Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny a Design Review Permit Application for a Stylistic Remodel at 116 Fairview Avenue - Redacted

City of Piedmont

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 18, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Sara Lillevand, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny a Design Review Permit Application for a Stylistic Remodel at 116 Fairview Avenue (Application DRPC 2022-015)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of a design review permit denial, and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A, agenda report pages 8-9).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Jeremy Fisher (“Appellant”) of 116 Fairview Avenue has appealed the April 11, 2022 decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application for a stylistic change at 116 Fairview Avenue.

The appeal submitted on April 21, 2022, asserts that the Planning Commission made an arbitrary decision and that the decision made was not supported by the weight of evidence. Finding no merit in the stated grounds for appeal, Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, and uphold the action taken by the Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal of the April 11, 2022, Planning Commission decision to deny an application for design review submitted by the Property Owners (“Applicants”) of 116 Fairview Avenue. The application proposes a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure, and adding exterior lighting. Because the application met the criteria of Piedmont Municipal Code section

17.66.040(A)(1)(b), the Planning Commission was tasked with reviewing the application.

The application was denied by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2022. The appeal was filed on April 21, 2022, by the Appellant.

Subject Property Description
The house is located on a fairly rectangular lot with frontage on Fairview Avenue. According to City records, the house was constructed in the Mission Revival style in 1929. A 1-car carport is located at the left rear corner of the property, accessed by a driveway in the left side yard. Since its original construction the house has had a few repairs, remodels and additions. The lot gradually slopes downhill from the street. Houses on the street are a mix of: 1) Spanish Revival-style architecture with stucco exteriors and tiled roofs; 2) Colonial Revival-style houses with slender columns that form entry porch and symmetrically balanced double hung windows and center door; 3) a Craftsman bungalow-style house with a single-car garage, stucco siding, chimney; 4) Prairiestyle houses with low pitched hip-roof, widely overhanging eaves; and 5) Four Square variationstyle houses with cube-shaped footprint, hipped tiled roof and stucco exterior.

The current residence has a “Mission Revival” style influence only on the front façade whereas the other sides of the house have no distinctive features of the style. The decorative arch and free standing stucco wall of varying height form a courtyard entry. Other exterior materials include stucco walls, wood and aluminum windows and doors, clay tiled parapet cap in the front, and asphalt shingle roof. The carport is wood-framed with a flat built-up roof.

APPLICATION HISTORY:

On February 14, 2022, the Planning Commission denied, without prejudice, a similar application for a design review that proposed stylistic changes to the exterior of the house. As noted in the meeting minutes, the Planning Commission found that although there was merit in the proposed Contemporary-style design, the proposed design was not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines due to the roof form and the trellis design needed clarification as to how it is integrated with the stucco wall material and control joints.

The Current Application (reviewed on April 11, 2022)
The current application proposes a stylistic change to the existing house and in doing that proposes to: remove and demolish all the Mission Revival features seen in the front (west) including: the free-standing stucco walls, clay tiled parapet roofing and asphalt shingle roofing; remove and demolish existing right side (south) entry porch and stair structure, and the chimney on the left side (north) of the house; make window modifications throughout the house; modify the front roof profile to a 3:12 plaster-finished sloping roof and add a galvalume (coated steel) parapet cap along the roof profile on all sides; modify the exterior stucco siding to include control joints and attached wood slats; construct a wood deck and stairs in the rear (east) of the house; construct a wood and steel trellis roof for the rear deck front patio; install metal and cable handrails and guardrails where necessary; add two (2) fixed aluminum skylights; make several hardscape and landscape modifications; construct wood slatted fencing up to 30 inches tall in the street yard setback; install raised planting beds in the rear alongside the new deck; install an air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure on the roof of the house; and make several other associated interior and exterior modifications.

Agenda Report Page 2
The current application differs from the application reviewed by the Commission on February 14, 2022, in that it included: a revised trellis design, consideration of window treatments such as shades for window coverings, and added details to the exterior façade such as horizontal wood slats and controlled stucco joint layout as exterior wall materials and inclusion of an enclosure for roof mounted air conditioning unit.

COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS AND ACTION:

The Planning Commission considered the current application at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 11, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed all the application materials (Attachment D, agenda report pages 20-64) and the staff report (Attachment F, agenda report pages 74-89), and made site visits to the Applicant’s property. No written comments from community members were submitted.

No other members of the public sought to address the Commission on this application.

The Commission found that the project did not meet the standards for approval. Specifically, the Commission found that Piedmont Municipal Code Section 17.60.060(A) which specifies that the proposed design must be consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines, was not met. Meeting minutes of the April 11, 2022, Planning Commission meeting are included at the end of this report as Attachment B, agenda report pages 10-11.

Design Review Findings
The Commission determined that the project does not comply with the design review criteria set forth in Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code with the following findings:

1. The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines in that the following building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development, including the roof form, overall style and massing of the proposed design, and location and orientation of the front door.

2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light because the distance between the project and neighboring homes is appropriate and there is no impact on views, privacy, and access to light.

3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project does not alter any vehicular or pedestrian circulation patterns.

4. As conditioned, the application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Building Design 4.01.

5. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility).

Agenda Report Page 3
Attachment E of this report provides a copy of General Plan policies 28.1 and 28.2 and Design Guideline 4.01,

DISCUSSION
A. Appeal Criteria
Section 17.78.040 of Piedmont’s Municipal Code sets forth the standards of review for an appeal as follows:

A. General. An appeal is not a de novo hearing, but instead will be governed by the following principles:

1. Deference. Due deference shall be given to the actions of the Planning Commission in light of the substantial number of planning applications heard by them and the major accumulated group experience that those actions represent.

2. Grounds for overruling decision. The appeal body may overrule the action of the decision maker only if one of the following occurs:
a. the findings made by the decision maker as a basis for its action are not supported by the weight of the evidence;
b. there is a significant error in the application of the requirements of this chapter 17 or other requirements of the City Code;
c. there is a significant error in the application of the Piedmont Design Guidelines; or
d. significant errors in the application, plans, drawings or other materials provided to the decision maker are discovered after the hearing, which were a basis of the decision.

3. Burden of proof. During an appeal, the burden of proof is on the Appellant.

B. Points Raised in Appeal
Appeal Letter
Attached is a copy of the Appellant’s original appeal form and statement filed on April 21, 2022, stating the reasons for the appeal (see Exhibit C, agenda report pages 12-19).

Staff Analysis of Appeal
Staff finds that the basis for appeal put forward by the Appellant is without merit, for the following reasons:

Agenda Report Page 4
Appeal Basis #1: The Planning Commission’s April 11 Decision Conflicts with the Planning Commission’s February 14, 2022 Comments.

Appellant provides that the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2022 decision conflicts with “findings” of the Planning Commission that approved of a contemporary style design. However, the Planning Commission did not make such a finding in denying the project that was before the Commission at its February 14, 2022 meeting. Moreover, the previous application and any Commission comments are not relevant to this appeal, as the April 11, 2022 application before the Planning Commission is a separate application that was evaluated on its own merits.

Appeal Basis #2: Findings Not Supported by the Weight of Evidence Referenced findings are mistakenly attributed to staff.

Appellant provides that staff found the project consistent with design guidelines at the Planning Commission, and thus, the Commission’s findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

However, the Appellant is mistaken in attributing the findings in support of the project found in the staff report to staff. The staff report clearly states, “The applicants’ proposed findings are indicated in bold.” See agenda report pages 80-81 of the staff report (Attachment F). The findings in support of the project cited in the appeal are actually those submitted by the applicant in the application form. Planning staff does not make it a practice to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on applications for design review permit. Nor does staff provide recommended findings in support or denial of a project. Thus, this argument lacks merit.

Appellant mistakes individual Commissioner comments relating to the project as the official findings made by the Commission in support of the denial of the application.

