Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:11 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Please post to the 3/7 agenda.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Margo Simons <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 4:39 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Berchtold project on Madrona/Fir HIll Hello Maya,
I hope you are well. We (Fir Hill ) met on the Berchtold property this week to discuss the changes that had been made. Very little had been changed, including the size of the home. I am surprised that in this day and age (with water issues, flood plane consideration) that someone could even consider it, especially because this size has never been considered before in our town. With the proposed future code saying no house larger than 4700sq ft. can be built in town, this will end up being a white elephant. It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood. This project is perfect for an out of town, on a street without the foot, bike and car traffic.
I spoke to a former head of planning (commissioner) and they said even though they (or whomever) may technically be allowed to build to code something of this size(20k), does not mean that it has to be approved. There is a fact in the code says something to the effect ~that if it doesn’t look, smell or taste right for the neighborhood, you don’t have to allow it. It’s the classic just because they can does not mean they should.
Thank you for your consideration,
Margo Simons
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:37 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill Please post to the 3/7 agenda.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Barbara Shurtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:26 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] House proposed for Madrona & Fir Hill I feel that this house is entirely too large for the neighborhood and should not be allowed to be built on this property within the city limits.
Barbara Shurtz 1600 Dean York Lane, St Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeting Mar 7 Please post to the 3/7 agenda.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | hƩp://cityofsthelena.org/planning -----Original Message-----
From: ELLEN SHIFFLETT <ellenshiffleƩ@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 8:34 AM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Proposed build at Madrona and Fir Hill meeƟng Mar 7 As a neighbor and property owner in St Helena I am opposed to the proposed build of an oversized structure on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. I find the proposed out of proporƟon to the neighborhood. Please consider the environment.
Thank you
Ellen ShiffleƩ
1701 Madrona Ave
St Helena
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
#4%*
+6;1(
6'.'0#.#00+0)1//+55+10
#+.41#&8'=
6'.'0#
1*0106'=*#+4.#00+0)1//+55+10=,2106'%+6;1(56*'.'0#14) 767/00&'4510= +%'*#+4.#00+0)1//+55+10=##0&'4510%+6;1(56*'.'0#14) #4+-#
16*('.&=.#00+0)1//+55+10'4=/416*('.&%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
15#74#
')74#=.#00+0)1//+55+10'4=45')74#%+6;1(56*'.'0#14) *4+5612*'4!#40'4=.#00+0)1//+55+10'4=%9#40'4%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)
"
#
!
$
$
"
"
'#4 *#+4 106' +%'*#+4 0&'4510 1//+55+10'4 16*('.& 1//+55+10'4
')74# #0& 1//+55+10'4
!#40'4
% "
"
& !!
#
"
#
!
"
"!"!#
"'
!$;
#5*#
#0'810$'*#.(1(144#+0'#0&1''4%*61.&61#%%1//1'6*'%105647%6+101(#0'9>5+0).'(#/+.;*1/'#0& #%%'5514;&9'..+0)70+6?106*'2412'46;.1%#6'
$
#
524'8+175.;016'&9'917.&$'8'4;2.'#5'&619'.%1/'1'#0&144#+0'616*'0'+)*$14*11�')4#6'(7. 6*#66*'+46'#/#)4''&'#4.;10614'/18'2.#05(14691&4+8'9#;51017424+8#6'5+0).'.#0'41#& "'69'#4'37+6'2'42.':'ᗳ*;"
$ !(
!
"!
"!
"
*'6'#/9#5
&+4'%6'&61/''69+6*0'+)*$145#0&614'67409+6*#2.#0'0%1/2#55+0).'55537#4'(116#)'
#
%"
" $
1'9*+.'6*'4'*#8'$''0#('9/''6+0)59+6*0'+)*$145#0&5614;21.'59'4''4'%6'&6*'%*#0)'56*#69' *#8'1$5'48'&+0%.7&'.19'4+0)6*'%'+.+0)*'+)*61(6*' #0.+)*64'.1%#6+101(6*#65647%674'
6164;61.'55106*'1$5647%6+101(8+'95(146*15'4'5+&'065&+4'%6.;+/2#%6'&19'8'4
!& !!
'
!$ !#"
' #"
"
$ !(
"
! !
74+0)6*'5'%10&/''6+0)9+6*0'+)*$145#37'56+109#5#5-'ȱ*196*'9#6'475'%#.%7.#6+109#5/#&' 4#0'8':2.#+0'&6*#6+69#5$#5'&72106*'07/$'41($'&411/5'9#56*'0#5-'&*19/#0;$'&411/5#4' +06*'%744'062.#04#0'8#0&4'4%*61.&241%''&'&6121+06+06*'#+4%+4%.+0)#4170�&%1706+0)>
?
*';6*'0#)4''&#.17&9+6*'#%*16*'4>"'5
?
*+5.'&/#0;4'5+&'0659*19'4'24'5'0661%10%.7&'
6*#6/14'$'&411/5#4'+0(#%62.#00'&$7610.;(+8'411/5#4'$'+0)&'5+)0#6'ȭ%*106*'241215'&2.#05 !'917.&*#8'*12'&(14/14'64#052#4'0%;9+6*4')#4&619#6'475#)'#0&6*'/#00'4+09*+%*6*'%140'41( +4+..4+8'#0&#&410#8'07'/#;$'+/2#%6'&
!' 4'52'%6(7..; 4'37'56 6*#6 ;17 %#4'(7..; '8#.7#6' 9*'6*'4 6*' 5+<' 1( 6*+5 4'5+&'0%' +5 4'#510#$.' (14 6*' 5744170&+0)0'+)*$14*11;'647566*#6;17917.&&1(14#0;241,'%6+0174$'#76+(7.%+6;
+0%'4'.;
7%1&+'14.'6
!
%
"'
"
$!
#;#'
15#=.#00+0)7+.&+0)+4'%614=/&'415#%+6;1(56*'.'0#14)=
:
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Via email March 6, 2023
RE File Number PL 21-044, 2126 Madrona Avenue, Berchtold Project Dear Planning Commission Chair Ponte and Planning Commissioners, My property located at 1775 Fir Hill Dr. has been in our family since 1972 when it was a cow pasture and Madrona Ave. was a narrow road without a middle line. Our connection to St. Helena is multigenerational; my great grandfather Robert Graham operated a saloon and pool hall on Main Street and my grandfather attended St. Helena Elementary School; my great uncle Thomas Street served as principal of St. Helena Elementary School for a while and his wife ran the florist shop. I feel connected to St. Helena and support my Fir Hill Dr. neighbors in opposition to this project as currently proposed.
I was unable to attend the March 1, 2023 community meeting for the project because of weather conditions and Hwy 101 closure, and unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the March 7 Planning Commission meeting. I have the following questions and concerns.
Water
The water analysis for “water neutrality” is based on the approximation of Dennis Rossi, the sole occupant, using 750 gallons per day because the house has 5 bedrooms. How is this reasoning consistent with the water department phase II water restrictions of 65 gallons per person per day and 2,500 gallons per month for landscaping from April 1 through October? For these 7 months the water use would be 4,450 gallons per month for a period of time when Dennis Rossi was living in the residence. Compare 22,500 gallons per month based on 750 gallons per day with 4,450 gallons per month based on reality. A single resident in a household can use only one toilet at a time and uses about 2.56 gal/flush if not low flow. Even10 flushes/day leaves about 125 gallons for other household water usage assuming 150 gallons per the bedroom used by the single resident. The system of assigning 150 gallons of water per bedroom per day does not give a “reasonable estimate of baseline existing demand” in this case and is used to make it appear that an almost 20,000 sq ft house with 3 bedrooms, possibly 2 more and more bedroom possibilities in the enormous basement, 10 toilets, 16 faucets, 6 shower heads, 2 baths, 3 clothes washers and 1 dishwasher, plus an ADU with 1 bedroom, 1 toilet, 3 faucets, 1 shower head, 1 clothes washer and 1 dishwasher will use less water than the existing use. This defies common sense. I urge the Planning Commission to seek answers, and share them with the public, to questions raised by Tom Belt in his letter dated 2/23/2023. I request that the water analysis of existing use be redone to match reality. Although the current water analysis does not require a water offset due to the inaccurate estimate of existing water usage, offsets do not create more water. With the climate models predicting increasing temperatures and more evapotranspiration, the practice of using offsets to be “water neutral” may not meet the future needs and should be reconsidered. There is a significant probability that all the existing old vines will need to be replaced and new vines watered to be profitable in a warming climate. How will the project be “water neutral” without adding another well to the area? Although the building project does not require CEQA, the well permit should require CEQA in order to study the cumulative impacts of wells in the area in relation to a drying, warming climate, hydrologic flow underground, geology of underground aquafers (probability of collapse, capacity to refill). Wells that functioned in the 1970s at 125 ft depth are dry, and now a depth of about 500 ft is required for reliable water; this water may have collected thousands of years ago. This project is downslope of residential and vineyard wells in the vicinity of Fir Hill Dr. and Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Dean York Lane and creates the risk of water loss for these residents. Protection of the water supply for these residents is a Planning Commission responsibility.
Historic Oak Tree Protection and Storm Water Control Plan Madrona Avenue has been widened since the 1970s and covers more of the tree’s root area along this east side. The asphalt impedes oxygen flow, so the tree may be more dependent on it shallow feeder roots in the remaining root area that is within the project area. The largest bio retention basin is located just outside the root area indicated for the oak tree which serves as a mother tree and has mycorrhizal networks extending beyond the root area to other existing plants. Grading and excavating a 2 ft deep bio retention basin will initially damage the shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal association with other plants on the property. How will this be mitigated? The Storm Water Control Plan states the proposed impervious surface is 24,810 sq ft and the existing impervious surface is 9,840 sq ft. Instead of using pervious pavement for the driveway and motor court parking area which would decrease the impact on the oak tree, the project proposes no pervious pavement. The existing driveway and parking is gravel that allows water and dissolved oxygen into the soil and helps shallow feeder root/mycorrhizal connections to survive. The existing structures have an area of 3,893 sq ft according to the staff report; what accounts for the additional almost 6,000 sq ft of existing impervious surface? A 20,000 sq ft increase in impervious surface reduces the area available for cooperative mycorrhizal connections to other plants and soil areas that currently benefit the oak tree. Will an ethical arborist sign a statement that this massive increase in impervious surface will not decrease the health and longevity of the oak tree? Design Review
To justify loss of agricultural land as consistent with LU 5.1 and LU 5.3, staff uses the rationale that surrounding parcels have not maintained agricultural uses. One resident on Dean York Lane has consistently grown row crops and offered surplus for free to the community; the residence on the NE side of the project has a vineyard; two residences at the west end of Fir Hill Dr. have vineyards and another maintains pasture for livestock; two additional residences on Fir Hill Dr. grow organic fruits and vegetables for their own use and to supply others (over the past decade I have grown and transported hundreds of pounds of lemons, persimmons, figs, guavas to Food for People in Humboldt County). What benefit comes from a narrow interpretation of agricultural use of land? Breaking up the façade of the project structure fronting on Fir Hill Dr. does not preserve the vineyard and mountain views for neighbors or local residents and tourists who enjoy walking and cycling on Fir Hill Dr. and Madrona. The mass of a two story, 29ft tall house is still overwhelming and detracting unless one is an aficionado of excessive wealth display.
I urge the Planning Commission to find that this project is not consistent with General Plan policies LU
5.1 and LU 5.3, and approve a decision that this project not return for consideration “until this project is reduced in scale to under 10K square feet.”
Thank you for serving on the Planning Commission and considering my comments.
Respectfully,
Alice Diane Ryerson
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
"2+0.01
)
#
$
"# $
##
+
'"$
$#
$$"$ &
) #$
"
%$$ " #%
" $ "0/03
"
&,&$$
$0 "& %#
##
$
#'"$
$'#
#$"%$$
%#$
$#+#
'
$# " $
$
$ $
"#,
# $$
$1
“neighborhood meetings”
&
)
"
#,'#!%$#%" "#$$
#$"
$
$
$$
#'"
$ $
"#
,
)$'#
&'$,
&"
%#
( "## %"#
$
$$$$
"#
"
$#
#*%$ %"
$#'"
$$
$
#"$
"
$
$"#%
")" "$,
)
)
"#&
")'"$$
$
$$"#"##
#
"
#so I won’t
" $$ ###%#
)
$$"%$'
$) %$
'$$#% "$$"
"
#,
# '
$$
#%"$$$%$%" $"$
'
$
") "
$)$"#$
$
%
"" %
#)#$
$$$'$"%#'
$ " %
)
&#$$
$ ",
# " #"#
#)
$#
#*
) $""#
$,
,$#
$
'$$"$"#$# %"$ '
$#
" ,$'
"&"
$&'
"
&
%
$ " "$#,$'
$
)
$$##
" %$
$
%
$)$
"
#$ "
$ " $" &"#* " $#,'
&$
&'$$
&"
$
$ $# " $ ")"#$
,
%") %$ & $ "
$
0
$# " $
##$
$'$$
"
#2,/
2,1
"
#
'
&"#
,
) % "#" %#
)
#"
$##%#$$'
$ %"
$"
%
$),
# $%
)+
$$
$
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
# "
%!"$!
Commissioner John Ponte, Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Autumn Anderson, Vice Chair ([email protected]) Commissioner Christopher Warner ([email protected]) Commissioner Rosaura Segura ([email protected]) Commissioner Marika Rothfield ([email protected]) Ms. Maya DeRosa, Planning & Building Director ([email protected]) Ms. Chantal Power, Associate Planner
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff:
Pursuant to a request of the Commissioners at its hearing on December 6, 2022, we submitted a status report on December 19, 2023 of issues resolved and outstanding between the applicants and the Fir Hill Drive neighbors as we understood them at that date. Because applicants had not submitted revised plans at that point, we were unable to report that any issues were resolved. After review of applicants’ recently submitted revised plans and a short meeting at the property with applicants’ representatives, we continue to oppose the project and request the Planning Commission deny the application on the same grounds as we have stated in previous letters of opposition from us and other neighbors.
Although each reason for our opposition alone justifies your denial, collectively they overwhelmingly do.
1. Project massing. o changes were made to the overall 19,515 sq. ft. development.
House massing remains a consistent objection to every Fir Hill neighbor and other members of the community who love the area as we do. Although Planning Commissioners suggested to applicants at each hearing they reconsider reducing the square footage of the project, applicants continued to believe they had the right to their proposed project as submitted. In meetings with us, they actually stated they were “entitled” to them. Ms. Berchtold in particular threatened even more development when we told her we opposed the size and stated to us she would not reduce “one square foot.” This project is far too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size neither fits the character of the neighborhood and town nor the scale and scope of the other residential structures in either the Fir Hill neighborhood, the valley floor or St. Helena in general. Approval of this application will set a terrible precedence for the City of St.
Helena.
a. The ADUs. First, let us address issues regarding the ADU. Specifically, applicants DO NOT propose only one ADU; they actually request TWO composed of 2 structures measuring about 425 sq. ft. each. When combined with the 300 sq. ft. covered breezeway between the 2 structures, the total size equals 1,150 sq. ft. City Staff point out that review of the ADU is a staff ministerial function such that the Planning Commission should have no decision-making authority. In this project plan, however, it is material to the objections of the neighbors and the project massing because its total sq. ft. is at least 1,150. Whether staff or the Planning Commission make the ultimate decision, it should be denied. We question how many ADU’s of 1,150 square feet have been approved in St. Helena making this ADU different and inconsistent from all the other ADU’s approved in the past.
Although applicants frame the ADU request as a kitchen, living area and bedroom, each building can easily be modified clandestinely after construction and final inspection to make 2 fully functional apartments each with kitchens Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
and bedrooms. This hidden motive makes sense when you consider that applicants have stated they will employ a full time caretaker to live in a kitchen-less unit in the main house. This makes no sense when one considers their planting of tall olive trees, construction cement walls and other significant efforts to protect their “privacy.” What kind of wealthy people want a caretaker to come and go into their main house at any time without notice who claim to seek maximum privacy? Their solution: put the caretaker into one of the guest ADUs. When one considers the caretaker unit in the main residence and the 2 ADUs, this project actually has 4 single family residences being proposed. Moreover, the current configuration makes no sense to separate the kitchen from the bedroom unit which would force a tenant or guest to go out into inclement weather to get a glass of water in the night. There is no doubt post-construction changes will be made.
Second, we thank applicants for changes made to the location of the proposed “pool room” ADU as an attempted compromise to reduce the project’s impact on certain neighbors’ view; however, moving the two ADU structures only 15’ to the west and 5’ to the south as well as lowering the roofline “about 2 feet” have minimal impact. Applicants made no change to the size of the ADUs to minimize impact on the neighbors’ views. Thus, it remains the size of numerous single family homes in St. Helena. If, for example, there is only 1 ADU being proposed, they could have removed the breezeway between the 2 structures and made the ADU one building. Likewise, applicants could then have rotated the ADU so that its length ran east and west instead of north and south along Fir Hill; this would thusly reduce the length of the structure running along Fir Hill and further minimized the distance in front of the 1615 property. As it sits now, even with the new setbacks, the ADU blocks our view to the vineyard and eastern hills. Such a turn would significantly reduce the number of vines and rows needed to be torn out to accommodate the current version.
We have owned and lived in 1615 Fir Hill Drive for 65 years. We have made financial improvements to the property based on the view of the vineyard and eastern hills. Applicants should not be able to interfere with these investments because of an ADU that could be smaller, lower in height and positioned differently that would allow them an ADU but also protect their neighbors.
b. The Residence.
The basement: it is immaterial substantial square footage of this project is a basement which would be invisible to the neighbors and overall massing. That size of a buried cement box will impact the local area regardless in multiple ways including impact on the oak tree and groundwater and topside water flow. Furthermore, while there are homes with basements in St. Helena, NONE are anywhere close to the 6,457 sq. ft. size proposed here. Although staff report the HVAC will be located in the basement, it is impossible. Certainly the mechanical requirements for the elevator needed to get from the basement to the 3rd floor will be there. While the laundry machines could be located there, who would want them to be so far away from where the laundry lives? Purportedly there will be a game room. It will certainly be big enough to house almost 7 pickle ball courts, 7 badminton courts, 3.5 volleyball courts, and 2 tennis courts. It is nonsensical to put mechanical and other equipment in a high ground water location where all neighbors who have basements and flooding protections have ALL flooded at one time or another. Some flood every year notwithstanding engineered flooding protection. Building a 10 foot tall, 6,457 sq. ft. cement box might be good for an indoor swimming pool, but not for much else. Denial of the basement is essential to prevent environmental and other long term impact on the neighborhood. Nature will find a way to mitigate all that happens now below the surface of the ground if this basement is constructed and the consequences could be devastating to our aquifers that feed our wells and neighboring vineyards, to the heritage oak tree and its complicated root system, to the City’s drainage system among the few notable issues.
The first and second floors. Even if the basement is denied, the remaining size of the main residence is larger than any other residence in St. Helena and should be denied. It does not fit into the neighborhood and rural character of this particular location. In short, this project remains far too large in scope for the City limits and valley floor. It would be fine if it were located against the base of the foothills or location where it is not seen from the narrow roads and footpaths. Again, we object that this project will serve as precedence for future projects. The Planning Commission and City Council are here to protect our way of life and our cultural heritage. Denial of this application is the only protection our legacy has. Applicants and many of us won’t be here in 50 years, but this local behemoth will be. It’s not what we want to occupy our valley floor.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
When the Rossi family sold the property, we did not doubt someone would rebuild, but we expected it would be in keeping with the current structure size and the sizes of the homes rebuilt along the adjacent Madrona corridor. We did not expect an almost 20,000 sq. ft. project. Please deny this application.
2. Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill will remain a problem.
Without living in this neighborhood for the length of time all the Fir Hill neighbors have, applicants’ cannot truly understand how dangerous the visibility problem is on the corner of Fir Hill Drive and Madrona where both autos and pedestrians enter and exit the roadway on a regular basis. As drivers, when we drive south on Fir Hill towards Madrona, we are look through the Rossi property as best we can past the house so we can get a glimpse of what is happening on Madrona: can we see children, people, and animals taking their walks or riding bikes; can we see a hint of a moving car, truck, tractor, vineyard hauling; is there a car trying to turn onto Fir Hill Drive and we need to pull over to allow it to pass, and generally looking for any other condition that requires us to slow down or stop for safety. Likewise, going west on Madrona, we begin to look for Fir Hill Drive conditions through the vineyard adjacent to 2126 Madrona and at the yard adjacent to Fir Hill. No matter where the olive trees are planted, they will restrict our visibility onto Madrona from Fir Hill Drive and from Madrona onto Fir Hill Drive. Likewise, the size of the residence (which removes all but 1 of the rows between 2126 and the adjacent home) block drivers’ views of Fir Hill from Madrona and from Fir Hill to Madrona. The visibility is unsafely impacted.
3. Storm Water Runoff.
We continue to have concerns about runoff. Applicants are making efforts to mitigate the runoff with some cysterns, but water must go somewhere. A large cement coffin and increased surface cement walls and structures will simply reroute the water, making existing controls useless. The City has a large drainage pipe that will be overwhelmed by the rerouted water. We again question whether the rerouted water and proposed dry ponds will affect the historical oak and create other environmental messes in the area.
4. Water usage.
No resolution is possible on this issue because applicants are using a City of St. Helena plan-review formula vs. actual water usage limits to get around water-usage issues for a home of this size as well as its agricultural/landscaping needs. The original plans call for a large pool, 2 homes (actually 3 with the split ADUs,) 11 toilets, 14 lavatory faucets, 4 kitchen faucets, 2 baths, 1 laundry faucet, 7 shower heads, 4 washing machines and 2 dishwashers. Finally, we continue to ask what the Rossi historical water use for the property was so we can compare historical data with proposed use data. No St. Helena resident or business owner who has lived through several droughts believes low flow water fixtures of a project this size will be less than water usage of the Rossi family and its small humble home. No one.
5. Well for Agricultural use.
Granting of a well permit is purely speculative and with our historical experience with well permits, is unlikely to be granted. Regardless, we still see no permit condition that applicants will use no City of St. Helena water for agriculture or landscaping. Finally, the houses on Fir Hill use well water as their only water source. There are no permit conditions that restrict the use of applicants’ well (if granted) when it affects the viability of any existing well on Fir Hill.
