[0:08] I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.

[0:16] Item one is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly

[0:22] address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on the

[0:26] agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear

[0:30] to warrant commission consideration may be agendaized for further discussion at

[0:34] a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak during

[0:39] open forum?

[0:46] Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom with hand raised?

[0:48] » There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Thank you.

[0:53] Reports. Are there any commissioners who would

[0:56] like to provide a report?

[1:01] Okay. Does staff have any reports? >> I just have a quick um report that the

[1:06] um county of Marin is hosting a planning commissioner training and that we are

[1:11] hopeful that all of the planning commissioners can either send me an

[1:15] email or vote through that poll that I sent to you guys to choose a date. It is

[1:21] from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. And I think as of right now, they have more votes

[1:26] for the June 1st date, but if you'd like to get your votes in, it would be

[1:31] helpful for them, the organizers of that event. Thank you.

[1:35] » Thank you. I uh voted today. >> And Rebecca, I responded directly to

[1:40] you. I don't think I voted, but was that adequate?

[1:44] » Yes, I let them know. Yeah, you can respond directly to me, too.

[1:46] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:50] Now, um, consent calendar. The consent calendar consists of items considered to

[1:55] be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed

[1:59] by any member of the council, staff or public, the consent calendar will be

[2:03] adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence they

[2:08] appear on the agenda. Would any member of the planning

[2:12] commission like to remove a consent calendar item?

[2:17] Okay. Um, would any member of the public like to remove a consent calendar item?

[2:24] Rebecca, do you see anything on Zoom? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[2:28] » Thank you. I move to adopt this consent calendar.

[2:34] » I'll second. >> All in favor?

[2:36] » I >> I

[2:38] » Thank you.

[2:43] Now I will now open the public hearing. If any of the commissioners had exparte

[2:50] contacts, please disclose those contacts on the record when it's your turn to

[2:54] speak on any item.

[2:58] I will now open the public hearing on item two, design review and exception to

[3:03] total floor area to construct a 332 square foot addition at 340 Beach Road.

[3:12] Can we have the staff >> just before that? Sorry. Um, I just

[3:15] texted Commissioner Wilson and she thought it was 6:30, so she is on her

[3:19] way. >> Okay.

[3:22] » Uh, do you want us to wait with the presentation on 3:40?

[3:27] » I think we can go ahead and she can catch up once she

[3:29] » Okay. >> gets here.

[3:32] » Okay. Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your

[3:36] consideration. This evening is an application for design review, an

[3:40] exception to total floor area for an addition, remodel, and second story deck

[3:44] replacement at 340 Beach Road. The site consists of a 9,300T

[3:51] parcel on the southeastern southeastern side of Belvadier Island. The site is

[3:56] developed with three-story residence and detached garage. The parcel is

[4:00] surrounded by single family homes to the north, south, and west, and Belvadier

[4:04] Cove to the east. The residence is located at top an approximately 44%

[4:09] slope. The proposed work is primarily at the

[4:14] first story of the residence. The prop the project proposes a 193 foot addition

[4:19] at the rear as well as a 23 ft addition on the eastern elevation.

[4:26] The project would enclose the 116 square foot covered deck at the first story as

[4:31] well. The 116 square foot uh feet count towards existing floor area as it has a

[4:37] floor roof and is supported by columns.

[4:42] The architect's renderings here show the area of improvements. The left side of

[4:47] the images show where the 193 foot addition will be located.

[4:53] And here on the right side, the 116 square foot covered patio that would be

[4:57] enclosed with new windows.

[5:03] For the commission's consideration, a portion of the existing secondstory deck

[5:08] and covered patio encroached into the 20ft rear yard setback. Uh in 1979, the

[5:14] city council approved a variance allowing the deck within the setback. Uh

[5:19] because the covered patio is considered existing floor area and no expansion of

[5:23] the structure is proposed, a new variance is not required to enclose the

[5:27] patio within this rear yard setback.

[5:34] From the rear elevation, a series of new 8ft tall 8 foot uh uh 2-in tall windows

[5:39] are proposed. Uh no windows or door alterations are proposed on the second

[5:44] or third stories. Here on the left side, a new uh window

[5:49] is proposed as well. And at the right side, yard windows at

[5:54] the first story will be slightly larger than the existing. Uh two exterior light

[5:59] fixtures are included at this site as well.

[6:04] Uh the addition would have new uh vertical wood siding, metal windows and

[6:09] doors in a dark gray color. Uh and then the two wall sconces will be shielded in

[6:13] a fixed downward position.

[6:18] The applicant proposes a sauna and cold plunge in the sideyard as well. Uh the

[6:25] architect provided additional detail about the cold plunge which is 23 in

[6:29] tall uh 67 in long and weighs 110 lbs when empty. Because the cold plunge is

[6:37] not considered a structure per our municipal code, it can be located in the

[6:41] sideyard setback.

[6:46] The applicant requests an exception of total floor area to allow 4,133

[6:51] square feet where the maximum allowed is 3,94.

[6:56] The request is a 216qt increase from the existing floor area which was approved

[7:01] in 2012. In order to grant the exception, uh the

[7:06] planning commission must make the following findings. These include that

[7:09] primary views will not be significantly impaired, that there are unusual

[7:13] characteristics to the parcel which minimize the floor area, that the

[7:18] structure is appropriate in mass and bulk, and that the additional square

[7:22] footage would not reduce privacy on adjoining properties.

[7:27] Staff recommends that all findings can be made, the primary views will not be

[7:31] impaired from the adjacent properties. Uh 340 is ups slope from its north and

[7:36] south neighbors. and then the uphill neighbors and pedestrians along Beach

[7:40] Road will not be impaired as the addition is constructed downs slope

[7:44] beneath the residence.

[7:47] Unusual characteristics include the site's steep slope, surrounding

[7:51] vegetation, and the structures location. The addition is well below the neighbors

[7:56] to the west and above neighbors to the north and south. The steep slope of the

[7:59] site allows the architect to tuck the addition below the existing footprint

[8:04] without significantly altering or enlarging the resident's appearance.

[8:08] Additionally, the surrounding vegetation act as a privacy screening, further

[8:13] minimizing the floor area impact.

[8:18] Uh finally, the addition is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the

[8:22] parcel. The maximum height of the structure will not increase or extend

[8:26] beyond the footprint of the existing structure.

[8:32] Staff has received two letters in support of the project from both uh

[8:36] sideyard neighbors. The project is exempt from SQA

[8:43] and uh in conclusion staff recommends that all the design review findings can

[8:47] be made as well as the exception of total floor area. And we're happy to

[8:50] answer any questions. Do any commissioners have questions of

[8:56] staff on this item? >> I do. Um Sammy, you you mentioned about

[9:02] the cold plunge, but what about the sauna? The sauna is usually taller than

[9:08] cold plunge. It has a mass. Is that how how does the planning um basically

[9:14] what's the rules about having a sauna which is a structure?

[9:18] » Yeah, thank thank you for that question. My understanding when talking to the

[9:22] architect that they would remove the uh sauna from the scope of work generally

[9:27] if the sauna has if it's taller than six feet or taller uh it counts towards

[9:33] floor area. So for that reason in light of putting more floor area they decided

[9:39] to remove it from the scope of work.

[9:46] » Thank you Sammy. Um I had a question. Um, do you know what the floor areas are

[9:51] of the um immediate next door next door neighbors for this parcel?

[9:58] » Not off the top of my head, but we can find I can find that out for you.

[10:07] » Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make a

[10:11] presentation, please?

[10:27] You can run it from there if you'd like. I can share slides as well.

[10:42] » Raise their hands. It looks like uh Michael Fishman.

[10:49] » Yes, they've raised their hands. >> Yes. Hi.

[10:52] » Um, hi. How are you? >> You're sideways.

[10:55] » Hi. Are we upside down? It looks like >> Yeah, that's good.

[10:58] » Okay, how about this? >> There you go. That's better.

[11:03] » Um, our apologies that we cannot be there in person today.

[11:07] I'm Annie. This is Michael. We are the residents at 340 Beach. We um live there

[11:13] full-time with our two little boys, ages three and seven. Um our older boy is

[11:19] already at Reed and our younger boy will be at Reed next year. We've now been in

[11:24] the area for two years and absolutely love it. Have um engaged in the

[11:29] community um have built community and really enjoy being members um and

[11:34] residents of Belvadier. >> Yep. Couldn't have said it better. Thank

[11:37] you guys. Appreciate the time and the interest.

[11:43] Okay. Um, thank you, Michael and Annie. Uh, my name is Cedric Ber. I'm the, uh,

[11:49] architect of Michael and Annie Fishman. Um, thank you, um, commissioners, um,

[11:55] and chair, and thank you to the, uh, planning staff for their assistance uh,

[12:00] getting us here this evening. Um I think uh Sam's presentation was was was

[12:07] thorough and and covered the majority of the um of the issues at hand. Um if uh

[12:17] Sammy, did you want to uh share the PDF? Mhm.

[12:23] » Um really the the the main the main thing to uh to point out as we go to the

[12:31] uh to the lower floor plan which is the only floor plan of uh of any work um is

[12:37] that we have um three areas of addition. We were uh

[12:44] we found out in in the middle of the process that uh that the or Sammy

[12:49] confirmed that we don't have um the the 116 square foot deck that's off of the

[12:58] existing uh laundry room does not count uh or it currently already counts

[13:02] towards uh towards L coverage uh and F. Um, so

[13:10] sorry, catching up here.

[13:17] Um, can I I I can I can drive as much as you here on this. Uh, Sammy or why don't

[13:23] we go to uh a 2.1.

[13:31] So as uh as I think one more

[13:42] page seven.

[13:47] No, one more eight. Uh so uh really the the the genesis of

[13:54] uh of the whole project uh as you guys all uh came and visited this site. Uh

[14:00] obviously it's a extremely steep uh slope site. the lower floor. I don't

[14:06] don't know much about the previous uh owners, but it was certainly laid out

[14:10] for um I'm guessing probably a couple because it has a a exceedingly large uh

[14:17] primary suite uh that takes up probably 75% of the floor and then uh one small

[14:25] bedroom that is currently the the bedroom that the boys uh the boys are

[14:29] sharing. So, the owners um obviously with three and seven-year-old boys, they

[14:35] they will be growing and they they wanted to get them each a bedroom. Saw

[14:40] that opportunity of that deck and said, "Well, that seems seems so easy to

[14:45] enclose. Let's let's do that and and give two bedrooms." So, we've been

[14:50] working um on developing the plan. We kind of came up with a office gym space

[14:56] uh in between the two uh the boys bedrooms and the primary. And

[15:01] essentially the primary bathroom is in the same location as the existing. We're

[15:07] just kind of uh extending out to bear on the same pilings that are existing. uh

[15:13] creating that extra 193 square ft uh at the uh the rear yard, the downhill side

[15:20] uh to create the primary uh primary bedroom. Uh everything's uh kind of

[15:26] cleaned up and a little more uh a little more efficient. Um, as as Sammy

[15:33] mentioned, the uh the patio area off of the uh primary bathroom was really

[15:40] intended as a we were we were looking to give it some purpose and thought at

[15:45] sauna and cold plunge would be great and uh I I didn't uh I was not aware that

[15:51] the sauna which I think we had intended as as kind of a a kit sauna from u you

[15:57] know a vendor online as opposed to a permanent structure. Uh but hearing

[16:03] hearing that that would count towards uh F and L coverage, we are willing to pull

[16:08] that out. So if uh I'm happy to uh have that uh be a condition of approval.

[16:15] Um you know, really the uh Sammy, do you want to go to the

[16:22] um just the renderings? That's page.