The appellant’s argument that certain Commissioners’ comments conflicted with the ultimate decision of denial is without grounds. During the deliberations portion of a project’s hearing, it is typical for the Planning Commissioners to have a discussion amongst themselves and staff, and make comments regarding the proposed design and the nature and scope of the project. The individual comments made during a discussion are not the findings of fact the Commission makes unless they are incorporated into the motion supporting the decision.

The findings made by the Commission to support the motion for denial of the application were not arbitrary. Instead, the findings were rational and supported by the evidence.

City Code section 17.66.060 requires that the hearing body may not approve a design review permit unless the design of the project conforms to all of the following standards:

A. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines.

B. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light.

C. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety.

Agenda Report Page 5
For this application, the Commission found that the project met standards B and C. However, the Commission found that the project did not meet standard A, making the following findings:

The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines in that the following building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development, including the roof form, overall style and massing of the proposed design, and location and orientation of the front door.

To support this finding, the Commission also found that the project did not comply with Design Guideline 4.01, Building Styles, and two policies from the General Plan: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility). (See Attachment E of this report for copies of Design Guideline 4.01 and General Plan Policies 28.1 and 28.2.) In particular, Policy 28.2 states:

On blocks where one architectural style or design theme is predominant, require new construction and alterations that respect and are compatible with the prevailing style. On blocks where no particular style is predominant, new construction and alterations should be compatible with the style of homes nearby. This applies not only to the house as a whole but to building elements such as foundations, porches, exterior stairs, doors, exterior materials, ornamentation, roofs, and decks.

The proposed contemporary style was unique to the neighborhood of traditional style houses in terms of the application of exterior materials, the location of main entry door and the way in which the building was massed. Thus, the Planning Commission property found that the proposed project was not compatible with the prevailing style. Based on these reasons, the Appellant’s argument lacks merit. The Commission’s findings were specific, reasoned, rational and based on evidence.

C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Appellant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the Planning Commission’s decision was in error.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

City Council action is required to uphold or overturn the decision of the Planning Commission.

By: Kevin Jackson, Planning & Building Director
Gopika Nair, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment Pages Document
A 8-9 Resolution Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the design review permit application DRPC 2022-015 for 116 Fairview Avenue
B 10-11 Abridged Meeting Minutes, Planning Commission, April 11, 2022 Agenda Report Page 6
Attachment Pages Document
C 12-19 Appellant’s Submission, submitted on April 21, 2022 D 20-64 Application Materials
E 65-73 Applicable General Plan Policies and Design Guidelines F 74-89 Planning Commission Staff Report
Meeting Videos:

April 11, 2022 Planning Commission:
https://piedmont.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=3&clip id=2513 February 14, 2022 Planning Commission:
https://piedmont.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=2480 Meeting Minutes:

February 14, 2022 Planning Commission:
https://piedmont.hosted.civiclive.com/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18467572 Agenda Report Page 7
1 RESOLUTION ______

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

DECISION TO DENY THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
APPLICATION DRPC 2022-015 FOR 116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, Ellen and Gene Switkes (“Applicants”) applied for a design review permit that proposed stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure, and adding exterior lighting (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the Project without prejudice, finding that the Project is not consistent with Piedmont City Code Section

17.60.060(a) which specifies that the proposed design must be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Piedmont Design Gudielines; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2022, Jeremy Fisher (“Appellant”) appealed the Planning Commission decision in accordance with Division 17.78, Appeals; Calls for review, of the Piedmont City Code (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022, a 14-day public notice was duly given to the Applicants, the Appellant, the surrounding property owners notified in the original application hearing, and to any other person requesting notice, in accordance with Section 17.78.030 and Section 17.66.050 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, based upon all of the evidence in the record and after reviewing the application, plans and any and all oral or written testimony and documentation submitted in connection with the Project, the Piedmont City Council denies the appeal and upholds the findings rendered by the Planning Commission to deny the application for design review permit, and finds that the Planning Commission’s decision is supported by the weight of the evidence:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Piedmont finds:
the Project does not comply with the design review criteria set forth in Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code because:

1. The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines in that the building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development, including the roof form, overall style and massing of the proposed design, and location and orientation of the front door.

2. The application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Building Design 4.01.

ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 8
2 3. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility), because the Project is not compatible with the prevailing style on account of the fact that the Project’s contemporary style was unique to the neighborhood of traditional style houses in terms of the application of exterior materials, the location of main entry door and the way in which the building was massed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Piedmont City Council does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are correct and that the Piedmont City Council finds that the Appellant has not met the burden of proof that errors were made by Planning Commission or Planning & Building Department staff, pursuant to Section 17.78.040(A)(2)(a) of the Piedmont City Code, and have not proved that the Planning Commission’s findings made as a basis for its action were not supported by the weight of the evidence.

SECTION 2. The City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s denial of the Design Review Permit application to make stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and ongrade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure, and adding exterior lighting.

SECTION 3. The Planning and Building Director is the custodian of documents and other materials that were considered by the City Council and constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision was based. The records are located at the Planning & Building Department, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.

SECTION 4. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
[END OF RESOLUTION]
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2022
25 Design Review Permit,
116 Fairview Avenue,
DRPC 2022-015
The Property Owners are requesting permission to make a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including:
altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood slatted enclosure, and adding exterior lighting.

Public testimony was received from:

Dinesh Perera, architect, stated the Owner’s want to make a stylistic change to contemporary style. They want to make modifications to the front entry, façade, roof, exterior siding, trellis, and rear façade
The Commissioners expressed concerns that the modern style of architecture does not conform to the existing the neighborhood development pattern. There was also concern that the slat vertical trellis was applied to the stucco wall rather than being integrated into the wall plane.

Mr. Perera stated that the existing neighborhood has an eclectic style, and this home does stick out like a sore thumb, however, they did try to incorporate some elements the neighbors have. The trellis will be projected (applied on) and not flush with the stucco wall.

Jeremy Fisher, Property Owner, stated that the motivation for the project is with their growing family they have outgrown the kitchen, and to create a more welcoming and functional entry.

The Commissioners stated there is not much change from the previously design that the Commission denied. The neighborhood doesn’t have a defined context or cohesive style; there are homes with modern architecture located in the neighborhood and throughout Piedmont, however this design does not fit in on this street of traditional homes as proposed because of the form and massing.

Resolution 015-DRPC-22
WHEREAS, The Property Owners, are requesting permission to make a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood slatted enclosure, and adding exterior lighting, which construction requires a design review permit, and, WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application, and after having visited the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and programs; and, ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 11, 2022
26 WHEREAS, regarding the design review permit, the Planning Commission finds that that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal does not conform to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:

1. The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. The following building features are not consistent with the original architecture and neighborhood development including, the roof form, the overall style and massing, and the front door location and orientation.

3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety because the project does not alter existing vehicular circulation patterns.

4. As conditioned, the application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies and programs: Building Design 4.01.

5. The project is not consistent is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility).

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission denies the design review permit application for the improvements at 116 Fairview Avenue, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City.

Moved by Duransoy, Seconded by Levine
Ayes: Duransoy, Levine, Strout
Noes: Zucker
Abstain: Ramsey

Absent: Batra
Design Review Permit,
510 Magnolia Avenue,
DRPC 2022-016
The Property Owners are requesting permission to make window and door modifications, convert 367 square feet of the existing garage and outdoor entryway area into additional living space, make various changes to the interior, relocate the garage door and driveway, and make landscape and hardscape modifications at the front of the property including the construction of retaining walls and free-standing walls.

Public testimony was received from:

Yuning Zhang, Property Owner, stated they want to relocate their driveway. They have made modifications to their original request after receiving comments from the Commissioners at the February 2022 meeting.

