I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.
Item one is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly
address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on the
agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear
to warrant commission consideration may be agendaized for further discussion at
a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak during
open forum?
Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom with hand raised?
» There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Thank you.
Reports. Are there any commissioners who would
like to provide a report?
Okay. Does staff have any reports? >> I just have a quick um report that the
um county of Marin is hosting a planning commissioner training and that we are
hopeful that all of the planning commissioners can either send me an
email or vote through that poll that I sent to you guys to choose a date. It is
from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. And I think as of right now, they have more votes
for the June 1st date, but if you'd like to get your votes in, it would be
helpful for them, the organizers of that event. Thank you.
» Thank you. I uh voted today. >> And Rebecca, I responded directly to
you. I don't think I voted, but was that adequate?
» Yes, I let them know. Yeah, you can respond directly to me, too.
» Okay. Thank you.
Now, um, consent calendar. The consent calendar consists of items considered to
be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed
by any member of the council, staff or public, the consent calendar will be
adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence they
appear on the agenda. Would any member of the planning
commission like to remove a consent calendar item?
Okay. Um, would any member of the public like to remove a consent calendar item?
Rebecca, do you see anything on Zoom? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.
» Thank you. I move to adopt this consent calendar.
» I'll second. >> All in favor?
» I >> I
» Thank you.
Now I will now open the public hearing. If any of the commissioners had exparte
contacts, please disclose those contacts on the record when it's your turn to
speak on any item.
I will now open the public hearing on item two, design review and exception to
total floor area to construct a 332 square foot addition at 340 Beach Road.
Can we have the staff >> just before that? Sorry. Um, I just
texted Commissioner Wilson and she thought it was 6:30, so she is on her
way. >> Okay.
» Uh, do you want us to wait with the presentation on 3:40?
» I think we can go ahead and she can catch up once she
» Okay. >> gets here.
» Okay. Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your
consideration. This evening is an application for design review, an
exception to total floor area for an addition, remodel, and second story deck
replacement at 340 Beach Road. The site consists of a 9,300T
parcel on the southeastern southeastern side of Belvadier Island. The site is
developed with three-story residence and detached garage. The parcel is
surrounded by single family homes to the north, south, and west, and Belvadier
Cove to the east. The residence is located at top an approximately 44%
slope. The proposed work is primarily at the
first story of the residence. The prop the project proposes a 193 foot addition
at the rear as well as a 23 ft addition on the eastern elevation.
The project would enclose the 116 square foot covered deck at the first story as
well. The 116 square foot uh feet count towards existing floor area as it has a
floor roof and is supported by columns.
The architect's renderings here show the area of improvements. The left side of
the images show where the 193 foot addition will be located.
And here on the right side, the 116 square foot covered patio that would be
enclosed with new windows.
For the commission's consideration, a portion of the existing secondstory deck
and covered patio encroached into the 20ft rear yard setback. Uh in 1979, the
city council approved a variance allowing the deck within the setback. Uh
because the covered patio is considered existing floor area and no expansion of
the structure is proposed, a new variance is not required to enclose the
patio within this rear yard setback.
From the rear elevation, a series of new 8ft tall 8 foot uh uh 2-in tall windows
are proposed. Uh no windows or door alterations are proposed on the second
or third stories. Here on the left side, a new uh window
is proposed as well. And at the right side, yard windows at
the first story will be slightly larger than the existing. Uh two exterior light
fixtures are included at this site as well.
Uh the addition would have new uh vertical wood siding, metal windows and
doors in a dark gray color. Uh and then the two wall sconces will be shielded in
a fixed downward position.
The applicant proposes a sauna and cold plunge in the sideyard as well. Uh the
architect provided additional detail about the cold plunge which is 23 in
tall uh 67 in long and weighs 110 lbs when empty. Because the cold plunge is
not considered a structure per our municipal code, it can be located in the
sideyard setback.
The applicant requests an exception of total floor area to allow 4,133
square feet where the maximum allowed is 3,94.
The request is a 216qt increase from the existing floor area which was approved
in 2012. In order to grant the exception, uh the
planning commission must make the following findings. These include that
primary views will not be significantly impaired, that there are unusual
characteristics to the parcel which minimize the floor area, that the
structure is appropriate in mass and bulk, and that the additional square
footage would not reduce privacy on adjoining properties.
Staff recommends that all findings can be made, the primary views will not be
impaired from the adjacent properties. Uh 340 is ups slope from its north and
south neighbors. and then the uphill neighbors and pedestrians along Beach
Road will not be impaired as the addition is constructed downs slope
beneath the residence.
Unusual characteristics include the site's steep slope, surrounding
vegetation, and the structures location. The addition is well below the neighbors
to the west and above neighbors to the north and south. The steep slope of the
site allows the architect to tuck the addition below the existing footprint
without significantly altering or enlarging the resident's appearance.
Additionally, the surrounding vegetation act as a privacy screening, further
minimizing the floor area impact.
Uh finally, the addition is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the
parcel. The maximum height of the structure will not increase or extend
beyond the footprint of the existing structure.
Staff has received two letters in support of the project from both uh
sideyard neighbors. The project is exempt from SQA
and uh in conclusion staff recommends that all the design review findings can
be made as well as the exception of total floor area. And we're happy to
answer any questions. Do any commissioners have questions of
staff on this item? >> I do. Um Sammy, you you mentioned about
the cold plunge, but what about the sauna? The sauna is usually taller than
cold plunge. It has a mass. Is that how how does the planning um basically
what's the rules about having a sauna which is a structure?
» Yeah, thank thank you for that question. My understanding when talking to the
architect that they would remove the uh sauna from the scope of work generally
if the sauna has if it's taller than six feet or taller uh it counts towards
floor area. So for that reason in light of putting more floor area they decided
to remove it from the scope of work.
» Thank you Sammy. Um I had a question. Um, do you know what the floor areas are
of the um immediate next door next door neighbors for this parcel?
» Not off the top of my head, but we can find I can find that out for you.
» Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make a
presentation, please?
You can run it from there if you'd like. I can share slides as well.
» Raise their hands. It looks like uh Michael Fishman.
» Yes, they've raised their hands. >> Yes. Hi.
» Um, hi. How are you? >> You're sideways.
» Hi. Are we upside down? It looks like >> Yeah, that's good.
» Okay, how about this? >> There you go. That's better.
» Um, our apologies that we cannot be there in person today.
I'm Annie. This is Michael. We are the residents at 340 Beach. We um live there
full-time with our two little boys, ages three and seven. Um our older boy is
already at Reed and our younger boy will be at Reed next year. We've now been in
the area for two years and absolutely love it. Have um engaged in the
community um have built community and really enjoy being members um and
residents of Belvadier. >> Yep. Couldn't have said it better. Thank
you guys. Appreciate the time and the interest.
Okay. Um, thank you, Michael and Annie. Uh, my name is Cedric Ber. I'm the, uh,
architect of Michael and Annie Fishman. Um, thank you, um, commissioners, um,
and chair, and thank you to the, uh, planning staff for their assistance uh,
getting us here this evening. Um I think uh Sam's presentation was was was
thorough and and covered the majority of the um of the issues at hand. Um if uh
Sammy, did you want to uh share the PDF? Mhm.
» Um really the the the main the main thing to uh to point out as we go to the
uh to the lower floor plan which is the only floor plan of uh of any work um is
that we have um three areas of addition. We were uh
we found out in in the middle of the process that uh that the or Sammy
confirmed that we don't have um the the 116 square foot deck that's off of the
existing uh laundry room does not count uh or it currently already counts
towards uh towards L coverage uh and F. Um, so
sorry, catching up here.
Um, can I I I can I can drive as much as you here on this. Uh, Sammy or why don't
we go to uh a 2.1.
So as uh as I think one more
page seven.
No, one more eight. Uh so uh really the the the genesis of
uh of the whole project uh as you guys all uh came and visited this site. Uh
obviously it's a extremely steep uh slope site. the lower floor. I don't
don't know much about the previous uh owners, but it was certainly laid out
for um I'm guessing probably a couple because it has a a exceedingly large uh
primary suite uh that takes up probably 75% of the floor and then uh one small
bedroom that is currently the the bedroom that the boys uh the boys are
sharing. So, the owners um obviously with three and seven-year-old boys, they
they will be growing and they they wanted to get them each a bedroom. Saw
that opportunity of that deck and said, "Well, that seems seems so easy to
enclose. Let's let's do that and and give two bedrooms." So, we've been
working um on developing the plan. We kind of came up with a office gym space
uh in between the two uh the boys bedrooms and the primary. And
essentially the primary bathroom is in the same location as the existing. We're
just kind of uh extending out to bear on the same pilings that are existing. uh
creating that extra 193 square ft uh at the uh the rear yard, the downhill side
uh to create the primary uh primary bedroom. Uh everything's uh kind of
cleaned up and a little more uh a little more efficient. Um, as as Sammy
mentioned, the uh the patio area off of the uh primary bathroom was really
intended as a we were we were looking to give it some purpose and thought at
sauna and cold plunge would be great and uh I I didn't uh I was not aware that
the sauna which I think we had intended as as kind of a a kit sauna from u you
know a vendor online as opposed to a permanent structure. Uh but hearing
hearing that that would count towards uh F and L coverage, we are willing to pull
that out. So if uh I'm happy to uh have that uh be a condition of approval.
