HomeMy WebLinkAbout800 Winchester Drive - Staff ReportItem No. 8b
Regular Action Items
PROJECT LOCATION
800 Winchester Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 800 Winchester Drive
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: February 11, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a new garage to an existing single family
dwelling.
Appiicant and Property Owners: Neel and Adrienne Patel
Architect: Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild
General Plan: Low Densiry Residential
APN: 029-074-340
Lot Area: 6,750 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase
of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 2,196 SF (0.33
FAR) of floor area and has three bedrooms. The existing detached garage is located along the right side
property line, 28 feet from the rear property line and 78 feet from the front property line. The detached garage is
dvithin the rear 41 % of the lot.
� he applicant is proposing a first story addition at the rear of the house, which will include the demolition of the
existing detached garage and construction of a new attached one-car garage. The total proposed floor area is
2,621 SF (0.39 FAR), where 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Also being proposed is demolition of
an existing 150 SF arbor located along the left side property line. The proposed project is 639 SF below the
maximum allowed floor area.
The proposed project includes increasing the number of bedrooms from three to four. The code requires one
covered and one uncovered parking spaces for a four-bedroom house. The applicant is requesting a Special
Permit for an attached garage, which will provide one covered parking space (10'-7" wide x 20' deep clear
interior dimensions). The new attached garage will be setback 61'-5" from the front property line, where a
m�nimum of 25' is required for an attached one-car garage. One uncovered parking space is provided in the
dr�veway leading to the garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is
requesting the following applications:
Design Review for an attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(6)); and
Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review and Special Permit
800 Winchester Drive
Lot Area: 6,750 SF
SETBACKS
_ _
Front:
Side (left):
(right):
__
Rear:
__ _ _
Lot Coverage:
__ _
FAR:
# of bedrooms:
Off-Street Parking:
800 Winchester Drive
Plans date stamped: January 30, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
_ __ :... __
20'-0" No change 15'-0" or block average
I 61'-5" to new garage '; 25' to attached garage
4'-0"
15'-11"
_
51 '-6"
2,256 SF
33.4%
2,196 SF
0.33 FAR
4'-0" (to addition)
5'-0" (to addition)
___..._..
35'-0°
_ _
2,635 SF
39%
2,621 SF
0.39 FAR
4
4'-0"
4'-0"
_ __ __. .
15'-0"
2,700 SF
40%
3,260 SF'
0.48 FAR
3
1 covered
(15' wide x 27' deep)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered ; 1 covered
(10'-7" x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
'(0.32 x 6,750 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,260 SF (0.48 FAR)
2 Special Permit required for an attached garage (CS 25.26.035(a))
Staff Comments: The revised changes on the plans date stamped January 30, 2019 were to the roof plan and
rear setback (33'-2" previously proposed, 35'-0" currently proposed). The currently proposed rear stairs have a
landing that does not exceed 30 inches above grade and therefore do not count in lot coverage. There is no
change to the previously proposed FAR.
Design Review Action Hearing: The proposed project was brought forth straight to an Action hearing on
January 14, 2019. The Planning Commission supported the Special Permit application for an attached garage
but had some concerns with the design of the proposed roof and addition at the rear of the house. They decided
to continue the project and referred the applicant to meet with a Design Review Consultant (see attached
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes).
Listed below were the Commissions' main concerns:
■ Attached garage is not well integrated into the existing structure;
■ Lack of a unified roof; and
■ Current roof plan for proposed design may create drainage issues.
The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped January 30, 2019 to address the Planning Commission's
comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation bythe design
review consultant is provided in the next section.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The applicant and property owner met with the design
review consultant to address the Planning Commission's main concerns. Please refer to the attached design
reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated February 5, 2019, for a detailed review of the project. The
design reviewer notes that the "revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style and
2
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
massing of the project." Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports the
proposed changes.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistentwith the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Design Review and Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is
consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood that has a mix of both detached and attached garages.
