The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1601 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Variance for Front Setback Address: 1601 Howard Avenue Request: Variance for front setback for a first floor addition. Applicant and Property Owner: Margaret Jensen Designer: Peter Sano General Plan: Low Density Residential Item # (� Regular Action Item Meeting Date: 7/24/2006 APN: 028-293-010 Lot Area: 7,316 SF 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 existing two-story residence with a detached two-car garage in the rear yard contains 3,115 SF (0.42 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing stairs that lead to the second floor balcony from the front yard and add 207 SF to the first floor at the front of the residence. The proposal also includes an interior remodel to the first and second floors, including a redesign of the second floor plan. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase from 3,115 SF (0.42 FAR) to 3,327 SF (0.45 FAR), where 3,591 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 264 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). Because Crescent Avenue is the short street frontage, the front setback requirements will apply to the portion of the residence facing Crescent Avenue. The new front wall of the first floor addition will be located 18'-0" from the front property line, where the required front setback is 22'-4" (the average front setback for the block along Crescent Avenue); therefore, a front setback variance is required (18'- 0" to property line where 22'-4" is minimum required). Approximately 58 SF (or 28%) of the 207 SF addition will encroach into the required front yard. The property currently has two existing nonconforming front setback conditions: the stairs proposed for demolition (16'-0" from the property line) and a patio/trellis structure to remain (20'-0" from property line) (required front setback 22'-4"). Approximately 32 SF (or 33%) of the stair/balcony portion (92 SF) of the residence encroaches into the required front setback, while approximately 24 SF (or 19%) of the 125 SF trellis encroaches into the front setback. The proposed project will include a total of four bedrooms, requiring 2 parking spaces on-site, one of which must be covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" interior dimensions). There is an existing 540 SF detached two-car garage (27'-0" wide x 20'-0" deep) located in the rear yard that provides 2 covered spaces, while the existing driveway allows for the uncovered parking space (9'-0" x 20'-0"). Therefore, the project meets the parking requirements for the property. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Front setback variance for a first floor addition (18'-0" to property line where 22'-5" is minimum required) (CS 25.28.072) Staff Comments: Planning Staff would note that this project is not subject to design review because it is a single story addition with a plate height of less than 9'-0". Please see attached sheets for all other Staff Comments. [�ariance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 7,931 SF Existing ; Proposed � Allowed/Required SETBACKS ; ; Front (Ist flr): 16'-0" 1 j 18'-0" z ; 22'-4" (2nd,flr): 32'-0" ; 32'-0" 22'-4„ :............................................................................................._'.... . Side (left): 7'-6" 7'-6" � 7'-0" � (right): 24'-0" 24'-0" 7'-6" :... .. ..................................... ................................................... . � Rear (Ist flr): 33'-0" 33'-0" ; 15'-0" (2nd flr): 44'-0" � 44'-0" 20'-0" :...................................................................................................._;............................................................................................................................. i Lot Coverage: 2250 ' 2394 SF 2926 SF (29%) � (31 %) (40%) :......................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................ ; FAR: 3115 SF 3327 SF 3591 SF 3 0.42 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.49 FAR :................................................................................................_'................. . . ....... .... .... . . . ..... # of Bedrooms: 4 � 4 --- ......................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................. Parking: 2 covered ! 1 covered 1 covered �2�°-0°° X Zo�-o°°� ��2�°-0°° X Zo°-o°°� ;(lo°-o°° X Zo�-o°°� 1 uncovered � 1 uncovered ; 1 uncovered (9'-0" x 20'-0") ;(9'-0" x 20'-0") (9'-0" x 20'-0") ; :............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Height: 20'-0" i 20'-0" � 30'-0" DHEnvelope: N/A N/A � N/A The existing stairs, proposed to be demolished, are located 16'-0" from the front property line. The existing front wall of the residence is setback 30'-D" from the front property line and the existing trellis is 20'0 " from the front property line. 2 Front setback variance for a first floor addition (18'-0" to property line where 22'-5" is minimum required) 37,931 SFx32%+1,IOOSF+400SF=3,591 SF 2 Variance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on June 26, 2006, the Commission raised concerns regarding the existing masonry wall along the property line, the need for the variance and asked Staff for a setback analysis comparing the impacts of the addition with Crescent Avenue and Howard Avenue as the front of the property. The Commission also discussed concerns with various design details, including the removal of the shutters, the purpose of the stucco molding, the slope of the roof at the addition and the types of windows proposed. 