Carolyn Van Lang, designer, stated the Owner’s have moved the front wall back 1- foot from the sidewalk, and the planting strip is 6-feet from the sidewalk. The driveway relocation takes the car away from the existing handicap ramp. The existing driveway needs to be removed due to the invasive bamboo. In the line of sight, more ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 11

The hearing body (the Planning Commission or City Council) may not approve a design review permit unless the design of the project conforms to all the standards listed below (§17.66.060).

Please describe how the proposed project meets the standards for approving a design review permit:

A. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines. (Describe how the project's exterior design elements are aesthetically pleasing as a whole and harmonious with existing and proposed neighborhood development. These elements include but are not limited to: height, bulk, area openings, breaks in the facade, line and pitch of the roof, materials, arrangements of structures on the parcel, and concealment of mechanical and electrical equipment. You may cite specific guidelines and General Plan goals and policies.)
The existing house is a modern building with Mission Revival decorative elements attached to the streetfacing facade. Referring to Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 the proposed design matches the north easterly neighbor’s height and uses a pitched roof to a) allow more natural light to the north easterly neighbor’s side-facing windows as well as b) add height towards the taller south westerly neighbor. The proposed design reduces the height and bulk of the building by removing the faux decorative elements (including the false facade/ tall parapet) and updating it into a cohesive Contemporary style using three-dimensional elements and massing that create volumetric relief in the facade. In keeping with the Contemporary style, this project proposes a zero-eave roof, simple building geometry, and a large accordion door system at the front facade to create a welcoming, seamless opening and connection to the front yard garden.

Referring to Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 Style Compatibility, the surrounding houses in the neighborhood are an eclectic group of styles with no one style dominating or repeating. Styles include: Cottage, Mission, Prairie, Colonial, Craftsman, and Hybrid Styles. The proposed design is matching the material quality of most of the homes on this block which are primarily plaster with wood details.

This project proposes aluminum-clad wood windows that have the same dimensional quality/ profile as the existing wood windows and neighboring wood windows but with superior durability and weather resistance. Additionally, a new, Santa Barbara finish (smooth) skim coat of rich integral-color plaster over the entire building is proposed. Additional wood elements have been added such as the wood trellis, wood fence, wood cladding and wood vertical trellis panels discussed above.

Revisions to the design have been made to clearly articulate the contemporary style and finesse the exterior features to relate to one another. Vertical wood trellis panels have been added adjacent to the front and rear façade corners adding warmth and contemporary detailing to the most visible areas of the façade. Stucco control joint layout has been shown with slight adjustments to window elements to finesse the features of the home into an organized composition. Light fixtures, house numbers, and roof flashing have been added to the renderings. The material of the low fence has been changed from plaster to cedar slats, matching the detail of the vertical trellises to further articulate the contemporary style of the building and tie the various design features together.

B. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 39
The proposed pitched roof provides a lower profile at the neighboring property to the north (120 Fairview Ave) thus reducing impact on the adjacent neighbor, minimizing shadows, and maximizing their access to daylight. New windows have been proposed that are offset from the neighbors’ side windows to preserve privacy. The existing exterior stair in the south side yard stair is also proposed to be removed, increasing the open space between the project and 110 Fairview Ave C. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety.

The proposed design does not make any changes to the existing sidewalk, curb, or curb cut.

Further information regarding front yard fencing: a low wood fence is proposed at the front of the house to create a greater sense of privacy and security at the front yard. The existing home had a similar fence 3’ closer to the house with a large entry portal and an awkward hall-like space that prevented direct access to the front door. The proposed design is placing the opening of the fence closer to the front door marking the entrance. The wall is still maintaining a semi-private area where children and pets are prevented from walking off onto the street, and package deliveries can be left at the front door. The extension of the fence also allows landscape elements on the inside of the fence softening the vertical surface with natural plants as well as allowing vines to grow up onto the trellis. The archway has been removed to maintain a consistent contemporary style. The fence is also no longer flush with the front façade, which provides a break in the façade creating more relief and a human-scale massing along the street frontage.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 40
The Commissioners stated the need for more information on where the architectural context was drawn from, how the wood trellis engages the house, what the finish of the trellis is, window treatments, and visual cues for the front door.

We have updated both the front and rear trellises to include black painted steel post and beam supports with the wood trellis members attached to the bottom of the steel beam creating a minimal ceiling plane with consistently spaced Western Red Cedar members. The trellis attaches to the building façade with a ledger which continues along the border of the trellis creating a cleanly framed element. The wood members are attached to the ledger/trellis frame with concealed fasteners.

The window coverings for the home are proposed to be Mecho shades. Several panels will be used for the accordian door system that matches the rhythm of the door panels with the rolls mounted at the header.

The front façade window will have a shade with the roll mounted at the sill allowing for partial screening of the living room without completely obstructing the visual connection with the street.

The entrance to the house is emphasized by enlarging the opening to the entry alcove and changing the alcove material from the exterior plaster to a warm, rich, and tactile cedar paneling. A portal from the front façade to the alcove has been cut, increasing visual cues of the entry alcove from the street.

Commissioner Duransoy was not in favor of the stylistic changes due to the inconsistency with neighborhood context and because the interior changes could be accomplished without any changes to the exterior. The other Commissioners found merit in the design but thought it needed more finesse so that all exterior features relate to each other and clearly articulate a contemporary style.

Resolution 323-FDR-21
WHEREAS, The Property Owner is requesting a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails and adding exterior lighting, located at [116 Fairview Avenue], which construction requires a design review permit; and
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 41
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application, and after having visited the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal does not conform to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:

1. The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines due to the roof form and the trellis design needs clarification.

The project consists of a mix of a flat roof with a shed roof. The mix of flat and sloped roofs can be seen on the street at: 111 Fairview uses a combination of gable, hipped and flat roofs, 77 Fairview uses a combination of shed and flat roof, and further down the street 78 Fairview uses a combination gable and flat roof.
111 Fairview:
77 Fairview:
78 Fairview:

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 42
A mixed shed roof composition is consistent with contemporary buildings in Piedmont for example: 110 Dracena (mixed shed roof and hipped roof) and 19 Muir (mixed shed roof and flat roof).

The medium slope of 3 and 12 is consistent with neighboring building slopes including the closest neighbor to the shed roof at 120 Fairview Ave.

Details for the black galvalume flashing of the zero-eave roof form have been added.

Detailing of the trellis has been modified. Text from above included below for convenience:

2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light, because the distance between neighboring properties is appropriate, there is no impact on views, and no impact on access to light.

3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety, as there is no effect on pedestrian or vehicular safety.

4. The application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines: 3.05 (Compatibility with the Street Right-of-Way), 4.01 (Building Styles), 4.02 (Building Elements).

Proposed maintains existing setbacks 3.05 (Compatibility with the Street Right of Way) and maintains existing trees with the addition of new trees to contribute to the urban canopy, soften the structure, and help provide privacy and shading without complete dependence on window coverings.

4.01.02 Stylistic changes applied to entire exterior. Existing structure does not fit into the neighborhood context and feels out of place in the neighborhood. Within the building itself the Mission revival elements are tacked on and are not integrated into a cohesive design. An example of this is the ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 43
placement of all Spanish revival architectural elements are only applied to the front façade, including:
the false façade, the medallions, and the archway. The proposed design is updating the structure into a cohesive Contemporary style using three-dimensional elements and massing that create volumetric relief in the facade. In keeping with the Contemporary style, this project proposes a zero-eave roof, simple building geometry, and a large accordion door system at the front facade to create a welcoming, seamless opening and connection to the front yard garden.

4.02 Building Elements: A wholesale stylistic change is proposed for the structure with all of the building elements designed to be compatible with the Contemporary Style. Building elements to be consistent with the contemporary style have been revised as noted above. Text from above included here for convenience:

5. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility).

