attachment 4 to city council staff report

ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Minutes & Resolutions

ATTACHMENT 4

TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2017,

AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS NOS. 2017-014, 2017-015, AND 2017-016

DRAFT - Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt) May 16, 2017 Page 1 of 11

7. Design Review, Demolition, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License applications for 339 Golden Gate Avenue. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 294 square-foot detached two (2) car garage and construct a 922 square-foot detached three (3) car garage. The applicant also proposes to replace the existing exterior doors and windows of the residence with new insulated doors and windows, remove the existing concrete tile roof and install a new clay barrel title roof and install new decorative guardrails and new cantilevered balconies. The project proposal requires an Exception to Total Floor Area as 4,850 square feet is allowed, 9,188 square feet is existing, and 9,783 square feet is proposed. Applicant/Owner: Golden Gate Belvedere, LLC. Representative: DomA Architects, Inc. (no recusals)

Director Borba presented the staff report. A slide show accompanied her remarks.1 Colors and material samples were circulated to the Commission.

Commissioner Mark asked if the Commission wanted to review the final landscape plan would that mean that the Building Permit might be issued before that was approved?

Ms. Borba replied she would recommend that the project landscape plan must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.

Open public hearing.

David Flaherty, property owner, state he and his wife have lived in the Tiburon area for almost 15 years. They also have two daughters (14 and 8). He thanked Ms. Borba and Mr. Lange for the thorough reports. He stated he has had overwhelming support from neighbors in Belvedere. DomA Architects built his current home in Tiburon and they have had a long term relationship.

John Dorr, DomA Architects presented the project. A slide show accompanied their remarks.2 Mr. Dorr stated that they are making an effort to unify the home into a Spanish colonial revival design with period-correct details. Included in the scope was the demolition and replacement of the existing garage. In meetings with City planning staff they were advised that they should be aware that they should be sensitive to bulk and mass; that is the scale of the project. During the development of the design they lowered the height of the garage to the minimum height for it to be able to have a mission style roof with a 4:12 pitch. The idea was that the materials and design of the garage should match the redesign of the home. On the downslope side of the house, the introduction of windows with shutters would break up the mass of the stucco façade, and added a stone base to introduce a sense of scale to that portion of the back wall.

Ms. Ryann Marlow, DomA Architects stated that the proposed garage was located within existing required setbacks which is back from the location of the existing garage. In addition the garage is situated to accommodate the turning radius for vehicles entering to park. Two cantilevered elements no the main house are a deck and an area to connect the fireplace area to the hot tub area. A parking diagram shows that it would be possible to park 17 off street parking places for use by guests. This all would take a lot of parking pressure off the street.

Jerry Baumann, Zeterre Landscape Architecture, stated that the preliminary plans keep to the intent to keep the existing landscaping and screening for the benefit of neighbors at the front of the

1 The slide show presentation is archived with the record of this meeting. 2 The slide show presentation is archived with the record of this meeting.


property. Some added screening is proposed, as well as some work to provide for view corridor both for the public and the property owners. A 3-D flyover video simulation was presented.3 He stated the proposed low streetside wall is to address erosion and to help maintain the existing trees for the neighbors’ benefit. Spaces in the courtyard walls align with the open ironwork gates to enhance views. An added staircase and gateway for pedestrian access is proposed. An existing Palm Tree will remain.

Ms. Marlow noted that the proposed elevator structure would be smaller than the adjacent chimney structure which is to be removed. She is available for questions.

Commissioner Hart asked which plan sheet is correct, A2.0 or L1.0 because they do not match. On A2.0 the garage is shown in the setback.

Commissioner Mark stated that C1.1 is probably the most clear.

Ms. Borba replied the location of the garage is consistent on both C1.1 and L1.0. Both show the garage right at the setback line, 10 feet from the property line.

Ms. Marlow stated that the architectural plans are correct. The landscape plan is at this time a conceptual plan so may not be exactly consistent.

Commissioner Carapiet asked if the garage roof slope has to be 4:12, does that justify the need for a 14’ 4” height?

Ms. Marlow replied that because we are keeping the garage doors, which have a compound arch starting at a height of 6’. This establishes the head height and the starting point leading to the need for the roof height to 14’4” with the 4:12 pitch. The overall height of the garage has been lowered during the preliminary discussions by a foot.

Stewart Emery, 310 Belvedere Avenue, has lived in front of this home since 1978. He stated he has great enthusiasm for this project. He is thrilled that this will finally be a full effort to make the restore the home’s architectural integrity and beauty, after many prior attempts to make it what it could be. He has concerns about the very steep slope and the area referred to as Eucalyptus Lane. People have asserted that it has been used as a lane, but it has not been used since he came here in 1978. There was one fire in the lane at night, which resulted in the increasing of the height of the utility pole. That lane currently is not maintained. There have been disputes and discussions about homeowners and the City contributing to improving that Lane. We are enthusiastic that some retaining walls will be included because of the recent slides at Belvedere Avenue near his property. He urges that the Commission allow the owners to start landscaping as soon as possible to give the trees a chance to establish the privacy and to stabilize the hill. He stated he supports the entire project.

Len Rifkind, representing Barbara Roberts, 335 Golden Gate Avenue, neighbor to the West of this project, thanked the Commission for their efforts to go through the staff reports and his letter of May 11, 2017.His client has concerns regarding the garage. He stated there are 3 areas of discussion for this project, siting (location of the garage), design modification that might be considered, and landscaping.

3 The video presentation was archived with the record of the meeting.


The location of this 3-car garage is right in line with the existing gate. The problem is that is the public view of the water. Currently, there are some trees in this view, but if this garage is built it will completely block that view. The garage should be smaller, of if they want it to be this size it should be much closer to the house. The photo of the story poles shows that it creates an impression that the house is doubling in size. If one lines up the garage more with the house, there would be less bulk and mass impact, a Design Review consideration. Ms. Roberts is not concerned about views, she has a fantastic westerly view. This is about whether this garage meets the Zoning and Design Review requirements. This is a beautiful garage but there is a better way to design it where it has less impact, not only on Ms. Roberts but on the public where they will have a view to the water. If it stays where it is proposed, that view will go away.

In regards to landscaping, on the landscaping plan, it seems that there are very few plants proposed for the western edge that would block this garage. There are lots of plants in the corner where the existing garage is located. It is key that there be enough room available to soften and mitigate impacts of this garage with plantings.

