CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE:
10/6/2015
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEETING DATE: 10/20/2015
TO:
City of Belvedere Planning Commission
FROM:
Nancy Kaufman, Contract Planner (RGS)
REVIEWED BY:
Irene Borba, City Planner
Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Demolition Permit, Design Review, Variances (Lot Coverage, Setback,
and Fence Height), Exception to Total Floor Area and Revocable
License to Demolish Existing Single-Family Residence with Second
Unit and Construct a New Residence on Property Located at 2
Windward Road
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant requests a Demolition Permit for the removal of the existing 4,171 square-foot
home, a Design Review Permit, three Variances (Lot Coverage, Setback, and Fence Height), and
Exception to Total Floor Area for the construction of a new 4,648 square-foot residence
(includes 604 sq.ft. garage and 170 sq.ft. of area with ceiling heights greater than 15 ') and related
site improvements, as described in more detail below. A Revocable License is also required for
private improvements proposed within the Windward Road street right-of-way.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take
the following actions:
MOTIONl
Adopt the Resolution finding No Historical Resource and No Tribal
Cultural Resources Per CEQA for 2 Windward Road (Attachment 1);
MOTION2
Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition Permit of the existing residence
at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned
(Attachment 2);
MOTION3
Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for proposed new residence
at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned
(Attachment 3);
MOTION4
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed
Lot Coverage for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject
to the attached findings (Attachment 4);
MOTIONS
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to encroach into the Front Yard
Setback for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the
attached findings (Attachment 5);
MOTION6
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to exceed the allowable Fence
Height for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the
attached findings (Attachment 6);
MOTION7
Adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area for
proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached
findings and as conditioned (Attachment 7); and
MOTIONS
Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for
private improvements located in the public street right-of-way at ~
Windward Road.
PROPERTY SUMMARY
Project Address:
APN:
Project Applicant:
Property Owner:
GP Designation:
Zoning:
Existing Use:
2 Windward Road
060-021-03
Paden Prichard, Paden Prichard/Design
Paul and Eleanor Stephens
Medium Density Residential SFR- 3.1 to 6.0 units/net acre
R-lL Single Family Residential, Belvedere Lagoon
Single Family Residence with a Second Unit
Site Characteristics:
The parcel is a relatively flat, irregularshaped lot at the northeast comer of San
Rafael A venue and Windward Road located
along the Belvedere Lagoon. The overall
total lot area is 11 ,135 square feet of which
approximately 589 square feet is below the
summer Lagoon water level. The existing
single-level home and garage were
An attached
reportedly built in 1955.
second unit was created around 1978.
Existing vegetation on the site includes a
variety of plants including two mapie trees,
a podocarpus, rhododendron, cypress tree,
holly shrub, citrus/lemon tree, and camellia
bushes. Large shrubs border the site along
the Windward Road frontage in front of a
wood fence. Various shrubs and planter
boxes exist inside the fenced area of the
front yard. In the rear yard, there are a few
very small shrubs and a yucca tree. Camellia
bushes and ivy line the wood fences on the
sides of the lot. The remaining areas of the
property (not covered by the existing
2 Windward Road-October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
building) are covered with an assortment of
concrete aggregate patios and other
impervious surface materials. A large wood
boat dock abuts the Lagoon at the rear.
A Sanitary District No. 5 pump station is
located next to the site along San Rafael
A venue and approximately one-half of an
existing off-street parking space (for the
second unit) is located partially on the pump
station site.
•
)'
2 Windword Rd
Page 2
ZONING PARAMETERS
ELEMENT
Overall Lot Area
Lot Area (excluding water)*
Lot Coverage
EXISTING
11,135 SF
10,546 SF
PROPOSED
No Change
No Change
4,334 SF (41.1%)
4,504 SF (42.7%)
50%
4,334 SF (41.1%)
4,504 SF (42.7%)
4,000 SF
4,171 SF
4,648 SF
(incl. 170SF>15'
ceiling height)
PRESCRIBED
7,500 SF
7,500 SF
50% (existing
home; <15'high)
40% (proposed
home; >15'high)
Total Lot Coverage
(including decks over 4 ft.
above grade)
Total Floor Area
Setbacks****
Front
8' 2" min.
21' max.
(Front setback varies;
bldg. generally not
parallel to street)
5' min./
7' 4" average
4'6" min/
8'9" average****
Bldgs <15' = 5'
Bldgs<25' = 10'
3'
5'
2' 6"
5'
4'
15'
33'-35'
25'-32'
22' - 26'
15'
16' 7" to 22' 11 "
2
3
2
Left Side (one story)
Right Side (one story)
Rear**
Building Height***
Parking Spaces
* In the R-1 L Zone, lot area is defined as the total area within the lot lines, excluding any portion which is underwater at summerlevel high tide. (BMC Section 19.08.300)
** In the R-1 L Zone, rear yard setbacks are measured from summer-level high tide. (BMC Section 19.48.010)
***In the R-IL Zone, a bonus ofone foot of additional height may be allowed when an additional foot is added to the average second
story side yard setback, to a maximum height of twenty-six foet, provided that the minimum side yard setback for second stories
is maintained (IO') (BMC Section 19.56.050).
****In R Zones where a building wall is not parallel to a parcel line, or where a building wall does not follow a continuous unbroken
alignment, a portion of the roof overhang may project into a required yard provided that the average depth of the setback is at
least equal to the required setback, and the setback is never less than seventy percent of the required setback (BMC Section
19.14.190 (H)
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 3
BACKGROUND/PROPERTY HISTORY
A review of City records indicates that the subject property received the following pnor
approvals:
Building•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Residence constmcted in 1955
April 1961 -Building Pennit issued for a 750 sq. ft. addition (1961-14)
January 1975 -Building Permit issued for repairs (1975-06)
August 1983 - Constmction Permit issued for re-roofing (1983-115)
June 1997 - Requirement for installation of a backflow prevention device waived.
October 2005 - Construction Permit issued for reroofing (2005-200)
March 2006 - Construction Permit issued for water heater (2006-081)
June 2006 - Construction Permit issued for replacement of 15 windows (2006-142)
August 2008 - Building Pennit issued for retrofitting bedroom window to vinyl (2008174)
January 2012 - Building Pennit issued for kitchen remodel, rear deck replacement,
replacement of a bedroom window with a door, replacement of garage door, exterior
siding repair, installation of decorative fence caps, and installation of grid-iron lattice on
fence. (2012-015)
Planning•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
December 1978 - Registration/Validation of Second Unit.
December 1980 - Second Unit noted as 700 square feet.
July 1981 - Second Unit approved by Planning Commission
October 1984 - Second Unit Permit expired.
November 1985 -Application for Use Pennit for Second Unit of 780 square feet.
April 2006 - Minor Design Review approval to replace sliding glass door and other
window replacements.
May 2006 - Revocable License A0621 approved for concrete entry walk, two driveways,
wood fence, raised brick planters, and landscaping
June 2011 - Design Review for kitchen remodel, rear deck replacement, replacement of a
bedroom window with a door, replacement of garage door, exterior siding repair,
installation of decorative fence caps, and installation of grid-iron lattice on fence.
February 2012 -Design Review Exemption for replacing exterior door at breakfast nook.
According to published Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2009 flood maps, the
property is located in the flood zone "AE". New construction that occurs within this flood zone
as well as any structures that undergo "substantial improvement" must be elevated such that the
habitable space is raised above Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Current flood zone maps set the
BFE in this zone at 9 feet NAVD 1• In addition, the City's floodplain management ordinance
(BMC Section 16.20) requires an additional one-foot of freeboard as a safety factor. Based on
the current BFE, this requires that the first finished floor of a new or substantially improved
1
FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps use NAVD- North American Vertical Datum of 1988, as the basis for
published flood elevations.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 4
structure be at 10 feet NA VD or higher. The finished floor elevation of the existing home on the
property is approximately 7 feet NAVD.
On September 18, 2015, the City received a letter from FEMA, dated September 16, 2015, with
the final modified flood hazard determinations affecting the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
The modified flood hazard determinations and revised map panels will be effective as of March
16, 2016 and will revise the FIRM that is cmTently in effect. As of March 16, 2016, the BFE in
this zone will be 10 feet NA VD. With the additional one-foot of freeboard required by the City
as a safety factor, the finished floor elevation of a new or substantially improved structure will be
required to be at 11 feet NA VD or higher at the time the new BFE takes effect if a complete
building permit application has not been submitted.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The applicant requests a Demolition Permit for the removal of the existing 4,171 square-foot
home (including the second unit), a Design Review Pennit, three Variances for setback, lot
coverage, and fence height, and an Exception to Total Floor Area for the construction of a new
4,648 square-foot residence and related site improvements, as described in more detail below. A
Revocable License is also required for private improvements proposed within the Windward
street right-of-way. Each of these requests is discussed in more detail below. The applications are
included as Attachment 8 and project plans are included as Attachment 9.
DEMOLITION PERMIT
Given that the existing residence and second unit are proposed to be demolished, a Demolition
Permit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.08.136 and Chapter 16.28.
BMC Section 19.08.136, defines Demolition as "the razing of a building, removal of a dwelling
unit, or the removal of more than fifty percent of the total exterior wall and roof area from the
grade up .... Removing a residential second unit or converting a duplex into a single unit is
considered demolition." The following findings address the demolition of both the main
residential unit and the second unit. In order to approve the Demolition Permit, the Planning
Commission must make the following findings:
A.
That tbe demolition, as conditioned by tbe Planning Commission, will not have an
adverse impact upon tbe public healtb, safety and/or welfare of the City;
The proposed demolition will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety, and/or
welfare of the City because the demolition must satisfy the requirements for a demolition permit
from the Building Department, and must also comply with all Building and Fire Code
regulations. Additionally, 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 pem1itted without first obtaining a street closure pem1it at least 24 hours advance. Twelve
feet is required for debris boxes and/or building materials, and streets must be left clean and free
of debris at the end of each work-day. Further, staff finds that, with a condition of approval
stating that the applicant demonstrates compliance with State air quality requirements, this
demolition project would not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety and/or
welfare of the City.
B.
Tbat the demolition will not remove from the City a building of recognized
historical or arcbitectural significance, until potential preservation options can be
reviewed;
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 5
For the reasons below, the subject property does not constitute a building of recognized historical
of architectural significance. In conjunction with the preparation of City of Belvedere General
Plan 2030, a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map was created in 2009, which categorizes each
parcel in Belvedere according to its likelihood to contain a historic resource. The map displays
three levels of historic sensitivity: Low, Medium and High. The property at 2 Windward Road
was not determined to have a "High" historical resource value; therefore, it was designated as
having "Medium" sensitivity. Parcels with this designation include those with structures between
45 and 100 years of age (which is most of the Belvedere Lagoon neighborhood) and those with
an unknown construction date, and not previously listed as a historic resource. The residence at 2
Windward Road was constructed in 1955 and the second unit appears to have been constructed
or created within the existing structure around 1978. The overall structure is not listed as a
historic resource on any federal, state or local register.
In accordance with General Plan Preservation Policy 2.1.3, an assessment was completed to
dete1mine if there is any evidence to suggest that the property at 2 Windward Road is eligible for
listing. As part of this assessment, staff consulted the building records, which indicated an
addition in 1961 and changes over the years to the home's kitchen, windows and doors. Staff
also consulted with Mr. Roger Felton, Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee
(HPC). It is Mr. Felton's opinion that the property does not meet the criteria used by the HPC for
designation, and he concluded by stating that he does not find that the HPC would consider 2
Windward Road for designation as a local historic resource (see Attachment 10). Based on this
assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that the residence at 2 Windward Road is of
recognized historical or architectural significance.
C.
That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides for
adequate site protection during and following the demolition.
The plan presented in the application, and as conditioned, would provide adequate site protection
during and following the demolitions. The application is proposing to deconstruct the stmctures
on the site with the intent that the materials may be reused or recycled. Should the structure be
demolished rather than deconstructed, it would be expected to generate up to approximately 840
cubic yards of material. The applicant states that this material will be hauled off site in 40 cubic
yard debris boxes or 12 to 15 dump trucks, and an erosion control plan will be put in place.
Demolition is expected to take two weeks to complete.
D.
That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable.
The applicant's estimated two-week time frame for accomplishing the demolitions is reasonable.
E.
That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for maintaining
housing on the property have been thoroughly considered.
Two housing units would be removed as paii of this application and one new housing unit would
be constmcted in its place. The applicants are not intending to include a second unit with this
application. They have, however, designed the proposed home so that a smaller second unit
could be accommodated in the future with minimal internal changes. The possible future 2nd
unit would be 533 square feet. (See Attachment 9, Sheet B, showing possible 2nd unit.) At
present, an existing parking space for the second unit enters the property from San Rafael
Avenue and approximately one-half of the space is located on the adjacent pump station site.
Within the project site, this paved space (shown on the Surveyor's Site Plan, Sheet 2 of
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 6
Attachment 9) is proposed to be removed and replaced with landscaping. If, in the future, a
second unit were to be reinstated, a third parking space would have to be provided on the project
site.
The existing second unit is not occupied and does not conform to the BMC Section 19.78.080.
Second units - Location and development standards. According to the records the existing
second unit is 780 square feet, and according to the applicant's existing floor plans it is 1,392
square feet, in either case exceeding the maximum allowable 750 square feet for a second unit.
Based on the submitted floor plan, it has a questionable bedroom with a door to the exterior but
no windows. Also, the unit is not 20' from the front or side property lines. As it currently exists,
it could not be re-built as part of a new structure. The potential future conversion of interior
space into a second unit would not be considered to be a "newly constructed second unit" and
would be able to meet the code as currently written if a third parking space is provided.
F.
The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere
Housing Element.
The demolition of the existing residence will not have a substantial impact on the availability of
housing units in Belvedere and is consistent with the goals of the Belvedere Housing Element.
Housing Element Policy 2.6 states, "Protection of Existing Rental Housing. Strive to ensure that
the existing rental housing is maintained and consider all opportunities to help preserve such
housing." Program 2.2 also addresses the need to preserve rental housing. Policy 3.6 specifically
addresses second units and states, "Encourage the provision of second units in the development
of new single-family homes." The policies and the City's zoning regulations are designed to
encourage the construction of second units but they cannot be mandated. The existing second
unit has not been rented out for some time and the applicants do not desire to have a second unit
at this time; they have, however, designed a home where a second unit could easily be created in
the future. Therefore, the demolition of the existing residence and second unit will not have a
substantial impact on the availability of housing units in Belvedere, the new home is proposed to
be constructed on the property within 12 months after demolition of the existing house is
completed and the project includes the potential for a second unit to be created at a later date
when the need arises.
In summary, as conditioned, the project meets City requirements for demolition. Staff
recommends that the findings for Demolition can be made as reflected in the attached in the draft
Resolution (Attachment 2).
HISTORICAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources:
CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. (CEQA
Guideline sections 15300.2(a)-(f).) Under one such exception, a CEQA categorical exemption
may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA
Historical Resource (CEQA Guideline sections 15300.2(±)). As explained below, staff suggests
that 2 Windward Road does not constitute a Historical Resource per CEQA, therefore, a
categorical exemption is proper.
CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5(a)(3) and interpreting case law provides that the City in its
discretion may determine that a property is a Historical Resource for purposes of CEQA pursuant
to Section 15064.5(a)(3), regardless of whether the property is listed in, or eligible for listing in,
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 7
a local register of historical resources or the California State Historical Register. As explained
above and referenced here, staff does not find that the subject property constitutes a historical
resource.
First, the property is not designated as a "high" historic sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the
Historic Resource Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. "Medium" sensitivity structures are
those between 45 and 100 years of age (which is most of the Belvedere Lagoon neighborhood),
those with an unknown construction date, and those not previously listed as a historic resource.
Additionally, the residence at 2 Windward Road, constructed in 1955, is not listed as a historic
resource on any federal, state or local register.
Second, staff was unable to find any evidence suggesting that the property at 2 Windward Road
would be eligible for listing in the local historical register after conducting an assessment. As
part of this assessment, staff consulted the building records, which indicated an addition in 1961
and changes over the years to the home's kitchen, windows and doors. Staff also consulted with
Mr. Roger Felton, Chair of the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee (HPC). Mr. Felton
found that the home was formerly owned by Tom Eubanks, a well-known local plumber. Mr.
Eubanks lived there many years and made some additions during that time. However, the
ownership of the home by Mr. Eubanks is not significant enough to qualify the home under the
criterion of "associated with any significant person, group or event." Further, the home does not
have any particular distinct architectural style nor is it an example of any unique construction
methods, materials, or craftsmanship. It is Mr. Felton's opinion that the property does not meet
the criteria used by the HPC for designation as a historical property, and he concluded that it is
unlikely that HPC would consider 2 Windward Road for designation as a local historic resource.
Based on this assessment, staff finds that there is no evidence to suggest that the residence at 2
Windward Road is of recognized historical or architectural significance.
Based on the above information, and incorporated herein by reference, staff suggests the
following findings per CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5(a)(3) that the property does not
constitute a historical resource:
1.
The subject prope1iy is not associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage.
2.
The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons that are important to the
community's historical past.
3.
The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
or method of construction, nor does it represents the work of an imp01iant creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values
4.
The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, inf01mation important in
prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive characteristics of historical
or architectural significance.
Tribal Cultural Resources:
Recently the California Legislature amended CEQA to include "Tribal Cultural Resources" as a
protected resource, similar to the category of "Historical Resources". As with a Historic
Resource, now a project may not use a Categorical Exemption if the project would cause a
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 8
substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource. (See, Pub. Res.
Code, § 21084.2; CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(f).) However, if there are no Tribal Cultural
Resources on site, a Categorical Exemption is proper. Therefore, the City must first make a
determination as to whether Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property.
A Tribal Cultural Resource may include a variety of resources 'such as site features, places,
cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21074.) A Tribal Cultural Resource is designated in one of
two ways: 1) the resource is listed in a national, state, or local register of historic resources; or 2)
the City in its discretion detennines the site contains a resource. If there is substantial evidence
in the record to support the finding, the lead agency may determine that a site contains Tribal
Cultural Resources based on the following factors per Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons imp01iant in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, reg10n, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
miistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information impo1iant in prehistory or history.
Here, as explained below, staff suggests that substantial evidence in the record does not suppo1i a
finding that Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property. Staff recommends that the City
make the determination that no Tribal Cultural Resources exist on the property, and that
therefore a Categorical Exemption from CEQA is proper.
In short, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that Tribal Cultural Resources exist on
the property because it is designated "medium" historic sensitivity, rather than "high'', two
archeological studies regarding immediately adjacent properties found no evidence of
archeological resources, and to the extent midden soil was found in these studies, it was
determined not to be eligible for the Historic Register.
First, the property is not designated as "high" prehistoric sensitivity, but rather "medium" in the
Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels located along the peninsulas at the
north end of the Lagoon, including Hilarita Circle, Windward Road and Edgewater Road, were
classified as having a medium prehistoric sensitivity due to reports of soil from nearby Indian
mounds being used as fill in the development of those peninsulas (Goerke 2007; Wallace 1939).
Parcels defined as having a "medium" sensitivity are those that:
• are located adjacent to parcels defined has having a "high" sensitivity;
• parcels with the potential for submerged prehistoric resources;
• parcels within 750 feet of a spring;
• parcels having less than a 30° slope over 50% or more of the area; and,
• parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Road when the adjacent slope is less
than 30°.
Second, an archaeological investigation completed in 2013 immediately across the street at 1
Windward Road found soil with some of the same qualities as midden but no miifacts, charcoal,
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 9
burned rock or other typical components of midden were observed. It appeared as though
midden soil may have been mixed with other soil and used for landscaping. It was reported that
midden soil from two nearby archaeological sites was used in constructing the peninsulas in
Belvedere Lagoon (Evans and Roop 2009) and would have made suitable landscaping material
due to its high organic content.
Importantly, the midden did not meet the California Register of Historic Resources criteria due
to a lack of integrity. (Roop 2013). No archaeological resources were discovered during
construction.
Finally, an archaeological investigation completed the same year at 130 San Rafael Avenue
found that the parcel appeared to consist entirely of fill soil generated from the Lagoon and there
was no discernable potential for the presence of undisturbed deposits within the area. The
analysis also found that the potential for disturbed redeposited archaeological soils was
extremely low. A similar finding regarding the use of midden soil mixed with other soil used in
landscaping was made. No archaeological resources were discovered during construction.
Earlier this year, however, a significant archaeological resource was found in the project area
during utility improvements. Therefore, a standard condition has been attached requiring that,
"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 undertaken."
Moreover, although staff submitted the project plans to the local Tribe on June 25, 2015 for
comment, the Tribe has not requested consultation.
Based on the evidence above, staff recommends that the City make the finding that substantial
evidence does not exist based on the factors above that Tribal Cultural Resources on the site.
Staff has prepared a draft resolution regarding No Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources for the
Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment 1).
DESIGN REVIEW
Residence
The applicant is requesting to demolish an existing single-story home with an attached second
living unit, and proposes to construct a new contemporary three-bedroom single-story 4,648
square foot (SF) residence with two home office spaces, an exercise area, and an attached twocar garage. While the garage level is proposed to be at 7.5 to 7.75 feet NAVD (because it is nonhabitable space, and is not subject to the 10 foot NA VD requirement), the finished floor
elevation of the home is proposed at 10 feet NAVD to meet the FEMA requirements. The home
would have numerous roof heights ranging from 16'7" to a maximum height of 22' 11"
(measured from Existing Grade2 of 6.2 feet NAVD, with increased setback as required to allow
the additional 11" in height).
