The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1462 Vancouver Avenue - Staff Report�'t Y � � . p.Y M, �� , � � }� l �t � �74 � � , � `9'/�� ' � �'� �i � ' .� M� ky � "�k r, � •` �� , �':.v o �\� � Y,a � i�� y�.. ry :.�� ;!!�� '� � � M . A . � . . � ..� �x� . � �r' ��1� , � ��, N l,�t'�^ � »"' � � � � ,'- �. , p'�t�r�'. ". `� � �'..:� ;.� . �,-,�� • : ��'y _ -: +�r�.,,1' 1 �'t . - ,.:�:�;�` � �� -q �i �:; �. e a �� ".� ~�'`� � .ak�;i f' : �` �=�"` ��.(� t ?`�s4" �'� ,A3`c, • ` i� ��'� t � j� �f `' ,� � � �� ,` � iti'�'� � � � � Yr' :t��.��",y� t -�, f� l�{ r> �� 91if1 . �; ' - i �:� �i' Eu . .t 4 .�.;'��. y? ' ►�+ �� '�.�`,e , � ' `f4 i �� 5�� _ . r� p �`� � � s � �� : r- �� ; . �: , � F . �� '�„ �., �-, s _ �. �. -�� `'� � — � ,� � , ,. x"� �. 'ase`�t �.i y: r t,� � '�'^ _ v � �� '�� +�F��.a �'-� ""� ��^.. City of Burlingame Design Review for First and Second Stoty Additions Item # Regular Action Calendar Address: 1462 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: 7/22/02 Request: Design review for iirst and second story additions to an existing two-story dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010). Applicant and Property Owner: Kevin and Lauren O'Sullivan APN: 026-044-180 Designer: Michael Palza, Hunt, Hale Jones, Architects Lot Area: 6000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The site has an existing two-story house and detached garage. The detached garage provides a single, non-conforming covered parking space. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage, build a new detached single-car garage, and add to the first and second floors of the dwelling. With the proposed additions and new garage, the floor area on site will be 3366 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3420 (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The attic area above the living room (80 SF) is included in the FAR calculations because it is greater than 5 feet in height and contiguous with the second floor level. The proposed additions and alterations to the dwelling will reduce the number of bedrooms from 6 to 4, and the proposed single-car garage meets the covered parking requirements for a 4-bedroom house. If two covered parking spaces are required in the future, there is enough remaining FAR to accommodate a two-car garage. The proposed changes to the existing dwelling include the addition of a hipped roof over the existing second story where there is currently a flat roof. The gable end of the roof encroaches into the declining height envelope on the left side, but is exempt per C.S. 25.28.075,b 1). A pull-down ladder located over the laundry area on the second floor accesses the attic space created by the roof alteration. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for first and second story additions. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1 st flr): no change 16'-9" 15'-0" (2nd flr): no change 35'-9" 20'-0" Side (left): no change 4'-0" 4'-0" (right): no change 13'-9" 4'-0" Rear (Ist flr): 42'-11" 37'-0" (to existing deck 15'-0" (2nd flr): > 30 inches) 20'-0" Design Review for First and Second Story Additions 1462 Vancouver Avenue PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D 42'-11 " 51'-10" Lot Coverage: 2082 SF 2195 SF 2400 SF 35% 37% 40% FAR: 3366 SF 2727 SF 3420 SF 0.56 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.57 FAR Parking: 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 17'-9") * (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') # of bedrooms: 4 6 --- Height: 29'-9" 22'-4" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies existing, non- see code conforming encroachment on the left side * Existing structure is nonconforming in length (17'-9" where 20' is required). Staff Comments: See attached. July 8, 2002 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting, the Commission moved to place this item on the regular action calendar with the following suggestions for revisions (July 8, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes): ■ the half-timbering, especially at the left elevation, looks a little forced and awkward; designer should look at reducing this detail on second level and perhaps adding some to the first level; should achieve a simpler effect, similar to the existing half timber and articulation on the front elevation; • there are some details missing from the plans, such as the window detail, will the proposed new windows in the addition have a stucco stopper trim; note on plans if existing windows, particularly the leaded glass windows, remain with the new construction; provide a window and window trim detail; • the trees at the front of the property are a great asset and should be protected during construction; applicant should provide an arborist report which includes tree protection measures with the landscape plan; and • note on the landscape plan what will be planted on the trellises shown. 