1. The Commission was concerned that the addition does not comply with setback requirements and suggested that the applicant could reconfigure the kitchen or other space to make the addition comply; ■ In a response letter prepared by the applicant, three alternatives are listed that were considered for the project (letter is included as an Attachment). The current proposal was chosen because the applicant felt it would have fewer negative impacts on the property and surrounding properties. The first alternative (to extend out to the minimum required setback) would have provided very small, impractical spaces for the intended use; the second alternative (to expand out towards Howard Avenue) would have eliminated a large part of the established front garden, which is very visible from the street; and the third alternative (to reconfigure inside the residence footprint) would have affected the water and heating systems in house, as well as remove the only bathroom on the 1 S` level. 2. The Commission asked whether the existing masonry wall along Crescent Avenue extends into the Public Right of Way; ■ Planning Staff was able to find both an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department and a Variance granted by the Planning Commission (both in 1979) for the masonry wall along the Crescent Avenue side of the property. These documents have been attached with this report. 3. The existing fa�ade includes shutters but the new plans do not show these. The Commission suggested retaining the shutters and other architectural details throughout; ■ The applicant has stated in the response letter that the shutters will be replaced once the windows are installed. While no specific shutters have been chosen at this time, the applicant informed Staff that the new shutters would be approximately the same size and at the same locations as the existing. They further state that not all of the windows on the residence have shutters, and that the existing shutters have been on the residence for over 25 years and are in disrepair. Please see the attached letter. 3 Variance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue 4. The Commission asked for clarification of the purpose of the new stucco molding along the roof edge; ■ The applicant has noted that the house has uneven metal flashing cab that extends down the front of the house. The new molding is proposed to cover the cap and enhance the appearance of the flashing. Please see the attached letter. S. The Commission asked for confirmation that the roof slope at the addition is adequate for the tile materials; ■ According to the response letter, the slope of the proposed roof is 3" for every 1 foot of length; this exceeds the minimum requirements of 2" for every 1 foot of length. The applicant has provided an extra plan sheet that shows engineering details related to the roof. It is also noted that this roof design had been previously approved by the Building Department (project was previously submitted directly to the Building Department in February 2006, which is when it was determined that a variance and Planning review were required; the Building Department did not have any comments regarding the roof slope, as reflected in the attached comments from the department dated 5/26/2006). 6. The use of wood or aluminum clad windows throughout the house was encouraged; ■ The applicant will be changing the proposed windows to be Marvin wood with aluminum cladding, rather than the previously noted wood with vinyl cladding. 7. The Commission expressed concern regarding the apple tree at the front of the lot and whether the addition would affect the health of the tree; ■ The applicant stated in the response letter that an Arborist was hired to evaluate the construction's impact on the tree. It was concluded that trimming would be required, and would be performed at the drip line of the tree, which would allow for the tree to remain unharmed after construction. The applicant will also be provided protection measures for the tree during construction. 8. The Commission requested that Staff perform a setback analysis as if Howard Avenue was the front of the lot. ■ Staff compared the impacts of the addition with both Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue as the front of the property. Please note the following tables showing each scenario and the affect on setback requirements: 4 Variance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue Setbacks Existing Proposed Required (Howard as front) lst Floor 24'-0" No Change 15'-0" Front 2°d Floor 24'-0" No Change 20'-0" Setbacks (Crescent as front) lst Floor 16'-0" 18'-D"� 22'-S" 2na Floor 30'-6" No Change 22'-5" (Howard as front) 1 St Floor 7'-6" 2 No Change 1 S'-0" Rear Setbacks 2°d Floor 7'-6" 3 No Change 1 S'-0" (Crescent as front) lst Floor 33'-0" No Change 15'-0" 2"a Floor 44'-0" No Change 20'-0" (Howard as front) Interior 33'-0" No Change 7'-0" Side Setbacks Exterior 16'-0" 18'-0" 7'-6" (Crescent as front) Interior 7'-6" No Change 7'-0" Exterior 24'-0" No Change 7'-6" (Howard as front) Garage/ Right 1'-6" 4 No Change 7'-0" Accessory Front 19'-9" No Change 15'-0" Structure Rear 19'-6" No Change 15'-0" (Crescent as front) Exempt Exempt Exempt �- ------------------� -----�----- - r----. __.L�..