CITY OF BELVEDERE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REPORT DATE: 6/13/2017 AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEETING DATE: 6/20/2017
TO: City of Belvedere Planning Commission
FROM: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Irene Borba, City Planner Emily Longfellow, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License for modifications to the existing residence and garage located at 296 Beach Road (Landfall)
RECOMMENDATION The applicant is requesting Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License applications for an addition to the house and garage. The applications are included as Attachment 5 and the project plans are included as Attachment 6. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTIONl Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for an addition to the existing residence and garage for the property located at 296 Beach Road, (Attachment 1); MOTION2 Adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow 6, 705 SF where 4,850 SF is permitted and 5,816 SF exists at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 2); MOTION3 Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow the side yard setback at 1 foot where 7 feet is required and 0 feet exists for the dwelling at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 3); MOTION 4 Adopt a Resolution granting a Variance to allow the side yard setback at 5 feet where 7 feet is required and 5 feet exists for the garage at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 4); MOTIONS Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 296 Beach Road BACKGROUND/HISTORY 296 Beach Road is located on the east side house has been altered many times since of Belvedere Island on almost a half acre 1932. The central north wing (roughly Y-i of sized lot overlooking a City-owned the current building) is original. The house waterfront parcel. The site is characterized has been transformed from its original by an extensive garden with mature cottage to a large home. All of the original vegetation and a series of stone retaining doors have been replaced, all elevations walls, steps, benches, and terraces. A pier, modified, almost all of the original windows leased by the property owners at 296 Beach have been replaced. The only features that Road is located on the City water lot below remain from the original cottage are the the house. The pier which was once the stop pointed arch roof form, shingle cladding, for the ferry, "The Marin," operated on a and the original shed dormer over the west private run between Sausalito and the elevation. Tiburon Peninsula for more than 30 years. A City owned lane known as Cliff Lane is located on the north side of the property, the lane provided access to the ferry pier below. The house is considered one of Belvedere's oldest permanent residences, known as the "Landfall" and Albert Farr may have designed the original cottage (about Y-i of the current existing footprint of the building). The original house was constructed in 1891 and the garage was built later in 1976. The house was designated a City of Belvedere Historic Property in 2011. The garage is not designated a Historic structure. According to the Brunzell Historic Report (Attachment 6) dated January 26, 2017 the
History 1958- Revocable License executed for Cliff Lane use. There are no records of the improvements approved with this Revocable License. 1959- Revocable License executed to repair the existing wharf on City property and repair stairs from the property to the wharf. 197 6- Planning Commission approval of Design Review and a Variance for a two car garage to encroach into the side yard setback. Revocable License approved for driveway and garage. 1981- Planning Commission approval of Design Review and Variance applications to build a redwood deck and spa in the rear yard setback. 1981- City Council approval of a Revocable License for a deck and improvements on City Property. 1997- Planning Commission Design Review approval of a dock extension.
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 2001- Staff approval to replace patio doors with new patio windows. 2002- Staff approval to move the existing floating dock from the side of the pier to the end of the existing pier. 2004- Staff approval to replace the existing windows and doors in the kitchen with new windows and doors in relatively the same location. 2010- Historic Preservation Committee nominated the home and property at 296 Beach Road to be a City of Belvedere Historically Designated Property. 2011-Planning Commission approved a motion recommending that the City Council designate 296 Beach as a City of Belvedere Historic Property. 2011- City Council approval of 296 Beach Road as a City of Belvedere Historic Property. 2011- Historic Preservation Committee recommended the City Council enter into a Mills Act Agreement with 296 Beach Road. 2011- City Council approved Mills Act Agreement. 2016- Letter of Non-Renewal of Mills Act Agreement sent to the property owners of296 Beach Road. 2017- The City Council took no action, keeping the notice of nonrenewal of Mills Act Agreement for 296 Beach Road in effect. Historic Preservation Committee On May 9th, the proposed project was reviewed by Historic Preservation Committee (Attachment 7). The Committee reviewed and made recommendations based on the following project description: The project proposes Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area and a Variance to allow for a few small additions spread out through the residence and the garage. The existing residence and garage are 5,816 SF and the project proposes a 6,705 SF residence and garage. A 125 square foot addition on the main floor to create a new entry way is proposed. Adjacent to the existing kitchen a 290 square feet addition is proposed, half of which is in the existing crawl space. At the lower level 17 square feet is proposed to house the mechanical equipment. The existing two car (non-historic) garage is proposed to be raised 4 feet as well as the driveway to make the garage more accessible. A 389 square foot expansion of the existing ground floor studio underneath the garage will create a guest unit. The existing potting shed is proposed to be reshingled and reroofed with wood shingles and shakes to match the existing. New windows and doors are proposed to be replaced with painted wood windows to match the house. All the landscaping will remain the same except that a pool is proposed in the lower right hand comer of the property. The existing metal trellis is proposed to be replaced with a wood trellis. The Committee determined that the project was consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards (refer to Attachment 7 Historic Preservation Committee staff report and associated attachments). The Committee recommended approval of the proposed modification. Because the improvements are consistent with historic guidelines, the project is consistent with CEQA requirements.
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 ZONING PARAMETERS ELEMENT PRESCRIBED EXISTING PROPOSED Lot Area 15,000 SF 18,419 SF No Change
Total Floor Area 4,850 SF 5,816 SF 6,705 SF
Lot Coverage 30%150% 19%/25% 21%/27%
Left Side Yard Setback 7' O' 1' (House) Right Side Yard Setback 7' 7' No Change (Garage) No Change Rear Yard Setback 20' 10' Front Yard Setback O' 30' 34'
Building Height 36' 28' 32' (Garage) Building Height 22' 25' Average (Garage) 28' Parking Spaces 2 2 No Change
PROJECT ANALYSIS/ DESIGN REVIEW As noted above, the applicant is requesting Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Variance approvals for a remodel and addition to the existing house and detached garage. House On the main floor of the house a 125 SF addition is proposed to create a new entry space at the front of the house. A new shed roof is proposed above the new entryway. The master bathroom is proposed to be remodeled and new dormers are proposed on the west elevation. Adjacent to the kitchen a 290 SF addition is proposed on the east elevation, half of which is the existing crawl space. A new deck is proposed above the addition on the east elevation, which will match the existing deck on the same elevation. Two new skylights are proposed and two new chimney enclosures are proposed. At the lower level of the home a 17 SF addition is proposed to house the mechanical equipment. Garage The existing two car garage is proposed to be raised 4 feet along with the existing driveway to make the garage more accessible. A 389 SF addition is proposed to the existing ground floor studio. The footprint of the garage will essentially remain the same, and the garage is not proposed to be demolished, instead lifted and then placed down. The garage will increase in height by 4 feet. The proposed change to the garage, raising it 4 feet as well as raising the
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page4 driveway approach 4 feet will help with help in the access from Beach Road. Currently there is a very steep driveway approach from Beach Road. The elevation change will aid in the traffic flow of the prope1iy. The garage is being lifted so that the property owners can preserve it, add to the existing studio below and then put the garage on top of the addition. General All colors and materials will match the existing house and garage. New windows and doors are proposed to be replaced with painted wood windows to match the house. The existing potting shed is proposed to be reshingled and reroofed with wood shingles and shakes to match the existing The existing landscaping is proposed to remain intact except where the new pool is proposed. The pool is proposed in an existing rose garden, and the applicant hopes that the roses can be replanted elsewhere on the property. There are existing agapanthus, camellias and azaleas that will be transplanted. One 16 inch Maple tree is proposed for removal. 17 new path lights are proposed on the property. Two new wood arbors are proposed at the rear (east) elevation off of the one existing decks and the one proposed deck. The existing wood trellis in the rear is proposed to be replaced with a metal trellis. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The Design Review findings, specified in 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 will also soften and screen structures and maintain privacy. The proposed project includes a few small additions to the dwelling and a larger addition to the garage. The proposed additions to the house and garage are designed to be balanced and harmonious with the site and the surrounding areas. In staffs review, the requested modifications to the house and garage are aesthetically compatible with the site and with the surrounding properties. The proposed additions to the house and garage, as designed are balanced and harmonious with the site and are not monumental or excessively large and would blend into the existing architecture of the historic home. Additionally, as discussed above, the Historic Preservation Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the house and recommends a Planning Commission determination that the project will not cause a substantial adverse change to the historic significance of the property, and is therefore consistent with CEQA. (The garage is not considered historic). Staff can make all the Design Review findings as attached in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1). FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a floor area of 6, 705 SF. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-15 Zoning District for lots exceeding 14, 700 square feet in area, 4,850 SF. The lot is 18,419 SF, the existing home exceeds the maximum allowed floor area
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 at 5,816 SF (966 SF over). The applicant is requesting to further exceed the maximum allowed floor area with an additional 889 SF, for a total overage of 1,855 SF. For information purposes, Staff has provided the Commission with a chart that shows the floor area for other properties in the vicinity of the subject property (see Attachment 9, FAR Chart). The proposed FAR of 6, 705 SF is a little bigger than the average home size in the neighborhood based on the homes in the FAR chart but well within an appropriately sized home for the neighborhood. ETFA Findings: Pursuant to Section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the B.M.C., in order to grant an Exception to Total Floor Area, the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage; b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area; c. That the proposed structure(s) are appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel, the neighborhood, and the zoning district, and meet(s) all design review criteria; and d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. In staffs opinion the required findings for a Floor Area Exception can be made. Primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, would not be significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The project proposes small additions in different areas of the home to make the home more functional for the property owners. Additionally, the added floor area to the garage is located underneath the garage, which is not visible to the adjacent neighbors. The proposed FAR is appropriate because the locations of the additions are primarily under the house and in areas that are tucked out of view and will cause no privacy or view impacts. The garage addition is also in an area that is tucked under the garage. As proposed, the project is designed to maintain the footprint and basic size of the existing house and garage as much as possible, with small additions to make the existing dwelling and garage flow more cohesively. The additions/remodel will not be visually out of place within the context of the neighborhood or the site. Staff is able to make the finding that the project does not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties due to the thoughtful design of the additions in relation to the adjacent neighbors and the surrounding neighborhood, the site, and with the existing residence. Staff has provided the Commission with a draft Resolution of approval for the requested Exception to Floor Area (Attachment 2). VARIANCE - SIDE YARD SETBACKS The applicant requests Planning Commission consideration and approval of a Variance from Section 19.26.040 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to encroach into the side yard setbacks. The applicant is requesting two Variances for encroachment into the setbacks. The required side yard setback is seven feet, the existing side yard setback is 0 feet for the house and the proposed side yard setback is one foot. The garage addition requests a side yard setback of five feet; the garage has an existing side yard setback of five feet.