2 Design Review for First and Second Story Additions 1462 Vancouver Avenue The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped July 12, 2002, in response the Commission's suggestions. The following revisions were made to the plans: ■ sections of the half-timbering on the right and left elevations have been removed and corbels have been added to the second story on the right elevation; ■ the plans show that all existing windows will be replaced to match the new windows; a window detail on page A.4 shows vinyl windows with 1' x 3' trim and a wood sill and apron; and window boxes have been added to a second story window at the rear elevation and a first and second story window at the right elevation; and ■ the trellises shown on the right elevation of the Landscape plan will be planted with Bougainvillea vines. The applicant has also submitted an arborist report, date stamped July 17, 2002, to address tree protection measures during construction. 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 Department date stamped July 12, 2002, sheets SP.1 and A.1 through A.S, and date stamped June 10, 2002, the Landscape Plan and the Site Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department July 17, 2002; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would 3 Design Review for First and Second Story Additions 1462 Vancouver Avenue include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling Specialist's June 10, 2002, memos shall be met; 5. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 6. 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; 7. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 8. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 9. 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. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Michael Palza, Hunt Hale Jones Architects � ROUTING FORM DATE: June 10, 2002 TO: City Engineer �Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-180. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, June 10, 2002 s"v�v �/ ��'X �'� � i % -- Q�� l�ov�' � -, Gia�'•�G� � � �� v�2�� i� ��r 3��c�s � � j C��c9c� �- ��f��.% cv�isi /'� c � ��ti � r � H �v � .� �- ��i2o/�E�7`�r �� — � �Tr �z � T� 3� 6�-�� E �� ,�c�s�/ ,(�Cl��l G�� r �� G ROUTING FORM DATE: June 10, 2002 ;f TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Ofiicial Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-180. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, June 10, 2002 � `� ��✓ '� /'� ��C� � ��'.-� � LU C� �� > >� a�� C� ��-� � - , � � � �� ., �� -� �� `'��, � �� =� �� E„� ! . � �✓ �� ROUTING FORM DATE: June 10, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official �Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-180. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, June 10, 2002 �� Zs��.�-� Q� `.� c5 'l. 6� � � P� c� �� -6 �? � �'�—. 'S�r�.�\� A � `�— � � �-- �, r � 'C�.� v��'p� �v C�; ` � r � �%�� / c�� ROUTING FORM DATE: June 10, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _Ciry Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition and new detached garage at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-044-180. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, June 10, 2002 � �i� �.� �l�,�.,,:� `-w' � Lc��- � � � � , � � �,,,,,; .C'�'v,�. � �, � �� ,�,��.`�a �,,,,-� �-�,'.�' �-�"J v��'� ''� �� -�.,�,� �� -�-- . � �� 5 � r ►� .�-, �,-�. � � - �.,� ,,�. ��..e._ � �� - �� ,�, �,�'�,`_ . �� p � �� V�� , �,�, r/�j�.`'`'c , �-�,� P��-" p v � ��e% Z � , �� City of Burlingame Planning Departmeu� .;O 1 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(6.,�� 6-3790 www.burlin ag me.org �4, CIT7 �� BURLJNQAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �..m....•.°� Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance p�1 E Special Permit � Other Parcel Number: Project address: � �}(� �- vC,�� C ^��lE'�✓' � �L , �%�" 1�Y��Xl-e-� APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER � Name: � v ��1 �� .� j � Vicen Name: {��Tli'1 � �-�� ( � � I �c� Address: �--i- �� -I�� ,�' City/State/Zip: �'.�,-� �Q,r'Y�S G;; , C.A Phone (�):� �-(�i (�� - �t�(� �- �� I�c �� (�)� - � �� 'J 1. (fl � L�4`l - �-� �- �-- ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: ��-t�Z�f �f-t��-�- �c�YVL�� Address: (a��(D <}'a'�"' �} . Address: �-�'..c.�-n�. City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (�� i'Yl IG� C� �C� �—C� City/State/Zip: �'c.n � �-��nG ;� �, G�1 `��'K�'Please indicate with an asterisk * Phone (w): � I��- - ) 3Cx� the contact person for this project. �fl� ��"�w�.'