Um you know, really the uh Sammy, do you want to go to the
um just the renderings? That's page.
actually we we'll stick to that to that that elevation. Um
the the this the side elevation. So we we we did reach out to both neighbors as
uh you all saw in the site visits. It's really um it's an extreme enough slope
that that even though we are increasing the the glass on the side, it's kind of
a a special circumstance that that really nobody is affected. Uh I think um
as far as the findings go, primary views are really not impacted from uh from any
of the neighbors given the the the the 45 degree slope. Um unusual
characteristics are certainly that that same 45 degree slope. Um prefer per
structure is really not changing in mass and bulk.
Uh we're just infilling um uh on uh two ends of uh two ends of uh an existing uh
existing mass all bearing on the same uh foundation.
Um and certainly not an area that will impact uh any neighboring
um views or privacy uh given the location under the deck. Um really only
as as you go down Beach Road, it really is only visible uh only the garage is
and the entry is visible. Um you could I suppose argue that it's visible from the
water, which uh uh it it is, but uh um Sammy, do you want to go to the
renderings perhaps? Or maybe maybe just go uh up one to page nine.
Uh and so the the downhill uh downhill so this is the rear rear
yard elevation. No materials are changing. We're matching the uh the
redwood siding that's existing. Uh we are shifting to uh dark anodized which
read as black uh windows on this floor. Um because we realized going to u to
match the existing which is a what used to be dark anodized which was more of a
brown. Uh so really the intent is just to to match uh match the existing. We're
going to be replacing the decking because we're redoing the waterproofing
over the new uh new areas, but it will remain a wood deck. Um, and we will
reuse the the steel and glass railing that's uh that's existing. Um, I think
uh I I'll just mention that uh on since these are all bedrooms, we we do plan to
have uh shades in all these all these rooms to um to create create a a
blackout situation for sleeping uh and sun protection for furniture and and
whatnot. Um and I think that about covers it. I'm
open to questions if you have them. >> Questions?
» Thanks, Cedric. I know we uh talked about it um yesterday. I guess that was
the that there's off to the I guess it would be the south
uh east corner of the of the property is that kind of freestanding about deck
that's about you know 25 square ft. um doesn't show up on the plans. Um you
know, as I mentioned, it's, you know, there's some concrete steps down from
the patio that lead there. Um where, you know, apparently there's going to be a
cold plunge. I I just think that's awfully enticing when there's kids
around and no railing around it. >> Um you know, it's about 30 feet down
before you hit anything if you go to the edge of that.
» So, I'm just a uh wondering if you have any thoughts. I might I could see also
where that deck might be helpful in the course of construction as well uh to put
stuff on. But um what are your thoughts on that is or
» u to to be honest that was uh well so the the deck was was there when uh Annie
and Michael bought the bought the property. Um I I I I'll be honest I
don't think we even noticed when we were doing the plans that it's there. Um, I
I'm I'm happy. I It may or may not be useful during construction, but if uh if
you'd like us to remove it, I I don't think I mean with uh a on the downhill
side a good seven or eight foot drop uh perhaps five at best. Uh it is it is
definitely it wouldn't wouldn't meet code requirements uh at all. So um I
don't think any of us would want our kids playing on it.
uh happy to to follow your lead on what what you it may be useful during
construction. So perhaps the condition is to remove it after or you know before
final inspection. Um but happy to happy to um work with you on that one.
» Great. >> That's it for me.
» Thank you. Um anyone else? >> Um I have a question too. You mentioned
um the deck is going to be replaced with wood, but on our site visit you
mentioned it's going to be um pedestal pavers.
» Oh, sorry. I I described the I described a pedestal system which can be wood or
stone. >> So, it's going to be wood over the
pedestal. Your pedestal is going to be wood.
» The current construction of the deck, which is a little unusual, it's it's
vertical 2x4s with almost no spacing between. So, we're just because
obviously three and a half inch thick deck is atypical. Uh, so we're just
going to do a I'm assuming a eBay deck or or or but a 3/4 inch material over
the drainage plane. Uh, but on a on a pedestal system.
» Got it. Thank you. >> Um, I have a I have a question and it
may also be a question for for for Sammy. Um in those in the staff report
it says that in 2012 the planning commission um approved um uh 4,181
square ft an exception to total floor area. I know that the current floor area
of the of the house is only 3,917 square ft. Um, and what's being proposed
is 4,133, which is below what the what the report
says was permitted in in 2012. Do we know why? Uh, first of all, there's a
discrepancy between what was approved in 2012 and what was actually con
constructed and if so, what was approved in 20 in in in
2012?
» Perhaps they didn't. We don't know, but I can speculate that they didn't build
the entirety of the project that was approved in 2012.
» I I don't know. I started in 2015 here. >> Yeah. Yeah.
» Yeah. >> You're like, I'm a long I'm a longtime,
but not that long. >> I I have a little bit of insight,
although I I ultimately I'm not sure I have the the absolute answer. I think
the uh the the what's on screen right now, the bedroom one was uh extended out
downhill I maybe like eight 8 feet or so. So that that that was the that was
the project in 2012. >> Um
ultimately when I do asbuilt drawings I I I do my own calculations. I can't I
can't rely on somebody else's numbers. So I just I do them as I as I see fit
and you know if if obviously if planning has any questions we we go through them.
Yeah, I mean I I was just I was curious as to whether um either the expansion of
um you know the enclosure of the deck into what's now going to be bedroom 2 or
the extension under the deck and what's now going to be part of the primary
bedroom was part of the plans that were reviewed in 20 in in approved in 2012.
But >> I I I did look at the old plans and I I
it was it was only focused in that that bedroom one that's on screen right now.
» Thank you.
» Okay. Any other questions? See none. Um are there any comments from members
of the public regarding this item?
Rebecca, any hands raised? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom.
» Okay, with that, I will close the public
hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for discussion. Um,
Commissioner Shinsky, do you want to start the conversation?
» Yeah. So, um, just a couple things. Uh, one I
I appreciate the uh the fact that the uh you know the the window uh trim with the
ani anodized bronze that that the intent is to ultimately uh change the upstairs
windows to match that. Um I think that's ideal so to prevent them from standing
out. Um overall it I I do think the the the project works for me. I think in an
in an ideal world where um you have a
uh a project where you know a couple exceptions to the square footage have
historically already been granted. Um maybe a little earlier in the process we
might chase you down and try to convince you to, you know, put in a countertop
and a little sink and call it a JU. Um but I'm not going to stand on that
tonight. I think the fact that the the square footage kind of tucks nicely
under, you know, within the existing footprint uh helps to get me there. Um
that's that in the deck I mentioned. That's
about all my comments. Alex, thank you, Commissioner Watson.
» Well, I think Don just stole my thunder. Um,
you know, I' I'd like I'd like to note that, you know, while 44 uh degree slope
is extremely extremely steep, there are a number of other properties um
especially on that on that stretch of beach which also have very very uh steep
slopes. Some of which we've we've actually seen in front of our commission
re recent rec recently. Um, and the reason why I asked about the the size of
the of the of the neighbors is um, you know, while I appreciate that this is an
exception to overall floor area, um, I do like the fact that it the overall
footprint is not is not changing as um, other than the the small addition um, by
the uh, by the bathroom which itself is actually underneath underneath the eve
upstairs. Um and so from a from a total bulk and size perspective, the the
addition will will fit will fit within. Um I too generally do not like to have
uh floor area exceptions where um there's not an additional unit being
added. Um but to the extent of of I'll say equity and fairness um to the extent
that the the immediately um next door next door neighbors are I believe as
larger if not if not larger it would seem to be inequitable to not permit
this home this homeowner to um extend their livable floor floor space within
the within the same footprint.
Commissioner Watson, if you'd like, Rebecca pulled up the floor area. Uh 344
beach is 3,700 square foot plus the garage. Uh and then 330 beach is 4,200
plus the garage.
And does that in in I I know one of the neighbors is under construction right
now. Is that the to be constructed square footage?
» That neighbor um it has a red tag and should not be constructing. So we aren't
very clear exactly what is happening.
» Okay. Commissioner Jama
» as far as the floor exception I also think that um the um mass and bulk is
already there um and they are um basically building underneath which um
doesn't add anything to the uh visual there is no visual impact from the
street from the sides from nowhere and also I think looking at other side of
these um buildings is not attractive if even being seen which I don't think it
is being seen but even if it does I think enclosing it um makes it more
attractive however that void that they are enclosing I think it is an
attractive um architectural um element of the property but at the same time
it's not being viewed from anywhere so um I'm not objecting it so I have no
problem with that I can make the findings as far as the sauna I I think
um
as it is not presented what is that sauna is that look like and it is going
to be added to the floor area I would say um make it a condition uh to
condition of approval to remove that sauna um that is noted on the drawings
um that's all for me
» thank you And with that, I would like to introduce the newest planning
commissioner in Beladair, Zolda Wilson. Thank you for joining us. I'll ask you
for your comments now. >> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I just want
to um thank the applicant for uh the presentation tonight and uh to sort of
echo some of the comments from the other commissioners. I do think that the
design was thoughtful and trying to um comply with the existing conditions
around the site. you know, as far as design review, um the structure will
remain in character with its setting even with the um infill project and for
the floor area exception as well. Um given the uh the steepness of the site
and the location of adjacent properties, uh the impact is minimized of the floor
area exception on the site. So I I could make that finding as well. And and I
understand the condition of approval um with the ASA removal that would be just
for the floor area exception. Is that right? It's not for the design review uh
findings. >> I don't know the answer to that.