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 The existing house and garage encroach into the side yard setbacks and are considered non conforming structures. The 17 foot addition to house the mechanical equipment is proposed in alignment with the existing house and is proposed to have a 1 foot side yard setback. The garage addition proposes a five foot side yard setback. The mechanical equipment enclosure and the garage addition are considered additions proposed in the side yard setbacks which require the Variances. Staff finds that the granting of the Variances will not constitute a special privilege because the construction of an addition to house mechanical equipment and an addition to the garage will allow the owners enjoyment of their home, which is a privilege enjoyed by other homes in the vicinity. The special circumstance pertaining to this lot is; it is very steep and the house has been built in its location since 1896 and the garage since 1976. Due to the special circumstance of the steepness of the lot and the location of the existing historic dwelling and garage, the strict application of the setback code sections would deprive the owners of a convenient place to house their mechanical equipment and add on to the existing garage. The proposed changes to the garage will allow for better vehicle access to the property. The proposed location minimizes the impact to the lot, dwelling and neighbors as it will not be visible. Given the steepness of the lot and the existing conditions the strict application of the zoning ordinance would be an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. The granting of the Variance for side yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, and all construction will be governed by the unifonn Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts. Staff can make the required findings as included in the Draft Resolutions (Attachments 3 and 4) for the Variances. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations. On June 13, 2017 the proposed project was determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 Existing Facilities because the proposed project involves no expansion of an existing use and allows for minor alteration of existing private structures. Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA by the Common Sense Exemption, CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. City action is required by August 13, 2017 or the project may be deemed approved. Here, the property is presumed to constitute a Historical Resource under CEQA because it is listed in Belvedere's local historical register. (See, CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5(a)(2).) CEQA provides certain exceptions where categorical exemptions may not be used. 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 Historic Resource. Here, the project will not cause a substantial adverse effect on the property as a Historical Resource because all proposed improvements are consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. A substantial adverse effect on a Historical Resource is a project with an effect that will "cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource .... " (CEQA Guideline, § 15064.S(b).) Such changes include demolition or adversely materially altering those physical characteristics which convey the historical significance of the property. (Id) However, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 related Guidelines will not be considered to have a substantial adverse change on the significance of an Historic Resource. (Id) As noted above, a categorical exemption is appropriate because the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the historical significance of the property as the Secretary of Interior guidelines are being followed. First, the Belvedere Historic Preservation Committee determined that the project complies with the Secretary of Interior's Historic development standards. Additionally, the project is in compliance with the requirement of Title 21 of the Belvedere Municipal Code regarding historic preservation. Lastly, a Historic Report conducted (Attachment 6) by Brunzell Historic determined that the project complies with the Secretary of Interior's Historic development standards. Second, a CEQA categorical exemption may not be used if the project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a CEQA Tribal Cultural Resource. Here a categorical exemption is appropriate because there is no potential that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any potential Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site. The project site is designated as a Medium Sensitivity Site on the City of Belvedere's Prehistoric Resource Sensitivity Map. The proposed project will be constructed on previous disturbed soil. REVOCABLE LICENSE 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 Council to grant a Revocable License for private use of excess street right-of-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 determines 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 right of-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. f. Where fencing is proposed on City property, with the exception of where said fencing would be located on a very steep slope & would serve as a safety measure for vehicles & pedestrians said fencing shall normally be avoided as this effectively turns public property into private property & potentially creates the unwanted image of a "tunnel effect" along our city streets. Currently, there is no Revocable License that has been executed for this property. While the project does not propose any new improvements in the right-of-way here are existing improvements in the Beach Road right-of-way, including stone walls, landscaping, driveway,
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page8 mailbox, curbs and railing. Additionally, the existing improvements in City owned Cliff Lane are gates, steps, fencing, trees, walls and the roof overhang of the house. Since a revocable license for the existing improvements does not exist for improvements in the City right-of-way and within the City lane; one is required to document the existing improvements. Also, the existing improvements in the City owned tide lot behind the subject property include trees, stone walls, steps, landscaping, wood deck, stone patio, and gates. Staff has asked for clarity's sake that three separate revocable licenses be applied for the improvements in the City right of ways Beach Road and Cliff Lane, and the tidal lot. The improvements proposed in the right of way, Cliff Lane and the City owned Tide Lot seem reasonable to provide access to the home for pedestrians as well as for vehicles from the street. Additionally, these improvements have existed for many years and this project does not propose to add on to the improvements or modify what exists. 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 (valued at $2 million). When 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. 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. As of writing this report, staff has not received any written comments regarding this project. CONCLUSION Staff dete1mines that all of the findings can be made for the Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, and Variances and recommends approval of the Revocable Licenses. Accordingly, staff has prepared Resolutions recommending approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the required public hearing and take the following actions: MOTION 1 Adopt the Resolution granting Design Review for exterior modifications to the existing residence and garage for the property located at 296 Beach Road (Attachment l); MOTION2 Adopt the Resolution granting an Exception to Total Floor Area to allow 6,705 SF where 4,850 SF is permitted and 5,816 SF exists at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 2); MOTION3 Adopt a Resolution grating a Variance to allow the side yard setback at 1 foot where 7 feet is required and 0 feet exists for the dwelling at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 3);
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 MOTION 4 Adopt a Resolution grating a Variance to allow the side yard setback at 5 feet where 7 feet is required and 5 feet exists for the garage addition at 296 Beach Road (Attachment 4); MOTIONS Recommend to the City Council approval of a Revocable License for improvements located in the public street right-of-way at 296 Beach Road ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft Design Review Resolution Attachment 2: Draft Exception to Total Floor Area Resolution Attachment 3: Draft Variance Resolution- Dwelling Attachment 4: Draft Variance Resolution- Garage Attachment 5: Project Applications Attachment 6: Project Plans Attachment 7: May 9, 2017, Historic Preservation Committee staff report and associated attachments Attachment 8: Draft meeting minutes of the May 9, 2017 Historic Preservation Committee Attachment 9: FAR Chart Attachment 10: Correspondence
296 Beach Road Avenue - June 20, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE, AND AN INTERIOR REMODEL TO THE RESIDENCE AT 296 BEACH ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for Design Review pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code for an addition and interior remodel to the existing residence and garage 296 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the project been detem1ined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities; and WHEREAS, the property is presumed to constitute a CEQA Historical Resource because it is listed on the Belvedere local register of historic properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Belvedere's Historic Preservation Committee determined that the project will comply with the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Historic Properties based on a study completed by historic preservation consultant Brunzell Historic; and WHEREAS, CEQA categorical exemption Section 15301 is appropriate because there will be no adverse change in the significance of a Historical Resource as the project will comply with the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Historic Properties; and WHEREAS, CEQA categorical exemption Section 15301 is appropriate because there is no potential that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on any Tribal Cultural Resources that may, or may not, exist on the site because proposed project will be constructed on previous disturbed soil; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed hearing on June 20, 2017;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, that with the conditions listed below, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the Design Review criteria specified in Section 20.04.005 and 20.04.110 to 20.04.120 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant approval of the Design Review application pursuant to Title 20 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to renovate the existing residence, and an addition to the house and garage, 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, with counsel acceptable to the City in its discretion, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages and/or attorneys' fees and associated costs that may result. This approval is conditioned upon the accuracy of all facts stated in the application and supporting documents. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20. 2017 Page 1 b) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans and shall conform to the drawings prepared by Sutton Suzuki Architecture, stamped received by the City of Belvedere on June 12, 2017. c) Within five (5) days of approval a Notice of Exemption shall be filed with the County of Marin County Clerk by the City of Belvedere Planning Department. A $50.00 filing fee is required. A check shall be provided to the City of Belvedere Planning Department and made payable to the County of Marin d) 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. e) All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met. f) An Encroachment Permit is required from the contractor for temporary and permanent 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. g) An updated Revocable License will be required for private improvements within the public right-of-way, City-owned parcels and lanes. h) The project will require a video recording of the condition of the haul route pavement. The applicant will be responsible for any damage to the roadway or other improvements along the haul route caused by the removal or delivery of materials by truck. A deposit will be required should the roadway not be repaired to the satisfaction of the City. The deposit amount (estimated range from $10,000 to $30,000) will be determined at the time of the Building Permit review. i) A Geotechnical Investigation or geotechnical review letter is required. The geotechnical investigation/letter should address site preparation, foundation, grading and drainage recommendations. The Geotechnical Engineer of record shall review the proposed Grading & Drainage Plans for conformance with their recommendation prior to Building Permit issuance. j) Topographic Survey information shall be included either on the site plan or on a separate plan. The basis for determining elevations (assumed, NGVD, or NAVD) should also be clearly indicated. The surveyor's name and license number shall be included. k) The project requires a Site Plan showing the property line locations (referencing the survey source and mapping information), any existing easements, building setbacks, encroachments etc. 1) The project will require a detailed Grading Plan & Drainage Plan showing cut and fill earth volumes. Said plans shall incorporate, as appropriate, the MCSTOPPP Guidance for Applicants: Stormwater Quality Manual for Development Project in Marin County. This can be found at the following website: (http://www.marincounty.org/depts/pw/divisions/mcstoppp/development/~/media/ Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/GuidanceforApplicantsv 2508.pdt). Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20. 2017 Page2
m) Prior to issuance of a building permit and where required by City of Belvedere municipal code Section 8.36.090 D., permanent stormwater controls for new and redevelopment projects, the applicant shall develop, submit and implement an approved Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that follows the appropriate template in the most recent version of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post Construction Manual. n) 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. o) 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/ di visions/mcstoppp/development/ ~/media/ Files/Departments/PW/mcstoppp/development/MECM final 2009 .pdf) p) All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met including but not limited to the following: • The garage/studio and main house shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system confo1ming to NFP A Std. 13D, TFPD Policy 429.5. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. • Approved smoke and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 • The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD. CFC 304.1.2 q) Any new lighting requires Design Review approval. r) 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. s) Plans submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved Planning Commission plans. t) Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. This Design Review approval expires on June 20, 2018. u) Construction shall be completed within the Construction Time Limit established for this project. v) In the event unanticipated archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted and an evaluation must be Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20. 2017 Page 3
undertaken by a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to identify the appropriate actions that shall be undertaken. w) These Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the Building Permit Construction Plan set of drawings. x) These restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in interest of the property. y) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the property owner shall demonstrate compliance with State/BAAQMD air quality requirements related to the dust generated by grading and construction. z) 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on June 20, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:
APPROVED: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Exhibit A Page 1 Preservation of existing site conditions. To preserve the landscape in its natural state, the removal of trees, vegetation, rock, and soil should be kept to a minimum. Projects should be designed to minimize cut and fill areas, and grade changes should be minimized and kept in harmony with the general appearance of the neighboring landscape. Landscaping will be preserved in its natural state and removal of trees and vegetation will be minimum. All of the existing trees except for one 14 inch tree will remain. The majority of the landscaping will remain. There are rose bushes, agapanthus, camellias and azaleas that are proposed to be transplanted. The remainder of the extensive landscaping and hardscape will remain in place. As designed, the addition proposes minimal 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 balanced and harmonious relationship among the structures on the site, between the structures and the site itself, and between the structures and those on adjoining properties. All new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land-forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site. The project proposal maintains a balanced and harmonious relationship between the structure and its site and adjoining properties because the proposed additions to the house and garage have been designed to relate to and fit in with the existing house and topography of the site. The additions are designed to minimize the bulk and mass. The additions are designed to integrate with the existing house and garage as well as integrating into the existing neighborhood. The additions are designed to fit into the natural land forms and the existing landscaping will provide screening to help minimize the mass and bulk. 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. The additions are designed to avoid appearing monumental or excessively large in size. The additions are relatively small, and will blend into the existing dwelling and garage and the surrounding neighborhood. The house and garage addition has been designed so that they fit into the character of the neighborhood, and do not draw attention to themselves. Both the house and garage addition are Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Exhibit A Page 2