[16:29] actually we we'll stick to that to that that elevation. Um

[16:34] the the this the side elevation. So we we we did reach out to both neighbors as

[16:40] uh you all saw in the site visits. It's really um it's an extreme enough slope

[16:46] that that even though we are increasing the the glass on the side, it's kind of

[16:51] a a special circumstance that that really nobody is affected. Uh I think um

[16:58] as far as the findings go, primary views are really not impacted from uh from any

[17:05] of the neighbors given the the the the 45 degree slope. Um unusual

[17:12] characteristics are certainly that that same 45 degree slope. Um prefer per

[17:18] structure is really not changing in mass and bulk.

[17:23] Uh we're just infilling um uh on uh two ends of uh two ends of uh an existing uh

[17:33] existing mass all bearing on the same uh foundation.

[17:38] Um and certainly not an area that will impact uh any neighboring

[17:44] um views or privacy uh given the location under the deck. Um really only

[17:52] as as you go down Beach Road, it really is only visible uh only the garage is

[17:57] and the entry is visible. Um you could I suppose argue that it's visible from the

[18:03] water, which uh uh it it is, but uh um Sammy, do you want to go to the

[18:11] renderings perhaps? Or maybe maybe just go uh up one to page nine.

[18:16] Uh and so the the downhill uh downhill so this is the rear rear

[18:22] yard elevation. No materials are changing. We're matching the uh the

[18:27] redwood siding that's existing. Uh we are shifting to uh dark anodized which

[18:35] read as black uh windows on this floor. Um because we realized going to u to

[18:43] match the existing which is a what used to be dark anodized which was more of a

[18:49] brown. Uh so really the intent is just to to match uh match the existing. We're

[18:55] going to be replacing the decking because we're redoing the waterproofing

[19:00] over the new uh new areas, but it will remain a wood deck. Um, and we will

[19:07] reuse the the steel and glass railing that's uh that's existing. Um, I think

[19:14] uh I I'll just mention that uh on since these are all bedrooms, we we do plan to

[19:21] have uh shades in all these all these rooms to um to create create a a

[19:28] blackout situation for sleeping uh and sun protection for furniture and and

[19:34] whatnot. Um and I think that about covers it. I'm

[19:39] open to questions if you have them. >> Questions?

[19:47] » Thanks, Cedric. I know we uh talked about it um yesterday. I guess that was

[19:53] the that there's off to the I guess it would be the south

[19:58] uh east corner of the of the property is that kind of freestanding about deck

[20:04] that's about you know 25 square ft. um doesn't show up on the plans. Um you

[20:10] know, as I mentioned, it's, you know, there's some concrete steps down from

[20:15] the patio that lead there. Um where, you know, apparently there's going to be a

[20:20] cold plunge. I I just think that's awfully enticing when there's kids

[20:24] around and no railing around it. >> Um you know, it's about 30 feet down

[20:28] before you hit anything if you go to the edge of that.

[20:31] » So, I'm just a uh wondering if you have any thoughts. I might I could see also

[20:36] where that deck might be helpful in the course of construction as well uh to put

[20:41] stuff on. But um what are your thoughts on that is or

[20:46] » u to to be honest that was uh well so the the deck was was there when uh Annie

[20:53] and Michael bought the bought the property. Um I I I I'll be honest I

[20:59] don't think we even noticed when we were doing the plans that it's there. Um, I

[21:03] I'm I'm happy. I It may or may not be useful during construction, but if uh if

[21:10] you'd like us to remove it, I I don't think I mean with uh a on the downhill

[21:15] side a good seven or eight foot drop uh perhaps five at best. Uh it is it is

[21:22] definitely it wouldn't wouldn't meet code requirements uh at all. So um I

[21:29] don't think any of us would want our kids playing on it.

[21:32] uh happy to to follow your lead on what what you it may be useful during

[21:37] construction. So perhaps the condition is to remove it after or you know before

[21:42] final inspection. Um but happy to happy to um work with you on that one.

[21:48] » Great. >> That's it for me.

[21:51] » Thank you. Um anyone else? >> Um I have a question too. You mentioned

[21:56] um the deck is going to be replaced with wood, but on our site visit you

[22:00] mentioned it's going to be um pedestal pavers.

[22:05] » Oh, sorry. I I described the I described a pedestal system which can be wood or

[22:10] stone. >> So, it's going to be wood over the

[22:12] pedestal. Your pedestal is going to be wood.

[22:16] » The current construction of the deck, which is a little unusual, it's it's

[22:19] vertical 2x4s with almost no spacing between. So, we're just because

[22:25] obviously three and a half inch thick deck is atypical. Uh, so we're just

[22:30] going to do a I'm assuming a eBay deck or or or but a 3/4 inch material over

[22:37] the drainage plane. Uh, but on a on a pedestal system.

[22:40] » Got it. Thank you. >> Um, I have a I have a question and it

[22:46] may also be a question for for for Sammy. Um in those in the staff report

[22:52] it says that in 2012 the planning commission um approved um uh 4,181

[23:01] square ft an exception to total floor area. I know that the current floor area

[23:06] of the of the house is only 3,917 square ft. Um, and what's being proposed

[23:15] is 4,133, which is below what the what the report

[23:19] says was permitted in in 2012. Do we know why? Uh, first of all, there's a

[23:25] discrepancy between what was approved in 2012 and what was actually con

[23:29] constructed and if so, what was approved in 20 in in in

[23:35] 2012?

[23:40] » Perhaps they didn't. We don't know, but I can speculate that they didn't build

[23:45] the entirety of the project that was approved in 2012.

[23:49] » I I don't know. I started in 2015 here. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[23:52] » Yeah. >> You're like, I'm a long I'm a longtime,

[23:55] but not that long. >> I I have a little bit of insight,

[23:58] although I I ultimately I'm not sure I have the the absolute answer. I think

[24:04] the uh the the what's on screen right now, the bedroom one was uh extended out

[24:12] downhill I maybe like eight 8 feet or so. So that that that was the that was

[24:18] the project in 2012. >> Um

[24:22] ultimately when I do asbuilt drawings I I I do my own calculations. I can't I

[24:28] can't rely on somebody else's numbers. So I just I do them as I as I see fit

[24:34] and you know if if obviously if planning has any questions we we go through them.

[24:41] Yeah, I mean I I was just I was curious as to whether um either the expansion of

[24:49] um you know the enclosure of the deck into what's now going to be bedroom 2 or

[24:54] the extension under the deck and what's now going to be part of the primary

[24:59] bedroom was part of the plans that were reviewed in 20 in in approved in 2012.

[25:06] But >> I I I did look at the old plans and I I

[25:10] it was it was only focused in that that bedroom one that's on screen right now.

[25:15] » Thank you.

[25:21] » Okay. Any other questions? See none. Um are there any comments from members

[25:28] of the public regarding this item?

[25:34] Rebecca, any hands raised? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.

[25:38] » Okay, with that, I will close the public

[25:43] hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for discussion. Um,

[25:49] Commissioner Shinsky, do you want to start the conversation?

[25:52] » Yeah. So, um, just a couple things. Uh, one I

[25:57] I appreciate the uh the fact that the uh you know the the window uh trim with the

[26:06] ani anodized bronze that that the intent is to ultimately uh change the upstairs

[26:13] windows to match that. Um I think that's ideal so to prevent them from standing

[26:18] out. Um overall it I I do think the the the project works for me. I think in an

[26:25] in an ideal world where um you have a

[26:31] uh a project where you know a couple exceptions to the square footage have

[26:36] historically already been granted. Um maybe a little earlier in the process we

[26:42] might chase you down and try to convince you to, you know, put in a countertop

[26:47] and a little sink and call it a JU. Um but I'm not going to stand on that

[26:52] tonight. I think the fact that the the square footage kind of tucks nicely

[26:56] under, you know, within the existing footprint uh helps to get me there. Um

[27:04] that's that in the deck I mentioned. That's

[27:08] about all my comments. Alex, thank you, Commissioner Watson.

[27:16] » Well, I think Don just stole my thunder. Um,

[27:20] you know, I' I'd like I'd like to note that, you know, while 44 uh degree slope

[27:27] is extremely extremely steep, there are a number of other properties um

[27:32] especially on that on that stretch of beach which also have very very uh steep

[27:37] slopes. Some of which we've we've actually seen in front of our commission

[27:40] re recent rec recently. Um, and the reason why I asked about the the size of

[27:45] the of the of the neighbors is um, you know, while I appreciate that this is an

[27:52] exception to overall floor area, um, I do like the fact that it the overall

[27:56] footprint is not is not changing as um, other than the the small addition um, by

[28:05] the uh, by the bathroom which itself is actually underneath underneath the eve

[28:09] upstairs. Um and so from a from a total bulk and size perspective, the the

[28:17] addition will will fit will fit within. Um I too generally do not like to have

[28:25] uh floor area exceptions where um there's not an additional unit being

[28:30] added. Um but to the extent of of I'll say equity and fairness um to the extent

[28:37] that the the immediately um next door next door neighbors are I believe as

[28:43] larger if not if not larger it would seem to be inequitable to not permit

[28:51] this home this homeowner to um extend their livable floor floor space within

[28:58] the within the same footprint.

[29:05] Commissioner Watson, if you'd like, Rebecca pulled up the floor area. Uh 344

[29:11] beach is 3,700 square foot plus the garage. Uh and then 330 beach is 4,200

[29:18] plus the garage.

[29:25] And does that in in I I know one of the neighbors is under construction right

[29:29] now. Is that the to be constructed square footage?

[29:36] » That neighbor um it has a red tag and should not be constructing. So we aren't

[29:41] very clear exactly what is happening.

[29:48] » Okay. Commissioner Jama

[29:53] » as far as the floor exception I also think that um the um mass and bulk is

[30:00] already there um and they are um basically building underneath which um

[30:07] doesn't add anything to the uh visual there is no visual impact from the

[30:12] street from the sides from nowhere and also I think looking at other side of

[30:18] these um buildings is not attractive if even being seen which I don't think it

[30:23] is being seen but even if it does I think enclosing it um makes it more

[30:28] attractive however that void that they are enclosing I think it is an

[30:32] attractive um architectural um element of the property but at the same time

[30:39] it's not being viewed from anywhere so um I'm not objecting it so I have no

[30:44] problem with that I can make the findings as far as the sauna I I think

[30:48] um

[30:51] as it is not presented what is that sauna is that look like and it is going

[30:58] to be added to the floor area I would say um make it a condition uh to

[31:06] condition of approval to remove that sauna um that is noted on the drawings

[31:12] um that's all for me

[31:17] » thank you And with that, I would like to introduce the newest planning

[31:22] commissioner in Beladair, Zolda Wilson. Thank you for joining us. I'll ask you

[31:27] for your comments now. >> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I just want

[31:30] to um thank the applicant for uh the presentation tonight and uh to sort of

[31:36] echo some of the comments from the other commissioners. I do think that the

[31:40] design was thoughtful and trying to um comply with the existing conditions

[31:44] around the site. you know, as far as design review, um the structure will

[31:48] remain in character with its setting even with the um infill project and for

[31:54] the floor area exception as well. Um given the uh the steepness of the site

[31:59] and the location of adjacent properties, uh the impact is minimized of the floor

[32:04] area exception on the site. So I I could make that finding as well. And and I

[32:09] understand the condition of approval um with the ASA removal that would be just

[32:14] for the floor area exception. Is that right? It's not for the design review uh

[32:19] findings. >> I don't know the answer to that.

[32:26] » I'm assuming the sauna is being removed uh because of the floor area exception

[32:30] question, not for design review. >> What? No, it's a a structure within the

[32:36] setback. Yeah. >> Um,

[32:39] » we don't have any design for it either. We don't know how it looks like.

[32:42] » Oh, where it's going. Yeah. >> I guess I just wondering where it goes

[32:45] in the um I I think it'd be cleaner to put it in the design review resolution

[32:50] only because we're not accounting for it in the floor area exception resolution

[32:54] and we reference the plans and the date in the design review resolution. So we

[33:00] can say with the you know the set of plans prepared by such and such on this

[33:04] date with the removal of the sauna. So it's clear on that one.

