HomeMy WebLinkAbout1804 Davis Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Item # I�
Design Review for a New Two-Story House
Address: 1804 Davis Drive Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Request: Design Review for a new two-story house.
Applicant: Nimesh Amin
APN: 025-201-050
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 5,250 SF (50' x 105')
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, sma11 facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences
not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-
family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
October 25, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on
October 25, 1999, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for a two story house with a full
basement living area and denied the project (October 25, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The
Commission in their action noted the following:
• concerned with the height of the building above grade and the way the building is massed;
• too much square footage on the lot, basement is too big, rooms are large and there is an
excessive amount of storage;
• concerned with the project not being compatible with the neighborhood;
• suggested that the second floor addition be placed over the garage so that more bedrooms
could be added on the second floor rather than have the bedrooms in the basement;
• concerned with having bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry room and a conditioned but
unfinished storage room in the basement; and
• basement could have the potential of being used as a separate dwelling since there are doors
to the outside of the house.
Current Project Revisions (January 28, 2000 plans): After the October 25, 1999, Planning
Commission action meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped January 28, 2000,
sheets A-1 through A-6). The following revisions were made:
■ The finished floor at the front of the house was reduced in height from 3'-0" to 1'-0" above
average top of curb, therefore reducing the overall height of building from 26'-1" to 24'-3"
as measured from average top of curb.
Design Review for a New Two-Story Hoaese
1804 Davis Drive
■ Overall building square footage, including the basement area, was reduced from 4,404 SF (.83
FAR) to 3,343 SF (.64 FAR). The basement area was reduced from 1,624 SF (including the
unfinished storage room) to 563 SF (1,061 SF or 65% reduction in area). Storage space has
been reduced with the elimination of the unfinished storage room and bedrooms in the
basement level proposed in the previous project.
■ Applicant placed the addition partially over the attached garage at the front of the house.
This allowed an additional bedroom to be added on the second floor (increase from 2 to 3
bedrooms) and eliminated all bedrooms at the basement level.
■ Applicant eliminated two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a laundry room, and an unfinished
storage area in the basement. With the current proposal, the basement level measures 563 SF
(including the stairway to the first floor) and contains only one habitable room, which is noted
as a`prayer room'. This room complies with emergency egress requirements.
■ Exterior doors in the basement have been eliminated. There is only one door, which now
provides interior access to the first floor only.
With the new project lot coverage has been reduced from 39.4% (2,072 SF) in the previous proposal
to 37.3% (1,958 SF) in the current proposal. There was no change in the floor area ratio (2,780 SF,
.53 FAR proposed and maximum allowed) because the basement area is not included in FAR. This
proposed change did reduce the total square footage in the house from 4,404 SF to 3,343 SF.
Project Description (January 28, 2000 plans): The applicant is proposing a new two-story single-
family dwelling which is subject to design review at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1. The project meets
all zoning code requirements.
The existing single-story house on the lot will be demolished and a new house built. The new two-
story house with attached garage will contain 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) of floor area (excluding the 62 SF
covered porch and 563 SF basement), where 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The basement (563 SF including the stairway) will contain one room (labeled `prayer room' on the
basement plan). This room will not contain a closet or a bathroom. The applicant has complied with
emergency egress requirements by providing a window and light well at the rear of the house.
Planning would note that because 50% or more ofthe basement walls are below grade, the basement
is not considered a story and is exempt from height and floor area ratio calculations.
The house will have a total of five bedrooms. The family room is considered a potential bedroom for
parking calculation purposes. The `prayer room' is not considered a bedroom since it is open to the
stairway. The proposed 20' x 20' (interior clear dimensions) double-car attached garage meets the
covered parking requirement for a five-bedroom house. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space is
provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
�
Design Review jor a New Two-Story House
SETBACKS
Front (Ist):
(2nd):
Side (right):
(Ieft):
Rear (1 st):
(2nrl):
Garage:
LOT
COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.•
DH
ENVELOPE:
BEDROOMS:
CURRENT
PROPOSAL
1/28/00 Plans
21'-6"
32'-3"
4'-0"
5 "-10"
25'-6" to deck
34'-6"
25'-0"
37.3%
1,958 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
24'3 "
complies
5
PREVIOUS
PROPOSAL
10/25/99 Plans
21'-6"
37'-4"
4'-0"
4'-6"
32'-5" to stairs
3 5'-6"
25'-0"
39.4%
2,072 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
26'-1"
complies
5
1804 Davis Drive
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15'-0" (average)
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
This project meets all zoning code requirements.
25'-0"
40%
2,100 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
30'-0"
see code
��
Stafi Comments: The City Engineer notes (January 31, 2000 memo) that the roof and site drainage
shall be directed to the public street. At time of building permit submittal, the plans shall show the
underground drainage for the prayer room and shall also show the driveway profile with elevations.
The City Engineer also notes that a sewer lateral test shall be performed per city standards. The Chief
Building Inspector notes (January 31, 2000 memo) that the State Building Code, Volume 1 Section
310.4 shall control for exiting from the prayer room at ground level. The Fire Marshal had no
comments on the project.
Planning would note that because the grading for the basement may come close to the wet weather
water table, excavation should occur during dry weather or the program be approved by the city
before it is initiated (applicant's letter dated October 18, 1999, addressing underground water is
attached). Copies of neighborhood letters addressing the previous project (October 25, 1999) are
also included for your review. These letters addressing the earlier project are copied on blue paper.
K3
Design Review for a New Two-Story House 1804 Davis Drive
Planning staff would also note that in November 1999, the applicant submitted plans to the building
department for a new single story house (2,063 SF) with a full basement (1,643 SF) and two-car
garage. Because it is single story and was submitted before the code change to extending design
review to new single story single family houses became effective, this plan is not subject to design
review. The plans show that there would be a total of four bedrooms (one bedroom on the first floor
and three bedrooms in the basement level). With this building permit submittal, the first floor would
be 3'-0' above average top of curb. At this time, a building permit has not been issued for the single
story house. The applicants are addressing comments from several departments. The City Attorney
verified that a Planning application may be submitted concurrently with a building permit submittal.
Design Review (January 28, 2000 plans): Based on the plans date stamped January 28, 2000,
the reviewer notes in his February 1, 2000 memo that this is a new submittal by a different
designer. The proposed project represents a definite improvement over the previous project which
was denied by the Planning Commission. The new design has a better residential scale, is reduced
in height and has a consistent window and shutter treatment around the entire house. The
basement has been reduced in size to approximately 500 SF (1300 SF previously proposed).
Preliminary comments (design reviewer's memo dated January 20, 2000) were forwarded to the
applicant. The applicant addressed the design reviewer's concerns and submitted revised plans
date stamped January 28, 2000.
The reviewer notes that the architectural style of the new house is similar to other houses in the
neighborhood and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The interior
arrangement is consistent with the structural design. The proposed attached garage is appropriate
to the neighborhood.
