HomeMy WebLinkAbout1521 Drake Avenue - Staff ReportPROJECT LOCATION
1521 Drake Avenue
(existing house to be demolished)
Item #4
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permits
Address: 1521 Drake Avenue
Item #4
Action Item
Meeting Date: 5/10/04
Request: Design review and special permits for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicants and Property Owners: Mark and Sheila Buran APN: 026-033-060
Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
Project Summary with Revisions (Apri121, 2004 plans): The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
single-story house, detached garage and shed to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-
car garage. The applicant is also proposing a 720 SF basement at the rear of the house. Because the finished
floor above the basement is less than two feet above existing grade, 700 SF of the basement area is exempt from
the floor area calculation (CS 25.08.265, b, 2 and b, 3, E). A special permit is required for a basement with a
ceiling height greater than 6'-6" and for having a direct exit to the exterior of the structure that is anything other
than a light or window well (CS 25.28.035, f and g).
With the basement and covered porch exemptions, the proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor
area of 3,164 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project includes a
detached two-car garage (434 SF, 20'-8"W x 21'-0"D) which provides two covered parking spaces for the
proposed four-bedroom house (the den on the first floor is considered a bedroom for parking calculation
purposes). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage (CS 25.57.010);
• Special permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (8'-0" proposed)
(CS 25.28.035, fl; and
• Special permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than
a light or window well (CS 25.28.035, g)
Table 1 on the following page contains the existing, previously proposed and current development data for the
project.
Design Review and Special Permits 1521 Drake Avenue
Table 1 —1521 Drake Avenue
; EXISTINGI i CURRENT � PREVIOUS PREVIOUS i ALL'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL �PROPOSAL:PROPOSAL
5/10/04 ; 3/29/04 2/9/04 �
;
�
SETBACKS '
Front (Ist flr): � 25'-4" � 24'-8" � 24'-8" 21'-1" 21'-1"
(2nd flr): ! none � 26'-1" ' 26'-1" ' 21'-1" 21'-1"
; : : ........................ .....................................................
� . ........................................................... ................... ..................... ........ .......... ...................................................................... ......
� ;
Side (left): j 9'-6" I 5'-0" i 5'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"
(right): ; 3'-10" ; 12'-2" � 12'-2" i 12'-2" 4'_0"
� �
Rear (Ist ftr): i 56'-6" � 41'-10" j 41'-10" ; 41'-6" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): ' none ' 40'-10" ' 40'-10" � 41'-6" 20'-0"
� i i `
� �
_ ........................................................................... ..............................................._................................ ......_......_..............................................................................__...............__...............................................: ................................................................................................
Lot Coverage: ` 1454 SF � 2134 SF � 2134 SF 2174 SF ; 2400 SF
i 24.2% � 35.5% � 35.5% ' 36.2% � 40%
�.._. :
, .. ............ ...... ...................... .............................................................................................................:........... ......... ................................. ....:.. ................................... ..............................................
,
FAR: � 1454 SF i 3164 SF ; 3225 SF ; 3339 SF 3420 SF
i 0.24 FAR i 0.53 FAR � 0.54 FAR 0.56 FAR ; 0.57 FARZ
�
..... ................................................................................................... . �..................................._.... ............................................. . . _ _........... _ ...............................
# of bedrooms: � not available i 4 � 4 � 4 ---
Parking: j 2 covered j 2 covered � 2 covered ' 2 covered 1 covered
; 1 uncovered � (20' x 20') ; (20' x 20') j (20' x 20') (10' x 20')
�
� 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered ' 1 uncovered
j j (9' x 20') i (9' x 20') (9' x 20') : (9' x 20')
,...._ ........................................................................ :.............................................................................:......... .. � . . ...... . ...... ..... ... ..........
Height: i single-story ; 29'-9" � 29'-9" � 29'-9" � 30'-0"
�
; .................................................................................................... ... . . ......_ ... ,.. ......._................_................................:....................................................................................... ...
� ` j I
DHEnvelope: I complies I complies � complies ; complies CS 25.28.075
' Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and
from data shown on the plans.
Z(0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3420 SF (0.57 FAR)
Staff Comments: See attached. The City Arborist notes in his January 29, 2004, memo that the existing 36-inch
diameter plum tree, located in the easement behind this property, is a city-owned tree and will be removed due to
poor health and structure. Letters of concern were submitted by Carol and Chuck Oushni, 1527 Drake Avenue
(dated February 5, 2004) and a group of neighbors on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue (dated March 29, 2003).
These letters were submitted before the revised plans (date stamped Apri121, 2004) were submitted.
March 29, 2004 Design Review Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review action meeting
on March 29, 2004, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed house in
2
Design Review and Special Permits
1521 Drake Avenue
this neighborhood and with potential drainage impacts from the proposed basement (March 29, 2004 P.C.
Minutes). After further study, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped April 21, 2004 , and a written
response, dated April 29, 2004, to address the Commission's concerns with the project. Below is a list of
concerns noted by the Commission and a response addressing each concern.
l. Given drainage problems in the area now, proximity to the creek, and the increased density of use in
the area, the Commission should have information/data on soils from a hydro-geologist to determine
the impact on the neighborhood; Commissioner pointed outgiven the circumstances of the area need
some expert information regarding hydrology.
The applicant submitted an analysis of the groundwater and how it would be affected by the proposed
basement (see analysis and storm drain calculations dated Apri122, 2004, prepared by L.T.I., Inc.).
The analysis clarifies how groundwater works in this area and when a basement is built. The analysis
notes that installing a below grade basement does not "deflect" groundwater, as the groundwater rises
from below and is all encompassing. The sub-drain system installed at the back of the basement wall
acts as a sponge and allows the water to be channeled to an appropriate discharge point (via a pump)
as opposed to penetrating the basement wall. Pump rates for this scenario are typically a 20 to 40
gallon flush which is discharged to the gutter over a 15 to 30 second period. This type of discharge is
viewed as incidental water and nothing that contributes to the overloading of any storm drain systems.
Water at this section of the street flows to the catch basin at the end of Drake Avenue, then through a
12-inch storm drain pipe and into the creek. The analysis points out that the capacity of this pipe is
enormous in comparison to the minimal sub-drain water that would be contributed by the proposed
basement expansion from the subject property. The key is to keep the catch basin at the street level
clear of any leaves and debris.
2. This house is too large for the lot and neighborhood, the reduction in size, footprint and FAR was not
enough given the Commission's direction at study. Suggested that the house size be reduced by
looking at the bathroom in the second bedroom, reduce size of dormer, pull the second floor backfrom
the front.
The second floor bathroom was eliminated and the second floor wall was pulled back an additional
8'-0" from the front of the house at this area of the second floor (see revised plans date stamped April
21, 2004). The floor area on the second floor was reduced by 62 SF, from 1,201 SF to 1,139 SF (48
SF of the is attic space with a ceiling height greater than five feet caused by the pitch of the roof to set
the second story visually down to the first floor). In doing that, the driveway side dormer width
(measured eave to eave at its widest point) was reduced from 36'-6" to 28'-6" and pushed further back
from the street. This most recent revision reduced the floor area ratio by over 5% from the original
proposal, from 3,339 SF (0.56 FAR) to 3,164 SF (0.53 FAR), or a 175 SF (5%) reduction in floor
area from the original proposal. There were no changes made to the proposed first floor.
Design Review and Special Permits
]521 Drake Avenue
The applicant submitted several attachments to address the Commission's concerns with the project mass
and bulk (attached to staff report):
• Table showing how the floor area on this project has been reduced since the original proposal;
� Three-dimensional color rendering of the proposed house;
• Floor plan showing the areas on the second floor with sub-standard headroom and attic space;
• Overlays of the front elevations of the existing house and the envelope of the proposed house; and
• Perspective drawing showing the minor difference with an identical one-story house without
dormers compared to the proposed house with dormers.
February 9, 2004 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting
on February 9, 2004, the Commission noted several concerns with the project (February 9, 2004 P.C. Minutes).
The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped March 12, 2004 , to address the Commission's concerns
with the project. Below is a list of concerns noted by the Commission and a response addressing each concern.
1. Expectation is that if basements are allowed the house should be less massive, proposed house is excessive,
bedrooms are large, have two walk-in closets, this house could be trimmed down especially with a 700 SF
recreation room in the basement, this is not the right house for the neighborhood; this block is getting
hammered, house is too massive and bulky, FAR and number of bedrooms is being doubled; design does
not enhance the neighborhood.
The architect submitted revised plans date stamped March 12, 2004. The overall design of the house has
changed since the design review study meeting. The following changes have been made:
- Overall design, building envelope, roof configurations and pitches, and floor plans have been
revised (see revised plans date stamped March 12, 2004).
- Floor area was reduced by 114 SF from 3,339 SF to 3,225 SF compared to the previous design.
The revised project would have a total floor area of 3,225 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57
FAR) is the maximum allowed).
- Lot coverage was reduced by 40 SF, from 2,174 SF to 2,134 SF. The revise proj ect would have a
total lot coverage of 2,134 SF (35.5%) where 2,400 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed).
- Front setback was increased on the first floor by 2'-8" to 23'-9" and on the second floor by 5'-0" to
26'-1" where 21'-1" is required (block average).
- Left side setback was increased by 1'-0" to 5'-0" where 4'-0" is the minimum required.
4
Design Review and Special Permits
- The second floor balcony at the rear of the house was eliminated.
1521 Drake Avenue
- Bedrooms were reduced in size and a walk-in closet was eliminated from the master bedroom.
2. Concerned about the basement and drainage and how if affects underground water flow.
• The architect provided a detail of the basement (sheet A-5) to show how it will constructed and how
drainage will be handled around the basement.
3. Streetscape needs to beprovided for this entire block to evaluate how thisproject will fit in with the houses
on that side of the street.
The architect provided a streetscape for the entire block on the subject side of the street (attached to
revised plan set).
4. Very little yard left, proposing a two-car garage when only one is required for this four bedroom house,
single-car garage may be more appropriate, would follow neighborhood pattern of rear and front yard
size.
