BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 3. REPORT WRITTEN BY: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: Derik Michaelson, Associate Planner 11/09/2012 11/20/2012 REPORT REVIEWED BY: Felicia Wheaton, Community Development Director Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: ATTACHMENTS: CEQA STATUS: APPROVAL DEADLINE: ZONING: ELEMENT Lot Area Lot Coverage Including decks Total Floor Area Main Residence Garage/ Second Unit Elevator/ Mech Room Front Yard Setback Second Unit/Garage Left Side Yard Setback Second Unit/Garage Right Side Yard Setback Second Unit/Garage Rear Yard Setback Secbnd Unit/Garage Buil6ing Height Max. Second Unit/Garage Parking Spaces Main Residence Second Unit Demolition, Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable Licenses 130 Bella Vista Avenue David S. and Anne-Marie Walker, Co-Trustees of the Walker Family Trust 1. Draft Resolutions 5. Resolutions 2011-051; 2012-022, 2. Current Applications 2012-023, and 2012-024 3. Project Plans 6. Correspondence 4. February 21, 2012 Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Applications accepted as complete on November 2, 2012 City action is required before January 2, 2013 or the project may be deemed approved. R-15 Single Family Residential, Belvedere Island PRESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROVED 15,000 s.f. 19,024 s.f. No Change 5,761 s.f. (30%) 2,953 sf (15.5%) No Change 9,602 s.f. (50%) 3,033 sf (16%) No Change 4,970 s.f. (26.1 % ) No Change 4,850 s.f. (33%) 3,803 s.f. (19.9%) No Change 750 s.f. 591 s.f. and 497 s.f. No Change 28 s.f. and 51 s. f. No Change 10' 41' 6" No Change 20' 11' O" No Change 10' 20' O" No Change 20' 78' 5" No Change 10' No Change 20' 20' 10" No Change 15' 48' 3" No Change 20' 96' 2" No Change 36' 35' 6" No Change 28' 11' 6" No Change 2 2 No Change 1 1 No Change
Transcript
BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 3.
REPORT WRITTEN BY:
REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE:
Derik Michaelson, Associate Planner
11/09/2012
11/20/2012
REPORT REVIEWED BY: Felicia Wheaton, Community Development Director Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
ATTACHMENTS:
CEQA STATUS:
APPROVAL DEADLINE:
ZONING:
ELEMENT
Lot Area
Lot Coverage
Including decks
Total Floor Area
Main Residence Garage/ Second Unit Elevator/ Mech Room
Front Yard Setback
Second Unit/Garage
Left Side Yard Setback
Second Unit/Garage
Right Side Yard Setback
Second Unit/Garage
Rear Yard Setback
Secbnd Unit/Garage
Buil6ing Height Max.
Second Unit/Garage
Parking Spaces Main Residence Second Unit
Demolition, Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable Licenses
130 Bella Vista Avenue
David S. and Anne-Marie Walker, Co-Trustees of the Walker Family Trust
1. Draft Resolutions 5. Resolutions 2011-051; 2012-022, 2. Current Applications 2012-023, and 2012-024 3. Project Plans 6. Correspondence 4. February 21, 2012 Staff
Reports and Meeting Minutes
Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Applications accepted as complete on November 2, 2012 City action is required before January 2, 2013 or the project may be deemed approved. R-15 Single Family Residential, Belvedere Island
PRESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROVED
15,000 s.f. 19,024 s.f. No Change
5,761 s.f. (30%) 2,953 sf (15.5%) No Change
9,602 s.f. (50%) 3,033 sf (16%) No Change
4,970 s.f. (26.1 % ) No Change
4,850 s.f. (33%) 3,803 s.f. (19.9%) No Change
750 s.f. 591 s.f. and 497 s.f. No Change 28 s.f. and 51 s. f. No Change
10' 41' 6" No Change
20' 11' O" No Change
10' 20' O" No Change
20' 78' 5" No Change
10' No Change
20' 20' 10" No Change
15' 48' 3" No Change
20' 96' 2" No Change
36' 35' 6" No Change
28' 11' 6" No Change
2 2 No Change 1 1 No Change
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust November 20, 2012 Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 19,024-square-foot, steeply down-sloping and developed lot in the R-15 Zone, on Belvedere Island. An existing 2,400-square-foot single-family residence, built circa 1892, is located at the northernmost portion of the property and 240-square-foot detached garage is located along Bella Vista Avenue in the northwest corner of the parcel. The site is a street-tostreet lot with frontal access along Bella Vista A venue and access from Bayview A venue below. The site affords views of Belvedere Cove, Raccoon Straits, and Angel Island. A terraced lawn, stone retaining walls, steps and bordered paths characterize the site. A large grove of oak trees and heavy brush are located on the lower eastern portion of the parcel. Single-family residences are located to the north, south and east, with Bayview Avenue (a public street) and single-family residences to the west.
On October 22, 2009 and on January 12, 2010, the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed an application for historic designation of the property at 130 Bella Vista A venue. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in Belvedere's register of local historic properties. The designation application was withdrawn prior to consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council.
On November 1, 2010, the property owners submitted an application for Demolition of the residence and garage. In order to determine if the property would be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, an historic resource evaluation was prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, an historical architecture firm. The Garavaglia report concluded the property did not meet the criteria for eligibility of an historic resource. On January 18, 2011, the Planning Commission granted a Demolition Permit for removal of the existing single-family residence and detached garage per Resolution 2011-005 (Attachment 5). The Demolition permit expires on January 18, 2013.
On July 22, 2011, the current property owners obtained a Design Review Exemption for the removal of a 48-inch-diameter Monterey Pine tree deemed a safety hazard on the site. Arborist statements were provided indicating that the tree was dying of old age, disease, pine pitch canker and bark beetle infestation. The reports indicated, furthermore, that the tree was at risk of failure in a heavy storm. The Monterey Pine tree has since been removed.
On February 21, 2012, the Commission granted approval of Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Variance applications with a recommendation to the City Council to approve Revocable License applications. Resolutions 2012-022, 2012-023, and 2012-024 are included as Attachment 5.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The applicants request a 24-month extension of the approved Demolition Permit and an 18-month extension of the approvals for Design Review. The original approvals by the Planning Commission granted Demolition of the existing residence and Design Review for a new 3,803-
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust November 20, 2012 Page 3
square-foot residence with a detached 591-square-foot garage structure, a 497-square-foot second unit, and a 28-square-foot exterior elevator with a 51-square-foot mechanical room.
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of renewed entitlements for Demolition and Design Review. Project components for Second Unit and Exception to Total Floor Area remain unchanged, do not expire, and are not part of this review other than as associated approvals. Per the recommendation of the Commission on February 21, 2012, a Revocable License application for private improvements in the Bella Vista A venue and the Bayview Avenue rights-of-way was reviewed and approved by City Council on August 13, 2012.
DEMOLITION
The Demolition Permit approved by the Planning Commission in January of 2011 includes a condition for a two-year expiration date. Pursuant to Condition of Approval "o," in Resolution 2011-005, the Demolition Permit for 130 Bella Vista expires on January 18, 2013. The applicant requests a 24-month extension of the previously approved Demolition Permit for a new expiration date of January 18, 2015.
A draft resolution of approval with revised Condition "o" regarding the Demolition Permit expiration date is included as Attachment 1. No other changes are proposed.
DESIGN REVIEW
Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area and Variance applications were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in February of 2012. Entitlements for Second Unit and Exception to Total Floor Area do not expire and remain unchanged from previously approved Resolutions (Attachment 5).
The applicant requests an 18-month extension of the previously approved Design Review for a new expiration date of May 20, 2014. Belvedere Municipal Code section 20.04.060 provides that, "[p ]rior to expiration of the design review approval, extensions of not more than one year from the original date of expiration may be granted by the Planning Consultant, with the approval of the City Manager. Extensions of any duration may be granted by the Planning Commission." (Emphasis added.) Because the Design Review approval here has not yet expired, the Planning Commission has the discretion to grant an extension of any duration pursuant to BMC 20.04.060.
The applicant requests minor changes to the original Design Review approval. These changes include the addition of the three new trees to the approved landscaping plan, as well as a change to the species of two other approved trees as shown on the "Proposed Tree Screening" plan. Correspondence between the property owner and neighbor agreeing to the heights of proposed trees is included as Attachment 6. No other changes to the original approvals are proposed. A draft Resolution of approval is included as Attachment 1.
130 Bella Vista A venue Owners: Walker Family Trust November 20, 2012 Page 4
EXCEPTION TO FLOOR AREA
This portion of the original approval does not expire and does not require consideration by the Planning Commission at this time.
VARIANCE
The Variance request is to extend the expiration date of the original approval from February 21, 2012, which permits a parking space for the Second Unit to encroach into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue. No changes are proposed which would affect the original findings for approval.
CONCLUSION
Staff suggests that there have been no substantial changes in environment or in regulatory review processes since the original approvals that would require a renewed analysis of the previously approved project applications. Staff supports the Demolition Permit, Design Review, Second Unit, and Variance applications and has prepared draft Resolutions of approval for the Commission's consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
To adopt the Resolution granting Demolition Permit to demolish an existing 2,400-square-foot residence and 240-square-foot garage located at 130 Bella Vista.
To adopt the Resolution granting Design Review and Second Unit Permit to construct a new 4,970-square-foot single-family residence, including a 497-square-foot Second Unit, remove existing shed, landscape changes, terraces, and new outdoor fire pit, and related improvements at 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
To adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to permit a parking space for the Second Unit to encroach into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue at 130 Beiia Vista Avenue.
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2012---A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 3,803-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND A 1,167-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE INCLUDING A 497-SQUARE-FOOT SECOND
UNIT WITH ELEV ATOR, REMOVE EXISTING SHED, AND LANDSCAPE CHANGES AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review and Second Unit Permit to construct a new 3,803-square-foot residence and a 1,167-square foot detached garage structure, including a 497-square-foot second unit with elevator, remove existing shed, and landscape changes, such as new terraces and outdoor fire pit at 130 Bella Vista A venue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noted public hearing on the requested Design Review application on February 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Extension of Design Review approval on November 20, 2012; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of extension of the Design Review Approval to construct a new 3,803-square-foot single family residence, and a 1,167-square foot detached garage structure including a 497-square-foot second unit with elevator, remove existing shed, and landscape changes such as new terraces and outdoor fire pit, at 130 Bella Vista A venue, with the following conditions:
a) The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising frorr:i. the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result.
b) That construction shall conform to the materials and drawings submitted by Sutton Suzuki Architects and Paul Leffingwell, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on October 18, 2012.
c) The applicant shall submit details showing the driveway cut, apron, and dimensions on the plans submitted for construction for review and approval by the Planning Department and City Engineer.
d) A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Manager and Planning Commission Chairman prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project which includes the landscape legend printed on the plan with the plants keyed into landscape design, irrigation system and details, and details of the bio-retention system.
Resolution No. ----130 Bella Vista Avenue November 20, 2012 Page 2
e) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. As required by the Fire Marshal, all vegetation must be planted and maintained a minimum of 6 inches back from the edge of pavement on Bella Vista A venue. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit. All of the measures of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) Vegetation Management Standards shall be adhered to during all of the construction and landscaping.
f) Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Work is not permitted on City Holidays.
g) Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a building permit, shall be obtained prior to commencing work in the City right-of-way, as required by the City Engineer.
h) That the plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be found by the Planning Manager to be in conformance with the approved Planning Commission plans.
i) All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Final lighting design with light specifications shall be filed with the City of Belvedere prior to issuance of a building permit for the review and approval of the Planning Manager and Planning Commission Chairman.
j) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a Revocable License for the wood fence on concrete curb, concrete wall, metal fence, planting areas, stairs, trellis, mailbox, and parking apron within the Bella Vista Avenue public right-of-way, and deer fence and stairs within the Bayview Avenue public right-of-way.
k) All Building Department requirements shall be met. Plans submitted for Building Permit must conform to the requirements of the 2010 Residential Code and the mandatory measures of the 2010 California Green Building Code. The applicant or property owners shall provide to the Building Department a report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Recommendations of the Nersi Hemati Report dated November 15, 2011 shall be incorporated into the geotechnical report and foundation design. Prior to completion of the project, the applicant or property owner shall obtain an address for the new second unit from the Building Department. As part of the process, the Building Department will notify all utility providers of the new address.