» I'm assuming the sauna is being removed uh because of the floor area exception
question, not for design review. >> What? No, it's a a structure within the
setback. Yeah. >> Um,
» we don't have any design for it either. We don't know how it looks like.
» Oh, where it's going. Yeah. >> I guess I just wondering where it goes
in the um I I think it'd be cleaner to put it in the design review resolution
only because we're not accounting for it in the floor area exception resolution
and we reference the plans and the date in the design review resolution. So we
can say with the you know the set of plans prepared by such and such on this
date with the removal of the sauna. So it's clear on that one.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Uh when I uh visited the house I must say I was impressed with um just the
dynamism and the views of the interior. It's an interesting house and you know I
think that's the nice thing about Belvadier. you have all these different
periods and characters of houses. I think that the architects done a good
job of um figuring out how to do an expansion and make it more of a family
home because it really didn't appear to be, you know, long-term workable as a
family home. The the new interior space is, as other commissioners have noted,
um tucked under the existing massing and within the columns. So um the impact is
really minimized and I think he's worked um very well with the existing character
of the house and and maintained that. Um I guess I was um thinking some similar
thoughts to some of the other commissioners when we see a Florida
exemption of this magnitude come in and it's about 33% of the base allowed area.
Um, I think it's all kind of in our minds to see if there's an opportunity
to have some of that space um be applied to an ADU or a J AU
um which would thereby reduce the uh amount of the floor area exception. Um,
in fact, I um pursued the thought a little further and I had a conversation
with the the owners, the architect and the staff. there did appear to be a room
that um in my mind looked like it fit um would fit well as a J AU without any
modification. Um however um and everybody listened very patiently to my
thoughts. Um and I became a little more educated. There's there was one factor
that was missing um which was somewhere there would need to be another
accessible exterior door in the house. Um now um having said that you know
perhaps if that issue had been raised earlier in the design process maybe it
could have been easily accommodated um this probably isn't the time to raise
the spectre of redesign but um I just wanted to comment on it because I think
as we continue to look at floor area exemptions going forward that's going to
be um something that's in the front of all of our minds and um we'll be hoping
to, you know, find as many opportunities to get additional units into the city as
possible. Um, so with that, I I'm going to be able to make the design review
findings and also um find in favor of the exception to the total floor area.
So, um, with that, I think we're probably ready to vote. Um I just want
to read >> vote but get a motion. You want to say
something? Go ahead. >> Yep. So it sounds like we have uh two
additional uh conditions that have been floated by the commissioners. The first
is the removal of this of the sauna from the from the design review um under
under consideration and the second is the removal of the deck below the east
side of the house um at at the end of construction.
Nodding. darling. Okay.
» So, um you want to make that a formal motion?
» Do you want to make make the motion? All right. Um All right. I'd like to make a
motion that the planning commission um uh grant approval of the design review
application pursuant to uh title 20 of the Belvadier Municipal Code for
residential addition and re and remodel at 340 Beach Road uh with the following
additional um condition conditions added to uh the resolution. a new condition M
which is the removal of the of the sauna from the design review approval and
condition N which is the removal of the deck below the east side of the house at
the end of construction. >> Second.
» All in favor? I >> I
» we needed a motion on the exception. I think someone would care to make that.
Um,
don't.
All right. Um, I'd like to um to make a motion that the planning commission
grant the application for an exception to total floor area based on the based
on the findings that are listed in the in the resol in the resolution according
to section 19.52.120a1
of the Belvadier Municipal Code with respect to 340 Beach Road.
» All in favor? I >> I
» Thank you.
Thanks.
» We will now move on to hear item three, demolition application to remove a
garage shed and stairs at 135 Belvadier Avenue. Can we have a staff report,
please? Thank you again, chairs Idol and commissioners.
For your consideration is an application for demolition permit to remove a
detached garage, shed, and wood stairs at 135 Belvadier Avenue.
The project site is on a steeply sloped 52,000 foot lot. Uh the site received
lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three parcels.
The site is developed with a dilapidated residence, detached garage and wood
staircase. Uh the property contains mature unmaintained vegetation and
single family residences flank each side of the property and Richardson Bay abuts
the property at the rear.
The applicant is requesting a demolition permit to remove the existing 921 square
foot garage, shed, and associated wood stairs from the front of the property.
The scope of demolition also includes removal of fallen trees in the vicinity
of the garage and a damaged guardrail along the driveway.
A portion of the existing garage encroaches
onto city property. The approval of the proposed demolition would eliminate this
non-conforming structure which does not meet the city's front yard setback
requirements. Additionally, concurrent applications
are under review
uh to remove an existing front yard fence that encroaches into the Belvier
Avenue right away. The project there would install a new six-foot fence along
the front property line with a small portion remaining within city property.
Uh this project would be exempt from SQA and staff recommends that all demolition
findings can be made particularly in that the demolition will not remove a
housing unit and that the demolition will not have an impact on the
availability of housing units thereby staying consistent with the goals of the
city of Belvadier's housing element. Thank you and we're happy to answer any
questions. >> Um Sam Sammy I just have one question
for you. Um, is I understand that the fence is not up for approval tonight or
is the fence up for approval because it's not included in the motion?
» The fence is not part of this application for approval. Uh, it went
through the design review process, more of a exception level.
» Okay, great. Thanks. Just making clear.
So, um I'm used to seeing applications for demolition when there's a new
project coming. There's not um a new project here um referenced, but do you
have any sense of, you know, what the future of this property is?
» Yeah, good question. We we have an application in right now for a a new
residence as well. uh planning is currently reviewing those plans for
completeness uh and it's a project for a brand new residence.
» Thank you. >> J.
» Excellent. >> All right. I have a couple of questions
too. Um so when you are
approving a fence don't you require a survey and um for that fence being in
the city property do you require revocable license?
» We we do require a survey um and this property has a revocable license for the
fence currently.
So Sammy, just so I'm clear, this is this is the replacement fence while the
project is going on or the forever fence that's being
approved. >> Just a reminder, we're not reviewing the
fence tonight here, right? We're the fence is under a separate design review
process. >> Um I don't know if it's a forever fence.
Um but the architect and the architect is here so he could
probably answer that. The architect who submitted the plans for the single
family home ADU and JADU. I think what's happening is the this application is for
the demolition of the garage and there's going to be a driveway cut into the
property and a driveway that goes down to a garage on lower on the site. But um
could probably answer those questions better.
» Sorry. So, the uh new fence is you said it's approved by staff. It's a staff
level approval. >> The design review exception. So, it's
it's approved by the city um the city manager
» but the demolition is not >> demolition applications are required to
go to the planning commission. But new fences aren't always required.
Thank you.
» Okay. If the applicant is here and would like
to speak.
» Hi. Yeah. My name is David Katsub and I'm the architect.
» Is it on?
Okay, sorry. Um, yeah, my name is David Katsub and I'm the architect. So, this
all started, we wanted to uh replace the existing fence because it's basically
falling down, but since the existing fence is on city property, um, it's
necessary we we necessarily have to uh demolish the garage structure to put the
new fence on because the garage is on city property. So that's why the
demolition permit was um um made. So um as as far as the the overall design for
the new proposal, this will not be the final fence. The final fence um will be
a totally different design. It'll it's metal. It follows the property line. Um
there is an encroachment permit right now. We want to keep the existing
driveway and that gate. you know, we're going to resurface it and make it look
nice, but we want to keep it for um potential use and construction, but at
the end of the day, the new driveway is at the end of the property towards
Cliff. So, where that gate is will be part of a fence structure that's part
that'll be consistent with the design that we're doing. And then, um in
addition, once that's done, we do get an additional parking spot on the street.
So, that's helpful. So the new design is they're reviewing it right now, but we
have made that application. So we didn't really intend to do the
demo right now. It's just that that thing is just falling apart and we'd
like to clean up the appearance and also for safety.
» Yeah, it's definitely an eyesore.
» Any other questions for the applicant while he's there?
Thank you.
Are there any comments from members of the public?
Um, good afternoon. So, my name is Steve Silverstein. I'm a 30-year resident here
of Belvadier. I've been here long enough. This will be the fourth house
being proposed for this site in the 30 years that I've been here. And I've been
at the planning commission meeting for each of those three previous
ones going back almost 30 years. And each time I have complained about the
fence. Uh what we have in that area is kind of a tunnel. The fence is ugly and
it's falling down and it creates a wall depend on one side and the other side of
course is the uphill of the properties and so you have a like you're going
through a tunnel there and it's ugly and so on and I was a little shocked just to
hear that the proposed fence even though it's temporary is going to be six feet
high which means it's going to continue this walled defect. act. I sort of
thought that uh fences were only supposed to be five feet high so that
when you if you're over five feet, you can walk by and see over the top and see
the see the views there, which is what a lot of people like like to do. So, I
hope whatever fence is done is low or set further back into the property so we
can see over it. I drive by or walk by this thing every single day and I would
like to finally see this tunnel demolished. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you for your comments and I um just want to say it does not appear
that the planning commission has any say on the fence, but I'm sure other people
who are present heard your comments um who are involved in the approval. So,
thank you. >> Um, Alex, can we ask the staff to
explain again one more time? Sorry, I asked this twice, but I'm still not
clear, especially when one of the um our neighbors also is concerned. How because
I have seen that we previously had fences on um design review and you
mentioned some are, some are not. Can you explain what made this fence
something that uh did not require um design review?