The existing house is a modern building with Mission Revival decorative elements attached to the streetfacing facade. Referring to Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 the proposed design matches the north easterly neighbor’s height and uses a pitched roof matching the easterly neighbors slope to a) allow more natural light to the north easterly neighbor’s side-facing windows as well as b) add height towards the taller south westerly neighbor. The proposed design reduces the height and bulk of the building by removing the faux decorative elements (including the false facade/ tall parapet).

The neighbor across the street at 121 Fairview uses a trellis as an arbor to increase the visible garden from the street. The proposed project will use a similar modernized trellis at the front and rear façade to contribute to the visible garden from neighbors and the street.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 44

JOB NAME

SCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:25 AMAs indicated A0.1

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

EXISTING &

PROPOSED SITE/

ROOF PLAN
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
1 DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
03/23/2022
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 46

STRUCTURE

HARDSCAPE - EXISTINGHARDSCAPE - PROPOSEDLANDSCAPED AREA - EXISTINGLANDSCAPED AREA - PROPOSED

JOB NAMESCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:26 AM1/16" = 1'-0" A0.2

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

GRAPHIC

CALCULATIONS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW

GRAPHIC CALCULATIONSLEGEND
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
EXISTING FLOOR AREAEXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1,414 S.F.EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 1,506 S.F.EXISTING TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2,920 S.F.PROPOSED FLOOR AREAPROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1,414 S.F.PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1,504 S.F.PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2,918 S.F.LOT AREASLOT AREA 5,000 S.F.EXISTING STRUCTURE LOT COVERAGE 1,796 S.F.EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREA 1,411 S.F.PROPOSED STRUCTURE LOT COVERAGE 2,000 S.F.PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA 1,502 S.F.PERCENTAGESEXISTING F.A.R. 2,920 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 58.4%PROPOSED F.A.R. 2,918 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 58.4%EXISTING STRUCTURE LOT COVERAGE 1,796 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 35.9%EXISTING LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 1,411 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 28.2%PROPOSED STRUCTURE LOT COVERAGE 2,000 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 40.0%PROPOSED LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 1,502 S.F. / 5,000 S.F. = 30.0% ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 47

JOB NAME

SCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:27 AM A0.3

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

PHOTOGRAPHS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
NORTH NEIGHBOR (120 FAIRVIEW AVE) PROJECT SITE - FRONT (116 FAIRVIEW AVE) SOUTH NEIGHBOR (110 FAIRVIEW AVE)

PROJECT SITE - SIDE (SOUTH) PROJECT SITE - REAR PROJECT SITE - SIDE (NORTH) ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 48

JOB NAME

SCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:27 AM A0.4

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
DP

RENDERINGS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
1 DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
03/23/2022

FRONT FACADE

FRONT FACADE - STREET & NEIGHBOR CONTEXT

REAR FACADE

INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARDS STREET
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 49

JOB NAME

SCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:29 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A3.1

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

EXISTING &

PROPOSED

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
1 DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
03/23/2022
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 53
F

JOB NAMESCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:30 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A3.2

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

EXISTING &

PROPOSED

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
1 DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
03/23/2022
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 54

JOB NAME

SCALE DRAWN BYSHEETISSUANCES

RESIDENCE
3/31/2022 11:59:30 AM1/4" = 1'-0" A3.3

DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
JSR

EXISTING &

PROPOSED

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
116 FAIRVIEW AVENUE

FAIRVIEW
PIEDMONT, CA 94610

FAIRVIEW
A
A
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE

DESIGN REVIEWPERMIT
01/25/2022
1 DESIGN REVIEW

COMMENT RESPONSE
03/23/2022
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 55

2042 E. Vernon Ave., Vernon, CA 90058 • Tel (323) 231-2600 Fax (323) 231-3200 • elcolighting.com © ELCO Lighting 2021. All rights reserved • Rev. 19 Jan 2021 • ELCO Lighting reserves the right to make specification and design changes without notice. Page 1 of 1 Project name:

Fixture type:

Date:

Miniature Track Lights Soft
Square
Features
MR11 Soft Square.

Lamp: 12V or 24V 35W MR11.

Specifications
Wattage 35W
Voltage 12V or 24V
Lamp Type Halogen
Options
White Black
Dimensions
Product Numbers
Item Lamp type Watts Voltage Finish
ET2132B Halogen 35W 12V or 24V Black
ET2132W Halogen 35W 12V or 24V White

ATTACHMENT D

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES:

Design & Preservation Policy 28.1: Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility - Strengthen the defining qualities of Piedmont neighborhoods by relating the scale of new construction, additions, and alterations to existing homes and neighborhood context. Overpowering contrasts in scale and height on adjacent lots should be avoided.

Design & Preservation Policy 28.2: Style Compatibility - On blocks where one architectural style or design theme is predominant, require new construction and alterations that respect and are compatible with the prevailing style. On blocks where no particular style is predominant, new construction and alterations should be compatible with the style of homes nearby. This applies not only to the house as a whole but to building elements such as foundations, porches, exterior stairs, doors, exterior materials, ornamentation, roofs, and doors.

ATTACHMENT E Agenda Report Page 65

Page 1 of 13 ends

City of Piedmont

CALIFORNIA

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

April 11, 2022
Planning Commission
Gopika Nair, Associate Planner
STAFF REPORT for 116 Fairview Avenue
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11
APPLICATION SUMMARY:

DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRPC 2022-015
Ellen and Gene Switkes
116 Fairview Avenue
The application proposes a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, modifying exterior siding on all sides and the main entry alcove, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and wood and steel trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails, installing a wood fence within the 20-foot street yard setback, installing one roof mounted air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure, and adding exterior lighting.

APPLICATION HISTORY:

On February 14, 2022, the Planning Commission denied, without prejudice, a similar application for a design review that proposed stylistic changes to the exterior of the house, make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including: altering the profile of the front facade and roof, and constructing a wood deck and trellis in the front and rear of the house. The Planning Commission found that although there was merit in the proposed Contemporary-style design, the exterior elements lacked finesse, especially: the wood trellis, window treatments and the visual cues for the main house entry.

Abridged minutes are provided beginning on page 14 of this report as Attachment A.

CODE COMPLIANCE:

Note: The code compliance information below shows the proposed change from existing conditions to the currently proposed modifications to that design. Included in brackets [ ] for comparison are the conditions previously proposed in the application denied on February 14, 2022. Additionally, there are no changes proposed to the existing detached carport.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 74

Page 2 of 13 ends

The residence is situated on a non-conforming lot in zone A. The lot contains approximately 5,000 square feet of area and 50 feet of frontage. The minimum lot area required in the City Code (section

17.20.040) is 8,000 square feet and the minimum lot frontage (section 17.20.040) is 60 feet. Existing non-conforming.

The existing structure coverage is 35.9% and is proposed to increase to 40% [40%]. The maximum limit in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 40%. Complies.

The existing landscape coverage is 28.2% (existing non-conforming) and is proposed to increase to 30% [30%]. The minimum limit in the City Code (17.20.040) is 30%. Complies.

The existing building height (average) is 21 feet and is proposed to decrease to 19 feet 11 inches[19 feet 11 inches]. The maximum limit in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 35 feet. Complies.

The existing right-side yard (south) setback measured to the exterior wall of the side porch is 3 feet 5 inch (existing non-conforming) and is proposed to increase to 6 feet 10 inches [6 feet 10 inches] measured to the exterior wall of the main house. The minimum required side yard setback in the City Code (section 17.20.040) is 5 feet. Complies
No changes are proposed that would affect the street yard (west) setback, left side yard (north) setback, rear yard (east) setback, or floor area ratio or parking code provisions. No new bedrooms are proposed.