1) The new second unit shall conform to the 2010 California Residential Code (CRC). m) Applicants shall comply with all requirements of all utility providers including, the Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD), Sanitary District 5, and PG&E. 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of MMWD for water service prior to project final, including compliance with any applicable MMWD landscape ordinance, backflow prevention requirements, and testing requirements. Any modifications to the planting and/or tree removal approved by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed and approved with staff prior to modification. Prior to project final, the project landscape professional shall certify that the landscaping and irrigation were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
Resolution No. ---130 Bella Vista A venue November 20, 2012 Page 3
2. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain and satisfy any conditions required by the utility provider for utility connections to the second unit. Water meter connection fee may be reduced by the Marin Municipal Water District if the applicant agrees to limit rental income for a period of time specified by the Water District.
n) That the general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager, for review and approval, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
o) Design Review approvals expire eighteen (18) months from the date of approval, and as such, this approval expires on May 20, 2014.
p) Construction shall be completed within eighteen ( 18) months of the start of construction, pursuant to the Construction Time Limit Ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code section 20.04.035.
q) The project plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance are found by the Project Planner to be in conformance with the approved Planning Commission plans.
r) Prior to inspection of foundation forms, the property owner shall file for the review and approval of the Planning Department a survey of the foundation forms prepared by a licensed surveyor. Prior to inspection of building framing, the property owner shall file for the review and approval of the Planning Department, a survey of the ridges and eaves of the structures prepared by a licensed surveyor.
s) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on November 20, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk Louis Lenzen, Acting Chairman
Resolution No. ---
130 Bella Vista Avenue November 20, 2012 Exhibit A Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Design Review Criteria. In order for a design review application to be approved, the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria.
Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neigh boring landscape.
The site is vegetated, and many existing trees will remain. No new grade changes are proposed.
Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site.
As conditioned, the new residence and garage/second unit structure have been designed to relate to and fit with the site and neighborhood and would be in balance and harmony with structures on adjoining properties. The new house and garage/second unit structure are designed in a manner as to minimize the building mass and bulk on this steep site.
Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings which are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves.
As conditioned, the finding above can be made, as the materials and rooflines are in character with the setting, the new residence and new garage/second unit structure on-site, and neighboring residences and structures. The design does not include features that would be obtrusive or call attention to themselves.
B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony.
The design of the proposed garage and house addition integrates similar architectural design and use of materials and colors, as conditioned, as that of the primary residence on the parcel. The project incorporates existing and proposed landscaping to screen the addition.
Resolution No. ----130 Bella Vista A venue November 20, 2012 Exhibit A Page 2
Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impact, that blend with the existing land form and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone range are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors.
Proposed colors and materials will consist of wood, stone veneer, and horizontal wood siding, dark green aluminum clad doors and windows, dark green painted wood trim, charcoal grey metal trellis, natural zinc grey standing seam metal roof and fascia, exposed concrete, metal frame and cable railings. Gutters and downspouts would be zinc to match the roof. These colors and materials are appropriate for the structure and fit in well with the surrounding properties, many of which have elements finished with similar colors and materials.
Fences and screenin2. (A) Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical, and should not significantly block views.
Fences and physical screening are located so as to be compatible with the design of the site, preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings and not block views.
(B) Fences should be designed and located so that they are architecturally compatible with the design of the building, are aesthetically attractive, and do not significantly block views. Wire or chain link fences are discouraged, except as temporary barriers on construction sites.
The fences are designed to be architecturally compatible with the proposed residence. .
Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings.
The above finding can be made because the proposed new house and garage/second unit structure are out of the required setbacks, and none of the windows are placed in a manner to cause privacy concerns.
Resolution No. ----130 Bella Vista Avenue November 20, 2012 Exhibit A Page 3
Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties.
The proposed driveway modifications and landscape changes are designed to minimize interference with traffic flow. The driveway is in harmony with the design of the new garage and existing residence and do not intrude on the privacy of or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties.
Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan. Skylights should not have white or light opaque colored exterior lenses.
As conditioned, the new exterior lighting elements in the proposed scope of work have been designed to avoid glare, hazard or annoyance to neighboring properties or passersby.
Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities.
The project will correct existing nonconformities.
Landscape plans. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters.
As conditioned, the landscape plan is compatible with the existing landscape and character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native and natural appearing vegetation are placed to appear as loose informal clusters.
B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls, that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations.
Existing and proposed trees and shrubs will provide screening of the new house and garage/second unit structure.
Resolution No. ----130 Bella Vista A venue November 20, 2012 Exhibit A Page 4
C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings.
Existing trees and shrubs and new plantings will provide privacy between properties and maintain views.
D. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to repair, reseed and/or replant disturbed areas to prevent erosion.
Existing plants will be augmented by some fast-growing plants, such as Azalea, Clematis, Salvia, Ceanothus, Coffeeberry, and Emerald Carpet.
E. Landscape plans should include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age.
The landscape plan proposes a mix of landscape plantings.
F. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought tolerant, are encouraged. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turf areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided.
The landscape plans will be reviewed for water conserving measures.
CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE PERMITTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 19.78.080(F) OF THE
BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a second unit parking space to encroach 11 feet into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue where the parking space is required to be provided on the property at 130 Bella Vista A venue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Variance on November 20, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: a) The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege because parking
for other properties in the Zoning District also encroach into the public right-of-way such as 215 Golden Gate A venue.
b) Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including the topography and steep slope of the site where the property meets the street, locating the parking space even further on to the site would result in the need to create a very tall retaining wall that would begin to encroach on an Oak tree that is proposed to remain, and therefore, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property loss.
c) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to the property or improvements of owners or the quiet enjoyment of their premises because the new house and garage/second unit structure will satisfy all Building and Fire Code requirements and there is adequate back-up space for proposed parking.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a parking space that encroaches 11 feet into the public right-of-way adjacent to 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on November 20, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: RECUSED ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk Louis Lenzen, Acting Chairman
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. ---A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 2,400-SQUARE-FOOT
RESIDENCE AND 240-SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE LOCATED AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 2,400-square-foot residence built in approximately 1892, and 240-square-foot garage located at 130 Bella Vista Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to the categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHERAS, the Planning Commission previously approved a Demolition Permit by means of Resolution 2011-005 on January 18, 2011 at a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition application on November 20, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Demolition findings specified in section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of Demolition pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of an existing 2,400-square-foot residence built in approximately 1892, and 240-square-foot garage located at 130 Bella Vista Avenue, with the following conditions:
a) The property owners shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Demolition approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result.
b) Demolition shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Demolition is prohibited on City holidays except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager.
c) All work shall be completed within three weeks of the issuance of the building permit unless deconstruction methods are used in which case six weeks is permitted.
d) Obstruction or blockage, partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, shall not be permitted without first obtaining, 24 hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance shall be required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets shall be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each workday.
Resolution No. ----
130 Bella Vista Avenue Page 2
e) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work.
f) All areas of land from which buildings, structures or vegetation is removed shall be re-vegetated. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager and the Chair of the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit for demolition.
g) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin.
h) The site shall be protected from trespassing and entry by persons not authorized to be on said site. Site protection may include fencing, signs, locked gates or such other measures as deemed necessary to protect the public health and safety.
i) The applicant shall provide to the City satisfactory evidence, prior to commencing work, that all utility services have been notified and that all services including, but not limited to, water, gas and electricity have been terminated or removed from the structure to a safe location on the site, and that sanitary sewer service has been properly terminated to insure that disconnected sewer lines do not leak or spill sewage on or off the site.
j) Existing drainage structures and facilities shall not be demolished without prior written approval from the City engineer. If such demolition is authorized, a plan indicating how site drainage will be provided shall be submitted to and approved by the City engineer.
k) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations.
1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with State air quality requirements related to the control of dust generated by the demolition and construction, and prepare a plan for the re-use and recycling of demolition materials.
m) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit a set of as-built floor plans for the detached garage structure as well as the residence, including in an electronic format such as pdf or dwf.
n) Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant must obtain public liability and property damage insurance, naming the City as an additional insured, pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 16.28.060.
o) This approval is valid until January 18, 2015.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on November 20, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: APPROVED:
ATTEST: Louis Lenzen, Acting Chairman
Leslie Carpentiers, City Clerk
Resolution No. -----130 Bella Vista A venue Exhibit A
DEMOLITION FINDINGS
The following sections are edited versions of Section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Demolition Findings. In order for an application to be approved, the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria.
The demolition, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City.
The proposed demolition is a 2,400-square-foot single family residence and 240-square-foot detached garage. The applicant will be required to meet the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department.
As conditioned, the site shall be protected from trespassing and entry by persons not authorized to be on said site. Site protection may include fencing, signs, locked gates or such other measures as deemed necessary to protect the public health and safety.
As conditioned, obstruction or blockage, partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, will not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance, a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance is required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets will be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each work day.
As conditioned, the applicant will provide verification that all utility services have been notified and that all services including, but not limited to, water, gas and electricity have been terminated or removed from the structure to a safe location on the site, and that sanitary sewer service has been properly terminated to insure that disconnected sewer lines do not leak or spill sewage on or off the site.
As conditioned, existing drainage structures and facilities will not be demolished without prior written approval from the City engineer.
The demolition .will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed.
Landmark designation of the residence was considered by the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee. Landmark status was not granted based on insufficient evidence for historic integrity. A professional historic resource evaluation of the residence prepared by Garavaglia Architecture concluded that the residence would not be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources at any level under any criteria.
The demolition plan presented by the applicant provides adequate site protection during and following the demolition.
The proposed demolition will be required to meet the requirements of the Building Department. The applicant must address soil erosion, drainage requirements, and off-hauling of debris with the Building Department.
The time frame for the demolition is reasonable.
The time frame for the demolition is estimated at three (3) weeks. As conditioned, the Planning Commission will determine the date by which all work will be completed.
. Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
OCT 1 8 2012
CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE• BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336
Project Description: This application is for an extension of the original DR Approval of Februarv 21. 2012. and for the addition of three trees to the previously approved landscape plan. In addition. the species of
two previously approved trees is proposed to be changed.
Design Review Application • Page 1 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLIC ATTACHMENT 2
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
Original Project Description: At the January 18, 2011 Regular Planning commission meeting, a Resolution was adopted granting a Demolition permit to demolish an existing 2,400 sf residence and 240 sf garage located at 130 Bella Vista. Previous approval was also given to remove a monterey pine, which has been taken down. The application for which we are requesting an extension also includes the demolition of a 72 sf non-conforming shed on the property. This application proposes a project on this down-sloping lot that consists of a main residence of 3,803 sf with a partial second story, and a detached structure of 1, 167 sf that combines a two-car garage at street level with a second unit located below the garage. The proposed project also includes new entry gate and trellis at street level, new on-grade site steps and retaining walls and a 6 foot high fence along Bella Vista Avenue. There is proposed a single uncovered second unit parking space supported by retaining walls. Located at the main level terrace (located below street level) is a steel frame trellis with a stone wall support. A 6 foot high deer fence is proposed along Bay View Avenue.
Ori inal 130 Bella Vista SITE DATA no chan e
Descri tion Code
Lot Area 15,000 sf
Lot Covera 30/ 50% 15.5% / 16%
Lot Covera structures onl 5,761 sf 14.2% 2,953 sf
Lot Covera lus decks 9,602 sf 15.1% 3,033 sf
Floor Area Total 4,850 sf 4,970 sf
•Main Residence ?:'"/<
•Main Level Livin S ace
•Master Suite 650
•Lower Level Livin 1, 115
195 -
•Covered Terrace
•Detached Gara e/2nd Unit Bid
•Gara e
•Second Unit 497
•Elevator 28
•Misc. Covered Area
Floor Area Ratio ':'
Front Setback at house 10'-0" 41'-6"
0'-0" 11 '-0"
Front Setback at 2nd unit 15'-0" 15'-1"
Left Side Setback at house 10'-0" 20'-0"
10'-0" 20'-0"
Ri ht Side Setback to 2nd unit 20'-0" 20'-10"
Rear Setback 15'-0" 48'-3"
Ht Max at house w/in first 40' 28'-0" N/A
36'-0" 35'-6"
28'-0" 18'-4"
28'-0" 27'-11"
Hei · ht Av 28'-0" 23'-3" +-~-=:......;:~~-+-'-""'-'-'""--';_,..;..i
Parkin 2 for SFD, +1 for 2nd unit 3 2 2 Design Review Application ° Page 2 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
ZONING PARAMETERS: See Attached
Lot Area .............. .
Lot Coverage . . ........ .
Total Floor Area ...... .
Front Yard Setback ... .
Left Sideyard Setback ... .
Right Sideyard Setback ... .
Rear Yard Setback .... .
Building Height Maximum ... _
Building Height Average .. .