• No change is proposed to the size of the detached garage; it will remain (434 SF, 20'-8"W x 21'-0"D).
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for basement ceiling height and for a direct
exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well, 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;
Design Review and Special Permits 1521 Drake Avenue
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
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, 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 revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped Apri121, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0; with a 434 SF (20'-8"W x 21'-0"D) detached
garage and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to
this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof
height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review;
3. that prior to issuing a demolition or grading permit the property owner shall submit a complete drainage
plan and design for the site which shall be approved by the City Engineer;
4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set
the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the
datum accepted by the City Engineer;
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;
6. 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 proj ect has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
�
Design Review and Special Permits 1521 Drake Avenue
8. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
9. that the conditions of the City Arborist's January 29, 2004 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's,
and Recycling Specialist's December 22, 2003, memos shall be met;
10. 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;
11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
12. that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Mark and Sheila Buran, applicants and property owners
Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004
6. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT�(60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the project. She stepped
down from the dias and left the chambers.
Reference staff report, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Project was represented by Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road
and Mark Buran, property owner. Neighbors Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Carol Oushani, 1527 Drake; Janet
Garcia, 1557 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Denise Balestieri, 414 Cost Rica11550 Bernal; Jerry Deal
1228 Paloma; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake. Applicant noted revised plans took out square footage affecting
closet, laundry room, affects mass and bulk, tried to keep the building one and a half stories with dormers to
reduce impact, feel that addressed the volume of the house, that more important that square feet; this would
be the third house on the block that is shingle clad, felt it would balance the other two, but could make
stucco if you want; three key elements, the house is only three bedrooms, the basement which is 700 SF
does not count in FAR but has no effect on mass and bulk because completely below grade; and the garage
may require one car but two cars will better address the parking on the street issue, has two-car garage now.
Commissioners asked is there a reason that you did not have a hydrology report prepared to evaluate the
impact of the basement on the drainage in the area; are the windows true divided lights; how many 4,000 SF
houses are there on this block; is fireplace gas or wood burning? Applicant responded: did not know who
would do such a drainage study, water table in area moves up and down depending upon rainfall, did
drawing to show water would flow into drain rock on site and then into street and the city's storm drain;
windows will be true divided lights; do not see this as a 4,000 SF house, only is that big if add garage and
basement area which is only a game room, not a bedroom; do not know how many 3,500 SF houses there are
on this block; fireplace is gas. Applicant noted would pump water to curb and go through gutter to closest
catch basin which is toward the dead end of the street.
Neighbors commented: represent 9 different properties and their owners, at the last meeting the commission
asked that this house be "downsized", only 114 SF were removed, the FAR of the house is sti11125% of the
original, design does not reduce mass and bulk, does not fit in neighborhood; should not grant unless 700 SF
is taken off the top of the house, the principle of the basement is good if it reduces mass and bulk by
relocated square footage; concerned about the lack of drainage study, live across street, the off flow from the
basement will go into her driveway, want study before go forward with proj ect; average size house on block
is 1,800 SF, this is 70% larger; there are 22 houses on the street which are stucco, counter productive to add
shake to solve problem at 1553 Drake; there are five new houses to be built on this dead end block, send this
back it's almost identical to the original. Concerned about drainage, have small cellar with sump, runs all
the time when it rains, the water will go to the properties on the sides or across the street, this is a channing
house it could be remodeled; feel that house at 1529 Drake on streetscape is in error, it is shorter than her
house, driveways appear to provide more space between buildings than they really do; applicant's tend not to
provide requests that commission makes, should not go forward without drainage study; not just about
getting what allowed, neighbors are being hammered with proposals for big houses on this block; down size
was only to remove less than 3%, when commission suggested 5 to 10 percent; did not assign to design
reviewer last time thought they would be responsive and sorry that they weren't. Drainage may go to
basement area but it will not be directed when it is pumped out so will affect neighbors. Water ends up in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapprovecl Minutes
March 29, 2004
my front yard, compacting the soil at 1537 increased water flow, plugged new drain, water flowed over
straw, this project is going to increase the problems, both Tredwell ROC and URS engineers do such
hydrology/drainage studies and can answer these questions, this house is just too big, the current cellar on
the site is 5' x 8'. Am in favor ofproject, applicant is property owner, pays taxes, is following the guidelines
of the city; purpose of design review in 1998 was to help design houses to build not to reduce size, more
people work from home, need bigger houses. When the 700 SF was added for basements it was to be
completely below ground, not as a trade off for SF above ground; understand that the number of new houses
in a row can create a problem, but this house is not bulky, put garage at rear, architect did things to reduce
the mass of the second floor; water in the basement will be addressed by putting in a drain designed for
greater than the flow generated, will not deflect water on to adjacent property; would like legislation to
prevent multiple new houses in a row but it would penalize individual property owner, can't just address
size, because could take it all off the back and the smaller house would look the same from the front;
professionals would all say the same about drainage, take water from soil and roof to the street gutter at
front, not need to hire an expert, not provide any new information and cost $5,000; people want larger
houses now, not double up kids as used to. Neighbors have rights, every proj ect does not need to be built to
maximum, that's what the guidelines are for; this block is under siege, this is the cutest house on the block,
some intent should be made to retain that character.
Applicant responded they are willing to remove the 700 SF basement area; do not agree that the design is the
same, this house is one and one-half stories, not massive, prepared the streetscape as close to scale as could,
houses are shown in perspective, the giant yellow house for example looks smaller, but this was done to one
eighth scale, and field measured the distance between the houses. Commissioner noted help neighbors more
to take 700 SF off the top of the house and retain the basement, could only do by reducing one of the
dormers and put a bedroom in the basement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner discussion: two issues basement and water/drainage; same water issue in my neighborhood,
sumps run day or two after rain, three new houses behind actually reduced the surface flow across his lot
because required to take drainage to the street at front; water will follow the path or least resistance. Asked
Sr. Eng is city drainage system adequate? Will the larger basement (40 SF to 700 SF) increase flow in the
storm drain? Front of this lot flows toward the dead end of the street and the creek, ground water will rise
and fall in this area; might get a lot of water in the basement but can engineer around, this neighborhood has
problem with tree debris blocking drains and resulting water backup so can flow down driveway at end of
street at creek; the larger basement at 8 feet will affect drainage because there is ground water most of the
year, major change will be during storms. Will it make a design difference if the basement is a bedroom?
Staff noted that a separate door and stair would probably be required. Don't know much about water, but
persuaded by testimony, that given drainage problems in the area now, proximity to the creek, and the
increased density of use in the area, commission should have information/data on soils from a hydro-
geologist to determine the impact on the neighborhood; at the time design guidelines were developed did
not contemplate seriatim development in a neighborhood, but design criteria seems to address this when
speaking of intensity of use, increase in size relative to what is there now; this house is too large for the lot
and neighborhood, the reduction in size, footprint and FAR was not enough given the commission's
direction at study. Feel that the architecture is very well done, respect the choice of variety when using
shingles, that type of variety happens on almost every block.
C. Bojues made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
�
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
March 29, 2004
Comment on the motion: problem is that have five applications on this block, not one, would challenge the
applicant, don't know what the square footage the block can take, that is what "discretion" means, think
design is fine, know it is bigger, less than maximum height, 26/27 feet from grade and looks like a story and
a half house; basement water issue is unknown, don't know if design review would help, should consider
approving. Agree don't know if sending to design review would fix, it is well designed given the impact is
on the total neighborhood, the cumulative impact is significant; need to see more work done; suggested
design reviewer for a third party to expedite process; don't think design review proper place, many options
discussed for change, better to let applicant.
C. Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to send the item to a design reviewer suggesting that the house
size be reduced by looking at the bathroom in the second bedroom, reduce size of dormer, pull the second
floor back from the front.
Chair Bojues asked for a roll call vote. The motion failed 2-3-1 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Vistica
dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining).
C. Vistica moved to continue this item for the applicant to revise the plans given the direction given
including a redesign including the idea of putting a bedroom and bath room in the basement in order to
reduce the mass and bulk above grade. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: should a hydrology report be required? Maker of motion added a condition that it
was all right to come back without a hydrology report, but applicant should be aware that the site drainage
issue would have to be addressed when they applied for a building permit. Second accepted added
condition. Commissioner pointed out given the circumstances of the area need some expert information
regarding hydrology.
Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue with conditions. The motion passed 5-1-1
(C. Keele dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). It was noted that this action to continue is not appealable and
the item will be renoticed when it returns to the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
C. Keighran took her seat on the dias.
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February 9, 2004
5. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BUR.AN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT�,(60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HLJRIN
C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. She stepped down
from the dias and left the Council Chambers. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description.
Commission asked how much of the basement was counted in floor area ratio? Staff noted that because the
basement qualifies for a 700 SF exemption from floor area, only 23 SF counted towards FAR.
