HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 Bloomfield Road - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM # 8
Special Permit for Height arcd
Design Review for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 25 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: 6/ 14/99
Request: Special permit for 31'-0" height (30'-0" allowed) and design review for a first and second-
story addition.
Applicants and Property Owners: Steve & Jackie DeLorenzi APN: 029-292-090
Lot Area: 7500 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and
location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences
not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-
family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
Date Submitted: This project was submitted to the Planning Department after October 23, 1998 and
was reviewed under the R-1 District Regulations now in effect.
Summary: The applicants, Steve & Jackie DeLorenzi, are proposing a iirst and second-story addition
to a single-family dwelling which is subject to design review at 25 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1. The
project requires the following:
1. special permit for 31'-0" building height where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed; and
2. design review for a iirst and second-story addition.
The existing one-story house now contains 1913 SF of floor area, including a 146 SF covered porch and
586 SF two-car garage, and has two bedrooms. The 582 SF addition on the first floor will add a family
room, a laundry room and expand the kitchen. The 809 SF second-story addition will add a master
bedroom and bath, for a total of three bedrooms. The existing detached two-car garage will be replaced
by a new detached two-car garage which measures 23'-11' x 22'-6" interior dimensions. The total floor
area of the remodeled house and garage will be 3196 SF, 0.43 FAR (3900 SF, 0.52 FAR allowed),
excluding 100 SF of the covered porch, which. is exempt from floor area ratio calculations.
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (April 7, 1999 memo) that roof drainage and lot drainage
shall be to the front street, and that a property survey will be required if the proposed addition is
considered new construction. The Fire Marshal notes (April 5, 1999 memo) that the east wall of the
garage is to be 1-hour construction. The Chief Building Ofiicial had no comments on the project.
Special Perniil for Height and Desigrr Review for a Frrst and Second Story Addition
PROPOSED
,
�: ,.
Front: Ist flr
2nd flr
Side (left)
Side (right):
Rear: 1 st flr
2nd flr
LOT
COVERAGE
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.• *
DH
ENVELOPE:
EXISTING
no change 13'-0"
(existing nonconforming)
46' -2" N/A
14'-4"
7' -0„
63' -6"
71' -0"
34.9%
(2619 SF)
3196 SF/
0.43 FAR
14' -4"
4' -0"
95' -0"
N/A
25.5%
(1913 SF)
1813 SF/
0.24 FAR
2 covered in garage
(23' -11 " x 22' -6")
+ 1 uncovered
*31'-0" (from avg. top
of curb)
meets requirements
2 covered in garage
(23'-11" x 22'-6")
+ 1 uncovered
21'-6"
25 Bloomfield Road
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15' or block avg.
20' -0"
4' -0"
4' -0"
15' -0"
20' -0"
40%
(3000 SF)
3900 SF/
0.52 FAR
1 covered
(10' -0" x 20' -0")
+ 1 uncovered
30' /2 1/z stories
see code
BEDROOMS: 3 2 N/A
*Special permit required for 31'-0" building height where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed.
This project meets all other zoning code requirements.
Design Reviewer Comments: The design reviewer notes that there is no established architectural style
in the neighborhood, the houses are varied and are one and two story, of the same scale. He notes that
the proposed rear garage as a separate structure is compatible with the neighborhood and is a
replacement for an existing garage. The mass of the second floor is held back from the street
minimizing the new bulk. Roof shapes of the existing house are hipped with a small hipped dormer in
the front. The addition will have some shadow impacts on the neighboring house to the north due to
the new higher mass.
The design reviewer had originally reviewed the project on April 23, 1999 and noted that the new
addition is proposed to be gabled without dormers which is not compatible with the rest of the form,
and that the new portions should be tied more clearly to the existing house design. A meeting was held
between the design reviewer and the applicant. The applicant submitted revised plans to address the
design reviewer's recommendations.
2
SpecialPernrit for Heighl and Design Reriew for a i%irst and Second StoryAdditior: 25 BJoomfield Road
The design reviewer notes that the revised design shows a hipped dormer over the bathroom as
recommended. The reviewer also noted that a window has been added in the second floor wall facing
the street as recommended, and that the inconsistencies in roof slopes and edges had been conected.
The reviewer noted an inconsistency with the dormer overhangs, and the drawings date stamped June
2, 1999 have been revised to provide consistent overhangs (18" overhangs proposed) on the roof plans
and elevations.
