Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I now call to order the regular meeting of the Belvedere planning commission. Item one is open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the planning commission on any matter that does not appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak during open forum? Rebecca, is there anyone on Zoom with hand raised?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you. Reports? Are there any commissioners who would like to provide a report? Okay, does staff have any reports?

I just have a quick report that the County of Marin is hosting a planning commissioner's training and that we are hopeful that all of the planning commissioners can either send me an email or vote through that poll that I sent to you guys to choose a date. It is from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., And I think as of right now, they have more votes for the June 1st date. But if you'd like to get your votes in, it would be helpful for them, the organizers of that event. Thank you.

Thank you. I voted today.

And Rebecca, I responded directly to you. I don't think I voted, but was that adequate?

Yes, I let them know. Yeah, you can respond directly to me too. Okay. Thank you.

Now consent calendar, the consent calendar consists of items considered to be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council staff or public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence they appear on the agenda. Would any member of the planning commission like to remove a consent calendar item? Okay, would any member of the public like to remove the consent calendar item? Rebecca, do you see anything on Zoom?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you.

I move to adopt this consent calendar.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing. If any of the commissioners had ex parte contacts, please disclose those contacts on the record when it's your turn to speak on any item. I will now open the public hearing on item two, design review and exception to total floor area to construct a 332 square foot addition at 340 Beach Road. Can we have the staff report, please?

Just before that, sorry. I just texted Commissioner Wilson, and she thought it was 6.30, so she is on her way. Okay.

Do you want us to wait with the presentation on 3.40?

I think we can go ahead, and she can catch up once she gets here. Okay.

City Council Chambers and Members of the Planning Commission for your consideration this evening is an application for design review and exception to total floor area for an addition remodel and second story deck replacement at 340 beach road. The site consists of a 9,300 square foot parcel on the southeastern side of Belvedere Island. The site is developed with three-story residence and detached garage. The parcel is surrounded by single family homes to the north, south, and west, and Belvedere Cove to the east. The residence is located atop an approximately 44% slope. The proposed work is primarily at the first story of the residence. The project proposes a 193 square foot addition at the rear, as well as a 23 square foot addition on the eastern elevation. The project would enclose the 116 square foot covered deck at the first story as well. The 116 square feet count towards existing floor area as it has a floor roof and is supported by columns. The architect's renderings here show the area of improvements. The left side of the images show where the 193 square foot addition will be located. And here on the right side, the 116 square foot covered patio that would be enclosed with new windows. For the commission's consideration, a portion of the existing second story deck and covered patio encroach into the 20 foot rear yard setback. In 1979, the city council approved a variance allowing the deck within the setback. Because the covered patio is considered existing floor area and no expansion of the structure is proposed, a new variance is not required to enclose the patio within this rear yard setback. From the rear elevation, a series of new eight foot tall, eight foot, two inch tall windows are proposed. No windows or door alterations are proposed on the second or third stories. Here on the left side, a new window is proposed as well. And at the right side yard windows at the first story will be slightly larger than the existing. Two exterior light fixtures are included at this side as well. The addition would have new vertical wood siding, metal windows and doors in a dark gray color. And then the two wall sconces will be shielded in a fixed downward position. The applicant proposes a sauna and cold plunge in the side yard as well. The architect provided additional detail about the cold plunge, which is 23 inches tall, 67 inches long, and weighs 110 pounds when empty. Because the cold plunge is not considered a structure per our municipal code, it can be located in the side yard setback. CoB, Jay Sugnetthil, The applicant request an exception of total for area to allow 4133 square feet, where the maximum allowed is 3094. CoB, Jay Sugnetthil, The request is a 216 square foot increase from the existing for area which was approved in 2012. CoB, Gerrit Slattern, In order to grant the exception, the planning Commission must make the following findings, these include that primary views will not be significantly impaired. CoB, Gerrit Slattern, That there are unusual characteristics to the parcel which minimize the floor area that the structure is appropriate and mass and bulk and that the additional square footage would not reduce privacy on adjoining properties. Staff recommends that all findings can be made. The primary views will not be impaired from the adjacent properties. 340 is upslope from its north and south neighbors, and then the uphill neighbors and pedestrians along Beach Road will not be impaired as the addition is constructed downslope beneath the residence. Unusual characteristics include the site's steep slope, surrounding vegetation, and the structure's location. The addition is well below the neighbors to the west and above neighbors to the north and south. The steep slope of the site allows the architect to tuck the addition below the existing footprint without significantly altering or enlarging the residences appearance. Additionally, the surrounding vegetation act as a privacy screening further minimizing the floor area impact. Finally, the addition is appropriate in mass bulk and character for the parcel. The maximum height of the structure will not increase or extend beyond the footprint of the existing structure. Staff has received two letters in support of the project from both side yard neighbors. The project is exempt from CEQA. And in conclusion, staff recommends that all the design review findings can be made as well as the exception of total floor area. And we're happy to answer any questions.

Do any commissioners have questions of staff on this item?

I do. Sami, you mentioned about the cold plunge, but what about the sauna? The sauna is usually taller than cold plunge. It has a mask. How does the planning basically, what's the rules about having a sauna, which is a structure?

Thank you for that question. My understanding when talking to the architect that they would remove the sauna from the scope of work. Generally, if the sauna has, if it's taller than six feet or taller, it counts towards floor area. So for that reason, in light of putting more floor air, they decided to remove it from the scope of work.

Thank you, Sammy. I had a question. Do you know what the floor areas are of the immediate next door neighbors to this parcel?

Not off the top of my head, but I can find that out for you.

Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation, please?

You can run it from there if you'd like. I can share slides as well.

It looks like Michael Fishman.

Yes, they've raised their hands. Yes, hi. Hi, how are you? You're sideways.

Hi, are we upside down, it looks like?

Yeah, let's go. Is that better? There you go. That's better. Okay.

Our apologies that we cannot be there in person today. I'm Annie. This is Michael. We are the residents at 340 Beach. We live there full time with our two little boys, ages three and seven. Our older boy is already at Reed and our younger boy will be at Reed next year. We've now been in the area for two years and absolutely love it, have engaged in the community, have built community and really enjoy being members and residents of Belvedere.

Couldn't have said it better. Thank you guys. Appreciate the time and the interest.

Okay, thank you, Michael and Annie. My name is Cedric Panger. I'm the architect of Michael and Annie Fishman. Thank you, commissioners and chair, and thank you to the planning staff for their assistance getting us here this evening. I think Sami's presentation was thorough and informative, covered the majority of the, of the issues at hand. If Sammy, did you want to share the PDF? Really the, the, The main thing to point out as we go to the lower floor plan, which is the only floor plan of any work, is that we have three areas of addition. We found out in the middle of the process that Sammy confirmed that we don't have The 116 square foot deck that's off of the existing laundry room does not count, or it currently already counts towards lot coverage and FAR. So, sorry, catching up here. I can drive as much as you here on this, Sammy. All right, why don't we go to a 2.1. So as I think one more. It's page seven. One more, eight. So really the genesis of the whole project, as you guys all came and visited this site, obviously it's an extremely steep slope site. The lower floor, I don't know much about the previous owners, but it was certainly laid out for people I'm guessing probably a couple because it has an exceedingly large primary suite that takes up probably 75% of the floor. And then one small bedroom that is currently the bedroom that the boys are sharing. So the owners, obviously, with three and seven-year-old boys, they will be growing. And they wanted to get them each a bedroom. Saw that opportunity of that deck. and said, well, that seems so easy to enclose. Let's do that and give two bedrooms. So we've been working on developing the plan. We kind of came up with an office gym space in between the two, the boys' bedrooms and the primary. And essentially, the primary bathroom is in the same location as the existing. We're just kind of extending out to bear on the same pilings that are existing, creating that extra 193 square feet at the rear yard, the downhill side, to create the primary bedroom. Everything's kind of cleaned up and a little more efficient. As Sammy mentioned, the patio area off of the primary bathroom was really intended as a, we were looking to give it some purpose and thought it sauna and cold plunge would be great. And I didn't, I was not aware that sauna, which I think we had intended as kind of a kit sauna from, you know, a vendor online as opposed to a permanent structure. But hearing that that would count towards FAR and LART coverage, we are willing to pull that out. So I'm happy to have that be a condition of approval. You know, really the, Sammy, do you want to go to the Just the renderings. That's page. Actually, we'll stick to that elevation. The side elevation, so we did reach out to both neighbors as you all saw in the site visits. It's really, it's an extreme enough slope that even though we are increasing the glass on the side, it's kind of a special circumstance that we're really nobody is affected. I think as far as the findings go, primary views are really not impacted from any of the neighbors, given the 45 degree slope. Unusual characteristics are certainly that same 45 degree slope. For proposed structure, is really not changing in mass and bulk. We're just infilling on two ends of an existing mass, all bearing on the same foundation. And certainly not an area that will impact any neighboring views or privacy, given the location under the deck. really only as you go down Beach Road, it really is only visible, only the garages and the entry is visible. You could, I suppose, argue that it's visible from the water, which it is, but Sammy, do you wanna go to the renderings perhaps? Or maybe just go up one to page nine, And so the downhill, so this is the rear yard elevation. No materials are changing. We're matching the redwood siding that's existing. We are shifting to dark anodized, which read as black windows on this floor because we realized going to match the existing which is what used to be dark Canada, which is more of a brown. So really the intent is just to match the existing. We're going to be replacing the decking because we're redoing the waterproofing over the new areas, but it will remain a wood deck and we will reuse the steel and glass railing that's existing. I think... I'll just mention that since these are all bedrooms, we do plan to have shades in all these rooms to create a blackout situation for sleeping and sun protection for furniture and whatnot. And I think that about covers it. I'm open to questions if you have them.