6. Backyard layout and ADUs location.
Again, we continue to question whether the ADU 2 buildings are really only one ADU. Applicants’ proposal to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shifting it 15 feet east and lowering ceiling heights is progress in helping resolve the view shed issues but in reality will have minimal impact. At the recent applicant meeting with the neighbors, applicants confirmed that substantial vineyard will be removed along Fir Hill Drive to accommodate the ADUs, the pool and bocce court. Even though the ADUs could be designed so as to reduce the further impact on the neighbors’ view sheds, (see the comments above, such as combining the ADU into one building with no breezeway, rotating it so the length of the structure does not run along Fir Hill, etc.) applicants continue to hold onto their original design and size.
Nonetheless, applicants' still propose removing most of the vineyard along Fir Hill drive to about the oak tree in front of the Rodrigues property.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
The reason we were given for why it can’t be relocated (or even removed completely) is because it provides pool privacy. Pool privacy does not require 2 buildings totaling 850 square ft. and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an 864 square foot covered terrace. We continue to object to an ADU along Fir Hill. It requires removal of substantial vineyard rows and obliterates the views of many neighbors.
7. oise Study.
Not only the HVAC systems for a project of this scale but any pumps being run to help mitigate the underground water and possible septic systems, pool pumps, all the mechanical noise, etc. need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.
8. Drainage.
The 6,457 square feet cement building that will be below grade will displace and divert current water flows from this area. Displacing this water will be an issue with how the water drains around the property. While the applicants believe the dry ponds will handle it, it cannot handle the kind of atmospheric river storms we have had the last few years where substantial amounts of rainwater fall within short periods of time causing serious flooding. This must be addressed. We see no permit conditions concerning this issue and what will happen if additional runoff onto Fir Hill ditches and culverts as well as City drainage ditches cause further flooding.
9. Arbor Study. In both neighbor meetings the impact to the historic heritage oak tree was discussed, especially in relation to the drainage concerns. Because the tree is on City of St. Helena property, the City must require a tree impact study to be provided and approved by the tree committee. That tree is so old and large it is protected. In addition, because of environmental factors, it is seemingly fragile. There should be an official city arborist to assess the environmental impact issues for this tree. Moreover, we see no permit conditions to address what applicants will have to do if, after construction, the tree is damaged from the unforeseen environmental damages as a result.
10. Septic and leach lines.
Unfortunately, applicants cannot address septic and leach lines unless they have an approved permit which is necessary before applicants can apply for tying into city septic lines. Therefore, we cannot address consequences of potential septic and leach lines which could, in turn, affect the design of some structures and plans. We see no permit conditions that address this foreseeable event, especially as it might affect the neighbors and wells.
11. Elevation and composite drawings.
Renderings for affected properties on Fir Hill still do not look accurate to indicate how the views are actually affected. They do not include full size olive trees, the structures appear too small for the structures in reality. In other words, they look skewed and biased in applicants’ favor and not the property owners’ perspectives.
12. Grape Yields:
Staff state that because the Rossi vineyard is not on a historical register it is not historical. We wholeheartedly disagree with that conclusion. This vineyard was planted in an historical manner. They are not all one variety. If the applicants pull out any of the existing historical vineyard, we would like applicants to be required to have the University of California at Davis study the vines first and get a DNA report on the vines since they are historical and should be preserved.
Regarding the vineyard yields, the Rossi family have stated their yields have been 5 tons each year. We will continue to get a declaration under penalty of perjury from a member of the family for the record, but they have told us there are some underperforming vines, but they are NOT near the house and should not be the ones removed. The underperforming vines are further up Fir Hill towards the Agee property where there is a natural swell. The Rossi family replaced some vines with younger vines that aren’t yet fully performing in the rows nearest to the propose residence, but in a couple of years, they would be fully performing. Some are in the area proposed to be removed. It appears there are Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
about 119 vines proposed to be removed. The Rossi family believes the vineyard has not been properly maintained since they sold it which could account for lower yields.
13. If not CEQA, then what else?
We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena. If not CEQA, what other analysis can be performed to protect us from this development when it is larger than many commercial buildings in St. Helena? Please protect us.
SUMMARY:
We continue to oppose this project. There are many other issues remaining to be resolved, but given the applicants’ contention they are entitled to build a project of this size, it is unlikely this project is not going to happen without the applicants willing to make serious and substantial modifications. In the end, this may be a square peg into a round hole situation and the project should be denied as unsuitable for a City of St. Helena home.
Respectfully submitted,
Patty (Herdell) DiTomaso and Hank DiTomaso
Christina Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Xinia Gamero
From: Maya DeRosa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:49 PM
To: Xinia Gamero
Cc: Chantal Power
Subject: FW: [External] 2126 Madrona
Please post to agenda.
MAYA DEROSA, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City of St. Helena | Community Development Department
1088 College Avenue | St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct: (707) 967-2783 | [email protected] | http://cityofsthelena.org/planning From: Megan Long <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Maya DeRosa <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] 2126 Madrona
I’m writing to oppose the massive residential project planned for 2126 Madrona. The proposed 20K square foot size is not in keeping with the neighborhood — it’s even larger than Spottswoode winery a few doors down! It would be a shame for this McMansion to be built in such a beautiful area that many use for recreation and for a significant number of old grapevines be torn out to make room for the monstrosity.
Best,
Megan
[email protected]
415.420.9054
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
%"
"#
"
"%#
49<6"
"
$
-<78:7
0&+)+,
'+*+/
&1-.0-
$"
$# #
$# " $-
"%")49$'"&"!%#$ ""
"
$
56"-'$Berchtold’s representatives-90)
$.#'$%#-
#$ $
"# %
$$$
$
$
'$#%# "$
$-# $
$
'#"#%
$
"4#$.
"$%
$
)-''"%
$
$"#%
$
%$ " "
$
$#.
%"#
)-$"'"
#
$ &"
#*
# $ " $.
#"&
&" %
$
$
-
"$
$
%"$.
!%#$
#'&$ )"$#
!%#$
#'’ve#
)4 $# " $-
'$
"
#'"#$ #%
%
"
#$ " $'$
$$)
$#
$
.
We’re not sure how the planning commission can consider $# " $'$#
) $
'
"
#%
#'"-
"
$
$#" $
&#'$#
" #$
#$"%$.#"!%#$ #
$" "#
$80"
-40"
"#
$
" "$) " #
.
"$)
$
# $ "$)#'",# $-"
%
$
#
$
)-"
$)"
# " #-
%
$
#$#7"
#-
$"
#$#8"
#-%$$"
"$ $
450$
$#
490$"
#
#,#*
$
$
#
#
$
%$
$ " "$).$"#$)#'"-$#$"$'
&$ $ "
% # $
"" %$$ $ " "$).#'
"
&
"
$$%#
"
&
"%
"##.
$) "'
,'$"%#" "$# '#$# " $ " ##$ #$"%$
80
"
"#
-40"
-
$5459
"
&
%-
$.
-.
$
#$#7"
#-$##')"
$
'
&$"#
$
$"
"
%
$,
'"#
'
##$ 45$
$#-
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
$) "'
,'$"%#" "$# '#$# " $ " ##$ #$"%$
80
"
"#
-40"
-
$5459
"
&
%-
$.
-.
$
#$#7"
#-$##')"
$
'
&$"#
$
$"
"
%
$,
'"#
'
##$ 45$
$#-
490$"
#
#-;# '"#-5$$%#-8$
#
#-8#'#"#-7
$#
'#"#
5$
$)#
#.
%
" ($%"##
$
##$
$'$8"
-4
"#
$
" "$).$"%#
" $$##*#
%$%##$#$."#
& "$
"$ $
%
$ ".$
##
$ %
$ ",
#"#* $#
$-978:#!%"$+
%
$ "$$$' %
$
"
&#% '" 5-6:3%)#$5333
#. ")-$&"%
$"%
#45047
)"#-that’s " (
$
)4;3$"%
#/$" #%
'
"
.# sn’t
%
) &" "$ %
$
- "$"$$ "
& "$#'
.
$#$$
,'"$
)$" "#
$$&#$$$' %
$#
'"
$'
6$ 7)"#$
$.# #
$#
$ $
"80"
"#
$
" $.
%"
"
#"
)
#'"#.
$
d’s have repeatedly said that they what to build $"“"
”-'$)
#"&.%$'
$""
##%
$&$
$#%"" %
" "$#-
)$""
#
$'"
$
."#
$"
$
$)
$
)'"
"
#*
# .
##$$
%" "& %#
$$"$!"
%
!"!
"
$$$
##
'
$ %"
"
#
$
#"$
-#'
#$ $""#
$#
$
%
$)- "
)#
.
#$#$'
$ '
#$# "#
$ "%$%" " $##'
.
! "#
%&
%"
"#
"
"%#
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
December 19, 2022
Status Update to the Planning Commission
Public Comment
Opposition Letters Submitted
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
# "
%!"$!
December 19, 2022
Re: City of St. Helena File No: PL 21-044; Application for Demolition Permit and Design Review for 2126 Madrona, St. Helena CA (APN 009-470-010) filed by Lorraine and Joe Berchtold The Planning Commission asked for a summary of outstanding issues at its December 6, 2022 meeting. As we stated during the meeting, no issue we raised at the October 18, 2022 hearing has been resolved except for the applicants agreeing to eliminate driveway access onto Fir Hill Drive and agreement to put up story poles. We also reported we cannot make a full assessment of issues until we see revised plans, especially as we reported Ms. Berchtold threatened us with full development of the parcel because we opposed their project application. We have since learned, she made a similar threat to another Fir Hill neighbor.
The Berchtolds had 2 neighbor meetings at the property; they walked through the building outlines and story poles.
During the first gathering, Ms. Berchtold said to a few neighbors that she and her husband were “ENTITLED” to build a house of this size and they were not going to reduce the project by "one square foot." She said many other unfortunate things to us. As would be understandable, this lead some neighbors to believe the meetings were not being held in good faith to discuss our concerns and possible alternatives. Ms. Berchtold was so upset after the first gathering she did not attend the second one. At least one neighbor left in tears.
Ms. Falace’s letter to the Planning Commission is misleading on several points which we address below along with continued problems we have with the current project.
House massing. House massing is absolutely still a high level concern. Story poles were helpful to see location and potential view shed issues. They do not in any way resolve the issue that this project is too large for the area and is in noncompliance with multiple General Plan requirements. Even with minimizing the design and materials selected, a residential development of this size does not fit into the scale and scope of the other residential structures in the Fir Hill neighborhood and a 19,515 sq. ft. development does not belong on the valley floor.
First, Ms. Falace states all issues related to the massing of the project have been resolved. othing is further from the truth. We continue to oppose a project that is almost 20,000 square feet in total. It is completely out of character with the neighborhood and town as well as sets a terrible precedence for homes in the City of St. Helena. Second, it is clear from the plans that the applicants are including a family home, a caretaker unit and an ADU. They try to disguise the caretaker unit as part of the family home stating it is attached to the home and does not have a separate kitchen; this makes no sense for people who have stressed privacy concerns over and over. For example, they claim their olive trees are intended to protect their privacy. If they need to block the views of long-term neighbors by planting olive trees for privacy, surely the family does not want a caretaker to intrude on their lives by using their kitchen when they are in town.
Moreover, the size of the caretaker unit is the size of a single family home in St. Helena. Third, and likewise, applicants' try to disguise a 'poolroom' as an ADU; however, that unit is over 800 square feet. It is the size of a single family residence in St. Helena. In short, applicants are trying to have 3 single family homes built in this project. The massing of the ADU and olive trees on Fir Hill obliterate the views of the Eastern hills and vineyard. Fourth, it is immaterial one floor is a basement. That size of a cement box will have impact on the local area including the oak tree and water flow.
Visibility on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. It is very difficult to say something has been resolved until we see the updated plans. Moreover, although Ms. Falace claims the applicants' motor court screening is within city street standards for visibility, it fails to address visibility problems on a corner with both autos and pedestrians in the roadway on a regular basis. Her further argument that shifting some of the olive trees closer to the corner along Fir Hill Drive only worsens the visibility obstructions.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Storm Water Runoff. Ms. Falace claims there will be a dry pond on the property, but there were no details provided at the gatherings and we have not seen updated plans that incorporate it. In addition, she provides no details on how this dry pond will affect the historical oak and other environmental issues.
Water usage. No resolution is possible on this issue because applicants are using a City of St. Helena plan-review formula vs. actual water usage limits to get around water-usage issues for a home this size and agricultural/landscaping needs. The original plans call for 2 homes, 11 toilets, 14 lavatory faucets, 4 kitchen faucets, 2 baths, 1 laundry faucet, 7 shower heads, 4 washing machines and 2 dishwashers. Neighbors also want to know if the applicants plan to use cisterns. If so, we should be given the data so we can evaluate the impact and location of the cisterns. In addition, we have not seen an updated water report. The prior one was replete with errors and omissions. Finally, we would like to know what the Rossi historical water use for the property was so we can compare historical data with proposed use data.
Well for Agricultural use. We have not seen the plans for the well location and capacity. Other than a statement at the October hearing, applicants have not been instructed or agreed affirmatively in writing that no City of St. Helena water will be used for agriculture or landscaping. Furthermore, there is no information that applicants' will be granted a City of St. Helena well permit. Finally, some of the houses on Fir Hill use well water as their only water source. We need to ensure that no well (if granted) will affect the viability of any wells on Fir Hill. We would also like to know where a new well (if granted) would be dug.
Backyard layout. We have not seen any updated plans. However, at the gatherings, moving the boccie court and pool were discussed as one way that could mitigate removal of some vineyard rows and view shed impact. Nonetheless, applicants' still propose removing most of the vineyard along 1615 Fir Hill Drive to about our property line with the Rodrigues property.
ADU Location. The proposal to move the ADU five feet closer to the house, shifting it 15 feet east and lowering ceiling heights is progress in helping resolve the view shed issues, but this is new information. There is still confusion on whether the 2 buildings identified as an ADU are really an ADU. The reason we were given for why it can’t be relocated (or even removed completely) is because it provides pool privacy. Pool privacy does not require 2 buildings totaling 850 square ft. and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an 864 square foot covered terrace. We continue to object to an ADU along Fir Hill. It requires removal of substantial vineyard rows and obliterates the views of many neighbors. oise Study. In discussions at the walkthrough’s noise was raised. Not only the HVAC systems for a project of this scale but any pumps being run to help mitigate the underground water and possible septic systems, pool pumps, all the mechanical noise, etc. need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance.
Drainage. The 6,457 square feet that will be below grade will displace and divert current water flows from this area of construction. Displacing this water will be an issue with how the water drains around the property. While the applicants believe the dry pond will handle it, how does the water get to the dry pond? This must be addressed in the updated plans so it is clear there is no additional runoff onto Fir Hill ditches and culverts. There are many other drainage issues:
x Applicants need to provide an accurate topographical map from top of Fir Hill to Madrona so we can assess the slope, natural flow and accurate drainage problem for the project and impact on our properties. x Applicants will raise the topo of foundations which will interfere with natural drainage x is putting a cement wall along the project which will interfere with drainage? x Applicants are putting an underground cement basement which will interfere with drainage. x What is the current amount of impervious surface of the Rossi buildings and driveway? What is the applicants’ proposed impervious surface area and driveway? What impact will the difference make on drainage? Arbor Study. In both neighbor meetings the impact to the historic heritage oak tree was discussed, especially in relation to the drainage concerns. Because the tree is on City of St. Helena property, the City must require a tree impact study to be provided and approved by the tree committee. That tree is so old and large it is protected. In addition, because of environmental factors, it is seemingly fragile. There should be an official city arborist to assess the environmental impact issues for this tree.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Septic and leach lines. In the neighbor gatherings it was stated that the applicants should have a plan for a septic system in case they don’t bring down the city sewer lines from Hudson to 2126 Madrona. We have not seen plans for bringing the city sewer lines down Madrona and if they don’t, what are the septic plans (especially as they relate to the well plans).
Project grading and elevations: We were told the story poles included grading heights but we have not seen any updated plans that show the actual planned grading. This affects runoff onto Fir Hill and Madrona.
Missing elevation and composite drawings. The original planning submission packet included a composite from the view from 2212 Madrona but NO composite drawings from 1615 Fir Hill perspective. 1615 Fir Hill looks out directly at the vineyard and in the current plans, the backside of the ADU unit. We would request composite drawings from the point of view of 2212 Madrona and 1615 Fir Hill be included in the update packet. eighbors missing from the discussions. There were a couple of neighbors affected by this project that have not been aware of the neighbor gatherings and discussions. We are looping them in now but they may have comments and concerns not yet raised. With the holidays upon us, this may not get addressed until the New Year.
Grape Yields:
The Rossi family stated their yields have been 5 tons each year. There are some underperforming vines, but they are NOT near the house and should not be the ones removed. The underperforming vines are further up Fir Hill towards the Agee property where there is a natural swell. The Rossi family replaced some vines with younger vines that aren’t yet fully performing. Some are in the area proposed to be removed. It appears there are about 119 vines proposed to be removed. This vineyard was planted in an historical manner. They are not all one variety. The Rossi family believes the vineyard has not been properly maintained since they sold it which could account for lower yields. Finally, if the applicants pull out the existing historical vineyard, we would like applicants to be required to have the University of Davis study the vines first and get a DNA report on the vines since they are historical and should be preserved.
CEQA:
We continue to believe a CEQA environmental study should be completed since this project is almost 2 times the size of a commercial building in St. Helena.
SUMMARY:
We continue to oppose this project and will meet with new neighbors shortly. There are many other issues remaining to be resolved, but given the applicants’ contention they are entitled to build a project of this size, it is likely this project just is not going to happen with the applicants willing to make serious and substantial compromise. In the end, this may be a round peg into a square peg situation and the project should be denied as unsuitable for a City of St. Helena home.
Respectfully submitted,
Patty (Herdell) and Hank DiTomaso
Christina Herdell
Kathleen Herdell
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
)&"&'""&" #&
)'
9>A;
&
&
( "/A<=?<
!&9A/:8::
1
(,#(2 "
#1
:938<<0$$
(
#"#&!#
(
#"&!
("'
"*
+
#&:9:>
&#"/(2 "4
88A3<?838985
,
#&&
""
#&
(#
"&'$#"'(#(
!&>/:8::/ ""
"#!!
''
#"&%)'(
"&$#"(
"
#&
##!(
"'2 +'#" , (#(("(
'#"#(
(+#2
At that time, it seemed to be “ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies”, there was not a lot #
"#&!(
#"#&(
#!
"2 !+,&#!(
!(
"+
(
!#&%)'(
#"'(
""'+&'2
'(#&,$# '
$*&,
(( /(
#&(+'!, but it still doesn’t '
#+(
!''#(
'(&)()&'2
#*& '
-#(
'$&#
(
'
(&,
"(#$)('%)&$
"&#)"
# 2
, $(
"about “(
&&!
#!” +
(
,',(
,&“"(
( ” (#2)(+
"
(
'
-"'#$#(
&&!
#!('(
&!
#!'#(
')&&#)"
"
"
#&'/'#!#+
*"
&(
&"(
&
/+"(#( '#""
!,*"(
& ## 2
'$&#
(+
* #"3 '(
"(#"#)&(#+"/"
"#)&#$
"
#"
"$#'
(
*
+,2
&
'
'(#(
"'(
(+
#$(
(, ""
"#!!
''
#"+
&''#&*"
#"'
&
"(
'$&#
(2
92
-"'#$
:2 (&)'#!'(
"+ 2(&")(&
(,.4",#)*"(+ $&!
(.
,""##,"'+&(
(.
;2 &##!'#&#
'.3'(
(
'!!#)"(#(
&##!'
<2 +&#&'$(
.
=2 (#&!+(&&)"3#"&
"
>2
#
'$# )(
#"4
*/+ $)!$'/'$(
/$## /(25
?2
#''#
'(#&
*
",&
@2
&#""
&
#&"& #''#*
'
(,
A2
#(&"'$&",""#(
(
#"(#(
')&&#)"
""
#&'even within the 300’
&
)'
982/+
(
(
'
-#(
$&#
('(),'
#) &%)
&
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
992
*&, &#
'(#&
(&
9:2
"(
#(
!(
'$&#
(+
( "(
((
(+
*4"#
'/(&
/)'(5
#" )'
#"
'
'"#((
&
( #(
#"#&$&#
(#(
''
-/
(
'(
$#("(
##
"!#&
&!
(
"##(##)&"
#&
##2
+#)
(
#)"
/"
"*# *(#( (
('&#!!#&(
"#"'#)&
#&!
"",
"#
'
#"2
'$() ,/
)&"&'"
&" #&
)'
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
October 18, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting
Public Comment
Opposition Letters Submitted
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Xinia Gamero
From: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 8:47 AM
To: Xinia Gamero; Maya DeRosa; Aaron Hecock
Subject: FW: [External] October 18 Planning Dept. Meeting See below
Thank you,
Cindy Tzafopoulos
City Clerk
City of St. Helena
*1572 Railroad Avenue – NEW ADDRESS!
St. Helena, CA 94574
Direct 707-968-2742 | Cell 707-312-1257
Fax 707-963-7748
[email protected]
www.cityofsthelena.org
*Please note that City Hall is closed to the public and will not answer calls from 12:00 to 1:00 pm for lunch. Please phone individual departments to make an appointment for service.
E-mail correspondence with the City of St. Helena (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. -----Original Message-----
From: Connie Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 3:09 PM
To: cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] October 18 Planning Dept. Meeting
Dear Planning Department,
Re: 2126 Madrona Avenue
Pursuant to your own admission that this project is “very large”, I wish to voice my objection to this proposed home size at 2126 Madrona Avenue. The plans to replace a simple farmhouse with an obscenely large mansion and compound is very much out of the norm and character of our town and agricultural area. Please reconsider the size, scope and, most importantly, water use of this project.
Thank you.
Connie Wilson
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
#!3* '
4
#$
-/$.,..2&01
#
3
* #
'
4%
3
* #
'
4
("
)
!
'#%
##!#%"
"
+" %#"
(%!
+
&
'
#+"$%
)
#
"
"'
"#(%
#!
#% !#&''
%'++%&!*%
'
"
'
& ''%
"&($$#%'#'
%
'#
$%# '*
*
#!
"
#%'
#!!
&&
#"
"'
)%+"%
('(%
)"
%'( '##"#%%
"#%'
%#$""&&"
'%"&$%"+
")# ("'%
+&
%
"
'
%$ "&*
'
!%#!'