designed in such a manner as to blend in with the historic nature of the existing structures. The garage and house are located away from the street and will not increase the impression of bulk due to its location on the sloped lot. B. To avoid monotony or an impression of bulk, large expanses of any one material on a single plane should be avoided, and large single plane retaining walls should be avoided. Vertical and horizontal elements should be used to add architectural variety, to break up building planes, and to avoid monotony. The proposed additions are designed so that they do not include large expanses of any one material. The additions on the dwelling are proposed in stained wood shingles to match the existing dwelling. The garage addition is also proposed in stained wood shingles and painted wood trim to match the existing. The materials chosen maintain the historic look and nature of the home and garage. 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 not attract attention to the structures themselves. Soft and muted colors in the earthtone and woodtone ranges are preferred and generally should predominate. Trim and window colors should be compatible with and complementary to the other building colors. The proposed materials; wood shingles, stone veneer, wood trim, metal doors and windows, and stained wood lattice are appropriate for the residence in that they are quality materials that blend in well with the surrounding properties and match the existing dwelling. 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. There are no new fences proposed with this project. Privacy. Building placement, and window size and placement should be selected to give consideration to the privacy of adjacent buildings. Building placement, and window size and placement has been selected to consider the privacy of adjacent buildings. The windows will not be visible on the house additions as the house is sited very far down the lot on a steep slope. There are no new windows proposed on the south elevation of the garage and addition. The windows and doors on the garage addition have been places in a manner that there will be no privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbors as they will not be visible. Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Exhibit A Page 3 Drives. oarking and circulation. Walkways, driveways, curb cuts and off-street parking should be planned and designed so as to minimize interference with smooth traffic flow, to encourage separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic, and to be as safe and convenient as is practical. They should not be out of relationship with the design of the proposed buildings and structures on the site, and should not intrude on the privacy of, or conflict with the appearance or use of neighboring properties. The proposed change to the garage, raising it 4 feet as well as raising the driveway approach 4 feet, will improve access from Beach Road. Cun·ently there is a very steep driveway approach from Beach Road. The elevation change will aid in the traffic flow of the property. The design of the garage will not intrude on the privacy or conflict with the appearance or use of the neighboring properties. Exterior lighting, skylights, and reflectivity. Exterior lighting should not create glare, hazard, or annoyance to neighboring property owners or to passersby. Lighting should be shielded and directed downward, with location of lights coordinated with the approved landscape plan. Skylights should not have white or light opaque exterior lenses. There are no new lights proposed with this project. There are path lights and wall lights that will be replacing the existing path and wall lights. The lighting will not create glare, hazard or annoyance to the neighboring property. This is a very large, steep lot that has extensive landscaping which all aid in shielding lights. All new lights will be down lit and have covered bulbs. 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. Although the existing house and garage, do not conform to the setbacks, it is not feasible or reasonable to require that the structures be moved to conform to the setbacks. The house was built in 1896 and the garage in 197 6 and it is not reasonable to require the applicant to remove the nonconformities. The garage received a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback when it was built. The proposed addition to the house and garage are proposed in the side setbacks and a Variance application is part of the proposed project. Resolution 2017- 001 296 Beach Road A venue January 17, 2017 Exhibit A Page 4
Landscape plans -- Purpose. A. Landscape plans should be compatible with the character of the site and surrounding developed properties. Native or natural appearing vegetation, with generally rounded, natural forms, should be placed to appear as loose, informal clusters. B. Landscape plans shall include appropriate planting to soften or screen the appearance of structures as seen from off-site locations and shall include appropriate screening for architectural elements, such as building foundations, deck supports, and retaining walls, that cannot be mitigated through architectural design. C. Landscape plans should provide privacy between properties. Choice of landscape materials should take into consideration the future impact which new planting may have in significantly obstructing views from nearby dwellings. Landscape Plans - Materials. A. Plant materials native to northern California and Marin County, and those that are drought-tolerant are encouraged. Evergreen species are encouraged for use in screen planting situations. Because of high water usage, turf areas should be minimized and narrow turn areas, such as in parking strips, should be avoided. B. Landscape plans should include a mix of fast and slow growing plant materials. Fast growing trees that have a short life span should be used only when planted with others which reach maturity at a later age. C. Landscape plans should include water conserving irrigation systems. Plant materials should be selected so that once established, much of the major site landscaping would survive solely on rainfall. The majority of the existing landscaping will remain the same. There is one small trees proposed to be removed, to accommodate the garage. Plants that are proposed to be removed will be transplanted on the property. The remainder of the extensive landscaping on the lot will remain. CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 19.52.110 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 296 BEACH 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 6,705 square feet where 5,816 square feet currently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 296 Beach 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 June 20, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made each and every one of the following findings of fact, as required by section 19.52.120(A)(l) of the Belvedere Municipal Code: a. That primary views from adjacent properties, as well as from the street, are not significantly impaired by the additional square footage. Primary views from adjacent properties and the street will not be significantly impaired by the additional square footage. The additional square footage is proposed at the side, rear and front of the dwelling. The additions to the home are minimal and will not be visible to the adjacent neighbors. The additional square footage at the garage is going on the lower level of the garage and will not impact primary views from the street or the adjacent neighbors. b. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greater floor area. The unusual characteristic of this parcel that minimizes the impact of the greater floor area is that the existing house and garage are located on the lower portion of the lot and the lot is very steep. The additions on the house will not be visible to the adjacent property owners and the addition on the garage will be visible to one of the adjacent property owners but will have no impact to their view or enjoyment of the property. The additional square footage will be minimized given the siting of the garage and home, the steepness of the lot and the large size of lot.
ATTACHMENT 2 Resolution 2017 - 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Page 2
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. The proposed additions are appropriate in mass, bulk and character for the parcel and the neighborhood. The character of the additions is in keeping with the character of the historic nature of the property and meets the requirements of all the design review criteria. The raising the height of the garage and adding on underneath is appropriate in mass, bulk, and character for the parcel and the neighborhood. Raising the garage and adding underneath will not add to the mass and bulk from the public view as the garage is downslope from the street. The additions to the house are spread out through the house and are also appropriate for the parcel and the neighborhood. The overall design of the existing building is improved with the proposed project. d. That the additional square footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. The garage addition will occasionally be used as a guest room and has no windows towards the street or adjacent neighbor. The house additions will not be visible to the residents of adjoining properties and have no impact to privacy. The project was designed this way intentionally to avoid any privacy issues.
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 6, 705 square feet where 5,816 square feet cmTently exists and 4,850 square feet is permitted at 296 Beach Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on June 20, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: APPROVED: ------Marsh a Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 19.26.040 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 296 BEACH ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from 19.26.040 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow for an addition to the house to be constructed in the side yard setback at 296 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Variance on June 20, 2017; 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. Granting a side yard setback variance does not grant a special privilege to this particular lot because the project will allow the property owners to enjoy a house similar to those in the vicinity and zone. The lot is significantly steep for the zone and due to the size, 18,419 SF, steepness of the lot and the location of the existing house it is not feasible to require the homeowners to reconfigure the house so that the addition is out of the setbacks. Granting a Variance to allow the addition to be built in the setback is not considered a special privilege given the circumstances described above. 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. Due to the special circumstance of the steepness of the lot and the location of the existing house, the strict application of the setback code sections would deprive the owners of a feasible place to house mechanical equipment in the existing home. The house was built in 1896 and the garage in 1976. The garage received a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback when it was built. It is infeasible to require the property owner to move the mechanical equipment room so that it is out of the setback. Given the steepness of the lot and the location of the existing house the strict application of the zoning ordinance would be unnecessary hardship on the property owner. 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. The granting of the Variance for side yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, as all construction will be governed by the uniform Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts.
ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow a mechanical room to encroach into the side yard setbacks on the property at 296 Beach Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on June 20, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk CITY OF BELVEDERE RESOLUTION NO. 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELVEDERE GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 19.26.040 OF THE BELVEDERE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 296 BEACH ROAD
WHEREAS, a proper application has been submitted for a Variance from 19 .26.040 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow for an addition to the garage to be constructed in the side yard setback at 296 Beach Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested Variance on June 20, 2017 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. Granting a side yard setback variance does not grant a special privilege to this particular lot because the project will allow the property owners to enjoy a garage similar to those in the vicinity and zone. The lot is significantly steep for the zone and due to the size, 18,419 SF, steepness of the lot and the location of the existing garage it is not feasible to require the homeowners to reconfigure the garage so that the addition is out of the setbacks. Granting a Variance to allow the addition to be built in the setback is not considered a special privilege given the circumstances described above. 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. Due to the special circumstance of the steepness of the lot and the location of the existing garage, the strict application of the setback code sections would deprive the owners of a feasible place to add on to the existing garage. The house was built in 1896 and the garage in 1976. The garage received a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback when it was built. It is infeasible to require the property owner to move the addition so that it is out of the setback. Given the steepness of the lot and the location of the existing garage the strict application of the zoning ordinance would be unnecessary hardship on the property owner. 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. The granting of the Variance for side yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of owners of other premises, as all construction will be governed by the uniform Building Code requirements as well as regulations restricting the construction impacts. ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution 2017- 296 Beach Road June 20, 2017 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere does hereby grant a Variance from the requirements of Title 19 of the Belvedere Municipal Code to allow an addition to the garage in the side yard setbacks on the property at 296 Beach Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission on June 20, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED:
Marsha Lasky, Planning Commission Chair
Alison Foulis, City Clerk Project Address: 296 Beach Rd
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION 450SANRAFAELAVE • BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336 PH.415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG
APR 2 0 Z017 Date:. ______Rec'd. by:------Planning Comm. Approval D Design Review Exception D Amount:City of Belvedere Receipt No.:------Staff Approval D Zone: ______Parcel No.:------
Does this project have an active building permit? No Kl Yes D Permit No.: _____
Does this project have Planning Commission approval? No ~ Yes D Address of Property: __2_9_6_B_e_a_ch_R_d ______Record Owner of Property: _E_m_o_ry_W_il_lia_m_s_an_d_J_l_E_L_iu______Mailing 7760 SE Lakeshore Dr Daytime Phone: +8613901356005; +18473477910 Address: Hobe Sound, Florida 33455 Fax: ------Em a i I: [email protected] Owner's Representative: _s_u_tto_n_S_u_z_u_k_iA_r_c_hi_te_c_ts ______Mailing 39 Forrest St. Suite 101 Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: Mill Valley CA 94941 Fax: 415-383-3130 Email: [email protected] Project Description: _s_e_e_a_tta_c_h_e_d_s_he_e_t ______
Design Review Application• Page 1 of9 •City of Belvedere U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\A ATTACHMENT 5 296 Beach Rd
Project Description
Remodel and addition to existing home. Exterior materials and finishes will match existing: wood shingle sidewalls and wood shake roof to remain or match existing; painted trim to remain or match existing; most windows replaced with painted wood windows, some retained, and some openings modified. Exterior doors replaced with painted steel sash French doors. Most dormers to remain; new dormers proposed for west elevation. Wood arbors proposed for east elevation.
On main floor, addition of 125 sf is proposed to create new entry space. Adjacent to kitchen, 290 sf addition is proposed: half of which is existing crawl space. At lower level, 17 sf is proposed to be added to house mechanical equipment.
Existing 2-car garage is proposed to be raised 4' along with adjacent driveway to make garage more accessible. A 389 sf expansion of existing ground floor studio will create a guest unit.
A existing small auxiliary structure is proposed to be reshingled and reroofed with wood shingles and shakes to match existing, along with existing windows and doors to be replaced with painted wood units to match.
All significant landscape elements are to remain. In-ground pool is proposed along with on-grade stone terrace. Metal trellis is proposed to replace wood trellis at existing patio. Project Address: 296 Beach Rd. -~~~---~~---
ZONING PARAMETERS: Reguired Existing Pro Rosed
Lot Area ...... 15,000 18,419 18,419 Lot Coverage ...... 30% / 50% 19% / 25% 21% / 27% Total Floor Area ...... 4,850 5,816 6,705 Front Yard Setback .... o· 30' 34' Left Sideyard Setback .... 7' O' O' Right Sideyard Setback.... 7' 5' 5' Rear Yard Setback ..... 20' 10'house 10' house Building Height Maximum.garage 36' 28' 32' Building Height Average.garage 28' 21'-6" 24'-6" Parking Spaces ...... 2 2 2
SEE ATTACHED SITE DATA FOR COMPLETE ZONING INFORMATION.