Staff notes that Ordinance No. 2015-3, Approving Zoning Code Amendments to Allow a Change
in Building Height in the R-lL and R-2 Zones, takes effect on October 14, 2015. Ordinance No.
2015-3 changes the allowable maximum height to 22 feet as measured from the highest point of
2
Per Belvedere Municipal Code section 19.08.224, Existing Grade is defined as the level of ground prior to the
commencement of any work.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 10
the structure (excluding chimneys) to Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of freeboard and up to
26 feet with additional setbacks of the upper story, not to exceed 29' from Existing Grade. The
subject application was complete prior to the effective date of the new regulations and, therefore,
the former regulations apply. The project, however, does not exceed the height limit in either
case, but under the new regulations would measure a maximum of 18'9" in height from NAVD.
The proposed roof is flat on the interior of the footprint and skirted with a series of gable and hip
metal standing seam roof elements, which follow the perimeter exterior walls below, breaking up
the hip roof elements. Numerous skylights are proposed with many located interior to the hip
roofs and screened from the roadways and adjacent homes by the roofs. However, skylights are
proposed on the gabled roofs over the dining and living room areas and on the hip roof over the
front door facing the street.
The primary entry would be from Windward Road through a steel gate (powder coated with
Benjamin Moore "wrought iron") with frosted glass panels. The gate would be framed by stucco
walls (La Habra Stucco "Bay Bridge") with flagstone steps (Stone Universe Gray Flagstone
"Antique Black") leading from the gate to the home. Home offices, the garage and one bedroom
have been placed to face Windward Road; and the kitchen, dining and living rooms, and master
bedroom are positioned at the rear of the home, closer to the Lagoon. Access from these rooms
towards the Lagoon, is through a concrete terrace with a stone veneer with steps leading down to
a synthetic turf yard (DuPont Forever "Lawn Select LS," field/olive blend and turf green/dark
tan), and then steps to an expanded dock (Trex composite "island mist"). Other hardscape is
proposed to be of the same flagstone material as the front steps.
Alaskan Yellow Cedar shingles stained with Benjamin Moore "pepperwood" would be used for
the siding. All wood fascias and trim would be painted with Benjamin Moore "gardenia/steam."
The windows and sliding glass doors would be Jada Steel painted the same color as the wood
fascias and trim. The metal roofs are proposed to be standing seam preweathered Vmzinic-plus
"anthrax" with a vented ridge. A color and materials board will be available at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Fences, Landscaping, Hardscape and Exterior Lighting
A 6-foot tall staggered fence of alternating front facing clear cedar wood lattice with
perpendicular stucco wing walls ("bay bridge" color) is proposed along the Windward Road
front property line. A 5' high wood fence is proposed along the San Rafael Avenue setback 11'
- 14' from the front property line with landscaping in front. A stucco wall ("bay bridge") is
proposed along the side property lines ranging in height up to 6' facing the project site and from
up to 9' facing the adjacent properties (See Plan Sheet 10). The height is explained below under
the Variance request for fence height.
Concrete paving leads to a metal gate ("wrought iron" powder coated with frosted glaze panels)
that is framed with stucco walls ("bay bridge" color). Beyond the gate, "antique black" flagstone
steps lead to the main entry door.
At the rear of the property, a concrete te1Tace (604± SF) with flagstone veneer is proposed that
would be accessed from the great room and master bedroom. The terrace would be bordered by
planters on the northwest side and at the Lagoon side edge. Steps would lead from the ten-ace
down to a synthetic turf lawn (572± SF), and from the lawn to the dock.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 11
The proposed landscape plan identifies a variety of fast and slow growing plants, shrubs, and
trees, as well as planter areas at the base of the rear decks and the small lawn area that faces the
Lagoon. Screen planting along both of the side yards is proposed, as discussed in more detail
below.
Proposed exterior lighting includes: LED directional wall-mounted downlights at the gate; lowlevel landscape and path LED pathway bollard and lights along the steps leading up and around
the perimeter of the home; louver horizontal LED step lights are proposed for steps leading
towards the Lagoon, and raven 18 outdoor house wall mounted lights are proposed at the front
and rear of the home (See Sheets 3, 5 and B of plans). Staff notes that the light plan details have
been placed on three different sheets that are difficult to fully understand; therefore, a condition
of approval has been added requiring that a revised exterior lighting plan with a reduced number
of light fixtures be submitted for review and approval by staff.
In addition to the exterior lighting, 33 pyramid and sloping roof skylights are proposed. The
skylights would be medium dark brown aluminum with bronze tinted double glazed glass except
for the skylights over the front door would be single glazed. Only the skylights (3) over the
bathrooms would be operable.
Design Review Findings
The Design Review findings, specified in the Belvedere Municipal Code, Title 20, state that all
new structures and additions should be designed to avoid excessively large dwellings that 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 should not attract attention
to themselves. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material
on a single plane should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add
architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. Landscaping should
soften and screen structures and maintain privacy. As conditioned, staff is able to make the
required findings for Design Review as stated in the draft resolution of approval (Attachment
3), and as follows:
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.
To the extent allowed by FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations, cut and fill areas, and
grade changes are minimized and in hannony with the neighborhood. As noted above, the entire
property has been developed with structures, hardscape, planted landscape areas, and other site
improvements. There is currently no natural landscape on the property to be preserved. All of the
existing improvements, except for the potential saving of two Japanese Maple trees, are proposed
to be removed or demolished to make way for the proposed new residence, including all existing
trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. The finished floor elevation of the proposed new residence
would be raised approximately 3 to 3.7 feet higher than the existing grade due to FEMA
regulations and the City's requirements. Thus, considering the FEMA and City's flood zone
regulations, the project is designed to minimize cut and fill areas, grade changes, and is kept in
harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 12
Relationship between structures and the site. There sbould be a balance and harmonious
relationship among tbe structures on the site, between tbe structures and tbe site itself, and
between tbe structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions
constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural landforms and step
with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the
structure with the site.
There is a balanced and harmonious relationship between the structures on the site and adjoining
properties that relate to the natural landforms and minimize bulk and mass to the extent allowed
by FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations. The project site is relatively flat, with a slight
slope toward the Lagoon. The design challenge for this site is that it is located in the flood zone;
therefore, the finished floor level must be at 10 feet NAVD (BFE plus one foot of freeboard),
which is about 3 to 3.7 feet above existing grade. A raised walkway is proposed on the northerly
side of the home to provide access to the home and connect the interior space to the outdoor
space without having to use steps (the applicants are planning for possible future accessibility
needs; the garage has been planned to allow for future installation of a lift). Landscaping is
proposed along the rear of the ten-ace and along the front and side property lines (together with a
stucco garden wall) in order to help screen and soften the raised home and associated hardscape,
and to maintain a harmonious relationship with the adjacent properties. The applicants have
crafted a home that maintains a proportional relationship with its site and scale to the immediate
prope1iies within the neighborhood while accommodating the increased height due to Flood
Zone requirements, the potential future accessibility needs, and the slope of the property.
Minimizing bulk and mass.
A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or
excessively large dwellings that are out of cbaracter with their setting or with other
dwellings in the neigbborhood. All buildings should be designed to relate to and fit in with
others in the neighborhood and not designed to draw attention to themselves.
By building a single-story home, the applicants have accommodated the increased height
required by the FEMA regulations and the City, and designed a home that will be handicap
accessible and appear in scale with the neighbor, particularly with the adjacent homes located at
4 Windward Road and 74 San Rafael Avenue. The adjacent homes are single story homes that
have not been required to raise their floor elevation to 10 feet NAVD.
Given the required raise in the height of the structure and the extensive frontage along Windward
Road (137'+), the project will be noticeable, but by building a one-story home with articulated
exterior wall planes, staggered building and front fence setbacks, a dark tone metal hip roof with
interspersed gables, large windows, and other fenestration elements the otherwise elongated
horizontal wall planes are appropriately broken up and softened in appearance.
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 sbould be avoided.
Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add arcbitectural variety, to break up
building planes, and to avoid monotony.
Simple volumes and forms are used in the design of the new home to achieve architectural
interest, wall articulation, and visual depth. The gable roof elements are used to break up the hip
roof and enhance the building's primary fac;ades without adding excessive vertical mass, or bulk
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 13
to the appearance of the home. Each gable seems to be propo1iionally sized and scaled for the
supportive wall plane below, without seeming to be contrived or inappropriate with the
building's overall exterior compositional design.
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 new home is proposed to have cedar shingle siding stained a light brown/tan
("pepperwood") with off-white ("gardenia/steam) painted window frames and trim. The dark
colored roof and wood/stucco fence should complement the siding. While there are not many
metal roofs in the immediate area, the color selected for the roof (dark zinc-"anthrax") would be
compatible with the dark asphalt shingle roofs in this neighborhood, however the proposed
exterior materials and color palette provide a complementary palette and are compatible with
other homes in the neighborhood.
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.
The proposed fences are located to be compatible with the design of the site and structures, and
preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, while not significantly blocking views.
Presently, there are 6-foot tall wood fences along both side yard property lines, and along a
portion of the front property line. The side fences are almost completely covered by ivy. The
proposal includes a 6-foot tall staggered fence of alternating front facing clear cedar wood lattice
with perpendicular stucco wing walls ("bay bridge" color) along the Windward Road front
property line. A 5' high wood fence is proposed along the San Rafael Avenue setback 9' to
10.5' from the sidewalk with landscaping in front. A stucco wall is proposed along the side
property lines ranging in height up to 6' on the (see Sheet 10 of the plans) project site and up to
9' on the adjacent prope1iies. The height is explained below under the Variance request for
fence height.
The proposed fencing is of the highest quality materials, which are aesthetically attractive and
complement the architectural style of the home and are compatible with the site. The proposed
side yard wall heights protect the privacy of each neighbor without obstructing view corridors.
The applicants have submitted their proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors and have received
letters from each neighbor in support of the Variance Application for fence height.
On the left side of the driveway, a garbage enclosure is proposed that would be stucco on three
sides with a double swinging gate (similar in style to the lattice fencing in front) on the fourth
side facing the driveway. The enclosure would screen the garbage area from public view.
There would be landscaped areas and pathways between the front fence and the house with a
small patio area at the end of the house towards San Rafael Avenue.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 14
Privacv. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give
consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings.
All windows and other fenestration elements have been strategically placed and appropriately
sized so that they are respectful of the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Due to the shape of the
project site and the location of the adjacent homes, the proposed home has minimal wall/window
area that is directly opposite the adjacent structures compared to typical interior lots within the
neighborhood. The garden walls have also been designed to respect the privacy wishes of the
neighbors.
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.
Curb cuts and walkways are designed to minimize interference with traffic flow, are safe, and
encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic. The primary entry to the home would
be through the proposed metal gate at the front of the lot. Access from the driveway to the home
would either be through the garage or around to the gate facing Windward Road, down a
concrete paved path and up stairs to the entry door.
The proposed new house includes an attached two-car garage (604 SF) in the same general
location as the existing garage, but set 10 to 12 feet closer to the front property line reducing the
depth of the front driveway to 14' - 17' from the front of the garage to the back of the sidewalk.
In their Variance Application for Lot Coverage, the applicants state that they "are choosing to
build a somewhat larger garage to ensure the cars are parking in the garage instead of on the
street. As a result the garage is more than 200 square feet larger than the minimum required.
Because the required raised floor level of the main dwelling due to Floodplain regulations, part
of the garage space is used for stairs and part is allocated for future personal lift, also requiring a
somewhat larger garage. However, by moving the garage closer to the street and eliminating the
existing off-street parking space along San Rafael Avenue three off-street parking spaces would
be removed. It is noted, that without the second unit, the project is only required to have two offstreet parking spaces and with the large street frontage, there is still significant street parking
available in front of the home.
There would continue to be just one curb cut on Windward Road and the curb cut on San Rafael
Avenue would remain to allow for the future reinstatement of a second unit. No conflicts with
pedestrian or vehicle traffic are anticipated.
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, exterior lighting will not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring
prope11y owners or passersby. Proposed exterior lighting includes: LED directional wallmounted downlights at the gate; low-level landscape and path LED pathway bollard and lights
along the steps leading up and around the perimeter of the home; louver horizontal LED step
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 15
lights are proposed for steps leading towards the Lagoon, and raven 18 outdoor house wall
mounted lights are proposed at the front and rear of the home (See Sheets 3, 5 and B of plans).
Though the light fixtures themselves appear to be directed downward and designed to minimize
glare, the number of outdoor lights located throughout the project site, over 65, is excessive.
Therefore, a condition of approval has been included requiring a reduction in the overall lighting
and submittal of a final lighting plan for staff approval.
Thirty-three pyramid and sloping roof skylights are proposed. The skylights would be medium
dark brown aluminum with bronze tinted double glazed glass except for the skylights over the
front door would be single glazed. Only the skylights (3) over the bathrooms would be operable.
A condition of approval prohibits interior lights being placed in or near the skylight.
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.
As detailed below, because the proposed Variances satisfy the Variance requirements and are
integral to the design of the home, it is not feasible or reasonable to eliminate the proposed
nonconformities. The applicant is requesting a modest additional square footage (307 square feet
of actual floor area plus 170 square feet for the area within the three rear gables where the ceiling
height exceeds 15') above the current home's floor area. A portion of the additional square
footage appears to be attributed to designing a one-story home on a dog-leg shaped lot requiring
more space for hallways than would be needed in a two-story home. Also, though a variance to
lot coverage is also requested, the lot coverage can also be attributed to the proposal to build a
one-story rather than a two-story home. A two-story home meeting the lot coverage standard
would have significantly more visual impact on the neighborhood and immediate neighbors.
The front setback Variance can be attributed to the shape of the lot in that it narrows in that
location. Additionally, due to the configuration of the lot, the home as designed provides an
increased side yard setback reducing impacts on the adjacent neighbor.
The requested fence height Variance is driven by the FEMA regulations and the need to execute
the required site work to raise the primary floor level of the home and the adjacent walkway.
The existing nonconforming shed built on the southeasterly property line would be removed as
paii of the demolition to make way for the proposed new home.
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.
As conditioned, the landscaping will be compatible with the character of the site and
smroundings, soften the structure, and providing privacy between the neighbors. As noted
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 16
above, except for the potential saving of two Japanese Maple trees all existing vegetation on the
site would be removed. A landscape plan prepared by TELCS Landscape Architects proposes a
rich combination of trees, flowering shrubs, vines, and ground cover. The landscape planters
proposed at the edge of the terrace and lawn will soften and screen the terrace and house when
viewed from the Lagoon.
The climbing vines (Ficus pumila or creeping fig) proposed on the side yard garden walls would
soften the appearance of the wall from both sides, but this species is non-native, produces fruit
and should be cut to the ground every few years due to its ability to totally envelope structures.
Its roots are invasive. It is recommended that an alternative vine species be considered that
requires less maintenance. A condition has been added addressing this concern.
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.
Synthetic turf is proposed for the lawn area at the rear of the prope1iy and most of the proposed
landscape material is of a low water demand species with a mix of both fast and slow growing
plants. The neighbor at 74 San Rafael Avenue has asked that the plant material in the planter
that "buttresses" the dock be kept low. The applicant proposes Santa Barbara daisies (Erigerion
karvinskianus 'profusion' in the planter and has committed to keeping the plants low (less than
12").
With regard to screen planting, because the new house at 2 Windward Road must be elevated 3
to 3.7 feet above existing grade to meet FEMA and City floodplain regulations, additional fence
height is proposed to provide a more effective privacy screen along the side property lines.
Therefore, the applicants propose a stucco garden wall along both side property lines with Ficus
vines proposed along both sides of the walls to soften the appearance. However, as noted above,
this species is non-native, produces fruit and should be cut to the ground every few years due to
its ability to totally envelope structures. Its roots are invasive. It is recommended that an
alternative vine species be considered that requires less maintenance. A condition has been
added addressing this concern.
Except for the proposed Creeping Fig (that is conditioned to be removed), the landscaping is
compatible with the site and the surrounding properties and the overall plan is well conceived
and provides adequate tall shrubs and trees needed for privacy without obstructing important
views of the nearby neighbors. An automatic drip irrigation system has been included as a
condition of approval.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 17
Architectural Consultant Review
The City's consulting architect, Mark Sandoval, reviewed the project and concluded that the
project meets the general design requirements outlined under Title 20 as submitted. Mr.
Sandoval's comments are contained in the attached memo dated August 13, 2015 (Attachment
11), and have been incorporated into the Design Review findings, where appropriate.
VARIANCE (LOT COVERAGE)
The applicant requests Plam1ing Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from
Sections 19.52.020, 19.52.040 and 19.52.050 of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC) to exceed
the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-lL zone. Key provisions of the BMC that relate to
this Variance request are below:
19.52.020 Measurement of lot coverage:
This section describes what is to be included when calculating lot coverage, and states:
" ... the area of uncovered and unenclosed off-street parking spaces, walks, patios,
trellises, in-ground swimming pools or pools that do not project more than four feet
above the average ground level, uncovered decks or garage aprons four feet or less above
the average ground level shall not be counted in the total coverage, and provided that
only one-half of the area of uncovered and unenclosed decks or balconies fifteen or more
feet above the average ground level shall be counted in the total coverage."
19.52.040 Lot coverage-R-1 zones:
Lot coverage for covered structures in all of the R-1 zones shall not exceed forty per cent
of the lot area, with total coverage including uncovered outdoor decks not to exceed fifty
percent.
19.52.050 Lot coverage-Exceptions in the R-lL zone. For buildings in the R-IL zone
that do not exceed fifteen feet in height, the maximum allowable lot coverage shall be
fifty percent.
Per BMC Section 19.52.040, the maximum allowable lot coverage in all R-1 zones for structures
over 15' in height is 40% of the lot area, and the total lot coverage, including uncovered outdoor
decks, is not to exceed 50% of the lot area. In addition, BMC Section 19.52.050 provides an
exception for the R-lL zone, and allows 50% coverage for structures up to 15 feet in height.
The proposed project would have lot coverage of 42.7%, and the same total coverage. In order to
grant the Variance, the Planning Commission must make the following findings as noted below,
followed by staff's response:
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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege because
the applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage in order
to achieve a living space comparable to similar homes in the area without building two
stories. A two-story home would have less square footage and lot coverage, and less hallway
and travel area would be required, but due to the FEMA floor elevation requirements would
be much taller and have more impact on the neighbors and views. Further, the irregular "dog2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 18
legged" shaped lot requires a more linear home design and hallway space than would a more
rectangular shaped lot.
The ability to construct a two story home is limited by the need to raise the elevation of
habitable space to meet the FEMA requirements while staying below the height limits and
maintaining all required setbacks. The project as designed allows for the structure to have a
lower profile on the lot. The applicant's project does not constitute a special privilege
because it will allow the applicant to enjoy a similar living space to those homes on similar
sized properties in the same zone in which the 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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
There are special circumstances applicable to the property such that the strict application of
the zoning ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.52.040, would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, and would result in undue
property loss, because of the following:
Because the project involves a demolition, subsequent construction is subject to FEMA and
City Flood Zone Regulations, meaning that the finished habitable floor level must be at 10
feet NA VD (Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of freeboard). For this property, raising the
finished floor level to 10 feet NA VD means that it must be elevated approximately 3 to 3. 7
feet above the Existing Grade.
Fmiher, though the lot is relatively large it is irregularly shaped and impacted in one comer
by a Sanitary District No. 5 pump station. The irregular shape dictates a more linear approach
for a one-story structure that increases the amount of hallway area required within the home.
Based on the above, staff believes there are special circumstances applicable to this property
such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code Section
19 .52.040, would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area.
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.
Granting of the Variance to exceed maximum lot coverage 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 all construction
associated with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is granted will be governed
by the Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict construction activities.
Based on the above, Staff recommends that the findings for the Variance can be made as
reflected in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 4).
VARIANCE (SETBACK)
The applicant requests Planning Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from
Sections 19.24.050, 19.48.020, 19.48.060, and 19.48.190 Hof the Belvedere Municipal Code
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 19
(BMC) to encroach into the required front yard setback in the R-IL zone. Key provisions of the
BMC that relate to this Variance request are below:
19.24.050 Summary of development standards - R-lL zone (Lagoon area): This
section provides a table showing the standards that apply and buildings less than 25 feet
high within the first 40 feet of front property line shall have a front yard setback of 10
feet.
19.48.020 Front yards -Requirements generally: A. The front yard setback line shall
extend across the full width of the lot, parallel to the front property line. B. No building,
accessory building or other structure shall be constructed in any front yard or between the
street line and setback line within such lot, except as is in this Chapter expressly
provided.
19.48.060 Front yard setbacks -All other residential zones: Except as provided for in
Section 19.48.010, a fifteen-foot setback is required, unless the proposed building height
is no more than twenty-five feet anywhere within the forty feet of the lot front property
line, in which event only a ten-foot setback is required; and, provided fuiiher, that if the
proposed building height is no more than fifteen feet anywhere within the forty feet of the
lot front property line, only a five-foot setback is required.
19.48.190. Residential zones - Certain facilities and structures permitted in yards.
Subsection H: Where a building wall is not parallel to a parcel line, or where a building
wall does not follow a continuous unbroken alignment, a portion of the roof overhand
may project into the required yard provided that: a) The average depth of the setback is at
least equal to the required setback otherwise required for the parcel, and b) The setback is
never less than seventy percent of the required setback otherwise required for the parcel.
The applicants have applied for a Variance for both the right side and front yard setbacks. On
the right side, a portion of an eave is 4' 6" from the prope1iy line where 5' is required. In the
front, a portion of the eaves of two gables, one over the garage and one over a proposed office
room, are more than 15' and less than 25' in height (i.e., 16.75' and 16') and 9' and 9.75',
respectively, from the front property line where 10' is required. The garage encroachment also
includes a small portion of the roof/building.
The home is proposed to have angled walls along the front and right side that would generally
not be parallel to the front and right side prope1iy lines. Staff has determined that a variance is
not required for the right side yard because the setbacks meet the criteria in 19 .48 .190 H and
only a small portion of the eave projects into the setback. At the front, the same applies to the
eave over the office room; the garage encroachment, however, includes not only the eave but
also a l" to 5" portion of the main roof.
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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone because the
Variance will allow the applicant to construct a home and garage similar in size to
neighboring properties, considering the iITegular "dog-legged" shape of the lot and the
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 20
curvature of the front property line. The lot begins to narrow and the front property line
begins to curve at the point of the encroachment.
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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
The special circumstances applicable to the property are the iITegular shape of the lot and the
curvature of the front property line, such that the strict application of Zoning Ordinance
Sections 19.24.050, 19.48.020, and 19.48.060 would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
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.
Granting of the Variance to encroach with a roof line l" to 5" into the front setback will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the prope1ty or
improvements of owners of other premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises,
because all construction associated with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is
granted will be governed by the Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict
construction activities.
Based on the above, Staff recommends that the findings for the Variance can be made as
reflected in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 5).
VARIANCE (FENCE HEIGHT)
The applicant requests Planning Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from
Sections 19.48.190 A of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC) to exceed the fence height limit
in the R-lL zone. Key provisions of the BMC that relate to this Variance request are below:
19.48.190 Residential zones - Certain facilities and structures permitted in yards.
A. Fences: Fences are permitted in any yard as follows:
1. Fences shall be permitted to a maximum height of six feet above grade with
decorative elements permitted up to a height of six feet-six inches at reasonable intervals.
5. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.28 of this Title, a hedge, as defined in Section
8.28.020, may exceed the height limit for fences where the extra height is agreed upon by
all immediately adjacent neighbors.
The applicants have applied for a Variance to allow an 8.5 to 9' high garden wall (6' on top of a
2.5 to 3' retaining wall) along the northerly side property line and an 8' high garden wall (6' on
top of a 2' retaining wall) along the southerly side property line. The reason for the higher fence
is due to the increase of property height to meet the FEMA and the City's requirements. The
increased height is from the side of the adjacent prope1ties. The fence would be 6' on the side
facing the project site. The neighbors on both sides have submitted letters requesting the higher
fence to maintain privacy between the properties (Attachment 15). If the fence were reduced to
6' on the neighbor's side it would only be about 3' to 4' on the subject property. The proposed
stucco garden wall and fence would be 6' high on the Windward Road frontage and the wood
fence along the San Rafael Avenue frontage would be 5'.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 21
I. 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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege as the
Variance would allow a fence height proportionately similar to those enjoyed by similar
properties in the neighborhood and zone. The height of the proposed wall is necessary to
provide privacy between the neighboring properties. The height as proposed is the same as
the existing fence and associated ivy. Ivy is known to attract and harbor rats. Though a
hedge could be planted to provide screening it would be sometime before it would provide
adequate screening and would not be as secure or ensured as the proposed garden walls. The
applicants are proposing the garden walls for both privacy and noise buffering between
neighboring properties.
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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
The special circumstances applicable to the property are the disproportionate impact of
FEMA and City's Floodplain Ordinance, which requires that the floor level of the proposed
home must be raised more than 3' above the existing floor elevation and more than 3' above
the neighbors on both sides. In order to maintain access around the house, a walkway is
proposed which raises the finished grade on the north side about 3' and 2' on the south side
requiring retaining walls along both property lines. Though a 6' fence can be installed above
a retaining wall it must be setback one foot from the top of the wall and would impact the
landscape/access area around the proposed home. The applicants are proposing the garden
wall to provide both privacy and noise buffering between the neighboring properties.
A strict application of the fence height requirements would deprive this property and the
adjacent properties of privacy privileges enjoyed by other prope1iies in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. Therefore, a denial of this application would result in undue
property loss.
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.
Granting of the Variance to allow additional fence height 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 all construction associated
with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is granted will be governed by the
Unifmm Building Code and other regulations that restrict construction activities. Further, the
property owners on either side of the subject prope1iy have requested the higher garden wall
as proposed.
Based on the above, Staff recommends that the findings for the Variance can be made as
reflected in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 6).
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 22
EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA
Pursuant to l 9.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC), the applicant requests
Planning Commission consideration and approval of an Exception to Total Floor Area from
19.24.050, 19.52.090 and 19.52.110 of the BMC to allow 4,648 square feet of floor area where
4,000 square feet is the maximum allowed. The proposed 4,648 square feet includes 604 square
feet of garage area and 170 square feet due to the ceiling height under the rear gables exceeding
15' in height. Key provisions of the BMC that relate to this Exception request are below:
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 prope1iies, as well as from the street, are not significantly
impaired by the additional square footage. The home must be raised to meet FEMA and the
City's Floodplain regulations, however, the one-story design and the orientation of the lot
and home minimizes the impact on views from all directions. The additional square footage
is required to accommodate hall space that is required for a one-story home on a "dog-leg"
shaped lot. Because the home will be one-story, primary views are not significantly
impaired.
b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the
impact of a greater floor area.
The irregular "dog-leg" shape of the parcel and the varied setback and roofline of the
structure combine to minimize the greater floor area, which is slightly less then the existing
home. The irregular shape of the lot, which is narrow in width along the Lagoon compared
to elsewhere on the lot, also minimizes the view of the structure from the Lagoon as much of
the structure is proposed along the "leg" portion of the "dog-leg." Therefore, the additional
square footage is minimized
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.
By building a single-story home, the applicants have accommodated the increased height
required by the FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations and designed a home that
appears in scale with the neighbors, particularly with the adjacent homes located at 4
Windward Road and 74 San Rafael Avenue. The adjacent homes are single story homes that
have not been required to raise their floor elevation to 10 feet NAVD.
Given the required increase in height of the structure and the extensive frontage along
Windward Road (137'+), the project will be noticeable, but by building a one-story home
with articulated exterior wall planes, staggered building and front fence setbacks, a dark tone
metal hip roof with interspersed gables, large windows, and other fenestration elements the
otherwise elongated horizontal wall planes are appropriately broken up and softened in
appearance.
Simple volumes and forms are used in the design of the new home to achieve architectural
interest, wall miiculation, and visual depth. The gable roof elements are used to break up the
hip roof and enhance the building's primary fayades without adding excessive ve1iical mass,
or bulk to the appearance of the home. Each gable is proportionally sized and scaled for the
supportive wall plane below, without seeming to be contrived or inappropriate with the
building's overall exterior compositional design.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 23
The cedar siding for the home is comparable to others in the neighborhood and zoning
district and the use of metal for the roofing material is becoming more common. Overall, the
proposed structure is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the
neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all Design Review criteria.
d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise
available to residents of adjoining properties.
The additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to
residents of adjoining properties. While there is an inherently greater potential for privacy
impacts due to the increased height of the structure required by FEMA and the City's
Floodplain regulations, the home has been designed as a one-story home, where a two-story
home is allowed, thereby minimizing any privacy impacts. Taking into account the FEMA
requirements, the home has been designed as a one-story home with great articulation in the
building walls and setbacks along the side property lines and, with the requested fence height
Variance, a stucco garden wall and vines to adequately provide screening and privacy
between the project site and the properties on either side.
Based on the above, Staff recommends that the findings for the Total Floor Area Exception can
be made as reflected in the attached draft Resolution (Attachment 7).
REVOCABLE LICENSE
A Revocable License is required for new private improvements in the public right-of-way. For
this project, the applicants are proposing a new concrete driveway, a new paved entry walk, and
landscaping in a 5.5' to 6.5' strip between the back of the sidewalk and the property line. The
landscape would include New Zealand Flax, Berkeley Sedge, Iceberg Roses, Lily of the Nile,
and a Mediterranean perennial mix. A Revocable License application and diagram has been
submitted and is included with the applications in Attachment 8.
In accordance with Section 272.05 the City's Administrative Procedures Manual, a revocable
license for private use of excess street right-of-way may be granted at the discretion of the City
Council, provided any proposed encroachment into the right-of-way complies with the design
review requirements of Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. Circumstances in which it
may be appropriate for the City to grant a revocable license for private use of excess street rightof-way include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Where necessary to provide pedestrian or vehicular access from private property to the
adjacent public street;
b. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit landscaping to be installed that the City
detennines will enhance the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape;
c. Where use of the public right-of-way will permit the creation of an uncovered off-street
parking area, and will thereby relieve parking or traffic congestion on the adjacent City
street;
d. Where the public right-of-way will be used to construct retaining walls, drainage
structures or other facilities that the City considers necessary to protect or maintain the
public infrastructure; and/or
e. Where appropriate to validate already existing private improvements in the public rightof-way for the purpose of shifting the City's potential liability for injuries and damages to
the private property owners using the right-of-way for private purposes.
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 24
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the revocable
license because the improvements proposed within the public right-of-way would enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the streetscape, and as conditioned, would not impede use of the public
sidewalk.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project applications have been reviewed under the prov1s1ons of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations.
On October 5, 2015 the proposed project was determined to be categorically exempt based on the
following:
•
Demolition Pennit - Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA
Guidelines - Class 1, which allows the demolition and removal of one single-family
residence (see below).
•
Design Review Pennit/Variance to Lot Coverage, Setback and Fence Height/Exception
to Total Floor Area/Revocable License - Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303
of the CEQA Guidelines - Class 3, which allows the construction of one single-family
residence.
City action on the applications is required by December 4, 2015, or the project may be deemed
approved.
Before the City, as the lead agency, deems a project to be categorically exempt, it must
determine that the application of an exemption is not baITed by one of the exceptions set forth in
Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, including unusual circumstances (Section 15300.2(c )),
or the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource
(14 CCR Section 15300.2(±)) or Tribal Cultural Resource.
As explained above in the Historical Resource Section, staff finds that the property does not
constitute a historical resource and, based on the findings at nearby properties, does not contain
or constitute a Tribal Cultural Resource. A condition of approval has been added should CEQA
resources be found. Therefore, there is no potential for the project to cause a substantial adverse
effect on Historical or Tribal Cultural Resources, and the use of a category exemption is proper.
Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that due to unusual circumstances, the project will
cause a significant effect on the environment. Because no exceptions to categorical exemptions
apply, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA as stated above.
CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of the public hearing notice for this item was published in The ARK newspaper and
mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of writing, two
letters supporting the variance to fence height have been received. The letters are from the
adjacent neighbors at 4 Windward Road and 74 San Rafael Avenue (Attachment 15).
CONSTRUCTION TIME LIMIT
Pursuant to section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, the applicant is required to file
an estimate of the total project cost that will establish the time limit within which construction of
the proposed project will be completed pursuant to the Municipal Code. Here, the applicant has
estimated that the cost of construction for this project would be greater than $500,000. When
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 25
applied to the above noted section of the Code, construction shall be completed eighteen (18)
months from the commencement of work following the issuance of the building permit.
CONCLUSION
As conditioned, staff can make all of the required findings for the Demolition Permit, Design
Review, Variances (Lot Coverage, Front Yard Setback, and Fence Height), Exception to Total
Floor Area and Revocable License. The proposed project complies with FEMA and City
Floodplain regulations, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION 1
Adopt the Resolution finding No Historical Resource and No Tribal
Cultural Resources Per CEQA for 2 Windward Road {Attachment 1);
MOTION2
Adopt the Resolution granting Demolition Permit of the existing residence
at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned
(Attachment 2);
MOTION3
Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for proposed new residence
at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached findings and as conditioned
(Attachment 3);
MOTION4
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed
Lot Coverage for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject
to the attached findings {Attachment 4);
MOTIONS
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to encroach into the Front Yard
Setback for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the
attached findings (Attachment 5);
MOTION6
Adopt the Resolution granting a Variance to exceed the allowable Fence
Height for proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the
attached findings (Attachment 6);
MOTION7
Adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area for
proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road, subject to the attached
findings and as conditioned (Attachment 7); and
MOTIONS
Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for
private improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 6
Windward Road.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attaclunent 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Draft Resolution Finding No Historical Resource
Draft Resolution for Demolition Permit
Draft Resolution for Design Review Pe1mit
Draft Resolution for Variance (Lot Coverage)
Draft Resolution for Variance (Setback)
Draft Resolution for Variance (Fence Height)
Draft Resolution for Total Floor Area Exception
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 26
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Attachment 10:
Attachment 11 :
Attachment 12:
Attachment 13:
Attachment 14:
Attachment 15:
Attachment 16:
Applications
Plans date stamped received September 28, 2015 by the City of Belvedere
Email from Roger Felton, Chair of Belvedere Historic Preservation
Committee, August 3, 2015
Memo from Consulting Architect Mark Sandoval, dated August 13, 2015
Memo from Eric Banvard, Building Official, dated October 6, 2015
Memo from Jessica Power, Fire Inspector, Tiburon Fire Protection
District, dated July 16, 2015
Memo from City Engineer dated September 19, 2015 and reply letter from
applicant dated October 2, 2015
Letters from neighbors: Jeffery and Peyton Stein dated August 3, 2015 and
John Pearson dated August 3, 2015 (including e-mail from Paden Prichard
to the Pearsons dated August 6, 2015)
Story Pole Certification from JL Engineering, dated September 28, 2015
2 Windward Road -October 20, 2015 PC Meeting
Page 27
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE
FINDING, UNDER CEQA, NO HISTORICAL RESOURCES OR TRIBAL
CULTURAL RESOURCES AT THE PROPERTY AT 2 WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Permit pursuant to
Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 4, 171-square-foot
single family residence, with a second unit, built in 1955 at 2 Windward Road; and
WHEREAS, a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption
may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a significant effect on a historical
or cultural tribal resource; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly a noticed public
hearing on the requested Demolition Pennit, associated project, and heard and considered
evidence on the potential historic resource value of the subject property and the potential
for tribal cultural resources to exist on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, based upon the findings suggested by staff
in the staff report and adopted by the Commission herein, and based on substantial
evidence in light of the whole record, that, under CEQA, the subject property does not
constitute a historical resource and that substantial evidence does not exist that tribal
cultural resources exist on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, because the property does not constitute a CEQA historical or tribal
cultural resource, the project does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on
historical or cultural tribal resources, and a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA
Guideline Section 15301 is proper; and
WHEREAS, the demolition project has been detennined to be categorically exempt from
the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of Belvedere does hereby find, relative to historical resources, based on the findings in
the staff report incorporated herein and the opinion of the Chair of the Belvedere Historic
Preservation Committee, Mr. Roger Felton, that the property located at 2 Windward Road
does not constitute a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section
15064.5(a)(3) as follows:
1.
The subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broader patterns of California's history and/or cultural heritage.
2.
The subject property is not associated with the lives of persons that are important
to the community's historical past.
3.
The subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of constmction, nor does it represents the work of an important
creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 20150ctober 20, 2015
2 Windward Road
Page2
4.
The subject property has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information
important in prehistory or history. The property is not representative of distinctive
characteristics of historical or architectural significance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Belvedere does hereby find, relative to Tribal Cultural Resources, based on
the findings in the staff rep01i incorporated herein that the property located at 2
Windward Road does not constitute or contain Tribal Cultural Resource pursuant to
CEQA (Public Resources Code,§ 21083.2) in that:
1.
The property is not designated as "high" prehistoric sensitivity, but rather
"medium" in the Prehistoric Sensitivity Map in the 2030 General Plan. Parcels
located along the peninsulas at the north end of the Lagoon, including Hilarita
Circle, Windward Road and Edgewater Road, were classified as having a medium
prehistoric sensitivity due to reports of soil from nearby Indian mounds being
used as fill in the development of those peninsulas (Goerke 2007; Wallace 1939).
Parcels defined as having a "medium" sensitivity are those that:
• are located adjacent to parcels defined has having a "high" sensitivity;
• parcels with the potential for submerged prehistoric resources;
• parcels within 750 feet of a spring;
• parcels having less than a 30° slope over 50% or more of the area; and,
• parcels located along the bay side of West Shore Road when the adjacent slope is
less than 30°.
2.
An archaeological investigation completed in 2013 immediately across the street
at 1 Windward Road found soil with some of the same qualities as midden but no
artifacts, charcoal, burned rock or other typical components of midden were
observed. It appeared as though midden soil may have been mixed with other soil
and used for landscaping. It was reported that midden soil from two nearby
archaeological sites was used in constructing the peninsulas in Belvedere Lagoon
(Evans and Roop 2009) and would have made suitable landscaping material due
to its high organic content. Importantly, the midden did not meet the California
Register of Historic Resources criteria due to a lack of integrity. (Roop 2013).
No archaeological resources were discovered during construction.
3.
An archaeological investigation completed the same year at 130 San Rafael
Avenue found that the parcel appeared to consist entirely of fill soil generated
from the Lagoon and there was no discemable potential for the presence of
undisturbed deposits within the area. The analysis also found that the potential
for disturbed redeposited archaeological soils was extremely low. A similar
finding regarding the use of midden soil mixed with other soil used in landscaping
was made. No archaeological resources were discovered during construction.
Earlier this year, a significant archaeological resource was found in the project
area during utility improvements. Therefore, a standard condition has been
attached to the demolition and design review approvals requiring that, "In the
event that archeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during
Resolution 20150ctober 20, 2015
2 Windward Road
Page 3
construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be undertaken by a
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate sections that
shall be undertaken."
4.
Although staff submitted the project plans to the local Tribe on June 25, 2015 for
comment, the Tribe has not requested consultation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission
held on October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO 2015A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE
GRANTING A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
4,171-SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE WITH A SECOND UNIT LOCATED AT
2 WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Demolition Pennit pursuant to
Title 16 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to demolish an existing 4,171-square-foot
single family residence, with a second unit, built in 1955 at 2 Windward Road; and
WHEREAS, the demolition project has been detennined to be categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15301ofthe CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at its October 20, 2015 regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and determined that the subject property did not constitute a Historical
Resource nor did the property contain or constitute Tribal Cultural Resources under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
requested Demolition Permit on October 20, 2015; 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 an existing 4,171-square-foot single-family residence
with a second unit at 2 Windward Road, 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) All requirements of the Building Official shall be met. A pern1it for demolition
must be issued by the Building Department before the commencement of work.
c) All work shall be completed within two 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 2
d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as
distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements,
work activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the
public right-of-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public
Works Manager.
e) 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 pe1mit.
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.
f) 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
determination of "special circumstances."
g) The site shall be left clean and free of all debris and materials from the demolition
at the completion of work.
h) All requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District (TFPD) shall be met.
i) The general contractor shall submit a proposal to the City Manager for review and
approval that addresses the demolition schedule and vehicle parking locations.
j) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as
appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for
Small Construction Projects.
(http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/-/media/
Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM_final_2009 .pdf)
k) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall
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.
1) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the
property.
m) 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.
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 3
n) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for demolition, the applicant shall
submit a tree protection plan for review and approval by the City Planner. The
Plan shall identify measures to protect existing trees on adjacent properties (4
Windward Road and 74 San Rafael Avenue) that may be affected by demolition
and construction activities at 2 Windward Road. The plan shall be prepared by a
certified arborist, and shall include but not be limited to the following:
1. Installation of orange mesh construction fencing or other protective barrier
at the drip line of trees prior to commencement of demolition.
2. Adjustments to protective barrier/fencing anticipated during the different
stages of demolition and construction.
3. Excavation and trenching methods used to avoid unnecessary root
damage.
4. Communication and coordination with the adjacent property owners
regarding tree protection measures, including obtaining consent of
property owner, if required, to access property and perfonn these
measures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission
on October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 1
DEMOLITION FINDINGS
Given that the existing residence and second unit are proposed to be demolished, a
Demolition Permit is required pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.08.136
and Chapter 16.28. BMC Section 19.08.136, defines Demolition as "the razing of a
building, removal of a dwelling unit, or the removal of more than fifty percent of the total
exterior wall and roof area from the grade up .... Removing a residential second unit or
converting a duplex into a single unit is considered demolition." The following findings
address the demolition of both the main residential unit and the second unit. In approving
the Demolition Permit, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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 demolition will not have an adverse impact upon the public health, safety,
and/or welfare of the City because the demolition must satisfy the requirements for a
demolition permit from the Building Department, and must also comply with all
Building and Fire Code regulations. Additionally, 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 pem1itted without first
obtaining a street closure permit at least 24 hours advance. Twelve feet is required for
debris boxes and/or building materials, and streets must be left clean and free of debris
at the end of each work-day. Further, staff finds that, with a condition of approval
stating that the applicant demonstrates compliance with State air quality requirements,
this demolition project 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;
For the reasons below, the subject property does not constitute a building of recognized
historical of architectural significance. In conjunction with the preparation of City of
Belvedere General Plan 2030, a Historic Resource Sensitivity Map was created in 2009,
which categorizes each parcel in Belvedere according to its likelihood to contain a
historic resource. The map displays three levels of historic sensitivity: Low, Medium and
High. The property at 2 Windward Road was not determined to have a "High" historical
resource value; therefore, it was designated as having "Medium" sensitivity. Parcels with
this designation include those with structures between 45 and 100 years of age (which is
most of the Belvedere Lagoon neighborhood) and those with an unknown construction
date, and not previously listed as a historic resource. The residence at 2 Windward Road,
was constructed in 1955 and the attached second unit appears to have been constructed
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page2
within the existing structure around 1978. The overall structure, is not listed as a historic
resource on any federal, state or local register.
In accordance with General Plan Preservation Policy 2.1.3, an assessment was completed
to determine if there is any evidence to suggest that the property at 2 Windward Road is
eligible for listing. As part of this assessment, staff consulted the building records, which
indicated an addition in 1961 and changes over the years to the home's kitchen, windows
and doors. Staff also consulted with Mr. Roger Felton, Chair of the Belvedere Historic
Preservation Committee (HPC), It is Mr. Felton's opinion that the property does not meet
the criteria used by the HPC for designation, and he concluded by stating that he does not
find that the HPC would consider 2 Windward Road for designation as a local historic
resource. Based on this assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that the residence at 2
Windward Road is of recognized historical or architectural significance.
C.
That the demolition plan presented by the applicant, as approved, provides
for adequate site protection during and following the demolition.
The plan presented in the application, and as conditioned, would provide adequate site
protection during and following the demolitions. The application is proposing to
deconstruct the structures on the site with the intent that the materials may be reused or
recycled. Should the structure be demolished rather than deconstructed, it would be
expected to generate up to approximately 840 cubic yards of material. The applicant
states that this material will be hauled off site in 40 cubic yard debris boxes or 12 to 15
dump trucks, and an erosion control plan will be put in place. Demolition is expected to
take two weeks to complete.
D.
That the time frame for accomplishing the demolition is reasonable.
The applicant's estimated two-week time frame for accomplishing the demolitions is
reasonable.
E.
That the demolition will not remove a housing unit until options for
maintaining housing on the property have been thoroughly considered.
Two housing units would be removed as part of this application and one new housing
unit would be constructed in its place. The applicants are not intending to include a
second unit with this application. They have, however, designed the proposed home so
that a smaller second unit could be accommodated in the future with minimal internal
changes. The possible future 2nd unit would be 533 square feet. At present, an existing
parking space for the second unit enters the prope1iy from San Rafael Avenue and
approximately one-half of the space is located on the adjacent pump station site. Within
the project site, this paved space is proposed to be removed and replaced with
landscaping.
in the future, a second unit were to be reinstated, a third parking space
would have to be provided on the project site.
u:
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 3
The existing second unit is not occupied and does not conform to the BMC Section
19.78.080. Second units - Location and development standards. According to the records
the existing second unit is 780 square feet, and according to the applicant's existing floor
plans it is 1,392 square feet, in either case exceeding the maximum allowable 750 square
feet for a second unit. Based on the submitted floor plan, it has a questionable bedroom
with a door to the exterior but no windows. Also, the unit is not 20' from the front or
side property lines. As it currently exists, it could not be re-built as part of a new
structure. The potential future conversion of interior space into a second unit would not
be considered to be a "newly constructed second unit" and would be able to meet the
code as currently written if a third parking space is provided.
F.
The proposed demolition is consistent with the goals of the City of Belvedere
Housing Element.
The demolition of the existing residence will not have a substantial impact on the
availability of housing units in Belvedere and is consistent with the goals of the
Belvedere Housing Element.
Housing Element Policy 2.6 states, "Protection of Existing Rental Housing. Strive to
ensure that the existing rental housing is maintained and consider all oppmiunities to help
preserve such housing." Program 2.2 also addresses the need to preserve rental housing.
Policy 3.6 specifically addresses second units and states, "Encourage the provision of
second units in the development of new single-family homes." The policies and the
City's zoning regulations are designed to encourage the construction of second units but
they cannot be mandated. The existing second unit has not been rented out for sometime
and the applicants do not desire to have a second unit at this time; they have, however,
designed a home where a second unit could easily be created in the future. Therefore, the
demolition of the existing residence and second unit will not have a substantial impact on
the availability of housing units in Belvedere, the new home is proposed to be
constructed on the property within 12 months after demolition of the existing house is
completed and the project includes the potential for a second unit to be created at a later
date when the need arises.
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 4,648
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT
2 WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to
Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to construct a 4,648 square foot residence and
other associated site improvements at 2 Windward Road; and
WHEREAS, the project been determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, New Construction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing on October 20,
2015;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 construct a 4,648 square foot residence 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) Construction shall conform to the drawings prepared by Paden Prichard/Design
Inc., stamped received by the City of Belvedere on September 28, 2015, except as
modified by these conditions.
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.
d) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. Encroachment permits, as
distinguished from a Building Permit, shall be obtained for all improvements, work
activities, and staging or storage of equipment and materials within the public
right-of-way prior to commencing work, subject to approval of the Public Works
Manager.
e) An updated Revocable License shall be required for private improvements within
the public right-of-way.
f) A geotechnical investigation shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit. The geotechnical investigation shall address site preparation, foundation,
grading and drainage recommendations.
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 2
g) A detailed Grading and Drainage Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Pem1it. The Grading and Drainage Plan
shall show cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate,
the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stonnwater 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).
h) A Utility Plan shall be submitted, prior to issuance of a building pe1mit, showing
the existing site utilities and their alignment and locations, along with any
proposed new locations or alignments for sewer, water, i1Tigation, gas, electrical,
telephone, cable TV, etc.
i) An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted, and reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The Erosion Control Plan
shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Minimum Erosion/Sediment
Control Measures for Small Construction Projects.
(http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/
j)
k)
1)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM_final_2009. pdf
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a revised exterior lighting plan with reduced
number of light fixtures shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Planner. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.
Skylights shall not have white or light opaque colored exterior lenses and shall not
be up-lit.
All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met.
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
Vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire
Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Pe1mit, a final landscape plan shall be submitted
for the review and approval by the Planning Commission Chair and the City
Planner. The final landscape plan shall address any changes to proposed
landscaping, including but not limited to changes to the proposed vines along the
property lines and adjustments to landscaping proposed in the public right-of-way.
The final landscape plan shall include an automatic drip irrigation system and
screening for utilities. Proposed hedges and shrubs shall not exceed a height of six
(6) feet unless agreed to in writing by adjacent property owners.
The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) for conf01mance with the District's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (WELO) prior to issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of a
building pem1it the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed landscape plans
comply with MMWD.
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 3
r) The project shall comply with all indoor and outdoor requirements of MMWD
District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation as a condition of water service.
Indoor plumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements per MMWD.
s) Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed per the
requirements of MMWD.
t) 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.
u) Plans submitted to the Building Department for pennit issuance shall be consistent
with the approved Planning Commission plans.
v) Design Review approvals expire eighteen (18) months from the date of approval.
This Design Review approval expires on April 20, 2017.
w) Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established
for this project.
x) 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.
y) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction
Plan set of drawings.
z) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the property.
aa) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the property owner shall demonstrate
compliance with state air quality requirements related to the dust generated by
grading and construction.
bb) 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.
cc) 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission
on October 20, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 1
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
The following sections are edited versions of Sections 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the
Belvedere Municipal Code and the Design Review Criteria. The Planning Commission
finds that the proposed project is in substantial conformance with all Design Review
criteria as stated below:
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.
To the extent allowed by FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations, cut and fill areas,
and grade changes are minimized and in ham10ny with the neighborhood. The entire
property has been developed with structures, hardscape, planted landscape areas, and
other site improvements. There is currently no natural landscape on the property to be
preserved. All of the existing improvements, except for the potential saving of two
Japanese Maple trees, are proposed to be removed or demolished to make way for the
proposed new residence, including all existing trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. The
finished floor elevation of the proposed new residence would be raised approximately 3
to 3.7 feet higher than the existing grade due to FEMA regulations and the City's
requirements. Thus, considering the FEMA and City's flood zone regulations, the project
is designed to minimize cut and fill areas, grade changes, and is kept in harmony with the
general appearance of the neighboring landscape.
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 landforms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building
mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site.
There is a balanced and harmonious relationship between the structures on the site and
adjoining properties that relate to the natural landforms and minimize bulk and mass to
the extent allowed by FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations. The project site is
relatively flat, with a slight slope toward the Lagoon. The design challenge for this site is
that it is located in the flood zone; therefore, the finished floor level must be at 10 feet
NAVD (BFE plus one foot of freeboard), which is about 3 to 3.7 feet above existing
grade. A raised walkway is proposed on the northerly side of the home to provide access
to the home and connect the interior space to the outdoor space without having to use
steps (the applicants are planning for possible future accessibility needs; the garage has
been planned to allow for future installation of a lift). Landscaping is proposed along the
rear of the terrace and along the front and side property lines (together with a stucco
garden wall) in order to help screen and soften the raised home and associated hardscape,
and to maintain a harmonious relationship with the adjacent properties. The applicants
crafted a home that maintains a propo1iional relationship with its site and scale to the
immediate prope1iies within the neighborhood while accommodating the increased height
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page2
due to Flood Zone requirements, the potential future accessibility needs, and the slope of
the property.
Minimizing bulk and mass.
A. All new structures and additions should be designed to avoid monumental or
excessively large dwellings that 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.
By building a single-story home, the applicants have accommodated the increased height
required by the FEMA regulations and the City, and designed a home that will be
handicap accessible and appear in scale with the neighbor, paiiicularly with the adjacent
homes located at 4 Windward Road and 74 San Rafael Avenue. The adjacent homes are
single story homes that have not been required to raise their floor elevation to 10 feet
NAVD.
Given the required raise in the height of the structure and the extensive frontage along
Windward Road (137'+), the project will be noticeable, but by building a one-story home
with articulated exterior wall planes, staggered building and front fence setbacks, a dark
tone metal hip roof with interspersed gables, large windows, and other fenestration
elements the otherwise elongated horizontal wall planes are appropriately broken up and
softened in appearance.
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.
Simple volumes and fonns are used in the design of the new home to achieve
architectural interest, wall articulation, and visual depth. The gable roof elements are
used to break up the hip roof and enhance the building's primary fa9ades without adding
excessive ve1iical mass, or bulk to the appearance of the home. Each gable seems to be
proportionally sized and scaled for the supp01iive wall plane below, without seeming to
be contrived or inappropriate with the building's overall exterior compositional design.
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. new home is proposed to have cedar shingle siding stained a light brown/tan
("pepperwood") with off-white ("gardenia/steam) painted window frames and trim. The
dark colored roof and wood/stucco fence should complement the siding. While there are
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page3
not many metal roofs in the immediate area, the color selected for the roof (dark zinc"anthrax") would be compatible with the dark asphalt shingle roofs in this neighborhood,
however the proposed exterior materials and color palette provide a complementary
palette and are compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.
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, mecbanical equipment, and structural elements from public view, sbould
preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, wbere practical, and should not
significantly block views.
The proposed fences are located to be compatible with the design of the site and
structures, and preserve privacy between adjoining dwellings, while not significantly
blocking views.
Presently, there are 6-foot tall wood fences along both side yard property lines, and along
a portion of the front property line. The side fences are almost completely covered by
ivy. The proposal includes a 6-foot tall staggered fence of alternating front facing clear
cedar wood lattice with perpendicular stucco wing walls ("bay bridge" color) along the
Windward Road front prope1iy line. A 5' high wood fence is proposed along the San
Rafael Avenue setback 9' to 10.5' from the sidewalk with landscaping in front. A stucco
wall is proposed along the side property lines ranging in height up to 6' on the (see Sheet
10 of the plans) project site and up to 9' on the adjacent properties. The height is
explained below under the Variance request for fence height.
The proposed fencing is of the highest quality materials, which are aesthetically attractive
and complement the architectural style of the home and are compatible with the site. The
proposed side yard wall heights protect the privacy of each neighbor without obstructing
view conidors. The applicants have submitted their proposed plans to the adjacent
neighbors and have received letters from each neighbor in support of the Variance
Application for fence height.
On the left side of the driveway, a garbage enclosure is proposed that would be stucco on
three sides with a double swinging gate (similar in style to the lattice fencing in front) on
the fourth side facing the driveway. The enclosure would screen the garbage area from
public view. There would be landscaped areas and pathways between the front fence and
the house with a small patio area at the end of the house towards San Rafael Avenue.
Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement sbould be selected to
give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings.
All windows and other fenestration elements have been strategically placed and
appropriately sized so that they are respectful of the privacy of the adjacent neighbors.
Due to the shape of the project site and the location of the adjacent homes, the proposed
home has minimal wall/window area that is directly opposite the adjacent structures
compared to typical interior lots within the neighborhood. The garden walls have also
been designed to respect the privacy wishes of the neighbors
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page4
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.
Curb cuts and walkways are designed to minimize interference with traffic flow, are safe,
and encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic. The primary entry to the
home would be through the proposed metal gate at the front of the lot. Access from the
driveway to the home would either be through the garage or around to the gate facing
Windward Road, down a concrete paved path and up stairs to the entry door.
The proposed new house includes an attached two-car garage (604 SF) in the same
general location as the existing garage, but set 10 to 12 feet closer to the front property
line reducing the depth of the front driveway to 14' - 17' from the front of the garage to
the back of the sidewalk. In their Variance Application for Lot Coverage, the applicants
state that they "are choosing to build a somewhat larger garage to ensure the cars are
parking in the garage instead of on the street. As a result the garage is more than 200
square feet larger than the minimum required. Because of the required raised floor level
for the main dwelling, due to Floodplain regulations, part of the garage space is used for
stairs and part is allocated for future personal lift, also requiring a somewhat larger
garage. However, by moving the garage closer to the street and eliminating the existing
off-street parking space along San Rafael Avenue three off-street parking spaces would
be removed. It is noted, that without the second unit, the project is only required to have
two off-street parking spaces and with the large street frontage, there is still significant
street parking available in front of the home.
There would continue to be just one curb cut on Windward Road and the curb cut on San
Rafael Avenue would remain to allow for the future reinstatement of a second unit. No
conflicts with pedestrian or vehicle traffic are anticipated.
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, exterior lighting will not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to
neighboring property owners or passersby. Proposed exterior lighting includes: LED
directional wall-mounted downlights at the gate; low-level landscape and path LED
pathway bollard and lights along the steps leading up and around the perimeter of the
home; louver horizontal LED step lights are proposed for steps leading towards the
Lagoon, and raven 18 outdoor house wall mounted lights are proposed at the front and
rear of the home (See Sheets 3, 5 and B of plans). Though the light fixtures themselves
appear to be directed downward and designed to minimize glare, the number of outdoor
lights located throughout the project site, over 65, is excessive. Therefore, a condition of
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 5
approval has been included requiring a reduction in the overall lighting and submittal of a
final lighting plan for staff approval.
Thirty-three pyramid and sloping roof skylights are proposed. The skylights would be
medium dark brown aluminum with bronze tinted double glazed glass except for the
skylights over the front door would be single glazed. Only the skylights (3) over the
batlu·ooms would be operable. A condition of approval prohibits interior lights being
placed in or near the skylight.
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.
As detailed below, because the proposed Variances satisfy the Variance requirements and
are integral to the design of the home, it is not feasible or reasonable to eliminate the
proposed nonconfom1ities. The applicant is requesting a modest additional square
footage (307 square feet of actual floor area plus 170 square feet for the area within the
three rear gables where the ceiling height exceeds 15') above the current home's floor
area. A portion of the additional square footage is attributed to designing a one-story
home on a dog-leg shaped lot requiring more space for hallways than would be needed in
a two-story home. Also, though a Variance to lot coverage is also requested, the lot
coverage can also be attributed to the proposal to build a one-story rather than a two-story
home. A two-story home meeting the lot coverage standard would have significantly
more visual impact on the neighborhood and immediate neighbors.
The front setback Variance can be also attributed to the shape of the lot in that it nanows
in that location. Additionally, due to the configuration of the lot, the home as designed
provides an increased side yard setback reducing impacts on the adjacent neighbor.
The requested fence height Variance is driven by the FEMA regulations and the need to
execute the required site work to raise the primary floor level of the home and the
adjacent walkway. The existing nonconf01111ing shed built on the southeasterly property
line would be removed as part of the demolition to make way for the proposed new
home.
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.
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 6
As conditioned, the landscaping will be compatible with the character of the site and
surroundings, soften the structure, and provide privacy between the neighbors. Except
for the potential saving of two Japanese Maple trees all existing vegetation on the site
would be removed. A landscape plan prepared by TELCS Landscape Architects proposes
a rich combination of trees, flowering shrubs, vines, and ground cover. The landscape
planters proposed at the edge of the terrace and lawn will soften and screen the terrace
and house when viewed from the Lagoon.
The climbing vines (Ficus pumila or creeping fig) proposed on the side yard garden walls
would soften the appearance of the wall from both sides, but this species is non-native,
produces fruit and should be cut to the ground every few years due to its ability to totally
envelope structures. Its roots are invasive. It is recommended that the proposed vines be
replaced with a species that requires less maintenance. A condition has been added
addressing this concern.
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.
Synthetic turf is proposed for the lawn area at the rear of the property and most of the
proposed landscape material is of a low water demand species with a mix of both fast and
slow growing plants. The neighbor at 74 San Rafael Avenue has asked that the plant
material in the planter that "buttresses" the dock be kept low. The applicant proposes
Santa Barbara daisies (Erigerion karvinskianus 'profusion' in the planter and has
committed to keeping the plants low (less than 12").
With regard to screen planting, because the new house at 2 Windward Road must be
elevated 3 to 3. 7 feet above existing grade to meet FEMA and City Floodplain
regulations, additional fence height is proposed to provide a more effective privacy
screen along the side property lines. Therefore, the applicants propose a stucco garden
wall along both side property lines with Ficus vines proposed along both sides of the
walls to soften the appearance. However, as noted above, this species is non-native,
produces fruit and should be cut to the ground every few years due to its ability to totally
envelope structures. Its roots are invasive. It is recommended that the proposed vines be
replaced with a native species that requires less maintenance. A condition has been
added addressing this concern.
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
EXHIBIT A
Page 7
As conditioned, the landscaping is compatible with the site and the sunounding
properties and the overall plan is well conceived and provides adequate tall shrubs and
trees needed for privacy without obstructing important views of the nearby neighbors.
An automatic drip inigation system has been included as a condition of approval.
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BELVEDERE GRANTING A LOT COVERAGE VARIAN CE FROM
SECTIONS 19.52.020, 19.52.040, and 19.52.050 OF THE BELVEDERE
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2
WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from Sections 19.52.020,
19.52.040, and 19.52.050 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a new single-family home to
be constructed on the property at 2 Windward Road to exceed the maximum lot coverage
permitted in the R-lL zone by 648 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Lot
Coverage Variance on October 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege because
the applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage in order
to achieve a living space comparable to similar homes in the area without building two
stories. A two-story home would have less square footage and lot coverage, and less hallway
and travel area would be required, but due to the FEMA floor elevation requirements would
be much taller and have more impact on the neighbors and views. Further, the irregular "doglegged" shaped lot requires a more linear home design and hallway space than would a more
rectangular shaped lot.
The ability to construct a two story home is limited by the need to raise the elevation of
habitable space to meet the FEMA requirements while staying below the height limits and
maintaining all required setbacks. The project as designed allows for the structure to have a
lower profile on the lot. The applicant's project does not constitute a special privilege
because it will allow the applicant to enjoy a similar living space to those homes on similar
sized properties in the same zone in which the 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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
There are special circumstances applicable to the property such that the strict application of
the zoning ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.52.040, would deprive the
prope1iy of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, and would result in undue
property loss, because of the following:
Because the project involves a demolition, subsequent construction is subject to FEMA and
City Flood Zone Regulations, meaning that the finished habitable floor level must be at 10
feet NAVD (Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of freeboard). For this property, raising the
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page2
finished floor level to 10 NAVD means that it must be elevated approximately 3 to 3.7 feet
above the Existing Grade.
Fmther, though the lot is relatively large it is irregularly shaped and impacted in one corner
by a Sanitary District No. 5 pump station. The irregular shape dictates a more linear approach
for a one-story structure that increases the amount of hallway area required within the home.
Based on the above, staff believes there are special circumstances applicable to this property
such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance, Belvedere Municipal Code Section
19 .52.040, would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area.
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.
Granting of the Variance to exceed maximum lot coverage 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 all construction
associated with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is granted will be governed
by the Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict construction activities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Belvedere does hereby grant a Lot Coverage Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the
Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a new single-family home to be constructed on the property
at 2 Windward Road to exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-lL zone by 648
square feet.
PASS ED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on
October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
APPROVED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BELVEDERE GRANTING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
FROM SECTIONS 19.24.050, 19.48.020, and 19.48.060 OF THE
BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2 WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from Sections 19.24.050,
19.48.020, and 19.48.060 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a new single-family home to
be constructed on the property at 2 Windward Road to encroach into the 10-foot front yard
setback required in the R-1 L zone for buildings less than 25 feet in height within the first 40 feet
of front property line; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested
Variance on October 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact:
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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone because the
Variance will allow the applicant to construct a home and garage similar in size to
neighboring properties, considering the irregular "dog-legged" shape of the lot and the
curvature of the front property line. The lot begins to narrow and the front property line
begins to curve at the point of the encroachment.
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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
The special circumstances applicable to the property are the irregular shape of the lot and the
curvature of the front property line, such that the strict application of Zoning Ordinance
Sections 19.24.050, 19.48.020, and 19.48.060 would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
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.
Granting of the Variance to encroach with a roof line 1" to 5" into the front setback 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 all construction associated with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is
granted will be governed by the Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict
construction activities.
ATTACHMENT 5
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Belvedere does hereby grant a Front Yard Setback Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of
the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a new single-family home to be constructed on the
property at 2 Windward Road to encroach into the 10-foot front yard setback required in the R1L zone for buildings less than 25 feet in height within the first 40 feet of front property line.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on
October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
APPROVED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BELVEDERE GRANTING A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 19.48.190 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 WINDWARD ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from Section 19 .48.190 of
the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a fence (garden wall) to be constructed up to 9' in height
where 6' is permitted at 2 Windward Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested
Fence Height Variance on October 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Plam1ing Commission made the following findings of fact:
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.
The granting of the Variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege as the
Variance would allow a fence height proportionately similar to those enjoyed by similar
properties in the neighborhood and zone. The height of the proposed wall is necessary to
provide privacy between the neighboring properties. The height as proposed is the same as
the existing fence and associated ivy. Ivy is known to attract and harbor rats. Though a
hedge could be planted to provide screening it would be sometime before it would provide
adequate screening and would not be as secure or ensured as the proposed garden walls. The
applicants are proposing the garden walls for both privacy and noise buffering between
neighboring properties.
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 properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application
would result in undue property loss.
The special circumstances applicable to the property are the disproportionate impact of
FEMA and City's Floodplain Ordinance, which requires that the floor level of the proposed
home must be raised more than 3' above the existing floor elevation and more than 3' above
the neighbors on both sides. In order to maintain access around the house, a walkway is
proposed which raises the finished grade on the north side about 3' and 2' on the south side
requiring retaining walls along both property lines. Though a 6' fence can be installed above
a retaining wall it must be setback one foot from the top of the wall and would impact the
landscape/access area around the proposed home. The applicants are proposing the garden
wall to provide both privacy and noise buffering between the neighboring properties.
A strict application of the fence height requirements would deprive this property and the
adjacent properties of privacy privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification. Therefore, a denial of this application would result in undue
property loss.
ATTACHMENT 6
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 2
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.
Granting of the Variance to allow additional fence height 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 all construction associated
with the Design Review Permit for which the Variance is granted will be governed by the
Uniform Building Code and other regulations that restrict construction activities. Further, the
property owners on either side of the subject prope1iy have requested the higher garden wall
as proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Belvedere does hereby grant a Fence Height Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the
Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a fence (garden wall) to be constructed up to 9' in height
where 6' is pern1itted at 2 Windward Road.
PASS ED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on
October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
APPROVED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
CITY OF BELVEDERE
RESOLUTION NO. 2015A 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 2 WINDWARD ROAD
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 4,648
square feet where 4,000 square feet is permitted at 2 Windward Road; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15301 Class (IA) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested
Floor Area Exception on October 20, 2015; 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, as well as from the street, are not significantly
impaired by the additional square footage. The home must be raised to meet FEMA and the
City's Floodplain regulations, however, the one-story design and the orientation of the lot
and home minimizes the impact on views from all directions. The additional square footage
is required to accommodate hall space that is required for a one-story home on a
dog-leg" shaped lot. Because the home will be one-story, primary views are not significantly
impaired.
b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the
impact of a greater floor area.
The irregular "dog-leg" shape of the parcel and the varied setback and roofline of the
structure combine to minimize the greater floor area, which is slightly less then the existing
home. The irregular shape of the lot, which is narrow in width along the Lagoon compared
to elsewhere on the lot, also minimizes the view of the structure from the Lagoon as much of
the structure is proposed along the "leg" portion of the "dog-leg." Therefore, the additional
square footage is minimized.
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.
By building a single-story home, the applicants accommodated the increased height required
by the FEMA and the City's Floodplain regulations and designed a home that appears in
scale with the neighbor, particularly with the adjacent homes located at 4 Windward Road
and 74 San Rafael Avenue. The adjacent homes are single story homes that have not been
required to raise their floor elevation to 10 feet NAVD.
ATTACHMENT 7
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October20, 2015
Page2
Given the required increase in the height of the structure and the extensive frontage along
Windward Road (137'+), the project will be noticeable, but by building a one-story home
with articulated exterior wall planes, staggered building and front fence setbacks, a dark tone
metal hip roof with interspersed gables, large windows, and other fenestration elements the
otherwise elongated horizontal wall planes are appropriately broken up and softened in
appearance.
Simple volumes and forms are used in the design of the new home to achieve architectural
interest, wall articulation, and visual depth. The gable roof elements are used to break up the
hip roof and enhance the building's primary fa9ades without adding excessive vertical mass,
or bulk to the appearance of the home. Each gable is proportionally sized and scaled for the
supportive wall plane below, without seeming to be contrived or inappropriate with the
building's overall exterior compositional design.
The cedar siding for the home is comparable to others in the neighborhood and zoning
district and the use of metal for the roofing material is becoming more common. Overall, the
proposed structure is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the
neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all Design Review criteria.
d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise
available to residents of adjoining properties.
The additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to
residents of adjoining properties. While there is an inherently greater potential for privacy
impacts due to the increased height of the structure required by FEMA and the City's
Floodplain regulations, the home has been designed as a one-story home, where a two-story
home is allowed, thereby minimizing any privacy impacts. Taking into account the FEMA
requirements, the home has been designed as a one-story home with great articulation in the
building walls and setbacks along the side property lines and, with the requested fence height
variance, a stucco garden wall and vines to adequately provide screening and privacy
between the project site and the properties on either side.
Resolution 20152 Windward Road
October 20, 2015
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Belvedere does hereby grant an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow a maximum floor area of
4,648 square feet where 4,000 square feet is permitted at 2 Windward Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission held on
October 20, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
APPROVED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alison Foulis, City Clerk
~ e-4!1<
B>f~(,,~
Project Address:.. -:Z. \t\t H~w \..0 (l-..'L.f>
rZot::.i:>
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
CIT\' or. BELVEDELU:'. • PL1\N!'\ING COMMfSSION
450 SAN RAFAEL An; • Bt::L VEDEHE, CA 94920-2336
P1-1. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • www.crrYOFllELvtmrnE.ORG
FOR ~T:AFFlJSE ONLY
_fr_S_J'__
l
_
SEP 0 2·:?015
1°32.llS-*°
Date:
Rec'd. by:_·
.., u u
(
Receipt No.: "-,I.-, 1
AmounCity of Belvedere
Parcel No.:
~
'o.-
Zone:
0";>./-03
Does this project have an active building permit?
No'~
Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No}(
Address of Property:
%
Record Owner of Property:
V-..1 t t-.J o W A@-D
2-=3?
Address:
]J-~oQ.c;. o-)
~
I
Staff Approval
0
0
fl!~
Yes 0 Permit No.: _ _ _ __
Yes 0
B bUJEj)G:r2..E' CA. 9
4-~rz..c,
fA.uL -;t.1<.,d.. G:'LGbt-:<."'...>cL 5TGPi-fEWS
<Zcu f..lt;;lf-t1LL-. ~A:,1°')
Mailing
R-.C-;?AD
Planning Comm. Approval
t,/,?/, _ Design Review Exception
C.A
9
4-:::.)'2'0
Daytime Phone:
Fax:----------------
Owner's Representative: ~-pj~p..;c;~~--~1~_.....P.~t'4~·~q.<~
·~A~f2..J)=~-~B~
' ~~
· "'"'=-~-' _,_=-~---~-+-'~~~=-Mailing
Address:
.:;?..o 4-' bfei S""G
~ O?tJ &;. C>
g ·70~
b(L,.
Daytime Phone:
Fax:_--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Email:
Project Description: ___
S~t::E~--~i:-;.~q"{:'l-Hl'c=-'~"..l~l~M--:EJ.-_,_..,_i~·~,~
·-::!±:=-~1- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Design Review Application • Page I of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanagcr\Planning FonnsiPLANNl;-.!G FORMS· LATEST ED!T.ION\APPUCA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4· 7-11.doc
ATTACHMENT 8
ZONING PARAMETERS:
~-r-r:r>,C:H
Required
Existing
Proposed
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 ....... .
SECTlON 2 • ENVIRONM~NTALINFORMATlON REQUIRED BY CEQA
Date Filed:
J i.J-µt;:- t 0 -l-c::{;::-
(To Be Completed by Applicant)
General Information
I.
Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
2.
Address of project:
3.
'2.. Y.li 1...::rDW1:oi.i);D
~2M>
P-e.uL-- aw4 i:::< .IE
~TEVHfilJ3
'149 ""2-c..;
oc..ie,y nBuvt.D.r.-.
Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project a ··...F S1b-Pt4en-:iS'
~~ Q.ouµ9 HlU
£2.ol\,,..f)
l
2:.-?3
/
·:t1f?,·11?..f?1u CA
12,po;-'v H1u
$5" $•2.-B -3b".:')='2,,,
9o/J''2- o
_w-=1-f.i....~=-----­
4.
Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:
5.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including
those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: -i-:N=t._,Jt-!E=·
..........._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
6.
Existing zoning district: _.e_'-=._\,_··_i.._________________________
7.
Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): N
8.
Yearbuilt:
\qc;.:;-
Original architect:
µer
G;1...0
~-;:::;.:., 1
Si ~Lfi
t:=""s,,Jv\ 1 1 :::;' j/'c...Gl1'fE}J!~
i-J
Project Description
t{
i'? 5"" S<:0 Pl
n~ M
0£ ;.,;u:;;f)S\1E ~:tU25
1 )'7~}~ Lft.,$.;"?-, tp·r?t\-L
Pf4 poSfP D A::4J
6t'rt
9.
Site size.
10.
Square footage.
11.
Number of floors of construction. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ll..J_(J...t;_"
_l>_G'.:>_'
-·-~-~
12.
13.
I
{;;;<.l6T1 µ 6
4-i11
C'E:
e
/Jt~
Amount of off-street parking provided. _'_?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0_·_ii_o_11...._i_5"_'_.f2M.<...-_·['fi~;:,
v.~
Plans attached? _ _1<..:c;..:::_,,7'-----------------------------
Design Review Application ° Page 2 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:lplanningmanagi;r\Planning Forms\PLANN!NG FORMS - LATEST EDITION\Al'Pl.ICATION FOR DESIGN REVlEWrev-1-7-1 I.doc
'
,
')
Project Address: '1- ;,...hwi)t,.JACl.D ~~,,
5.:::.:>k-'
Pc-S:S ti?:> t..r...:-:
14.
Proposed scheduling.
15.
Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.A<::.
'3 c t-J:\S
16.
Anticipated incremental development. -~·'-..i~c~\-~··_'"t~--------------------
17.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected.
':3L
µc;"'-6
,PA..wt 1 L't
1~: D=""'l.....fc.:e.
18.
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales
area, and loading facilities. _ __..ii.J~'-'--'-------------------------
19.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why
the application is required.
'(G'S . s~ AP p i..J. <.:.:X\ !.. 0 i9 ft;;,?,•L VA.{4.t\t..JZ".0
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
Yes
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of
ground contours.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads.
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more.
Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or
explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value.
Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil.
No
D
us:
D
·g
~
D
D
IS
D
D
:6'.f
~
D
[8:'
D
g
D
D
D
D
D
liiir
D
~
~
fir
Kl
~
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.
SE.?!S A=rrA·Cf&l'vlt:n-./T:
--~·t:t=~·-·.,,,-:;.,,______________
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, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.
Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
5 EE:: l~1TAcCl--< ./Ji\ 6"N'T
~
3
Design Review Application ° Page 3 of 9 • City of Belvedere
li:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l I .doc
Project
SECTION 3
°
ESTIMATE OF TIME FOR CONSTUUCTION
For Design Review applications not requiring a building permit this fonn does not apply.
Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval.
Design
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 construction, 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 project valuation.
·r,....(•
Estimated cost of construction: $ Nr:q== jL.'t,,J old (J l$.T<; I I 1V!,;;.
Based on the above estimated project valuation, check one of the following Time Limit Guidelines that shall apply
to your project:
D
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.
._lg(
2.
For new construction, the 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.
D
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.
D
4.
For additions, alterations, modifications and repairs, the demonstrable value of which is estimated at
less than $500,000.
Construction shall be completed twelve (12) months from the commencement of work following the
issuance of the building pennit.
D
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 4 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\plan:iingrnanagcr\Planning Fonns\l'l.ANNING !'ORMS - LATEST EDITIONIAPPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-1 I.doc
Project
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 1O 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.
SECTI9N 4 • ACKNO\\',LEDGEMENT QF HOURLY BILLING COSTS
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):
$ 67.07
Planning Manager
Assistant Planner
$ 39.29
City Attorney
$ 185.00
Specialized Planning Consultant
Actual costs + 25% overhead
Design Review Application • Page 5 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:lplanningmnnagcr\Planning Forms\PLANN!NG FORMS - LATEST EDITIONiAPPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrcv4-7-l I .doc
Project
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.
SECTION 5
11
ACKNOWl~EDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY
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 achieved. 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 identical 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 official 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)
SECTION 6
•
ADI>lTIONAL JNFORMATtQN FOR APPLICANTS
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
Design Review Application • Page 6 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningrnanagcr\l'lanning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDJTION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVLEWrev4-7-I t.doc
Project Address: 2 Wl f-..?DWNU) wA.D
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(8)(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 construction 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:
2-
Wt µQ
Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject pro.perty:
>
w NW
f24::>A{"')
BB--1 rr;;Qs;:fl....S
MN Obo- 01--l- o ~
CA
<flAJLtt-? 4'µ1•.r1=r)
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,
re me t th a~ licant.
I,
J
state under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of C lifomia 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 alf
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
Design Review Application .. Page 7 of9 "City of Belvedere
U:\olannin!!manaeer\Plannine Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l 1.doc
Project Address: 2.wt....,04.JA{t.O
f2.b;-p
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.
:ay
I understand that th,M"ntents of this document are a Public Record.
~ , 20~. at BeW re,
Signature_ _"'d'lt~"lt-'-\t':"ll-'l-'c,.W,-,r------­
Signature ~ !lf,~
Title(s)_ _._. ,µ,_.M.,. .!t. . .,~_. .....
~""------.
Signed this
)'( Trustee{s)
_&
of
0 Partners: 0 Limited or 0 General
Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity:
};>
0 Coforation
0 Other
U!J.5/i;J.m. ~4111'1~
4JJ-
Properties Owned by Individuals
•
I
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.
I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record.
Signed this _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 20_, at Belvedere, California.
Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Design Review Application • Page 8 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\olanningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-l I.doc
Project Address:
» Designation of Owner's Representative
Z
WI U0l..c.u~-J2..D ~
(Optional)
I,
, hereby authorize._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
to file on my behalf any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals
required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the
Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the
application(s) is completed and finaled or until the sign tion is rescinded in writin~
~ :l.fJA~
Signature of Owner:
Date:
Signature of Representative:
Date: .J Ot-Jl;;: tG-, Zol S-
Design Review Application • Page 9 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev4-7-1 I .doc
);;- Designation of Owner's Representative (Optional)
I,
, hereby authorize_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
to file on my behalf any applications, plans, papers, data, or documents necessary to obtain approvals
required to complete my project and further authorize said person to appear on my behalf before the
Planning Commission and/or City Council. This designation is valid until the project covered by the
application(s) is completed and finaled or until the designation is rescinded in writing.
Signature of Owner: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Signature of Representative:
~ ~'-=---Q
Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: ,J ONJ;;:
tr,..
h:; 1 ~
e I +Ji< tfl~"J
Design Review Application• Page 9 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanagcr\Planning FormsiPLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITJON\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrcv4-7-l l .doc
There is an existing one story single family home with
71 total square feet which includes a two
car garage and an attached second unit of 11
sq
all under one roof covering 4847 sq ft. The
original structure was built about 1955, and has been added to several times. There are numerous
separate paved driveway and patio areas and a large deck and associated dock.
It is our intention to remove the existing structure and most of the on site improvements. Because of
the prominent comer location, which is an entry to Windward Road, and also in order to maintain the
general scale of the neighborhood, it is our desire to construct a new three bedroom, one~story home,
with 3874 sq. ft. of living area. There will be a 604 sq. ft. two car garage. The site will have about
one-half the amount of impervious surface as existing and will be re-landscaped with lush, but
drought resistant plantings. There will be a new dock but no new decks. The out-door living areas
will be on paved terraces adjacent to the house in order to help maintain privacy for the neighbors
near the lagoon. The existing bulkhead is to remain.
ATTACHMENT #3 SECTON 2
Environmental Setting:
34: There is an existing one story single family home of 4171 square feet which includes a t\.Yo car
garage and an attached second unit, au under one roof. The original structure was built about 1955,
and has been added to several times. There are numerous separate paved driveway and patio areas
and a large deck near the lagoon and associated dock. Although livable, the home is quite outdated
by today's standards. The mechanical systems are old and inefficient, and the windows/doors and
insulation do not meet today's California Title 24 standards. In addition the house does not meet
current building code standards for structural integrity or life safety systems. Part of the house is on
post, pier and spread footings with a crawl space and part is slab-on-grade. All floors are at elevation
7 + - NAVO (as there has been some settlement), which is 3' below present FEMA guidelines.
There are no native plants or animals resident on this site and there is no particular cultural aspect. It
does not have any historical or scenic attributes.
It is built on the Belvedere Lagoon filled area on an almost flat site. The topography is shown on our
topographic map (Sheet 4 of the drawings) 1 which also shows the house and all existing landscape
features. The soil make-up and stability is fully described in the Geotechnical Report prepared by
Herzog Geotechnical, which is submitted as a part of this application. Site photos are attached on
Sheet 1 of the drawings.
35: The surrounding properties are single family residential of a variety of styles and years of
construction. Immediately across Windward Road is a new house completed in 2014/2015.. Up and
down along Windward Road are some old, some new, and many remodeled one and two story singlefamily homes. To the north along San Rafael Ave. are mostly older homes varying from 1to1%
stories. Along San Rafael Ave., which abuts a corner of this property to the west is the shoreline of
Richardson Bay, along which on the west side is a popular walking path with views to the west of
Sausalito, Mill Valley and Mount Tamalpais. There are no particular views across this property. The
back of this site faces onto Belvedere Lagoon with the typical patios and decks. Photos attached on
Sheet 1 of the drawings.
ATTACHMENT #2 SECTION 1 PROJECT SUMMARY APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
ZONING PARAMETERS
BEL VE DE RE R - 1L ZONE
CODE I SITE TABULATION
2 Windward Road , (Rev. 8125)
ITEM
REQUIRED
7500 sq. ft
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Lot Area
1i'135 ·1 *5
1i'135 ·1 •5
lot Width
65' (average)
56' - 150' (Very Irregular)
56' - 150' (Very Irregular)
lot Frontage
65'
i 64' (encompasses two street frontages and around a corner)
Front Yard Setback
5'
3' (all parallel)
8' - 21' (many offsets, not parallel to street)
Side Yard Setback
5' right side (one story)
4' (all parallel)
5' left side (one story)
2'-6" (mostly parallel)
4'
8'
5'
7'
15' (abutting water)
33' - 35' *2
25 - 32 ·2
5273
'"8
4218 '7
4334 sq ft •4 *s
4504 sq ft •4 *7
50%
~a
40% ·7
41.1%
42.7% •7
Hear Yard Setback
Lot Coverage sq ft
% Lot Coverage
~4
*5
Floor Area
4000 sq ft (max)
~a
4171 sq ft (incl. garage)
- 6"
- 9"
- O"
- 4"
(minimum)
(average, offsets, not parallel)
(minimum)
(average, parallel offsets)
3874 sq ft
604 sq ft
(Garage)
4478 sq ft (Total usable)
170 sq ft (see note *6)
4648 sq ft
*6
Height
22'
15'
16' 7" to 22'- 1 '!'' (see note *4)
Off Street Parking
2 Spaces
3 Spaces •g
2 Spaces
*1 Lot square footage from City of Belvedere records.
*2 Measured from face of existing bulkhead for "dry land,, area.
*3 Existing floor elevation varies around NAVO ELEV. 7.0. New finish floor to be NAVD ELEV. t0.00 as per FEMA. Building heights
shown on elevations and sections are given from existing grades and ELEV. iO.O. Building has numerous roof heights, which vary
from 16' 7" to 22' 11" from existing grades. Building heights shown inside footprint of existing building are taken from closest point
*4 Lot coverage excludes typical bu11ding roof overhangs but .includes structural roof overhangs such as porches.
*5 Lot area "under water" is 589 sq .ft. 1 1, '135 - 589 ;:: 10546 sq ft used for calculations.
*6 Floor area tabulation includ.es i 70 square feet of floor area that is greater than 15' hlgh.
Areas greater than 15' higl1 are counted double as per BMC Sec. 19.08.203.B. Actual usable floor area is 4478 sq ft including garage.
*7 For buildings that exceed 15 feet high above existing grade.
*8 For buildings that do not exceed 15 feet high above existing grade.
*9 One half of the 3rd parking space is presently on City owned property adjacent to the sewer pump station.
'2-
Project Address:
W ; ~O VJ~
fP.oA.t?
APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION P ERMIT
CITY OF .BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION
450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDER&, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG
l~[~R~EC~E:~
Vc~D---~~~.~~~R~ST~~~~~US~E~ON~~~t·----~·~:~:~~~miiil~ ·
Rec'd. by:
NSJti
Amount:
l'J. c./ 'i ""
Asses~ors, Par~§J,,~'P' ____
O'--~-o_-_<J_")._f____;,,m--'-_ _ __
Cl~-; or 'se1"'"'""""'"' -
~
Zone:
:2 '1 / J..-.3>
Receipt No.:
~__.(1'-"-"l=L--"----~----
·To BE Co:MPLETED BY APPLiCANT
ea ••
Address of Property:
Type of Property:
/)....,
\Ni t--...t'f)v...rA:l'W
"5iµ01..;:::;
Record Owner of Property:
Mailing
~~ fleerµ
Address:
'Uf.Jcrn...o.J
11
swan
Q..OP({)
f"14.M 11-y f'.?..5"Str."~
:PM,_ An...:f2
o t·tu.J...
&
•
E'l~Jot
u{ :U....1".>
!..tµu: ak-ffi "'3J;?ti...Y
~7+-S--l$
Daytime Phone:
f?.e.AD
.C:.A % ·9 :Z.C=:>
F a x : - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Email: _j• • • • • • • • • •L_
Owne~s Representative:_~
~~-~-~
~~~1~
~-~~-·~
~~.~D~-~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~---
-?.-c>f l..e-i-b s;r
Mailing
Address:
L~cE:.
970
et;ius=;.o<'
Daytime Phone:
0
L
Fax: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1
a 4=:
Email:
Square Footage of Structure to be Demolished:
4f?i
~ -t::r
$UlLJ~rn1?~ (1.J<'.:.l.ALl · W,,ecr
&t@t,.Hfoxl='? S 4-P. frl ~ fi·r.PWJ ;t/~.J'>< rt ?!:bt?.&~TE: f¥,1f')i;;'.-) £
n<t? ~J{l.E' -~·n·Wet"uru=:
70 -~ 02:<2 t~
cs.
JM.L ~ Jo...p.,.-D D8it'S
1. Name of demolition contractor and state contractor license number: 1Q ~ !PS t e;"2.Y.. !l-.-51)
IA.:iY.G1..) 6@..?e!-4
2.
4f'fJOLAcic;(L i $
Location where demolition
debri~
00 ! ~...t.,;, l t--PQ
will be disposed of: U\A#,J.+.J
~;?u.:;E:
f¥-.:O
l2&tc..Ll~ Cfi µ I ~
3. Size, location, and duration for debris boxes to be placed on City streets: ~ ~
tf;?e?fi
l
~
UM.&,.- fb'E lpe&i-:i;;t) ¢4=<
6.JU.-'3>\
·pg;,~
4. Route(s) to be taken by demolition trucks into and out of the City:
:i;o
"5.M.J
f.2A ~= e...v-;;;:-
m
oe;
@s S.'JJ1.B;;'r·
Wh..fOl-'~
TfBLn>.e:>.J 15u.ro
Demoiition Permit Application ° Page 1 of2 ° City of Belvedere
U;\phmrinom.anoger\.Pranning FOfmSV'lANNING FORMS - LATEST EOITION\APPUCATION FOR OEMOUTION PERMIT rtt 9.3-.t 1.doc
~-;,
Project
7. Proposed development plan and development timetable for the site once demolition is completed:
8.
9. Size and location of trees or other vegetation and location of any drainage system to be removed in
conjunction with the demolition: -.:::::.~e:...-1.~~~~~~-,e.~:.J\.l..--"'U4:C::..-1!~=+&~-----
i O. Erosion, sedimentation, and (or drainage control plans for the site following demolition: _ _ _ __
i 1. Relocation provision for tenants, if any, occupying building to be demolished: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
12. Year building to be demolished was constructed:
........---------------
-~-~~-
13. Official designation of historical or architectural significance, if any:
-i==~~...___ _ _ _ _ __
~--
14. Other:
-----------------------------------
Note: The demolition contractor will be required to provide the City with a certificate of worker's
compensation insurance and may 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.
l, 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) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
l understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record.
Signature: ~·
\
'
Demolition Permit Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere
U:\pfannlngmanaget\Plannfng Forms\PLANNING FORMS~ LATEST EOITIONW'PUCATION FOR OEMOLITfON PERMIT rev 9·6-11.doc
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Cln' OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMM!SSlON
450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFllELVlWERE.ORG
SEP
o21n ~
1
Date:______
Rec'd. by:
f/SM
(IQ,,..
Amount: "V
0 (,D... O'}J"' ~
v3""'
Zone:
Receipt No.:
., u . M.
"'·· l ~
---if\'-'-t-1-'--"-------
·Type of Property:
Record Owner of Property:
Mailing
w~
Address:
·-n f" 1fLr>0
f?-A-01.- ojl!,.1,,. f=~R. ... 'St:El?h~S'
f2ex.Jt=:D
HIW _ ,\lpAD
CA
9 4--'-2'7..-Q
Daytime Phone:
Fax: ___,
Email: _ l l · · · · · · · · · • • L
Owner's Representative: ~
b"'"!Afl
~@_
. _,,....\.___.P-=
l 2,,.l.,,,
<...J,J
""
' .......A.,p
_~f....>---'P.
,__='~...-J)G
....·~.....,.=--'t>.._"....,a..,,
+.=c.H=
·-=A.Ji-...,.D"'-->l._'-;f)E=:.>'
"--:$._,,
"" . ...
1~;....;="'"'i"
'
'} o 4 t;;;;tl, s-c.
Address:
t .A.¥.£" o<:.i:..aGG o
Mailing
l
Daytime Phone: -1iGililZiil•'il.IF•llle
ill•·i?ili~iillll~-
_______________
Fax:_·_
~
_.
Email:
C)?o~.!'r
Description of project and variance(s) requested: .;~µblf? <f1A ~\t L'-! f?J:t;ff?>~
ORDINANCE§
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
Sf;t;;:•• ?~T("jLY~ d / v.:.c
t G")
""
-;'-'J"'-1+----- - -
( 9,1AJ· t~~c
Variance Application • Page I of 2 • City of Belvedere
PROPOSED
Project
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 offact in.order to grant.the requested variance:
A.
The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of specic;I privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property
is situated because:
·::X::~
f.'-.'Tr f:').,.<::. H t\tFl:;;J..,T"
· 8.
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 py other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification, so that a denial of the application would result
in undue property loss, as follows:
~7F~f::.·
C.
1~r1~< H. :\A el-.J/'
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:
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 variance requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented
herein and in the attached exhibit( s} are.true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I understand t~,,;~ ~~nten,~~~is docum~nt ~e a Public Record.
Name:
~/)£..._'1 _'LL,~;;;:.
Peroe : Bu CK A{l,f.'J ~~a;~TI1.;~
Date:
l.;:µ£"
Signature:
ts;
~:z.c,,:;- f!..eJ
&i/4/iS
Variance Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere
Description of project and variance(s) requeste.d:
This proposal is for a one-story home. We are requesting a variance to the maximum
lot coverage. From 40 °/o required to 42. 7%.
Ordinance 19.24.050 Maximum Lot Coverage, 40% for structures greater than 15
feet in height. (Excludes roof overhangs except structural overhangs such as porches).
Existing coverage 41.1 %
Proposed 42. 7%
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:
This property has an extremely unusual "dogleg" shape with a substantial portion of the
site in the narrow angle of the dogleg. Even though this lot is larger than some along
Windward Road, it is limited because it has a narrower lagoon frontage than most and it
is a comer lot abutting a sewer pump station. The reasonable location for the garage
also is limited.
A two story house would be much more compact and would require less hallways but
we feel that a two sto1y house is just not appropriate on this comer site.
a, Because of the odd "dogleg" shape, approximately 350 extra square feet are
required for hallways to access the far west end of the house. This results in extra
square footage over and above what would normally be required if one were to
construct a two~story house.
b. Belvedere permits a much smaller garage than proposed, with the advantage that
more of the permitted square footage can be allocated to the living area. We are
choosing to build a somewhat larger garage to ensure that the cars are parked in the
garage instead of on the street. As a result, the garage is more than 200 square feet
larger than the minimum required. Because of the required raised floor level, part of
the garage space is required for stairs and part is allocated for a future personal lift, also
requiring a somewhat larger garage.
c. The combination of the necessary excess hallway area due to lot shape, and the
larger garage, add about 550 sq. ft., which is more than the amount of excess lot
coverage beyond that permitted.
B. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size and
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the stdct 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 denial of the application
would result in undue property loss, as follows:
Even though this site is larger than some, there are many !imitations;
a. The extremely odd narrow dog-leg shape and the long north side:
b. The lagoon frontage narrower than most other lots;
c. The corner with a sewer pump station;
d. Limited possible garage locations due to lot shape and catch-basin location:
e. Being on two street frontages;
f. Being the visible entrance to Windward Road determined that a one-story home
would be more acceptable and harmonious with surroundings and that a two-story
home would be incompatible and inappropriate. (It is possible to build a two story home
with the necessary space requirements covering less area, and at considerably less
expense).
g. The adjacent homes are all one story and some cover a larger portion of their site.
Most, if not all, are much closer to the front property line than this proposal.
G. The granting of this (these) variance(s) 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:
Granting these variances permits the owner to construct a one-story home that protects
the views and maintains the scale and harmonious character of Windward Road. fn
addition, a one~story home protects the privacy of the neighbors. By permitting the
variances as noted, a one-story home covering less of the property* than the existing
house, will enhance and protect the neighborhood. A two-story home on this comer lot
would be incompatible and would detract and spoil views.
*(Based on roof coverage, existing coverage is 4847 sq ft, proposed is 4792).
Rev. 8/31 /15
Project Addre~s:
2- ~I i::::'~ill
l2c=
·A:
""""'D..c-...._
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
'ti'ft/~5"
CITV OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMI SSION
450 SAN R.t\FAEL A VE • BEL VEDF.J:U;, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 ° FAX 415-435-0430 • www.crrYOFBF,1.,VEOBfU<:.ORG
II
JfOR STAFF USE ONLY
S~:.?
Date:
r:·~ i015
Amount:
NSfa.
Rec'd . by:
11
'J2'!:
I
Assessors Parcel No: __O""-"'-~o=--,.__..0'-"1-'-l_.,_O_r\,___ _ __
Ciiy of Belvedere
Receipt No.:
~'2..-__.4. .(. __t.f2..___
Zone: _ ___.R.~•-"'""--------
To BE COMPLETED .BY APPLICANT
2- \..vi (-.J D t...rA.1U)
Address of Property:
l2£.AA,v
'Si ~ t;;{.;f;; Pt=M1 bY
Type of Property:
Q@
p,:21 rp..Af ...
Record Owner of Property: P.~c..n .. ,-'\-:....;1) ~o(.2_
Mailing
-"2--.'.; ~
Address:
·n
t2.ot; • , D
A v"i'
....P i~
q
Wtu .
<2£:,4.p
Daytime Phone:
Fax: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
c .A.
4 0£..o
Email:---------------
Owner's Representative: PAt)~ Pa..~c.~u,e•.fb.0
Mailing
Address:
/f,.v.f
~+<.1
~::;-
o
PA.4.)GJ,..J
j)-r;
Sw~·"''
·p@:Jc j-ti:ifr_ t? /.o;:;s.;e:.N
Daytime Phone:
Fax: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
OCL
C)! o?S A-:
Email:
Si t.....-r~ e-A:1-,.•\ 11 8
Description of project and variance(s) requested:
ORDINANCE§
'S!k-Pi-i-GUS
REQUIREMENT
EXISTING
kt
. ~t..11-4: 425""(~
~ 1 prJ.-..K.E
°'.!-4 cf. 1'-e·t
Variance Application • Page I of2 • City of Belvedere
...
-:,.·
.: - -~.
-·~··' :-~
..·
....
:.·
'"-,
..
PROPOSED
1
'
Project
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:
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 loss, as follows:
~ kFA:c{d t\lkE2)..)I
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:
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 variance requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented
herein and in the att.ached.'.jxhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
. II
?
I /~~"
.·""°"..
)
Signature:
<J#-v"'v >""
Name:
'P.A-DGb?
Pr2.t.CHAf2.=f) Q?E'Pt~.,-p..TI\(£
i:iel
Date.·--=~"'-"-F"1<-=-..:..1-=1.,
• , ...........""-•
'£... -"';.:;..t.,_·
<d
_f...:.·.,...·---i}
Variance Application • Page 2of2 • City of Belvedere
Description of project and llariance(s) requested:
This proposal is for a one~story home. We are requesting a minor front setback
variance in two locations.
Ordinance 19.24.050 Front Yard Setback. 10 feet required for buildings less than 25
feet high within first 40 feet of front property line.
(Existing setback is 4 feet.)
Proposed: 9' 2" and 9' 6" front setbacks. The areas requested for variances are
small portions of two separate gables that project into the 10' front setback at i 5' high.
About 2 sq. ft. of garage gable projects about 1O" into the setback. In the other
location, about 1 sq ft of gable projects about 6" into the setback. These projections
are the result of placing the house at an angle to the front property line.
(Please see sheet 7 for the front elevation area of variance).
Ordinance 19.24.050 Side Yard Setback, 5 feet for first story.
Existing is 4 feet all parallel. Proposed is 4 feet 6 inches minimum. All building lines are
on angle to property line, not parallel. No variance required as setback averaging is
used. Average setback is B' 9". (See attached diagram.)
A. The granting of these variances 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:
Right Side Setback: (Variance not required.) Most homes along Windward Road are
parallel and close to the side property lines. Pfacing the home at an angle to the
property line pushes the roof overhang 6 inches into the required side-yard. However
the resulting average side-yard is more than 8 feet 9 inches. See attached setback
averaging drawing. With setback averaging, this does not require a variance. (Drawing
also provided to show average setback along left side.)
Front Setback Variance: Almost every other home along Windward Road has
significantly less front setback from the front of the house and garage than proposed,
including those with a second floor above the garage. The average front setback to the
garage door and other wall plane is 1Ofeet from the property line and 15 feet from the
back of the sidewalk. (See plans, Sheet 6 and 7 showing areas requiring variance).
8. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size and
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 denial of the application
would result in undue property loss, as follows:
Even though this site is larger than some,
garage and driveway location are
limited by the lot size and shape. The garage
driveway cannot be placed farther
west on the site because of the catch basin location, the proximity to the comer, and the
long narrow north portion of the lot. Pushing the garage away from the street would
effectively cut the lot in two. Reducing the depth of the garage, even by 1O'', would
severely reduce the ability to access the car when the garage door is closed.
8. By placing the garage in this location it allows the efficient use of floor space behi.nd
the garage and also allows the house to be pulled away from the north property line
thereby increasing the setback along that side. This enhances the privacy of the
property to the north.
C. These portions of the gables are not over the 15' height limitation at the 10' front
setback if this is measured from the finished grade instead of the existing grade.
D. The house level is being raised to meet the FEMA flood level requirement.
C. The granting of this (these) variance(s) wilf not be detrimental to the public liealth,
safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other
premises, or to the quiet enjoyment of their premises because:
Granting these variances permits the owner to construct a compatible one-story home
that enhances the built environment, protects the views and maintains the scale and
harmonious character of Windward Road while also enhancing and protecting the
privacy of the neighbors.
Rev. 8/31/15
-,.
~
-
··~·---
·-
--------
----·-
-~--·~
...
b.S'
1.:;
/o.B
10.§
!lJ.8
7.7_.,
- /,.7
7.
J .::;
e:,,.5
8·1:>
?:.-~~
(::>.:;
;- .o .,.. .
b-~
6.15
5S.4 ._;.. 15 ::-7.34.0G.
0,<f~G
~-D
--·---·-..---------..iJ;:.::PT
s=-c:l
~DC­
jv{lr-.-1
.:36T~~C.K...
--------------·--·----------
..
~U::u~..Ti c::-t-J
7n...+H j;._\,.'l..Je(.2~E.
&/4/t-s--Project Address:
2
\..:..J 1 1-) D:.:.;p...(LO
fZof.:..-0
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF BELVEDEHE • PlA1'iNJNG COMMISSION
450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • www.crrYOFBELVEOERE.ORG
RECEIVED
Date:
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
SEP 0 2·2015
~
Rec'd. by:
Amount:
~;-
Ass~fWe~~~e_ ___.D~U>_-- -'c.....
,"l.=l_..-<!J-"-"'-----
Zone:
Receipt No.:
J'icl3
f< IL.
To BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Address of Property:
Type of Property:
Record Owner of Property:
~Lgs.,_l-Ya1Q... STEPi--t.e..,jS
PA-U'-' h-i-JD
Mailing
·22/3 Q.ouu01-t1 U
Address:
'T t~..21'2...DiU
Daytime Phone:
0oAf)
Fax:---------------
t''A
q 4:-9"'2..--o
Email
Owner's Representative: --rf2
. .W~£..=-;;i_)-==-__..P.
.
.....f2=H=·G.H=
··"""A'· =2£>=...._ __._p""'
At""'A3..l
=-"'-'-'--'-'=--=-:"--='-'"""''--'~=-'=='----Mailing
2D4:=
Address:
L- '-'-~
f;,tt-1
Daytime Phone:
S;r..
0:2t.uis-~o
~
Fax: - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
'97o 34
Email:
'S'c:e-
Description of project and variance(s) requested:
ORDINANCE§
REQUIREMENT
A=tr~,..c.µA-1.GJ...?T ~
EXISTING
Variance Application • Page 1 of 2 • City of Belvedere
! '
•
• •
•
:. ••
1· ~
•
;
~
•
.• '
•
:
-~-
~:- •
• :· ·, ;
PROPOSED
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:
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 loss, as follows:
<:::...,,.._.-=A ·"-::r'-·' (\,.A.
. ,.._ ~·-1~
;~~
C.
~l ,.~,,..._.r
I
'\~_,... f'--
-
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:
~~
l·-xn:z,,.ien ,~~T
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 variance requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information presented
herein and in the attached e~~it(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
-1- I?
/,•
Signature: CJf~4'VL.Y~~
k/J,,-
Name:
Date:
!3¥~ Pt2-iq~;,~
5/4j/t 2~
Variance Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere
Attacl1ment
Application for Garden Wall Height Variance
Variance Description: We seek permission to construct a 6' high stucco finished garden
wall flush with the face of, and on top of, a retaining wall at the property line. The
retaining wall varies from about 2.5' to 3' high on the north and is about 2' high along the
south property line. The variance is for that portion of the garden wall over 6' high above
existing grade when viewed from the adjacent properties. See Sheet 1O for elevations
of wall from adjacent properties and that portion requiring variance. Also Sheet 3.
The proposed garden wall and fence along the Windward Road and San Rafael Avenue
sides will not be over 6' high from existing or finish grade.
A.
This is the first new house along this side of Windward Road to be required to be raised
to the new grade. The permission to build a garden wall for privacy of all parties should
not be considered a special privilege because it is not through any action of this
applicant that this new floor elevation is required. Any other new development would
be required to do the same.
B.
FEMA and building code guidelines stipulate we must raise the floor level more than 3'
above the existing and more than 3' above the neighbors on both sides. In order to
maintain access around the house a walkway is required which raises the finish grade
on the north side about 3' and 2' on the south. It therefore becomes necessary to
construct low retaining walls along both property lines to achieve this new grade.
Because of this raised grade, and with a permitted 3' or 3.5' fence, neighbors on both
sides would be exposed to full view from this property. The requested 6' high stucco
finished garden waif is to ensure visual and audio privacy of the applicant and for the
neighbors.
Belvedere code permits a 6' fence on top of a retaining wall at the property line, but
stipulates the fence be set back 12" from the face of the wall. We are asking permission
to build a 6' high garden wall flush with the face of the wall. To move it back 12" would
eliminate about 181' of planting area. We are requesting a stucco finished garden wall to
assist in sound control as well as visual privacy.
C.
The retaining wall permits raised planting areas on this property, and landscape
screening will be used on each side of the garden wall to mitigate the appearance, but
landscaping by itself will not provide the needed privacy. This garden wall is requested
by both of the adjacent residents, and is not in public view.
At present there is a 6' wood fence that is completely covered in a (rat infested) mass of
ivy. The present top of the ivy is at the requested height of the new garden wall. By
permitting this wall, the neighbor's privacy can be maintained, the rats can be eliminated
and all the neighbor's quiet enjoyment of their premises can be assured.
8/31 /15
SEi..V£0ERE A-11. ZONE
CODE'/SITETABULATION
U:::!J.!•ofd.0
(:Jmillt:
;'.(;'. 'ltl
H,(;';·•·;
1'111'.!flOl/£0
HIS\.,~,
~:.m:a,u10,V;-~.r,i.
~".!tt!!Jt~~I~
·~·~W!,;I"·
7V-/f?
'il•''·•i•"''•!·-''"~''~1
l:t~
llYrl."'°"'i
!;t"".z;...f'.'O.'l"•l.,'.l>'io
r-""'_,
if\.4W6.A:?..~S.
I
/~~-t~f~~~=l~t~
·- -)-
I
--- .. ~·1 '
I.
'. ~~~~~- ·----------~-----···
uwu..,;.•.i:.ci:')..I
.
~"'=· ~\l~•;o:;a"(
w-~1-.,,:
hl,.\~.v...:>,.~1il:.l"'4µ.!;) ~IZJir(l"$
~~~~S/;J~~~~""Wl"
Z.tt.·4Hj 1<.~0J. ~~ ;.$5;.; ~~
...~c~;i..;a .. t:"Of.:P!:ete~ VA~.AJ.Ju:;
:1Eat>. ,!i>..'l4~tt 't'Ci!.i...:=.~~
;~
e:.. ..
t.,~~;r~~~~i:;~~~~<i1 ~\;
L.OT C-OVt!HAalt AHO FLOOR ARU CALCUlATl00$
{<>'4/;
ftt:i''r. J1~.,;·•u,
· ''•J•'.,,v11•1 . :,tl.·;i.·... 1
tfal•
o.
,_,
"._~I
UI l'ij
(,)"'
ffid:
·,;
"(J
<J
u
ci
9.~
u.
~;.-;
UI
ffi ~
Bi ~
I/)
f/J ~
~
J
~
I / )J
.
xJ
~ul]~~
0
z
...
Q
(,)
w
I/)
Cl
-g a:< z
1.'?1'
~i~
~~j
Q. N-<
e ~
l "- g
/)
~.,
~
i3
_,
5
al
"'
~
~
0
.;
~
"11 ~
" Vi
-~-.,....-r-
.!
w.• tie.ho
":•'- 1/4\ r ..~.. ~
9
2,,.,. W L.·1.,,d )lUA.{U) ev......2
Pn:~ject Address:__
APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION
TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA
CITY OJi B£LVJ.;DER€ ·• Pl, ANNING COM.M I SSJO:'\
450 SAN RA!tA£1.,AVE • BEl..Vli:OBl.U~, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX 415-435-0430 • WWW.CITY0fl3El..Vt::DERE.ORG
Date: City of Belvedere Rec'd. by:
J/5p!
Amount:_____
0~ - f) 'l../-OJ
Assessors Parcel No:
Receipt No.:
;)'-1143
Zone: ----~f?=/_C._ _ _ __.__
,,
,,
Address of Property:
FJ_ \,,J l
N-Oi.U 6 /LO
R.""":>A=Q
Type of Property:
Record Owner of Property: ---~~=->~-=---=-==-'->--'--"~=--"-.:..="-'---'---'=-<--='--------Mailing
0-=?. Q_n •.:>-W1) +-u w""' C!4o Ar\.""'> Daytime Phone:
Fax: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
6c20...bt-l t:"..A
04-'7~2-o
·:n
Email: _ . • • • • • • • • • • •L -
Owne(sRep~sentative:~~~
~
~~--~·-~~~
~·~-·~~-~~=~
--·~P~~-D~<-~-·-·~A~~~~~·~
· ~~~~~~-P~~~
· -~--·-'~
Mailing
10/t f A:i't-\ SLT'.
Daytime Phone:
Address:
LAiltG' t'".?$4. 'J'~~
cr!o 0 4=:
Fax:
-
•••••••••L-
Email: · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
ORDINANCE REQUIRES: .fra?O sq. ft.
As provided in Belvedere Municipal Code Section 19.52.120(1 ), I hereby apply for an exception to the
floor area requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. I propose that the Planning Commission make the
following findings of fact:
1. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly
impaired by the additional square footage, b~cause : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . . . - - -.:::
. . '
!---1 _.,.,
..... .,,-:v--._,;;·.:· ',,~1- t- ·-..
"*"• ;-(
,' V \ . & ' \' - ' I
Exception to TGtal Floor Area Application • Page 1 of 3 • City of Belvedere
U :\planningmanager\Planning f'onns\PLANNING FORMS· LA TEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREArev3-24-
l I .doc
2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a
greater floor area, because: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. 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, because: _ _ __
4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to
residents of adjoining properties, b e c a u s e : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:?i--;;r:·;- /~·7TAC k
l\A.cz,,_[f
..{r
W:n;E°
£
tJ 0
<;G__, F-f
In addition, Section 19.52.120(2) includes guidelines that the Planning Commission must follow.
propose that the following guidelines can be met:
5. That the proposed new construction would not create a new or expand on existing nonconformity
on the property, because:
.Sffi
f'.;),., 1r Aca 10
ci iT'
Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 2 of 3 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLJCA TlON FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREArcv3-24l 1.doc
(For purposes of this Section, floor area in the existing structure which is in excess of the requirements
of this chapter shall not be considered to be an "existing nonconformity" on the property, and the grant
of a floor area exception hereunder shall not be deemed to create a "new nonconformity." Additionally,
for purposes of this section, where an applicant proposes to construct new and additional parking
spaces, construction of parking structure or spaces within a setback shall not be deemed to create a
nonconformity.)
6. That the proposed new construction is not a continuation, expansion, or subsequent phase of a
project for which one or more variances were granted, which project was completed within two
years prior to the floor area exception application, because: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~.:;;0~
/\-117·\:t:t=·C/i....1 i-C:J.....T(
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 approval of the exception as requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and
information presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief
Name:
(!2:i:;;t?t~Th I~
Date:
!J/+jii::;
Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 3of3 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanagcr\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLTCA TJON FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREArev3-24l l .doc
1. The proposed
has basically
same footprint as
Every effort has been made
maintain
the
views from the
street and adjacent properties by keeping the height as low as possible while
increasing the side setbacks.
side-walls are at a conventional 9' ceiling height
and the roof comers adjacent to side properties are hipped to reduce bulk and
mass. Most of the roof corners along the front of the house are hipped. As a
result, the views from the street and from adjacent properties, although of a
slightly taller house due mostly to a new FEMA floor level, wit! not be significantly
impaired due to additional square footage. In addition, by placing the house nonparallel to the street and the right side property line, the house is set 8.5' to 21'
back from the street and the fa<;ade is broken into numerous smaller planes.
2. The long narrow dog-leg shaped lot dictates a longer house and contributes
greatly to extra square footage due to the need for long hallways. When viewed
from the street however, this proposal is shorter than the existing house. It is
deeper from front to back, though this is not apparent from the street. The nonparallel placement also contributes to extra square footage but has other very
positive results. By holding the house as far back from the lagoon as possible,
the neighbors are less impacted both from a privacy and view standpoint.
3. A two-story house would be totally inappropriate for this site, but would have
less square footage in order to meet this owner's requirements. This one story
house on this site complements the adjacent structures and meets most Design
Review Criteria. (See variance requests.)
4. By increasing the side-yard setbacks over existing and what is required, this
proposal will substantially increase the privacy of the residents of the adjoining
properties. It places the primary outdoor living area as far away as possible from
adjacent properties and no major rooms face the neighbors.
5. This is not a new or expanded non-conformity as the existing structure is to be
demolished or deconstructed. We are seeking an exception to the requirement
for new construction of 4000 sq. ft. for 478 sq. ft. or including the area over 15'
high 1 648 sq. ft.
6. This is not, nor will it be, a segment or the continuation of a, multi-phase
project.
Wlt.fDOW nnd DOOR SCffeOULE
2 WINDWARD ROAD, BELVEDERE
noOM
,_
TY,..
:StzE
lhiri2
1-<t7:i-J~3
LhlliQ'T1imi:m
147~
t'-M'lg
l(lj:Jy!rJ;
H7:alC9
t.iiio: 16 11,~
S2;1?.2
~
~GX12
&d:~-n~
fllO:GJ.11'.>
r:-~c
~m2
A.:illf4
~x~
::e,.:.a
PIMll'toE•<'l¢w
ll)tll11?G
"""""'
IM'oglM;t",-:m
;>,n>f~ E:tr.r.i~~
fwffl i d;rrJ
P11uf~~"
Y<11A'~O';lWTr,,..t11lm
t<>
Jopmrutt'"."'IJbJ~';J P'!G'W~
~
C~m'Y>I
c~-
v,.1 Clw.<rmi! ;ii:())(
Cll'WMn!
3? :r t'6
0115.:t!IC.
78::ioSOl{nqil>;
rn:m~~
F;r~ .tr~ c~~
t!<c'
XOX
""'"
XOX
F"..11$-:S A.'"'1 C~.umM:I XOX
tlnh~S
~~Pi
F.~t'dr'!J:CmrM'>!lct
C.i~ri
1>~r
2lh!:IG
i:::.. ~~
Er:1?~0l'.tt>':I
3'11~
C.::wrtwlt
Ef~'~Olfiee
~ljZU;ii~S
11".; ~ ht>flS\'
El'1"'!l(;W~t
:!5r:43
?h'}t;
lr.!Mlol-1lt;tn
),•.'l't~tl\i!lh
44'1~
~.•«tt::.i.-thltl
30s.30
,'!M~rM
?<l:tS!ll
Ut~~ttm
;'\IA~
\f-lC<!lraR
U:tQG
..i~·r,n
~
,.,j ..
l1Jl.:'1M<!C.'l'~t!lne-:l1
:xox
""''
CtM>?.i'.
rur1
Hu-1
"""""'
c-
C:M~'lf
r~!f\!
C#:t-:m:>'lt
}JJi'}.Waq
MA'l'(>,•Mnmwn
l!'flll1~
l?ff)!fi~~~~""'
GmrtRoc-mD;).-n
;4, nn
l<.1dttt~DIMI
.....
F'iwd,l;.':':1("1'\.'111M!11'f'l!'.:h~
-
Fl~~
""''
l'~~l!'O~I
Jt,gn
io1;.;£.&
P-l:U:'u&lt'C'!.llOOOf
~,,,.:;
ttotr)•COCTIJy.~
ii'l,,1113
'!,..):,A! i1?•i;0_
xox
r,.,«1a~Cls'1flltlm
?1<ul'i.O:tlt'..
tf,(>JrtOM3
e;:,.th3
e:w·s QJb T1:1.1'V;:r,1'
ft«'i ltlrl Urk«"
TcpttMJt~b<lo}JW1w-cn~ff<."'l"'1:.'n'>','
r.1>&11
\ Vfmft\byC(>{1!'(40;( 100) U'U'MJfi''!;Vrr.
.':'l!'>yt?:;,__ "__n,,-
t><rf(<".,H-;r,:~ '""~&iHI~· l"'<Ot»--JTF.l;; oN r~cm.w;-W-'C·
1i!Jte•w•;IJL'\..P:;t) f:..P.'-..J O.~w~:..:•lHTI:>
~~~~1~.,g;~~~0:i;;~~~w~q;u;.
$'f\.:!P
';.:r.:iv>tJ
l,.t(,j}-l"J~
tJ::1~·p;;:,
"TV o:;c;
~~,.Jt.IT'
~>':·<;Ct.;
Ir->
~l!;tll.l_
I
.·f
i1jra
ill*
~·~o
UI
a: 'ii
Cl)"!
ffi ~
:q
a.·< B
11..
UI
0
(/)
z
0
~ill~ ~
UI
§ UI
:l,,,,
(/)
Cl
~~~ z
i5
~f!ii ..J
5
..J~,;l Ill
~ N-$·=
CL
~
,. __'l:'"~-.--·-i;­
.:;F',..,c~-.:..SG""'-\J
"'
APPL.ICA.TION FOR RE'VOCABLE LICENSE
Crry oF Bm;vimERE
450 SAN lli\FAELAVE • Bm; v@ERE, CA 94920-2336
PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX.41.5-435-0430 • W\.VW.Cl'l'YOFHELVI::omu~.Olt(;
D a t e : - - - - - - - Rec'd. by: #5)1
ParcQitf&f Sclvc:ief@
Q(..D Q L-( 01
Amount
~3 7?
Receipt No.:
_'-_t/-_/lf_J
____
Zone: ___[?.___t_L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
City property to be encroached upon: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. : :.. To:$E~(X>NrPLETEP.BYAPPLICA~r
Address of Property:
'7- lei wn
LO All.£>
(2 ot..,,,D
Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g. , street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot):
"$;Ttk-,_::::::z: G..c<7<i:t1- e~ l u A-'-f
PM rJ. . ?h"A.. G'LE7~7,74- St."§?~E2J-,1$'
Record Owner of Property:
Mailing
Address:
-i,..:;5~
{2,:-;.s.,;1=2D ~ 11
{2.s'.::.h O
i
·tu?2LJ)?..ot:.J CA9 4-.r:.J'?--o
Owner's Representative:
Daytime Phone: ~11!~~111-~!!l!!l!l!!!!L.__
. Fax:----------------
Email:
"P,~6}...j
Mailing
·:z..o+
Address:
L->\.ie::e= O&-<rez-6.o
Ru CH..l~llP
&tt-t:. ~-
Daytime Phone:
e?P.
Fax: - -
°1"(064-
Email: · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, bot!?
existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property): '11-t-S'\t..F M4? r-..>D ~b-r1~-C?
~i..JU~ t?QJVB-;.J A>f
tt) t..B ' P&yl;;;;'T) GUl'{LJ:f' i.l/A~ . {'.tvt;x~ 4tca.H 'fl? 96 §:a-:.?~ c-:tL s-Cbw -s\ r'.'
- - --:
~ , tus
L-Aut>Sc·
l .;-e:c-:: N <,;'\ 'D2C0A-L~
A-t=:t:> f'fZp~"ea ·-:rv W'f-l'G" 6!-lJ? w <:::;;Aft.2§}..J l"'A-i.L C;;.::•./J..De:::.-u u.;A.-t..<.- t'S ..___.
µo·r
iht--'T> -Sc:.hJ>[JC wI i r../uc:A--n Q. > -s ~'ks.N.-4 "TP @ii?" l;t?..E6 4~ r'LJJ IP; 5
i N R ,,'D , w .
.rrs 'liti¥C t.viu,..
£ 1'11 Pfl&WMEJ.
'
m
~~ibM l
,Q N6Lu
I
Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the
encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3
Revocable License Application • Page 1 of 7 • City of Belvedere
li:«PJ:uming\l'laiming fom15\PLA1'iNING FORMS - LAIT;ST EDJTlON\WordY.!rsions\Al'J>LJ.CATJO;:.J FOR REVOCABLE l.JCE)';SE RE\: 9-l 5-l ~.do.:x
Project
IMPORTANT! This application will first be reviewed by the City Staff and/or Planning Commission. If
the application successfully passes this review, a revocable license agreement will be drawn up by City
Staff and a formal recommendation will be made to the City Council to approve it. The property
owner(s) will need to sign the agreement document and have the signature(s) acknowledged by a
notary public or the Deputy City Clerk before the agreement can be ratified by the City Council. A
specimen copy of the revocable license agreement is attached for your information. THE OWNER'S
FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WILL PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING
PERMIT ASSOC/A TED WITH THE LICENSE.
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 revocable license requested, and I hereby certify that the facts, statements and information
presented herein and in the attached exhibit(s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief
I understand that the contents of this document are a Public Record.
Revocable License Application• Page 2of7 "City of Belvedere
tr:·· Planning\Planning Fom1:;'J'LA:\XING FORll,fS - LATEST EDJTION\ WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx
a~H:t'S:>r\
··p;:
.\2..E-V~~LE
BELVSOERE R •1L ZONE
Sll'ETABUl.ATION
.,,,_
LIC'ENSE:
2Wiildw11tdRo•d
~l,t)~, "l'!
,.
.t'!t111?i-V*.'
1«e·1m~rft$~;,
.!'T•$!.>'•1
'il.
1'
AREA CALCULATIONS
a PRVPOSf.O n ..ornl AAJ/.A
~i.l'),,11
tHV~)
{ica!'Afl
;.},
SX/$11~
P.001- COVC1\Ar.G
4. PHO'POS!:O ROOF COV!t'1~C
6
EXlSn~G
VAPERViOl!S Anti\
6 PROPOStO JMPERVJIJl:.S AREA
:1~45!,.f.!I.
({}4-;_q.ft.
H16~t.
PIJ(tf'(lSf.0
n.~-"~ ·i. .,,,
~
I
COLOR BOARD 2 WINDWARD
All Stucco surfaces La Habra stucco "bay bridge"
All Steel windows and doors Benjamin-Moore "gardenia/steam"
All window wooden and door trim Benjamin-Moore "gardenia/steam
Garage door entry gate and front door Benjamin-Moore "wrought iron"
All siding Alaska yellow cedar shingles Benjamin-Moore "pepperwood"
All rear yard artificial turf Dupont Forever "Lawn Select LS"
.
\
-
I
.
~.....
'-
, .
....... _
• .
\
'
~~
.
I
.. ' .
I
l
•
'
,
.~
.....
-
.
'
.
11
All dock areas Trex Composite island mist"
All hardscape including stepping stones, driveway, steps, patios, entry
walkway, stone universe inc. gray flagstone "antique black"
-
~
.
..
... :.
·r,-
REC::WED
Cit of SeiVeder
PROPOSED MA TE RIALS I COLORS BOARD
PAUL AND ELLE STEPHENS RESIDENCE
NEW CONSTR UCTION
2 WINDWARD ROAD, BELVEDERE, CA .
PADEN PRICHARD I DESIGN
20 4 6'" ST
LAKE OSWEGO OR.
PAlt(TCO WOOD PA~l~S A Tf\\:
llef'\l•m&n Uoofo '"'oaiel•~le.•m...
CONC-RETI: \VALLS ANO PLANTERS
ALa:eh U H&l:Jra •tucco .. Ba)' Bridge""
I
-
/
_ ./....
-
I
GARO EU VI AL\.S
~ H tibta S tucco .. '6a"1 Of ~Qe..
I
I
I
I
I
I
DECKS A ND DOCI(
Treo<C ompod.. -
/ WOOO FENCE
1
_ ,.
Natural Wes\crn Red Cedar, tough
111
,
1
~~~-.-~~~~
I
I
I
GA.RAGE DOOR, ENTRY GA TE
PAINTED 000 ENTRY ODOR
All.er.kit.rm, s~ or Wood and gJ.us
8
&loo.-..
rought Iro n~
I
'
'
'
'I
'!!:.
~
• t_
.. 2 .
...
.
I
I
I
I
-
"\.
..- ~
•
~
'
:,..
... . ....
. ,.,. .
I
f ', /
,,.,/
'f,
I
I
I
------- -----------
t
. ... •
----- ----
STEPS. 'W .A.U<.S , TERMCES, tl~I
Sto·nc Un\vl!fsc Gray 'F\l>q&tcne 1
.A.n\lquc S\ac\("
k
Nam: Kaufman ~ Contract Planner
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Roger Felton [[email protected]]
Monday, August 03, 2015 1:54 PM
Nancy Kaufman - Contract Planner
Re: 2 Windward -Historic Review
Hello again Nancy,
I have viewed# 2 Windward from the street to assess its historic resource value to the community. I
follow the criteria used by the Historic Preservation Committee when considering a property for
designation in Belvedere.
Number 2 Windward was formerly owned by Tom Eubanks, well-known local plumber. He lived there
for many years and made some additions during that time. I do not consider his ownership as
qualifying for "associated with any significant person, group or event". The property does not have
any particular, distinct architectural style. It does not demonstrate any unique methods or materials. It
is not the first, last or only property of its type. It is not an example of outstanding craftsmanship.
Although it is located on a large, corner lot it does not contribute to the character of the street. I do not
know the name of the architect.
I do not consider Number 2 to be a Belvedere landmark or worthy of designation, nor to be named a
historic resource even though it is more than 50 years old.
Thank you,
Roger Felton, Chairman, Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee
AT'rACHMENT I0
DATE: August 13, 2015 (Second Design Review)
TO: City of Belvedere Planning Department
ATTENTION: Nancy Kaufman, Planner for the City of Belvedere
SUBJECT: Design Review Memorandum - 2 Windward Road
PREPARED BY: Mark Sandoval, AIA
INTRODUCTION
I visited the subject property earlier last month to examine the drawings prepared by Paden Prichard I
Design, Inc. (dated 6/11/15), and to correlate them with the existing conditions found at the project's
site. During my visit an evaluation was made to determine if certain aspects of the proposed project
might have any adverse impacts on the adjacent neighbors or other properties within the immediate
vicinity. Notes were taken of these observations so that they could be used to assist me later in the
development of the recommendations found at the end of this memorandum.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to demolish an existing single story home with an attached second living unit
(reportedly constructed around 1955) so that a new contemporary styled single story home with the
proposed floor area of 4,648 SF may be built. As a requirement for the construction of the new home,
the applicant is also proposing to raise the primary habitable floor level an additional 3'-0" above the
current floor height as dictated by the current FEMA guideline regulations. All site features, hardscape,
landscaping, trees, boat dock, and bulkhead, are shown to be new.
As a consequence of the applicant's request to increase the floor area above the maximum allowed for
R-1L District and to construct new privacy walls along each of the adjoining property lines above the
allowable height, in addition to seeking a zoning variance for some minor roof encroachments into the
front and side yard setbacks, this application must go through the city's Design Review process and meet
the necessary findings to be issued a Demolition Permit.
DESIGN ANALYSIS
20.04.110 Preservation of existing-site conditions.
As indicated above all existing landscaping and site features are to be replaced with new.
20.04.120 Relationship between structures and the site.
Design Review Memorandum - 2 Windward Road
Date: August 13, 2015
Page 1
ATTACHMENT_J_J_
The designer has tried craft the home so that it maintains a proportional relationship with its site and
scale to the immediate properties within the neighborhood.
20.04.130 Minimizing bulk and mass.
The proposed single story residence is organized along a compound floor plan configuration which
utilizes manipulated exterior walls planes, large windows, and other fenestration elements to achieve
architectural and visual interest. The roof of the new home consists of a primary flat built-up roof that is
skirted with a series of applied gable and hip metal standing seamed roof elements, which follow the
perimeter exterior walls below. The exterior walls are well articulated which helps to break up the
otherwise elongated horizontal wall plane. Since the new home continues to retain the single story
appearance from the street, It is my belief that when the home is eventually constructed, it should not
appear excessively massive, or feel out of scale with the other immediate homes in the neighborhood.
20.04.140 Materials and colors used.
The designer appears to have strived to utilize a compatible and complementary material palette which
seems consistent with the colors and materials found on other homes within the immediate
neighborhood.
20.04.150 Fences and screening.
The proposed garden wall and gate as illustrated on Sheet 3 in the architectural drawings seems to be
constructed of the highest quality materials, and are aesthetically attractive and complement the
architectural style of the home. Although the proposed new garden walls depicted along the adjoining
neighbors are 24 to 30 inches above the allowable height, they should protect the privacy of each
neighbor without obstructing important view corridors. It also appears from the plans that the applicant
has solicited each of the neighbor's comments and has tried to translate their input in the final design of
each of these walls.
20.04.160 Privacv.
Most all proposed windows and other fenestration elements seem to have been strategically placed,
arranged, and sized to be respectful of the privacy of each immediate neighbor that may be impacted by
the construction of the new home.
20.04.170 Drives, parking and circulation.
The applicant is proposing to construct the new enclosed two car garage and new paved driveway in
approximately the same general location as the current home. It should be noted that by moving the
new garage forward (towards the street) and eliminating the existing parking area along San Rafael
Avenue, this removes three off street parking spaces. Although this could raise some possible concerns
the elimination of the existing second living unit, this should help offset the need for this additional
Design Review Memorandum - 2 Windward Road
Date: August 13, 2015
Page2
parking; since street parking is still available in front of the home. All and all, the proposed new site
improvements should have only a minimal effect on the current pedestrian sidewalk circulation and
vehicular traffic flow.
20.04.180 Exterior lighting, skylights and reflectivity.
All the proposed light fixtures provided in the second submittal from the applicant seem to meet the
city's regulations under this code section.
Skylights: On Sheet 6 in the architectural drawings, the designer has listed the general information
regarding the numerous skylights illustrated on the roof plan. Based on these general specifications the
proposed roof skylights all seem to comply with the general intent of this code provision.
20.04.190 Consideration of non-conformities.
The applicant is requesting only modest additional square footage above the current home's floor area.
In examination of the other variances they all seem to be driven by the design and the need to execute
the required site work needed to raise the primary floor level of the home. Arguably the proposed roof
eaves could be redesigned in a manner so there would no longer be a need to seek a zoning variance for
this part of the application however they are only minor encroachments, and the city seems to have
granted exceptions and variances to other property owners in the past, who like this applicant happen
to be confronted with similar setback challenges.
20.04.200 landscape plans-Purpose.
The proposed landscape plans for the project seem to provide a rich combination of flowering shrubs,
trees, and ground covering plantings. Although the materials to be used for the driveway, walks,
terraces, and pathways are not clearly labeled or referenced in the drawings, the samples provided by
the applicant as part of the second submittal all seem meet the intent of this code section.
20.04.210 landscape plans-Materials.
Most of the proposed landscape material seems to be compatible with the surrounding neighboring
properties. The applicant also seems to be proposing mostly low water demand species with a mix of
both fast and slow growing plants. The overall landscape plan is well conceived and should provide
adequate tall shrubs and trees needed for privacy without obstructing important views of the nearby
neighbors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed new home generally seems compatible with the other homes in this area, and should fit
well within the context of this neighborhood. It is therefore my opinion (based on the project's second
submittal plans and building material samples provided), this application now meets the overall general
Design Review Memorandum - 2 Windward Road
Date: August 13, 2015
Page3
design requirements as outlined under Title 20, Architectural & Environmental Design Review, Section
20.04.050 and 20.04.110-20.04.210 of the City of Belvedere Municipal Code.
Design Review Memorandum - 2 Windward Road
Date: August 13, 2015
Page4
CITY OF BELVEDERE
450 San Rafael A venue ). Belvedere, CA 94920
Tel: 415 / 435-3838 ). Fax: 415 / 435-0430
3rd Memorandum: Floodplain and Building Department
comments for Design Review application
Date: October 6, 2015
To:
CC:
Nancy Kaufman, Senior Contract Planner
Irene Borba, City Planner; Mary Neilan, City Manager
From: Eric Banvard, Building Official & Floodplain Administrator
Project Location:
2 Windward Road
Project Description:
New dwelling to replace existing that is to be demolished
The Building Department has reviewed the third submittal for this project and finds that all the
comments from our previous Memorandum, dated August 19, 2015, have been addressed by the
Design Team.
Furthermore they are aware that a complete submittal for the building permit for this project must be
submitted prior to March 16, 2016 in order to utilize the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
and the current 9.0' NA VD88 Base Flood Elevation (BFE) which is the basis for this design. The new
FIRM, and its 10.0' NAVD88 BFE in the Lagoon region will be applicable for building permit
applications submitted on or after March 16, 2016.
Full compliance with all relevant code requirements is done at the time of Building Permit submittal,
with thorough plan reviews, prior to any issuance of the Building Permit. At this time we have no
further comments or concerns with this Design Review application.
Thanks,
~~
Eric Banvard
Building Official I Floodplain Administrator
City of Belvedere
450 San Rafael Ave
Belvedere, CA 94920-2336
(415) 435-3838
[email protected]
Page 1of1
ATTACHMENT 12
CITY OF BELVEDERE
450 San Rafael A venue e Belvedere, CA 94920
Tel: 415 / 435-3838 • Fax: 415 / 435-0430
Memorandum:
2nd Round of Building Department comments for Design
Review application
Date: August 19, 2015
To:
CC:
Nancy Kaufman, Senior Contract Planner
Irene Borba, City Planner; Mary Neilan, City Manager
From: Eric Banvard, Building Official & Floodplain Administrator
Project Location:
2 Windward Road
Project Description:
New dwelling to replace existing that is to be demolished
Based on the 2nd round of drawings submitted to the City on 8-4-15 the Building Department has
the following additional comments for this project, for inclusion with the Planning Department
Design Review. These comments are in addition to those in the first memorandum from
Building dated 7-20-15.
2nd
Round Floodplain Management & Building Code Comments:
1) Flood Venting and crawl space floor level appear to be non compliant. Flood venting
is required around the perimeter of enclosed crawlspaces. FEMA Technical Bulletin 1
provides more information. And the grade inside the crawl space must be level or above
the finish grade on at least one side, i.e. a significant amount of the perimeter. The
bottom of the flood vent openings must be within 1 ' of the exterior grade, or the floor of
the crawlspace, whichever is higher. This is to allow flood waters to freely enter and exit
a crawl space without putting unbalanced hydrostatic forces on the stem walls of the
foundation. Crawl spaces with a floor level that is below the exterior grade on all sides
are classified as basements (sub-grade spaces); and basements are prohibited in the flood
zone. The illustration on the next page is from FEMA Technical Bulletin 1, and shows
typical allowable configuration of crawlspace floors/interior grade, exterior grade, and
flood vents.
Page 1of4
Framedwal
around enclosure
JolsVTruss
Solld porimoter
foundation wal
{CMU or poured
concrete)
,,...--Fl:lod opening
Interior grade
Rood oponlng
No more than
1 foot
Interior grado
l
Exterior grade
Footing dopth por
buikfmg code
Figure 1.
Typical enclosures \vlth flood openings
The present design shown on the drawings indicate that the entire building perimeter is
bounded by terraces, walkways and elevated grade such that the floor in the crawlspace is
entirely below adjacent finish grade. The small "Vent Well" shown on the Section F
drawing on Sheet 9 doesn't establish an exterior grade along this wall line. It is a
depression, a trough, below the adjacent finish grade; and therefore the crawlspace is also
below adjacent finish grade at this location. The present Design is therefore not
considered compliant with Floodplain construction requirements .
. .fell!::.::.~.....
'~~
is.fems.) ·. ·
Two possible alternatives are suggested.
One alternative is keep the adjacent finish grade in this side yard at or below the
crawlspace floor level, along this 40' +/-stretch of the perimeter. I.E. do not add the
short retaining wall and fill material that is raising the existing grade in this side yard.
The Second alternative is to eliminate the crawl space entirely. This can be done by
bringing in sufficient engineered fill to elevate the building pad sufficiently. Or it can be
Page 2 of 4
accomplished by filling inside the foundation stem walls with engineered fill. Here is an
illustration of this approach from FEMA Technical Bulletin 1:
Concroto slnb
Figure 8. B.ack-filfed stem wall
foundation {openings not required}
~s
Exlerlor grade
Raising the exterior grade in a situation like this illustration would be approvable since
there isn't an enclosed crawl space, and therefore flood venting isn't required.
Of course these are just suggestions and are not meant as design advice. Please consult
with your design professionals, geotechnical and structural engineers regarding the best
methods of construction that comply with floodplain regulations and that are suitable to
the soil and structural conditions at the property.
2) Ventilation of the crawl space. CRC Section R408 contains requirement for perimeter
ventilation of under floor spaces, i.e. crawlspaces. This code requires that a ventilation
opening be provided within 3' of the primary corners of the building. The elevation and
section drawings show raised finish grades and elevated terraces and walkways that are
blocking normal crawl space air vent installation in the stem walls below the floor joists.
Only the stem walls along the East side yard appear exposed above grade; and this is only
about 10-15% of the perimeter. The normal cross ventilation required by the code seems
nearly impossible to achieve in a straight forward manner. Please revise the Design
Review drawings to indicate the means and locations of installing the perimeter under
floor vents, or redesign to eliminate the crawl space as suggested in comment 1.
Full compliance with all relevant code requirements is done at the time of Building Pem1it
submittal, with thorough plan review, prior to any issuance of the Building Pem1it. Design
Review level plans are not typically at a stage of completeness where the proposed construction
methods and materials are detailed enough to assess compliance with many code requirements.
At this time the design doesn't appear to comply with some of the floodplain requirements, or
with crawl space ventilation requirements. Since resolving these issues may change the exterior
appearance of the proposal we suggest that they be addressed in a more complete way during this
current Design Review process.
Page 3of4
Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns regarding these Building Department
comments; we are here to help, and happy to provide guidance.
~~
Eric Banvard
/
Building Official I Floodplain Administrator
City of Belvedere
450 San Rafael Ave
Belvedere, CA 94920-2336
(415) 435-3838
[email protected]
Page4 of 4
CITY OF BELVEDERE
450 San Rafael Avenue ). Belvedere, CA 94920
Tel: 415 / 435-3838 ;. Fax: 415 / 435-0430
Memorandum: Building Department comments for
Design Review application
Date: July 20, 2015
To:
CC:
Nancy Kaufman, Senior Contract Planner
Irene Borba, City Planner; Mary Neilan, City Manager
From: Eric Banvard, Building Official & Floodplain Administrator
Project Location:
2 Windward Road
Project Description:
New dwelling to replace existing that is to be demolished
The Building Department has the following comments for this project based on the information
submitted or available at this time, for inclusion with the Planning Department Design Review:
Comments:
1) The subject property is within the designated AE flood hazard zone.
2) The proposed dwelling construction is classified as a "new" per floodplain management
criteria of the Belvedere Municipal Code (BMC), in compliance with national flood
insurance standards for construction in an AE flood zone. Therefore the new building
must comply with the appropriate BMC Chapter 16.20 requirements for elevation of
habitable floors to a minimum of 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), use of
flood resistant materials below the BFE, flood venting of enclosed crawl and storage-only
spaces below the BFE, etc.
3) The BFE of the cunently effective flood map is 9.0' NAVD 1988.
4) A new revised flood map is pending implementation. It has a higher BFE, which will be
10.0' NA VD 1988. The City is awaiting FEMA's letter of final determination for the
new map. The City will have no more than 6 months after receiving this letter to adopt
the new map. Thus the new map, and the higher BFE, is projected to be effective
sometime between September 2015 and March 2016.
5) Plans commonly submitted for Design Review through the Planning Depaiiment and
Planning Commission are typically not detailed enough to show full compliance with all
the floodplain management requirements. Therefore only cursory review for floodplain
Page 1 of2
compliance is able to be done at time of Design Review. Full review of floodplain
construction compliance occurs when sufficiently complete "working drawings" and
documentation is submitted as part of a complete building permit application.
6) The Design Review plans submitted are sufficient to indicate that the building will most
likely comply with floodplain requirements at the current 9.0' BFE: the lowest habitable
floor is shown at the minimum allowable 10.0' NA VD 1988 elevation. The required
flood venting isn't shown on the Design Review drawings; both the garage and the under
floor crawl spaces will require flood venting designed by a licensed architect or engineer.
The building materials below the BFE aren't specifically detailed as flood resistant
materials on the Design Review drawings either. These items are not typically fully
detailed at this step in the process. They must be fully detailed/specified on the full plans
& specifications that are submitted/required with the application for a Building Permit.
7) It is the date of application for the eventual Building Permit, and the flood map that is
effective on or after that date, that determines the effective BFE that must be utilized.
8) If a complete application packet for this project (plans, documentation, etc.) is submitted
for a Building Permit prior to the new flood map's effective date, the current 9.0' BFE
will still be in place, and the current design would not seem to need alteration for
floodplain compliance issues.
9) However if the complete application for a Building Permit is submitted after the new map
and its 10.0' BFE is effective then the design would have to be altered to raise the lower
habitable floor 1 foot more than is shown currently. This would require another round of
Design Review, which may result in the project going back to the Planning Commission
if exterior appearance revisions are significant. This would have to be done prior to any
possible issuance of a Building Pe1mit for construction.
The Building Department has no other comments or concerns with the plans for Design Review.
Full compliance with all relevant code requirements is done at the time of Building Permit
submittal, with thorough plan review, prior to any issuance of the Building Permit.
Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns regarding these Building Department
comments; we are here to help.
Thanks,
..._
J
~~
Eric Banvard
Building Official I Floodplain Administrator
City of Belvedere
450 San Rafael Ave
Belvedere, CA 94920-2336
(415) 435-3838
[email protected]
Page 2 of2
1679
BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
TELEPHONE (415) 435-7200
FAX: (415) 435-7205
RICHARD PEARCE, FIRE CHIEF
TO: BELVEDERE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
Jessica Power, Fire Marshal
RE:
2 Windward Road
DATE: July 16, 2015
The proposed new residence at 2 Windward Road shall comply with the following
requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District
(TFPD):
1)
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
2)
Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide
protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10
3)
The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD. CFC
304.1.2
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans.
cc: file
A1TACHMENT
PROTECTING THE COMM UNITIES OF BELVEDERE AND TIBURON
13
September 19, 2015
City of Belvedere
Design Review Comments
2 Windward Road
City Engineer - Review Comments
Review of the 2 Windward Road plans - Stamped "Received, September 2 2015, City of Belvedere":
1.
Please provide clarification by the project geotechnical engineer as to whether or not a sheet
pile wall is recommended for lateral support of the rear yard.
2.
Please provide clarification that all title items (easements, etc.) have been identified on the
project plans.
Conditions of Approval:
1. 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.
2.
An updated Revocable License may be required for private improvements within the public
right-of-way.
3.
A geotechnical investigation is required. The geotechnical investigation should address site
preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations.
4.
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/Depa
rtments/PW/mcstoppp/GuidanceforApplicantsv 2508.pdf).
5.
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.
6.
The project will require an Erosion Control Plan incorporating, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP
Minimum Erosion/Sediment Control Measures for Small Construction Projects
(http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/Files/Depa
rtments/PW /mcstoppp/ development/M ECM fina I 2009 .pdf)
End of comments.
IL/_
AITACHMENT _
Nancy Kaufman
Contract Planner
City of Belvedere, California
94920
October 2, 2015
Re: City Engineers comments regarding sheet pile wall.
2 Windward Road
Paul and Elle Stephens residence
Dear Nancy,
In an email letter received today, October 2, 2025, you requested a letter of
clarification on a couple of items.
1. A new sheet pile wall is not proposed at this time.
2. All title items and easements of record are shown on the survey performed by
DJ Scranton Surveying in June 2015 and are part of our submitted plans as
Sheet 4.
Regards, Paden Prichard
204 5th St.
Lake Oswego, OR.
97034
Project representative.
CC/Elle Stephens
August 31 2015
To the Members of the Belvedere Planning Commission and City Council:
Jeffery and Peyton Stein, as 3 year residents of 4 Windward Road, approve the plans for the 2 Windward
Road home to be constructed next door. Our houses are very close together and we would like to
maintain our privacy.
Please approve the new side line fence between our properties to be built at 9 feet to insure privacy,
specifically for our 2 bathroom windows, which face the fence. This new height will not be visible from
the street and will step back down to the 6 foot level.
We are available for further information if you need to contact us. Thank you for your consideration in
this matter.
Best regards,
Jeffery and Peyton Stein
[email protected]
415 640 45223
.ATTACHMENT
15'
John Pearson
74 San Rafael Avenue
Belvedere, CA 94920
415-435-0809
August 3, 2015
Planning Commission
City of Belvedere
450 San Rafael Avenue
Belvedere, CA 94920
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to support the request for a variance for fence height for the proposed
residence at 2 Windward Road (Applicants - Paul and Elle Stephens)
Our home at 74 San Rafael Avenue is directly adjacent to the subject property and a nine
foot ivy-covered fence running the length of the our rear yard has provided separation
and privacy for the 25 years that we have resided in our home. The Stephens are
proposing a fence of the same height to replace the existing one. Because of the
increased elevation of their proposed house which is required to comply with FEMA
regulations, the height of the fence from their property will be approximately six feet.
The existing (and proposed) fence is not visible from the street and does not impose on
any other residences. It provide~ the privacy required for the enjoyment of both the
Stephens' and our properties.
I am enclosing two photographs showing the existing fence which will be replaced by a
fence of the same height. Thank you for your favorable consideration of the proposed
vanance.
Nanc Kaufman - Contract Planner
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
PADEN and NORMA PRICHARD [[email protected]]
Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:09 PM
John and Kathy Pearson
elle stephens; Nancy Kaufman - Contract Planner
FW: On Site meeting
August 6, 2015
John and Kathy Pearson
74 San Rafael Ave
Belvedere, California
Dear John and Kathy,
Thank-you for spending time with us Thursday July 30 on our site and on your property to help
us determine the appropriate height of the privacy garden wall between your property and the
Stephens at 2 Windward. The story poles we erected showed that portion of the proposed roof
adjacent to your patio area, the top of the windows along that side of the house and their
related eye levels, and clearly showed the importance of keeping the garden wall the same
height as the existing ivy covered fence. As you know, we are required to raise the floor level of
the new house about 3 feet above the existing house floor, to elevation 10.0 NAVO.
Based on the existing and proposed conditions, we determined and agreed the appropriate
height is elevation 15.0. That is 6 feet above the finished grade on the Stephen's side and 8 1/2
to 9 feet high on your side. The existing ivy is that height. (According to our survey, the grade
at the back corner of your garage is 6.86 or 6' 10 11 • Since the ground slopes away from the
garage toward the fence about 3" or 4", the top of the fence nearest that corner would be
about 8' 6" high above grade.) As we discussed, the fence stays at that height as it continues
east, but starts to step down as it approaches the lagoon. The new fence/garden wall will not
go any farther east than the existing fence.
Because it is desired to partly conceal the new fence by planting vines that would cling to the
fence, we are proposing a masonry garden wall with the finished material to be cement stucco
with integral color. This may be any color you desire on your side. The vines will be able to
cling to this surface. One of the planting materials discussed was Ficus. It is fairly fast growing
and does not produce the thick dense shrub-like growth like ivy. Some of the benefits of this
new garden wall will be sound control and the elimination of the rats that now inhabit the ivy.
We also put story "boards and lines" on the existing dock to show the proposed lagoon edge of
the Stephens new dock and deck. As we agreed, the planter that is closest to you that
"buttresses" the boat ramp side of the new dock will be at elevation 6.0 NAVO. The main deck
is at elevation 5.0. (The summer water level is 3.7 NAVO.) The boards we installed showing the
planter were at elevation 6 1 9 11 (6.75) and we agreed to lower them by 9". Planting in that
1
planter will be kept low. The proposed stepped front edge of the new deck/dock we
demonstrated by boards and ropes was also acceptable to you.
Lastly, on Saturday we talked about the ivy fence beside your driveway and the pump station.
Elle would like her gardener to trim that. As we discussed, she will use your side gate as the
starting point. The ivy may be trimmed level to 12" above your gate.
Thank-you again for your time and help in this matter.
Regards, Paden Prichard
CC/Elle Stephens, Nancy Kaufman, City of Belvedere Contract Planner
PS. I apologize for not getting this note off to you sooner. In order to get our submittal
finalized by today, I have been at my drawing board 24/7 since I returned on Sunday.
2
15
To Whom It May Concern:
We live at 1 Windward Rd, directly across the street from 2 Windward Rd. We have
seen the story poles go up and reviewed the public information provided on the
home. We welcome the project and offer our support. The Stephens family is
making a tremendous investment that will have a positive impact to our community.
We hope that the Stephens family is able to move forward without unreasonable
delay so that they can begin to enjoy their lagoon residence.
Yours Truly
The Miller Family
1 Windward Rd
P,O. Box 750818
Petaluma~ California 94975-0818
(415) 897-2663
email: [email protected]
September 29th, 2015
To:
Nancy Kaufman
Contract Planner
City of Belvedere
From: · Douglas Scranton PLS 5379
DJ Scranton Surveying
RE:
Story Pole Verification
2 Windward Way
Dear Nancy:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that by field measurement on
September 28th, 2015 that B have verified that the story poles as constructed at the
site are per the plans by Paden Prichard/Design, dated 9/2115.
If you have any additional questions please let me know.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas J. Scranton PLS 5379
DJ Scranton Surveying
DJS/ds
Cc: Paden Prichard
Elle Stephens
Larry Hadley
Boundary • Parcel Maps • Subdivisions • Construction Layout • Topography
ATIACHMENT _f(p
__