» Sure. >> So, if someone comes in for an
application to replace an existing fence, it doesn't rise to the level of a
planning commission review. In this case, it just happens to be a very well,
it's a it's a fence replacement, right? And so, we just it's isolated. A lot of
the fences that come to the planning commission are included with a major
landscape plan or a new house or a major renovation and they're redoing all of
their fences as well and updating landscaping. This application was merely
to replace a fence which fence replacements
as I said isolated don't come to planning commission. Where this one got
a little complicated was in order to move the fence right off of the city
right ofway. It required to demolish to demolish the garage. So it's kind of
like a little bit of a domino effect here. And so that all demolitions then
are required to come to planning commission. So that's why we're even
entertaining and talking about the fence because we're here for the demolition of
the garage.
Thank you.
» Is there anybody on Zoom, Rebecca, that wants to comment on this?
» There's no hands raised on Zoom. >> Thank you.
I'll now close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the commission
for discussion. Um, Commissioner Jai, would you like to
start the discussion? >> Sure. I think um as um everyone probably
agrees that that garage is in a bad shape shape. Safety issues and removal
of it u would be a um in in the benefit of the public. So I
have no um problem with demolishing that um garage.
» Thank you, Commissioner Wilson. I have support that application
based on the overall finding that supports the city plan and
additionally there's nonformance
correct.
» Thank you Commissioner Shinski. Godspeed,
» Commissioner Watson. >> Um, I also can make the can make the
findings as I believe the existing garage is both unsafe and an and an
isore and should be demolished. I'm not sure if we have um if anyone has
contacted the local coyotes though who apparently are using it as a home, but
um I'm also in favor of removing their home.
Thank you. Also, I will also be able to make
findings um in favor of the demolition. Um I'll be surprised if there's any
conditions to craft here. I think we're probably ready to take a vote on
this uh as soon as I get a motion. >> All right. Um, I'd like to make a motion
um to grant approval um to title 16 of the Belvadier Municipal Code to allow
the demolition of the existing detached garage, shed, and wooden stairs at 135
um Belvadier with the conditions that are listed in the resolution.
» Thank you. >> Second.
» All those in favor? I >> I
» Thank you.
We'll now move on to item four, design review and revocable license for a re
remodel at 47 West Shore Road. Can we have a staff report, please?
» Thank you again, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your
consideration is an application for design review and revocable license for
window and door replacement, deck enlargement, and new landscaping at 47
Westshore Road. Subject parcel is 11,000 square ft and
contains a 4,300 ft two-story residence and attached two-car garage. Site is
relatively flat and sits on the western side of Belvadier Island. Uh the site
includes a front yard swimming pool, overwater deck, and boat lift.
The project involves an exterior remodel that would include new windows and doors
uh and siding across all elevations as well as a partial uh removal of the
existing roof. The project includes deck expansions
along the side and rear yard, new landscaping,
and a new hot tub and fire pit. Regarding roof modifications, the
project proposes to remove 173 square ft of the canal levered first story roof.
The current eve encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. While removing
the eve would not bring the structure into conformance with the setback
requirements. It would reduce the encroachment by two feet and three
inches. A non-reflective matte finish metal roof
fascia in a dark bronze color would be installed where the eve would be
removed.
The existing uh cupboard entry currently 2 20 271 square feet uh count towards
floor area and would be reduced to 143 square ft as part of the interior
remodel. This reduction would be visible from West Shore Road resulting in a
reduced uh and smaller entry canopy.
Regarding the deck expansion, the northern sideyard deck would be enlarged
from 152 square feet to 600 square feet. Uh it would also include a new stair
access to the shoreline. The southern side deck would be expanded
290 ft mainly along the left side yard. Uh, under a separate application, the
applicant proposes to install a new 6-ft tall fence along the side and front
property lines to accommodate this deck expansion.
The project proposes to replace or reconfigure the exterior windows and
doors. The majority of the openings would be in the same location and of
similar size to those that exist facing West Road. No significant window changes
are proposed. Facing the rear in Richardson Bay, a new clear
story window and 5' 6 in by 4' 5 in fixed window are proposed.
And on the left side, one sliding door would be replaced with a smaller window.
At the right sideyard, uh window and door modifications are generally
proposed in the same locations.
New horizontal wood siding in a light gray color is proposed throughout the
residence. Uh the rear and sideyard decking would be constructed constructed
of natural epay wood with a light gray finish and windows and doors would be
constructed using anodized metal with a dark bronze finish.
The project proposes new landscaping and the front yard. Landscaping would
include four bay laurels to 20t tall along with lavender and baby mat rush
along the southern and northern sidey yards. English laurel to 10 ft tall are
proposed
and within the west shore road right ofway. The project proposes two bay
laurel to 20 feet tall and matt rush within a 20-inch tall concrete planter.
One thing uh commission for your consideration I didn't address this in
this we didn't address this in the staff report uh the laurel to 10 feet tall
typically uh hedges we we get neighbor uh input for hedges that are uh 8 feet
or taller. on this project. We didn't get those any any uh consideration from
neighbors. So, it's something for your consideration.
Uh exterior lighting would include 10 recess down lights primarily at the uh
at the canal lever uh roof at the rear of the house and 19 wall-mounted sconces
throughout the uh residence.
The applicant requests a revocable license to allow the existing driveway
and proposed landscaping to encroach into the Westshore Roadway.
Uh the project if approved is exempt from SQA
and uh staff recommends that all the design review findings can be made and
the recommendation for revocable license and staff is happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Thank you, Sammy. Do we have questions?
» Sammy. >> Yes.
» Hi. Um, so, um, I I know that the the plans that were waiting for us tonight
and that you emailed to us this afternoon have changed in a number of
ways from the plans that we were looking at when we when we did site visits. Can
you just sort of run down for us the the material
different the material differences in the two sets of sets of plans just
because I for one that we're looking at was looking at the old plans.
» Yeah. The the uh
well the the changes that you have are actually it's it's a clarification on
the plans that you guys received. the planting legend says um has a a letter
and then on the plant itself it's shown as a one uh for for some of the
plantings. So there there was and then there's also I think an olive tree that
was proposed on the legend but it's not shown on the plans. So the architect
fixed removed that and then also removed the the correctly identified the mat
rush. >> All right. Um I because I'm looking at a
2.4 and there it's not showing the two trees
that are outside of the fence that you just showed on
» 82.4. >> Yeah.
» If I could just jump in here. Thanks >> sheet A1.0.
The adjacent property address was corrected to read 49 West Shore. Sheet
A1.5. The floor area table has been corrected to match the diagram. There
was a discrepancy there. Um, the project is removing 91 square ft rather than 117
square ft. >> Okay.
» Um, A1.6. As Sammy said, the landscape sheet has been corrected so that the
plant legend matches right there. there were some number lettering issues that
just didn't match there. Um
Sammy mentioned the fascia and then on A3.1 there's an exterior lighting plan
that's been added. The applicant is proposing 10 recess down lights and 19
wall-mounted sconces.
I think we should get some clarification from the architect on whether those 19
lights are all new. I suspect >> they're replacing some as well as um
adding new ones, but let's let's get clarification on that.
» Okay. >> And Commissioner Watson, would you like
me to pull up the original plans and what you received today on the on the
screen so we can compare them? No, it's okay. Thank you.
» So, so do we know the u the status of of 49 that is it is it are are the owners
there the family who has been there or the ones that are buying it or I can't
keep track what's going
Actually,
if you could just hold off until >> I don't need to know, but just
» when it's your turn, it would be great if you could come to the mic and answer
that. Thank you so much.
And I don't know the status of 49. No, I don't.
» Okay. Are there any other questions? Um, with that, we can ask the applicant to
make a presentation if they like.
» Exactly. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Hi, I'm Stacy Perry. This is my
husband, Matthew Perry. We've been on West Shore since 2020, so almost six
years now. We started out renting and loved it so much that we purchased the
home a few years ago. I met many of you yesterday. So, thank you to the
commissioners for coming through the house. And um we have a 21-year-old
daughter who's in college, so she's still with us in the home.
want to add anything? >> No, it's perfect.
» Neighbors. >> Okay, so um we have new neighbors at 47
Westshore and new neighbors at 40 I mean at 45 because we're 47 and new neighbors
at 49. We have met the new neighbors at 45. A lovely couple with a young
daughter. She's 11 and we have not yet met our new neighbors at 49. So we do
not believe they have moved in yet. So, we've tried several times to just knock
on the door and introduce ourselves, but they do not appear to be moved in.
» Do you want me to add anything on that? The former owner at 49.
» You want me to? All right. >> They were very aware of what's
happening. The new owners, I think, is the real owner bought it from
it. >> Um, and my name is Steven Sutro. I'm the
architect for the project. Um, and I'll walk you through a series of slides
explaining the design. Um, are you ready to share? Are you sharing screen?