[33:09] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[33:15] » Uh when I uh visited the house I must say I was impressed with um just the

[33:22] dynamism and the views of the interior. It's an interesting house and you know I

[33:26] think that's the nice thing about Belvadier. you have all these different

[33:29] periods and characters of houses. I think that the architects done a good

[33:34] job of um figuring out how to do an expansion and make it more of a family

[33:39] home because it really didn't appear to be, you know, long-term workable as a

[33:45] family home. The the new interior space is, as other commissioners have noted,

[33:51] um tucked under the existing massing and within the columns. So um the impact is

[33:58] really minimized and I think he's worked um very well with the existing character

[34:04] of the house and and maintained that. Um I guess I was um thinking some similar

[34:12] thoughts to some of the other commissioners when we see a Florida

[34:16] exemption of this magnitude come in and it's about 33% of the base allowed area.

[34:25] Um, I think it's all kind of in our minds to see if there's an opportunity

[34:30] to have some of that space um be applied to an ADU or a J AU

[34:37] um which would thereby reduce the uh amount of the floor area exception. Um,

[34:44] in fact, I um pursued the thought a little further and I had a conversation

[34:49] with the the owners, the architect and the staff. there did appear to be a room

[34:53] that um in my mind looked like it fit um would fit well as a J AU without any

[35:02] modification. Um however um and everybody listened very patiently to my

[35:08] thoughts. Um and I became a little more educated. There's there was one factor

[35:14] that was missing um which was somewhere there would need to be another

[35:18] accessible exterior door in the house. Um now um having said that you know

[35:25] perhaps if that issue had been raised earlier in the design process maybe it

[35:30] could have been easily accommodated um this probably isn't the time to raise

[35:36] the spectre of redesign but um I just wanted to comment on it because I think

[35:40] as we continue to look at floor area exemptions going forward that's going to

[35:46] be um something that's in the front of all of our minds and um we'll be hoping

[35:51] to, you know, find as many opportunities to get additional units into the city as

[35:56] possible. Um, so with that, I I'm going to be able to make the design review

[36:03] findings and also um find in favor of the exception to the total floor area.

[36:13] So, um, with that, I think we're probably ready to vote. Um I just want

[36:19] to read >> vote but get a motion. You want to say

[36:21] something? Go ahead. >> Yep. So it sounds like we have uh two

[36:25] additional uh conditions that have been floated by the commissioners. The first

[36:29] is the removal of this of the sauna from the from the design review um under

[36:35] under consideration and the second is the removal of the deck below the east

[36:40] side of the house um at at the end of construction.

[36:46] Nodding. darling. Okay.

[36:53] » So, um you want to make that a formal motion?

[36:55] » Do you want to make make the motion? All right. Um All right. I'd like to make a

[36:59] motion that the planning commission um uh grant approval of the design review

[37:04] application pursuant to uh title 20 of the Belvadier Municipal Code for

[37:08] residential addition and re and remodel at 340 Beach Road uh with the following

[37:13] additional um condition conditions added to uh the resolution. a new condition M

[37:20] which is the removal of the of the sauna from the design review approval and

[37:24] condition N which is the removal of the deck below the east side of the house at

[37:31] the end of construction. >> Second.

[37:35] » All in favor? I >> I

[37:43] » we needed a motion on the exception. I think someone would care to make that.

[37:55] Um,

[37:58] don't.

[38:06] All right. Um, I'd like to um to make a motion that the planning commission

[38:10] grant the application for an exception to total floor area based on the based

[38:15] on the findings that are listed in the in the resol in the resolution according

[38:19] to section 19.52.120a1

[38:23] of the Belvadier Municipal Code with respect to 340 Beach Road.

[38:29] » All in favor? I >> I

[38:34] » Thank you.

[38:42] Thanks.

[38:49] » We will now move on to hear item three, demolition application to remove a

[38:55] garage shed and stairs at 135 Belvadier Avenue. Can we have a staff report,

[39:00] please? Thank you again, chairs Idol and commissioners.

[39:04] For your consideration is an application for demolition permit to remove a

[39:08] detached garage, shed, and wood stairs at 135 Belvadier Avenue.

[39:15] The project site is on a steeply sloped 52,000 foot lot. Uh the site received

[39:21] lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three parcels.

[39:27] The site is developed with a dilapidated residence, detached garage and wood

[39:31] staircase. Uh the property contains mature unmaintained vegetation and

[39:36] single family residences flank each side of the property and Richardson Bay abuts

[39:41] the property at the rear.

[39:46] The applicant is requesting a demolition permit to remove the existing 921 square

[39:51] foot garage, shed, and associated wood stairs from the front of the property.

[39:56] The scope of demolition also includes removal of fallen trees in the vicinity

[40:00] of the garage and a damaged guardrail along the driveway.

[40:07] A portion of the existing garage encroaches

[40:11] onto city property. The approval of the proposed demolition would eliminate this

[40:16] non-conforming structure which does not meet the city's front yard setback

[40:20] requirements. Additionally, concurrent applications

[40:25] are under review

[40:29] uh to remove an existing front yard fence that encroaches into the Belvier

[40:32] Avenue right away. The project there would install a new six-foot fence along

[40:38] the front property line with a small portion remaining within city property.

[40:45] Uh this project would be exempt from SQA and staff recommends that all demolition

[40:51] findings can be made particularly in that the demolition will not remove a

[40:55] housing unit and that the demolition will not have an impact on the

[40:58] availability of housing units thereby staying consistent with the goals of the

[41:03] city of Belvadier's housing element. Thank you and we're happy to answer any

[41:07] questions. >> Um Sam Sammy I just have one question

[41:12] for you. Um, is I understand that the fence is not up for approval tonight or

[41:18] is the fence up for approval because it's not included in the motion?

[41:22] » The fence is not part of this application for approval. Uh, it went

[41:26] through the design review process, more of a exception level.

[41:30] » Okay, great. Thanks. Just making clear.

[41:37] So, um I'm used to seeing applications for demolition when there's a new

[41:43] project coming. There's not um a new project here um referenced, but do you

[41:49] have any sense of, you know, what the future of this property is?

[41:56] » Yeah, good question. We we have an application in right now for a a new

[42:00] residence as well. uh planning is currently reviewing those plans for

[42:05] completeness uh and it's a project for a brand new residence.

[42:10] » Thank you. >> J.

[42:13] » Excellent. >> All right. I have a couple of questions

[42:18] too. Um so when you are

[42:24] approving a fence don't you require a survey and um for that fence being in

[42:32] the city property do you require revocable license?

[42:37] » We we do require a survey um and this property has a revocable license for the

[42:42] fence currently.

[42:47] So Sammy, just so I'm clear, this is this is the replacement fence while the

[42:52] project is going on or the forever fence that's being

[42:59] approved. >> Just a reminder, we're not reviewing the

[43:02] fence tonight here, right? We're the fence is under a separate design review

[43:06] process. >> Um I don't know if it's a forever fence.

[43:12] Um but the architect and the architect is here so he could

[43:18] probably answer that. The architect who submitted the plans for the single

[43:22] family home ADU and JADU. I think what's happening is the this application is for

[43:28] the demolition of the garage and there's going to be a driveway cut into the

[43:33] property and a driveway that goes down to a garage on lower on the site. But um

[43:42] could probably answer those questions better.

[43:47] » Sorry. So, the uh new fence is you said it's approved by staff. It's a staff

[43:53] level approval. >> The design review exception. So, it's

[43:58] it's approved by the city um the city manager

[44:02] » but the demolition is not >> demolition applications are required to

[44:08] go to the planning commission. But new fences aren't always required.

[44:15] Thank you.

[44:20] » Okay. If the applicant is here and would like

[44:24] to speak.

[44:30] » Hi. Yeah. My name is David Katsub and I'm the architect.

[44:36] » Is it on?

[44:43] Okay, sorry. Um, yeah, my name is David Katsub and I'm the architect. So, this

[44:48] all started, we wanted to uh replace the existing fence because it's basically

[44:52] falling down, but since the existing fence is on city property, um, it's

[44:59] necessary we we necessarily have to uh demolish the garage structure to put the

[45:04] new fence on because the garage is on city property. So that's why the

[45:09] demolition permit was um um made. So um as as far as the the overall design for

[45:18] the new proposal, this will not be the final fence. The final fence um will be

[45:23] a totally different design. It'll it's metal. It follows the property line. Um

[45:28] there is an encroachment permit right now. We want to keep the existing

[45:32] driveway and that gate. you know, we're going to resurface it and make it look

[45:35] nice, but we want to keep it for um potential use and construction, but at

[45:40] the end of the day, the new driveway is at the end of the property towards

[45:44] Cliff. So, where that gate is will be part of a fence structure that's part

[45:49] that'll be consistent with the design that we're doing. And then, um in

[45:54] addition, once that's done, we do get an additional parking spot on the street.

[46:00] So, that's helpful. So the new design is they're reviewing it right now, but we

[46:04] have made that application. So we didn't really intend to do the

[46:08] demo right now. It's just that that thing is just falling apart and we'd

[46:12] like to clean up the appearance and also for safety.

[46:18] » Yeah, it's definitely an eyesore.

[46:24] » Any other questions for the applicant while he's there?

[46:30] Thank you.

[46:35] Are there any comments from members of the public?

[46:43] Um, good afternoon. So, my name is Steve Silverstein. I'm a 30-year resident here

[46:50] of Belvadier. I've been here long enough. This will be the fourth house

[46:56] being proposed for this site in the 30 years that I've been here. And I've been

[47:02] at the planning commission meeting for each of those three previous

[47:08] ones going back almost 30 years. And each time I have complained about the

[47:15] fence. Uh what we have in that area is kind of a tunnel. The fence is ugly and

[47:23] it's falling down and it creates a wall depend on one side and the other side of

[47:31] course is the uphill of the properties and so you have a like you're going

[47:35] through a tunnel there and it's ugly and so on and I was a little shocked just to

[47:41] hear that the proposed fence even though it's temporary is going to be six feet

[47:46] high which means it's going to continue this walled defect. act. I sort of

[47:52] thought that uh fences were only supposed to be five feet high so that

[47:57] when you if you're over five feet, you can walk by and see over the top and see

[48:04] the see the views there, which is what a lot of people like like to do. So, I

[48:09] hope whatever fence is done is low or set further back into the property so we

[48:18] can see over it. I drive by or walk by this thing every single day and I would

[48:27] like to finally see this tunnel demolished. Thank you.

[48:33] » Okay. Thank you for your comments and I um just want to say it does not appear

[48:39] that the planning commission has any say on the fence, but I'm sure other people

[48:45] who are present heard your comments um who are involved in the approval. So,

[48:50] thank you. >> Um, Alex, can we ask the staff to

[48:55] explain again one more time? Sorry, I asked this twice, but I'm still not

[48:59] clear, especially when one of the um our neighbors also is concerned. How because

[49:06] I have seen that we previously had fences on um design review and you

[49:12] mentioned some are, some are not. Can you explain what made this fence

[49:18] something that uh did not require um design review?

[49:22] » Sure. >> So, if someone comes in for an

[49:24] application to replace an existing fence, it doesn't rise to the level of a

[49:28] planning commission review. In this case, it just happens to be a very well,

[49:34] it's a it's a fence replacement, right? And so, we just it's isolated. A lot of

[49:39] the fences that come to the planning commission are included with a major

[49:44] landscape plan or a new house or a major renovation and they're redoing all of

[49:49] their fences as well and updating landscaping. This application was merely

[49:55] to replace a fence which fence replacements

[50:00] as I said isolated don't come to planning commission. Where this one got

[50:04] a little complicated was in order to move the fence right off of the city

[50:09] right ofway. It required to demolish to demolish the garage. So it's kind of

[50:15] like a little bit of a domino effect here. And so that all demolitions then

[50:20] are required to come to planning commission. So that's why we're even

[50:24] entertaining and talking about the fence because we're here for the demolition of

[50:29] the garage.

