[0:08] I now call to order the regular meeting
of the Belvadier Planning Commission.
[0:16] Item one is open forum. Open forum is an
opportunity for any citizen to briefly
[0:22] address the planning commission on any
matter that does not appear on the
[0:26] agenda. Comments are limited to no more
than three minutes. Matters that appear
[0:30] to warrant commission consideration may
be agendaized for further discussion at
[0:34] a later meeting. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to speak during
[0:39] open forum?
[0:46] Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom with
hand raised?
[0:48] » There are no hands raised on Zoom.
>> Thank you.
[0:53] Reports.
Are there any commissioners who would
[0:56] like to provide a report?
[1:01] Okay. Does staff have any reports?
>> I just have a quick um report that the
[1:06] um county of Marin is hosting a planning
commissioner training and that we are
[1:11] hopeful that all of the planning
commissioners can either send me an
[1:15] email or vote through that poll that I
sent to you guys to choose a date. It is
[1:21] from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. And I think
as of right now, they have more votes
[1:26] for the June 1st date, but if you'd like
to get your votes in, it would be
[1:31] helpful for them, the organizers of that
event. Thank you.
[1:35] » Thank you. I uh voted today.
>> And Rebecca, I responded directly to
[1:40] you. I don't think I voted, but was that
adequate?
[1:44] » Yes, I let them know. Yeah, you can
respond directly to me, too.
[1:46] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:50] Now, um, consent calendar. The consent
calendar consists of items considered to
[1:55] be non-controversial.
Unless any item is specifically removed
[1:59] by any member of the council, staff or
public, the consent calendar will be
[2:03] adopted by one motion. Items removed
will be considered in the sequence they
[2:08] appear on the agenda.
Would any member of the planning
[2:12] commission like to remove a consent
calendar item?
[2:17] Okay. Um, would any member of the public
like to remove a consent calendar item?
[2:24] Rebecca, do you see anything on Zoom?
>> There are no hands raised on Zoom.
[2:28] » Thank you.
I move to adopt this consent calendar.
[2:34] » I'll second.
>> All in favor?
[2:36] » I
>> I
[2:38] » Thank you.
[2:43] Now I will now open the public hearing.
If any of the commissioners had exparte
[2:50] contacts, please disclose those contacts
on the record when it's your turn to
[2:54] speak on any item.
[2:58] I will now open the public hearing on
item two, design review and exception to
[3:03] total floor area to construct a 332
square foot addition at 340 Beach Road.
[3:12] Can we have the staff
>> just before that? Sorry. Um, I just
[3:15] texted Commissioner Wilson and she
thought it was 6:30, so she is on her
[3:19] way.
>> Okay.
[3:22] » Uh, do you want us to wait with the
presentation on 3:40?
[3:27] » I think we can go ahead and she can
catch up once she
[3:29] » Okay.
>> gets here.
[3:32] » Okay. Thank you, Chair Cidle and members
of the planning commission. for your
[3:36] consideration. This evening is an
application for design review, an
[3:40] exception to total floor area for an
addition, remodel, and second story deck
[3:44] replacement at 340 Beach Road.
The site consists of a 9,300T
[3:51] parcel on the southeastern southeastern
side of Belvadier Island. The site is
[3:56] developed with three-story residence and
detached garage. The parcel is
[4:00] surrounded by single family homes to the
north, south, and west, and Belvadier
[4:04] Cove to the east. The residence is
located at top an approximately 44%
[4:09] slope.
The proposed work is primarily at the
[4:14] first story of the residence. The prop
the project proposes a 193 foot addition
[4:19] at the rear as well as a 23 ft addition
on the eastern elevation.
[4:26] The project would enclose the 116 square
foot covered deck at the first story as
[4:31] well. The 116 square foot uh feet count
towards existing floor area as it has a
[4:37] floor roof and is supported by columns.
[4:42] The architect's renderings here show the
area of improvements. The left side of
[4:47] the images show where the 193 foot
addition will be located.
[4:53] And here on the right side, the 116
square foot covered patio that would be
[4:57] enclosed with new windows.
[5:03] For the commission's consideration, a
portion of the existing secondstory deck
[5:08] and covered patio encroached into the
20ft rear yard setback. Uh in 1979, the
[5:14] city council approved a variance
allowing the deck within the setback. Uh
[5:19] because the covered patio is considered
existing floor area and no expansion of
[5:23] the structure is proposed, a new
variance is not required to enclose the
[5:27] patio within this rear yard setback.
[5:34] From the rear elevation, a series of new
8ft tall 8 foot uh uh 2-in tall windows
[5:39] are proposed. Uh no windows or door
alterations are proposed on the second
[5:44] or third stories.
Here on the left side, a new uh window
[5:49] is proposed as well.
And at the right side, yard windows at
[5:54] the first story will be slightly larger
than the existing. Uh two exterior light
[5:59] fixtures are included at this site as
well.
[6:04] Uh the addition would have new uh
vertical wood siding, metal windows and
[6:09] doors in a dark gray color. Uh and then
the two wall sconces will be shielded in
[6:13] a fixed downward position.
[6:18] The applicant proposes a sauna and cold
plunge in the sideyard as well. Uh the
[6:25] architect provided additional detail
about the cold plunge which is 23 in
[6:29] tall uh 67 in long and weighs 110 lbs
when empty. Because the cold plunge is
[6:37] not considered a structure per our
municipal code, it can be located in the
[6:41] sideyard setback.
[6:46] The applicant requests an exception of
total floor area to allow 4,133
[6:51] square feet where the maximum allowed is
3,94.
[6:56] The request is a 216qt increase from the
existing floor area which was approved
[7:01] in 2012.
In order to grant the exception, uh the
[7:06] planning commission must make the
following findings. These include that
[7:09] primary views will not be significantly
impaired, that there are unusual
[7:13] characteristics to the parcel which
minimize the floor area, that the
[7:18] structure is appropriate in mass and
bulk, and that the additional square
[7:22] footage would not reduce privacy on
adjoining properties.
[7:27] Staff recommends that all findings can
be made, the primary views will not be
[7:31] impaired from the adjacent properties.
Uh 340 is ups slope from its north and
[7:36] south neighbors. and then the uphill
neighbors and pedestrians along Beach
[7:40] Road will not be impaired as the
addition is constructed downs slope
[7:44] beneath the residence.
[7:47] Unusual characteristics include the
site's steep slope, surrounding
[7:51] vegetation, and the structures location.
The addition is well below the neighbors
[7:56] to the west and above neighbors to the
north and south. The steep slope of the
[7:59] site allows the architect to tuck the
addition below the existing footprint
[8:04] without significantly altering or
enlarging the resident's appearance.
[8:08] Additionally, the surrounding vegetation
act as a privacy screening, further
[8:13] minimizing the floor area impact.
[8:18] Uh finally, the addition is appropriate
in mass bulk and character for the
[8:22] parcel. The maximum height of the
structure will not increase or extend
[8:26] beyond the footprint of the existing
structure.
[8:32] Staff has received two letters in
support of the project from both uh
[8:36] sideyard neighbors.
The project is exempt from SQA
[8:43] and uh in conclusion staff recommends
that all the design review findings can
[8:47] be made as well as the exception of
total floor area. And we're happy to
[8:50] answer any questions.
Do any commissioners have questions of
[8:56] staff on this item?
>> I do. Um Sammy, you you mentioned about
[9:02] the cold plunge, but what about the
sauna? The sauna is usually taller than
[9:08] cold plunge. It has a mass. Is that how
how does the planning um basically
[9:14] what's the rules about having a sauna
which is a structure?
[9:18] » Yeah, thank thank you for that question.
My understanding when talking to the
[9:22] architect that they would remove the uh
sauna from the scope of work generally
[9:27] if the sauna has if it's taller than six
feet or taller uh it counts towards
[9:33] floor area. So for that reason in light
of putting more floor area they decided
[9:39] to remove it from the scope of work.
[9:46] » Thank you Sammy. Um I had a question.
Um, do you know what the floor areas are
[9:51] of the um immediate next door next door
neighbors for this parcel?
[9:58] » Not off the top of my head, but we can
find I can find that out for you.
[10:07] » Any other questions?
Would the applicant like to make a
[10:11] presentation, please?
[10:27] You can run it from there if you'd like.
I can share slides as well.
[10:42] » Raise their hands.
It looks like uh Michael Fishman.
[10:49] » Yes, they've raised their hands.
>> Yes. Hi.
[10:52] » Um, hi. How are you?
>> You're sideways.
[10:55] » Hi. Are we upside down? It looks like
>> Yeah, that's good.
[10:58] » Okay, how about this?
>> There you go. That's better.
[11:03] » Um, our apologies
that we cannot be there in person today.
[11:07] I'm Annie. This is Michael. We are the
residents at 340 Beach. We um live there
[11:13] full-time with our two little boys, ages
three and seven. Um our older boy is
[11:19] already at Reed and our younger boy will
be at Reed next year. We've now been in
[11:24] the area for two years and absolutely
love it. Have um engaged in the
[11:29] community um have built community and
really enjoy being members um and
[11:34] residents of Belvadier.
>> Yep. Couldn't have said it better. Thank
[11:37] you guys. Appreciate the time and the
interest.
[11:43] Okay. Um, thank you, Michael and Annie.
Uh, my name is Cedric Ber. I'm the, uh,
[11:49] architect of Michael and Annie Fishman.
Um, thank you, um, commissioners, um,
[11:55] and chair, and thank you to the, uh,
planning staff for their assistance uh,
[12:00] getting us here this evening. Um I think
uh Sam's presentation was was was
[12:07] thorough and and covered the majority of
the um of the issues at hand. Um if uh
[12:17] Sammy, did you want to uh share the PDF?
Mhm.
[12:23] » Um really the the the main the main
thing to uh to point out as we go to the
[12:31] uh to the lower floor plan which is the
only floor plan of uh of any work um is
[12:37] that we have
um three areas of addition. We were uh
[12:44] we found out in in the middle of the
process that uh that the or Sammy
[12:49] confirmed that we don't have um the the
116 square foot deck that's off of the
[12:58] existing uh laundry room does not count
uh or it currently already counts
[13:02] towards uh towards L coverage uh and F.
Um, so
[13:10] sorry, catching up here.
[13:17] Um, can I I I can I can drive as much as
you here on this. Uh, Sammy or why don't
[13:23] we go to uh a 2.1.
[13:31] So as uh as I think
one more
[13:42] page seven.
[13:47] No, one more eight.
Uh so uh really the the the genesis of
[13:54] uh of the whole project uh as you guys
all uh came and visited this site. Uh
[14:00] obviously it's a extremely steep uh
slope site. the lower floor. I don't
[14:06] don't know much about the previous uh
owners, but it was certainly laid out
[14:10] for um I'm guessing probably a couple
because it has a a exceedingly large uh
[14:17] primary suite uh that takes up probably
75% of the floor and then uh one small
[14:25] bedroom that is currently the the
bedroom that the boys uh the boys are
[14:29] sharing. So, the owners um obviously
with three and seven-year-old boys, they
[14:35] they will be growing and they they
wanted to get them each a bedroom. Saw
[14:40] that opportunity of that deck and said,
"Well, that seems seems so easy to
[14:45] enclose. Let's let's do that and and
give two bedrooms." So, we've been
[14:50] working um on developing the plan. We
kind of came up with a office gym space
[14:56] uh in between the two uh the boys
bedrooms and the primary. And
[15:01] essentially the primary bathroom is in
the same location as the existing. We're
[15:07] just kind of uh extending out to bear on
the same pilings that are existing. uh
[15:13] creating that extra 193 square ft uh at
the uh the rear yard, the downhill side
[15:20] uh to create the primary uh primary
bedroom. Uh everything's uh kind of
[15:26] cleaned up and a little more uh a little
more efficient. Um, as as Sammy
[15:33] mentioned, the uh the patio area off of
the uh primary bathroom was really
[15:40] intended as a we were we were looking to
give it some purpose and thought at
[15:45] sauna and cold plunge would be great and
uh I I didn't uh I was not aware that
[15:51] the sauna which I think we had intended
as as kind of a a kit sauna from u you
[15:57] know a vendor online as opposed to a
permanent structure. Uh but hearing
[16:03] hearing that that would count towards uh
F and L coverage, we are willing to pull
[16:08] that out. So if uh I'm happy to uh have
that uh be a condition of approval.
