HomeMy WebLinkAbout841 Rollins Road - Staff Report.
��
BiIRLINGAME
;�2 -
.� �
DATE
TO
FROM
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 2018 Director's Report
Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 9, 2018
Erika Lewit, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF REVISION REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT
AT 841 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3.
Summary: An application for Design Review, Setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an
attached garage for first and second story additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 841
Rollins Road, zoned R-3, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2018. At that
hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following
revision being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item, prior to the issuance of a building
permit:
The proposed full vinyl window (Milgard Tuscany series) does not have the detailing or
the pronounced profile of windows that are generally approved in Burlingame; other
options should be investigated.
The applicant has revised the plans to show that there will be fiberglass clad wood windows
throughout the proposed project. In a letter to the Planning Commission dated June 21, 2018,
the applicant explains that the fiberglass clad windows will lend elegance to the approved
design.
A building permit has not yet been submitted or approved for the project. If the Commission
feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a public
hearing with direction to the applicant.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Letterfrom the applicant, dated June 21, 2018
Originally Approved plans, date stamped May 18, 2018
Revised Plan Sheets A3 and A4
June 215t, 2018
Burlingame Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA
Subject property: 841 Rollins Road
Subject: FYI letter to change windows from vinyl to fiberglass clad
Dear Planning Commission,
We have decided to use fiberglass c►ad windows instead of vinyl throughout the building except
for one window in the bathroom shower on the first floor which will be full fiberglass. Vinyl
windows were considered mainly for its lower cost and maintenance. However, the fiberglass
clad windows are much more elegant and would make the house warmer with its wood
interior. In addition, the fiberglass clad windows are more in line with the proposed style of the
building. With positive feedbacks from the commission, our planner Erika, and our consultant
Jeanne Davis we feel it's the right approach to spend the extra money on better windows.
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.
Thank You,
Kevin Pen
Item No. 8b
Regular Action
PROJECT LOCATION
841 Rollins Road
f��,;�m� � ��.� - _
�� � �`
. _ _ _ :��
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Setback Variances, and Special Permit
Item No. 8b
Regular Action
Address: 841 Rollins Road Meeting Date: June 11, 2018
Request: Application for Design Review for first and second story additions, front and side Setback Variances,
and a Special Permit for an attached garage.
Designer: Joe Ouyang, Yo Consulting, Inc.
Applicant and Property Owner: Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang
General Plan: Medium High Density Residential
APN: 026-254-010
Lot Area: 4,869 SF
Zoning: R-3
CEQA 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 subject property is a triangular-shaped interior lot. The property has a single-story
house with a detached garage in the left side of the front yard. The existing detached garage has a front
setback that is closer to the front property line than the front wall of the house (18'-0" to the garage and 20'-" to
the house). The existing house is the only single-family dwelling on this block facing Rollins Road. The
surrounding four properties have multi-family developments with attached garages.
The applicant proposes a first story addition and to move and attach the single-car garage to the house and a
second story addition to the house. The total proposed floor area is 2,511 SF (0.52 FAR), where 2,658 SF (0.55
FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front covered porch exemptions).
The applicant is requesting a Special Permit and Design Review for construction of an attached garage to a
single-family dwelling. The existing detached garage is located in the left side of the front yard and will be
moved so that it is attached, but set back behind the face of the house and will be increased in length to meet
current covered parking standards. The applicant is requesting front and side setback Variances for the newly
attached garage.
There is one covered parking space (10' x 19') in the garage and an additional uncovered parking space in the
driveway leading to the garage. The proposed attached garage will have a code-compliant single covered
parking space (10' x 20') and the uncovered parking space in the drivewaywill be increased in length (from 18'to
20'). The existing house has 2 bedrooms and with the new second story, the number of bedrooms on site will
increase to 4. The 2 proposed parking spaces meet the code requirement for a 4-bedroom house.
The existing landscaping on site will remain and two 24-inch box trees will be planted in the front yard to meet
the landscape requirement. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));
■ Design Review for an attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (6));
■ Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a));
■ Variance for a front setback to a single-car attached garage (C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(2)(A)); and
■ Variance for left side setback (C.S. 25.26.072 (c)(1)).
Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit
841 Rollins Road
Lot Area: 4,869 SF
EXISTING ' PREVIOUSLY
PROPOSED
841 Rollins Road
Plans date stamped: May 18, 2018
REVISED 5.18.18 ALLOWED/REQ'D
PLANS
SETBA CKS
__ ___ _ ; __ _
Front (1st 15'-9" No change No change
flr): ; ;
--- 20'-0 " ', No change
(2nd flr): ;
18'-0" 18'-0" to 21'-8" 2 to proposed
(to attached ; proposed newly newly attached garage '
garage): attached garage' '
_ _; __ _ _
Side (left): 7'-6" to house No change ' 3'-7" 4 to rear corner of '.
7'-3" to garage ' No change newly attached garage ',
r� ht 5'-3" 3 No change No change
( �9 )�
__ __ _: _ _ : _ _ . _ _..
Rear (1st fIr): 27'-5" No change No change
(2nd flr): --- ' 27'-5" No change
_ _: _
Lot 1,108 SF
Coverage: ; 230�0
_ _ _.......
1,082 SF
FAR:
0.22 FAR
_ __ __..
# of
2
bedrooms:
Parking:
Height:
DH
Envelope:
1 covered,
detached
(10' x 19')
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
1,412 SF
29%
2,342 SF
0.48 FAR
4
No change to
dimensions or
setbacks,
proposed will be
attached
16'-6" 26'-0"
Encroaches a
` total of 63 SF'
; (1'-10" x 34'-3")
__. _
1,524 SF
32%
2,511 SF
0.52 FAR
' 15'-1" (is block average)
20'-0"
25'-0" (for an attached,
single-door garage)
. �
6'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
__... .. _ __ _
1,948 SF
40%
2,658 SF 5
0.55 FAR
No change
1 covered, attached
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
28'-11 "
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Special Permit required
per C.S. 25.26.035(a) s
_ __ _.
30'-0"
Encroachment, Special
Permit eliminated with
re-design 8
C.S. 25.26.035(c)
-2-
Design Review, Variances, and Special Permii 841 Rol/ins Road
' No front setback Variance was required for the original design because the location and setbacks of the garage were
not proposed to be changed. The house was being extended to meet and attach the garage to the house.
2 Front setback Variance is requested for the newly attached garage (21'-8" proposed where 25'-0" is required).
3 Existing, non-conforming right side setback (5'-3" existing, where 6'-0" is required).
4 Side setback variance requested to the left side of the first floor (3'-7" proposed, where 6'-0" is required).
5 (0.32 x 4,869 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,658 SF (0.55 FAR).
6 Special permit required for an attached garage.
' Requested Special permit for encroachment into the declining height envelope on the right side was eliminated.
e As clarification, Planning Staff would note that there are two DHE depictions required for the left side. Both DHE
depictions are shown on the Rear Elevation (Sheet A6). Two DHE are evaluated because the angled left side property
line results in two different second story setbacks, one at the rear left corner (Bedroom 3 on the second floor) and one
at the left side above the single-story attached garage (M. Bath on the second floor). The entire proposed second floor
meets DHE restrictions and no encroachment is proposed with the final design.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 9, 2018,
the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to referthe projectto a design
review consultant (April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). A discussion of the analysis of the revised
project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant visited the site and
surrounding area, met with the project designer and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's
concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and
recommendation, date stamped May 16, 2018, for a detailed review of the project.
The revised plans are date stamped May 18, 2018. Listed below are some of the Commission's comments,
followed by the responses and revisions made by the applicant (refer to the attached meeting minutes, and the
design consultant's recommendation for a detailed list of the Commission comments and the architects plan
revisions). Because of the unusual shape of the this property and its status as the only single-family property on
the block, the focus of the discussions with the Design review consultant was to find a cohesive architectural
style for this project, which involved many enhancements for the portions of the existing dwelling that were to be
retained with the addition. The resulting revisions to the project eliminated a Special Permit from the application
and added two setback Variances (one for Front Setback Variance to an attached garage, the other for Side
Setback Variance), but it was the consensus of the designer, owner, and Design review consultant that the final
design greatly enhanced the property's architectural and street appeal without negatively impacting any of the
surrounding properties.
1. It appears the DHE is shown in the wrong place on one of the elevations?
• Please see Planning Staff explanation in the eighth footnote of the development table in this staff report
and the Design review consultanYs bullet point explanation on the second page of the analysis; the DHE
depictions are accurate on the plans (one DHE for the right side- shown on the front elevation- and two
DHEs on the left side- shown on the rear elevation). The proposed design does not encroach into the
DHE on either side.