Mr. Rifkind stated that in regards to the architects’ statement that the 4:12 pitch is the minimum for a mission style roof. However, the roof could be a different design: a flat roof, a green roof, a shed roof. The goal is to have a smaller garage. The average size of a garage in the neighborhood, this is the largest one other than 255 Golden Gate Avenue, which is connected to the house. The average garage size is between 400 and 400 sf. This garage could be located on the east side of the property. The garage could be located downslope and could be reduced to a 2 car garage and that would lower the overall bulk. The appearance of height from the south is around 25 feet.

There are several findings that cannot be made:

Preservation of site conditions: There is no arborist plan, no tree protection plan, and no detail of plant protection during this construction. There are 300 linear feet of retaining walls but no indication of height, size, how much dirt is to be removed. The City Engineer’s comments state that there needs to be a preliminary grading and drainage plan. We have no idea of whether that plan has been submitted. That finding cannot be made.

The relationship between the structures and the site finding cannot be made as previously discussed.

Fences and screening: They do not see how those are minimizing impact. There are 16’ tall arched gates on the public right of way.

Driving and Parking Circulation: This application is requesting encroachments in the public right of way. That public space could be used for better walking paths or street parking for the public.

He requests that the Commission, because of the garage issues, deny or continue the project (for further work). The garage is not ready for approval yet.

Roger Snow, 298 Belvedere Avenue, stated we have lived in Belvedere for 19 years. We are here tonight to give total support this project. Their plans will vastly improve what is now a large pink box with very little landscaping. The new garage will replace the existing ramshackle garage and the design will give a nice view through the property to the Bay for walkers. When he and his wife visited the property they were shocked by the power lines in the back of the property. The power lines go up and down to within a couple of feet of the ground. It’s a jungle of wires which run right


across the property which adjoins the Emory’s and Olivia Hsu Decker’s properties. They run across and go up to the big power pole in Eucalyptus Lane. It is not only a safety but a fire hazard. These wires are in reach of children who live in Olivia’s home and this home. He hopes that if the plans involve a program to eliminate those wires then the sooner the better. If there is anything done by this owner to improve the conditions at Eucalyptus Lane that would be great. Currently it is a jungle of thistles and high weeds and not maintained. It will definitely be a fire hazard when it dries out. This will be especially beneficial to the community and those of us who live along that Lane.

Sheila Golden, 370 Bella Vista Avenue, states she is a long term resident and frequently walks past this property. She can remember when garages and carports were not allowed because of the potential to take away the views. Fences are limited 6 feet high to avoid a tunnel effect as well. She would like to see a change to the placement and bulk of the garage. Currently the two separate buildings look like an industrial park when viewing the story poles. She is glad the owners are going to upgrade this charming historic house. However, she hopes they will reconsider the placement and bulk of the garage.

Scott Roberts, son of Barbara Roberts, a 20-year resident of 335 Golden Gate Avenue, stated that they have not been given enough notice or information to study or hire professionals to evaluate the impacts of the proposed garage, as well as possible alternative locations for a garage. The current plan is massive, taking away privacy and light from our home, overshadowing our living room, dining room, bedrooms, breakfast room, kitchen, and guest house. There is not one place on our property which will not be impacted by this structure. Another concern is the impacts on Eucalyptus Lane. This massive structure will block amazing views of the Golden Gate Bridge, Sausalito and the City. To quote the Belvedere 2017 Guide for Planning:

“Spectacular views, notable architecture, and lush vegetation define Belvedere’s distinctive character… To protect these valued attributes, Belvedere's City Council and Planning Commission have democratically adopted a series of policies and ordinances that closely regulate design and construction.”

Mr. Roberts stated that he is confident the Commission will protect Belvedere’s distinctive character and deny or postpone this approval until we have more opportunity to review other development options that would be not as imposing on neighbors and prevent the destruction of natural mature vegetation and allow the public view access.

Tom Freiberger, 312 Golden Gate Avenue, stated he and his wife live directly across the street from the project. He stated that this is a very nice project and a beautiful house. The landscaping looks good. He also has a problem with the garage and he asks for some flexibility. This garage would be placed in the worst place for the view from the street and for the view from his upstairs. They still would have a nice Angel Island view but when they built their upstairs, they knew they would have a very nice view in this direction. The proposed garage is positioned exactly in blocking position. A 3-car garage is typically 30 feet wide, not 40 feet. Also, if located 10 feet closer to the house that would be better, only taking away about half of his view. If there was a reduction in the roof height that would also be an improvement. In effect this will be higher and more bulky because of the rotation so that one sees front and side. The best solution would be to put it where the existing garage is located. Although not on City property it has no setback and a new garage in that spot would require a Variance. This could be extended more into the downhill direction, could be lowered even. Some might object that one would have to manipulate their cars


to park in the garage, but that is not unusual and the two outer spaces they would have a larger turning radius. With the U-shaped driveway there are two ways to get out. He is asking for some flexibility on the location. As shown now it will block views from the street as well as his own.

Nicole Roberts, daughter of Barbara Roberts, 335 Golden Gate Avenue, has spent a lot of time in this home. Her biggest concern right now is the bulk and mass of the garage and the light and noise that might be emitted from the proposed windows. If a compromise could be considered in a smaller scale, perhaps to lower the grade of the floor of the garage or to excavate some of the area to the left of the existing garage to enable a turnaround to be created. She was happy to hear from the applicant that the owners want to be good neighbors. Here these relationships are so important, so hopefully a compromise can be reached to be considerate of each other. When the landscape plan is submitted that any tree species proposed are studied in regards to maintenance concerns. If privacy screening is one of the goals there needs to be consideration that aggressive fast growing species be avoided because of the maintenance issues that may affect people adjacent to this property.

Close public hearing.

Commissioner Mark stated he spent a lot of time studying the plans and reports, spending time with the applicants and Ms. Roberts at her property. The design of the house is a great renovation. He also likes the garage. As the photos show, this is a large, downhill property with the benefit of the City Lane to provide setbacks. He understands those who would like the garage smaller; he has no problem with this size but he is open to additional discussions on this. This is a large property with a large house. The size of the garage is appropriate for the house. The downhill setting, the scale of the existing house front to back matches the front to back scale of the garage. That being said, the downslope landscaping seems insufficient. The utility plan, the aviary and the orchards are not appropriate for that area, given the proximity to the neighbor. That can be better utilized with screening and landscaping and using the Lane to buffer the property more successfully for light issues and scale. Perhaps they could replicate a green wall on the side of the garage. He has more concerns about the Revocable License area. He only sees 2-3 existing trees proposed to remain in that area. There is a great deal of proposed development in that area which might be moved back allowing for more opportunity to develop that street access and the view corridor there, better than through the existing gates or over the proposed garage. Otherwise he can make the findings for Design Review for house and garage, for Demolition permit for the garage, and the Exception to Total Floor Area with the exception of more consideration of landscaping. He would like to hear others comments regarding the Revocable License area. Given the extent of development proposed for the right of way perhaps there could be some give back in that License area.