(To Be Completed by Applicant) Date Filed:------ General Information I. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: _E_m_o_ry_W_i_lli_am_s_a_n_d_L_u_cy_Li_u_(_Jl_E_L_iu_)____ _ 2. Address of project: 296 Beach Rd 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: 415-383-3139 x 102 Elizabeth Suzuki; Sutton Suzuki Architects 39 Forrest St., Ste 101, Mill Valley CA 94941 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: _N_l_A______5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:------
6. Existing zoning district: ___R_-_15------7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): _s_in_g_le_t:_a_m_il_y_re_s_id_e_n_c_e ______
8. Year built:_1_8_9_1 ___ Original architect:------Project Description · 9. Site size. 18.419 sf 1o. Square footage. _T_o_ta_l_6_,7_0_5 ____ (;...H_o_u_s_e_5_.4_5_8_; g_a_r_a_ge_1 _,0_9_3_;a_u_x_il_ia_ry_s_t_ru_c_tu_re_1_54_) ____ _ 11. Number of floors of construction. __t_h_re_e ______two 12. Amount of off-street parking provided. ------13. Plans attached? ------'y'--e_s______
Design Review Application• Page 2 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev 1-11-11.doc SITE DATA R-15 Descri tion Code Existin Total Lot Area 15,000 sf 18,419 sf no chan e 18,419 sf 30 I 50% 19 I 25% 212% 21I27% structures onl 5,526 3,409 453 3,862 lus decks 9,210 4,563 453 5,016
Floor Area Total 4,850 5,816 889 6,705 •Main Residence 5,026 432 5,458 •Main Level 1,793 415 2,208 •Lower Level 976 17 993 •U er Level 2,257 no chan e 2,257 636 457 1,093 •Gara e 455 no chan e 455 •Guest Suite Below 181 457 638 Pattin Shed 154 no chan e 154 Floor Area Ratio 31.6% 4.8% 36.4%
Front Setback at 0'-0" 30'-0" 4"-0" 34'-0" Left Side Setback 7'-0" 43'-0" no chan e 43'-0" Ri ht Side Setback* 7'-0" 5'-0" no chan e 5'-0" Rear Setback 20'-0" 139'-0" 9'-0" 130'-0" Front Setback at house 0'-0" 126'-0" no chan e 126'-0" Left Side Setback 7'-0" 0 no chan e 0 Ri ht Side Setback* 7'-0" 15'-0" no chan e 15'-0" Rear Setback at house ** 20'-0" 10'-0" no chan e 10'-0"
36'-0" 28'-0" 4'-0" 32'-0" 28'-0" 21'-6" 3'-0" 24'-6" 28'-0" 24'-2" no chan e 24'-2" 36'-0" 35'-0" no chan e 35'-0" Parkin 2 2 no chan e 2 *Variance was granted in 1976 **Variance was ranted in 1981 for rear deck which extends Project Address:_2_96_Be_a_c_h_R_d______
14. Proposed scheduling. _s_um_m_e_r_2_0_1_1 ______15. Associated projects, such as required grading or staging. _N_l_A______
16. Anticipated incremental development. __N_IA ______17. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. Single family residential 18. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. __N_l_A ______19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Floor Area exception: house is already over and modest additions are proposed. Variance to left sideyard setback to build 17 sf for mechanical equipment Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 20. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of D m ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. D ~ 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. D ~ 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. D ~ 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing D IXl drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. D O(I 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. ~ D 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or D IX explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). D ~ 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). D ~ 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. D ~ 32. Changes to a structure or landscape with architectural or historical value. ~ D 33. Changes to a site with archeological or cultural value such as midden soil. D ~
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. See attached Historical Report.
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 (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Neighborhood is single family residences, of varying sizes. Typically many have variances for setbacks lot coverage or floor area exceptions.
Design Review Application• Page 3 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc Project Address:_29_6_B_e_a_c_h_R_d ______
For Design Review applications not requiring a building permit this form does not apply. Design Review approvals expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval.
This Section advises you of the Time Limit Guidelines that are applied to all Design Review applications that require a building permit as prescribed by Section 20.04.035 of the Belvedere Municipal Code. "As part of any application for Design Review, the applicant shall file a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed 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 $200,000 maximum penalty. Application for an extension of the prescribed time limit can be made providing certain conditions are met. The maximum extension is 6 months. The time for completion of the construction shall also be indicated on the building permit.
In the space provided below please indicate the estimated project valuation.
Estimated cost of construction:$ 2,000,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
D 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 ofthe,bui/ding 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 permit. m 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 Limif' (20.04.0350) process:
Design Review Application • Page 4 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fmms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev 1-I 1-I I.doc Project Address:_2_9_6_B_e_a_ch_R_d ______
1. Within twelve months following the original approval of Design Review for the construction, and provided that no construction activity has yet commenced on the project, the applicant may apply for an extension of the established construction time limit, not to exceed an additional six months.
2. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be accompanied by complete working drawings for the construction, a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension, and a fee, as established by City Council resolution.
3. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission whether to approve the requested extension.
4. The committee's recommendation shall be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda and noticed as an amendment to the applicant's existing Design Review approval. Any modification by the Planning Commission of the original construction time limit shall not extend the existing expiration date of the Design Review approval.
5. Administrative extension. Within 10 working days of receipt of a complete application for extension, said application shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the City's Building Official, the City Planner, and the City Engineer, meeting together with the project contractor, architect, and, at the applicant's option, the applicant and/or any other representatives of the applicant. The committee may recommend to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission may approve, an extension if it is determined that any one or more of the following factors presents an unusual obstacle to complying with the standard construction time limit: a.Site topography; b.Site access; c. Geologic issues; d. Neighborhood considerations; e.Other unusual factors. At the completion of such review, the committee shall make a written recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve the requested extension and setting forth the findings it has made justifying its decision. The Committee shall have the authority to administratively approve requests for extension, subject solely to the guidelines of Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, provided however that such extensions do not result in a construction time line exceeding 18 months.
This Section advises you of the costs that may be involved in processing Planning-related applications and/or appeals. You are hereby requested to acknowledge this information and agree to be responsible for all expenses incurred in the processing of your application(s)/appeal(s).
As the property owner/appellant, you agree to be responsible for the payment of all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the processing of the applications(s)/appeals(s) referenced below. Such costs may be incurred from the following source: Hourly billing costs as of July 1, 2008, {subject to change without notice): Planning Manager $ 67.07 Assistant Planner $ 39.29 City Attorney $ 185.00 Specialized Planning Consultant Actual costs + 25% overhead
Design Review Application• Page 5 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS- LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc Project Address: ______296 Beach Rd _
For all applications and appeals, an initial deposit is required at the time of submittal, with the amounts determined by City Council resolution. In addition to the initial deposit, the property owner/appellant may be required to make further deposits for anticipated work. Invoices are due and payable within 15 days. Application(s) /or appeal(s) will not be placed on an agenda until these deposits are received.
This Section applies to all projects that receive design review. It has been found that there are often misunderstandings regarding changes to building plans that receive Design Review. This occurs when construction plans are submitted to the Building Department for permit issuance after planning approval has been 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)
Design Review Application • Page 6 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-11.doc Project Address:_2_9_6_B_e_a_ch_R_d ______
Story Pole Requirement
Preliminary Story Poles sufficient to indicate the height and shape of the proposed structure or additions shall be placed on the site at least twenty (20) days prior to the first meeting date at which this application will be heard. Final Story Poles must be placed at the site at least ten (10) days prior to the first meeting date and removed no later than ten (10) days following the final city action on the project application. Story poles shall be connected at their tops with colored tape or ribbon to clearly indicate ridges, eaves, and other major elements of the structure.
Limit on the Number of Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review Approvals
Pursuant to Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20.04.020(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_96_B_e_ac_h_R_d______
Assessor's Parcel No(s). of subject property: _6_0_-2_2_5_-1_7______
};>- Properties Owned by a Trust, LLC, Corporation, Partnership, or Other Entity
Please provide proof of· ownership and of the signer's authority to enter into contracts regarding this property. One of (or a combination of) the following documents may contain the necessary information. For trusts: the trust document or a certificate of trust, including any attachments thereto; property deed; certificate of title insurance. For other entities: articles of incorporation; partnership agreement; property deed; certificate of title insurance; written certification of facts by an attorney. Photocopies are acceptable. To ensure privacy, documentation will be shredded in a timely manner, or, upon request, returned to the applicant. Design Review Application• Page 7 of9 •City of Belvedere
U :\planningmanager\Planning Fmms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW rev 1-11-11.doc Project Address:_29_6_B_e_a_c_h_R_d______
I, , state under penalty of perjury under the aws of the St of California that the above-described subject property is owned by a trust, LLC, rporation, partnersh1 or other entity and that my signature on this application has been a orized by all necessary a · n required by the LLC, corporation, partnership, or other entity.
I hereby make app tion for approval of the design review requested. I ha read this application and hereby certify that the atements furnished above and in the attached hibits present the data and information required for tli design review and initial environmental e luation to the best of my ability, and that the Jacts, stateme and infonnation presented are e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
In the case of an application for revocab icense, I ree that, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will pr ptly execute a nse drafted by the City, have it notarized, and recorded.
Signed this ____
0 Partners: 0 Limited or 0 General 0 Corporation 0 Otlier ______
Name of trust, LLC, corporation, or other entity:------
~ Properties Owned by Individuals
f'YloJ<.. tJi (..(..' ;"M"Vl.S , state under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that I am the record owner of the above-described subject property.
) . I hereby make application foiapproval 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 th13t, upon approval by the City Council of the revocable license requested, I will promptly execute a license drafted by the City, have it notarized, and return it to the City so that it may be recorded.
Signed this t__:--~ day of ¥~./ .1~ __, , 204. at Belvedere, California. Signature ·-z-=t tJ....,'.__ ___
Design Review Application• Page 8 of9 •City of Belvedere
U:lpla~gmanager\P!anning F~s\PLAA'NrNG FOR.'f\..!S - LAIBST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrev 1-11-11.doc Project Address:-2:..:.96.:....:.Be:.:a:.:c.:..:..h ..:...:R~d______
Y oesignatjon of Owner's Representatjye (Optional)
I, _Emory Williams , hereby authorize-Sutton Suzuki Architects 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.
Date: 2.4.17______Signature of Owner: .. - 2=:. L)...,."-._.---- Date:-2.6.17.______Signature of Representative: ------
Design Review Application • Page 9 of 9 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEWrevl-11-1 I.doc FEB 0 6 2017
City of Belvedere BRUNZELL HISTORICAL
January 26, 2017
Elizabeth Suzuki Suzuki Sutton Architects 39 Forrest Street, Suite 101 Mill Valley, California 94941
Subject: Review of Proposed Project at 296 Beach Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California.