2. Window se/ection would want to match traditional style windows; vinyl sliders proposed don't match
traditional;
• The applicant has revised the proposed window material to be full vinyl with simulated true divided lites.
All the windows for the house will be new and the style is double-hung with simulated true divided lites to
be consistent with the proposed traditional Colonial-revival style. The applicant will be providing a
window sample at the hearing for the chosen brand of Milgard Montecito window.
3. The proposed design needs more detail and articulation as it almost blends wifh the bland apartment
buildings on that block; and a front porch could help bring down the massing;
-3-
Design Review, Variances, and Specia/ Permit
841 Rollins Road
A great number of revisions have been made to achieve a cohesive Colonial revival architectural style for
the project. Please refer to the plans and the Design review consultant's analysis for a full list of the
changes. Some of the details include:
a) To achieve the balanced and symmetrical Colonial revival style, a portion of the existing front wall
at the right side has been cut back by 1'-7" to center the massing of the house; the front porch is
in the same location, but it's prominence is enhanced by thickerwood columns and a pediment to
provide a center for the house; the garage has been relocated so that it is set back behind the
primary form of the house;
b) The proposed windows are double hung with simulated true divided lites and painted wood trim;
c) 5-inch exposure painted wood siding with mitered corners and side window shutters are
proposed for each elevation;
d) A new wood garage door and wood front door are proposed; and
e) Wrapped eaves and gable vents are proposed.
4. The second f/oor is taller and looks bulky;
� The plate height for the second floor has been reduced from 8'-6" to 8'-0" to match the plate height for
the existing first floor.
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:
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
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is consistent with the garage
pattern in the neighborhood. That because of the irregular shape of the property, a detached garage would have
to be located at the front of the property and therefore, the proposed front setback to the attached garage is not
significantly different from the front setback that would be necessary for a detached garage design. That the
attached garage is set back from the face of the main dwelling by 1'-6" and is single story so that the garage
form is secondary to the primary street presence of the main dwelling. For these reasons, the project may be
��
Design Review, Variances, and Specia/ Permit 841 Rollins Road
found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above.
Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following
conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Suggested Variance Findings (Front Setback Variance to an attached garage): That the proposed garage
has a deeper setback than the existing garage and is single story so that it is a secondary form located beyond
the primary form of the main dwelling. That the proposed setback for the garage on this single-family dwelling is
greater than the setbacks to the attached garages for the neighboring multi-family properties on Rollins Road
and therefore is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. That the triangular shape of
the property does not allow for a detached garage in the rear 30% of the lot and therefore, an attached garage is
necessary. Furthermore, an attached garage must also be located towards the front portion of the lot in order to
allow for a centered location for the two stories of the main dwelling. That the proposed single-car garage door
will have minor visual presence from the street and that a wood garage door is consistent with the new
architectural style for the dwelling. That the total encroachment of square footage into the setbacks for the
proposed attached garage is less than the existing encroachments for the detached garage that is at the front of
the lot. For these reasons the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria.
Suggested Variance Findings (Side Setback Variance): That the shape of the property cannot accommodate
a detached garage at the rear of the lot and that the proposed attached garage cannot meet the required
minimum length for a single parking space requirements without also requiring a setback variance. That the
requested side setback variance for the rear left corner of the structure is for a single-story wall that is adjacent
to the rear yard and accessory structure on the neighboring property, so there will be no detrimental impacts to
this property. That the total encroachment of square footage into the setbacks for the proposed attached garage
is less than the existing encroachments for the detached garage that is at the front of the lot. For these reasons
the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 18, 2018, sheets A1 through A7;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�;
-5-
Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
5. that demolition 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;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
�
� ITY
�� � � � � `
-,., , y i:- i: ;7
��o -�qPORn
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, April 9, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
g. 841 Rollins Road, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition
and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope and for an attached garage (Joe
Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant; Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property
owners) (125 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the project sife. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Kevin Peng represented fhe applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> DHE is shown on wrong place on one of the elevations. Is on the non-garage side of the house.
> Needs a cricket along the garage for the drainage. (Yes. Cricket or flashing.)
> �ndow selection would want to match traditional windows styles. Vinyl sliders don't match traditional.
> Montecito and Tuscan are good windows.
> East elevation second floor is catilvered over deck.
> Could consider extending the far slope of the garage up to the house.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul c/osed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> DR consultant
> Replicates fhe other charm/ess buildings on the streef
> Almost blends with the apartment buildings, but those have more detail and articulation.