Commissioner Stoehr stated that her read the staff report and materials, visited the site and spoke with Mr. Flaherty. He also visited 335 Golden Gate (nest door to the North) to view the impact of the project from that property and spoke with Ms. Roberts, and visited 312 Golden Gate (directly across the street from the site of the proposed garage) and talked with Mr. Freiburger.

He stated that 339 Golden Gate Avenue is a beautiful home in a spectacular location sporting a 180 degree unobstructed view of Sausalito, the Golden Gate Bridge and parts of San Francisco along with all the beautiful open bay waters. While the home is approaching double the maximum square footage allowed under our code, it has existed essentially in this form since it was first built


in 1910. An estate such as this should have a suitable garage, but he believes the proposed siting of the garage is likely the most contentious part of the proposed project. He stated that he understands after discussions with the project proponent, that there are several parts of this project that have not been finalized, including the landscaping plan, fencing, gates across the automobile entry ways, and improvements in the City rights of way. The staff report states that we the Commission are being asked to approve Design Review, Demolition, Exception to Floor Area and Revocable License and leave the uncertain and yet to be finalized items to a subcommittee of the Commission for final approval. He stated he would like to register his concern with this approach, given this project has certain aspects that are potentially contentious. He believes the City and this Commission would be best served to continue this project in a public hearing process to its completion.

With respect to Demolition, he can make the findings for tearing down the old two car garage.

With respect to Design Review, he cannot make the required findings for Design Review, in particular he thinks the color white on this house and proposed garage would draw undue attention to this large structure and would be offensive to neighbors and from the Bay. The colors in the 3D rendition appear to be much more earth tone (Beige) than white and he could agree to such colors if they were agreed for this project. If the color is white, then he cannot make all the findings for Design Review. The landscaping plan including lighting and fencing for this project is a significant part of the project and is not in a final form for a decision by the Commission, so this too is not ready for Design Review.

With respect to the Exception to Total Floor Area, while he concluded that the primary views of the neighbors would not be significantly impaired by the project, in particular the proposed site for the garage, he cannot make this finding for the primary views from the street. When peering through the existing auto gate, the entire view of Sausalito and the Bay will be completely obliterated. He believes that there are other alternative sites on the property where a three car garage of the size being proposed could be located that would meet the view thresholds required for making this finding. He would be able to consider Variances for setbacks to make that happen. Because he believes there are alternative sites for the garage that would minimize the impacts of the additional floor area, such as at the center of the property between the house and the street, even if it required some excavation. It would fit in well, retain maneuverability and keep the sense of a grand entrance. At this time he cannot make the required finding that the property contains unusual characteristics that would minimize the impact of the garage if it were placed in the proposed site. He agrees that the proposed structure is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood and meets all the Design Review criteria except for the color, landscaping, lighting and fencing. He stated he also agrees that the proposed project does not significantly reduce the privacy otherwise available to the adjoining properties. The garage windows do not directly face the neighboring property and there is significant distance between properties to allow for ample screening. He would encourage looking for a different location for the garage, even if it required a Variance for setback.

In regards to the Revocable License the plans for making changes to the city property are not finalized, so he stated that he cannot in good conscience agree to this recommendation at this time.

Commissioner Stoehr stated that he believes that the project should be continued with the issues addressed.


Commissioner Lynch stated that he visited the site and toured the property with the owners. He also met with Ms. Roberts of 335 Golden Gate Avenue. He has studied all the materials and correspondence and addenda from the dais tonight. He agrees with Commissioner Stoehr that more precision in the landscaping and lighting plans needed, as well as the Revocable License. He does not have a problem with improvements in the City right of way; those are common all over the Island. He did not understand precisely what is proposed here. With respect to the remainder of the project he is fine with the project, other than the garage. This is a big garage and he takes the point that the garage could be 30 feet wide instead. However there is nothing in the Belvedere Municipal Code that precludes having a 40 foot wide garage. The applicant and their team did a nice job of describing the steps they have taken to try to break up and minimize the bulk and mass such as the elevation and the windows and shutters. In terms of how the garage is sited, he understands that locating garage closer to the house would interfere with a number of things, including the existing Palm tree. Siting it where the existing garage is located would create setback issues and create a much more imposing structure for 335 Golden Gate Avenue. As proposed this garage does have a bearing on 335 Golden Gate Avenue, especially on the pool/guest house and the light and views from one south-facing window. However that is not a primary view and it is not an imposition that the BMC that would preclude that structure. Perhaps it could be a little smaller but there and sited elsewhere, but he does not find support in the BMC as a basis to decline this Design Review proposal.

Vice-Chair Rosenlund stated he also visited the property with the applicant, reviewed all materials including late letters, and also toured 335 Golden Gate Avenue while speaking with the owner on the phone. Overall this is a nicely done project providing some greatly needed upgrading of a house that seems from the street to be unkempt and old and in need of a lot of work. From the street there is a tangle of shrubs and trees out front and the ramshackle garage. He spent a fair amount of time studying the siting of the garage and he thinks it is in the right place. From the Freiberger’s home this will not impact a primary view. What the proposed project will do is open up another view where it used to be from another window. What no one has mentioned, is that there is going to be another smashing view from the south gate of the property of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay which will enhanced by this plan. Moving the garage over there would utterly kill that view. The net effect of this project is to maintain and/or improve views for property owners and from the street. For those reasons as stated in the staff report he can make the findings for Design Review and the other requests as stated in the staff report. The need for grading and drainage plans are a part of Design Review but are handled at the Building Permit stage of the project. They will be addressed at that time. He took a particular look at the potential impact of the new garage on the guest house next door at the Roberts residence. Yes it is visible, but the primary views from the guest house are the same as from the main house, towards Richardson Bay. He does not have a problem with a two-step process for the approvals. A focus on fine tuning the landscape plan is needed. He appreciates the addition of real orchards and other plantings to reduce impacts of the garage. He can approve the project as proposed subject to approval of a final landscape plan later.