In regards to the interface of the proposed structure with the adjacent structures, the reviewer
notes that although the houses immediately adjacent to the proposed house are single story, there
are other two story houses in the immediate neighborhood (1700, 1711, 1712, 1801, and 1805
Davis Drive and 1636, 1648, and 1656 Lassen Way). The height is mitigated by stepping in the
two story portion from the sides (approximately 11' from the left side property line and 15' from
the right side property line). The mass is further mitigated by setting back the front of the second
story approximately 32' back from the front property line. The first floor height has been reduced
to 1'-0" above average top of curb.
In regards to landscaping, the design reviewer notes that the proposed landscape treatment is
proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components.
The design reviewer recommends that the design review for the proposed new house be approved
by the Planning Commission.
Study Meeting: At the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission study meeting the Commission
asked several questions regarding this project (February 14, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The applicant
submitted a written response dated February 18, 2000, and revised plans (sheets A-4, A-5 and A-6
date stamped February 18, 2000, addressing Planning Commission's questions. Planning would note
�
Design Review for a New Two-Story House 1804 Davis Drive
that the design reviewer did not review these revisions to the plans. The Commission requested to
see the landscape strengthened so that it is more in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure.
The applicant revised the landscape plan (sheet A-6, dated February 18, 2000) and added three
additional 5-gallon size trees at the front of the property in order to reduce the mass of the structure.
The Commission noted that this is a better project than was seen before and requested that the
applicant provide dimensional detail on the precut foam molding being used around the windows.
The applicant provided 8'/2" x 11 " window sill details (No. 200) and window and door trim details
(No. 354).
The Commission commented that the porch columns do not look like anything else on the house and
suggested that they be changed to match the proposed style of the house. The applicant revised the
entry porch and column design to match the proposed architectural style of the house. The applicant
also provided an 8'/2" x 11" detail of the pre-coated foam column.
In regards to the FAR, Planning staff rechecked the FAR calculations and verified that the proposed
FAR is 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The Commission
noted that on the north elevation, there is a split roof and a one foot change in plate line and
suggested that a hip roof be used to tie the roofs and plates together better. In his written response,
the applicant considered adding a hip roof to this area, but felt it would look heavier, bulkier and not
very interesting.
The Commission asked if the Prayer Room will only be used by the family or will it also be used by
outside people coming to meetings. The applicant indicates that the Prayer Room will only be used
by the family living at this site. There will be no visitors coming to the site for meetings.
In regards to the chimney and the required separation, the applicant notes that the proposed chimney
is a gas-burning fireplace only. Therefore, the proposed chimney is not required to be taller to meet
the separation requirements. The applicant noted the type of fireplace on the First Floor Plan, sheet
A-2. The Chief Building Official reviewed the plans and verified that the gas-burning
fireplace/chimney complies with the California Building Code.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591
adopted by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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.
5
Design Review for a New Two-Story floiese
1804 Davis Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. �rmative
action should be by resolution and include findings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped January 28, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped February 18, 2000, sheets
A-4 through A-6, including a 563 SF basement (including the stairway) containing one room
which shall not contain a closet, a bathroom, be used as a bedroom or have an exterior exit added;
any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building including expansion of the basement
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that prior to scheduling a foundation inspection the applicant shall provide a survey by a licensed
civil engineer of which will establish to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the ceiling height
in the basement area sha11 not exceed 8'-1" with the basement floor surface at elevation 92.4', and
the finished first floor sha11 not exceed elevation 101.5', and that the elevation shall be confirmed
by a licensed surveyor and accepted by the City Engineer before each required inspection by the
Building Department;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features
or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the City Engineer's January 31, 2000, memo regarding roof drainage, underground drainage
for the basement and driveway profile elevations, and the Chief Building Official's January 31,
2000, memo regarding emergency egress from the basement shall be met;
that a grading permit shall not be issued by the Building Department until the following
requirements have been met: that all grading shall be done during the dry season unless the City
Engineer approves the proposed program, all city requirements for grading including silt and dust
control shall be met, and that all NPDES requirements shall be met; and
6. that the project sha11 meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Nimesh Amin, applicant and property owner
0
Crty ofBurlingame Plnnning Con:nrrssio�a Mimeles February 14, 2000
1434 ALOMA AVENUE, ZON R-1 - APPLICATION F VARIANCE FROM MUNICIP DE
SECTI 18.22 FOR PROPERTY 1N CIAL FLOOD HAZARD�A�A FOR A FIRST AND S�CO FLOOR
1
CP Monroe bri y presented the staff report. Deal indicated that he has ha a past business relationshi ,�ith the
applicant and wo d abstain from this item. The ommissioners asked: has the been any history of trou�il� with
flooding on this bloc � are there any other houses on is block now below the floo elevation; is this project subject
to design review. The it was set for the February 28, 00 meeting providing all the i ormation is submitted to the
Planning Department in ti e.
�509 CORTEZ AVENUE, NED R-1 - APPLICATION R A FRONT SETBACK ANCE, SPECIAL
PL�RMIT FOR HEIGHT AND D SIGN REVIEW FOR A NE , WO-STORY S1NGLE-F Y RESIDENCE.
CP Monro briefly presented the staff repori`, The commissioners asked: h�ve looked at this design and tt� details are
going to ma e or break this design, could e applicant give us more info ation on the details of the ea`v�e, posts,
railings, windo s and apron around the porc • no landscaping plan was sub 'tted, need one in order to see the
relationship bet en the porch and the ground; ould like to see what the por railing will look like; would staf�
confirm the front set ck numbers existing on the bloc and for this property since th taff report has one number and
the applicant's data is a ifferent number; for this proje the applicant needs to pay att tion to the shingling pattern,
it should be changed on di rent parts of the house, could t submit a shingling plan; plans how the distance between
the finished floor and joists be 9.5 inches, that seems too�i�tle, if it is made larger will af�t height, please confirm
this dimension and explain; the plicant needs to address the �nt setback variance, would no�k�like to see this house
t much closer to the street than e one next door to the south, that neighbor is at 15 feet, th� this proposal may
not too difficult; provide informati on the gable end detail, it will� important to the character o�''khe structure also
the ve detail; like the project, would ' e to make it great; if the front�tback is increased, will it affe�the height of
the struc re. The item was set for pub ' hearing at the February 28, �Q� , meeting providing all the �nformation
requested i ubmitted to the Planning Dep ment in time.
�
� 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE.
�1VIMESH AMIN APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERI
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report The commissioners asked: would like to see the landscape plan
strengthened so that it is more in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure; this is a better project than was seen
before, would like to see dimensional detail on the precut foam molding being used around the windows; the porch
columns do not look like anything else, can they be changed to match the style; the FAR is so close to the maximum,
would staff recheck their calculations; this project has been improved to the point that we are down to the details, on
the north elevation there is a split roof and a one foot change in plate line, you could use a hip roof to tie the roofs and
plates together better; will the prayer room be used just by the family or will it also be used by outside people who will
come for meetings, the number of cars is the issue; if the chimney shown is to be used it will need to be taller in order
to get a proper separation, have the building department check and revised drawings The item was set for public hearing
at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
2
�
4 .