There we go.
And you flip to the next. Okay. Um, thank you for the
presentation, Rebecca and Sammy. Um, so as they said, the proposed project
involves the the remodel of the existing single family home, including new
windows and doors, replacing the existing siding, rear deck expansions,
and I'll explain a little bit more about that. Um, updated landscaping, and minor
interior floor plan changes. Um, the next slide here, um, the image on the
left shows the existing street facade and the rendering on the right shows the
proposed with updated windows, new siding, and updated landscaping. We
removed the eve as was as was mentioned over the garage and modified it to be
tight around the structure removing a portion of its non-conformance.
Um let's see at the bottom left of the render um you can see the proposed
landscaping changes. Um the the fence um is part of a separate permit but it's
interesting to the application in two ways. One is it is um located like many
are along west shore uh in fully in the public right ofway and very tight to the
sidewalk. And so we um work with staff to um suggest pushing it back so that um
a pedestrian enjoys more landscaping. And so the the public right of way or
the the um encroachment permit revocable license kind of thing will be for
landscaping instead of that tall fence. So the fence is moving back. Not part of
this application, but it's kind of a part of the overall design. Likewise, um
our survey showed us that the fence line on both side property lines was
substantially um on Stacy and Matthew's property by several feet in each
location, meaning 40 the neighbors on each side were kind of enjoying the use
of several feet of Matthew and Stacy's property historically. So, the fence
permit um which has been granted um relocates the same height fence to a
location that is on the property line. and that's been discussed with the
neighbor that is present, not been discussed with the one that is not. So,
um, what we're doing in the newly found swaths of land is is some landscaping
and and expanding the existing surfaces of the deck. We kind of mislabeled the
one that is on the side with the trash and access alongside the the garage
actually is going to be on the ground and the deck is going to stop kind of
where it does now and we're going to step down onto the ground. So, that's an
error on on our part. Um there are about um nine uh sconces on the outside of the
building today. So uh it's correct that they're not all 19 or are new. Um but um
19 total is what we've suggested in the lighting plan. They're downwardly cast
very kind of minimal looking things. On the water side of the uh property are
some eve lights in the overhang um that faces kind of like a a wash board or a
place where traditionally you can walk and wash the windows that face the bay.
Um, and so we're suggesting replacing those large light fixtures with small
aperture ones and increasing the number a little bit along that eve. Um, let's
see if I want to point out anything else because I went off script. Um, the
material slide if you want to go to that. Um, we're suggesting um kind of a
gray um stained siding. Um, this is from Delta Mil Works. It's a nice Aoya um
heat treated product that is natural 100% natural wood that has been heat
treated for resistance to decay. Um and in our previous project where we've
we've used this product, the the gray does a nice job of um fading to gray as
it weathers. Meaning kind of as the stain erodess, as they all naturally do,
it doesn't so much require restaining because it's turning gray. The wood is
turning gray in the sun naturally. Um, and then we're uh proposing kind of a
dark bronze color on the sashes and and trim. Um, natural concrete on the
planter and the underside of the sophet in um a cyprress or cedar.
I think that's Oh, unless I've missed something. No. Okay. I'm here to answer
questions. Thank you.
Questions from commissioners.
I have a question about the lighting plan. Um, sure. The image that's up
there now, those under the lights that are under the overhang in the back. Is
that all part of the lighting plan? Those exterior lights.
» Uh, so the lighting plan here shows the little dots that are,
» you know, that's the overhang beyond the living room. You can see the living room
furniture. So those little dots key into the a recess outdoor rated outdoor
fixture. Okay. And there are several fixtures that are there. Maybe there are
six today. They're they're much larger. So the idea is to to make smaller
aperture ones and increase the frequency a bit.
» Okay.
» I have a a question and I'm I'm not sure if it's it's maybe for both staff and
the applicant. Um, I noted you said that the the fences are being moved at the
same height that they are. And I I had the impression that some of the fences
were taller than six feet. >> And um I'm not even sure are the fences
part of this application. Let's start with that. The fences are not part of
this application. So, um maybe this is not pertinent, but um
I guess because we're thinking about heights of planting related to neighbors
and neighbor conditions staff, do you want to make any comment on that?
» The fencing is not part of this application.
» Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
» So, >> uh so I I I'm sorry. I think that you're
asking because it's Germaine for the planting question that staff raised the
for the English laurel. The fence is about 6'6 right now. It's a standard six
foot board, but it's set on top of a horizontal runner. So, it's probably
6'6, 6' 5 and a half, something like that. The new plan um that's not part of
the application, but Germaine to the discussion of design is for it to be six
foot even. >> Thank you for that.
um including the portions that are currently built up a little bit towards
49. >> Yes.
» So So um just to be clear, the So the the tub is going to be moving
um out toward the water past where the fence line is. Yes.
And then there's I guess three laurels then proposed to
screen it >> correct
» from and I can't you know I don't I can't make the case for
49. Um
I other than to observe that that's very close to where they are. Yes. And that's
a exposed tub. And I if I were the neighbor, I'd want those trees to be as
mature as possible and as large as possible when they went in. Um
uh I might also Yeah, I won't go there. Um
um and that's it for right this moment. Um, while we're talking about the hot
tub, where where is the mechanical going to be for the hot tub?
» Um, it's integral. It's it's um it's a diamond spa is the proposal which has it
all integrated into the square of the cube.
» Yeah. No external. It's not like a a swimming pool or that kind of thing
where there's extra equipment. >> Matthew was just noting that there was a
very large tree that was recently removed uh right there in that location
that you're discussing for privacy. It was a beautiful tree. We woke up one
day. >> That was a willow tree.
» Good on your on your side or their side?
» But the fence was Yeah. Okay. >> It was not removed by
» got there. Yeah. Maybe unbeknownsted.
Okay. No further. Do you have a question?
» I have two questions. Um, how many scons did you say uh you are adding?
» There are n eight or nine existing >> and so
» and then now total how many? >> 19. Do you want to go? We can go to the
site plan. >> I'm counting 16. That's why I'm I heard
it said 19 but I'm counting 16. So I'm wondering if there is something
somewhere I'm not seeing. So basically, let me ask you this. On this street side
on this on San Rafael Avenue, is it just three?
» Yes. >> Beyond the fence?
» Yes, it is just three. >> Okay. So maybe you have 16. Um
» there two two flanking the garage and then one kind of adjacent to gate.
» Okay. And then another question I had is that at your entry you have two steps
going down um which on the new drawings that you are showing the steps are gone.
The arrow is still there. I wonder if it is a
» yes I think. Mhm. The sconce note is deflect or is uh covering up this stairs
that will remain there. >> Stairs remain those steps remain.
» Those are near the front front door that you
» Yeah. And is it a egress door? The entry door.
» The front door is an eress door. Yes. >> So, don't you need a landing 36 inch in
front of it? >> What will the landing be? Do you have a
floor plan?
» It's a good question. >> So, you
» While she's pulling that up, this the sconces that are around the sides,
they're kind of acting. We're not deploying any other landscape lighting
or flood lights. They're kind of acting because they're lowlevel and downward
cast. It's kind of acting as the navigation around all the sides. So,
they're definitely not meant to be decorative sconces in the traditional
sense of a sconce, >> right?
» Um, no, I think you're pointing out a a a
flaw and that we might need to make sure that there are 36 inches from the front
door to the step. >> Yeah, basically then you will have less
um you're you're um going to have less um what is it? Enclosure where you have
it. But planning wise, I have no issue with it.
» Understand? Maybe we'll suggest shifting the stair up. you probably have issues
later on, but um >> thank you for the note.
and they uh I don't know if it's outside design review purview or not which means
it probably is but but a um uh and I can't and I can't take take credit for
kind of drilling down on this but could we talk for a minute about the uh the
FEMA substantial improvement threshold? >> Yes, absolutely. So you've get you've
you have the FEMA assessed value at 6 million or so and the pro the full
project not just what we're looking at today but the inside as well um totaling
up pretty close to the halfway mark at 48%.
» So what's what's the thinking if there you know there's there's a lot of moving
parts both inside >> if the cost escalates or something like
that. >> Yeah. So, how have you thought about how
you might phase it if you find that something costs more than it you thought
originally? I mean, >> sorry, that was loud. So, this we
certainly will scrutinize the numbers at the time of building permit and we don't
like to issue building permits that are at 48% um of the
» leaving room for contingency. >> Yeah. Because we know things change in
construction. Um, so it's certainly something to think about
at the time of the planning approval or submittal, but um, we certainly have a a
our building official is also the flood plan administrator and so we will sit
down and crunch the numbers with the architect. Um,
» yeah, again I >> sometimes things will get scaled back,
right? And so It might be that they can't do the
entirety of the project. Um, and they'll have to wait a year and then we're
keenly we're keenly aware. >> Yeah. Great. Great. Just wanted to flag
it. >> Yeah.
» We we looked at the alternative of of doing a larger project or or you know
doing more and raising the raising the house. Certainly.
» Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from
members of the public on this item?
» There are no hands raised on >> a non-controversial item apparently.
That's good.
Uh, I'll I'll uh bring this back uh close the public hearing and um I'd like
to get the commissioners to share their thoughts on it. Um, Miss Alda, would you
like to start the conversation this time?