[16:15] Um you know, really the uh Sammy, do you
want to go to the
[16:22] um just the renderings?
That's page.
[16:29] actually we we'll stick to that to that
that elevation. Um
[16:34] the the this the side elevation. So we
we we did reach out to both neighbors as
[16:40] uh you all saw in the site visits. It's
really um it's an extreme enough slope
[16:46] that that even though we are increasing
the the glass on the side, it's kind of
[16:51] a a special circumstance that that
really nobody is affected. Uh I think um
[16:58] as far as the findings go, primary views
are really not impacted from uh from any
[17:05] of the neighbors given the the the the
45 degree slope. Um unusual
[17:12] characteristics are certainly that that
same 45 degree slope. Um prefer per
[17:18] structure
is really not changing in mass and bulk.
[17:23] Uh we're just infilling um uh on uh two
ends of uh two ends of uh an existing uh
[17:33] existing mass all bearing on the same uh
foundation.
[17:38] Um and certainly not an area that will
impact uh any neighboring
[17:44] um views or privacy uh given the
location under the deck. Um really only
[17:52] as as you go down Beach Road, it really
is only visible uh only the garage is
[17:57] and the entry is visible. Um you could I
suppose argue that it's visible from the
[18:03] water, which uh uh it it is, but uh um
Sammy, do you want to go to the
[18:11] renderings perhaps? Or maybe maybe just
go uh up one to page nine.
[18:16] Uh and so the the downhill
uh downhill so this is the rear rear
[18:22] yard elevation. No materials are
changing. We're matching the uh the
[18:27] redwood siding that's existing. Uh we
are shifting to uh dark anodized which
[18:35] read as black uh windows on this floor.
Um because we realized going to u to
[18:43] match the existing which is a what used
to be dark anodized which was more of a
[18:49] brown. Uh so really the intent is just
to to match uh match the existing. We're
[18:55] going to be replacing the decking
because we're redoing the waterproofing
[19:00] over the new uh new areas, but it will
remain a wood deck. Um, and we will
[19:07] reuse the the steel and glass railing
that's uh that's existing. Um, I think
[19:14] uh I I'll just mention that uh on since
these are all bedrooms, we we do plan to
[19:21] have uh shades in all these all these
rooms to um to create create a a
[19:28] blackout situation for sleeping uh and
sun protection for furniture and and
[19:34] whatnot. Um
and I think that about covers it. I'm
[19:39] open to questions if you have them.
>> Questions?
[19:47] » Thanks, Cedric. I know we uh talked
about it um yesterday. I guess that was
[19:53] the that there's off to the I guess it
would be the south
[19:58] uh east corner of the of the property is
that kind of freestanding about deck
[20:04] that's about you know 25 square ft. um
doesn't show up on the plans. Um you
[20:10] know, as I mentioned, it's, you know,
there's some concrete steps down from
[20:15] the patio that lead there. Um where, you
know, apparently there's going to be a
[20:20] cold plunge. I I just think that's
awfully enticing when there's kids
[20:24] around and no railing around it.
>> Um you know, it's about 30 feet down
[20:28] before you hit anything if you go to the
edge of that.
[20:31] » So, I'm just a uh wondering if you have
any thoughts. I might I could see also
[20:36] where that deck might be helpful in the
course of construction as well uh to put
[20:41] stuff on. But um what are your thoughts
on that is or
[20:46] » u to to be honest that was uh well so
the the deck was was there when uh Annie
[20:53] and Michael bought the bought the
property. Um I I I I'll be honest I
[20:59] don't think we even noticed when we were
doing the plans that it's there. Um, I
[21:03] I'm I'm happy. I It may or may not be
useful during construction, but if uh if
[21:10] you'd like us to remove it, I I don't
think I mean with uh a on the downhill
[21:15] side a good seven or eight foot drop uh
perhaps five at best. Uh it is it is
[21:22] definitely it wouldn't wouldn't meet
code requirements uh at all. So um I
[21:29] don't think any of us would want our
kids playing on it.
[21:32] uh happy to to follow your lead on what
what you it may be useful during
[21:37] construction. So perhaps the condition
is to remove it after or you know before
[21:42] final inspection. Um but happy to happy
to um work with you on that one.
[21:48] » Great.
>> That's it for me.
[21:51] » Thank you. Um anyone else?
>> Um I have a question too. You mentioned
[21:56] um the deck is going to be replaced with
wood, but on our site visit you
[22:00] mentioned it's going to be um pedestal
pavers.
[22:05] » Oh, sorry. I I described the I described
a pedestal system which can be wood or
[22:10] stone.
>> So, it's going to be wood over the
[22:12] pedestal. Your pedestal is going to be
wood.
[22:16] » The current construction of the deck,
which is a little unusual, it's it's
[22:19] vertical 2x4s with almost no spacing
between. So, we're just because
[22:25] obviously three and a half inch thick
deck is atypical. Uh, so we're just
[22:30] going to do a I'm assuming a eBay deck
or or or but a 3/4 inch material over
[22:37] the drainage plane. Uh, but on a on a
pedestal system.
[22:40] » Got it. Thank you.
>> Um, I have a I have a question and it
[22:46] may also be a question for for for
Sammy. Um in those in the staff report
[22:52] it says that in 2012 the planning
commission um approved um uh 4,181
[23:01] square ft an exception to total floor
area. I know that the current floor area
[23:06] of the of the house is only 3,917
square ft. Um, and what's being proposed
[23:15] is 4,133,
which is below what the what the report
[23:19] says was permitted in in 2012. Do we
know why? Uh, first of all, there's a
[23:25] discrepancy between what was approved in
2012 and what was actually con
[23:29] constructed and
if so, what was approved in 20 in in in
[23:35] 2012?
[23:40] » Perhaps they didn't. We don't know, but
I can speculate that they didn't build
[23:45] the entirety of the project that was
approved in 2012.
[23:49] » I I don't know. I started in 2015 here.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[23:52] » Yeah.
>> You're like, I'm a long I'm a longtime,
[23:55] but not that long.
>> I I have a little bit of insight,
[23:58] although I I ultimately I'm not sure I
have the the absolute answer. I think
[24:04] the uh the the what's on screen right
now, the bedroom one was uh extended out
[24:12] downhill I maybe like eight 8 feet or
so. So that that that was the that was
[24:18] the project in 2012.
>> Um
[24:22] ultimately when I do asbuilt drawings I
I I do my own calculations. I can't I
[24:28] can't rely on somebody else's numbers.
So I just I do them as I as I see fit
[24:34] and you know if if obviously if planning
has any questions we we go through them.
[24:41] Yeah, I mean I I was just I was curious
as to whether um either the expansion of
[24:49] um you know the enclosure of the deck
into what's now going to be bedroom 2 or
[24:54] the extension under the deck and what's
now going to be part of the primary
[24:59] bedroom was part of the plans that were
reviewed in 20 in in approved in 2012.
[25:06] But
>> I I I did look at the old plans and I I
[25:10] it was it was only focused in that that
bedroom one that's on screen right now.
[25:15] » Thank you.
[25:21] » Okay. Any other questions? See none.
Um are there any comments from members
[25:28] of the public regarding this item?
[25:34] Rebecca, any hands raised?
>> There are no hands raised on Zoom.
[25:38] » Okay,
with that, I will close the public
[25:43] hearing and bring the matter back to the
commission for discussion. Um,
[25:49] Commissioner Shinsky, do you want to
start the conversation?
[25:52] » Yeah.
So, um, just a couple things. Uh, one I
[25:57] I appreciate the uh the fact that the uh
you know the the window uh trim with the
[26:06] ani anodized bronze that that the intent
is to ultimately uh change the upstairs
[26:13] windows to match that. Um I think that's
ideal so to prevent them from standing
[26:18] out. Um overall it I I do think the the
the project works for me. I think in an
[26:25] in an ideal world where
um you have a
[26:31] uh a project where you know a couple
exceptions to the square footage have
[26:36] historically already been granted. Um
maybe a little earlier in the process we
[26:42] might chase you down and try to convince
you to, you know, put in a countertop
[26:47] and a little sink and call it a JU. Um
but I'm not going to stand on that
[26:52] tonight. I think the fact that the the
square footage kind of tucks nicely
[26:56] under, you know, within the existing
footprint uh helps to get me there. Um
[27:04] that's
that in the deck I mentioned. That's
[27:08] about all my comments. Alex, thank you,
Commissioner Watson.
[27:16] » Well, I think Don just stole my thunder.
Um,
[27:20] you know, I' I'd like I'd like to note
that, you know, while 44 uh degree slope
[27:27] is extremely extremely steep, there are
a number of other properties um
[27:32] especially on that on that stretch of
beach which also have very very uh steep
[27:37] slopes. Some of which we've we've
actually seen in front of our commission
[27:40] re recent rec recently. Um, and the
reason why I asked about the the size of
[27:45] the of the of the neighbors is um, you
know, while I appreciate that this is an
[27:52] exception to overall floor area, um, I
do like the fact that it the overall
[27:56] footprint is not is not changing as um,
other than the the small addition um, by
[28:05] the uh, by the bathroom which itself is
actually underneath underneath the eve
[28:09] upstairs. Um and so from a from a total
bulk and size perspective, the the
[28:17] addition will will fit will fit within.
Um I too generally do not like to have
[28:25] uh floor area exceptions where um
there's not an additional unit being
[28:30] added. Um but to the extent of of I'll
say equity and fairness um to the extent
[28:37] that the the immediately um next door
next door neighbors are I believe as
[28:43] larger if not if not larger it would
seem to be inequitable to not permit
[28:51] this home this homeowner to um extend
their livable floor floor space within
[28:58] the within the same footprint.
[29:05] Commissioner Watson, if you'd like,
Rebecca pulled up the floor area. Uh 344
[29:11] beach is 3,700 square foot plus the
garage. Uh and then 330 beach is 4,200
[29:18] plus the garage.
[29:25] And does that in in I I know one of the
neighbors is under construction right
[29:29] now. Is that the to be constructed
square footage?
[29:36] » That neighbor um it has a red tag and
should not be constructing. So we aren't
[29:41] very clear exactly what is happening.
[29:48] » Okay. Commissioner Jama
[29:53] » as far as the floor exception I also
think that um the um mass and bulk is
[30:00] already there um and they are um
basically building underneath which um
[30:07] doesn't add anything to the uh visual
there is no visual impact from the
[30:12] street from the sides from nowhere and
also I think looking at other side of
[30:18] these um buildings is not attractive if
even being seen which I don't think it
[30:23] is being seen but even if it does I
think enclosing it um makes it more
[30:28] attractive however that void that they
are enclosing I think it is an
[30:32] attractive um architectural um element
of the property but at the same time
[30:39] it's not being viewed from anywhere so
um I'm not objecting it so I have no
[30:44] problem with that I can make the
findings as far as the sauna I I think
[30:48] um
[30:51] as it is not presented what is that
sauna is that look like and it is going
[30:58] to be added to the floor area I would
say um make it a condition uh to
[31:06] condition of approval to remove that
sauna um that is noted on the drawings
[31:12] um
that's all for me
[31:17] » thank you And with that, I would like to
introduce the newest planning
[31:22] commissioner in Beladair, Zolda Wilson.
Thank you for joining us. I'll ask you
[31:27] for your comments now.
>> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I just want
[31:30] to um thank the applicant for uh the
presentation tonight and uh to sort of
[31:36] echo some of the comments from the other
commissioners. I do think that the
[31:40] design was thoughtful and trying to um
comply with the existing conditions
[31:44] around the site. you know, as far as
design review, um the structure will
[31:48] remain in character with its setting
even with the um infill project and for
[31:54] the floor area exception as well. Um
given the uh the steepness of the site
[31:59] and the location of adjacent properties,
uh the impact is minimized of the floor
[32:04] area exception on the site. So I I could
make that finding as well. And and I
[32:09] understand the condition of approval um
with the ASA removal that would be just
[32:14] for the floor area exception. Is that
right? It's not for the design review uh
[32:19] findings.
>> I don't know the answer to that.
[32:26] » I'm assuming the sauna is being removed
uh because of the floor area exception
[32:30] question, not for design review.
>> What? No, it's a a structure within the
[32:36] setback. Yeah.
>> Um,
[32:39] » we don't have any design for it either.
We don't know how it looks like.