�__.....:..._�.. �.,I.r.i i eiei �. vywu.o— . e,� (n.e. oo u. J. v..� .�c,e�.u...,e rae., e.,..,..... 2�j With Howard Avenue as the front property line, both the 1 S` and 2nd floor would require a rear setback variance 4 With Howard Avenue as the front property line, the garage would not be exempt from setbacks and would require a variance. With the current proposal, the property would require one (1) variance since the front setback is only affected (the proposal provides a setback approximately 4'-5" less than the 22'-5" that is required). If Howard Avenue was considered the front of the lot, the property would require three (3) setback variances: the rear ls` floor setback (7'-6" proposed where 15' is required), the rear 2"a floor setback (7'-6" proposed where 20' is required), and the right side of the garage (1'-6" proposed where 7'-0" is required). When an accessory structure, such as a detached garage, is located within the rear 30% or 40% of a property, the structure is exempt from setback requirements. If Howard Avenue were the front of the property, the garage would not be located within the rear 30% or 40% of the lot and therefore would be required to comply with setback requirements. 5 Variance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance for the front setback, 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 an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings made for design review. 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 June 9, 2006 (Sheets 1 through 10 and L-1) and the plan submitted to the Planning Department stamped July 12, 2006 (Sheet 11); and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 26, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's May 30, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's May 31, 2006 memo. 3. 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; 4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; : Variance for Front Setback 1601 Howard Avenue 5. 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8. that 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 subj ect to design review; 9. 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; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Kristina Woerner Planner Cc: Margaret Jensen, applicant and property owner 7 • 1. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIlZST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ concerned that the proposed addition doesn't comply with front setback requirements, could reconfigure the kitchen or other space to make the addition comply; ■ the existing masonry wall along Crescent Avenue extends into the public right-of-way, can staff confirm if an encroachment permit was issued; ■ the existing fa�ade along Howard Avenue has character, why are the shutters and other details being removed? Suggestion retaining the existing shutters and other architectural details throughout; ■ have a large front yard with nice landscaping, apple tree may be negatively affected by the proposed addition, need to consider this more closely, show proximity of apple tree to proposed addition more accurately; ■ clarify purpose of new stucco molding along the roof edge, not appropriate for aesthetic reasons, but may o.k. if it is for water proofing; ■ slope of the roof at the addition may be too flat for the tile roof, confirm that slope is adequate; ■ encourage use of wood or aluminum wood clad windows throughout the house, note on plans; ■ house clearly reads as if front is on Howard Avenue, can staff provide a setback analysis with Howard Avenue as the front of the lot; ■ concerned with 6' tall masonry wall along Crescent Avenue, can staff provide fence regulations for this lot; and ■ want to be clear that comments regarding stucco mold, affect on apple tree and suggestions for windows do not affect my review of variance request. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. Question 1. Is there an alternative configuration that would comply with the setback requirements? There were three alternatives that were evaluated in the early design phase. 1. Expand only to the 22.5 setback limit on the Crescent side of the property . That would create an "L" shaped room with one section being 9 x 15 and the other being 7.5 x 16. Not a practical layout for a family kitchen. 