#('&'#
'
&$%#&&
%%&$'#%#(%"
#%
##"#"%"#% *
#
*#(
!$'
""+*++'
%$ "&
&""#'
"
&
#%'#
!
%
)
"*#% '#+*
%!"+#" +#"&
%*
'
&&'
#%'
!& )&*
'
#('%
%#%#'
%&
&
&"#''
) (&+&'!#'
%
'# &&!#"&'%'+'
%*
"
"&&'#$''#'
"#%!&"
"&#'
&&$
"
#%
##
#$'
''
& ''%#&($$#%'#%'
%$%# '*
$( &'
+
)
$'
"' +*
'+#(%$$%#) #'
%$ "'
%
&"+'
"
!#%
"#'#&
#*!+( &($$#%'$ &#"'
&
'''##"''!
"% ++#(%&
%+
***!%+(""
"
!
#!
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
,
'
$-
!
)+!*(**)(#*)
,
'
$-"
,
'
$-
%
&
,,!*,/+&+$
6
+!
/,+
%
3"'201/"12/+"!#/,*4
)(&+$*6-2--6,+&/&))/&3"
+!)"
/+&+$
#/,*0"3"/
)+"&$% ,/01%
11%"-)
+0%,4+1,*" 61%""/ %1,)!0,3"/
6"
/
$,&0+,),+$"/
+
2/
1"/"-/"0"+1
1&,+,#1%"*
00&3"01/2 12/"0
"&+$02 *&11"!#,/6,2/ ,+0&!"/
1&,+
11,*,//,4+&$%10*""1&+$,#1%"
)
++&+$,**&00&,+
*!""-)60
!!"+"!1,%"
/1%
11%"!/
4&+$00
4*
+6*,+1%0
$,
/"
+,),+$"//"#)" 1&3",#1%" 2//"+1-)
+#,/1%"#,/*"/,00&3&+"6
/! %,)!
*60")#
,2+1
)"#,/+,101
6&+$,+1,-,#1%" %
+$"01%
1*201%
3"
1 ("+-)
"!2/&+$1%&0!"0&$+-/, "00
*!&0
--,&+1"!1,%
3"1,
)0,0%
/"1%
1
)0,!&!+1/" "&3"
+"*
&),/
4/&11"+,1& ",#""1&+$"3"+1%,2$%*6%,*"&0&+ ),0"-/,5&*&161,1%" "/ %1,)!-)
++"!/"0&!"+ " %
3")&3"!,+&/&))/&3"#,/
)*,01
6"
/0
+!%
3"
)4
601/&"!1, "02--,/1&3",#+"4 ,*"/04%&)"!,&+$*6
-
/11,-/,1" 11%" %
/
1"/,#1%&02+&.2"
+! "),3"!-)
"4"
))
%,*" 1&0-,00& )"1%"+,1& "*
6%
3" ""+0"+1
+! ""+),01&+
+
&+#
*,20'2+(*
&)#,)!"/ 21&1&0&*-,/1
+1#,/6,21,(+,41%
14%"+
4/,1"*6"*
&))"11"/,#02--,/1,+ 1, "/
1%4
0+,1
4 /",#1%"
!"1
&)0,#1%" 2//"+1-)
+0
6, '" 1&,+0
/"+,1-"/0,+
))6!&/" 1"!
11%""/ %1,)!#
*&)6
01%"6
--"
/1, "
$,,!#
*&)64%, ,2)! "
-,0&1&3"
!!&1&,+1,,2/
+"&$% ,/%,,! 1-
&+0*"1,%
3"1,, '" 11,1%"&/!/"
*%,*"
04
+1
1, "
4") ,*&+$+"&$% ,/1,+"4#
*&)&"04%,#&+!
&+1")"+
0
0-" &
)
04"!&!1%/""!"
!"0
$,
%
3"1,/"0 &+!*602--,/1%,4"3"/#,/
+6-)
+1%
14,2)! /"
1"
!
+$"/,20-/" "!"+1#,/,2/01/""1
+!1,4+ ,1,+)6&01%"0%""/*
00,/
0 )"
)*,01
0.2
/"#""1,21,# %
/
1"/4&1%,2/+"&$% ,/%,,!
21
0&$+&#&
+1
*,2+1,#%&01,/& 3&+"6
/!)
+!4,2)!
)0, "+"$
1&3")6
&*-
1"!
%",00&3&+"6
/!4%&)"+,1
0-/,!2 1&3"
06,2+$"/3&+"0
+,+"1%")"00&0%&01,/&
+!!"0"/3"01, "-/"0"/3"!
002 %
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
-,),$&7"#,/ "&+$1,,1/201&+$
+!#,/%
3&+$
002*"!1%
11%"-)
+0
%
!0""+&+!/
4&+$#,/*
1,+)6,3"/
6"
/
$,4"/"
+
2/
1"-,/1/
6 )
,#1%"-)
++,12+!"/ ,+0&!"/
1&,+
!0""+1%" 2//"+1*
00&3"
2&)!&+$-)
+4,2)!%
3"#")1 ,*-"))"!1,01
1"*6, '" 1&,+0
&**"!&
1")6
1/2011%
16,24&))#&+!
4
61,0
)"
(1%"#,,1-/&+1,#1%""/ %1,)!
!"0&$+-)
+0,&1&0*,/" ,+0&01"+14&1%,2/+"&$% ,/%,,!0+,/*0 +!
3&+"6
/!)
+!-,)& &"0 6%,-"&01%
14,/(&+$&+ ,,-"/
1&,+4&1%1%"
"/ %1,)!#
*&)6"3"/6,+"
+#&+!
,*-/,*&0"1%
14&))*
("&1-,00& )"
#,/20
))1,*,3"#,/4
/!&+-"
"
&+ "/")6
/6
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*
&#
+
&)
'%''& &)
*
#
+
!
"'&'(
Dear Planning Department
I wish to add our family's voice AGAINST the 2126 Madrona Avenue project as currently proposed.
The lot is a currently a rural one at the corner of two of the most popular walking streets in Saint Helena. We've biked and walked those roads for decades.
The house as proposed is way too big overall for the town, and situated on the absolute worst place on its lot -- right up against the Madrona Ave end of the lot lines -- too close to the street and the neighbors for its size.
I encourage the Planning department to:
1. reduce the size of the main structure
2. reduce the amount of sky views, and hillside views the structures obscure from the Madrona Ave and Fir Hill Drive
3. reduce the water consumption of the project
4. make sure that any design for the project that the Commission approves "fits" in design, scale, and illumination with the rest of Saint Helena inside City Limits.
I have no objection to big houses in general, and no objections to big houses on big, remote lots. On the other hand, this is not even a "McMansion" too close to its neighbors, it is a MegaMansion that lower the quality of life for its abutters and for all the Saint Helenans that enjoy the Madrona / Fir Hill neighborhood Sincerely,
Pat Kenealy
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
44444'
#!
((
44444
'$"2
)
$"%!? )
($"%!9
"
!3$"@
#)2
$#.0)$';>0<:<<=2;>
$2#
!$"!$?$"!$9
).$()
!#3$'
@1
'
()$%
''#'
?
'
()$%
'3'#'9
).$()
!#3$'
@1
$
#$#)?
$#)9
).$()
!#3$'
@1#
!
!?!9
).$()
!#3$'
@1*)*"##'($#?#'($#9
).$()
!#3$'
@1
'
$)
!?"'$)
!9
).$()
!#3$'
@1$(*'
*'?'(
*'9
).$()
!#3$'
@
2
#./$%$*!$(?)/$%$*!$(9
).$()
!#3$'
@
* )27-)'#!8'$%$(
'$#)
'
!!+!$%"#)%'$ )
$""
((
$#'(0
*'
.$*)$%%!.#.*)
$'
)..$*
++
!!+
$*'*''#)!,(0'()'
)
$#(#/$#
#
#
)
$#()$
"
)
)5
#$)$"%!)!.#.6)
(
/#($%$)
(
%'$%$(+!$%"#)3
$'"#.$)
("'($#(,#$,
+'()'
)
$#($#'(
#)
!$$)%'
#)($#("!!!$)(0
)
(%'$ )
()
%*'%$($+#
+
#
/$#
#
!,(
)
(!!$,)$"$+$',')
#.,
'!$()$,
)
(
#
%'$%$(3!("#
)
(
((*))
%!##
#
$""
((
$#()
5(
(.$*''
)#
')')$$($6')
')
#
)*%)$)
).
$*#
!3
# .$*$'.$*')
"#$#(
')
$#3 '&*())
($''(%$###)'
#)$)
%*!
'$'$#)
("))'3
(+'0
)
$"%!
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
22222
$
!
%%22222
$" /!!&&
$
$!0" C!!&&7
$
$!0" D
!&/
"!+.
&"$;A.<:<<>/=;
"/
+"%C
"%7
&+"%& !0"$D
'
&/5*&$! 6
$"#"% "$<;<@
$"!(0
"
+"%!&
$%"&
!!
!"
%%
"!. "##"%&"&
Berchtold’s project at 2126 Madrona Ave. as
&
%#$%!&
!&# !%"
!"$&
!!
!"
%%
"!"!'%+(!
!0 $%
!&&;B?=
$
$0! +'%!
! (")!&
%#$"#$&+"$>B+$%0 "!$!"'&&%
,!%"#"&
%
#$"
&"$&" ")
!$%"!%0
;0
$
$
(
%"! !
$")
&
!&
&+
&%0" +
!")
$0$&"
"%!"&($
&)+1% !&&"'&
,
$
$
("$
%<#$"#"%$
()+%0
%
$%%
%"!
$"!(0! %%1$%%&"
%#$"#$&+%"' $
$&&"
$"!(0 +"'$
$)
&
$
$0."')
!"&
&& " %!%%$
on the west side of the road. Mr. Berchtold’s property lines do not include the road. %"
%?:&0&
%"' $"
%#$"#$&+
!2!"&&
"
$
$
("!
someone else’s property.
2. I am concerned about the water use and drought situation for a home this size and it’s 11 &"
&%0
!"!
$"!(0 !%%
&+)&$&"
%#$"#$&+0
&+)&$
!"'&"%'%&
!&
%" -
!&!%&")&$ !%#)
&) ! $&)&$
& )
%
!
!& +$"#!($% +&&) %"$%
!&%"!
$
$
(!"&$
!
"$%0
"%&
$
$0" %$ +"!) )&$0
) !%#%"' !"& ")
'!&
&)&$%
&'&
"!
!"'$" '!
&+
%%" (0 )%&" &&!"!)) %!'
!"$" ) %'!+#$"$
#$"(0
&
% )## +$-
=0$
%$
!
%%'&&"&&" "
$
$0$
&$
!%
!&"
&+' ($&"!
$"!(0
!"))$
!$"'&'&)!
&"%$
!(
+2
&
%&
&"$
3;@
!%
!<+%4!(! %& "!&."'$%&$&)% ""!&' ($&"($ ") !
!
&
' &&"'%"'$$"0
%'%&
!"!&
!'!&"
&
&&"!$!%"$%
!&%"!
$
$0 "! +$
"'&&#$"#"% "!$
++!$" !
"$0 &% %"&;:$%
!&%"!&
%&$&"! +))$!"&
"'&&e proposal for Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting )$
&)"'
%'%%0
!
+"'"$+"'$"!%
$&
"!" +"!$!%0
%#&' +.
!!&&
&
;B?=
$
$0
!&$" +
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Frank Rodrigues & Laura Andersen
1693 Fir Hill Drive
St Helena, CA 94574
April 25, 2023
Re: Berchtold Appeal - 2126 Madrona Ave, St Helena
Dear City Council Members,
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns regarding the appeal of the 2126 Madrona Ave project. We are optimistic that the City Council will uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this project, as the staff report is recommending as well.
After several meetings with neighbors and planning commission sessions, with input from both the community and commissioners, the applicant was given the opportunity to make revisions, but has chosen not and rather appeal the decision that was made.
Please see below a list of the environmental impact concerns:
Underground construction – As stated in the appeal “nearly 45% of the residence will be located below ground”, which is continually left out of the description(s) of this project. It is estimated at 6400 sq feet, the basement is larger than the square footage of 2 tennis courts. It is approximately 60’x100’x10-12’ feet deep, equating to 2800 cubic yards of dirt, over 2000 lbs. per yard. A standard dump truck holds 12-14 yards, equating to 220 truckloads of prime farmland soil to be removed from the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill. This does not include any over excavating to get proper compaction needed for the foundation of the basement. Most importantly, there has been no environmental report completed to determine what effect this basement would have on the ground water flow or lack thereof, and the impact of the underground eco system. In addition to the unknow consequences the removal of the soil may have on the designated Heritage Oak tree on the corner of Madrona and Fir Hill.
Sewer – We have asked on multiple occasions if the proposed project will be on septic or sewer, the answer has been vague, the last response was they will be bringing the sewer line up Madrona from Hudson. Again, another environmental impact to the surrounding neighborhood. How long will Madrona be torn up to accommodate this single-family home project? Water- There has been no determination of what size water main is needed to service a house this size. The project has four times the number of water fixtures (sinks, washers, toilets, etc.) compared to the average 5-bedroom home. The water calculations and usage provided don’t add up for a single-family 5-bedroom home. In addition, the proposed well has the potential to affect surrounding properties who are 100% dependent on well water for their homes.
Noise Pollution– After an estimated 3 to 4 years of construction, stated by the applicant, of a 19,025 square foot home, which will cause excessive disruptions to the neighborhood and community, it is still undetermined what the long-term noise pollution will be for a home of this size. It has not been made public what the number of mechanical systems and equipment needed to support the proposed project will require, i.e., HVAC(s), pool equipment, sump pump(s), generator(s), etc. The location of these systems was requested, but unanswered during the planning sessions.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Farmland Removal- With the plan to remove existing agriculture, the proposal does not comply with the city code. Any loss of agriculture land would impact the overall landscape of our town. This is why the rules are set, and most recently being reduced to ensure we preserve the AG within the community.
We would also request any city council member(s) that may have a conflict of interest, would recuse themselves in this appeal and decision-making process.
In closing, if this project is approved to move forward it will change the landscape of our rural community and set a precedent that does not exist in our city limits today.
When the applicant states the percentages of above and below ground of this home, it makes us think of an Iceberg, St Helena is the Titanic, just sailing along not realizing what’s ahead, before you know it’s too late to change course. It is not just the structure but all that comes along with it. It is forever.
Respectfully,
Frank Rodrigues
Laura Andersen
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Gina Lewis
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: [External] 2126 Madrona Avenue St Helena,CA Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 8:29:21 AM
Regina Lewis
1734 ST. ANDREWS COURT
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
April 25, 2023
Sent by email: [email protected]
Subject: 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena Appeal by Joe and Lorraine Berchtold after the Planning
Commission denial
Dear City St. Helena City Council:
I am opposed to the application by the Berchtolds to build a mega-mansion on the valley floor anywhere in St. Helena, but especially the park-like setting of Madrona and Fir Hill Drive. The size and scale of the proposed home is outrageous and
exceeds the dimensions for a commercial building, let alone a residence. It also is a travesty to pull out old growth vines to put in a two-unit pool house, pool and bocce court. If the
applicants really cared about St. Helena, they would see that their proposal ruins one of the most pristine areas of town and sets a horrible precedence.
I routinely walk my dogs along Madrona and the Fir Hill “loop” and constantly admire the undisturbed beauty the vineyard’s openness and views provide. I feel St. Helena’s forefathers understood the rareness of such parcels and attempted to install protections so that they were preserved forever. I hope the City Council also understands the unique beauty of that Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
area and takes action to protect it from this type of
overdevelopment. Keep St. Helena rural! Also, we would like to ensure that all citizens of St. Helena are able to enjoy the current open space this parcel provides so we all can enjoy the views of the hillsides. If rows of olive trees are planted, it will prevent us all from the agricultural viewshed we moved here to enjoy. If St. Helena becomes like Napa, there is no reason to live or work here anymore.
Finally, but importantly, Vice Mayor Eric Hall accepted a $4,999.00 donation for his mayoral campaign from the
Berchtolds while their application for this project was pending.
He should recuse himself from an actual conflict of interest or at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Even if he personally feels he can be unbiased .If he votes to overturn the denial, he will be forever branded with the reputation that he takes money for votes. Believe me, the comunittee will
remember.
Respectfully,
Regina Lewis
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 25, 2023
By Electronic Mail
Mayor Paul Dohring
Members of the St. Helena City Council
City of St. Helena
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Berchtold Appeal
2126 Madrona Avenue (APN 009-470-010)
File No. PL21-044
Dear Mayor Dohring and Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of Kathleen, Chris and Patty Herdell, who own property near the proposed Berchtold residence, to urge you to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny approval of design review.
This appeal follows the applicant’s refusal to make minor changes to the project as recommended by staff. Instead, the applicant has chosen to embroil the neighborhood in controversy and to foist a decision on this Council which it should not have to make.
The issues, ordinances and policies are succinctly presented in your staff report. Of the four grounds of appeal, (i) one is irrelevant; (ii) another is based on a gross mischaracterization of the Planning Commission’s decision; (iii) a third rests on the false notion that the Council must follow “precedent” established by the approval of a house on Pratt Avenue; and (iv) the fourth is premised on a frivolous due process argument.
A. Agriculture
According to the applicant, the Planning Commission misconstrued the word “agriculture” to include only products grown for sale and exclude products grown for personal consumption. Based on that misinterpretation, the applicant says, the Commission erroneously refused to approve the Berchtold residence because it fails to meet the A-20 District development standards, which limit non-agricultural uses to one acre (SHMC
17.20.060(C)).
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
April 25, 2023
Page Two
That is not what the Planning Commission decided. It did not reject the project because non-agriculture uses exceed one acre. It rejected the project because it removes half an acre from vineyard on a parcel zoned for agriculture, contrary to the policies of the General Plan.
The applicant does not dispute that his project will reduce the vineyard on his property by one half acre. That fact remains true regardless of how the Planning Commission defined “agriculture.” Applicant’s argument about the supposed misinterpretation of that term is a diversion.
B. General Plan
Next, the applicant asserts that the Planning Commission misapplied important policies in the General Plan. Policy LU5.1 directs City leaders to “[d]iscourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.” Policy LU5.3 calls on you to “[s]trictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land.”
The applicant claims that the Planning Commission applied these policies too rigidly, effectively banning residential development on agricultural land and creating inconsistencies within the General Plan and between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. In truth, the Planning Commission merely interpreted and applied the City’s General Plan to this project as proposed on this parcel, which is its job. The Commission did not create a new policy prohibiting the construction of housing in the A-20 zone.
The aim of LU5.1 and LU5.3 is to prevent the loss of agricultural land. The applicant proposes to permanently remove 0.53 acres of vineyard from his property to accommodate what can only be described as a palatial estate. The Planning Commission and the City Council are acting well within their legal authority, and their mandate from City residents, to discourage this unnecessary loss of agriculture and to strictly limit the development of a 19,000 square foot residence in a vineyard. “Once a general plan is in place, it is the province of elected city officials to examine the specifics of a proposed project to determine whether it would be ‘in harmony’ with the policies stated in the plan.” (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 822.) A city’s interpretation of its own general plan will not be overturned unless “no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion.” (Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 444, 461.) The Berchtold challenge falls far short of this standard.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
April 25, 2023
Page Three
C. Precedent
Third, the applicant makes a false appeal to precedent, claiming that the denial of his 19,000 square foot house is inconsistent with the City’s prior approval of a house on Pratt Avenue. As staff correctly points out, local governments are not bound by precedent in making land use decisions. (See Billings v. Cal. Coastal Commission (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 729, 741; Rathkopf’s Law of Zoning and Planning §§ 60:2, 68:8 (4th ed. 2023 Update).)
Besides, the Pratt Avenue project has no precedential value. The denial of the Berchtold house is based on its removal of active vineyard to accommodate recreational amenities.
Pratt Avenue, according to the staff report, was a vacant site with no vegetation and no active agriculture (Staff Report, p. 156 of 473).
D. Due Process
Finally, the applicant objects that the Planning Commission failed to include a draft denial resolution in the agenda packet or to read the findings supporting denial into the record. These omissions supposedly violated the Brown Act and deprived the applicant of due process by preventing him from reviewing or commenting on the findings before they were adopted.
The applicant actually received more process than was due. He participated in three hearings, presented evidence and arguments to support his case, was represented by counsel throughout, and now gets a de novo hearing before the City Counsel. The state and federal constitutions do not require any particular form of process, only process sufficient for a party to be heard. (Lent v. Cal. Coastal Commission (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 812, 840.) The City heard this applicant; it just disagreed with what he was saying.
The Brown Act does not entitle the applicant to an advance copy of the resolution denying his project, contrary to his claim. His appeal makes vague references to the Act but does cite any specific provisions that support his position. The Brown Act entitles the applicant (i) to have his matter properly agendized, which it was; (ii) to receive a copy of the agenda packet, which he did; and (iii) to have an opportunity to address the Commission, which was provided to him on several occasions. (Gov’t Code §§ 54954.1- 54954.3.) There was no Brown Act violation.
E. CEQA Exemption
The staff report is an example of solid staff work; it generally gets everything right. It does make one misstep, however, in claiming that this project qualifies for a categorical Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
April 25, 2023
Page Four
exemption from CEQA. Staff relies on the “small structure” exemption, which exempts the construction of “new, small facilities or structures,” including “[o]ne single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a).)
This project is not in a residential zone. The purposes of the Twenty-Acre Agricultural (A-20) District is to protect and promote the preservation of agricultural land. (SHMC §
17.20.010.) More importantly, the proposed Berchtold residence is not a “small structure.” In Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County (December 21, 2009) 2009 WL 4894456, the court held that the small structure exemption did not apply to a 13,000 square foot house proposed for construction on a 17-acre parcel along the Gaviota Coast.
The house was situated near a ridgeline in the coastal hills, was surrounded by agriculturally zoned property, and was four times larger than other single family homes in the area. (Slip op. at 2.)