Parking Spaces ....... ·
Date Originally Filed: 22 November 2011
General Information
Regyjred Exjsting. proposed
{To Be Completed by Applicant)
I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: David S. Walker & Anne-Marie Walker. Co-Trustees of the Walker Family Trust
2. Address of project: 130 Bella Vista
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Ron Sutton. Sutton Suzuki Architects. 39 Forrest Street. Suite 101: Mill Valley, CA 94941. 383-3139 x 103
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N/ A
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Building Permit
6. Existing zoning district: R 15
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Residential
8. Year built: 1892 Original architect: unknown
Project Description
9. Site size. 19.024 sf.
10. Square footage. Proposed 4.969 sf
11. Number of floors of construction. Two floors at main house: two floors at garage/second unit
12. Amount of off-street parking provided. 2+
13. Plans attached? yes
r;>esign Review Application ° Page 3 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-l l-l l .doc
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
14. Proposed scheduling. 2013 construction
15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. NIA'------------------
17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected. Main Residence plus 2nd Unit; _________________ _
18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. N/A ---------------------------
19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. A variance for parking was approved because the one space required for the second unit is only half on the property. Extending the parking space further into the property threatens the nearby oak tree and requires a tall retaining wall.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of 0 ffi
ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 0 ffi
22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 0 ffi
23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 ffi
24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 0 ffi
25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0 ffi
drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 ffi
27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ffi O 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or 0 ffi
explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 0 ffi
31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 0 ffi
32. Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value. 0 ffi
33. Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. 0 ffi
Environmental Setting
34. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural; historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. _A
demolition permit has already been approved for the existing house and garage. The site has many oak trees
that are being retained. Some original rock walls will be retained and rocks from unstable walls will be reused onsite.
35. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential; commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (onefamily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
The area is typically single-family residential. with properties and houses of varvinq sizes and various vintages. Most lots have abundant plantings, including many large trees. Many homes in the area encroach on setbacks, as the homes pre-dated the current zonmg code.
Design Review Application • Page 4 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc
For Design Review applications not requiring a building permit this form does not apply. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval.
This Section advises you of the Time Limit Guidelines that are applied to all Design Review applications that require a building permit as prescribed by Section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. "As part of any application for Design Review, the applicant shall file a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed constryction, and based thereon, a construction time limit shall be established for the project in accordance with Section 20.04.035(b) of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Compliance with such time limit shall become a condition of design review approval." The maximum time for completion of construction shall not exceed six months for additions and remodeling up to $100,000 in value; 12 months for construction up to $500,000 in value; and 18 months for construction valued at more than $500,000. Failure to complete construction in the agreed upon time will result in fines ranging from $400 per day to $800 per day with a $200,000 maximum penalty. Application for ·an extension of the prescribed time limit can be made providing certain conditions are met.· The maximum extension is 6 months. The time for completion of the construction shall also be indicated on the building permit.
In the space provided below please indicate the estimated projed valuation.
Estimated cost of construction: $=3,,,,5'-"'0=01"'0'-"'0=0,_,..0'""'0 ______________ _ Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply to your project:
0 1. For new construction, the demonstrable value of which is estimated to be less than $500.000. Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.
>E 2. For new construction, tlie demonstrable value of which is estimated to be more than $500.000. Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.
0 3. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $100.000. Construction shall be completed six (6) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit. ·
0 4. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at less than $500.000. 1
Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.
'-
0 5. For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at more than $500.000. -Construction shall be completed eighteen (18) months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.
For those projects that do not fall under any of the above Time Limit Guidelines or wish to exceed the time limit that was approved by the Planning Commission, the following outlines the "Extension of Construction Time Limit" (20.04.0350) process: '
Design Review Application• Page 5 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev 1-11-11.doc
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
1. Within twelve months following the original approval of Design Review for the construction, and provided that no construction activity has yet commenced on the project, the applicant may apply for an extension of the established construction time limit, not to exceed an additional six months.
2. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be accompanied by complete working drawings for the construction, a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension, and a fee, as established by City Council resolution.
3. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission whether to approve the requested extension.
4. The committee's recommendation shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and noticed as an amendment to the applicant's existing Design Review approval. Any modification by the Planning Commission of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the Design Review approval.
5. Administrative extension. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. The committee may recommend to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission may approve, an extension if it is determined that any one or more of the following factors presents an unusual obstacle to complying with the standard construction time limit: a.Site topography; b.Site access; c. Geologic issues; d. Neighborhood considerations; e. Other unusual factors. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a written recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve the requested extension and setting forth the findings it has made justifying its decision. The Committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines of Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, provided however that such extensions do not result in a construction time line exceeding 18 months.
This Section advises you of the costs that may be involved in processing Planning-related applications and/or appeals. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to be responsible for all expenses incurred in the processing of your application(s)/appeal(s).
As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source:
Hourly billing'costs as of July 1, 2008, (subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ 67.07 Assistant Planner $ 39.29 City Attorney $ 185.00 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead
Design Review Application • Page 6 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
For all applications and appeals, an initial deposit is required at the time of submittal, with the amounts determined by City Council resolution. In addition to the initial deposit, the property owner/appellant may be required to make further deposits for anticipated work. Invoices are.due and payable within 15 days. Application( s) /or appeal( s) will not be placed on an agenda until these deposits are received.
This Section applies to all projects that receive design review. It has been found that there are often misunderstandings regarding changes to building plans that receive Design Review. This occurs when construction plans are submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance after planning approval has been achieveq. Another common occurrence is a change to the project while it is underway without first obtaining an approval from the City for the deviation from the original plan.
To help your project proceed in an expeditious and harmonious manner, the City of Belvedere wishes to inform you of several basic understandings regarding your project and its approval. By you and your representative signing this document, you are acknowledging that you have 'read, understand, and will comply with each of the points listed.
1. Once Design Review approval has been granted, construction plans may be submitted to the City. The construction plans shall be jdentical to the plans approved for design review. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.010). Deviations from the plans approved for Design Review cannot be approved except by an amendment to the Design Review approval. It is the applicants' responsibility to assure conformance, and the failure of staff to bring nonconformities to the applicants' attention shall not excuse the applicant from such compliance.
2. Comments from City staff regarding the project shall neither be deemed offici.al nor relied upon unless they are in writing and signed by the City Manager or his designee.
3. Without the prior written approval of the City, construction on the project shall not deviate in any manner, including but not limited to form, size or color, from approved construction plans. If at any time during construction, ·and without such written approval, construction on the project is found by a member of City staff to deviate from the approved construction plans in any manner, an official STOP WORK ORDER will be issued by the City, and there shall be a total cessation of all work on the project.
4. If such· a STOP WORK ORDER is issued, the City may initiate proceedings to impose administrative penalties or nuisance abatement proceedings and issue an order to show cause, which will compel the undersigned property owner to appear before the City Council and show cause why the work performed does not deviate from the approved plans and why such work should not be condemned as a public nuisance and abated. (Authority: Belvedere Municipal Code Chapters 1.14 and 8.12)
Design Review Application • Page 7 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc
Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
Story Pole Requirement
Preliminary Story Poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least twenty (20) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard. Final Story Poles must be placed at the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.
Limit on the Number of Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review Approvals
Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.020(B)(1 )(a), for a site or structure with no existing active Design Review approval, during any twelve-month period,-an applicant may obtain up to four administrative approvals, which may be in the form of either Staff Approval, Design Review Exception, or a combination of the two. However, there is no limit to the number of times an applicant may apply for Planning Commission Design Review. Any such administrative or Planning Commission Design Review approval(s) shall be valid for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued for the project within said twelve (12) month period, in which case the Design Review approval shall be valid as long as there is an active building permit for the project.
Once a project has been approved by Planning Staff or the Planning Commission, administrative approvals to amend the existing active Design Review approval for that project shall be limited to three such approvals at any time during the lifetime of the underlying Design Review approval, plus one such approval during the process of obtaining final inspection approval of the project. Any such administrative approval(s) granted shall NOT extend the twelve (12) month term, of the underlying Design Review approval, or the building permit coristruction time limit if a building permit has been issued for the project.
All property owners must complete and sign the section below which is applicable to your property.
Street address of subject property: 130 Bella Vista
Assessor's Parcel No( s ). of subject property: 060-174-14
IBl Properties Owned by a Trust. LLC. Corporation. Partnership. or Other Entity
Please provide proof of ownership and of the signer's authority to enter into contracts regarding this property. One of (or a combination of) the following documents may contain the necessary information. For trusts: the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto; property deed; certificate of title insurance. For other entities: articles of incorporation; partnership agreement; property deed; certificate of title insurance; written certification of facts by an attorney. Photocopies are acceptable. To ensure privacy, documentation will be shredded in a timely manner, or, upon request, returned to the applicant.
Design Review Application• Page 8 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc
" . Project Address: 130 Bella Vista October 2012
\, Oav\d S. and Anne-Marie Walker, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above-described subject property is owned by· a trust, LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity and that my signature on this application has been authorized by all necessary action required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity.
I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities, b above and representations one through four contained therein.
In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded.
Signed this ~Y of October , 2012, }lt
Signature \ _)-:-\f • Wt \.. Title(s) David S. Walker
lvedere, California.
Signature ~ J4=- ~Q.L Title(s) Anne-Marie Walker
II4 Trustee(s) CJ Partners: CJ Limited or CJ General O Corporation
Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity: Walker Family Trust
properties Owned by lndjyiduals
I, , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property.
I hereby make application for approval of the design review requested. I have read this application and hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for the design review and initial environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
I agree to be responsible for all costs incurred in connection with the processing of my application and appeals, if any. And I agree to be bound by Section 5, "Acknowledgement of Responsibilities," above and representations one through four contained therein. ·
In the case of an application for revocable license, I agree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded.
Signed this ____ · day of __ .....,... ___ , 20_, at Belvedere, California.
Signature
Design Review Application• Page 9 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-1 Ldoc
16 October 2012 RECEIVED
OCT 1 82017 Felicia Wheaton Planning Department City of Belvedere City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, California 94920
Re: 130 Bella Vista Avenue
Dear Felicia:
As the owners of 130 Bella Vista, we would like to request an amendment to the Demolition Permit approved by Resolution No. 2011-005 on January 18,2011. Per the original resolution, the referenced permit is to expire on January 18, 2013. We are still in the process of value engineering of the proposed foundation for the new home that was approved for the property, and we
·would like to request that the new expiration date of the Demolition Permit be January 18, 2015. Attached please find a copy of both the Resolution No. 2011-005 as well ~s the minutes from the meeting of January 18, 2011 for your reference.
We would also like to extend for eighteen months our Design Review approval and Variance, both originally approved February 21, 2012.
In addition, we would like to request Design Review approval for adding three (3) trees to the previously approved landscape, and changing the species on two (2) trees that were previously approved. As you are aware, the certified story poles were up for 3 months from before May 3151 until after August 24t11.
bBJ.W.Cl Anne-Marie Walker
Attachments: o Demolition Permit Application • Variance Application o Design Review Application o 4 sets (11" x 17") DR prints, originally dated 11/22/2011 • 4 prints (11"x 17") "Proposed Tree Screening" dated 8/10/2012 • 4 copies "As-Built Story Poles" certified by Lawrence P. Doyle, dated
8/15/12 o 4 sets of site photos of story poles, taken May 31st
Project Address: Demo Permit Amendment 130 Bella Vista
APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT ECEIVED CITYOFBELVEDERE. PLANNINGCOMMISSION
R . t 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. ~ 15-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBEL VEDERE.ORG
Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished: -==2=6=-4.:..:0'-----------------
1. Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: TBD ~----------
2. Location where demolition debris will be disposed of: Various recycling and disposal sites yet to be determined.
3 .. Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: Size: 30cy (16'x8'x6') Location: TBD.
4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City: To Site: San Rafael Ave. to Golden Gate Ave. to Belvedere Ave. to Beach Rd. to Bella Vista
From Site: Bella Vista Ave. to Oak Ave. to Golden Gate Ave. to San Rafael Ave.
Demolition Permit Application • Page 1 of2 • City of Belvedere U:\plannlngmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EOITIONIAPPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc Rev. 012312008 LC
Project Address: Demo Pennit Amendment 130 Bella Vista
5. SizefType of trucks used to haul demolition material: Debris Box trucks (8'-6"w x 30'-0"cy) and 1 O wheel dump trucks C8'6"w x 25'-0"cy)
6. Estimate of cubic yards of demolition material to be removed: 30 to 50 loads at +/- 30cy/load = 900 cy to 1500 cy.
7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed:
Approxjmate!y 18 to 24 months
8. Period of time demolition is expected to take: Approximately 4 to 5 weeks
9. Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in
conjunction with the demolition: Refer to previously approved Design Review docs for trees &
vegetation: drainage TBD.
10. Erosion, sedimentation, and /or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: TBD pending completion of civil site design and project plans.
11. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: Not applicable
12. Year building to be demolished was constructed."-: --'-'18"""'9~0------------------
13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any: _,,n=o=n=e'-----------
14. 0ther~= --------~---,----~----------------
Note: The demolition contractor will be required to provide the City with a certificate of worker's compensation insurance and niay be required to post a bond. The contractor must also secure a City of Belvedere business license before the actual demolition permit can be issued by the Building Official.
I, the undersigned owner of the property herein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the demolition permit requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) arre and correct to t'he best of my knowledge and
belief ili c Signatu~: . ~ r. W~ ' Name: David S. Walker
Date: 1ol I 6Zzerz_
Demolition Permit Application ° Page 2 of 2 • City of Belvedere U:ljliannl~lannhlg FonnslPlANNINGFORM6- LATEST EDITIONIAPPUCATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT.doc RO\'. ll/23l2003 lC
fr-•-··-' - •• -.L'H- .. :_ .• - - Project Address:_ Extension of Variance: 130 Belle Vista:
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION
Description of project and variance(s) requested: Main residence and detached structure containing 2-car garage and 2!L unit below street level. Variance is needed to allowed parking space (required for 2.lli! unit) to be partially on City property. This application is for an Extension of the· variance granted 2/21/12.
ORQ!NANCE§ REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSEP
Variance Application • Page 1 of2 • City of Belvedere U.l,p!anningmanagur\Pl<innlng f 1Jmrn\PLANNING FORMS - LA.TEST EDIT'ION\APPLICA TION FOR VARIANCE.dee Ro-J. 9/2312006 LC
Extension of Variance Project Address:_ Extension of Variance: 130 Belle Vista:
I hereby apply for a variance from the strict interpretation of the Belvedere Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction described on the previous page. I propose that the Planning Commission make the following findings of fact in order to grant the requested variance:
A. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated because: Other properties have been granted a variance to allow a portion of a required parking space to be on City owned property.
B. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property Joss, as follows: The downs/oping property is fairly steep as it meets the street. Pulling the parking space forward to be entirely on the property would create a very tall retaining wall that would begin to encroach on an oak tree that is intended to remain.
C. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners, of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises because: This parking space is proposed in an area that has adequate back-up space and is located in an area that the car itself will be
screened by vegetation when parked.
I, the undersigned owner of the property ~erein described (or owner representative, as authorized by completion of a Statement of Ownership and Designation of Representative), hereby make application for the variance requested, and I hereby certify at the facts, statements and information presented herein and · ttach de hibit(s) are trueyan correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
Signature: , .. W \.. Anne-Marie Walker
Date:
Variance Application • Page 2 of2 ° City of Belvedere
BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 11. REPORT DATE: 2/17/2012
MEETING DATE: 2/21/2012
REPORT WRITTEN BY: Lorraine Weiss, Planner
REPORT REVIEWED BY: Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
ATTACHMENTS:
CEQA STATUS:
APPROVAL DEADLINE:
ZONING:
ELEMENT Lot Area*
Lot Coverage
Including decks
Total Floor Area
Main Residence Garage/ Second Unit Elevator Mechanical Room
Front Yard Setback. Second Unit/Garage
Left Side Yard Setback Right Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback
Second Unit/Garage
Building Height Max.**
Second Unit/Garage Building Height Average Parking Spaces
Main Residence Second Unit
Design Review, Second Unit, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable Licenses
130 Bella Vista A venue
David S. and Anne-Marie Walker, Co-Trustees of the Walker Family Trust Sutton Suzuki Architects
130 Bella Vista A venue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page 2
*A survey was prepared for the current proposal by Meridian Surveying Engineering, Inc. dated August 2011 indicating the calculated lot area is 19,024 square feet. ••
Where the average slope on the building site of a lot is thirty percent or more, a height of thirty-six feet is oermitted. (BMC 19.56.060) i••
The Site/Roof Plan appears to indicate a garage roof eave which extends over the front property line. The applicant has stated that it is not the intent of the project to extend over the front property line and this area will be corrected prior to issuance of a building permit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 19,024-square-foot, steeply down-sloping and developed lot in the R-15 Zone, on Belvedere Island. An existing 2,400-square-foot single-family residence, built circa 1892, is located at the northernmost portion of the property and 240-square-foot detached garage is located along Bella Vista A venue in the northwest comer of the parcel. The site is a street-tostreet lot with frontal access along Bella Vista Avenue and access from Bayview Avenue below. The site affords views of Belvedere Cove, Raccoon Straits, and Angel Island. A large 48-inchdiameter Monterey Pine tree occupies a large area of the upper portion of the parcel. A terraced lawn, stone retaii1ing walls, steps and bordered paths characterize the site. A large grove of Oak trees and heavy brush are located on the lower eastern portion of the parcel. Single-family residences are located to the north, south and east, with Bayview Avenue (a public street) and single family residences to the west.
On October 2i, 2009, the Historic Preservation Committee reviewed an application submitted by the property owners for historic designation of the property at 130 Bella Vista A venue; The Committee felt that more information was needed to determine whether the property qualified as a historic resource. The Committee continued the application, directing staff and the applicant to come back with a stronger case for designation.
On January 12, 2010, staff brought the application back to the Historic Preservation Committee. Staff presented additional research regarding the property's potential historical significance; however, the Committee did not find that there was sufficient evidence for historical designation. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in Belvedere's register of local historic properties. The designation application was withdrawn prior to consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council.
On November 1, 2010, the property owners submitted an application for Demolition of the residence and garage. In order to detennine if the property would be eligible for -listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, a historic resource evaluation was prepared by Garavaglia Architecture, an historical architecture firm. On January 18, 2011, the Planning Commission granted a Demolition Pem1it for removal of the existing single-family residence and detached garage was per Resolution 2011-005 (provided as Attachment 5). The Demolition pennit is valid until January 18, 2013.
On July 22, 2011, the new property owners obtained a Design Review Exemption for the removal of a 48-inch-diameter Monterey Pine tree which was deemed a safety hazard on the site. Three arborist statements (in Attachment 6) were provided indicating that the tree was dying of
130 Bella Vista A venue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page 3
old age, disease, Pine Pitch Canker and Bark Beetle infestation. The reports indicated, furthermore, that the tree was at risk of failure in a heavy storm.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The applicant requests Planning Commission review and approval of the following entitlements: Design Review, Second Unit Permit, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance, and Revocable Licenses. The applicant proposes to construct a new 3,803-square-foot residence, detached 1,167-square-foot, two-car garage structure (including a 497-square-foot second unit and associated exterior 28-square-foot elevator), and 51-square-foot mechanical room. Plans also include a new single parking space, terraces, landscaping, gas fire-pit, outdoor barbeque, raised redwood planters, retaining walls, driveways and other improvements. The applications are included as Attachment 2. Project Plans are included as Attachment 3.
DESIGN REVIEW
The proposed architectural design was reviewed by the City's Consulting Architect, Jack MacAllister, F.A.I.A. The Consulting Architect's comments are provided in a letter dated December 20, 2011 (Attachment 4). The project details are described below.
Architectural Style, Colors and Materials: The applicant proposes a new Contemporary style two-story residence and separate two-story garage/second unit structur~. The proposed colors and materials consist of wood shingles, stone veneer and horizontal wood siding, dark green aluminum clad doors and windows, dark green painted wood trim, chaFcoal grey metal trellis, natural zinc grey standing seam metal roof and fascia, exposed concrete walls, and cabl.e railings.
Site Design: At street level, access would be provided to the detached garage structure and second unit via an elevator or stairs. Three sets of steps surrounded by lush landscaping would be provided down to the main level of the house below the street. The new house would be placed in approximately the same location as the existing home. The house would be organized around a series of terraces that roughly conform to the existing benches and retaining walls. It would be located 10 feet to the south to comply with the requirements for a 10-foot side yard setback. According to City's Consulting Architect, the proposed spatial organization would take
. advantage of the sloping, terraced s~te to avoid extensive excavation. The existing path up the hill from Bayview Avenue would be preserved and restored. Three parking spaces would be provided, including two in the detached garage and a third surface parking space adjacent to the garage. This parking space encroaches into the public right-of-way, which is discussed further in the section of this staff report, entitled "Variance." The proposal would require 497 cubic yards of cut, 451 cubic yards of fill, and 46 cubic yards of off-haul.
Roof Plans: The applicant proposes a standing seam zinc roof, with a grey finish, for both the house and garage/second ·unit. The roof of the house would have two gable components; one at the northern portion of the house with a 3:12 slope, and the second at the southwest corner of the house with a 6: 12 slope. Other roof areas of the house are designed with a 4: 12 slope. The proposed eaves vary in depth from 0 to 1 foot on the north side, 1.5 feet to 4 feet on the west side, 2.5 feet to 8 feet on the south side, and 1 foot on the east side. The project architect
130 Bella Vista A venue Owners: Walker, Family Trust February21, 2012 Page 4
designed the garage/second unit structure with 3: 12 and 4: 12 roof slopes, and roof eaves with depths of 3.5 feet on the west side, 2 feet on the east side, and 1 foot on the north and south sides.
Floor Plans: The upper level of the main residence would consist of a living room, dining room, kitchen, pantry, family room, half bathroom, elevator, outdoor covered terrace off of the living room, and patio off of the kitchen. The lower level of the house would consist of a master bedroom suite with bathroom, two bedrooms and two bathrooms, elevator with mechanical room, laundry room, and wine cellar.
A two-car garage with an elevator and mechanical room would be located on the upper level of the site with access off of Bella Vista Avenue. The residence would feature a 497-square-foot Second Unit in the lower level of the detached garage structure with a small kitchen area and independent access to the exterior of the house. For more information about the Second Unit, see the section of this report, entitled "Second Unit."
Landscaping: As indicated previously, the existing 48-inch Monterey Pine tree located on the upper portion of the site will be removed. The application includes a Preliminary Landscape Plan (Sheet I). The landscape plan is separated into sections with general plantings for each landscape area including replanting the site with a mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. An existing Oak Grove with 16 Oak trees, ranging in size from 6 inches in diameter to 26 inches and a cluster of Oak trees, is located at the lower portion of the property and is proposed to be retained.
Landscaping must conform to both the requirements of the Design Review Ordinance and the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) Vegetation Management Standards. The TFPD requires that new houses comply with the standards for minimal defensible space and for specific vegetation requirements. The minimum required defensible space is defined as the area within I 0 feet of any structure, including decks. Mixed in with the Oak Grove shown as to remain in the project plans is a large amount of dense brush, Bay and Acacia trees. All of these plants are proposed to be removed, per the Fire Protection District's Vegetation Management Standards. Other plants that are less hazardous in this area are proposed to remain.
Lighting: The applicant proposes low level exterior lighting with.a bronze finish. Nineteen (19) ·exterior lights and twenty-eight (28) landscape lights would be installed, as follows: At street level, two recessed lights would be located in the metal trellis at the entry gate and four recessed lights would be in the metal trellis on the kitchen patio. Six step lights would be provided on the stairs down to the main level, three step lights on the second set of stairs and two step lights on the stairs leading to the house. Three recessed lights would be installed in the overhangs outside of the garage/second unit. Four recessed lights would be located in the overhangs above the upper terrace. Two recessed lights would be located in the overhang above the main entrance. Two recessed lights would be above the kitchen patio. Four recessed lights would be located above the lower level bedroom deck. Eight steps lights would be located on the stairs outside of the garage/second un:it. Four step lights would be located on the upper terrace and five would be provided on the stairs from the lower terrace garden to the path. The project would be conditioned to require that all lighting be shielded and down-lit so as not spill beyond the
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page 5
property. A final lighting plan and schedule would be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Design Review Findings:
Pursuant to Section 20.04. 120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, there should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. The City's Consulting Architect Jack MacAllister has reviewed the plans (Attachment 4) and recommends that the proposal in compliance with the Design Review Ordinance.
The applicant and project architect have worked diligently with staff to address the Design Review requirements. The new residence has been successfully designed to relate to the site and neighborhood and has not been designed to attract attention to itself. The impression of bulk and large expanses of any one material have been successfully avoided. As conditioned in the attached Resolution, a final landscape plan would be filed for the review and approval of staff and the Planning Commission Chairman. The final landscape plan also must be reviewed and approved by the Tiburon Fire Protection District. The project landscape architect provided details for areas of new landscaping within the 10-foot-wide defensible space zone around the home on February 16, 2012 and February 17, 2012, as possible conditions of approval for the project. These additional details are included in Attachment 7. Initial comments from the Fire Marshal have indicated that these conditions, including removal of an existing Holly tree and addition of the screening hedges shown in Mr. Leffingwell's details dated February 17, 2012, would meet the Fire District's requirements. As conditioned to include the removal of the Holly tree and the addition of the hedges, staff is able to find that the plans provide adequate landscape screening to maintain current levels of privacy and to soften building elements and exterior lighting. Lastly, staff notes that if additional tree removal or significant changes to the landscape plan are required by the Fire District or Water District, the landscape plan may return to the Planning Commission for further consideration. ·
SECOND UNIT PERMIT
The applicant requests approval for a Second Unit as part of the new detached two-story garage/second unit structure. The garage would be on the upper level and the Second Unit on the lower level of this building. The proposed Second Unit would have 497 square feet of floor area. The garage/second unit structure would incorporate similar architectural style, details, colors and building materials as the new primary residence on the property.