[32:42] » Oh, where it's going. Yeah.
>> I guess I just wondering where it goes
[32:45] in the um I I think it'd be cleaner to
put it in the design review resolution
[32:50] only because we're not accounting for it
in the floor area exception resolution
[32:54] and we reference the plans and the date
in the design review resolution. So we
[33:00] can say with the you know the set of
plans prepared by such and such on this
[33:04] date with the removal of the sauna. So
it's clear on that one.
[33:09] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[33:15] » Uh when I uh visited the house I must
say I was impressed with um just the
[33:22] dynamism and the views of the interior.
It's an interesting house and you know I
[33:26] think that's the nice thing about
Belvadier. you have all these different
[33:29] periods and characters of houses. I
think that the architects done a good
[33:34] job of um figuring out how to do an
expansion and make it more of a family
[33:39] home because it really didn't appear to
be, you know, long-term workable as a
[33:45] family home. The the new interior space
is, as other commissioners have noted,
[33:51] um tucked under the existing massing and
within the columns. So um the impact is
[33:58] really minimized and I think he's worked
um very well with the existing character
[34:04] of the house and and maintained that. Um
I guess I was um thinking some similar
[34:12] thoughts to some of the other
commissioners when we see a Florida
[34:16] exemption of this magnitude come in and
it's about 33% of the base allowed area.
[34:25] Um, I think it's all kind of in our
minds to see if there's an opportunity
[34:30] to have some of that space um be applied
to an ADU or a J AU
[34:37] um which would thereby reduce the uh
amount of the floor area exception. Um,
[34:44] in fact, I um pursued the thought a
little further and I had a conversation
[34:49] with the the owners, the architect and
the staff. there did appear to be a room
[34:53] that um in my mind looked like it fit um
would fit well as a J AU without any
[35:02] modification. Um however um and
everybody listened very patiently to my
[35:08] thoughts. Um and I became a little more
educated. There's there was one factor
[35:14] that was missing um which was somewhere
there would need to be another
[35:18] accessible exterior door in the house.
Um now um having said that you know
[35:25] perhaps if that issue had been raised
earlier in the design process maybe it
[35:30] could have been easily accommodated um
this probably isn't the time to raise
[35:36] the spectre of redesign but um I just
wanted to comment on it because I think
[35:40] as we continue to look at floor area
exemptions going forward that's going to
[35:46] be um something that's in the front of
all of our minds and um we'll be hoping
[35:51] to, you know, find as many opportunities
to get additional units into the city as
[35:56] possible. Um, so with that, I I'm going
to be able to make the design review
[36:03] findings and also um find in favor of
the exception to the total floor area.
[36:13] So, um, with that, I think we're
probably ready to vote. Um I just want
[36:19] to read
>> vote but get a motion. You want to say
[36:21] something? Go ahead.
>> Yep. So it sounds like we have uh two
[36:25] additional uh conditions that have been
floated by the commissioners. The first
[36:29] is the removal of this of the sauna from
the from the design review um under
[36:35] under consideration and the second is
the removal of the deck below the east
[36:40] side of the house um at at the end of
construction.
[36:46] Nodding. darling. Okay.
[36:53] » So, um you want to make that a formal
motion?
[36:55] » Do you want to make make the motion? All
right. Um All right. I'd like to make a
[36:59] motion that the planning commission um
uh grant approval of the design review
[37:04] application pursuant to uh title 20 of
the Belvadier Municipal Code for
[37:08] residential addition and re and remodel
at 340 Beach Road uh with the following
[37:13] additional um condition conditions added
to uh the resolution. a new condition M
[37:20] which is the removal of the of the sauna
from the design review approval and
[37:24] condition N which is the removal of the
deck below the east side of the house at
[37:31] the end of construction.
>> Second.
[37:35] » All in favor? I
>> I
[37:43] » we needed a motion on the exception. I
think someone would care to make that.
[37:55] Um,
[37:58] don't.
[38:06] All right. Um, I'd like to um to make a
motion that the planning commission
[38:10] grant the application for an exception
to total floor area based on the based
[38:15] on the findings that are listed in the
in the resol in the resolution according
[38:19] to section 19.52.120a1
[38:23] of the Belvadier Municipal Code with
respect to 340 Beach Road.
[38:29] » All in favor? I
>> I
[38:34] » Thank you.
[38:42] Thanks.
[38:49] » We will now move on to hear item three,
demolition application to remove a
[38:55] garage shed and stairs at 135 Belvadier
Avenue. Can we have a staff report,
[39:00] please? Thank you again, chairs Idol and
commissioners.
[39:04] For your consideration is an application
for demolition permit to remove a
[39:08] detached garage, shed, and wood stairs
at 135 Belvadier Avenue.
[39:15] The project site is on a steeply sloped
52,000 foot lot. Uh the site received
[39:21] lot merger approval in 2019, which
previously consisted of three parcels.
[39:27] The site is developed with a dilapidated
residence, detached garage and wood
[39:31] staircase. Uh the property contains
mature unmaintained vegetation and
[39:36] single family residences flank each side
of the property and Richardson Bay abuts
[39:41] the property at the rear.
[39:46] The applicant is requesting a demolition
permit to remove the existing 921 square
[39:51] foot garage, shed, and associated wood
stairs from the front of the property.
[39:56] The scope of demolition also includes
removal of fallen trees in the vicinity
[40:00] of the garage and a damaged guardrail
along the driveway.
[40:07] A portion of the existing garage
encroaches
[40:11] onto city property. The approval of the
proposed demolition would eliminate this
[40:16] non-conforming structure which does not
meet the city's front yard setback
[40:20] requirements.
Additionally, concurrent applications
[40:25] are under review
[40:29] uh to remove an existing front yard
fence that encroaches into the Belvier
[40:32] Avenue right away. The project there
would install a new six-foot fence along
[40:38] the front property line with a small
portion remaining within city property.
[40:45] Uh this project would be exempt from SQA
and staff recommends that all demolition
[40:51] findings can be made particularly in
that the demolition will not remove a
[40:55] housing unit and that the demolition
will not have an impact on the
[40:58] availability of housing units thereby
staying consistent with the goals of the
[41:03] city of Belvadier's housing element.
Thank you and we're happy to answer any
[41:07] questions.
>> Um Sam Sammy I just have one question
[41:12] for you. Um, is I understand that the
fence is not up for approval tonight or
[41:18] is the fence up for approval because
it's not included in the motion?
[41:22] » The fence is not part of this
application for approval. Uh, it went
[41:26] through the design review process, more
of a exception level.
[41:30] » Okay, great. Thanks. Just making clear.
[41:37] So, um I'm used to seeing applications
for demolition when there's a new
[41:43] project coming. There's not um a new
project here um referenced, but do you
[41:49] have any sense of, you know, what the
future of this property is?
[41:56] » Yeah, good question. We we have an
application in right now for a a new
[42:00] residence as well. uh planning is
currently reviewing those plans for
[42:05] completeness uh and it's a project for a
brand new residence.
[42:10] » Thank you.
>> J.
[42:13] » Excellent.
>> All right. I have a couple of questions
[42:18] too. Um so
when you are
[42:24] approving a fence don't you require a
survey and um for that fence being in
[42:32] the city property do you require
revocable license?
[42:37] » We we do require a survey um and this
property has a revocable license for the
[42:42] fence currently.
[42:47] So Sammy, just so I'm clear, this is
this is the replacement fence while the
[42:52] project is going on or the forever fence
that's being
[42:59] approved.
>> Just a reminder, we're not reviewing the
[43:02] fence tonight here, right? We're the
fence is under a separate design review
[43:06] process.
>> Um I don't know if it's a forever fence.
[43:12] Um but the architect and
the architect is here so he could
[43:18] probably answer that. The architect who
submitted the plans for the single
[43:22] family home ADU and JADU. I think what's
happening is the this application is for
[43:28] the demolition of the garage and there's
going to be a driveway cut into the
[43:33] property and a driveway that goes down
to a garage on lower on the site. But um
[43:42] could probably answer those questions
better.
[43:47] » Sorry. So, the uh new fence is you said
it's approved by staff. It's a staff
[43:53] level approval.
>> The design review exception. So, it's
[43:58] it's approved by the city um the city
manager
[44:02] » but the demolition is not
>> demolition applications are required to
[44:08] go to the planning commission.
But new fences aren't always required.
[44:15] Thank you.
[44:20] » Okay.
If the applicant is here and would like
[44:24] to speak.
[44:30] » Hi. Yeah. My name is David Katsub and
I'm the architect.
[44:36] » Is it on?
[44:43] Okay, sorry. Um, yeah, my name is David
Katsub and I'm the architect. So, this
[44:48] all started, we wanted to uh replace the
existing fence because it's basically
[44:52] falling down, but since the existing
fence is on city property, um, it's
[44:59] necessary we we necessarily have to uh
demolish the garage structure to put the
[45:04] new fence on because the garage is on
city property. So that's why the
[45:09] demolition permit was um um made. So um
as as far as the the overall design for
[45:18] the new proposal, this will not be the
final fence. The final fence um will be
[45:23] a totally different design. It'll it's
metal. It follows the property line. Um
[45:28] there is an encroachment permit right
now. We want to keep the existing
[45:32] driveway and that gate. you know, we're
going to resurface it and make it look
[45:35] nice, but we want to keep it for um
potential use and construction, but at
[45:40] the end of the day, the new driveway is
at the end of the property towards
[45:44] Cliff. So, where that gate is will be
part of a fence structure that's part
[45:49] that'll be consistent with the design
that we're doing. And then, um in
[45:54] addition, once that's done, we do get an
additional parking spot on the street.
[46:00] So, that's helpful. So the new design is
they're reviewing it right now, but we
[46:04] have made that application.
So we didn't really intend to do the
[46:08] demo right now. It's just that that
thing is just falling apart and we'd
[46:12] like to clean up the appearance
and also for safety.
[46:18] » Yeah, it's definitely an eyesore.
[46:24] » Any other questions for the applicant
while he's there?
[46:30] Thank you.
[46:35] Are there any comments from members of
the public?
[46:43] Um, good afternoon. So, my name is Steve
Silverstein. I'm a 30-year resident here
[46:50] of Belvadier. I've been here long
enough. This will be the fourth house
[46:56] being proposed for this site in the 30
years that I've been here. And I've been
[47:02] at the planning commission meeting for
each of those three previous
[47:08] ones going back almost 30 years. And
each time I have complained about the
[47:15] fence. Uh what we have in that area is
kind of a tunnel. The fence is ugly and
[47:23] it's falling down and it creates a wall
depend on one side and the other side of
[47:31] course is the uphill of the properties
and so you have a like you're going
[47:35] through a tunnel there and it's ugly and
so on and I was a little shocked just to
[47:41] hear that the proposed fence even though
it's temporary is going to be six feet
[47:46] high which means it's going to continue
this walled defect. act. I sort of
[47:52] thought that uh fences were only
supposed to be five feet high so that
[47:57] when you if you're over five feet, you
can walk by and see over the top and see
[48:04] the see the views there, which is what a
lot of people like like to do. So, I
[48:09] hope whatever fence is done is low or
set further back into the property so we
[48:18] can see over it. I drive by or walk by
this thing every single day and I would
[48:27] like to finally see this tunnel
demolished. Thank you.
[48:33] » Okay. Thank you for your comments and I
um just want to say it does not appear
[48:39] that the planning commission has any say
on the fence, but I'm sure other people
[48:45] who are present heard your comments um
who are involved in the approval. So,
[48:50] thank you.
>> Um, Alex, can we ask the staff to
[48:55] explain again one more time? Sorry, I
asked this twice, but I'm still not
[48:59] clear, especially when one of the um our
neighbors also is concerned. How because
[49:06] I have seen that we previously had
fences on um design review and you
[49:12] mentioned some are, some are not. Can
you explain what made this fence
[49:18] something that uh did not require um
design review?
[49:22] » Sure.
>> So, if someone comes in for an
[49:24] application to replace an existing
fence, it doesn't rise to the level of a
[49:28] planning commission review. In this
case, it just happens to be a very well,
[49:34] it's a it's a fence replacement, right?