Conclusion: The design reviewer notes that the resubmittal reflects some improvements to the design
and recommends design approval with the condition that any inconsistencies on the overhangs be
corrected. Staff would note that the plans date stamped June 2, 1999 show corrected overhangs that are
all 18" wide.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning
Commission must fmd that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or
addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and
neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) . removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary
and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal
that is proposed is appropriate.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the iindings stated in the summary of the design reviewer's analysis of the project
and in the reviewer's memo of May 20, 1999, the project is found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's five design review guidelines and consistent with the special permit criteria.
3
Special Permit for Heig{tt ar:d Design Review for a First m:d Second Story Addition 25 Bloomfreld Road
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include iindings, and the reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped June 2, 1999, sheets A-1.0 through A-3.2, with all overhangs of 18";
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, 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;
that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 7, 1999 memo and the Fire Marshal's April 5,
1999 memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Maureen Brooks
Planner
c: Steve & Jackie DeLorenzi, applicant
25bloomf.sr
�
,oURL1N¢AMi, CITY OF BURI,INGAME
o` APPLICATION TO TI� PLANNING COMNIISSION
�e� .e�
Type of Application: Special Permit V'ance Other_
ProjectAddress: G-`� �1���"� �- 1� �� �
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): ���� � 2- "I � — ��� �
APPLICANT
Name: ��.�'�� d��� � �s �r eMZ(
Address: �S ��l c.xa� �e� c� �u7
City/State/Zip �= ��'�-�- C i�
Phone (w) : � 15 `�X-� - � � 1 �
�h�; � I�St� 3y1--1 � �I �
fa�c:
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �,A U � �7 �,� �i�D� cJ e �
PROPERTY OWNER
�
Name: � ��=� � � �^� e,ti,
Address: � � �CJI O�`�/� e ���
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
fax:
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
Address: �� ,a-ZTE�=—
City/State/Zip: �� 1=• �• �`� I � u
Phone (w):_ � 1 S- 2-S'z_ - U"L-`� 9
(h):
fax:_ � I j' Z� �- ca �o ��
contact person for this application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �t ���a � �� o� I�DD i T c o r.� �� (�� ��oc�2
'R-�i� a�� i T� o �1
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
'(,'"`t � �1C�.�.�0�-� ��
�- - `{ - t �j
Applicant's Signature Date
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
----------------------------------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ---------------------------------------
Date Filed: Fee:
�ECEIO��[�
MAR - 41999
Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
• �a`, cirr o.n
BURLJNGAME
�..m �
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
1. Explain why tlze blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent ivith the existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neiglaborhood.
"�{{E R+�of- L. ��� oF � p'K�wc��`c?� �Eccr�� t= �-� R 1� �
C--ltk i e EE � C�� '�or= Li �� s�,c p L,
2• Explairt how tlze vaiiety of roof tine, facade, exteriorfinisla materials and elevatior�s of the proposed
neiv structure or additiort are consistent ivitlz the existing structure, street and neighborhood.
���z,er'oS� (Loc� S�op` o� 'Tu� �S�COND
�wo s� -�xe�g
�-c �O � 1-FZ j_1 M �T � �/ O N ��1 �(`1L 'Fao i . `j'{-�,r �o �$_G �
/
�cv .�.g.�a�c� �- � R-E P �n-r`.I �xe� � �-t�4 � s µ � � c� �-� .
J
3. Hotv rvill tlae proposed project be consistent fvith the residential design guidelines adopted by the city
(C. S. 25. 57) ?
"r�E '�E� tC�N '�ZtFL-EGTs Tt-�c cN i�u7 oF N1A-� e� � n�c� 'tc-�-G
��(BTCFJC� �60'FL.cNC o�C.DPc W(?I'1� �-� �k�fls'O�� "�o�
� ����' �. •
4. F,.rplain hotiv the removal of a�zy trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition
is neeessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed
for tlze removal of any trees? Explain ivhy this mitigation is appropriate.
N � T R� 5 ��z.� �-o � �.
Y�.='M.o v � C� ,
�������I�
sp.frm/ll/98
�A� � 41999
00 CITY OF BURLINGAME
� 2�J� PLANNING DEPT.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the
rtew construciion or additioja are consistent with the existing structure's design and
with the existing street and neighborhood.