Commissioner Carapiet stated she visited the site with the applicant and Ms. Roberts at her home and the neighbor across the street at 312 Golden Gate Avenue. The project is very well thought out. She struggles with the height and size of the garage. It needs to move over one way or the other to open up the street view. Also the side windows on the garage might be somewhat impactful


as cars came in and out at night. Perhaps those windows could be deleted. There is some fine tuning needed related to the landscaping plan, the gates, the fencing and the Revocable License area. She would like to have a closer look as to what is proposed in that area. In regards to the findings for Design Review, she might want to see a modification of the garage siting and a possible reduction of size and/or roofline. She can make the findings for the Demolition Permit. She can make the findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area.

Commissioner Hart stated that she has been to the site and thanked staff for a fabulous report. She understands the upgrades to the beautiful ‘old lady’ on an unparalleled site for views and surroundings. She is a little saddened that the interior craftsmanship may be removed and made into a more modern home. She understands the windows, decks and passageways as proposed. She can agree with Commissioner Stoehr that even if a Variance would be needed to put the garage in the setback because it would not impact the northern neighbor as there is such a buffer between with their garage, but it would really open up and keep the view through the huge proposed gate. Also it is very important to see what is exactly proposed on the City right of way. The video flyover presentation showed a huge green solid wall, giving the residents a tunnel effect and robbing the residents of the view. That should not happen on the City property. More thought needs to be given to this before she can make the findings.

Chair Lasky asked for the Commission to be able see the physical color sample. The one detail that she hoped would be retained is the roof edges. It is so beautiful as it is; this is such an integral and unique part of the home design and is such an icon of Belvedere architecture. She would hope the applicant would reconsider its removal. The proposed color is beautiful and goes well with the roof tiles. It is not white but rather a creamy gray and very pretty. The landscape plans are in flux. It might be better for the whole landscape plan in conjunction with the Revocable License plan to come back to the full Commission at a later date. Alternatively it could come back to the Chair and planning staff. The aviary may need to be moved away from neighbors. The gate that was shown is not the final design as she understands it. She stated she can make the findings for the Demolition of the existing garage. The removal of the landscaping next to the garage, a Yucca plant or similar would also open up more views to the street and the neighbors across the street. She can make the findings for Design Review. She stated that it would be difficult to move the garage back. The entry and exit to the garage would require the vehicle to back into the setback. After she finishes she would like to hear from the applicants. The garage is in scale with this huge house on a huge lot. Lot coverage is only 13% here. Most of the garage that is visible from the neighbors, is not in their primary views, both for the Roberts and the home across the street. If we did not allow building in any view in Belvedere one cannot build at all here. As decided a while ago in the General Plan, primary views are from the main living areas of a house. The Revocable License can return with the final landscape plan. There are some large existing trees and plantings which should remain. Part of the wall is existing. The current plan does not detail all these existing trees, but the final plan will be required to show those. There should be a condition to have screening plantings on the side of the garage.

Open public hearing.

Mr. Flaherty stated that he appreciates hearing all the comments. We came to this meeting knowing that site is the challenge. It is more or less untouched for 107 years. The actual property has easements, licenses, and lanes. Mr. Perkins helped with the easement on his side. There is no front door, and the garage is unusable. We are open to returning with the landscaping and the License


issues. He would like to have work with staff and work with his neighbors help them solve that part of the project. It was interesting that Commissioner Mark discussed opening up the Lane between the Roberts and our property. We would like to have something beautiful instead of a weed patch. In terms of the garage, overall, we are opening up the property. The fly-through video is not totally representative or our final plan, due to the limitations of the software program. Right now you cannot see into our property at all other than through the 2 gates. Our goal is to protect the 3 heritage Oak trees and open up the property. When walking down Golden Gate Avenue one cannot see anything, either by fences or landscaping. In opening up the front entry you will be able to see right to our front door. We have no problem with most of the comments. The garage is sited correctly. We looked at every alternative option for the siting for the past two years. We are willing to screen the garage from 335 Golden Gate without creating a view blocking wall of greenery. He concurs with Ms. Robert’s daughter that we should get together with our neighbors and we want to open up their views and to get trees out, to underground 9 utility poles, and to open up the left side of the view which is everything between the wall and the native Oak. We are not proposing a tall wall like in the flyover model, we want a small, little wall, to protect the Oak trees and to give the house some presence. We would like to come back and show that to you. There will be no walled off property. If we can get the house and garage approved tonight to get us started we would be most grateful.

Mr. Dorr stated that the 40 foot width of the garage is a comfortable width for parking cars and being able to open the doors, to store trash cans and family activity gear storage.

Mr. Flaherty stated that this is the most minimal garage for function. They have a very large house and have even tried to scale down the house as well.

Commissioner Stoehr said that the central hillside at the street might still not provide a view even if the vegetation is removed. Is that correct?

Mr. Dorr replied the elevation difference is 4 feet. One will be able to see right over it.

Commissioner Stoehr asked why not tuck the garage into the central area between the house and the street? One could excavate the hill to locate it there. Has that been considered? That would solve all the view and bulk and mass issues. If a Variance were needed for that he would support it.

Mr. Flaherty replied that this is the only flat area on the entire property other than the driveway which is going to be widened. That is the only place we can afford to put a pool and sitting area. This is the least civil-disturbed space. By the way, we are hoping to have no spoils from excavation. The biggest disturbance area would be at the bottom for the retaining walls to secure the property for the neighbors. We would never consider taking away the only flat area of the property. That would be putting a major mass in front of all his neighbors and be a huge mistake, and un-approvable.

Mr. Dorr stated this is the only play area for his children to use safely.

Chair Lasky asked would you consider keeping the existing roof detail?

Mr. Dorr replied that those gable ends of the house are a mission revival detail that is inconsistent the Spanish colonial revival style. There are other various mixed styles now. By sticking to the


Spanish colonial revival style, and reducing those large bulky elements it will settle down the house.

Mr. Flaherty replied that this house is huge and we want to reduce the massiveness. Those gables add an additional 4 feet. The story poles are admittedly looking very large for the garage, because of the slope. Our goal is to minimize the bulk.