And so, we just it's isolated. A lot of
[49:39] the fences that come to the planning
commission are included with a major
[49:44] landscape plan or a new house or a major
renovation and they're redoing all of
[49:49] their fences as well and updating
landscaping. This application was merely
[49:55] to replace a fence which fence
replacements
[50:00] as I said isolated don't come to
planning commission. Where this one got
[50:04] a little complicated was in order to
move the fence right off of the city
[50:09] right ofway. It required to demolish to
demolish the garage. So it's kind of
[50:15] like a little bit of a domino effect
here. And so that all demolitions then
[50:20] are required to come to planning
commission. So that's why we're even
[50:24] entertaining and talking about the fence
because we're here for the demolition of
[50:29] the garage.
[50:33] Thank you.
[50:40] » Is there anybody on Zoom, Rebecca, that
wants to comment on this?
[50:44] » There's no hands raised on Zoom.
>> Thank you.
[50:48] I'll now close the public hearing and
bring this matter back to the commission
[50:53] for discussion.
Um, Commissioner Jai, would you like to
[50:58] start the discussion?
>> Sure. I think um as um everyone probably
[51:05] agrees that that garage is in a bad
shape shape. Safety issues and removal
[51:11] of it u would be a um
in in the benefit of the public. So I
[51:17] have no um problem with demolishing that
um garage.
[51:24] » Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.
I have support that application
[51:32] based on the overall finding
that supports the city plan and
[51:38] additionally there's nonformance
[51:43] correct.
[51:46] » Thank you Commissioner Shinski.
Godspeed,
[51:56] » Commissioner Watson.
>> Um, I also can make the can make the
[52:00] findings as I believe the existing
garage is both unsafe and an and an
[52:05] isore and should be demolished. I'm not
sure if we have um if anyone has
[52:10] contacted the local coyotes though who
apparently are using it as a home, but
[52:14] um I'm also in favor of removing their
home.
[52:19] Thank you.
Also, I will also be able to make
[52:24] findings um in favor of the demolition.
Um I'll be surprised if there's any
[52:30] conditions to craft here. I think
we're probably ready to take a vote on
[52:38] this uh as soon as I get a motion.
>> All right. Um, I'd like to make a motion
[52:45] um to grant approval um to title 16 of
the Belvadier Municipal Code to allow
[52:51] the demolition of the existing detached
garage, shed, and wooden stairs at 135
[52:57] um Belvadier with the conditions that
are listed in the resolution.
[53:01] » Thank you.
>> Second.
[53:03] » All those in favor? I
>> I
[53:07] » Thank you.
[53:17] We'll now move on to item four, design
review and revocable license for a re
[53:22] remodel at 47 West Shore Road. Can we
have a staff report, please?
[53:26] » Thank you again, Chair Cidle and members
of the planning commission. for your
[53:30] consideration is an application for
design review and revocable license for
[53:34] window and door replacement, deck
enlargement, and new landscaping at 47
[53:39] Westshore Road.
Subject parcel is 11,000 square ft and
[53:45] contains a 4,300 ft two-story residence
and attached two-car garage. Site is
[53:51] relatively flat and sits on the western
side of Belvadier Island. Uh the site
[53:55] includes a front yard swimming pool,
overwater deck, and boat lift.
[54:02] The project involves an exterior remodel
that would include new windows and doors
[54:07] uh and siding across all elevations as
well as a partial uh removal of the
[54:12] existing roof.
The project includes deck expansions
[54:17] along the side and rear yard,
new landscaping,
[54:23] and a new hot tub and fire pit.
Regarding roof modifications, the
[54:30] project proposes to remove 173 square ft
of the canal levered first story roof.
[54:36] The current eve encroaches 10 feet into
the front yard setback. While removing
[54:40] the eve would not bring the structure
into conformance with the setback
[54:44] requirements. It would reduce the
encroachment by two feet and three
[54:48] inches.
A non-reflective matte finish metal roof
[54:54] fascia in a dark bronze color would be
installed where the eve would be
[54:58] removed.
[55:02] The existing uh cupboard entry currently
2 20 271 square feet uh count towards
[55:10] floor area and would be reduced to 143
square ft as part of the interior
[55:14] remodel. This reduction would be visible
from West Shore Road resulting in a
[55:20] reduced uh and smaller entry canopy.
[55:26] Regarding the deck expansion, the
northern sideyard deck would be enlarged
[55:30] from 152 square feet to 600 square feet.
Uh it would also include a new stair
[55:36] access to the shoreline.
The southern side deck would be expanded
[55:41] 290 ft mainly along the left side yard.
Uh, under a separate application, the
[55:48] applicant proposes to install a new 6-ft
tall fence along the side and front
[55:53] property lines to accommodate this deck
expansion.
[56:00] The project proposes to replace or
reconfigure the exterior windows and
[56:03] doors. The majority of the openings
would be in the same location and of
[56:07] similar size to those that exist facing
West Road. No significant window changes
[56:12] are proposed. Facing
the rear in Richardson Bay, a new clear
[56:18] story window and 5' 6 in by 4' 5 in
fixed window are proposed.
[56:26] And on the left side, one sliding door
would be replaced with a smaller window.
[56:33] At the right sideyard, uh window and
door modifications are generally
[56:37] proposed in the same locations.
[56:42] New horizontal wood siding in a light
gray color is proposed throughout the
[56:46] residence. Uh the rear and sideyard
decking would be constructed constructed
[56:51] of natural epay wood with a light gray
finish and windows and doors would be
[56:55] constructed using anodized metal with a
dark bronze finish.
[57:01] The project proposes new landscaping and
the front yard. Landscaping would
[57:05] include four bay laurels to 20t tall
along with lavender and baby mat rush
[57:13] along the southern and northern sidey
yards. English laurel to 10 ft tall are
[57:17] proposed
[57:20] and within the west shore road right
ofway. The project proposes two bay
[57:23] laurel to 20 feet tall and matt rush
within a 20-inch tall concrete planter.
[57:31] One thing uh commission for your
consideration I didn't address this in
[57:35] this we didn't address this in the staff
report uh the laurel to 10 feet tall
[57:41] typically uh hedges we we get neighbor
uh input for hedges that are uh 8 feet
[57:47] or taller. on this project. We didn't
get those any any uh consideration from
[57:52] neighbors. So, it's something for your
consideration.
[57:58] Uh exterior lighting would include 10
recess down lights primarily at the uh
[58:04] at the canal lever uh roof at the rear
of the house and 19 wall-mounted sconces
[58:09] throughout the uh residence.
[58:13] The applicant requests a revocable
license to allow the existing driveway
[58:17] and proposed landscaping to encroach
into the Westshore Roadway.
[58:23] Uh the project if approved is exempt
from SQA
[58:28] and uh staff recommends that all the
design review findings can be made and
[58:32] the recommendation for revocable license
and staff is happy to answer any
[58:37] questions you may have.
[58:42] Thank you, Sammy. Do we have questions?
[58:51] » Sammy.
>> Yes.
[58:54] » Hi. Um, so, um, I I know that the the
plans that were waiting for us tonight
[59:00] and that you emailed to us this
afternoon have changed in a number of
[59:04] ways from the plans that we were looking
at when we when we did site visits. Can
[59:10] you just
sort of run down for us the the material
[59:14] different the material differences in
the two sets of sets of plans just
[59:19] because I for one that we're looking at
was looking at the old plans.
[59:22] » Yeah. The
the uh
[59:28] well the the changes that you have are
actually it's it's a clarification on
[59:33] the plans that you guys received. the
planting legend says um has a a letter
[59:40] and then on the plant itself it's shown
as a one uh for for some of the
[59:45] plantings. So there there was and then
there's also I think an olive tree that
[59:50] was proposed on the legend but it's not
shown on the plans. So the architect
[59:55] fixed removed that and then also removed
the the correctly identified the mat
[1:00:02] rush.
>> All right. Um I because I'm looking at a
[1:00:07] 2.4
and there it's not showing the two trees
[1:00:13] that are outside of the fence that you
just showed on
[1:00:20] » 82.4.
>> Yeah.
[1:00:24] » If I could just jump in here. Thanks
>> sheet A1.0.
[1:00:30] The adjacent property address was
corrected to read 49 West Shore. Sheet
[1:00:36] A1.5. The floor area table has been
corrected to match the diagram. There
[1:00:40] was a discrepancy there. Um, the project
is removing 91 square ft rather than 117
[1:00:47] square ft.
>> Okay.
[1:00:49] » Um, A1.6. As Sammy said, the landscape
sheet has been corrected so that the
[1:00:54] plant legend matches right there. there
were some number lettering issues that
[1:00:59] just didn't match there. Um
[1:01:06] Sammy mentioned the fascia and then on
A3.1 there's an exterior lighting plan
[1:01:10] that's been added. The applicant is
proposing 10 recess down lights and 19
[1:01:16] wall-mounted
sconces.
[1:01:31] I think we should get some clarification
from the architect on whether those 19
[1:01:34] lights are all new. I suspect
>> they're replacing some as well as um
[1:01:40] adding new ones, but let's let's get
clarification on that.
[1:01:43] » Okay.
>> And Commissioner Watson, would you like
[1:01:47] me to pull up the original plans and
what you received today on the on the
[1:01:52] screen so we can compare them? No, it's
okay. Thank you.
[1:01:58] » So, so do we know the u the status of of
49 that is it is it are are the owners
[1:02:06] there the family who has been there or
the ones that are buying it or I can't
[1:02:13] keep track what's going
[1:02:19] Actually,
[1:02:32] if you could just hold off until
>> I don't need to know, but just
[1:02:36] » when it's your turn, it would be great
if you could come to the mic and answer
[1:02:40] that. Thank you so much.
[1:02:47] And I don't know the status of 49. No, I
don't.
[1:02:55] » Okay. Are there any other questions? Um,
with that, we can ask the applicant to
[1:03:00] make a presentation if they like.
[1:03:08] » Exactly. Okay. Can you guys hear me?
Okay. Hi, I'm Stacy Perry. This is my
[1:03:14] husband, Matthew Perry. We've been on
West Shore since 2020, so almost six
[1:03:19] years now. We started out renting and
loved it so much that we purchased the
[1:03:24] home a few years ago. I met many of you
yesterday. So, thank you to the
[1:03:29] commissioners for coming through the
house. And um we have a 21-year-old
[1:03:35] daughter who's in college, so she's
still with us in the home.
[1:03:40] want to add anything?
>> No, it's perfect.
[1:03:44] » Neighbors.
>> Okay, so um we have new neighbors at 47
[1:03:48] Westshore and new neighbors at 40 I mean
at 45 because we're 47 and new neighbors
[1:03:54] at 49. We have met the new neighbors at
45. A lovely couple with a young
[1:04:01] daughter. She's 11 and we have not yet
met our new neighbors at 49. So we do
[1:04:07] not believe they have moved in yet. So,
we've tried several times to just knock
[1:04:11] on the door and introduce ourselves, but
they do not appear to be moved in.
[1:04:19] » Do you want me to add anything on that?
The former owner at 49.
[1:04:24] » You want me to? All right.
>> They were very aware of what's
[1:04:27] happening. The new owners, I think, is
the real owner bought it from
[1:04:32] it.
>> Um, and my name is Steven Sutro. I'm the
[1:04:36] architect for the project. Um, and I'll
walk you through a series of slides
[1:04:39] explaining the design. Um, are you ready
to share? Are you sharing screen?
[1:04:51] There we go.
[1:04:55] And you flip to the next.
Okay. Um, thank you for the
[1:05:01] presentation, Rebecca and Sammy. Um, so
as they said, the proposed project
[1:05:05] involves the the remodel of the existing
single family home, including new
[1:05:08] windows and doors, replacing the
existing siding, rear deck expansions,
[1:05:12] and I'll explain a little bit more about
that. Um, updated landscaping, and minor
[1:05:16] interior floor plan changes. Um, the
next slide here, um, the image on the
[1:05:21] left shows the existing street facade
and the rendering on the right shows the
[1:05:24] proposed with updated windows, new
siding, and updated landscaping. We
[1:05:29] removed the eve as was as was mentioned
over the garage and modified it to be
[1:05:33] tight around the structure removing a
portion of its non-conformance.
[1:05:37] Um let's see at the bottom left of the
render um you can see the proposed
[1:05:42] landscaping changes. Um the the fence um
is part of a separate permit but it's
[1:05:47] interesting to the application in two
ways. One is it is um located like many
[1:05:52] are along west shore uh in fully in the
public right ofway and very tight to the
[1:05:57] sidewalk. And so we um work with staff
to um suggest pushing it back so that um
[1:06:02] a pedestrian enjoys more landscaping.
And so the the public right of way or
[1:06:07] the the um encroachment permit revocable
license kind of thing will be for
[1:06:10] landscaping instead of that tall fence.
So the fence is moving back. Not part of
[1:06:14] this application, but it's kind of a
part of the overall design. Likewise, um
[1:06:18] our survey showed us that the fence line
on both side property lines was
[1:06:23] substantially um on Stacy and Matthew's
property by several feet in each
[1:06:28] location, meaning 40 the neighbors on
each side were kind of enjoying the use
[1:06:33] of several feet of Matthew and Stacy's
property historically. So, the fence
[1:06:37] permit um which has been granted um
relocates the same height fence to a
[1:06:42] location that is on the property line.
and that's been discussed with the
[1:06:45] neighbor that is present, not been
discussed with the one that is not. So,
[1:06:49] um, what we're doing in the newly found
swaths of land is is some landscaping
[1:06:54] and and expanding the existing surfaces
of the deck. We kind of mislabeled the
[1:06:59] one that is on the side with the trash
and access alongside the the garage
[1:07:03] actually is going to be on the ground
and the deck is going to stop kind of
[1:07:07] where it does now and we're going to
step down onto the ground. So, that's an
[1:07:09] error on on our part. Um there are about
um nine uh sconces on the outside of the
[1:07:14] building today. So uh it's correct that
they're not all 19 or are new. Um but um
[1:07:20] 19 total is what we've suggested in the
lighting plan. They're downwardly cast
[1:07:24] very kind of minimal looking things. On
the water side of the uh property are
[1:07:30] some eve lights in the overhang um that
faces kind of like a a wash board or a
[1:07:35] place where traditionally you can walk
and wash the windows that face the bay.
[1:07:39] Um, and so we're suggesting replacing
those large light fixtures with small
[1:07:42] aperture ones and increasing the number
a little bit along that eve. Um, let's
[1:07:47] see if I want to point out anything else
because I went off script. Um, the
[1:07:52] material slide if you want to go to
that. Um, we're suggesting um kind of a
[1:07:56] gray um stained siding. Um, this is from
Delta Mil Works. It's a nice Aoya um
[1:08:02] heat treated product that is natural
100% natural wood that has been heat
[1:08:07] treated for resistance to decay. Um and
in our previous project where we've
[1:08:13] we've used this product, the the gray
does a nice job of um fading to gray as
[1:08:19] it weathers. Meaning kind of as the
stain erodess, as they all naturally do,
[1:08:23] it doesn't so much require restaining
because it's turning gray. The wood is
[1:08:27] turning gray in the sun naturally. Um,
and then we're uh proposing kind of a
[1:08:31] dark bronze color on the sashes and and
trim. Um, natural concrete on the
[1:08:37] planter and the underside of the sophet
in um a cyprress or cedar.
[1:08:45] I think that's Oh, unless I've missed
something. No. Okay. I'm here to answer
[1:08:49] questions. Thank you.
[1:08:55] Questions from commissioners.
[1:08:59] I have a question about the lighting
plan. Um, sure. The image that's up
[1:09:03] there now, those under the lights that
are under the overhang in the back. Is
[1:09:08] that all part of the lighting plan?
Those exterior lights.
[1:09:10] » Uh, so the lighting plan here shows the
little dots that are,
[1:09:15] » you know, that's the overhang beyond the
living room. You can see the living room
[1:09:18] furniture. So those little dots key into
the a recess outdoor rated outdoor
[1:09:22] fixture. Okay. And there are several
fixtures that are there. Maybe there are
[1:09:26] six today. They're they're much larger.
So the idea is to to make smaller
[1:09:30] aperture ones and increase the frequency
a bit.
[1:09:33] » Okay.
[1:09:40] » I have a a question and I'm I'm not sure
if it's it's maybe for both staff and
[1:09:45] the applicant. Um, I noted you said that
the the fences are being moved at the
[1:09:52] same height that they are. And I I had
the impression that some of the fences
[1:09:58] were taller than six feet.
>> And um I'm not even sure are the fences
[1:10:03] part of this application. Let's start
with that. The fences are not part of
[1:10:06] this application. So, um maybe this is
not pertinent, but um
[1:10:13] I guess because we're thinking about
heights of planting related to neighbors
[1:10:18] and neighbor conditions staff, do you
want to make any comment on that?
[1:10:25] » The fencing is not part of this
application.
[1:10:27] » Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
[1:10:33] » So,
>> uh so I I I'm sorry. I think that you're
[1:10:36] asking because it's Germaine for the
planting question that staff raised the
[1:10:40] for the English laurel. The fence is
about 6'6 right now. It's a standard six
[1:10:44] foot board, but it's set on top of a
horizontal runner. So, it's probably
[1:10:48] 6'6, 6' 5 and a half, something like
that. The new plan um that's not part of
[1:10:52] the application, but Germaine to the
discussion of design is for it to be six
[1:10:55] foot even.
>> Thank you for that.
[1:11:00] um including the portions that are
currently built up a little bit towards
[1:11:05] 49.
>> Yes.
[1:11:10] » So So um just to be clear, the So the
the tub is going to be moving
[1:11:20] um out toward the water past where the
fence line is. Yes.
[1:11:28] And then there's
I guess three laurels then proposed to
[1:11:33] screen it
>> correct
[1:11:35] » from and I can't you know I don't I
can't make the case for
[1:11:40] 49.
Um
[1:11:43] I other than to observe that that's very
close to where they are. Yes. And that's
[1:11:48] a exposed tub. And I if I were the
neighbor, I'd want those trees to be as
[1:11:54] mature as possible and as large as
possible when they went in. Um
[1:12:00] uh
I might also Yeah, I won't go there. Um
[1:12:09] um and that's it for right this moment.
Um, while we're talking about the hot
[1:12:14] tub, where where is the mechanical going
to be for the hot tub?
[1:12:19] » Um, it's integral. It's it's um it's a
diamond spa is the proposal which has it
[1:12:24] all integrated into the square of the
cube.
[1:12:27] » Yeah. No external. It's not like a a
swimming pool or that kind of thing
[1:12:30] where there's extra equipment.
>> Matthew was just noting that there was a
[1:12:34] very large tree that was recently
removed uh right there in that location
[1:12:38] that you're discussing for privacy.
It was a beautiful tree. We woke up one
[1:12:43] day.
>> That was a willow tree.
[1:12:49] » Good on your on your side or their side?
[1:12:54] » But the fence was Yeah. Okay.
>> It was not removed by
[1:13:00] » got there. Yeah. Maybe unbeknownsted.
[1:13:10] Okay. No further. Do you have a
question?
[1:13:12] » I have two questions. Um, how many scons
did you say uh you are adding?
[1:13:18] » There are n eight or nine existing
>> and so
[1:13:22] » and then now total how many?
>> 19. Do you want to go? We can go to the
[1:13:26] site plan.
>> I'm counting 16. That's why I'm I heard
[1:13:29] it said 19 but I'm counting 16. So I'm
wondering if there is something
[1:13:33] somewhere I'm not seeing. So basically,
let me ask you this. On this street side
[1:13:38] on this on San Rafael Avenue, is it just
three?
[1:13:42] » Yes.
>> Beyond the fence?
[1:13:45] » Yes, it is just three.
>> Okay. So maybe you have 16. Um
[1:13:50] » there two two flanking the garage and
then one kind of adjacent to gate.
[1:13:54] » Okay. And then another question I had is
that at your entry you have two steps
[1:14:00] going down um which on the new drawings
that you are showing the steps are gone.
[1:14:07] The arrow is still there. I wonder if it
is a
[1:14:10] » yes I think. Mhm. The sconce note is
deflect or is uh covering up this stairs
[1:14:15] that will remain there.
>> Stairs remain those steps remain.
[1:14:19] » Those are near the front front door that
you
[1:14:22] » Yeah. And is it a egress door? The entry
door.
[1:14:25] » The front door is an eress door. Yes.
>> So, don't you need a landing 36 inch in
[1:14:30] front of it?
>> What will the landing be? Do you have a
[1:14:33] floor plan?
[1:14:36] » It's a good question.
>> So, you
[1:14:38] » While she's pulling that up, this the
sconces that are around the sides,
[1:14:41] they're kind of acting. We're not
deploying any other landscape lighting
[1:14:44] or flood lights. They're kind of acting
because they're lowlevel and downward
[1:14:48] cast. It's kind of acting as the
navigation around all the sides. So,
[1:14:51] they're definitely not meant to be
decorative sconces in the traditional
[1:14:54] sense of a sconce,
>> right?
[1:14:56] » Um,
no, I think you're pointing out a a a
[1:15:01] flaw and that we might need to make sure
that there are 36 inches from the front
[1:15:05] door to the step.
>> Yeah, basically then you will have less
[1:15:08] um you're you're um going to have less
um what is it? Enclosure where you have
[1:15:13] it. But planning wise, I have no issue
with it.
[1:15:16] » Understand? Maybe we'll suggest shifting
the stair up. you probably have issues
[1:15:21] later on, but um
>> thank you for the note.
[1:15:31] and they uh I don't know if it's outside
design review purview or not which means
[1:15:36] it probably is but but a um uh and I
can't and I can't take take credit for
[1:15:42] kind of drilling down on this but could
we talk for a minute about the uh the
[1:15:46] FEMA substantial improvement threshold?
>> Yes, absolutely. So you've get you've
[1:15:52] you have the FEMA assessed value at 6
million or so and the pro the full
[1:15:58] project not just what we're looking at
today but the inside as well um totaling
[1:16:03] up pretty close to the halfway mark at
48%.
[1:16:08] » So what's what's the thinking if there
you know there's there's a lot of moving
[1:16:12] parts both inside
>> if the cost escalates or something like
[1:16:15] that.
>> Yeah. So, how have you thought about how
[1:16:18] you might phase it if you find that
something costs more than it you thought
[1:16:23] originally? I mean,
>> sorry, that was loud. So, this we
[1:16:30] certainly will scrutinize the numbers at
the time of building permit and we don't
[1:16:35] like to issue building permits that are
at 48% um of the
[1:16:40] » leaving room for contingency.
>> Yeah. Because we know things change in
[1:16:43] construction. Um, so
it's certainly something to think about
[1:16:51] at the time of the planning approval or
submittal, but um, we certainly have a a
[1:16:59] our building official is also the flood
plan administrator and so we will sit
[1:17:03] down and crunch the numbers with the
architect. Um,
[1:17:09] » yeah, again I
>> sometimes things will get scaled back,
[1:17:12] right? And so
It might be that they can't do the
[1:17:17] entirety of the project. Um, and they'll
have to wait a year and then we're
[1:17:22] keenly we're keenly aware.
>> Yeah. Great. Great. Just wanted to flag
[1:17:26] it.
>> Yeah.
[1:17:28] » We we looked at the alternative of of
doing a larger project or or you know
[1:17:33] doing more and raising the raising the
house. Certainly.
[1:17:42] » Okay.
Thank you. Are there any comments from
[1:17:46] members of the public on this item?
[1:17:52] » There are no hands raised on
>> a non-controversial item apparently.
[1:17:57] That's good.
[1:18:02] Uh, I'll I'll uh bring this back uh
close the public hearing and um I'd like
[1:18:10] to get the commissioners to share their
thoughts on it. Um, Miss Alda, would you
[1:18:15] like to start the conversation this
time?
[1:18:18] » Sure. Um, I just want to thank the
applicant for the presentation and
[1:18:22] clarification on the lighting plan um,
and other features of the project. Um
[1:18:29] um my comments are focused mostly on the
re revocable license. Um um yeah, the
[1:18:36] the improvements uh won't block any
views. Um so I could find the findings
[1:18:40] for that. Um and the landscaping will be
a nice addition and then um and the
[1:18:45] revoke and then the correction of the
overhang is a is a good addition to the
[1:18:50] project as well.
Thanks.
[1:18:56] Thank you, Commissioner Jimai.
>> Um,
[1:19:03] uh, I can make the findings also for the
replacement of the windows, um,
[1:19:07] extension of the deck. Um, lighting, um,
I have no issues with the lighting as
[1:19:14] long as there are just three on the, um,
west shore which are, uh, flanking the
[1:19:20] garage and the entry. I think those are
necessary for the um visibility at
[1:19:25] night. Um the landscaping and removal of
a um a pool I think would help the um
[1:19:36] community also the the landscaping would
show up on the west shore which people
[1:19:40] when they walk they would enjoy that and
also they are improving the um
[1:19:45] landscaping on the city property which
is I think um a nice addition. I I I was
[1:19:51] um struggling a little bit with that
stone wall uh that is um proposed on the
[1:19:58] city property. Um landscaping is great,
but I I was going back and forth that do
[1:20:05] we need that um stone wall there and
[1:20:11] what is the result? I I think layering
landscape is always beautiful like
[1:20:16] having a taller and trees and shrubs and
all those combination makes it
[1:20:21] attractive. Um and I think you were
maybe trying to do that with stone. I I
[1:20:26] couldn't quite understand what was the
reasoning behind that design and and
[1:20:30] just because it is on the city property
I also was wondering do we need and then
[1:20:35] each applicant comes and might have a
new idea. Is that something that would
[1:20:42] um overall improve the walking on the
sidewalk seeing different structures or
[1:20:50] is it is it positive or negative? I I
wasn't I was struggling with that. Um I
[1:20:54] don't know what other commissioners
think about that. I couldn't also myself
[1:20:59] decide if I
um how I feel about it. I I don't have a
[1:21:05] negative
um I don't think it is a negative design
[1:21:09] idea. I'm just thinking that is it good
to have different structures in city
[1:21:15] property um or is it just landscaping to
to resolve it with landscaping?
[1:21:23] I I wonder what others think on that. Um
the rest I I can make all the findings.
[1:21:33] » Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Shinsky.
[1:21:39] » Yeah, certainly I don't um
uh uh blame you for wanting, you know,
[1:21:46] first and foremost to get the property
lines where they need need to be. Um uh
[1:21:51] that that seems long overdue. And if
part and parcel of that means uh getting
[1:21:56] rid of that boat trailer on the front
lawn, that would be appreciated as well.
[1:22:01] Although that's not a condition. I I
think you know our our normal course
[1:22:06] here is to have our chair kind of look
at the landscape plan at the end of the
[1:22:10] day um and approve that. And um I think
that would be one of the conditions here
[1:22:16] of course uh with kind of a a special
charge to you know the hot tub given
[1:22:22] that it's kind of exposed there now that
that we do our best to whether the trees
[1:22:29] are start out at 6 feet or 8 feet or 10
feet. Um you know I think taller and
[1:22:35] fuller is kind of the order of the day
there just given the proximity to the
[1:22:39] neighbors. Uh but beyond that, I should
be able to make the findings.
[1:22:46] » Commissioner Watson,
>> thanks. Um um like Olay, I also
[1:22:51] struggled with the with the wall at the
at at the front. Um just because as uh
[1:22:57] well, I guess our neighbor who's who's
now who's now left said, uh you know, it
[1:23:00] is a it is sort of a a tunnel a tunnel
type of type of feeling with having the
[1:23:05] wall there. You know, obviously the wall
used to be there because it was a pool.
[1:23:09] you know, you have to have a have a
solid high, you know, barrier to kids
[1:23:14] climbing over and getting in your pool
and dying. Um,
[1:23:18] but that that being that being said, I
don't have I don't have an issue with it
[1:23:22] as a as a as a design element itself. Um
I I do feel that both the lighting plan
[1:23:31] and the landscape plan um probably need
um more more finaliz more finalization
[1:23:39] um especially since there are you know
depending under under numbers um either
[1:23:48] either 10 or eight new uh wall sconces
that are going to be added as well as a
[1:23:54] number of of of downward downward facing
Eve lights and as we just got the
[1:23:59] lighting plan tonight, I don't I don't
think I'm in a position to approve the
[1:24:04] either the lighting or the landscape
plan. And so I would propose that uh
[1:24:09] both of those as well as the um the
evaluation of the 36 um inch uh front uh
[1:24:17] front step landing.
um
[1:24:22] that a condition be added for each one
of those things to be approved by our
[1:24:26] esteemed chair.
[1:24:33] » Thank you.
[1:24:37] Um I appreciate your presentation. And I
think this is
[1:24:41] a good update of of an existing house
that, you know, it's got a few years on
[1:24:47] it, but it's got good bone structure.
Um, so I I approve of the installation
[1:24:54] of the new windows. I think the new
siding will be nice. The colors, things
[1:24:58] look appropriate and in scale with the
neighborhood. You know, this really
[1:25:02] isn't an expansion of the house, so
there's no issues there. Um, I'm
[1:25:07] listening to my fellow commissioners.
Um, I think we're probably going to
[1:25:11] condition this um for further review for
the landscape and lighting. Um, and I
[1:25:16] have to admit I don't fully from these
drawings I don't fully understand the
[1:25:22] particularly the landscaping in front. I
understand the the tree plan, but um I
[1:25:27] want to be reviewing the scale and and
details of um particularly these things
[1:25:33] that present themselves to the street,
and we'll we'll have an opportunity to
[1:25:37] look at that in the future. So, um I'll
be able to make the findings in favor of
[1:25:43] this project with um with any conditions
that the planning commission cares to
[1:25:49] attach to it.
[1:26:04] So, we're ready um for someone to make a
motion.
[1:26:10] Could be this style word. Motion maker
to my right.
[1:26:15] » It's the It's the problem of being the
lawyer on the on the commission. Um all
[1:26:20] right. I'm going to I'm going to give
this give this give this a shot. Um All
[1:26:24] right. I'd like to make a motion um that
the um the planning commission grants
[1:26:30] approval of the design review applica
application to install new exterior
[1:26:34] windows and doors, enlarge the rear yard
decks um and plant new landscaping at 47
[1:26:41] Westshore with the following um with the
conditions that are listed in the
[1:26:45] resolution plus adding uh the addition
these following additional uh conditions
[1:26:51] that the lighting and landscaping um
plans uh be uh be finalized with the
[1:26:57] approval of the chair of the um of the
commission and that um a 36 in uh front
[1:27:07] uh front landing be in front of the be
in front of the front door if it is not
[1:27:11] already there.
[1:27:15] » Second.
[1:27:19] » All in favor? Hi.
>> Hi.
[1:27:22] » Hi.
[1:27:41] All right.
>> Sorry. We have a we have another another
[1:27:44] motion 447 West Shore and it is to
recommend to the city council the
[1:27:49] approval of a revocable license for
private improvements um located on the
[1:27:54] west shore right ofway at 47 West Shore.
>> Second.
[1:27:59] » Excuse me. I think the those low walls
are in the revocable license area. So,
[1:28:06] I'm not quite sure if you're making a
recommendation to the city council on
[1:28:10] the revocable license that includes
those walls.
[1:28:14] So, I just want to be clear on
where the commission stands
[1:28:21] and maybe they'll come back with a
revised landscape plan and the walls
[1:28:26] will be
>> that that
[1:28:28] » determined the location will be
determined at that point. But I just
[1:28:31] want to
>> that was that was that that was what I
[1:28:35] had it
>> and I hadn't really thought about it in
[1:28:38] terms of impacting the revocable license
as well. But it is in the city.
[1:28:42] » Yeah. I guess I'm just not clear on
where the commission stands on those
[1:28:45] walls. Like are you waiting for the
applicant to revise the plans to perhaps
[1:28:52] keep the walls in the right of way or
>> I I just would like some clarity so when
[1:28:58] we bring it to council we kind of
understand where the commission
[1:29:02] » stands or are we relying on the chair to
make that determination which is fine
[1:29:06] too.
city has no requirement in that sense to
[1:29:11] have or not have this type of uh
specifically just for design. I think it
[1:29:16] is just for um aesthetic they are
putting it. There is no reason for it.
[1:29:21] » Yeah. And we have
if my memory served me correct we have a
[1:29:26] lot of improvements in the rightway on
West Shore.
[1:29:28] » Yes.
>> Does that do low walls does that mean
[1:29:31] that we're going to improve new ones? I
don't know. I mean that's you know our
[1:29:35] sort of um philosophy now is to get
everything out of the right of way.
[1:29:41] So
>> we don't have set know how
[1:29:48] far into the right of way the wall is by
any chance. I'm just trying to get a
[1:29:54] sense of
>> I don't but
[1:29:58] » I could reopen the public hearing for a
moment. It might help the other
[1:30:01] commissioners to have a better sense of
what this wall is.
[1:30:04] » Yeah.
>> So, um I'd like to reopen the public
[1:30:07] hearing and if the applicant could just
give us a little more information
[1:30:11] regarding the height and location of the
wall.
[1:30:23] » Yeah. And and I've asked for the height
of I mean it could just be like a
[1:30:27] decorative curb, right? not necessarily
what we're thinking of as a retain.
[1:30:31] » Yeah, that's and that
>> there's nothing to retain.
[1:30:34] » I was looking for it in the elevations
and I didn't really see it. So that's
[1:30:38] why I
>> Sorry to make this.
[1:30:40] » Yeah, sorry. It's okay.
>> There's also no dimension showing um how
[1:30:45] wide it is. So
it should I mean if it goes to city
[1:30:50] council, it should show what is the
dimension of the of the
[1:30:57] » One second here. We're just starting to
pull it up. Um, if there's any specific
[1:31:01] guidance that you all would like to
give, that would be fine. And also, we
[1:31:06] will be submitting a revised plan to
illustrate more in 3D and with
[1:31:09] dimensions so that the chair can can
advise us. So, we're happy with either
[1:31:13] specific advice now or andor review by
the chair. But the um we're trying to
[1:31:19] get the dimension for you. Sorry, hold
on.
[1:31:36] All right. So, um I I don't know if it's
Jermaine or you want to hear this, but
[1:31:40] the the the low wall is approximately 2
feet encroached from the property line
[1:31:45] into the public right of way. The old
fence that is permitted to be altered
[1:31:50] was 6 feet encroachment at 6 ft high.
Um, and so if that helps answer the
[1:31:56] question, but again, we're not really
looking for you to stamp that right now.
[1:31:59] We understand you'd like more
illustration, maybe some examples to
[1:32:02] show what's what's along Westshore Road
and see if this is contextually
[1:32:05] appropriate. So, we fully expect to
study it ourselves, submit something,
[1:32:09] and have either a dialogue about it or
get feedback from.
[1:32:12] » Yeah. And again, I wasn't sure if I
caught, but um, how how tall do you
[1:32:17] visualize it?
>> 18 inches is what's illustrated, but
[1:32:22] maybe not properly noted anywhere. Not
sure, but that was it's a planter, I
[1:32:25] guess. It's not It does not need to be
there because it's not retaining
[1:32:28] anything. It's not important to Matthew
and Stacy. So,
[1:32:31] » we'll try to figure out what's best. And
>> all
[1:32:35] » Yeah. But but I think the idea from a
design perspective, not to belittle, it
[1:32:39] was to was to have kind of multiple
tiers so that it looked kind of pretty,
[1:32:42] that it wasn't just a flat flat piece
where dogs go, you know.
[1:32:46] » Okay. Thank you. I I think that's um
helpful. So,
[1:32:51] um, with that, I guess the the question
is, um, are is the, um, commission
[1:32:59] comfortable
granting the recommendation on the
[1:33:03] revocable license at this point? Um,
[1:33:18] I I mean I I haven't commented yet, so I
guess I I guess I did comment, but um
[1:33:24] regarding um this I guess I'm I'm okay
uh granting the revocable license in
[1:33:32] that they're they're increasing the
setback of this streetside element by 4
[1:33:38] feet. Um, and they're reducing the
height. So, it's more of a landscape
[1:33:43] element and it
>> it may not be the final version. You
[1:33:48] know, they they may reconsider it, but I
think it's an improvement from what's
[1:33:53] there now. So, um,
I could probably go with the granting
[1:33:59] the revocable license,
>> right? I'm I'm I'm fine with the
[1:34:03] recommendation for the revocable license
subject to to the finalization of the
[1:34:07] landscaping plans.
>> Okay.
[1:34:12] So, um let's see. Did is that a motion?
>> Yeah, excuse me. My apologies. I don't
[1:34:17] want to necessarily drag this out, but I
think the motion needs to be with the
[1:34:20] understanding of what the proposal is,
which is what the chair just described.
[1:34:24] And obviously it may change by the time
it goes to council, but at least just to
[1:34:28] Rebecca's earlier point, it's just
helpful for us to know when this does go
[1:34:32] to council what the planning commission
is in support of. So just to be clear
[1:34:36] for the record, we are addressing the
planters as described by the architect
[1:34:40] approximately 18 inches in height,
approximately two feet into the
[1:34:43] rightway. Maybe that will change, maybe
it won't, but at least that's the
[1:34:47] starting point.
>> And material, does it need to be to
[1:34:50] include the material what it is? If that
if that is pertinent to the the motion
[1:34:54] made by the commission, yes, you can
incorporate it or ask about it.
[1:35:00] » And what is the material?
>> It's shown on the material sheets as
[1:35:04] concrete. Um but um we're happy again to
submit it, I don't know, very
[1:35:09] specifically in detail. submit it to the
chair and receive feedback and and
[1:35:15] collaborate on whatever ends up going to
council, including being a flat space
[1:35:18] with no planter or a planter with, you
know, Cortan or bronze or some other
[1:35:23] material.
[1:35:33] Right. So, I'm going to give a shot at
this at this this one. All right.
[1:35:38] All right. Um, I'm proposing a motion to
recommend to the city council the
[1:35:42] approval of a revocable license for
private improvements located um in the
[1:35:46] Westshore right of way at 47 Westore
Drive. Um, showing the
[1:35:54] current approximately 18inch high
uh planters that are encroaching about 2
[1:36:01] feet into the city rightway. In all
cases, subject to finalization of the
[1:36:05] landscaping plan as approved by the
chair.
[1:36:16] I need a second.
>> Second.
[1:36:20] » All in favor?
>> I I
[1:36:24] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:36:27] » Thank you.
[1:36:41] We will now move on to the final item of
the e evening, item five, design review
[1:36:47] for new skylights, a patio door, and a
roof deck at 140 San Rafll Avenue. Can I
[1:36:53] have a staff report, please? Um before
the staff report, I'd just like to
[1:36:56] mention and thank Commissioner Wilson
for being here and she um lives within
[1:37:01] 500 ft of this
>> property, so she'll need to recuse.
[1:37:05] » Thank you.
>> Thanks. Thank you for joining us.
[1:37:28] Thank you, Chair Cidle.
[1:37:53] Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of
the planning commission. Uh for your
[1:37:57] consideration this evening is an
application for design review to install
[1:38:01] a second story deck, skylights, and
exterior doors and windows at 140
[1:38:05] Sanfell Avenue.
The subject property is 8,200 square f
[1:38:12] feet and contains a 3600 foot two-story
residence with attached garage. The site
[1:38:17] is relatively flat and about single
family residences to the north and
[1:38:20] south, Belvier Lagoon to the east, and
Richardson Bay to the west. The site is
[1:38:26] accessible via San Rafale Avenue.
The project proposes to construct a 300
[1:38:33] square foot deck on the existing
firststory roof located on the southern
[1:38:37] side of the residence.
The deck will be set back 10 ft from the
[1:38:41] sideyard property line and 49 ft from
the rear yard deck.
[1:38:45] The southern side of the roof deck will
be lined
[1:38:50] with three planter boxes to provide
privacy screening from the adjacent
[1:38:53] neighbor at 150 Sanfell Avenue.
Additional improvements include four new
[1:38:59] skylights, each 2 feet 10 in by 2 feet
10 in, as well as replacement of
[1:39:06] existing windows and doors.
[1:39:09] The roof deck would stand 9 ft 3 in
above existing grade. The new wood deck
[1:39:14] would be bordered by 3'6 in tall glass
guard rail.
[1:39:21] The project proposes to replace an
existing 6'6 in tall by 13t 6 in wide
[1:39:26] door
with a 7'6 in tall by 19t 1in wide glass
[1:39:32] door. window glazing glazing facing the
lagoon would increase 92 square feet for
[1:39:38] a total glazing area of 289 square feet.
Um a 2025 design review approval
[1:39:47] uh included the removal of clear story
windows at the rear yard which uh
[1:39:51] further reduced total glazing facing the
lagoon.
[1:39:57] Staff has received one letter of support
from the south adjacent property at 150
[1:40:01] Sanfell Avenue
and one letter from the north adjacent
[1:40:06] neighbor at 130 Sanfell Avenue
requesting that two exterior sconces on
[1:40:11] the left side yard be removed or
replaced uh due to the fixtures
[1:40:15] brightness. The arct architect has
indicated that the owner would be happy
[1:40:19] to remove these fixtures.
[1:40:23] The project is exempt from squa.
And for context, applications for roof
[1:40:29] decks are not common in the city of
Belvier. However, they have come up more
[1:40:33] in the past few years. In 2025, the
commission granted approval of a 125
[1:40:39] foot roof deck at the adjacent property
at 130 San Rafll Avenue. And there is
[1:40:44] one roof deck located at 152 Bella
Vista. Uh, with that, staff uh,
[1:40:49] recommends approval of this application
and is happy to answer any questions you
[1:40:53] may have.
[1:41:03] I I have a sort of a context question,
Sammy. Um,
[1:41:10] are we are you aware of other roof
decks, you know, of roughly this size in
[1:41:18] the lagoon area,
or is this more of an outlier?
[1:41:27] Well,
[1:41:30] I mean, the adjacent neighbor last year
proposed the roof deck at the front and
[1:41:36] the roof deck at the rear, and I believe
the roof deck at the rear was um
[1:41:41] shrunken,
>> right? Um there's a a in the past,
[1:41:48] you know, typically people ask for more
sort of like Juliet balconies right off
[1:41:53] of their master bedroom or primary
bedroom, you know, facing the water. Um
[1:41:59] the the largest roof deck that I know of
is at 152 Bella Vista. Um and you can
[1:42:04] kind of see it when you're down on Beach
Road. They have a lot of or they have
[1:42:07] orange umbrellas. Um, but on the lagoon
I can't think of uh
[1:42:15] any other ones.
>> Okay, that's
[1:42:19] » but I could be wrong. You know,
>> I know that's why I asked the question.
[1:42:23] I was trying to
>> do the same exercise and I didn't come
[1:42:27] up with too much. I
>> um I checked with Sammy prior to the
[1:42:32] hearing. I think that the the roof deck
that we approved at 130 San Rafll last
[1:42:38] year um was 125 ft
>> at the end of the day. Um
[1:42:45] so a little smaller. Um so I was just
sort of trying to contextualize
[1:42:50] that issue. So that that was my
question. Thank you.
[1:42:56] » Any other questions?
[1:43:02] Just one other note about this one in
particular. You know, the the one at 130
[1:43:06] was at the rear of the property that
faced out onto the water. This one sort
[1:43:09] of tucked more into the side, which we
haven't seen in the past, at least in
[1:43:13] the past couple years.
>> Right.
[1:43:18] Okay. If there's no further questions,
if the applicant is here and would like
[1:43:22] to speak.
[1:43:29] Hello, my name is Brian Fox. Uh I'm the
architect for the project. Uh here with
[1:43:34] the owner, Kim. Um so thank you very
much for your time. Thank you for the
[1:43:38] site visits. Thanks Sammy for the
presentation. Um, I think that the the
[1:43:45] project is fairly well understood and
I'd probably limit my remarks just to
[1:43:49] talk about the roof deck in particular.
Um, just there are, I think, unique
[1:43:55] things about this site that may not have
been the case to the neighbor on the
[1:44:00] north or maybe some of the other roof
deck proposals that you've seen. One of
[1:44:04] them definitely is the setback from the
lagoon. We're almost 50 feet from the
[1:44:09] from the water line. Um, and the view
out the back is pretty limited by the
[1:44:14] two-story part of the building and the
mature trees on the south side. So, the
[1:44:19] experience, I think, of being up there
really is almost more about being on the
[1:44:22] west side looking towards Tam than
really experiencing the lagoon in a kind
[1:44:26] of immediate way. And when you're back
on the deck and it back on the lagoon,
[1:44:30] you don't really feel that deck as
being, you know, funnally present, I
[1:44:36] think, the way that you you would if it
was on the front of the house. Um the
[1:44:40] other kind of unique things that um are
present here are that we don't have any
[1:44:45] neighbors to the east and the west being
on the long end of the lagoon. To the
[1:44:49] east we don't really face anybody on the
west obviously Richardson Bay no houses.
[1:44:55] Uh the twotory um part of the building
fully shields the roof deck from the
[1:45:00] north side and on the south side where
we are proximate to the neighbor we have
[1:45:04] support uh and very few windows on that
side. there's trees growing up and
[1:45:08] there's an agreement between Kim and
that neighbor to do privacy screening.
[1:45:12] Um, Commissioner Watson this morning
asked a good question that, you know, we
[1:45:16] proposed planters and a a hedge there as
the privacy screen. Plants can die,
[1:45:22] people can move pots around. Um, Kim has
indicated she's definitely open towards
[1:45:28] a more structured fence type of screen
if if uh that is preferred um by the
[1:45:36] commission. And that's something that
could be I think worked out um as the
[1:45:40] details are are uh proposed in the
building permit.
[1:45:44] Thank you. Open for questions.
>> Thank you.
[1:45:48] » I have a question for you. Um the um the
pitch roof uh on the west side of the
[1:45:57] proposed deck,
>> how high is it from the wherever you
[1:46:02] have a reference from the ground or from
the deck? I want to see what is I want
[1:46:06] to find out the relevance to the to the
um to the deck the height of that but um
[1:46:12] on your elevation I mean any reference
you have
[1:46:16] » yeah the the the roof deck walking
service would be elevated slightly from
[1:46:20] the roof itself for for drainage and the
peak of that roof is about a little
[1:46:26] under 36 inches from the walking surface
of the roof. So, if we have a 42inch
[1:46:31] railing on the roof deck, it's going to
be slightly proud of that peak. Um, so
[1:46:37] visible perhaps from the the dirt path
on the other side of the road, but not
[1:46:41] from the street or the sidewalk as you
get closer to the house.
[1:46:45] » Thank you.
>> Um, when I was there this morning, I
[1:46:48] took some I took some photos both
standing on the sidewalk right in front
[1:46:52] of the house and then also um standing
across the across the street. Um, and I
[1:46:58] do believe that across the street, you'd
be able to see the top of the glass of
[1:47:02] the glass railing, but um, in on the
sidewalk in front of in front of the
[1:47:07] street, unless you're about 6'8, which I
don't think many of our residents are, I
[1:47:12] don't think you'd be able to see the
glass railing.
[1:47:14] » And that proposed railing is glass. It
will have a a thin top cap by code. It's
[1:47:19] required, but the idea will be to have
it be as transparent as possible.
[1:47:23] » Thank you.
[1:47:30] Does anyone else have any further
questions?
[1:47:38] » Um, can you can you just address the uh
the two sconces that Sammy uh referenced
[1:47:43] in the in the report and are those going
to get removed?
[1:47:47] » The the I understand that the the bulbs
have already been taken out of those two
[1:47:51] lights. Uh and yes, Kim is willing to
install sconces that are dark sky
[1:47:57] compliant that shine down that won't be
a nuisance to the neighbor.
[1:48:01] » Great. Thank you.
[1:48:11] » All right. Um, are there any comments
from members of the public present or on
[1:48:17] Zoom?
>> No hands raised on Zoom.
[1:48:21] » Okay.
[1:48:26] With that, I will bring this item back
to the commission for discussion.
[1:48:33] Commissioner Jim, why don't you start?
>> Sure. Um,
[1:48:39] as far as the skylight and the exterior
openings, um, I think they are all fine.
[1:48:44] Um, I don't see any issues with those.
Um
[1:48:48] uh I think they lost a view from one of
the skylights when another proposal
[1:48:55] came. So I think these two would um give
them more light into the living room. So
[1:49:00] I think those are uh fine. And then the
rear uh window also I think it's aligned
[1:49:06] with any other um house uh on the lagoon
that they get the view to the um lagoon.
