[0:27] [clears throat]

[0:31] I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvadier Planning Commission.

[0:37] We'll begin with item one, open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any

[0:43] citizen to briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not

[0:47] appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes.

[0:51] Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be

[0:55] agendaized for further discussion at a later hearing. Is there anyone in the

[1:00] audience who would like to speak during open forum?

[1:07] Anyone on Zoom? Rebecca, >> there's no one with their hand raised on

[1:13] Zoom. >> Okay, thank you.

[1:17] We'll move on to reports. Are there any commissioners who would like to provide

[1:21] a report?

[1:26] Staff reports. >> Uh, I'd just like to quickly um

[1:32] introduce our new planning commissioner, Jacob Lanetski. We are thrilled that

[1:36] you've joined us on the commission and look forward to um your time on the

[1:41] commission. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:46] Thank you. Uh

[1:51] any public comment and reports on city hall? Well, um probably not. So,

[1:58] » actually, I I'll just do sorry, one more little quick update. We did I know

[2:02] everyone's interested in the Malard Point project. We did issue the

[2:05] demolition permit on July 15th um last week for that project.

[2:11] » Oh, >> thank you.

[2:13] » Very good. Thank you. We'll move on to consent calendar items.

[2:20] The consent calendar consists of items considered to be non-controversial

[2:24] unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff or

[2:29] public. [clears throat] The consent calendar will be adopted by one motion.

[2:33] Items removed will be considered for the sequence that they appear on the agenda.

[2:38] Um, I will request that we remove the approval of the minutes because we only

[2:45] have two commissioners here that were present at the last meeting.

[2:51] » Um, does anyone else have any requests?

[2:59] » So, >> um, yes,

[3:01] » sorry. Um, we received a uh a letter from a neighbor with respect to u number

[3:09] 28 eucalyptus which was uh the uh the new garage which was first approved in

[3:18] September of 2022. Um, and I didn't know whether um whether

[3:23] we wanted to re reopen the design review for that

[3:28] based on the letter.

[3:32] » Let's see the letter. >> Staff is not familiar with this letter

[3:37] if you don't mind. >> It is here on our podium.

[3:40] » Is it for 34 eucalyptus maybe? >> Yeah, it's

[3:44] » Oh, sorry. Never mind. I'm fine. >> Okay. [laughter]

[3:51] Thank you. >> 28 34.

[3:55] » Sorry. Sorry about that. Yes. >> I I do words, not numbers.

[4:00] » All right. Thank you. No, no need no need to rem to remove number two.

[4:04] » Okay. >> From the consent calendar.

[4:06] » Thank you for that clarification. So, um with that, can I have a motion to adopt

[4:12] the items on the consent calendar with the removal of last meetings minutes?

[4:18] Um, I'll make a motion to approve number two on the consent on the consent

[4:22] calendar. >> Second the motion.

[4:27] » All in favor? >> I

[4:28] » I >> Thank you.

[4:31] » Sorry to interrupt. Um, I didn't I was wondering if there's any public comment

[4:35] on the consent calendar item. >> Well, let's uh let's back up. Um, does

[4:42] anyone in the room have any thoughts on the consent calendar?

[4:48] There's no one on Zoom either. >> Okay.

[4:51] » All right. So, is the motion we made okay or do you want us to retake it?

[4:55] » It's okay. >> It's okay.

[4:56] » All right. Thanks.

[5:03] [clears throat]

[5:08] We will now move on to the public hearing. Um, I believe we're going to

[5:13] reorder the order that we hear the items in. We're going to begin with

[5:21] item five, which is design review and use permit

[5:27] for a dock expansion and boat lifts at 310 and 312 Beach Road.

[5:35] Can I have a presentation from staff, please?

[5:38] » Thank you, Chair Cidle and members of the planning commission. for your

[5:42] consideration this evening is an application for design review and use

[5:45] permit to construct a dock expansion, two boat lifts, kayak racks, and a shed.

[5:54] Uh 310 and 312 Beach Road are located on steeply slope lots on the eastern side

[6:00] of Belvadier Island. On July 1st, 1989, the city entered into a joint dock lease

[6:06] with the then owners of both properties to use and maintain their private docks.

[6:11] Historically, a deed gate, fence, and joint staircase provided access to the

[6:15] dock. The stairs, which were in disrepair, have since been removed due

[6:19] to safety concerns. In March of this year, the properties received planning

[6:23] commission approval to construct a shared elevator and landing within the

[6:27] strip to access the property shared dock. Approval was also received to

[6:32] reconstruct the stairs and connect that connect to the existing pier.

[6:41] Staff has received many emails from residents both in favor of the

[6:45] improvements and not in favor of the improvements. Given the comments

[6:48] combined with the city's differing opinions on improvements on the strip,

[6:52] the applicant has decided to remove the pla the wood platforms from the project.

[6:57] The improvements that are under the planning commission review tonight are

[7:01] only the dock expansion, the kayak racks, and the sheds. The revocable

[7:06] license has been removed from the project as well. The dock improvements

[7:10] are subject to design review and the use permit.

[7:17] The 270 ft dock expansion is proposed on the southern side of the existing dock

[7:22] and will be constructed using composite decking materials.

[7:28] Two boat lifts are proposed on the eastern side of the dock.

[7:35] And the project proposes construction of a 36q ft storage shed measuring 8'2 in

[7:41] in height and two kayak storage racks measuring 8 ft tall. The shed and kayak

[7:46] racks would be would feature brown composite shingle roofing and finished

[7:50] with vertical redwood siding to match the existing shed.

[7:58] The dock, boat lifts, kayak racks, and sheds are located on the water beyond

[8:02] the strip in the recreation zoning district. A use permit is required for

[8:07] these components in the resident uh recreation zoning district. As

[8:11] mentioned, the city and then owners enter entered into a dock lease

[8:15] agreement. Uh the lease included several provisions regarding permissible uses of

[8:21] the dock relevant to this project. The dock le states the dock may contain only

[8:26] facilities constructed for the docking and mooring of boats. For this reason,

[8:30] staff has advised the applicant that the proposed storage shed and kayak sheds

[8:36] are not allowed because they are not directly related to the docking or

[8:40] mooring. However, staff advises that the project may include kayak racks since

[8:45] kayaks are considered boats and the racks are equivalent to do the

[8:50] equivalent of docking or mooring of kayaks.

[8:56] For the commission's consideration, the applicant provided amendments and

[9:00] additional information for the storage rack and platforms.

[9:04] First, the kayak storage racks would be located on the ends of the dock and

[9:08] rotated 90°.

[9:15] The applicant has also provided two additional rack kayak rack options for

[9:19] the commission to consider in addition to the current shed proposals.

[9:27] And finally, the plans before you show the wood landings being removed from the

[9:31] strip circled here in red at the bottom of the screen.

[9:38] Uh staff recommends granting design review and use permit approvals to

[9:41] construct the two boat lifts, two kayak docks without their sheds,

[9:46] and the 270 foot dock expansion, all within the recreation zoning district.

[9:52] Thank you. And we're happy to answer any questions.

[9:55] » Thank you, Sammy. Commissioners, um you like to ask

[10:00] questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. the um second

[10:03] storage shed that is still part of the application. Not the kayak storage shed,

[10:08] but the matching >> the 36 square foot shed, it is part of

[10:13] the application. Staff is not recommending approval.

[10:16] » Okay. Thank you.

[10:20] And um Sammy, when you said that the wooden platforms have been have been

[10:24] removed, um what is going to I mean, is there

[10:28] going to be any uh any construction of anything on the on the strip? And how

[10:34] does one get from the elevator down to the dock if the wooden platforms are not

[10:38] there? >> Yeah, good question. Uh, Commissioner

[10:41] Watson, if you remember in March of this year when the elevator got approved,

[10:46] » they also received approval for a landing to get from the elevator down to

[10:50] the existing um uh stairs. That stairs was also approved to be uh reconstructed

[10:57] in the same location. And so that's the the design that the our applicant is

[11:02] going to move forward with.

[11:08] » And I have one more question. the um uh the kayak the two kayak racks that

[11:14] are proposed for approval or recommending approval by staff. Is it

[11:19] would that be the third option, the most open option or

[11:23] » the That's right. the third option. >> Okay.

[11:39] Uh maybe Sammy, could you just go back to the um sort of the aerial that showed

[11:45] the parcels?

[11:51] » Um so the yellow rectangle um is that that represents your understanding of

[11:57] what we call the strip? >> That's correct.

[12:01] » Okay. Yeah, >> I just wanted to clarify that it's, you

[12:06] know, [snorts] it's kind of hard when you're standing on site to tell there's

[12:10] no fences or anything. Um,

[12:15] and water. [laughter] Um, okay. Thank you. Any

[12:23] questions? >> So, just to clarify, the improvements on

[12:27] the on the strip itself are not an issue here. Correct.

[12:31] » Correct. >> Okay. And the reason the staff is not

[12:36] recommending the two sheds, one of which is already grandfathered in, there is a

[12:41] kind of a shed there already, right? >> There is one shed there right now. Yes.

[12:45] » Okay. And the reason the staff is recommend is not recommending it is

[12:48] because it does not neatly fit into either the docking or the mooring

[12:52] definition. Is that correct? >> That's exactly correct.

[12:57] And without the two sheds, would the land owner then remove both sheds or one

[13:02] of them is completely derelct? Would he or both of them restore? What is the

[13:06] plan then?

[13:12] » Can you bring your mic a little bit closer? It's hard to hear you.

[13:14] » Sorry. >> Thank you.

[13:16] » Uh question. If if the if the sheds are not approved,

[13:21] what is the plan to deal with the existing shed that is pretty derelictked

[13:25] on the pier? [snorts] >> The the existing shed can be repaired.

[13:30] Uh but that would be the extent of the the sheds that would be on the on the

[13:36] dock.

[13:40] » And if the owner were to build a second shed, that would increase the square

[13:44] footage of the dock. Correct? No, the uh the the dock is being

[13:52] proposed for an expansion. The shed would be on the on the dock. So, it

[13:58] wouldn't increase the square footage of the dock itself.

[14:02] » Okay. So, the dock is going to be increased anyways by that 270 ft.

[14:06] » Yes. And and that's primarily well it partly for the boat lifts.

[14:10] » Understood. Thank you.

[14:15] Sorry, one one more question about the shed. Um it you referenced in your um in

[14:20] your report that there's a shed on a neighboring dock.

[14:31] [snorts]

[14:35] » I'll have to let me go back in. >> Okay. Thanks.

[14:44] there.

[14:52] » I can cover that. >> Okay. And I and I guess I was

[14:55] specifically wondering if there if the neighboring dock had one or two sheds on

[14:58] it. [snorts]

[15:03] » Thank you.

[15:07] Another question for design review of the um kayak racks. What's triggering

[15:12] design review? Is it because they're fixed or the height of them or what

[15:16] specifically? Why is it part of the design review?

[15:21] » That's also a good question. I think it was part of the design review because it

[15:24] was more of a structure. At this point, [clears throat]

[15:28] you know, we require design review for permanent structure structures. So, I

[15:32] would assume there's some permanency to a rack on a dock in the middle of the or

[15:39] in the water.

[15:46] » Okay. Um, any further questions or shall we ask the applicant to present?

[15:53] » Okay.

[15:56] » Is that the same one? >> Mr. Conro is the same.

[16:03] » [clears throat] >> have a question. I guess

[16:09] Mark, are you ready to present? >> Yeah.

[16:12] » Okay.

[16:17] [clears throat]

[16:29] » The one at 503. Is that the right one? >> I think I said

[16:34] [clears throat] to

[16:53] Mark, does this one look right?

[16:57] » Does this one look right? That's it.

[17:17] » Okay.

[17:26] » [clears throat]

[17:30] » promote.

[17:44] » No, we'll do it for you. >> But make sure that mic's on. Push the

[17:48] button. So, it's green. >> Okay.

[18:04] and yeah, just start out with number one. I'll go in order.

[18:08] » Okay.

[18:22] Yeah.

[18:30] » Well, good evening and thanks for the background music. Kind of makes me more

[18:35] relaxed. Uh, my name is Mark Conroe. I live at 310 Beach Road. I'm uh

[18:41] representing the applicant. First of all and foremost, maybe I want to thank

[18:45] planning staff. I don't know if planning commission knows, but you have some of

[18:48] the best planning staff probably in the country. I've dealt with a lot of

[18:53] planning commissions and planning staff and they're right up there. So, don't

[18:58] lose them. Um, I think there's a couple things in the staff report that I wanted

[19:03] or not the staff report, the staff presentation that I'd like to correct.

[19:07] Um, the p the aerial is incorrect. So, we'll get to that in a second. Where is

[19:13] the strip? So, I'd basically like to uh address four questions. What does the

[19:18] general plan say about water usage in the docks? What are we proposing? What

[19:23] does the dock lease say about equipment storage? And where is that darn strip?

[19:28] The general plan consistently recognizes that Belvadier's unique identity drives

[19:33] from its intimate relationship with the bay. It identifies maritime improvements

[19:37] including docks, floats, and boat lifts as an important part of the hundreds of

[19:41] waterfront properties in town and recognizes uh Belvar Cove where we front

[19:47] as a important recreational resource and seeks to preserve the city's unique

[19:52] waterfront character. So what are we proposing? As staff

[19:58] pointed out, we had two pieces to our proposal. One was the dock and two was

[20:03] in the strip to add two platforms to uh as part of our elevator improvements. Uh

[20:13] clearly the whole issue of making improvements in the strip is very

[20:18] political politicized and so we are advised a couple hours ago to pull that

[20:23] from the application which we did. So the only thing we're discussing tonight

[20:27] are the dock improvements. So, what are those dock improvements?

[20:32] And again, we'll get to where the strip is in a second.

[20:37] We're proposing to enlarge the existing dock that's been

[20:41] there for over 50 years by 270 square ft. This is only 120 square feet, more

[20:46] than what was proved a couple decades ago. This would result in the total dock

[20:51] area of being 1,50 ft shared by two homes. This is probably to my knowledge

[20:59] the only dock in Belvadier which is shared with two homes. Other ones it's

[21:04] one dock one home. So this results in a dock size per home of 525 square ft. And

[21:12] I would contend it's the smallest dock after we enlarge it in Belvadier. 525 ft

[21:19] including all walkways. We're also proposing a boat lift for

[21:23] each owner. Let's talk about those kayak racks and the um boat equipment storage

[21:30] shed. There's one shed being proposed. If you can go to actually if you if

[21:35] you're are they seeing what's in blue is what we're talk you can leave actually

[21:42] that up for one second there Sammy please. In blue is what we're talking

[21:46] about. In red is the strip below that red line is the strip. And I'll get to

[21:52] the legal definition and our survey in a second. Let's go to the next definition

[21:57] or sorry, next page, page two of the plans there. Nope,

[22:04] that's not it. Oh, yeah. Okay. Actually enlarged that a little bit. Uh you had

[22:08] the old uh elevation. We were asked to provide an elevation. That was what was

[22:13] in the uh if you can make it smaller so you can see there's two parts of that

[22:18] elevation. Sammy, if you can There we go. Keep going. Okay, perfect. That's

[22:22] sort of the before and after. The before was uh a week ago and the current is we

[22:29] turned the only one change we made. We turn the kayak racks 90 degrees.

[22:34] One of the main reasons for doing this was to clarify this word structures. Uh

[22:39] you can see that there a single wall with a roof um and they're see-through.

[22:46] As you look from the beach or the bay, you can see the existing shed and a

[22:50] matching to be a proposed equipment boat equipment shed. So that's what we'll

[22:54] talk about in terms of boat use and we can talk about the kayak racks too, but

[22:59] they are covered and they match exactly what the neighbor has except about a

[23:03] quarter of the size. Let's go to the next slide.

[23:12] Okay, now make it a little bit smaller, please. Okay. Actually, that's not I was

[23:18] looking uh in the plans. If you can go to the plans, the next slide in the

[23:22] plans.