SHAH ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE * PLANNING * INTERIOR DESIGN
1487 Floyd Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94087 .(408) 245-7883
FEB. 18, 2000
To : Ruben Hurin — Planner
City Of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, C A 94010
RFF : Response To Planning Commission
Study Meeting Comments Of 1804 Davis Drive.
Dear Mr. Rubin Hurin,
The following responses are listed to Planning Commission comments.
• The Landscape Plan Sheet # A-6 is revised_ Five Gal. size trees aze added in order to
break the Building Mass (Scale).
• For Molding details please see attached sheets.
• Entry Porch and Column design is revised to match with the building overall look,
please see East Elevation on Sheet #A-4.
• The North Elevation Split Roof to change into Hip Roof and tie down with Gazage
Roof looks very heavier and bulky and does not look very interesting.
• The Prayer room at basement will be used by the family only, nobody will be allowed
and invited from outside.
• The Fireplace is designed to use only Gas and make interesting interior design of
living area. In this case the Fireplace Chimney will not be required taller to get a
proper separation. Please see note on Floor Plan Sheet # A-2.
Please give me a call at (408) 245-7883 if you need any additional information.
Thanks.
Sincerely
v—d
Vinu Sh � chitec� R E C E I V� � C�
FEB 1 8 Z000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
f
^ �r
��
�
I
�
�
FEB 1 8 2000
ciTY oF euH�i��;:ar:^t
PLANNING DEPT
Window Sill Shapes
,-�
�
,�
,�
SPECIALTY
F0.4�1f
PRODUC7'S
Scale: 1/4„ = 1 "
_
Page 3
I� C l,, t I V�. I�
l
.,>.
_�
/
�
.j
I
��
�_
No.350
No.351
No.352
No.353
No.354
Wina%w and Door Trim Specify size when ordering
No.355
No.356
No.357
,�� - �\
\
� �
i
',
a
,�
�SPECIALTY
FOMI
PRODUGTS
_ .�
1_=' _---_.
, ���
_ �.
�� �
_ -_ � ��
__ � � 1 1
_ - ��, �,, �
\� � ;
,, ,, .
`� 1-1/2" x 4„
1-1/2"x 5"
2„ X 5,�
_f����� i0��.�
FEB 1 8 ?000
CITY UF BURLINGAME p�e �S
PLANNING DEPT.
�
�
�a
o�
� r�
z�
d t�
�'
�
�a
m�
�a
a�
�
trJ y
�
A
��
ro
��
�Z
C� �
d
r, _, _� `�
--_ � � /� �`
�. ---
\� �� �,
/ `-- _ _
� / ,
b
�
t�
c�
�
�
t� �
d
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�� �
�o rn
z T pp
z
-� �
z�
c � ap
C r v
(T G ��
-� �:� o
�a o
�
BAY AREA FOAM INC. * 20273 MACK STREET * HAYWARD, CA 94545 * 1-800-743-3626 * FAX:(S10)-786-0297 m
�
rn
n
rn
<
m
0
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 25, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coffey called the October 25, 1�, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
NIINUTES
Commis ioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighra Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey
None
City Planner, aret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Ande on; City Engineer, Frank
Erbacker; Planner, ben Hurin
The minutes of the Octc�ber 13, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as
mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA J�Item #6, 1804 Davis Drive was continued from the September 26, 1999, Planning
� Commission meeting. Item #8; 1610 Chapin and #9; 1009 Burlingame Avenue are
continued to the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The order of
the agenda was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY
APPLICATION FOR �3�'sS
GARAGE AT 1108 VANCO
There were no public comments.
REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-S'T�ORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED
t AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (T. PETE� LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI
CP Monroe briefly presented the staf report. C. Bojues noted that he lived wit ' 300 feet of this project and he
would abstain from any discussion o this project. The commissioners then ask • why is there a parapet wall
on one side of the proposed garage st cture; will the second floor casement windows wn meet the emergency
egress requirements for bedrooms; the applicant should reconsider the design for the hous as shown it does not
fit the neighborhood; the driveway pavin width is shown at 9 feet, is 10 feet required; what t e of windows and
window trun will be used throughout; none f the houses in the neighborhood have second story ba onies or stucco
columns, would the applicant explain how t e are compatible; it is good that these plans are more schematic,
means that there is more room to change the design a expense; neighborhood compatibility is an issue, applicant
should explain how the height, bulk, mass fit with the adjac t properties; there are inconsistencies in the drawings
which need to be fixed, the roof plans do not match the elev tions, there are appendages shown on the elevations
which are not shown on the proper elevations; the balcony on the front of the building and the columns it sits on
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes �\� Oclober 25, 1999
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED
R-1. (NIlVIESH AMIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) - RESUBMITTAL OF A
PROJECT WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM TFIE SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 MEETIN
Reference staff report, 10.25.99, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is
a limit on the amount of storage in a house. Planner Hurin noted that there is no limit on the amount of storage in a
house, but that the limit on storage in an accessory structure is 10% of the gross floor area of the house.
Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Applicant, Rajin Patel, noted that he would be glad to answer any questions
the Commission might have. Commission noted that there is a lot of storage built into the house; bedroom #1 has a
walk-in closet and a standard size closet, bedroom #2 has a closet which spans the full length of a wall, bedroom #4 has
two walk-in closets and a standard closet, and bedroom #5 has a walk-in closet and a standard closet. In addition to
these closets, there is also an unfinished storage room in the basement. The Commission asked the applicant to explain
the need for so much storage. The applicant noted that the lifestyle of Asian Americans requires that food for a year
be stored in the house. He also added that it is better to build more storage now than to add it in the future after
construction has been completed.