Dear Elizabeth,
The letter report that follows is the Review of the Proposed Project at 296 Beach Road, Belvedere, Marin County, California, as required by the City of Belvedere Planning Department. Methodology Kara Brunzell conducted a site visit on 16 December 2016. The site visit included collecting photographs of all elevations of the house as well the parcel and setting. I conducted a record search of the subject property at the Northwest Information Center (N\VIC), located at California State University, Sonoma. I also completed additional research through the Anne T. Kent California Room at the Marin County library, the Belvedere Tiburon Landmarks Society, and online at ancestry.com and other websites. Summary of Findings No previous surveys of 296 Beach Road, California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 documentation forms, or other historical evaluations of the property were on file at the N\VIC. It is locally listed, however, as City of Belvedere Historic Property. It does not appear to have ever been fully documented according to California Office of Historic Preservation standards for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. However, the City provided a Belvedere Historic Designation Survey Form that was produced in 2014 when the property was added to the local historic register. The site visit demonstrated that the condition of the house is virtually identical to when it was documented for the local register nomination in 2014. Belvedere Historic Designation Survey Form Findings The Historic Designation Survey Form finds the property eligible for local designation under the following criteria: • Age: the house is considered one of Belvedere's oldest permanent residences. • Potential connection to important local architects and designers: 1 o Albert Farr may have designed the original cottage in 1891-92 (roughly /4 of the current footprint of the building). o Carr Jones is associated with a c193 7 remodel and expansion (although his specific contributions to the current structure have not been fully documented). o Charles DeTomasi designed and built the stone garden walls and other landscape featured between 1912 and the 1930s. • Design: o the unique pointed-arch form of the roof o original divided-light wood windows o brick sections of the exterior that may have been designed by Jones o interior features contributed by Jones o De Tomasi's garden design and stonework • History: its association with Belvedere's ferry landing and with the Allen family and Marion Huntington. • Environment: the house and landscape contribute to Belvedere's shoreline landscape. The form does not establish a Period of Significance, but does refer to 1891-1892, 1912 - 1932, and the 1930s as important dates in the property's history. It also states that alterations performed after 1960 are not considered architecturally significant. Therefore, 1891-1960 can be considered the property's Period of Significance pursuant to its local historic designation. The form does not find the property significant as a representative of any particular architectural style, although it briefly mentions that Carr Jones was known for designing whimsical Period Revival residences throughout the region in what is often referred to as the Storybook style. Research and Site Visit Original Construction Albert Farr had a long and distinguished career as a Bay Area architect, from the late 1890s through the 1940s. He was born in Nebraska in 1871, grew up in Japan, and moved to Oakland in 1890. After serving an apprenticeship, he formed a partnership with Oakland architect Herbert L. Smith in 1891. Smith and Farr designed a school in Oakland about 1892, Farr's earliest known professional commission. After working as an architectural draftsman and then a furniture designer, he began designing houses for wealthy clients in the late 1890s. He received one of California's first architectural licenses in 1901. His career took off after the turn of the century, and he began designing rustic shingled houses in the Arts and Crafts-associated First Bay Tradition as well as drawing inspiration from Tudor and other Period Revival styles. After 1904, he designed several buildings in Belvedere including Belvedere City Hall (originally a church), Belvedere Land Company, Farr Cottages, and the Belvedere Golf and Country Clubhouses. At least thirty of his houses were constructed in San Francisco, and he designed the Jack London's never-completed Wolf Hall in Glen Ellen. In the 1920s, he began working mostly in Piedmont, and continued designing residences and commercial buildings into his 70s. 1 The association of 296 Beach Road witl1 Albert Farr appears to have originated in the documentation of the property the Junior League prepared in 1964. Although the form is minimalistic, it cites Mrs. Harry Allen (Winifred Bridge Allen, who was born and raised in the house and who was still alive when the form was produced) as a source. It states that tl1e house was constructed by builder Neil McLean in 1891 using planks and beams from a man o' war, and that Albert Farr designed the expansion of the residence rather than the original cottage. The form does not state when the expansion took place. Farr's biography places him in the Bay Area in 1891, but he was only 20 years old and at the very beginning of his architectural career. His first known commission was not until 1892, and he did not earn his license or begin designing large numbers of buildings for nearly a decade after the cottage was completed. The idea that a wealthy and prominent San Francisco family would give a very young architect-in-training his first commission should be greeted witl1 skepticism.2 Neil McLean (c1860-1917) was a native of Prince Edward Island, Canada who became an important building contractor in Northern California. He got his start in Belvedere in the 1890s, where he built a number of houses on Bayview Avenue and nearby in partnership with his brother, Dan McLean. The McLean brothers also lived in Belvedere with their families. McLean has been listed as the builder for the Farr Cottages, so he must have
1 Dave Weinstein and Linda Svenden, Signature Architects of the San Francisco BqyArea, Layton, Utah, Gibbs, Smith: 2006, 43 - 51. 2 Susan Dinklespiel Cerny, An Architectural GHidebook to San Francisco and the BqyArea, Layton, Utah, Gibbs, Smith: 2007, 468 -469. 2 known and worked with Albert Farr. The modest size and simple design of the original cottage at Landfall suggests that McLean may have designed it without an architect.3 The original house was an early example of a residence designed in the then-emerging First Bay Tradition. Inspired by the English Arts and Crafts movement, the First Bay Tradition utilized elements of Shingle Style architecture such as unbroken natural wood shingle cladding on the walls and roof. Other elements of the style were locally developed, including use of historicist motifs with modern building techniques and integration of building and site. The unpainted-shingle summer cottage with a steeply-pitched pointed arch roof expressed these principles. Its natural shingles expressed rusticity and blended the cottage into its steep and woody site. The tall roof, featuring a unique shape and small organic-looking shed dormers with multiple-light windows, referenced medieval vernacular architecture and made the modest-sized cottage appear even smaller on its expansive site. The large bay window on the north elevation would have brought broad views and natural light into the cottage, and along with the entry porch blended outdoors with the interior.+ Renovations and Current Conditions Research has recently uncovered several photographs of the house from 1923, which reveal that tl1e rear porch enclosure and gable dormers with small square lights date from the Albert Farr expansion of the house. Farr also appears to have added diamond-shaped window panes, although they were wood rather than wire muntins, so must have been subsequently replaced. Since Farr's career was so long, it is impossible to pinpoint a date for his remodel, but it would have been between about tl1e turn of tl1e century and 1923. Beginning about 1932, further additions and renovations continued to alter the original cottage until it reached its current form, which has little original historic fabric and has changed radically in form. In 2016, only the central 1 north wing (roughly /4 of the current building footprint) is original. Its transformation from din1inutive cottage to rambling mansion is a significant alteration of original plan, form, and massing. All original doors have been replaced, all elevations modified, all or almost all original windows replaced (one shed dormer on the east elevation has been preserved but it appears to be slightly altered), and the fenestration pattern has been altered by modification of window openings. The only features that remain from tl1e original cottage are its pointed-arch roof form and natural shingle cladding, both character-defining features replicated in tl1e later additions. The nomination forms statement that "most of the original home was retained" leaves out the fact that the south elevation was demolished in an addition, and both east and west elevations are obscured by projecting additions and large gabled dormers. The north elevation (which is the most intact) has had all its windows replaced, small upper window openings greatly enlarges, and a projecting oriel window added. Storybook features added by Carr Jones in tl1e 1930s are both witllin the historic period and mostly compatible witl1 the original rustic character of tl1e cottage, and can therefore be considered significant in their own right. The most important of these is the choice to mimic tlle original pointed-arch roof form in the additions, but also include the use of unpainted wood shingles for most roofs and walls, installation of wired-glass windows with diamond-shaped panes, the use of recycled brick, and the hand-hewn timbers at the north end of the west elevation. Other current elements of the house are either recent modifications or historic-period responses to practical considerations that do not harmonize well with the original aesthetic. Incompatible elements include: • The use of extremely large window openings on the west elevation's projecting addition • Replacement of east elevation doors and windows with modern windows and fully-glazed doors • The piecemeal replacement of original windows and alteration of window openings • Use of large-paned industrial sash alongside original wood windows with very small square panes
3 Susan Dinklespiel Cerny, A11 Architectural G11idebook to Sa11 Francisco and the Bqy Area, Layton, Utah, Gibbs, Smith: 2007, 470; U.S. Census Records, Belvedere, 1900. 4 Mark Anthony Wilson, Julia Morgan, Architect of Beauty, Gibbs Smith, Layton, Utah: 2007, 9 -10. 3 The nomination form correctly identifies steel industrial sash fenestration as a characteristic of Carr Jones' residential designs. In this building however, the steel frames are used alongside a large number of other window types and materials (perhaps partially because of subsequent alterations) resulting in an incoherent and incompatible jumble of fenestration throughout the house. The recent site visit and research revealed that none of the current windows appear to have been retained from the original cottage; materials and design of existing windows are consistent with installation dates between the 1930s and 2016. The upper story has dormers of at least 8 distinct shapes and sizes. In addition, these dormers are fitted with a variety of \vindow types: multiple light large pane steel sash, multiple-light wood sash witl1 small square panes, and wood sash \vith wired panes. Some have single windows, others are paired. Openings (as well as window lights and the dormers themselves) are a variety of sizes. There is an oriel window as well as two large picture windows fitted with industrial sash. The downstairs windows are completely different from the upstairs, but exhibit similar variety: wired diamond shaped panes from the 1930s, modern wood-frame single-light sidelights, wood sash with multiple rectangular lights, modern 3-over-1 replicas of craftsman-style \vindows, and even a tall horizontal slider.
Figure 1: Original cottage c1896 showing nortl1 and west elevations \vith bay window (A) and shed dormer (B).
4 ',,
Figure 2: West elevation December 2016, original shed dormer right of frame with projecting addition left.
il'W-:::71f -..~ -, '>v _,.,,,r /(
Figure 3: North elevation December 2016 showing lower bay window in original location with 1930s wired glass windows and industrial steel sash in altered openings at upper story.
5 Figure 4: East elevation showing pre-1960 addition upper right of frame with shed dormers and chimney. Lower floor alterations since 1961.
Figure 5: Photograph from Stillman family archive, showing east (?) elevation, 1923.
6 Figure 6: Photograph from Stillman family archive showing west elevation dormers, 1923.
Figure 7: Photograph from Stillman family archive showing diamond-shaped window panes at lower left, 1923.
7 Figure 8: Stanley Stillman Jr. with gable dormer, 1923. Figure 9: Elisa Stillman with enclosed porch, 1923.
8 Figure 10: Marin Independent Journal photograph, 1961, showing east elevation. Ground floor elements including divided-light wood \vindows and pergola have since been removed (see Figure 4).
Figure 11: Photograph showing west elevation, Historic Building Data Sheet, the Junior League, 1964. 9 Recommendations Since the property is locally listed as a historic resource, any projects should be undertaken in a manner that does not degrade or destroy historic integrity. The house has been heavily altered over the decades, so it is especially important to retain its remaining character-defining features. The most important of these features are the pointed arch roof form, natural wood shingles, and the single extant original shed dormer on the west elevation. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provides guidelines for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. Adherence to these standards is accepted as a method of avoiding significant adverse effects to historic buildings while allowing their continued use. The main purposes of the current project are to: • Rework and add a porch at the entryway in order to create a visible front entrance (a feature of the original cottage that was lost when the west elevation entry porch was engulfed in a projecting addition at an unknown date). • Create additional living space with enclosure of crawlspace and small addition at the main level. • Bring additional light into the house with skylights concealed in decorative "chimneys." • Rework the interior floor plan for better flow and more efficient use of space. • Replace windows throughout the house (excluding historic windows) to create fenestration pattern that is both compatible with the historic features of the house and harmonious. • Replace industrial sash and modern single-light doors at the rear of the house with French doors that are more compatible with the historic character of the house. • Retain and repair historic windows including upper level wired and wood sash dormer windows, and wired-glass windows with diamond-shaped panes at rear of house. • Restore the pergola feature (part of the early-twentieth century landscape design that was removed in recent decades) to the rear of the house • Add an enclosure at ground level for mechanical equipment. • Raise the (non-historic) garage to improve accessibility. This project will allow for the property's continued use as a residence over the coming decades by adapting it to the needs of modem living. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation state (in part): "A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defming characteristics of the building and its site and environment." The ground floor addition, reronjiguration ofinterior space, and other elements ofthe proposed project would allow the properry to adapt to rontemporary modes ofliving and therefare to continue in its original 11se as a singlefami!J residence. "The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." and "Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved." The most important character-dejiningfeatures ofthe house (shingle siding and roof, pointed-arch rooffam1, shed do1mer, square-paned wood sash and diamond-paned windows, brick cladding) will be preserved fry the proposed project. "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." This project will not destroy historic materials. Alterations such as creation of an entry porch, addition of ''chinmrys" to hide skylights, and window replacements will be sensitive!J designed in order to be compatible with important existing features. Natural wood shingles will be 11sed on the new entry porch far compatibility, which will be small in scale and
10 clear!J subordinate to the existing wings ofthe house. The windows slated far replacement do not enhance the historic character ofthe house, and the historic windows on the upper floor and lower side and rear elevations will be retained The groundfloor addition will utilize crawlspace area and therefore add onb' minimal!J to the c111re11t footprint of the building. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The mmnt entry doors are not historic, so their removal will not impact the historic integri(y ofthe properry. The new entry porch could be removed in the future, and the essential farm and integri(y ofthe properry would be unimpaired. The new enclosure for mechanical equipment will also be designed so that it can be removed in the future. Preparer's Qualifications I meet the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications for both History and Architectural History. I hold a Master's degree in Public History and have worked in multiple facets of historic preservation and cultural resource evaluation since 2007. My experience includes municipal preservation planning and working as the lead staff member of a non-profit preservation organization. Since 2012, I have worked full-time as a historical consultant, completing dozens of evaluations for CEQA and Section 106 compliance. Additionally, I have completed local and national register nominations, historic context statements, and HAER recordation. The North Bay is the center of my practice, but I frequently work in the greater Sacramento area and other parts of the Bay Area, and have also completed projects in Southern California, Oregon, and New York. In addition to my work with historic-period domestic, agricultural, and commercial properties for private clients, I have evaluated post offices, military bases, university campuses, hospitals, church properties, and a NASA site. I am listed as a Historian and Architectural Historian on the California Office of Historic Preservation's roster of qualified consultants for every county in California. Please contact me by phone at 707 /290-2918 or e-mail at [email protected] witl1 any questions or comments. Sincerely,
Kara Brunzell, M.A. Brunzell Historical
11 Project Address: 296 Beach Rd ~------~--~
RECEIVED APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION APR 2 0 2017 TO TOTAL FLOORAREA CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION . er 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE. BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 City of BeivepH. :15-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • www.c1TYOFBELVEDERE.ORG
Date:APR 2 0 ZOH Rec'd. by: ___ Amount: ----- Receipt No.: ______
AssaffyOb~ S~ffoJJ~------Zone: ------
Address of Property: 296BeachR=d------~ Single Family Residential Type of Property:
Record Owner of Property: Emory Williams and JIE Liu Mailing 7760 SE Lakeshore Dr Daytime Phone:+8613901356005; +18473477910 _ Address: Hobe Sound FL 33455 Fax: ------Em a ii: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Sutton Suzuki Architects Mailing 39 ForrestSt.,Suite 101 ------Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: _Mill Valley CA 94941..______Fax: 415-383-3130 Email: [email protected]
5,8 6 sq t ORDINANCE REQUIRES: 4,850 sq. ft. YOUR APPLICATION HAS: 6,705_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, because: The garage is barely visible from the street due to the steep slope of the property, and the dense foliage in the immediate area. The area added to the house 1s primarily under the house, or m an area that 1s tucked out of view.
Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 1 of 3 • City of Belvedere
U:lplanningmanager\Planning Forms IP LANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITIONIAPPLICA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9123/2008 LC Project Address:~96 !2,eaclJ,_Rd::______
2. That there are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel which minimize the impact of a greaterfloorarea,because: ______The property slopes steeply from the street, minimizing the visibility of the garage. The additions at the house will not be visible from any other properties due to the topography as well.
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: ____ The area of the property where the garage is located has several significant trees among which the garage sits; they help screen and break up the mass. The character of the additions are in keeping with the character of tf"le historic nature of the property.
4. That the additional square-footage will not substantially reduce the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties, because:------ The addition at the garage will be used occasionally as a guest room and has no windows toward the street or the closest neighbor. The additions to the home are either under the house or otherwise not visible from acijaoent properties.
In addition, Section 19.52.120(2) includes guidelines that the Planning Commission must follow. I 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: Each of the individual additions is modest in nature.
Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 2 of 3 • City of Belvedere
U:\planningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\APPLICA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9123/2008 LC 296 Beach Rd Project Address: ·------(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: ------ There have been no projects within the past 2 years.
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
Signature: ~::I"-::::i12~: _____ '__ _
Name: Emory Williams
Date: 2.6.17
Exception to Total Floor Area Application • Page 3 of 3 • City of Belvedere
U:lplanningmanager\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITIONIAPPLICA TION FOR EXCEPTION TO TOTAL FLOOR AREA.doc Rev. 9/23/2008 LC Project Address: __29_6_B_e_a_ch_R_d ______
~PPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 'R_e,CE\VE CITY OF BELVEDERE • PIANNING COM?l-flSSION 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE • BELvEDERE, CA 94920-2336 ,\lJN. (\I 7i3i\1415-435-3838. FAX415-435-0430'. WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG
/
Rec'd. by: ! 296 Seach Rd Address of Property: Single Family Residential Type of Property: Record Owner of Property: f. m c ':) W11.-iL ""1..r /.hJD J1 (? u "L Mailing "°f1 ho s.rl .. L-IHC.. fsfl•1uZ Dre:... Daytime Phone: -r--gf;, 13<]0 r5J l.c·OoS -rf flf7 :J'f7'1'1u:::. Address: J.1°13($. S.:...,.AJD, Ft-. 33'jn,... Fax: __l' Description of project and variance requested: Remodel and addition for existing home; existing garage with studio under to be raised and moved 4' to improve driveway; studio below to be expanded into guest suite. Proposed studio below matches existing 5' setback of garage above (variance granted in 1970's ). ORDINANCE§ REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED 19.48.120 Side yards-R-15 zone. 7'-0" *5'-0" 5'-0" *Variance granted in 1976 ' y ariance Application • Page I of 2 • City of Belvedere Project Address:. __2_96_Be_a_c_h_R_d ______ 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: evenl:>n the larger properties it is not uncommon for the homes to have been built close to the property lines as there were no setbacks in those days, or the properties were subdivided and the property line fell where it did. 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 depriye 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·toss; as fo11ows: · ··· · · ·· The access to this property is much more steep than most driveways in Belvedere and --this proposal includes raising the driveway and the garage to make it all more useable --which will benefit the neighborhood. When the existing garage is raised most of the space below it will be counted as square footage. 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: The area under the garage is not visible from the street or the immediately adjacent property and ! --is far from the properties to the north. I, the und~rsigned 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_ !;>est of my knowledge and belief Signature: !--=") LJ, ..~ · ' __, . 1 Name: . &o-.z.:i iJ f'-4..fh'>"I. .s Date: Ov(oy / vo.7 · Variance Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere ~ ;e..,.,~.- ;;m~.;-,;.;:·.n1,._·u'l1'1~ ::,):~~·t>...;..N::1!·:::: >'="·::>?:r.~s. ~·1-~1....,1:c~ al'l-C !".~ •...... • ._,.r2s: ::c.1;1.y.;..,:..";:-;_l{".r...r.,:;t,. cort !<•:!.!!2!;C(; ._:, Project Address:__ 2_9_6_B_e_ac_h_R_d ______ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF BELVEDERE • PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH. 415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG F"·:fJ 0 6 2017 FOR STAFF USE ONLY ~1l 4 0 Date: ·Y{L.~tl Rec'd. by: ,~) Amount: ____r_ Receipt No.: _~Q,_)~1__1__ Assessors Parcel No: __o_L._o----'-~ ...... 2..... 11, .... \....--_--_("-(-'----- Zone: ______.~~~~(~~--- - To BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 296 Beach Rd Address of Property: Single Family Residential Type of Property: Record Owner of Property: f m c ~'f t.J 1 Lit ..tv"t ..r /.hlD J, (;- U v_ - ----'--./-+------~ Mailing .-r1tio s.e. LA-1c..f.slli.1~ DJ<. Daytime Phone: -t-'ifb 13"'101~S1tio0s -tf f't7'3'fT1'1tc Address: J.lo6t$. S..:.u..tJJ>, ;:.1-.. 33Lfn,.,.. Fax: f'/tJf\lr;:_ Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Sutton Suzuki Architects Mailing 39 Forrest St., Suite 101 Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: Mill Valley CA 94941 Fax: 415-383-3130 Email: _e_s_u_zu_k_i®_su_tt_o_n_-s_u_z_uk_i._c_om______ Description of project and variance(s} requested: Remodel and addition for existing home. Proposed new 17 sf enclosure for mechanical equipment at ground level; most of the enclosure would be in the setback. Existing house extends to the property line at several points in this area. ORDINANCE§ REQUIREMENT EXISTING PROPOSED 19.48.120 Side yards-R-15 zone. 7'-0" O' 1'-0" Variance Application • Page 1 of2 • City of Belvedere Project Address:__ 2_9_6_B_e_ac_h_R_d ______ 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: even on the larger properties it is not uncommon for the homes to have been built close to the property lines as there were no setbacks in those days, or the properties were subdivided and the property line fell where it did. 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: The shape of the property and where the house is located on the property necessitate locating the utilities in this area. 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: the addition of this space is to enclose the utility meters as well as domestic water heaters. This addition will not be v1s1ble to neighbors as 1t 1s tucked in a corner of the house, low on the property and behind the fence. No one will ever know it's there, 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 signature: ·r---:i U .. ' Name: &i;,1:tJ tJ 11.t.t./N"\ ...r Date: Dv/ 1JY / 'UJ:) I Variance Application • Page 2 of2 • City of Belvedere ProjectAddress:._~__ t£__ 0_e_a_t-_h_fl_d_. RECE~PPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE · CITY OF BELVEDERE APR '2 0 2017 450 SAN RAFAEL AVE. BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336 ~ PH.415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG . City of Belvedere Date: ------Rec'd. by: ___ Amount: _____ Receipt No.: ______Zone: ______Parcel No.:------City property to be encroached upon: ------·\11 Address of Property: __29_ 6_ 8 _ea_c_h_R_d______ Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): Shoreline parcel #060-225-17 Record Owner of Property: Emory Williams and JIE Liu Mailing 7760 S.E. Lakeshore Dr Daytime Phone: +8613901356005; +18473477910 Address: Hobe Sound, FL 33455 Fax: ______Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Sutton Suzuki Architects Mailing 39 Forrest St, Suite 101 Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: Mill Valley CA 94941 Fax: ------Email: [email protected] Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property):------ Existing landscape and trees; existing wood deck, existing stone patio and walls; existing steps and gate. New Metal trellis. II Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 Revocable License Application• Page 1 of7 •City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning FomJs\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx ...... -r-_.,_---EXISTING FRUIT TREES \ \ EXISTING STONE WALLS /./\ -~ \ /" / \ ~' ,_,/_/.~-~ .\.~--,/' , ' \ ,,...,,.., ...... / / •• //~u \ /' ·- ---===- -- ~--- ;- - ~ EXISTING STONE PATIO AND WALLS NEW METAL TRELLIS Revocable License Exhibit A License Area Shown Shaded 296 Beach Rd. Scale t "=30' -0" Belvedere, CA A.P.No. 060.225.17 Project Address: 296 Beach Rd APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE CITY OF BELVEDERE 450 SAN RAFAEL A VE • BELVEDERE, CA 94920-2336 PH.415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG Date:----- Rec'd. by: ___ Amount: ----- Receipt No.: ------Zone: ______Parcel No.:------ City property to be encroached upon:------ Addressof Property: __29_6_B_e_ac_h_R_d ______~ Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): Cliff Lane Record Owner of Property: Emory Williams and JIE Liu Mailing 7760 S.E. Lakeshore Dr Daytime Phone: +8613901356005; +18473477910 Address: Hobe Sound, FL 33455 Fax: ______~ Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Sutton Suzuki Architects Mailing 39 Forrest St, Suite 101 Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: Mill Valley CA 94941 Fax: ------~ Email: [email protected] Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property):------ Existing trees, fence, stone walls, steps, gates. Existing roof overhang extends at about 15' above grade. No new work is proposed. • 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 U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS -LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx Project Address: 296 Beach Rd 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 ASSOCIATED 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. Signature:. ..·~ -L-::::, _____ U'· .....I . Name: Emory Williams Date: 4.18.17 Revocable License Application• Page 2 of7 •City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA TEST EDITION\ WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx ( \ \ //_\ I ~' \.~ .... -~-·-~ I ' EXISTING GATE EXISTING-----"-- ROOF OVERHANG EXISTING-->;---, EXISTING--~ WALLS GATE ©]~ Revocable License Exhibit A License Area Shown Shaded 296 Beach Rd. Scale 1 "=Z0'-0" Belvedere, CA A.P.No. 060.225. 17 Project Address: 296 Beach Rd REC~LICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE - CITY OF BELVEDERE APR 2 0 2017 450SANRAFAELAVE. BELVEDERE,CA94920-2336 PH.415-435-3838 • FAX415-435-0430 • WWW.CITYOFBELVEDERE.ORG City of Belvedere Date: ------Rec'd. by: ___ Amount: _____ Receipt No.: ______Parcel No.:------Zone: ------City property to be encroached upon:------ Addressof Property:_2_9_6_B_ea_c_h_R_d ______~ Type of City Property to Be Encroached Upon (e.g., street right-of-way, view easement, tide lot): Street right-of-way Record Owner of Property: Emory Williams and JIE Liu Mailing 7760 S.E. Lakeshore Dr Daytime Phone: +8613901356005; +18473477910 Address: Hobe Sound·, FL 33455 Fax=------~ Email: [email protected] Owner's Representative: Sutton Suzuki Architects Mailing 39 Forrest St, Suite 101 Daytime Phone: 415-383-3139 x 102 Address: Mill Valley CA 94941 Fax: ------~ Email: [email protected] Description of Encroachment Requested and Its Purpose (include list of private improvements, both existing and proposed, that will encroach onto public property):------ Existing stone curb and wall, shrubbery and trees. New concrete pavement with curb and metal railing. New mailbox. New Dry Standpipe Outlet per TFPD. II Applicants, please attach a scale diagram showing your property line and the encroachments. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 3 Revocable License Application• Page 1 of7 •City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Fonns\PLANNING FORMS - LATEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx Project Address: 296 Beach Rd 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 ASSOCIATED 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. Signature: .~:I-::i_tJ.,..'._.---- Name: Emorv Williams Date: 4.18.17 Revocable License Application• Page 2 of7 •City of Belvedere U:\Planning\Planning Forms\PLANNING FORMS - LA JEST EDITION\WordVersions\APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE LICENSE REV 9-15-14.docx ~ NEW CONC'-. --~ CURB AND METAL RAILING MAILBOX------... DRY STANDPIPE OUTLET NEW CONC.--+--- DRIVEWAY EDGE OF ~ '< "' PAVEMENT AP# 060.225.17 EXISTING ---->.4..4---J STONE WALL EXISTING SHRUBBERY fl"t2:= ~ -- ~ --- ~~.. ------I ---...... ___.._ ---...... / "'"v _... -..______/ I I / --,'---, ...... ~ '-, }/ Revocable License Exhibit A License Area Shown Shaded 296 Beach Rd. Scale t "=20' -0" Belvedere, CA A.P.No. 060.225. 