[50:33] Thank you.

[50:40] » Is there anybody on Zoom, Rebecca, that wants to comment on this?

[50:44] » There's no hands raised on Zoom. >> Thank you.

[50:48] I'll now close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the commission

[50:53] for discussion. Um, Commissioner Jai, would you like to

[50:58] start the discussion? >> Sure. I think um as um everyone probably

[51:05] agrees that that garage is in a bad shape shape. Safety issues and removal

[51:11] of it u would be a um in in the benefit of the public. So I

[51:17] have no um problem with demolishing that um garage.

[51:24] » Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. I have support that application

[51:32] based on the overall finding that supports the city plan and

[51:38] additionally there's nonformance

[51:43] correct.

[51:46] » Thank you Commissioner Shinski. Godspeed,

[51:56] » Commissioner Watson. >> Um, I also can make the can make the

[52:00] findings as I believe the existing garage is both unsafe and an and an

[52:05] isore and should be demolished. I'm not sure if we have um if anyone has

[52:10] contacted the local coyotes though who apparently are using it as a home, but

[52:14] um I'm also in favor of removing their home.

[52:19] Thank you. Also, I will also be able to make

[52:24] findings um in favor of the demolition. Um I'll be surprised if there's any

[52:30] conditions to craft here. I think we're probably ready to take a vote on

[52:38] this uh as soon as I get a motion. >> All right. Um, I'd like to make a motion

[52:45] um to grant approval um to title 16 of the Belvadier Municipal Code to allow

[52:51] the demolition of the existing detached garage, shed, and wooden stairs at 135

[52:57] um Belvadier with the conditions that are listed in the resolution.

[53:01] » Thank you. >> Second.

[53:03] » All those in favor? I >> I

[53:07] » Thank you.

[53:17] We'll now move on to item four, design review and revocable license for a re

[53:22] remodel at 47 West Shore Road. Can we have a staff report, please?

[53:26] » Thank you again, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your

[53:30] consideration is an application for design review and revocable license for

[53:34] window and door replacement, deck enlargement, and new landscaping at 47

[53:39] Westshore Road. Subject parcel is 11,000 square ft and

[53:45] contains a 4,300 ft two-story residence and attached two-car garage. Site is

[53:51] relatively flat and sits on the western side of Belvadier Island. Uh the site

[53:55] includes a front yard swimming pool, overwater deck, and boat lift.

[54:02] The project involves an exterior remodel that would include new windows and doors

[54:07] uh and siding across all elevations as well as a partial uh removal of the

[54:12] existing roof. The project includes deck expansions

[54:17] along the side and rear yard, new landscaping,

[54:23] and a new hot tub and fire pit. Regarding roof modifications, the

[54:30] project proposes to remove 173 square ft of the canal levered first story roof.

[54:36] The current eve encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. While removing

[54:40] the eve would not bring the structure into conformance with the setback

[54:44] requirements. It would reduce the encroachment by two feet and three

[54:48] inches. A non-reflective matte finish metal roof

[54:54] fascia in a dark bronze color would be installed where the eve would be

[54:58] removed.

[55:02] The existing uh cupboard entry currently 2 20 271 square feet uh count towards

[55:10] floor area and would be reduced to 143 square ft as part of the interior

[55:14] remodel. This reduction would be visible from West Shore Road resulting in a

[55:20] reduced uh and smaller entry canopy.

[55:26] Regarding the deck expansion, the northern sideyard deck would be enlarged

[55:30] from 152 square feet to 600 square feet. Uh it would also include a new stair

[55:36] access to the shoreline. The southern side deck would be expanded

[55:41] 290 ft mainly along the left side yard. Uh, under a separate application, the

[55:48] applicant proposes to install a new 6-ft tall fence along the side and front

[55:53] property lines to accommodate this deck expansion.

[56:00] The project proposes to replace or reconfigure the exterior windows and

[56:03] doors. The majority of the openings would be in the same location and of

[56:07] similar size to those that exist facing West Road. No significant window changes

[56:12] are proposed. Facing the rear in Richardson Bay, a new clear

[56:18] story window and 5' 6 in by 4' 5 in fixed window are proposed.

[56:26] And on the left side, one sliding door would be replaced with a smaller window.

[56:33] At the right sideyard, uh window and door modifications are generally

[56:37] proposed in the same locations.

[56:42] New horizontal wood siding in a light gray color is proposed throughout the

[56:46] residence. Uh the rear and sideyard decking would be constructed constructed

[56:51] of natural epay wood with a light gray finish and windows and doors would be

[56:55] constructed using anodized metal with a dark bronze finish.

[57:01] The project proposes new landscaping and the front yard. Landscaping would

[57:05] include four bay laurels to 20t tall along with lavender and baby mat rush

[57:13] along the southern and northern sidey yards. English laurel to 10 ft tall are

[57:17] proposed

[57:20] and within the west shore road right ofway. The project proposes two bay

[57:23] laurel to 20 feet tall and matt rush within a 20-inch tall concrete planter.

[57:31] One thing uh commission for your consideration I didn't address this in

[57:35] this we didn't address this in the staff report uh the laurel to 10 feet tall

[57:41] typically uh hedges we we get neighbor uh input for hedges that are uh 8 feet

[57:47] or taller. on this project. We didn't get those any any uh consideration from

[57:52] neighbors. So, it's something for your consideration.

[57:58] Uh exterior lighting would include 10 recess down lights primarily at the uh

[58:04] at the canal lever uh roof at the rear of the house and 19 wall-mounted sconces

[58:09] throughout the uh residence.

[58:13] The applicant requests a revocable license to allow the existing driveway

[58:17] and proposed landscaping to encroach into the Westshore Roadway.

[58:23] Uh the project if approved is exempt from SQA

[58:28] and uh staff recommends that all the design review findings can be made and

[58:32] the recommendation for revocable license and staff is happy to answer any

[58:37] questions you may have.

[58:42] Thank you, Sammy. Do we have questions?

[58:51] » Sammy. >> Yes.

[58:54] » Hi. Um, so, um, I I know that the the plans that were waiting for us tonight

[59:00] and that you emailed to us this afternoon have changed in a number of

[59:04] ways from the plans that we were looking at when we when we did site visits. Can

[59:10] you just sort of run down for us the the material

[59:14] different the material differences in the two sets of sets of plans just

[59:19] because I for one that we're looking at was looking at the old plans.

[59:22] » Yeah. The the uh

[59:28] well the the changes that you have are actually it's it's a clarification on

[59:33] the plans that you guys received. the planting legend says um has a a letter

[59:40] and then on the plant itself it's shown as a one uh for for some of the

[59:45] plantings. So there there was and then there's also I think an olive tree that

[59:50] was proposed on the legend but it's not shown on the plans. So the architect

[59:55] fixed removed that and then also removed the the correctly identified the mat

[1:00:02] rush. >> All right. Um I because I'm looking at a

[1:00:07] 2.4 and there it's not showing the two trees

[1:00:13] that are outside of the fence that you just showed on

[1:00:20] » 82.4. >> Yeah.

[1:00:24] » If I could just jump in here. Thanks >> sheet A1.0.

[1:00:30] The adjacent property address was corrected to read 49 West Shore. Sheet

[1:00:36] A1.5. The floor area table has been corrected to match the diagram. There

[1:00:40] was a discrepancy there. Um, the project is removing 91 square ft rather than 117

[1:00:47] square ft. >> Okay.

[1:00:49] » Um, A1.6. As Sammy said, the landscape sheet has been corrected so that the

[1:00:54] plant legend matches right there. there were some number lettering issues that

[1:00:59] just didn't match there. Um

[1:01:06] Sammy mentioned the fascia and then on A3.1 there's an exterior lighting plan

[1:01:10] that's been added. The applicant is proposing 10 recess down lights and 19

[1:01:16] wall-mounted sconces.

[1:01:31] I think we should get some clarification from the architect on whether those 19

[1:01:34] lights are all new. I suspect >> they're replacing some as well as um

[1:01:40] adding new ones, but let's let's get clarification on that.

[1:01:43] » Okay. >> And Commissioner Watson, would you like

[1:01:47] me to pull up the original plans and what you received today on the on the

[1:01:52] screen so we can compare them? No, it's okay. Thank you.

[1:01:58] » So, so do we know the u the status of of 49 that is it is it are are the owners

[1:02:06] there the family who has been there or the ones that are buying it or I can't

[1:02:13] keep track what's going

[1:02:19] Actually,

[1:02:32] if you could just hold off until >> I don't need to know, but just

[1:02:36] » when it's your turn, it would be great if you could come to the mic and answer

[1:02:40] that. Thank you so much.

[1:02:47] And I don't know the status of 49. No, I don't.

[1:02:55] » Okay. Are there any other questions? Um, with that, we can ask the applicant to

[1:03:00] make a presentation if they like.

[1:03:08] » Exactly. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Hi, I'm Stacy Perry. This is my

[1:03:14] husband, Matthew Perry. We've been on West Shore since 2020, so almost six

[1:03:19] years now. We started out renting and loved it so much that we purchased the

[1:03:24] home a few years ago. I met many of you yesterday. So, thank you to the

[1:03:29] commissioners for coming through the house. And um we have a 21-year-old

[1:03:35] daughter who's in college, so she's still with us in the home.

[1:03:40] want to add anything? >> No, it's perfect.

[1:03:44] » Neighbors. >> Okay, so um we have new neighbors at 47

[1:03:48] Westshore and new neighbors at 40 I mean at 45 because we're 47 and new neighbors

[1:03:54] at 49. We have met the new neighbors at 45. A lovely couple with a young

[1:04:01] daughter. She's 11 and we have not yet met our new neighbors at 49. So we do

[1:04:07] not believe they have moved in yet. So, we've tried several times to just knock

[1:04:11] on the door and introduce ourselves, but they do not appear to be moved in.

[1:04:19] » Do you want me to add anything on that? The former owner at 49.

[1:04:24] » You want me to? All right. >> They were very aware of what's

[1:04:27] happening. The new owners, I think, is the real owner bought it from

[1:04:32] it. >> Um, and my name is Steven Sutro. I'm the

[1:04:36] architect for the project. Um, and I'll walk you through a series of slides

[1:04:39] explaining the design. Um, are you ready to share? Are you sharing screen?

[1:04:51] There we go.

[1:04:55] And you flip to the next. Okay. Um, thank you for the

[1:05:01] presentation, Rebecca and Sammy. Um, so as they said, the proposed project

[1:05:05] involves the the remodel of the existing single family home, including new

[1:05:08] windows and doors, replacing the existing siding, rear deck expansions,

[1:05:12] and I'll explain a little bit more about that. Um, updated landscaping, and minor

[1:05:16] interior floor plan changes. Um, the next slide here, um, the image on the

[1:05:21] left shows the existing street facade and the rendering on the right shows the

[1:05:24] proposed with updated windows, new siding, and updated landscaping. We

[1:05:29] removed the eve as was as was mentioned over the garage and modified it to be

[1:05:33] tight around the structure removing a portion of its non-conformance.