� ��" (��_� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signa ��-�'-�-c Date: � I a c�`�-- I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: RF(,F��/�D Date submitted: ii ini , � �nn2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING��pTF� � �. r City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 8, 2002 Chair Keighran opened the ublic comment. John Stew , architect, and Charles Schembri property owner, were present to answer stions. The architect note � at he was excited about the Cr sman character of the project because t style is his passion and h eels it is appropriate for the sit�� nd the neighborhood. The property ow noted that during the sub ' ision of the subject property a�d lot SB, there was a lot of concern about e large trees on lot SB. �T, re are no substantial trees on��;ot SA. Currently there are currently n plans to develop lot SB t door to the subject prope��:� Commissioner noted that the landsca plan includes a"plant # 1��that is missing from the plant;�hst. C�fimission had the followi oncerns about the proposed prq�ect and asked the applicant to a�ss these items on the revised plans•. �'' ;;%f d ;: / �� • applicant sho d prepare an arborist report to, � dress the protection, pruning -� d maintenance of the trees o ot SB during the construction;�'n lot SA; and ,,y"' � �. conditi of approval for the project sh�Cild stress the proper NPDES � asures to be taken during const ction on lot SA to prevent rur��ff and debris from going intg= - e creek. Marian a Iraida, 1037 Balboa Ave�t`e, and Andrew Styoa, 1024 Co�ez Avenue, spoke to express their conc s about the trees located o ot SB. They are a spectacular �ource and should not be damaged or co promised during developr��The neighbors also noted tl��ft they felt the design was nice bu�Y�he proposed dwelling was very, � assive compared to the other ho�'es in the neighborhood. There wer,�yno other comments from the floor� ' d the public hearing was clos��'.` �� C. Osterling made otion to place this item on the, nsent calendar at a time when t�'"�arborist report has been submitted `d reviewed. The motion was,� �onded by C. Auran. �-�'� �, f.. �> � Chair Kei an called for a vote on the on to place this item on the cons - calendar when the requested inform ' n had been submitted and viewed. The motion passed o a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Co ission's action is advisory a not appealable. This item con ded at 10:45 p.m. 13. 1462 VANCOUVER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN AND LAUREN O'SULLNAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MICHAEL PALZA, HUNT, HALE AND JONES ARCHITECTZ(65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Michael Palza, Hunt Hale Jones Architects, and Kevin and Lauren O'Sullivan, property owners, were present to answer questions. They noted that their intent with the addition was to give character to the existing boxed- shaped house. The design of the proposed dwelling proposes to do this by repeating some of the existing half-timber articulation at the front elevation on the other sides and by adding a gabled roof similar to those seen throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that the maj ority of the additional floor area being added to the property was in the proposed single-car garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the proposed project and asked the applicant to address these items on the revised plans: 15 w � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 8, 2002 • the half-timbering, especially at the left elevation, looks a little forced and awkward; designer should look at reducing this detail on second level and perhaps adding some to the first level; should achieve a simpler effect, similar to the existing half timber and articulation on the front elevation; • there are some details missing from the plans, such at the window detail, will the proposed new windows in the addition have a stucco stopper trim; note on plans if existing windows, particularly the leaded glass windows, remain with the new construction; provide a window and window trim detail; • the trees at the front of the property are a great asset and should be protected during construction; applicant should provide an arborist report which includes tree protection measures with the landscape plan; and • note on the landscape plan what will be planted on the trellises shown. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review o ity Council Regular Meeting of July 1, 2002 CP oe reviewed the pla g related actions taken at the July , 2002, City Council meeting. S noted that the Counc' as cancelled its second meeting in, gust. y ,� - Review of Safewa tudy Session & Conclusion �;y�°V� "�-� Staff noted that annmg Commission continued th�'�pecial Study Meeting on th� S``afeway proj ect, 1450 How Avenue to 6:00 p.m. before the r�e�t Planning Commission meeting on July 22, 2002. The mee � g will be in Conference Room �4,�City Hall. Staff asked if the'Commission would like to set ck the regular Commission me��ng to a 7:30 p.m. start in order to allow them enough time for iscussion. Chair Keighran m�a � e a motion to move back the start time of the Regular Planning mmission meeting on July 2�;'2002, to 7:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. The motion passed on a voice ��te 7-0. Staff noted that the materials for the study meeting would be included in the regular �a�ket which would be delivered the Wednesday before the meeting. - Review of STOP�P (NPDES) model developm�nt policies ��► CP Monroe n,��d that under the current per�riit with the San Francisco Regional W� Quality Control Bo�r�the City was required to.. adopt administrative planning policies r,egarding water quality. e enclosed memo notes those policies. We will be required to amer}� our General Plan goals a�policies to reflect these c�epartment policies within the next year. Y�Sftaff will review the current General Plan policy doc ent and determine what new policies � 1 need to be added. The commission can consider the within the next year at the same ti we are considering other amendments to the General lan. - Review of sign at 1070 Broadway CA Anderson reviewed his memo regarding the issue of maintaining the face of the nonconforming, illuminated sign on the property at 1070 Broadway. The issue revolves around the fact that the technology of the current sign is obsolete and changing the face (which is allowed for 16 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO. 276793 GRADUATE FORESTER • CEP.TIFIED ARBORIST�S • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPGRATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STG. A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6228 KEVW R KIELTY � TELEPHONE: (6�0) �93-4400 oPERATIONS MANAGER f'ACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAIL: infoa,maynetree.com July 16, 2020 Lauren O'Sullivan 3268 19th Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Re: 1462 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA Dear Mrs. O'Sullivan: On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the 3 trees in the front of the property. Of particular interest to you was tree protection during the upcoming project and that will also be addressed in this report. Method: All trees were measured for diameter 4.5 feet above grade (DBH or diameter breast height). Each tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality from 1-100 using the following scale. 1-29 ...................... Very poor 30-49 ................... Poor 50-69 ................... Fair 70-89 .................... Good 90-100 ................. Excellent Lastly, there is a"Comments" section addressing each tree. R��i��:�� u� � 7 zoo2 CITY Gr LuRLIIVUAME PLANNING UEPT. O'Sullivan 7-16-02, Pg. 2 TREE SURVEY From south to north Tree No. Species 1 2 DBH Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) Evergreen pear 8.9 Evergreen pear 11 .8 3 Camphor 8.9 Summary: 75 75 70 Some scarring on trunk from vehicles. Wound wood has formed well. Good branch structure. Has Endosporum leaf spot. Has Endosporum leaf spot. (leaf fungus). Well pruned in the past. Good crotch formation. Some inner deadwood. Large root flare. The 3 trees in question are in good condition. Two evergreen pears have Endosporum leaf spot, an annual leaf fungus which attacks this species of pear. The camphor has an abundance of inner deadwood which is common when the top of the tree shades out the older growth. Tree Protection: Tree Protection Zones should be established as close to the dripline of each tree as possible, still allowing for coastruction to proceed. The fencing for the protection zones should be of 4 feet high orange plastic supported by metal stakes or poles pounded into the ground. (Green or black fencing may be used in front for visual relief for the neighbors.) The pears are in a 3 foot wide boulevard typed planting strip. The trunks of these trees should be wrapped with 2 x 4's and plastic fencing for protection. The entire planting strip should be fenced except for the flagstone walkway. Irrigation on the 3 trees in question should be maintained during construction. Any roots to be cut for irrigation or drainage pipes should be monitored and documented. If large roots are cut or large amo�r# of rccts, they should be inspected by an arborist. All cuts should be made cleanly with a saw or loppers. (See "Mitigating Measures for Existing Trees on Construction Sites", enclosed.) I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, � Kevin R. Kielt� Certified Arborist WC #0118 KRK: dcr Encl. �'" �� No. wc-»�e �� ,�`, r'.4 ��b�.