> 2-story house in the area can look fine, but doesn't need to look like an apartment building.
> DCE runs the full length of fhe house. Big tall blank wall.
> No articulation in window detailing.
> No heirarchy in the windows.
> Second floor is taller, looks bulky.
> Garage should be reconsided, will need a huge cricket.
> Cantiliver
> Front porch could help bring down massing.
> Garage needs to be revisited - detached garage happened to bump into house and became attached .
Could look at detached garage with minimal separation.
Ciiy of Burlingame page � Printed on 8/7/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 9, 2018
Loftis DR consultant
Sargent
5-0-0-2
City of Burlingame Pa e 2
9 Printed on 8!1/2018
DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
May 16, 2018
City of Burlingame
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Address: 841 Rollins Road
Designer: Joe Ouyang, Yo Consulting, Inc.
Applicant and Property Owner: Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang
Planner: Erika Lewit
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by the Applicant, Kevin Peng, to
the Planning Commission for 841 Rollins Road. I listened to the Planning Commission's
comments in the meeting video from the April 9, 2018, Study Session. I met with the Planner,
Designer and Applicant at City Hall to discuss the Planning Commission's comments in
addition to providing feedback on subsequent iterations. The design submitted reflects the
following changes in response to Planning Commission feedback:
REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN
• Eliminated the request for Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope by setting
back the second floor along the West (right) side. The first floor right side has been
pulled in at the street-facing corner to further add articulation along this side.
• Integrated the attached garage massing and roof with the house. The garage length
has also been increased to provide one code-compliant parking space for new
construction. The more usable size improves the garage proportions relative to the
proposed house massing.
• Reduced existing garage encroachment into setbacks. The current garage is 12'-4"
wide and encroaches 7'-0" into the required 25' front setback for a total encroachment
of 86.31 sq.ft. (12.33x7=86.31). The proposed garage location maintains the 12'-4" width
but reduces the front setback encroachment to 3'-4" for an encroachment of 41.06
sq.ft. (12.33x3.33=41.06). A triangular portion of the left rear corner of the garage
encroaches 6.2 sq.ft. into the left side yard setback to accomplish the integrated
massing. The proposed total garage setback encroachment is almost half the existing
condition at 47.26 sq.ft. total (41.06+6.2=47.26). It should be noted that any structural
modifications to the existing non-compliant garage require a variance(s).
Page 1
The applicant studied a variation in which the existing garage footprint was kept with
the proposed garage roof configuration applied. We can revisit this direction if the
Planning Commission is opposed to the number of variances requested. However, it
was felt that the proposed garage layout better meets the spirit of the design
guidelines by making the garage massing secondary to the main house massing. Using
the existing garage footprint, the garage massing becomes more prominent and
frontal vs. secondary and tucked in. We also took into consideration the presence of
neighboring accessory structures close to the left side yard encroachment. Because of
the triangular lot with no rear property line, there is not a viable location for a
detached garage that would allow for a reasonably sized two-story house and meet all
required setbacks and codes.
Second floor plate height brought down to 8'-0" to match the first floor and to reduce
the overall mass and bulk.
• There was some confusion about the Declining Height Envelope (DHE) diagram shown
on the South (rear) elevation. For background, the property has a front yard and two
side yards. The rear yard is extrapolated off the rear "point". The DHE diagrams on the
South (rear) elevation illustrate the diagonal left side yard setbacks and apply to the
building corners closest to the diagonal left property line. Additional dashed diagonal
setback lines have been added to the Proposed Site Plan on A2 for clarity. Both first
floor side yard required setbacks are 6'-0". The maximum DHE second floor setbacks
as measured above the 45 degree angle calculate as 7'-0" for both left and right side
yards.
• The applicant will bring a sample of the proposed Milgard Montecito window with
simulated true divided lites to the Public Hearing for review per direction from the
Commission.
• Front porch added to break up the boxy massing. It is centered on the front elevation
with a flanking grid of windows and shutters as is typical for this style house. Given the
proximity to the freeway, it was felt that a larger porch would not be utilized and
might seem out of place.
• Details added to support the proposed Colonial-revival style and make the residence
look more like a house than an apartment building. Double-hung windows (not sliders)
are shown with window trim, sills and grids for scale. The gable ends are articulated
with wrapping eaves and gable vents. A brick base grounds the house and adds
texture below the painted horizontal siding.