Randy Grange, project architect, noted that he looked at the existing house and tried to build on the existing
image, the above ground FAR is 100 SF below the maximum allowed, used shingle siding to soften the
house. Commission asked if the property owner intends to live in the house? No, owner intends to sell the
house after it's built. Like how the designer reflected the pattern of the existing house, but am concerned
with how the sides of the house relate to the adj acent properties. Architect noted that the second floor along
the left side property line is set back 7'-0". Commission noted that there is an open area at the front of the
existing house which will be taken up by the new footprint, house will be much closer to 1517 Drake
Avenue than the current house, concerned with two story wall on north side, house is pinched by the
massing, not in keeping with the houses in the neighborhood, other new houses on this block will be smaller.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Mark and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue; Chris Mccrum,
1540 Drake Avenue; David Taylor,1566 Drake Avenue; Janet Garcia,1561 Drake Avenue; Regina O'neal,
1516 Drake Avenue; and Jennifer Frolic, 1517 Drake Avenue; expressed their concerns with the project,
lives across the street, house is increasing from 1454 SF (0.24 FAR) to 4039 SF (0.56 FAR), would like to
see proj ect referred to a design reviewer, out of character with the neighborhood, need to look at the broader
context, a lot of development on this street, five new big houses are proposed, going from existing homes
which have a total of 6 to 7 bedrooms to collection of new houses with a total of 20 bedrooms, will see
impacts to parking and traffic, we have reached a tipping point on this block, cumulative impact needs to be
looked at as a whole, would like to see a separate study session to address these impacts; existing house is
charming, was previously occupied by a young couple starting out and before that an elderly couple, need to
preserve smaller `starter' houses, at the October 27, 2003, meeting the Commission raised several issues
including reducing the FAR for developers and houses with basements and developing different standards
for different types of lots, what are other cities doing, at least 80 houses have been demolished in the past
three years, what has come of all this? Should not place this project for action until the entire block has been
studied; this is the fifth house in a row of seven houses now affected, house have been increased in height
and density, will have a substantial effect on the neighborhood; Commission has more information on this
block than any other block in Burlingame, staff and neighbors provided information of the median size house
on this block, proposed house at 4000 SF will exceed the median by 50%, would like to see project sent back
for a redesign and house reduced below 3000 SF; not opposed to replacement and development, adds value
to existing houses, however there is a significant change occurring in the Easton Addition, need to re-
evaluate trend of developers, many designing to maximum FAR, seeking exceptions to height, basements,
etc., most of the larger houses come from the developers, understand that they need to maacimize their profit,
but the Commission needs to think about the impact to the community; the diversity of people is changing,
first time homeowners are being outbid; developers ask for maximum FAR and when reduce house by 5 to
10 percent they look like heroes, in reality they are almost at maximum FAR, homeowners do not ask for so
much SF; needs parking and traffic study on block before this project is reviewed again, increase in density
and number of bedrooms, there is no parking available on this block, can't turn around at end of block.
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
February 9, 2004
Continued comment: Five new houses on this block will change complexion, need to re-examine FAR and
set different standards, incumbent on Commission to exercise maximum discretion on impact on
neighborhood, redwood trees and traffic, Commission needs to get as much information they can get to make
their decision, look at size of other houses, number of occupants, and traffic; size is too large, concerned
about the proposed basement and its affect on underground water, high water table in this area, water repairs
have been done at 1513 and 1517 Drake Avenue, shingle siding not consistent with the neighborhood which
mostly have stucco houses, concerned with second floor balcony at rear and privacy issues, neighbor has
pool in rear yard, question why basement is not included in FAR, this is more than the street can bear, over
40% of the block is being redeveloped; moved in next door a couple of weeks ago, house is crammed
especially at the front, retaining wall does not extend 4 feet as shown on plans, concerned with underground
water and basement, needs to be further studied and drainage reconsidered, roots of redwood tree on adj acent
property to south may extend into this property; recently in the market for a house, there is a big market for
smaller houses, but outbid by developers; existing house is small but it does not need to be 4000 SF. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Expectation is that if basements are allowed the house should be less massive, proposed house is
excessive, bedrooms are large, have two walk-in closets, this house could be trimmed down
especially with a 700 SF recreation room in the basement this is not the right house for the
neighborhood;
• This block is getting hammered, house is too massive and bulky, FAR and number of bedrooms is
being doubled;
• Concerned about the basement and drainage and how if affects underground water flow;
• Design does not enhance the neighborhood;
• Streetscape needs to be provided for this entire block to evaluate how this project will fit in with the
houses on that side of the street;
• Concerned with size of house, size can be reduced, feel architect has received clear message to
redesign proj ect;
• Need to look at what is happening on street, suggest a smaller house; and
• Very little yard left, proposing a two-car garage when only one is required for this four bedroom
house, single-car garage may be more appropriate, would follow neighborhood pattern of rear and
front yard size.
C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Cannot support the motion, still think project should be referred to a design
reviewer, we are putting the architect in a bind, win or lose situation, would like to see a more collaborative
process to address the concerns, need more than just some minor changes, need to reduce by 5 to 10%; feel
that architect knows the process, he can decide to consult with a design reviewer if he chooses; want to make
sure the applicant addresses the affect of the basement on the underground water, this is a wet area.
Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Keele dissenting, C.
Keighran abstaining, and C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:06 p.m.
:
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
1 /16/04
❑ City Engineer
0 Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
� City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling
at 1521 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-060
/' i, .
_._.l_d_�.. �G_.__ r�� �L . _ � va�t ??�,�_._�t�.__._ �f-____�,0�¢.�nf��cE�"
. %� e' �v w
�
P� 2__�rca���ti,.a�_�� ti�����F� w•`6l 7��. �_
�— 02 �1 " 3 o- k 5� z.i� G� �iy5��1 P�. ��E 5(�12� R.6�.��n-�
Fm2 T���_��DG. PRo� E ��"'_�dS i��ll //,OG.�RO
n
Reviewed by:
� — Date:
�/� � � �
r �... .:, ...�::x�.�«: :. �.� ,:.,���_. ,. , ��.r�-s: � �,..,,. ... , ..,, -rr rt���:.,. ,�u� ,.�>.�,�.sr....
n
� Project Comments
Date: 12/16/03
To: L� City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1521 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-033-060
Staff Review: 12/22/03
�; �. ,, � n'h+^'t�a� k..-.�-0 �.I s,.�.��
S !% ��- �� i�rt� ,� �-;� t?�mru��'9v,� v�-c,vrc""�r. ,Z?��� �� ��S
,�
��'LTr-%�s�✓k� �i�./ =tl;�,� c Lfi�( c?�N� �,✓t-s};� _
� Z' ��..n�vL- ��3z ���-v�- ilzz.��,�,t �.��� 1��� UL.,; �5 r�:�� r��
���-' `�,�9�-� � ;v2-v , i '7 c.� , �-�� r�-�T�?z-��-p
`�i�w� ���`L��-�'�� .
�
( �i �� l�'C �'Y�z��
,sr
1.r s �� i/ Ld �. �_ �' i 1t.. ,� ,.��.
_ �
YrMl�til� " C
Reviewed b , ) Date: .
Y � � � � � ��Z ��is
_ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 'J+� 'i�^' � .s 1�(
Project Name: •��°'�w',,� c"�'""'^^'r D7NL-+�%�'°�j
- Project Address: l� �! =, �
The following requirements apply to the project
1 '`t A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey sha11 show a11 property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 �`r The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
dra.in towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral � is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
sha11 identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a pazcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map sha11 show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:�private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
, , .
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land sha11 be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12, Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcei
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and conshuct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
; appurtenant work.
15 The project sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular tr�c, pedestrian tr�c
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 'The project sha11 submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-yeaz
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage azea, creek, or creek banks requires a State
, Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 _� The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 �_ The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:lprivate development�PLANNING REVIEW CO1�IlvIENTS.doc
" PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 � The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
� sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated gazbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�FLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
12/16/03
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
l� Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1521 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-033-060
12/22/03
�'�.� � � ti �._..�` S+_� -a� �r , r--Q�, �� �.��
Reviewed by:�<�� r'/���. /� Date: � � �-\ � � �
� � ^�
� Project Comments
,
Date: 12/16/03
To: ❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
�Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
0
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1521 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-033-060
Staff Review: 12/22/03
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and Recycling
Deposit for this and all covered projects and sections of projects
prior to any demolition, construction or permitting.
Revi�wq�d by: � Date:
"r4 '� CITY OF BUR�INGA11�
�,Rur.w. .
���� AP'PLICATION TU TI� PLAIVNING CONIlVIISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other ��5� �'1� �����
Project Address: ' � 2 1 � � �E �-U�
As�essor's Parcel Number(s): �2 6"�%�3 �� 6�'�
APPLICANr
Name: %�/�(c �- �Sh�,`�,� /.�v��—
Address: �U� 1�—�Pe/L
City/State/Zip: �-� ��5 (a>.� <'�
PROPERTY OWNER �
Name: �� � c5'�C � �h �5��'av�
Aaa��: � � P--�-.�.�
City/StatelZip: �h ��5 �U-� �'� �'�'oiG
Phone (w}: Phone (w}:
m)= � `��' %r � � {�): L�i�- � �� �Q��;
fax:
ARCHTTECTlDESIGNER
Name:T l�—�- Clti 7�C �
Address• ?OS �A�.k l��A�
City/StatelZiP: `� (� LL�� M�C �
Phone (w}: 5�? 1- 5 7 E 2
�}:
fa7C: ,i,� � GI " �1% 7
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
� ��ti�-{ ��N �
RECEiVE�
D E C 1 6 2003
PROJECT DESCR�TION: �l,'���� �� ��
CITY OF BURLINGNME
RLANNING DEPT.
AFFIDAVYT/SIGNATURE: I h�reby certify undez penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
�-- /�' �,r Q
Applicani's Signatare Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authoriz� the above applicant to submi.t this
appiication to the Pianning Commission.
,,� r� ��/�/G �
. �� .
Property Owner's Signature Date
�_w�_M_�.,.________�_______..___.FOR OFPICE USE ONLY --_�_��____- -_----._-�--_
Date Pi1ed:� Fee:_ � l � C7 -
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
!
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� ��T. o�
BURLNCiAME
��"•..m „�•'�
CITY OF BURLINGAME Fi'
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
. b a.s.c wi<„�- c e �' 1��„a l� e�'� �-+-
' o� i r c ��- ��. �'i' �t�-n w� a. �oa. SG.w► e n�
ECEIVED
J A N 1 6 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominantstructural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
i�-� �J ql �� �i�r� v � /a ,bn,sc.,�e� -� �� �s �aC��O erz�
(,U r" l l �j �w P �v U i;� p'J�-� �-z� /1�' e i� � h� d �,�n, � 5�-c�C�i� �c�s
C��' � ��(��'r��'�s
2. Explain how 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.
� � alvl � �d� � � c� b��sern��:I � -��� 6���J�`'�`�
,'� i I( h� �� r� ��c� �� 5� �� S
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residentia! design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
"%j�� � aL o�� �i �n� U � rA ��G�S�' /� �/G� Cul �/ //�v�
/ " -.__
yu o ;,,-�/�-e-�
4. Explain how the 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.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
/ � `�`�-'
�ti'`�l
�J�2/�'lP/Yl.-� (Nl `�� dvC�� Iti��l iJ�
-�y� �'c. 2,�I'1 d �1 �9'� .