That the proposed front setback to the attached garage is significantly pushed towards the rear of the house
which maintains the attributes of a detached garage. That the proposed garage is set back from the face of the
main dwelling by 41'-5" and is single story so that the garage form is secondary to the primary street presence of
the main dwelling. That the proposed design of the garage is integrated well into the existing structure and that
no landscape trees are proposed to be removed for construction of the attached garage. For these reasons, the
project may be found to be compatible with the design review and special permit criteria listed above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 30, 2019, sheets A1 through A5;
2. that any changes to the garage door material, garage fa�ade, or to the front setback of the attached
garage shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be
determined by Planning staf�;
3
Design Review and Special Permit 800 Winchester Drive
3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
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 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;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
affect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
9. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to
the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (garage fa�ade, garage door material) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
`Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant and designer
Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners
4
Design Review and Special Permit
800 Winchester Drive
Attachments:
January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Review Analysis, dated February 5, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Neighborhood examples of houses with attached garages, date stamped December 6, 2018
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 1, 2019
Area Map
:
,�
4�'''�''!l
9URLINGAME
.�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
"l � f� n � -�_
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: �� `��' ��"� � i L'
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: k` ��,' I;�`I r'�C�1��-C C k/'�'
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: !u/kLc `- fl/i'��/v/ . Name: ��l ��.� ��errv�o ��
Address: l�J�� � S j7� 71iJVZ�i E3V rJ Address: ���ih �� t�� ,�:
City/State/Zip: � U�E �"�� /V �j l'� oJs�� ity/State/Zip: �`�,������ C� �'��� (�
Phone: �- m �4 � � _. 91 �� Phone: [p � -/�OD —% �p��
E-rnail: E-mail: Y! � Y� f't�`�(,� � 1�-�q M ��� , Orn
.
ARCHITECT/DESIGN R _
Name: G'�1��T��n/ f Gl� t c����G
Address: f D'l��.C.� s�� QE= .4nl2A 'R i� n
rrfi��� Z-
City/State/Zip: n �E p���A�� c.�q �so��
Phone: �p����=�� �
E-mail:
.
Burlingame Business License #:
- - � =�1�i1��
;_ � - 6 201$
� g��LWGAME
-. �p.�,.,.�i,ni;^ C111/
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer)
�
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATUF
best of my knowledge a
Applicant's signature:
�e /
I am aware of the propo
-- -.._ . ._.......
Commission.
Property owner's signature:���i,� Date: l`��/`dI (1
U �
Date submitted: � y � �f ,
S: � HANDOUTS� PC Applica tion. doc
' � � • � II ��-/�—� �� � �
/ I
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
�
Project Description:
, _ �
;
' � , ' r V ''�;;� � '= i ;tii � �. Y b� I 'i - �> Y �
��� —
_ � ��e I,�
��,(tiJ�-�,�C�V'�
Key:
Abbreviation Term
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Height Envelc
DSR Design Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SP Special Permit
CITY
� � ��-
�»
ii�
� �� y ou
�9now��r
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, January 14, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers
c. 800 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit to
attach a new garage to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild, applicant
and designer; Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the statf report.
There were no questions of staff
Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Mike Amini, project designer, represented the app/icant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Looks like there is a big roof cricket that will be required, hidden in the middle of the roof, is that
right? (Amini: Yes, there will be a cricket to bring the water to the downspout.)
> There appears to be water flowing into the backside of the gable at the face of the garage, how does
the water get out7 (Amini. Yes, there is a valley at the gable.)
> Don't see the pitches for the proposed roof. On Rear Elevation, there appears to be a pitched section
at the top. May be an error on the p/ans. (Amini: This is an error on the plans.)
> Suggest visiting some of the other houses in the neighborhood to see how the garage roofs are
handled. (Amini: Have looked at other houses in neighborhood.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Being asked to consider a Special Permit for attached garage. There is a preponderance of attached
garages, so there is support for a Special Permit.
> It appears that the addition has rear ended the house and is not gracefully attached.
> There is a lack of a unified roof. The major wall size, the side wal/ of the rear of the addition, is the
widest portion of the house. Should look at starting with a hip structure there, with the front of the house
coming off of that; it would be more unified and simpler roof form.
> As proposed now, will have a cricket up against another cricket and water won't be able to drain out.
Confident that it will get reso/ved in the field, but need to it resolved on plans now so it doesn't need to
City of BuAingame Page 1 Printed on 2/4/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019
come back for our review later.
> This is a good candidate for a design review consultant.
> Addition is not very well integrated into the existing house, has a lot to do with the roof.
> WhaYs making it hard to integrate is the attempt maintain as much of the existing roof as possible.