Page 2
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of
the neighborhood
This project is on Rollins Road across from the 101 Freeway. The R-3 neighborhood is a
mix of multi-family apartment buildings, condos and more modest single-family homes.
The proposed house is Colonial-revival style, which fits with the 50's era ranch style
homes and apartment buildings with shutters in the neighborhood. As a single-family
dwelling, the R-1 zoning standards apply to the development of this residence. However, it
is worth pointing out that any multi-family developments including parking on the block
could be built closer to the street and with lesser general setbacks and height restrictions
than R-1 standards by right.
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood
This neighborhood has a mix of attached and detached garages. The applicant is
proposing to increase the existing garage front setback, make the parking space comply
with requirements for new construction, and integrate the massing with the house. No
change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location.
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
The proposed 2-story residence is Colonial-revival style. Window grids add detail and
scale to the house. Other architectural details include horizontal siding, wood gable vents
and brick. Aesthetically, the proposed design will be one of the more considered houses
on the block.
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent
properties
This residence is located on Rollins between Morrell and Larkspur. No significant impact
on the neighbors is anticipated.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Two new trees are proposed for the front yard to provide privacy to the owners and help
screen views of the freeway.
SUMMARY
It is my opinion that the revised design meets the requirements of the design guidelines.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Davis
Page 3
�����
i�����
tlUHt IN(tAMt
l' �.'
mR
C.Ul�if'�tUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
��F�°���.���i'iON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type uf ap�l;c��3�r;:
❑ ��sig: � R����:E�rr
❑ Co� �ditiona� Use Permit
� 'Jariance ❑ Parcel#: 026-254-010
� Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJ��:�f At�':��cES�: �3`= Roi�ins Road
APPLIC:��'i
Name: rievi�: ?�r:�
Address: 16'1 :-, i�c=: S�r�et
City/S`ats/:�'ip: . �_ "-_: c� sco/ CA/ 94112
Phone: _�5-Y;.:-3� �c
E-maii: '_i�v�->eY �,� �ma. �� 1 . ,��� �
ARG�f�'��^T!�=�.�I�s'�`=;}�
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang
Address: 167 Allison Street
City/State/Zip; San Francisco/CA/94112
Phone: 415-335-3970
E-mail: YWpeng@gmail . com
Name: �oe :��._��%a:�c
Address: � 5?� .-r�di.ar_� St:=eet
City/Stateliip: _��=:� F'--a-c_sco/C�/9a107
Phone: '�1�---•..=-o��z
�.� :.-, : 's" i::... �.�'
''���.0 l ? 2Gil
E-maii: �oe;.•"y�::.g�.i�ot�,�ai� . ccm
----� 322`�3 �, ., �:>>= ��,.:-,:_�'.i���,�n�_
Burlingarn� Bus:r�ess �icense :�: �.,
Autharizar:on to i�earoduc� Proiect Qlar.s:
i heraby gr;3,7t �:i�F Ci�y of 3u:;;ngarne Yi�e authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
applicatio:� cn :hz �ity's �; �e�site as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising ou� u� o: > �:�ted tn such ac:ion. (Initials of ArchitecUDesigner)
PROJ�G": i��::�.r.';,�3�"��:.;i��1; ��7��ti' horizontal and vertical addition to include 2
bed�ocros, _�wo b.�:�rocros and an office. Relocate first floor kitchen and
batr.roo;�..
APFlL�A�IITl�l�:�:',`:':: �_: : ne�eby certi��� under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my !:now;edge anu i-�alia�. ,
Applicant's sia:�ature:�2 l� i Date: �Z - Z(" 1�
I am awa: e;:�r th� proposed app;ication and he authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commissio^.
PropertS� ows��;°s s;gna_;cr�:-- �"��� Date: r-Z � Z �- I�'
( Date submitted: �Z �" � / � 7
5: �HANDOUTS� PC Applrcotion. doc
�a�r�.
���
BURLINGAME
f f }� '
\ '�I�i
-�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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.
a.
�
Describe the excepfional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
This is the only triangular-shape lot on the block and we are
restricted in accommodating the full-length covered parking space
due to the front setback requirements for a re-built garage. There is
also no way to move the garage to the back of the house due to the
odd shape of the lot.
Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of fhe application.
We should be able to reasonably expand our property but the law
places huge limitations and hardships ori where we can move the
garage to. Without the variance we won't be able expand the house
to four bedrooms, which is fairly common for a single family
residence in this neighborhood housing an average size family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or fo public healfh, safety,
genera/ welfare or convenience.