[23:29] No, not just the plans. Number one, sheet three of number one. Yeah. Okay.

[23:35] If you you can scroll through the pages. Okay. Go back one page. This gives it um

[23:41] overall you can see the strip borded in red and what we're talking about in

[23:46] blue. And again I'll substantiate the interesting on on Sammy's U slide. It

[23:53] showed the correct legal description on the left but the incorrect aerial on the

[23:56] right. I talked to the title company why that is and they said it's pictorial.

[24:00] It's not meant to represent a legal description. The legal description

[24:03] represents the legal description which is what we put on our survey which is

[24:07] the lines shown in red. Those are accurate to the to the edge. Let's go to

[24:11] the next slide in this package, please. Okay, this is on the left. A question

[24:18] about uh is there something like this nearby? This is a couple docks down the

[24:23] two photos on the left. The photo from the front of it and the photo from the

[24:26] back of it that in blue lines it shows the size of ours superimposed on the

[24:31] their existing shed. You can see it's quite a bit bigger. Um on the right just

[24:37] are pictures of the existing boat storage shed. If you can go to the next

[24:41] slide, please. Okay. And that's the elevation from the

[24:45] beach. Again, the the package that uh the presentation that Sammy showed had a

[24:50] the the prior u picture of what it looked like, but when we we just turned

[24:55] these racks to open the Vista up. Okay. If you can go to the the um number two

[25:02] on my uh list of slides, please.

[25:07] That's all in that package there.

[25:13] Yeah. Okay. This is simply to make the point of the before and after of what

[25:18] the Vista looked when we all we did is shift the outer two structures which are

[25:23] boat sorry kayak racks 90 degrees. You can go to number three, Sammy, please.

[25:30] So, again, we we're trying to open it up. We're trying to address what we

[25:32] think might be concerns. Let So, a couple hours ago, Sammy asked me, "Well,

[25:37] why don't you give me some examples of more open kayak racks?" So, this was

[25:44] done about two hours ago. The top is what we're proposing. Um, and that's

[25:50] what's on the plans. And it has a single side to protect against wind, wind, and

[25:55] a roof. And again, that's what's a couple doors down. Um, ours is much much

[25:59] smaller than that, but same idea. There would be one for each user of the docks.

[26:06] Two alternatives. Um, if we're going to look at if you wanted to get rid of the

[26:10] roof, you would have a single wall um without a roof. And then the third one

[26:15] down is a rack with no protection. The issue here is you get strong winds that

[26:22] blow across the bay and kayaks end up in the bay uh and create hazards in the

[26:28] bay. If we had to cut the baby in half, I would opt for the middle option. Uh

[26:34] and that is uh with no roof but just a wall to uh both attach stuff to and to

[26:39] protect against the wind. That would be perpendicular to the beach. So as you're

[26:43] standing in the beach, as our elevation shows, except you would get it rid of

[26:49] the roof. So you would just see this end of a wall and the kayaks itself. So it'

[26:53] be virtually invisible, but it would uh help solve the problem. It also helps

[26:58] solve the problem where to put the ores because you'd strap those to the wall on

[27:01] the bottom example. Uh I'm not sure where they go. Uh I know where they

[27:06] would end up in the bay on a strong strong wind. So, uh, we would prefer not

[27:10] to have the bottom option. Okay. Uh, next. Um,

[27:16] so let me I guess that's that is the and I can entertain any questions about

[27:19] those improvements. So, in summary, it's uh two kayak racks, one for each of us.

[27:25] Uh, and one boat storage shed. Uh, the boat storage set seems to be on the

[27:30] endangered lease species list. Now, in terms of keeping it, staff's

[27:34] recommending not keeping it. The only thing I would uh ask is where do you

[27:39] keep all the stuff? Life preservers, ores, um uh anything you might want to

[27:45] use with the boat. Uh so I guess it's either in our living room or garage,

[27:49] which is up the top of the mountain or in the boat itself. Um so that would be

[27:56] um because it's quite a trek to get down the mountain. Uh so having a 4ft by

[28:01] basically a storage shed that's smaller than a ping pong table uh out there is

[28:06] and again matching the one that's already out there so it's easy to

[28:09] visualize is what we were asking for but u I understand if that's controversial

[28:14] and uh is uh forboden then then uh we want to

[28:20] move forward so I guess that means you take it off the uh off the list. Um just

[28:25] real quickly about the dock lease. Um the dock lease is not specific as

[28:29] structures on a dock. It says really just two things in the lease in two

[28:34] sentences. That the dock is for private recreational uses and for docking of

[28:39] boats. And you heard staff say just a second ago that the docking uh keeping

[28:45] um docking kayaks is acceptable to them. um not sure with or without walls or or

[28:53] roof, but um but keeping boat equipment in a storage shed is not acceptable. Um

[28:59] so there, as I said, there's a practical issue, but um I'm not really here to

[29:04] fight city hall on on putting a storage shed on this dock. So if that's uh

[29:11] considered precedent setting, then I think it comes out. Um,

[29:17] so that is I just want to have one last comment. If you could pull up the uh the

[29:22] u the the um the APN map for the uh for the strip. There's two attachments, two

[29:30] PDFs. One's the APM map for the strip and one's a our survey for the strip.

[29:35] Could you pull those up, Sammy, please?

[29:40] » Can you? >> The first one you'll recognize. It's

[29:42] just a bigger version of what Sammy showed. in your presentation mark.

[29:46] » Yeah, it's >> Yeah, go to the slides.

[29:48] » It's probably never Let's go here and it's under

[29:54] uh go under uh extra. That's a good point.

[30:01] » Yeah. Okay. Go for the APM map and then the second one.

[30:05] » Okay. This is um public information. It's the

[30:10] APM map. The thing to glean from this very clearly, it's a legal description.

[30:16] The strip is actually a legal parcel. It's parcel 06. Every parcel that the

[30:22] county has has a legal description. You can see meets and bounds on this legal

[30:26] description on this parcel. You can see the same where our houses are. It's

[30:31] actually very easy to plot the two. And so all I've done in the next slide is

[30:36] taken the the um the the the um the survey that we did for the in both the

[30:44] strip and for the homes right here and overlaid that legal description the

[30:49] piece that fronts us uh over there and those are the green lines. So there's

[30:54] the the strip ends just above the rip raft. There's no question about this.

[30:59] There's no evidence of anything else. Unfortunately, there's that um

[31:03] misleading errant aerial, but that has no no legal bearing on anything. It's

[31:10] the legal description for lots that dictate where lots are, and that's where

[31:15] the strip is. So, um I don't think there's any question,

[31:20] and I'm happy to entertain any other legal descriptions that may be found of

[31:25] the strip, but that's the only one that exists.

[31:28] So I'll and I I'll I'll end in this and this was I think in the packages we got

[31:33] neighbors sorry letters of support from all the abuing neighbors that literally

[31:39] the ones that abut on each side of us and then other one others on the street.

[31:43] So there is support for this and uh I think that's an important part of the

[31:47] proposal. Um I think that's it and I'll entertain any questions. Thanks for

[31:52] bearing with me. Would

[31:58] any planning commissioner like to ask questions of the applicant?

[32:06] » Hi. Sorry to uh take us away from the thrilling conversation about kayak

[32:10] racks. Um can you tell us about the lighting that's planned for the dock?

[32:16] » Sure. And staff made in their staff report of recommendation which I'm fine

[32:20] with. And we have the most uh unobtrusive lighting you can put in

[32:24] those little puck lights that are, you know, one inch diameter that are flush

[32:30] mounted with the docked so you don't walk off the end of the dock. Um and I

[32:35] think they said, "Hey, there's instead of 30, I think the numbers were we put

[32:39] architect put 32 on there and they said, let's put 20 on there." Um that's not a

[32:44] uh a key issue to us. So staff can adopt whatever they want with doc with respect

[32:51] to the dock lights. Importantly, they're not it's not light pollution. Other docs

[32:55] have, you know, basically search lights out there and these are just puck lights

[33:00] so you can see where [clears throat] you're walking

[33:02] » and they're and they're shielded from the top. They're not shining straight

[33:05] up. Correct. Like like you see in the photo here.

[33:09] » Yes. That we would Yeah, that's that represents what we're planning to do. So

[33:13] yeah, you Yeah, exactly. Okay. So about how many feet do you have

[33:20] in between them? >> Well, the architect put there I would

[33:24] say there's about six feet or >> Okay.

[33:27] » 6 or 8 feet between them now. And it may if you reduce them by 40% they'll be 10

[33:33] or 12 feet apart. >> Okay. Great. Thank you.

[33:42] » Any other questions? Could

[33:52] I make one further comment? Oh, yes. Okay. And I I just and I'm not

[33:58] going to bore you with my pictures of high tide, but and it's largely

[34:04] unrelated and irrelevant to the proposal, but um just for the record, we

[34:10] support the public's use of the beach. And to the extent it's accessible, which

[34:15] it isn't at high tide, and we have some photographs that show the water against

[34:19] the rip raft, um we're we're all good for that. It's not on It's not on the

[34:25] strip, but it's um again, there's been some talk about uh public use of the

[34:30] beach and and what we're doing doesn't change that at all.

[34:35] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[34:39] » Go ahead, >> Mark. So, in terms of the racks, the

[34:43] kind of the three possibilities here, um, I understand, you know, your point

[34:48] about the third one, the lowest one being not ideal, but you could still do

[34:51] some kind of a strap-on system, right, where you strap in the kayaks and you

[34:55] would strap in the ores. Is that still possible or is that

[34:57] » Yes, that would certainly be the backup plan. Um, to if you had an open

[35:02] structure like the bottom picture, then the wind the the problematic direction

[35:07] is north south basically. Um uh 80% of the time the wind comes from Pacific

[35:13] Ocean. We're on the backside island. That's why Belvadier built their houses

[35:16] there first because it was a better side without the view of San Francisco of

[35:20] course. But but the wind comes from Mexico or Alaska about 20% of the time

[35:24] or 10% of the time and it can get howling. Someone asked what happened to

[35:28] our g our gang way that was ripped off in a storm and actually all the damage

[35:34] you see to the existing dock was done last November. So it actually looked

[35:38] much different before you had three-foot waves cresting and taking the walkway

[35:43] down. So that that's the event that I'm trying to protect against where you get

[35:47] 50 mph winds blowing across the dock and taking things with it. So but certainly

[35:53] we either go grab everything off and try to bring it up the hill into the house

[35:58] up to the top of the mountain or we uh strap it down and go fishing afterwards.

[36:04] Thanks.

[36:08] [clears throat] I think the commission is finished with

[36:12] its questions. So, would any member of the public like to

[36:17] speak regarding this item?

[36:31] Sandy Donnell, 137 Golden Gate Avenue, Belvadier.

[36:36] And um I guess I'm curious about what the point of like talking about the

[36:41] strip and the water and the waters not being part of the strip. That's one of

[36:44] my first questions. And then I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that

[36:49] not only if if any of that land does become privatized in the agreement

[36:55] between the um when the when the property was conveyed to the city of

[37:00] Beler by the land company in what 1896

[37:05] it was if anything is um if we don't set up live up to the covenants that they

[37:11] have um agreed to then it reverts to the Belvadier land company. So that is at

[37:16] risk that the Belvadier land company is entitled to take all that property back

[37:21] if the city um abuses that. And then um you spoke about the um so the revocable

[37:28] license. So how is the elevator coming down if there is no revocable license?

[37:35] » Um maybe staff can answer that. >> I mean maybe you can't answer because

[37:38] I'm just a person talking. But >> do you want me to answer?

[37:42] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The uh planning commission approved those a few months

[37:48] ago and it has not gone to city council yet.

[37:51] » But so there is a revocable license. >> It has not gone to city council for a

[37:55] revocable license yet. >> But that's possible.

[37:58] » It Well, yes, it will go. >> So then, okay, it will go. Well, I

[38:01] didn't bring my little picture here, but you've all had it where if you see, then

[38:05] it's giving away almost as much land to a private parties as the land in their

[38:10] their ownership ex, you know, in their own lots, existing lots. So, I I think

[38:15] that would be very irresponsible the city, but avoable license is still

[38:19] supposed to be open to um the public. You can't privatize. You can't cut it

[38:25] off and make it part of your yard. um it still is something that can be used by

[38:30] the um by the public. That's my understanding. When I was on the city

[38:33] council when we looked at um revocable licenses, that was one of the um one of

[38:38] the strong findings. And I'm going to run back and get my little picture for

[38:42] you. Just a sec. >> Sure.

[38:48] » Um can I can I ask a question? I had thought that

[38:53] there was a revocable license for the existing stairs that or I guess the

[38:59] pre-existing stairs

[39:06] » in in 2022 310 Beach received a uh recommendation for approval for a

[39:14] revokeable license for his own stairs to come down to the shared dock.

[39:20] Is it? >> But I I had thought that the stairs that

[39:23] used to be there had a revocable license associated with

[39:28] those stairs

[39:33] » on 310 beach or 3. >> When we discussed this having to do with

[39:38] with the with the elevator, it was my understanding that there was a revocable

[39:42] license that was associated with the stairs. The elevator was in essence

[39:46] replacing >> there. at at uh Mr. Conro's property,

[39:52] there was a revocable license on his property to get down to the stair uh to

[39:58] the stairs from his side of the property. Um that revocable license in

[40:03] March replaced all revocable licenses in the

[40:08] strip before then before that one. So any any

[40:14] revocable license that was approved prior in the strip was no longer

[40:23] and and the one that went in 2022 it was recommended for approval by planning

[40:28] commission Mark I don't recall that it went to the city council

[40:34] license. >> So he had a revokeable license for that

[40:36] stairs. >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:44] I'm back when it goes to the city council.

[40:49] » So, if I can just clarify, is there is there an auto revokable license now?

[40:58] » [clears throat]

[41:08] » But the one that I think was mentioned,

[41:17] » so um if you could just give us one minute. I think we are just double

[41:21] checking our records down here. >> Thank you.

[41:23] » Thank you, Commissioner. Could [clears throat] I make a because

[41:27] this is of course Chris I've researched it heavily a couple quick uh comment on

[41:32] the revocal license which of course city council is their perview but um for 50

[41:38] years we had one for the stairs that were there in 2022

[41:43] that was uh I was granted one for the stairs and that's in place now. If the

[41:49] one that's going next month to the council gets approved for the elevator,

[41:52] that would replace the one for the stairs. As far as the um the use of the

[41:58] strip, we we're dramatically reducing what's been done historically. It was

[42:02] and I have an exhibit for this. I didn't think we'd be discussing this because

[42:05] it's a city council matter, but we were about 6 or 700 square feet for 50 years.

[42:11] The stairs are about 5 to 600 square feet of impact area on the strip and

[42:16] currently we're about 230 square feet for the hill elevator. So, and I have a

[42:20] a exhibit that shows all this. So, that we've reduced in half our impact of

[42:24] what's been going on for 50 years. It's the exact opposite of what people are

[42:28] suggesting that we're getting more land. We're actually giving up a lot more

[42:31] land. Even if we had the platforms approved, it' be 30% less than what I

[42:36] already have a revocable license for. Platforms don't get approved in a month.

[42:40] It's 50% less than what I currently have in my hand in terms of a revocable

[42:45] license. So again, we're trying to reduce our impact on the strip. We're

[42:50] giving back land that's been used for 50 years. So that those are the facts

[42:54] around the revocable licenses. >> Thank you.

[42:59] We'll wait for a moment for um staff to catch up with any

[43:05] » There's an existing revocable license for 312 beach for landscaping.

[43:11] Um I'm pulling up in 2022

[43:17] there is a the [clears throat] stairs were part of

[43:22] a revocable license. I don't I don't have that recorded, but

[43:28] I can go back to the minutes of that meeting and see if it was approved.