> Would be helpfu/ to use consistent hatching for roofing on building elevations.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the applicant to
a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
City of BuAingame Page 2 Printed on 2/4/2019
Design Review Memo
City of Burlingame
Date: February 5, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 800 Winchester Dr.
Architect: Mike Amini, Craftsmen's Guild
Planner: `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted to the Planning Commission
for 800 Winchester Dr. I listened to the Planning Commission's comments in the
meeting video (and saw meeting in person). I met with the owner, Architect, and Planner
at City Hall to discuss the Planning Commission's comments. Per our suggestions, the
designer made revisions. Following is a comparison between the original design, and
the current plan.
Revisions to original design:
Floor Plans:
■ Back of family room "punched out" to create offset.
Front elevation:
■ Garage roof has been rotated around, eliminating the tall front facing gable and
bringing down the roof overall.
Right elevation:
• Roof at garage area simplified overall. Roof at garage rotated.
Rear elevation:
■ Gable added to family room to break up wall.
Left elevation:
• No changes
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
1. Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing
Neighborhood.
There are a variety of houses on this block. The style of this house is not
changing and the front is not changing. The massing has been cleaned up and
improved.
2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood
The proposed attached garage maintains more space between houses, and is
compatible with the neighborhood.
3. Architectural Style, Mass 8 Bulk of the Structure:
The revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style
and massing of the project. The architectural style is more consistent.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each
Side:
The proposed house will interface nicely with its neighbors.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural
. Components:
The proposed landscape plan seems reasonable and will be consistent with the
neighborhood context.
SUMMARY
The project has been improved since we first saw it. The main concerns were with the
rooflines, tallness of the garage wall, and roof drainage. The applicant has redesigned
the roof lines to be much simpler and eliminate the double cricket. The single cricket
could also be eliminated but I believe the design is better with it as it allows the garage
roof ridge to continue all the way back to the house, and separate the taller roof behind.
The gutter at the front of the garage seems to conflict with the window trim at the house
wall, so perhaps that could be adjusted slightly, either with the window length or front
wall of garage...all in all minor detail. I am comfortable with the proposed changes think
this is a good solution.
Sincerely,
Randy Grange, AIA LEED AP
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • www.burlinaame.orq
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.
c�Tr
� :,:�i�
;�' �
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
,,�1_� I;_ �L� n� ..
� 9 - ��0
_ , ,,'�.� �.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant sfructural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and
with the existing street and neighborhood.
, �
2.
. %i.� L i'�e�'L�� /1,�-'Le� Gi.%; � //-- C� �l--z� /LG`Li,-.c�. �"�,_-�c;L /C�' C„L �
C� - �/
G� �� s� � 4 r��, z L ti... �� p��_--�—��J ��� � � �� �i'L f��-�-�t �
/�� �' � ' C�C CL �1 v��i4�ti�• ��% //� ,
�{yL� v �Gc-,ti[J - �-z..i�t..-�- l�� �.'U iC-� (./ �, �-.:—
/
f c�c �c ��v� L�i:1--- � � L-,-i, L -� � --- j � � ��, '/ ' �1.�,1 -t l f ( �"� � ,L`_
Explain how the variety of roof line�facade, exterior finish`maferials a�d elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
streef and neighborhood.
, , , � �,
� � �.i. ii.� �Lw � c-LL� ��� ..-�� /�_ -i �'•` ��,� .
y.J ��"�-c�`- '�'�-^- / Zt��. • � _
�%G--GL-'Lc.�-k. , �l�L� GUG��� ��t� 12 J ��'L`i.�— �- � J7 %<.:� ct =..G
1
,�
, �_ � ,� .y �. ���. � L � �=--� ��r� C� �� � 7�.�C� L � ��
�� ����.-- 1f. �.-:z. .�-,� � .__ E� r c-� � - ,
`�c - _ ` "
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by fhe city (C.S. 25.57)?
C!
�� L✓ : tLG�t-ZI, �-�L- �� ��j � i��-'G�� � . I,cGC�� -� c;/ c�-�-�, C c;7�'L-J� �L{��-'.��
u C� /y �//.,,
��N�`-� /`,'h-Q- -'��-'—` �-c�'ltill�� �„-�" //�~�`�' �- , -'l��`-t' J2�(--�1.� ��.�G�'���z�-"
/ y� �/.l.C-� �.`'� .� ..tt_� , �L L✓ .� .C.� �� f I '(� ��/�
�� r �� r , C .C� .�-,z��-� I ,�Zc�C • ; `� iLz L(GLc,�v �,�
�'�-�� .c��t,��yz-�-z� �;�C�.� , _-_c��.h.���-Z�/7�✓ �1,�`�I �`�� /�Ci.�. � �/�-- t%�ti J��` �<� �
Explain how the removal of any trees located `4vithin the footprint of any �ew ���
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 appropriafe.