Neighboring houses also have accessory structures in the rear of
their properties. We will be adding a fire sprinkler system to
enhance the fire safety of the building. The project won't have
any adverse effects to the public since no hazardous materials
or discharges will be created.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthefics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
Please see response attached.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
� 1 ` � � \ �� � � "_ '�Yc7 /�� 521-�i ��� �. �t'-_
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and character of
the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The new garage is set back further than the existing garage and will be behind the face of the
house to allow the house to be the primary form. The second floor plate height will be reduced to
match the first floor of 8 ft. The roofs have been changed to a steeper slope to better integrate
between the main house and the garage.
Previously, the design was to match the house on the right as a two story ranch style house.
However, after constructive feedbacks, we are pursuing the salt box style and setting back the right
side of the proposed building to comply with the declining height envelope at the second floor.
About 5'-6" of the existing first floor wall on the right side is also set back so that the corner lines up
with the second floor. We believe the new design incorporates a lot more Architectural characters
while reducing the mass and bulk from the original design. Although a lot more expensive to build,
we believe this will not only enhance the aesthetics of this house but also the frontage of the block.
~i�-�ra�.
����
. BUF7LINGAME
f�
��.
n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
� � �-� ��t �S .-�.. .S i � �� �Jc� e1�-
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). 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.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
This is the only triangular-shape lot on the block and we are
restricted in accommodating the full-length covered parking space
due to the side setback requirements for a re-built garage. There is
also no way to move the garage to the back of the house due to the
odd shape of the lot.
b. Explain wh y the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
We should be able to reasonably expand our property but the law
places nuge limitations and hardships on where we can move the
garage to. Without the variance we won't be able expand the house
to four bedrooms, wnich is fairly common for a single family
residence in this neighborhood housing an average size family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
Neighboring houses also have accessory structures in the rear of
their properties. We wi11 be adding a fire sprinkler system to
enhance the fire safety of the building. The project won't have
any adverse effects to the public since no hazardous materials
or discharges will be created.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The new garage is set back further than the existing garage and will
be behind the face of the house to allow the house to be the primary
form. The 2nd floor plate height will be reduced to match the lst
floor of 8 ft. The roofs have been changed to a steeper slope and
better integrated between the main house and the garage.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
Cit� of E3urlin��ame Plannin�a Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) ii8-72�0 F(6i0) 696-3790 �v�v�v.burlin�*amc.or7
� -�t-a � � ��`��
��� o�TY o�
BURLINGAME
�°�,. p
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �
� :��
; "li�i?
��
The Planning Commission is required by la�� to make f indings as detlned by the City's Oi-dinance (Code �
Section 25.SOj. Your ans�� crs to the follo�ving qtiestions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whethcr the findings cail 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. E.�p/ain ivliy !!te blefrd of mass, scale «nd domiitn►rt strerch�ra! cltnracteristics of t/re ne►v
construclio�r or addition nre consistent witlr the existin; structure's desigit �rnd widr t/re
�risting street ns�d ireigltbor/rootl.
The proposed addition matches almost exactly the multi-unit
building to the right. The building to the left is also a multi-
unit residential building, which have a much bigger bulk. The
subject property is facing the US 101 freeway's sound wall. The
buildings at the rear are mostly single story rancher style with
gable or hip roofs, but larger in footprint.
2. E.rplain /tow d�e variety of roof li��e, facnde, exterior fr�tis/t materials ru:rl e/evations of
tlre p��oposed new structcrre or rrdditio�i nre consistent witlr Nre existing structirre, street
and neig/�borltood.
The proposed design matches the facade of the building to the
right very closely. Most of the building on Rollins Road are
multi-unit and multi-story buildings. The subject property is the
only one on this block that's a single story building. The
proposed design actually will enhance and blend into the
surroundings better on Rollins Road.
3. How wil! the propnsed project be consiste�tt wit/r t/�e residentia/ design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed design creates more bulk, which actually blends in
better, but will keep the existing structure's style. The roof
slopes, shingle and siding will also be the same as the existing.
There are ample amount of landscapes on the site due to un-
buildable space at the corner to the left. The driveway is wide
enough to fit two cars and the garage can fit one inside.
4. E_\ f7I!!!/t �10W lIt L' l�er�iova/ of air �' h'L'eS IUCQIeCI iV%Nt!/t N1 e fOO1�lYllJ10.%llll y�rew strrrcture or
addition is necessary and is consiste�rt ivitlr the cin�'.s reforestrition requires�lents. Wlrat
nritigation is p��oposed for t/re �•etnoval of anl� trees? E.�p/�iin wlr�� this i��itig«tio» is
trppropriate.