[1:05:37] Um let's see at the bottom left of the render um you can see the proposed

[1:05:42] landscaping changes. Um the the fence um is part of a separate permit but it's

[1:05:47] interesting to the application in two ways. One is it is um located like many

[1:05:52] are along west shore uh in fully in the public right ofway and very tight to the

[1:05:57] sidewalk. And so we um work with staff to um suggest pushing it back so that um

[1:06:02] a pedestrian enjoys more landscaping. And so the the public right of way or

[1:06:07] the the um encroachment permit revocable license kind of thing will be for

[1:06:10] landscaping instead of that tall fence. So the fence is moving back. Not part of

[1:06:14] this application, but it's kind of a part of the overall design. Likewise, um

[1:06:18] our survey showed us that the fence line on both side property lines was

[1:06:23] substantially um on Stacy and Matthew's property by several feet in each

[1:06:28] location, meaning 40 the neighbors on each side were kind of enjoying the use

[1:06:33] of several feet of Matthew and Stacy's property historically. So, the fence

[1:06:37] permit um which has been granted um relocates the same height fence to a

[1:06:42] location that is on the property line. and that's been discussed with the

[1:06:45] neighbor that is present, not been discussed with the one that is not. So,

[1:06:49] um, what we're doing in the newly found swaths of land is is some landscaping

[1:06:54] and and expanding the existing surfaces of the deck. We kind of mislabeled the

[1:06:59] one that is on the side with the trash and access alongside the the garage

[1:07:03] actually is going to be on the ground and the deck is going to stop kind of

[1:07:07] where it does now and we're going to step down onto the ground. So, that's an

[1:07:09] error on on our part. Um there are about um nine uh sconces on the outside of the

[1:07:14] building today. So uh it's correct that they're not all 19 or are new. Um but um

[1:07:20] 19 total is what we've suggested in the lighting plan. They're downwardly cast

[1:07:24] very kind of minimal looking things. On the water side of the uh property are

[1:07:30] some eve lights in the overhang um that faces kind of like a a wash board or a

[1:07:35] place where traditionally you can walk and wash the windows that face the bay.

[1:07:39] Um, and so we're suggesting replacing those large light fixtures with small

[1:07:42] aperture ones and increasing the number a little bit along that eve. Um, let's

[1:07:47] see if I want to point out anything else because I went off script. Um, the

[1:07:52] material slide if you want to go to that. Um, we're suggesting um kind of a

[1:07:56] gray um stained siding. Um, this is from Delta Mil Works. It's a nice Aoya um

[1:08:02] heat treated product that is natural 100% natural wood that has been heat

[1:08:07] treated for resistance to decay. Um and in our previous project where we've

[1:08:13] we've used this product, the the gray does a nice job of um fading to gray as

[1:08:19] it weathers. Meaning kind of as the stain erodess, as they all naturally do,

[1:08:23] it doesn't so much require restaining because it's turning gray. The wood is

[1:08:27] turning gray in the sun naturally. Um, and then we're uh proposing kind of a

[1:08:31] dark bronze color on the sashes and and trim. Um, natural concrete on the

[1:08:37] planter and the underside of the sophet in um a cyprress or cedar.

[1:08:45] I think that's Oh, unless I've missed something. No. Okay. I'm here to answer

[1:08:49] questions. Thank you.

[1:08:55] Questions from commissioners.

[1:08:59] I have a question about the lighting plan. Um, sure. The image that's up

[1:09:03] there now, those under the lights that are under the overhang in the back. Is

[1:09:08] that all part of the lighting plan? Those exterior lights.

[1:09:10] » Uh, so the lighting plan here shows the little dots that are,

[1:09:15] » you know, that's the overhang beyond the living room. You can see the living room

[1:09:18] furniture. So those little dots key into the a recess outdoor rated outdoor

[1:09:22] fixture. Okay. And there are several fixtures that are there. Maybe there are

[1:09:26] six today. They're they're much larger. So the idea is to to make smaller

[1:09:30] aperture ones and increase the frequency a bit.

[1:09:33] » Okay.

[1:09:40] » I have a a question and I'm I'm not sure if it's it's maybe for both staff and

[1:09:45] the applicant. Um, I noted you said that the the fences are being moved at the

[1:09:52] same height that they are. And I I had the impression that some of the fences

[1:09:58] were taller than six feet. >> And um I'm not even sure are the fences

[1:10:03] part of this application. Let's start with that. The fences are not part of

[1:10:06] this application. So, um maybe this is not pertinent, but um

[1:10:13] I guess because we're thinking about heights of planting related to neighbors

[1:10:18] and neighbor conditions staff, do you want to make any comment on that?

[1:10:25] » The fencing is not part of this application.

[1:10:27] » Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

[1:10:33] » So, >> uh so I I I'm sorry. I think that you're

[1:10:36] asking because it's Germaine for the planting question that staff raised the

[1:10:40] for the English laurel. The fence is about 6'6 right now. It's a standard six

[1:10:44] foot board, but it's set on top of a horizontal runner. So, it's probably

[1:10:48] 6'6, 6' 5 and a half, something like that. The new plan um that's not part of

[1:10:52] the application, but Germaine to the discussion of design is for it to be six

[1:10:55] foot even. >> Thank you for that.

[1:11:00] um including the portions that are currently built up a little bit towards

[1:11:05] 49. >> Yes.

[1:11:10] » So So um just to be clear, the So the the tub is going to be moving

[1:11:20] um out toward the water past where the fence line is. Yes.

[1:11:28] And then there's I guess three laurels then proposed to

[1:11:33] screen it >> correct

[1:11:35] » from and I can't you know I don't I can't make the case for

[1:11:40] 49. Um

[1:11:43] I other than to observe that that's very close to where they are. Yes. And that's

[1:11:48] a exposed tub. And I if I were the neighbor, I'd want those trees to be as

[1:11:54] mature as possible and as large as possible when they went in. Um

[1:12:00] uh I might also Yeah, I won't go there. Um

[1:12:09] um and that's it for right this moment. Um, while we're talking about the hot

[1:12:14] tub, where where is the mechanical going to be for the hot tub?

[1:12:19] » Um, it's integral. It's it's um it's a diamond spa is the proposal which has it

[1:12:24] all integrated into the square of the cube.

[1:12:27] » Yeah. No external. It's not like a a swimming pool or that kind of thing

[1:12:30] where there's extra equipment. >> Matthew was just noting that there was a

[1:12:34] very large tree that was recently removed uh right there in that location

[1:12:38] that you're discussing for privacy. It was a beautiful tree. We woke up one

[1:12:43] day. >> That was a willow tree.

[1:12:49] » Good on your on your side or their side?

[1:12:54] » But the fence was Yeah. Okay. >> It was not removed by

[1:13:00] » got there. Yeah. Maybe unbeknownsted.

[1:13:10] Okay. No further. Do you have a question?

[1:13:12] » I have two questions. Um, how many scons did you say uh you are adding?

[1:13:18] » There are n eight or nine existing >> and so

[1:13:22] » and then now total how many? >> 19. Do you want to go? We can go to the

[1:13:26] site plan. >> I'm counting 16. That's why I'm I heard

[1:13:29] it said 19 but I'm counting 16. So I'm wondering if there is something

[1:13:33] somewhere I'm not seeing. So basically, let me ask you this. On this street side

[1:13:38] on this on San Rafael Avenue, is it just three?

[1:13:42] » Yes. >> Beyond the fence?

[1:13:45] » Yes, it is just three. >> Okay. So maybe you have 16. Um

[1:13:50] » there two two flanking the garage and then one kind of adjacent to gate.

[1:13:54] » Okay. And then another question I had is that at your entry you have two steps

[1:14:00] going down um which on the new drawings that you are showing the steps are gone.

[1:14:07] The arrow is still there. I wonder if it is a

[1:14:10] » yes I think. Mhm. The sconce note is deflect or is uh covering up this stairs

[1:14:15] that will remain there. >> Stairs remain those steps remain.

[1:14:19] » Those are near the front front door that you

[1:14:22] » Yeah. And is it a egress door? The entry door.

[1:14:25] » The front door is an eress door. Yes. >> So, don't you need a landing 36 inch in

[1:14:30] front of it? >> What will the landing be? Do you have a

[1:14:33] floor plan?

[1:14:36] » It's a good question. >> So, you

[1:14:38] » While she's pulling that up, this the sconces that are around the sides,

[1:14:41] they're kind of acting. We're not deploying any other landscape lighting

[1:14:44] or flood lights. They're kind of acting because they're lowlevel and downward

[1:14:48] cast. It's kind of acting as the navigation around all the sides. So,

[1:14:51] they're definitely not meant to be decorative sconces in the traditional

[1:14:54] sense of a sconce, >> right?

[1:14:56] » Um, no, I think you're pointing out a a a

[1:15:01] flaw and that we might need to make sure that there are 36 inches from the front

[1:15:05] door to the step. >> Yeah, basically then you will have less

[1:15:08] um you're you're um going to have less um what is it? Enclosure where you have

[1:15:13] it. But planning wise, I have no issue with it.

[1:15:16] » Understand? Maybe we'll suggest shifting the stair up. you probably have issues

[1:15:21] later on, but um >> thank you for the note.

[1:15:31] and they uh I don't know if it's outside design review purview or not which means

[1:15:36] it probably is but but a um uh and I can't and I can't take take credit for

[1:15:42] kind of drilling down on this but could we talk for a minute about the uh the

[1:15:46] FEMA substantial improvement threshold? >> Yes, absolutely. So you've get you've

[1:15:52] you have the FEMA assessed value at 6 million or so and the pro the full

[1:15:58] project not just what we're looking at today but the inside as well um totaling

[1:16:03] up pretty close to the halfway mark at 48%.

[1:16:08] » So what's what's the thinking if there you know there's there's a lot of moving

[1:16:12] parts both inside >> if the cost escalates or something like

[1:16:15] that. >> Yeah. So, how have you thought about how

[1:16:18] you might phase it if you find that something costs more than it you thought

[1:16:23] originally? I mean, >> sorry, that was loud. So, this we

[1:16:30] certainly will scrutinize the numbers at the time of building permit and we don't

[1:16:35] like to issue building permits that are at 48% um of the

[1:16:40] » leaving room for contingency. >> Yeah. Because we know things change in

[1:16:43] construction. Um, so it's certainly something to think about

[1:16:51] at the time of the planning approval or submittal, but um, we certainly have a a

[1:16:59] our building official is also the flood plan administrator and so we will sit

[1:17:03] down and crunch the numbers with the architect. Um,

[1:17:09] » yeah, again I >> sometimes things will get scaled back,

[1:17:12] right? And so It might be that they can't do the

[1:17:17] entirety of the project. Um, and they'll have to wait a year and then we're

[1:17:22] keenly we're keenly aware. >> Yeah. Great. Great. Just wanted to flag

[1:17:26] it. >> Yeah.

[1:17:28] » We we looked at the alternative of of doing a larger project or or you know

[1:17:33] doing more and raising the raising the house. Certainly.

[1:17:42] » Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from

[1:17:46] members of the public on this item?

[1:17:52] » There are no hands raised on >> a non-controversial item apparently.

[1:17:57] That's good.

[1:18:02] Uh, I'll I'll uh bring this back uh close the public hearing and um I'd like

[1:18:10] to get the commissioners to share their thoughts on it. Um, Miss Alda, would you

[1:18:15] like to start the conversation this time?

[1:18:18] » Sure. Um, I just want to thank the applicant for the presentation and

[1:18:22] clarification on the lighting plan um, and other features of the project. Um

[1:18:29] um my comments are focused mostly on the re revocable license. Um um yeah, the

[1:18:36] the improvements uh won't block any views. Um so I could find the findings

[1:18:40] for that. Um and the landscaping will be a nice addition and then um and the

[1:18:45] revoke and then the correction of the overhang is a is a good addition to the

[1:18:50] project as well. Thanks.