��I��� �L�..v ��� %Y L�. L'—��l '-'J , �� G�-�c�1-- C � >��---�C�" ���-C�1.i� Lo
✓
i1.c.z.oL �L ��z,c,�z�-� c� ti,�4 �-�-- �� c� �, �-�---c.% � C�2�
;�,��:��- c• -�/.�- �L�2t-�-�--`-�
�
Rev. 07.2008 � See over for explanation of above questions. SPECIAL.PERMIT.APP.FORM
City of Burlingame • Community Developme�t Department • 501 Primrose Road • P(650) 558-7250 • F(650) 696-3790 • �wvw.burlinqame.orq
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominanf structural
characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the
existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring
properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of
neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the
structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the
neighborhood or area.
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, streef and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it
does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How wiU the proposed project be consistent with the residential design
guidelines adopted by the city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residentiai design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessary and is consisfent with the city's
reforestafion requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of
any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace
any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
PLEASE SEE THE ADDRESS OF THE HOUSES WITH ATTACHED GARAGES
ON EACH SIDE:
; �.. .
���.� `�/ ��
DEC - 6 2018
NORTH SIDE: TOTAL OF 7 �rvoFa�;P,LINGAME
� � , ���r,,��r;�� ni,�
734 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
738 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
F .
�
-:� :
�
� � ,� y�; �; �
��� ; ���
'�.� � �. .�� � , -�
,.:Sa� -�•:�.
/ � � '-�,f�a'� ''- � .. -
�`_ ■ ■ u rl d'� ( �,��,'
� ,��
����� �
-� _ ,
. --
,_�, - --
��r�� �
� � ' �
� �`� . ������
-� � �-�"..
�' • � - •:a �
� � �,'�� . �
��
j�' `°'� ���� _ . ."
-�z..�ll
�, '� =— _��
742 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
746 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
:� ��
� �" � ,�
��"�:� "�
/�-.>
��� �
�
r
.wr� = _
�'`'� =+�
�� � �:�-.�
� -�.� � ,.
i��C��. -�' ��z� ;r�
��<_ .5' al
�� �
PAGE 1
750 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
804 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
808 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
SOUTH SIDE: TOTAL OF 9
711 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
, :��: .
€:- - -- _ _ _ --�---- -
� __� �
.
� _:� � �
��:s-- �`n'~ ' qh
�'��....�� e �, � �
�j.��F � -� � .
� -� _ _
_ _ ,� ��: -�
� --._�.:
�
PAGE2
715 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
735 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
739 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
743 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
PAGE3
C
747 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
751 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
809 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
�
;
*"'` F _ � -
'�` �``s`" �s --
813 Winchester Dr Burlingame, CA 94010
PAGE4
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW,
AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn
Review and Special Permit to attach a new garaqe to an existinq sinqle-familv dwelling at 800
Winchester Drive, Zoned R-1, Neel and Adrienne Patel, property owners, APN: 029-074-340;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 11, 2019 at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1), which states that additions to existing structures are
exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than
50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff
report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the
County of San Mateo.
Chairperson
I, , Secretary of the Pianning 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 11th dav of Februarv, 2019 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permit
800 Winchester Drive
Effective February 22, 2019
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped January 30, 2019, sheets A1 through A5;
2. that any changes to the garage door material, garage fa�ade, or to the front setback of the
attached garage shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or
amendment to be determined by Planning staf�;
3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
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 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;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, in affect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (garage fa�ade, garage door material) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
i.,_y ,; �� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.buriingame.org
Site: 800 WINCHESTER DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Cammission announces ihe
following public heoring on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2019
at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Counci) Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review and Special Permit to attach a
new garage fo an existing single-family dwelling ai
800 WINCHESTER DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 029-074-340
Mailed: February 1,1019
(Please refer to oth2r side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlinqame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owroers who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(P�ease refer to other side�
800 Winchester Drive
300' Radius
APN # 09-074-340
0 .. _ ,_ ._ . _ .
ia �.
�
..,��:�,�,:; ,,� � . ;..�"r�,.,,;� ..
�
���: - �s,::.y ,,�
�„�
y� � �a� o �
o� � n oa oUL oao a��� ;P ��>.,;
�'7F'J � 'J- C•)� c'iCl�c9 �` rl W' C.� `� P P P p �
D� d es�a�� �.'+s o ca u� � Q �7 �� a w 309 U c�-.�, v e cQ,, � - n o
l<1 p
�.)f/ pC� � ��d � c (' � `'' c� c� c� � � c:� T ro �+ � c
O �0. p� � ja / {}i;�1 �r3 �j � FJ9i4
'�D Ub �t7� p C7Q'� �'� p�� •�� aa9 6C�� �519 fl07 F�a9
a � p�ad � �4'3 C �6� '� ci' � �j�� �4� 49� E�O� �9II �D
d� � �, tlJ n Od v� u ��_� Uo �9�3
, � �9U �� � �� .�"�G ��� a � Q5?() �4E� �E�] Fi9� d�i G p
�Q ��a r � Ut7d p`9 �� O�yW ��' q4 C'� `� Q, �;� 64€7� � afl€� E,�a aaa 6fl�� 6�.
oD o ^�� o �3° ���c .]' .��� ,y e�, oIIa �II�.� oQ� o�c �'�4
� ra �a� �� yy`� e9q �,h �� qo � �w
qq n 3G p�J� 6v� a Gn q4y �� E?F19 �€30 - �€�fl 3�3(3 ��4> �W
�� sJ., � EC,� �� � � UpC, Qn6 ,J J ! Jt q`,,;,n` ``' � F3F70 €1a II 0`Fi o y�+^i �"n✓
n
O(lO Q O`� �Q O`�fl ��., D Oa > q`� Q, r.a Qa0 �a3 ��30 � ;�`J
0 O q`U C7 P O p
3�3 �� O�� ��� p0 C (7D p�U ,i� �£';y -- y� �'� �a �Oa E34�7 � �� Q4 q.
61 �r O
9 O`�Q 4 9 +�� '�D � �r�3 L,<1 'S�� � �ti" 4J d �/JO � C;� ��i1� � t
�4 e�`3 n �O � 5: y1Q � a!, p.� 4 G Q
� �� �^sC � p7 ���t�: q4�` � �ti9� E34J pp3 �q4�
�� O q
� �",� Oq0 �at7 o D6�fl �� qy30 41 qq �C�J W pg p �`'� 4+
n 49�``" �..,.I , �0� p4� qa6 4 q� GC p�1` G�
D
y O�t' n� � . nJ6 � ��� 9F� �90 q� � U�' p� q �1O �j ��� 'J
yyp G�J OC' 6''F?� q 9� �1` p `n Q 'Jg p� G,�
ca �p �q«� � �a� 4��q �1 � qo fl9�. Q� a�
, � qd D, �CC `��"`�d q�'4 t�i`� 9� yl�� pa� p L=�� �.-P
6 _np n_ ��''r� O �Ot? 4 .47 ,,.i� _�4 +, tiC "
�y "�F 5-lhS
°��� San Mateo County - Property Assessment
���IPOI��`'
Summary of Property Details Property Use Details
APN: 029074340
Owner 1: Patel Neel B
Owner 2: Patel Adrienne Sweet
Care Of:
Owner 800 Winchester Drive
Address: Burlingame
CA, 94010
Situs 800 Winchester Dr
Address: Burlingame
District: 1
Legal LOT 23 BLOCK 4 BURLINGAME SHORE
Description: LAND CO NO 1 RSM 13/72
Neighborhood: 013E
Current Jurisdictions
Supervisorial: 1
Congressional: 14
Assembly: 22
Senatorial: 13
Election Precinct: 1004
City Name: BURLINGAME
(Incorporated Area)
Zip Code: 94010
Mitigation Fee Area: None Assigned
Planning Zone: NO DATA ASSIGNED
SINGLE FAMILY RES (01)
Land Area (sq ft): 6750
Year Built: 1927
Base Area (sq ft) 1590
Total Rooms: 6
No. of Bedrooms 3
No. of Bathrooms 2
�- --� .�_ .�„�.� -' T_. _ _` ....t�:_=,_...
t ' .. "i If Y �1i'�; � �: 9 p � . , ._
r ;S � n .. F.E Y a. � 5i9ii .'i . E4 � 3
1�
� y r . . e� , M ,�,, '��`J �. .� �f�, � , � i; . � '��r Y s
ti�.. . , � 8r , ,`,r r
\�. +��• �,,,td '�
+4.i `'' � .r ' 4I �[r .o, .
y � j,�yk. �y 4 �pf Y •�Pp .� � �. �
`.° : '• �1� . e . �'°r
4 e R P �w ' .