Commissioner expressed a concern in the amount of square footage proposed on the lot. This lot measures 5250 SF
which is allowed a certain development square footage, basement is not counted towards the FAR, if the basement area
were counted in FAR, the proposed square footage is equivalent to what would be allowed on a lot that is over 9000
SF. Therefore, the intensity of use on this lot is much greater than the zoning code anticipated; all properties are sold
at some point, applicant may be here five years, then the problem goes to the next owner, and still have a bulky building
with a lot of square footage, unlike anything in the neighborhood. The applicant noted that he looked all over
Burlingame for a 4-5 bedroom house; Palo Alto and other cities are starting to not count basements in floor area ratio
because it is an innovative way to increase the square footage, most cities are reducing the allowed floor area ratio; three
years ago, before the allowed FAR was reduced, a 3500 SF house could be built in this neighborhood, many of the
houses designed are over 3000 SF, does not make economical sense to build a 1500 SF house based on the purchase
price ofthe existing house and lot, existing smaller houses in the neighborhood were built 40-50 years ago. Commission
then asked the applicant if his argument was that because the property was purchased for a certain amount, that he
should be allowed to build more than what the zoning code allows. The applicant commented that the zoning code
allows a basement and that this was the main reason why the lot was purchased, otherwise he would not have purchased
the property; he checked with the city several times to make sure that a basement is allowed by code; would like to work
with the neighbors and city, would like to live in this neighborhood, addressed all concerns and questions expressed by
the Commission at the study and action meetings, difficult to address concerns because all Commissioners had different
points of view; this is design review, if you don't like something in regards to the design, changes can be made to the
design, has been to design review twice, both reviews have had positive recommendations; applicant submitted a sketch
of a typical foundation detail, noted that if a standard foundation is used the house will be 21 " above grade, applicant
is proposing 24" above grade; Commission noted that there are other typical foundation details that could allow the
floor being lower, floor needs to be lower on only a small portion of the property because it slopes downhill, a double-
sole plate could be used so that the floor joist can be set down much lower; applicant noted that if a project was
submitted under the height limit, this typical foundation detail would be allowed; in his last letter he provided examples
of houses in the neighborhood where first floor is above grade, at the last meeting it was suggested that the applicant
consider placing some living area above the garage so that the second floor would not be so high and the structure
would present less mass and bulk to the neighborhood, it wasn't done, wondered if the applicant explored this
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
alternative; applicant noted that the design reviewer did not like the idea of having living space over the garage; does
not know who to please - design reviewer or the Commission.
Kathryn Smith, 1811 Davis Drive, Teresa Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive, Leo Tealdi, 1640 Marco Polo Way, Jim Vangele,
1648 Marco Polo Way, and Bill Mason, 1808 Davis Drive spoke in opposition to the project: petition signed by 100
Ray Park residents was submitted which expresses that the house is over 4100 SF on a 5250 SF lot; has a 1337 SF
basement not included in the FAR, any basement over 100 SF should be counted in FAR, all water/drainage problems
should be addressed; the plan for the house is not compatible with the neighborhood in regard to height and design,
and the proposed house would have 5 bedrooms and 5'h baths which could pose a parking problem; letter submitted
by Kathryn Smith addressing additional issues, no other house in the neighborhood has a full basement used for living
purposes, basement has potential for three bedrooms, and rear of house appears to be three stories; letter submitted by
Mr. Clark, 1800 Davis Drive, house is more like a triplex than a single family house, cannot understand house, such a
large house can be built on such a small lot which would allow a lot of cars and people creating a parking problem,
house not compatible with the neighborhood because of its size, height, and living space in basement; concerned about
diverted surface water issues, normal flow of water will be diverted into their home, feels the engineering report
submitted by applicant dated October 18, 1999, does not address their concerns regarding underground water, asked
if Braun Consulting will accept responsibility if problems are experienced because the underground water test was done
during a dry period of the year, asked if City will accept responsibility of water problems if it approves the project; issues
have not been addressed, dropping the first floor to ground level and eliminating the storage room, house from the front
is tallest on block, proposed 5 bedroom house could become a 6 or 7 bedroom house because of the basement layout,
storage room could be converted to a bedroom, 21' x 21' master suite in basement has two doors and two closets and
could be divided to make an extra bedroom, design review letter dated August 4, 1999, indicates that the design
reviewer is concerned about overbuilding the site with a potential 6 bedroom house and only a 2 car garage, talked to
neighbors in Ray Park who noted that it was unfair that the 1337 SF basement is not counted in FAR, feel that because
of a technicality that doesn't declare a basement having living space that the new FAR rules are not being followed;
speaker noted that he is a police lieutenant for a local police agency, noticed traffic and parking is getting worse in the
area, in order to cross street you have to pass through parked cars in the early morning and evening, intersection of
Marco Polo Way and Davis Drive is a high traf�ic thoroughfare for cars and children going to school; as a police officer
has been in other homes similar to the proposed which started off as a single family dwelling, no doubt that this house
will become a multiple family dwelling, applicant admits that most houses in the area are smaller, alarmed at the plans
and design of house, should meet the concerns of the Commission and 100 other residents that live in the neighborhood;
speaker owns large five bedroom house on Marco Polo Way, house is built on same size lot as proposed project but
does not have a basement and does not violate any city codes, feels this project has aspects of a Winchester mystery
house with large closets, one kitchen for three families and two children now, but what will happen five years from now,
does not object to building a new house, but should build within code limits; appears to be three stories at rear of house
as a result of the sloping grade, lives next door spend a lot of time in rear yard and will have to look at three story
structure; frequently during heavy rain storms Davis Drive tends to flood, diversion and pumping water from basement
will add to existing water problems.
The applicant responded to the comments made by the public, noted that the basement is allowed by code, if he is doing
anything that is against the code, he can be stopped; letter prepared by the consultants was submitted and addresses all
water concerns, if neighbors or the city think otherwise he will bear the cost for another study by a different consultant,
if result is the same as original study, neighbors should bear the cost, he does not want to live in a house that floods;
tried to contact several neighbors and commissioners to review the revised plans, but got no response;'door between
the bedrooms was added because of emergency egress requirements, feels neighbors opposition is based on fear; there
will be no increase in traffic, there is an e�cisting house on the site now with a two car garage, not proposing increased
s
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999
development; this is a joint family, takes time to understand the concept of a joint family, neighbors fear what could
happen in the future, meets code requirements now, any house after it is sold may be in violation of a code, that is why
there is code enforcement; the typica.l foundation detail shows the finished floor 21" above grade, applicant is proposing
the foundation 24" above grade. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: applicant has a point, exception for basement, does not count in FAR but thinks it is a mistake,
building code doesn't count basements as usable space because they don't tend to add building code type problems, but
a basement as useable space does add impact, classic example of why we need design review, need to discuss
compatibility with the neighborhood; regardless of basement, the way spaces and size of spaces have been allocated
throughout the building is what is causing this to be a big building and the need for the space in the basement;, design
reviewer apparently did not understand the compatibility issue in the neighborhood, issue is height of building above
grade and the way the building is massed, too much square footage on the lot; project sent back to the design review
because the Commission was concerned with the size of house and how it fit into character of neighborhood, to say that
the project adheres to the code and therefore you should have what you want is wrong, design review was established
because people were abusing the code; in past few years the code has been taken to the maximum in many respects; still
not compatible with the neighborhood, basement is too big, proposing square footage that is equivalent to a 9000 SF
lot; not too concerned with the water problems because this issue will have to be addressed later; basement ordinance
was intended for someone to add underneath an existing house in the hillside, never intended to build an entire floor;
basement issue is regulated through design review; engineering issues can be easily addressed, design review was
established to thwart the construction of monster homes allowed by code two years ago, with basement, use on property
will be intensely magnified, design review has done what it is supposed to do, should pursue the study of basement
ordinance, cannot support project; not an easy project to make a ruling on, understand applicants' arguments, final
deternunation lies in the design review, two story house with a full basement is a different house than what the rest of
the neighborhood is made up of, lots of single story houses adjacent to this house; rooms are very large, excessive
amount of storage, these items can be addressed and reduced to bring the house closer to the size of other houses in
the neighborhood; responsibility of the commission is to plan for the future and protect the neighborhoods; strong
showing fiom neighbors that don't believe the project is in keeping with the neighborhood, there are alternatives to this
project to meet the needs of the applicant.
