HomeMy WebLinkAbout1219 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report�
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit for Height
Item #
Action Calendar
Address: 1219 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 3/12/O1
Request: Design review and special permit for height for a first and second-story addition.
Property Owners and Applicants: Ramin and Natalie Forood APN: 027-340-170
Architect/Designer: Gary R. Diebel, Diebel & Company Lot Area: 9,100 SF
General Plan Designation: Low density residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the
building of two or more such units.
October 23, 2000 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on
October 23, 2000, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for a first and second story addition and referred
the project to a design reviewer (October 23, 2000, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission's concerns
and suggestions can be found in the attached minutes. The concerns included mass and bulk, compatibility with
the neighborhood, toning down the scale and elements of the house, reducing the building height, and with the
location of the garage.
Design Review (January 22, 2001 plans): The design reviewer, designer, and property owners met to discuss
Planning Commission's concerns and suggestions for the project. Based on the revised plans, date stamped March
6, 2001, the reviewer notes in his February 6, 2001, memo that the revisions appear to address the Planning
Commission's concerns. He notes that the scale and mass of the design has been reduced and the overall design
simplified. Nice shadow lines are created by the curved walls and recessed balconies. Lowering the attached garage
into the ground helped to reduce the mass of the house. The reviewer notes that the house retains a bulky square
style, but that it is a function of the style chosen. In his memo, the reviewer discusses the revisions to the project
which have made it consistent with the design review guidelines.
Planning staff would note that by lowering the attached garage (486 SF) into the ground, which is now more than
50% below grade, the garage qualifies as a basement and is therefore exempt from floor area ratio. Planning would
also note that the overall building height was lowered by 1'-1", from 36' to 34'-11 ", and that the second floor plate
height was reduced from 10'-0" to 8'-0".
The design reviewer notes that designer and property owner have responded to the suggestions made, and that the
revised design is compatible with the existing house and neighborhood. It is the design reviewer's opinion that the
design represented in the most recent submittal (date stamped March 6, 2001) is consistent with the design
guidelines.
Summary: The existing four-bedroom, single-story house contains 3,239 SF of floor area (.35 FAR), including an
attached two-car garage. Currently, the garage door faces the right side property line and is accessed by making a
90° turn into the garage. The applicant is proposing to change the location of the garage door so that it faces the
street. The garage will contain two single-wide doors and is setback 26'-0" (25'-0" required). The applicant is
1
Design Review and Special Permit for Height 1219 Vancouver Avenue
proposing to remodel the first floor and add a new 1,506 SF second floor, which would increase the floor area of
the remodeled house to 3,963 SF (0.43 FAR) where 4,012 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Since the
proposed attached garage (500 SF) is more than 50% below grade, the garage qualifies as a basement and is
therefore exempt from floor area ratio. With the garage the total floor area ratio on site would be 0.49 FAR (4463
SF). A special permit for height is required (34'-11" is proposed where 30' is the maximum allowed without a
special permit). With the proposed addition, the house would have five potential bedrooms, which requires two
covered and one uncovered parking spaces. The proposed attached garage meets the requirement for a five-bedroom
house. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have
been met. The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design Review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010); and
• Special Permit for height (34'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed)(C.S. 25.28.060, a, 1).
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
3/12/O1 10/23/00
Setbacks
Front (2"`'flr): no change 43'-3" none 20'-0"
Garage: 26'-0" 27'-0" side access 25'-0"
(front access) (front access) (two single wide doors)
Side (ri ht): no change no change 5'-57/a"° 7'-0"
(Cgeft): 7'-0" no change 4'-85/e"° 7'-0"
Rear (Istflr): no change 45'-10" 44'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): no change 63'-4" none 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2951 SF 2663 SF 3247 SF 3640 SF
32.4 % 29.2 % 35.6% 40%
FAR: 3963 SF 4007 SF 3239 SF 4012 SF
0.43 FAR 0.44 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 5 3 n/a
Parking: no change 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 34'-11 "' 36'-0" single-story 30'/2 '/2 stories
DH Envelope: complies complies n/a see code
° Existing nonconforming right and left side setbacks.
' Special permit for height required (34'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed).
2
Design Review and Special Permit for Height 1219 Vancouver Avenue
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that a letter of opposition, dated October 18, 2000, was
submitted at the October 23, 2000, Planning Commission meeting by William and Martha Beshore (1234 Vancouver
Avenue). A letter in support of the project, dated October 19, 2000, was submitted by Alice Sarouhan (1212
Vancouver Avenue).