[1:18:56] Thank you, Commissioner Jimai. >> Um,

[1:19:03] uh, I can make the findings also for the replacement of the windows, um,

[1:19:07] extension of the deck. Um, lighting, um, I have no issues with the lighting as

[1:19:14] long as there are just three on the, um, west shore which are, uh, flanking the

[1:19:20] garage and the entry. I think those are necessary for the um visibility at

[1:19:25] night. Um the landscaping and removal of a um a pool I think would help the um

[1:19:36] community also the the landscaping would show up on the west shore which people

[1:19:40] when they walk they would enjoy that and also they are improving the um

[1:19:45] landscaping on the city property which is I think um a nice addition. I I I was

[1:19:51] um struggling a little bit with that stone wall uh that is um proposed on the

[1:19:58] city property. Um landscaping is great, but I I was going back and forth that do

[1:20:05] we need that um stone wall there and

[1:20:11] what is the result? I I think layering landscape is always beautiful like

[1:20:16] having a taller and trees and shrubs and all those combination makes it

[1:20:21] attractive. Um and I think you were maybe trying to do that with stone. I I

[1:20:26] couldn't quite understand what was the reasoning behind that design and and

[1:20:30] just because it is on the city property I also was wondering do we need and then

[1:20:35] each applicant comes and might have a new idea. Is that something that would

[1:20:42] um overall improve the walking on the sidewalk seeing different structures or

[1:20:50] is it is it positive or negative? I I wasn't I was struggling with that. Um I

[1:20:54] don't know what other commissioners think about that. I couldn't also myself

[1:20:59] decide if I um how I feel about it. I I don't have a

[1:21:05] negative um I don't think it is a negative design

[1:21:09] idea. I'm just thinking that is it good to have different structures in city

[1:21:15] property um or is it just landscaping to to resolve it with landscaping?

[1:21:23] I I wonder what others think on that. Um the rest I I can make all the findings.

[1:21:33] » Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Shinsky.

[1:21:39] » Yeah, certainly I don't um uh uh blame you for wanting, you know,

[1:21:46] first and foremost to get the property lines where they need need to be. Um uh

[1:21:51] that that seems long overdue. And if part and parcel of that means uh getting

[1:21:56] rid of that boat trailer on the front lawn, that would be appreciated as well.

[1:22:01] Although that's not a condition. I I think you know our our normal course

[1:22:06] here is to have our chair kind of look at the landscape plan at the end of the

[1:22:10] day um and approve that. And um I think that would be one of the conditions here

[1:22:16] of course uh with kind of a a special charge to you know the hot tub given

[1:22:22] that it's kind of exposed there now that that we do our best to whether the trees

[1:22:29] are start out at 6 feet or 8 feet or 10 feet. Um you know I think taller and

[1:22:35] fuller is kind of the order of the day there just given the proximity to the

[1:22:39] neighbors. Uh but beyond that, I should be able to make the findings.

[1:22:46] » Commissioner Watson, >> thanks. Um um like Olay, I also

[1:22:51] struggled with the with the wall at the at at the front. Um just because as uh

[1:22:57] well, I guess our neighbor who's who's now who's now left said, uh you know, it

[1:23:00] is a it is sort of a a tunnel a tunnel type of type of feeling with having the

[1:23:05] wall there. You know, obviously the wall used to be there because it was a pool.

[1:23:09] you know, you have to have a have a solid high, you know, barrier to kids

[1:23:14] climbing over and getting in your pool and dying. Um,

[1:23:18] but that that being that being said, I don't have I don't have an issue with it

[1:23:22] as a as a as a design element itself. Um I I do feel that both the lighting plan

[1:23:31] and the landscape plan um probably need um more more finaliz more finalization

[1:23:39] um especially since there are you know depending under under numbers um either

[1:23:48] either 10 or eight new uh wall sconces that are going to be added as well as a

[1:23:54] number of of of downward downward facing Eve lights and as we just got the

[1:23:59] lighting plan tonight, I don't I don't think I'm in a position to approve the

[1:24:04] either the lighting or the landscape plan. And so I would propose that uh

[1:24:09] both of those as well as the um the evaluation of the 36 um inch uh front uh

[1:24:17] front step landing. um

[1:24:22] that a condition be added for each one of those things to be approved by our

[1:24:26] esteemed chair.

[1:24:33] » Thank you.

[1:24:37] Um I appreciate your presentation. And I think this is

[1:24:41] a good update of of an existing house that, you know, it's got a few years on

[1:24:47] it, but it's got good bone structure. Um, so I I approve of the installation

[1:24:54] of the new windows. I think the new siding will be nice. The colors, things

[1:24:58] look appropriate and in scale with the neighborhood. You know, this really

[1:25:02] isn't an expansion of the house, so there's no issues there. Um, I'm

[1:25:07] listening to my fellow commissioners. Um, I think we're probably going to

[1:25:11] condition this um for further review for the landscape and lighting. Um, and I

[1:25:16] have to admit I don't fully from these drawings I don't fully understand the

[1:25:22] particularly the landscaping in front. I understand the the tree plan, but um I

[1:25:27] want to be reviewing the scale and and details of um particularly these things

[1:25:33] that present themselves to the street, and we'll we'll have an opportunity to

[1:25:37] look at that in the future. So, um I'll be able to make the findings in favor of

[1:25:43] this project with um with any conditions that the planning commission cares to

[1:25:49] attach to it.

[1:26:04] So, we're ready um for someone to make a motion.

[1:26:10] Could be this style word. Motion maker to my right.

[1:26:15] » It's the It's the problem of being the lawyer on the on the commission. Um all

[1:26:20] right. I'm going to I'm going to give this give this give this a shot. Um All

[1:26:24] right. I'd like to make a motion um that the um the planning commission grants

[1:26:30] approval of the design review applica application to install new exterior

[1:26:34] windows and doors, enlarge the rear yard decks um and plant new landscaping at 47

[1:26:41] Westshore with the following um with the conditions that are listed in the

[1:26:45] resolution plus adding uh the addition these following additional uh conditions

[1:26:51] that the lighting and landscaping um plans uh be uh be finalized with the

[1:26:57] approval of the chair of the um of the commission and that um a 36 in uh front

[1:27:07] uh front landing be in front of the be in front of the front door if it is not

[1:27:11] already there.

[1:27:15] » Second.

[1:27:19] » All in favor? Hi. >> Hi.

[1:27:22] » Hi.

[1:27:41] All right. >> Sorry. We have a we have another another

[1:27:44] motion 447 West Shore and it is to recommend to the city council the

[1:27:49] approval of a revocable license for private improvements um located on the

[1:27:54] west shore right ofway at 47 West Shore. >> Second.

[1:27:59] » Excuse me. I think the those low walls are in the revocable license area. So,

[1:28:06] I'm not quite sure if you're making a recommendation to the city council on

[1:28:10] the revocable license that includes those walls.

[1:28:14] So, I just want to be clear on where the commission stands

[1:28:21] and maybe they'll come back with a revised landscape plan and the walls

[1:28:26] will be >> that that

[1:28:28] » determined the location will be determined at that point. But I just

[1:28:31] want to >> that was that was that that was what I

[1:28:35] had it >> and I hadn't really thought about it in

[1:28:38] terms of impacting the revocable license as well. But it is in the city.

[1:28:42] » Yeah. I guess I'm just not clear on where the commission stands on those

[1:28:45] walls. Like are you waiting for the applicant to revise the plans to perhaps

[1:28:52] keep the walls in the right of way or >> I I just would like some clarity so when

[1:28:58] we bring it to council we kind of understand where the commission

[1:29:02] » stands or are we relying on the chair to make that determination which is fine

[1:29:06] too. city has no requirement in that sense to

[1:29:11] have or not have this type of uh specifically just for design. I think it

[1:29:16] is just for um aesthetic they are putting it. There is no reason for it.

[1:29:21] » Yeah. And we have if my memory served me correct we have a

[1:29:26] lot of improvements in the rightway on West Shore.

[1:29:28] » Yes. >> Does that do low walls does that mean

[1:29:31] that we're going to improve new ones? I don't know. I mean that's you know our

[1:29:35] sort of um philosophy now is to get everything out of the right of way.

[1:29:41] So >> we don't have set know how

[1:29:48] far into the right of way the wall is by any chance. I'm just trying to get a

[1:29:54] sense of >> I don't but

[1:29:58] » I could reopen the public hearing for a moment. It might help the other

[1:30:01] commissioners to have a better sense of what this wall is.

[1:30:04] » Yeah. >> So, um I'd like to reopen the public

[1:30:07] hearing and if the applicant could just give us a little more information

[1:30:11] regarding the height and location of the wall.

[1:30:23] » Yeah. And and I've asked for the height of I mean it could just be like a

[1:30:27] decorative curb, right? not necessarily what we're thinking of as a retain.

[1:30:31] » Yeah, that's and that >> there's nothing to retain.

[1:30:34] » I was looking for it in the elevations and I didn't really see it. So that's

[1:30:38] why I >> Sorry to make this.

[1:30:40] » Yeah, sorry. It's okay. >> There's also no dimension showing um how

[1:30:45] wide it is. So it should I mean if it goes to city

[1:30:50] council, it should show what is the dimension of the of the

[1:30:57] » One second here. We're just starting to pull it up. Um, if there's any specific

[1:31:01] guidance that you all would like to give, that would be fine. And also, we

[1:31:06] will be submitting a revised plan to illustrate more in 3D and with

[1:31:09] dimensions so that the chair can can advise us. So, we're happy with either

[1:31:13] specific advice now or andor review by the chair. But the um we're trying to

[1:31:19] get the dimension for you. Sorry, hold on.

[1:31:36] All right. So, um I I don't know if it's Jermaine or you want to hear this, but

[1:31:40] the the the low wall is approximately 2 feet encroached from the property line

[1:31:45] into the public right of way. The old fence that is permitted to be altered

[1:31:50] was 6 feet encroachment at 6 ft high. Um, and so if that helps answer the

[1:31:56] question, but again, we're not really looking for you to stamp that right now.

[1:31:59] We understand you'd like more illustration, maybe some examples to

[1:32:02] show what's what's along Westshore Road and see if this is contextually

[1:32:05] appropriate. So, we fully expect to study it ourselves, submit something,

[1:32:09] and have either a dialogue about it or get feedback from.

[1:32:12] » Yeah. And again, I wasn't sure if I caught, but um, how how tall do you

[1:32:17] visualize it? >> 18 inches is what's illustrated, but

[1:32:22] maybe not properly noted anywhere. Not sure, but that was it's a planter, I

[1:32:25] guess. It's not It does not need to be there because it's not retaining

[1:32:28] anything. It's not important to Matthew and Stacy. So,

[1:32:31] » we'll try to figure out what's best. And >> all

[1:32:35] » Yeah. But but I think the idea from a design perspective, not to belittle, it

[1:32:39] was to was to have kind of multiple tiers so that it looked kind of pretty,

[1:32:42] that it wasn't just a flat flat piece where dogs go, you know.

[1:32:46] » Okay. Thank you. I I think that's um helpful. So,

[1:32:51] um, with that, I guess the the question is, um, are is the, um, commission

[1:32:59] comfortable granting the recommendation on the

[1:33:03] revocable license at this point? Um,

[1:33:18] I I mean I I haven't commented yet, so I guess I I guess I did comment, but um

[1:33:24] regarding um this I guess I'm I'm okay uh granting the revocable license in

[1:33:32] that they're they're increasing the setback of this streetside element by 4

[1:33:38] feet. Um, and they're reducing the height. So, it's more of a landscape

[1:33:43] element and it >> it may not be the final version. You

[1:33:48] know, they they may reconsider it, but I think it's an improvement from what's

[1:33:53] there now. So, um, I could probably go with the granting

[1:33:59] the revocable license, >> right? I'm I'm I'm fine with the

[1:34:03] recommendation for the revocable license subject to to the finalization of the

[1:34:07] landscaping plans. >> Okay.

[1:34:12] So, um let's see. Did is that a motion? >> Yeah, excuse me. My apologies. I don't

[1:34:17] want to necessarily drag this out, but I think the motion needs to be with the

[1:34:20] understanding of what the proposal is, which is what the chair just described.