Additional commission comments: suggested that the second floor addition be placed over the garage so that more
bedrooms could be added on the second floor rather than have the bedrooms in the basement, adding a room or two
in the basement is an innovative way to add space and not add bulk above ground; felt that the definition of basement
did not consist of bedrooms and bathrooms, not saying applicant cannot have a five bedroom house; concern is having
bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry room and an unfinished storage room in the basement; how will the basement be used
in the future, basement could have potential of being used as a separate dwelling since there are doors to the outside
of house; there is the possibility of putting basement bedrooms on the second floor and using basement mainly as
storage area; general view of basement is not habitable area, feel bedrooms can be relocated and the house redesigned
to accommodate the relocation and still be able to provide storage space in the basement; applicant seems to be flexible
and is certain a solution can be reached perhaps by making bedrooms and storage areas smaller; feels applicant has a
clear direction now; storage room in basement may be converted to a bedroom in the future by another property owner,
doesn't feel code intended a full living floor in the basement; code is what the city allows, city is made up of families
and neighbors, applicants have property rights and neighbors have neighborhood rights, project does not fit the
character, size, height or integrity of the neighborhood, 100 neighbors oppose the project, they too have neighbors
rights.
C. Deal moved denial of the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
City ofBurli�tgame Pfanning Commission Minules October 25, 1999
�n the motion: Commission asked how does denial without prejudice work versus a straight denial. Denial without
prejudice relieves the City Planner of having to make the determination whether a revised project which is submitted
is substantially different than the previous application; commissioner requested that the maker of the motion reconsider
the motion to be a straight denial.
C. Deal moved to amend the motion to a denial, C Bojues, the second, agreed.
On the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to waive the fees for resubmitting. City Attorney notes staff
does not encourage the waiving of fees, difficult to differentiate between this applicant's position and some other
applicant's position where the commission might not waive the fee, better to be consistent; tendency would be to deny
without prejudice and then give clear direction, if saw an application that took a more compact approach to building
a house, a more restrained approach on how far it comes out of the ground, and took the compatibility with the
neighborhood seriously, meaning the height at the front, the height and distribution of the mass, it might be a better
project; applicant is relying on the fact that he is meeting the codes, applicant must realize that there is design review
also; need to send a strong message that 4100 SF is not tolerable on a 5250 SF lot, gave applicant opportunity by
continuing the project and by sending it back to design review.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny; the amended motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLAR.ATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR SECOND-STORY
REAR SET�K FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAM��RESIDENCE AT 1021 DRAKE AVENUE,
Reference staff report, 10.25 `
Department comments. Five c
what the city's construction
construction practices woulc
change the direction of the flo�
one; is construction limited d
�, with attachments. City Planner discussed thE
nditions were suggested for consideration. The �
equirements were when building near a creek
�e required, they would have to stay clear of t:
in the creek, and they would have to get a Fish �
-ing wet weather, not by code but possibly by c
;port, reviewed criteria and Planning
nmissioners asked the City Engineer
;d, CE noted that best management
100 year flood level, they could not
Game permit if the agency required
Chairman Coffey opened the pu ic hearing. Eugene Supanich, 1036 Cabrillo, h e owned this lot for some time and
want to build a new house on it o retire into; we were originally confused about etbacks, discovered that the
narrow frontage (Drake) is the front, ere is an alley way (10' easement) at the rear of his lo , here are only two houses
behind them on Carmelita so he will have ' n his property plus the easement between him an the house behind which
is 40' further back from the property line. The ' of the house is not too visible, we will ad more trees; we need a
bathroom on the second floor and one bedroom wi e used as an office and the bedroom do nstairs will be used as
a pool room.
Commissioners asked: what is wrong with the house tha is there now, remodeled it 35 years o, the foundation is
almost gone, the rooms are small, lived in it and am tired of , want a nice new home; worked to ake the new house
fit into the neighborhood and it will be quality; the house that is there reflects a lot of the ch acteristics of the
neighborhood including a front porch. This is a double lot hy exception, not a lot of space to use tween the new
retaining wall and street, the creek takes considerable room. Concerned at study about the height of the structure
proposed-this is a large building-nice looking but big, as increase ize need to mitigate could do by reducing second floor
height, have a flat ceiling on the second floor with a 9.5 foot plate ould have an 8 foot plate and vary the ceiling inside.
�
,4r` cir w
' BURUNQAMG CITY OF BITRLINGAME
���.�� APPLICATION TO Z� PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other 'i� �A r�� Q,�„� ��,
,
Project Address: �,� C� �- li a �/� S l� �� V�'. �� U� j�� ��-211�n e C�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ��- 2 O)- 0�
APPLICANT
, ,
Name: i rn /= s /�_ ,
�
Address: _ a�oZ .¢ �Y1 i S s+ p,� �-{-
Ciry/State/Zip:_ �G'►rl � y� C► S C o
Phone (w): 4 ► S 6'4 ) - � �� � 94114
� .�
(h)� � G s� - � 12g�
f�: 41 s 6'4i '���3
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
PROPERTY O WNER
Name: �D � e.$�- � �F i ti ��r,rS �-� e
Address: _�o , 02 �'� t�. M� s s i o v� S�}- •
City/State/Zip: Scc,� �rz��ti s c' o C'f� �`� �-\1
Phone (w):- L�- l.S 641 `�-�,' 24
(h):_ �s� 3 �S / 2 g �
fax:_ 1� � s 41 '�' z L�
Name:_ �DA�1 C C� � L}�t�
Address: 50 VflL(�� �T
City/State/Zip: S/�►J �'IIt�G{,�a C�h- .��{-( l o
Phone (w): —'
(n): 4(� -021�-�a23
fax:_ — �'(s� �2Co- �25 �
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /1na �„ � ,�„�, s�,,..�,,, �, �, ��, ..�cc ,� r c,�„ -�-E,,,,, ,p
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
n 1 � � �
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
�,p,,,,,� - /l/Y� y"""� �l� / � �
Y___________ Property Owner's Signature Date Cn `/
- -----------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------�L��1� ��
Date Filed: 7(o � F�: 3( a�-�- 5op "�
JUL - 6 �ggg
Planning Commission: Study Date: �� �3'�� Action Date: 9�27� �'i CITY OF BURLINGAME
- p� QNNING DEPT.
��•� �•��� ��.�� i i �� nn � i� i�ri r't-��C IVu. : Mar. �� 1998 08: 53AM P1
i �����, * * * ,
* (� * OLU I�.EPUBLIC 'T'ITz.E COIVIPANY
�
III i* *#� 1361 Linda Mar Center • Paci}icu, CA • 9a0aa�341 �(650) 355-4910 • FAX (650) 355-1853
July 15, 1999
Attn: Nimesh Amin
Mr. and Mrs. Nimesh Amin
138 Panorama Court
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Escrow No.: 271375-SH
Property: 1804 Davis Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Nimesh and Dipika and Manish and RuJuta :
�R���l�EC�
JUL 16 1999
CITY OF BUR��NGAME
PLANNING DtPT.