, �_ ,' - +
., , '°.¢ ,a,.
` i\ .
� ♦S� ...�.._ •..... . _ _, „
Selected parcel highlighted /'
Property Assessment Report generated 02-Jan-2019 Page 1 of 3
Secured Assessment Roll: 2017-1
Assessment Details
Owner 1: PATEL NEEL B
Owner 2: PATEL ADRIENNE SWEET
Care Of:
OwnerAddress: 800 WINCHESTER DRIVE
BURLINGAME
CA, 94010
Document Number: 2012016517
Assessment Type: Annual
Temp Code:
Notice Date: /
Change Number:
TRA: 004001
PUC: 01
Assessment Values
Land: $473,487
Temp Land: N/A
Root: N/A
MinlMineral: N/A
Improvements (Structure): $473,487
Temp Improvements (structure): N/A
Fixtures: N/A
Total Gross: $946,974
Total Temp: N/A
Exemption - Home Owner: N/A
Exemption - Other: N/A
Net Assessed: $946,974
Assessment Type Amount:
PUC Description: Single Family Residence
Sales History
Sale Code Document Number Sale Date
CIO-SALE 2012016517 2/7/2012
Amount
$875,000
Property Assessment Report generated 02-]an-2019 Page 2 of 3
Tax Rate Area# 004001
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
BURLINGAME 2015 REF (REF SER 2004)
BURLINGAME DEBT SERVICES
BURLINGAME EL BD 97
BURLINGAME EL BD REFUND SER
BURLINGAME EL BOND 2010 SER B
BURLINGAME EL BOND ELEC 07 SER C
BURLINGAME EL BOND ELEC 07 SER C SINKING
BURLINGAME ELEM BOND SER 2008 A
BURLINGAME ELEM GENRL PURPOSE
BURLINGAME ELM BOND SER 93A
BURLINGAME ELM BOND SER 93B
BURLINGAME ELM BOND SER 93C
BURLINGAME ESD 2016 ELECT
BURLINGAME ESD 2016 REF BOND
BURLINGAME GO 2012 ELEC
BURLINGAME GO 2012 ELECT
CITY BURLINGAME TAX REDUCTION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COUNTY DEBT SERVICES
COUNTY EDUCATION TAX
COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT
GENERAL COUNTY TAX
GENERALTAX RATE
PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT
PENINSULA HOSPITAL DIST. TAX REDUCTION
SAN MATEO COMM COLL 2005 SER B
SAN MATEO HIGH 2O12 GO REF
SAN MATEO HIGH 2O14 GO REFUNDING
SAN MATEO HIGH 2O16 GO REF SER B
SAN MATEO HIGH 2O16 GO REFUNDING
SAN MATEO HIGH 2O17 GO REFUNDING
SAN MATEO HIGH BD SER 2000 A
SAN MATEO HIGH BD SER 2002 B
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 06
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 06 SER 2011A
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 06 SER 2011A-1
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 06 SER 2012A
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 2010
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 2010
SAN MATEO HIGH ELEC 2010 SER 2011A
SAN MATEO HIGH GENRL PURPOSE
SAN MATEO HIGH GO REF
SAN MATEO HIGH RFND.SER 2004
SAN MATEO UN HIGH BND SER. 2000C
SAN MATEO UNION HI SER 2008 A
SAN MATEO UNION HI SER 2010
SAN MATEO UNION HI SER 2010 B
SM JR COLL BOND 2001 SER C
SM JR COLL BOND 2006 SER A
SM JR COLL BOND 2014 REFUNDING
SM JR COLL BOND 2015
SM JR COLL BOND REF 2012
SM JR COLL BOND SER 2005 B
SM JR COLLEGE BD 2002
SM JR COLLEGE GEN PUR
SMC MOSQUITO 8 VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
Properry Assessment Report generated 02-Jan-2019 Page 3 of 3