Mr. Emery stated that he really cares about design. He even wrote a book on it. He fears and asks that you don’t lose the design integrity that this proposal promises while fussing about the garage issues. We have looked up at this pink monstrosity for a long time. Also, while the new owners were investigating the integrity of the slope, rocks broke loose and we hope that the stabilization will occur as soon as possible.

Close public hearing.

Commissioner Carapiet stated that she has listened to the responses tonight and Mr. Emery’s final comments. He has convinced her that the design elements of the garage are such that she can make the findings for Design Review. She would still like to see the landscaping come back to the full Commission for Design Review.

Commissioner Mark stated that if the final landscape plan is returned to the Commission it should return with a refinement of the Revocable License area. For guidance, there is a 200 foot frontage to mitigate the garage impacts by opening up the other parts of the frontage. Also, please provide a green wall or screening on the back side of the garage for the benefit of the neighbor. The windows on the side do close with the shutters which would mitigate the light impacts. Otherwise he can make the findings if the landscape and Revocable License return to the full Commission.

Commissioner Lynch stated he agrees with Commissioner Mark.

Vice Chairman Rosenlund stated he agrees also. We can address the motions for Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Demolition, with the Revocable License to return in conjunction with the landscape plan to return to the full Commission at a future date.

MOTION: To adopt the Resolution granting a Demolition Permit for the property located at 339 Golden Gate Avenue.

MOVED BY: Peter Mark, seconded by Paul Rosenlund

VOTE: Ayes: Marsha Lasky, Paul Rosenlund, Jim Lynch, Peter Mark, Pat Carapiet, Nena Hart, Larry Stoehr

Noes: None Recused: None

MOTION: To adopt the Resolution granting Design Review as amended, to require the final lighting, fencing, landscape plan and Revocable License plan to return to the Commission at a future date, for the property located at 339 Golden Gate Avenue.


VOTE: Ayes: Marsha Lasky, Paul Rosenlund, Pat Carapiet, Peter Mark, Jim Lynch, Nena Hart


Noes: Larry Stoehr Recused: None

MOTION: To adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area Ratio approval to allow a total floor area of 9,783 square feet where 4,850 Square feet is allowed and 9,188 square feet exists for the property located at 339 Golden Gate Avenue.


VOTE: Ayes: Marsha Lasky, Paul Rosenlund, Pat Carapiet, Peter Mark, Jim Lynch, Nena Hart

Noes: Larry Stoehr Recused: None

Commissioner Mark stated that the details of the Revocable License need to be clarified before the motion to recommend it can be made.

CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO 2017-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE

GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 294 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED TWO (2) CAR GARAGE AT 339 GOLDEN GATE

AVENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Demolition Permit pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish the existing 294 square-foot detached two (2) car garage at 339 Golden Gate Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the demolition project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public hearing on the requested Demolition Pe1mit on May 16 2017; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the 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 pursuant to Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow the demolition of the existing 294-square foot detached two (2) car garage at 339 Golden Gate 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, with counsel acceptable to the City in its discretion, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result.

b) All requirements of the Building Official shall be met. A permit for demolition must be issued by the Building Department before the commencement of work.

c) All work shall be completed within three weeks of the commencement of demolition unless deconstruction methods are used in which case 12 weeks is permitted. "Commencement of demolition" shall mean the date of the issuance of the building permit for demolition or a start date specified in written correspondence from the property owner and approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of the permit for demolition.

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, 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 end of each work day.

Resolution 2017-014 339 Golden Gate Avenue May 16, 2017 Page 2

e) 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. The City Manager is urged to impose a very high-level of scrutiny in the detem1ination of "special circumstances."

f) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition at the completion of work.

g) All requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) shall be met.

h) 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 shall demonstrate compliance with State and BAAQMD air quality requirements related to the control of dust generated by the demolition and construction, and shall prepare and submit a plan for the re-use and recycling of demolition materials.

j) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property.

k) In the event that archeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be unde1iaken.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on May 16, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED:

ATTEST:

Marsha Lasky, Paul Rosenlund, Nena Hart, Pat Carapiet, Peter Mark, Jim Lynch, Larry Stoehr None None None None r

V/27 APPROVED: /11 i t!) s:/

~~arsba(Lasky, Planning Go'mrrlission Chai

Alison Foulis, City Clerk

Resolution 2017-014 339 Golden Gate A venue May 16, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page 1

A. That 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 scope of work, as conditioned, will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety, and/or welfare of the City because the demolition activities must satisfy the requirements for a demolition permit from the Building Department and must also comply with all Building and Fire Code Regulations. In addition, as conditioned, the obstruction or blockage (partial or complete) of any street to leave less than ten feet of unobstructed horizontal clearance for vehicles will not be permitted without first obtaining a street closure permit at least 24 hours in advance of engaging in the proposed work. Twelve feet is required for debris boxes and/or building materials, and street must be left clean and free of debris at the end of each workday. In addition, the applicant is required to comply with State air quality requirements and in result this demolition permit would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or welfare of the City.

B. That the demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized historical or architectural significance, until potential preservation options can be reviewed;

As part of the City of Belvedere 2030 General Plan Update, a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map was prepared which categorized the parcels within the City based on the potential of each parcel containing a historic resource. The Historic Resource Map consists of three levels of historic sensitivity which are Low, Medium, and High sensitivity. During the preliminary review, staff determined that the project site was previously surveyed and the site was determined to have a "Medium" historical value. The proposed project will not result in the removal of a building which has been recognized as having historical or architectural significance. Specifically, the existing 8,894 square foot single-family residence was constructed in 1910 and through a search of City records, staff has determined that although the home was featured in "A Pictorial History of Belvedere," published by the Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society, as an authentic example of a Spanish Colonial design, it is not listed as a historic resource on any federal, state, or local register, nor does staff find that it would meet any historic register eligibility criteria. The residence is not proposed to be demolished. The primary scope of the demolition permit is to remove the existing detached 294 square foot two (2) car garage.

Resolution 2017-014 339 Golden Gate Avenue May 16, 2017 EXHIBIT A Page2

C. That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for adequate site protection during and following the demolition; and

The proposed demolition plan, as designed and conditioned, would provide adequate site protection during and following demolition activities through the incorporation of an Erosion Control Plan. The demolition phase of the project would result in a minimal amount of soil disturbance.

D. That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable.

The applicant's estimated timeframe for demolition of the garage is three (3) to four ( 4) business days which is reasonable. Staff is able to make this required finding.