» Sure. Um, I just want to thank the applicant for the presentation and
clarification on the lighting plan um, and other features of the project. Um
um my comments are focused mostly on the re revocable license. Um um yeah, the
the improvements uh won't block any views. Um so I could find the findings
for that. Um and the landscaping will be a nice addition and then um and the
revoke and then the correction of the overhang is a is a good addition to the
project as well. Thanks.
Thank you, Commissioner Jimai. >> Um,
uh, I can make the findings also for the replacement of the windows, um,
extension of the deck. Um, lighting, um, I have no issues with the lighting as
long as there are just three on the, um, west shore which are, uh, flanking the
garage and the entry. I think those are necessary for the um visibility at
night. Um the landscaping and removal of a um a pool I think would help the um
community also the the landscaping would show up on the west shore which people
when they walk they would enjoy that and also they are improving the um
landscaping on the city property which is I think um a nice addition. I I I was
um struggling a little bit with that stone wall uh that is um proposed on the
city property. Um landscaping is great, but I I was going back and forth that do
we need that um stone wall there and
what is the result? I I think layering landscape is always beautiful like
having a taller and trees and shrubs and all those combination makes it
attractive. Um and I think you were maybe trying to do that with stone. I I
couldn't quite understand what was the reasoning behind that design and and
just because it is on the city property I also was wondering do we need and then
each applicant comes and might have a new idea. Is that something that would
um overall improve the walking on the sidewalk seeing different structures or
is it is it positive or negative? I I wasn't I was struggling with that. Um I
don't know what other commissioners think about that. I couldn't also myself
decide if I um how I feel about it. I I don't have a
negative um I don't think it is a negative design
idea. I'm just thinking that is it good to have different structures in city
property um or is it just landscaping to to resolve it with landscaping?
I I wonder what others think on that. Um the rest I I can make all the findings.
» Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Shinsky.
» Yeah, certainly I don't um uh uh blame you for wanting, you know,
first and foremost to get the property lines where they need need to be. Um uh
that that seems long overdue. And if part and parcel of that means uh getting
rid of that boat trailer on the front lawn, that would be appreciated as well.
Although that's not a condition. I I think you know our our normal course
here is to have our chair kind of look at the landscape plan at the end of the
day um and approve that. And um I think that would be one of the conditions here
of course uh with kind of a a special charge to you know the hot tub given
that it's kind of exposed there now that that we do our best to whether the trees
are start out at 6 feet or 8 feet or 10 feet. Um you know I think taller and
fuller is kind of the order of the day there just given the proximity to the
neighbors. Uh but beyond that, I should be able to make the findings.
» Commissioner Watson, >> thanks. Um um like Olay, I also
struggled with the with the wall at the at at the front. Um just because as uh
well, I guess our neighbor who's who's now who's now left said, uh you know, it
is a it is sort of a a tunnel a tunnel type of type of feeling with having the
wall there. You know, obviously the wall used to be there because it was a pool.
you know, you have to have a have a solid high, you know, barrier to kids
climbing over and getting in your pool and dying. Um,
but that that being that being said, I don't have I don't have an issue with it
as a as a as a design element itself. Um I I do feel that both the lighting plan
and the landscape plan um probably need um more more finaliz more finalization
um especially since there are you know depending under under numbers um either
either 10 or eight new uh wall sconces that are going to be added as well as a
number of of of downward downward facing Eve lights and as we just got the
lighting plan tonight, I don't I don't think I'm in a position to approve the
either the lighting or the landscape plan. And so I would propose that uh
both of those as well as the um the evaluation of the 36 um inch uh front uh
front step landing. um
that a condition be added for each one of those things to be approved by our
esteemed chair.
» Thank you.
Um I appreciate your presentation. And I think this is
a good update of of an existing house that, you know, it's got a few years on
it, but it's got good bone structure. Um, so I I approve of the installation
of the new windows. I think the new siding will be nice. The colors, things
look appropriate and in scale with the neighborhood. You know, this really
isn't an expansion of the house, so there's no issues there. Um, I'm
listening to my fellow commissioners. Um, I think we're probably going to
condition this um for further review for the landscape and lighting. Um, and I
have to admit I don't fully from these drawings I don't fully understand the
particularly the landscaping in front. I understand the the tree plan, but um I
want to be reviewing the scale and and details of um particularly these things
that present themselves to the street, and we'll we'll have an opportunity to
look at that in the future. So, um I'll be able to make the findings in favor of
this project with um with any conditions that the planning commission cares to
attach to it.
So, we're ready um for someone to make a motion.
Could be this style word. Motion maker to my right.
» It's the It's the problem of being the lawyer on the on the commission. Um all
right. I'm going to I'm going to give this give this give this a shot. Um All
right. I'd like to make a motion um that the um the planning commission grants
approval of the design review applica application to install new exterior
windows and doors, enlarge the rear yard decks um and plant new landscaping at 47
Westshore with the following um with the conditions that are listed in the
resolution plus adding uh the addition these following additional uh conditions
that the lighting and landscaping um plans uh be uh be finalized with the
approval of the chair of the um of the commission and that um a 36 in uh front
uh front landing be in front of the be in front of the front door if it is not
already there.
» Second.
» All in favor? Hi. >> Hi.
» Hi.
All right. >> Sorry. We have a we have another another
motion 447 West Shore and it is to recommend to the city council the
approval of a revocable license for private improvements um located on the
west shore right ofway at 47 West Shore. >> Second.
» Excuse me. I think the those low walls are in the revocable license area. So,
I'm not quite sure if you're making a recommendation to the city council on
the revocable license that includes those walls.
So, I just want to be clear on where the commission stands
and maybe they'll come back with a revised landscape plan and the walls
will be >> that that
» determined the location will be determined at that point. But I just
want to >> that was that was that that was what I
had it >> and I hadn't really thought about it in
terms of impacting the revocable license as well. But it is in the city.
» Yeah. I guess I'm just not clear on where the commission stands on those
walls. Like are you waiting for the applicant to revise the plans to perhaps
keep the walls in the right of way or >> I I just would like some clarity so when
we bring it to council we kind of understand where the commission
» stands or are we relying on the chair to make that determination which is fine
too. city has no requirement in that sense to
have or not have this type of uh specifically just for design. I think it
is just for um aesthetic they are putting it. There is no reason for it.
» Yeah. And we have if my memory served me correct we have a
lot of improvements in the rightway on West Shore.
» Yes. >> Does that do low walls does that mean
that we're going to improve new ones? I don't know. I mean that's you know our
sort of um philosophy now is to get everything out of the right of way.
So >> we don't have set know how
far into the right of way the wall is by any chance. I'm just trying to get a
sense of >> I don't but
» I could reopen the public hearing for a moment. It might help the other
commissioners to have a better sense of what this wall is.
» Yeah. >> So, um I'd like to reopen the public
hearing and if the applicant could just give us a little more information
regarding the height and location of the wall.
» Yeah. And and I've asked for the height of I mean it could just be like a
decorative curb, right? not necessarily what we're thinking of as a retain.
» Yeah, that's and that >> there's nothing to retain.
» I was looking for it in the elevations and I didn't really see it. So that's
why I >> Sorry to make this.
» Yeah, sorry. It's okay. >> There's also no dimension showing um how
wide it is. So it should I mean if it goes to city
council, it should show what is the dimension of the of the
» One second here. We're just starting to pull it up. Um, if there's any specific
guidance that you all would like to give, that would be fine. And also, we
will be submitting a revised plan to illustrate more in 3D and with
dimensions so that the chair can can advise us. So, we're happy with either
specific advice now or andor review by the chair. But the um we're trying to
get the dimension for you. Sorry, hold on.
All right. So, um I I don't know if it's Jermaine or you want to hear this, but
the the the low wall is approximately 2 feet encroached from the property line
into the public right of way. The old fence that is permitted to be altered
was 6 feet encroachment at 6 ft high. Um, and so if that helps answer the
question, but again, we're not really looking for you to stamp that right now.
We understand you'd like more illustration, maybe some examples to
show what's what's along Westshore Road and see if this is contextually
appropriate. So, we fully expect to study it ourselves, submit something,
and have either a dialogue about it or get feedback from.
» Yeah. And again, I wasn't sure if I caught, but um, how how tall do you
visualize it? >> 18 inches is what's illustrated, but
maybe not properly noted anywhere. Not sure, but that was it's a planter, I
guess. It's not It does not need to be there because it's not retaining
anything. It's not important to Matthew and Stacy. So,
» we'll try to figure out what's best. And >> all
» Yeah. But but I think the idea from a design perspective, not to belittle, it
was to was to have kind of multiple tiers so that it looked kind of pretty,
that it wasn't just a flat flat piece where dogs go, you know.
» Okay. Thank you. I I think that's um helpful. So,
um, with that, I guess the the question is, um, are is the, um, commission
comfortable granting the recommendation on the
revocable license at this point? Um,
I I mean I I haven't commented yet, so I guess I I guess I did comment, but um
regarding um this I guess I'm I'm okay uh granting the revocable license in
that they're they're increasing the setback of this streetside element by 4
feet. Um, and they're reducing the height. So, it's more of a landscape
element and it >> it may not be the final version. You
know, they they may reconsider it, but I think it's an improvement from what's
there now. So, um, I could probably go with the granting
the revocable license, >> right? I'm I'm I'm fine with the
recommendation for the revocable license subject to to the finalization of the
landscaping plans. >> Okay.