�,��9..J� C � � JUL I 7 2002 CITY UF �,�,�r;��j��AME PLANNiNG DEPT. MITIGATING MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON EXISTING TREES SECTION I INTRODUCTION It is an established fact that construction around existing trees will impact t h e trees to some degree. The degree of impact is largely predicated on t h e condition of the tree(s) before the construction activity begins. It is therefore important to inspect all trees prior to any construction activity to develop a "tree protection program" based on the species, size, condition and expected impact. A Certified Arborist (International Society of Arboriculture) i s suggested for this work. The local University of California Extension or County Farm Advisors Office has the names of local certified arborists. SECTION I I SITE PREPARATION All existing trees shall be fenced within, at, or outside the dripline (foliar spread) of the tree using the following formula: Five inches in distance f ro m the trunk for every inch in trunk diameter, measured 4.5 feet above t h e average ground level. Example: a 24 inch diameter tree would have a f e n c e erected 10 feet from the base of the tree (24 x 5= 120/ 12 = 10). The f e n c i n g should not interfere with actual construction, but is intended to redirect unnecessary traffic, and to protect limbs and roots. No storage of materials, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction shall be allowed within the dripline of the trees. The fence should be a minimum of four feet high, made of pig wire, s n o w fence, or cyclone, with steel stakes or pipes as posts. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe outside t h e fence shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from c o n s tru c t i o n equipment encroaching within the dripline. All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the job. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposed-of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment and other heavy equipment. The temporary fence shall be maintained until the landscape contractor enters the job and commences landscape construction. ��.+�� MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY J U L 1 7 Z002 CITY OF E'sUkLl!`JGAME PLANNING DEPT. SECTION I I I GRADING/EXCAVATING All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, o r within the distance from the trunk as outlined in SECTION II when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed by the certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath roots, root pruning, or other necessary actions to protect the trees, shall be outlined by the arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said t r e n c h i n g shall be undertaken by hand labor. All roots 2 inches or larger shall b e tunnelled and smaller roots shall be cut smoothly to the side of the trench. The side of the the trench should be draped immediately with two layers o f untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall b e soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is backfilled to the original level. The arborist shall examine the trench prior to backfilling to ascertain the number and size of roots cut, and to suggest further remedial repairs. SECTTON IV REMEDIAL REPAIRS. PENALTIES The arborist on the job shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees, and prescribing necessary remedial w o rk to insure the health and stability of said trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities specified in SECTIONS I, II and III. In addition, pruning, with types and techniques as outlined in the "Pruning Guidelines" (1995) of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, mulching, aeration, irrigation, drainage, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements and State Agricultural Pest Control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For a list of licensed pest control operators or advisors, consult the local County Agricultural Commissioners Office. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the appraised values provided in the Evaluation Guide published by the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. SECTION V FINAL INSPECTION Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that impacted the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compaction, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. The arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. �� MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY J U L 1 � Z��2 CITY OF BURLiIVG�yN�E PL.ANNING DEPT. ��4. c�rr a� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJN4'.AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �,,.,,,,,,„,•'�� TEL: (650) 558-7250 1462 VANCOWFsR AVENUE Mailed June 28, 2002 Application for design review and a special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story pUBLIC HEARiNG additions at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-044-180) N OTIC E The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 8, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. (Please refer to other side) A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Ca] CITY OF B URLINGAME � ��.. � �� d .��s`y Ts pro�ect�may be reviewed prior �� Plar�g� Dqpa r�; � ent at �� 1 Primrose Road, � ,:� .. �. If you chal ��ige th"e siiUject � raising onl��hos�ssues �ou' �� described in t c� gr ui. at or rior t� t'� �� P � �P. ��,il� �'` :-�. Property ov�hers'��o ree�i�e,: tenants abo, t thi�� noti�� '� 558-7250. '� ank ��ou a �� • � � �;�tc� � Margaret Mbr�roe� ��"' �, �� City Planner � �� -�;�� ;, � �, � � PUB�L.