E. That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining housing on the property have been thoroughly considered.

The scope of work for the proposed demolition permit will not result in the removal of an existing single-family residence from the project site. Rather, the scope of work will consist of demolition of the existing 294 detached two (2) car garage. The project will not result in the removal of an existing housing unit and although not part of the project scope, the site contains a 455-square foot accessory dwelling unit (341 Golden Gate A venue) which will remain unaltered as part of the project scope. The project is consistent with Criteria E of the Demolition Permit requirements.

F. The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere Housing Element.

The proposed scope of work for the demolition permit will not remove the existing single-family residence and in result, the project will not have an impact on the availability of housing units in Belvedere.

CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-015

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE

AND CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE CAR GARAGE, REPAINT THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE & EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR

IMPROVEMENTS AT 339 GOLDEN GATE A VENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish the existing 293-square foot detached two (2) car garage and construct an 889-square foot detached three (3) car garage, as well as interior and exterior improvements to the existing 8,894 square-foot single family residence, and landscaping and fencing improvements at 339 Golden Gate Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the project been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public hearing on the requested Design Review Permit on May 16, 2017; 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 Design Review criteria specified in Section 20.04.005 and 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish the existing 293-square foot detached two (2) car garage and construct a 889-square foot detached three (3) car garage, as well as interior and exterior improvements to the existing 8,894 square-foot single family residence, and landscaping improvements at 339 Golden Gate 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 and all awards of damages and/or attorneys' fees and all associated costs that may result; counsel in any such legal action shall be selected by the City in its sole reasonable discretion.

b) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans and shall conform to the drawings prepared by DOMA Architects, Inc., stamped received by the City of Belvedere on May 3, 2017.

c) 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.

Resolution 2017-015 339 Golden Gate Avenue May, 16 2017 Page 2

d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met including but not limited to the following:

• An Encroachment Permit is required for all improvements, work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public right of way, subject to approval of the Public Works Manager.

• An updated Revocable License may be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way and easements.

• A Geotechnical Investigation or geotechnical review letter is required. The geotechnical investigation/letter should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review the proposed Grading & Drainage Plans for conformance with their recommendation prior to Building Permit issuance.

• The project will require a video recording of the condition of the haul route pavement. The applicant will be responsible for any damage to the roadway or other improvements along the haul route caused by the removal or delivery of materials by truck. A deposit will be required should the roadway not be repaired to the satisfaction of the City. The deposit amount (estimated range from $10,000 to $30,000) will be determined at the time of the Building Permit review.

• The project will require a detailed Grading Plan & Drainage Plan showing cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County. This can be found at the following website: http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/

Files/Departments/PW /mcstoppp/GuidanceforApplicantsv 2508 .pdf • The project requires a Site Plan showing the property line locations (referencing

the survey source and mapping information), any existing easements, building setbacks, encroachments etc.

• Topographic Survey information shall be included either on the site plan or on a separate plan. The basis for determining elevations (assumed, NGVD, or NAVD) should also be clearly indicated. The surveyor's name and license number shall be included.

• Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by City of Belvedere municipal code Section 8.36.090 D., a permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual.

• The project will require a Utility Plan (if not shown on the Site Plan) showing the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, irrigation, gas, electrical, telephone, cable TV, etc.

Resolution 2017-015 339 Golden Gate Avenue May, 16 2017 Page 3

• The project will include soil disturbance during construction and applicants therefore must submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for approval by the City prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. See the following link for the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Applicant Package, revised November 2015: http://www.marincounty.org/ ~/media/files/ departments/pw/mcstoppp/ developmen t/mcstoppp-erosion-and-sediment-control-plan-applicant-package.pdf?la=en

e) Encroachment permits, as distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained prior to commencing work in the City right-of-way.

t) For projects that affect site drainage, a preliminary drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.

g) The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) for conformance with the District's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) prior to issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed landscape plans comply with MMWD.

h) The project shall comply with all requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District.

i) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met including but not limited to the following: • The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler

system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2

• Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10

• The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD. CFC 304.1.2

j) An exterior lighting plan for the property shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location, design, and quantity of existing and proposed lighting sources. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.

k) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning Commission. The final landscape plan shall identify, but not be limited to, such criteria as the type of plants and trees and quantities of each.

1) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a wall and fencing plan shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The plan shall illustrate the location and design of all existing and proposed walls and fences for the project site.

Resolution 2017-015 339 Golden Gate Avenue May, 16 2017 Page4

m) 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.

n) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans.

o) Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. This Design Review approval expires on May 16, 2018.

p) Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established for this project (18 months).

q) In the event unanticipated archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken.

r) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings.

s) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the property. t) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property owner shall demonstrate

compliance with State/BAAQMD air quality requirements related to the dust generated by grading and construction.

u) Prior to approval of the framing inspection, the applicant shall provide an elevation survey prepared by a licensed surveyor to the Building Department indicating the height of the new residence.

v) Prior to approval of the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall stake the comers of the foundation (with offset) and shall submit a survey of the foundation stakes to include the boundaries of the property.


AYES:


Marsha Lasky, Paul Mark, Jim Lynch Larry Stoehr None None None

Rosenlund, Nena Hart, Pat Carapiet, Peter

/JI _ Marsha Las

ATTEST:~~---~-----Alison Foulis, City Clerk

Resolution 2017-015 339 Golden Gate Avenue May, 16 2017 Exhibit A Page 1

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.

As conditioned, landscape will be preserved in its natural state and soil removal is kept to a minimum. As outlined in the preliminary landscape plan, the applicant is not proposing to remove existing landscaping as part of the project scope. The project site is currently landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, some of which are oak trees. In addition, the preliminary landscape plan shows such landscaping, but not limited to, orchard trees (avocado, apricot, apple, citrus, and nectarine, etc.), large shrub trees (trident maple, dogwood, wild lilac, red cestum, etc), low shrubs (blue hibiscus, boxwood, mexican orange, etc.), articulation vines (trumpet vines, cup and saucer vine, lilac vine, etc.), ferns (sword and giant chain fern), and various types of grasses. The proposed landscaping species will be placed evenly throughout the project site to create an adequate visual buffer and visual appear to the property. The landscape plan also illustrates a proposed spa and pool areas as well as trellis, water features, aviaries, and outdoor seating areas which will be finalized as part of the final landscape plan. The project does not propose earthmoving activities (cut and fill) that would significantly change the existing grade of the residential lot and the exterior improvements, as preliminarily proposed, will create a sense of harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape.