Pursuant to the Belvedere Municipal Code, a Second Unit may be created on a lot or building site, subject to the development standards set forth in Section 19.78.080(D), (F), (G), (I), and (R).. These development standards include: unit size, off-street parking, vehicular street access, privacy, and quantity, respectively. The proposed design of the Second Unit would satisfy these development standard requirements of Section 19.78.080 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, in
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page6
addition to all of the other requirements of Section 19. 78.080. The Second Unit would be less than 750 feet in ·floor area (at 497 square feet). The parcel on which the Second Unit would be constructed also contains only one vehicul~r street access. Additionally, the Second Unit would include privacy screening. Finally, there would be one Second Unit on the parcel, satisfying the Code's quantity requirement.
If a Variance was granted for Section 19.78.080(F) regarding parking spaces, and an exception was granted for the Total Floor Area Ratio, thereby satisfying Section 19.78.080(C) (which is not recommended at this time, as explained below), then the proposed Second Unit would satisfy the remaining requirements of Section 19.78.080.
The size of the subjec_t property is over 10,000 square feet. The proposed Second Unit would be architecturally compatible "'.-Vith the main dwelling since it would be constructed with a similar architecture to that of the main house. The Second Unit would not be developed in, or contribute to, any geological hazards on the site or on adjoining properties. In addition, Building and Fire Codes would apply, and applicants requesting a Second Unit must file with the County Recorder a declaration or agreement of restrictions stating that the Second Unit on the parcel shall not be sold separately and other limitations. The proposed Second Unit would require separate water meters and would be taxed at the same rate as a primary residence for Fire Department services. Lastly, a third parking space associated with the Second Unit would be provided, as described below.
The new Second Unit would change the parking requirements for this property. The two required parking spaces for every primary residence would be located in the proposed garage and a third surface parking space for the Second Unit would be located in the southwest comer of the parcel. adjacent to the garage. A backing-up distance of 29 feet would exist between the surface parking space and the opposite edge of the street on Bella Vista A venue. This surface parking space would be 8 feet wide and 18 feet deep in conformance with the standard parking dimensions of Section 19 .68.020 Belvedere Municipal Code. However, the parking space would encroach 11 feet into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue. An application for a Variance to Section l 9.78.080(F) of the B.M.C. has been submitted with the project. The encroachment is further discussed in the section of this staff report, entitled "Variance."
EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a 4,970-square-foot (total) residence. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District is a ratio of .33 to the lot area or 4,850 square feet for properties over 15,000 square feet. The proposed FAR would be 26.1 '%on this very large site. In order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area for the 120 square feet that exceeds the maximum permitted, the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings pursuant to Belvedere Code Section 19.52.120(A)(2):
a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage;
b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area;
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page 7.
c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and
d. · That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents Of adjoining properties.
In determining to grant an application for a Floor Area Exception, the Planning Commission ·must also be guided by the Section 19.52.120(A)(2): A floor area exception is generally disfavored where the application proposes to create a new or expand an existing nonconformity.
The Belvedere General Plan Land Use Element includes a discussion of the issue of the appropriate size of residences on Belvedere Island. The General Plan states that excessively large residences are not typical of Belvedere Island. The example of an excessively large dwelling in the General Plan is a home greater than 8,000 square feet. The General Plan also recommends that an underlying FAR of .33 for Belvedere Island, as a whole, is appropriate and should not be increased (Policy LU 2.2). The General Plan directs the Planning Commission to continue to study this issue. The Planning Commission and City Council have discussed a possible study of the amount of floor area that could still be added to existing lots while maintaining a total underlying FAR of .33 for Belvedere Island.
General Plan policies for Belvedere Island developed from· the recommendations of the R-15 Citizens Committee. Committee Members urged the City to avoid the level of urbanization of other Zoning Districts by maintaining an overall FAR of .33. Methodologies for managing floor area suggested by the Committee would allow FARs ranging from .26 to .28 for lots of 19,000 s.f. The average FAR of the homes in the project vicinity is 35.7% where the General Plan's goal is to maintain an overall FAR of 33%. The data is provided below.
Table 1, Sizes and FARs of Residences within a 100-Foot-Radius (per Marin County) Number Address Zone Size/Lot* FAR
1. 110 Bella Vista A venue R-15 2,957 s.f./ 10,300 s.f. .287
15. 130 Bella Vista A venue R-15 (E) 2,400 s.f./19,024 s.f. .126%
(N) 4,970 s.f./19,024 s.f. .261%
130 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 20.12 Page 8
ETFA Findings: In staffs opinion, primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the proposed residence and square footage. The proposed FAR of 26.1 % rriay be found to be appropriate because other homes in the vicinity have similar floor area to lot size ratios. The size of the oronertv and tonoITTanhv are unusual ..I. - ... - - "' - - J.- - o- --.1- -- .I --- - ---- --- -----
characteris.tics applicable to this parcel which minimizes the impact of the proposed 120 square feet of additional :floor area. Significant grade changes separate the proposed garage/second unit and main residence from adjacent residences. The large lot size affords opportunities to install layered landscape screening with minimal negative impacts to adjacent properties. Staff is able to make the finding that privacy will be maintained, since the Second Unit is on the lower level of the garage, the site is terraced and would be heavily vegetated and landscaped.
Staff is also able to find the proposed additional floor area for the residence appropriate to the character of the neighborhood and Zoning District. At this time, staff is able to make all of the Design Review findings for the landscaping portions of the project and can make all of the findings for an Exception to Total Floor Arca.
VARIANCE
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a Variance for the proposed Second Unit parking space which does not meet the Second Unit development standards provided in the Belvedere Municipal Code Section l9.78.080(F), Off~Street Parking. The proposed Second Unit parking space would encroach 11 feet into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue. In order to grant a Variance pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.84.0IO(A)-(C), the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings:
1. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated;
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under. idet)tical zoning classification, so that a denial of the applications would result in undue property loss; and
3. The granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises.
In staffs opinion, the granting of the requested Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege because other properties, such as 215 Golden Gate A venue, have been granted a Variance to allow a portion of a required Second Unit parking space to be in the public right-ofway. The special circumstance associated with the property that limits an alternative location for the required parking is the topography and steep slope of the site where the property meets the street. Locating the parking space even further onto the property would result in the need to create a very tall retaining wall that could begin to encroach on an established Oak tree, proposed to remain. The nonconfonning parking space is proposed in an area that would, have adequate
l30 Bella Vista Avenue Owners: Walker Family Trust February 21, 2012 Page 9
backing-up space and any parked car there would be screened by vegetation. The proposed . Variance would also not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises because of the adequate backing-up space for the proposed parking space, the privacy screening, and the location of the parking space. Staff recommends that the Variance findings included in Attachment 1 can be made for the project.
CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and mailed to all residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Staff is in receipt of ten (10) Neighbor Noticing Memos from neighbors adjacent to the site (included in Attachment 7). One letter received by staff from the resident at 170 Madrona A venue raised many concerns about the proposal. A vicinity map showing the locations of the neighbors who have provided comments is included in Attachment 8.
RECOMMENDA'HON
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
To adopt the Resolution granting Design Review and Second Unit Permit to construct a new 4,970-square-foot single-family residence, including a 497-square-foot Second Unit, remove existing shed, landscape changes, terraces, and new outdoor fire pit, and related improvements at 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
To adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area to permit a maximum floor area of 4,970 square feet of floor area where 2,640 square feet exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 130 Bella Vista A venue.
To adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to permit a parking space for the Second Unit to encroach into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue at 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
To recommend City Council approval of Revocable Licenses for existing and proposed improvements in the Bella Vista A venue and Bayview A venue public rights-of-way adjacent to 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 31of42
Vice-Chairman Lenzen stated that if even one of the findings cannot be made for any one of the requests that should be the motion. He stated he should not have to go through all the findings in the motion.
Chair Johnson stated that the record of the discussion is clear. She believes that some Commissioners stated this project is not appropriate in mass and bulk, and that the FAR request of .71 was .excessive. There was also an issue with primary views that falls under the request for an Exception to Total Floor Area.
Commissioner Rosenlund stated that there are three requests before the Commission. If people are in favor of denying the application they need to make a motion based on one or more of their reasons.
Chair Johnson stated that if the Commission cannot grant the Exception to Total Floor Area then one cannot even get to the issues of the other requests.
Deputy City Attom~y Longfellow stated that the motion should be rpade so that those voting will consider the stated findings that cannot be made in their vote.
MOTION:1
To deny an Exception to Total Floor Area to construct a 387-square-foot carport on an existing car deck at 202 Beach Road, because the Commission cannot make all the required findings, specifically:
a) that primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square- footage, and
c) that the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass and bulk and character for the parcel,
and to deny all associated entitlements for Design Review and Variance.
Commissioner Campbell recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of J_he subject property at 130 Bella Vista Avenue. He stated he is also recused from Item 12 (105 Acaci Avenue) for the same reason. . r- . { /
11. Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance, Second Unit Permit, Revocable Licenses for property at 130 Bella Vista A venue for construction of a new 3,803-square'-foot single-family residence and a 1,167 square-foot detached garage and elevator structure with second unit, remove existing shed, and landscape changes. Variance is for a parking space that encroaches 11 feet into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue. Property Owners: The Walker Family Trust. Applicant: Sutton Suzuki Architects.
• '
.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 32of42
Planner Weiss presented the staff report.6 She stated that a late letter received from the owner of 140 Bella Vista A venue was distributed tonight to the Commission. ·
David Walker, owner, 130 Bella Vista A venue, stated he was born and raised in Belvedere and is now finally returning home. He invited the Commission to review the scale model tonight.
Commissioner Hart asked, on sheet DR.I, what does the red dotted line on the street side indicate?
Planning Manager Macdonald stated that the property is below the street and separated by a large area of public right-of-way. The dotted line represents the front yard setback as measured to the edge of pavement, as allowed under a special provision of the BMC.
Ron Sutton, Sutton Suzuki Architects, presented the proposed project for a new home to replace the existing home that is to be demolished. He discussed how choices were made for siting of the home, preservation of existing Oak trees, location of garage, preservation of existing street parking spaces, and retention of site conditions as much as possible. A colors and materials board was circulated to the Commission. He stated that they worked carefully with many neighbors to address their concerns.
Chair Johnson stated that the dedicated parking space for the Second Unit requires a Variance. Could that space be located off-street and out of the right of way, and make the platform longer? That is an unusual intersection which makes doing a U tum difficult to go to the adjacent street.
Mr. Sutton replied that the parking space does not affect making a U tum. Currently there is a drop off there. The new space actually adds safety to the street. The location was chosen to preserve two existing Oak trees. As the grade falls away there is almost a I : 1 slope at that location which would make a very high retaining wall. He stated that the property line is rmusu~I because it is set back from the curb a minimum of I 0 feet at least everywhere on this property. Usually this would only be about 3 or fewer feet in a typical property~ The size of the backup space is larger than the City prescribes but there is no way to avoid the need for the Variance.
Vice-Chairman Lenzen asked if such a small Second Unit would be habitable? He 'stated that Jack MacAllister had stated in the past that in his opinion, 650 square feet would be the minimum size needed. Also is the owner agreeable" to the deed restrictions, separate address and second water meter as required for the Second Unit?
Mr. Sutton replied they are agreeable.
Elizabeth Suzuki, project architect, stated that her mom just moved into The Redwoods. Those units are 500 square feet and they are perfect. Actually, there are couples living in the same size units and it works just fine. They are confident this is sufficient. .
Open public hearing.
Marla Newell, 112 Bella Vista Avenue, stated she lives about 35 feet away from the property as the second house over to the west. She stated she is fully in support of this project. The project is beautifully designed, sensitively sited. She would like to address the parking question. She stated that they have lived here about 20 years. She stated that no one is going to turn around in the new
6 The Powerpoint presentation is archived with the agenda packet as part of the legislative record of this meeting.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 33of42
driveway; people would turn around in her driveway, the Johnson's driveway next door or the driveway at 129 Bella Vista Avenue. She stated that an added driveway apron will give more room for cars to move around each other at this difficult intersection. This will narrow down a bit but because the garage is there people will use the apron to move over a bit. This is such a modest project compared to the size of the lot. They are very happy the new owners have hired such a wonderful architect and they love the choice of materials. Because they are close to the new home the sensitivity of the materials will soften any impacts. They are.very pleased with the project.