No trees will be removed. We will add two trees at the front.
s�i-c�i�i:itti� rizn�
City of Burlin�ame Plannin�� Depairtment 501 Primrose Koad P(6i0) 558-72j0 I�(650) G96-3790
w�vw.burlin�ame.or�
1. Explar�z why tlze blend of mass, scule «nd dominantstructural characteristics oftl�e new
construction or adtlition are co�zsisteizt wit111he existing structure'.s design and wit/r tl7e
existing street and neighbor/ioorl.
How wi II the proposed structure or addition affect neighborin�, properties or structw-es on those properties? If neighboring propeities
will not be affected, state �vhy. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think
about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunli�ht/shade, vie�vs from neighboring properties. Nei�hboring properties and structures include
those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
1-low does thc proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in tcrms ofmass or bulk? Ifthere is no change to the structurc, say
so. IPa new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Exp/ain lzow tlre variety of roof line, facade, exterior frnish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or a�ldition are coizsistent witli t/1e existing structure, street
aizd neigltborhoo�!
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 ofdevelopment on adjacent properties in
the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character ofi the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by
size, density ofdevelopment and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character ofthe neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consisterZt with the residential desigiz guitlelines
adopted by t/re city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential dcsign review. How does your project meet these
guidelines?
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of sh•uctural components.
4. Explain lrow the remova! of any trees located within the footprirtt of any new structure
or Rddition is necesstrry and is consisterrt with the city's reforestation requiremerrts.
What mitigatio�z is proposed for the removal of any trees? Erplaiiz why this mitigatioiz
is appropriate.
Will an�• trees be removed as a result ofthis proposal? lfso. explain what type oftrces �� ill be removed and ifany are protected under
cit�� ordinance (C.S. 1 I.O6). ���h� it is necessar� to remove the trees, and �ti�hat is bein�� proposed to replace any trees being removed. If
no h�ees are to be removed, sa� so.
tiPE('Pf:lt�\I.I�RhI
LANDS OF � /
ZENG �
_�—. /
c�- i9 ��i %`� AP:029-031-150 ����
`�:-B:W�
�q�sy �`,' �` i ORIGINAL SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
T9C i �,� 65 /
/ �
16 8 0 -- 8 16
' \\ / / ,
\ / �
� \ � ,�, � � ��.
\ � /
� � ci .�� w � L.j{�,.
� I '
a LANDS OF �' i
A � s � LEE & YIN •f- i ,',.��
a _ w I � AP:029-U31-140
o �' � �OT 74 /
am^ �, � 2sso 3 M s:; /,
�-' AL Lq
o � oo. / y5�°�Pac�s° s�
0
_
i � `�\ ' H`````r ��� �`
�n � " � LANDS O� � � a � NO. 9361 Z �
x y PENG & HUANG � / * EXP.6-30-20► #
I N �
�,,,� W AP:026-254-010 \ i �yT P��
.] � I L � ; t � � � �F CA<<F�
►� �O � .'4 ":' M C � V it ��
�_ < a._;,� .�2�'� ��l/I��`- ��is'v`.C"v
O
f j i j./-T-7 �/ ,'` �`'� LANDS OF �
a �. % BOSWORTH TR. �
. � /
} � � s I% E X I S T I N G /� � AP:029-031-130 �
�, 1t:�...d ;
� W FF-ih �', GARAGE ', �\ LC i �3
ir � r' ' yi• ? I,A t; 5 /
i
,_, O ,X.1'1:__.l / % :�L.1 �_��x � � /
�97.32 �-' Q �.t�' ��SB? ">> \
L , 19%.92 P \ �
� BSw + oV <y
3Q7.82 � � . �,O
TBC � � ����'_q� ,p�d�" /
� ,.. , r .. � . /
y I */ ,TTT/,�/T.TT��% `' � /
� / � \
� � ' , /� \ /
� � EXISTING !� � LANDSOF
" � ���� V� �� � � BURT & FUNG
� ( ���-?� HOUSE �� �
� ! AP:029-031-120
� x� LOT ?'�
� • � 3 M 5:
� 1 ..� . . ....�_.._ . � 1 i �J� _'�.__� / �G J _1�.. `�
�Ul �,- '-�+'e7sw+ � �` N01 °36'00"E 84.29' �9��' :
�9�.89 -- -- -- -- -- --
'BC LANDS OF �-'
l_C%T �
KIR —
� �7 F.1 b� \