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition
are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent
with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be by resolution and include findings made for the requested special permit and design review, and the reasons for
any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March
6, 2001, sheets DD1.1 through DD3.3, and EX2.1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging
a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review;
3. that the City Engineer's August 14, 2000, memo shall be met; and
3
Design Review and Special Permit for Height
1219 Vancouver Avenue
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben G. Hurin
Planner
c. Gary R. Diebel, Diebel & Company, architect
�
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlinganae, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 2-6-2001
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 1219 Vancouver — Forood ---RESUBMITTAL
RECEIVED
FEB - 9 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
revised plans for the remodeling. I prepared initial comments, then met with the
designer and owner to make more suggestions. I have the following comments regarding
the latest revised drawings dated Jan. 22, 20001 in reference to the original drawing
submittals dated Oct. 10, 2000 and Dec. 12, 2000, and in reference to the design
guidelines.
1. Compatibilitv of the architectural stvle with that of the e�sting ne�hborhood:
• This block is an eclectic mix of many styles, shapes and sizes including one and
two story, contemporary, Mediterranean, ranch, and Tudor, with varied setbacks.
There is no predominant pattern.
A114 houses to the right side and one house to the left side of the subject property
are two story and set up fro�n the street—some are quite tall. 5 houses across the
street toward the south are small one story of various styles with garages in the
back. Other houses across the street include a 2 story contemporary, a two story
Tudor, and various ranch type homes.
There does not seem to be an issue of fitting in with a style or particular scale or
massing.
2. Respect the Parking and Gara�e Patterns in the Nei�hborhood:
• Existing 2 car garage faces a shared driveway. The replacement garage will be
turned 90 degrees and will face the street with it's own driveway.
• Parking in the neighborhood varies, with many garages facing the street. The
older 1 story homes have garages in the rear.
• Garage floor elevation has been lowered over 5' from the original submittal and
the garage roof height has also been lowered substantially. This reduces the bulk
and inass of the garage dramatically, tends to "hide" the garage, and allows for a
"flat" driveway.
• Arched door openings have been eliminated and door simplified in favor of a
more understated design.
3. Architectural Stvle, Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistencv of the
De�
• The overall mass has been reduced by reducing the second floor plate height 1'
from 10' to 9.'
� Columns at the Living room window have been deleted; windows on the second
floor have been reduced in size; quoins have been removed; roof shapes have
been modified to eliminate the round high window bays, and the windows
simplified. Front bedroom bay plate heights have been lowered to 8', with small
gable roofs. All of these changes serve to reduce the scale and mass and tone
down the design as suggested.
• Entry door has been changed to single door and downplayed.
• Windows and balcony have been added above garage roof which was lowered.
This appears to open only to the garage stairway.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• There will be minimal or no impact on the house to the left side which is
separated by a flag lot driveway; The proposed Master bedroom deck size
remains the same, but due to the line of trees and the flag lot driveway separation,
I do not see a major impact on the left side neighbor.
• The large property to the rear will have almost no impact due to the slope up of
the lots and the great distance between structures.
• There will be some scale impact as well as shadow impacts to the house on the
right side that cunently shares the driveway due to the increased height and mass
of the new structure and it's forward position on the lot. However, the second
floor has been set back and it does conform to the declining height envelope.
Also, a portion of the one story structure is being removed at the rear.
5. Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• No landscape plan has been submitted. It is critical that the front yard hardscape
and landscape be done carefully to make a pleasant transition to the street and a
reasonable design to accommodate the easement for the existing shared driveway.
Summarv:
1. The changes shown appear to address the original planning commission
comments. The scale and mass of the design has been reduced and the overall
design simplified and made to look less "ostentatious." Nice shadow lines are
created by the curved walls and recessed balconies. Lowering the garage was a
big improvement.
2. The house still retains a bulky square style without overhangs and with massive
trim, but is much less bulky than before. This is a function of the style chosen.
2
3. Recominend approval of the design presented. The applicant has responded in a
very positive manner to the design suggestions and the design is much improved
from the original submittal. In addition:
a. The Palladian window proposed was replaced with an arched window
b. The shutters which seemed inappropriate have been removed.
c. More of a shadow line was created at the second floor windows by
recessing the wall slightly, similar to the lower floor.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
3
`
ROUTING FORM
DATE: August 10, 2000
TO: ✓ CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Height for a first
and second story addition at 1219 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-340-170.