�
LUZt1RIAGA TAYLOR, INC.
Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors
Northern California
1860 EI Camino Real, Suite 500
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel 650.652.9590
Fax 650.652.9596
Southern California
April 22, 2004
LTI No. 04-5202
Ruben Hurin
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: 1521 Drake Avenue proposed basement expansion
Dear Ruben:
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
In response to a recent Planning Commission, I am authoring this letter in an attempt to
further clarify the groundwater issue.
Shallow groundwater is very common in the City of Burlingame. Below grade
basements are also very common in the City of Burlingame, of which during construction
mitigation measures are installed to prevent flooding of the basement. Groundwater
typically follows the gradient of the land; however it rises and falls with the seasons. The
wet winter months the groundwater table is higher than the dry summer months.
Installing a below grade basement does not "deflect" groundwater, as the groundwater
rises from below and is all encompassing. The sub-drain system installed at the back of
the basement wall (mitigation measure) acts as a"sponge" or "wick" and allows the
water to be channeled to an appropriate discharge point (via a pump) as opposed to
penetrating the basement wall.
Pumping of groundwater can occur during the winter months where basements are
located. You see many examples of this throughout the City (EI Camino Real, etc.).
The water that is pumped is done so at a slow rate, and not a torrential discharge.
Water from a basement sub-drain typically fills a collection box at which point when it is
full the pump turns on and discharges the water into the street through the face of curb.
Pump rates for this scenario are typically a 20 to 40 gallon "flush" of which 20 to 40
gallons of water are discharged into the gutter over a 15 to 30 second period. The
collection box then takes time to fill back up at a slow rate and the pump repeats itself.
This type of discharge is viewed as "incidental" water and nothing that contributes to the
overloading of any storm drain systems.
26072 Merit Circle, Suite 117
Laguna Hills, CA 92652
Tel 949.348.2882
Fax 949.348.2772
LTI 04-5202 1 of 2
I understand that there is some concern about the storm drain line from the end of Drake
down into the creek. This end of the system has a 12-inch storm drain pipe that carries
water from Drake down into the creek. The capacity of this pipe is enormous in
comparison to the minimal sub-drain water that would be contributed by the proposed
basement expansion at the subject property. The item to be aware of would be regular
clearing of leaves from the inlet catch basin at the street level.
In conclusion, I see no adverse impact from the proposed basement expansion at 1521
Drake Avenue.
Very T�ulv �Yours,
l i1
�
David Luzuria
Principal
Attachments: Drake Avenue drainage areas
Drake creek storm drain outfall pipe
Storm drain outfall pipe capacity calculations (2 pages)
cc.: Randy Grange, TRG Architects
via fax (650) 579-0115
Mark Buran, property owner
LTI 04-5202 2 of 2
i.
, � , ,�
,� i � 1 �, � �
. .
.�
_-�
, �, .
��
> > �. � �
�
�
J
i
�
�
.
�
��
w
.�
�
�
V`
.i�
�
�
�
�
�.�._
� ��
� -�� �
I `-���
�..
� ��
� � �
� �
I "� � �
� r � � ;
� �� � �
�;r�, � � _ �
I �� � � � �
�E � �` �
� ; � �
i '� �
� �.
'f �t
I �� � �� �
� a �� � � � �
+ � `�° �wi�
�
,`
� � �
� � ,� � �
��
�� �'";�, . � ,.�� ;-�«�
�:
�C
S?
��
�,�.� ��
� ��
� � �
� C� � � �
� �
.. �� �� �,,,,,,.� _
�
�
�
�
�
�
�� �
�..,�s p
- .,,,,,� ...�..
....
� �
��
.� �,
� r
� � �
" "' �,,'�.
��
�
( � �
��
1 �
i
� �
�
M � „�
I W
� "'� �'
�
�
� ,�
. ^'`�
�
�
�..,�'
x
r��
�./
04/28/2004 15:31
r-�
�
c
.g
�
�.
w�
�ti
��
�
�w
.
.N
..� 1�
�
6506529596 L T I
.a`,c��`, . . . ,� ;.:,;":e:'::
.'a�'
--�-_.. _,:i',^ti .��..r,
��`'p tr � � �t'�i[h ��( C � � "i� f e>ns'
�~ !�� � kG /�Vc . � .
�jt�r � � v��o`a� � G� .
�J
�k;sf�nd� _ 1�r' Sforr,
t �
d f q�+"� ,S �"�t r. f�e n p.�.�
�c - �r�c k ; � '' �
� a i'1 � i ��+.
�ro r�., j� � � kC,
. . - . :-�. .
�� �� � � - 5�, 7s �(ev
� Nv �
,��r� {c c�� f ;�'q (( =
1'�P� s��p� � �
�• � � �cv
� 2 , f�� � (r �
_ .. . .
s � . � - ������
. ��
PAGE 01
- - � �-�+�•;:- � -- .
; _'�`�; - .
_. . � . _ I �
. . .
� �-�$� o�
. r$. � �`
C�G �7 a G �'f �/ �� ��'� p� p� '(� �. � M A
/ I � �]
��� id �S ��/�rAk�� C ��� �C� � ��or
� d"1 �ow ; 1 � C +' S ��_.,, . .
O,� rY i,G �.� , o,� fl.�, , so ��, rp� �:
Ck�rch"'� I� ����:�$ f� `{-��- C�'�� �.
�1'� � -�' ��a � � � f '� /� � `� � �.
�
��
I
- .:�
0
�: t i ��'"��'�i,: � '. • -:.. �
„���.�, '��!':�;�'�: �''s.'��1��-�;ro=:'
. . ..;r:<'_.....2.i�'�.. e:-i'v�.`i"e'"�..w�.���,
� "G
���
,
i h �a
A
._+
� �rQkG
7�� of �.r
�
m
.. .. . . �Y�. �;. .,"f',.; i'<��' . ,
04/28/2004 15:31 6506529596 L T I
� . . �.: . r,.z ;�,.
���' ,:.:=.`•�w�:;,.,
f ''`
�
�
a
c
0
�
�
a
� �
��
�m
m
�m
��
�. �
,. R
��.
�
. � '��` ..i :
4 . � �- • —�'-�
�Ya�n� �, . ,�rCg � � � �,0�{ /�c�c1
S � �. �r%�' ' �i
C �G q��� � �� i � � = a. �g � �.��
c�s � n� c� � . c; �q - .
�.-��cr e � = D . � . S� re e-f- .
G r o, W re �: deh�� q/-
j= 3, bta Sik C�uht ��c qf
�' `°° �rr : ' . , . Y
t� ; ! o r�+� n
� � �., /4r�+a �irt AC�"�s
���# = (o, �� C �• ��(�, oy� t .( o, � l C�►��Cp���)
�pct � �� °� 3 c�'s � • �
�^� � ►� .�Pr � .
V@r� Co nS� rv� f��/G
�/ � � �P W �'1'�' (% .�
� . �
� , .. .,,_..r .. .
�' -
�p�ro�C
� Dc� � �� Sto,r v+�, �cs�'� �1 .4.
\I� Ir /�}
1 ��c `Fo Ir Drc. v: c�.e. d
!
b .. o,.�d'.
.
7� Oa,�
� �v•q -o,'f
� . ...
GI,��
� •
. t. ►,c._ .'� �s �
S r,'r C �+ Pr/ �'�
�
(3,6��n�o'f -
�a ti � 1v � � 'G'.� ,S � ��,G,t, 3.�' � ��5�
,--. .
.� ,. : ,
. , ., �
�ar; Sf. h� �a�rt, brq �.1 Qc..�` �4 � � ; �Ni ( �
" ►'�1c1f� �M �G ��d �=. � rp v , ' ����to4+SGS.
. � . . p , l°Y t ,:,���}�:::.P. P �� . .
i._� ;
, _ . . ;Fyu.,:;t�... ' r�' . 4 ' .
. ' ,� � J • _ _ r •,a/'�': � ' y
•�" 1V:' ".6�."•,..� �'��'.j.. +���,'• , t: ��'�� '��.. ,s `
.'r,ly,•4 •,.•�fi��^P6�*.a:4.°LwYi ���ii��Ef �� �w:,r �:n. �;xM%;.i:..
.,..�:'..�'•.� • `�:�..�: . '� . .. ��= : .. ;� .
...,: �.. _ . ... �.�' .. � .
-� .�. • . .� . ..:\ . .'t , s. __....,:.....�._..____. � ���� ��y`� . �
� .,- u ... � if�,.Pi�+�:s - * '
, ;, � .
� „_,,.;x:•s:-;i8��.:��'+����` _ , .—_-- - - . .. ..!.e'. ���:ir � ��;�; �j��:�i''�kr��' ''�,' . ..
PAGE 02
Rpr 29 04 06:12p
' /l rehilcrl.r
Apri129, 2UQ4
Planning Commission
City of BurIingame
SO1 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RECEIVED
APR 2 9 2004
Subject: 1521 Drake Ave.
Deaz Commissioners,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
p. �
As we all know, the proposed project at 1521 Drake became instantly controversial
because of its proximiiy to other projects on the same block. It has never been our izitent,
or the owner's, to razn something down the neighbor's throats. Our goal is to provide a
design that is unimposing and sensitive to that unique situation; something that enb.ances
the street, respects its scale, and is realistic for all parties. Since this is the third round of
drawings, we felt that a brief synopsis of the revisions and responses to the various
concems would be appropriate and helpful to any anaIysis of the project.