2. Expand a portion of the true "front" of the house on Howard out to the side yard setback limitation of 7.5 feet. This would technically be within the regulations but would destroy a beautiful front yard and be an affront to the neighborhood. This is a good example of why, in this case, the regulations do not fit an older established property on a corner lot. 3. The third alternative was to use more of the existing contagious space within the house to expand the kitchen. This design approach would mean the loss of the laundry area and also the only bathroom on the main floor. In addition the water heater and the boiler for the hot water heating system are located in the laundry area. The heating system requires the water to travel directly up to a holding tank on the roof and be circulated throughout the house. The heating system is in part a gravity feed system and would be impossible to relocate. We believe that the proposed design is reasonab�e and it warrants the approval of our request for a variance. It balances the needs of the homeowner with the best interests of the neighborhood. We would ask you to consider the following facts. 1. In the current design we are removing a structure that is both a staircase and a storage area that covers approximately 50% of the area that the proposed addition would cover. The structure extends 2ft. beyond where the proposed addition would end. In addition the new addition presents a lower profile. 2. The proposed addition is within an enclosed side yard that feature a number of mature trees, because of it's location it will have minimum visual impact on the neighborhood. 3. At eighteen feet the addition is inline with front setbacks of the immediate neighbors and is 3 ft greater than the absolute minimum required by the regulation. The 22.5 average setback is not representative of the median setback of the houses on the block. The higher average is artificially created because several houses in the middle are setback from the rest of the houses on the block and have deeper lots because of the curve of the street. 4. Both the Lot Coverage ratio and the ratio of Square Footage to lot size are well below the required levels. We are not overbuilding for the size of the lot. Response to questions from the Planning Commission Page 1 1601 Howard Street JUL 1 2 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. We believe that a hardship exists because the effect of the regulation is that we are expected to maintain two front setbacks. As the commission chairman points out the house clearly presents it's front on Howard where there is an ample setback. We also recognize that simply declaring Howard the front does not eliminate the need for a variance, but it does point out the unique nature of the request for a variance for this property. Question 2. Is the slope of the roof great enough to provide proper drainage? The required minimum slope is 2" for 1ft of length. Our plans call for 3" for 1ft of length. We have provided the plan page that provides engineering details. These plans were approved by the Building Department. Question 3. Does the existing the stucco wall enclosing the side yard violate fence regulations? The wall was built in 1979 by the current owner. It was built after obtaining the proper permits and a variance was issued by the city. This information has been verified by Planning staff. Questing 4. Is the Apple tree in danger? As part of the planning for the project we hired a certified Arborist to evaluate the impact of the construction on the tree. The tree is in need of a good trimming to improve it's structure and health. We have scheduled the Arborist to do the work in advance of the start of construction. The trimming will be at the drip line, which is appropriate for an Apple tree. This approach will enable the tree to prosper despite the new addition. We are also taking additional steps to protect the tree during construction. Question 5. Windows, Building trim and Shutters 1. The windows are Marvin wood clad with aluminum. We had initially selected the Anderson wood clad with vinyl indicated on the plan. 2. The house currently has an uneven metal flashing cap which extends down the front of the house. The trim is intended to cover the cap and enhance the appearance of this flashing. 3. The current shutter are fence boards nailed together with cross pieces. They have been in place for twenty five plus years and need to be replaced. In fact if you look closely you will notice that not all of the windows have shutters. Once we had the new windows and door in place we felt we'd be better able to make a decision on shutters. Response to questions from the Planning Commission Page 2 1601 Howard Street City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org �b, CITY p� �.�E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION '�,,,,.m.�.�� Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance ✓ Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address• � � � � �D U1�.Ol.Y' Gt � �V e�i/l, (�l � APPLICANT Name: I `" � C.�,h��V�e� JP�1/l.S�,1/1 Address:_I In� � i�`��V`G� City/State/Zip: l,l, � 1 �l Phone (w): 6S O g 7 7 �-i� 1 (h): (oS� 3 � 3 ��. 6,S �� ARCHITECTlDESIGNER Name: ��C�il�' �t, I/1 � Address: � I I 7_ 50 �'o�c,t,►--� City/State/Zip: �C�. i o�""( �. e� Q y 3d � Phone (w): � 5� - 4�'-t �-1 - L� g' I I (h): (�� PROPERTY OWNER Name: � a, �/' G1Gi'. � �p.�is C� Address: � �0 � � City/State/Zip: l.lV� �YL 2 � �'�'U 1(� Phone (w): — � - 4 � �h�; �S"Z� - 3� 3 -G�o S' �� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. �,..�- �, ��,�� ;:.`�`� �(",..�i�� 4.,m:.�f � MAY 2 � 2006 GIlY OF LU�-+LiNGAM� PtRNN'�fdG Di=PT. 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 signature: .