[43:38] [snorts]

[43:45] So, will the landscaping license for 312 remain in

[43:52] place or is that going to be replaced by this new

[44:02] » Yes. My understanding of Okay, so we're talking about the revocable license.

[44:06] Now, my understanding of it when it goes to

[44:10] the council, it will be for the landscaping for 312, the entirety of the

[44:16] strip. So, both those property owners are willing to take on responsibility

[44:20] and liability for the entire strip. If you draw imaginary property lines down

[44:25] their pro down the hill towards the water at the edge, it would stop. And

[44:31] they they both have communicated to us that they're willing to take on that

[44:35] liab liability and responsibility.

[44:45] That may be I mean it I'm not exactly sure how that dovtales into our

[44:50] deliberations tonight, but it's probably a very good point for us all to be aware

[44:55] of and I think it'll be clarified when it goes if it if and when it goes to

[45:00] council um for consideration at the replicable license stage. Um, I'll just

[45:06] note there haven't been any landscape proposals for either lot

[45:14] as in front of either lot on the strip. Um, and I imagine if um there were an

[45:22] intention to do landscaping there as opposed to maintenance and debris

[45:26] collection, we would see a plan. But we haven't seen one today.

[45:38] Are there any other comments from the audience? Please come forward.

[45:48] » Hello, I'm Charlie Harrington. Oh, should I wait for the timer?

[45:53] » Anyway, I'll I'll start. I'm Charlie Harrington. I'm chair of the Belvadier

[45:56] Parks Open Spaces and Lanes Committee. Um, on this matter, I've been engaged uh

[46:01] with city staff. Um, a couple months ago, I met with city staff, a council

[46:05] member, and a homeowner at the site. Uh, we reviewed and discussed what seemed

[46:08] like a great project, which was to add the elevator, repair the existing

[46:12] damaged dock, and improve pedestrian access on the beach underneath the dock,

[46:16] which was awesome. Um, but the project has ballooned since then. I've written

[46:19] two letters. Um, hopefully you've seen those. Um, so I was going to talk about

[46:24] two things. It does look like the shoreline decks have been removed from

[46:26] this proposal. That was one of the things I was going to bring up, but um

[46:29] otherwise I'll talk about the building of the uh additional dock. So the

[46:33] Belvadier general plan was brought up earlier. I reviewed it when I joined

[46:37] Parks Open Spaces Lanes. And there's an exhibit, exhibit 3 is the land use map.

[46:41] It's this colorful map showing what what everything is. And the general plan that

[46:45] map clearly shows that the waters of Belvadier Cove are open space. Um so in

[46:50] the staff report, it they're contending the new dock would be in the R zone,

[46:54] city's recreation zone. Um, so there's there's some ambiguity there. So I just

[46:59] highlight that for your attention. Um, and then in the staff report, it talks

[47:03] about the term of private recreational land use as an acceptable way to get a

[47:06] use permit. And in that same map, which of course I don't have in color, uh, I

[47:10] don't have a color printer, but there are three locations in Belvadier where

[47:14] you can have private residential land use. It's on that map. They are the two

[47:18] yacht clubs and they are the homes along the water on Corinthian. I think those

[47:23] homes interestingly own the water uh underneath or own the land underneath

[47:27] the water right there. But beyond that, the general plan doesn't show any other

[47:30] private recreational land use. So, I wanted to highlight that. Uh, of course,

[47:34] there are the grandfathered in private recreational docks. It's my

[47:38] understanding the city has not approved uh another dock being construction since

[47:41] the 80s. So, I just reminding like what this project is. Um, you know, repairing

[47:46] the existing dock is one thing, but expanding and doubling the size of that

[47:49] fixed dock, effectively building a new dock, which the city has, as far as I

[47:53] know, hasn't done in many years. Um, so yeah, the original project of a hill,

[47:58] existing dock repair, and improving pedestrian access under the dock. No

[48:02] issues with that. And again, I appreciate the engagement uh that we've

[48:05] had so far, but I just uh think about the precedent of giving away the city's

[48:09] public zones open and recreation for private benefit. Thank you.

[48:14] Thank you, >> Chair Cidle. Just for your uh

[48:19] consideration, we did find the 2022 revocable license which was executed uh

[48:24] at 310 Beach Road. It included a new staircase, landing, and landscaping.

[48:30] » Okay. >> And and is so is that already repealed

[48:36] or is that still in effect until something supersedes it? That's still in

[48:40] a >> Yeah, that revocable license is still

[48:43] recorded on the property. Um, so it would could be repealed assuming this

[48:49] project goes forward to city council. Uh, but then there could be some

[48:52] potential for harmonizing the two revocable licenses given that this 221

[48:57] references landscaping. I don't think that would be disturbed, but obviously

[49:01] the stairs and such could be impacted. >> So we would need to harmonize them

[49:05] assuming this project goes forward. >> Okay.

[49:06] » Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Uh, I'm I'm I'm

[49:12] letting members of the public comment right now, Mark. Um,

[49:18] Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom who would like to say anything?

[49:21] » There are no hands raised. >> Okay. Um, Mark, if if you have one very

[49:26] brief comment, >> very brief comment because there is

[49:29] » there is the staff report correctly identifies recreation zone versus open

[49:33] space zone. The general plan is confusing, but but Mr. variance because

[49:38] it shows open space all the way to um to Angel Island. So it's logical conclusion

[49:44] is that uh parks and open space can regulate things all the way to Angel

[49:48] Island. If you look at the current zoning map, it clearly shows open space

[49:53] is the hillside, the strip, and recreation is the beach and the water.

[49:57] That's the zoning map. Uh city staff pre presented that to me this week. So I

[50:03] think the general plan needs to be amended to be consistent with the

[50:06] current zoning map which is the hillside is the open space. The strip the beach

[50:12] and the bay are recreation zone not perview of the um parks and open space

[50:19] people. Thanks. Okay. Thank you.

[50:25] So, I'm going to just give one more opportunity if anybody wants to say

[50:29] anything before I bring this back to the planning commissioners.

[50:37] Having said that, I will now close the public hearing and bring it back to the

[50:42] commission for discussion. Um, Jenna, could you please lead the discussion?

[50:50] » Sure, I'm happy to. Um, with uh your permission, I'd stand up. I threw my

[50:55] back out this past week and uh it was a little bit painful to sit, so I'm just

[51:00] going to I'm just going to do this. Sorry. Um, [sighs and gasps] it's much

[51:05] better. Um, uh, first first of all, I want to I want

[51:09] to say thank you both to the both to the staff and to the homeowners and also and

[51:13] also to, uh, to Charlie Herring to Harrington. Um this has been a a project

[51:18] that we've discussed a couple of times and I think there's a lot of real

[51:22] thoughtfulness uh that is sort of all you know all all around on on all on all

[51:27] aspects of it. Um as some of you know I actually used to be chair of the parks

[51:32] open spaces and lanes lanes commission. So, I am I'm I'm very attuned to the

[51:38] public access um issues um especially with the beachfront properties and some

[51:43] of the coordination that it takes uh with the homeowners and um and the and

[51:48] the com and the commission. So, thank you. Um, one thing that that I that I

[51:54] like about this this uh project is that it's, you know, it's actually getting

[52:01] the homeowners to to be able to use their waterfront. One thing that I find

[52:05] amazing about Belvadier is that we're surrounded by water, yet the access to

[52:11] the water is almost nil. I mean, when you think about the the ways that the

[52:15] public can access can access the water, it's really difficult. I mean for for

[52:20] those of us who don't live on and and for those of us who live on the water um

[52:25] and uh the reason why I had asked about the revocable licenses because I think

[52:29] that one of the things that makes Belvador so great is that we do have um

[52:35] as you know we do have the strip is we do have access that's built into

[52:42] um our land our land records for the for the public and that's something I'm very

[52:47] interested in. um in um in keeping um one one thing that I want to point out

[52:55] is that you know there there's two different sections to you know to what

[53:01] we're looking at. There's the there's the strip which I appreciate that

[53:04] there's no building that's happening in the strip now and that is in the other

[53:09] building that's being covered by it is is already covered by a revocable

[53:13] license which is why I asked about that. And then the dock itself, which in

[53:18] looking at the plans, there are going to be

[53:27] six new pilings that are that are that are going to be dug and I appreciate the

[53:31] amount of work that's been done by the um we call it the seafair seafaring

[53:37] agencies um to approve that. I don't really have that much of an opinion with

[53:44] respect to the kayak racks. I mean, I've seen

[53:49] enough kayaks blown around. Um, and I can't get that excited over whether a

[53:56] kayak rack has a wall or a roof or [laughter] no roof and no wall. So, I

[54:02] will leave that to other members to talk about. Um,

[54:08] but I I do appreciate that this is a unique project for the expansion of the

[54:15] dock because it is shared by two houses. Um and I think that the plan in its even

[54:22] though it is enlarge enlarging the dock considerably

[54:27] does serve to not not require putting a new dock in for you

[54:34] know for the other for the other homeowner and that they are sharing a

[54:37] dock. And I find it amazing that in this community that two homes next to each

[54:42] other have been able to share a dock for so long. I think that's testament to our

[54:45] community quite frankly. Um so

[54:51] um

[54:55] oh what is the expiration of the lease?

[55:01] » 25 years >> I think it's 39.

[55:07] Okay. >> And and there's no proposal right now to

[55:10] extend that? >> Not to my knowledge.

[55:13] » Okay. Thank you. Um,

[55:20] all right. That's my comments right now. Thank you.

[55:25] I'm just going to continue to stand. >> Okay. Permission granted.

[55:30] Uh, is that please? >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, I'd just like to

[55:34] thank the applicant and other members of the public who spoke. Um, uh, I really

[55:39] do appreciate your efforts in working with the staff on this project. I have I

[55:43] spent a lot of time uh reading through all the details and it's very thoughtful

[55:47] application. Um I and I appreciate the comments about the general plan. I think

[55:52] it's really important to open up access to the water and recreational uses. Um,

[55:57] however, I do think that the planning or the city staff's uh interpretation of

[56:04] the lease terms is um is something that I will that is guiding this project as

[56:11] well in terms of the storage not uh really being allowed under the lease. um

[56:17] you know that the dock expansion um I think I agree with the uh recommendation

[56:23] that it um it's in keeping with other docks in the area. It's not oversized.

[56:28] You know, the materials are all compatible. Um and I think it's

[56:32] consistent with the Rzzoning district as well. Um, as far as the storage racks

[56:38] for the kayak, um, I do again think that while I appreciate, uh, the general plan

[56:47] provisions, I do think that the, uh, lease provisions are the more

[56:50] restrictive here. And I think that the the more open kayak rack seems more

[56:56] appropriate. Otherwise, it becomes more of a storage structure, which according

[57:00] to staff um interpretation of the lease um wouldn't be permitted. And again, um

[57:06] I do uh think that the reduction in lighting on the dock as proposed by

[57:12] staff would be appropriate as well. Thanks.

[57:18] » Thank you. Uh Jacob, can we have you weigh in on

[57:23] this now? Uh >> yeah. I

[57:26] I second the comments uh that have been made and thank you to Mark and others

[57:31] who have expressed their views here as well. Um

[57:35] I come to it from I guess a very similar perspective which is we have a pretty

[57:40] derelict dock right now and it's almost it's really an eyesore for pretty much

[57:45] everybody involved and there's a plan to fix it to renovate it um slightly

[57:51] enlarge it in a way that I think will add to the aesthetic appeal and in

[57:56] essence the public benefit there. So, for me, that's um an

[58:00] important factor. As regards the rack, um I'm of the opinion that you should

[58:07] strike a balance between what's most utilitarian, but also provides for the

[58:10] safety. I don't think it's good for any kind of plastic debris to be blown away

[58:14] and floating in the bay. So, uh Mark, I think you've expressed the opinion that

[58:20] the second version is probably the one that will provide that medium of safety,

[58:24] but also of least intrusiveness. I'm fine with that design. I think it

[58:29] strikes an appropriate balance. Um, that's my opinions.

[58:36] » Thank you.

[58:42] Um, there has been, I would say, a lot of work on this application. I

[58:48] appreciate staff. I appreciate the applicant and community members. um

[58:56] parks, open space, and lanes input. Um I've tried to diligent diligently read

[59:03] and reread it all and read the deeds. Um I think it's a uh it's been an

[59:09] interesting um application to study because it really touches on four

[59:15] different parcels. Um, and there's, you know, information going back all the way

[59:21] to the 19th century to take into consideration here. Um,

[59:27] and I I um, I should disclose I've had numerous

[59:31] conversations with Mr. Conroe in the course of this um, sort of trying to

[59:36] navigate the best course. Um, I feel I I share with um, fellow commissioners. I

[59:42] think we're on a pretty good course here now. Um the way during my admittedly

[59:49] somewhat limited years on the commission, we have had [clears throat]

[59:53] several of these applications related to docks and transiting across the strip.

[59:58] And I think so far um my impression is that the idea even though it's not

[1:00:05] specifically mentioned in the deed that if you have a dock, you got to have a

[1:00:10] way to get there. And so um that's what this application has now not so clear

[1:00:17] that you know expansions beyond that within the strip are a good idea. So I

[1:00:24] feel it's a clean application now um with with the removal of the platforms.

[1:00:30] Um and then um I go out to the the dock. Um, I feel this [clears throat] is a

[1:00:38] probably a pretty unique situation in Belvadier where two properties are

[1:00:42] sharing one dock. I think given that it's a unique situation, I

[1:00:49] can understand why each homeowner would essentially want to have a place for

[1:00:53] their own boat and lift. And I don't think the docks are excessively large.

[1:01:00] So, um, I would be able to find in favor of the dock. So, when you get to the

[1:01:07] discussion of, you know, the things on top of the dock, um, [clears throat]

[1:01:14] you know, I'm inclined to go with the staff interpretation, I think. Um, but

[1:01:20] partly because in my own mind, given that the dock is in an open space zone,

[1:01:25] I think having less structures on it is consistent with the idea of an open

[1:01:31] space. I mean, it's basically a horizontal plane with a railing. You can

[1:01:35] mo a boat there. Um, it's not obstructing the views of the open space

[1:01:40] and there are people using the beach who want to look out. Um, so

[1:01:46] again, I appreciate the offer to remove the shed. So that kind of leaves us with

[1:01:52] the kayaks. Um, I I I think it's got to be either image two or image three. And

[1:02:02] bear with me for a minute minute while I vacasillate here. Um, I think that

[1:02:10] properly uh secured

[1:02:14] it and probably has to be significant strapping or something. I think that the

[1:02:19] kayaks themselves are weatherproof. They don't need cover. Um,

[1:02:24] how a freestanding wall is going to perform, it's a little hard for me to

[1:02:29] predict um whether it's going to add that much

[1:02:33] safety. So, I guess I'm inclined to go with just the rack. Um, and I would add

[1:02:41] though as far as I'm sensitive to what Mr. Conroe brought up about lugging

[1:02:47] everything up to the house. You do want to have storage for life preservers and

[1:02:52] paddles and so forth in a secure way. But I um there are there are

[1:02:57] pre-fabricated bins that are of a lower height that to me would be acceptable.

[1:03:03] They may not even have to be part of the,

[1:03:07] you know, whatever findings we make today because I think they're um, you

[1:03:12] know, not necessarily a fixed structure. They would be attached to the dock so

[1:03:17] they didn't blow away, but um to me that would be acceptable because they would

[1:03:22] be sort of more in the height range of a railing. So less view obstructing but

[1:03:28] sort of solve the storage problem which I think is um a legit a legitimate

[1:03:34] desire. Um so I I think that's pretty much how I come down on it.

[1:03:55] Does does anyone have anything further to say or um are we It sounds like we're

[1:04:00] relatively consistent. Someone wants to take a stab at making a motion.

[1:04:05] » Do you want the lawyer to do it? >> Okay,

[1:04:08] » I'd appreciate it. Sure.

[1:04:20] All right. Um like to propose a motion to adopt the

[1:04:24] resolution granting design review approval to construct two boat lifts,

[1:04:30] two wood landings, and a dock extension for the properties located at 310 and

[1:04:36] 312 Beach Road with the >> excuse me.

[1:04:41] Not not the woodlandings. >> Oh, sorry. Not the woodlanding. Sorry.

[1:04:44] Yep. Adopt a resolution granting design

[1:04:48] review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the

[1:04:53] properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the following requirements.

[1:05:00] There be a reduction in the number of lights as uh as as discussed.

[1:05:08] that the kayak racks be rack number

[1:05:15] » three >> be rack number three in the in the

[1:05:19] photos that were shown. um that the new shed proposed is not is

[1:05:27] not approved [gasps] and that the public access is main is

[1:05:34] maintained um along the beach in the same degree as currently exists.

[1:05:41] » If I could just clarify the motion if you don't mind commissioner.

[1:05:44] » Go for it. >> Yeah. So the the shed is not before you.

[1:05:47] It's no longer part of the application given the duck lease. All right.

[1:05:51] » Right. And then I believe you at the end addressed maintenance. Is that what I

[1:05:54] heard? >> No, no, no. Public access.

[1:05:56] » Oh, public access. Okay. Uh, that's not part of design review.

[1:06:02] » Okay. >> But if that's something that's you

[1:06:05] nonetheless want to address, that's okay. But it's not technically a design

[1:06:08] review criteria, >> right? We're on the designer edge view

[1:06:13] resolution >> and it's not that that's not part of the

[1:06:17] project that so it's do you have the peer they're just rebuilding that but so

[1:06:24] and that sort of [clears throat] relates more to the revocable license.

[1:06:28] » Okay. All right. Then we can take we can if it if that's not

[1:06:35] if that's if if what's before us isn't isn't covered by the area that that the

[1:06:40] public walks.

[1:06:43] » Right. We're not addressing any improvements on the street.

[1:06:46] » All right. All right. So we have lighting

[1:06:51] rack number three. That's it.

[1:06:55] » Yes. Thank you so much, Commissioner. >> All right.

[1:06:58] Okay. Do you want me to rephrase? >> I think we have it. Unless anyone else

[1:07:03] up on the DIS would like a read, a further read.

[1:07:08] » Can it be read again? >> Of course.

[1:07:11] » Right. Um, I'd like to propose a a motion to adopt the resolution granting

[1:07:17] design review approval to construct two boat lifts and a dock expansion for the

[1:07:22] properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road with the requirements that there be

[1:07:28] a reduction in the overall lighting on the dock as discussed in this meeting

[1:07:33] and that the kayak racks be of the sort shown as rack number three in the in the

[1:07:41] photos. is pres presented at this meeting.

[1:07:45] » Perfect. Thank you so much, Commissioner.

[1:07:49] » Okay, we'll [clears throat] please vote. All in favor?

[1:07:54] » I thank you.

[1:08:11] All right. Um and then we have another motion. Okay.

[1:08:17] Um, adopt. I would like to propose a motion adopting resolution granting the

[1:08:22] use permit approval to expand the existing fixed dock the city-owned water

[1:08:27] parcel within the R zoning district adjacent to 310 and 312

[1:08:34] Beach Road. And I'd like to add subject to the

[1:08:41] existing lease or something where I reference the fact that the use of the

[1:08:45] dock is covered by the lease with the city.

[1:08:49] » Yes, I think it's fine to reference or include subject to the existing dock

[1:08:53] lease. >> Okay. Um subject subject to the exist to

[1:08:57] the terms and conditions of the existing doc lease.

[1:09:06] Uh yes, you can.

[1:09:10] » Is the dock lease co-terminus with a revocable license?

[1:09:15] » No, not necessarily. So that's a very good point. So the doc lease, as

[1:09:18] referenced before, is set to expire on June 30th, 2039. Revocable leases do not

[1:09:23] necessarily have a term, >> although something that the city council

[1:09:27] could conceivably incorporate, but they don't always have a term.

[1:09:32] So it is something that we should probably look into in that the two

[1:09:38] documents should be co-terminous, right? Because you can't really have a dock

[1:09:43] without the revocable license that allows for the access to the dock.

[1:09:46] Correct. So

[1:09:51] » isn't the revocable license covering the strip of land?

[1:09:54] » Mhm. >> And the strip of land is where the

[1:09:56] elevator and the stairs are. Without the strip of land, without that elevator and

[1:10:00] the stairs, you cannot access the dock. Is that correct? Logically correct? Yes.

[1:10:04] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So therefore, the two the revocable

[1:10:07] license and the lease, the dock lease should have the same term, the same

[1:10:11] length would be my advice on that. Otherwise, you can have a situation

[1:10:17] where one expires or one is revoked, but the other one remains

[1:10:22] » and the land owner may have other other remedies for it, but I don't think the

[1:10:26] city would want to engage in those. Yeah, that's a very good point,

[1:10:28] Commissioner. We can certainly raise that with the city council when they

[1:10:31] consider the revocable license. >> Thank you.

[1:10:33] » Thank you.

[1:10:41] » I think we need a second. Second motion. >> Please vote. All in favor?

[1:10:48] » I

[1:10:51] » Thank you.

[1:10:55] And then we do not have a motion. >> We don't need the third one. Okay.

[1:11:00] » All right. I think that concludes this item.

[1:11:15] Okay. Uh we are now going to return to our regularly scheduled program. Uh, and

[1:11:22] I will open the hearing [clears throat] on item three, design review for

[1:11:26] additions to 34 Eucalyptus Road.

[1:11:38] Can we have a presentation from staff, please?

[1:12:12] Yeah, we're ready. >> Thank you, Chair Cidle, and members of

[1:12:15] the planning commission. Again, uh for your consideration, this evening is an

[1:12:19] application for design review to construct two additions in a canopy at

[1:12:24] 34 Eucalyptus Road.

[1:12:29] The subject property is 22,000 square feet and on a steeply slope lot on the

[1:12:34] southwest side of Belvadier Island. The parcel is located near the end of a

[1:12:37] culde-sac on the private Eucalyptus Road and is surrounded by single family homes

[1:12:42] in all directions. The site includes an existing 3,697

[1:12:47] foot residence and 600 ft detached garage which is screened by dense

[1:12:52] vegetation and mature trees along the property's western, southern, and

[1:12:56] northern sides.

[1:13:01] The applicant proposes two additions resulting in 289 square feet of new

[1:13:05] floor area to be located on the lower level of the existing residence. One

[1:13:09] addition uh would total 55 square feet at the northern side of the property, 23

[1:13:15] feet from the right side property line. The second addition consists of a 234

[1:13:20] square ft addition beneath the footprint of the upper level deck on the at the

[1:13:25] rear of the residence. The 237 234t addition will be 17 ft from the rear

[1:13:31] property line and 45 ft from the left side property line.

[1:13:36] » [snorts] >> The 55 foot edition would include one

[1:13:41] sliding door and one fixed window. The 234t edition would include one sliding

[1:13:47] glass door and two fixed windows. The additions would not increase the height

[1:13:50] of the home. The 55 ft addition would be 9 ft 6 in in height from existing grade

[1:13:57] [clears throat] and the 234t edition would be set into the sloping hillside

[1:14:01] 15 ft above existing grade. The proposed exterior materials would match the

[1:14:06] existing residence, including dark flint flint rock colored wood siding and steel

[1:14:11] windows and doors in a matte dark bronze finish. [snorts]

[1:14:16] The project proposes a constructing a new 532 ft steel canopy on the existing

[1:14:23] upper level deck.

[1:14:28] The canopy structure would be 11 ft tall and supported by four steel columns with

[1:14:33] a matte dark bronze finish. The existing deck would be renovated as well with the

[1:14:38] existing seating area to be removed and installation of new stone pavers and

[1:14:43] glass guardrails.

[1:14:47] Here are the rendering details. The look of the stone deck and canopy. The canopy

[1:14:52] would include motorized shades as well.

[1:14:57] Exterior lighting is proposed on the new canopy and they would include six flush

[1:15:01] mounted exterior lights between the canopy steel slats.

[1:15:08] Uh the project does propose landscaping uh that would include prairie drop seed

[1:15:12] grass within a 27 square foot planter uh on the entry level deck. the grass would

[1:15:18] grow to a maximum height of 4 feet.

[1:15:23] Uh for the commission's consideration, we did re receive one letter uh about

[1:15:29] the project uh related to a previous approval in 2022 and that information

[1:15:34] was sent to you and on the uh DIS for you as well.

[1:15:40] The project is categorically exempt from SQA.

[1:15:44] Uh staff recommends that the design review uh uh be granted and the planning

[1:15:51] commission adopt the resolutions for totaling 289 square feet and 532 foot

[1:15:58] canopy on the existing upper level deck. Thank you. And we're happy to answer any

[1:16:02] questions. >> Yeah. Commissioners, uh questions for

[1:16:06] staff.

[1:16:10] » You [clears throat] for staff? you you were not really counting the um canopy

[1:16:17] as one of the additions, correct? Because it's open to the sky. Correct.

[1:16:22] » Exactly. >> Okay.

[1:16:27] [clears throat]

[1:16:30] If the um canopy were ever to be more completely covered like more than 50%

[1:16:37] then it would it would count as square footage and it would be non-compliant I

[1:16:42] presume. >> We would then count it as square

[1:16:44] footage. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:16:52] um regarding the um letter that we have about the lighting that um I didn't look

[1:17:00] at the lighting when I was there. It seems like it may not be compliant with

[1:17:05] our the existing lighting may not be compliant with our guidelines. Is that

[1:17:09] something that we can think about here or is that

[1:17:14] something that should be handled through another uh process?

[1:17:20] The design review findings do take into consideration all existing

[1:17:24] nonconformities. Uh I remember that that lighting that

[1:17:28] was uh approved in 2022, it was incorrectly approved.

[1:17:33] So yeah, it was it was subject to a final

[1:17:37] lighting and landscape plan by the chair at the time. The chair did not get a

[1:17:41] opportunity to review those those lights. So,

[1:17:45] uh, there it was approved and the building permit was issued, but there

[1:17:49] was no final lighting and landscaping plan that was approved by the chair in

[1:17:54] 2022. Okay. Um, so that's good history. Is it

[1:18:01] is it something that we could act on in in this approval and ask for it to be

[1:18:07] rectified or do we need to separate them? And

[1:18:11] » we have the points.

[1:18:17] I think typically it would be handled through a code enforcement action. I was

[1:18:21] involved with some of the complaints about the lights and I pulled up the

[1:18:26] plans and the lights that are my understanding in 2023 that the lights

[1:18:33] that are on there are the are the lights that were approved. So it sounds like

[1:18:37] amongst staff we need to do a little more historical research into this.

[1:18:42] » Yeah. Um, I mean, I'm I'm sympathetic to what the letter is expressing. However,

[1:18:49] um, I don't have information regarding the details of it.

[1:18:54] So, like for me, it would be kind of hard to to say anything at this point.

[1:18:59] So, um, I just, um, but I think maybe there's something that internally you

[1:19:04] could do in terms of rectifying this the situation if it's non-compliant.

[1:19:11] Okay. >> Yeah. Can we

[1:19:15] even though this was formally approved, can we

[1:19:20] um encourage the applicant to change those lights?

[1:19:28] » Yeah, I think sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah, c commissioner. Yeah, certainly

[1:19:32] one of the options is to discuss the issue with the property owner, but it

[1:19:35] sounds like again that we also need to make sure that we understand the history

[1:19:38] as well. >> All right. Because I what I also noted

[1:19:42] there are six more lights under the canopy which we can discuss with the

[1:19:47] applicant that um I asked him to decrease. Okay.

[1:19:50] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:20:00] » Um um if we have no further questions, is

[1:20:04] the applicant here? Would they like to speak? Yeah. Thank you.

[1:20:12] Yeah, thank you for your time this evening. Um,

[1:20:16] I met with uh Marsha on Sunday and um she had some very good ideas. We will

[1:20:22] reduce the number of lights in the canopy from 6 to three. And if if the

[1:20:27] council would like us like me to replace the lights on the on the uh deck, I

[1:20:31] don't want it to be an issue with with my neighbors and I'd be happy to do that

[1:20:35] and make it conform. want to be a good neighbor. And also,

[1:20:40] Marcia had a very good idea about landscaping below the add proposed

[1:20:45] addition. And we have we the architects uh and landscape companies sent a plan

[1:20:51] in this evening. I don't think it made it in time for the meeting. Uh that

[1:20:55] includes landscaping all under all on the hillside and uh four oak trees, two

[1:21:02] 30-inch box oaks, and two 24inch box oak trees.

[1:21:09] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:21:15] » Um, any questions from the planning commission to the applicant?

[1:21:24] [laughter]

[1:21:28] » She's got a lot of experience, right?

[1:21:32] Are there any comments um from members of the audience regarding this item?

[1:21:39] » I I have one comment. Um if you if it's in the planning

[1:21:45] commission's interest, we will pull up this landscape sheet because the

[1:21:51] additional landscaping would require design review. So if you can review it

[1:21:59] on the dis I think that would help the applicant out to not have to go through

[1:22:03] design review again. >> Okay.

[1:22:05] » That sounds >> I know that's putting a lot of pressure

[1:22:06] on you. >> Yeah. Well, I was going to make it a

[1:22:09] condition. >> Yeah.

[1:22:10] » I was going to make the landscaping as a condition of approval.

[1:22:15] » Okay. >> That size

[1:22:18] have to be reviewed at a design review level.

[1:22:22] » Okay. So, is this a revised plan that we're looking at?

[1:22:28] » Yeah, >> I don't think so. I think it's new.

[1:22:32] » It was an addition. >> Oh, okay. But this represents the

[1:22:36] landscaping that you just discussed that you so maybe you could just spend a

[1:22:43] minute describing what this exhibit. >> We just got it today. [laughter] So, we

[1:22:48] can >> it it's it's uh basically a variety of

[1:22:53] different shrubberries and then the four oak trees that you see there um closer

[1:22:58] to the uh Belvadier Avenue. Um, and we we did that on Marsh's direction. And I

[1:23:07] I did plan on on doing some enhancement of landscape because there's been a lot

[1:23:12] of work done um under the house uh air conditioning and and some shoring up of

[1:23:17] the of the uh foundation. And it's pretty

[1:23:22] much just bare land. And I wanted to bring it up to uh

[1:23:31] bring it up to a higher quality look.

[1:23:36] » I think the the I think the biggest sort of impact here are these four C oak

[1:23:41] trees. >> Um we don't have a size on it. I think

[1:23:44] that can be determined um with the planning commission chair afterwards if

[1:23:49] you're inclined to review this tonight. Um the other landscaping the maximum

[1:23:54] height ranges from 1 foot to six feet. I think that's sort of you know what the

[1:24:00] planning commission tends to look at in terms of height and potential view

[1:24:04] impact and things like that. I think the the biggest impact again are these trees

[1:24:09] here um which look like they're going on the lower side of the house.

[1:24:13] » So I would assume it would be a while before

[1:24:18] No, they're going here on the side. So I think that's a detail that can be

[1:24:22] determined with the planning commission chair.

[1:24:25] » I was thinking that perhaps the landscape plan could be it could be

[1:24:29] conditioned but then it could be approved by the chairman and planning

[1:24:33] staff. >> Yes. Okay.

[1:24:35] » And um Rebecca, if you just scroll this up a little bit. The area on the right.

[1:24:40] Uh no, move the image up. It the the deck with

[1:24:45] the canopy is above that rectangle. um there.

[1:24:50] » Yeah. >> And there's planting that's going under

[1:24:53] the deck, I guess, if I understand that correctly.

[1:24:57] » Yes. >> So that way when people are looking up

[1:25:01] from the street, they'll see the planting.

[1:25:03] » Yes. >> Good.

[1:25:07] » Yeah. Here's the deck area. And here these plantings are some type of

[1:25:12] rosemary,

[1:25:15] » but they're they're at ground level. They're ground. They're two feet.

[1:25:19] » Yeah. Okay.

[1:25:22] » Okay. >> Yeah. You can't I don't think we they're

[1:25:25] allowed to plant rosemary. They're stringing, which is a different Yeah,

[1:25:28] that's fine. >> Okay.

[1:25:30] » Yeah. Catch on fire. [laughter]

[1:25:40] » And are are these the kind of oak that grow to be 30 to 50 feet high?

[1:25:46] I'm sorry. Are the Are these the kind of oak tree that grow to be 30 to 50 feet

[1:25:51] high? >> No, that's not the plan. No, just I I

[1:25:54] think they're slow growing. I I I talked to uh talked to landscape uh uh owner

[1:26:02] landscape company. I think the 30-inch box trees are maybe 12 feet high when

[1:26:07] you plant them, and they're pretty slow growing. They are co-live oak so I think

[1:26:10] they have the potential but >> right but it'll it would take longer

[1:26:14] than for me to be here on >> dead.

[1:26:17] [laughter]

[1:26:23] » Okay. Does everyone feel like they got a good look at that?

[1:26:26] » Just in all seriousness, we would once we get that final landscape plan, we

[1:26:30] would put a max height on them. Yep. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:26:39] Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Um I don't think I

[1:26:41] asked were there anybody was there anybody on Zoom that wanted to hands

[1:26:45] raised say anything here? >> No hands raised.

[1:26:49] » Okay. Um any do you have anything further to

[1:26:53] add to your presentation? >> No sir. Thank you so much for your time.

[1:26:56] » Thank you. >> I'll now close the public hearing and

[1:27:00] bring this >> people in the audience.

[1:27:04] » Oh. Oh, I didn't >> come on up.

[1:27:11] » You brushed so quickly past in anybody in the audience, so I didn't have time

[1:27:15] to state that. >> I I apologize. I want to put a face to

[1:27:19] the letter [clears throat] A heart and I wrote it be

[1:27:23] » because I was really involved in the first um

[1:27:28] » permit and all that with with this wonderful house and I want to say I

[1:27:32] really think you're doing something smart. It looks like really thoughtful

[1:27:36] stuff. But your comment that you would uh definitely think about taking away

[1:27:42] these lightsabers warms my heart and I'm really grateful

[1:27:48] and I just want that to go on the record that I just don't want to complain but I

[1:27:53] also want to congratulate and thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:27:58] » Thank you. Nana Hart 206 Eucalyptus Road.

[1:28:07] » Okay, I'm going to bring this um back to the commission for discussion. Um

[1:28:11] Missola, could you start us off, please? >> Sure. Um I want to thank the applicant

[1:28:16] for uh um for the changes in the landscaping. I think it'll be a nice

[1:28:21] addition. Um, yeah, I would like the staff and the commission chair to review

[1:28:25] the plans finally, but I I think it it'll be a nice addition. I also

[1:28:30] appreciate the reduction in the lights. That was sort of my main concern about

[1:28:33] the project was whether or not uh there was too much lighting. Um, otherwise, I

[1:28:38] do think the uh the the small additions are compatible with the existing

[1:28:42] structure and don't impact the neighborhood and the um the obviously

[1:28:46] the canopy is quite attractive and a nice addition as well. Thank you.

[1:28:54] Uh Jenna,

[1:29:00] » um I al I also I also appreciate the project and also your willingness to uh

[1:29:05] to add some softening with with landscaping and reduction of lighting,

[1:29:09] both existing lighting and uh and and the and the proposed lighting. Um, and I

[1:29:15] think that with um with having chair Sidell be able to

[1:29:21] approve um the new lighting to replace the existing lighting and also the final

[1:29:28] landscaping plan. I think this I think I can I can support this project. Thank

[1:29:33] you. >> Thank you, Marca.

[1:29:38] Um I I really can understand why um the applicant would like this um awning

[1:29:45] because they face um southwest and they get which I also do which I like but you

[1:29:51] get a lot of sun and there are no um overhangs on this house. So I think that

[1:29:55] will really help him um especially today I'm sure you you felt it. Um, so I can

[1:30:02] make the findings for design review uh for this uh project. But with the um

[1:30:10] condition of the additional landscape below the house, um when when I walk by

[1:30:16] Belvadier Avenue and look up, even now the deck seems to me very close even

[1:30:21] though it it's I guess 17 ft. And so I think having additional trees and

[1:30:26] landscape there will screen the street and also screen the house, give some

[1:30:32] screening to the new addition which is on the lower level which I think will

[1:30:36] really help. Um and also I think we need to have a condition of reducing the um

[1:30:45] lights from six to three. And if you are willing, it would be great to take out

[1:30:51] the the tall the linear lights that are on the deck and replace those if that

[1:30:56] can be part of the condition. That would be great. Thank you. Um so I can make um

[1:31:01] the design review findings and I think it's a great um project and um hopefully

[1:31:07] it'll keep you a little cooler. [clears throat]

[1:31:11] » Thank you. If I may just chair for the record, I do want to I just do want to

[1:31:17] document for the record that the applicant did say yes in the audience

[1:31:20] and when Commissioner Laskkey read out the condition regarding the linear

[1:31:24] lighting. Thank you. So, um, I just want to start by saying,

[1:31:31] you know, kind of one of the interesting things about being in this position on

[1:31:35] the planning commission is getting around and seeing all these interesting

[1:31:39] homes and properties in in Belvadier. And, um, I actually think you have a

[1:31:44] really attractive home. Um, I think that the additions you're planning on making

[1:31:49] are very consistent um, with the character of the home. I think it'll be

[1:31:54] attractive. um like my fellow commissioners, I'll be able to make the

[1:31:58] design findings and um I appreciate the additional landscape and lighting

[1:32:04] changes that you're offering. Um so um any further discussion with within

[1:32:13] the commission or I was wondering if Commissioner Laskkey would like to make

[1:32:18] the motion given that um you have some additions and you've been involved in

[1:32:24] the evolution of the design.

[1:32:29] I move to adopt the resolution granting design review for two additions totaling

[1:32:34] 289 square ft and a 532 square ft canopy on the existing upper deck at 34

[1:32:42] eucalyptus with the two conditions of reducing the lighting from 6 to three um

[1:32:50] to replace the existing lights on the deck um and also to add the there are

[1:32:56] three conditions, sorry, to add the landscaping below the um deck under the

[1:33:02] new addition with um oak trees.

[1:33:11] » Can I make a comment? um just that um uh I don't know um I wonder if it's

[1:33:20] better to not be too prescriptive about the landscape um proposal uh because it

[1:33:26] still needs to be reviewed by staff and um

[1:33:29] » right so we could say that the that the replacement lighting um and the final

[1:33:35] landscape plan is it best to have it to have it

[1:33:39] approved by by Chair Sidell or by staff

[1:33:45] both. >> All right. Yeah, both.

[1:33:51] So, I guess that would be conditions two and three, both the replacement lights

[1:33:55] and the final landscaping plan to be reviewed by staff and approved by both

[1:34:01] staff and chair Sidel.

[1:34:07] » Prior to issuance of building permit. prior to issuing building permit.

[1:34:13] » Thank you, Rebecca. And I'll second that motion.

[1:34:18] » Okay. Then please vote. I

[1:34:22] » I

[1:34:28] » Yeah. >> Take care.

[1:34:41] We will now move on to review item number four which is design review

[1:34:45] demolition and floor area exception at 135 Belvadier Avenue.

[1:34:53] Staff report please. >> Thank you again chairle and members of

[1:34:58] the planning commission for your consideration. Here is an application

[1:35:02] for design review, demolition, exception of total floor area, and revocable

[1:35:07] license to construct a new single family home at 135 Belvadier Avenue.

[1:35:14] The project site is on a steeply sloped 52,000t lot. The site received a lot

[1:35:19] merger lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three

[1:35:25] parcels. The site is developed with an existing dilapidated residence and

[1:35:29] wooden staircase. The existing structure is centrally located on the lot and

[1:35:34] surrounded by mature unmaintained vegetation.

[1:35:39] The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,764

[1:35:44] ft residence and construct a new 11,223 ft residence and 495 ft junior accessory

[1:35:53] dwelling unit. The residence will be located on the

[1:35:58] upper third of the site where the existing home currently sits. The home

[1:36:01] would be developed in two floors including a 4,761

[1:36:06] ft f first story, 4,912 ft second story and 1,250

[1:36:13] ft attached garage

[1:36:17] 16t and 5 in from the rear property line. The project proposes a 300 foot

[1:36:23] boat house.

[1:36:27] The proposed residence will be set back 14 ft from the right sideyard, 32 feet

[1:36:32] from the left sideyard, and have a zero front yard setback [clears throat] for

[1:36:35] the garage. For transparency, the applicant in is

[1:36:40] including plans to construct a detached ADU on site. The ADU would be reviewed

[1:36:45] under a separate permit and would not be subject to design review.

[1:36:51] The front of the home would include a 7 foot 10-in wide by 11t 8 inch tall glass

[1:36:57] entry door between two fixed windows. Because Belvier Avenue would be 20 ft

[1:37:03] below above the second story's finished floor, the 17t 8 inch tall roof and 12t

[1:37:10] 8 inch tall garage would be below street level.

[1:37:14] Floor to ceiling, exterior windows and doors

[1:37:18] are proposed on the right and left side of the house.

[1:37:22] Measured from existing grade, the residence is proposed to be 32 ft tall

[1:37:30] and viewed from the rear. The project proposes a series of Florida glass floor

[1:37:34] to ceiling glass windows and glass guardrails.

[1:37:40] The project proposes a contemporary design with sharp vertical and

[1:37:43] horizontal elements, glass guard rails and windows and canolver roofs. The

[1:37:47] color palette consists of soft and muted wooden earth tones including board form

[1:37:52] concrete siding in a warm white color, a tar and multicolored gravel flat roof,

[1:37:57] western red cedar wood siding, and aluminum um aluminum windows and doors

[1:38:03] trims in a dark bronze or black finish. The proposed materials add architectural

[1:38:08] variety and help to break up the building's massing.

[1:38:14] Access to the residence will be via a new 16t 8 inch wide paved driveway and

[1:38:19] 15t wide 6ft tall steel automo automobile gate on the left side of the

[1:38:24] property which would lead to a new autoc court and garage.

[1:38:29] The entry gate would be made of dark metal horizontal rails and bordered by a

[1:38:34] 6-ft tall concrete freestanding wall on both ends.

[1:38:40] New fencing is proposed, including a 6ft tall vertical bar metal fence along the

[1:38:45] front property line, a 6ft tall wood fence along both side property lines,

[1:38:50] and a galvanized steel fence that would be painted black along the rear yard.

[1:38:56] Additional improvements would include a new 16 ftx 48 foot inground swimming

[1:39:01] pool and spa on the rear patio left of the pool. The project would

[1:39:06] include a 12tx 24 ft trellis structure standing 10' 4 in tall that would

[1:39:13] accommodate outdoor seating, a stone countertop, and a barbecue.

[1:39:20] Because the home is proposed to be stepped back and into the hillside, it

[1:39:24] would reduce the structures perceived mass and bulk. Doing so, however, would

[1:39:28] result in extensive grading concentrated extensive concentrated grading at the

[1:39:34] upper portions of the property. Up to 20 vertical feet of soil will be excavated

[1:39:39] below Belvier Avenue to construct the proposed autocore and up to 13 vertical

[1:39:44] feet of soil excavated to construct the residenc's first story. The project

[1:39:49] estimates 2500 cubic yards of excavation and 1,700 cubic yards of fill. While the

[1:39:55] proposed grade changes are significant, constructing the home at the upper

[1:39:59] portion of the lot will preserve much of the site's natural grade and vegetation

[1:40:03] below. [clears throat]

[1:40:07] The project proposes a series of path lights, wall lights, ingground lights,

[1:40:11] handrail lights, and wall sconces. 62 wall lights are proposed around the

[1:40:16] driveway and stairs and 36 recess down lights and wall sconces are proposed

[1:40:20] throughout the residence. Staff suggests the fixture quantities are modest given

[1:40:25] the size of the home, but recommends the micronite star down light by BK Lighting

[1:40:30] be replaced with a fixed downward-f facing option.

[1:40:38] The project proposes removing 54 trees including multiple 30 to 60 foot tall

[1:40:42] Monterey pines, 50 15 to 30 foot tall coastal live oaks and one 67 foot tall

[1:40:48] cyprress as well as one 70 foot tall eucalyptus. The trees are generally

[1:40:53] within the footprint of the proposed home and heartscape.

[1:40:59] New landscaping would include a variety of shrubs and perennials within the

[1:41:03] front, side, and rear yards of the home uh to screen the proposed front yard

[1:41:07] fencing, retaining walls and stairs. The project would include planting eight

[1:41:13] southern live oaks in 36-in boxes, which are listed to grow to 20 ft tall.

[1:41:19] Eight Chinese elm are also proposed in 36-in boxes along the southern end of

[1:41:24] the right side property line.

[1:41:30] The applicant requests an exception of total floor area uh approval for the

[1:41:34] 11,223 square ft where 4850 ft are permitted.

[1:41:41] In order to grant the exception, the planning commission must be able to make

[1:41:44] each of the following findings. These include that primary views will not be

[1:41:48] significantly impaired, that there are unusual characteristics applicable to

[1:41:52] the parcel which minimize the impact of the greater floor area, that the

[1:41:56] structure is appropriate in mass bulk and character of the neighborhood, and

[1:41:59] that the additional square footage will not substantially reduce privacy on

[1:42:03] adjoining properties. Here staff recommends the findings can

[1:42:08] be made. Primary views from adjacent properties

[1:42:13] will not be significantly impaired as the subject property is above the

[1:42:16] adjacent 125 Belvadier and two Cliff Road.

[1:42:21] Views from Belvadier Avenue and uphill neighbors will not be impaired as a

[1:42:25] residence is set below the street line and tucked into the hillside.

[1:42:30] [snorts] The site is unusual in that it was historically three separate parcels

[1:42:34] until 2019. The larger lot size and steep steeply

[1:42:38] sloped nature of the site minimize the buildable area and impact to the

[1:42:42] additional floor area.

[1:42:47] The project is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the parcel and in the

[1:42:51] neighborhood and meets all design review criteria. The 23 foot 6 inch average

[1:42:57] building height helps decrease the the appearance of mass and bulk on the site

[1:43:02] and the 32- foot tall max height is consistent with adjacent properties.

[1:43:06] With respect to size, the proposal is not unusual in the neighborhood. In

[1:43:12] 2016, Cliff Road was approved for a 12,000 foot residence. In 2009, 425

[1:43:18] Belvadier received the approval to construct a 15,555T

[1:43:23] residence and 337 Belvadier, 255 Golden Gate Avenue, and 345 Golden Gate Avenue

[1:43:29] are examples on the western side of Belvadier Island, uh, where the floor

[1:43:34] area permitted is exceeded.

[1:43:41] Finally, the project does not substantially reduce privacy of

[1:43:44] adjoining properties as the proposed windows are not within neighboring sight

[1:43:48] lines and landscaping will screen uh screening will provide an additional

[1:43:53] buffer.

[1:43:59] The applicant requests a revocable license for a wood fence, gates,

[1:44:02] driveway, parking, and landscaping all within the Belvier Avenue rightway.

[1:44:09] On the right side of Belvadier Avenue, uh, a 6- foot tall wood fence and access

[1:44:14] gate are proposed. The fence would encroach 7 feet 9 in onto city property

[1:44:19] and would be set 1 ft below the edge of pavement and would appear 5t tall at

[1:44:23] street level.

[1:44:27] Also within the right ofway, the applicant proposes to plant coffee berry

[1:44:31] dwarf mat rush, Fortnite lily, and rasleberry French flour.

[1:44:37] Uh these shrubs and perennials are listed to grow no taller than 4 feet in

[1:44:41] height.

[1:44:44] Additionally, the applicant would widen Belvier Avenue from 17 ft to 24 ft 9 in

[1:44:49] by relocating the existing street parking 7 ft closer to the front

[1:44:54] property line. Staff recommends that these rightway improvements provide a

[1:44:58] public benefit. Widening the roadway serves pedestrians and vehicles on a

[1:45:02] currently narrow road. The parking spaces are entirely public and serve as

[1:45:07] a public benefit. Landscaping will enhance the aesthetic quality of the

[1:45:10] streetscape and the fence will serve as a safety barrier and delineate the

[1:45:15] roadway from the hillside for oncoming vehicles.

[1:45:20] The project is exempt from SQA

[1:45:25] and staff recommends the findings for design review, demolition, exceptional

[1:45:28] floor area and revoke license can be made. recommend adopting the resolutions

[1:45:32] before you tonight. Thank you. And we are happy to answer any questions.

[1:45:37] » Thank you, Sammy.

[1:45:42] » I had a couple questions. Um, does this property have an existing revocable

[1:45:48] license now? And what is that for? >> It it does I could look in the records

[1:45:55] um to the year, but it is for the frontage improvements and that was

[1:45:59] recorded. It includes I should I don't want to speak out of

[1:46:04] turn. I believe it includes a trash enclosure, but I'll double check.

[1:46:08] » It includes the trash enclosure. So, they don't need another revocable

[1:46:13] license for the trash enclosure that it already has one.

[1:46:16] » It It has one. This one would be a a new revoke license that includes

[1:46:21] landscaping. So, this would be a brand new revoke license taken to to uh the

[1:46:26] council. Is it replacing the old one or it's an additional one?

[1:46:30] » It would replace the current. >> Oh, so it's replacing Okay.

[1:46:35] » Yeah, because we because we reviewed the fence here

[1:46:39] not terribly long ago. >> That's right.

[1:46:41] » Right. >> Um, one other question. Um, there is an

[1:46:46] additional five parking places near the property. Um, but is the parking there's

[1:46:51] a parking place across the street. Is that coming out?

[1:46:56] That's against the hillside. >> I don't believe it's coming out, but

[1:47:01] » So, it's staying. >> Yes.

[1:47:02] » Okay. So, then and there two places near the property. So, that means

[1:47:08] um five, six. Okay. I was trying to see how

[1:47:12] many new new parking places they would be. Um

[1:47:18] [clears throat] Okay, those are my questions.

[1:47:27] Okay, thank you. >> Do any other commissioners have any

[1:47:30] questions?

[1:47:34] » Um, well, I well, I recognize that this is this is a piece of property that

[1:47:38] hasn't been touched other than by coyotes in in decades. Um, I do

[1:47:44] appreciate that there's a lot of big old trees that are come that are coming out

[1:47:49] um especially cypress trees uh which are which are native. Um, are there any of

[1:47:55] the the big trees that are able to be to be saved? I mean, that are not under

[1:48:01] where the the building is currently going to be.

[1:48:06] » I think that's a better question suited for the landscape. Okay.

[1:48:10] » Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. Thank you.

[1:48:20] » Sold. Did you have any questions? Okay. Would

[1:48:34] the applicant like to make a presentation

[1:48:37] » any with your permission? I'm going to stand up as well, but it's just for my

[1:48:40] back. Thank you.

[1:49:11] » [clears throat]

[1:49:17] » Yeah, my name's uh David Katsub and I'm the architect for the project. We also

[1:49:21] have John Merton here at Studio Green and he can, you know, get into the

[1:49:24] landscaping and all those tree questions. So, I just wanted to point

[1:49:28] out, you probably already know, but I just wanted to record to show that this

[1:49:30] is the exact design that was approved in June of 2017.

[1:49:36] So, we have not made other than the elevator, the hillside lift, we have not

[1:49:40] made any changes um to that approval. So, Sammy made a great presentation. and

[1:49:47] he stole all of my thunder. But this is the drone shot we took back then. And

[1:49:53] the idea was is so we're going to position the house at, you know, where

[1:49:56] the existing one is. And it is sort of upper mid from the midpoint of the lot

[1:50:01] just above the midpoint. And what it does is it orients the house in the

[1:50:05] negative space of 125 Belvadier and a little bit of two cliff road.

[1:50:12] And so in elevation, what's important to this design is the fact that we keep it

[1:50:17] as a twostory residence versus maybe a three or even a fourstory. Um, and so

[1:50:23] the the aspect ratio will be horizontal, which I think is consistent um with the

[1:50:29] neighborhood and also appropriate for this hillside. Next, so here's the site

[1:50:34] plan. Um, we picked the access point and I think others that have worked on this

[1:50:40] property have where Belvadier Avenue is the lowest. And what we're trying to do

[1:50:44] is we're trying to get down um as soon as we possibly can to get on grade with

[1:50:49] the main level for this two-story design. And so once we arrive at the

[1:50:54] motor court, we basically establish um the second floor, which is the main

[1:50:58] floor. And there aren't any level changes um in that within that floor.

[1:51:05] So this is a graphic I did to try to explain

[1:51:09] um in my mind it's it's nothing in the ordinance or code but what I did is I

[1:51:14] took a contour that was 7 feet above the lowest floor. So, I took contour 104,

[1:51:21] which is the lowest floor is 97. And that yellow area is the amount of floor

[1:51:27] area that's cut into the hillside, which reduces greatly, I think, the um effect

[1:51:34] of the the 11,000 foot house. And that yellow area totals out to be about 3,100

[1:51:40] square feet. The other thing that we're doing because

[1:51:46] you know the roof is below Belvadier Avenue and they are flat, we are

[1:51:50] incorporating um quite an extensive green roof system. So those green

[1:51:54] pocheted areas indicate that.

[1:51:58] And then this is the upper level, the main level. So just you know showing the

[1:52:02] organization of the house down the center spine you peel off to the west or

[1:52:07] you peel off to the east to the private bedroom or go downstairs which is the

[1:52:11] next slide. And in the downstairs we you can see

[1:52:16] where the the part that's really up into the hill towards Belvar Avenue is it's

[1:52:20] rendered out as a home theaters, a gym and some utility. And then on the west

[1:52:26] side it's um utility, laundry room and mechanical. And the orange is shaded

[1:52:33] area is the junior ADU and the purple is the detached ADU.

[1:52:39] And this is the section that Sammy showed which um indicates how it is cut

[1:52:44] into the hill to create this two-story design. I threw in a couple of oak trees

[1:52:48] after I talked to Marsha on the bank. I'll have John talk about that.

[1:52:53] » [laughter] >> and and this and so what we think we're

[1:52:56] doing here is we're opening up Belvadier Avenue. I mean it's already opened up

[1:53:00] after we put in that fence which is a temporary fence but it indicates the

[1:53:03] height of what our permanent fence will be and it really opens the view up and

[1:53:07] removing the existing garage is I think had a major impact for the better. So,

[1:53:13] in the u you know, this is the main motor court. You get down and and we're

[1:53:18] framing the Golden Gate Bridge, and I got a little water feature that I'm

[1:53:21] going to try to match the bay color. And the great room, if you will, is a bridge

[1:53:26] between the water feature and and the bay.

[1:53:30] And I think this view is a good indicator of the articulation of the

[1:53:34] walls both um in horizontal and vertical planes and also the composition of the

[1:53:40] materials and the juxosition of the softer warmer wood against the darker

[1:53:45] steel and the natural concrete.

[1:53:50] And this shows the ADU which I guess isn't under your purview today but I

[1:53:54] just thought it was a cool rendering. And this finally at the bottom, we are

[1:53:59] able to get some uh level outdoor space, which I think is extremely valuable um

[1:54:05] on the island, especially on a site that slopes this steeply.

[1:54:10] And this is the last view. Um and so the I hope that this presentation tells the

[1:54:16] story of how we started and how we ended up here. And if we have some more time,

[1:54:21] I think John's ready to talk about the landscape.

[1:54:25] just

[1:54:29] » um David, the drive where the driveway is, um when you're coming from the south

[1:54:36] on Belvadier Avenue, you are able to turn right and go in without coming from

[1:54:40] the other direction. >> Correct.

[1:54:42] » Okay. And one more question. Um on the um cubic yards, it's about Well, the

[1:54:50] demolition is about 50 cubic yards. And does that mean when you say you have the

[1:54:56] truck is 10 cubic yards per truck? >> Yeah, those small trucks. So

[1:55:01] » that's a small truck. >> Yeah, I think that's the maximum allowed

[1:55:04] by the ordinance. I'm not sure. >> So that would be um five trips for that.

[1:55:09] But then on the other cubic yards, it's about 775

[1:55:14] is the difference. Are you able to use any of that more? Um

[1:55:20] that's a lot of truck. Yeah, I mean obviously we can look into it further

[1:55:24] and detail it. Those figures came from the civil engineering that was done nine

[1:55:28] years ago. Um it's something that we we definitely want to use as much as

[1:55:33] possible on site >> because I know you have to you have to

[1:55:37] fill up the road to make it level two. Yeah, there may be

[1:55:41] » um you know we also were trying to decrease the amount of

[1:55:44] » truckloads on the roads and traffic etc. I think one of the this is kind of

[1:55:49] almost the last lot or at least in my opinion and you're on Belair Avenue and

[1:55:54] you know then you start to get into it gets tighter and you get around the

[1:55:57] point. This is before that. So that the one benefit I realize it's a lot of

[1:56:01] trucks is we're closer to um you know Britain and way down.

[1:56:05] » Yes. Five corners. Yes. Um and did you bring your did you bring color samples

[1:56:12] of the concrete and the wood? I I don't have actual physical samples here today.

[1:56:17] It's more of the photographic. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:56:25] » Uh good evening. I'm John Martin with Studio Green Landscape Architects and

[1:56:29] excited to really work on this project. I I never thought it was going to come

[1:56:33] back and you know other house got approved and now this one's back and

[1:56:38] it's fantastic because I really um was excited about it way back when. Uh we

[1:56:44] can go to the next slide which is a site plan.

[1:56:48] Uh wait I guess that's not how about the next slide. We can go back to this.

[1:56:56] Um so this is a plan view site plan. Um you know we we because the house sits

[1:57:03] down and um we really can open up the the front from the street. Um we we feel

[1:57:10] like there's a huge advantage here and a great benefit for the community. Uh you

[1:57:14] know his be previously it was a fence right along the the whole street and you

[1:57:19] really didn't have a view and now it really is opened up. The majority of the

[1:57:23] trees in the center portion of the property are Monterey pines. I believe

[1:57:28] there's one cyprress um which the report recommended removal because of its

[1:57:36] condition but also it's a fire hazard. But in any case uh there and three four

[1:57:42] of the current large Monterey pines that were in the center of the property have

[1:57:46] actually collapsed and fallen down since we did this project

[1:57:50] um some years ago. Uh and I think one even went through the roof of the

[1:57:55] current house. Um and you can you can see them. and they're sitting on the

[1:57:58] ground. Uh the uh as David was saying, how the house is developed in this uh

[1:58:05] layering down into the there is sort of a flatter area um 23 feet below the

[1:58:12] street and that's the opportunity spot to capture some flat space and and also

[1:58:20] for the landscape exterior uses to be associated with the house in a really

[1:58:24] tight and compressed way. So, we really when we do utilize some open space,

[1:58:30] we're we're maximizing the benefit of that um and not stretching out further

[1:58:36] than we have to. So, but we really are trying to also provide for some exterior

[1:58:40] uses.

[1:58:43] As you can see in the slides, I think the the renderings represent the color

[1:58:47] and the feel very well being that it's a warm tones. Um, you know, we're thinking

[1:58:53] of a warm concrete like the buff tones and and and the stone being in in a warm

[1:58:59] gray, very neutral, um, contemporary uh, simple compositions. So, it's not

[1:59:08] complex patterning, more gridlike, very restrained, um, almost like museum

[1:59:14] quality kind of of sense. Also very high quality materials. So, it's it's not um

[1:59:21] there's no compromise in finishes and glass rails and stainless steel and and

[1:59:25] other other finishes that will hold up in this setting.

[1:59:31] the lighting for the exterior has been commented on. Um, and

[1:59:36] [clears throat] you know, we were concerned about I mean, one of the

[1:59:39] things I hear about on every project we ever do is like there wasn't enough

[1:59:42] light, you know, so you know, sometimes we we go a little heavy and uh there's

[1:59:48] areas that we can work on and and and I'll get back to that in a minute, but

[1:59:51] you know, we're looking primarily downwardly oriented for safety, for

[1:59:56] navigation. um there's no up lights, there's no

[1:59:59] drama moments, but still even within that there there's room for maneuvering

[2:00:06] I think. Um as far as the plant pallet goes, we were really focusing on

[2:00:13] evergreen um screening for the neighbors. Uh so having the landscape

[2:00:20] that has some presence uh really mitigating a lot of the any walls or any

[2:00:25] architectural features that you might see from offsite which there isn't much

[2:00:29] because of the way it's positioned. It's positioned really well. Um concern for

[2:00:34] fire resistance, drought tolerance, and also size appropriateness. We we haven't

[2:00:41] planted say things that are going to get um you know 75 feet tall next to you

[2:00:46] know under the eve of the house that kind of thing. I mean it's it's kind of

[2:00:49] scale appropriate and we can jump back to the previous

[2:00:53] slide. Um I did have a conversation with chairman uh or the commissioner lassi

[2:01:01] about the various things. Uh so what what this slide represents is some of

[2:01:09] the areas that we've already now given some thought to in terms of modifying

[2:01:13] this project. So for example in the driveway we've

[2:01:18] taken out every other wall light. Um in the connection from the main house down

[2:01:24] to the ADU we've taken out every other uh in wall light. Uh in the service

[2:01:30] area, we've taken out the uh five of the in wall lights on that retaining wall.

[2:01:35] We did add two pathway lights back because they're just more general light,

[2:01:39] less focused on the staircase because those tend to be have a small pool of

[2:01:44] light. The other one has a little broader.

[2:01:47] We have uh removed the in handrail light system that was incorporated into the

[2:01:52] entire staircase going down to the dock below which obviously from the water

[2:01:57] looking up you had the chance of seeing kind of like a you know kind of a

[2:02:03] disco runway kind of thing going on. So we agree with that and and uh so that's

[2:02:08] gone and and we we but we do want to have enough light that you could at

[2:02:11] least navigate down without a headlamp or flashlight necessarily.

[2:02:16] So, we've we're proposing um this uh the sea uh it's a brand from Hawaii anyway.

[2:02:24] It's very rugged coastal uh product that um it's a 2-in diameter base and and

[2:02:31] it's a downward oriented light. So, it's very small that we can be mounted on the

[2:02:35] post. So, it's very very inconspicuous and it's set on the C bay side. So, the

[2:02:41] post itself would mask the light source from below. So it would be pretty uh uh

[2:02:48] nearly invisible we think. Um >> is that what the is that what the blue

[2:02:52] dots >> correct are? Okay.

[2:02:54] » Correct. So we went to the top towards the top and towards the bottom of each

[2:02:57] landing so that and not in the midspan so that you could at least find the

[2:03:02] first and last step. Then uh then we've added uh five oak trees on the downhill

[2:03:09] slope and we have inserted a tree into the turf area. um next to they're kind

[2:03:15] of separating where the main public parts of the house are to a guest bed

[2:03:20] bedroom courtyard. Um and let's see and then further uh we did explore moving

[2:03:29] the trash enclosure which uh uh you know the the the current house or the the

[2:03:36] previous house had had it up in the street but the by moving it onto the

[2:03:40] property it's quite steep in that location. Uh it turned out in order for

[2:03:45] you to take a can and roll it out to the street, uh that platform would be 10 ft

[2:03:50] above the ground. And so we it would be it would force us to build a slight a

[2:03:54] very elevated structure because then from the property line to the street,

[2:04:00] the you're you're you're getting to be at 8 to 10 feet away from the ground in

[2:04:06] order for that to be a flat transition. So, it was a lot of building uh for

[2:04:11] something that historically has already had a use.

[2:04:14] Um I think that's that's all I have to say for a moment. Thank you. Since we're

[2:04:19] sort of asking questions during your presentation, while you're there, um I

[2:04:23] just wanted to verify or clarify. I think I recall that

[2:04:28] there was screen planting sort of continuous along that wall beneath the

[2:04:35] pool. Um and that like these trees aren't substituting for that. They're an

[2:04:40] in addition. Is that a tree? >> In addition to that.

[2:04:43] » Yeah. >> Uh yeah, this plan

[2:04:46] we did modify it from the previous submitt to include uh taller shrubs at

[2:04:52] the base of that wall and also uh uh further extending in that in the

[2:04:59] direction to the east in order to give more vegetation. And I and I believe we

[2:05:04] incorporated the loris novelis uh shrub the in that area which is a really

[2:05:11] evergreen um takes a lot of sun tough rugged plant.

[2:05:17] » Great. Thank you.

[2:05:22] » I have some questions. >> Thank you for Thank you for doing that.

[2:05:27] I think it'll make a big difference in the property. I don't really want to go

[2:05:31] over every detail because I know on the lighting because I know it can be gone

[2:05:36] over with the chairman and planning, but um thank you for decreasing those, but

[2:05:41] there also is um I think an excess amount of lights on the stairs coming

[2:05:47] down below the driveway and over the barbecue. And so there are a lot of

[2:05:52] different places that the lights I think can be, but I don't want to go over

[2:05:56] every one. I think it can be um gone over um to to decrease that and it's a

[2:06:02] big help that you put the laurel where you put the laurel trees that also will

[2:06:06] give a great screening and thank you for the trees and the hillside that'll make

[2:06:11] you know a huge difference too. I did want to ask you one um the green roofs

[2:06:16] are going to really make the whole project fit into the hillside but I

[2:06:21] didn't know what experience you've had with them. We've had some in Belvadier

[2:06:25] actually farther on Belvadier Avenue where there have been problems where

[2:06:30] they leaked and they actually ended up taking them out. I didn't know what your

[2:06:34] experience with them has been. >> Well, I've installed a design

[2:06:40] maybe a dozen or something. Um we did a project in Ross uh with David and um

[2:06:50] that had I don't know maybe uh thousand square feet or maybe 1,200 square feet

[2:06:54] of of roof and that was primarily uh succulents. uh what we I have learned

[2:07:02] from and observed from other projects that used

[2:07:06] grasses that they didn't come back and perform well at all and the ground dries

[2:07:11] out very very quickly in those especially here with like you'll have

[2:07:15] this constant breeze and southern facing. So uh what we don't want to have

[2:07:20] is plants that um once they dry out they turn brown and or go dormant or

[2:07:25] whatever. So, this would be suitable for more of a coastal succulent kind of

[2:07:31] garden. Uh, and in that we've had good success. In fact, um, Halblivus' house,

[2:07:37] we did a green roof off his bathroom terrace and that was very

[2:07:44] successful. >> Oh, good. And next to the ADU is a is a

[2:07:50] Chinese elm. Correct. >> Correct.

[2:07:53] » Because there's a tree there. Good. I wanted to have a tree. Those those are

[2:07:56] really beautiful. Um so all the addition of the trees you

[2:08:01] made which um you had actually added uh almost 50 30 and so that's that's

[2:08:10] really um I was upset about seeing 60 trees taken out and 14 going in. So I

[2:08:16] think you've remedied some of that. Um >> well I I know because the Monterey pines

[2:08:21] there there's so many of Monterey pines and they're so bad. Yes.

[2:08:26] They're all past their climax. >> Yes.

[2:08:28] » Um so they no matter what they should come out. Yeah. Anyway. Yeah.

[2:08:32] » Yes. And also the lights. I think you you did decrease the ones on the boat

[2:08:35] house. There were quite a few on on that also. And the strip lights. Thank you

[2:08:40] for We are always discouraged something to look like a landing strip.

[2:08:45] » Yeah. >> You may get unwanted visitors if um

[2:08:49] » or disco. And also noted in the staff report was already a condition to

[2:08:55] replace the micro uh night I guess it's called something like

[2:09:00] that and that's already in the staff report in order to do that.

[2:09:06] » Um and I have to say

[2:09:11] many people are very excited about getting that horrible fence out of

[2:09:15] there. [laughter] It's nice to have a goodlook fence.

[2:09:20] We've been looking at that for years and years. So that it's nice to get rid of

[2:09:23] that fence. Um, >> okay. Those are all my questions

[2:09:29] » for you. And you were going to talk about the pool lights too. I think

[2:09:32] » Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh, on slide if if we wanted to go to the uh I think it was

[2:09:39] nine, page nine, slide nine, it it shows a section cut through the property. Um,

[2:09:46] the sheet A4.2 two on David's package. The the the the

[2:09:54] conversation about the pool uh is that we placed the lights on the house side

[2:10:00] such that if you walk to the edge of the deck and you look down at the pool, you

[2:10:05] wouldn't see the individual lights in your eyes. So, you would only see

[2:10:09] reflection. So, then the concern would be if that's the case, then what about

[2:10:14] light pollution going out? Well, in this instance, from the bay or from uh the

[2:10:20] adjoining properties, they're slightly below and there's no possibility to be

[2:10:26] able to see the pool whatsoever. And they looking at it from the other

[2:10:30] direction. The the street uh is entire the street

[2:10:36] view is entirely blocked by the whole house. So there's no possibility that

[2:10:41] that any part of this swimming pool could be seen off off the property.

[2:10:47] So therefore, a glow for the water um while visible from inside the

[2:10:54] property is not visible from anywhere off the property.

[2:11:00] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:11:08] Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple questions. I want to focus around

[2:11:11] the um revocable license area and um for either of you. Um one is the uh the

[2:11:18] garbage area. Um you know, I've read through the policy

[2:11:24] for revocable license and it it's um it's discouraging things like the

[2:11:28] garbage enclosure. I know that uh John Mertin talked a bit to how difficult it

[2:11:33] would be to build a structure up there, but just want to see if if you would

[2:11:37] consider other locations for >> Well, we definitely consider it. Well,

[2:11:41] my question about the revocable license, though, I mean, I have the copy of the

[2:11:45] recorded one. Wouldn't it have been um issued on the on the approval that we

[2:11:52] got before or did the did the project after ours into 2023 did it supersede

[2:11:59] what we because I think they had a garbage can

[2:12:02] closure >> there was a garbage garbage in the

[2:12:06] previous project and it's been recorded but if we go in for a new revocable

[2:12:11] license then previous RLS become null and void okay

[2:12:14] » so the garbage enclosure.

[2:12:19] » Well, we have a we have we have a little >> It doesn't sound like there's an

[2:12:22] enclosure in this one, though. It's just a fence and then it's to screen the

[2:12:26] garbage can. So, we didn't really call it a garbage enclosure. It doesn't have

[2:12:30] sides, doesn't have doors, it doesn't have a lid.

[2:12:34] » Yeah, but I >> Yeah, I I I mean, I think we should look

[2:12:38] at this to see what the current revol I don't know. Or do you think that that

[2:12:43] the city council would wouldn't

[2:12:47] You know, I don't know. It's just that it's just that if we move the the

[2:12:51] garbage enclosure down into the property, the the slope is so steep it's

[2:12:56] not practical. >> Um Okay. And then

[2:13:00] » and the other and the other benefit, by the way, and I don't know how much value

[2:13:04] this has, but when we moved the the when we built the new fence and we moved it

[2:13:08] onto the property, it revealed where 125 Belvadier has some utility hookups and

[2:13:14] stuff. Now, if we keep our our garbage screening where we want it, we screen

[2:13:19] all of that utility. And so, what happens is I think it's a benefit

[2:13:23] because we're also widening Belvar Avenue so much. It's kind of a averaging

[2:13:29] where you're you I think you're getting more and it's a better design if we keep

[2:13:33] the garbage where we where we propose it.

[2:13:36] » Okay. Um and then I wanted to ask too about the fence that's proposed up at

[2:13:41] the street level. Um I understand that the purpose of the fence is for public

[2:13:46] safety and I think it's super it's very important because of the uh drop off

[2:13:49] there. I just wonder uh the the fence uh it

[2:13:54] appears from grade level at the street it's about four and a half feet high. I

[2:13:59] wonder if it needs to be that high to provide public safety. Um it seems a

[2:14:04] little high. >> Is it six feet off?

[2:14:06] » It's six feet from where the grade is where it's built and then but the

[2:14:10] section shows uh from the street level it's about about four and a half ft

[2:14:14] high. I I just don't know if it needs to be that high. Um,

[2:14:18] » I wish I included that graphic we had. We had I mean because the property line

[2:14:23] is >> Can you get closer to the mic?

[2:14:26] » I think the property line's about seven or eight feet off the edge of the road

[2:14:30] down slope. >> When you have this sixoot fence, we were

[2:14:36] » down well, you could easily see over the top and with the 4ft vegetation would it

[2:14:43] would nearly seem as though it wasn't there. But the the design of it

[2:14:48] and and then this is something that we have to work on probably a little bit.

[2:14:52] But is that the base of that would be very stout like there's a there's a

[2:14:56] plate and then we have these pickets that rise up

[2:14:59] » and the the intention is that if a vehicle were to you know edge off the

[2:15:04] edge of the road they couldn't make it >> past that that barrier.

[2:15:10] Um, this was a a just kind of a sketch study

[2:15:15] looking at moving a trash enclosure off the rightway and in onto the property

[2:15:23] entirely. And what I was pointing out is that the contour line,

[2:15:30] say the midpoint contour line is around 130 and we're at 138.5. So it's 8 and

[2:15:37] 1/2 on average 8 and 1/2 ft up in the air and and and so that and in order for

[2:15:43] you to then be able to roll a can not going up or down stairs or up a ramp

[2:15:49] more or less across and put it in the street for pickup. And so uh it seems

[2:15:56] like a lot of construction. It's it's making a lot of construction right

[2:16:01] there. Um, and so then since we already had the revocable license, we were

[2:16:05] hoping that we wouldn't have to build so much in that particular location.

[2:16:12] » Okay. And then and then to follow up too about the the fence, I you know,

[2:16:16] » the height of the fence, it's a sixoot fence and it's the you know, it's the

[2:16:21] fin style metal pickets and I suppose it could be a five foot fence or something

[2:16:25] in that ballpark, but I would want you would want it to be a certain height.

[2:16:29] » Yes. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. No. And I I was, you know, in prepare preparing for

[2:16:33] this, I was looking around, you know, like guardrails on the freeway, which

[2:16:36] keep cars from going over. They're at about 3 ft high, but um I uh I you know,

[2:16:44] I was imagining cars at night coming around the curve. You you want

[2:16:47] definitely want a visual barrier. Um so I'm not saying the fence has to be from

[2:16:52] street level 3t high, but I don't think I don't know that it needs to be four

[2:16:55] and a half ft high. It's pretty tall. I mean, it's probably about this height

[2:16:59] here. And the my my only point is with the uh revocable license requirements is

[2:17:05] that there's an intent to really not have public land look appear to be

[2:17:10] privatized by things like fences or >> well this particular part of the fence

[2:17:14] is on the property line because the retaining wall for the driveways on the

[2:17:17] property line. So this fence would sit on top of the that's why it's this

[2:17:21] style. So the retainable curves and so these

[2:17:26] elements so it's really not in in the city property

[2:17:30] » um is it portion of the revocable license for the fence

[2:17:33] » for the wooden fence by the trashing >> okay

[2:17:37] » yeah the uh the vertical kind of picket style fence is entirely on the property.

[2:17:43] Okay. Thanks. Thanks. >> Um, and the the plan is to to screen the

[2:17:49] fence with uh with vegetation as well. Correct.

[2:17:53] » I don't I don't think my intention was to screen the fence in in particular,

[2:17:59] but to have vegetation in the front, more for aesthetic uh purposes. I I

[2:18:04] didn't think that the that I thought the fence would be attractive and it's it's

[2:18:10] sort of a definition of space. So, Um, I I didn't think that that was the

[2:18:16] purpose.

[2:18:30] » Did you Did you have any additional questions?

[2:18:35] » Just had some questions about the amount of glass on the on the back of the of

[2:18:41] the house. Um, I I know that this is, you know, the

[2:18:48] the glass and then the inter and the interior lights are not necessarily

[2:18:52] going to be seen by other other members of the Belvadier community, but I just I

[2:18:57] want I guess I want I want to ask like is is

[2:19:01] this house going to be a a giant shining beacon for the people of Salo?

[2:19:08] Well, what we what we've done is we've introduced, you know, wood lettuce

[2:19:12] screening on portions of the glass actually quite a bit. Um, and the other

[2:19:18] thing I was considering I'm we'd use [clears throat] it in Lake

[2:19:21] Tahoe is non-reflective glass, which might be a consideration.

[2:19:29] » [clears throat] >> Yeah, I think that would probably be be

[2:19:32] good just for for the folks out out on the water and for our slightly farther

[2:19:37] away neighbors.

[2:19:50] [snorts] >> All right.

[2:19:54] No further questions from planning commission. Um, would anyone in the

[2:19:58] audience like to make a comment? Please come forward.

[2:20:04] [clears throat]

[2:20:07] » Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Steve Silverstein. I live at two at

[2:20:12] one cliff road. I'm a 30-year resident of Belvadier, and I have walked by this

[2:20:18] street uh hundreds or thousands of times. in them. I am one of the people

[2:20:23] who is really excited that that fence has come down. Uh it's just like a whole

[2:20:30] new world here. Like we u I really appreciate the people behind this of

[2:20:37] moving the fence away from the street down [clears throat] uh down the hill.

[2:20:42] The top of the fence is below the street level. They did that for about three

[2:20:49] quarters of the fence and then one quarter of it they did it the way the

[2:20:54] old fence is as it's closer to the street and it's it's that old uh tunnel

[2:21:00] effect. So you almost have the before and the after still still there.

[2:21:06] I hope that uh in all our deliberations here that we make a condition that the

[2:21:11] top of the fence be below the street level. So, I don't care if the fence is

[2:21:17] four feet, five feet, six feet, seven feet, just so long as the top of it is

[2:21:22] below the street level. I think they uh submitted a uh in the architectural uh

[2:21:28] uh things that were submitted to the city, there's a shot here. It's in the

[2:21:33] lower right hand corner. you see a couple of uh people walking or running

[2:21:38] along the uh along the street and you can see that the there's no you can see

[2:21:43] the the garbage uh container over in the back but for the whole front of the

[2:21:49] property there's no the fence is below the street level. So, I hope that that's

[2:21:54] what uh is in the plans all the way up to the uh to the the driveway which is

[2:22:00] on the the left side as uh as we know there. So, that that will be a great

[2:22:05] improvement. And I was so super pleased to hear that the roof is going to be

[2:22:09] green because you're going to look down on top of the roof and you're going to

[2:22:13] see some nice uh uh plants there. It it's going to be really uh really

[2:22:18] beautiful with that. So, I I commend this is like our fourth time on this uh

[2:22:24] thing here uh that this one gets done and it gets done this way and we'll all

[2:22:30] be grateful for it. So, just make sure that that happens. Thank you.

[2:22:37] » Thank you. Is there anyone else present that in the

[2:22:43] room that would like to speak here?

[2:22:48] Any hands raised on Zoom? >> No hands raised.

[2:22:52] » Okay. Um I I wonder um regarding the last comment if I could have the

[2:23:00] applicant uh come forward and just talk about this idea that the top of the

[2:23:06] fence should be below street level. What what would be involved in that? Is that

[2:23:10] possible? Um >> I don't I I don't have

[2:23:16] We'd have to Well, there's a vertical drop and it so it has to be 42 inches

[2:23:20] above. Um [clears throat] so I don't know if that how that relates to street

[2:23:24] level, >> right?