�� :��,.$,�,: (Please refer to other side) be limited to blic hearing, d to the city .�. x�: b . � informati ming their call (650) �_ � -�. � � �� `,� $=�. I.�TICE ��(` CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME �1RUNS.AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �• • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ,,..�,,,,«�•' � TEL: (650) 558-7250 1462 VANCOWER AVENUE Application for design review for a first and second story addition at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-044-180) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 12, 2002 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans fo� this project;may be reviewed prior to the meeting at :the: Plannin� Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California: ' �, If you chall�'rige the subject application(s) in co�trt, you ma�; be limited to raising only thoseStssues you;or someone else ra�sed at the �%i�blic hearing, described i� tt►�� ,otic� or in written corres,pandence��t�el��wer�d to the city at or prior tb th�:p�t�li� hearing. _ Property owriers `who receive This notice are;zesponsil�Ie�for i�t%rming their tenants about thi�� not'ice. For additional informatior�� plea�e call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. : „ _, � �.�; � y' - � . k ` S �' `s�e� z r � Margaret Monroe ��,�;� � � ` `� � Y- � � "�� ,�'� City Planner � _ �� PUBLIC HEAR�NG N.OTICE , ... (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOUSE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desi�n review for a new detached �ge and first and second story additions to an existin hg ouse at 1462 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Kevin and Lauren O'Sullivan, property owners, APN: 026-044-180; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on J� 22, 2002, 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: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Ralph Osterling, 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 22nd day of July, 2002 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for design review 1462 VANCOUVER AVENUE effective August 5, 2002 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 12, 2002, sheets SP.1 and A.1 through A.S, and date stamped June 10, 2002, the Landscape Plan and the Site Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department July 17, 2002; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling Specialist's June 10, 2002, memos shall be met; 5. that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 6. 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; 7. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the proj ect, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 8. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 9. 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. � J, � �� '.'�° . ��`- ti� �f � •i. n. �,, �� : � r � . �" � � �,. � ^�� j . .Y: '�� . � �� s�°'; °'� , � � ,�, ' ` i �°1 ,�'s r�,' ',i `�'�` s � � . 1A.'. ' � �'> � � ��S„,t„ - ._ t,. � ` . .'� � {�1� / t � r � � .. ^ ^ � � \ ♦ T 6r, ,� „ a>�� x,�� 1 � �s - �:� � �: �� j , 1►�' �� ' a� �� .,..� � �_ � �, �� *� �� F �� l � 1' t `� : � �`� � " �' � � .' �' .,a? '� * �.�`." `' y;'' a � s� �" '�, r �. �, �._ .- . ~�'�! � !� �°' }''�'.�: '� � '�� ` t ,'�- `i• "�` ' `", �"� � �� '� •'� � � ,' �� -r . �a � � �j �� ' �� ' � � �� j� � � � � �1 ~ '�` ; #�.- �. , �r" _ �� _ � E �'�� '�,�'"� �� • y �, .«,"4 � .� �... �,;+:.^,�.`�:�. � � ��,�..' . . ' �. .� F'F."�ya � �' " ., '-, � �� .�f, `�.. � � � � .` � �� `� q�� r� � �' � _ �'`�� `, a , ��k � 4 � r � . . '� �. . :� . � � � ! ,,iW.,,. ' "'� � . �- a;� � '� �.".�i' �g.' �, , �, s , , � � ��,` E } �y � -�, X� �� , � , t. � �/r �, '" ' 4 Y � ��'"` . f*,-' wr `.! '�'.: tt , ��% � . Y ��+ � # 4t 6 j � °' � �„. i� ` _ j �, s �. �S � � '�• �� , r�. � 6� _. �y + , � . . /� ` �� .:• j � �� Y /`- �- �'`x». •�� . � `.n , . �,��r � . z � � . i� �si . � /( . F✓ \ � ��y ,� �':,�. � ti`' , , � '^�`�� `, ,��* � ;:�_�,�y ��i .. P��V � A ��r � �� f/'' ` 1" r ' � ^� r ,:. �� .%,� j" �,i�'— � �'' � p_. ',. }s �l,`� '� ` �, . �4'r� . s. ,� � �y`� � � .A w.+�= :. � - -� � f . � ' �. .~ f � � _ �.. 4 �� 1 Il�i H \'y .� �y� ' � � `K, eY �. � '�.i� . . jY1' �.� t_' ; . �7 � � �� y J ' �.p � �� - 'vr• ,�� `� ��'��_ �G� � , ..... g�/ `,`Y��t � .:^25,",�'+�e. ! ;i��- *�. �• � � 6 ~ � _ . '°� ; : p � y� - �� r1` , � ' d • . � ' � � j dr � � �� 4; � , > ., `�; � , � . �� ' � . .� �:. �, ;�. r A a:. � -� � 'sz;'� � ti - . . . / �. e � t , . � a � � ,.� �. ,��r r , � ,f:� � ' � �,, � f � � � -. { ,:� �'� ; � � �� , p« -� � �'� �"�+ ,� �. , ,�. �"� � � r �1"� r� ��* ., �' � �� `' � � i�y � �, � � .<�-• ,�"`�_ � " �` i�- � - � �� w � �� .Ert � i � �� . . , 9 �Y � ,` •4 .. �,. �! �4 �� d d T �_ '{ �s�. .