Questions?

Thanks, Cedric. I know we talked about it yesterday. I guess that was the that there's off to the I guess it would be the south east corner of the of the property. Is that kind of freestanding about deck that's about, you know, 25 square feet doesn't show up on the plans. You know, as I mentioned, it's you know, there's some concrete steps down from the patio that lead there. Um, where, you know, apparently there's going to be a cold plunge. I, I just think that's awfully enticing when there's kids around and no railing around it. Um, you know, it's about 30 feet down before you hit anything, if you go to the edge of that. So I'm just a, uh, wondering if you have any thoughts I might, I could see also where that deck might be helpful in the course of construction as well, uh, to put stuff on, but, um, What are your thoughts on that?

To be honest, the deck was there when Annie and Michael bought the property. I'll be honest, I don't think we even noticed when we were doing the plans that it's there. I'm happy. It may or may not be useful during construction, but if you'd like us to remove it, I don't think, I mean, with a, on the downhill side, a good seven or eight foot drop would uh, perhaps five at best. Uh, it is, it is definitely a, it wouldn't, wouldn't meet code requirements, uh, at all. So, um, I don't think any of us would want, uh, our kids playing on it. So, uh, happy to, to follow your lead on what, what you, it may be useful during construction. So perhaps the condition is to remove it after, or, you know, before final inspection. Um, but happy to, happy to, um, work with you on that one.

Great. That's it for me. Thank you. Anyone else?

I have a question too. You mentioned the deck is going to be replaced with wood. But on our site visit, you mentioned it's going to be pedestal pavers.

Sorry, I described a pedestal system, which can be wood or stone pavers.

It's going to be wood over the pedestal. The pedestal is going to be wood.

The current construction of the deck, which is a little unusual, it's vertical two by fours with almost no spacing between. So we're just because obviously three and a half inch thick deck is... atypical. So we're just going to do a, I'm assuming a eBay deck or, but a three quarter inch material over the drainage plane, but on a pedestal system.

Got it. Thank you.

I have a question and it may also be a question for Sammy. In the staff report, it says that in 2012, the planning commission approved 4,181 square feet an exception to total floor area. I know that the current floor area of the house is only 3,917 square feet. And what's being proposed is 4,133, which is below what the report says was permitted in 2012. Do we know why? First of all, there's a discrepancy between what was approved in 2012 and what was actually constructed. And If so, what was approved in 2012?

Perhaps they didn't, we don't know, but I can speculate that they didn't build the entirety of the project that was approved in 2012. I don't know, I started in 2015 here. Yeah.

You're like, I'm a long timer, but not that long.

I have a little bit of insight, although I ultimately, I'm not sure I have the absolute answer. I think what's on screen right now, the bedroom one was extended out downhill, maybe like eight feet or so. So that was the project in 2012. ultimately when I do as built drawings I do my own calculations I can't rely on somebody else's numbers so I just do them as I see fit and obviously if planning has any questions we go through them but

Yeah, I mean, I was just I was curious as to whether either the expansion of, you know, the enclosure of the deck into what's now going to be bedroom two, or the extension under the deck, and what's now going to be part of the primary bedroom was part of the plans that were reviewed in 20 in in approved in 2012. But

I did look at the old plans and it was only focused in that bedroom one that's on screen right now.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none. Are there any comments from members of the public regarding this item? Rebecca, any hands raised?

Hands raised on Zoom.

Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the commission for discussion. Um, commissioner Shinsky, do you want to start the conversation?

Yeah. So, um, just a couple of things. Uh, one, I, I appreciate the, uh, the fact that the, uh, you know, the, the window. trim with the anodized bronze that the intent is to ultimately change the upstairs windows to match that. I think that's ideal to prevent them from standing out. Overall, I do think the project works for me. I think in an ideal world where you have a a project where a couple exceptions to the square footage have historically already been granted. Maybe a little earlier in the process, we may chase you down and try to convince you to you know, put in this countertop in a little sink and call it a JADU, but I'm not gonna stand on that tonight. I think the fact that the square footage kind of tucks nicely under, you know, within the existing footprint helps to get me there. That in the deck I mentioned, that's about all my comments, Alex. Thank you, Commissioner Watson.

Well, I think Don just stole my thunder. You know, I'd like to note that, you know, while 44-degree slope is extremely, extremely steep, there are a number of other properties, especially on that stretch of beach, which also have very, very steep slopes, some of which we've actually seen in front of our commission recently. And the reason why I asked about the size of the neighbors is... You know, while I appreciate that this is an exception to overall floor area, I do like the fact that the overall footprint is not changing, other than the small addition by the bathroom, which itself is actually underneath the eave upstairs. And so from a total bulk and size perspective, the addition will fit within. I too generally do not like to have floor area exceptions where there's not an additional unit being added. But to the extent of, I'll say, equity and fairness, to the extent that the immediately next door neighbors are, I believe, as larger, if not larger, it would seem to be inequitable to not permit this homeowner to move extend their livable floor space within the same footprint.

Commissioner Watson, if you'd like, Rebecca pulled up the floor area. 344 Beach is 3,700 square foot plus the garage. And then 330 Beach is 4,200 plus the garage.

And does that in I know one of the neighbors is under construction right now. Is that the to be constructed?

That neighbor has a red tag and should not be constructing. So we aren't very clear exactly what is happening.

Okay, Commissioner Jamar.

As far as the floor exception, I also think that the mass and bulk is already there and they are basically building underneath, which doesn't add anything to the visual. There is no visual impact from the street, from the sides, from outside. nowhere. And also, I think, looking at underside of these buildings is not attractive, if even being seen, which I don't think it is being seen. But even if it does, I think enclosing it makes it more attractive. However, that void that they are enclosing, I think it is an attractive architectural element of the property. But at the same time, it's not being viewed from anywhere. So I'm not objecting it. So I have no problem with that. I can make the findings. As far as the sauna, I think, As it is not presented, what is that sauna that look like? And it is going to be added to the floor area, I would say, make it a condition of approval to remove that sauna. That is noted on the drawings. That's all for me.

Thank you. And with that, I would like to introduce the newest planning commissioner in Belvedere, Isolda Wilson. Thank you for joining us. I'll ask you for your comments now.