17 CITY OF BELVEDERE Memorandum TO: Chair Owen and Members of the Historic Preservation Committee FROM: Rebecca Markwick, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building DATE: May 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Application for Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variance and Revocable License applications at 296 Beach, "Landfall" Background 296 Beach is located on the east side of Belvedere Island on almost a half acre sized lot overlooking a City-owned waterfront parcel. The site is characterized by an extensive garden with mature vegetation and a series of stone retaining walls, steps, benches, and terraces. A pier, leased by the prope1iy owners at 296 Beach is located on the City water lot below the house. The pier which was once the stop for the ferry, "The Marin," operated on a private run between Sausalito and the Tiburon Peninsula for more than 30 years. A City owned land known as Cliff Lane is located on the north side of the property, the lane provided access to the ferry pier below. The house is considered one of Belvedere's oldest permanent residences, known as the "Landfall" and Albert Farr may have designed the original cottage (about Y4 of the cmTent existing footprint of the building). The original house was constructed in 1891 and the garage was built later in 1976. The house was designated a City of Belvedere Historic Property in 2011. The garage is not designated a Historic structure. According to the Brunzell Historic Rep01i (Attachment 5) dated January 26, 2017 the house has been altered many times since 1932. The central north wing (roughly Y4 of the current building) is original. The house has been transformed from its original cottage to a large home. All of the original doors have been replaced, all elevations modified, almost all of the original windows have been replaced. The only features that remain from the original cottage are the pointed arch roof form, shingle cladding, and the original shed dormer over the west elevation. History 1958- Revocable License executed for Cliff Lane use. There are no records of the improvements approved with this Revocable License. 1959- Revocable License executed to repair the existing wharf on City property and repair stairs from the prope1ty to the wharf. ATTACHMENT7 1976- Planning Commission approval of Design Review and a Variance for a two car garage to encroach into the side yard setback. Revocable License approved for driveway and garage. 1981- Planning Commission approval of Design Review and Variance applications to build a redwood deck and spa in the rear yard setback. 1981- City Council approval of a Revocable License for a deck and improvements on City Property. 1997- Planning Commission Design Review approval of a dock extension. 2001- Staff approval to replace patio doors with new patio windows. 2002- Staff approval to move the existing floating dock from the side of the pier to the end of the existing pier. 2004- Staff approval to replace the existing windows and doors in the kitchen with new windows and doors in relatively the same location. 2010- Historic Preservation Committee nominated the home and property at 296 Beach Road to be a City of Belvedere Historically Designated Property. 2011-Planning Commission approved a motion recommending that the City Council designate 296 Beach as a City of Belvedere Historic Property. 2011- City Council approval of296 Beach Road as a City of Belvedere Historic Property. 2011- Historic Preservation Committee recommended the City Council enter into a Mills Act Agreement with 296 Beach Road. 2011- City Council approved Mills Act Agreement. 2016- Letter of Non-Renewal of Mills Act Agreement sent to the property owners of296 Beach Road. 2017- The City Council took no action, keeping the notice of nonrenewal of Mills Act Agreement for 296 Beach Road in effect. Project Description The project proposes Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area and a Variance to allow for a few small additions spread out through the residence and the garage (Attachment 1). The existing residence and garage are 5,816 SF and the project proposes a 6,705 SF residence and garage. A 125 square foot addition on the main floor to create a new entry way is also proposed. Adjacent to the existing kitchen a 290 square feet addition is proposed, half of which is in the existing crawl space. At the lower level 17 square feet is proposed to house the mechanical equipment. The existing two car (non historic) garage is proposed to be raised 4 feet as well as the driveway to make the garage more accessible. A 389 square foot expansion of the existing ground floor studio underneath the garage will create a guest unit. The existing potting shed is proposed to be reshingled and reroofed with wood shingles and shakes to match the existing. New windows and doors are proposed to be replaced with painted wood windows to match the house. All the landscaping will remain the same except that a pool is proposed in the lower right hand corner of the prope1iy. The existing metal trellis is proposed to be replaced with a wood trellis. All of the exterior colors and materials will match the existing. Wood shingle walls and wood shake roof where proposed will match the existing, all new trim will match existing, the majority of the windows will be replaced with painted wood windows. New dormers are proposed on the west elevation to match the existing. Historic Architectural Review In reviewing a proposed modification to a City-designated landmark, the Historic Preservation Committee is charged with providing the Planning Commission with objective criteria and specific information for use in making decisions, and to help prevent the inappropriate alteration of structures having special historic, architectural and aesthetic value. The Historic Preservation Committee shall use the following guidelines in evaluating an application: 1. The distinguished original qualities or character of a structure and its environment should not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 2. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a structure shall be treated with sensitivity. 3. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing structures shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical and/or architectural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property. 4. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be made in such a manner that, if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential fonn and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. City staff has determined that project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Prope1iies and is exempt from CEQA. The ground floor addition, the reconfiguring of interior space and the other elements of the proposed project allows the prope1iy owners to continue to use the home as its original use, a single family dwelling. Additionally, the proposed project will not destroy any historic materials; it will maintain the most character defining features of the house, shingle siding, painted arched roof-form, shed dormer, square pained wood sash and diamond paned windows and brick cladding. The application included a Historical Evaluation, prepared by Brunzell Historical. The report concludes that the changes are consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation. The new work is compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property. The Standards for Rehabilitation are included as Attachment 4. In making its recommendation to the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Committee shall set forth in detail using the guidelines stated above, what, if any, effect the proposed construction, alteration or demolition will have on the significant historical, architectural or other related features of the property, as well as its recommendations, if any, as to ways in which the application can be modified to preserve such features. Conclusion City staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Committee review the project plans for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and Guidelines stated above and recommend approval of the proposed changes to the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Project application 2. Plans stamped received April 20, 2017 3. Belvedere Landmark Designation Survey Form for 450 Belvedere Avenue 4. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation 5. Historic Evaluation dated February 6, 2017, prepared by Brunzell Historical ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF BELVEDERE BELVEDERE HISTORIC DESIGNATION SURVEY FORM The following criteria shall be used when considering structures or sites for historic designation: 1. Architecture It is an outstanding example of a particular style, construction method or material. 2. Architecture It is outstanding because of age. 3. Architecture It is outstanding because it is the work of a significant architect or builder. 4. Architecture It is outstanding because it is the first, last, only or most significant architectural property of its type in the city. 5. Design It has a unique or original design or demonstrates outstanding craftsmanship. 6. History It is associated with a person, group or event significant to the city, state or nation, or shows broad cultural, political, social or economic patterns, or embodies and expresses the history of the city 7. Environment It contributes to the character of the street or neighborhood area or has significance as a visual landmark owing to its unique location. 8. Integrity It retains most of its original materials and design features. May 2010 9. National Register of Historic Places It is a site or structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Street Address: 296 Beach Road, Belvedere, CA 94920 Assessor's Parcel Number: 060-225-017 Common Name of Property: The Bridge-Huntington-Reynolds Property Historic Name of Property: Landfall Owner: Michael and Robin Reynolds Owner's Address: Same 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 Description: The home and property at 296 Beach Road overlooks a City-owned waterfront parcel. The site is characterized by an extensive garden with mature vegetation and a series of stone retaining walls, steps, benches and terraces. A private pier, constructed by and leased by the subject property, is located on the City water lot below the house. The pier was once the stop for the commuting ferry, "The Marin," operating on a private run between Sausalito and the Tiburon Peninsula for more than 30 years. A publicly-owned lane, known as "Cliff Lane," (currently inaccessible) is located on the north side of the property. This lane provided access to the ferry pier below. The home, known as "Landfall," is a brown-shingle residence with an arched gambrel roof that was built for the honeymooning couple, Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Winthrop (May) Bridge, between 1891 and 1892. The house was possibly designed by Albert Farr who was active in Belvedere and the architect of several early buildings constructed for the Belvedere Land Company, but that is yet to be confirmed. The San Francisco Junior League's book, Here Today: San Francisco's Architectural Heritaqe1 describes 296 Beach Road as "one of Belvedere's earliest permanent homes." The home was used by the Bridge family as their permanent residence except for "four winter months" when the family lived at the Oliver Hotel in San Francisco. The three children commuted from San Francisco to attend Belvedere School. Winifred Bridge Allen (1893-1976) is closely associated with the residence. One of the three children of the Bridges, Winifred, was in the third graduating class of Belvedere School. Winifred married Harry B Allen who later acquired the Belvedere Land Company. Winifred Allen helped Carol Livermore found the Marin Conservation League and the Marin Art and Garden Center. Harry Allen developed Sea Cliff and much of Belvedere Island. In 1912, Landfall was purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Stillman, using it as a summer place and then ultimately retiring to it. It was during this time1 between 1912 and 19321 that the terracing1 rock walls1 steps and benches were created. Charles DeTomasi of Tiburon worked for 40 years on the estate, building the graceful terraces1 tending the varied gardens and planting the scores of trees. Accounts that the landscape design was the work of John Mclaren (1846-1943), superintendent and designer of Golden Gate Park1 have not been confirmed. The name "Landfall" was given the estate by Marion Huntington, who acquired it in 1932. Ms. Huntington was the daughter of Harry E. Huntington of railway fame and a world-famous art collector and philanthropist. Her yacht1 known as "The Blue Water/' was usually anchored below the property. Her fondness for the sea motivated the remodeling of a bedroom into a ship's cabin. It is an exact replica 1 complete to the small iron Franklin stove1 curved paneling roof, tiny windows1 bunks and cabinets. Carr Jones was the superintendent of construction on the home in 19371 a time when Ms. Huntington is known to have completed a significant renovation of the home. Carr Jones is considered a significant local builder1 designer and engineer. The property at 423 Belvedere Avenue was designed and built by Mr. Jones1 is a City of Belvedere landmark. 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 Property Chronology 1891-1892 - House built for Frederick Winthrop Bridge and May Bridge 1890s to 1920s - House's dock was used as a ferry stop for the boat Marin, which travelled between Sausalito to Tiburon. Winifred Bridge meets Harry Allen, c. 1900. c. 1912 - House sold to Dr. Stanley Stillman 1912 to 1932 - Charles de Tomasi constructed retaining walls and planted landscaping 1929 - County Assessor's records show repairs or remodels done 1932 - Marion Huntington buys house 1932 to c. 1960 - Ms. Huntington remodels and adds on to home 1937 - Council minutes reflect that Carr Jones is superintending construction of improvements on property (County Assessor's records show repairs or remodels to done) 1944 - County Assessor's records show repairs or remodels done 1958 - Revocable License granted for Cliff Lane use 1959 - Revocable License granted for Wharf/stairs repair c. 1960 - House sold to Mr. and Mrs. Stevens Manning Jr. 1961 - Marin IJ article features home 1976 - House sold to Lawrence and Barbara Lonn 1976 - Garage structure constructed (design by Clayton Perry/ Dennis Klein) 1976 - Revocable License granted for driveway and garage 1977 - Re-roof and siding 1981 - Wall on Beach Road repaired 1981 - New deck and spa added - Design review and Variance granted, deck extends onto City-owned tide lot 1981 - Revocable License granted for deck on City property 1988 - Deck repair 1992 - Repair steps 1996 - House sold to Peter Peterson Jr. 1997 -Approval for dock extension and addition 2000 - House sold to Shirley Erickson 2001 - New patio windows and door approved 2001 - Increased window height approved 2001 - New gates and fences approved 2001- Building permit issued for "Removing false ceiling and restoring original ceiling and "minor electrical updating and installing replacement windows." Window likely related to planning approvals. 