� . � l-:. � �� _ g,�� .. �l�� . 0 4. :' � � ��^'� � � � f L '. .+� 'T \ �.�.� '� _� +" r a. t �� _ � �. � c~!' .s� -;a .. . v. ;!� `�. . , . �� .�:�v � _. . 3� *t.� ,� �•�.�. ` � ,�*} � � � 1 , t'y � .� , i - � /�,�f - O • . t .. y . ; . � �- � � �. � . `�r: ..�¢�' ,a, ,.. � ry� �S". : � :�; ;� �v r v' ' ",�:.�.., �\/ �` '�� } � �'1, �'�j i ' ° �'`+ � _ c .. . � � , . : s, � y- '� e. 4, '�• Z �� 3n � g� 0 a / . . �. . • e. . � � . 1 " i" .� �A� 1 e,w..� � �,.` tj �Y -: � ��_��`�.y� �^: `4 . . �..: - � .f • � . .., , ._$ - . � � �. ' `� �� ` ' �" ,,�.�c��.- .,� �,� . � . . � f- s �!R ^'� � r. ` C.. . F:� 3 �� ` . � �. . � �� . • ' e�4 f �_.:�4`{' i �¢i .. <� 1 � � '�. ,,�o � i�'' '7�� . � .., , � , , . o. �/� ' ' _ t" ..� . .. . ..� .� . �;:FT,. _ _ „ , � , . . .. . ,�, . ,� ,� .. - . . •. - ._ �. _ , . ; .;. ,�= _ _ . t . . �[� . �.� ,�,� �. :;� �. `�� "'. % a��;'"` '2 s;,.►_ +�.r�``�,� - `.�`°k �,�� = V �'- � ��.'c"` .��", ��, • �! aF�� • '�� 1• �.�' � y� ��a y,'� , r i � � ' � ' \� , �s J r 3 � �J� / A " � ' v�� .�y►�' d �.- �, y ( . ` � ,,''�I - _ fi'° � °� � � s Y � c "� .e� ` _ Mc �t �� t � � �. • > � � , � �� -: _ � .l ��` r . � � �, �' � � z� � -� .� a . � �'�;` f:r� e; � ,a`�,� �, g � � ��ra�:. �`,:� � f � � � � ,r �� . . � a� � �'u ;,� � .!, � �}g A � ' .. ,, 01 P$ y� � # � `I` �. +� . .i�� J� ,� � �e. � � ` �,,f�T h..� ' // 1 �rm� � . � � � -y a ".`� '' .` ' ,K'�T�: ' �; � � �, �Y . � . . , . � �,� f� _ � .� `.!�T� k.. , �K;� 3 .e ��. . 4 �� ;R� , � � �~. . a � � � ��a .' A ` : � a � �►.�;s � � . ! � � O � � � 4.� � � � �k .fr ' _ . , ��•' � � � . . .�� _ � � , � '� � __ � '; � ,� . .. ' � . � � .�e't � 1 � ' .� _ � .. . `i' _ *�. � l. �n ' - `� � a • r .. :� b �`�� ` � ,. ti ; , � � •=`��► . i� � � � , �� . � : � t � �.� � � . �, _ , , �,' � �� • � .., �, . , _ � . �r . . . �,., � � . , 2 � �, �� „ � � ♦ : ° ,��t r 4. ..' �� :� � a � . �� r , ;. /�� ,. . _ � �: . � �. . � " ,_ ,. , � : � . ~ , �«T F ,. h . . . a ,' I ' . -� i � ,�� I, A •�� a� �'�. H`�� " �`. �' 1'_ � 4�� "... 'k l a. / ) . �� '' \ .` V�-r. ��v . :< . f' q ♦ � ,� '� �� {� c`,,<, � ;�r�'„='. . : � , . � �,_ . �� ' �� _ . .. - . _b . .v, . e • . ti +j .� � � , �� </1'�= � � ;�.� �' b F aI� �P � . ��+ �� " Y"� t�'� , � - �. . d ' $" ` \ � ` ` r `r ! �" �' f +� r � . , � � ,� 3� ::�°x .:� � �; � � ,� L# A � , �� : , . . _ � ! � S �. -' �. ..,a ' t . ; � iR .\ � + . ' ti� r ��'{ $ � � .. ''.♦. ',t'-b . �;. i.. . . .F-�,5. � :� ' .i�`��h"'� � rn , _�-" �-G`"y'�r . - ;;, , J, , r � L � - . v ,� y,� � �, , „_ . . �% ,� , ,. � , . � ., ; � Z.�7t \ "� � �'��f �� - .� � . �� . � , . �-' f�``°-\. � � .t� • `s � „` � � ��, � �: z �. ' '. /. <.. - ., . � � '� • � � � .J� _ .._ d t , 1 .,, � i ''?. � 's' „-' � , � � �� . ., �K� �f� f ,;=rs.� .i-� � ��- � "i ' "�� ,." �, . ; .6 ` r. ^ � ,'�!'. � �. . ,t•i_," �� . ` `"!� �'� � i. . , ., _ �- . . " � � - � ' �-'- .-, � �` � ., �,.: ' � , . �,� a'�� ,( . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEL. (650) 558-7250 FAX. (650) 696-3790 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Lauren O'Sullivan�lUS��nae� �ur�-t'''"' Erika Lewit COMPANY: DATE: 6.20.02 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO-. OF PAGES: Cq..�1647-2722 � �l� t�`�� ",�. �;-�; �;;,�.�' �.��1 �, including the cover sheet �-- RE: 1462 Vancouver Avenue ❑ URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE Lauten, Following is the plan check fox the pxoperty at 1462 Vancouver Avenue. Please refer to the last page for a list of issues that need to be addressed. The main issue is the lot coverage calculations. My calculations show that a variance is required. If you cannot see an obvious difference between the way I have calculated the lot coverage and your architect's calcularions, you can provide me with the dimensions that your architect used and the correlating floor plans. Please submit one set of revised plans to me. Call me if you have questions. Thank you, Erika (650) 696-3790 fax (650) 558-7252 phone 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME CA • 94010 Planning Department Plan Review Comments Page 1 �� CiTY O� BURLJNGAME City of BuYlingame ,��.... � PLANNING DEPARTMENT 558-�z5o �^,�°°�°�•"'°�1 Plan Review Comments Job Address: I9'(02 �i(,t ✓t� �� JGi Date of Plans: l� . I(� � t�Z Job Description: 2.'�d -� , C�l�.ri �I�'1 � �,p. �-r rvl ��- -�p✓ '�-�-�. LOT SIZE �O X I ZO � APN: LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D 1� a �� L. � � S� �\�-g'j ►� 40% X lonnQ SF °�., � � Q �' � �,P �r� �"� �� i t(1C..� � ��'�` �. C�� 1 � �� , � �f � �' �_�' � l� �O 6l p � � j,�0 /y, � �a .4. � 1 � � a-r t,e. �'y' � � � �.J �` °� �- � � �a , � �, ; _ o , 5�0 � � `�2� � - 3 � /n 2 �'`�9-�. " � 2 � � z. e � = �'�S%ro �f� % _ �-(� COMMENTS � dv�.�' a r� ! v k �.�v�_� �-� � _ �a. r � c� r� ��. r �.�o � �. �� ,;�;:; ,rG v; ��i -- ��_� � � � �' �'e� � � � -.�- i� �. �..