[2:23:25] » But it has to be 42 in um minimum. >> Correct.

[2:23:29] » Yeah. And so right now >> so I I sort of know and this question

[2:23:34] can't perhaps cannot be answered because >> right now it's 72 in. It has to be 42.

[2:23:39] Yeah. Yeah. >> And it could be somewhere between 72 and

[2:23:42] 42. And the other thing I'd like to point out is the only reason that that

[2:23:45] existing part is still where it was before is a practical matter. And when

[2:23:50] the new fence is in, that is totally gone and we're back to that line that

[2:23:54] continues. >> The excuse me, but the the new the fence

[2:23:58] is metal, isn't it? The new fence that you can see through,

[2:24:00] » right? >> So it doesn't really

[2:24:03] » block off any So if you're walking by, you can see through it also. and and

[2:24:07] since it's curved in the way it's designed, it sort of changes as you move

[2:24:10] through the space. So that's why, you know, John was saying it's an

[2:24:13] architectural element. The planting is sort of a base or foreground in front of

[2:24:17] this architectural >> element.

[2:24:20] Okay. >> Thank you.

[2:24:23] I do think it's important >> you don't see the fence

[2:24:35] » in the picture that they submitted. You don't see the fence. Okay. The top of

[2:24:40] the fence is below the street level, right? It's not a problem.

[2:24:46] Okay. That's what they submitted. The site is vertical enough [clears throat]

[2:24:52] to do it. So, let's just do it.

[2:25:03] » Um, did you did you have something to say?

[2:25:10] I the the concern I I I I can't answer this question because I don't I didn't

[2:25:16] memorize the the grade location relative to the street and perhaps as we get

[2:25:23] where the metal picket meets a wooden fence. There could be a zone in there

[2:25:28] where even 42 is higher than the street level. It's it's likely. Um certainly

[2:25:33] not where the vehicle gate is. We we know it descends down some distance.

[2:25:38] were already going down the driveway. So, this fence does [clears throat] have

[2:25:42] both a curve and a downward suite as you come around. Uh, so, but I I can't

[2:25:50] answer the question technically, but I also would like that fence to look kind

[2:25:56] of beautiful from above and below. In other words, having a gradation that is

[2:26:02] uniform. But I I our our in we have no benefit for seeing the fence. So, you

[2:26:09] know. >> Okay.

[2:26:10] » That's good. Thank you. I'm just trying to get the picture here.

[2:26:19] » Um if nobody here has any further comments, I'll close the public hearing

[2:26:25] and bring it back to the commission for discussion.

[2:26:31] Um, Commissioner Laskkey, would you like to begin the discussion, please?

[2:26:37] » Um, this is actually, as you mentioned in the audience, um, this is the third

[2:26:42] time that I have looked at a project for, um, this site, so I think that I

[2:26:48] would be thrilled to see um, a house built there. Um, and also, um, it really

[2:26:54] does this where you're sighting the house below the hillside and also with

[2:26:59] the green roofs really makes it fit in to the terrain and disappear basically.

[2:27:06] And it's wonderful to be able to walk along now and look over the fence and

[2:27:12] where the stray poles are, you can look over. So that's where the house um is

[2:27:17] going to be. Um,

[2:27:24] and the other advantage of having the garage below the road is you're not

[2:27:28] looking at garages. And it's very attractive to have the garage below the

[2:27:33] road. So, we're not looking at a garage sitting um on the road.

[2:27:41] It doesn't the hum does not draw attention to itself at all because it's

[2:27:46] below the road. and the screening that are on both um of the property lines

[2:27:53] give privacy. Um and I like the fact that um the landscape architect added

[2:27:59] some pod carpus on the road that also will give some green and some some tree

[2:28:06] and shade there. Um it will break up the view a little bit. Um the wood and the

[2:28:13] materials I think are really beautiful. the wood louvers

[2:28:17] um that were added actually to some of the windows. So that would screen some

[2:28:23] of the light and the windows that you would look at from Salelo and or from um

[2:28:29] the water. It softens the house. So I can make the findings for design review.

[2:28:35] I would have liked to have seen the colors of the materials tonight,

[2:28:40] especially the cement. Maybe to be sure that the cement is not too

[2:28:46] um white. I think the color was a um um can't remember now it was a buff but

[2:28:55] to be sure that it's not you know white um

[2:29:02] and I can make the findings for demolition there are no hysterical not

[2:29:06] hysterical but historical architect maybe hysterical too. um significance.

[2:29:12] Um it's really great to clean, you know, clean up the lots. I am concerned about

[2:29:18] the truckloads. So that's something I think the city can look at. Yeah, it's

[2:29:23] called buff or something. The concrete, [clears throat] I think.

[2:29:28] Um I can make the findings also for the revocable license. I I don't know.

[2:29:36] [clears throat] I was asking whether there is an

[2:29:38] existing one because I didn't know whether you could just add a new one for

[2:29:44] the parts that aren't included in the old one. I don't know um how that how

[2:29:50] how that you could do that. But [clears throat] um it is practical to

[2:29:55] have the garbage container there. Um, so I that that really is is an ease and

[2:30:02] that doesn't really bother me. Um, and you are increasing the space of the

[2:30:08] road by seven feet 9 in which is um actually a great advantage to give more

[2:30:17] parking. And so that is um um really a public uh favor to add more parking and

[2:30:27] increase the size of the road. Otherwise, you know, it kind of drops

[2:30:30] off there. Um [snorts]

[2:30:35] yeah, and having the metal fence see-through, I think, is an advantage,

[2:30:39] too, because it gives air and um doesn't close off the whole property.

[2:30:47] Um I can make the uh findings also for the exception to floor area. Um this lot

[2:30:54] is three times the size of a normal lot size. The primary views are not impacted

[2:31:02] from adjoining properties and it will also not reduce privacy um in adjoining

[2:31:08] properties. It's and the way the house is set on the on the hillside, it really

[2:31:15] sits into the slope which decreases the mass and bulk of it. Um, and in the

[2:31:22] years after it'll be completed, it certainly will improve the views uh from

[2:31:28] the street. And the new landscape screening also um

[2:31:33] is good for the neighbors and good for the um uh neighborhood all around.

[2:31:40] I do I I would like to add also a condition for tree protection because

[2:31:46] there are some trees that need to be protected during the construction. some

[2:31:50] of the old oak trees. And actually, I I actually forgot to mention to John, but

[2:31:55] I can give the city there are three or four trees um I have the numbers of that

[2:32:01] look like things can be adjusted by a foot or two and you could keep these oak

[2:32:07] trees. So, um they are um [clears throat]

[2:32:14] number 28 and number 30. One's near a boat house and one's near the ADU. But

[2:32:21] it would be good to take a look at some of these large oak trees that you are

[2:32:25] taking out. And sometimes it just means a difference of a foot on the building

[2:32:32] to be able to keep um some trees and that should be looked at.

[2:32:52] Those are my comments. Thank you. [clears throat]

[2:32:57] » Thanks. Um, Commissioner Wilson, please. >> Yeah, thank you.

[2:33:04] » [snorts] >> Um I just wanted to say that um I also

[2:33:07] can make the design review findings for this project um

[2:33:12] uh with the changes with the lighting that are proposed and um you know the

[2:33:16] mention of the glazing that will be non-reflective. I think that will be

[2:33:20] very helpful. Um the project is compatible with the the surroundings. Um

[2:33:26] and then as far as the demolition permit I can also make the findings for that.

[2:33:31] um you the demolition of what's on the site will not be detrimental to the

[2:33:35] city. Um as far as adopting the resolution for the exception to total

[2:33:40] floor area, um I also agree with the previous commissioner's findings um that

[2:33:46] uh primary views are protected. Uh privacy as well is not impacted and the

[2:33:50] views from the street are also protected. And finally, for the

[2:33:54] revocable license, uh, I would like to know if I would like the applicant to

[2:34:00] consider moving um the garbage off out of the revocable license request. I'm

[2:34:06] not I don't want to make it a condition of approval. Um, but on balance, I do

[2:34:10] think that the um uh the amenities that are being provided with the project uh

[2:34:16] support avocable license as well. Thank you,

[2:34:22] » Commissioner Watson, please. >> Thanks. Um, I too think that this this

[2:34:27] this project um even even if it wasn't replacing what is currently a coyote

[2:34:33] habitat would be a great benefit to our uh to our community and to our island.

[2:34:38] Um I um I also walk walk past this uh this lot all the all the time as I live

[2:34:44] on that side of the island and really appreciate the the opening up of the

[2:34:49] view already. Um it's uh it's very nice to see something that you didn't know

[2:34:54] you were going to get. Um you know and especially since it's a f it's a

[2:34:58] fantastic view. Um um I can make I can make the findings clearly clearly for

[2:35:05] clearly for demol for uh for for the for the dem for the demolition. Um and also

[2:35:10] for the exception to total total floor area. Um, as the other commissioners

[2:35:15] already pointed out, uh, until very recently, this was actually three lots.

[2:35:20] And, um, if you assume that it is still still three lots, it actually would

[2:35:26] wouldn't have need wouldn't have needed a an exception to total floor area. Um

[2:35:31] and also the way that the way that it's uh it's cited as um does provide privacy

[2:35:38] a and a sort of a a green look as well as well as providing views for the

[2:35:44] community. Um I also appreciate uh the addition of the ADU and the Jedu so that

[2:35:50] there are still three housing units that are on that are on this this uh this

[2:35:54] this this property. Um, I can also make the findings for the

[2:35:59] revocable license, um, including the garbage enclosure. Um, as it looks as

[2:36:06] though they're that it will have like the lowest height practicable for for

[2:36:11] actually hiding the hiding the garbage. Um,

[2:36:16] my 16-year-old son is supposed to be the one to take the garbage out up our

[2:36:20] steep, you know, fairly steep driveway. He does not. It is me. And so I I will I

[2:36:25] I understand just what a pain it is to haul garbage around. Um and then um I

[2:36:34] appreciate uh Commissioner Lask's um proposal of reviewing plans for the

[2:36:40] protection of of trees number 28 and and and 30. Um, one of the only things that

[2:36:46] I didn't like about this plan was the the number of large old trees that are

[2:36:51] being removed. Even though I understand that a number of them um are both

[2:36:57] damaged, disease, past their prime, and should be should be removed for fire

[2:37:01] purposes and also uh within within the floor plan of the of the proposed house.

[2:37:07] Um I would like to condition uh the approval on uh for the um for the design

[2:37:16] review on the reduction of the out of the outside lighting um as you already

[2:37:21] dis discussed this evening um as well as the protection of the existing and rema

[2:37:28] and remaining large trees during uh during construction. This is something

[2:37:32] that we've provided on a number of uh of new of new house builds. Um and also on

[2:37:38] having non-reflective glass on the on the large large panel large panels of

[2:37:42] panels of glass um on the on the house. Um and then the approval of the final

[2:37:50] lighting lighting plan by [clears throat]

[2:37:52] the um by the chair and the

[2:37:56] » lighting and landscape. >> Yes, lighting and landscape. Thank you.

[2:38:06] Uh so I uh I will echo um my fellow commissioners um feelings about this.

[2:38:13] I'll try not to be too redundant, but just highlight a couple of um things

[2:38:18] that I observed. Um it was pretty interesting um upon visiting the site to

[2:38:25] see the way the story poles situate themselves in the site. um and also the

[2:38:31] the distance and the existing vegetation that's going to be between this rather

[2:38:38] large house and the adjacent neighbors. So, um I I very much appreciate the the

[2:38:46] way the building has been designed and situated into the site. I think the

[2:38:50] colors and materials are good. I also think it's hard to design a really

[2:38:55] attractive very large house. I guess that's speaking from, you know, as an

[2:38:59] architect. It's not an easy job and I I think that um a very good job has has

[2:39:05] been done here. So, I'll be able to make the findings for design review. Um I'll

[2:39:11] also be able to make findings for demolition.

[2:39:15] Um, again, in terms of um floor area exemption, um, the things I just

[2:39:21] referenced, the way the house relates to its lot, its neighbors, vegetation, um,

[2:39:29] all good. So, I can make the findings for additional floor area. Um, and I'll

[2:39:36] be able to make findings for revocable license. Um I um appreciate Commissioner

[2:39:43] Lasky's um input to the applicant on trees. I also had a concern about um the

[2:39:51] number of trees being removed. Um I don't think we're looking for a onetoone

[2:39:56] replacement at this point, but I do think the additional landscape

[2:40:00] improvements that you've described are are good. Um I also u want to say to the

[2:40:08] neighbor who's interested in the fence height, I think that can be subject of

[2:40:13] of review. Um which will landscape and lighting and fencing will come back to

[2:40:21] me. So at that time I'm going to try to keep your comments in mind and see what

[2:40:26] we can do and just urge you to do what you can to keep the fence as as minimal

[2:40:32] as it can be. Having said that, I like the idea of what the fence design is

[2:40:36] with the the see-through slats. So, I think we'll end up at a good

[2:40:42] solution at the end of the day. And I appreciate your comments.

[2:40:47] So, um, with that, I think we're ready to get

[2:40:52] some motions on the floor and some conditions of approval. Anyone want to

[2:40:57] take a shot at that?

[2:41:06] So, I'm going to go a little bit out of order, just the easy ones first. Um, I'd

[2:41:11] like to propose a propose a motion to adopt a resolution granting a demolition

[2:41:16] permit to demolish the existing 3,764 ft single family dwelling unit at 135

[2:41:25] Belvadier Avenue. I'll second the motion.

[2:41:30] All in favor? >> I I

[2:41:33] » All right. Um I'd like to propose a propose a motion to adopt a resolution

[2:41:38] granting an exception to total floor area to allow an 11,223

[2:41:44] square ft house where a 4,850

[2:41:49] square ft uh house is permitted at number 135 Belvadier Avenue.

[2:41:55] » Second. >> All in favor? I

[2:41:59] » I >> um for the revocable uh license, this is

[2:42:04] just a recommendation. Um so I'd like to propose a motion to recommend the city

[2:42:09] council approval of the revocable license for the private improvements

[2:42:13] located in the Belvadier Avenue right ofway at 135 Belvadier Avenue.

[2:42:19] » Second. >> All in favor?

[2:42:22] » I I >> All right. Um, and now for the motion

[2:42:27] for design review. Um, I would like to propose a motion

[2:42:31] adopting a resolution granting design review to construct a new single family

[2:42:35] residence and attached garage number 135 Belvadier Avenue with the following

[2:42:41] conditions. Number one is that the staff and chair Sidell um approve the

[2:42:47] landscape and lighting and lighting plan uh for the house prior to the uh

[2:42:54] building permit. Number two, to provide uh protection to

[2:43:01] we'll call it the the old and larger trees dur during during construction and

[2:43:06] also to review the tree plan uh as to whether or not trees number 28 and 30

[2:43:12] couldn't be kept.

[2:43:16] And then number three is um to have non-reflective glass on the

[2:43:22] large panels of glass on the upper story of the back of the house. How does that

[2:43:28] sound?

[2:43:34] » Good. All right. I'll second. >> We're not I don't think we're finished

[2:43:39] yet, are we? >> That was that I only had one, two,

[2:43:41] three. >> Oh. Um

[2:43:43] » what are we missing? Do we need to um say something about that light fixture

[2:43:48] that needs to be changed out? >> Um I thought that was going to be under

[2:43:51] the lighting plan. >> Oh, it can't. That's fine. Okay, then I

[2:43:56] can cross that off my list. So So that's the So we have a complete motion.

[2:44:05] » I'll second the motion. >> All in favor? Hi.

[2:44:09] » Hi.

[2:44:21] » Okay. Uh, thank you everyone. I'll now adjourn the meeting.

Planning Commission Meeting: July 21, 2026

Agenda

Transcript