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 14, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Erika/Ruben
s/�yleo
Date of Comments
i � �� r f ��-,.�.� � � <«�..1 �� r���. a ,� �� � ��,,:�.D
� 7 �
, �
�S'�.o w i P�r + t' l� v�.�t, t o vwtsts �(i w� l cI � .� c.
� , �
2• ( 4M.S S Itia.l � s��''� � c t r'�• �l v+0. � �G � �ry a
� ,
�, n�a,, s
�
3 , S�c w � � �-°'�"a,�
� ��� �
t� �- �.:
,� �� e I,.-.��
� - � ..,5�---.
w � C� � ��1�.t�.
U
1 �yv'�
v o3� �pI'V ` .
�. � �
,, � .
�.,� � �, �� ��w°`�
� e �,ya,{-t�o��e .
o��a:�Qt,
J
�.r ��4
S �^'( •
.._. .. _., .
--.. a� �; ;: = .- �.... CiTY ;OF. E
,,� � ,°' SPECll4t:P'�RN
RLfNG��
E
�-7"lSJM1
The Pianning ComrTtiission is required by ldw to m�ke f;ndings 8� defined by the City's Ordinance
tCode Section 25.50). Your answers ta the tailowing questions can assist the Planrtin�
Commission in m�king the decision as to whsther ihe iirtdings can be made for your request.
Rle�se type or write noatly in ink. Refer to the beck of this form for assistsnCe with these
quesiions. �
1. Expl'ain why the blerul o,f raass, scale ri�td' dorruna�tt ,stractkr+al characteris�ic� c�' ths new
eonstruetiott or pdt�itton are consi��irit with the exts�tng structun's desigrt and with the tx�g
street and asighborhood.
2.
3.
As a whole, the block is inconsistent and developed over several decades. House styles, size, and finishes vary widely. Mediterranean, english tudor,
and 1950's ranch houses coexist. Some bungalows were built on the opposite side of the street. Bo�h sides feature low speading houses juxaposed
;nh�re.
with two story ones. We began our design by using the existing home structure and fixing ,�i �,roblems. The mediterranean theme is similar
to those on the street including an immediate neighbor. The proposed design is similar in height, mass, scale and setback to both immediate
neighbors and several others nearby. The added second story is setback further than the neighbors to reduce the impact toward the street. The
hillside on our side of the block disconnects it from the flat topography opposite.
.xplat�t how the variety c�'roe�'line� facade, ext�rior,j�ieish ►natar�als and elsvations nf ths proposed
new a�ructure or addtttore are consistent with the exisn'ng a�ructure, street aad netghbor�iood.
Several houses in our neighborhood have some of the same architectural details as our house will have. We looked at the houses in our
neighborhood very closely prior to beginning our design. We feel that we have accomplished our goal of fitting in with the style of the
neighboring properties as well as adding unique features that will distinguish the house. We attempted to blend the existing house with
neighboring structures.
�%w will tht proposed pmject be conslsrent wtrh the nesidential design guidelines odQpttd by the cfly
�C. S. 2S. 3a) 9
Our current house is very boxy and does not fit well with the neighborhood. The proposed design fixes this by adding curves and substantial
details to the structure while reducing the footprint. Additionally, our house is the only one in the area that has a shared driveway. This
inconsistency will also be fixed by creating a separate driveway entrance not only for our property, but also for our neighbors'property at
1221 Vancouver. We have taken great care during the design phase to minimize the bulk and mass of the home by adding windows and
architectural details that fit with the style of the home. Our entire landscaping will be redesigned by a qualified landscape designer and will fit
substantially better with the neighborhood.
4. BSrpf� how the ramomd of any tre�s locateaf w�th�A the,�ooiP� Qf �Y nsw stractr�re o� additiore
is .urc�ssrtry pRd is c�vns�cent w�th tlu c�ty's r�'orr�A�tiori rteqiti»ente�tts. WhQt ncit,jgatio,e is p,�po�ed
forthe r+emov�l of any�t,�aeaY ,gxpJaJn .why.thia mit�garttoa,�,arppropriate:
The proposed plan reduces the footprint of the existing house structure and does not necessitate removal of any trees. Nevertheless, we plan to
add several additional semi-mature trees to the backyard. The pear tree at the front of the property will be replaced with more softscape and
additional trees. We will be adding several more trees and shrubbery to this area in place of the existing asphalt to provide increased privacy
and improved environment.