� Date: � �- �� _� I know about the proposed application and her y authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: "� P-�, Date: �� J '� Date submitted: _ rcaPi=.rar� City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinQame.or� ��, CITY 0 � � BURIJNCiAME �.,� .�.�'o The Planning Commission is required by law to rnake 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 e.ztraordinary circumstances or conditioHs app[icable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. ��,� �� r� �'� MAY 2 � 2006 S �� L�"' �'` �c�fv oF eu� �i_ira;..,.an�,s_ � PI�4NN1;��, o:;r>,- b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable properry loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. �e e d..� a- c�- e...� c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the viciniry or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. � � / ' � � i d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the e�eisting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general viciniry? �� S � e a, oL..- VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.butlingame.org a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other altemarives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the properiy, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing struchues? How is this properly different from others in the neighborhood? b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right aHd what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exceprion? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitarion or hardship on the development of the properiy? c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvemehts in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenienc� How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighUshade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance. Why will the structure or use within the structure not affect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, dischazges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safetv. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, traffic) or fue services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city's policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? d. How will the proposed project be co`npatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aestherically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattem of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compaze its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will the structure or use withi.n the structure change the character of the neighborhood? T'hink of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. Will there be more traffic or less parking available resulting from this use? If you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed project be comparible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be � consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. VAR.FRM �.�rvy k ��:;` t �6t�a.��Cm��.u�S1 �,i(�� ., � Margaret Jensen 1601 Howard Variance Request MAY 2 5 2006 Response to Questions A-D and Table of Setbacks CI�fY OF L3u� �i.��VuA€��:_ !��'.RtiNiSJG, D�-r � A. The home at 1601 Howard Avenue is on a corner lot. The front of the house is on Howard while the narrow side of the lot ---legally the front is on Crescent Avenue. The entire house is set back on the lot giving a deep front yard on the Howard side. This leaves no area to expand behind the house. The side of the house on Crescent is where the kitchen is located: this is the area in need of expansion. A large part of the area desired for this expansion is currently occupied by a structure (staircase and storage room) which will be removed. A variance is requested to allow for a small addition, net 165 ftz to the kitchen. This woutd allow for an eating area and larger family type kitchen. This is in keeping with the new construction and remodels through out the community. The current structure is setback 16 feet; the setback of the new addition will be 18 feet. The average on the block of Crescent is 22.4 feet (this does not include the far corner house on Crescent and Barriolet whose set back is less than 10 feet). The average is dramatically affected by the fact that Crescent Avenue is truly crescent shaped. The street curves away from the properties in the middle of the block on our side of the street. The homes in the middle of the block have a larger numeric setback while a visual sighting down the block would show that the fronts of all homes on the block are within 3 or 4 ft of each other. B. The homeowner of more than 30 years wishes to use her kitchen fully to accommodate the informal entertaining that most homes of this size allow. This kitchen currently is 9x15 and the area for the table is 3 x9 with one side of the table against a wall. This addition would give more space to the preparation area as well as a more appropriate si2e table. C. The proposed addition wilt not affect tra�c noise, lighting, landscape, sun, shade, or view of the neighbors. There should be no impact to the neighborhood. The architecture of the addition is consistent with the existing home. The side of this home's lot on Crescent Avenue is currently enclosed by a solid stucco