We are pleased to inform you that the escrow covering your purchase of the above referenced property
has been closed. 7he conveyance document was recorded on July 15, 1999 and wlll be mailed diractly
to you irom the Office of the Courrty Recorder. Your Policy of Tltle Insurance is being issued and
will be malled to you under separate cover.
In connection with the completlon of your purchase, we are enclosing the following:
1, Cheok in the amount of $127,49
2. HUD-t Settlemen� Statement
3. Buyer's Closing Statement
4. Copy of Insurance for your records
5. Fo�m 590-RE for your records
We appreciaied the opportunity to work with you in this transactlon and hope that It was handled to
your satisfaction. It at a future date you reflnance your property or offer It for sale, please
request the order be placed with oLn a.�PC)BLIC TtrtE COMPANY. Because our title
department has retalned thls recent examinatlon of the publlc records covering your property, a
future search may be accomplished In an even more timely manner.
We hope you enjoy your new property and if you have any questions, please feel tree to contact me.
incerely,
asha Hartmann u �
� Escrow Offlcer �, ��� � � v � � � i� V � � �
'' � rn es � � Y`'`' vi
onr.lncuras• as noted above ��,0� " �
�, ► � 6 ,� 1 � z �}-
ROUTING FORM
DATE: January 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family residence
at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-201-050. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, 7anuary 31, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
l� 1� �`� Date of Comments
�—
�•
_ � �� .` � �`a`'� � �-' � � �`� ��
� I�� u�—� r t ��e °l v'°�` �`'' '
� tl
s}-�-c.G�— � � ,�..ci-�,v c,k-«. •�..�
v . �v � � r�l
v��.V�. v o�� �V�.� �. �
ti� � � ` v I� � �� �ovrn
�� �� �� r �1
� �
3
��
� :,�,vv,,H. oy, �, lA� �
�t-e � S ��.`� � p � � r�
,S't w �,V �� `�Gt.1 �
S � • ,, d � �
� �,� � ��� r f
�� .
„�.�-+•� s� �`
w/ �.I �.
G�r
� �
s �.�ww .
ROUTING FORM
DATE: lanuary 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
5R. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family residence
at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-201-050. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, January 31, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
� %4� L� �����
F,�� ���Y�
— %" ate of Comments
� t�1G���/� C � l�c: �6 � v�� -�
��%� � �,�,� I�L� �d2 ���Ti�/6
�
,�c�� ��� ��`,�� �c��
��
Feb-01-00 11:1OA Gumbinger Associates
9812128/2.7
MEMORANDUM
DA'I'E: February 1, 2000
TO: Ruben Hurin, Planner
City of Burlingame
FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA '
RE: 1804 Davis Drive
Burlingame
REVISED PLANS DAT'E STAIv1PED January 28, 2000
(Received January 31, 2000)
BACKGROUND
Sent Via Facsimile
650/696-3790
RECEIVED
F E B- 1 2000
CITY Of BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This is a new submitta! by an entirely different designer and as such, represents a definite improvement
over the previous project that was derued by the Planning Commission.
The new design has a much better residential scale, is reduced in height and has a consistent window
and shuttcr treatment that follows around the entire house. The basement has been limitcd to a Prayer
Room of approximately 500 sf.
Preliminary comments were sent to staff and the revised drawings respond to the Design Reviewer's
concerns; refer to Memorandum dated January 20, 2000.
DESIGN GUmELINES
1. COMPATIBLII,TTY OF 'THE ARCHITECTURAL STYL.E WITH THAT OF TI-IE EXISTING
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
1fie architectural style of the proposed new house is compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
2. RESPECT TEiE PARKING AND GAR.AGE PATTERNS IN Ti� NEIGHBORHOOD.
Thc proposc� attachcd garage is dppropriate to U�e iieigl►borlioud.
3. ARCHITECT'URAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF'CHE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY OF TI� STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The atchitectural sryle of the proposed new house is similar to other houses in the neighborhood. Thc
interior arrangement is consistent wiih the structucal design.
4. INTERFACE OF'Ti� PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH Ti� ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO
EACH SIDE.
Althougti the neighboring houses on each side are one story, there are two story houses in thc
immediate neighborhood; i.e. 1700, 1711, 1712, 1801 & 1805 Davis Drive and 1636, 1648 & IG56
Lasscn Way. The height is mitigated by stepping in the two story portion from the sides
(appro�cimately I 1 feet from the left and 15 feet from the right property lines). The mass is further
mitiga�ed by setting the front of the two story portion back approximately 32 feet from the front
property line. The first floon c�ight from lhe average top of curb has been reduced to 1'-0".
5. LANDSCAPING AND 1TS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS.
T1te proposed landscape treatment is proportional to the mass and bulk of the s�uctural components.
RECOMIvIFNDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the proposed new
house. •
650 579 1402 P_O1
..��
���
���
.= s = GUM�NGB�
- �-= AS:�OCIAI�S
�
= 60 Eos� Thrt � A�,pnU= S� �4a 300. Son Mot�?,:�. C'A 4<s� 1
Fo� (650} 519-1:9Q2 • T[L (650) 579-O9�;5
E-Moii gurciCY7ssoC(n-p�;�� �;�m
AI�CHITECTS
?t`U� J Gui�Uinc�er =NA
Timc: 2 Hours ��es�cent & CEO
'�:ti�mi K 4•�rCm. �JA
:ssx.�o'e
Jan-20-00 05:54P Gumbinger Associates 650 579 1402 P.O1
981 Z 1.28/2. 7
MEMORANDUM
REt;�i"VED
JAN 2 1 2000
CITY OF BURLINUAME
PLAfJNI^�G DEPT
DA'CE: January 20, 2000
TO: Ruben Hurin, Planner
City of Burlingame
FROM: Paul I. Gumbinger, FAIA � _
\
�
-
�
= = GUM�NGQ�
. - = ASSOCIATES
�
= 60 Ecst Tni�d Ave�,e. ;�ida 30� Scn �1c�iec;. C/+94�01
Fax (650J 579�Idp; • iEL �65C1 579-0995
E-Mo�i c�,�mbossa @oc�� co��
A(�CHITECTS
Sent Via Facsunile
650/696-3790
RE: 1804 Davis Drive
Burl ingame
PLANS DATE STAMI'ED January 14, 2000
(Received January 20, 2000) •
PRELIMINARY COMI��NTS
The proposed design is a definite improvement over the previous project which was denied by the
Planning Commission.
Sheet A-1
Projcct Summary
Delete the words, "Appro�." after thc square footage shown for the Proposed Total Floor Area.
Sheet A-2
1" Floor Plan
Show 20' r 20' clear inside dimension for garage.