Commissioner Kemnitzer asked whether the non-conforming parking space for the Second Unit would cause any concerns?
Ms. Newell replied that would probably work. It would be ·a better position than what is there now, because of the apron of the driveway. If the driveway were up further opposite the hairpin and 129 Bella Vista that would have bee11 terrible. She stated she and her husband are architects so they can understand the proposal.
Vice-Chairman Lenzen asked can the architect clarify the plan for staging the project?
Mr. Sutton replied that Belvedere has a process in place to address staging at the time the Building Permit is going to be issued. He stated there will be a program developed by the contractor at the time of the permit process. This has been discussed with staff that this would be a part of the process for the construction. This is a very precise process in Belvedere.
Planning Manager Macdonald replied there is a process for a courtesy notice to be sent to nearby neighbors prior to the issuance of the Building Permit to advise of the filing of the proposed staging plan, and that it is available for review at City Hall.
Marcia McGovern, 170 Madrona A venue, stated that it is easy for a neighbor to approve a project that would have no negative impact on one's property at all, or, in fact when one is going to gain additional views that one never had before, due to tree removals. That can make it that much easier. Unfortunately, because she is the most impacted neighbor by this project, and because the applicant has made no substantive effort to address any of the concerns that impact her property, she is opposed to the application for Design ,Review, Second Unit permit, Exception to Total Floor Area and particularly for the Variance from Section 19.78.080 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Revocable License, and the Demolition Permit for 130 Bella Vista A venue. In addition to the other problems, what was not mentioned by staff, there is a severe negative impact from the project on her primary views. She will now be looking at the entire standing seam zinc roof. As submitted, the application violates the following provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code; including, but not limited to sections: 20.04.005A,B,C,H; 20.040.130A, B; 20.04.140A, B; 20.040.080E(2), J; 19.84.0lOA, C; 19.78.040B; 19.78.080B, C; 19.52.120 A,2(a),(c); 19.52.120A,2; and 8.28.030. There is a current hazard tree which has been maintained on the property for the last seven months and has been used as leverage to gain neighbor approval because it is going down and everyone will gain a great view by that tree removal. In addition, there is also section 16.28.11 O(a). Additionally, she believes that the application may be incomplete because in her perusal of it she could not find an electrical plan; maybe that is not required for Design Review. In addition, there is no mention of HV AC or venting or other things that will appear on that roof that is already ruining her primary view. Roof accessories need to be considered. She stated that she does not believe that the staff report has adequately addressed these issues. She requests that the application be continued just as
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 34of42
the Commission has done for 208 San Rafael A venue and 300 San Rafael A venue this evening each of which presented similar problems to neighboring properties. She would also request that the Planning Commission should commission a traffic engineering study for the proposed location of the parking space and the driveway apron that requires a Variance. That particular area is so dangerous that if someone is coming up Bella Vista Avenue and wants to go up Fem Avenue and someone is coming down Fem Avenue, that cannot happen. Likewise, if someone is coming up Bella Vista A venue and someone is going down Bella Vista A venue at that location, that cannot . happen. One of those two vehicles must stop. The proposed Variance parking apron is precisely across from that hairpin point where we always have congestion there. All the talk about turning around in the driveway is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the crossing of traffic in that area with the potential seven new vehicles which is, according to Mr. Sutton because there is parking for seven vehicles. So if seven new vehicles are going to be accessillg and egressing in an area where there is already a major problem, then a traffic study needs to done in that area to determine if that is the proper place. Finally, the application should be brought into compliance with the rest of Code violations. She requested that the structure and story poles remain in place until the matter is resolved.
Mr. Sutton stated that he has not been able to find any violations. They have met with Ms. McGovern and talked with her by telephone. He stated that he sees no evidence of a primary view blockage. None is presented here and none was presented to him. They have requested to visit the site but have been denied. Ms. McGovern has shown him a photograph that is difficult to understand and Ms. McGovern would not let him have a copy of that photograph. He stated he has a hard time understanding what that primary view might be; he does not know from what room the photograph was taken. He stated it was a very cloudy photograph. When asked about what she thought he could do, the reply was that the house would need to be designed within the heights and placement of the existing roof of the existing house. She had no other solution that would meet her requirements. He stated he would like to work with the neighbors but he has to work with some reason as to what the situation is. He still cannot find out how that primary view would be affected. If someone has been able to see that view from her property it would be nice to know. He presented some slides of plans of the roof detail to demonstrate the relative locations of the existing and proposed roof areas that seem to be at issue. This roof is located in a similar situation, set back from the property line at I 0 feet. 'The total difference in total area of the old and new roof is 82 squarefeet. He stated the difference in the footprint between old and new home is less than 200 squarefeet.
Mr. Sutton stated that the difference in the average heights of the two-story portions of the houses under Emmons Law, which is a calculation used to measure height in consideration of bulk and
·mass, is- I" in height (18'5" in existing home versus 18'4" in the proposed home). He stated that means the project is well below the bulk and mass threshold. The proposed home would be 35'6" where the existing is 35' 5". The elevation of the new home is at an elevation 3.5' higher than the existing at the very highest point. Lot coverage is proposed at 15.5% which is about half of the 30% that is allowed in Belvedere. Including decks, 50% lot coverage is allowed, and this house would be only 16%. The Floor Area Ratio including the Se~ond Unit and garage is at 26.1% where 33% is allowed. This means that there will be a large area to remain of about 85% left as open space for views and for people to enjoy.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 35of42
Mr. Sutton presented several parking studies that illustrated the proposed parking plan, and several possible configurations that were considered while developing the project design. He stated that they believe they have the best solution that recognizes the preservation of the Oak trees, the retention of the existing three street parking spaces, and whether or not the garage and apron is there or not, the cars will still be going up and down in the same way on Fem Avenue and Bella Vista A venue. He stated that there will be visibility for the clients to see in both directions coming out of the garage. He stated they are requesting three parking spces,, two in the garage and one for the Second Unit.
Mr. Sutton presented some photo simulation studies based on a photograph in the staff report taken by Ms. McGovern. He stated that he is trying to understand the relationship of their project to Ms. McGovern's property. Mr. Sutton also presented an overhead view illustrating the relationship· of the sites of both properties, and stated that he does not yet understand what is the primary view issue about which Ms. McGovern is concerned, other than some blocking of some rooftops.
Ms. McGovern circulated a digital device (iPad), showing a photograph taken from her home to the Commissioners. She stated that when Mr. Sutton was describing that the existing and proposed roofs are almost the same size, that does not take into consideration that the existing roof is a small brown gabled roof, which is a tinycportion, perhaps only one-fifth of the whole roof, and the new roof is peaked. She stated that it is unfortunate that she looks right at it, but as she told Mr. Sutton that if the· roof height can be reduced and pulled back a little bit, that would be her request. Besides ·being peaked, the whole house pushes out farther towards the east to capture a better view. The balance is they get a much better view and her :yiew gets taken away. It would seem to her that with a 19,000 square-foot lot there could be some adjustment to make that equitable.
Commissioner Rosenlund asked Ms. McGovern where was the photographer standing when they took the photograph?
Ms. McGovern replied from the living room at the street level.
Commissioner Rosenlund asked does she c,onsider that her primary view, as opposed to the Bay?
Ms. McGovern replied that is a part of her panoramic view; the day the story poles went up she was immediately taken aback. If that was not her primary view she 'would not have noticed the story poles.
Chair Johnson asked Ms. McGovern to show the photograph to staff which was done.
Close public hearing.
Commissioner Kemnitzer stated she viewed the site from both above and below. She stated she is very fa.T.iliar \vith the area a..YJ.d the associated traffic problems~ She stated Lliis is a beautiful project and this contemporary design on this wooded and lushly landscaped site is entirely appropriate, as opposed to the earlier contemporary project on a denuded hillside that caused her some concerns. This project is a very thoughtful treatment of the intentions of the client. She stated she can make the findings for Design Review. The way this home is sited makes the project harmonious with the other buildings in the area, even though the architecture around it is quite eclectic. She stated she took into consideration the correspondence that has been submitted. With respect to the letter from the Holdens, the staging of the construction will be important. Because of the location where this
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February212012 Page 36 of 42
project is situated, it will be important to engage all the neighbors in the preconstruction period and take into consideration the public welfare in this congested area during the project.
Commissioner Kemnitzer stated she took into consideration all the points raised by Ms. McGovern. She would like to thank her for coming here tonight and for her input. She carefully considered the matters that have been raised. She stated she differs with the subjective viewpoint that there is excessive mass in the building; she does not see it that way. She stated she did take the property views into consideration and looked at the project from the street above. She could not see from there that a primary view could be impaired. The issue of primary views has been considered before by the Commission. Many of the homes in that area of the Island enjoy a panoramic view and she cannot see how this project would impair a primary view. If anything, that is a small part, if any, of a panoramic view. She stated that to her mind, the primary view from 170 Madrona Avenue would be Belvedere Cove, Angel Island and possibly the rest of the Bay, more than the Lagoon. Some of these are subjective.
Commissioner Kemnitzer stated that with respect to the request for an Exception to Floor Area she had no problem making the findings. The request is only for an exception for 120 square feet of floor area. She stated she has previously addressed the finding regarding primary views from adjacent properties, who have expressed support. There are very unusual characteristics to this parcel. The topography is extreme, and in this case, the topography of the parcel minimizes the additional floor area. As seen on plan sheet DR-7 A, there is a demonstration of how the steep topography minimizes any increased floor area. The home is tucked into the hillside and· is hardly seen from the street. In addition there are no privacy concerns.
Commissioner Kemnitzer stated that she initially had concerns about the parking Variance. In such circumstances, it is good to take into consideration the views of the neighbor. Ms. Newell, who appeared tonight assuaged her concerns in that respect such that she can make the findings for the Variance and all of the findings to approve the project tonight.
Commissioner Hart stated she agrees with all the comments of Commissioner Kemnitzer. She stated she is thrilled to see such a beautifully-designed house and how so little of the property is being disturbed. The site will be used not only as a building site but for garden terraces, and all the Oaks are being preserved. The materials are fine. She stated she was questioning the parking but having looked more carefully at . the space between the road and where parking is proposed she can understand how this can be used successfully without any danger to passersby. She concurs with Commissioner Kemnitzer in making all the findings for this project.
Commissioner Rosenlund stated he agrees with the comments of the prior two Commissioners. He stated he can make the findings for the motions as stated in the record and as stated by the two prior Commissioners. He was concerned about the garage and the location of the parking. However, having heard from the neighbor and the architect he is satisfied that the garage is in an appropriate location. He stated he has listened to the statements of Ms. McGovern and read her correspondence. He disagrees With the perspective as stated. He has not been in her home, but has been in the residences on either side of that property and he knows the views from those residences. He stated that the view that was shown to the Commission on the digital device by Ms. McGovern tonight is not the primary view he knows from those residences. He stated that he does not believe that primary views are affected by this project and he would vote to approve this project in all respects.
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 37of42
Vice-Chairman Lenzen stated that he would like to thank Mr. Sutton for his presentation. He is familiar with this property although he has not revisited the site. He welcomed the owners back to to Belvedere. He stated that when he saw the plans and renderings he was very pleased. With respect to Design Review, he can state for the public record his agreement with the report of the City's consulting architect, Jack MacAllister, F.A.I.A., as stated in the staff report. He stated that he is supportive of the contemporary style when so beautifully presented. He applauds the materials, harmony of the site and structures,· and how this house will benefit all of the community and makes the findings for Design Review ..
Vice-Chairman Lenzen stated that, as echoed by his fellow Commissioners, he agrees completely with the statements of Commissioner Kemnitzer. He stated he was initially concerned about the size of the Second Unit, as well as the parking, and with the question of the Exception to Total Floor Area. It is interesting to him that the average FAR in the area is .357 where this request is for .261. He stated he has no trouble with any of the findings with respect to .the Exception to Total Floor Area. With regard to the request for the Variance he can agree with the special circumstance as stated in the staff report, the "locating the parking space even further onto the property would result in the need to create a very tall retaining wall that could begin to encroach on an established Oak tree, proposed to remain." He believes the Commission all wants those trees to remain and he concurs.
Vice-Chairman Lenzen stated that he has listened carefully and considered Ms. McGovern's correspondence, comments and the photograph shown tonight of the Lagoon as viewed from her property. He appreciates the care taken to write her lengthy letter. He also reviewed the map shown by the project architect showing the relationship of the applicants property to hers, and he agrees with his fellow C9mmissioners that the primary views from her property should be Angel _Island and Belvedere Cove. He stated he can make all the findings for the entitlements requested by the applicants.