As a Condition of Approval (COA), the applicant will be required to submit a final landscape plan which will identify, but not limited to, the location and quantities of proposed plants and shrubs which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission Chair and Planning staff prior to the issuance of a Building Pe1mit.

Relationship between structures and the site. There should be a balance 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 design and placement of the new 889 square foot detached garage will create a balance and haimonious relationship to the existing single-family residence due to the garage being designed in a Spanish colonial design like that of the existing residence. Exterior elements incorporated into the design will consist of a titled roof, stucco walls, arched windows, and the exterior will be painted white. The garage will be set back further into the property than the existing garage and a landscaped buffer will be placed along the perimeter of the property to reduce the visibility of the proposed garage from public view. In addition, project will also be consistent with the design theme of some of the neighboring residences which have incorporated stucco exterior and tiled roof, and paint colors that range from tan to white, gray, and brown.


The exterior improvements made to the existing single family residence will be consistent with the existing design concept of the home and are minor in scope. The proposed new garage and the exterior improvements to the existing single-family residence will create a balanced and harmonious relationship on and off-site.

Minimizing bulk and mass.

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 proposed project avoids monotony and the impression of bulk. The exterior improvements to the existing single-family residence and the construction of the detached garage three (3) car garage will incorporate a mix of vertical and horizontal elements which will be consistent with the original design intent of the single-family residence (Spanish colonial) and blend nicely with the surrounding residential properties by incorporating such features as stucco and stone elements to the exterior walls, tile materials to the roof, and metal and wood doors and windows. The new garage will incorporate design elements (i.e. stucco, wood doors and windows) as the existing singlefamily residence and will also be painted the same shade of white. There is no monotony or impressions of bulk, or large expanse of any one material and as designed the addition/remodel provides some articulation and interest to the existing unique architectural structure.

Materials and colors used. Building designs should incorporate materials and colors that minimize the structures visual impacts, that blends with the existing landforms and vegetative cover, that relate to and fit in with structures in the neighborhood, and that do no attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone ranges are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors.

The proposed project does not involve improvements which would significantly attract attention to the structures themselves and will incorporate colors that will blend with the existing landforms and vegetative cover. More specifically, the proposed garage will be placed on the eastern portion of the project site but will be placed farther within the property and does not exceed the structural height requirement of the R-15 Zoning Classification in order to assist in alleviating potential visual impacts. The overall design concept of both the exterior improvements to the existing single-family residence and proposed detached three (3) car garage will be consistent with the existing Spanish colonial architectural theme of the property. Specifically, architectural elements which will be incorporated will consist of tiles for the roof, stucco and stone materials for the walls, and metalwork elements for the doors, balconies, and guardrails, and woodwork for the windows.


As outlined in Chapter 324 of the Belvedere Administrative Policy, Appropriate Colors and Materials, the exterior of a single-family residence shall be painted earth tone colors such as beige, brown, and grey ranges. "Woodtones" include colors in the brown and muted green ranges. The predominant color of a structure should not cause a structure to stand out. Only the Planning Commission can approve the use of colors outside of the "earthtone" or "woodtone" range if it determines that the color is "compatible with the building setting and [is] compatible with those of other buildings in the vicinity." (Administrative Policy Manual,§ 324.07.)

Here, the white color satisfies this Design Review finding because it is compatible with the Spanish style of the building and other buildings in the vicinity. The property is near residences which, although are not painted white, are similar and compatible in color to the proposed color of the project. Neighboring properties consist of light yellows and greys, shingled roofing materials, and multiple neighboring homes have window and fencing which are painted white.

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.

As conditioned, the fencing and screening (existing and proposed) for the project are compatible with the design of the site and the structure as a whole. The proposed landscaping/fencing plan illustrates the preliminary wall and screening locations.

As conditioned, fencing and screening will not significantly block views. The proposed garage is larger in size to accommodate three (3) cars, storage and garbage cans.

Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings.

Building Placement is selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. The project scope will involve the removal of the existing 293 square foot detached two (2) car garage and will construct a new 889 square foot detached three (3) car garage. The proposed new garage will be located on the eastern side of the project site. The proposed garage will be placed farther into the property than the existing garage and will be adequately landscaped and fenced to assist in relieving overall visual impacts of the structure from the street and from adjacent properties. The scope of work for the exterior improvements of the existing single family residence will involve window alteration; however, the number of windows will not be increased but rather, the existing windows will be replaced with new insulated metal windows. In addition, the existing singlefamily residence is located within the central portion of the project site and is not located within close vicinity to any of the existing neighboring homes.


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 project is designed to minimize traffic flow interference and is consistent with the design of the building, structures on the site, and neighboring properties. The project scope involves the removal of the existing detached two (2) car garage and the construction of a detached three (3) car garage and exterior and interior improvements to the existing single-family residence, and replacing the existing roof of the residence. As outlined in Section 19 .68.020 of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code, a single-family dwelling is required to provide two (2) parking spaces. The proposed detached garage has the capacity for three (3) vehicles and it is intended that two (2) of the spaces be designated for the existing single-family residence and one (1) space will be for the existing and legal in-law secondary unit. Based on the topography of the project site, the proposed garage has been placed within a p011ion of the site to improve access when entering and existing the structure and can be accessed by the two (2) existing drive entries of the property which will be gated. The proposed garage will be consistent with the parking requirements as outlined in Section 19 .68.020 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. The existing driveway, parking and circulation will be improved with the proposed project as designed.

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 exterior lenses.

As conditioned, the proposed exterior lighting, as illustrated on the preliminary landscape plan will be designed and conditioned to be shielded and directed in a downward angle so as not to create a significant glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to 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 applicant requests an Exception to Total Floor Area that would allow the residence to exceed the maximum allowable floor area in the R-15 zoning district for the site (4,850 square feet). The applicant proposes a total floor area of 9,783 square feet where 4,850 square feet is allowed and 9,188 square feet is existing. Given the fact that the findings for a Floor Area Exception are made, it is not feasible or reasonable to condition the project upon the mitigation or elimination of this nonconformity. The project, as designed and conditioned, will comply with the height, lot coverage, and setback requirements of the R-15 Zoning Classification.

Landscape plans -- Purpose.

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. 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. 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.