'JOiE: I AP:026-254-020 �_, �
THIS PLAT WAS PRcPARED FOR iHE eXCLU�IVE USE OF T�E �ROPER7v O�VNEF(Sl SHOWN MEREON 4ND IS COhSI�ER:D PRELIt�11hARt pkLESS SIGNED IN BLUE INK WrERE ANY
pREVIQI;S VERSIONS ARE VOiD. USE OF THIS PLA7 BY ANY PARTv CTHER THAR THE 0`NNERiS� iS FORBIpDEN';�ITHOUT VJRITTEN C"vNSFN' FROh7 AMERICAN LAND SURb'E�ING, INC
LEGEND: NOT TO SCALE S C H E M A T I C
— - - — SUBJEC? PROPERTY BOUN�ARY LINtS
---- OTHER PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINES DATE: 2;7/20',8
E`/ � ; �:', EXISTING STRUCTURE
Rt RECORD ti1AP 800K 22. PAGES 66-67 (22 �U o6� SURVEYED: 2i3�2018
EL ELEVATION SURVEYED BY: JE 8 41 R O L L I N S R O A D
FL FLOW LINE
FF•TH FINISH FLOOR AT i HRESHOLD DRAFTED BY JE
T8C TOP BACK OF CURB
BSW BACK OF SIDEWALK APPROVED: JE
� ii5 «EVA?IGtd FILc�: ALS1809G BURLINGAME, CA APN•026 254 010
E�_ �,E��_�ip ;�N
SURVEYNOTES: :1�IERIC:�\ L:\\U Sl R�'El'1\G. I\C.
1. BASIS OF BEARI�'GS IS SS8'24'OG'"t CURB UP�E OF R�LLINS RD PER R1 »-�H �����>�� ��rcct, #106, tian Franciscu, C:� 9al?3
2 DISTANCES SHUWN HEREON ARE IN PEET AND DECIAIALS THERCOF Phonc:�-t15) 999-9�3} Email: officcin :tlspls.com
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES, 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, setback Variances, and Special Permit for first and second story additions and an attached
ara e at 841 Rollins Road Zoned R-3 Kevin Penq and Xiaominq Huanq propertv owners APN: 026-
254-010;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June
11, 2018, 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) 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, is hereby
approved.
2. Said Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Variances, 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.
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 11 h dav of June, 2018, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit
841 Rollins Road
Effective June 21, 2018
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 18, 2018, sheets A1 through A7;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staf�;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
5. that demolition 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;
6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit
841 Rollins Road
Effective June 21, 2018
Page 2
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Y�:,,, CITY OF BURLINGAME
�'�'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
' BURLINGAME, CA 94010
'���''= �,� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 841 ROLLINS ROAD
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 11, Z018 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for a second story addition,
Setback Varionces, and a Special Permit for an attached garage
at 841 ROLLINS ROAD zoned R-3.
APN 026-254-010
Mailed: June 1, 2018
(Please refer to other sidel
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlincr_,ame
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 oniy those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please reier to other side I
841 Rollins Rd
300' noticing-026.254.010
��.
":�
=�..
,,`
.\
!�. \
w'".,�t
� -
`��.__ . -
���- .
� �
n
c � �
0
,..� _._.
,o,
j a.
�.�'vn p �h
O ,.o U
P
' �� Q�G , « �
� . . .
�.,
o�,� ` =° T a
`L �' �` ,�J
` . ��C
� Du� .. ,�' . c4 'F .
b t9
(� C
�� ``'��v . � �' y ♦
w
) � C }� �
) � y0
j. O�Y � '�� .
� � ♦
O�
�J Fe
a� r7�
� CyJr �� uL�� 'C� `� � ,� ' - ''15 -
.v G'' a ,.� n `"E7
�
Yl�
q
�
� �p
Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit
c. Kevin Peng, applicant
Attachments:
• Minutes from the April 9, 2018 Design Review Study Meeting
• Design Reviewer's Analysis, dated May 16, 2018
• Application to the Planning Commission
• Variance Forms (2)
• Special Permit Forms (1)
• Site Survey by Jozef Marcus Elemen, dated March 29, 2018
• Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 1, 2018
• Address map
841 Rol/ins Road
-7-