wall so the change from the current stucco staircase structure to the new addition is obscured by this stucco wall. The addition would present a lower profile than the existing structure. The top of the roof of the addition will be at the plate line between the first and second floors of the home; this is lower than the existing structure, which e�ends 4 ft above the plate line. The proposed setback of 18 ft is equal to the seatback of the neighboring home. (See table of setbacks for the block on page 2) D. The new structure will be in all ways compatible with the architecture of the house. The new construction replaces an existing structure whose set back is 16 feet and the new will be 18 feet. The new addition will have a sloping Spanish tile roof in keeping with the style of the home and others in the neighborhood. The new addition adds very little to the mass of the home as it replaces an existing structure. Even with the addition the size of the home is within the requirements for the ratio of square footage to lot size and consistent with the size of other homes on the block. Page 1 of 2 Margaret Jensen 1601 Howard Variance Request Response to Questions A-D and Table of Setbacks House Address Setback from Curb minus 12ft Easement 6101 Howard 16.0 147 Crescent 18 145 Crescent 20 141 Crescent 20 137 Crescent 24 133 Crescent 28 129 Crescent 30 125 Crescent 25J 121 Crescent 28 117 Crescent 21 113 Crescent 20.5 105 Crescent 18 101 Crescent* 9.5 Mean 22.4* � �,��: � �� c�A� 2 5 �-�06 �� ,� �`p` ��U��p�PT. � * This number does not include the house at 101 Crescent which is a corner lot with the front of the house on Crescent but the legal front is on Barriolet. Page 2 of 2 Margaret Jensen 1601 Howard Variance Request Response to Questions A-D and Table of Setbacks House Address Setback from Curb minus 12ft Easement 6101 Howard 16.0 147 Crescent 18 145 Crescent 20 141 Crescent 20 137 Crescent 24 133 Crescent 28 129 Crescent 30 125 Crescent 25.7 121 Crescent 28 i ll Crescent 21 113 Crescent 20.5 105 Crescent 18 101 Crescent* 9.5 Mean 22.4* .. ::: � MAY 2 5 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAfV1E PLANNING DEPT. * This number does not include the house at 101 Crescent which is a corner lot with the front of the house on Crescent but the legal front is on Barriolet. Page 2 of 2 0 `Y�� V�� -V.l- i�P.W��L4�.N{%L�.L � l. ,✓ SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� CALIFORNIA 94010 Mr. and Mrs. Ken Jensen 1601 Howard Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jensen: January 17, 1979 Since there was no appeal to or�suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the January 8, 1979 Planning Commission a�proval of your�fence exc�ption application became effective January 16, 1979. This aoplication was to allow construc'cion of a 6' high fence in a portion of the front setback which is at the side of the house at � 1601 Howard Avenue. The January-8, 1979 minutes of the Planning Commission state the permit was approved with the condition that the � fence be constructed in general agreement with the sketches submitted by the apqlicant. All site improvements and construction work vrill require separate application to the Bui]ding Department. JRY/s � / cc. �Ci ty C1 erk Building Department Yours very truly, J�. �. �fi- John R. Yos /�ssistant City Planner Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 1, Block 7, Burlingame Park No. 2; APN 028-293-010) � TEL:(415) 342-B931 �.. � INTER-OFFICE MEMO �`� T0: C. F. Schwalm, City Mgr. �. f ^i � December 13, 1978 Re: Special Encroachment Permit - 1601 Howa rc� Aven ue The Owner's at 1601 Howard, request permission to construct a retaining wall approximately one foot high and fence on top alona the back of walk on Crescent Avenue. The encroachment will be two feet into street right-of-way along a portion of the lot frontage beginning seventeen feet from Howard Avenue. This fence and wall is to replace a deteriarated hedge that was removed. This fence is an enclosure for the area used as the "backvard" of this corner lot. The Owner requested a height of six feet. Zoning rea,uirements limit height to five feet without a variance. Approval of the Permit is recommended with the six foot height if a variance is approved. . AMR: mg � -/� . ; . �,r A. M. Rebarchi k Assistant City Engineer T0: CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 14, 1978 RE: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT THIS REQUEST FOR A TWO—FOOT ENCROACHMENT IS MADE BY A RESIDENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HOWARD AND CRESCENT. . /"'; �/� ; i:!