2001 - Building Permit issued for "replacing electrical panel in stairwell." 2001 - Building Permit issued to "install heater upstairs and gas and electric for heater. Fix dryer vent. Duct for heater and misc. repairs for RBR (Residential Building Report)." 2001 - House sold to Michael and Robin Reynolds 2001 - Replacement and relocation of floating dock approved 2001 - New kitchen windows and doors approved 2002 - Building Permit issued for "200 Amp service upgrade underground." 2004 - Kitchen remodel including replacing existing windows and doors 2007 - Existing Redwood deck replaced with Ipe and roof replaced with same material. 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION The Bridge-Huntington-Reynolds property at 296 Beach Road, known as Landfall, meets the following criteria for Historic Designation: 2. Architecture: It is outstanding because of age. The original home was constructed as early as 1891 and was one of the first permanent residences in Belvedere. The remodel and addition in the 1930s also occurred during a significant period in the City's history, which was marked by the development of a regular paved roadway system and automobile access to San Francisco by way of the Golden Gate Bridge. 3. Architecture: It is outstanding because it is the work of a significant architect or builder. The original home built between 1891 and 1892 is thought to be designed by Albert Farr, a significant California architect. Farr was the architect of a number of other Belvedere landmarks, such as the Farr Apartments and the Belvedere Land Company Building, as well as the architect of Jack London's Wolf House. While the home was significantly expanded in the 1930s, most of the original home was retained during this construction, including the "rainbow-like" roof and wood divided-light fenestration. The remodel undertaken by Marion Huntington in the 1930 was completed by Carr Jones a significant local designer, engineer and builder, who was known for Storybook style homes, fire-safe design, and using recycled materials. Jones completed the Audrey Jones Beck House, another City landmark. Carr Jones frequently left his signature on the homes he built in the form of recycled hand painted tiles. Such tiles are found on the door bell mounting and the sink area of the home. Two exterior walls and the patio at the master bedroom wing are built from brick masonry, typical of Carr Jones. The home's steel frame fenestration also dates from this time period. The retaining walls, arched gate, steps, terraces, benches and gardens on the site were established in the early 1900s and remain largely unchanged. According to newspaper accounts, these structures were built by Charles DeTomasi of Tiburon, an Italian stone mason, gardener and craftsman. Mr. DeTomasi is also thought to have planted scores of trees. Architectural changes occurring after 1960, such as the garage and rear wood deck, are not considered to be significant for architectural or historical reasons. 5. Design: It has a unique or original design or demonstrates outstanding craftsmanship The original shape of the roof has been described as "barn-like" and "rainbow-like." When the home was expanded, the newer wings of the home mimicked the original roof's shape, maintaining the homes unique and original design. One upper level bedroom, built by Jones, was modeled to look like a ship's cabin. The master bedroom wing is constructed of brick masonry, which Jones is known for. The room that is currently used as a home office is wood paneled and features a sink finished with hand-painted tiles, considered a Carr Jones 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 signature. This room was once used as a sunporch with a flower cutting station at the sink. The stone retaining walls were built by a local gardener and stonemason, named Charles de Tomasi, with rock that was quarried locally and brought to the site by mule-cart. 6. History: It is associated with a person/ group or event significant to the ci~ state or nation or shows broad cultura~ politica~ social or economic pattern~ or embodies and expresses the history of the city. The home's dock was once used as the Belvedere ferry stop for the ferry, Marin, which travelled from Sausalito to Tiburon for many years. The home's association with the adjacent public lane and with Belvedere's first ferry landing contribute to the history of Belvedere during a period of significance that included incorporation of the City and its transition from a resort to a year-round, full-service community. Winifred B. Allen, Frederick and May Bridge's daughter, met her future husband, Harry Allen, at the site. Harry Allen would later acquire the Belvedere Land Company. Winifred Allen helped Caroline Livermore found the Marin Conservation League and the Marin Art and Garden Center. Harry Allen developed Sea Cliff and much of Belvedere Island. The home's third owner was Marion Huntington, the daughter of railroad tycoon and world-famous art collector and philanthropist, Henry E. Huntington. Ms. Huntington was known for her love of sailing and charitable activities. 7. Environment: It contributes to the character of the street or neighborhood area or has significance as a visual landmark owing to its unique location. Landfall is characteristic of early permanent Belvedere homes which together form an identifiable feature of Belvedere Island and Belvedere Cove today. The home's unique arched roof makes the home a significant visual landmark as viewed from the water. The homes association with the adjacent public lane and with Belvedere's first ferry landing, as well as the property's significant tree cover and landscaping, contribute to the Belvedere shoreline landscape. Historical Information: Construction year: 1891-1892 and 1930s Significant Builder: Carr Jones Recommendation: In as much as the Bridge-Huntington-Reynolds property at 296 Beach Road, known as "Landfall," meets criteria 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, it is recommended that it be given official historical designation by the City of Belvedere. Date of Survey: November 19, 2010 Prepared by: George Gnoss, Diana Bradley and Raquel Paniagua Organization: Historic Preservation Committee, City of Belvedere 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 REFERENCES "A Home That Has Been Loved,11 Marin Independent Journal Article, May 6, 1961 Here Today: San Francisco's Architectural Heritage, San Francisco Junior League Carr Jones and Doug Allinger, by Ruth Scott Style Book, by Arrol Gellner and Doug Keister Belvedere City Council Meeting Minutes, August 2, 1937 A Pictorial History of Belvedere 1890-1990, The Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society Both Sides of the Track, James Heig and Shirley Mitchell, 1985 Email correspondence from Michael Reynolds recounting conversation on November 9, 2010 with Isabelle Toms, a resident of the home between 1960 and 1976. 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 TEL 415/435-3838 FAX 415/435-0430 ATTACHMENT 4 Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. The Standards apply to historic buildings of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They apply to both the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new consh·uction. 1. A prope1ty shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be unde1taken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and o.ther visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the prope1ty. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017, 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 450 SAN RAFAEL A VENUE, BELVEDERE, CA MINUTES COMMITTEE PRESENT: George Gnoss, Richard Newman, Jeanne Price, Bruce Sams, and Chair Mel Owen. COMMITTEE ABSENT: Diana Bradley and Roger Felton OTHERS PRESENT: Director of Planning & Building Irene Borba, City Clerk Alison Foulis, and Associate Planner Rebecca Markwick These minutes are intended to reflect the general content ofthe regular meeting. An audio file of the meeting is available on the City website at www.cityofbelvedere.org CALL TO ORDER OF REGULAR MEETING The meeting was called to order at 5 :31 PM. OPEN FORUM No one wished to speak. SCHEDULED ITEMS 1. Approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2016, regular meeting. Minutes were approved as amended. 2. Staff reports. Director of Planning & Building Borba shared with the Committee smaller projects which had been reviewed with Chair Owen over the past year including new houses at 303 San Rafael Avenue, 222 San Rafael Avenue, and 135 Belvedere Avenue, a new carport at 2 Fern Avenue, and re-roof and deck repairs at the Farr Cottages. The Committee discussed which projects are reviewed by the full Committee and which are reviewed with the Chair. ATTACHMENT 8 Minutes of the Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Page 2of3 3. Design Review application for a remodel and addition to an existing single family home at 296 Beach Road. On February 14, 2011, the City Council designated the property a City of Belvedere Historic Property. A 432 square foot addition is proposed to the dwelling which includes a new entry, kitchen addition and a mechanical room expansion. The detached garage is proposed to be raised four feet to make it more accessible and 389 square foot expansion of the garage on the lower level to create a guest unit. Applicant: Sutton Suzuki Architects. Property Owner: Emory Williams and Jie Liu. Associate Planner Markwick presented the staff report to the Committee. The Committee had no questions for staff. Emory Williams, property owner of 296 Beach Road, introduced himself to the Committee and described his project. No one from the public wished to speak. Committee Member Gnoss stated that he was on the Committee when this property first came before them for historic designation and was on the sub-committee tasked with evaluating the property back then. Committee Member Gnoss stated that he found the proposed design changes to be acceptable. Committee Member Price stated that she felt the project allows for contemporary use of the home while still keeping the historic character. Chair Owen stated that he felt the last two pages of the February 6, 2017, historic evaluation prepared by Brunzell Historical effectively summarizes the recommendations of the Committee. MOTION: To recommend approval of the proposed changes at 296 Beach Road to the Planning Commission. MOVED: By Sams, seconded by Newman VOTE: A YES: George Gnoss, Richard Newman, Jeanne Price, Bruce Sams, and Chair Mel Owen. NOES: None ABSENT: Diana Bradley and Roger Felton ABSTAIN: None Committee Member Gnoss asked whether a revocable license exists or is proposed for the property and staff clarified that while there is an existing license, the proposed project includes an application for a new revocable license to fully capture all improvements in the public right-of-way. Committee Member Gnoss then asked about access to the unimproved City lane (Cliff Lane) which appears to be blocked by private improvements by the neighboring property owner. Associate Planner Markwick clarified that a revocable license approved for the neighboring property owner at the May 8, 2017, City Council meeting will allow public access to the lane. Minutes of the Historic Preservation Committee Meeting Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Page 3of3 Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM. THE FOREGOING MINUTES were approved at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee on , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED: ______Mel Owen, Chairman Irene Borba, Director of Planning & Building A I B I c I D 1 Address I Lot Size SF I Floor Area SF I FAR l--2-1_4_20_G_O_L_D_E_N_G_A_T_E_A_V_E__ j 6,250 ~ 4,970 I 79.5% 3 424 GOLDEN GATE AVE I 12,621 I 5,087 l 40.3% 4428GOI.bEN GATE AVE I 11,466 I 3,503 T 30.6% 5 416 GOLDEN GATE AVE ! 16,800 I 6,188 I 36.8% 6 432 GOLDEN GATE AVE ( 13,500 1 ___4,351 ____ , 32.2% _ 7 499 BELLA VISTA AVE 1 10,272 I 2,703 : 26.3% ,_8_._44_0_B_EL__ L_A_V_l_S_T_A_A_V_E __ ~),_____9,~0_16 __ r-_ 4,125 ! 45.8% 9 450 BELLA VISTA AVE I 3,850 I 2,475 I 64.3% ]I _46_0_B_E_L_L_A_V_l_S_TA_A_V_E ___ -+ 3,200 I 2,659 I 83.1 % 11 470 BELLA VISTA AVE I 5,035 i 5,022 I 99.7% 12-430 BELLA VISTA AVE _J 7,586~--3,4~--i 44.9% 13 276 BEACH RD I 7,740 I 5,075 j_ 65.6_%_, 14 280 BEACH RD I 8,150 I 5,622 I 69.0% 15 290 BEACH RD i 3,423 I 3,516 I 102.7% W 296 BEACH RD (existing) 20,000 5,816 29.1% 17 296 BEACH RD (proposed) 20,000 6,705 33.5% Ts 300 BEACH RD ------i 7,599 i 2,841 II 37.4% 19 288 BEACH RD i 10,890 1--2)"23 --- 25.0% 2o 322 BEACH RD i 6,938 J---5-,05-1--l--72-.8°/~~~ 21-310 BEACHRD______i 6,938 i 4,460 _f 64.3% 22a12 BEACH RD r 12.000 1 3,067 1 25.6% ATTACHMENT 9 Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner From: Elizabeth Suzuki [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 2:44 PM To: Rebecca Markwick- Associate Planner Subject: Fwd: 296 Beach Rebecca, please see attached email from Michele Kyrouz, the neighbor of 296 Beach Rd. Please let me know if you have any questions. Elizabeth. ------Forwarded message ------From: Michele Kyrouz Emory, I've reviewed the latest round of plans with Elizabeth and everything looks great. I support your project and think it will be a lovely renovation of this historic and beautiful property. I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting but please convey my support of the project. Best, Michele Kyrouz 300 Beach Road ATTACHMENT 10 1