How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those propertiesl If
neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and
characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from
neighboring properties. Neigboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street.
How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulkl If there is no change
to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other
structures in the neighborhood or area.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior�nisla materials and elevations
of the proposed new struciure or addition are consistent with the exisiing structure,
street and neighborhood.
How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhoodl
If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of
development on adjacent properties in the neighborhoodl Explain why your proposal "fits" in the neighborhood.
How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhoodl Think of "character" as the image or tone
established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don't feel the character of the
neighborhood will change, state why.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city?
Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet
these guidelines?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located withi�a the footprini of afay new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestaiion requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this miligalion
is appropriate.
Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposall If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are
"protected" under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to
replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so.
sp.fim/11/98
, �- '
Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311
Burlingame, CA 94010
MEMO:
Date: 5-20-99
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, CA 94010
ref: 25 Bloomfield — DeLorenzi -- RESUBMITTAL
RECEIVED
MAY 2 41999
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the
plans for the second story addition. I have the following comments regarding the design
guidelines. Resubmittal comments are in Bold Type.
1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existin�neighborhood:
• There is no established architectural style in the neighborhood.
• Houses are varied and are one and two story, of the same scale.
2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood:
• Proposed rear garage as a separate structure is compatible with the neighborhood and
is a replacement for existing garage.
3 Architectural Stvle Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistencv of the
Structural DesiQn.
Mass of the second floor is held back from the street minimizing the new bulk.
• Roof shapes of the e�sting house are hipped, with a small hipped dormer in the front.
4��-es�-@��2i6 'T'�� a:s� ... t,,, a •�+• * .�.o o ��:.,
rr o o r
� '
Revised plans show hipped dormer over bathroom. Dormer overhangs as
shown should be verified—provide same overhang on front and sides and correct
the roof plan.
�
Revised plans show a small window has been added facing the street.
. .
^^K��+ +'�� a��..,:^rt Corrected.
, - �
•
�
. Corrected
• Consider some way to break down the scale of the two story wa11 facing the driveway
and the rear hard. Hipping the roof at the rear would also help.
• Garage design is a gable as well, and depending on the rest of the design, this might
also be improved if it were hipped.
,
�e�t�o�-e�e;�+:,, ,.�..�.. �eeon�ee�,,, D�� o o,.+ +�,e a.. .,;,,,,�
�, �
Corrected
Upper level north elevation is largely a blank wa11 due to location of closets. Might
consider some small windows in closets or other design element to add interest and
reduce effect of large blank wall.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side:
• Addition will have some shadow impacts on neighbaring house to the north, due to
new higher mass.
5. Landscaping and Its Proportion the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components:
• Landscaping not shown.
Summarv:
..
.
Resubmittal reflects some improvements to the design. Corrections to the overhangs have
been discussed with the designer, and should be corrected if it does not match the other
building conditions before building pernuts are issued.
Recommend design approval with condition that any inconsistencies on the overhangs be
corrected.
Jerry L. Winges, AIA
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 1, 1999
TO: �CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUII,DING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for special permit for height and design review for a first
and second-story addition at 25 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN:
. 029-292-090. (Revised Plans - previous comments attached)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, April 5, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/7anice/Ruben
y �� / � Date of Comments
f � v �,u.ti` e, c�--�� C o� �-�°�` `-� e� j�.ac�' ��-o
� � U
� �
��_ a�, f �. �,,...e.� �-- .
� �
f ? _ � /'�'�z,� �' C'` r`�" c.Q�j / -
) v J � (%c,ic�� -c
..�:�-�.� �°� ��`" �i �
. - � ruv� c� ,,� � u_c l� �
��=��-' v' �`'
� ��Q �
�
�
�
f� il o j� C� LEf.�'
I /
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 1, 1999
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUII.DING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for special permit for height and design review for a first
and second-story addition at 25 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN:
029-292-090. (Revised Plans - previous comments attached)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, April S, 1999
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
��� Date of Comments
�� CC�,S`� 1�,�, � D a.�- `� ���- 1 I�1 c��
I
�
��1/lS� ���--� ( �`�
�
, ,�
• CITY OF BURLINGAME
r���Q-» PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� �BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 696-7250
� �5 HLOOMFIELD ROAD ARN:Q►�9—�9�-090
� Applic�tion fnr special permit for height and PUBLIC HEARING `
design review far a first and second story NOTICE
��ddition at 25 Ploamfield Road, zoned R-1.