/ r� % �� , �� C ,` , .; •` ', �" �-�- , EiARLES F. SCHWALM � i CFS/gf _ �� `��'� // -�- , � S$Y1IV�Tii-�.rnq .T� .l.l.lJ �Ct:�et:ri � .t.r � ' 0 8L61 £ I ��a � �ii� � �] c`l) `�] 0 ENcroncl�, n;�T FT;IZ; iTT . � r , . . ' T0: � � � In compliance with your request of December 6 1978 � , and subject to all of the terms, conditions a�d r.estric- tzons seL- €orL-li herein, permission is hereby �ranted to const� fence alon back ed e of sidewalk 2 feet into riaht-of-wa from— ti o �erty l i n e) a lonq CrescPnt Avenue run�� Southerly along Crescent Avenue approximate7y 43 feet beginning 17 feet from the southerly right-of-way line of Howard Avenue. ---- , at 1 rd Avenue, Burlingame, Ca. Adc�ress -`—'- 1 Block 7,. Burlingame Park No. 2 • Lot, oc.c anc, su uivision or ega descrip�ion (Assessor's Parcel No. AP No. 28-293-01 . �. General Provisions • ' 1• Definition; Revocability. The term "encro�ch�r,eat" is.used in this permit to meatl any structure or object of anv kind or character which is pZaced in�under� or over, any por.4ion of the iight--of-way of the CiL-y of Bur_lin�amc. This pennit is revocable on titteen (15) days' noL-icc. � 2. Ac- ccpt-c>»c.e �f nrovj.r. ,_ i.o_r,,, , " IL is ur�cicrsi:ood ancl nrrced�by the pC1miLLee L-h�t the cioi.nF; of �ny taoric widcr t:ha.s P��'��-l' sI�a1Z consLiL-u(:e an 7CCCPC111CC 'af Chc p�-ovisions. "�- _ ��,rl`{�� . � December 11, 1978 : • .. • (llate] - M►'. and Mrs. Kenneth A. Jensen .� � 1601 Howard Avenue � � Burlingame, California 94010 � � � : , 0 Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 26, 2006 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff X Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-010 Tuesday, May 30, 2006 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: � ._..... ! �:/ � ci'' Date: S/`�� Project Comments Date �� From: Subject: Staff Review: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) May 26, 2006 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-010 Tuesday, May 30, 2006 All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. Provide fully dimensioned plans. Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to http://www.enerqy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. Provide lighting at all exterior landings. The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. - - — _-_ ... Reviewed k�—i�l , / , /�� Date: . ��/ iK `� Project Comments Date 1�•� From Subject: Staff Review May 26, 2006 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 �( Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-010 Tuesday, May 30, 2006 No comment at this time. Reviewed by: �--� L��`— Date: ��i'��a� Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 26, 2006 d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558- 7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558- 7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-010 Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 5/30/2006 Project Comments � Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: May 26, 2006 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558- 7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Request for front setback variance for a first floor addition at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-293-010 Tuesday, May 30, 2006 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). For guidance on what these BMPs are, please refer to the attached brochure. Please include appropriate BMPs as plan notes. Discharge from any construction activity is prohibited from accessing the storm drain system. The public right of way or easement is not allowed to be used as a construction staging area and should not be used for any construction-related activity. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: � � Date: 05/30/06 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a front setback variance for a first floor addition to the existin�residence at 1601 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, Margaret Jensen, propertv owner, APN: 028-293-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Julv 24, 2006, 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 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. 2. Said variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 241h day of Julv, 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and front setback variance. 1601 Howard Avenue Effective August 3, 2006 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9, 2006 (Sheets 1 through 10 and L-1) and the plan submitted to the Planning Department stamped July 12, 2006 (Sheet 11); and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 26, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's May 30, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's May 31, 2006 memo. 3. 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; 4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 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; 9. 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; -2- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and front setback variance. 1601 Howard Avenue Effective August 3, 2006 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -3- . �� CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 -_ �i ao TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696 3790'� �,� S' ^, www.burlingame.org `Y� `��ia � ' f »R:. �F '�" 3 � �..�..r--+� "' �,�i� �.[_�: _ ,'G�.t � 5'i-�� .: � .,t ai= .. �yY.'^ t �p ( rhN i � 4 ; �;c: 9 /. ��^'�" d:aS"��:. .-... y FS��F."':� � t �. Site: 1601 HOWAR� A1/ENUE �°� ' °��" �-`�" The City of Burlingatne Planning Commission announces the following publie hearing on Monday, July 24, 2006 at 7:00 PoMm in the City Hall (ouncil Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for front setback variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1601 HOWARD AVENUE zoned R�l. (APN 028-293-010) Mailed: July 14, 2006 (Please refer to other• side) �.. .. . '' �, � L� _ � . �-:� _. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department af 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only tHose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the;notice or in written conesporidence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible :for informing their tenants abouf this notice. For addifional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank ��ou. �_: ' ��.; Margaret Monroe " � � � � ' � �� r'' � �° City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) . ,�,�.. . � o�� t. T��y ,�� '"�Ri.� . �"a f �f ' : �� '�} �X b f �r �i�� .. . L ..k* �`Y11� . • � �.��u" ', - � . � � -, � ��, . � -.�w � � � L �'" r�a�,.' 1 ��- � , `� ' , �� a�'x ,� �� ``, � qM'� ti,� . . �" ' r � s�;'�a,-. F�" � � � r,�,� � �r� � _� . �, . �� , ,'� ,� �'�r"%' "� t, � � = r , ;�� , � ,,�, �,� , .,�j '1� ,, , ' ., ;�� , �``' � t , � a �� '' �k� x 4 rv',�:�`» t } r, �Yb' � . � � ��';`�" ,y' • � ��,A � � �fi.m�"""' >�l �'R.. � 3i'iT � � ��t .a,�� "��e y � «. v� q. #tp, � Ai'� ' \� #1.� .x.'S?:� *rY �q$� .:. "% ' •4� � *�� '. . j Y� . �» . `�t '�*� ' � �� ip- � .a ar �; ' �� , � � § i � � � � �y�4� f � x ' ;, � � � � � n �� +N . � �,'�.,� , r � .� e � x �., - �: , �* � • � 'a� v � � � ti � � �, � �. � � �� , � �. � ��. .: �. �' � ' " � � � ,.�:� �` � �, �� x � � �: Wyv�v,•n, ! . .. . ��+,� � H. �tg�, �„ '�'� ,1C�-�F; Y � ��4 , 4 . 4 V F �' tn . � � �'�k,w ` �M" ( �� ' . i � �� '� � � 4. _ � �$ �� `5 �a� •'k-, ' �'''r,"�, r{� . '"'�-� ¢�., ,.� �;... y M�. �,�p �. �,, ,�ka�x `�: � s� t ��4 � • t� 3r �� { � X °' � �i « � X '�' M ,,. t�� . . " � "� # .� � ' �'ti''>'�i' • fi ^v`"... : ^ � � � �'S'�,.. � ' � � ° � ,� • :�.; �0: � ^`�: p�a�i. � 5 �A �, �• n!' � 4"x"�""'e�.,m,<w-..�. � �J�:y .��+,r �h �'�"�, F., .r�. � `°"�. , �, �'� � '` " .;; � 6�+,,��'� 6° i'4.��, `� � ',� '�. � „:� �#� Et. 'v. �z. 'K�� ^� �e .��s � �r� ;��n, �. �,_ � � , ,� """i�%-. r. ; . . . • r - �F T ,. � , �� . .�ap �� , . , �� ,r�� ,� � � = � � �. >::, .. . , � ; �� ' ' y,� _ � � � � � � .;�� ". { �'�i� �� ' �� r .,a ,y�+ �.",� -bt� � h �� `�� .�� t .:�� '°�e,; "�'` ��'. "�. �', v �y y ` %A r i. i . *l� •a a�y, �r � �'� ,,� - ^�:+&�g�1,,.. _ ,s.�; � �►.�,�� a ,a��`�;'•,�",, .� hh�D - ` n, ,l �r � v�* , . '� � ';�, vi ` .�` , , . a -�� .. .l�x`\• ,,.< �-��j�;r.4� . �. ,� . �`� / r . .. . , f, ��^' , '�� .. � F� J y ., � a r a�,.�'� • . , _ ,p '' ,.,,�� 'S ' r� r � � � ,:+'� �� .�,��,r ,� t �x, ��.�. ,'. ,�..` If � a1' � �� . �aT ��.. � � .ti � 1 .,�;�... � � /}�; ,� ? �� .kr *�„''l . � � �""` � � .�' . �"� f /� � ��'"' .. �'�" ��"r � a� y-. �� r� n�t{�},,� �,y,,},�� ,.�}� 9 1� ti e . ��'.`�� . �`` ' ' 3i, a� ��'x . .. �. � "�F`ri �x . � ° � , �� .s. . " ��k: � ,a...w .i � � "� �'�d'. � ��+:. ��n��. � ��I'.` ��r �`' �� _.;T /� .r �.r��ri' �.s` �w� � y/ � -- �i�. ',�� 1�� 'i�, 3..: �x .. � ��,� � v<�h ".' '�"�. ��+ . - „��",?: `� f '�s y�:P ._ �*tik v: �s �L�. - � � ' ,.� � � # ..T � y ,� k A; fi ' ��s�'�'a i ' r � ,��`� � ' '�� +� p c f <'1" , �� `� .��t �.J'� .� � J ,w� �� ,, ��, � ?` � ��. � � � � � t; � �� a ; i � �,�� , � '� ,��. t�� . �', �� , �, � � � ��y7� r��b �� Fst e4� �� ,� � „ < t w . �� , �� j . �� y� � a� - ti _ . ,. �� .� �� . ` `� �'• r � ��+ , a,�� . � ;r .�� •.`� �� 1��Z �'f�' : . .• � _ . .. � � � I �; � , ✓,,� , :,�\ � ��.� �°� .��.r.;� Y , _ :r „ � ti � ,�' ,� --� -� ��. � � �` `' �'� ' "° �`'�' � ` �� '''v� �� f� � � �i ' �� - �`t. ', � � r� :'z �� -e., !/� s`S' •ar`�� .�'r'�,�� . � , a:' ,�47 i'�; . • �w y � M �2ry ` a � i�' �^ � . . K "x7.,��. t0'rI' +f� } � _ 7 , f� ��i4^�� A �� x,e�: Y. -, i�'�." .. .. ": . �'..Y�"}�r.� _��k � s �, �� ,,�'.. ,,,� .� �. /.,�, _.� ,ro. rr « � ��\ �� » '� r q .' �I��r .� �,�, � � � . � �� r�. � } 1 � � ` 4�'� � ' , � �. � � �I', �.�,t �� '�'. s ,S L�d��l�. `' �. Is� '�� .y0� ^�L P. '1' � - � ['N.+�&'� F��+' �� 'i�n . ` � ..1 ''4�' .�c.\ ¢ ,\'� / - � �^' - qg � .-2't ' S," �j�'� '� � �. ` � .. � 'i 'G :� t . � � ; J . ,hX'� � �, � � �� ,`M1 �� `�.. + s.,� �, '� ^5�� p„_. : �•. r �} � , R IiI�R� . �.,i. � � 3� � ��y+! � � . 'y�} � � � � � �'. I { � . ,� .. '� P�' � ��°r � �� ' f� *' ,.�{1��,1 ` 'F\ yd T�� ,. .., �.. . ,�` ',^, � �, � � . � � � ':::c1'r � �a - �r.y yy,&qy✓ ,� .';� �, �a' � '�.� `4� �;} T�e� ��. . � •A�� y,,t ' y � "' �� 4 ' � � . �SL ��/�' y .. 1 ;a. / ^, .'�� `� N � � ` �. 't y� �+�' e "2 'qv *��' % �' j �� ` ; �� "�� ' . � `"'M'� � � - � �. � ,�`' .� ' � � ;�,"� , . � �. n � �_ � ., } y.. � � _,; � l, t � �L� �� 4 ' �,,. ,�`.. 7s . ,� �t, c '`� ,.lp4 ; �'�. P {` , _ . ' .. e� il� � � a a t ,.�i � a �� '; T'� ".. ,�-ijk.�� >°' x �. �1! `�� i9 ,a �r- �:,.. . � „�@ � 3 A- � � ; � � '�S`�� {�z a. �� r�vFy . x� °,� m^ � a.� . iC,� � �'; ,�" . .t . i, ; ..� : y^ F +�+ a , : . c ti �, ' � •'�* ti �,. C � ., � � � ,�. �, ., -i . . ,,,�''� , �. ,r�;� �`i. �4�y,,,r ., . .: �.�, .�'r"'��a�`'s #,. � ��_.�G � ''�'� �a . «, �.. w�'�"u' z "''z�t� 'z�"j� `�, � � �rµ��,� "4j 4�r. ' -.�' � �,, � �� . �� • I • . • � _ _ �� (► y��'.2% �.� . i�' ,:5 ,,,,' �.ar� {�� , �.,AS�.� J}i� < �' - . � � � � � � �� ; ,. , ;�. ,,J.; �1 �•"�� ` . sl �.. �� ,� � • •� � '4� . Ym �,,, r r' �a�" � ,. . 's4� � �; '�° i �i';� ;�� r... `�' / �. � *'fM'' . }t N