Yeah, thank you so much. I just want to thank the applicant for the presentation tonight. to sort of echo some of the comments from the other commissioners, I do think that the design was thoughtful and trying to comply with the existing conditions around the site. As far as design review, the structure will remain in character. with its setting even with the infill project and for the floor area exception as well given the steepness of the site and the location of adjacent properties the impact is minimized of the floor area exception on the site so i could make that finding as well and and i understand the condition of approval um with the asana removal that would be just for the floor area exception is that right it's not for the design review I'm assuming the sauna is being removed because of the floor area exception question, not for design review.

No, it's just a structure within the setback.

We don't have any design for it either. We don't know how it looks like.

Oh, where it's going, yeah. I guess I'm just wondering where it goes in the approval.

I think it'd be cleaner to put it in the design review resolution only because we're not accounting for it in the floor area exception resolution. And we reference the plans and the date in the design review resolution. So we can say with the set of plans prepared by such and such on this date with the removal of the sauna. So it's clear on that one.

Thank you. Thank you. When I visited the house, I must say I was impressed with just the dynamism and the views of the interior. It's an interesting house. And I think that's the nice thing about Belvedere. We have all these different periods and characters of houses. I think that the architect's done a good job figuring out how to do an expansion and make it more of a family home because it really didn't appear to be long-term workable as a family home. the new interior spaces, as other commissioners have noted, tucked under the existing massing and within the columns. So the impact is really minimized, and I think he's worked very well with the existing character of the house and maintained that. I guess I was... thinking some similar thoughts to some of the other commissioners. When we see a floor area exemption of this magnitude come in and it's about 33% of the base allowed area, I think it's all kind of in our minds to see if there's an opportunity to have some of that space be applied to an ADU or a JADU, which would thereby reduce the amount of the floor area exception. In fact, I pursued the thought a little further and I had a conversation with the owners, the architect and the staff. There did appear to be a room that in my mind looked like it would fit well as a JADU without any modification. However, and everybody listened very patiently to my thoughts and I became a little more educated. There was one factor that was missing, which was somewhere there would need to be another accessible exterior door in the house. now having said that, you know, perhaps if, that issue had been raised earlier in the design process. Maybe it could have been easily accommodated. This probably isn't the time to raise the specter of redesign, but I just wanted to comment on it because I think as we continue to look at four area exemptions going forward, that's going to be something that's in the front of all of our minds and we'll be hoping to find as many opportunities to get additional units into the city as possible. So with that, I'm going to be able to make the design review findings and also find in favor of the exception to the total floor area.

so um with that i think we're probably ready to vote um i just want to vote but get a motion right you want to say something go ahead yep so it sounds like we have uh two additional uh conditions that have been floated by the commissioners the first is the removal of this of the sauna from the from the design review um under under consideration and the second is the removal of the deck below the east side of the house at the end of construction nodding nodding okay

So you want to make that a formal motion?

Do you want to make the motion? All right. All right, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission grant approval of the design review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code for residential addition and remodel at 340 Beach Road with the following additional conditions added to the resolution. a new condition M, which is the removal of the of the sauna from the design review approval and condition N, which is the removal of the deck below the east side of the house at the end of construction.

Second. All in favor. Aye. We need a motion on the All right.

I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission grant the application for an exception to total floor area based on the findings that are listed in the resolution. According to section 19.52.120A1 of the Belvedere Municipal Code with respect to 340 Beach Road.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. We will now move on to hear item three, demolition application to remove a garage shed and stairs at 135 Belvedere Avenue. Can we have a staff report, please?

Thank you again, Chair Seidel and commissioners. For your consideration is an application for demolition permit to remove a detached garage, shed and wood stairs at 135 Belvedere Avenue. The project site is on a deeply sloped 52,000 square foot lot. The site received lot merger approval in 2019, which previously consisted of three farcels. The site is developed with a dilapidated residence, detached garage and wood staircase. The property contains mature unmaintained vegetation and single family residences flank each side of the property and Richardson Bay abuts the property at the rear. The applicant is requesting a demolition permit to remove the existing 921 square foot garage, shed and associated with stairs from the front of the property. The scope of demolition also includes removal of fallen trees in the vicinity of the garage and a damaged guardrail along the driveway. A portion of the existing garage encroaches onto city property. The approval of the proposed demolition would eliminate this nonconforming structure, which does not meet the city's front yard setback requirements. Additionally, concurrent applications are under review to remove an existing front yard fence that encroaches into the Belvedere Avenue right away. The project there would install a new six foot fence along the front property line with a small portion remaining within city property. This project would be exempt from CEQA and staff recommends that all demolition findings can be made particularly in that the demolition will not remove a housing unit. and that the demolition will not have an impact on the availability of housing units, thereby staying consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere's housing element. Thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Sammy, I just have one question for you. I understand that the fence is not up for approval tonight, or is the fence up for approval? Because it's not included in the motion.

The fence is not part of this application for approval. Uh, it went through the design review process, more of a exception level.

Okay, great. Thanks. Just making clear.

So, um, I'm used to seeing applications for demolition when there's a new project coming, there's not, um, a new project here referenced, but do you have any sense of, you know, what the future of this property is?

Yeah, good question. We have an application in right now for a new residence as well. Planning is currently reviewing those plans for completeness. And it's a project for a brand new residence.

Thank you.

Excellent.

All right. I have a couple of questions too. So when you are approving a fence, don't you require a survey and for that fence being in the city property, do you require revocable license?

We do require a survey and this property has a revocable license for the fence currently.

So Sammy, just so I'm clear, this is the replacement fence while the project is going on or the forever fence that's being approved?

Just a reminder, we're not reviewing the fence tonight here, right? The fence is under a separate design review process. I don't know if it's a forever fence, but the architect and The architect is here. He could probably answer that. The architect who submitted the plans for the single family home, ADU and JADU. I think what's happening is this application is for the demolition of the garage and there's going to be a driveway cut into the property and a driveway that goes down to a garage lower on the site. But I could probably answer those questions better.

Sorry, Rebecca. So the new fence is, you said it's approved by staff. It's a staff level approval.

The design review exception. So it's approved by the city, the city manager.

But the demolition is not? Demolition applications are required to go to the planning commission. But new fences aren't always required. Thank you.

OK, if the applicant is here and would like to speak.

Hi. Yeah, my name is David Kotzebian. I'm the architect.

Is it on?

Okay, sorry. Yeah, my name is David Kotzebue and I'm the architect. So this all started, we wanted to replace the existing fence because it's basically falling down. But since the existing fence is on city property, it's necessary, we necessarily have to demolish the garage structure to put the new fence on because the garage is on city property. So that's why the demolition permit was made. So, as far as the overall design for the new proposal, this will not be the final fence. The final fence will be a totally different design. It's metal. It follows the property line. There is an encroachment permit right now. We want to keep the existing driveway and that gate. We're going to resurface it and make it look nice, but we want to keep it for potential use in construction. But at the end of the day, the new driveway is at the end of the property towards Cliff. So where that gate is will be part of a fence structure that'll be consistent with the design that we're doing. And then in addition, once that's done, we do get an additional parking spot on the street. So that's helpful. So the new design is, they're reviewing it right now, but we have made that application. So we didn't really intend to do the demo right now. It's just that that thing is just falling apart. And we'd like to clean up the appearance and also for safety.

Yeah, it's definitely an eyesore.

Any other questions for the applicant while he's there? Thank you. Are there any comments from members of the public?

Good afternoon. My name is Steve Silberstein. I'm a 30-year resident here of Belvedere. I've been here long enough. This will be the fourth house being proposed for this site in the 30 years that I've been here. And I've been at the Planning Commission meeting for each of those three previous ones going back almost 30 years. And each time I have complained about the fence. What we have in that area is kind of a tunnel. The fence is ugly and it's falling down and it creates a wall depending on one side and the other side, of course, is the uphill of the properties. And so you have a, like you're going through a tunnel there and it's ugly and so on. And I was a little shocked just to hear that the proposed fence, even though it's temporary is gonna be six feet high, which means it's gonna continue this wall defect. I sort of thought that fences were only supposed to be five feet high, so that when you, if you're over five feet, you can walk by and see over the top and see the views there, which is what a lot of people like to do. So I hope whatever fence is done is low or set further back into the property so we can see over it. I drive by or walk by this thing every single day. And I would like to finally see this tunnel.