So, um let's see. Did is that a motion? >> Yeah, excuse me. My apologies. I don't
want to necessarily drag this out, but I think the motion needs to be with the
understanding of what the proposal is, which is what the chair just described.
And obviously it may change by the time it goes to council, but at least just to
Rebecca's earlier point, it's just helpful for us to know when this does go
to council what the planning commission is in support of. So just to be clear
for the record, we are addressing the planters as described by the architect
approximately 18 inches in height, approximately two feet into the
rightway. Maybe that will change, maybe it won't, but at least that's the
starting point. >> And material, does it need to be to
include the material what it is? If that if that is pertinent to the the motion
made by the commission, yes, you can incorporate it or ask about it.
» And what is the material? >> It's shown on the material sheets as
concrete. Um but um we're happy again to submit it, I don't know, very
specifically in detail. submit it to the chair and receive feedback and and
collaborate on whatever ends up going to council, including being a flat space
with no planter or a planter with, you know, Cortan or bronze or some other
material.
Right. So, I'm going to give a shot at this at this this one. All right.
All right. Um, I'm proposing a motion to recommend to the city council the
approval of a revocable license for private improvements located um in the
Westshore right of way at 47 Westore Drive. Um, showing the
current approximately 18inch high uh planters that are encroaching about 2
feet into the city rightway. In all cases, subject to finalization of the
landscaping plan as approved by the chair.
I need a second. >> Second.
» All in favor? >> I I
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Thank you.
We will now move on to the final item of the e evening, item five, design review
for new skylights, a patio door, and a roof deck at 140 San Rafll Avenue. Can I
have a staff report, please? Um before the staff report, I'd just like to
mention and thank Commissioner Wilson for being here and she um lives within
500 ft of this >> property, so she'll need to recuse.
» Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Chair Cidle.
Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. Uh for your
consideration this evening is an application for design review to install
a second story deck, skylights, and exterior doors and windows at 140
Sanfell Avenue. The subject property is 8,200 square f
feet and contains a 3600 foot two-story residence with attached garage. The site
is relatively flat and about single family residences to the north and
south, Belvier Lagoon to the east, and Richardson Bay to the west. The site is
accessible via San Rafale Avenue. The project proposes to construct a 300
square foot deck on the existing firststory roof located on the southern
side of the residence. The deck will be set back 10 ft from the
sideyard property line and 49 ft from the rear yard deck.
The southern side of the roof deck will be lined
with three planter boxes to provide privacy screening from the adjacent
neighbor at 150 Sanfell Avenue. Additional improvements include four new
skylights, each 2 feet 10 in by 2 feet 10 in, as well as replacement of
existing windows and doors.
The roof deck would stand 9 ft 3 in above existing grade. The new wood deck
would be bordered by 3'6 in tall glass guard rail.
The project proposes to replace an existing 6'6 in tall by 13t 6 in wide
door with a 7'6 in tall by 19t 1in wide glass
door. window glazing glazing facing the lagoon would increase 92 square feet for
a total glazing area of 289 square feet. Um a 2025 design review approval
uh included the removal of clear story windows at the rear yard which uh
further reduced total glazing facing the lagoon.
Staff has received one letter of support from the south adjacent property at 150
Sanfell Avenue and one letter from the north adjacent
neighbor at 130 Sanfell Avenue requesting that two exterior sconces on
the left side yard be removed or replaced uh due to the fixtures
brightness. The arct architect has indicated that the owner would be happy
to remove these fixtures.
The project is exempt from squa. And for context, applications for roof
decks are not common in the city of Belvier. However, they have come up more
in the past few years. In 2025, the commission granted approval of a 125
foot roof deck at the adjacent property at 130 San Rafll Avenue. And there is
one roof deck located at 152 Bella Vista. Uh, with that, staff uh,
recommends approval of this application and is happy to answer any questions you
may have.
I I have a sort of a context question, Sammy. Um,
are we are you aware of other roof decks, you know, of roughly this size in
the lagoon area, or is this more of an outlier?
Well,
I mean, the adjacent neighbor last year proposed the roof deck at the front and
the roof deck at the rear, and I believe the roof deck at the rear was um
shrunken, >> right? Um there's a a in the past,
you know, typically people ask for more sort of like Juliet balconies right off
of their master bedroom or primary bedroom, you know, facing the water. Um
the the largest roof deck that I know of is at 152 Bella Vista. Um and you can
kind of see it when you're down on Beach Road. They have a lot of or they have
orange umbrellas. Um, but on the lagoon I can't think of uh
any other ones. >> Okay, that's
» but I could be wrong. You know, >> I know that's why I asked the question.
I was trying to >> do the same exercise and I didn't come
up with too much. I >> um I checked with Sammy prior to the
hearing. I think that the the roof deck that we approved at 130 San Rafll last
year um was 125 ft >> at the end of the day. Um
so a little smaller. Um so I was just sort of trying to contextualize
that issue. So that that was my question. Thank you.
» Any other questions?
Just one other note about this one in particular. You know, the the one at 130
was at the rear of the property that faced out onto the water. This one sort
of tucked more into the side, which we haven't seen in the past, at least in
the past couple years. >> Right.
Okay. If there's no further questions, if the applicant is here and would like
to speak.
Hello, my name is Brian Fox. Uh I'm the architect for the project. Uh here with
the owner, Kim. Um so thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the
site visits. Thanks Sammy for the presentation. Um, I think that the the
project is fairly well understood and I'd probably limit my remarks just to
talk about the roof deck in particular. Um, just there are, I think, unique
things about this site that may not have been the case to the neighbor on the
north or maybe some of the other roof deck proposals that you've seen. One of
them definitely is the setback from the lagoon. We're almost 50 feet from the
from the water line. Um, and the view out the back is pretty limited by the
two-story part of the building and the mature trees on the south side. So, the
experience, I think, of being up there really is almost more about being on the
west side looking towards Tam than really experiencing the lagoon in a kind
of immediate way. And when you're back on the deck and it back on the lagoon,
you don't really feel that deck as being, you know, funnally present, I
think, the way that you you would if it was on the front of the house. Um the
other kind of unique things that um are present here are that we don't have any
neighbors to the east and the west being on the long end of the lagoon. To the
east we don't really face anybody on the west obviously Richardson Bay no houses.
Uh the twotory um part of the building fully shields the roof deck from the
north side and on the south side where we are proximate to the neighbor we have
support uh and very few windows on that side. there's trees growing up and
there's an agreement between Kim and that neighbor to do privacy screening.
Um, Commissioner Watson this morning asked a good question that, you know, we
proposed planters and a a hedge there as the privacy screen. Plants can die,
people can move pots around. Um, Kim has indicated she's definitely open towards
a more structured fence type of screen if if uh that is preferred um by the
commission. And that's something that could be I think worked out um as the
details are are uh proposed in the building permit.
Thank you. Open for questions. >> Thank you.
» I have a question for you. Um the um the pitch roof uh on the west side of the
proposed deck, >> how high is it from the wherever you
have a reference from the ground or from the deck? I want to see what is I want
to find out the relevance to the to the um to the deck the height of that but um
on your elevation I mean any reference you have
» yeah the the the roof deck walking service would be elevated slightly from
the roof itself for for drainage and the peak of that roof is about a little
under 36 inches from the walking surface of the roof. So, if we have a 42inch
railing on the roof deck, it's going to be slightly proud of that peak. Um, so
visible perhaps from the the dirt path on the other side of the road, but not
from the street or the sidewalk as you get closer to the house.
» Thank you. >> Um, when I was there this morning, I
took some I took some photos both standing on the sidewalk right in front
of the house and then also um standing across the across the street. Um, and I
do believe that across the street, you'd be able to see the top of the glass of
the glass railing, but um, in on the sidewalk in front of in front of the
street, unless you're about 6'8, which I don't think many of our residents are, I
don't think you'd be able to see the glass railing.
» And that proposed railing is glass. It will have a a thin top cap by code. It's
required, but the idea will be to have it be as transparent as possible.
» Thank you.
Does anyone else have any further questions?
» Um, can you can you just address the uh the two sconces that Sammy uh referenced
in the in the report and are those going to get removed?
» The the I understand that the the bulbs have already been taken out of those two
lights. Uh and yes, Kim is willing to install sconces that are dark sky
compliant that shine down that won't be a nuisance to the neighbor.
» Great. Thank you.
» All right. Um, are there any comments from members of the public present or on
Zoom? >> No hands raised on Zoom.
» Okay.
With that, I will bring this item back to the commission for discussion.
Commissioner Jim, why don't you start? >> Sure. Um,
as far as the skylight and the exterior openings, um, I think they are all fine.
Um, I don't see any issues with those. Um
uh I think they lost a view from one of the skylights when another proposal
came. So I think these two would um give them more light into the living room. So
I think those are uh fine. And then the rear uh window also I think it's aligned
with any other um house uh on the lagoon that they get the view to the um lagoon.