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 2000
ap�i�►i/12l'AB
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
BILL BESHORE
1
i
We
�
L
�
�VancouverAvenue
ngame, California 94010
�ber 18, �Q00
Burlingame
ig Department
mrose Road
ame, California 94010
650348631``ds' - � f�01 I
i"x"
b �� � �
� � � : �: :� � ,
�' ; � � � � �-� ��
���y ,�
,
� �� �
�
`�:'IVE:�
�WNICATION �;��_ � �=
TER PREPAR f:. . . �N
� STAFF RE`; � ���
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
i PLANNING DEPT
;nce: 1219 Vancouver Avej�ue (APN: 027-340-170)
�men: �
�
ve reviewed the pians for t�is project and offer the following comments for your
eration: '
�
�
:ale: The scale of the architeckural design is not In keeping with the lot for which it is
inned. It is overly tall and r�ot in concert with the lot.
�
IrroundirlgS: Good arc�itec#ure #akes surroundings into consideration and it does not
in harmoniously with the ngighborhood dwellings on either side of the street.
v eight: 7he code is 30 fee�maximum fo� two story dwellings_ This is reasonable code
nd �„articularlv applicable, giyen the elevated lat and the scale of the proposed design.
We especifully request that the Planning Commision take note of the preceding comments and
�dh�re to the exfsting building code requirements without any exceptions.
i
i
�inc rely, �
. ;
' .� .// , -y����,� �
�
�
�- i , �li�LL, i
L. Beshore �
M. Beshore j
i w . i. A /I i
�
u
Diebel & Company
/
660.bb8.8886
JAprll 2001
Mr. Ruben Ewua
Planner
City of Burlingame Planning Department
Burlingame, CA 94010
i 'r�► l� M �� 1� I:.0 '._�1►l �uu �► ' 1t v �� ��
� _; 1 � ' : ► � ll : L ►lL
The house addition and remodel for 1219 Vancouver Avenue incorporates the suggestions of the design
reviewer, Jerry R'inges. He commented in his letter to the commission (2/6/O1) "the applicant has responded
in a very positive manner to the design suggestions and the design is much improved." Mr. Winges also
recommended approval of the desfgn presented. He stated that "the changes shown appear to address the
original planning commission comments."
The following items are Planning Commission remarks followed by our response.
L Commisafonera raoted that theg ane bc�,(%Zed, when thia roas here before, explicit direction roa8 given that
the project is too bulky, it �aeeds a detached garage.
PO Bax 1044
Burlingame,
California
94011
fc� 558.8886
The design reviewer stated about the revised project that "the overall mass has been reduced by
reducing the second floor plate height 1'." He also stated that "the scale and mass of the desfign has been
reduced and the overall design simplif'ied and made to look less `ostentatious.' .... Lowering the g���
� G9 ��r-�
big improvemen�" g �� � " `� �
��� 1 � ZUU1
a
�
N-
�
�
�
�
x Design
CITY OF E3U��LING,qiy�E
PLANNIiVG DEPT,
Reaponae to Planning Commieaion
4/3�1
Page k'
During the design study session the only mention of a detached garage by the commission was: "why not
build a detached garage at the rear of the lot?" (10/23/O1 minutes) No explicit direction was given about a
detached garage. The designer reviewer commented that the "garage floor elevation has been lowered over b'
irom the original submittal and the garage roof height has also bcen lowere� substantially. This reduces the
bulk and mass of the garage dramatically, tends to `hide' the garage, and allows for a`flat' driveway."
Ac�jacent properties with similar sloping sites are approximately 60% attached garages. M attached
garage is the existing condition for our client's house. All the neighbor's garages are unique. These
properties all have steep driveways, stceper than the 16% gradient determfned to be the maximum allowable
for safety by the Public Works Department. The proposed design has a driveway slope that wnforms to the
requirements and is a safe design.
Whether the garage is detached in the back of the property or attached as the current proposal,
retaining walls will be required. The current proposal minimizes the length and therefore impact of the walls.
The landscape plan proposes creeping plants to grow over the retaining walls to soften them and fuither
reduce the impact of the walls.
The neigl►borhood, wfthin a block of our client's property, contains approximately an even split between
attached and detached garages. Please refer to the attached chart which documents garages within this one
block area. The area is neither predominately attached garages or detached ones.