DEMOLISHED THANK YOU OKAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND I JUST WANT TO SAY IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ANY SAY ON THE FENCE BUT I'M SURE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENT HEARD YOUR COMMENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL SO THANK YOU.

Alex, can we ask the staff to explain again one more time? Sorry, I asked this twice, but I'm still not clear, especially when one of our neighbors also is concerned. Because I have seen that we previously had fences on design review, and you mentioned some are, some are not. Can you explain what made this fence something that did not require design review? Sure.

So if someone comes in for an application to replace an existing fence, it doesn't rise to the level of a planning commission review. In this case, it just happens to be a very, well, it's a fence replacement, right? And so we just... it's isolated a lot of the fences that come to the planning commission are included with a major landscape plan or a new house or a major renovation and they're redoing all of their fences as well and updating landscaping this application was merely to replace a fence which fence replacements HAB-Masyn Moyer- As I said, isolated don't come to planning Commission where this one got a little complicated was in order to move the fence right off of the city right of way. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It required to demolish to demolish the garage so it's kind of like a little bit of a domino effect here. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And so that all demolitions, then are required to come to planning Commission so that's why we're even entertaining and talking about the fence because we're here for the demolition of the garage.

Thank you.

Is there anybody on Zoom, Rebecca, that wants to comment on this?

There's no hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you. I'll now close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Jamali, would you like to start the discussion?

Sure, I think as everyone probably agrees that that garage is in a bad shape, safety issues and removal of it would be in the benefit of the public. So I have no problem with demolishing that garage.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilson.

I can support that application now based on the overall planning that supports the city plan. Additionally, there's non-conformance .

Thank you. Commissioner Shinske.

Godspeed.

Commissioner Watson.

I also can make the findings as I believe the existing garage is both unsafe and an eyesore and should be demolished. I'm not sure if anyone has contacted the local coyotes, though, who apparently are using it as a home, but I'm also in favor of removing their home.

Thank you. I will also be able to make findings in favor of the demolition. Um, I'll be surprised if there's any conditions to craft here. I think we're probably ready to take a vote on this. Uh, as soon as I get a motion.

All right. I'd like to make a motion to grant approval to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of the existing detached garage, shed, and wooden stairs at 135 Belvedere with the conditions that are listed in the resolution.

Thank you. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. We'll now move on to item four, design review and revocable license for a remodel at 47 West Shore Road. Can we have a staff report, please?

Thank you again, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration is an application for design review and revocable license for window and door replacement, deck enlargement, and new landscaping at 47 West Shore Road. Subject parcel is 11,000 square feet and contains a 4,300-square-foot two-story residence and attached two-car garage. The site is relatively flat and sits on the western side of Belvedere Island. The site includes a front yard swimming pool, overwater deck, and boat lift. The project involves an exterior remodel that would include new windows and doors and siding across all elevations, as well as a partial removal of the existing roof. The project includes deck expansions along the side and rear yard, new landscaping, and a new hot tub and fire pit. Regarding roof modifications, the project proposes to remove 173 square feet of the cantilevered first story roof. The current eave encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. While removing the eave would not bring the structure into conformance with the setback requirements, it would reduce the encroachment by two feet and three inches. A non-reflective matte finish metal roof fascia in a dark bronze color would be installed where the eave would be removed. The existing cupboard entry currently 271 square feet count towards floor area and would be reduced to 143 square feet as part of the interior remodel. This reduction would be visible from West Shore Road, resulting in a reduced and smaller entry canopy. Regarding the deck expansion, the northern side yard deck would be enlarged from 152 square feet to 600 square feet. It would also include a new stair access to the shoreline. The southern side deck would be expanded 290 square feet, mainly along the left side yard. Under a separate application, the applicant proposes to install a new six foot tall fence along the side and front property lines to accommodate this deck expansion. The project proposes to replace or reconfigure the exterior windows and doors. The majority of the openings would be in the same location and of similar size to those that exist. Facing West Shore Road, no significant window changes are proposed. Facing the rear in Richardson Bay, a new clear story window and five foot six inch by four foot five inch fixed window are proposed. And on the left side, one sliding door would be replaced with a smaller window. At the right side yard, window and door modifications are generally proposed in the same locations. New horizontal wood siding in a light gray color is proposed throughout the residence. The rear and side yard decking would be constructed of natural Ipe wood with a light gray finish, and windows and doors would be constructed using anodized metal with a dark bronze finish. The project proposes new landscaping, and the front yard landscaping would include four bay laurels to 20 feet tall, along with lavender and baby matrush. along the Southern and Northern side yards, English Laurel to 10 feet taller proposed. And within the West shore road, right of way, the project proposes to Bay Laurel to 20 feet tall and that rush within a 20 inch tall concrete planter. One thing commission for your consideration, I didn't address this in this, we didn't address this in the staff report. The Laurel to 10 feet tall, typically hedges, we get neighbor input for hedges that are eight feet or taller. On this project, we didn't get any consideration from neighbors. So it's something for your consideration. Exterior lighting would include 10 recessed down lights, primarily at the cantilever roof at the rear of the house and 19 wall-mounted sconces throughout the residence. The applicant requests a revocable license to allow the existing driveway and proposed landscaping to encroach into the West Shore Road right-of-way. The project, if approved, is exempt from CEQA. And staff recommends that all the design review findings can be made and the recommendation for revocable license. And staff is happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Sammy. Do we have questions?

Sammy? Hi, so I know that the plans that were waiting for us tonight and that you emailed to us this afternoon have changed in a number of ways from the plans that we were looking at when we did site visits. Can you just sort of run down for us the material differences in the two sets of plans? Just because I, for one, was looking at the old plans.

Yeah. Well, the changes that you have are actually, it's a clarification. On the plans that you guys received, the planting legend has a letter, and then on the plant itself, it's shown as a one for some of the plantings. So there was, and then there's also, I think, an olive tree that was proposed on the legend, but it's not shown on the plans. So the architect fixed, removed that, and then also removed the, correctly identified the mat rush.

All right. Because I'm looking at A2.4. And it's not showing the two trees that are outside of the fence that you just showed on.

Yeah.

If I could just jump in here. Thanks. Sheet A 1.0, the adjacent property address was corrected to read 49 West Shore. Sheet A1.5, the floor area table has been corrected to match the diagram. There was a discrepancy there. The project is removing 91 square feet rather than 117 square feet. A1.6, as Sammy said, the landscape sheet has been corrected so that the plant legend matches, right? There were some number lettering issues that just didn't match there. sammy mentioned the fascia and then on a 3.1 there's an exterior lighting plan that's been added the applicant is proposing 10 recessed down lights and 19 wall mounted sconces clarification from the architect on whether those 19 lights are all new. I suspect they're replacing some as well as adding new ones. But let's get clarification on that. Okay.

And Commissioner Watson, would you like me to pull up the original plans and what you received today on the screen so we can compare them?

No, it's okay.

Thank you.

So do we know the... The status of 49, that is, are the owners there the family who has been there or the ones that are buying it? Or I can't keep track. What's going on?

Actually, if you could just hold off until, sorry, when it's your turn, it'd be great if you could come to the mic and answer that. Thank you so much. And I don't know the status of 49. No, I don't.

Okay, are there any other questions? With that, we can ask the applicant to make a presentation if they like.

Yes, exactly. Okay.

Can you guys hear me okay? Hi, I'm Stacy Perry. This is my husband, Matthew Perry. We've been on West Shore since 2020, so almost six years now. We started out renting and loved it so much that we purchased the home a few years ago. I met many of you yesterday, so thank you to the commissioners for coming through the house. And we have a 21-year-old daughter who's in college, so she's still with us in the home.

Do you want to add anything? No, it's perfect. Perfect.

Okay, so we have new neighbors at 47 West Shore and new neighbors at 45 because we're 47. And new neighbors at 49. We have met the new neighbors at 45. A lovely couple with a young daughter. She's 11. And we have not yet met our new neighbors at 49. So we do not believe they have moved in yet. So we've tried several times to just knock on the door and introduce ourselves, but they haven't. do not appear to be moved in.