Sheet A-3
2nd Floor Plan
Show fireplace chimney
Roof Plan
Show chimney cap as shown on elevaUons.
Sheet A-�l
East Elevation
Modify chimney height to meet requirements of Uniform Building Code.
(Chimney is shown approximately S'-6" from sidewall of second floor; chimney needs to be
much higher to meet code.)
Show detail of front door design.
'I'here should be 5 sections for a n�pical garage door.
Sheet A-5
North Elevation
Break between lower roofs looks awkward.
South Elevation
Chimney licight?
Tune: 2 Hours
Poul J Gun,t:nx�er. F.AA
Fr2s:venl & C"c0
\'oemi F: .4v!Om, AIA
ASSOC i01e
�� : BRaui��+��ar�su�rir� ��x No. :�o�s7��zs o�t. ie iass �9:��ar� Pi
�f t ��3�L�1 L �- � 1 � �7 VTJ1 � 1.1 � �
Engineering Gealagy---Gcotechnical Engine�r�lg---�ydrogcology
P.U. Box 1623 FaresrvillE CA. 95��6 {phone & iax) 707-88'1-2425
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 1999
Mr. Rajen J. Pat�l Oct�ber 18, ] 999
5315 S11VA AvB. CITY OF BUkLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Richmond, CA. 94805
Subjact. Hydr�geoSa�ic �valuation at 5itc of Proposed New Residonee
1804 Dxvis Drive
BuY'lingamo, �=A
Dear Mr. Pa.tel:
At yQur requc.�st, �rau'n Consuhing has prepared this lctter providing the re�.tlts of
ou�' rec�t�t subsurfa�:e study at' 180�# D��ns Drive, Bnrlingacn$, Cali£ornia. 'We ar� in thc
pr�ccss of preparing a geotec,hnical repon: for ti�c praposeci new residence. We �nderstand
thAt &�L�bbasemetst is des#rad and will bc appsaximately 4 fcet b�low existing g!'ade.
On Octpb�r ��, '��`�9a c�n� �:�cplorat�ry boring r�ras drilled and sampled ta a cor.ai
de�th af 2=�-1/4 feQt. Ti�e geotogic la� of the borin� w�ill be prescntod in thc geoteciu�ical
report The re5ults af �ur sul�surface study indicale that ihc si�e is underlain by soil
m�terials cv�isistin,{� nf si{t �.d sandy ri1C to a depth of 4.5 feet which are inturn underl2in
by clay and sandy clay to a depth Qf S.5 feet. '�el�w a d�pth o£ 8.5 foct, sand'y �terials
axe present cansisting of ailt.y sand(SM); weU gra�led fltie- az�d mediurtt-grait�ed
sand(��');and poor}y �raded sand(SP). Crroun.dwater is preseat at a depth below gr�de af
14.S �eet as de#ennined by usc Qf an electric watsr ievel gauge aceurate to O.Dt fECt,
The sund materiald encountered bclow a dopth of 8.5 feet and e�cteenciin� to atlt8�t
the inaximum de}�t� �cplared (24 U4 feet) arE conaideted as tlne acluif�r. Additionally�, thc
aquifer is currently unaorsfined. As wc are nc�r the end oE' the dry season� it is reasoneUle
to co�clude that the grovndwater table is at dr �ear the lowest 1eve1 of the season. As the
�and zanc is o��erlain Uy clay maz.erial�, I conclude th.at th� ma:amum }teight ofthe wa.tor
tabic during late sFrin�r, ( end of the t,ypic�i rain,y seaaon. ) urould be at a dephh of 8.5 fcet at
which paint the aquifer would become coz�fined.
As currentl� proposed, a bacement �vi11 be exca�ated to a depth Of aboui 4 fcet.
Grnund��ater ��vi�i �►ot be encountered during cxca��axinn to this depth.
Should any qucstions arise concerning this ietter or our interpretation af the
hydrogealogy at t�he site, please do not hesitate t� contact us at 707-887-2425.
Sincerely
`� �'��8�'�-� ��"` Don I�. $TB�In '�ic<i Enginc�ering Gcala$ia3t �b13I0
No, I 3'1 G
��T;rl£0 r
Er��r:��F�t�
* GEQLOG15l A . . �
\\r`�'�' nr ..,., &�� Y `
Petition
We the undersigned Ray Park residents object to Mr.
Nimesh Amin's new home a�pplicati�on for 1804 Davis
drive.
Our reasoning is as follows:
1) The proposed house is over 4,100 sq. ft. on a 5,250 sq. f� (105'x50') lot. Included
is a basement that constitutes 1337 sq. ft. which is not included in the FAR (floor
area ratio) of the city code.
2) We feel any basement over 100 sq. ft. must be counted in the FAR
3) We request that all water/drainage problems be addressed. Prior occupant
experienced flooding in the rear of the home.
4) The plan for the house is not compatible with the homes that surround it
because of the height and design.
5) The proposal has 5 master suites and 51/Z baths. The fact that there is one
1)
��i"a�, i�-> 1 �r-c� � I
�
-�� � ���
City ofl3urlingante Plannii:g Co»rmission Minutes February 28, 2000
1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE.
(NIMESH AMIN_ APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERI
Reference staff report, 2.28.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning
Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff where the 3 new trees,
proposed since study, were located on the landscape plan and what species of tree was proposed to be planted? CP
Monroe directed the commission to ask the applicant where new trees are proposed. There were no further questions
of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Vinu Shah, 1487 Floyd Avenue, Sunnyvale, project architect, referred
to landscape plan, on Sheet A-6, noting location of three new trees. Commission asked why these small scale trees are
5-gallon size were proposed, they won't screen house very well. Applicant stated that the garage had been lowered to
one-story next to two-story residence in order to create a break in the scale of the new house, prefer not to have a big
tree in this location, only needs to soften one story garage. Commissioner stated that the trees should frame the house
in proportion to overall size of the house and provide screening from the street, applicant noted that items on a revised
plan to address these concerns, this is not a straight-forward 2-story building, it has been broken into different masses
to be more interesting from the street, they propose to use materials on walls and roof that are similar to existing houses
in this neighborhood. Commissioner asked whether the applicant tried to put a hip roof on the north elevation where
the roof lines split between the garage and house, applicant says he tried, but could not build. Commission noted that
hip roofs are consistent in this neighborhood, and that the north elevation with eaves at two heights would look better
with a hip roof. Commissioner asked if applicant is willing to resolve this design issue to use hip roof, applicant agreed.
Commissioner then noted that pre-cut foam molding was not consistent in design and scale with other houses in this
neighborhood, asked if a is willing to use window with standard stucco mold, applicant agreed. Commissioner asked
if applicant would be willing to move the location of the trees, use larger species of trees from city tree list, and place
them in back yard as well as front yard. Property owner, Rajen Patel, agreed to add larger trees, 24" box size, but
doesn't want to larger trees than existing in the neighborhood. Okay with roof change to hip roof; might see just a
gutter on higher roof over garage roof; can work with foam and stucco on trims and arches. Commissioner noted their
concern on scale of trim and that stucco trim makes scale appear larger, windows can now be ordered with integral
molding that matches scale; owner agreed to look into this.