[1:34:24] And obviously it may change by the time it goes to council, but at least just to

[1:34:28] Rebecca's earlier point, it's just helpful for us to know when this does go

[1:34:32] to council what the planning commission is in support of. So just to be clear

[1:34:36] for the record, we are addressing the planters as described by the architect

[1:34:40] approximately 18 inches in height, approximately two feet into the

[1:34:43] rightway. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't, but at least that's the

[1:34:47] starting point. >> And material, does it need to be to

[1:34:50] include the material what it is? If that if that is pertinent to the the motion

[1:34:54] made by the commission, yes, you can incorporate it or ask about it.

[1:35:00] » And what is the material? >> It's shown on the material sheets as

[1:35:04] concrete. Um but um we're happy again to submit it, I don't know, very

[1:35:09] specifically in detail. submit it to the chair and receive feedback and and

[1:35:15] collaborate on whatever ends up going to council, including being a flat space

[1:35:18] with no planter or a planter with, you know, Cortan or bronze or some other

[1:35:23] material.

[1:35:33] Right. So, I'm going to give a shot at this at this this one. All right.

[1:35:38] All right. Um, I'm proposing a motion to recommend to the city council the

[1:35:42] approval of a revocable license for private improvements located um in the

[1:35:46] Westshore right of way at 47 Westore Drive. Um, showing the

[1:35:54] current approximately 18inch high uh planters that are encroaching about 2

[1:36:01] feet into the city rightway. In all cases, subject to finalization of the

[1:36:05] landscaping plan as approved by the chair.

[1:36:16] I need a second. >> Second.

[1:36:20] » All in favor? >> I I

[1:36:24] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:36:27] » Thank you.

[1:36:41] We will now move on to the final item of the e evening, item five, design review

[1:36:47] for new skylights, a patio door, and a roof deck at 140 San Rafll Avenue. Can I

[1:36:53] have a staff report, please? Um before the staff report, I'd just like to

[1:36:56] mention and thank Commissioner Wilson for being here and she um lives within

[1:37:01] 500 ft of this >> property, so she'll need to recuse.

[1:37:05] » Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you for joining us.

[1:37:28] Thank you, Chair Cidle.

[1:37:53] Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. Uh for your

[1:37:57] consideration this evening is an application for design review to install

[1:38:01] a second story deck, skylights, and exterior doors and windows at 140

[1:38:05] Sanfell Avenue. The subject property is 8,200 square f

[1:38:12] feet and contains a 3600 foot two-story residence with attached garage. The site

[1:38:17] is relatively flat and about single family residences to the north and

[1:38:20] south, Belvier Lagoon to the east, and Richardson Bay to the west. The site is

[1:38:26] accessible via San Rafale Avenue. The project proposes to construct a 300

[1:38:33] square foot deck on the existing firststory roof located on the southern

[1:38:37] side of the residence. The deck will be set back 10 ft from the

[1:38:41] sideyard property line and 49 ft from the rear yard deck.

[1:38:45] The southern side of the roof deck will be lined

[1:38:50] with three planter boxes to provide privacy screening from the adjacent

[1:38:53] neighbor at 150 Sanfell Avenue. Additional improvements include four new

[1:38:59] skylights, each 2 feet 10 in by 2 feet 10 in, as well as replacement of

[1:39:06] existing windows and doors.

[1:39:09] The roof deck would stand 9 ft 3 in above existing grade. The new wood deck

[1:39:14] would be bordered by 3'6 in tall glass guard rail.

[1:39:21] The project proposes to replace an existing 6'6 in tall by 13t 6 in wide

[1:39:26] door with a 7'6 in tall by 19t 1in wide glass

[1:39:32] door. window glazing glazing facing the lagoon would increase 92 square feet for

[1:39:38] a total glazing area of 289 square feet. Um a 2025 design review approval

[1:39:47] uh included the removal of clear story windows at the rear yard which uh

[1:39:51] further reduced total glazing facing the lagoon.

[1:39:57] Staff has received one letter of support from the south adjacent property at 150

[1:40:01] Sanfell Avenue and one letter from the north adjacent

[1:40:06] neighbor at 130 Sanfell Avenue requesting that two exterior sconces on

[1:40:11] the left side yard be removed or replaced uh due to the fixtures

[1:40:15] brightness. The arct architect has indicated that the owner would be happy

[1:40:19] to remove these fixtures.

[1:40:23] The project is exempt from squa. And for context, applications for roof

[1:40:29] decks are not common in the city of Belvier. However, they have come up more

[1:40:33] in the past few years. In 2025, the commission granted approval of a 125

[1:40:39] foot roof deck at the adjacent property at 130 San Rafll Avenue. And there is

[1:40:44] one roof deck located at 152 Bella Vista. Uh, with that, staff uh,

[1:40:49] recommends approval of this application and is happy to answer any questions you

[1:40:53] may have.

[1:41:03] I I have a sort of a context question, Sammy. Um,

[1:41:10] are we are you aware of other roof decks, you know, of roughly this size in

[1:41:18] the lagoon area, or is this more of an outlier?

[1:41:27] Well,

[1:41:30] I mean, the adjacent neighbor last year proposed the roof deck at the front and

[1:41:36] the roof deck at the rear, and I believe the roof deck at the rear was um

[1:41:41] shrunken, >> right? Um there's a a in the past,

[1:41:48] you know, typically people ask for more sort of like Juliet balconies right off

[1:41:53] of their master bedroom or primary bedroom, you know, facing the water. Um

[1:41:59] the the largest roof deck that I know of is at 152 Bella Vista. Um and you can

[1:42:04] kind of see it when you're down on Beach Road. They have a lot of or they have

[1:42:07] orange umbrellas. Um, but on the lagoon I can't think of uh

[1:42:15] any other ones. >> Okay, that's

[1:42:19] » but I could be wrong. You know, >> I know that's why I asked the question.

[1:42:23] I was trying to >> do the same exercise and I didn't come

[1:42:27] up with too much. I >> um I checked with Sammy prior to the

[1:42:32] hearing. I think that the the roof deck that we approved at 130 San Rafll last

[1:42:38] year um was 125 ft >> at the end of the day. Um

[1:42:45] so a little smaller. Um so I was just sort of trying to contextualize

[1:42:50] that issue. So that that was my question. Thank you.

[1:42:56] » Any other questions?

[1:43:02] Just one other note about this one in particular. You know, the the one at 130

[1:43:06] was at the rear of the property that faced out onto the water. This one sort

[1:43:09] of tucked more into the side, which we haven't seen in the past, at least in

[1:43:13] the past couple years. >> Right.

[1:43:18] Okay. If there's no further questions, if the applicant is here and would like

[1:43:22] to speak.

[1:43:29] Hello, my name is Brian Fox. Uh I'm the architect for the project. Uh here with

[1:43:34] the owner, Kim. Um so thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the

[1:43:38] site visits. Thanks Sammy for the presentation. Um, I think that the the

[1:43:45] project is fairly well understood and I'd probably limit my remarks just to

[1:43:49] talk about the roof deck in particular. Um, just there are, I think, unique

[1:43:55] things about this site that may not have been the case to the neighbor on the

[1:44:00] north or maybe some of the other roof deck proposals that you've seen. One of

[1:44:04] them definitely is the setback from the lagoon. We're almost 50 feet from the

[1:44:09] from the water line. Um, and the view out the back is pretty limited by the

[1:44:14] two-story part of the building and the mature trees on the south side. So, the

[1:44:19] experience, I think, of being up there really is almost more about being on the

[1:44:22] west side looking towards Tam than really experiencing the lagoon in a kind

[1:44:26] of immediate way. And when you're back on the deck and it back on the lagoon,

[1:44:30] you don't really feel that deck as being, you know, funnally present, I

[1:44:36] think, the way that you you would if it was on the front of the house. Um the

[1:44:40] other kind of unique things that um are present here are that we don't have any

[1:44:45] neighbors to the east and the west being on the long end of the lagoon. To the

[1:44:49] east we don't really face anybody on the west obviously Richardson Bay no houses.

[1:44:55] Uh the twotory um part of the building fully shields the roof deck from the

[1:45:00] north side and on the south side where we are proximate to the neighbor we have

[1:45:04] support uh and very few windows on that side. there's trees growing up and

[1:45:08] there's an agreement between Kim and that neighbor to do privacy screening.

[1:45:12] Um, Commissioner Watson this morning asked a good question that, you know, we

[1:45:16] proposed planters and a a hedge there as the privacy screen. Plants can die,

[1:45:22] people can move pots around. Um, Kim has indicated she's definitely open towards

[1:45:28] a more structured fence type of screen if if uh that is preferred um by the

[1:45:36] commission. And that's something that could be I think worked out um as the

[1:45:40] details are are uh proposed in the building permit.

[1:45:44] Thank you. Open for questions. >> Thank you.

[1:45:48] » I have a question for you. Um the um the pitch roof uh on the west side of the

[1:45:57] proposed deck, >> how high is it from the wherever you

[1:46:02] have a reference from the ground or from the deck? I want to see what is I want

[1:46:06] to find out the relevance to the to the um to the deck the height of that but um

[1:46:12] on your elevation I mean any reference you have

[1:46:16] » yeah the the the roof deck walking service would be elevated slightly from

[1:46:20] the roof itself for for drainage and the peak of that roof is about a little

[1:46:26] under 36 inches from the walking surface of the roof. So, if we have a 42inch

[1:46:31] railing on the roof deck, it's going to be slightly proud of that peak. Um, so

[1:46:37] visible perhaps from the the dirt path on the other side of the road, but not

[1:46:41] from the street or the sidewalk as you get closer to the house.

[1:46:45] » Thank you. >> Um, when I was there this morning, I

[1:46:48] took some I took some photos both standing on the sidewalk right in front

[1:46:52] of the house and then also um standing across the across the street. Um, and I

[1:46:58] do believe that across the street, you'd be able to see the top of the glass of

[1:47:02] the glass railing, but um, in on the sidewalk in front of in front of the

[1:47:07] street, unless you're about 6'8, which I don't think many of our residents are, I

[1:47:12] don't think you'd be able to see the glass railing.

[1:47:14] » And that proposed railing is glass. It will have a a thin top cap by code. It's

[1:47:19] required, but the idea will be to have it be as transparent as possible.

[1:47:23] » Thank you.

[1:47:30] Does anyone else have any further questions?

[1:47:38] » Um, can you can you just address the uh the two sconces that Sammy uh referenced

[1:47:43] in the in the report and are those going to get removed?

[1:47:47] » The the I understand that the the bulbs have already been taken out of those two

[1:47:51] lights. Uh and yes, Kim is willing to install sconces that are dark sky

[1:47:57] compliant that shine down that won't be a nuisance to the neighbor.

[1:48:01] » Great. Thank you.

[1:48:11] » All right. Um, are there any comments from members of the public present or on

[1:48:17] Zoom? >> No hands raised on Zoom.

[1:48:21] » Okay.

[1:48:26] With that, I will bring this item back to the commission for discussion.

[1:48:33] Commissioner Jim, why don't you start? >> Sure. Um,

[1:48:39] as far as the skylight and the exterior openings, um, I think they are all fine.

[1:48:44] Um, I don't see any issues with those. Um

[1:48:48] uh I think they lost a view from one of the skylights when another proposal

[1:48:55] came. So I think these two would um give them more light into the living room. So

[1:49:00] I think those are uh fine. And then the rear uh window also I think it's aligned

[1:49:06] with any other um house uh on the lagoon that they get the view to the um lagoon.