Great. Do you want me to add anything on that? The former owner at 49? You don't want me to? You don't want me to? All right. They were very aware of what's happening. The new owners, I think it's the real owner bought it.

And my name is Steven Sutro. I'm the architect for the project. And I'll walk you through a series of slides explaining the design. Are you ready to share? Are you sharing screen? There we go. And you flip to the next. Okay, thank you for the presentation, Rebecca and Sammy. So as they said, the proposed project involves the remodel of the existing single family home, including new windows and doors, replacing the existing siding, rear deck expansions, and I'll explain a little bit more about that, updated landscaping and minor interior floor plan changes. The next slide here, the image on the left shows the existing street facade and the rendering on the right shows the proposed with updated windows, new siding and updated landscaping. We've removed the eave as was mentioned over the garage and modified it to be tight around the structure, removing a portion of its non-conformance. Let's see, at the bottom left of the render, you can see the proposed landscaping changes. The fence is part of a separate permit, but it's interesting to the application in two ways. One is it is located like many are along West Shore, fully in the public right of way and very tight to the sidewalk. And so we work with staff to suggest pushing it back so that a pedestrian enjoys more landscaping. And so the public right of way or the encroachment permit revocable license kind of thing will be for landscaping instead of that tall fence. So the fence is moving back. Not part of this application, but it's kind of a part of the overall design. Likewise, our survey showed us that the fence line on both side property lines was substantially on Stacy and Matthews property by several feet in each location, meaning 40, the neighbors on each side were kind of enjoying the use of several feet of Matthew and Stacy's property historically. So the fence permit, which has been granted, relocates the same height fence to a location that is on the property line. And that's been discussed with the neighbor that is present, not been discussed with the one that is not. So what we're doing in the newly found swaths of land is some landscaping and expanding the existing surfaces of the deck. We kind of mislabeled the one that is on the side with the trash and access alongside the garage actually is going to be on the ground and the deck is going to stop kind of where it does now and we're going to step down onto the ground. So it's an error on our part. There are about nine sconces on the outside of the building today. So it's correct that they're not all 19 or new, but 19 total is what we've suggested in the lighting plan. They're downwardly cast, very kind of minimal looking things. On the water side of the property are some eve lights in the overhang that faces kind of like a washboard or a place where traditionally you can walk and wash the windows that face the bay. And so we're suggesting replacing those large light fixtures with small aperture ones and increasing the number a little bit along that eve. Let's see if I want to point out anything else because I went off script. The material slide, if you want to go to that, we're suggesting kind of a gray stained siding. This is from Delta Millworks. It's a nice Akoya heat treated product that is natural, 100% natural wood that has been heat treated for resistance to decay. In our previous project where we've used this product, the gray does a nice job of fading to gray as it weathers, meaning as the stain erodes, as they all naturally do, it doesn't so much require restaining because the wood is turning gray in the sun naturally. And then we're proposing a dark bronze color on the sashes and trim. natural concrete on the planter and the underside of the soffit in a cypress or cedar.

I think that's all, unless I've missed something.

No, okay. I'm here to answer questions. Thank you.

Questions from commissioners?

I have a question about the lighting plan. Sure. The image that's up there now, those under the lights that are under the overhang in the back, is that all part of the lighting plan? Yes.

So the lighting plan here shows the little dots that are, you know, that's the overhang beyond the living room. You can see the living room furniture. So those little dots key into the recessed outdoor fixture. And there are several fixtures that are there. Maybe there are six today. They're much larger.

the idea is to make smaller aperture ones and increase the frequency a bit okay i have a question and i'm not sure if it's it's maybe for both staff and the applicant um i noted you said that the the fences are being moved at the same height that they are and i I had the impression that some of the fences were taller than six feet. And I'm not even sure, are the fences part of this application? Let's start with that. The fences are not part of this application. So maybe this is not pertinent, but I guess because we're thinking about heights of planting related to neighbors and neighbor conditions, staff, do you want to make any comment on that?

The fencing is not part of this application.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

So I'm sorry. I think that you're asking because it's germane for the planting question that staff raised for the English Laurel. The fence is about six foot six right now. It's a standard six foot board, but it's set on top of a horizontal runner. So it's probably six foot six, six foot five and a half, something like that. The new plan, it's not part of the application, but germane to the discussion of design is for it to be six foot even. Thank you for that.

Including the portions that are currently built up a little bit towards 49? Yes.

So just to be clear, the tub is going to be moving out toward the water past where the fence line is. Yes. And then there's I guess three laurels then proposed to screen it. Correct. And I can't, you know, I don't, I can't make the case for 49. Um, I, other than to observe that that's very close to where they are. Yes. That's a exposed tub. And I, if I were the neighbor, I'd want those trees to be as mature as possible and as large as possible when they went in. Um, I might also, yeah, I won't go there. And that's it for right this moment.

While we're talking about the hot tub, where is the mechanical going to be for the hot tub?

It's integral. It's a diamond spa is the proposal, which has it all integrated into the square of the cube. Yeah, no external. It's not like a swimming pool or that kind of thing where there's extra equipment. Matthew was just noting that there was a very large tree that was recently removed right there in that location that you're discussing for privacy.

It was a beautiful tree.

That was the willow tree? Yeah.

Good, on your side or their side?

Technically it was on our side, but at the time.

But the fence was, yeah, okay.

It was not removed by 47.

Got there, yeah, maybe unbeknownst.

Okay, no further, or do you have a question?

I have two questions. How many sconces did you say you're adding?

There are eight or nine existing. And so.

And then now total how many?

19. Do you want to go? We can go to the site plan.

I'm counting 16. That's why I heard 19, but I'm counting 16. So I'm wondering if there is something somewhere I'm not seeing. So basically, let me ask you this. On the street side, on San Rafael Avenue, is it just three?

Yes.

Beyond the fence?

Yes, it is just three.

Okay, so maybe you have 16.

Two flank in the garage and then one kind of adjacent to gate.

Okay, and then another question I had is that at your entry, you have two steps going down, which on the new drawings that you are showing, the steps are gone. The arrow is still there. I wonder if it is a mistake.

Yes, I think the sconce note is deflect or is covering up the stairs that will remain there.

Stairs remain, those steps remain.

Those are near the front door that you.

Yeah, and is it the egress door, the entry door?

The front door is an egress door, yes.

So don't you need a landing 36 inch in front of it?

What will the landing be? Do you have a floor plan? It's a good question. While she's pulling that up, the sconces that are around the sides, they're kind of acting. We're not deploying any other landscape lighting or floodlights. They're kind of acting because they're low level and downward cast. It's kind of acting as the navigation around all the sides. So they're definitely not meant to be decorative sconces in the traditional sense of a sconce. No, I think you're pointing out a flaw and that we might need to make sure that there are 36 inches from the front door to the staff.

Yeah, basically, then you will have less, you're going to have less, what is it, enclosure where you have it. But planning-wise, I have no issue with it. Understand.

Maybe we'll suggest shifting the stair out a foot or something.

You probably have issues later on.

Thank you for the note.

I don't know if it's outside design review purview or not, which means it probably is. And I can't take credit for kind of drilling down on this, but can we talk for a minute about the FEMA substantial improvement threshold?

Yes, absolutely.

So you have the FEMA assessed value at $6 million or so, and The full project, not just what we're looking at today, but the inside as well, totaling up pretty close to the halfway mark, 48%. So what's the thinking if there's a lot of moving parts both inside and out?

If the cost escalates or something like that.

Yeah. So have you thought about how you might phase it if you find that something costs more than you thought originally? I mean,

Oh, sorry. So this, we certainly will scrutinize the numbers at the time of building permit. And we don't like to issue building permits that are at 48% of the... Leaving room for contingency. Yeah, because we know things change in construction. So... It's certainly something to think about at the time of the planning approval or submittal, but we certainly have, our building official is also the floodplain administrator. And so we will sit down and crunch the numbers with the architect.

Yeah, again, I apologize.

And sometimes things will get scaled back, right? And so it might be that they can't, can't do the entirety of the project. And they will have to wait a year and then.

We're keenly aware.

Yeah.

Great. Just wanted to flag it.

Yeah. We looked at the alternative of doing a larger project or doing more and raising the house. Certainly.

OK. Thank you. Are there any comments from members of the public on this item? There are no hands raised. Okay. A non-controversial item, apparently. That's good. bring this back, close the public hearing, and I'd like to get the commissioners to share their thoughts on it. Ms. Hulda, would you like to start the conversation this time?

Sure. I just want to thank the applicant for the presentation and clarification on the lighting plan and other features of the project. My comments are focused mostly on the revocable license. the improvements won't block any views so I could find the findings for that and the landscaping will be a nice addition and then and the revoke and then the correction of the overhang isn't a good addition to the project as well thanks thank you commissioner jimai

I can make the findings also for the replacement of the windows, extension of the deck, lighting. I have no issues with the lighting as long as there are just three on the... West Shore, which are flanking the garage and the entry, I think those are necessary for the visibility at night. The landscaping and removal of a pool, I think would help the community also. The landscaping would show up on the West Shore, which people, when they walk, they would enjoy that. And also they are improving the landscaping on the city property, which is, I think, a nice addition. I was struggling a little bit with that stone wall that is proposed on the city property. Landscaping is great, but I was going back and forth that do we need that stone wall there and What is the reason? I think layering landscape is always beautiful, like having taller trees and shrubs and all those combination makes it attractive. And I think you were maybe trying to do that with stone. I couldn't quite understand what was the reasoning behind that design. And just because it is on the city property, I also was wondering, do we need, and then each applicant comes and might have a new, idea is that something that would overall improve the walking on the sidewalk, seeing different structures or is it positive or negative? I was struggling with that. I don't know what other commissioners think about that. I couldn't also myself decide if I, how I feel about it. I don't have a negative, I don't think it is a negative design idea. I'm just thinking that is it, good to have different structures in city property, or is it just landscaping to resolve it with landscaping? I wonder what others think on that. The rest, I can make all the findings.

Thank you. Commissioner Shinsky.

Yeah, certainly I don't... blame you for wanting first and foremost to get the property lines where they need to be. That seems long overdue. And if part and parcel of that means getting rid of that boat trailer on the front lawn, that would be appreciated as well, although that's not a condition. I think our normal course here is to have our chair kind of look at the landscape plan at the end of the day, um, and improve that. And, um, I think that would be one of the conditions here, of course, uh, with kind of a special charge to, you know, the hot tub, given that it's kind of exposed there now that, that we do our best to whether the trees are start out at six feet or eight feet or 10 feet, um, you know, I think taller and fuller is kind of the order of the day that are just given the proximity to the neighbors. But beyond that, I should be able to make the findings.

Commissioner Watts. Thanks. Like Asli, I also struggle with the wall at the front, just because as, well, I guess my neighbor who's now left said, it is sort of a tunnel type of feeling with having the wall there. Obviously the wall used to be there because it was a pool. You have to have a solid high you know, barrier to kids climbing over and getting in your pool and dying. Um, but that, that, that being said, I don't have, I don't have an issue with it as a, as a, as a design element itself. Um, I, I do feel that both the lighting plan and the landscape plan, um, probably need, um, more, more finalization, um, especially since there are, depending on your numbers, either 10 or eight new wall sconces that are going to be added, as well as a number of downward-facing eave lights. And as we just got the lighting plan tonight, I don't think I'm in a position to approve either the lighting or the landscape plan. And so I would propose that both of those as well as the evaluation of the 36 inch front step landing that a condition be added for each one of those things to be approved by our esteemed chair.

Thank you. um i appreciate your presentation i think this is a good update of of an existing house that you know it's got a few years on it but it's got good bone structure um so i i approve of the installation of the new windows i think the new siding will be nice the colors things look appropriate and in scale with the neighborhood you know this really isn't an expansion of the house so there's no issues there. I'm listening to my fellow commissioners. I think we're probably going to condition this for further review for the landscape and lighting. And I have to admit, I don't fully from these drawings, I don't fully understand the particularly the landscaping in front, I understand that the tree plan, but I want to be reviewing the scale and details of particularly these things that present themselves to the street, and we'll have an opportunity to look at that in the future. So I'll be able to make the findings in favor of this project with any conditions that the Planning Commission cares to attach to it. So we are ready for someone to make a motion. Could be the stalwart motion maker to my right.

It's the problem of being the lawyer on the commission. All right, I'm gonna give this a shot. All right, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission grants approval of the design review application to install new exterior windows and doors, enlarge the rear yard decks, and plant new landscaping at 47 West Shore with the conditions that are listed in the resolution, plus adding these following additional conditions, that the lighting and landscaping plans be finalized with the approval of the chair of the commission, and that a 36-inch front deck uh front landing be in front of the be in front of the front door if it is not already there second all in favor hi hi um Sorry, we have another motion for 47 West Shore, and it is to recommend to the City Council the approval of a revocable license for private improvements located on the West Shore right-of-way at 47 West Shore.

Second.

Excuse me. I think those low walls are in the revocable license area. So I'm not quite sure if you're making a recommendation to the city council on the revocable license. It includes those walls. So I just want to be clear on where the commission stands. And maybe they'll come back with a revised landscape plan and the walls will be The location will be determined at that point, but I just want to have clarity.

That was what I had. And I hadn't really thought about it in terms of impacting the revocable license as well.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not clear on where the commission stands on those walls. Like, are you waiting for the applicant to revise the plans to perhaps keep the walls in the right of way or... I just would like some clarity. So when we bring it to council, we kind of understand where the commission stands. Are we relying on the chair to make that determination, which is fine too.

City has no requirement in that sense to have or not have this type of specifically just for design. I think it is just for aesthetic. They are putting it. There is no reason for it.

Yeah. And we have it. If my memory serves me correct, we have a lot of improvements in the right of way on West Shore.

Yes.

Does that do low walls? Does that mean that we're going to improve new ones? I don't know. I mean, that's, you know, our sort of philosophy now is to get everything out of the right of way. So.

Do you know how far into the right-of-way the wall is by any chance? I'm just trying to get a sense of... I don't, but I could reopen the public hearing for a moment. It might help the other commissioners to have a better sense of what this wall is.

Yeah.

So, um, I'd like to reopen the public hearing and if the applicant could just give us a little more information regarding the height and location of the wall.

yeah and and i've asked for the height of i mean it could just be like a decorative curb right not necessarily what we're thinking of as a yeah that's and that there's nothing to retain i was looking for it in the elevations and i didn't really see it so i that's why i sorry to make this yeah it's okay there's also no dimension showing um how wide it is so

it should, I mean, if it goes to city council, it should show what is the dimension of the... One second here, we're just starting to pull it up.

If there's any specific guidance that you all would like to give, that would be fine. And also we will be submitting a revised plan to illustrate more in 3D with dimensions so that the chair can advise us. So we're happy with either specific advice now and or review by the chair. But we're trying to get the dimension for you. Sorry, hold on. All right. I don't know if it's Jermaine or you want to hear this, but the low wall is approximately two feet encroached from the property line into the public right of way. The old fence that is permitted to be altered was six feet encroachment at six feet high. And so if that helps answer the question. But again, we're not really looking for you to stamp that right now. We understand you'd like more illustration, maybe some examples to show what's what's along West Shore Road and see if this is contextually appropriate. So we fully expect to study it ourselves, submit something and have either a dialogue about it or get feedback. Yeah.

And again, I wasn't sure if I caught, but how how tall do you visualize it?

18 inches is what's illustrated, but maybe not properly noted anywhere. I'm not sure, but that was, it's a planter, I guess. It's not, it does not need to be there because it's not retaining anything. It's not important to Matthew and Stacy. So we'll try to figure out what's best. Yeah, but I think the idea from a design perspective, not to belittle it, was to have kind of multiple tiers so that it looked kind of pretty, that it wasn't just a flat, flat piece where dogs go, you know.

okay thank you i think that's um helpful so um with that i guess the the question is um are is the commission comfortable granting the recommendation on the replicable license at this point um I mean, I haven't commented yet, so I guess I did comment. But regarding this, I guess I'm OK granting the revocable license in that they're increasing the setback of this street side element by four feet, and they're reducing the height. So it's more of a landscape element. it may not be the final version you know they they may reconsider it but i think it's an improvement from what's there now so um i could probably go with the granting the revocable license right i'm i'm i'm fine with the recommendation for the revocable license subject to the finalization of the landscaping plans okay So let's see, is that a motion?

Yeah, excuse me, my apologies. I don't want to necessarily drag this out, but I think the motion needs to be with the understanding of what the proposal is, which is what the chair just described. And obviously it may change by the time it goes to council, but at least just to Rebecca's earlier point, it's just helpful for us to know when this does go to council, what the planning commission is in support of. So just to be clear for the record, we are addressing the planters as described by the architect, approximately 18 inches in height, approximately two feet into the right of way. Maybe they'll change, maybe it won't, but at least that's the starting point for the motion.

And material, does it need to include the material, what it is?

If that is pertinent to the motion made by the commission, yes, you can incorporate it or ask about it.

And what is the material?

It's shown on the material sheets as concrete, but we're happy to, again, to submit it, I don't know, very specifically in detail, submit it to the chair and receive feedback and collaborate on whatever ends up going to council, including being a flat space with no planter or a planter with, you know, core tanner bronze or some of the material.

All right. So I'm going to give a shot at this one.

All right.

All right, I'm proposing a motion to recommend to the city council the approval of a revocable license for private improvements located in the West Shore right of way at 47 West Shore Drive, showing the current approximately 18 inch high planters that are encroaching about two feet into the city right of way, in all cases subject to finalization of the landscaping plan as approved by the chair.

I need a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the final item of the evening, item five, design review for new skylights, a patio door, and a roof deck at 140 San Rafael Avenue. Can I have a staff report, please?

Before the staff report, I'd just like to mention and thank Commissioner Wilson for being here, and she lives within 500 feet of this property, so she'll need to recuse herself. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you Chair Seidel. Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration this evening is an application for design review to install a second story deck, skylights and exterior doors and windows at 140 San Rafael Avenue. The subject property is 8,200 square feet and contains a 3,600 square foot two-story residence with attached garage. The site is relatively flat and about single family residences to the north and south, Belvedere Lagoon to the east and Richardson Bay to the west. The site is accessible via San Rafael Avenue. The project proposes to construct a 300 square foot deck on the existing first story roof located on the southern side of the residence The deck will be set back 10 feet from the side yard property line and 49 feet from the rear yard deck. The southern side of the roof deck will be lined with three planter boxes to provide privacy screening from the adjacent neighbor at 150 San Rafael Avenue. Additional improvements include four new skylights, each two feet, 10 inches by two feet, 10 inches, as well as replacement of existing windows and doors. The roof deck would stand nine feet, three inches above existing grade. The new wood deck would be bordered by three foot, six inch tall glass guard rail. The project proposes to replace an existing six foot, six inch tall by 13 foot, six inch wide door with a seven foot, six inch tall by 19 foot, one inch wide glass door. Window glazing facing the lagoon would increase 92 square feet for a total glazing area of 289 square feet. A 2025 design review approval included the removal of clear story windows at the rear yard, which further reduced total glazing facing the lagoon. Staff has received one letter of support from the south adjacent property at 150 San Rafael Avenue and one letter from the north adjacent neighbor at 130 San Rafael Avenue requesting that two exterior sconces on the left side yard be removed or replaced due to the fixture's brightness. The architect has indicated that the owner would be happy to remove these fixtures. The project is exempt from CEQA. And for context, applications for roof decks are not common in the city of Belvedere. However, they have come up more in the past few years. In 2025, the commission granted approval of a 125 square foot roof deck at the adjacent property at 130 San Rafael Avenue. And there is one roof deck located at 152 Bella Vista. With that, staff recommends approval of this application and is happy to answer any questions you may have.

I have a sort of a context question, Sammy. Are you aware of other roof decks roughly this size in the lagoon area? Or is this more of an outlier?

Well, I mean, the adjacent neighbor last year proposed the roof deck at the front and the roof deck at the rear. And I believe the roof deck at the rear was shrunken. In the past, typically people ask for more Juliet balconies off of their master bedroom or primary bedroom facing the water. The largest roof deck that I know of is at 152 Bella Vista. And you can kind of see it when you're down on Beach Road. They have orange umbrellas. But on the lagoon, I can't think of any other ones.

Okay, that's fine.

But I could be wrong. That's why I asked the question.

I was trying to... do the same exercise and I didn't come up with too much. I checked with Sammy prior to the hearing. I think that the roof deck that we approved at 130 San Rafael last year was 125 feet at the end of the day. So a little smaller. So I was just sort of trying to contextualize that issue. So that was my question. Thank you. Any other questions?

Just one other note about this one in particular. The one at 130 was at the rear of the property that faced out onto the water. This one's sort of tucked more into the side, which we haven't seen in the past, at least in the past couple of years.

Right. OK. If there's no further questions, if the applicant is here and would like to speak.

Hello, my name is Brian Fox. I'm the architect for the project here with the owner, Kim. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the site visits. Thanks, Sammy, for the presentation. I think that the project is fairly well understood, and I'd probably limit my remarks just to talk about the roof deck in particular. Just there are, I think, unique things about this site that may not have been the case to the neighbor on the north, or maybe some of the other roof deck proposals that you've seen. One of them definitely is the setback from the lagoon. We're almost 50 feet from the water line. And the view out the back is pretty limited by the two-story part of the building and the mature trees on the south side. So the experience, I think, of being up there really is almost more about being on the west side looking towards Tam than really experiencing the lagoon in a kind of immediate way. And when you're back on the deck and back on the lagoon, you don't really feel that deck as being, you know, frontally present. I think the way that you would if it was on the front of the house. The other kind of unique things that are present here are that we don't have any neighbors to the east and the west. Being on the long end of the lagoon to the east, we don't really face anybody on the west, obviously Richardson Bay, no houses. The two-story part of the building fully shields the roof deck from the north side. And on the south side, where we are proximate to the neighbor, we have support and very few windows on that side. There's trees growing up, and there's an agreement between Kim and that neighbor to do privacy screening. Commissioner Watson this morning asked a good question that we proposed planters and A hedge there is the privacy screen. Plants can die. People can move pots around. Kim has indicated she's definitely open towards a more structured fence type of screen if that is preferred by the commission. That's something that could be, I think, worked out as the details are proposed in the building permit. Thank you. Open for questions.

Thank you.

I have a question for you. The pitch roof on the west side of the proposed deck, how high is it from wherever you have a reference, from the ground or from the deck? I want to find out the relevance to the deck, the height of that. on your elevation? I mean, any reference you have?

Yeah, the roof deck walking service would be elevated slightly from the roof itself for drainage. And the peak of that roof is about a little under 36 inches from the walking surface of the roof. So if we have a 42-inch railing on the roof deck, it's going to be slightly proud of that peak. So visible perhaps from the dirt path on the other side of the road, but not from the street or the sidewalk as you get closer to the house.

Thank you.

When I was there this morning, I took some photos both standing on the sidewalk right in front of the house and then also standing across the street. And I do believe that across the street, you'd be able to see the top of the glass railing, but on the sidewalk in front of the street, unless you're about six foot eight, which I don't think many of our residents are, I don't think you'd be able to see the glass railing.

And that proposed railing is glass. It will have a thin top cap by code. It's required. But the idea would be to have it be as transparent as possible.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any further questions?

Can you just address the two sconces that Sammy referenced in the report? And are those going to get removed?

I understand that the bulbs have already been taken out of those two lights. And yes, Kim is willing to install sconces that are dark sky compliant, that shine down, that won't be a nuisance to the neighbor.

Great. Thank you.

All right. Um, are there any comments from members of the public present or on zoom?

No hands raised on zoom.

Okay. I think with that, I will bring this item back to the commission for discussion. Um, commissioner, Jim, I want you to start.