Members of the public spoke: Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Catherine Smith, 1811 Davis Drive; noted she is happy
to see the house smaller; it is now more compatible with neighborhood, still concerned that 560 SF basement is not
included in the FAR calculation, applicant is still maxing out FAR, and therefore, because of the basement, the house
is not entirely compatible with the existing houses in this neighborhood which do not have basements, a maximum size
of basement of 250 SF as discussed previously by the commission is a start toward addressing this problem, note that
if the laundry room is in the basement, the applicant will have to pump water up to the street level; has this problem been
eliminated, don't see laundry room anywhere; can't go in garage because it would prevent cars from parking in garage,
concerned that previously submitted 1-story home was larger than other houses in neighborhood; resubmitted petition
signed by 100 Ray Park residents who believe that basement area over 100 SF should be counted in FAR, does this
project with the basement meet the fire standards, where are the laundry facilities.
Applicant responded there is no laundry facility because planned for it in the basement but felt that city would not
permit, fearing a bathroom in the future. Commissioner noted that along with using pre-manufactured window with
trim, that applicant should also use pre-manufactured stucco sill at bottom of window for a more traditional appearance.
There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Commission comments: design much nicer; hip roof and stucco molding is a great improvement, good to address
changes to landscaping trees, would like to clarify basement concerns, FAR requirement adopted to reduce bulk and
�
City ofBurlingame Plannin� Con:mission Minutes February 28, 2000
mass ofbuilding as seen from the street, this basement is wholly underground and can't be seen from street, the initial
proposal had a basement which extended above ground and partially lifted up the first floor so it had an impact. The
commission has discussed but not yet determined that 250 SF will be the maximum size of basements, have problem
with laundry room in basement; basements are typically used as utility rooms. This house will conform with emergency
egress and fire code standards when building plan check completed; it's a good project; applicant should be limited to
2" waste pipe in basement for laundry purpose; will not accommodate toilet and no toilet should be permitted. Applicant
has addressed bulk, mass, height issues; can't see basement; basements are an innovative method of adding space, but
don't want it used as habitable bedroom. Want traditional design aspects of roof and windows and trim, as previously
discussed, added. Would like applicant to consider larger tress that don't disrupt concrete to be placed in front and rear
yard; give shade and separation from other houses.
C. Deal moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall
include hip roof between the garage and house; 2) that the applicant will consult with the city to add three trees in front,
two trees in rear, and plant 24" box trees; 3) that traditional stucco mold will be used for window trim; 4) that laundry
facilities in the basement shall be allowed with maximum 2" waste line as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-3, and
date stamped February 18, 2000, sheets A-4 through A-6, including a hip roof between the garage and house, and that
traditional stucco mold shall be used for window trim; the project includes a 563 SF basement (including the stairway)
containing one room which shall not contain a closet, a bathroom, be used as a bedroom or have an exterior exit added;
any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building including expansion of the basement shall require an
amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to scheduling a foundation inspection the applicant shall provide a survey by a
licensed civil engineer of which will establish to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the ceiling height in the
basement area shall not exceed 8'-1" with the basement floor surface at elevation 92.4', and the finished first floor shall
not exceed elevation 101.5', and that the elevation shall be confirmed by a licensed surveyor and accepted by the City
Engineer before each required inspection by the Building Department; 3) that the applicant shall consult with the city
arborist to add three 24" box size trees in the front yard and two 24" box size trees in the rear yard; 4) that laundry
facilities shall be allowed in the basement with a maximum 2" waste line; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows
and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6) that the City
Engineer's January 31, 2000, memo regarding roof drainage, underground drainage for the basement and driveway
profile elevations, and the Chief Building Official's January 31, 2000, memo regarding emergency egress from the
basement shall be met; 7) that a grading permit shall not be issued by the Building Department until the following
requirements have been met: that a11 grading shall be done during the dry season unless the City Engineer approves the
proposed program, all city requirements for grading including silt and dust control shall be met, and that all NPDES
requirements shall be met; and 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and
California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Discussion on motion: can back-flow prevention device be required on water line pump to prevent sewage backup in
basement, CE noted would be required at building permit stage. Would it be possible for C. Dreiling to sketch the hip
roof for the applicant, C. Dreiling agreed.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion. Commission voted 7-0 to approve. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item was complete at 9:00 p.m.
-7-
City ofBurlingame Planning Comn:ission Minutes February 28, 2000
also make early morning deliveries on Saturday, 6 a.m.. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman
Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Comment from the Commission: to CA when these things happen what role does a conditional use permit play in
enforcement; CA Anderson noted that when the action is a violation of the conditions of approval the Commission can
review the complaint and modify the conditions, this can be done progressively to document the violations. CA
suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting so that the applicant can be present. Commissioner noted that
one condition does address hours of operation however the hours in the staff report and those in Exhibit A are different,
sta.ff should clarify; need a condition for delivery in the morning, need to set a time; need clarification on the times, says
dinner from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. but when do people actually leave the site, should be added, also when they arrive in the
morning for lunch preparation.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to continue this item to the next agenda, March 13, 2000. C. Vistica seconded
the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item. The motion passed on a
7-0 voice vote. No action was taken on the conditional use permit so the item is not appealable. This item was acted
on at 8:00 p.m.
1434 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 18.22 FOR PROPERTY 1N SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR
ADDITION (LOU AND LAURA MATTEUCCI. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
City Engineer Erbacher presented staff report dated 2.28.00, with attachments. C. Deal acknowledged a business
relationship with this applicant and abstained from review of this project. City Engineer presented the report, reviewed
criteria and Engineering Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked
staffwhether future expansion of residence would be possible after this action, and if the variance was granted would
the applicant still be required to obtain flood insurance. CA Anderson replied that the variance was requested by the
applicant and is a procedure allowed by FEMA. CE Erbacher replied that flood insurance may still be required but that
it could be higher based on an increased valuation of the house resulting from this construction. There were no further
questions from staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present and the public had no comments. C.
Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
C. Vistica moved to approve the project, by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that this approval is based on
the plans prepared by J.D. & Associates dated August 16, 1999; and 2) that any future expansion of this structure would
require compliance with Chapter 18.22 of the Municipal Code. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Discussion on the motion: Commission asked how full disclosure of flood zone variance can be provided to any future
property owner; C.P. Monroe answered that conditions of approval would be recorded against the property. CA
Anderson added that a realtor could be required to disclose that first floor is 2" below 100-year flood elevation.
C. Visitca moved to approve an amendment to the conditions to require full disclosure to future owners that first floor
is 2" below 100-year flood elevation. The second, C. Osterling agreed to the amendment.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice call vote on the motion to approve the amended conditions. The motion passed
on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstained) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a brief break at 8:30 a.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
-5-