Noting that CEQA exemptions must be construed narrowly to ensure adequate environmental review, the court held that the small structure exemption was inapplicable and ordered the preparation of a focused EIR. “If the law were otherwise, a single family residence the size of a castle would be exempt from environmental review no matter where it is built or how much it obstructs public views of the skyline.” (Slip op. at 4.) The issue in this case is not visual impact but impact on agriculture. The proposed house is larger than the house in Gaviota Coast Conservancy and is located on a much smaller parcel. Like the house in Gaviota Coast Conservancy, the Berchtold residence is surrounded by agricultural land and is larger than the 10,000 square foot exemption for commercial structures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(c).) The public interest is not served by expanding the small structure exemption to encompass the Berchtold estate. If this project is to proceed, it must first undergo environmental review.
Sincerely,
Kevin P. Block
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Mary Alice Stielau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Ben Van Zutphen Santa Rosa Project
I hope all of the City Counsel has time to read this brief notice of how Ben Van Zutphen proceeded with his building project in Santa Rosa.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/pdf/2015/150824 _0060_Meadows_Oakmont_CAO.pdf
Mary Alice Stielau
18 Los Robles Ct, St Helena, CA 94574
Saint Helena, CA
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
1 Cindy Tzafopoulos
From: Eric Hall
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Cindy Tzafopoulos
Subject: FW: Letter of Support for Berchtold's
This came to us directly…just fyi…
Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
City of St. Helena
www.cityofsthelena.org
Mobile/Text: 925‐708‐2686
St. Helena is Open for Business!
Coming soon…
‐ Tweed & Vine expanding and reopening in new location on Main St., early March ‐ Joel Gott’s Pizza Station opens in March
‐ Elyse Walker expanding and reopening in new location on Main St. late Spring ‐ Houtskool Dumplings opens this summer on Main St.
‐ Ray Ray’s Tacos opening on Main St.
‐ NO|MA House Café & Collective opening on Main St.
‐ Orin Swift Cellars tasting room expanding on Main St. ‐ Boisset’s JCB Tasting Lounge opening 2024 on Main St.
From: Jim Gamble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 4:12 PM
To: Paul Dohring <[email protected]>; Eric Hall <[email protected]>; Anna Chouteau <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Billy Summers <[email protected]> Cc: CityCouncil <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Letter of Support for Berchtold's
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall and Councilmember’s Chouteau, Hardy and Summers ‐ I am wriƟng in support of Lorraine and Joe Berchtold’s applicaƟon to build a home on Madrone Avenue.
Stephanie and I are neighbors, with a direct view of their proposed new home (about 300 yards away).
In the spirit of transparency, Joe was a good friend while we were both at Pomona College in the early 1980’s. However, we’ve been out of touch for almost 35 years and reconnected recently, but not unƟl aŌer they bought the property on Madrone. Only then did Joe realize we were neighbors.
That said, my long ago friendship with Joe isn’t the reason I’m supporƟng their applicaƟon.
While the size of the house is large, I’m uncomfortable judging another person’s design, especially when building their dream home. Most importantly, they have designed their home to fit into the 1‐acre limitaƟon for A‐20 and are not asking for a variance.
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
2 My concern is the inconsistent interpretaƟon and applicaƟon of the building rules in the A‐20 zoning areas in St.
Helena. AŌer listening to the Planning Commission hearings, it seemed applying the 1‐acre limit was arbitrary and subjecƟve. Everyone seemed confused if the 1‐acre limitaƟon applied or didn’t. It should be black and white. If you’re in the A‐20, you either get 1‐acre or you don’t. It’s too subjecƟve otherwise and puts everyone in a bad spot.
As was the case for the Planning Commission, which looked to LU5.1 and LU5.3 for clarity. Those clauses are ambiguous and open to differing interpretaƟons. As you know, this is a slippery slope. The raƟonale given for approving the 1‐acre development on the PraƩ Avenue home was it didn’t have a vineyard. Thankfully Lorraine and Joe didn’t rip out their vineyard first and then apply for a building permit later. I think it’s important to apply the 1‐acre building envelope consistently for all A‐20 properƟes. If changes are wanted to the A‐20 zoning, they should be debated and included in the General Plan. The lack of clarity puts everyone in a difficult spot.
BoƩom line, I would hate to see the City get into another lawsuit. LimiƟng the Berchtold’s to the .45 acre building envelope, as the Planning Commission suggested, would cause significant degradaƟon of their property value. I would much rather see the City’s financial resources go towards desperately needed infrastructure improvements and not to fighƟng another lawsuit.
On a final note, I’ve walked the Berchtold’s vineyard and I told them they are crazy to conƟnue farming that vineyard. Most of those vines are dead, diseased, are non‐producing or are at the end of their life. If the Berchtold’s redeveloped that vineyard, with similar spacing as other vineyards in the neighborhood (e.g. 3x6 spacing vs. the current 6x9 spacing), they could triple the number of vines on the property and more than triple the amount of fruit they could produce. And by correlaƟon, use a lot more water. God Bless Beth Novak and SpoƩswoode for taking on the vineyard management responsibiliƟes, and God Bless the Berchtold’s for giving SpoƩswoode the fruit for FREE. With it’s current producƟon of ½ ton per acre, it’s not a commercially viable vineyard. It is a hobby vineyard. Even if they get it up to the goal of 1‐ton per acre, it’s sƟll not a commercially viable vineyard.
By invesƟng in these old vines, the applicant is showing they will be strong advocates for agriculture in St. Helena.
If the Berchtold’s building permit is denied, it will set a difficult precedent. PracƟcally speaking, the next person that comes along and purchases a property in the A‐20 in St. Helena, will likely rip out the vineyard first, and apply for a building permit later. Taking out .53 acres of vines from a diseased, dying and end of life vineyard, as the applicant proposes, is de minimis compared to keeping the remaining 5.25 acres of vines and praying SpoƩswoode can bring them back to vitality.
Sincerely,
Jim Gamble
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: CN
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] Letter regarding 2126 Madrona Ave
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:52:15 PM
As a thirteen year resident of St. Helena, I walk Fir Hill and Madrone multiple times per week. I see seasons change, the migration of swallows and western bluebirds. I am opposed to the size and scale of the proposed project for 2126 Madrona. The size, square footage, number of bathrooms, height, and multiple dwellings are too large for the city limits. The project is absolutely not water neutral at a time of strained demand on water and infrastructure. The proposed main house with a basement the three times the size of a reasonable house is shocking. I don’t disagree with the other dissenters. The labeled pool house will most likely have a full time live in caretaker and the grounds and house maintenance will have staff circling and parking full time. The non existent shoulder of Madrona will be filled with workers from sun up till sun down. The idea that olive trees will be planted to further agricultural requirements is questionable and pulling groundwater from a well to maintain the trees, grounds, and vines is laughable. If this tremendous project is approved, there will be no recourse for the city if resources run dry or neighboring wells are drained. This project will be nothing more than another second house for the wealthy to come and go mimicking large parties for friends. The investment in community is most likely to be zero. The city should not back down because of deep pockets and a lawsuit. This project needs better scale, a down sizing of the property and something more reasonable than proposed. I’m shocked the original house isn’t protected as historical.
I want to see this land used wisely. The proposed plans destroy vineyard, do not promote community and will increase traffic while detracting from the rural feel. The proposed size only promotes a private compound where no one os welcome. No to this project.
Respectfully,
Celeste Neeley
Magnolia Ave, SH
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item #10.1.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+/-25.00' +/-28.00'
ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE
FRONT SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' A1.1 1 FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
(E) RESIDENCE
(E) GARAGE (E) GARAGE (E) VINEYARDS
MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 315' 310' 305' 300' 395'
PROPERTY LINE
(E) STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL - VINEYARD NON AGRICULTURAL - HOUSE SITE AGRICULTURAL - ORCHARD 5.08ac 4.42ac 0.5ac 1ac DRIVEWAY (EXEMPTION) 0.33ac NA 0.03ac USE CHANGE -0.66ac 0.2ac +0.13ac +0.5ac TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5.78ac 5.78ac Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.0-Site-202101-V6_2013.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50' NORTH A1.0 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50' 1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50'
2 NORTH NAPA COUNTY TAX ASSESSORS INFORMATION PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONSEXISTING VINEYARD 5.08 AC EXISTING NON-AG 0.5 AC EXISTING ORCHARD 0.2 AC PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING VINEYARD TO REMAIN 4.42 AC PROPOSED ORCHARD 0.33 AC PROPOSED NON-AG 1 AC PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 0.03 AC - EXEMPT PROPOSED VINEYARD TO BE REMOVED 0.66 AC OUTLINE OF PROPOSED VINEYARD REMOVAL Agenda Item #5.1.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning Commission Meeting of March 7, 2023
FILE NUMBER: PL21-044
SUBJECT: Request by Sasha Janev on behalf of Lorraine and Joe Berchtold for adoption of a resolution approving a demolition permit to demolish an existing residence and accessory structures to accommodate the construction of a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit and design review of the proposed new single family home on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the A-20 zoning district.
PREPARED BY: Chantal Power, Associate Planner
REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPLICATION FILED:11/05/21 ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE:08/23/22 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2126 Madrona Avenue
APN: 009-470-010
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Agriculture/Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) APPLICANT: Sasha Janev on behalf of
Lorraine and Joe Berchtold
PHONE: 707-968-5265
BACKGROUND
The project is located in the Agriculture General Plan land use district, and the TwentyAcre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district, outside the Urban Limit Line on a 5.78-acre parcel with an existing vineyard. The site is currently developed with an existing single-family home and two accessory structures, all of which are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the construction a new single-family home and accessory dwelling unit.
The existing home was constructed in 1883 and has been determined to have no historic or architectural value based on the attached historic resource evaluation.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
The Planning Commission considered the applicant's request at a meeting held on October 18, 2022. Due to concerns expressed by Planning Commissioners and members of the public, discussed in further detail below, such as potential inconsistencies with the General Plan and numerous concerns expressed by neighbors to the project, the Planning Commission requested that the applicants hold meetings with the neighbors, install story poles to show the massing of the proposed project, provide the Planning Commission with information that is responsive to the neighborhood concerns and inform the Planning Commission if the applicant proposes any revisions in response to the concerns expressed by the public and/or Commissioners. A project status update was given at the December 6, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant provided photos of the story poles and some details related to the two neighborhood meetings that occurred on November 6, 2022, and November 19, 2022, respectively. Additionally as requested by the Planning Commission, Spottswoode Winery provided an expected vineyard production assessment attached to the 12-7-2022 staff report (Attachment 15). The Planning Commission requested that staff and the project applicant have all final revisions completed in a timely manner, and set March 7, 2023 as the hearing date to bring the project back to the Commission for review.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is seeking approval of a demolition permit to demolish three existing structures totaling 3,893 square feet, and design review approval to construct a twostory, 14,407 square foot single-family home with a large basement and 7,950 square feet above grade, a 1,754 square foot garage, a 1,640 square foot covered terrace. The applicant is additionally proposing to construct an 850 square foot one bedroom accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") with an 864 square foot covered terrace concurrently with the construction of the single family home and associated accessory structures. The ADU may be approved ministerially, and is not subject to design review.
The proposed single-family dwelling contains a large basement and first story and a smaller second story. The 6,457 square foot basement will contain three large storage rooms, a laundry room, game room, a bathroom, a powder room, and a mechanical room. The 5,244 square foot first floor will contain a large kitchen and pantry, a large living and dining room, a mudroom, three bedrooms, a sitting room, two powder rooms, and three bathrooms. The 2,706 square foot second floor will contain master bedroom and master bathroom, a second bathroom, two studies, a bar room, and a T.V. room.
The 850 square foot accessory dwelling unit will contain a living room, a kitchen, a bedroom, a laundry room, and a bathroom.
The site includes 5.08 acres of existing vineyard on the 5.78-acre lot. Approximately
0.66 acres of the existing vineyards will be removed to accommodate the proposed structures leaving 4.42 acres of vineyards intact. An additional 0.13 acres of fruit and olive trees will be added to existing .20-acre orchard and the applicant/owner plans to work with local olive oil producers to create an estate olive oil. The applicant/owner also plans to work with Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate and produce wine from the 4.42 acres of vineyard that will be preserved.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Changes to Project Since October 18, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting The following revision were made in response to Planning Commission requests and as a result of the neighborhood meetings on November 6, 2022 and November 19, 2022:
1. The driveways proposed along Fir Hill Drive have been removed.
2. The proposed ADU has been moved an additional 15' back from Fir Hill Drive and 5' closer to the proposed primary structure.
3. The massing of the ADU was revised by lowering the roof height by 2'.
4. The pool was reoriented and the size was reduced.
5. The bocce court was reoriented to expand the views of neighboring properties.
6. The area of vineyard proposed for removal was reduced from 0.75 acres to
0.66 acres.
7. The area of olive orchard proposed was reduced from 0.21 acres to 0.13 acres to provide for a newly proposed retention basin and to increase visibility on the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive.
8. A 1' deep, 6' wide bio-swale will surround the area proposed for development and two bioretention basins with 2,025 cubic feet of retention capacity will be installed at the front of the property.
9. The landscape plan has been revised to further reduce overall water usage.
10.The water analysis was updated to reflect the reduced water usage from the revised landscape plan.
11.The layout of the olive orchard along Fir Hill was adjusted to increase visibility at the intersection with Madrona Avenue.
ANALYSIS
CEQA
Staff has concluded the requisite analysis and concluded that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, which exempts demolition and removal of individual structures including one single-family residence, and Section 15303, which exempts the construction or conversion of small structures including single-family residences, garages, pools, etc. The proposed project is not subject to any of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption as outlined in CEQA Section 15300.2. The project site is not visible from a scenic highway, is not included on a hazardous waste site, and will not impact historic resources or otherwise generate or contribute to any potentially significant impacts.
GENERAL PLAN
The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Agriculture (AG). The AG land use designation allows agricultural and winery uses with restricted single family residential and public/quasi-public uses. The St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 and 2015-2023 Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Eight-Year Action Plan include the following policies that are relevant to the proposed project:
• LU5.1 - Discourage conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
The applicant proposes removal of approximately 0.66 acres of existing vineyard to accommodate the proposed residential project. Staff has discouraged the applicant from removing any of the existing vineyard to be consistent with this General Plan Policy. However, the applicant has stated that the section of vineyard to be removed is the least viable for rehabilitation and not likely to be productive and has proposed the addition of 0.13 acres of fruit and olive trees to the existing .20 acre orchard for the production of an estate olive oil as an alternative to keeping all the existing vineyard. Regardless of the proposal to include the addition of olive trees to the site, the project site will still lose 0.66 acres of existing farmland for a non-agricultural use, and net loss of 0.53 acres of total agricultural uses, rendering the project inconsistent with this General plan policy.
• LU5.3 - Strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of this General Plan that are designated as agricultural land.
The applicant has proposed a very large single-family residence and accessory structures totaling 19,515 square feet. This is a reduction from the initial application proposal, and 6,457 square feet (or more than one-third of the proposed residence) will be located below grade, not visible from street views.
The above grade portion of the development consists of a 5,244 square foot first floor, and 2,706 second floor of the proposed primary dwelling, 1,754 square foot garage and 1,640 square foot covered terrace, a 850 square foot ADU and 864 square foot covered terrace. As with General Plan Policy LU5.1, staff has determined that the proposed removal of the existing vineyard for the purpose of developing the parcel for nonagricultural use is inconsistent with these two General Plan policies. However, 2126 Madrona, is the only property on Fir Hill Drive that has retained agricultural uses on-site.
• LU2.2 - Encourage new residential development that is consistent in design, size, color, and floor area ratio (FAR) with the older residences in the neighborhood.
Although the proposed single-family home and accessory structures are very large, approximately one-third of the proposed construction would be below grade. The above ground portion of the project, as well as relationship to the site and surrounding area, should be used for consistency comparisons.
The A-20 zone consists of large parcels with few limitations on the size of structures and provides for a wide variation of designs and sizes as evidenced along Fir Hill Drive, which has been developed with greater density and intensity of uses than what is intended for the A-20 district. Though the above ground portion of the project is larger than the other surrounding homes in the A-20 zone (depicted on Attachment 8), this parcel is the largest of the neighboring residential properties, and proposes a 0.08 FAR that is less than the average 0.10 FAR of the surrounding neighborhood.
The design and colors used throughout the neighborhood are eclectic so comparisons should be limited to the types of color and materials used which are Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
typical of residential uses, consistent with the intention of this policy. The design applies articulation of facades and layered massing.
• PF1.1 - Require that the approval of new development be contingent upon the ability of the City to provide water without exceeding the safe annual yield of its water supply.
With the use of water efficient fixtures, the proposed home and landscaping will not result in an increase of water used on the site.
• CD3.2 - Ensure that the new residential designs contribute positively to existing neighborhoods by complementing character and incorporating design features, such as front porches, façade articulation and step backs.
The architectural design provides façade articulation and layered massing, along the street views of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive. Some of the project revisions include the relocation of the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive, and 5’ closer to the proposed primary residence, a reduction of the pool size, and the reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The ADU, pool, and bocce court will be framed in by a low wall (1.5’ to 2.5’ in height above grade). The proposed olive orchard has been redesigned to cover the area previously designated as driveway space along Fir Hill Drive, and to preserve the Madrona Avenue-Fir Hill Drive corner view. A 5’ wall will screen the vehicle motor court from public view. The second story steps back from the first story to help reduce overall massing and allowing neighborhood views of the mountains and surrounding vineyards (please see photo simulation on Sheet A1.3). • HE1.5 - Encourage innovative housing types and designs.
The project design is modern and incorporates articulation, layered massing, earth tones and natural elements such as stone veneer, cement plaster with wood and metal accents.
• HE2.4 - Promote second unit production.
Although, not subject to discretionary review pursuant to State law, the project includes an 850 square foot accessory dwelling unit, with a covered terrace. • HE2.6 - Promote a balance of types of housing throughout the whole community.
The project proposes a large single-family home and an accessory dwelling unit, which are allowable uses in the A-20 district.
ZONING
Consistent with the General Plan land use designation described above, the subject property has a zoning designation of Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20), which allows residential and agricultural uses, and is intended to preserve agricultural land uses and provide for future orderly development as the urban limit line is adjusted to accommodate urban growth.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Pursuant to SHMC §17.20.060, the following development standards apply:
• Maximum non-agricultural coverage, 1 acre: 1 acre proposed • Floor area ratio (F.A.R.), Not regulated
• Front setback, 50 feet, measured from center line of abutting street: 70 feet proposed
• Rear yard, 20 feet: Approximately 800 feet proposed
• Side yard, 20 feet: 20 feet proposed
• Height of buildings/structures, 30 feet: 29 feet proposed Staff Response: The project as proposed meets the development standards prescribed by Section 17.20.060 of the SHMC. The 5.78-acre site has 5.08 acres of vineyards and is currently developed with 0.5 acres of non-agricultural uses. As shown on Sheet A1.0, the project proposes the removal of (0.66 acres) of the existing vineyard, which will leave
4.42 acres of vineyards to be rehabilitated for reuse, and 1-acre of non-agricultural use.
The addition of (0.13 acres) of fruit and olive trees to the existing .20-acre orchard, with plans to develop an estate olive oil, will bring the total non-agricultural coverage to 1-acre.
The project proposes additional landscaping consisting of very-low, low, and moderate use plantings consistent with code Section 17.112.140(B) of the SHMC that encourages xeriscape principles.
Note, the driveway is not included in the overall lot coverage consistent with superscript 1 of Section 17.20.060 (C) - Standards for Two Acre Lots or Greater in Area, which states that all structures, driveways (except for a sixteen-foot-wide driveway no greater than twothirds the length of the parcel), parking, patios, lawn, or other non-agricultural uses shall be limited to one-acre maximum per parcel. The driveway for the primary residence is 16- feet and runs the width of the property, rather than the length. The driveways have not been counted toward the total non-agricultural coverage of the site. However, the screened motor court fronting Madrona Avenue has been included in the total 43,650 square feet (1-acre) residential coverage calculation. The screen wall surrounding the motor court is proposed at a height of 5-feet and is setback 48-feet from the front property line, where a minimum 40-foot setback for fences exceeding 3.5 feet in height is required.
Though not subject to the visibility triangle requirements defined in Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC because Fir Hill Drive is a private drive, rather than a street, the project exceeds the standard as noted in Attachment 14.
WATER
Chapter 13.12.030 of the SHMC requires mandatory water efficiency measures and water demand offset requirements for new construction. Among these provisions is the requirement that any "new development" (i.e. construction that would introduce any freestanding building that contains water-using fixtures, any floor area additions to existing nonresidential structures, or any residential additions or remodeling that increases the number of independent living units) offset new water demand by an amount equal to the new demand placed on the city water system (i.e., it must be water neutral). The offset must be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Staff Response: The Water Use Analysis proposes a net decrease of 21 gpd to the average daily water usage by utilizing low flow water fixtures throughout, drought tolerant landscaping, and a cover for the pool. The existing vineyard is currently dry farmedbut is proposed for rehabilitation and will utilize well water from a new well that will also provide water for the proposed olive orchard, or if the regulatory controls do not allow the installation of a new well, the vineyard will continue to be dry-farmed and the olive orchard will be irrigated with City water after the applicant makes any adjustments to proposed landscaping to ensure that the project will remain water neutral.
PARKING
SHMC Section 17.124.030 "Minimum On-site Parking Requirements", requires that residential uses provide two parking spaces for the main dwelling unit, one of which shall be contained within a garage or carport. In addition to the required parking for the primary residence, one parking space, covered or uncovered, shall be provided on site for an ADU. As described in SHMC Section 17.124.050(D), parking in tandem is permitted in residential districts when required parking is less than 3 spaces.
Staff Response: The project primary residence will provide a three-car enclosed garage and a screened motor court capable of accommodating multiple vehicles, exceeding the requirements established in Sections 17.124.030 and 17.116.030 of the SHMC.
DEMOLITION PERMIT
As provided in SHMC Section 17.164.050(G), no permit authorizing the demolition of any building within any zoning district shall be issued until approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the following findings:
1. That, based on the public record and testimony presented at a public hearing, the building is determined not to be a significant architectural or historical building. If a building is determined to be significant by the planning commission, no demolition will be authorized unless the following findings are made by the commission:
a) That the building poses a threat to health, safety and general welfare if it is not demolished,
b) That the restoration of the building is not feasible or practicable using current building codes including, but not limited to, the Historic Building Code provisions of the Uniform Building Code of the state of California, c) That no public or other funding is available for financing renovation or purchase of the building;
2. That the demolition does not eliminate elements that are required to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood.