DESIGN REVIEW:

The house is located on a fairly rectangular lot with frontage on Fairview Avenue. According to City records, the house was constructed in the Mission Revival style in 1929. A 1-car carport is located at the left rear corner of the property, accessed by a driveway in the left side yard. Since its original construction the house has had a few repairs, remodels and additions. The lot gradually slopes downhill from the street. Houses on the street are a mix of: 1) Spanish Revival-style architecture with stucco exteriors and tiled roofs; 2) Colonial Revival-style houses with slender columns that form entry porch and symmetrically balanced double hung windows and center door; 3) Craftsman bungalow-style house with a single-car garage, stucco siding, chimney; 4) Prairie-style houses with low pitched hip-roof, widely overhanging eaves; and 5) Four Square variation-style houses with cube-shaped footprint, hipped tiled roof and stucco exterior.

The current residence has a “Mission Revival” style influence only on the front façade whereas the other sides of the house have no distinctive features of the style. The decorative arch, free standing stucco wall of varying height form a courtyard entry. Other exterior materials include stucco walls, wood and aluminum windows and doors, clay tiled parapet cap in the front, and asphalt shingle roof.

The carport is wood-framed with a flat built-up roof.

The current application proposes a stylistic change to the existing house and in doing that proposes to:
• Remove and demolish all the Mission Revival features seen in the front (west) including: the free-standing stucco walls, clay tiled parapet roofing and asphalt shingle roofing; • Remove and demolish existing rightside (south) entry porch and stairstructure, and chimney on the left side (north) of the house;
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 75

Page 3 of 13 ends

• Replace existing casement, fixed, and double hung windows with awning, fixed, and casement windows, throughout the house;
• Modify the front roof profile to a 3:12 plaster finished sloping roof and add a galvalume parapet cap along the roof profile on all sides;
• Modify the exterior stucco siding to include control joints and wood slats; • Construct a wood deck and stairs in the rear (east) of the house; • Construct a wood and steel trellis roof for the deck in the rear and patio in the front (west) of the house;
• Install metal and cable handrails and guardrails where necessary; • Add two (2) fixed aluminum skylights; and
• Add exterior lighting throughout the house.

The application also proposes to:
• Make several hardscape and landscape modifications;
• Construct wood slatted fencing up to 30 inches tall in the street yard (west) setback; • Install raised planting beds in the rear alongside the new deck; • Install an air conditioning unit within a wood screening enclosure on the roof of the house; and
• Make several other associated interior and exterior modifications.

The proposed stylistic changes have a Contemporary flair. The proposed exterior of the house includes typical control joints treatment throughout the house with wood slatted siding on the side and rear facades. The entire roof will be capped with a black galvalume parapet cap. Proposed windows and doors are of aluminum, wood, and aluminum-clad wood materials. The wood trellisin the front and back are supported by steel post. The proposed offset entry to the main house is on the side wall of the entry patio. A wood fence is proposed in the front yard, enclosing the new patio and planting area. The opening of the fence marks the main house entrance. The proposed landscape includes drought resistant, northern California climate appropriate plantings. The proposed hardscape materials include concrete and flagstone path and patio. No changes are proposed to the existing driveway or carport. 3-D renderings of the proposed changes and a conceptual landscape plan is included within the plan set.

The application also proposes a roof-mounted air conditioning unit. The unit is located closer to the rear of the roof of the house and will be enclosed within a wooden screen. The design of the enclosure is consistent with the wood slatted siding proposed on the main house.

A letter from the applicant detailing comments received on the previously proposed project (denied on the February 14, 2022 Planning Commission hearing) and efforts taken to address some or all of the comments is included as an attachment to the application form.

Should the Commission wish to make the required design review findings to approve the project, the Commission is asked to:

A. Determine that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 (e), Existing Facilities because the project is an addition to an existing structure that is less than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, and the project is consistent with General Plan policies and ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 76

Page 4 of 13 ends

programs; and
B. Take action on the design review permit, making the findings under Section 17.66.060; and C. Consider the following conditions of approval:

1. Exterior Lighting. All new exterior light fixtures shall be downward directed with an opaque or translucent shade that completely covers the light bulb.

2. C&D Compliance. Compliance with Section 9.04 of the Municipal Code, which governs the recycling of construction and demolition debris, is required for all phases of this project.

3. Window and Door Material. As specified in the plans and application material, the building material for the windows and doors shall be wood, aluminum and aluminum clad wood.

4. Window Trim. The new exterior window trim shall be consistent with the design of the original exterior window trim.

5. Window Color Scheme. All the windows on the house shall have a consistent color scheme.

6. Window Recess. All new windows shall be recessed as noted on the window schedule on Sheet A10.1 of the plan set, from the exterior wall to the face of window sash in order to maintain consistency with the original architecture, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines and Window Replacement Policy. Window details shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of building permit application.

7. Pre-construction Inspection. After the issuance of a building permit and prior to the commencement of window fabrication, the installer shall schedule a pre-construction inspection with the Building Department. The inspection will review the approved installation criteria, noted on the approved building permit drawings and specifications, such as the window recess, window trim if any, and window sill projection if any, with the existing conditions.

8. BAAQMD Compliance. The applicant shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations related to any building demolition. The Demolition Notification form is available on their website at www.BAAQMD.gov/forms.

9. Sound. The proposed AC unit shall meet the sound requirements of a maximum 50 decibels at the nearest property line as proscribed in Building Code Section 8.02.020.JJ. Any modifications in order to meet the sound requirements are subject to staff review and approval.

10. Skylight Flashing. The metal flashing around the skylight(s) shall be painted to match the adjacent roof color.

11. Construction Management Plan. The Property Owner shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, dust control, sanitary facilities, site safety security emergency access, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 77

Page 5 of 13 ends

involving the means and methods of completing the Project, including the construction route.

The City Building Official has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the Project and until the Final Inspection.
a. Construction Site Control of Stormwater. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires all projects that disturb the site to comply with Provision C.6 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit in order to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants and other regulated materials during construction. As required by the Chief Building Official and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall develop and submit a construction stormwater management plan as part of the Construction Management Plan to achieve timely and effective compliance with Provision C.6. Permit Provision C.6.c.ii provides sources for site specific, and seasonally- and phase-appropriate, effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be incorporated into the stormwater management plan. Copies of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit are available from the Piedmont Public Works Department and on-line at cleanwaterprogram.org. b. Renovation / New Construction. Pursuant to Section 17.32.6 of the Municipal Code, if for any reason more than 70% of the physical structure (as determined by the Building Official) is demolished or destroyed, the building shall conform to new building and planning Code requirements. If this occurs during demolition, all work must stop and a new hearing and public review by the Planning Commission is required.

12. Construction Completion Schedule. Work on the Project, once begun, shall be promptly executed with continuous good faith and reasonable progress. Since timely completion of this Project is of the essence, the Property Owner shall submit for approval a Construction Completion Schedule, which will specify, in detail, the duration and percentage of the project as a whole for each phase.
a. The Construction Completion Schedule with associated construction values for each benchmark shall set forth completion dates for the following benchmarks as needed: i) Completion of Excavation; ii) Completion of Retaining Walls; iii) Completion of Foundation; iv) Completion of Rough Framing; v) Completion of Electrical; vi) Completion of Plumbing; vii) Completion of Mechanical; viii) Completion of Fire Sprinklers; ix) Completion of Home; x) Completion of Hardscaping and Landscaping; and any further construction benchmarks and conditions of occupancy as may be determined by the Director of Public Works.
b. Before the Project begins, the Director of Public Works shall make a determination as to the reasonableness of the proposed completion dates applicable to the Project, and that determination shall constitute the Approved Construction Completion Schedule and be binding on the Property Owner. The City may, at the Property Owner’ssole cost, engage the services of a consultant to review the proposed Construction Completion Schedule and, to the extent the period allocated for any work appears unjustifiable, recommend to the Director of Public Works a reasonable completion date for any benchmark. c. In the event of a change in scope of the Project that would alter the benchmarks dates set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or in the event the Property Owner fails to meet a benchmark set forth in the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Property Owner shall immediately submit a request to amend the Approved Construction Completion Schedule to the Director of Public Works. The request to amend shall be accompanied by a new proposed Construction Completion Schedule in compliance with ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 78