[1:49:13] I don't have any issues with that on the
roof deck. Um what I'm um struggling
[1:49:19] with is from the San Rafael Avenue
actually when you from the lagoon I
[1:49:24] think it is fine. Um it's back it's um
more of a um
[1:49:32] casual I would say um you you expect
more of a casual view to the house from
[1:49:38] that side which this roof deck um will
provide. But on the San Rafael Avenue, I
[1:49:44] think um we have all the houses there
have a relatively formal look. And this
[1:49:51] um
roof deck will add a kind of a um
[1:49:57] gathering area um um party look with the
umbrellas and um would would basically
[1:50:06] reduce the formal um facade of the
houses on Santa Avenue. So I would say
[1:50:15] um if
some sort of the same sort of um
[1:50:22] landscaping that is added to provide
privacy for the next door neighbor if it
[1:50:27] is provided on the other side of the
where the roof is the roof that I was
[1:50:31] asking you that is 36 in. If the same
type of landscaping will be provided
[1:50:37] there, not as tall as the other one
perhaps because I understand you want
[1:50:41] that roof deck to get the view from both
sides that those view from both side
[1:50:47] sides are amazing. I think you should
enjoy that. Um but if some sort of
[1:50:51] landscaping be introduced there, I think
would soften it a little bit even if not
[1:50:57] as high so you can still see the view.
But it is a little kind of a landscaping
[1:51:02] that soften it and give a little bit
more formal um look to it. And as you
[1:51:10] introduce that landscaping, you
basically limit the area of the deck,
[1:51:17] which would basically prevent people to
go so close to it and then it basically
[1:51:23] what um Jenna was referring to when
you're on the other side and you can see
[1:51:26] whatever is happening there, you can see
less of it. Um, and I think that would
[1:51:32] be an improvement um to to that and I I
don't think it would be a negative thing
[1:51:37] also because the square footage of it is
relatively large comparing to where it
[1:51:43] ser services you know the the bedrooms
and the hallway and all that if you
[1:51:49] reduce like 2 feet adding whatever it is
um that that um planters if it is being
[1:51:56] introduced there I think it would um
it would help with the formality of the
[1:52:04] houses on San Rafale Avenue and um and I
think on your end also because the roof
[1:52:09] and um the the distance from the roof to
the to where you are putting your uh
[1:52:17] glass railing is not that attractive by
putting the um landscaping on your end.
[1:52:23] You you wouldn't look at that either.
So, um, I think it might be a win-win
[1:52:28] situation. That is all comments I have
on the deck.
[1:52:33] » Thank you, Commissioner Shinsky.
>> Yeah, I would just add that putting some
[1:52:39] uh uh landscaping along the that edge of
the deck um might help hide the the rain
[1:52:48] gutters and that conduit that runs along
there. So, it might be better from your
[1:52:53] standpoint too as well. Um otherwise so
I you know as for the uh Commissioner J
[1:52:59] was saying you know I'm just kind of
thinking about formality versus
[1:53:02] informality
and you know kind of the tension there.
[1:53:06] Obviously Belvadier was founded as sort
of a recreational but very high-end
[1:53:11] formal recreational town. Uh so I don't
know quite what that means now. Um the
[1:53:17] but overall I think the size of the deck
is is uh fits the spot. The fact that um
[1:53:25] uh the neighbors at 150 are all fine
with it obviously is very important. Now
[1:53:29] they don't have a lot of windows there
which probably helps them be fine with
[1:53:33] it. Um
uh but obviously the the screening there
[1:53:37] is appropriate. The other thought of
course is as you mentioned is the you
[1:53:41] know the the you know area of glazing is
being increased obviously that's out
[1:53:46] we're looking toward the lagoon although
it is halfway up the property or or from
[1:53:53] from from the lagoon itself. Um and also
the the the
[1:53:59] clear story on the other section has
been foregone. So there's a little
[1:54:04] coming back that way. Um, and you know,
particularly in relative to as you look
[1:54:08] around the lagoon to see who has equal
kind of configurations that are actually
[1:54:14] fairly close to the lagoon itself, uh,
it'd be hard to say that that is
[1:54:18] something that others don't enjoy. Um,
so no problem there, but I I'm inclined
[1:54:23] to agree with Commissioner J about the
landscaping along uh the west side of
[1:54:28] that deck.
[1:54:34] Thanks Jenna.
[1:54:38] » Thanks very much. Um
so I too with with respect to the sorry
[1:54:45] this is really large plans. Um with
respect to the with respect to the
[1:54:50] glazing, um I agree that um having the
addition having the additional um large
[1:54:57] large doors and the increase in glazing
um about 50 ft away from away from the
[1:55:02] water um really does make a make a
difference in my in my determination.
[1:55:07] Um, and had there been um an increase in
the glazing at the end of the bedroom
[1:55:14] where it was where it was closest um I
would I would would have had would have
[1:55:18] had an issue. Um similarly, you know, I
um I struggle with the idea of a roof of
[1:55:26] a roof deck sort of overlook overlooking
the lagoon. Um, as I think of most
[1:55:31] people who live on the lagoon can
appreciate, it is it is rather rather a
[1:55:34] fishbowl. And no one wants their
neighbors looking looking down upon
[1:55:39] them, looking down into their yards. Um,
or, you know, otherwise sort of having a
[1:55:45] having an outdoor an outdoor presence
like right right there. Um, I do think
[1:55:52] what distinguishes this this roof deck
is the fact that it is it is set it is
[1:55:58] set back in the middle of the in the
middle of the lot. And to distinguish it
[1:56:03] from the um from the one that we
discussed last year at the neighboring
[1:56:06] property, um it is, you know, where
where it's where it's situated closest
[1:56:12] to its neighbors. There are not
corresponding windows at that at that at
[1:56:17] that neighbor. um end the um the
agreement to have um to have screening.
[1:56:22] Um I actually do think that some kind of
um more more permanent screening
[1:56:30] um not just not just planter planter
boxes would be uh would be would be
[1:56:36] preferable. Um first of all it takes up
le takes up less space and second of all
[1:56:41] um it is a more more permanent uh
screening screening solution for the na
[1:56:45] for the neighbor. Um, and I also like
your like your suggestion for the uh for
[1:56:49] the for the front for the front side.
I'll call the or the streets street
[1:56:55] side. Um, while I don't object to having
um sort of a you know a thin a thin
[1:57:01] railing of glass, I think you probably
wouldn't necessarily
[1:57:05] um wouldn't ne wouldn't necessarily see
it. I do think that it would be
[1:57:12] more more more attractive and more and
more and more natur and more natural
[1:57:16] looking up there. Um, with respect to
the uh the skylights, I don't have any
[1:57:22] issue with the skylights. Um, they're
going to be clear and I think that
[1:57:26] they're um that they're going to add a
lot of a lot of light into the living
[1:57:30] room which is surpris surprisingly dark.
So with that, I think I can make all I
[1:57:36] can make all the findings. Um, one thing
I do want to highlight for the staff is
[1:57:41] um,
my thinking on on roof decks in general
[1:57:46] towards the lagoon has not changed.
Um,
[1:57:55] um, what um, did you mention, Jenna,
that you wanted to see more permanent
[1:58:00] solution? What kind of
you mean? Um
[1:58:06] so what what we had what we had
discussed um for the ne for the
[1:58:10] neighboring property was having some
kind of wire lattice or something of
[1:58:16] something that was more
uh something that was more architectural
[1:58:21] in term in terms of in terms of in terms
of in terms of a screen rather than
[1:58:26] planter boxes into which there would be
uh bushes or other rather sort of lower
[1:58:34] types of greenery.
[1:58:44] » I concur with a lot of the comments of
my fellow commissioners. I won't repeat
[1:58:49] them all, but um you know, I think the
expansion of glazing in particular is
[1:58:54] very acceptable in the places that
you've proposed it set back from the
[1:58:58] water. Skylights I'm okay with. Um, so
that brings me to the roof deck and I
[1:59:08] guess I just want to exercise caution
here on the subject of roof decks on the
[1:59:15] lagoon. Um, I think what I'm hearing the
the consensus here and I I actually
[1:59:23] share it is that
this is a one-off kind of a unique
[1:59:28] situation where the proposed roof deck
really does appears to have reduced
[1:59:35] impact on neighboring properties and um
visual um impact from public locations.
[1:59:44] I I actually appreciate very much
Aellay's suggestion about the screen
[1:59:52] planting across the um San Rafale side
of the deck. I think you know our
[1:59:58] proposal would be that that happen
within the proposed footprint of the
[2:00:03] existing deck, not not an expansion of
the footprint.
[2:00:07] Um, I also hear and we'll work out the
conditions here, you know, that there
[2:00:13] can be a more permanent architectural
aspect to the uh screen on the south
[2:00:20] side facing the neighbor. Um, and you
know, if if it's the consensus of my
[2:00:27] fellow commissioners, I'm happy to, you
know, do the normal landscape review,
[2:00:33] make those elements subject to future
review because I actually think that
[2:00:37] particularly this I think that we'd like
to maintain the planting on those two
[2:00:43] sides as well as whatever this more
permanent feature is. And what that
[2:00:48] exact configuration is is kind of
important to figure out at the end of
[2:00:53] the day. We don't have it before us now,
but I think we can work that out going
[2:00:58] forward.
>> Alex, could the railing be um inside the
[2:01:06] um planters? Basically the the plant
move the railings inward
[2:01:13] to inward the deck and then put the
planters outside of it because as they
[2:01:19] mentioned themselves, people move the
the um landscaping or or planters or but
[2:01:26] the uh permanent uh railing remains
where it is and then
[2:01:30] » I actually think that's better because
how else are they going to clean their
[2:01:33] glass?
I mean, if the if the planter is up
[2:01:37] against the glass, that glass is going
to get disgusting.
[2:01:40] » Sorry.
[2:01:44] » Regardless, on the other side, they
can't clean it. But that's the issue of
[2:01:49] glass. But but yes, that's
helpful, too. So,
[2:01:54] » I think it's Can we make that?
>> Uh, you can make it if if you want to.
[2:01:58] Um, I think it's a good idea. I was
having the same thought. Um, so all
[2:02:03] roads lead to Rome, but it you might
want to um go ahead and make the motion
[2:02:09] on this one if you kind of want to craft
the wording on this.
[2:02:16] » That's not my strength, but let me do
it.
[2:02:19] » I'm trying to give Jenna just a little
break.
[2:02:36] Okay. I would like to make a motion to
adopt a resolution granting design
[2:02:40] review approval to construct a 300
square ft second story deck, skylights,
[2:02:45] and exterior windows and doors at
140 San Rafale Avenue with um following
[2:02:54] conditions.
the railing at the uh west and north
[2:03:01] side of the deck to go um
[2:03:07] two and a half ft inward um and provide
um planter boxes at the outer side of
[2:03:16] the um west and uh north side of the
deck.
[2:03:26] And I'd like to also add the condition
that the um existing sconces that are on
[2:03:31] the north side um be swapped out for
dark sky compliant downward-facing
[2:03:37] lights.
[2:03:41] » No, that can be incorporated the motion
assuming that's a friendly amendment.
[2:03:46] Thank you.
>> Okay, I think we have a motion on the
[2:03:52] floor.
I'm to be honest, I'm not quite as
[2:03:56] convinced on the plants being
um inside the railing as or outside the
[2:04:03] railing as opposed to in or inside the
railing opposed out and complete and
[2:04:07] with a permanent structure on it. Um
um but I just I'm not entirely
[2:04:14] convinced, but I'm going to trust you,
Alex, to pull it all together using your
[2:04:19] architectural genius. Um,
I mean, if you you can always negotiate
[2:04:26] between yourselves and we could make it
a little less specific and it's still
[2:04:30] going to come back to me. So, um, it's
uh, Donna, it depends on how you feel if
[2:04:37] if you're willing to
>> I said my bit.
[2:04:41] » Okay. All right.
>> May I make a a quick point?
[2:04:44] » On the west side, the the railing right
now connects to the corner of the
[2:04:48] twotory part of the house. There's a
series of windows that come down facing
[2:04:54] south. And so as we move that railing
further to the east to put planters or
[2:05:01] screening on the other side, it kind of
needs to move in the increment of the
[2:05:05] windows because the railing is going to
connect with the house higher than the
[2:05:08] window sills. Otherwise, it'll connect
mid window.
[2:05:13] » Yes. Um
>> those windows are I I wish I knew, but
[2:05:16] they're probably about this wide.
>> Yeah. That's why I brought up the 2'6
[2:05:21] inch. It seems to to sit at the mullen.
>> Agreed. Yeah,
[2:05:25] » we can we can note at the to sit at the
m instead of 2'6.
[2:05:33] » Okay.
Second.
[2:05:37] All in favor? I
>> I
[2:05:40] thank you.
[2:05:46] And now adjourn the meeting.