3. That the design review of the proposed replacement structure has been approved in conjunction with the demolition permit.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Staff Response: The existing home was constructed in 1883 but does not appear on the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. A Historic Resources Evaluation was conducted for the existing structures on the site (Attachment 3). The evaluation concluded that substantial alterations occurred outside of the historic era, the structures lack architectural significance, historic significance, or association with historic persons required for historic listing. The evaluation determined that none of the existing structures on the site meet the required criteria of significance necessary for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Demolition of the existing structures would not be contrary to the requirements of the SHMC Section
17.164.050(G), and demolition of the structures will not occur prior to approval of design review for the replacement structures. Further study was conducted by the Historic Preservation expert and responses to neighborhood comments were provided (Attachments 4 and 5).
DESIGN REVIEW
SHMC Section 17.40.040 requires design review approval for all subdivisions, signs, new structures or buildings (except for one accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions set forth in Section 17.116.030) or exterior revisions (not including change in exterior color) of any existing structures or buildings for both permitted and conditional uses pursuant to SHMC Section 17.164. The purpose of design review is to promote the qualities that bring value to the community and foster attractiveness and functional utility of the community as a place to live and work. The Planning Commission must find that the project takes reasonable account of the design criteria prescribed in SHMC Section
17.164.030 (listed below) in review of this application:
1. Consistency and compatibility with the applicable elements of the general plan; Though not entirely consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses, the applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, has partnered with the Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the remaining vineyard, and has proposed to add an additional 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard and plans to establish an estate olive oil in an effort to continue and preserve the majority of the agricultural uses on the site. However, the project will lose 0.66-acre of existing farmland, with a proposal to plant an additional
0.13-acre of olive trees, resulting in a net loss of 0.53-acre of farmland for nonagricultural use. The project is consistent with General Plan policies LU2.2, PF1.1, CD3.2, HE1.5, HE2.4, HE2.6, as noted in the General Plan Section of this report.
2. Compatibility of design with the immediate environment of the site; Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
The proposed primary residence is very large, but a significant portion of the home will be located in a basement level not visible from the street. Additionally, the applicant has worked with City staff to break up the façade fronting Fir Hill Drive. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant held meetings with the neighboring residents and made subsequent minor revisions intended to minimize the massing while preserving the vineyard and mountain views of neighboring properties, including relocating the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive and 5’ closer to the house, reduction of the pool size, and reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The house design will utilize earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal.
3. Relationship of the design to the site;
The project proposes removal of approximately 0.66-acre of existing 5.08-acres of vineyards from the site and demolition of the existing structures to accommodate the proposed primary residence, garage, accessory dwelling unit, pool, bocce court, the addition of approximately 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard, and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards. The proposal meets or exceeds all setback requirements and exceeds the off-street parking requirements and provides adequate circulation for vehicles. A 5-foot wall located outside of the front setback is designed to screen a portion of the motor court from street view.
4. Determination that the design is compatible in areas considered by the board as having a unified design or historical character;
The surrounding area has a mix of historic and non-historic development. The project site is developed with a residential structure originally constructed in 1883 but has been determined not to have any historic value that would be eligible for national, state, or local historic registration. The project has been designed to minimize impact on the surrounding area through use of articulation, layered massing, exterior treatment of earth tones and natural materials, and undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed residence.
5. Whether the design promotes harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
Aside from the nearby historic Spottswoode Winery, which is located in the Winery district, the property is completely surrounded by A-20 lands developed with primarily residential uses that have not retained on-site agricultural uses.
The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of olive trees which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil, to retain the agricultural nature of the existing lands, and a new Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
residence to replace the existing residence in an area that is developed with other residential structures of various shapes and sizes.
6. Compatibility with future construction both on and off the site; The project proposes new residential uses and the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing vineyard and installation of olive trees for the production of an estate olive oil, in compatibility with the surrounding A-20 zone which allows agricultural and residential uses.
7. Whether the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are appropriate to the function of the project;
The project will use earth tones and natural elements, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed structure, façade articulation, layered massing, and a step back of the second story as well as setbacks exceeding the minimum requirements of the A-20 zone.
8. Whether the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community;
Because the project proposes a large residence, the planning and siting of the buildings has been critical to the overall design. The structure will underground a large portion of the primary residence, provide articulation, layered massing, and a step back of the second story, as well as setbacks greater than the required minimums. Additionally, the project proposes more than the required parking and on-site circulation and can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.
9. Whether the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of 0.21-acre of olive trees to an existing 0.13-acre orchard, which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil. The proposed site plan also includes a bocce ball court and ornamental landscaping. Although the project proposes the removal of existing farmland (a total net loss of 0.53-acre), this is one of the only properties along Fir Hill Drive that contain a residential use that has retained any on-site agricultural use.
10. Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
The project proposes more than the minimum required parking and on-site circulation can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.
11. Whether natural features and vegetation are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;
The project will remove the 0.66-acre of the existing vineyard and will preserve and rehabilitate the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production in partnership with the nearby Spottswoode Winery.
12. Whether the materials, textures, colors, and details of the construction are an appropriate expression of its design concept and function and whether they are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions; The design uses earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal which are materials found on other surrounding homes. The primary residence has been designed with larger than required setbacks, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed residence, façade articulation and layered massing in order to preserve the mountain and vineyard views of surrounding properties. The above ground portion of the proposed primary structure is 7,950 square feet, which is approximately 2,300 square feet larger than the largest existing home in the surrounding neighborhood. However, the next largest home, which is 5,633 square feet in size, is located on a property that is only one acre in size and has a floor area ratio (FAR) approximately twice the FAR of this proposal. Therefore, in evaluating compatibility with adjacent and neighboring structures, the size of the home in relation to the parcel on which it is proposed, and not just size alone, is an important factor.
13. Whether the landscape design concept for the scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; The proposed structures will be surrounded on the front and sides with 0.33-acre of fruit and olive trees, and gardens designed to create visual interest in contrast with the earth tones used for the structures and functionality for the residents.
14. Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials.
The landscaping has been designed to create a desirable and functional environment and includes several garden areas, and several fruit and olive trees, while preserving approximately 4.42-acres of the existing vineyards.
Construction will comply with the California Green Code and will incorporate solar panels, and water efficient landscaping.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
ISSUES
As stated above, the project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission at two separate meetings. The first meeting, held on October 18, 2022, and resulted in a continuation of the project due to numerous concerns raised by the public and a request by the Planning Commission for additional information. The Planning Commission also requested that the applicants install story poles to demonstrate the massing of the proposed structures and to hold meeting with the neighboring property owners. Two neighborhood meetings were conducted on November 6, 2023, and November 19, 2023, in which neighbors met with the project applicant team and discussed various project concerns. The meetings were conducted informally, and no meeting minutes were provided. The second Planning Commission meeting was held on December 6, 2023, with the purpose of providing a project status update to the Commission. At this meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the project applicant provide a summary of the neighborhood meetings (Attachment 9) and allow the neighbors the opportunity to respond and provide any additional comments and clarifications regarding the details of the neighborhood meetings.
Following the circulation of the applicant summary of the neighborhood meetings, three separate letters were received from neighbors providing additional comment (Attachments 10-12). All three neighboring property owners continued to express concern over the project details with particular emphasis on the following:
1. Project massing/size of structures
The applicant has worked with staff and considered the comments from neighbors to reduce the massing of the proposed structures. However, the St. Helena Municipal Code does not limit massing in the A-20 zone. Staff cannot impose a reduction in project massing that other properties in the same zone would not be subjected to based on the existing standards in the City's zoning code.
2. Trees: historic oak and placement of olive grove
The existing historic oak tree is located in the City public right-of-way and will be protected in place. The project has been conditioned to protect any roots that may be exposed by grading activities.
3. Water: water usage and well for on-site agricultural uses The applicant has prepared a Water Use Analysis according to the Water Neutrality regulations, which has been reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department. The city cannot impose additional standards which would not be required for any other property in the A-20 zone.
The applicant has proposed a new well to replace the existing well, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed construction. As the well permit process is separate from design review, the applicant will be required to either obtain the necessary well permit through Napa County and the City or provide studies to show that the on-site agricultural uses can either be dry farmed, as is currently the Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
case, or irrigated using City water without exceeding the water neutrality requirements (see Public Works condition # 31).
4. Drainage and stormwater runoff
The project civil plans show that water flows away from Fir Hill Drive across the site and toward stormwater facilities located within Madrona Avenue. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a 1’ deep, 6’ wide bio-swale around the perimeter of the area proposed for grading and development, and two bioretention basins with a total capacity of 2,025 cubic feet, or 5 times the output from a 100-year storm. A Stormwater Control Plan has been reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department for stormwater runoff during construction activities.
5. Noise from mechanical equipment
All mechanical equipment associated with the project, including HVAC, will be located in the basement mechanical room. As all residential development must meet Title 24 regulations for interior noise levels, the project will not pose noise impacts to surrounding properties. The project construction activities have been conditioned to comply with Chapter 8.24 – Noise, of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
6. Loss of vineyard/grape yields
Comments from neighboring properties have indicated that the existing vineyard is historic. However, no evidence has been provided to show that the vineyard has been nominated as historic. Furthermore, the Historic Resource evaluation performed for the project site has determined that the property is not an historic resource and is not eligible for listing on a national, state, or local registry based on the CEQA criteria for historic resources. Grape yields are not subject to the design review process.
Notwithstanding, the removal any of the existing vineyard is inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 that discourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use and strictly limit development on properties existing at the time of the adoption of the General Plan that are designated as agricultural land.
7. Visibility on the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive Visibility at the corner of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive is already somewhat obstructed by the presence of a very large historic oak tree. The project has proposed and been conditioned to protect the oak. In order to further reduce visibility impacts, the proposed olive orchard has been moved farther from the corner and the larger of the two proposed bio retention basins will be placed at the corner of the property. Though not subject to the visibility triangle requirements defined in Section 17.04.160 of the SHMC because Fir Hill Drive is a private drive, rather than a street, the project exceeds the standard as noted in Attachment 14.
8. Number of bedrooms and bathrooms
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Some concerns have been expressed over the proposed number of bedrooms and bathrooms. However, there are no general plan or zoning criteria in place that would limit the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. The interior use of the structures is not something the the Planning Commission considers as part of design review, and the project has complied with the City’s Water Neutrality regulations. Some clarification has been provided on the project plan set to remove door jams and headers from rooms not to be used as bedrooms.
9. Sewer or septic
The applicant has submitted an application for sewer extension and connection for the project, which is currently under review by the Public Works Department. The sewer application is independent of design review and the Public Work Department has provided a wastewater condition for sewer or septic to be installed subject to all City and County regulations prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10.Grading concerns and construction
The Conceptual grading plan has been included in the project plan set, Sheet C2.1 and indicates that project site slopes away from Fir Hill Drive and toward Madrona Avenue.
11. Location of the ADU and backyard layout
As a result of the neighborhood meetings, the ADU has been located 15’ further from Fir Hill Drive, and 5’ closer to the primary structure than initially proposed, and the roof height of the ADU has been decreased by 2’. The pool has been reduced in size and both the pool and bocce court have been reoriented to address neighbor concerns. Further, the ADU should not be considered as part of the design review application as it is only subject to ministerial review under the City's Zoning Code and state law.
12. CEQA
Various comments have been received. The project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and Section 15303 (Reconstruction or Conversion of Small Structures). The Class 1 and Class 3 exemptions apply equally to single family residence regardless of size.
CORRESPONDENCE
Three formal letters from neighboring property owners have been received by staff (Attachments 10-12). Additionally, an email was received regarding the project potential for flooding in the basement (Attachment 13). Public Works Staff has determined that any potential for the proposed project resulting in flooding of the basement would be outside of the purview of City staff and would instead be between the property owner and their insurance company.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Option 1
For the reasons described above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303; and
2. Accept the required findings and approve the attached resolution granting demolition permit and design review approval for the proposed construction on the property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue.
Option 2
1. Determine that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 and Section 15303; and
2. Find the project inconsistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 and continue action on the item, requesting that the applicant/owner revise the project plans to retain all of the existing vineyards and redesign the site for Planning Commission review at a future date.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Project Statement
4. Historic Resource Evaluation
5. Response to HRE Comments
6. Water Use Analysis
7. Stormwater Control Plan
8. Assessor Parcel Data for Surrounding Properties
9. Applicant - Neighborhood Meeting Summary
10. 1693 Fir Hill Dr - Neighborhood Meeting Summary
11. 1615 Fir Hill Dr - Neighborhood Meeting Summary
12. 2056 Madrona Ave - Neighborhood Meeting Summary
13. Basement Flooding Discussion
14. Public Works Response to Neighbor Comments
15. Vineyard Expected Production Capacity
16. Applicant Letter to Fir Hill Neighbors 2-21-23
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
GRANTING DEMOLITION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO 2126 MADRONA AVENUE (File No. PL21-044)
PROPERTY OWNER: Lorraine and Joe Berchtold APN: 009-470-010 Recitals
1. The property owner requests adoption of a resolution approving a demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate the construction of a single-family home, garage and accessory dwelling unit and design review approval for the proposed single family home on a property located at 2126 Madrona Avenue in the Twenty-Acre Agriculture (A-20) zoning district.; and
2. A public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents andoccupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and
3. The Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena, State of California, considered theproject, staff report, and all testimony, written and spoken, at a duly noticed public hearing on March 7, 2023; and
4. Now, therefore let it be found that the Planning Commission approves the Demolition Permit and Design Review thereby authorizing the proposal contained in said plans based on the findings below and subject to the conditions of approval enumerated herein.
Resolution
A. In making the findings in this Resolution, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all of the documents referenced in this Resolution and the associated staff reports, City files for this matter, correspondence, presentations and other materials.
B. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303, which exempts the construction or conversion of small structures including single-family residences, garages, pools, etc.
C. Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Section 17.164.050, the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support the motion to approve the Demolition Permit to allow for the demolition the existing structures on-site:
1. That, based on the public record and testimony presented at a public hearing, the building is determined not to be a significant architectural or historical building.
2. That the demolition does not eliminate elements that are required to maintain the essential character of the neighborhood; and Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
3. That the design review of the proposed replacement structure is approved prior to approval of the demolition of a housing structure.
The existing home was constructed in 1883 but does not appear on the St.
Helena Historic Resource Inventory. A Historic Resources Evaluation was conducted for the existing structures on the site. The evaluation concluded that substantial alterations occurred outside of the historic era, the structures lack architectural significance, historic significance, or association with historic persons required for historic listing. The evaluation determined that none of the existing structures on the site meet the required criteria of significance necessary for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Demolition of the existing structures would not be contrary to the requirements of the SHMC Section
17.164.050(G), and demolition of the structures will not occur prior to approval of design review for the replacement structures.
D. In accordance with the design review criteria identified in SHMC Section 17.164.030, the Planning Commission finds that the project demonstrates the following:
1. Consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the general plan; Though not entirely consistent with General Plan policies LU5.1 and LU5.3 due to the removal of existing farmland for non-agricultural uses, the applicant has stated that the portion of existing vineyard proposed for removal to accommodate the project is the least viable for rehabilitation, has partnered with the Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the remaining vineyard, and has proposed to add an additional 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard and plans to establish an estate olive oil in an effort to continue and preserve the majority of the agricultural uses on the site. However, the project will lose 0.66-acre of existing farmland, with a proposal to plant an additional
0.13-acre of olive trees, resulting in a net loss of 0.53-acre of farmland for nonagricultural use. The project is consistent with General Plan policies LU2.2, PF1.1, CD3.2, HE1.5, HE2.4, HE2.6.
2. Compatibility of design with the immediate environment of the site; The proposed primary residence is very large, but a significant portion of the home will be located in a basement level not visible from the street. Additionally, the applicant has worked with City staff to break up the façade fronting Fir Hill Drive. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant held meetings with the neighboring residents and made subsequent minor revisions intended to minimize the massing while preserving the vineyard and mountain views of neighboring properties, including relocating the ADU an additional 15’ back from Fir Hill Drive and 5’ closer to the house, reduction of the pool size, and reorientation of the pool and bocce court. The house design will utilize earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
3. Relationship of the design to the site;
The project proposes removal of approximately 0.66-acre of existing 5.08-acres of vineyards from the site and demolition of the existing structures to accommodate the proposed primary residence, garage, accessory dwelling unit, pool, bocce court, the addition of approximately 0.13-acre of fruit and olive trees to the existing 0.20-acre orchard, and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards. The proposal meets or exceeds all setback requirements and exceeds the off-street parking requirements and provides adequate circulation for vehicles. A 5-foot wall located outside of the front setback is designed to screen a portion of the motor court from street view.
4. Determination that the design is compatible in areas considered by the board as having a unified design or historical character;
The surrounding area has a mix of historic and non-historic development. The project site is developed with a residential structure originally constructed in 1883 but has been determined not to have any historic value that would be eligible for national, state, or local historic registration. The project has been designed to minimize impact on the surrounding area through use of articulation, layered massing, exterior treatment of earth tones and natural materials, and undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed residence.
5. Whether the design promotes harmonious transition in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
Aside from the nearby historic Spottswoode Winery, which is located in the Winery district, the property is completely surrounded by A-20 lands developed with primarily residential uses that have not retained on-site agricultural uses.
The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of olive trees which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil, to retain the agricultural nature of the existing lands, and a new residence to replace the existing residence in an area that is developed with other residential structures of various shapes and sizes.
6. Compatibility with future construction both on and off the site; The project proposes new residential uses and the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing vineyard and installation of olive trees for the production of an estate olive oil, in compatibility with the surrounding A-20 zone which allows agricultural and residential uses.
7. Whether the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are appropriate to the function of the project;
The project will use earth tones and natural elements, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed structure, façade articulation, layered massing, and a Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
step back of the second story as well as setbacks exceeding the minimum requirements of the A-20 zone.
8. Whether the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community;
Because the project proposes a large residence, the planning and siting of the buildings has been critical to the overall design. The structure will underground a large portion of the primary residence, provide articulation, layered massing, and a step back of the second story, as well as setbacks greater than the required minimums. Additionally, the project proposes more than the required parking and on-site circulation and can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.
9. Whether the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; The proposal includes the removal of 0.66-acre of existing vineyards and rehabilitation of the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production and includes the addition of 0.21-acre of olive trees to an existing 0.13-acre orchard, which will be used in the production of an estate olive oil. The proposed site plan also includes a bocce ball court and ornamental landscaping. Although the project proposes the removal of existing farmland (a total net loss of 0.53-acre), this is one of the only properties along Fir Hill Drive that contain a residential use that has retained any on-site agricultural use.
10.Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles;
The project proposes more than the minimum required parking and on-site circulation can easily accommodate the residents of the home as well as guests.
11.Whether natural features and vegetation are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;
The project will remove the 0.66-acre of the existing vineyard and will preserve and rehabilitate the remaining 4.42-acres of vineyards for wine production in partnership with the nearby Spottswoode Winery.
12.Whether the materials, textures, colors, and details of the construction are an appropriate expression of its design concept and function and whether they are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures and functions; The design uses earth tone paints, cement plaster, and natural accent elements such as stone, wood, and metal which are materials found on other surrounding homes. The primary residence has been designed with larger than required setbacks, undergrounding of a large portion of the proposed Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
residence, façade articulation and layered massing in order to preserve the mountain and vineyard views of surrounding properties. The above ground portion of the proposed primary structure is 7,950 square feet, which is approximately 2,300 square feet larger than the largest existing home in the surrounding neighborhood. However, the next largest home, which is 5,633 square feet in size, is located on a property that is only one acre in size and has a floor area ratio (FAR) approximately twice the FAR of this proposal.
Therefore, in evaluating compatibility with adjacent and neighboring structures, the size of the home in relation to the parcel on which it is proposed, and not just size alone, is an important factor.
13.Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors, create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; The proposed structures will be surrounded on the front and sides with 0.33-acre of fruit and olive trees, and gardens designed to create visual interest in contrast with the earth tones used for the structures and functionality for the residents.
14.Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials.
The landscaping has been designed to create a desirable and functional environment and includes several garden areas, and several fruit and olive trees, while preserving approximately 4.42-acres of the existing vineyards.
Construction will comply with the California Green Code and will incorporate solar panels, and water efficient landscaping.
Planning Department Conditions of Approval
E. The Planning Commission approves a demolition permit and design review for the above-described project with the following conditions of approval. The conditions noted below are particularly pertinent to this permit and shall not be construed to permit violation of other laws and policies not so listed.
1. The project shall be in conformance with all city ordinances, rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.
2. The design review shall be vested within one (1) year from the date of final action. A building permit for the use allowed under this approval shall have been applied for within one (1) year from the effective date of this action or the approval shall expire, provided however that the approval may be extended for up to two (2) one-year periods pursuant to the St. Helena Municipal Code, Section 17.08.130, Extension of Permits and Approvals.
3. Any request for an extension of this approval shall be justified in writing and Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
receivedby the Planning Department at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
4. The approvals shall not become effective until fourteen (14) calendar days after approval, providing that the action is not appealed by the City Council or any other interested party within that 14-day period.
5. All required fees, including planning fees, development impact fees, residential in-lieuhousing fees, building fees, toilet retrofit fees, and St. Helena Unified School District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.
6. Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2003-65, the owner and applicant are informed ofthe following:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, in recognition of the need for additional affordable housing, and to mitigate the effectsof this development on the supply and demand of affordable housing, the permitee shall be subject to a Housing Impact Fee, an inclusionary requirement, an in-lieu fee, and/or similar fair and appropriate mechanisms, to provide funds for or to develop additional affordable housing.
7. Compliance with all permit conditions shall occur in accordance with specific regulations but in all cases no later than prior to occupancy or initiation of use unlessanother time is set by law or by this approval. Occupancy or final inspection of a project may be withheld if all conditions, including payment of fees for services rendered by the City, are not met.
8. In any action or proceeding to attack, challenge, invalidate, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of applicant’s Project, in whole or in part, applicant shall defend, at itsown expense and without any cost to the City, and with counsel acceptable to the City,and shall fully and completely indemnify and hold the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, damages,costs, attorney’s fees and liability of any kind, so long as the City reasonably promptly notifies the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceedings and the City cooperates fully in the defense of the action or proceedings.
9. Provided they are in general compliance with this approval, minor modifications may be approved by the Planning Director.
10.Pursuant to St. Helena Municipal Code Section 17.08.110, this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the real property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to their benefit and benefit of the City of St. Helena.
11.The primary purpose of this review is for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The property owners or their designee shall be responsible for meeting with the Building Official, Fire Inspector and or Public Works Department to review compliance with Building Codes, Fire Codes and specific Public Works Standards including fire protection systems and any applicable accessibility standardsof Title 24.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
12.Construction shall be in compliance with plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 7, 2023, except as modified herein.
13.During construction, the project site shall be adequately fenced and secured to prevent trespassing.
14.No new landscaping shall be installed while the City is in a declared Phase II or Phase III water emergency.
15.Exterior lighting shall be directed or shielded to prevent glare onto public roadways oradjacent properties.
16.To reduce disturbance of residents in the project vicinity, construction activities whichgenerate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday. Delivery of materials/equipment and cleaning and servicing of machines/equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Exceptions to these time restrictions may be granted by the Public Works Director for one of the followingreasons: (1) inclement weather affecting work, (2) emergency work, or (3) other work,if work and equipment will not create noise that may be unreasonably offensive to neighbors as to constitute a nuisance. The Public Works Director must be notified andgive approval in advance of such work. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal or local holidays that generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits.
Public Works Department Conditions of
Approval
17.An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within City right-of-way.
Encroachment Permits will not be issued prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans.
18.A separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility is required (SHMC 17.116.030). Backflow prevention devices shall be installed; all public improvements utility connections shall be designed in accordance with the City of St. Helena’s Construction Standards (SHMC 16.32.230).
19.The applicant shall verify that the existing water service and meter sizes are adequate to provide domestic and sprinkler water to the proposed residence.
If the existing meter size and/or services size is not adequate, the applicant shall replace the existing piping and/or meter with the appropriate size and be responsible for any fees associated with increasing the meter size.
20.An onsite wastewater treatment (septic tank) system, conforming to Napa County technical standards and plans approved by Napa County Environmental Services shall be submitted for approval prior to clearance for issuance of a building permit. Alternatively, a sanitary sewer extension and district annexation shall be pursued. All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City of St. Helena Standards and Specifications. Sanitary sewer facilities shall be installed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Occupancy.
21.Post-construction storm drain runoff shall be limited to pre-construction levels.
The improvement plans shall demonstrate that flows will not increase due to improvements being installed with this project. No lot-to-lot drainage is allowed. All site drains must be connected to the public stormdrain system or discharged through the face of curb or to an established waterway.
22.The City has adopted the latest edition of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual.
Applicant is responsible for construction plan conformance in accordance with the BASMAA Manual, SHMC Section 13.32 et. seq., and the State Water Resources Control Board Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) General Permit (Order 2013-0001 DWQ). Approval of the project by Planning Commission does not constitute compliance with storm water regulations nor a right to develop per approved plans unless this condition of approval is fully satisfied.
23.The Applicant shall provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and a schedule for implementation of approved measures to the Public Works Department forreview and approval with the first improvement plans submitted for review. A grading permit shall not be issued until the erosion and sediment control plan is approved.
24.The Applicant shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the PublicWorks Director.
25.The Applicant shall construct all of Public Improvements generally shown on the DesignReview Plans and more specifically described below:
a. As there are no existing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements fronting the property and no immediate future plans for new improvements, the proposed driveway fronting Madrona shall be constructed in accordance with County of Napa Standard P-2 (Driveway Connection to Arterial Roads – RuralRoads.
b. All landscaping and fencing along the front and side yards shall be installed suchthat they provide adequate sight distance and conform to City Standard 324 regarding Visibility and Fencing.
26.Any excavation adjacent to the historic oak on Madrona Avenue shall comply with Section 2-1 04 Protection of Vegetation of Saint Helena City Public Works standards.
27.Preservation of the historic oak tree within the public right-of-way along Madrona Avenue shall comply Section 12.24.150 Protection of protected trees during and after construction activity of the SHMC.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
28.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant (or tree professional) shall place orange construction fencing around the tree dripline and it must extend 5’ beyond the drip line and have it inspected by the City Arborist with a written verification that the location of the construction fencing is in acceptable location. (This will exclude any part of the drip line extending into the pavement on Madrona Ave).
29.Prior to the issuance of any permit, the homeowner or permit applicant must place 4” of mulch below the entire dripline of the tree but 1’ away from trunk flare. Exclude any part of the drip line extending into the pavement on Madrona Avenue.
30.In order to eliminate competition and help continue to preserve the Heritage Oak tree, the City Arborist recommends the property owner remove the adjacent redwood tree next in the canopy of the Heritage oak prior to the issuance of a building permit.
31.Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to prepare a Water Use Analysis according to the Water Neutrality regulations, which relies on the use of a well for irrigation purposes. The applicant shall provide evidence of permit processing through Napa County or provide studies to show that the on-site agricultural uses can either be dry farmed, as is currently the case, or irrigated using City water without exceeding the water neutrality requirements.
Building Department Conditions of Approval
32.The applicant will be required to comply with the codes adopted at the time the applicant applies for a building permit. At this time the City of St. Helena utilizes the 2019 Title 24 codes.
33.When submitting plans for a building permit, the plans shall include all documentation listed on the building permit application checklist.
34.The applicant shall provide a construction waste management plan with the building permit application.
35.The plans for construction shall include a checklist for compliance with the California Green Buildings Standards Code, mandatory measures. Provide a reference on the checklist indicating where the mandatory measures can be found on the plans.
36.When submitting plans, the title page shall include all information referenced on the building permit application checklist Title Page requirements.
37.Building Permit application materials and plans shall include any documentation pertaining to special loads applicable to the design and the specified section of the code that addresses the condition; special inspections Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
for any systems or components requiring special inspection; requirements for seismic resistance; and a complete list of deferred submittals at time of application. Any deferral of the required submittal items shall have prior approval of the Building Official however deferral of fire sprinkler design is not allowed.
38.Any deferral of the required submittal items shall have prior approval of the Building Official; however, deferral of the fire sprinkler design is not allowed.
39.A separate permit submittal is required for demolition of existing structures, construction of pools, installation of generators and PV-systems.
40.Properties that are on septic systems or are intending to abandon a septic system are encouraged to contact Napa County Environmental Health Department early in the process to prevent project delays. A permit is required for Demolition of existing septic systems from the Napa County EHD.
Fire Department Conditions of Approval
41.Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the current St.
Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36 and include compliance with vegetation hazard mitigation requirements of Section 8.08.010 (E)(9) of the St. Helena Municipal Code.
42.Fire sprinklers shall be installed as required by Fire Code and the Fire Department.
43.One hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.
44.Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30-feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing demolition permit and design review application was duly and regularly approved by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Helena at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on March 7, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
John Ponte Maya DeRosa, AICP
Chair, Planning Commission Planning and Building Director Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Project Information: 2126 MADRONA AVE. SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE APN #: APN: 009-470-010 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 General Civil Drawings *SQUARE FOOTAGES FROM EXTERIOR BUILDING PERIMETER A0.0 COVER SHEET C1.0 COVER SHEET C2.0 HARDSCAPE PLAN C2.1 GRADING PLAN C3.0 UTILITY PLAN Architectural Drawings A1.0 SITE PLAN A1.1 SITE PLAN A1.2 SITE SECTION A1.3 SITE PHOTOS A2.1 RESIDENCE BASEMENT PLAN A2.2 RESIDENCE FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.3 RESIDENCE SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.4 RESIDENCE ROOF PLAN A2.6 ADU FLOOR PLAN A2.7 ADU ROOF PLAN A3.1 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS A3.2 RESIDENCE ELEVATIONS A3.3 ADU ELEVATIONS A3.4 ELEVATION MATERIALS A3.5 COLORED ELEVATIONS A3.6 COLORED ELEVATIONS APPLICABLE CODES: 2 STORY + BASEMENT NO. OF STORIES: VB CONSTRUCTION TYPE: R-3 OCCUPANCY: A-20 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT ZONING: 009-470-010 A.P.N.: PROJECT ADDRESS: LOT AREA: PROJECT NAME: BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 5.78 ACRES ( 251,777 S.F.) 2126 MADRONA AVE. FEMA ZONE: MAX ALLOWABLE: 30' NO BUILDING HEIGHT: CIVIL ENGINEER: MADRONE ENGINEERING 1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 TEL: (707) 302-6280 CONTACT: JOEL DICKERSON EMAIL: [email protected] 2019 Californa Building Code (CBC) 2019 California Electrical Code (CEC) 2019 California Mechanical Code (CMC) 2019 California Plumbing Code (CPC) 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) 2019 California Residential Code (CRC) 2019 California Energy Code (CEC) 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (GBS) 2019 California Administrative Code (CAC) Applicable General Plan, Zoning, Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances Note: These drawings are to conform to the requirements of the code editions cited above. Any work performed in association with these drawings must also comply with these code editions. CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BUILDING HEIGHT: 28' FLOOR ELEVATION OR DIMENSION POINT REVISION ROOM NUMBER ROOM NAME GRID LINE DOOR SYMBOL WINDOW SYMBOL SHEET NUMBER ENLARGED DETAIL NUMBER DETAIL NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SHEET NUMBER SECTION/ ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER INTERIOR ELEVATION NUMBERS 1 #A8.# XXX ROOM 1. The work included under this contract consist of all labor materials, transportation, tools and equipment necessary for the construction of the project leaving all work ready for use. 2. All construction shall conform to the 2019 California Building Code; 2019 California Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes; 2019 California Residential Code, 2019 California Energy Code; 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; Title 24; Fire Safe Standards and any other local governing codes and ordinances. In the event of conflict, the most stringent requirements shall apply. 3. The plans indicate the general extent of new construction necessary for the work, but are not intended to be all-inclusive. All demolition and all new work necessary to allow for a finished job in accordance with the intention of the drawing is included regardless of whether shown on the drawings or mentioned in the notes. All work is new, U.O.N. 4. Any errors, omissions or conflicts found in the various parts of the construction documents shall be brought to the attention of the Architect and the Owner for clarification before proceeding with the work. 5. The General Contractor shall maintain a current and complete set of the construction documents on the job site during all phases of construction for use of all the trades and shall provide all the subcontractors with current construction documents as required. 6. The General Contractor shall verify and assume responsibility for all dimensions and site conditions. The General Contractor shall inspect the existing premises and take note of existing conditions prior to submitting prices. No claim shall be allowed for difficulties encountered which could have reasonably been inferred from such examination. 7. Written dimensions take precedence. Do not scale drawings. 8. All dimensions to and from new construction when shown in plan are to face of stud, face of masonry, centerline, unless otherwise noted. 9. All dimensions on reflected ceiling or electrical plans are from face of finish or center line of column to center line of fixture or group of fixtures. 10. All vertical dimensions are to face of finish, finish floor, unless otherwise noted. 11. All dimensions noted "Verify" and "V.I.F." are to be checked by contractor prior to construction. Immediately report any variances to the architect for resolution. 12. Interior walls are 2x4 or 2x6 wood studs @ 16" o.c. unless otherwise noted and all exterior wall are 2x6 wood studs @ 16" o.c. unless otherwise noted. 13. Contractor shall provide all seismic bracing and hold-down clips as required by Code for all suspended ceiling and soffit framing conditions. 14. Coordinate all work with existing conditions, including but not limited to: irrigation pipes, electrical conduit, water lines, gas lines, drainage lines, etc. 15. Provide adequate temporary support as necessary to assure the structural value or integrity of the building. 16. Protect all existing building and site conditions to remain including walls, cabinets, finishes, trees and shrubs, paving, etc. 17. Details shown are typical. Similar details apply in similar conditions. 18. Verify all architectural details with structural, and design/build drawings before ordering or installation of any work. 19. Where locations of windows and doors are not dimensioned, they shall be centered in the wall or placed two stud widths from adjacent wall as indicated on the drawings. 20. All required exits shall be operable from inside, without the use of key or special knowledge. 21. All changes in floor materials occur at centerline of door or framed opening unless otherwise indicated on the drawings. 22. All materials, fixtures and equipment must be installed per manufacturer's specification and recommendations. 23. Verify clearances for flues, vents, chases, soffits, fixtures, etc. before any construction, ordering of, or installation of any items of work. 24. Sealant, caulking and flashing, etc. locations shown on drawings are not intended to be inclusive. Follow manufacturer's installation recommendations and standard industry and building practices. 25. All roof deck penetrations and exterior wall openings shall be guaranteed by the contractor to be water tight for a minimum period of one year after substantial completion of all work under this contract. 26. The General Contractor shall remove all rubbish and waste materials of all subcontractors and trades on a regular basis, and shall exercise a strict control over job cleaning to prevent any direct debris or dust from affecting, in any way, finished areas in or outside job site. 27. Contractor shall leave premises and all affected areas clean and orderly, ready for occupancy. This includes cleaning of all glass (inside and outside) and frames, both new and existing. 28. Install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in accordance with the specifications and in conformance with CBC and local Fire Marshal requirements. 29. All exterior doors and windows are to be weather stripped per Title 24 requirements, unless otherwise noted in door details. 30. Glass subject to human impact shall be of safety glazing material to meet State and Federal requirements. 31. Any survey monuments within the area of construction shall be preserved or reset by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor. 32. Provide shop drawings for all millwork, metal work and custom items. 33. Contractor is responsible for reviewing and complying with requirements of Soil Report as prepared by Geotechnical Engineer. 1 #A8.#
& And
< Angle
@ At Diameter or Round
# Pound or Number A.C. Air Condintiong or
Asphaltic Concrete ACOUS. Accoustical A.D. Area Drain ADJ. Adjustable ADJAC. Adjacent A.F.F. Above finish floor AGGR. Aggregate ALT. Alternate ALUM. Aluminum APPROX Approximate ARCH Architectural A.S.R.B. Architectural site review board BD. Board BFE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION BITUM. Bituminous BLDG. Building BLK. Block BLKG. Blocking BM. Beam B.O. Bottom of BOT Bottome B.P. Building Paper BTWN. Between C.B. Catch Basin CEM. Cement CER. Ceramic C.J. Control Joint CLG. Ceiling CLKG. Caulking CLR. Clear CLST. Closet C.M.U. Concrete Masonry Unit CNTR. Counter C.O. Clean-Out COL. Column CONC. Concrete COND. Condition CONN. Connection CONST. Construction CONT. Continuous CONTR. Contractor C.T. Ceramic Tile CTR. Center C.W. Cold Water D DRYER DBL. Double DET. Detail D>F> Drinking Fountain DIA. Diameter DIM. Dimension DISP. Dispenser DN Down DR. Door DW Dishwasher DWG. Drawing DWR. Drawer EA. Each (E) Existing E.I.F.S. Exterior Insulation & Finish System E.W. Expansion Joint EL. Elevation ELEC. Electrical EMER. Emergency ENCL. Enclosure E.P.B. Electrical Panel Board EQ. Equal EQUIP. Equipment EXIST. Existing EXP. Expansion EXT. Exterior EXP. Expansion F.A. Fire Alarm F.A.U. Forced Air Unit F.B. Flat Bar F.D. Floor Drain F.D.N. Foundation F.E.C. Fire Extinguisher Cabinet FEMA Federal Emergency Management
Agency F.H.M.S. Flat Head Machine Screw F.H.W.S. Flat Head Wood Screw FIN. Finish FIXT. Fixture FLR. Floor FLASH. Flashing FLUOR. Fluorescent F.O.C. Face of Concrete F.O.F. Face of Finish F.O. Ply Face of Plywood F.O.S. Face of Stud F.P.R.F. Fireproof FR. Frame FT. Foot or Feet FTG. Footing FURR. Furring FUT. Future G. Gas Outlet GA. Gauge GALV. Galvanized G.T> Garbage Disposal GEN. General G.F.I. Ground Fault Interrupt GL. Glass GND. Ground GR. Grade G.S.M. Galvanized Sheet Metal GYP. Gypsum H.B. Hose Bibb H.C. Hollow Core or Handicapped HD. Head HDBD. Headboard HDR. Header HDF. Hardware HDWD. Hardwood HGR. Hanger HGT. Height H.M. Hollow Metal HORIZ. Horizontal HR. Hour H.R. Handrail H.W.H. Hot Water Heater I.D. Inside Diameter IN. Inch INSUL. Insulation INT. Interior INTER. Intermediate JAN. Janitor JST. Joist JT. Joint KIT. Kitchen LAM. Laminate LAV. Lavatory LB. Pound LIN. Linear LN. Line LT. Light MACH. Machine MAINT. Maintain MAT. Material MAX. Maximum M.B. Machine Bolt M.C. Medicine Cabinet M.D.O. Medium Density Overlay MECH. Mechanical MEMB. Membrane MTL. Metal MFR. Manufacturer MICRO Microwave MIN. Minimum MISC. Miscellaneous MTD. Mounted MUL. Mullion (N) New N. North N.I.C. Not in Contract NO. or # Number NOM. Nominal N.T.S. Not to Scale O.A. Overall O.C. On Center O.D. Outside Diameter (Dim.) OPNG. Opening OPP. Opposite PERIM. Perimeter PL. Plate P.LAM. Plastic Laminate PLAS. Plaster PLYWD. Plywood PNL. Panel PNT. Paint P.S.I. Per Square Inch PT. Pressure Treated or Post Tensioned PTD. Painted P.T.D. Paper Towel Dispenser PTN. Partition P.T.R. Paper Towel Receptacle Q.T. Quarry Tile R. Riser R.A. Return Air RAD. Radius REC. Recessed REF. Reference REFL. Reflected REFR. Refrigerator REG. Register REINF. Reinforced REQ. Required RESIL. Resilient RET. Retaining REV. Revision/ Revised/ Reversed RM. Room REMOV. Removable R.O. Rough Opening RWD. Redwood S. South S.C. Solid Core S.C.D. See Civil Drawings S.D. Storm Drain, Soap Dispenser/Dish SCHED. Schedule SECT. Section S.E.D. See Electrical Drawings SEP. Separation S.H. Sprinkler Head SHR. Shower SHT. Sheet SHTG. Sheathing SIM. Similar SL. Sliding S.K.D. See Kitchen Drawings S.L.D. See Landscape Drawings S.M.D. See Mechanical Drawings S.P.D. See Plumbing Drawings SPEC. Specification or Special SQ. Square S.S. Stainless Steel S.S.D. See Structural Drawing S.S.K. Service Sink STD. Standard STL. Steel STOR. Storage STRL. Structural S.V. Sheet Vinyl T. Tread T.B. Towl Bar T.B.D. To Be Determined T.C. Top of Curb TEL. Telephone TEMP. Tempered T.&G. Tongue & Groove TER. Terrazzo THK. Thick T.M.E. To Match Existing T.O. Top of T.O.C. Top of Concrete T.O.P. Top of Plate T.O. PLY Top of Plywood T.O.W. Top of Wall TYP. Typical U.B.C. Uniform Building Code UNEXC. Unexcavated UNF. Unfinished U.N.O. Unless Noted Otherwise VAR. Varies V.C.T. Vinyl Composite Tile VEN. Veneer VERT. Vertical VEST. Vestibule V.G.D.F. Vertical Grain Douglas Fir V.I.F. Verify in Field VOL. Volume W Washing Machine W. West W/ With W/D Stacked Washing
Machine and Dryer W.C. Wall Covering WD. Wood W.H. Water Heater W/O Without W.P. Work Point or Waterproofing WSCT. Wainscot W.S.P. Wet Standpipe WT. Weight WR. Water Resistant WW. Welded Wire 2 E
8 A5.2
B
C
D
A
2 A3.1 BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE SAINT HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574 2126 MADRONA AVE. OWNER: ARCHITECT: KROEGER-JANEV ARCHITECTS 1432 MAIN STREET ST. HELENA CA 94574 TEL: (707) 968-5265 CONTACT: SASHA JANEV EMAIL: [email protected] JOE BERCHTOLD IN CARE OF MICHAEL HUBBARD TR 600 UNIVERSITY ST., SUITE 1625 SEATTLE, WA 98101 LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: CLAUDIA SCHMIDT P.O. BOX 42 SAINT HELENA, CA 94574 TEL: (707) 480-9571 EMAIL: [email protected] Landscape Drawings L1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN L2.1 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE L2.2 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE COLOR PLANTING PLAN BUILDING AREA CALCULATION: EXISTING RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED: 2,508 S.F. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED: 799 S.F. EXISTING STORAGE BARN: 586 S.F. TOTAL REMOVED 3,893 S.F. PROPOSED RESIDENCE: BASEMENT: FIRST FLOOR: SECOND FLOOR: TOTAL: COVERED TERRACE: PROPOSED ADU: FIRST FLOOR: COVERED TERRACE: EXISTING RESIDENCE: BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE 6,457 S.F. 5,244 S.F. 2,706 S.F. 850 S.F. 864 S.F. 7,950 S.F. 1,640 S.F. GARAGE & STORAGE: 1,754 S.F.
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/9/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\0-Title Sheet-202101.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A0.0 COVER SHEET SCALE: N.T.S.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
SCALE: N1" = 2000'
PROJECT SITE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
W
M A D R O N A A V E
F I R H I L L D R
<E> WELL TO BE
DEMOLISHED
SCALE: N
1" = 140'
<P> RESIDENCE
<P> ADU
APN: 009-470-026 2056 MADRONA AVE.
APN: 009-470-013
2001 DEAN YORK LN.
APN: 009-460-001
2212 MADRONA AVE.
APN: 009-470-009
1615 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-008
1693 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-007
1733 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-006
1755 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-005
1795 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-004
1815 FIR HILL DR.
1837 FIR HILL DR.
APN: 009-470-003
APN: 009-470-002
APN: 009-470-025
2126 MADRONA AVE.
APN: 009-470-010
20.0'
REAR YARD 50.0' SIDE SETBACK
FROM FIR HILL C/L
2 1 2 6 M A D R O N A A V E N U E
D E S I G N R E V I E W P L A N S F O R :
S T . H E L E N A , C A , 9 4 5 7 4
SHEET INDEX
VICINITY MAP
SURVEY NOTES
SITE MAP
C1.0 COVER SHEETC2.0 HARDSCAPE PLANC2.1 GRADING PLANC3.0 UTILITY PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
MICHAEL HUBBARD TR
600 UNIVERSITY ST., SUITE 1625
SEATTLE, WA 98101
2126 MADRONA AVENUE
ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574
009-470-0105.78 ACRES
A-20ALBION SURVEYS
1113 HUNT AVENUE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
JON WEBB. P.L.S.
707/963-1217
MADRONE ENGINEERING
1485 MAIN STREET, SUITE 302
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
JOEL DICKERSON, P.E.
707/302-6280
OWNER:
SITE ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL #:
PARCEL SIZE:
CITY ZONING:
SURVEYOR:
CIVIL ENGINEER:
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT STATEMENT
6"W
UTILITY POLE
PP
SIGN
WATER METER & DCV
FIRE HYDRANT WITH GATE VALVE
WATER VALVE
SEWER MANHOLE/RISER WITH ID #
FDC/PIV WITH CHECK VALVE
CLEANOUT
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE WITH ID #
WM
WV
SDMH#2
SSMH#1
CO
SYMBOL LEGEND
85 GAS LINE
WATER LINE
EXISTING CONTOUR
CENTERLINE
PROPERTY LINE
SOLID STORM DRAIN
PERFORATED STORM DRAIN
GRADE SWALE
85 PROPOSED CONTOUR
FH
OVERLAND RELEASE ROUTE
SS SANITARY SEWER
sSD
STREET LIGHT
TOP/TOE BANK
GRADEBREAK
6"G
W WELL
TREE
6"
TREE TO BE REMOVED
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO OBTAIN DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO BUILD A NEW RESIDENCE, ADU, POOL, DRIVEWAY, AND ALL RELATED UTILITIES AT 2126 MADRONA AVENUE.
KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS
1432 MAIN STREET
ST. HELENA, CA 94574SASHA JANEV
(707) 968-5265
1. THE BOUNDARY ON THESE DRAWINGS DOES NOT REPRESENT A PROPERTY LINE SURVEY. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON RECORD DATA, AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE TRUE POSITIONS OF THE LINES.
2. THE TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY OF APRIL, 2021 PERFORMED BY ALBION SURVEYS.
3. THE VERTICAL DATUM OF THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON NAVD88 AND THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAD83 CALIFORNIACOORDINATE SYSTEM ZONE II PER TRIMBLE GPS OBSERVATIONS USING NGS OPUS SOLUTION. BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN PER 11 RM 11, NCR. ROTATED CLOCKWISE 1d21'OO" TO NAD 83.
4. SITE BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: N/A
5. MADRONE ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS OR REPLACE THEM AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
ESTIMATED PROJECT EARTHWORK
UNADJUSTED
QUANTITIES
(CY)
ADJUSTED
QUANTITIES
(CY)
CUT ~3000 TBD
FILL ~3000 TBD
ESTIMATED NET EARTHWORK BALANCED
THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF DISTURBED SOIL IS 43,411 SF (0.99 AC).
C1.0
COVER SHEET
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE
ENGINEERING WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY MADRONE ENGINEERING. IT SHALL BE THE USER'S SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.
EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043
CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON
C IV I L
REGISTERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER
STA TE
OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:
U
SA
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3
REVISIONS
3 NO CHANGES THIS SHEET
AB AGGREGATE BASEAC ASPHALT CONCRETEAD AREA DRAIN
BC BEGIN CURVEBFE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PER FIRMBM BENCHMARKBCR BEGIN CURB RETURNBVC BEGIN VERTICAL CURVEBS BOTTOM OF STAIRSBSW BACK OF SIDEWALK
CB CATCH BASINC&G CURB AND GUTTERCMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCP CONCRETE PIPE
CENTERLINE
CO CLEANOUTCOMM COMMUNICATIONCV CHECK VALVECW COLD WATER
DCV DOUBLE CHECK VALVEDG DECOMPOSED GRANITEDIP DUCTILE IRON PIPEDS DOWNSPOUTDW DOMESTIC WASTEDWG DRAWINGEC END OF CURVE (E) EAST<E> EXISTING
ECR END CURB RETURNEG EXISTING GROUNDEGR EDGE OF GRAVELEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTEVC END VERTICAL CURVEFDC FIRE DEPT. CONNECTIONFG FINISHED GRADE
FH FIRE HYDRANTFIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPFL FLOW LINEFM FORCE MAINFS FINISHED SURFACE
GB GRADE BREAKGR GRAVEL
HP HIGH POINTINV INVERTIP IRON PIPEIRR IRRIGATION
JP JOINT POLE
LF LINEAL FEET/FOOTLP LOW POINTMH MANHOLEMON MONUMENT
(N) NORTH<N> NEWOC ON CENTEROG ORIGINAL GROUNDOH OVERHEADOHL OVERHEAD LINE<P> PROPOSED
PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETEPD PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONPG&E PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRICPI POINT OF INTERSECTIONPIV POST INDICATOR VALVEP/L PROPERTY LINEPRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVEPSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDEPVI POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTIONPW PROCESS WASTE
R RADIUSRT RIGHTROW RIGHT OF WAYRWL RAIN WATER LEADERRCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (S) SOUTHS SLOPE (FEET/FOOT)SAD SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSD STORM DRAINSDP SUBDRAIN PIPESED SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGSSLD SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSSLV SLEEVESMD SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGSSPD SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGSSS SANITARY SEWERSSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUTSSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLESTA STATIONSTD STANDARDSW SIDEWALKTC TOP OF CURBTFC TOP FACE OF CURBTOC TOP OF CONCRETETS TOP OF STAIRSTW TOP OF WALLTYP TYPICAL
UG UNDERGROUND
VC VERTICAL CURVEVG VALLEY GUTTER
(W) WEST
WM WATER METERW/S WATER SERVICEWV WATER VALVE
ABBREVIATIONS
1. THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES LISTED BELOW ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND MAY VARY DUE TO SOIL TYPE, COMPACTION AND BULKING FACTORS, GRADING PRACTICES, AND COMPACTION VALUES.
2. THE UNADJUSTED QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN DERIVED USING A VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS.
4. THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN DEVELOPING ADJUSTED QUANTITY ESTIMATES: · QUANTITIES FROM UTILITY TRENCHES AND FOUNDATION TRENCHES HAVE NOT BEEN ESTIMATED. · QUANTITIES RELATED TO OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION HAVE NOT BEEN ESTIMATED.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK WITH THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF COMPACTION AND BULKING FACTORS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PROPOSED GRADING ACTIVITIES. THESE FACTORS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE CUT & FILL QUANTITIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS ANALYSIS.
4. SEE THE TABLE BELOW FOR THE ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR THE PROJECT:
B E R C H T O L D R E S I D E N C E
SCALE IN FEET 0 140'SCALE IN FEET 0 2,000'
MAP FROM USGS 7.5 MIN SERIES MAP NAME: ST. HELENA
LC
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
OHL
OHL
OHL
OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL
M A D R O N A A V E
F I R H I L L D R
RDWD_14/25
295.11RDWD_22/30
294.93
WO_48/100
293.80
WAL_14/25
296.26
WAL_16/STUMP
295.23
WAL_16/25
294.06 FIG_12/15 294.78
WAL_16/STUMP
294.86
POM_4/10
293.84
POM_4/10
293.61
POM_4/10
293.68
POM_4/10
293.94
FRUIT_4/5
294.27
FRUIT_6/15
296.31
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10
294.76
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10294.86
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/10294.79
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.81
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.89
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15294.93
ITAL_CYP
294.70
ITAL_CYP
295.14
TREE_12/15295.81
TREE_8/15295.25
TREE_8/15295.07
CREPE_MYRTLE_4/15295.15
LIQUID_AMBER_8/20
294.69
LIQUID_AMBER_12/20
295.17
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
295.82
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
296.50
LIQUID_AMBER_10/25
296.61
RDWD_16/25
293.44
RDWD_20/25
293.75
RDWD_20/25
294.27
WAL_12/30
293.26
WILLOW_10/20
296.05
WAL_16/25
296.22
OLIVE_8/15296.84
FRUIT_6/10
297.47
WAL_14/15
297.59
FRUIT_4/10
296.59
LIQUID_AMBER_4/10
297.62
FH
293.66
SCALE:
N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
301
<P> STEPS
3 6-IN RISERS2 12-IN TREADS
<P> STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
<P> STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
<P> ADU
FF 299.00
<P> POOL
<P> SPA
<P> GARAGE
FF 299.00
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 <P> BOCCE COURT
16.0'
50.0' SIDE SETBACK
FROM FIR HILL C/L
<P> RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00
30.0'
<P> WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50
48.0'
45.8'
16.0'
60.0'
45.0'
TOTAL NEW/RECONSTRUCTED IMPERVIOUS AREA : 24,810 SF (0.57 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED SOIL AREA: 43,000 SF (0.99 AC)
HARDSCAPE LEGEND
TYPE OF IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE AREA DESCRIPTIONS AREA (SF) TYPICAL SECTION PERVIOUS/ IMPERVIOUS
BUILDINGS, GARAGES,
CARPORTS, OTHER
STRUCTURES WITH
ROOFS
BUILDINGS 11,250 N/A IMPERVIOUS
WALLS 330 N/A IMPERVIOUS
PATIO, IMPERVIOUS
DECKING, PAVERS
AND IMPERVIOUS
LINERS
CONCRETE 5880 N/A IMPERVIOUS
SIDEWALKS AND
PATHS GRAVEL
0 6" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS
ROADWAYS AND
DRIVEWAYS
ASPHALT CONCRETE 800 2.5" AC OVER 6.0" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS CHIP SEAL 6,390
DOUBLE CHIP
SEAL OVER 10"
CL 2 AB
IMPERVIOUS
GRAVEL 370 10" CL 2 AB IMPERVIOUS
OTHER PERVIOUS
SURFACE
DECOMPOSED
GRANITE
0 N/A PERVIOUS
GREEN ROOF
0 N/A PERVIOUS
LAWN
0 N/A PERVIOUS
BIORETENTION/
SWALE 1,300 N/A PERVIOUS
TOTAL 26,320
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE
ENGINEERING WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY MADRONE ENGINEERING. IT SHALL BE THE USER'S SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.
EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043
CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON
C IV I L
REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER
S TA TE
OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:
U
SA
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3
HARDSCAPE PLAN
HARDSCAPE PLAN
C2.0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'
REVISIONS
3 REVISED SITE PLAN
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
OHL
OHL
OHL
OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL
M A D R O N A A V E
F I R H I L L D R
WO_48/100
293.80
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
RDWD_16/25
293.44
JP_W/_STREET_LIGHT
293.94
SIGN
294.12
DI
293.48
DI
293.44
EP
296.82
EP
296.16
EP
295.54
EP
294.92
EP
294.41
EP
294.00
EP
293.81
EP
293.79
EP
293.76
EP
293.68
EP
293.50
EP
293.47
EP
293.58
EP
293.55
EP
293.54EP
293.30
EP
293.14
MAILBOX
294.48
JP
293.47
BOLLARD
293.60
BOLLARD
293.66
FH
293.66
JP
295.20
GB
293.71
GB294.07
GB
294.75
GB
295.12
GB295.59
GB296.50
DI
293.18
DI
293.22
EP
297.60
EP
296.85
PLANTER
296.31
PLANTER
296.22
PLANTER
295.50
EVR
296.92
EVR
296.51
EVR
296.04
EVR
296.09
EVR
296.68
EVR
294.23
EVR
293.64
EVR
293.20
EVR
293.05
GB300.29
GB299.91
GB299.16
GB298.08
GB297.23
GB296.79
EP
297.69
EP
298.31
EP
299.09
EP
299.64
EP
300.51
EP
301.12
EP
296.11
EP
296.51
EP
296.50
EP
296.62
EP
296.62
DI
300.75
DI
300.74
GB300.82 GB
300.94
GB300.97
GB
301.50
EP
301.61
EP
302.35
SCALE:
N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
302
301
<P> STEPS3 6-IN RISERS
2 12-IN TREADS
<P> STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
<P> STEPS
25 6-IN RISERS
23 12-IN TREADS
DISTURBED
SOIL AREA
DISTURBED
SOIL AREA
DISTURBED
SOIL AREA
DISTURBED
SOIL AREA
<P> ADU
FF 299.00
<P> POOL
<P> SPA
<P> GARAGE
FF 299.00
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARD
TSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50
<P> BOCCE COURT
<P> RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00
<P> WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 S=2.0%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=4.5%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.0%
FS 297.23
BS 297.40 TS 298.90
FS 293.55
FS 293.24
FS 293.43
FS 298.63
FS 298.83
FS 298.98
FS 298.98
FS 298.98
FS/EG 296.28 FS/EG 295.27 FS/EG 297.69
FS/EG 298.74
FS 298.75FG 298.25
FS 298.92
FG 298.33
TW 299.50
FG 298.00
FS 285.98
FL 297.00
FL 297.00
FL HP 297.50
FS/EG 294.00
TS 296.50
FS 294.50
GB 298.00 GB 298.00
FS 285.98
FS 298.80FS 298.80
TW 299.50
FG 298.50
TW 299.50
FG 298.25
TS 298.50
FS 297.23
TW 299.25
TW 299.25 FS 297.78
FS 298.58 TW 299.50 GB 298.00 GB 298.00
GB 298.00
FL 296.00 FL 294.00 FL 293.00
FL 295.00
FS 298.75
FG 298.25
FL 294.00 FL 293.25
S=1.8%
S=3.5%
S=0.5%
S=2.0%
S=1.8%
S=50%
S=1.0%
S=2.0%
S=4.5%
S=4.5%
S=50%
S=50%
S=2.0%
S=2.0%
S=1.0%
S=6.0%
S=1.0%
S=1.5% S=2.5% S=1.2%
S=2.0% S=1.7% S=1.7%
298
298
295
294
297
294
295
TW 299.25
FG 294.00
FG 294.00
298
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE
ENGINEERING WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY MADRONE ENGINEERING. IT SHALL BE THE USER'S SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.
EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043
CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON
C IV I L
REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER
S TA TE
OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:
U
SA
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3
GRADING PLAN
GRADING PLAN
C2.1 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'
REVISIONS
3 REVISED GRADING PLAN
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
WO_48/100
293.80
OLIVE_6/15
293.99
RDWD_16/25
293.44
JP_W/_STREET_LIGHT
293.94
DI
293.48
DI
293.44
TP292.91
MAILBOX
294.48
WM
294.12
WM
294.63
JP
293.47
WV
293.76
FH
293.66
JP
295.20
ELEC_PANEL
295.27
DI
293.18
DI
293.22
SS_TANK
295.89
SS_TANK
295.87
LID
295.87LID
295.87
SSCO
295.41
SEPTIC_+/-
295.16
SUMP
293.51
ELEC_PANEL
292.86
ELEC_PANEL_SUMP_CONTROLS
292.82
SSCO293.10
SSCO
293.11
SSCO
293.30
SSCO
293.23
DI
300.75
DI
300.74
FLAG_BLUE_STAKE
298.36
GAS_METER
295.36
FLAG_YELLOW
296.04
OHL
OHL
OHL
OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL OHL
W
M A D R O N A A V E
F I R H I L L D R
W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SCALE:
N
1" = 20'
295
300
294
296
299
298
297
302
301
300
295
293
294
296
297
298
299
302
301
303
<P> ADU
FF 299.00
<P> POOL
<P> SPA
<P> GARAGE
FF 299.00
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #01SURFACE AREA = 1,000 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 1,500 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARDTSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50 <P> BOCCE COURT
<P> RESIDENCE
FF (MAIN) 299.00
FF (BASEMENT) 286.00
<P> WASTEWATER PRIMARY
DISPERSAL FIELD - 1,600 SF
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> SWALE
6' WIDE, 1' DEEP
<P> BIORETENTION AREA #02SURFACE AREA = 350 SF
RETENTION CAPACITY = 525 CF
2-FOOT DEPTH, 6-INCH FREEBOARD
TSL 292.00, TGL 290.50, BGL 289.50
W
W
GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS
W
W
GAS
E
E
E
E E
E E E
<P> GAS METER
NEW LOCATION
CONNECT TO
<E> GAS LINE
<P> UNDERGROUND
ELECTRIC FROM <E>
POLE
<P> SUBDRAIN
PUMP (COLLECTFROM BASEMENT &
WALL SUBDRAINS)
<P> STORM DRAIN
PUMP (COLLECT
FROM LIGHT
WELLS & ANY
NECESSARY DS)
DI#01 24-IN
RIM 293.50
INV (OUT) 292.07
8" SDR 35 S = 1.0%
INV (IN) 291.82
S=1.0% MIN
2" FM
1" SCH 40
2" SCH 40
GAS GAS GAS
CONNECT TO
<E> WATER METER
<P> BACKFLOW
PREVENTER
<P> ELECTRIC METER
S=1.0% MIN
2" FM
SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS SS SS SS
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
S=1.0% MIN
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
6" SDR 35
<P> BASEMENT SEWER PUMP
<P> SEWER GRAVITY BREAK BOX
CONNECT TO
<P> SEWER LINE
EXTENSION
INV ~291.14
<P> SSCO
INV 294.35
<P> SSCO
INV 295.62
<P> SSCO
INV 294.67
<P> SSCO
INV 293.55
1.5" FM
<P> GRAVEL INFILTRATION TRENCH
DI#02 24-IN FOR BIO #02 OVERFLOW
RIM 293.50
INV (OUT) 292.00 6" SDR 35
S = 1.0%
SS
<P> SSCO
INV 295.00
6" SDR 35
S=1.0% MIN
<E> 6" WATER MAIN
<E> 8" WATER MAIN
<E> WELL TO BE
DEMOLISHED
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ARE THE PROPERTY OF MADRONE ENGINEERING AND ARE NOT TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION OF MADRONE ENGINEERING. MADRONE
ENGINEERING WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY MADRONE ENGINEERING. IT SHALL BE THE USER'S SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THIS DRAWING REPRESENTS THE LATEST INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT.
EVERY PERSON PLANNING TO DIG
CALL USA AT 811 PRIOR TO EXCAVATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION
SEE WWW.USANORTH.ORG
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE
ST. HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010
PROJECT: 21.043
CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DATE: ISSUE:
11/04/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 REV 109/23/22 REV 201/09/23 REV 3
J OEL
D. DICKERSON
C IV I L
REGIS TERED PROFES SIONA L ENGINEER
S TA TE
OF CA LIFORNIA
No. 75989
Exp. 06-30-24
1 1485 Main Street, Suite 302
St. Helena, California 94574
Tel. 707-302-6280
SHEET:
U
SA
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
2 3
UTILITY PLAN
UTILITY PLAN
C3.0 SCALE IN FEET 0 20'
REVISIONS
3 REVISED UTILITY PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF STRUCTURES SHALL INCORPORATE AN IMPERVIOUS CUTOFF WALL.2. FACILITIES LOCATED IN AREAS OF HIGH GROUNDWATER, HIGHLY INFILTRATIVE SOILS, OR WHERE CONNECTION OF THE UNDERDRAIN TO A SURFACE DRAIN OR SUBSURFACE STORM DRAIN ARE INFEASIBLE MAY OMIT THE UNDERDRAIN.
3. NO LINER, NO FILTER FABRIC, NO LANDSCAPE CLOTH.
4. MAINTAIN BGL, TGL, TSL AT LEVEL ELEVATIONS AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS.
5. CLASS 2 PERMEABLE LAYER MAY EXTEND BELOW AND UNDERNEATH DROP INLET.6. ELEVATION OF UNDERDRAIN DISCHARGE IS AT TOP OF GRAVEL LAYER.
7. REQUIRED SOIL MIX: 60%-70% FINE SAND, 30%-40% COMPOST (VOLUME BASIS). SOIL SHALL BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING A LONG-TERM, IN-PLACE INFILTRATION RATE OF AT LEAST 5 INCHES PER HOUR. SOIL SHALL ALSO SUPPORT VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH.
BIORETENTION FACILITY
WITH SUBDRAIN
<P> 8" CONCRETE CURB/WALLOR CMU BLOCK WALL
WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS
4" SDR 35
(SOLID)
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT
(2" ABOVE FS/EG)
4" SDR 35
(PERF. SUBDRAIN)
4" SDR 35
(SOLID)
24"x24" CONCRETE
DROP INLET W/ ATRIUM GRATE
FG/EG
FG/EG
COBBLES OR SPLASH BLOCK
STORMDRAIN PIPE
(FROM IMPERVIOUS AREA)
6" MIN.
18" MIN.12" MIN.
TSL
TGL
BGL
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
SPECIFIED SOIL MIX
(SEE NOTE 7)
2" MIN.
STORMWATER FLOW
2:1 OR FLATTER
WHERE SHOWN
ON PLANS
STORMWATER FLOW
1 Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+/-25.00' +/-28.00'
ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE
FRONT SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' A1.1 1 FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
(E) RESIDENCE
(E) GARAGE (E) GARAGE (E) VINEYARDS
MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 315' 310' 305' 300' 395'
PROPERTY LINE
(E) STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING PROPOSED
AGRICULTURAL - VINEYARD
NON AGRICULTURAL - HOUSE SITE
AGRICULTURAL - ORCHARD
5.08ac 4.42ac
0.5ac 1ac
DRIVEWAY (EXEMPTION)
0.33ac
NA 0.03ac
USE CHANGE
-0.66ac
0.2ac +0.13ac
+0.5ac
TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5.78ac 5.78ac
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.0-Site-202101-V6_2013.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50' NORTH A1.0 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50' 1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50'
2 NORTH NAPA COUNTY TAX ASSESSORS INFORMATION PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
ROAD CL
MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE (E) VINEYARDS
+/-20'
ROAD CL PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK LINE SETBACK LINE (N) DRIVEWAY FIR HILL DRIVE (E) TREE TO REMAIN ROAD CL +/-50' PROPOSED POOL W/ COVER 300' 299' PROPOSED RESIDENCE MAIN FLOOR 303' 302' 301' 298' 297' 296' 295' 294' 293' SIDE SETBACK LINE A2.2 1 A2.6
1 ADU (N) GATE (N) ENTRY PATH PARKING (N) GATE ELEV.: +297'-6" (N) SITE WALL, t.o.w 5ft. a.f.g. +/-117' +/-49'
+/-166'
+/-214' +/-56'
+/-58'
+/-15'
+/-59'
+/-38'
+/-48'
+/-72'
+/-27' ELEVATION: +299'-0" +/- 28' +/- 22'
+/- 50'
+/-135'
+/-193' PROPOSED BOCCE COURT PROPOSED (N) STORM WATER RETENTION PER CIVIL ENGINEER (N) SITE WALL, T.O.W 1'-6" A.F.G. (N) STORM WATER RETENTION PER CIVIL ENGINEER +/-32'
+/-231' +/-39'
NON AGRICULTURAL COVERAGE AREA:
0.99 ACRES (43,519 SQ. FT.)
MAXIMUM NON AGRICULTURAL COVERAGE
AREA
1 ACRE (43,560 SQ. FT.) SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' NORTH A1.1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' 1 Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.1-Site-202101-V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1001 Caymus Street, Napa, CA 94559 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV3 09/22/2022 D.R. REV D.R. REV2 Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+/-25.00' +/-28.00'
ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
+/-59'
2 1
2 1 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2212 Madrona Avenue 3 3
+/-153'
+/-250'
+0'-0" DATUM (+299') +28'-0" TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" 2ND F.F. -13'-0" BASEMENT F.F. FIR HILL DRIVE CL ROAD 2212 MADRONA MAIN RESIDENCE +/-250' 2126 MADRONA AVE. +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +11'-0" ABV. DATUM FIR HILL DRIVE POOL CL ROAD +/-153.00' 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE 2126 MADRONA AVE. +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +28'-0" TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" 2ND F.F. 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2126 MADRONA AVE.