Page 6 of 13 ends

subsection (a) of this condition of approval and the Director of Public Works shall evaluate the proposed amendments to the Approved Construction Completion Schedule in accordance with subsection (b) of this condition of approval.
d. The failure of the Property Owner to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, or any amendments to it approved in conformance with subsection (d) of this condition of approval, shall constitute a nuisance under the City of Piedmont City Code (“City Code”). The failure of the Property Owner to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule may result in the City pursuing administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1 of the City Code, nuisance abatement pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, or any other remedy available to the City under the law. Additionally, if the Property Owner fails to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Director of Public Works, at his or her sole discretion, may make a claim against the Property Owner’s Site Security, if one is required, in order to complete the benchmark. The Director of Public Works, at his or her sole discretion, may refer the application to the Planning Commission for public review and direction.
e. At least two weeks prior to start of construction, the Applicant shall provide written notice to property owners and residents of all adjacent properties on forms provided by the Director of Building & Planning. This notification shall include information such as the start date and scope of construction, building permit number, a copy of the Construction Completion Schedule, as well as the contact information of the property owner, designer/agent, and contractor(s). The Applicant shall sign an affidavit of said notice and provide a copy to City Building Official.

13. Final Landscape Plan. Before issuance of a building permit, the Applicantshallsubmit for staff review and approval of a Final Landscape Plan for all modifications. The final plan shall comply with City Code Division 17.34 and Section 17.33.30 and shall not propose plants near the driveway that could obscure visibility of pedestrians on the sidewalk or vehicles on the street from drivers backing out of the driveway. If the landscape plan for the project shows 2500 sq.ft. of new or renovated landscaping or during the course of construction more than 2500 sq. ft. of landscaped area is disturbed, the project will be required to comply with the provisions of California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Upon the determination of the Director, minor differences in the number, size and/or species of vegetation between those shown on the approved landscape plan and those installed at the time of final inspection that do not involve an increase in hardscape or structure coverage may be subject to staff review and approval. Significant differences between the vegetation installed at the time of final inspection and vegetation shown on the approved landscape plan are subject to a design review permit.

14. Defense of Legal Challenges. The Property Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter “Proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City‘s actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to actions or omissions in any way connected to the Property Owner’s project (“Challenge”). City may, but is not obligated to, defend such Challenge as City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at Property Owner’s sole cost and expense. This ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 79

Page 7 of 13 ends

indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner, City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such Proceeding. If the Property Owner is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City. Per Government Code Section 66474.9, the City shall promptly notify Property Owner of any Proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

Design Review Guidelines which may be used for reference are listed beginning on page 9.

DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:

To approve this application for design review, the Planning Commission must make findings that the application complies with the design review criteria under Section 17.66.060 as noted below. The applicants’ proposed findings are indicated in bold.
(A) The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines:

The existing house is a modern building with Mission Revival decorative elements attached to the street-facing facade. Referring to Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 the proposed design matches the north easterly neighbor’s height and uses a pitched roof to a) allow more natural light to the north easterly neighbor’s side-facing windows as well as b) add height towards the taller south westerly neighbor. The proposed design reduces the height and bulk of the building by removing the faux decorative elements (including the false facade/ tall parapet) and updating it into a cohesive Contemporary style using three-dimensional elements and massing that create volumetric relief in the facade. In keeping with the Contemporary style, this project proposes a zero-eave roof, simple building geometry, and a large accordion door system at the front facade to create a welcoming, seamless opening and connection to the front yard garden.

Page 8 of 13 ends

matching the detail of the vertical trellises to further articulate the contemporary style of the building and tie the various design features together.
(B) The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties’ existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light:

The proposed pitched roof provides a lower profile at the neighboring property to the north (120 Fairview Ave) thus reducing impact on the adjacent neighbor, minimizing shadows, and maximizing their access to daylight. New windows have been proposed that are offset from the neighbors’ side windows to preserve privacy. The existing exterior stair in the south side yard stair is also proposed to be removed, increasing the open space between the project and 110 Fairview Ave
(C) The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety:

The proposed design does not make any changes to the existing sidewalk, curb, or curb cut.

Further information regarding front yard fencing: a low wood fence is proposed at the front of the house to create a greater sense of privacy and security at the front yard. The existing home had a similar fence 3’ closer to the house with a large entry portal and an awkward halllike space that prevented direct access to the front door. The proposed design is placing the opening of the fence closer to the front door marking the entrance. The wall is still maintaining a semi-private area where children and pets are prevented from walking off onto the street, and package deliveries can be left at the front door. The extension of the fence also allows landscape elements on the inside of the fence softening the vertical surface with natural plants as well as allowing vines to grow up onto the trellis. The archway has been removed to maintain a consistent contemporary style. The fence is also no longer flush with the front façade, which provides a break in the façade creating more relief and a human-scale massing along the street frontage.

CLEANWATER CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project will not create or replace more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces.

Incorporation of site design measure(s) into the plans submitted for a building permit as required under Provision C.3.i of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit is not required.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

No City Council action is required unless the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Pages 14 - 16: Abridged Minutes of February 14, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 81

Page 9 of 13 ends

DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES:

3.03 SITE DEVELOPMENT

3.03.01 SIGNIFICANT VIEWS

3.03.01.1 The siting and construction of a new or modified existing structure, including its site plantings at mature growth, should make all reasonable efforts to avoid adverse impacts on significant views currently available to existing nearby residences.

3.03.02 VISUAL AND ACOUSTICAL PRIVACY; ACCESS TO DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIGHT

3.03.02.2 The siting of a structure and its landscaping should clearly differentiate between the public right-of-way and the private space of the structure, giving the appearance that its occupants control their private space.

3.03.02.3 The siting of a structure and the openings into its rooms should discourage visual access by persons driving by in automobiles or walking along the sidewalk yet allow for the view of the streetscape and the neighborhood by its occupants, allowing for “eyes on the street.”

3.05 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY

3.05.01 SETBACKS FROM THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY

3.05.01.1 In addition to the Building Location Design Standards outlined in Section 3.06, building front setbacks from the street right-of-way should reflect the prevailing pattern found along other adjacent lots fronting the same side of the street.

3.09 FENCES AND WALLS

3.09.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY

3.09.01.1 The design of fences or walls should be consistent with the character of existing fences or walls in the neighborhood and on contiguous parcels, except when they exceed the recommended maximum heights outlined in these guidelines.

3.09.01.2 A fence or wall should minimize any adverse impacts on the neighborhood and on residences located on contiguous parcels. The quality of design reflected by the fence or wall should be directly related to its visual prominence.

3.09.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY

3.09.02.1 The design of a fence or wall should be compatible with the architectural style of the residence which it serves and should provide visual interest and variety. A fence or wall should be well-designed and visually interesting. It should not call attention to itself, but instead should focus and direct attention to the residence.

3.09.02.2 When a fence or wall contains an entry to the residence, its design should give visual prominence to the residence and direct attention to the entry.

3.09.02.3 Fences or walls in front yards are to be avoided except in rare circumstances. However, if a residence is located on a corner or through lot, a fence or wall greater than four feet in height should be permitted to enclose the property’s private outdoor living area in the side or rear yard.

3.09.02.4 With the exception of corner lots, fences or walls greater than four feet in height should not be located between the sidewalk and a house.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 82

Page 10 of 13 ends

3.09.03 CONTIGUOUS PARCELS AND ON-SITE SAFETY

3.09.03.1 A fence or wall located in a side yard should not obstruct emergency access between the street and the side and rear yards of a contiguous residence.