; The City of Ht�r2ingame F�lanning Commission �
� announces the following p�iblic hearing on
I Monday, June 14, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
a ounci am ers located �t 5Q�1 F'rimr�ose
� Road, Bu�^Tingame, Californi�. `
Mailed June 4, 1999
�
(Please refer to other side) --
'�� � :�°9 n':�, , .� � ��'���
• • A co of the a
PY l
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca
�
�;.
��
If you �challenge
�.
raising onlyx ttio;
described in:�:the
at or prior to t�i
� �; S'
Property owner:
tenants abo�iit tt
696-7250. �.'hai
� f .
�
�
Margazet Monr`�
�:.:
City Planner �
CITY OF B URLINGAME
and.plans,for:this;project. may be reviewed prior
Planriing Deparfinent at; �.501 Primrose Road,
1bhG,^;h�tl�.$. .. - .� xr _ ' � «.
. ec
�,�. ..'4 i, i >" 5 �` i:t, .. t, � -�
�:
x>
� r:;.
�, ,�.
be limited to
.blic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
��r4. r�� -r��
- . . � �, w�3 ''� �� � ; ��a;�_
°�
� � PUBL�C„ HEARtNC NOTICE
(Please refer to other side) � �
�.. 4 � �... � �
�
_ � �: ,
. � - . .r .�.� �.
�� � ;
� - - �� - �
� � � Dw � � �-r _.
- � Ro�t�
�,# , � � �
�'� � � f
,-� a �� � �
, � �
,
. � �.� �� •�' 1�
. � � ���
�
—� � , ��� �', ., � �, - ,
�..� �- �
� � � . � �
� � �- -
� � _. � �
, �► �
; . � �
_`°.,.' �,�'- ,,,,� ,
�� ` G l. �R E f�l D O IL(
- RoA �
. ��a � �
, � - ' ` � '' s�`
_. a .<:� , , ,� � � ♦ * .
N.� �� ' .
..._ . . � �
, � ,
,� ,
� �� -
-- i � � � �� � _
1�
i
�. � �
�' _ � �
m �
' 3` 3z 2.4- � g �co � 4
�LoOMF'tE�,D �oq �
�d� � � , �" L�i 27 25 2-� l7 J6
� �s .
�
� � � • .
� `
� �-�-�.: : � R�' � R-3
�i► � ..
(
:
:
,;
�'
_ �
�
�
�
_ �
4
�
. �
. �
�
�
• u.
• o
+ii� �
. v
.
I
�
7
� �
�
�
LI�
�
•
:
I
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMP'rION,
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
� '`� i • �:- � ��� �� �
_ .�� .�• ��- .�- � � -
�: �11 • �' �1 .�� �-, �� '. • _ ._�� -� •�� •r •1� •� C ••11 ' � ��.� •�-_�
. . ,. /- .� -� • ��'� •.J- i�� � � � ���
\ - " �
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
June 14, 1999 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a11 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 Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or
structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such
units is hereby approved.
2. Said special permit for height and design review application are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such special permit for height and design
review aze as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directecl that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
CHAIRMAN
I, S Vi i�a , 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 14th day of June , 1999 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval categorical exemption, special permit for height and design review
25 Bloomfield Road
effective June 21, 1999
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped June 2, 1999, sheets A-1.0 through A-3.2, with all overhangs of 18";
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, sha11 be subject to design review;
3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 7, 1999 memo and the Fire Marshal's
April 5, 1999 memo shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
2
City of B�rlingame Plan Review Process �qN� Building Departmer,t
�sl�t�,` - �]?rt ��-�-� 696-1600
Pf�ANNING DEPARTNlENT 69h-7250 ���M,p��
PAGE: I 3�� I���j
«��>
Job Address: �5 8 �ObV`nt-1��d ��• Application Number:
Job Description: 1`�fi �ci. 02� �lpor ��.��cM LG�� ��.�,•r� - 1 S�C� '-��- �
---- ��(�i� Nc� — (���c��-� �,c,c�w�/�'�
�
�
�)LU`1 C�V
�
�
�
�l'—a��
f r(_� �t c-
� � �,, � � `�� 5�,����
'� ft �{ � i�,� �fr �"%�/ ,' ,
l la I 5�
5�
°r<�
C't11�,�'ed I�vr�, !�l(o �� �
P�; <<�E, � I � � ��
58(0 � �', �:� �5� (� � ;�
1 C� I !i �, � ► � w�t.,,. ra { � �1 � � ,�,., � .s .: � s v„ n, .. �,� " _ �.�.r� .,• r. A .. �� _ i
.