After the study session, when the original proposal was reviewed, it was cleaz that
changes to the design would be necessary in order to find a compromise acceptable to the
neighbors, approvable by the Planning Commission, and buildable foz the property
owner. We reviewed the meeting minutes where a series of bullet points (typically
outlining the mast significant comnnents and concerns) was provided. Additional
com�ments, izicluding "need to reduce by 5 to 10%", were found in the text of the minutes.
The project was blasted for only being reduced by 114 SF, or 3.4%, but one needs to look
at how the 3.4% reduction was used. Our approach was to not become fixated on
numbers, but on mass, bulk, and the design guidelines (the most important but routinely
overlooked half of the zoning code). Rather than merely shaving off a bit here and there,
we went to a story and a hal:f design, eliminating nearly every two-story wall on the
project. The volume of the house, and its potential ixnpact on the immediate neighbors
and the neighborhood, was dramatically reduced. The requested streetscape was provided
to illustrate that point. We believed that we were actually getting to the heart of what the
Commission is really trying to say when they ask for FAR reductions.
At the second tneeting, znost of the discussion was about the appropriateness of the
basement, and the need to further reduce the FAR numbers. The basement seexned. to
become so cantroversial that the owner offered to rernove it from the project. He was not
ta.ken up on that of%r however, most likely due to the suggestion that some of the
bedrooms up top should be put underground. But Burlingame's zoning code specifically
prohibits bedrooms and fulI baths in basenaents; it's not something that can even be
considered. So what we did was to look at the suggestion of eliminating one of the
bathrooms upsta.irs and pulling the second floor back from the front a bit more. We did
that, and were able to reduce the driveway side dorrner, pushing it further back from the
street. This move also increased the over-ail FAR reduction (since the original submittal)
205 Par1c Road. Suire 20i. Burlin};ame. CA 9�i0lII
GSU.57J.5?62 FasG50.57).UL15 ww�v.rrt;arch.com
Rpr 29 04 06:1�p
to over 5%, thereby meeting that demand. It should be noted that the nature of this type
of design, while oi�ering a very low apparent mass and bullc, creates attic spaces greater
than 5' in height that count as full FAR, whether used or not. The tabulated floor azea
with lower than 8' ceiling heights totals 187 SF, or 6.8% of the house struchue's floor
area. This illustra.tes a mass and bulk situation in which the "numbers" don't tell the
whole story. But the design guidelines do.
We have pzovided additional documentation to better illuminate the proposal, and
hopefully ease concerns about it. Although it was deemed to be unnecessary, we have
pzovided storm drain capacity calculations; it appears that this project could not come
close to pushing the system beyond its capacity. We have submitted a 3 dimensional
zendeting for those who aze unfamiliar with visualizing 2 dimensional drawings. We have
submitted a diagram showing the areas with sub-staxxdard headroom or amic space. We
have submitted overlays showing the front elevations of the existing house with the
proposed house; and perspective overlays taken from identical points. We ha.ve submitted
a perspective dra.wing showing an identical one-story house without dormers, that we
think would encounter no opposition, to the proposed house with dormers (there is very
little difference).
In summary, the proposed design is vvell below allowable FAR and not only meets but,
surpasses the izitent of the design guidelines. It does not utilize the available plate height
exception (due to the neighboring 2 story wa11 at the setback line), it does not utilize the
dormer exception, it slopes away from neighboring properties and el'vminates any
shadowing effects, there aze no second floor decks or privacy issues. Contrary to what
has been said about this project, we believe that it is sensitive to the situarion on the street
and is a"responsibte" design. While it would be possible to whittle away at the square
footage numbers, further reduction would actually be detriunental to the design. Carving
away at the attic spaces would expose second floor walls, increase apparent mass, and
destroy the simple clean liiaes that define this design. Whether the two-caz garage stays
(providing additional parking) or goes to a one-car configuration (reducing FAR and lot
coverage) can be azgued convincingly either way. Whether the basement is denied on
principle, approved as is, or reduced in size, that decision has no impact on the mass and
bulk of the house, the FAR, or the neighborhood.
We hope this synopsis is useful in your analysis of the project, and we look forward to
the meeting.
Sincerely,
/
� Randy Grange ALA
Project Architect
p.3
Rpr 29 04 06:13p
FL40R AREA HISTORY
p.4
SUBMITTAL
AREA 1 st 2nd 3rd
JAN 7 2'04 MAR 12 '04 APR 20 '04
FIRST FLOOR 1,604 1,585 1,580
SECOND FLOOR 1,278 1,191 1,140
GARAGE 434 434 434
PORCH less aflowance 4 0 0
BASEMENT less allowance 23 23 15
TOTAL 3,343 3,233 3,169
BASEMENT 723 723 715
LOT COVERAGE 2,174 2,137 2,110
LOT COVER RATIO 0.362 0.356 0.352
�- �
+fi v'�
e
�;
� z�..
�'�'� a;E• .
� �� �-.
� .
s � �.:
;,:
�_
.� � � � � �
_ � ; �
:���� �
� ��� � ��
��
� �
, k ,°
u � �:�,.
� r
:�
, �
g
� �t �4 �.
a � T-� � � ���� _ �
av �`,� , �g ,f, � ,�' �
�
�;'� � .
,.� . � rr�:.
,������` �
#i
".���—��` �.���/1
- _ �. _ � _ —
1 i � �:� - '
F� !
- �- "
� I�,:�rt_ , �
� L� } � "
=—=t ... ��" �
y `.
f .�
. �,,� *� F . .
, i �, �
�� s
� � �;
F( k : 3, r
-� ;
_ , «� ' i
- ��
�{�-_ �. _ '
��§
�,�,
�� �.
� �.
��
r �^
��.�
� ;€� ,:
� � �' ; � �' � =, � �
iA�'� (�� F I' � . � �� � �'��y�"%t�
._ �, .
,;
�r 4 � ' . +� �'�' T
. 'a:;
rix ��:,. .., , :. �.
�,
�... ' a;'r `_:
�-'a: .�� . ... �� � � �:4� .. �
4' e t� �
� a,.
� . y� LL. F`�'z ` W" . � -ny �� �A�'��.ii'» ��-. '���';' .
.-}F - ...,5:: . °` F e +, �'r� + �'po- �ei
. .. ' �,� s ♦ �.:� �:�. '� � '�.
y� � ,�� v
, � s
,j � - . "' . , , .
,�-a.: :.. ,. -� . _. "k; - ��!�r�w..,r�.,.r,.. ' , . �, ..
ky��' . � � ":� .
� �� � � w +, ti
�; �� h E.
�`
� . :;o- � ' � '��
.;
,� �,. f �
�, � .�;•K 8�� �' � ��. .y, x
, qA � p��y io z*�
',�,� �f C 1 ��',. - # � .
I d� � a a..:�, �M1 . s �
r .� "�' ` , � .
, � .� ��t�� �" ,
, �, .� a ,i
'J4 .� . . , �': � F ) .,,x,��
� ' . . �¢� � ^ � r� � �� .. $� 1� .
r � ;' ..,
n � .. . . ''++e �.:.., y � � '..
� �� �� ��� �_�� RECEIVED
,� � ,k � . ' ��� 'ti - �
�- .
f �. ��' ��`�'� .. . . r � i:. -� �. .
� �. F T x �
�- <��'��y �� � � � r +� APR 2 8 2004
< �; - r
, ,� , ,�. �
t� � �. �� �
�-� "� '�_' � CITY OF BURLINGAME
; . � � " ° ' •�` ��,� ��.` PLANNING DEPT.
� ;E; .. -d;.'`} 1.
. w. • _,�, - . ,�a�. a� . .
rr' ��' '"�� �
� �( '
,:_ � � :�t —_ _
�a �� ��_ —
1.,� '�r = -- _ .
,� �� -- _ '
� � _
_, _ . "
.._.._ : . ,...�._. __ .__ .��.
v:bi� �,. _._ �i.; ,
- ,� — - - � :
.� �
�_:ti ',-�- _--_- : . _
:..�^ --_— _ _
,
� � - _— -:-
-- -- ' ' -
���� S b� PtT7^�L v 1��4�E � l� SL� �oiN �- CEI�./ ��-
� E7'w � c T( S� c��' Qj �}} I b-H- co u �.l - j-� �� A, �
fiU�� �f��.
T� r� ��-�.E� � t�� S.�,
C�o •� t o 4� ' A�,o V E G�R-o v►.IY� F� o U s E ��, u c.7�U 1�c �
�,�. �-
��
RECEIV�: �:.,�
APR 2 8 `LG04
CITY OF BURL!lVGltirAE
PLANiV1NG GF_°'�.
l�
v'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�Y��
L�J
��
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
��
-�..�
�
�
4
�
0
�
q
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�-
�
,1
�1.
�
�
O
�
�
�0
�
�,
�
�
m
�
�
N T1 � i �
� G'> O �
-i a .aa m
� �m
�. O��j� L/�-� a�= C x I s"T' f�. G- ,�� rJ- � o�v ��� �-01�1�s
.1 '/�-
�Ta �-�' � � � �� �c�-�,,� w � T�t
������.�
�
�
u
0 �I E
�
�-T'o F�� �3 v �I �--f�- L Uw �--
�i i r ur tsutcuNuAME
PLANNING DEPT.
,MAR-29-2004
�� � �
312aCa�f
13�32 Wall Street Journal V� a�Q,�( P.02/13
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2004 � � �T�oN�C
R P�REPAR�l�'l�
Ta: The Planning Commission
QF SPAF1�" REP�ORT
Re: 1521 DrakcAve. CITY OF BURLINGAME
�ate:3/Z�/(1Q� PLANh�NG DEPT.
From: Bab attd Nlary Bear, I510 Dr�ke, Jennifer Esposto 1529 Drake; Jennifer
Frolic 1517 Drak� A�re.; Jay and Janet Gar�cia T557 Drak�e; �i1ex and Kirsten Klcitt,
15Q9 xhake; Chris and Liz McCrum, 1540 Drake; Dan and rani pchse, 1512
I)rake; Jahn and Gina O'Neai, 15 �6 Drake; Chuck and Carol Oushani, 1527 Drake;
Margare# and Dirage Pardasani 1544 Drake; Da,vid and Natalie Taylor 1566 Dra,ke;
�n and Mark Thomas,152U D�rake Ave.
'V{fe are writing tn oppose approva] af the r�vised plans submitted for a new, two
story hause at 1521 Drake. We as[c you to deny the project based an the foilovving
considerations pinpain#ing the lack of xesponse to specific information requested
a�d recommended by several Commissioncrs at the 2/9/04 me�etiag oa this praject.
1) Commission requested ti�at the previdus plans be downsized, as t11e house
was toa "massive a�,d bulky," "not the riglat house for tlxe nei�hborhood," because
"the FAR and nurr�ber af bedroams is being daubled," because vf "concerns with
the size of the house," and suggestions for a"smal}er hous�." Th� new project is
ONLY I 14 square fee�t smaller than the previous plans. Current ,plans are 3,225 SF.
Previous �lans were 3,339 SF. That is a �+eduction of on�y 3.4%. At the same tirne,
the 3,225 house proposed is 125%n incre�se in FAR fc�om the existittg structure. 'T'he
new design does little to reduce the mass and bulk ogthe sbructure and daes not fit
in with the smaller frontages charact�ristic to the neighlwrh,00d.
2) The proposal also includes 700 SF basemen� That means, i� actuality, the
new house will be 3,925 SQ (plus 23 extra SF) ar 3,948 square feet. As the
Commissianers pointed aut in the 2/9/04 minutes: "'The expectation is tt,at if
b�,sements are �[]owed, the house should be iess massive, praposed house is
excessive, bedrooms are large, have two walk-in closets, this house could be
trimrned down especially with a 700 SF recreation rvo�m in the bas�ment, this is not
the right house for the neighbarhood" The conditional use pern�it for the basement
should not be granted, unless the 700 square feet comes oi�the top two floors of the
house. That is th� principal behind allowing the base�ment, as the Com�mission itself
has nvted.
3) The Commission mandated at the last meeting that a drainage report �e
submitted with the revised appliaation. The condi�iona! use permit for ti�e basement
also should not be ganted bc�aus� ther�e is NO DRAINAGE report sub�mitted wit�,
the pmpasal. $uilding a 700 SF basement, in essence, means you will be digging a
5,600 cubic foat hole. The drainage implioations for t�his are considerable. How
will the water be re-dra,ined so as not tv impact the adjacent neighbors and thase
across the stre�t? This qu�staon MUST b� addressed B�FOitE any further action is
taken to see if the pr�posal is even feasibl�.
., ,
MAR-29-2004 13�33 Wall Street Journal
15� 1 Ihake, page 2 of 2
P.03i13
4) The new proposal does not fit into the eycisting nei�hborhood, neither in
terms of style nar size. The averag�e size of the homes on the block is
3BR/'2B at 1827 squa�re fee� (See attached shce# with statistics for the
block). The new proposed home is 70% larger than the black aver�g�e.
5) Qf 22 houses on the str�t, 20 are stucco. This design is incansistent with
the aharacter ofthe ne�ghborhood.
6) Finally, tb.is praject must be ca�,nsidered witt,in the context of oAgoin�
activity un the bloc�. As t}ae Gommission l�ows, FQUR other homes are
proposed on that same side of th� block. �n total, this wiXl change the
character of the neighborhood and violates th� city's vwn d�sign review
crit,�ria. "'This black is gettang hamm�r�d, hause is tao massive and bulky,
FAR and rtumber of be�'aoms is being dou�led." These are the
Commissiott'� own wards. There now are FIVE new homes praposed �or
this dead-e�ad bloc�. 'I`his project must be considered within t�at context,
as the pmposed increase in. size, mass, n«nber of bedrpoms, impacts the
neighborhood density and infiashucture.
It �s incredulous that this application is aln�ost iderticat to the previous
subxnission.
Attachment: listing of square foota$e by address.
/!.t n, � rh �L
MRR-29-2004 13�33 Wall Street Journal
. ' �xu� wrc rear 5q. Lot F.A.R
Bath Btt. Ft. Size
1504 Qr�ke 2/1 1924 93� 600a 95.59b ,
1510 Dr�lcie 3J2 9928 9680 6000 28.0°Xo
1512 Drake 412 1925 1860 6000 31.0°b •
1516 Dr�ke 3J2 1925 2000 �i000 33.0�6
1520 Drake 3!Z 192i 1710 6000 28.5°�6 •
15�4 Drake 513 7 939 2880 6q00 48.Og6 (finished baseme►it)
i530 DrBke �/1 1933 1670 8000 27.pg6
�
1532 Drake 2/1 1930 151Q 6QQ0 25,09b
��1YI.��jC,E (;O ( .
0
� 1540 Drake 5/3 19i 2 377011400 31.096
� 1544 Draict� 2J1 i958 1380 8fi80 76.09�5
� 1 S66 Drake 4/4 1988 36pp 12�00 28.596
� 1557 Drake 3V2 9947 2020 7450 27.096
1561 Drake 3/3 1963 194Q 8810 22.096
�� 1553 Drake 3/9 '! 948 1350 5640 24.096
�� 1537` Dreke 3J3 1914 2�f 80 7 80b0 12.0�6
.�� 15291�c�ke 4/2 193T 23�Q 60�0 38.Q96
. .
�
�
P.04i13
,p�,�.� (e
�o r
� a..� � `"� `�
. MAR-29-2004 13�33 Wall Street Journal
� ) 1527 Dr�te 3J3 t 9�6 2020 600U 34.0°Xo r
� 1521 Dreloa ?J1
� , 5, 7 br�ak� �
; ) 1511 qrake 2h
-� 15Q5 Dralte �J2
Aver�ge
0
��
1928 101Q 60pq 17,pq�6 �
1931 181Q 600p 3p,Qg,r, --
1931 152d 600D 25.096 �
1924 1330 6U00 2Z.d°�
1897 7456 25.59�6
P.05i13
�XCERTION
�'l5Q9 Dr�ce a/s 1995 3700 6opp �2.096
Attaclled barws roam qgp 70.09�6
This oampletely nvr�forrnirlg hame wes �ilt without benefit of de�i�n
RBvie�w or anY �pP�'e� �ttention to exisdng oode ia. D�ylight plane,dedinir�g
height envelc�pe etc. and must not be used es $ bertchmark for any furiher
over�evelopmer�t
� ,. . r � " �
�
�� ���
�
MAR-26-04 FRI 5�37 PM
March 26, 2004
C(JMMUNICATION RECEIYE�
,�.FTER PREPARATl01�
o� s�,�FF ��o;�r
Burlingame Planning Commission
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 2004
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Once again I am submitting a letter to you in regards to the
properties at 1521 and 1537 Drake Avenue.
My concerns are:
P, 2
3�29104 �� �.«���
� -�*-m �' �P
1521 Drake Avenue
1) The house has been downsized a little and the design is less
massive than the orginal plans, but it is still too large for the
over alI continuity of our street.
2) I have a concern about the over 700 square foot basement
being proposed. There is an ongoing water runoff problc�n
on this side of the street. We have a sub-puznp in our cellar
which is constantly goii�g oii and off during the rainy season.
If this basement is constructed, what will the effect be on the
natural flow of the ground water?
3) I also am concerned about privacy in our hor�ie and backyard
once this project is completed. There does not appear to be
any landscaping proposed along the driveway side fence.
1537 Drake Avenue
When this project was proposed and approved at previous
meetings it was determined that plans for a11 three lois would
be submitted befor� any consti-uction could begin. Now that
the property has been razed, why should Mr. Miller Ue a�le to
constntct on Lot 11 without the designs for Lots 9 and 10
being approved?
Carol Oushani
1527 Drakc Avenue
Burlingame
FEB- 6-04 FRI 2�35 PM
a
, : r.-.
��, a!/ 3 ,f.fi`�" _�l. ._..�"�r:��' .
��
�' .�t i T �^�r�+'�
'��►'�``' �;
February S, 2004,
Burlingame Planning Commission
R�,�EIVED
FEB - 6 2004
CITY Or BIJR�IIVGAME
PLANNING DEPT•
We have been residents of Burlingame for the last 34 years
and have lived at 1527 Drake Avenue for the last 28 years.
We would like you to consider downsizing the new house at
1521 Drake Avenue. This would be an atteinpt to lessen the
contrast with the two remaining orginal houses that will sit
between five big new houses. These new houses will be nearly
40% larger than the existing 1�ouses when the consiruction is
completed.
Thank you,
P. 2
Carol and Chuck Oushani
�r�' 'T" o�, CITY OF BURLINGAME
eu�tuN p�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
� � ��• � • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�,,,,,,�,,,,,,.�'� TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1521 DRAKE AVENUE
Application for design review and special
permits for construction of a basement for
a new two-story single family dwelling at:
1521 DRAKE AVENUE, zoned R-1.
(APN: 026-033-060).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, May 10, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: April 30, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Cal
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
s'" ay be reviewed prior
�lai ' g� p ent 1 Primrose Road,
�
If you chal ge t
raising onl os ssues
described i t 'c �
at or prior t
C A t. B F�
Property o ers c�r i x
tenants ab t thi no i
558-7250. ank u. k �
♦
l��w . ` �
� i
Margaret o�� �
City Planner .�
�a
PU
(Please refer to other side)
N t fa
'.�,� '.:
�
/,ll
�+
be limited to
�blic hearing,
:d to the city
ming their
call (650)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
design review and special permits for basement ceilin�ght and for a direct exit from a
basement to the exterior of a structure that is anvthing other than a li�ht or window well for a
new two-story single familv dwellin� with a basement and detached gara� at 1521 Drake
Avenue, zoned R-1, Mark and Sheila Buran, 305 Pepper Avenue, Hillsborough, CA 94010,
propertv owners, APN: 026-033-060;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
Mav 10, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no
substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the
environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, 15303, Class 3—(a)
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one
single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permits are as
set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the l Oth day of Mav, 2004 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits.
1521 Drake Avenue
Effective May 20, 2004
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped April 21, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0; with a 434
SF (20'-8"W x 21'-0"D) detached garage and that any changes to the footprint or floor
area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features
or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review;
3. that prior to issuing a demolition or grading permit the property owner shall submit a
complete drainage plan and design for the site which shall be approved by the City
Engineer;
4. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the
property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of
the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer;
5. 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;
6. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the axchitectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that
these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a
Building permit is issued;
8. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
9. that the conditions of the City Arborist's January 29, 2004 memo, and the City
Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's December 22, 2003, memos shall
be met;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits.
1521 Drake Avenue
Effective May 20, 2004
Page 2
10. 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;
11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
12. 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.
: .Ii: t, • �,. �^' .;✓
. � � , '� k,�.. �� �. . ,p � .
;iw s .� � � ` �' �, 1 � �. ��'� ��, '
� ry `s - x � �� � _ a,¢������ � „�. ���i i�.�� � ,. .i;t � ��.�,� . .
� �.°b,�� y� 3� �� �' ���� . . . \ .
r i
�'� :. �.� !�� f.t"#�.-. �,':. Ir F, 'R.
� .;� , r � ,- ,�,�
'p,� � � .� ' .� .r..Q ^$q^,w.� `�." �° _ . °"�"� `�;�{� �`��""' - �
s ,
.
• 5� � s". . -. T � J
.
, .
� :,m � "� � �'... � + q :sk
i< �� �r� � � t;,"� .,� � t�` � P � � �#� F "r- ��...„�,
tr
t . �
.� ' .
,
, •y� • . �'.y,, � � ��., N � . �� ,��4 � �f � �.""�
r r i
.wa+ '' ` -ii- C
� � � t" , -, .. "..� ' i'
. :w- �«,
, � � �`
`
�`
. �.< � , � ,. � . . . � , /I i "�" ..' r '' ✓ Y� „�^'• "
,e ' , �., a .' M- , '� � s,.,,: , �` Y y
� *e
� '� � � �� . A. .,_ ,�, , � � � ..�.���� � �� � �� � �oC�� ���
,h
o �P � . �
. .
,,�,� � ; : ,_ � � � � �. - ���r;�'��' '`
r.
�
y� � • � � �• � c�s �s' "" `x�
� "�? `, �« ���y+� Z � � � :..,,u.a.,�.,�g �„{„�i
� � �,vAylfi � ' . �� , . - J�'`
�
t • :. !' . .� � l,r i wa.
�� �
.' ..
'� �� '.�� s . � � '�� � t�� ' r��
. ��
.
�,., „ , � � x_
.{
� �- � �.� � �
�V
� �,� r
�
. .
� ��
� a �, � � t� a ` � , ��
.� � � .
+ �- a ,�, � ,... , ,
. ; -
�
, ` _X�
� �� r &
. t,� ?.... � �'�q . ., a. : �. � 1^ k � i;.
� e �
�6. { �' �'� �� " 5 �£- ,w �'- ,� t� �� � : i �, 1 . ' .
a�, � _ ,y�w �* . � � / r � �+' � � � z .� jF �rx �f � �c„� � :�..w`�.".�' � ,'.. �
� � ~� a� '���°✓.. � h..� t � � �
� �.
aa ���+++���'''
�' k �i' � . . � �' v �l y � �., Y
l
� r.� x, a�. �, ;ti �;,y� �e � _•ar�. .. - � � � _ -
�,���4 .�� '"'r � w�.:f'a� � �� ��� j b v�'� • _ ���av1 �. _
,�� s y, t " �" � �� �, � �a«. m � . `�'�."'�� ` ,� ' �a
'!
', '� �. � . .� � ..,�" a, �E,s a ' sd„� .". � w �. �°�.i� '� , � �'�
�( ; .. ��,s � � � ti•' �. � � � �'� ' � `` x s:`�# w
"� nl � .,,y��� -�}, ,�+ s k� .."�C..1 � � 4�r i„ '�' v ., f.' j .
+� � 's � y�, . � �.. t ..�„ . ° � a 7: ' « rs � � ��.� e �� ",� f*' % X s � «
�; ;� ► .� y , �. s- � .- ��,x .
.;y ��� �'� � �,i. y'� `. 'v�?:- �� �� � � h ro � �d's' — . . °` 'q' ""� � ��,
.
. .
` � P � � .�� k,. i#
`, . ��..�d`e � _ � T 4. �r '�, a 4 � '"1 � . ' � ��� , �1,'; , � # f y � . ��;� � � _f: :
;� y'��$ .� ��,;�4 � 1,`� Y. +.�` �� .�� M��' .. � � ,�... �. � `� ��. �.g :�
'.� 7 '� . ' R N`" ' t'. '�` �'t�a'l+`e:.
� � :�� �� '�+ � �. � . �' '� � � y'�''4�� �t aYa � �� . �
� E •/�'
�f #i� �� ' z tz"^ b�� ` _ �"A l. . � fi.l KID"� \� tf�4
�,� .% �' �` /� � y o� � : �y ,
,.
� �
. . �
.
�� �y��° � . �� . i 4�t�4 '�. ��'t1�� �^+�'�„ �d •y �` �_'
. � � ' �. ± � � � • � % a , ���. '4� ' ��'� , "
�
, , <
' . �.'{"7 � � � �'` � � { � '3s.. �' �' � � l ._ �.� ~� �4.-. � .
���� , w
vc �
_ .
`�' � � � " �,� • � � � � ��: �
' / .; x � t' 4
�
. _ . ��/i,� - . . 4 �• �•t�""�
�� .
. � � "t _ � ;�} F .. � : i �a� . ..:�y � ) � 4 �s
�`: �LL ts a 'Y�f ' �' �y 4� � .�{'�� � /� . . • i, �$ � ,
, g ,: C! � . ��� '$y p�� � �` � ��p� � h Y� , ' . � �� �'� a� �..^� ��'���" ,r.���
�• � �y �' ..���� t:. �, i'��u;: 9 , �y, 4'.�y. ��p,� ' % .�fi a � f '`�/.
� �. �' � �� ..`;;+i �,�4 . - - :'at . � �'r a *� �� :� , p': �' �F �,,` .._�
,
', ., ��� � s. 4 r �< � z. 9� p�' "f�y;� � � a, .
� � � � �
; � <� � �; jD,� ` ,"'�'.��' �v . ,►� ,
3
.
. �� e y'�
.!'
� ..'�r . ;� ,�/ 6�v P �k`�� ^+.�y�4 A � . Y'` ��y..f,{`,j7� v. �� � f ' O t"„h�,_ �
y� 4, f �`�V" � ' -u'. • ~'� '�::� l - ''�
`4i�� 4 �IP ��' . � °,�ts 7,�',, : �� � i� . ' � ' ,�+�.:�.�d"�� � . .
. � . �. .; �
� •' �j ,� �
'-+„� � .� . ....�,. 9�.,� ,�a ..� S `!a ��' �� g�a,.�»,� . �a*t- . ' . �/p/, )�. . � ' . .
'�', �' �< ';4`'� - : �. � ' . �- � � r-,( .
'�.? e" �y - � �, � jy� y 'y�- , � r � �, � .* �'• 4� � J
'y � 4 r � � �� ' ' �' �� r � ; �a, � d, � � • `� �y � ('� �,,�� �� �`� „' ��1
��.Aa.� ���� ' � �o�Sa ' . � :t`", V+� /�0 �jl �' �
.
:.b.. ,�• �r j<3.V- .r h,✓','',�� �. ��.� :€` .,j�T' �� �. "G.'�`��f,F "s'.. r.
ro
' . � �� ^' v�. ' . ;#� • .� �` ' �' �` / t '°.,
�
� . ,
' � .� * w c� _ ' - > .
�. � ��� � t . �` � / .. �� �� :. �" �' .. � �
.r t e � '� ��'° � ' > b r�
e*, '�.. «�.rz � ��� r i:�F j� a
r y � � . �. :^ ,� ~ ~ 'Q � ` �� .;f � � ,r �5�'�" , .
, � � � �. � �� .�� � ,�°'« t/ ��, �; -�e.%�,�` z` � . � �
�: �' � .
..� i�z:� �;�'.� , '�,�. � . '• • � �''�p,� � �1�' � �`�.
:
ti �, . � � �` , � � ' , � �
���rr��� �'A .. 3` ' yi^s� . �/ � 'e�l: �� ,.6 Sr. � `'/ t 'O�• � � �• � M•
v[i� � 1 � ,b-� R ..t ;, ' � � °� ` R� ' � .1� ,NF m.�, +� h ,�*ae . � , �y � , '@.
.A,-� �°p,"S s� .�.iR gi t�:.a' `y� �3� v �,`�+,� �� '� � �[ ,yi +� � ♦
.� °'b 4. h 7 � �''9. . � .�..
.
s e.�y`.4 _ � ... � �. l �-� �,� r �_ � , i � ��a � ' .,
.. �y
3 g�
i y 8 .29 x i ' � �.� ''- � . y�;, ' .�a, i `"dt '� ;�� "` "+: ;i''��
��°�Yy �".��'.,i��i p�b15 --.4 % «,F�� � ��:%.. .'�"" � �'��A �'.�� /< ��� O+ -�}�� i
; ` ' l,• �
: � �. � �,�� 3 i �t r � / � . 14 �h� /"„ .
.���.. i .�, � ,w..,�` rr ��i� � � '�a_ ar"s�,� �' ,:., f � � �:.. .
f,,;' �/` .. ;.•M, �° `�,.� �" '� / : ;
,
, ,, ..
���� � _ ' � � ���� ��-� �
' � �'. � ° °p�.` , ., � i� � �'� ,�� � � � ` �*` � ��,�� ` ��+ � ' ,�,,��' a ��
.
, ,
, �
.. •. , �i�r , .
�;� ,,. r�r ' r �,$, r �;� a �• � `,�';
. �
«, _
.. � �_ , .. �1 � ��r�� '+�.'� `�� .
:-,., ` ,. , �, , . .
.� w i��.. �; �„ �.
> .'
-. .
� q ��� �
. , � �. �
. ,. . , , . ;
.. a
. .. , �.
;K . , �
. - ,. ,
. t � ;e. .� +„ � � �x- , � . c��� r.�p � :., . " . .�. ��� � ��� � .
� �
�.r. s,.� y . � `. `` +�'�,. ,-F".. - ' 3 - '� S �' ��� �� �� � ` �
. • <
��.
�. ,;:.e ' � "� � , .� � •,� �. / . � , , .. � •e� a �.g m �'f �S,
�. :.
'y - � `w' "' _ �''fn '� . � ,'4'Si � ��xh �:
� t � '. � � . �d Ex �`�i
. � . . .t,r-�,.�� � �� ��� . �
e,
� �
� a,
' ' �
.; �`��; � 6.. , �� � -.. �� � � . . � � /
, ,r��v�' �, �� f,�
� ,� �f Kt,l � , ,� � , , f � ` �a ",�`� ��'�' �� . r
�'k /'� ;� a� ��,�.,, � i +k
.
aV • j
.
�. ,�" q � ' .�' �+,. � �.; �a°: iF. ^► ��
- � .� %� �..� �� � � d' � �
� .
,
.. �\ >� l, � e,, �`„% � ° �" � ,.� ti 1- �� �
.��� ��� ��� � �`� - � I- y�'` �� y, ,! ���, / � ,��=� _/ ' � ��I � �� � ��'� _ '� � ���`
;, M1
�:7 ,�� k,.�y�`. ,� tw" 'iR � � . i �'�'. i ' ¢ . ��` , � ` :.� a " a: ;� � � .
�
4 .,. / \ � p � t. � i
�'�a°'� � . � i`" ' � ' �'^,��'��
, ^ L.� ' a�� !..
n
r .,. , • a e ._ .. . ""' �^ � , . s , �ii' �' .,a ` . � :.
�
.,, fi. �
. '
, ,
e�.7/� � t3].. �a• �` �
�t`'.' �'' y w - �'� ��s � a/ ':��.. ` f�.�: i
: , <:' '
,��. � � S':•� .,, - � ` �. ! � � �`a, t:.. ���, . � � � �,,f f
� A�'4.YiCrp��e e� �wQt� � � �,p�,+.�,� � `'� ��y'' �'�'�. �i Y„r��i,..��,.
. {�
1-, M�j' � ; � td� � i� ""�� � _ ' � � �' �° � '� \ y n � � ��,� w� . i u.�, w � ±. i 4'� rk' M �,'
� � `� I"�•� l � � �� t�t �
�.��, Vb-...3; . . �S,r,'.�' � ti� , O � � � � �„ ��!��,�.` � �A �� m�� �<. �,ar" � `,,,,, ..
�'�.. `C � y �7!,, � � i t' �' '
�
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2004
APPLICANT AND PROPER OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER:CATHE ARBER
3B. 318 CHANNING RO , ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN IEW FOR A FIRST AND
3C.
SECOND STORY DITION (BARRY RAFTER, APPLICANT ARCHITECT; GEORGE RYAN,
PROPERTY O ER 47 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNER• EN HURIN
1148 O ORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICAT FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW WO-
STO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND D ACHED GARAGE (BRIAN AND GINA RNESI,
AP ICANTS AND PROPERTY O ; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) NOTICED)
OJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE B ER
Chair Osterling asked if anyone ' the audience or on the Commission w' ed to call any item off the
consent calendar. Commissi er did not wish to pull item 3c. 1148 Oxf Road off the agen but wanted
to add a condition of appr al to require that all windows shown on t plans be true divide ight windows.
There were no reque from the floor to remove any times.
C. Bojues mo d approval of the consent calendar bas on the facts in the st report, commissioners
comments d the findings in the staff reports wit ecommended conditio s in the staff report and by
resoluti , with the added condition to item 3c 148 Oxford, requiri that the windows shown and
K"ed be true divided light windows. The
on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C�
IX.
4.
concluded at 7:25 p.m.
REGULAR ACTION ITEM
i was seconded by C'�. Keighran. Chair called for a voice
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY
GR.ANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT�60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HLJRIN
Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. C. Keighran recused herself from this item because
she resides within 500 feet of the subject property. She left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, was available to
answer questions. He suggested discussing this project in three parts 1) house above grade; 2) basement; 3)
two car garage, since it becomes confusing to discuss the entire project together. This was a challenging
project, wanted to please the neighbors, but also design a buildable house. The house is only one and a half
stories, bungalow style, which is a historical style that is found throughout Burlingame. Design is
neighborhood friendly, there is an additional 1 foot setback on the side, 5 feet instead of 4 feet, dormer on
the side that faces the neighbor only has small windows and they are for a stairwell and a closet. Because the
design is one and half stories it does have unusable attic spaces over 5 feet in height that are counted toward
the total floor area ratio. The Commission mentioned a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the total floor area at
one of the past meetings, however it never got in as a bullet point in the minutes. The Commission also
talked about taking some of the square footage off of the top and putting it in the basement, however the
code prohibits locating bedrooms in the basement. Looked at reducing floor area, but can't reduce to less
than four bedrooms, so took out one bathroom and pushed back from the street. If you take out a large
dormer it only amounts to 60SF reduction based on the attic calculations. The property owners hired a civil
engineer to analyze the storm drain system in the area and the basement. There are no drainage problems
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2004
that are not typical and can not be addressed. The basement is the result of the guidelines passed a few years
back, if this basement isn't acceptable then the rules need to be revised. Only need one car garage, but have
provided two spaces since that is what is there now and there is a parking problem in the area. Decided to
leave both the basement and garage as originally proposed. Commission noted that the chimney on the right
side is taller and asked if the windows will be true divided light windows. Architect noted that by code the
chimney has to be 2 feet above the roof for a wood burning fireplace and that the windows will be true
divided light windows.
Bob Gilson, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, Gina O'Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue, and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake
Avenue representing the Garcias, the Ochses, and the Bears who could not be present, had the following
comments; noted that this project has been before the Planning Commission three times, the design
hannonizes the neighborhood and is within the allowable floor area ratio and urge the Commission to
approve the project; owner made good effort to address Commission concerns and removed deck and moved
windows, included neighbors in the process, concerned with shingle siding, this would be the only shingle
house on the block, would like to see lighter color treatment of the shingles and roofing materials, noted that
houses in the neighborhood have lighter colors and appear less large, in support of a two car garage,
necessary; appreciate efforts of the owners, but was only reduced by 184 SF, the design is neighborhood
friendly, looked at other shingle houses in the neighborhood and notice that the older ones have turned
darker over time, newer ones are lighter in color, would like to see more mature landscaping added to the
landscape plan, thanks for addressing basement and drainage.
Randy Grange responded that the they were intending to use a 40 year Elk roof shingle to add texture and it
is not real dark, and that they were also planning on using an opaque light stain, not yet selected.
Commission noted that lighter color may make the structure look larger and that a darker color may help
visually to reduce the size. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: windows should be true divided light windows, add as a condition; good example
of effort from both the neighbors and the applicant; two car garage is fine, think in this area that it is needed;
great project, mass and bulk were substantially reduced by design, took advantage of the basement; porch
makes this a community friendly house; on the landscape plan there is a Noble Laurel on the driveway side
where the neighbor was referring too this will be an evergreen tree with a multi-trunk dark green and believe
that it will provide adequate screening; commend architect on this job; color is not really within
Commission's purview, however a light color seems appropriate but not a bright light color.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
April 21, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0; with a 434 SF (20'-8"W x 21'-0"D) detached garage and
that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
with all windows to be true divided light; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second
floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to
scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building
corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by
the City Engineer; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect 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; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2004
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; 6) 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; 7) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's January
29, 2004 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's December 22, 2003,
memos shall be met; 9) that the proj ect 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; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the
City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues .
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C.
Keighran abstained and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55
p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dias.
5. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 AND LOT 2 ZONED R-1- (DEREK CHIJNG, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER,;�IICHAEL JUNG, ABR ARCHITE�,%°I'URE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED)
a. APP CATION FOR CONDITIONAL US ERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS
b. 1 4 ALTURAS DRNE, LOT 1- app ' ation for design review, hillside area construction
permit, and special permit for an atta ed garage for a new two-story single family dwelling
c. 1504 ALTURAS DRNE, LOT - application for design review, hillside area construction
permit and special permit for attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling
Reference staff report May 10, 4, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, iewed criteria
and staff comments. Twent hree conditions were suggested for consideration for t 1 and twenty-six
conditions were suggested r eonsideration for lot 2. Noted that conditions of app val for both lots refer to
April 14, 2004, plans b should read Apri128, 2004, plans.
Chair Osterling o ned the public hearing. Derek Chung, property own , 1504 Alturas Drive and Michael
Jung, architect, 75 Papazuan Way, Fremont, were available to ans r questions. Mr. Chung noted that he
tried to addr ss the Planning Commission's concerns, which w e mostly on lot #2 regarding the 15%
driveway erses the 12% driveway. They decided to keep the % driveway. With the original ns they
had a 1 /o driveway proposed , then during the design re ew process with Jerry Winge e suggested
reduc' g the slope and thought it would be a better solu ' n. Provided a cross section � the revised plans
tha shows both a 12% and 15% to show the differenc etween the two. Decided t the 12% slope was a
b tter alternative for the following reasons: 1) safe for a better approach; 2) ap ars cleaner from the street
ithout a big drop down; 3) practicality, don't t cars to scrape when ente ' g and exiting the driveway.
Lot #2 has three retaining walls, the north w steps down, is a terraced 11, 3'6" at the lowest point and
10' at the highest point. Planning on pl 'ng vine plants to cover the 1, blue star creeper and rosemary,
he submitted a picture. The wall will a so have a stone veneer to so en the appearance. The neighbors at
5