3.09.03.2 A fence or wall located in a side yard should not obstruct emergency access from the street, through the side yard, and into the rear yard of the residence. A gate located in a side yard fence or wall should be wide enough to accommodate an emergency stretcher. Its locking mechanism should be a type that can be unlocked or removed by police and fire department personnel in an emergency. A gate in a fence or wall located within side yards and permitting access to rear yards should be equipped with an adequate lock which can be unlocked or removed by police and fire department personnel in an emergency.

3.09.03.3 A fence or wall located adjacent to a driveway should not obstruct the view of a driver exiting a driveway.

3.09.03.4 A fence or wall located in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a street should not obstruct the view of the cross street for drivers approaching the cross street.

3.11 LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE DESIGN

3.11.01 INTRODUCTION

3.11.01.1 Landscape and hardscape surfaces are design elements that anchor structures to their surrounding terrain. Rather than being used as an afterthought to mask inappropriately positioned or designed structures, they should instead be part of a comprehensive site development design scheme and should be compatible with the design of structures found on the property.

3.11.01.2 As with additions to existing structures, additions to existing landscaping and hardscaping should provide a seamless transition to existing planting and pathway designs.

3.11.02 STREET FACING GARDENS IN SETBACK AREAS

3.11.02.1 Planting designs within the street facing setback area should be compatible with those found on neighboring properties, as shown in the two photographs above.

3.11.02.2 Living plant materials should be the primary ground cover for street facing gardens within the front setback area. Planting areas consisting primarily of rock or inorganic material should be avoided, as shown in the two photographs above.

3.11.02.3 Artificial turf is not a landscaping material. As a hardscape material it does not count towards the 30% landscape minimum. The 20 ft. street setback area must be landscaped except for areas of ingress and egress. Side and rear yards offer more flexibility in the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including artificial turf.

3.11.02.4 At corner lots, where the side yard also has a street facing garden within the 20 ft. street setback, landscaping should be attractive while providing privacy for outdoor living areas.

3.11.02.5 Hardscape, or paved surfaces in street facing gardens within the street setback areas should be limited to pathways to building entrances and driveways to garage entrances. Outdoor patios and active outdoor activity areas within this setback area are discouraged. Living plant materials should be installed adjacent to these hardscape surfaces to enhance these entry pathways, as shown in the two photographs above.

3.11.03 ON-SITE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

3.11.03.1 Minimize impacts on existing terrain.

3.11.03.2 Use natural drainage channels and on-site storm water drainage management opportunities.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 83

Page 11 of 13 ends

3.11.03.3 Preserve and incorporate existing mature trees as part of the overall landscape design.

3.11.03.4 Use landscaping within side and rear setback areas to reinforce property lines and minimize the need for fencing between separate outdoor spaces.

3.11.03.5 Avoid locating structures within the drip line of existing mature trees or within riparian zones.

3.11.03.6 Rear yard gardens should provide plantings with usable open space.

3.11.03.7 When possible, use a variety of plant materials in the palette to have a layered effect of size and species. Consider the need for wind breaks, the need for shading in South and West facing areas, while choosing plant materials conducive to sunny and shaded zones within the lot.

3.11.03.8 Use native plant species, drought tolerant or climate appropriate planting materials.

Consider following Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines when designing your garden.

3.11.03.9 Avoid invasive plant species or flammable mulch, such as shredded redwood bark, also known as “gorilla hair.”

3.11.03.10 Consider the eventual height and width of plant materials when planting near property lines, buildings, site features, streets and sidewalks.

3.11.03.11 Use drip irrigation systems to establish newly planted materials, but choose species that will primarily survive on rainfall.

3.11.03.12 Use permeable paving as part of the hardscape materials, when possible. Pavers should be light in color with a high solar reflective index.

3.11.03.13 Consider planting strips at driveways

3.11.03.14 On-site asphalt driveway paving and on-site driveway and walkway solid white concrete paving should be discouraged. Colored concrete or pavers are recommended for on-site driveways and walkways

3.12 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

3.12.01 NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTIGUOUS PARCEL COMPATIBILITY

3.12.01.2 Use “Dark Sky Compliant” exterior light fixtures that are shielded and directed downwards to prevent light trespassing from a subject property to neighboring properties. The use of floodlights is discouraged.

3.12.02 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN, COMPATIBILITLY AND SAFETY

3.12.02.1 Complement the light fixture design with the architectural character and building elements being illuminated.

3.12.02.2 Conceal electrical boxes from public view. Conduits should not be exposed on exterior walls and should be embedded either in walls or landscaping.

3.12.02.3 Locate low level lighting to ensure entry paths, entry stairs and driveways, garage and building entries are adequately illuminated.

3.12.02.4 When used, provide motion sensors that are adjustable, to prevent them from rapidly flashing on and off when activated.

4.01 BUILDING STYLES

4.01.02 STYLISTIC CHANGES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES

4.01.02.1 Where there is a desire to change the existing building style, such changes should be applied to the entire exterior, and to accessory structures, and not only to the area where new construction is proposed.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 84

Page 12 of 13 ends

4.02 BUILDING ELEMENTS

4.02.01 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN CONSISTENCY

4.02.01.2 Porches: The construction of additional porches or the reconstruction of an existing porch should match any porches which were original to the existing structure. Particular attention should be given to the porch roof, columns, balustrades and railings, which are usually the most visible elements of the porch. New elements should be compatible with the design of the existing elements.

For new construction, the building elements of a porch should also be consistent with the overall building style. Elements which are inconsistent with the architectural style of the building should be avoided.

4.02.01.3 Decks and Balconies: Deck and balcony additions to existing structures, as well as decks and balconies that are part of new structures should be consistent with the architectural style of the building to which they are attached.

4.02.01.6 Doors: Doors for new structures and additions, as well as new or replacement doors for existing structures, should be consistent with the architectural style of the building, while maintaining its security.

4.02.01.7 Exterior Wall Material: The material used on the exterior walls of an addition or remodeled portion of a structure should be consistent with the design integrity of the existing building. This may be achieved using different, yet compatible materials (above left), or by matching the materials of the existing structure (above right).

4.02.01.10 Roof: Remodels/ Additions: When a new roof is part of an addition or remodel, it should be consistent with the design integrity of the existing structure. The geometry of the new roof should relate to that of the existing roof. Individual design elements which need to be addressed include the type and pitch of the roof, cornices, gable-end finish, gutters, roof covering, and trim and molding. For example, an addition to a residence with a gable roof should extend the existing roof or match the pitch of the existing roof.

4.03 NEW REPLACEMENT AND NEW WINDOWS

4.03.03 ON-SITE AESTHETIC DESIGN COMPATIBILITY; REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND NEW WINDOWS ON EXISTING STRUCTURES:

4.03.03.1 When replacing existing windows, installing new windows in an existing wall, or installing new windows in an addition, the type, proportion, placement, details and materials of new windows should be compatible with the existing windows, or with the original windows on the building should the existing windows be architecturally-inconsistent replacements. Window elements that should be addressed include the frame, pattern of the lites defined by the muntins, the trim used to surround the frame, and the degree to which the existing windows are recessed from the face of the wall. While it is not necessary to exactly replicate the existing pattern of muntins and lites, it should be as close as possible to reflect the original design in the new windows.

4.03.03.2 The primary focus in determining window compatibility is design and long-term quality and durability rather than actual material composition. Nevertheless, the use of vinyl framed windows is prohibited, unless they are paintable.

4.03.03.3 Window hierarchy shall be considered during the review of the permit application, including differences between primary windows that may have a greater level of detail (divided lites, increased size, and special treatments such as arches) and secondary windows. In all cases, there should be consistency in window proportions, operation, trim, and appearance.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 85

Page 13 of 13 ends

4.03.03.4 Where there is a mix of existing window styles, replacement window materials and designs should be consistent on any elevation that is visible from a private or public street.