Furthermore, the commission has set a precedent by approving projects with similar attached garages
on similar sized houses. TheNeigf�bor/rood Design Cuidebook states that design should have "respect for the
parking and garage pattems in the e�sting neighborhood."
2 Furtlier coiremission discusaion: cominission placed in d�"iculL poaition, ooncerns have not been
addre,ssed, but aiesdgn review const�ltant gawe project green ltyht ....
Reaponae to Planning Commiaeron
4�3�71
Page 8
The commission's concerns indicated in the 10/23/O1 meeting minutes from the study session were
addressed. The revised design was based on the documented comments of the commisslon. The design
reviewer, Jercy WL►ges, also based his suggestions on the comments in the meeting minutes. Mr. Winges felt
that the concerns were addressed and therefore recommended approval of the project. Perhaps the
wmmission's concerns were not adequately expressed or documented. Maybe the time duration between the
study session and public meeting had an impact on the commissioner's recollection. The Study Session
oomments from the minutes were used systematically to revise the project. Some of the changes include:
• The second floor plate height is reduced by one foot and staggered per the recommendation of the
design reviewer.
• The French doors at the entry were changed to a single door.
• The elements were toned down.
• The second iloor deck that was a concern was removed from the proposed design.
• The height of the second floor windows was reduced.
It is d�cult to understand why the project is still unacceptable wnsidering that the study session
concerns were addressed, all of the design reviewer suggestions were followed, and that the design revlewer
recommended approval of the project.
3. Public comment: DtcAc Sanguinetti,1215 YancouverAvercue, otons ieome directly behiied this property,
is concerned mith the acope and scale of project and its r+elationship to the aize of [ot, especiallb
co�acerieed witi� the height excepiion, now e�jog view of the EastBay, will block out the oiew and
p►�i�acg on this lot, wtll loom over our property, not in keeping toith the neighborhood.
Response to Planni�g Commiseion
4/4y11
Pag�e 4
Mr. Sanguinetti's property is a very large property, more 2b, 00 square feeL It is larger than four of the
neighborhood's typica16000 square foot lots combined. The has three exposed floor levels facing the
northeast. It fronts on Armsby Drive in Hillsborough. By all appearances, all access to the lot is off of
Armsby Drive. Similar to a flag lot, it has a long driveway off of Vancouver Avenue to give the property [ts
address. The driveway spans almost 300 feet, the full length of the property to the Hillsborough side. A
subdivision map is included fn the architectural drawings for reference. The house is located at the northwest
corner of the property with a swimming poll behind it. Mr. Sanguinetti's house is approximately 200 feet
from our client's house. His house is behind a neighboring and nat our client's. Likewise the views appear to
be over neighboring properties property (with a two story houses) to the north and �, our client's house.
Mr. Sanguinetti's property is much higher than our clients. It appears that the entry floor level of Mr.
Sanguinetti's house is at the approximate level of the hi�est point on the roof of the proposed design. The
design will deMitely Qot loom over his property. It is doubtful that the views will be obstructive in any way.
Considerable foliage separates the two patcels even though Mr. 3anguinettf has had some removed
during the design of this project. New landscaping proposed for this project will be placed for privacy
between the properties and is not intended to obst►uct vie�vs.
Slncer�elU,
Diebel aied Compa�ay
Gary R Dlebel, AIA
Architect
�
m
•
�
m
�
e
v
q m
�m
M
a N
� �
;, m
3 �
0
a
Garage Statistics within a ona bEock radius
Address Attached Attached Detached Detached Garage or Kouse 5tylelComments
[�ranty tOtherj (Back) (Otherj
1100 Vancawer X
2'I Q3 VancauverlCarmelita x� s�de
2ff�5 Carmelita x � slde
9001 Va�cou�er x
1104 Vancouver �
2101 Roaseva�t X
7108 Vanoouver X
iii2 Vancouver �
1116 Vancat�ver x
1120 Vancouver X
2700 VancouverfRoosevelt X
1124 Vanoouver x
t128 Vancou�er x
1i32 Vancauver X
1'I40 Vancouuer x
1150 Vancau�er x
116U Vancower x
177Q Vancower might not have a ga�age
1205 Bernal x
1209 Bernal x
124� Bernai x
1217 Bemel x
1221 Bem al x
1225 Bema1 x
1229 Bemal X
1239 Bernal x
1241 Bema! x
7 249 Bem al x
1255 8emal x [d� slreet
1153 Bernal x side {�� y-��t
1201 Bernal x side loaks attached;Faces street
Gange Statistics within a ane blo�k radlus
w
m
�
m Ad
�
E
3 21Q4 Broadway
� � 2908 Broadwsy
T �, 2712 6roadway
a N
� � 2716 Broadway
"; m 201 S Broadwsy
a � 20ia Broadway
9201 Yaneau�er
1204 Vancou�er
9203 Yancouver
1208 Vancou�er
1215 Vancouver
1218 Vancouver
z 121� Vancou�er
v,1224 Vanaouver
Y
� 9Z2� Vancouver
W 7222 Vancauver
z
w 1225 Vancauver
� t�37 Vsncouver
� 't230 Vancouver
1249 Vancou�er
7Z34 Vancou�er
1261 Vancou�ar
� 7265 Vancou�er
� 123� Vancou�er
,i 1244 Jackiing
m
m 12?? Jackiing
i
N 1230 Jackling
� 1255Jackline
� 2'100 Easton
2144 Esston
12108 Easion
��-
� �-
-��
-�-
��i
�i�
--�
--�
-�-
---
�--
�--
--�
--�
�--
--�
--�
-��
�-�
- : .. �
- '.. � �
-��
�_�
�-�
�--
��-
�- -
-� �
�- �
Detached Garage or House StylelComments
(Other)
faces street
x side lao�cs attached; Paces streei
x side ��$ &�t
x side comer fat; faces street in plain vlew
x side
to tef]
on
an
x side
?7?
Garage Statistica
�n
m
♦
r�
within a one block �adius
m Addresa
£ a
� 2107 Easton
� m 2� 12 Easton
� � 2111 Easton
v � 2'E 16 Easton
m
o Q 2121 Easton
a '-' 22fl0 Ea51Dn
2129 Easton
2123 Easton
22U4 Easb n
2214 Easton
2223 Easton
'2217 Easton
V
z 2200 Easton
Y 1312 Vancouver
� 1316 Vanoouver
� 1320 Vanoou�er
i 324 Vanoa�ver
� 1328 Vancauver
x 433.9 Vancouver
w
1336 Vancouver
134U Vancou►ier
1344 Vanoouver
Q 1348 Vanqauver
� 1352 Vancauvet
� 135� Vancauver
� 1360 Var�couver
�+ 1364 VancQuver
� �sss venc�o��
�
� 1372 Vanc�uver
't37B l�ancouver
1380 Vancouuer
l•,ii,i� � :: . , :.. : .
��-�
-_��
-��_
-�-_
----
-_--
-_0_
�--_
_--_
�_--
�___
--�_
--��
-_-�
�-_�
�_--
--�_
-_0_
�-0_
�-0_
�-0_
��__
��- _
��a�
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Garage or Nouse
���ee
not have a
nat have a
e
1
0
�
nof Frave a garage ?
Garage Stat�stics wi#hin a one
�
m
� Address
m
a
� 7384 VanoouWer
LL m 13881fanoouver
� "' 1382 Vancfluver
�. m
� u�i 21Q1 Hlllslde
v
; � 1383 Vancfluver
a �, 13�7 Va�cfluver
� 13i2 Vancouver
1365 Va�cauver
1361 Vanoouver
13�7 VanCauver
13�3 Vanoouver
z ???7 Vanoouver
� 1345 Vancfluver
0 134t Vancouver
� ???? Vanca�ver
� 1333 Vancauver
� 1329 Vancflwer
�
x 1325 Vancouuer
w
1324 Vsncauver
13�t Vancauvei
� 21U4 Roosevelt
� 2t25 Roosevelt
� 2i33 Raosevelt
$ 2145 Raosevelt
�, :2150 Raosevelt
N
� 2142 Raosevelt
a'
� 2128 Roosev��t
'212? Rooseveft
219 a Roosevsit
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
Attacfied I fletached I Detac3�ed
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
i���
� -�
- -�
- -�
- -�
� --
� --
� �.� . - -
�--
�--
�--
�--
�-�
� _�
�a�
Garage o� Hause Style�Camments
rear af the house; rEght tum
new �►ouse
new
�
m
�
�
m
a
E
0
�
A m
�= m
V M
A Q1
� N
� �
W
W m
O �
al
�n
m
�
�
m
�
E
0
�
A m
t�i �
�
�. m
� N
v �
w
`w �
O �
a .