5, s%
;
3
�
✓ 1 � l�.-ti� ��A��...
" {-�-r� u � I 1 � I S � �i�i�t �t r , -� S t=' 3� `!L -� t I oU �`� � -�
�%� � � �-- �oo��-�, �t� S� P�Y�(= i�ol � � � � �.cx� �� � �` a���
�,z�,,,�� �:�-- 5�� 5� ��� �- � ►� ���i �� "-� 3'� �%Ca ��- %
�-
� 13 St/ '.�>.�rr��� ��� �.�= C3�S� �`�-�
� `�`
,�'� �A/�`
�7, � f �r^-�
`r � `�E I 1�� �'�-�. �
�YCt� `� � `�� =�` t:'>U �.
� �, ; �
��_
� .::, ` � � �3 �r�' i� �i ,
- - - -- ;
. ; # e,j`i."r,�l�,� —T t;,h+C; �;�f. ! ��., ��'��.� � ._ ,.,
� � ����� N 1p. �� �r �_ � ��; �;�. , .. - f ��
,
,
�,� ; ���e�`�� ���-�� �` �����" �� ���<<
,_ �,
���.�,��
� ►_...� ��
q � i..�
�
cz�� I�,-
��,�° �,��
r%>
— l__ ! c
�
,..�� � _ �,.f � �
�
Cit;� of Qurlinc�ame Plan Revicw Process ��y� ,� r( E3uildinp Department
8AM — `�P�t �.�s\v J 696-16UU
PLANNING DEPARTMENT �yE,-7zso '���
PAGE: a ����
3(�r ���
<���>
Job Address: oZ� ��6Z�II��t� � fC-G• Application Number:
Job Description: ' �Cl�� �v�l_d. �'�70� ��-..
�; � �`1--�-�1� i 1 r l� f%l1`.� �� 1 %<' 'f � "�
;
!_'� n rt ,d , , , � � ,.
r �� C � ,',�,�' g�� �5��;�C�''� � C C �..��� `�t� �_ _ , r�. tftL1 �.��`� ��J
� �'�- l � ' ` `J� '? � �- � `' � =� � v � �' � �a �'- iC �� 3 ix ��.n�� ��
s,. �i..� e. 6 r I�:, �/1 �-�",t /lfr`�J" V' e� : � � 1!\0/i I
�:
(J �'1. C. � r,;�y y t��'.. C` %%�P,.tl l� :�
,. � �
�i � � u �� �.
-t I Lc.�rt C
��'C �f;�;�C�1 � � �= f�� <<° U C: T� �' _ �--: (? � � ; .- �.�' �:.. �;�:► �
C� �"�, ����C��. C'���
i� t..% �. , " ��{!'.-�A�, iJ��_L._ �'7,�. � f t F h% 1 Ir �^' VI il6.f{.[_ 10� 'l�� �"er' �„e�('t../
(
b J IL. 5 `" ;� `_:� = �� � �: , � � � L Co�'. � �.� �--..._
� /`�� tt �(
:� �.J
� � � te'�, ,". _�.
� �, �%:.�.. � � ' �„ �� .�,�,V�, �'n.�.U.,a C�,' ��.C`.-.
-� --� �_ . _�� ��� ��` c t= �� � �� �a �� — ����s ��
, ,.
_/� � �! � rA
? � i � f!
C � � o� .1 c.: �-� ��� �
� �J � �Z.� � � r� ' � �� �'tiJi,.r � � � (��Y�:�» OYr� l 4il`i�
i � �— ,�il_ U UU t r�� "t f` � a�;�.i / •-1 ��st. �,�� � �� � �:a � �' 1'�s�i'� i�) � ! _Ai<�, �
` �./ �� � �J {,.( '/ � �?
K,�f ,, �
r
r_, ti ,
CI
v� ��:�1�
t� � �� �/ 'µ �.:�.!'tf�.
� �n, � �
{� -� �'-a�` C� Y'C� ��t _ �� !i,
�s
�tr;
., �
�
�' yr,.G��: ;,� ��M �"r�i
� '�C; � r
���� ��
�/� � Gc,.� �� �, �