Zoning code requirements and will not contribute to
mass which would be out of character with the neighborhood
� Explain how the removal of any trees loeated within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessar�� and is consistent with the ciry's reforestation
requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the rensoval of�any trees?
Fxplain why this mitigation is appropriate.
No trees are planned to be removed at this time.
RECEIVE�
NOV - 1 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION - CITY OF BURLINGAME
Keighran Residence
1600 Willow Avenue
Burlingame, CA.
Special pernut for the height, of a portion of the roof, to exceed 30 feet above the average top of curb .
1 Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural chnracteristies of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing stn�cture's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood
The proposed addition architecturally blends in with the existing dwelling. The
second floor additions are somewhat minor in character and do not dominate the
fa�ade.
2 Explain how the variety of roof line, faeade, exterior frnish materials and
elevations of the proposed new structure or nddition are consisXent with the existing
structure, street and neighborhooct.
The new roof line has a 12/12 pitch which matches the existing roof pitch. This is
an important element of compatibility in the roof mass and design. An increase
of the roof to a height of 31'-2" is necessary for this compatibility and to avoid
the additions looking "squat". The earterior finish materials will match that of the
existing surrounding materials. The elevations are consistent with the existing
elevations in style, mass and materials.
3 How will the proposed project be consistent with ihe residenticrl design
guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The design guidelines allow an increase in the height measurement of 30 jeet
above the average top of curb jor architectural character. In order to compliment and
match the �isting architectural character this slight adjustment in the height
is necessary.
� Explarn how the removal of any trees• located within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necesscrry nnd is eonsistent with the citv's reforestation
requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees?
Explain why this mitigation rs nppropriate.
No trees are planned to be removed at this time.
RECEIVEC�
NOV - 1 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT