There were no reports. D. CONSENT CALENDAR

Transcription

1 BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING Chair Paul Rosenlund called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Commissioners present: Paul Rosenlund, Jim Lynch, Marsha Lasky, Nena Hart, Pat Carapiet, and Larry Stoelu. Commissioners Absent: Peter Mark. Staff present: Director of Planning and Building Irene Borba, Associate Planner Rebecca Markwick, Deputy City Attorney Emily Longfellow, and Secretary Nancy Miller. B. OPEN FORUM No one wished to speak C. REPORTS There were no reports. D. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: To approve the Consent Calendar for Items 1 as agendized below. MOVED BY: Jim Lynch, seconded by Nena Hart VOTE: Ayes: Paul Rosenlund, Marsha Lasky, Pat Carapiet, Larry Stoehr, Nena Hart, Jim Lynch Recused: None Absent: Peter Mark 1. Draft Minutes of the August 15, 2017, regular meeting of the Planning Commission. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Rosenlund stated that the applicant has requested that Item 2 (460 Bella Vista Avenue) be continued to a future meeting. 2. Application for Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License for a new carport, a small (78 square-foot) addition on the lower level and landscaping improvements at 460 Bella Vista Avenue. The project proposal requires an Exception to Total Floor Area to exceed the maximum allowable floor area; 1,056 square feet is allowed, 3,067 square feet exists and 3,474 square feet is proposed. A Variance is required because the project proposes a car p01i over the existing parking pad which does not meet the requirement for 20 foot distance to the opposite curb or edge of street. The project also includes an application for a second unit on the lower floor of the home. Applicant: Studio Skaggs Kennedy, Prope1iy Owner: Lawrence Williams. MOTION: To continue the item for 460 Bella Vista Avenue to a future Planning Commission meeting. MOVED BY: Larry Stoehr, seconded by Pat Carapiet VOTE: Ayes: Recused: Absent: Paul Rosenlund, Marsha Lasky, Pat Carapiet, Larry Stoehr, Nena Haii Jim Lynch Peter Mark

2 Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of9 3. Design Review, Demolition, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Revocable License applications for a new two-story single-family residence with an attached garage at 9 West Shore Road. The existing dwelling and garage are proposed to be demolished. A 3,794 square foot home is proposed with an attached garage on an 8,408 square foot lot. The project proposal requires an Exception to Total Floor Area to exceed the maximum allowable floor area; 3,363 square feet is permitted and 3,794 square feet is proposed. The project is proposing landscaping as well as hardscape improvements throughout the property. Improvements are also proposed in the Revocable License area. Applicant: Butler Armsden Architects, Property Owner: 9 West Shore Road, LLC. Associate Planner Rebecca Markwick presented the staff report. A slide show accompanied her remarks. 1 Colors and materials boards were circulated to the Commission. Proposed modifications to the project have been offered by the applicant, including a reduction of front deck size, shifting the location of the pool and removal of the BBQ, added front pickets on upper level, retention or pruning of the front Cedar tree, and side fence height changes. Plans of the proposed changes are on the dais for the Commissioners. Commissioner Hart asked for clarification of the location of the weathered wood louvers. Ms. Markwick replied those are what are shown as a rain screen at the front. The applicant may be able to further clarify. Commissioner Stoehr asked for clarification of the height of the building in relation to the story poles? Ms. Markwick replied that the original request was for a 23 foot tall house. Staff had requested a condition of approval of a reduction of 1 foot of height (to 22 feet). The applicant has offered a reduction of 6 inches of height. Since the original story poles were constructed 4 inches too high, this would result in a net reduction of 10 inches from the top ribbon of the original story poles, or a final height of 22' 6". The applicant may further clarify this for you. Vice-Chair Lynch asked would the louvers be permanent? Ms. Marwick replied they are. Open public hearing. Lewis Butler, Butler Armsden Architects, project architect presented the project to the Planning Commissioner. A slide show accompanied his remarks. 2 A scale model was presented of the proposed project. He stated that the contemporary design home has been designed to present a low street fa9ade, with the larger massing at the rear side of the home on the water side of the building. The upper story will accommodate 2 bedrooms plus the master bedroom. 9 West Shore is the only waterside home in the vicinity without a second story as shown in the aerial photo. The scale of the proposed second story is similar to that of the home to the north at 7 West Shore Road. Mr. Butler stated that he has met several times with Mr. Main, 6 West Shore Road, and Mr. Ghiasi of 7 West Shore Road. In response to Mr. Ghiasi's concerns, in addition to the pool relocation and removal of the BBQ, they have proposed also to frost the lower part of the upstairs windows, and to maintain trees on that side at an ornamental height. There have been discussions regarding the 1 The staff slide show presentation is archived with the record of the meeting. 2 The applicant's slide show presentation is archived with the record of the meeting.

3 'Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of9 reduction of height of a part of the fence height between 9 and 7 West Shore Road. He believes Mr. Ghiasi would like it to remain at 6 feet. Mr. Butler stated we are agreeable to either alternative. In regards to the conifer tree, we will take the advice of the Commission as to removal or trimming. Commissioner Lasky asked what exactly is a rain shade? If you add more of the same to the street side, will this not create a situation where the entire front is all the same? Mr. Butler stated it is a screen set away from the wall as a sort of shield while also providing some depth and shadows to soften the visual effect of the wall. The first floor rain shade is set against an opaque wall and would give a fencelike effect. The second floor shade would be less densely. spaced in front of a glass area, and would be more semitransparent. In addition there would be stone surfaces and plain glass all providing a variety of character and depth. Commissioner Stoehr asked whether the conifer presents issues because of its location as well as the potential to continue raising up the sidewalk?. Mr. Butler replied they are aware of this, but they do like nature, so if they need to keep nature they will do as directed. Commissioner Stoehr asked if you are required to conform to the Belvedere Municipal Code for floor area, where would you remove the excess 431 SF? Mr. Butler replied that would probably come out of the garage and the family room/guest room area on the first floor. Commissioner Hart stated that the conifer tree out front is one sided. Perhaps there might be a need to have an arborist assess its ability to remain? Commissioner Carapiet asked whether, on plan A06, there might have been an error as the landscaping is shown in the area of the proposed driveway? Federico Engel, Butler Armsden, replied that was correct and will be corrected on the final plans. Commissioner Carapiet asked why the story poles were put up at 23 '4"? Mr. Butler replied that was a contractor e1tor. The later survey of the story poles and subsequent added ribbons show the corrected heights. Commissioner Lasky asked on rendering A07, why there is no water feature shown at the back of the garage? Mr. Butler stated that the plans were generalized and some of the details were not shown. Rob Main, 6 West Shore Road, distributed several photos and illustrations to the Planning Commission. 3 He described each one. Photo 1 is from the 1970s showing the home, which his family built at 6 West Shore Road, with its original views of Mt. Tamalpais. Photo 2 was taken recently from his upstairs balcony showing the story poles for the proposed project across the street at 9 West Shore Road. Photo 3 has an added overlay of how the proposed building will look as outlined by the story poles, and showing the potential blockage of their views of the Bay, the hills of Tiburon and Mt. Tamalpais. This also shows how people on the upper deck would be facing his property causing a loss of privacy. Photos 4 and 5 shows the current views from the interior of his living room of the story poles and how there will be a total loss of views of Mt. Tamalpais. He 3 The photos and illustrations are archived with the record of the meeting.

4 'Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of9 stated that the Belvedere Municipal Code states that the additional square-footage may only be approved if there are no impacts on primary views. He stated his family has enjoyed these views for over 50 years and it would be a shame to lose this view from this house. Mr. Main added that Photo 3 also shows the proposed roofline will be well above the roofline of the adjacent house at 7 West Shore Road. Mr. Main stated that they recently trimmed their trees at the request of their uphill neighbor at 3 No1ih Point Circle that were blocking the views. He stated that they cherish their views and want to keep them. Kamran Ghiasi, owner of 7 West Shore Road since 1996, stated that he has met with the architect several times to address his concerns. He has requested that the near windows be frosted and also be non-operable. His biggest concern is the pool location and the potential impacts that pool users, pool parties and the like will have on his nearby quiet bedroom. He stated that the house is very large 'and massive. To him it appears that it is about 4 feet higher than his two story home. Although the home is designed to have a lower appearance from the street, the upper portion appears as a huge structure from his home. He requested that the Planning Commission not allow the additional square footage that has been requested. Commissioner Carapiet asked is the window in question the hallway corner window on the upper level? Mr. Ghiasi replied that is c01tect. He stated that they have already a concrete planter box at the shared property line which he would like to keep, so the proposed fence changes are not his preference. He understands that the Building Code requires a 6 foot fence for the pool area but such a fence even at 4 feet would affect his views. Alternatively the applicants could put a 4 foot railing/metal fence around the pool or a cover on the pool, to meet Code requirements on their own property. In this way his planter box would not have to be affected Karin Hakanson, owner of 11 West Shore Road, stated she has not had the opportunity to discuss the project with the applicants. She did not hear any mention of evaluation of the impacts on her prope1iy. She agrees that from the street level this looks like a one story house and although it is a beautiful design, the structure is massive towards the rear of the house and it is quite a bit higher than both her own and Mr. Ghiasi 's homes. Mr. Frank Crawford, architect for Ms. Hakanson, stated he believes the proposed project is about 6 feet higher than 11 West Shore Road and 5 feet higher than 7 West Shore Road. Ms. Hakanson stated that the massive structure removes all privacy from her courtyard and possibly her bedroom, and removes her views towards Mt. Tamalpais. In the future, if she wants to rebuild her home and to move it towards the Bay, she will be in the same position in that she would be blocking the views from 9 West Shore Road. She is requesting that the massive part of the design should be moved towards the street and not above her house. Mr. Butler stated they had been trying contact the owner of 11 West Shore Road but had been unsuccessful. He appreciates the owner's compliments on the design. In regards to questions about height, 9 West Shore Road must meet a FEMA requirement so their floor level will be higher than the neighbors. He stated that the proposed roof height is 4'3" higher than the peak of 7 West Shore Road and 4 feet higher than 11 West Shore Road. Those numbers should be accurate as they were just rechecked.

5 'Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of9 Chair Rosenlund asked how much must they raise their floor level for FEMA? Mr. Butler replied that is to be raised one foot. In regards to concerns from Mr. Ghiasi, they have moved the pool to 12' 6" from the property line, where it was previously 7' 6" from the property line. He stated they would be happy to do a tracked pool cover for safety without any fencing if that is the Commission's direction. The pool equipment will be housed within the building so it should have no sound issues. In regards to reducing square footage, they would prefer to do that on the first floor. The two bedrooms plus a master bedroom on the second floor are a critical feature of their design which they wish to preserve. He stated that even if the floor area is reduced on the first floor it will probably not be evident fl-om outside the house. In regards to Mr. Main' s concerns, they had a long discussion together, and he understands that the Mains wish to get the highest possible value on the sale of the prope1iy in order to address the costs of care for an aging mother. Mr. Butler stated that he is personally in the same situation and is sympathetic to Mr. Main's financial prior ities. He stated that the building of this new high quality home across the street should benefit the neighborhood in the long term. He stated that he is sorry if there is some view impact, but they may be able to be additionally flexible on height a little more, if they may still retain the core of the design. Close public hearing. Commissioner Lasky stated she visited both the site and properties at 6 and 7 West Shore Road. She would like to see the large mature conifer tree saved and daylighted for the view. The tree adds to the charm and screening of the project. A rendering has been distributed tonight that is generally showing the how the conifer might look if pruned. She believes the construction could take place around the tree. Ms. Lasky stated that the existing palm tree is the biggest blocker of the view of Mt. Tamalpais from 6 West Shore Road. She stated that this is a beautiful design although it is a little bit stark and would benefit from additional trees at the water side outside the living room. Trees would also provide the benefit of added shade and soften the project from the waterside viewpoint. She stated she appreciates all the changes that have been made to accommodate the neighbors, including the frosting of the window, reduction of the upper deck, and added wood screens. She can make most of the findings with the addition of the landscaping and keeping the tree, but she would like to hear the comments of her fellow Commissioners. Chair Rosenlund asked whether she can make the findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area? Commissioner Lasky replied she can. Commissioner Hart stated she visited the site as well as the neighboring properties at 6 and 7 West Shore Road. She saw that at 6 West Shore Road, a large amount of the greenery has recently been removed to open up their view towards Mt. Tamalpais. She also was unable to contact the owners at 11 West Shore Road. She stated she in awe of this engineered house with only one solid wall on the ground floor plus the staircase walls. The rest of the main house is glass and just 5 metal posts. She stated it is astounding that such a large house can have such little visible support. She stated that this design is splendid and beautifully designed. She found it hard to understand how the garage could actually accommodate 4 cars in a building of this height, but she has learned these would be smaller cars. The architect has really done a lot to modify the design to accommodate the concerns of the neighbor at 7 West Shore Road regarding view corridors and privacy. When she visited 7 West Shore Road she observed that the neighboring houses also have windows that look straight down on them, but she was told there is never anyone in those windows and that those

6 'Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of9 are always closed. Ms. Hart stated that is not to say that the people at 9 West Shore Road cannot have windows or use them on one whole side of the building. The frosting of the upstairs staircase landing windows and the pulling in of the upstairs balcony are very generous concessions. Also bringing the pool in to 12'6" from the property line is a very neighborly thing to do. Although Commissioners and the architect could not contact the property owners at 11 West Shore Road, she believes that because that house is so much further set back, the privacy would not be negatively impacted by this new home. The view from 11 West Shore Road is straight out towards Mt. Tamalpais. She stated that the large conifer tree is one sided and she is doubtful that it can be preserved or survive the project. Perhaps an arborist should provide advice on this. She stated she can definitely make all the findings, having reviewed all the plans, proposed plantings and lighting, and with the concessions made by the applicant. Commissioner Stoehr stated that he visited the site several times as well as meeting with the neighbor at 7 West Shore Road, and also looked at the project from the boundary between 9 and 11 West Shore Road. He reviewed possible impacts from some windows and the large balcony facing the street towards 6 West Shore Road. He stated he is pleased that it appears the proponents have paiiially resolved those issues. In addition, since there is potential for 11 West Shore Road to do a remodel in the future, a point that should be documented in the record now is that that the primary views at 11, 9 and 7 West Shore Road are the views out across the water from the main parts of these homes, and not towards the neighboring homes. He stated he agrees with the staff recommendation for Design Review, with the exception of having some reservations with making the finding for the relationship between structures, and the bulk and mass. He stated that the design is radically different from the other homes on West Shore Road so he struggles to see how this fits in with the character and is harmonious with the other homes on the street. He stated that it is great that the front of the house is only one story and the second story is set back from the street, which is similar to other homes in the area. He stated that although the new project will be at a 7 foot setback, which is an improvement over the existing house, it is appears quite a bit higher and looks almost like an 11 foot high fence right at the street. He stated that most of the surrounding homes are set back farther with only fences at the front setback. He would like to hear from his fellow Commissioners for fmiher consideration of Design Review. He stated he would be able to make the findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area by modifying finding b) to state that the lots on West Shore Road are flat and this lot is deeper than it is wide. He stated that he had concluded there would be no effect from a reduction of floor area on the first floor. Commissioner Carapiet stated she visited the applicant's property as well as 7 West Shore Road and 6 West Shore Road and met with the architect. She stated that the design is driven by the homeowner as a Scandanavian uber-modern design. The design is very creative and striking. She likes all the elements of the house. The wood slat rain screen on the front is a creative way to give some harmony to the house. The second story, while creating mass, is set back which reduces its mass visually from the street. They are not creating a box; this has elements that break up the massing. She stated she compliments the architects in being responsive to comments from neighbors and Commissioners in trying to creatively and agreeably resolve issues. Unfortunately for 11 West Shore Road, and this happens frequently, people do not always respond to notices they receive, especially when the story poles go up 20 days or more before the meeting, or when people reach out to them. Some of the changes made have helped 11 West Shore Road also. In conclusion, she stated that she can make the findings for Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area and Revocable License.

7 Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of9 Vice-Chair Lynch stated he visited the prope1iy at 9 West Shore Road. He was familiar with the site from a prior review for the new pier. He stated he also viewed the current project from the end of that pier and he can understand some of the concerns raised by the neighbors at 7 and 11 West Shore Road. He also viewed the site from 6 West Shore Road, as well as studying the reports and plans. He appreciates the staff report recommendations, however he is not able to make findings a) and d) for the Exception to Total Floor Area which have to do with primary views and privacy. He stated that the biggest impact is on 6 West Shore Road across the street. In addition, having heard the comments of the applicant and Commissioner Stoehr, a reduction to the floor area on the first floor that might not bear on the privacy and primary view impacts. For the purpose of getting an Exception to exceed the Total Floor Area ratio, the findings would have to be more concrete and he cannot make those findings. He stated he may be outvoted by his fellow Commissioners, but if they do not, and the applicant is prepared to reduce the square footage by some 400+ square feet, he m~ght be able to make t~at finding. Commissioner Stoehr stated that his interpretation of that finding is the determination regarding the impact of the additional square-footage above the allotted amount. So if the additional squarefootage impacts the views, then that is the consideration. He has concluded that even if the squarefootage came out of the second floor, because of the narrow width of the lot, the house might still stretch from side to side across the lot. There would still be the same impact. Vice Chair Lynch states he understands that position but he would reply that would mean that the house could have a 200 square foot first floor and a mammoth second floor that stretches from street to shore. If the Exception is being sought for floor area, then one has to meet each of the four findings. With this project as currently proposed, he cannot make those findings. Commissioner Lasky stated she also studied the report carefully. She did not consider the views from 6 West Shore Road to be primary views. She stated that most of their views are from the second floor bedrooms, and from the ground floor there really were not any views. Even if 6 West Shore took out a lot of their trees, the existing house at 9 West Shore is there and they do not have any views now. There is a lot of landscaping in that area that has been trimmed. This is a difficult situation. She can also make the findings because she cannot see that the additional square footage would reduce the privacy from the other two residences. Commissioner Carapiet stated that she agrees with Commissioner Lasky. When she visited 6 West Shore Road she did not see any direct views other than by looking up at the sky. There is a fence and several plantings are there. Their views were from the second story which are areas of bedrooms and baths which are not primary views. Commissioner Hart stated she agrees with Commissioner Carapiet on that point. Commissioner Stoehr stated that he would like to mention that he believes the conifer tree should be allowed to be removed if it causes difficulties with the construction. Chair Rosenlund stated that he generally shares the perspective of his fellow Commissioners and he can make most of the findings. The architecture is truly interesting and spectacular. This is modem and striking, but it still does fit into the area. He can make most of the findings but he does have some of the same concerns that Vice Chair Lynch expressed about the Exception to Total Floor Area. The most significant views that would be blocked are at 6 West Shore Road from the upper floor. Those views are simply not primary views as defined in the General Plan and the

8 , Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of9 Planning Code which defines the primary views as what one would see from inside the common areas of a home. This Commission has always interpreted that to mean that views from a bedroom or a bathroom would not be protected. Only the views from a living room or a great room or similar would have that protection. However, when one considers the mass of the block on the second floor it still gives him difficulty. He cannot make the findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area, but he can make all the other findings. He greatly appreciates all the efforts to accommodate the neighbor's concerns by moving things around, frosting the windows, reducing the deck size, keeping the fence down to protect views, and moving the pool. A pool anywhere on that side of the property has a potential to be bothersome but that is why we have a Noise Ordinance. He stated that we don't prohibit pools; we have regulations on noise. He can make all the findings except for the Exception to Total Floor Area. Commissioner Stoehr stated he has not been convinced by other Commissioners to help him be able to make the Design Review findings. It follows that he would also therefore have to vote against the Exception to Total Floor Area. Vice Chair Lynch stated he might comment on that issue. He agrees with his fellow Commissioners that the design is beautiful. He also agrees with the staff report that there are a number of contemporary style homes on West Shore Road, mostly the newer homes and this is a direction that many homes are going to in this neighborhood and other areas of the City. Mr. Lynch stated that the bulk and mass is a fair consideration, but considering the way it is designed with the upper story set back more than 30 feet from the street, the variety of materials, and the angles will all reduce the overall appearance of bulk and mass, particularly in a dramatic way from the street. In terms of the effect on the neighboring properties for the Design Review findings, there is certainly an impact: there is a bigger house with a second story being built. The Belvedere Municipal Code does not tell an applicant what they can do, it tells them what they cannot do. If an applicant is within the confines of the Code then they may be allowed to build it. The bulk and mass, materials, and siting and appearance on the lot all are within the confines of the Design Review restrictions. He stated that the findings for the Exception to Total Floor area is where he struggles. Given the size and the impact on the neighboring prope11ies, this is where he cannot make the findings. Commissioner Stoehr replied that if the Exception is not passed tonight and the applicant is required to remove the excess floor area, the applicants have suggested they would remove it from the garage and family room. In that case, ifthe tall front wall were moved farther back, he would be able to approve the motions. Ms. Borba stated that it might be appropriate to ask the architect to respond to the Commission's comments. Open public hearing. Mr. Butler stated that hearing the comments about floor area, what would not work would be moving the buildings fa11her back. Cars are a certain length. If we were to move the garage back, the com1yard would become a light well, which is not the intent of the design. They could entertain reducing the size by something under 400 square feet, and if they have to they will consider it. He stated we have designed the concept of the house as an elevated design with a new way of approaching height and bulk in a contextual way for this neighborhood. This will be very effective so they would like to keep the square-footage if possible. They could discuss alterations to the height if that were of any value.

9 , Belvedere Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of9 Chair Rosenlund asked would the applicant prefer a vote tonight or a continuance to work on revisions to the design to address the concerns. The Commission tonight has stated that they believe this is a unique but very attractive structure. The issue is its impact on the neighborhood as outlined in our Design Code which constrains the Commission to be able to make the findings for the Exception to Total Floor Area. The Commission is not in a position to grant the larger structure without making those findings. Mr. Butler asked can Commissioner Stoehr respond as to whether the input from other Commissioners has made it possible for him to make the Design Review findings? Commissioner Stoehr stated he is still concerned that this project is too close to the street. If there were a way to move the close, high wall effect of the first floor back farther then he might be able to make the findings for Design Review. Mr. Butler replied then they would request that the project receive a continuance tonight. Close public hearing. MOTION: To continue the item for 9 West Shore Road to the next Planning Commission meeting. MOVED BY: Nena Hart, seconded by Pat Carapiet VOTE: Ayes: Paul Rosenlund, Jim Lynch, Pat Carapiet, Larry Stoehr, Nena Hart, Marsha Lasky Absent: Peter Mark ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8: 10 pm. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on October 17, 2017, by the following vote: VOTE: Ayes: Abstain: Noes: Absent: APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Rosenlund, Planning Commission Chair Alison Foulis, City Clerk