�... FLOOR AREA RATIO COMl EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D C ER LO � ��S}' � �j�l � � �� 32%� F+90 �� 1 p� j� �'"� d I�. .'�.,.�' �•' a�' (+ 350 S DET. GARAGE) � .}-g0` � S�Ltu' 't 8� � INTERIORLOT o�.,-�}: c., 32% X� SF + 1100 �.r� �,� U ��..�� (+ 400 SF DET. GARAGE) SF 2�- � - o- � 4 = ��SCo 2�C� �� = a• ��-- 32� lo `� = 0� 55 3d2� -�- A-b� ��r v1ENTS . �, �.� 3 �ZZ� � _ �, 5 � , Planning Department Plan Review Comments Page 2 n SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D FRONT- 1ST FL V�, q i� N I L 15' OR BLOCK AVG. FRONT- 2ND FL . � ,r �/� 20' SIDE- LEFT �� G � � SIDE- RIGHT � � � � � � �� ! REAR- 1 ST FL � �� , , � 15' �cz �-� � � � ��> REAR- 2ND FL , � � � 20' Z '` 5�'� �'� ' ( b � C(�MMENTS .. � �c,✓e �-�c., no ��..�-Je S c�--�- �I� --� v � �� , I e-F �--; v e a. � �c' � ��--�-� a ✓� - r�iQ�' �' x 4 �..�� v°ti. c ('z ,� p ,�. � f-,�,^`� ��' r,.'"� f ` �'" '� -�' % l-'--� � � � � HEIGHT EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D ZZ' L� �' �G� / �i 2 1/2 STORIES/ 30' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB: :� � � � C+ + �% � � �, �`� -' Z.y lan,38 COMMENTS ` o►`��.-1 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE LEFT SIDE POINT OF DEPARTURE �I O I.Zg �'� I00� �� = RIGHT SIDE POINT OF DEPARTURE (� � q.G� CQ -f" � � �' 3�`, "� Z� � pQ. Co4' � c�c`�- I d COMMENTS � r+, 5;� ��-�l,� - �\t,c�.�,�. � �r�{ C �- - �-1� �'� `� �cs�re(nc� i S k�.1�-eX1 -�'ronn -�I�e� (,1 .�, � I�fo�- -�ra n-� e r�d oF t9-� � � 1 e.�- s�d¢. G�.-�-� � c- �:1-�"� _c., �c � oc.�C � S i r� Z� `� � � � �� ► � t SOm.�, i '� � � �y, �c �� .- _ �plS . 51� � c�.� C roSS ��.� sre�-k; o�n �/ c e� l � v.�� h.�.�; ��h-�-, � v`� �,r �-- � c` o` � � ! 4 � � �r+�.P�% � �.�C��G�V �ci �, ��v fL. k�.-G(�� t� Planning Departrnent Plan Review Comments Page 3 NUMBER OF BEDROOMS EXISTING PROPOSED � � PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D � COVERED SPACES � COVERED SPACES � COVERED SPACES �w� l�,C�,, X(.�.�� ' �� ►� I n�x Z d' ��o�-o�� x Zo�-o�� + 1 UNCOVERED + 1 UNCOVERED + 1 UNCOVERED — .� � —��el ,r�on - c o,f�� . �e COMMENTS � w b ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REOUIREMENTS - CS 25.60 a. 2 or more acc. strs., each with 100 SF of GFA 1Jb b. any single acc. str. exceeds 600 SF of GFA N O c. all acc. strs. exceed a total of 800 SF of GFA �o d. accessory structuxe in front of main building r'`�� e. acc. str. than 4' to other structuYe � b f. acc. strs. coveY >50% of Year 30% of lot ��? \5, �p�c �c�v�� c1-�-- -�-v1 � ca �r �� a p-For c a f<< � � ;r-r�1. �lec�r�c�....1 � !�+�' �-�-� r R �---� G. � �,�,-��.r � � � �.,,� � �.. ? � Pl S , �1n O� '�'� � \ � �n S g. plate line of acc. stY. > 9' above grade P*� c� h. xoof ht exceed 15', with pitched roof tJ U i. windows w/i 10' of P/L ox 10' above grade ��e -r_,. j. water/sewer connections/bath/toilet/shower O k. enclose mechanical equipment < 10' from P/L � 1. storage > 10% of floor area of main structure r vv m. use as acc. living quarters, xecreation, home occ. �p n. acc. str. will be greenhouse, lanai or patio shelter � d � CU,� �( 2 c�Ci 'a Y I' E'_- V' `�.�•�,. '�- � '(Y� Gt, �--�- �/ �.: �J � '� ,. r� .r,, �.s...� � � � -t i f� � � '� . Planning Department Plan Review Comments Page 4 � ADDITIONAL COMMENTS � �8 �� " �` 5 � ,1 � �� ._ .� �;� �..' p � S � o �� d � 5 � a, e <�� '� .,a � �� cro�s s�c�, a�� r ho �,� �e C►►� c i, cC � 1�,�.c �,,.c. `� �rov�d,� v , �� ; L aC C e� S� � � S, r�-Fe �--�o ��.--�r�- c i'-� (�j�E'_0�- Ve 5 OY� irlo l.�S�. �/'�� CC�.. r�i r�Q.. ? � `� � V � C ��-� 1-� a►r1L1 � G�-C_CeS�pr... �'r` �-C�'� �/ �-C-�i'� DY�S a-� Y , YY�E-✓�';� � V� �1� h S 4 �' + ,,� �/�! � , .}�'�.,_r1 �. �' n^ C`�-1�Y'1 ; h-a- s� �-- �U�E - ►'�'r -ko` tJ� � � ='� ' ��.. V i s� o r -�}` �' r`� -1- U/ , f `�,y • �Qq, u i � � -�o✓ C- � O �" � �� , '� V k � � a � �e-� �� , � � � e� � ��...� � � o Q I ,' ,' rta.�c. o -�'�c- U 1��s la. ,�� ` �C� �� 1o�r cove,rc�c �-ee�� - �5 . Ye-v`� o� a-�Q `i / vc��;�r�c� �� c�-+�a_ch� �� ►'�d � �oo -�� r r��-t�\.I Sl� w�� 5 PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP rOR PROPERTY J ar� 5�. l�a-u� o r1 � PLEASE INDICATE ON PLANS LOCATION AND TYPE OF ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPE TREES, AS WELL AS ANY TREES TO BE PLANTED ON PROPERTY � P� N � S�� (NOTE: FRUIT TREES ARE NOT DEFINED AS "LANDSCAPE TREES" PER C.S. 11.06) THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE � LANDSCAPE TREES �, _ _ . . __._..._ , � � v G- �°. DATE PLANS REVIEWED � � �� '2 REVIEWED BY �Y� � L�' �� * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED � 1,� � C D u►'� � a. �� C� (e C� J p VP� 3� �� f e�'M +� C�.,C�.� C�e, �� ►'Y� � � �- � � �-- �_`"" .t -�-�,� : c,�.�.._ c�Gc- l 1 -i-G� � w a 1 — l I� � vQ- �► � c l c�.c..� �o ✓� n �-�-s � d -� � �c�t,� �p C,� r C� G�-� C 1�- � .� v�a � o-�- CD�/. � c�, l��, �'�r-or� �c��- �Y`.�'v� � � �o " b►�,. l�-�' ea.e�V. � �-P�,,/- �� 1�-- ,• � � �a-r� r' � v�- .e��l . �