Landscape Plans - Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turn areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. B. 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. C. 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.


As conditioned, this finding is satisfied. With regards to the landscaping of the project, the applicant proposes to retain a majority of the existing landscaping along the project frontage which currently contains mature trees and shrubs, some of which are oak trees. In addition, the preliminary landscape plan shows such landscaping, but not limited to, orchard trees (avocado, apricot, apple, citrus, and nectarine, etc.), large shrub trees (trident maple, dogwood, wild lilac, red cestum, etc), low shrubs (blue hibiscus, boxwood, mexican orange, etc.), articulation vines (trumpet vines, cup and saucer vine, lilac vine, etc.), fems (sword and giant chain fem), and various types of grasses. The proposed landscaping species will be placed evenly throughout the project site to create an adequate visual buffer and visual appear to the property. The landscape plan also illustrates a proposed spa and pool areas as well as trellis, water features, aviaries, and outdoor seating areas which will be finalized as part of the final landscape plan.

CITY OF BELVEDERE

RESOLUTION NO 2017-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE

GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTIONS 19.24.050, 19.52.090, AND 19.51.110 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY

LOCATED AT 339 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE

WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for an Exception to Total Floor Area from the zoning provisions of the Belvedere Municipal Code for the construction of a new 889 square foot detached three (3) car garage and allow a maximum floor area of 9,783 square feet where 9,188 square feet currently exists, and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 339 Golden Gate Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Class l(a) because the proposed project consists of additions to the existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, as defined by CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction of small structures) because the applicant proposes to construct an approximately 889 square foot detached three (3) car garage within the eastern portion of the project site as part of the scope of work; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public hearing on the requested Floor Area Exception on May 16 2017; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact as required by section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code:

a) That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage.

Primary views from adjacent properties and the street are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The garage is proposed further down the lot than the existing garage and greater front and side yard setbacks are provided with the location of the new garage structure. The proposed garage integrates well into the site and the existing single family zoning district and conforms to the development standards of the R-15 Zoning District. The existing landscaping and the topography of the lot both aid in the screening of the proposed garage.


Although the garage will be minimally visible from the neighboring properties, the neighboring properties' primary views will not be significantly impaired. The proposed garage is at least 20 feet from the neighboring property at 335 Golden Gate A venue. Given the distance from the adjacent property combined with the fact that the adjacent property is oriented towards the San Francisco Bay, the proposed garage will have no impact to the primary views of the adjacent property.

The General Plan, p. 111, defines a Primary View as, "views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay and its environs, bridges, and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island as seen from inside the public or common areas of the home." As described below, none of Primary Views from adjacent neighbors and the street are significantly impaired and therefore this finding is satisfied.

The overall height of the structure will not impact primary views from the neighbor's property as the structure will not impact any views of Mt. Tamalpais, San Francisco Bay, bridges and the surrounding hills of Tiburon or Belvedere Island. The garage measures 14 feet in height at the pitch of the roof, and is a minimum of 20 feet from the adjacent neighbor. Moreover, due to the modest height of the garage and the distance to the adjacent neighbors in all directions, any Primary View would not be "significantly impaired" by the additional square footage. Additionally, removal of the existing two car garage and removal and or cleaning up of the existing landscaping will, may improve and or provide for different views from the properties located directly across the street as well as views from the street.

b) That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area;

The unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel that minimize the impact of the greater floor area are the steep grade of the property, and the unusually large size of the lot. The square footage of the residential lot is nearly double to what is required by the R-15 Zoning Classification (15,000 square feet required by R-15 and subject lot is 27,372 square feet). Factoring in the new proposed detached three (3) car garage the lot would have an approximate lot coverage of 13.5 percent where a total coverage of 30 percent is allowed. The existing residential lot has sufficient space to accommodate the proposed 889 square foot detached three (3) car garage and therefore the impacts would be minimized. In addition, the proposed new garage will be located farther back into the existing property to assist in reducing potential visual impacts along the public right-of-way. The above-mentioned unusual characteristics of the parcel minimize the impact of the greater floor area.


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

The proposed improvements to the existing 8,894 square foot single-family residence and construction of the new 889 square foot detached three (3) car garage is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, zoning district, and will meet all applicable design review criteria. Specifically, the exterior architectural improvements to the existing residence will consist of removing and constructing a new roof, replacing existing windows and doors, adding cantilevered balconies, and incorporating construction materials of wood and steel. The improvements will not add to a sense of bulk to the existing residence, but rather, create a sense of visual appeal and will be consistent with the existing Spanish colonial design of the residence. The residence, as currently designed, is consistent with the zoning parameters of the R-15 Zoning Classification.

With regards to the proposed 889 square foot three (3) car garage, the structure will be designed to be consistent with the architectural design of the existing single family residence, such as incorporated wood and steel materials, a tiled roof, and white painted stucco for the exterior walls of the proposed structure. The garage will be designed to be consistent with the R-15 Zoning Classification as the height of the structure from grade level is approximately fourteen (14) feet which complies with the "average" height requirement of 28 feet and the structure will be setback ten (10) feet from the eastern property line (minimum 10 foot setback) and twenty five (25) feet from the front property line (minimum 10 feet for structures less than 15 feet).

The proposed project complies with all design review criteria.

d) That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties.

The proposed scope of work will not result in the reduction of privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. Specifically, the existing singlefamily residence is located within the central portion of a rather steep graded residential lot. The location and footprint of the residence will not be altered as part of the project scope and although window and door work is proposed, the focus will be to replace existing doors and windows retrofitted amenities and will not be placing additional windows or doors which may affect the privacy of the surrounding residents.

Resolution 2017-016 339 Golden Gate A venue May 16, 2017 Page4

The proposed 889 square-foot garage will also not impact the privacy otherwise available to residents of the adjoining properties. The proposed garage will be placed further back into the residential lot and the garage will be oriented in a manner that any windows on the rear of the structure will face the landscape and fencing buffer which will separate the subject site from the residential property to the east. The incorporation of a landscaped and fencing buffer and relocating the structure farther into the project site will not result in a substantial impact of privacy that otherwise would be available for residents of the adjoining properties.


AYES:


Marsha Lasky, Paul Rosenlund, Peter Mark, Nena Hart, Jim Lynch, Pat Carapiet Larry Stoehr None None None

ATTEST:_~~---~--~' --Alison Foulis, City Clerk

attachment 4 to city council staff report

Documents