Regardless of their location, all of the window frames and trim for the building should be the same color. While there may be some difference in window styles where new and existing windows occur, the overall appearance of windows should be consistent.

4.03.03.5 Where non-original windows are replaced on a building with a mix of existing window styles, the replacement window should more closely replicate or simulate the original windows.

4.03.03.6 The use of simulated divided-lite grilles on new windows is acceptable if they are located on both the outside and inside faces of the window, have spacer bars between the double panes of glass and are three dimensional, with profiles that are similar to the design of the original windows.

The list above is the applicable design guidelines as identified by staff.

APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES:

Design & Preservation Policy 28.5: Garages, Decks, and Porches-Encourage garages, decks, and porches to complement the architecture and design of the primary residence and adjacent residences.

Garages should be visually integrated with the neighborhood and respect the amenities enjoyed by residences on contiguous parcels. New garages should be sited to minimize safety impacts and should not encourage parking that blocks all or part of a sidewalk.

Design & Preservation Policy 28.6: Exterior Materials - Encourage the use of exterior materials that are appropriate to the property, neighborhood and natural setting.

Design & Preservation Policy 29.2: Landscape Design - Use landscaping to soften the appearance of buildings, frame desirable views, screen undesirable views, buffer potentially incompatible uses, and maintain an attractive streetscape. Landscape design should fit the surrounding context and complement the city’s natural landscape.

Design & Preservation Policy 29.5: Fence and Wall Design - Encourage fences and walls to be designed in a way that complements the architecture of adjoining residences. Adverse visual effects of fences and walls on adjacent properties should be minimized.

Design & Preservation Policy 29.8: Exterior Lighting - Discourage excessive or overly bright exterior lighting and lighting which could interfere with motorist safety. Exterior yard lighting should be designed to avoid spillover on to adjacent properties.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 86
Planning Commission Minutes
February 14, 2022
20 administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1 of the City Code, nuisance abatement pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, or any other remedy available to the City under the law. Additionally, if the Applicant fails to comply with the Approved Construction Completion Schedule, the Director of Public Works, at his or her sole discretion, may make a claim against the Property Owner’s Site Security, if one is required, in order to complete the benchmark. The Director of Public Works, at his or her sole discretion, may refer the application to the Planning Commission for public review and direction.
e. At least two weeks prior to start of construction, the Applicant shall provide written notice to property owners and residents of all adjacent properties on forms provided by the Director of Building & Planning. This notification shall include information such as the start date and scope of construction, building permit number, a copy of the Construction Completion Schedule, as well as the contact information of the property owner, designer/agent, and contractor(s). The Applicant shall sign an affidavit of said notice and provide a copy to City Building Official.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission approves the design review permit application for the improvements at 84 King Avenue, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City.

Moved by Zucker, Seconded by Ramsey
Ayes: Duransoy, Ramsey, Strout, Zucker, Batra
Noes: None
Abstaining: None

Absent: Levine
REGULAR CALENDAR The Commission considered the following items as part of Regular Calendar:

Design Review Permit,
116 Fairview Avenue,
DRP #21-0323
The Property Owners are requesting to construct a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including:
altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails and adding exterior lighting.

Public testimony was received from:

Dinesh Perera, Designer, presented the three main goals that included, to add more visibility from the street from the living spaces, secondly adding daylighting, and thirdly create a clean contemporary building with connection to the yard. The previous designer incorporated Spanish colonial elements in the front of the home, but The Designer stated that there was no predominant architectural style in the neighborhood and the internal space determined the exterior design. The trellis will be made of natura cedar and be connected to the wall. The visual cue for the front door is a tall opening in the low wall, creating a direct path to the front doorway.

Frances Fisher, Property Owner, proposed to bring more light into the home and redesign of space. The new design brings more flow through building and also creates a more welcoming home to the neighborhood.

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 87
Planning Commission Minutes
February 14, 2022
21 The Commissioners stated the need for more information on where the architectural context was drawn from, how the wood trellis engages the house, what the finish of the trellis is, window treatments, and visual cues for the front door.

Resolution 323-FDR-21
WHEREAS, The Property Owner is requesting a stylistic change to the exterior of the house, to make interior modifications on the main level and several other modifications to hardscape and landscape throughout the property, including:
altering the profile of the front (west) facade and roof, removing the existing chimney, making window and door modifications throughout, constructing a wood deck and trellis in the front (west) and rear (east) of the house, constructing retaining walls and on-grade site stairs, adding skylights, installing guardrails and adding exterior lighting, located at 65 Oakmont Avenue, which construction requires a design review permit; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application, and after having visited the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that that the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal does not conform to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:

1. The proposed design is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines due to the roof form and the trellis design needs clarification.

3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety, as there is no effect on pedestrian or vehicular safety.

4. The application does not comply with the following Design Review Guidelines:

3.05 (Compatibility with the Street Right-of-Way), 4.01 (Building Styles), 4.02 (Building Elements)

5. The project is not consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including: Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.1 (Scale, Height, and Bulk Compatibility), Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.2 (Style Compatibility.

RESOLVED, that based on the findings and facts set forth heretofore, the Piedmont Planning Commission denies the design review permit application for the construction at 116 Fairview Avenue, Piedmont, California, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City
Moved by Strout, Seconded by Duransoy
Ayes: Duransoy, Strout, Zucker, Batra
Noes: None
ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 88
Planning Commission Minutes
February 14, 2022
22 Recused: Ramsey

Absent: Levine
Fence-Design Review
Permit,
1 Crocker Avenue,
DRFW #21-0328
The Property Owners are seeking retroactive approval for the construction of a 6- foot-tall fence within the 20-foot street-yard setback along Lincoln Avenue.

Public testimony was received from:

Derry MacBride, Property Owner, stated the primary purpose of the fence was to rid the community of the eyesore of the Thuja trees and replace them with a healthy, attractive hedge, consistent with their garden. The fence would also shield the view of the necessary but unsightly electrical equipment, on the side of the house on Lincoln Avenue.

Generally, the Planning Commission supported the project and stated that the fence would obscure the equipment, was appropriate for the neighborhood and the corner lot side yard
Resolution 328-FDR-21
WHEREAS, The Property Owners are requesting retroactive approval for the construction of a 6-foot-tall fence within the 20-foot street-yard setback along Lincoln Avenue. located at 1 Crocker Avenue, which construction requires a fence design review permit; and,
WHEREAS, after reviewing the application, plans, and any and all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with such application and after visiting the subject property, the Piedmont Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3(e), New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, the project was consistent with General Plan policies and programs, and the proposal, as conditioned, conformed to the criteria and standards of Section 17.66.060 of the Piedmont City Code as follows:

1. The proposed design is consistent with the City's General Plan and Piedmont Design Guidelines in that the fence height and design is consistent with the architecture of the home and neighborhood, the corner lot location, the fence integration with hedging and landscaping, and blocking mechanical equipment from the public right-of-way.

2. The design has little or no effect on neighboring properties' existing views, privacy, and access to direct and indirect light, because the distance from the project to neighboring homes is appropriate, the application proposes sufficient vegetative screening, and improves privacy from the public right away.

3. The proposed design does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular safety, because there is no effect on pedestrian or vehicular safety.

4. As conditioned, the application complies with the following Design Review Guidelines: 3.09 (Site Design) and 4.04 (Building Design:: General).

5. The project is consistent with General Plan policies and programs, including the land use element, housing element, and design and preservation element, including:

Design and Preservation Element Policy 28.8 (Acoustical and Visual Privacy), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.2 (Landscape Design), Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.3 (Front Yard Enclosures), and Design and Preservation Element Policy 29.5 (Fence and Wall Design).

ATTACHMENT F Agenda Report Page 89

Piedmont City CouncilJuly 18, 2022

Piedmont City Council
July 18, 2022