Chair Johnson stated she visited the property and walked the entire property. She also viewed it from 129 Bella Vista A venue directly across the street. She stated she also listened to all of Ms. McGovern's comments. She stated thatthe house, as it is sited down the slope, does not present any issues for anyone. If one is uphill over a house, the chances are one would see some roof, but this is not a problem of primary views since it is down so far on the property. She stated she has no problem making the findings for an Exception to Total Floor Area which is also much less than other properties in the immediate area. She stated she did have problems with the Variance and would have hoped that the architect could pull it back somewhat. Her concern w:as with that turn. However, having heard from the immediate neighbor who believes that with the apron of the garage this will all work, and keeping in mind that would also retain the tree, if it cannot be further adjusted she can make all the findings based on the neighbor's comments. She stated she can make the findings for all the requested entitlements.
Planning Manager Macdonald stated that condition of approval C) addresses a follow-up review of the specifics of the driveway cut and apron on the construction plans.
Planner Weiss stated that an amendment to condition of approval B) should have the words "/second unit structure" added following the word "garage."
~· vtl
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 38of42
Chair Johnson stated she is not concerned about the ability to stage this project since a garage was recently constructed next door at the Johnson property.
MOTION: To adopt the Resolution as conditioned and reflected in tonight's Minutes granting Design Review and Second Unit Permit to construct a new 4,970-square-foot singlefamily residence, including a 497-square-foot Second Unit, remove existing shed, landscape changes, terraces, and new outdoor fire pit, and related improvements at 130 Bella Vista A venue.
MOVED BY: Kemnitzer, seconded by Hart
VOTE: Ayes: Noes: Recused: Abstain: Absent:
fohnson, Lenzen, Hart, Kemnitzer, Rosenlund None Campbell None Wilson
MOTION: To adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area to permit a maximum floor area of 4,970 square feet of floor area where 2,640 square feet exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
MOVED BY: Kemnitzer, seconded by Hart
VOTE:
MOTION:
Ayes: Noes: Recused: Abstain: Absent:
Johnson, Lenzen, Hart, Kemnitzer, Rosenlund None Campbell None Wilson
To adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to permit a parking space for the Second Unit to encroach into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue at 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
MOTION: To recommend City Council approval of Revocable Licenses for existing and proposed improvements in the Bella Vista A venue and Bayview ·A venue public rights-of-way adjacent to 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
MOVED BY: Kemnitzer, seconded by Hart
~ ·~
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting February 21 2012 Page 39 of 42
VOTE: Ayes: Noes: Recused: Abstain: Absent:
Johnson, Lenzen, Hart, Kemnitzer, Rosenlund None Campbell None Wilson
Commissioner Kemnitzer stated she must recuse herself because she owns property within 500 feet . of the subject property at 105 Acacia A venue.
Chair Johnson stated that Commissioner Campbell has previously recused himself from this item.
12. Retroactive Design Review for changes to project approved by means of Resolution 2009-035, 2009-036, 2009-037 approved by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2009 for property at 105 Acacia Avenue. Changes include addition of 17 exterior lights in the eaves and entry of the residence. CEQA status: Categorically exempt per 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owners; Ross Berger and Melissa Pulling. Applicant: Joe Sherer, Legacy Builders.
Phµming Manager Macdonald presented the staff report. 7
Commissioner Hart asked where is the light that is on right now?
Planning Manager indicated the location of the light on the~plans.
Commissioner Rosenlund asked is it still true that a translucent cover over a light would satisfy the requirement for shielded, down lighting?
Planning Manager Macdonald replied that the Planning Commission has approved in the past some Craftsman style light fixtures with mica or frosted glass enclosures. In this case, staff's concerns are with not only the exposure of the light fixtures, but also the number of lights.
Ross Berger, owner, I 05 Acacia A venue thanked the Commission for their patience tonight. He stated that the test light that is turned on is on the stairwell at the lowest left location. He stated that, due to a long row of trees opposite the property, only a sliver of light is visible beyond those trees from the road in front of the Belvedere Land Company. He stated that he regrets that the original architects did not include the lights in the plans, and the second architect also inadvertently omitted them. The purpose of the downlights is for use at the lower deck for reading lights to be used outside in the evening. These are recessed can downlights that are flush to the underside of the lower deck. He stated that this deck is set back from the upper deck.
Mr. Berger stated that the single test light is actually on the side unlike the rest of them, and in that location there are no evergreen trees for screening. Mr. Berger stated that there are hundreds of
11ights visible from the Belvedere Land Company all over the vicinity through the same opening. He stated that in the prior staff report it states that most of the new windows would be hidden by the hillside. If it is impossible to see the windows then he finds it very hard to understand that the majority of lights can be seen. Only the test light is located in a highly visible spot. Mr. Berger stated that the neighbor, Mr. Laurie, has rescinded any earlier objections. The only place to see the lights would be at the end of the very narrow, steep, and private road. All the neighbors are in
7 The Powerpoint presentation is archived with the agenda packet as part of the legislative record of this meeting.
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 2,400-SQUARE-FOOT
RESIDENCE AND 240-SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE LOCATED AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
l WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant
to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 2,400-square-foot residence built in approximately 1892, and 240-square-foot garage located at 130 Bella Vista Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been detem1ined to the categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition application on January 18, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Demolition findings specified in secticin 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of Demolition pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of an existing 2,400-square-foot residence built in approximately 1892, and 240-square-foot garage located at 130 Bella Vista Avenue, with the following conditions:
a) The property owners shall hold the City of Belvedere and its oflicers harmless in the event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Demolition approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result.
b) Demolition shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Demolition is prohibited on City holidays except in special circumstances after obtaining written pennission from the City Manager.
c) All work shall be completed within three weeks of the issuance of the building permit unless deconstruction methods are used in which case six weeks is permitted.
cl) Obstruction or blockage, partial or complete. of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles, shall not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance. a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance shall be required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets shall be left clean and free of any debris at the encl of each work day.
c) The site shall be ten clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work.
ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution No. 20 I 1-005 I JO Bella Vista A venue Page 2
t) All areas of land from which buildings, structures or vegetation is removed shall be re-vegetated. A final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager and the Chair of the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit for demolition.
g) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin.
h) The site shall be protected from trespassing and entry by persons not authorized to be on said site. Site protection may include fencing, signs, Jocked gates or such other measures as deemed necessary to protect the public health and safety.
i) The applicant shall provide to the City satisfactory evidence, prior to commencing work, that all utility services have been notified and that all services including, but not limited to, water, gas and electricity have been terminated or removed from the structure to a safe location on the site, and that sanitary sewer service has been proper! y terminated to insure that disconnected sewer I ines do not leak or spi I I sewage on or off the site.
j) Existing drainage structures and facilities shall not be demolished without prior written approval from the City engineer. If such demolition is authorized, a plan indicating how site drainage will be provided shall be submitted to and approved by the City engineer.
k) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations.
I) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with State air quality requirements related to the control of Just generated by the demolition and construction, and prepare a plan for the re-use and recycling of demolition materials.
rn) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall submit a set of as-built floor plans for the detached. garage structure as well as the residence, including in an electronic format such as pdf or dwf.
n) Prior to issuance of a building pennit for demolition, the applicant must obtain public liability and property damage insurance, naming the City as an additional insured. pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 16.28.060.
o) This Demolition approval expires on January 18, 201 J.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on .January 18, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:
Resolution No. 20 l 1-005
I 30 Bella Vista A venue
Exhibit A
DEMOLITION FINDINGS
The following sections are edited versions _of Section 16.28.110 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Demolition Findings. In order for an application to be approved, the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria.
The demolition, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City.
The proposed demolition is a 2,400-square-foot single fomily residence and 240-square-foot detached garage. The applicant will be required to meet the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department.
As conditioned, the site shall be protected from trespassing and entry by persons not authorized to be on said site. Site protection may include fencing, signs, locked gates or such other measures as deemed necessary to protect the public health and safety.
As conditioned, obstruction or blockage. partial or complete, of any street so as to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles. will not be permitted without first obtaining, twenty-four hours in advance. a street closure permit. Twelve feet of clearance is required for debris boxes or building materials. Streets will be left clean and free of any debris at the end of each work day.
As conditioned, the applicant will provide verification that all utility services have been notified and that all services including, but not limited to. water, gas and electricity have been terminated or removed from the structure to a safe location on the site, and that sanitary sewer service has been properly terminated to insure that disconnected sewer lines do not leak or spill sewage on or off the site.
As conditioned, existing drainage structures and faci I ities wi II not be demo I ished without prior written approval from the City engineer.
The demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed.
Landmark designation of the residence was considered by the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee. Landmark status was not granted based on insufficient evidence for historic integrity. A professional historic resource evaluation of the residence prepared by Garavaglia Architecture concluded that the residence would not be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources at any level under any criteria.
The demolition plan presented by the applicant provides adequate site protection during and following the demolition.
The proposed demolition will be required to meet the requirements of the Building Department. The applicant must address soil erosion, drainage requirements. and off-hauling
, of debris with the Building Department.
The time frame for the demolition is reasonable.
The time frame for the demolition is estimated at three (3) weeks days. As conditioned. the Planning Commission will dctcnninc the date by which all work will be completed.
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-022
A RESOLUTION OF ,
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR.CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,803-
SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE AND A 1,167-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE INCLUDING A 497-SQUARE-FOOT SECOND UNIT WITH
ELEV ATOR, REMOVE EXISTING SHED, AND LANDSCAPE CHANGES AT 130 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review and Second Unit Permit to construct a new 3,803-square-foot .residence and a 1, 167-square foot detached garage structure, including a 497-square-foot second unit with elevator, remove existing shed, and landscape changes, such as new ten:aces and outdoor firepit at 130 Bella Vista Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the project bas been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 1.5303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public bearing on the requested Design Review application on February 21, 2012; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review to construct a new 3,803-squarefoot single family residence, and a 1,167-square foot detached garage structure including a 497-square-foot second unit :with elevator, remove existing shed, and landscape changes, such as new terraces and outdoor firepit at 130 Bella Vista Avenue, with the following conditions:
A. The property owner shall hold the City of Belvedere and its officers harmless in the ·event of any legal action related to or arising from the granting of this Design Review approval, shall cooperate with the City in the defense of any such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result.
B. That construction shall conform to the materials and drawings submitted by Sutton Suzuki Architects and Paul Leffingwell, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on February 8, 2012, with the condition that the landscaping details offered in the correspondence of February 16, 2012 and February 17, 2012. shall be incorporated herein and with the exception that no part of the garage/second unit structure shall extend over the front property line.
C. The applicant shall submit details showing the driveway cut, apron, and dimensions on the plans submitted for construction for review and approval by the Planning ·Department and City Engine~r.. · · · ·- · · · · · ··· · · · -
D. A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Manager and Planning Commission Chairman prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project which includes the landscape legend printed on the plan with the plants keyed into landscape· design, irrigation system and details, and details of the bio-retention system.
Resolution No. 2012.:.022 130 Bella Vista Avenue February 21, 2012 Page 2
E. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met. As required by the Fire Marshal, all vegetation must be planted and maintained a minimum of 6 inches back from the edge of pavement on Bella Vista A venue. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit. All of the measures of the Tiburon Fire Protection District .(TFPD) Vegetation Management Standards shall be adhered to during all of the construction and landscaping.
F. Construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except in special circumstances after obtaining written permission from the City Manager. Woi:k is not permitted on City Holidays.
G. Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a building permit, shall be obtained prior to commencing work in the City right-of-way, as required by the City Engineer. ·
H. That the plans submitted to the Buiiding Department for permit issuance shall be found by the Planning Manager to be in conformance with the approved Planning Commission plans.
I. All exterior lighting shall be s.hielded and directed downward. Final lighting· desjgn with light specifications shall be filed with the City of Belvedere prior to issuance of a building permit for the review and approval of the Planning Manager and Planning Commission Chairman.
J. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a Revocable License for the wood fence on concrete curb, concrete wall, metal fence, planting areas, stairs, trellis., mailbox, and parking· apron within the Bella Vista A venue public right-of-way, and deer fence and stairs within the Bayview Avenue public right-of-way.
K. All Building Department requirements shall be met. Plans submitted for Building Permit must conform to the requirements of the 20 I 0 Residential Code and the mandatory measures of the 20 I 0 California Green Building Code. The applicant or property owners shall provide to the Building Department a report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Rec9mmendations of the Nersi Hemati Report dated November 15, 2011 shall be incorporated into the geotechnical report and foundation design. Prior to completion of the project, the applicant or property owner shall obtain an address for the new second unit from the Building 'Department. As part of the process, the Building Department will notify all utility providers of the new address.