[1:49:13] I don't have any issues with that on the roof deck. Um what I'm um struggling

[1:49:19] with is from the San Rafael Avenue actually when you from the lagoon I

[1:49:24] think it is fine. Um it's back it's um more of a um

[1:49:32] casual I would say um you you expect more of a casual view to the house from

[1:49:38] that side which this roof deck um will provide. But on the San Rafael Avenue, I

[1:49:44] think um we have all the houses there have a relatively formal look. And this

[1:49:51] um roof deck will add a kind of a um

[1:49:57] gathering area um um party look with the umbrellas and um would would basically

[1:50:06] reduce the formal um facade of the houses on Santa Avenue. So I would say

[1:50:15] um if some sort of the same sort of um

[1:50:22] landscaping that is added to provide privacy for the next door neighbor if it

[1:50:27] is provided on the other side of the where the roof is the roof that I was

[1:50:31] asking you that is 36 in. If the same type of landscaping will be provided

[1:50:37] there, not as tall as the other one perhaps because I understand you want

[1:50:41] that roof deck to get the view from both sides that those view from both side

[1:50:47] sides are amazing. I think you should enjoy that. Um but if some sort of

[1:50:51] landscaping be introduced there, I think would soften it a little bit even if not

[1:50:57] as high so you can still see the view. But it is a little kind of a landscaping

[1:51:02] that soften it and give a little bit more formal um look to it. And as you

[1:51:10] introduce that landscaping, you basically limit the area of the deck,

[1:51:17] which would basically prevent people to go so close to it and then it basically

[1:51:23] what um Jenna was referring to when you're on the other side and you can see

[1:51:26] whatever is happening there, you can see less of it. Um, and I think that would

[1:51:32] be an improvement um to to that and I I don't think it would be a negative thing

[1:51:37] also because the square footage of it is relatively large comparing to where it

[1:51:43] ser services you know the the bedrooms and the hallway and all that if you

[1:51:49] reduce like 2 feet adding whatever it is um that that um planters if it is being

[1:51:56] introduced there I think it would um it would help with the formality of the

[1:52:04] houses on San Rafale Avenue and um and I think on your end also because the roof

[1:52:09] and um the the distance from the roof to the to where you are putting your uh

[1:52:17] glass railing is not that attractive by putting the um landscaping on your end.

[1:52:23] You you wouldn't look at that either. So, um, I think it might be a win-win

[1:52:28] situation. That is all comments I have on the deck.

[1:52:33] » Thank you, Commissioner Shinsky. >> Yeah, I would just add that putting some

[1:52:39] uh uh landscaping along the that edge of the deck um might help hide the the rain

[1:52:48] gutters and that conduit that runs along there. So, it might be better from your

[1:52:53] standpoint too as well. Um otherwise so I you know as for the uh Commissioner J

[1:52:59] was saying you know I'm just kind of thinking about formality versus

[1:53:02] informality and you know kind of the tension there.

[1:53:06] Obviously Belvadier was founded as sort of a recreational but very high-end

[1:53:11] formal recreational town. Uh so I don't know quite what that means now. Um the

[1:53:17] but overall I think the size of the deck is is uh fits the spot. The fact that um

[1:53:25] uh the neighbors at 150 are all fine with it obviously is very important. Now

[1:53:29] they don't have a lot of windows there which probably helps them be fine with

[1:53:33] it. Um uh but obviously the the screening there

[1:53:37] is appropriate. The other thought of course is as you mentioned is the you

[1:53:41] know the the you know area of glazing is being increased obviously that's out

[1:53:46] we're looking toward the lagoon although it is halfway up the property or or from

[1:53:53] from from the lagoon itself. Um and also the the the

[1:53:59] clear story on the other section has been foregone. So there's a little

[1:54:04] coming back that way. Um, and you know, particularly in relative to as you look

[1:54:08] around the lagoon to see who has equal kind of configurations that are actually

[1:54:14] fairly close to the lagoon itself, uh, it'd be hard to say that that is

[1:54:18] something that others don't enjoy. Um, so no problem there, but I I'm inclined

[1:54:23] to agree with Commissioner J about the landscaping along uh the west side of

[1:54:28] that deck.

[1:54:34] Thanks Jenna.

[1:54:38] » Thanks very much. Um so I too with with respect to the sorry

[1:54:45] this is really large plans. Um with respect to the with respect to the

[1:54:50] glazing, um I agree that um having the addition having the additional um large

[1:54:57] large doors and the increase in glazing um about 50 ft away from away from the

[1:55:02] water um really does make a make a difference in my in my determination.

[1:55:07] Um, and had there been um an increase in the glazing at the end of the bedroom

[1:55:14] where it was where it was closest um I would I would would have had would have

[1:55:18] had an issue. Um similarly, you know, I um I struggle with the idea of a roof of

[1:55:26] a roof deck sort of overlook overlooking the lagoon. Um, as I think of most

[1:55:31] people who live on the lagoon can appreciate, it is it is rather rather a

[1:55:34] fishbowl. And no one wants their neighbors looking looking down upon

[1:55:39] them, looking down into their yards. Um, or, you know, otherwise sort of having a

[1:55:45] having an outdoor an outdoor presence like right right there. Um, I do think

[1:55:52] what distinguishes this this roof deck is the fact that it is it is set it is

[1:55:58] set back in the middle of the in the middle of the lot. And to distinguish it

[1:56:03] from the um from the one that we discussed last year at the neighboring

[1:56:06] property, um it is, you know, where where it's where it's situated closest

[1:56:12] to its neighbors. There are not corresponding windows at that at that at

[1:56:17] that neighbor. um end the um the agreement to have um to have screening.

[1:56:22] Um I actually do think that some kind of um more more permanent screening

[1:56:30] um not just not just planter planter boxes would be uh would be would be

[1:56:36] preferable. Um first of all it takes up le takes up less space and second of all

[1:56:41] um it is a more more permanent uh screening screening solution for the na

[1:56:45] for the neighbor. Um, and I also like your like your suggestion for the uh for

[1:56:49] the for the front for the front side. I'll call the or the streets street

[1:56:55] side. Um, while I don't object to having um sort of a you know a thin a thin

[1:57:01] railing of glass, I think you probably wouldn't necessarily

[1:57:05] um wouldn't ne wouldn't necessarily see it. I do think that it would be

[1:57:12] more more more attractive and more and more and more natur and more natural

[1:57:16] looking up there. Um, with respect to the uh the skylights, I don't have any

[1:57:22] issue with the skylights. Um, they're going to be clear and I think that

[1:57:26] they're um that they're going to add a lot of a lot of light into the living

[1:57:30] room which is surpris surprisingly dark. So with that, I think I can make all I

[1:57:36] can make all the findings. Um, one thing I do want to highlight for the staff is

[1:57:41] um, my thinking on on roof decks in general

[1:57:46] towards the lagoon has not changed. Um,

[1:57:55] um, what um, did you mention, Jenna, that you wanted to see more permanent

[1:58:00] solution? What kind of you mean? Um

[1:58:06] so what what we had what we had discussed um for the ne for the

[1:58:10] neighboring property was having some kind of wire lattice or something of

[1:58:16] something that was more uh something that was more architectural

[1:58:21] in term in terms of in terms of in terms of in terms of a screen rather than

[1:58:26] planter boxes into which there would be uh bushes or other rather sort of lower

[1:58:34] types of greenery.

[1:58:44] » I concur with a lot of the comments of my fellow commissioners. I won't repeat

[1:58:49] them all, but um you know, I think the expansion of glazing in particular is

[1:58:54] very acceptable in the places that you've proposed it set back from the

[1:58:58] water. Skylights I'm okay with. Um, so that brings me to the roof deck and I

[1:59:08] guess I just want to exercise caution here on the subject of roof decks on the

[1:59:15] lagoon. Um, I think what I'm hearing the the consensus here and I I actually

[1:59:23] share it is that this is a one-off kind of a unique

[1:59:28] situation where the proposed roof deck really does appears to have reduced

[1:59:35] impact on neighboring properties and um visual um impact from public locations.

[1:59:44] I I actually appreciate very much Aellay's suggestion about the screen

[1:59:52] planting across the um San Rafale side of the deck. I think you know our

[1:59:58] proposal would be that that happen within the proposed footprint of the

[2:00:03] existing deck, not not an expansion of the footprint.

[2:00:07] Um, I also hear and we'll work out the conditions here, you know, that there

[2:00:13] can be a more permanent architectural aspect to the uh screen on the south

[2:00:20] side facing the neighbor. Um, and you know, if if it's the consensus of my

[2:00:27] fellow commissioners, I'm happy to, you know, do the normal landscape review,

[2:00:33] make those elements subject to future review because I actually think that

[2:00:37] particularly this I think that we'd like to maintain the planting on those two

[2:00:43] sides as well as whatever this more permanent feature is. And what that

[2:00:48] exact configuration is is kind of important to figure out at the end of

[2:00:53] the day. We don't have it before us now, but I think we can work that out going

[2:00:58] forward. >> Alex, could the railing be um inside the

[2:01:06] um planters? Basically the the plant move the railings inward

[2:01:13] to inward the deck and then put the planters outside of it because as they

[2:01:19] mentioned themselves, people move the the um landscaping or or planters or but

[2:01:26] the uh permanent uh railing remains where it is and then

[2:01:30] » I actually think that's better because how else are they going to clean their

[2:01:33] glass? I mean, if the if the planter is up

[2:01:37] against the glass, that glass is going to get disgusting.

[2:01:40] » Sorry.

[2:01:44] » Regardless, on the other side, they can't clean it. But that's the issue of

[2:01:49] glass. But but yes, that's helpful, too. So,

[2:01:54] » I think it's Can we make that? >> Uh, you can make it if if you want to.

[2:01:58] Um, I think it's a good idea. I was having the same thought. Um, so all

[2:02:03] roads lead to Rome, but it you might want to um go ahead and make the motion

[2:02:09] on this one if you kind of want to craft the wording on this.

[2:02:16] » That's not my strength, but let me do it.

[2:02:19] » I'm trying to give Jenna just a little break.

[2:02:36] Okay. I would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution granting design

[2:02:40] review approval to construct a 300 square ft second story deck, skylights,

[2:02:45] and exterior windows and doors at 140 San Rafale Avenue with um following

[2:02:54] conditions. the railing at the uh west and north

[2:03:01] side of the deck to go um

[2:03:07] two and a half ft inward um and provide um planter boxes at the outer side of

[2:03:16] the um west and uh north side of the deck.

[2:03:26] And I'd like to also add the condition that the um existing sconces that are on

[2:03:31] the north side um be swapped out for dark sky compliant downward-facing

[2:03:37] lights.

[2:03:41] » No, that can be incorporated the motion assuming that's a friendly amendment.

[2:03:46] Thank you. >> Okay, I think we have a motion on the

[2:03:52] floor. I'm to be honest, I'm not quite as

[2:03:56] convinced on the plants being um inside the railing as or outside the

[2:04:03] railing as opposed to in or inside the railing opposed out and complete and

[2:04:07] with a permanent structure on it. Um um but I just I'm not entirely

[2:04:14] convinced, but I'm going to trust you, Alex, to pull it all together using your

[2:04:19] architectural genius. Um, I mean, if you you can always negotiate

[2:04:26] between yourselves and we could make it a little less specific and it's still

[2:04:30] going to come back to me. So, um, it's uh, Donna, it depends on how you feel if

[2:04:37] if you're willing to >> I said my bit.

[2:04:41] » Okay. All right. >> May I make a a quick point?

[2:04:44] » On the west side, the the railing right now connects to the corner of the

[2:04:48] twotory part of the house. There's a series of windows that come down facing

[2:04:54] south. And so as we move that railing further to the east to put planters or

[2:05:01] screening on the other side, it kind of needs to move in the increment of the

[2:05:05] windows because the railing is going to connect with the house higher than the

[2:05:08] window sills. Otherwise, it'll connect mid window.

[2:05:13] » Yes. Um >> those windows are I I wish I knew, but

[2:05:16] they're probably about this wide. >> Yeah. That's why I brought up the 2'6

[2:05:21] inch. It seems to to sit at the mullen. >> Agreed. Yeah,

[2:05:25] » we can we can note at the to sit at the m instead of 2'6.

[2:05:33] » Okay. Second.

[2:05:37] All in favor? I >> I

[2:05:40] thank you.

[2:05:46] And now adjourn the meeting.

Planning Commission Meeting: April 21, 2026

Agenda

Transcript