Sure. Um, As far as the skylight and the exterior openings, I think they are all fine. I don't see any issues with those. I think they lost a view from one of the skylights when another proposal came. So I think these two would give them more light into the So I think those are fine. And then the rear window also, I think it's aligned with any other house on the lagoon that they get the view to the lagoon. I don't have any issues with that. On the roof deck, what I'm struggling with is from the San Rafael Avenue, actually, from the lagoon, I think it is fine. It's back. It's more of a... Casual, I would say. You expect more of a casual view to the house from that side, which this roof deck will provide. But on the San Rafael Avenue, I think we have all the houses there have a relatively formal look. And this... roof deck will add a kind of a gathering area party look with the umbrellas and would basically reduce the formal facade of the houses on San Rafael Avenue. So I would say if some sort of the same sort of landscaping that is added to provide privacy for the next door neighbor. If it is provided on the other side of where the roof is, the roof that I was asking you that is 36 inch, if the same type of landscaping will be provided there, not as tall as the other one perhaps, because I understand you want that roof deck to get the view from both sides that those view from both sides are amazing. I think you should enjoy that. But if some sort of landscaping be introduced there, I think would soften it a little bit, even if not as high so you can still see the view, but it is a little kind of a landscaping that soften it and give a little bit more formal look to it. And as you introduce that landscaping, you basically limit the area of the deck, which would basically prevent people to go so close to it. And then it basically what Jenna was referring to when you are on the other side and you can see whatever is happening there, you can see less of it. And I think that would be an improvement to that. And I don't think it would be a negative thing also because the square footage of it is, relatively large comparing to varied services. You know, the bedrooms and the hallway and all that, if you reduce like two feet, adding whatever it is that planters. If it is being introduced there, I think it would... it would help with the formality of the houses on San Rafael Avenue. And I think on your end also, because the roof and the distance from the roof to where you are putting your glass railing is not that attractive. By putting the landscaping on your end, you wouldn't look at that either. So I think it might be a win-win. situation. That is all comments I have on the deck.

Thank you, Commissioner Shinsky.

Yeah, I would just add that putting some landscaping along that edge of the deck might help hide the rain gutters in that conduit that runs along there. So it might be better from your standpoint, too, as well. Otherwise, so I, you know, as for the Commissioner Jumey was saying, you know, I'm just kind of thinking about formality versus informality. And, you know, kind of the tension there, obviously, Belvedere was founded as sort of a recreational, but very high end formal recreational town. So I don't know quite what that means now. But overall, I think the size of the deck fits the spot. The fact that the neighbors at 150 are all fine with it, obviously, is very important. Now, they don't have a lot of windows there, which probably helps them be fine with it. But obviously, the screening there is appropriate. The other thought, of course, as you mentioned, is the... you know, area of glazing is being increased, obviously that's outward looking toward the lagoon, although it is halfway up the property or from the lagoon itself. And also the clear story on the other section has been foregone. So there's a little coming back that way. And, you know, particularly in relative to, as you look around the lagoon, to see who has equal kind of configurations that are actually fairly close to the lagoon itself. It'd be hard to say that that is something that others don't enjoy. So no problem there. But I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Jermaine about the landscaping along the west side of that deck.

Thanks, Jenna.

Thanks very much. So I, too, with respect to the really large plants, with respect to the glazing, I agree that having the additional large doors and the increase in glazing about 50 feet away from the water really does make a difference in my determination. And had there been an increase in the glazing at the end of the bedroom where it was closest, I would have had an issue. Similarly, you know, I... I struggle with the idea of a roof deck sort of overlooking the lagoon, as I think most people who live on the lagoon can appreciate it is rather a fishbowl. And no one wants their neighbors looking down upon them, looking down into their yards, or otherwise sort of having an outdoor presence, right? right there. I do think what distinguishes this roof deck is the fact that it is set back in the middle of the lot. And to distinguish it from the one that we discussed last year at the neighboring property, It is where it's situated closest to its neighbors. There are not corresponding windows at that neighbor and the agreement to have screening. I actually do think that some kind of more permanent screening, not just planter boxes would be preferable. First of all, it takes up less space. And second of all, it is a more permanent screening solution for the neighbor. And I also like your suggestion for the front side, or the street side. While I don't object to having sort of a thin railing of glass, I think you probably wouldn't necessarily see it. I do think that it would be more attractive and more natural looking up there. With respect to the skylights, I don't have any issue with the skylights. They're going to be clear. And I think that they're going to add a lot of light into the living room, which is surprisingly dark. So with that, I think I can make all the findings. One thing I do want to highlight for the staff is my thinking on roof decks in general towards the lagoon has not changed.

Did you mention, Jenna, that you wanted to see more permanent solution? What kind of You mean?

So what we had discussed for the neighboring property was having some kind of wire lattice or something that was more Something that was more architectural in terms in terms of in terms of in terms of in terms of the screen, rather than planter boxes into which there would be. bushes or other rather source lower types of greenery.

I concur with a lot of the comments of my fellow commissioners. I won't repeat them all, but, um, You know, I think the expansion of glazing in particular is very acceptable in the places that you've proposed it set back from the water. Skylights, I'm okay with. So that brings me to the roof deck. And I guess I just want to exercise caution here on the subject of roof decks on the lagoon. I think what I'm hearing the consensus here and I actually share it is that this is a one-off kind of a unique situation where the proposed roof deck really appears to have reduced impact on neighboring properties and visual impact from public locations. I actually appreciate very much Azoulay's suggestion about the screen planting across the San Rafael side of the deck. I think our proposal would be that that happened within the proposed footprint of the existing deck, not an expansion of the footprint. I also hear, and we'll work out the conditions here, that there can be a more permanent architectural aspect to the screen on the south side facing the neighbor um and you know if if it's the consensus of my fellow commissioners i'm happy to you know do the normal landscape review make those elements subject to future review because i actually think that particularly this i think that we'd like to maintain the planting on those two sides as well as whatever this more permanent feature is and what that exact configuration is, is kind of important to figure out at the end of the day. We don't have it before us now, but I think we can work that out going forward.

Alex, could the railing be inside the planters? Basically the plant move the railings inward to invert the deck and then put the planters outside of it. Because as they mentioned themselves, people move the landscaping or planters, but the permanent railing remains where it is.

I actually think that's better because how else are they going to clean their glass? I mean, if the planters up against the glass, that glass is going to get disgusting. Sorry.

Regardless, on the other side, they can't clean it, but that's the issue of glass. But yes, that's helpful too. So can we make that?

You can make it if you want to. I think it's a good idea. I was having the same thought. So all roads lead to Rome. But you might want to go ahead and make the motion on this one if you kind of want to craft the wording on this.

That's not my strength, but let me do it.

I'm trying to give Jenna just a little break.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to adopt the resolution granting design review approval to construct a 300 square feet second story deck, skylights and exterior windows and doors at 140 San Rafael Avenue with following conditions. The railing at the west and north side of the deck to go two and a half feet inward and provide planter boxes at the outer side of the west and north side of the deck.

And I'd like to also add the condition that the existing sconces that are on the north side be swapped out for dark sky compliant downward facing lights.

No, that can be incorporated the motion assuming that's a friendly amendment. Thank you.

Okay, I think we have a motion on the floor.

To be honest, I'm not quite as convinced on the plants being inside the railing or outside the railing as opposed to in or inside the railing and with a permanent structure on it. But I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm going to trust you, Alex, to pull it all together using your architectural genius.

I mean, you can always negotiate between yourselves, and we could make it a little less specific, and it's still going to come back to me. Don, it depends on how you feel, if you're willing to...

And I said my bit. OK. All right. May I make a quick point? On the west side, the railing right now connects to the corner of the two-story part of the house. There's a series of windows that come down facing south. And so as we move that railing further to the east to put planters or screening on the other side, kind of needs to move in the increment of the windows because the railing is going to connect with the house higher than the window sills. Otherwise, it'll connect mid window.

Yes.

Those windows are, I wish I knew, but they're probably about this wide.

Yeah, that's why I brought up the two foot six inch. It seems to sit at the mullion.

Agreed, yeah.

We can note to sit at the mullion instead of two foot six.

Okay. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. And now adjourn the meeting.