L. The new second unit shall conform to the 2010 California Residential Code (CRC). M. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of all utility providers including, the Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD), Sanitary District 5, and PG&E. a. The applicant-shall comply with-all requirements of MMWD for water service prior to
project final, including compliance with any applicable MMWD landscape ordinance, back.flow prevention requirements, and testing requirements. Any modifications to the planting and/or tree removal approved by the Planning Commission shall be reviewed and approved with staff prior to modification. Prior to project final, the project landscape professional shall certify that the landscaping_ and irrigation were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
Resolution No. 2012-022 130 Bella Vista A venue February 21, 2012 Page 3
b. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain and satisfy any conditions required by the utility provider for utility connections to the second unit. Water meter connection fee may be reduced by the Marin Municipal Water District if the applicant agrees to limit rental income for a period of time specified by the Water District.
N. That the general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager, for review and approval, addressing the schedule for construction and parking locations for construction vehicles. Prior to the issuance ·of a building permit, the applicant shall update the Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
0. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval, or February 21, 2013.
P. Construction shall be completed within eighteen ( 18) months of the start of construction. _, Q. The project plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance are ·found by
the Planning Manager to be in conformance with the approved Planning Commission plans.
R. Prior to inspection of foundation forms, the property owner sh.all file for the review and approval of the Planning Department a survey of the foundation forms prepared by a licensed surveyor. Prior to inspection of building framing, the property owner shall file for the review and approval of the Planning Department, a survey of the ridges and eaves of the structures prepared by a licensed surveyor.
S. These Conditions ·of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Comm!ssion held on February 21, 2012 by the following v~te:
A YES: Hart, Johnson, Kemnitzer, Lenzen, Rosenlund
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Wilson
RECUSED: Campbell APPROVED:
t-1~1Jh/KJ6J Maureen Johnson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Resolution No. 2012-022 130 Bella Vista Avenue February 21, 2012 Exhibit A Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the Design Review Criteria. In order for a design review application to be approved," the Planning Commission must find the project to be in substantial conformance with these criteria.
Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape.
The site is vegetated, and many existing trees will remain. No new grade changes are proposed.
Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site.
As conditioned, the new residence and garage/second unit structure have been designed to relate to and fit with the site and neighborhood and would be in balance and harmony with structures on adjoining properties. The new house and garage/second unit structure are designed in a manner as to minimize the building mass and bulk on this steep site.
Minimizing bulk and mass. A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or excessively large dwellings which are out of character with their setting or with other dwellings in the neighborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves.
As conditioned, the finding above can be made, as the materials and rooflines are in character with the setting, the new residence and new garage/second unit structure on-site, and neighboring residences and structures. The design does not include features that would be obtrusive or call attention to themselves.
B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony.
The design of the proposed garage and house addition integrates similar architectural design and use ?f materials and colors, as conditioned, as that of the primary residence on the parcel. The project incorporates existing and proposed landscaping to screen the addition.
Materials and colors used. Building designs should inc~rporate materials and colors that minimize the structures' visual impact, that blend with the existing laud· form and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone range are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors.
\
Resolution No. 2012-022 130 Bella Vista Avenue February 21, 2012 Exhibit A Page 2
Proposed colors and materials will consist of wood, stone veneer, and horizontal wood siding, dark green aluminum clad doors and windows, dark green painted wood trim, charcoal grey metal trellis, natural zinc grey standing seam metal roof and fascia, exposed concrete, metal frame and cable railings.· Gutters and downspouts would be zinc to match the roof. These colors and materials are appropriate for the structure and fit in well with the surrounding properties, many of which have elements finished with similar colors and materials.
Fences and screening. (A) Fences and physical screening should be located so as to be compatible with the design of the site and structures as a whole, should conceal and screen garbage areas, mechanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, should preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, where practical, and should not significantly block views.
Fences and physical screening are located so as to be compatible with the desigri of the site, preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings and not block views.
(B) Fences should be designed and located so that they are architecturally compatible with the design of the building, are aesthetically attractive, and do not significantly block views. Wire or chain link fences are discouraged, except as temporary barriers on construction sites.
The fences are designed to be architecturally compatible with the proposed residence ..
Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings.
The above finding can be made because the proposed new house and garage/second unit structure are out of the required setbacks, and none of the windows are placed in a manner to cause privacy concerns.
Drives, parking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off~street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties.
The proposed driveway modifications and landscape changes are designed to minimize interference with frattc t1ow. the driveway iS ill. harmony wifu foe design Of the new garage and existing residenc~ and do not intrude on the privacy of or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties.
Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan.
1 Skylights should not have white or light opaque colored exterior lenses.
Resolution No.2012-022 130 Bella Vista A venue February 21, 2012 Exhibit A Page 3 .
As conditioned, the new exterior lighting elements in the proposed scope of work have been designed to avoid glare, hazard or annoyance to neighboring properties or passersby.
Consideration of nonconformities. The proposed work shall be viewed in relationship to any nonconformities, as defined in Title 19, and where it is determined to be feasible and reasonable, consideration should be given to conditioning the approval upon the mitigation or elimination of such nonconformities.
The project will correct existing nonconformities.
Landscape plans. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. · Native or natural appearing_ vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters.
As conditioned, the landscape plan is compatible with the existing landscape and character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native and natural appearing vegetation are placed to appear as loose informal clusters.
B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as. seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls, that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations.
Existing and proposed trees and shrubs will provide screening of the new house and garage/second uni~ structure.
C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings.
Existing trees and shrubs and new plantings will provide privacy between properties and maintain views.
D. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to repair, reseed and/or replant disturbed areas to P,revent erosion.
Existing plants will be augmented by some fast-growing plants, such as Azalea, Clematis, Salvia, Ceanothus, Coffeeberry, and Emerald Carpet.
E= ·Landscape- plans·-·sbould .. include a mi.~ of ·fast ·and- slew--growing--p!-ant-materi~ls. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age.
The landscape plan proposes a mix of landscape plantings.
F. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and .those that are drought tolerant, are encouraged. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turf areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. The landscape plans will be reviewed for water conserving measures.
CITY OF BELVEDERE.
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-023
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE
GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 19.52~115 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception to Total Floor Area from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 4,970 square feet where 2,640 square feet currently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 130 Bella Vista A venue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Exception to Total Floor Area application on February 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section 19 .52.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code:
1. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage because due to the siting of the residence and garage/second unit structure on this steeply sloped and terraced site;
2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area, including the sloping topography of the property, the unusually large site and the opportunities to install layered landscape screening;
3. That the proposed structures are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) a11 design review criteria; and
4. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties because of the location of the proposed residence and second unit are below street level and surrounded by lush vegetation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere, does hereby grant an Exception from the requirements of Section 19 .52.115 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a maximum floor area of 4,970 square feet where 2,640 square _feet currently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 130 Bella Vista A venue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on February 21, 2012 by the fo11owing vote:
A YES: Hart, Johnson, Kemnitzer, Lenzen, Rosenlund . NOES: None
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE PERMITTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 19.78.080(F) OF THE
BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 130 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code to pennit a second unit parking space to encroach 11 feet into the public right-of-way along Bella Vista Avenue where the parking space is required to be provided on the property at 130 Bella Vista A venue; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Variance on February 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: a) The granting of the Variance will ·not constitute a grant of special privilege because parking
for other properties in the Zoning District also encroach into the public right-of-way such as 215 Golden Gate Avenue.
b) Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including the topography and steep slope of the site where the property meets the street, locating the parking space even further on to the site would result in the need to create a very tall retaining wall that would begin to encroach on an Oak tree that is proposed to remain, and therefore, the strict application of the zo'ning Ordinance section would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result in undue property Joss.
c) The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to the property or improvements of owners or the quiet enjoyment of their premises because the new house and garage/second unit structure will satisfy all Building and Fire Code requirements and there is adequate back-tip space for proposed parking.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to permit a parking space that encroaches 11 feet into the public right-of-way adjacent to 130 Bella Vista Avenue.
PASSED-AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commissionheld_on February 21, 2012 by the following vote:
A YES: Hart, Johnson, Kemnitzer, Lenzen, Rosenlund NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wilson RECUSED: Campbell
APPROVED: ~
t!/~h1Jt00A! ATTEST: Maureen Johnson, Chairman
OCT-18-~01~ THU 04:32 PM
from: Christian Lagerling [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:56 AM Toi David 5. Walker Cc: 'Elizabeth Suzuki'; Pierce Macdonald Subject: Re: confirmation to city
OK. Thanks David.
130 Bella Vista Page l
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 2012
P. D 0 2
Best, Christian
City of Belvedere
Christian Lagerling, Managing Partner Executive As5istant: [email protected]
GP Bullhound I Technology Investment Banking I London I Berlin I San Francisco I Stockl1olm DL t-1 415 986 0196 IM +1 (415) 412 0147 I Skype; c:lagsrling GP Bullhound LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
www.gpbullhound.com
Thi6 email i::; from GP 61.1111'\Quno LLP. Its conte11Ul 11re c;o11fldentl&I to lhe ori;llnary LJ:;er of the ern!lll acitlre~s 10 whlc,h It I~ addr&s&ed No-one else may place ~f\y reliarice llP<>n II, or copy or forward all or <1ny of It In any form_ If you receive this em1;1il In o;rror. pleasi;. 1;1ccspt our 11pology_ Nothi"!J in th·,~ em:)il shoulrJ b11 conztruM as a sollellallon or offer, or recommendation, to ec.qulre or dl5pooe of any inve&lrnent or!o engaga In any other transaolion. or to prov1ae any inves1.rnent ~cMce or servlcl;!. GP Bullhound LLP occ:epu; no tiebllity or reaponplblllty whalooever !or any loss o.- damage aneing a• a rewll or any decision or action t11ken Clf refrained from as a re.sun of lnformallon i;ontained on the email or as a result of )'Our u&e or mi~ui;e of this erJ'<)IL GP BullhounG1 LLP i~ « limited liebillly p(!rlneri;hip reg1slersd in England and Wales, registered number OC35263B, anel rs avtMr•Sed af\CJ regulMed by lhe Financial Services Au1hority. Any refersnce to a partner in relation lo GP Bulthound LLP is to a member of GP 6ullr1oum:I LLP or an employee with equivalent elandlng end quelificaliom;. A lisl of member:; is available for inspsclion al the rs~l~tered office, 52 Jermyn Street, London SINW 6LX. .
From: "David S. Walker" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:45:33 ·0700 To: Christian Lagerling <christian. [email protected]>
Christian-We provided our email agreement and all photos to the City of Belvedere. The city accepted the photos and asked our consultants to update the plan to the city consistent with our agreement and also asked us to survey the height of the story poles. Those final items are attached. This is as we agreed and documented with the our photos. Please "Reply All" with your acknowledgement. Long process, thanks. -DSW David S. Walker I President
Allied Administrators, Inc. j 633 BE'lttery Street, 2nd Floor I San Francli;:co CA 94111 phone 415·398·2655 I fax 415· 434-2793 I [email protected],tW!.Jllinislmt9~
------ ----- ----
ATTACHMENT 6
OCT-13-201~ THU 04:33 PM
130 Bella Vist;;i. Page 2
P. 003
From: Christian Lagerling [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:52 PM RECEIVED To: David S. Walker Cc: Katia Ribeiro Subject: Re: 130 Bella Vista Importance: High
David,
OCT 1 8 Z012
City of Belvedere
I think that sounds good, agreed. I have attached the photos that I took from that day we met as another reference should we ever need it.
I would also be happy to contribute towards the cost of maintaining the trees towards the southsoutheast more trimmed to open up more of a Bay bridge view- as long as it agrees with your plans and
wishes.
Thanks David.
Best regards, Christian
Chrlstlen Lagerllng, Managing Partner EA: [email protected] GP 0ullhouncl I Technology Research & Investment Banking I London I San Frariclsco I Stockholm o1-1(415)986 0196(t}1-+1(415)412 0147 (US mob) j '1-44 7714244413 (UK mob) I skype: i;l<igarling GP 8ullhound LLP. is aothorisacJ and regulated by the. !=lnam;lal Services Aulhorlly www.gpbullhound.com
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17;02:08 -0700 To: Christian Lagerllng <[email protected]>
Subject: 130 Bella Vista
Christian~
Thanks for further discussing current and proposed plantings. We agree to keeping proposed plantings no higher and similar to existing. I think with this we can achieve privacy for both of us and enhance some of your views as well. Please let me know if you agree. Best, DSW
David S. Walker I President
Allied Administrators, Inc. I 633 Battery Street. 2nd Floor I S<1n Francisco CA 9411 i phon& 415-39B-2655 I f<1x 415- 4 34-2793 I [email protected]