I don't have any issues with that on the roof deck. Um what I'm um struggling
with is from the San Rafael Avenue actually when you from the lagoon I
think it is fine. Um it's back it's um more of a um
casual I would say um you you expect more of a casual view to the house from
that side which this roof deck um will provide. But on the San Rafael Avenue, I
think um we have all the houses there have a relatively formal look. And this
um roof deck will add a kind of a um
gathering area um um party look with the umbrellas and um would would basically
reduce the formal um facade of the houses on Santa Avenue. So I would say
um if some sort of the same sort of um
landscaping that is added to provide privacy for the next door neighbor if it
is provided on the other side of the where the roof is the roof that I was
asking you that is 36 in. If the same type of landscaping will be provided
there, not as tall as the other one perhaps because I understand you want
that roof deck to get the view from both sides that those view from both side
sides are amazing. I think you should enjoy that. Um but if some sort of
landscaping be introduced there, I think would soften it a little bit even if not
as high so you can still see the view. But it is a little kind of a landscaping
that soften it and give a little bit more formal um look to it. And as you
introduce that landscaping, you basically limit the area of the deck,
which would basically prevent people to go so close to it and then it basically
what um Jenna was referring to when you're on the other side and you can see
whatever is happening there, you can see less of it. Um, and I think that would
be an improvement um to to that and I I don't think it would be a negative thing
also because the square footage of it is relatively large comparing to where it
ser services you know the the bedrooms and the hallway and all that if you
reduce like 2 feet adding whatever it is um that that um planters if it is being
introduced there I think it would um it would help with the formality of the
houses on San Rafale Avenue and um and I think on your end also because the roof
and um the the distance from the roof to the to where you are putting your uh
glass railing is not that attractive by putting the um landscaping on your end.
You you wouldn't look at that either. So, um, I think it might be a win-win
situation. That is all comments I have on the deck.
» Thank you, Commissioner Shinsky. >> Yeah, I would just add that putting some
uh uh landscaping along the that edge of the deck um might help hide the the rain
gutters and that conduit that runs along there. So, it might be better from your
standpoint too as well. Um otherwise so I you know as for the uh Commissioner J
was saying you know I'm just kind of thinking about formality versus
informality and you know kind of the tension there.
Obviously Belvadier was founded as sort of a recreational but very high-end
formal recreational town. Uh so I don't know quite what that means now. Um the
but overall I think the size of the deck is is uh fits the spot. The fact that um
uh the neighbors at 150 are all fine with it obviously is very important. Now
they don't have a lot of windows there which probably helps them be fine with
it. Um uh but obviously the the screening there
is appropriate. The other thought of course is as you mentioned is the you
know the the you know area of glazing is being increased obviously that's out
we're looking toward the lagoon although it is halfway up the property or or from
from from the lagoon itself. Um and also the the the
clear story on the other section has been foregone. So there's a little
coming back that way. Um, and you know, particularly in relative to as you look
around the lagoon to see who has equal kind of configurations that are actually
fairly close to the lagoon itself, uh, it'd be hard to say that that is
something that others don't enjoy. Um, so no problem there, but I I'm inclined
to agree with Commissioner J about the landscaping along uh the west side of
that deck.
Thanks Jenna.
» Thanks very much. Um so I too with with respect to the sorry
this is really large plans. Um with respect to the with respect to the
glazing, um I agree that um having the addition having the additional um large
large doors and the increase in glazing um about 50 ft away from away from the
water um really does make a make a difference in my in my determination.
Um, and had there been um an increase in the glazing at the end of the bedroom
where it was where it was closest um I would I would would have had would have
had an issue. Um similarly, you know, I um I struggle with the idea of a roof of
a roof deck sort of overlook overlooking the lagoon. Um, as I think of most
people who live on the lagoon can appreciate, it is it is rather rather a
fishbowl. And no one wants their neighbors looking looking down upon
them, looking down into their yards. Um, or, you know, otherwise sort of having a
having an outdoor an outdoor presence like right right there. Um, I do think
what distinguishes this this roof deck is the fact that it is it is set it is
set back in the middle of the in the middle of the lot. And to distinguish it
from the um from the one that we discussed last year at the neighboring
property, um it is, you know, where where it's where it's situated closest
to its neighbors. There are not corresponding windows at that at that at
that neighbor. um end the um the agreement to have um to have screening.
Um I actually do think that some kind of um more more permanent screening
um not just not just planter planter boxes would be uh would be would be
preferable. Um first of all it takes up le takes up less space and second of all
um it is a more more permanent uh screening screening solution for the na
for the neighbor. Um, and I also like your like your suggestion for the uh for
the for the front for the front side. I'll call the or the streets street
side. Um, while I don't object to having um sort of a you know a thin a thin
railing of glass, I think you probably wouldn't necessarily
um wouldn't ne wouldn't necessarily see it. I do think that it would be
more more more attractive and more and more and more natur and more natural
looking up there. Um, with respect to the uh the skylights, I don't have any
issue with the skylights. Um, they're going to be clear and I think that
they're um that they're going to add a lot of a lot of light into the living
room which is surpris surprisingly dark. So with that, I think I can make all I
can make all the findings. Um, one thing I do want to highlight for the staff is
um, my thinking on on roof decks in general
towards the lagoon has not changed. Um,
um, what um, did you mention, Jenna, that you wanted to see more permanent
solution? What kind of you mean? Um
so what what we had what we had discussed um for the ne for the
neighboring property was having some kind of wire lattice or something of
something that was more uh something that was more architectural
in term in terms of in terms of in terms of in terms of a screen rather than
planter boxes into which there would be uh bushes or other rather sort of lower
types of greenery.
» I concur with a lot of the comments of my fellow commissioners. I won't repeat
them all, but um you know, I think the expansion of glazing in particular is
very acceptable in the places that you've proposed it set back from the
water. Skylights I'm okay with. Um, so that brings me to the roof deck and I
guess I just want to exercise caution here on the subject of roof decks on the
lagoon. Um, I think what I'm hearing the the consensus here and I I actually
share it is that this is a one-off kind of a unique
situation where the proposed roof deck really does appears to have reduced
impact on neighboring properties and um visual um impact from public locations.
I I actually appreciate very much Aellay's suggestion about the screen
planting across the um San Rafale side of the deck. I think you know our
proposal would be that that happen within the proposed footprint of the
existing deck, not not an expansion of the footprint.
Um, I also hear and we'll work out the conditions here, you know, that there
can be a more permanent architectural aspect to the uh screen on the south
side facing the neighbor. Um, and you know, if if it's the consensus of my
fellow commissioners, I'm happy to, you know, do the normal landscape review,
make those elements subject to future review because I actually think that
particularly this I think that we'd like to maintain the planting on those two
sides as well as whatever this more permanent feature is. And what that
exact configuration is is kind of important to figure out at the end of
the day. We don't have it before us now, but I think we can work that out going
forward. >> Alex, could the railing be um inside the
um planters? Basically the the plant move the railings inward
to inward the deck and then put the planters outside of it because as they
mentioned themselves, people move the the um landscaping or or planters or but
the uh permanent uh railing remains where it is and then
» I actually think that's better because how else are they going to clean their
glass? I mean, if the if the planter is up
against the glass, that glass is going to get disgusting.
» Sorry.
» Regardless, on the other side, they can't clean it. But that's the issue of
glass. But but yes, that's helpful, too. So,
» I think it's Can we make that? >> Uh, you can make it if if you want to.
Um, I think it's a good idea. I was having the same thought. Um, so all
roads lead to Rome, but it you might want to um go ahead and make the motion
on this one if you kind of want to craft the wording on this.
» That's not my strength, but let me do it.
» I'm trying to give Jenna just a little break.
Okay. I would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution granting design
review approval to construct a 300 square ft second story deck, skylights,
and exterior windows and doors at 140 San Rafale Avenue with um following
conditions. the railing at the uh west and north
side of the deck to go um
two and a half ft inward um and provide um planter boxes at the outer side of
the um west and uh north side of the deck.
And I'd like to also add the condition that the um existing sconces that are on
the north side um be swapped out for dark sky compliant downward-facing
lights.
» No, that can be incorporated the motion assuming that's a friendly amendment.
Thank you. >> Okay, I think we have a motion on the
floor. I'm to be honest, I'm not quite as
convinced on the plants being um inside the railing as or outside the
railing as opposed to in or inside the railing opposed out and complete and
with a permanent structure on it. Um um but I just I'm not entirely
convinced, but I'm going to trust you, Alex, to pull it all together using your
architectural genius. Um, I mean, if you you can always negotiate
between yourselves and we could make it a little less specific and it's still
going to come back to me. So, um, it's uh, Donna, it depends on how you feel if
if you're willing to >> I said my bit.
» Okay. All right. >> May I make a a quick point?
» On the west side, the the railing right now connects to the corner of the
twotory part of the house. There's a series of windows that come down facing
south. And so as we move that railing further to the east to put planters or
screening on the other side, it kind of needs to move in the increment of the
windows because the railing is going to connect with the house higher than the
window sills. Otherwise, it'll connect mid window.
» Yes. Um >> those windows are I I wish I knew, but
they're probably about this wide. >> Yeah. That's why I brought up the 2'6
inch. It seems to to sit at the mullen. >> Agreed. Yeah,
» we can we can note at the to sit at the m instead of 2'6.
» Okay. Second.
All in favor? I >> I
thank you.
And now adjourn the meeting.