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/6/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.2-Site Section-202101-V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 100 NORTH A1.2 SITE SECTIONS SCALE: 1" = 50' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' SITE SECTION SCALE: 1" = 30' 1 2
3 Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+/-25.00' +/-28.00'
ROAD CL ROAD CL MADRONA AVENUE
PROPERTY LINE
FRONT SETBACK
(E) VINEYARDS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK +/-53.00' FIR HILL DRIVE ROAD CL +/-50' 315' 310' 305' 300' 295' ELEV 299' ELEV: 297'-6" +/-20'
+/-20' SIDE SETBACK
SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
+/-59' View 1 View 2 View 3 View 4 1815 Fir Hill Drive 1795 Fir Hill Drive 1755 Fir Hill Drive 1733 Fir Hill Drive 1693 Fir Hill Drive 1615 Fir Hill Drive 2212 Madrona Avenue +/-153'
+/-250' View 6 View 5
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/27/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\1.2-Site Section-202101-V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED RESIDENCE SCALE: 1" = 50 NORTH A1.3 SITE PHOTOS SCALE: 1" = 50' A VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
1 VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
2 VIEW FROM 2212 MADRONA PROPERTY
3 FROM 2212 MADRONA DRIVEWAY
4 FROM 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE
5 6 FROM 1615 FIR HILL DRIVE
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
STAIR UP TV/CASEWORK STAIR UP LIGHT WELL BATH WINE STORAGE STAIR UP PLANTER PLANTERLIGHT WELL STAIR UP MECH./ STOR. PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER GAME ROOM MECHANCIAL/ STORAGE LAUNDRY ELEVATOR PDR. RM. EXERCISE ROOM STORAGE HALLWAY STORAGE SITTING ROOM A/V ROOM PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER 23'-10" 72'-4" 21'-0" 21'-0" 138'-2" 36'-7" 26'-7" 23'-1" 24'-6" 26'-0" 43'-2" 14'-11" 22'-0" 138'-2" 17'-0" 19'-1" 49'-2"
85'-3" STORAGE
4'-8" 7'-7"
86'-3"
28'-9" BASEMENT PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.1 BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
SLOPE UP STAIR DOWN STAIR UP STAIR DOWN SLOPE UP STAIR UP STAIR DN. STAIR DOWN 49'-2" 36'-1" 21'-4"
106'-7" 24'-6" 43'-6" 22'-0" 138'-2"
26'-3" 17'-2" 26'-7" 36'-7"
106'-7" GUEST PARKING PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER SITTING ROOM LIVING/DINING ROOM GARAGE STAIR HALL PDR. RM. CLOS. ELEVATOR LIGHT WELL BELOW LIGHT WELL BELOW STORAGE MUD ROOM/HALL BATH 2 BEDROOM 1 CLOS. BATH 1 BEDROOM 2 CLOS. MOTOR COURT COVERED ENTRY BATH BEDROOM PATIO TRASH ROOM GARDEN STORAGE COURTYARD KITCHEN COVERED PORCH WINE ROOM VESTIBULE STORAGE STORAGE VEST. 2 PANTRY NEW SITE WALL PDR. RM. STORAGE STORAGE PLANTER 20'-3 1/2" 76'-10 1/2" 19'-0" 138'-2" STORAGE CLOS. 22'-0" 7'-0" 4'-8" 25'-8" 14'-11" 7'-7"
39'-3" 18'-0" 15'-2" 12'-10" 15'-2" FIRST FLOOR PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
16'-10"
49'-2" 50'-2" 19'-0" 22'-0" 91'-2"
21'-2"
70'-6"
28'-9" 20'-7" 69'-2" 22'-0" 91'-2"
16'-2" 16'-2" HER STUDY BATH STOR. TV ROOM STOR. VANITY PRIMARY BATH FIREPLACE STAIR DOWN STORAGE TERRACE PRIMARY BEDROOM CLOSET BAR ELEVATOR LINEN/STOR. CLOSET HIS STUDY STOR. 7'-2"
7'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+29'-0" ABV. DATUM (328'-0") TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +16-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS TOP OF PARAPET ROOF PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.4 ROOF PLAN RESIDENCE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 RESIDENCE Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
SWIMMING POOL
30'-10" 11'-5" 11'-5"
53'-8"
18'-10" 16'-0" 18'-10"
53'-8"
mech. yard niche screening fence BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM BATH COVERED PORCH SPA 9'-0" 37'-10" 22'-4" 6'-6" 9'-0" 37'-10" 22'-4" 6'-6" 138'-2" 18'-10" 18'-10" FLOOR PLAN - ADU NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.6 FIRST FLOOR PLAN ADU SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+14'-0" ABV. DATUM (313'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +12'-0" ABV. DATUM (311'-0") TOP TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308'-0") TOP TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310'-0") TOP OF PARAPET +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308'-0") TOP TRELLIS +10'-0" ABV. DATUM (309'-0") TOP OF PARAPET ROOF PLAN - ADU NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.7 ROOF PLAN ADU SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\2-plan-202101-v6 ALL.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM MADRONA AVE.) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +16-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIR HILL DRIVE SECTION LINE +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. +29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +10'-6" ABV. DATUM (309'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') BESEMENT FIN. FLOOR -13'-0" BELOW DATUM +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. FIN. FLOOR +5'-0" DATUM (304') Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 NORTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM FIR HILL DRIVE) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +9'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF TRELLIS +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. CEDAR WOOD BOARD FENCE FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF FENCE +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE OPEN EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +14-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF ROOF +11'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. +5-6" ABV. DATUM TOP OF FENCE CEDAR WOOD BOARD FENCE +12'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF TRELLIS +9'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF OPENING +9'-0" ABV. DATUM +8'-0" ABV. DATUM TOP OF DOOR/WIN TOP OF TRELLIS OPEN FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (+299') +12'-0" ABV. DATUM (311') TOP OF TRELLIS +14-0" ABV. DATUM (313') TOP OF ROOF EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. +11'-0" ABV. DATUM (310') TOP OF DOOR/WIN DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. OPEN +9'-0" ABV. DATUM (308') TOP OF DOOR/WIN Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/29/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.3 GUEST HOUSE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 ADU SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (VIEW FROM FIR HILL DRIVE) SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"4 ADU SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 1 ADU NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
2 ADU NORTHWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
+29'-0" ABV. DATUM(328') TOP OF WALL +28'-0" ABV. DATUM (327') TOP OF PARAPET +14'-6" ABV. DATUM (313'-6") T.O. SECOND FIN. FLOOR +11'-6" ABV. DATUM (310'-6") TOP OF PARAPET FIN. FLOOR +0'-0" DATUM (299') FIN. GRADE @ GUEST PARKING -1'-6" BELOW DATUM (297'-6") +16'-6" ABV. DATUM (315'-6") TOP OF PARAPET EXT. CEMENT PLASTER, TYP. STONE VENEER, TYP. DARK METAL AWNING WITH LOUVERS, TYP. +15'-6" ABV. DATUM (314'-6") TOP OF PARAPET Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 12/30/22 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" A3.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION & FINISH MATERIALS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" STONE WALL & DARK METAL TRIM METAL TRELLIS & AWNING WITH LOUVERS STONE VENEER & CEMENT PLASTER WALLS WITH DARK METAL WINDOW FRAMES STONE VENEER WALLS CEMENT PLASTER & WOOD WALLS CEMENT PLASTER & WOOD WALLS WITH DARK METAL WINDOW FRAMES LOW LANDSCAPE STONE WALLS Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
0 4' 8' 16'
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.5 COLORED ELEVATIONS SCALE: NTS Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
0 4' 8' 16'
Copyright © 2018 by KROEGER JANEV ARCHITECTS 1/5/23 P:\2021\202101 Berchtold Residence\1-Drawings\01-Current\Design Review\Version 6\3-Sect-Elev-202101- V6.dwg SHEET DESCRIPTION: DATE:
ARCHITECT:
These documents are the
property of Kroeger Janev
Architects. Any unauthorized
use without the written
consent is prohibited by law.
Kroeger Janev Architects
disclaims responsibility for
the documents if used whole
or in part at any other
location. DRAWN BY: PROJECT No: ISSUE:
BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE
2126 MADRONA AVE.
SAINT HELENA, CA 94574
APN: 009-470-010 1432 Main Street, Saint Helena, CA 94574
KROEGER JANEV
1627 Lincoln Avenue, Napa, CA 94558 707.266.1682
707.968.5265
A R C H I T E C T S
1 11/05/2021 DESIGN REVIEW 06/07/2022 D.R. REV 09/22/2022 D.R. REV 2 01/09/2023 D.R. REV 3 A3.6 COLORED ELEVATIONS SCALE: NTS Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
EXISTING OAK REMAINS
ALL OTHER EXISTING
TREES TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING VINEYARD
REMAINS
EXISTING PROPOSED
AGRICULTURAL - VINEYARD
NON AGRICULTURAL - HOUSE SITE
AGRICULTURAL - ORCHARD
5.08ac 4.42ac
0.5ac 1ac
DRIVEWAY (EXEMPTION)
0.33ac
NA 0.03ac
USE CHANGE
-0.66ac
0.2ac +0.13ac
+0.5ac
TOTAL PARCEL AREA 5.78ac 5.78ac
NORTH
1 OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" =60' These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design.
Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.
Issue
SCALE :
Date
Project No.
Drawn By
Date
Checked By C L A U D I A S C H M I D T P.O. B O X 42 S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 480 9571 F A C S I M I L E 707 963 9781 E M A I L [email protected] L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N Sheet
of
1/9/2023
CBL
CSLD
11/05/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 DESIGN REVIEW REV 1
09/16/22 DESIGN REVIEW 2
01/09/23 DESIGN REVIEW 3
AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010
EXISTING SITE PLAN &
OVERALL SITE PLAN
0 120 feet L1.0
SCALE: 1"= 60'
60 180 240
SHEET INDEX:
L1.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN & OVERALL SITE PLAN,
WELO CALCS NON-AGRICULTURE PLANTINGS,
PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS
L2.1 PLANTING PLANS & PLANT SCHEDULE
NON-AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST.
HELENA
L2.2 PLANTING PLAN & PLANT SCHEDULE AGRICULTURAL -
WATER SOURCE WELL
2 EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" =60'
3 WELO CALCS NON-AGRICULTURE PLANTINGS
4 PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
6' X 8.5'
16' X 16.5'
BALCONY
BAR OFFICE 2
BATH 3
TV ROOM
11' X 14'
STOR. 6' x 11' MASTER
BATH
FIREPLACE
18.5' X 25'
8.5' X 13'
BATHTUB MASTER BEDROOM
STORAGE WATER CLOSET
DRESSING ROOM
13' X 14' DRESSING ROOM
14' X 23'
VANITY
WATER CLOSET
SHOWER
TERRACE
ELEVATOR
STAIR DOWN 1
MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 1" = 20' These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.
Issue
SCALE :
Date
Project No.
Drawn By
Date
Checked By C L A U D I A S C H M I D T P.O. B O X 42 S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 480 9571 F A C S I M I L E 707 963 9781 E M A I L [email protected] L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N Sheet
of
1/9/2023
CBL
CSLD
11/05/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 DESIGN REVIEW REV 1
09/16/22 DESIGN REVIEW 2
01/09/23 DESIGN REVIEW 3
AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010
PLANTING PLANS &
PLANT SCHEDULE
NON-AGRICULTURAL -
WATER SOURCE
L2.1
2 UPPER FLOOR
SCALE: 1" = 20'
PLANTING PLANS NON-AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY OF ST. HELENA
NORTH
0 40 feet
SCALE: 1"= 20'
20 60 80
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS
1 LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI 'TUSCARORA' TUSCARORA CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNK 24" BOX LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 1 OLEA EUROPAEA 'SEVILLANO' SEVILLANO OLIVE 75 YEAR OLD FIELD DUG VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 4 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 6 PISTACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 60" BOX LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 12 CISTUS X PULVERULENTUS 'SUNSET' SUNSET ROCKROSE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 8 EUONYMUS JAPONICUS JAPANESE EUONYMUS 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 9 EUONYMUS JAPONICUS `MICROPHYLLUS` BOXLEAF EUNONYMUS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 6 LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 40 OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE 5 GAL VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 21 PLUMBAGO AURICULATA 'MONOTT' TM ROYAL CAPE PLUMBAGO 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 31 PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'COMPACTA' COMPACT CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA
GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 37 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'ROMA 13' PLATINUM BEAUTY® VARIEGATED MAT RUSH 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 54 MUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI LINDHEIMER'S MUHLY 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 119 MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS 'LENCA' REGAL MIST® PINK MUHLY GRASS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 16 MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA
PERENNIALS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 9 LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA 'GROSSO' GROSSO LAVENDER 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 15 SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 25 SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'MIDNIGHT' MIDNIGHT MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 40 TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDER 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA 25 VERBENA BONARIENSIS TALL VERBENA 1 GAL VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA
GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 2,808 SF NON-IRRIGATED SEEDED GRASSES NON-IRRIGATED SEEDED GRASSES SEED NON-IRRIGATED
RAISED BEDS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 128 SF VEGETABLE BOX VEGETABLE BOX TBD MODERATE WATER SOURCE - CITY OF ST. HELENA PLANT SCHEDULE WATER SOURCE CITY OF ST. HELENA
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
These documents are the property of Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Claudia Schmidt Landscape Design disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part at any other location.
Issue
SCALE :
Date
Project No.
Drawn By
Date
Checked By C L A U D I A S C H M I D T P.O. B O X 42 S T. H E L E N A C A L I F 94574 T E L E P H O N E 707 480 9571 F A C S I M I L E 707 963 9781 E M A I L [email protected] L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N Sheet
of
1/9/2023
CBL
CSLD
11/05/21 DESIGN REVIEW
05/31/22 DESIGN REVIEW REV 1
09/16/22 DESIGN REVIEW 2
01/09/23 DESIGN REVIEW 3
AS NOTED
3BERCHTOLD RESIDENCE 2126 MADRONA AVENUE ST HELENA, CA 94574 APN: 009-470-010
PLANTING PLAN & PLANT
SCHEDULE
AGRICULTURAL -
WATER SOURCE WELL
L2.2
PLANTING PLANS AGRICULTURAL - WATER SOURCE WELL
NORTH 1
MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 40 feet
SCALE: 1"= 20'
20 60 80
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS
6 FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVA 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 7 OLEA EUROPAEA 'SEVILLANO' 100 YEAR OLD SEVILLANO OLIVE FIELD DUG VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 3 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW MANAGED AT 8' X 8' - WELL 19 OLEA EUROPAEA 'TUSCAN BLEND' TUSCAN BLEND OLIVE 24" BOX VERY LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL
FRUIT TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 1 CITRUS X LIMON 'EUREKA' EUREKA LEMON 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 2 CITRUS X AURANTIIFOLIA 'BEARSS LIME' BEARSS LIME 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 1 CITRUS RETICULATA 'OWARI' OWARI SATSUMA MANDARIN ORANGE 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL 1 CITRUS X SINENSIS 'WASHINGTON' WASHINGTON NAVEL ORANGE 24" BOX MODERATE WATER SOURCE - WELL
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT WELO REMARKS 18 LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY 15 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 40 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'IRENE' TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARY 1 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL 8 ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY 5 GAL LOW WATER SOURCE - WELL
PLANT SCHEDULE WATER SOURCE WELL
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
January 9, 2023
Berchtold Residence
2126 Madrona Ave.
Saint Helena, CA 94574
Design Review Project Statement
Proposed work: New Residence at 2126 Madrona Avenue
The applicant is seeking approval for the demolition of three existing structures totaling approximately 3,893 square feet and design review approval to construct a new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit. The proposed residence is a one and partial two-story structure with a basement. The above ground living area of the main residence totals 7,950 square feet; above ground garage and storage areas total 1,754 square feet; and below grade basement space totals 6,457 square feet.
The proposed design is a product of multiple design iterations resulting from our collaboration with the Planning Department staff and neighbors. A primary goal was to minimize neighborhood impact by preserving views and maintaining the general character of the neighborhood, while satisfying the building program needs of the homeowners. Based on our communication with the Director and staff, as well as several of the neighbors, we have made a concerted effort to address their concerns and recommendations.
The design for the proposed residence consists of four bedroom suites; an open plan kitchen, dining and living area; two home offices; a 3-car garage; and support spaces. The basement houses an exercise area and recreation room, as well as storage, mechanical, and service spaces. The proposed design also includes an accessory dwelling unit (which is exempt from discretionary review but is shown for reference) and a new swimming pool and spa with cover.
The proposed home will be set with in the front and side 50ft. boundaries adjacent to Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive. The applicant plans to preserve as much as possible of the existing old vine vineyard and to maintain and enhance the agricultural nature of the property by adding an olive orchard, fruit trees, a vegetable/herb garden and cutting gardens. Proposed development includes removal of 0.66 acres of existing vineyard, additional 0.13 acres of new orchard and 0.5 acres expansion of existing non-agricultural use for home site. As proposed agricultural use will consist of 4.42 acres of vineyard and 0.33 acres of orchard, with one acre dedicated to non-agricultural use. The property owners are currently working with Spottswoode Winery to rehabilitate the vineyard and produce wine. In addition, they will collaborate with local olive oil producers to create an estate olive oil sourced from proposed olive plantings.
This project is fully compliant with A20 zoning codes, and there are no requests for any code variances.
As noted on the proposed drawings, the exterior of both the residence and the accessory dwelling unit will be finished with combination of local stone and exterior cement plaster, with wood and metal accents.
The proposed color palette will employ natural earth tones to blend with the existing site and complement the neighborhood.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
At its tallest point, the proposed structure is 29 feet high; however, its position on the site, orientation, and layered massing has been carefully designed to minimize its visual impact and to preserve views from neighboring properties.
The flat roof design will allow the owners to maximize the use of solar panels to minimize energy needs but keep them out of view behind parapet walls. The proposed landscape plan and planting palette is designed to meet water neutrality status.
The owners plan to provide on-site accommodations for full-time help, which will reduce the impact on the local housing market.
Since our initial Design Review hearing in October of 2022, we conducted two on site meetings with the neighbors as recommended by the Planning Commission. As a result of these meetings, we made following changes to the proposed project:
• Removal of two driveways along Fir Hill Drive as proposed during the first hearing. • Proposed ADU location is shifted 5 feet to the south and 15 feet to the east to further minimize impact on views from neighboring properties.
• Proposed ADU massing is changed. The roof line above the bedroom and living room was lowered by 2 feet.
• Proposed pool size and orientation was revised.
• Proposed bocce court was moved to a new location along east property line along with adjacent landscape to expand views from neighboring properties. • Increased capacity of the proposed storm water retention area. • Revised landscape plan and plant material list to reduce water usage. • Adjusted layout of the olive orchard along Fir Hill Drive to increase visibility at intersection with Madrona Avenue.
Sincerely,
Sasha Janev – Kroeger Janev Architects
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
November 12, 2021
Sasha Janev
Kroeger-Janev Architects
1432 Main Street
St. Helena, California, 94574
Subject: Project Review of the Proposed Project for Historic Compatibility at 2126 Madrona Avenue, St.
Helena, Napa County, California.
Dear Sasha,
This letter and the attached DPR 523 form comprise the Historic Resource Evaluation of 2126 Madrona Avenue, St. Helena, Napa County, California.
Methodology
According to the St. Helena Star, the original house at 2126 Madrona Avenue was constructed about 1883.
Research has not revealed photographs or other documents such as architectural plans, and the property is not listed on the St. Helena Historic Resource Inventory. Brunzell Historical has therefore prepared this letter report and DPR 523 forms to evaluate the buildings on the property. Brunzell Historical personnel conducted a site visit on November 10, 2021. The site visit included collecting photographs of all elevations of the buildings on the property with a focus on the historic-era barn on the property. Research was performed using historic newspapers and ancestry.com as well as other websites. The property was evaluated according to the relevant criteria for historic eligibility and documented on DPR 523 forms as required by the California Environmental Quality Act as (CEQA). Because the property is over 50 years old, a potential projects trigger a requirement for historical evaluation according to current regulations. This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, all resources discovered during the field survey require evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The property was also evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility.
Summary of Findings
The newspaper stories published when the house was constructed in 1883 indicate that it was 24 feet square; the current house is rectangular but is about 24 feet wide so the original building may be at its core. However, its materials and features indicate alterations decades, substantial alterations outside the historic era. It lacks the architectural significance required for historic listing. Nor has research revealed historical significance or association with important historic persons. For these reasons, the property is not recommended eligible to the CRHR or the NRHP. Neither the house nor the outbuildings meet any of the required criteria for significance as described below and in the attached DPR 523 forms. Nor is the property recommended eligible as a City of St. Helena historical resource.
National Register of Historic Places
In conjunction with the following NRHP criteria, sites must be assessed for integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A site may be considered eligible to the NRHP if it retains sufficient integrity of the elements listed above and it:
(a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
(b) is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
(c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; (d) yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the area/region.
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR criteria are based on NRHP criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years will be evaluated. The CRHR also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Evaluation
Criterion A/1: The house at 2126 Madrona Avenue is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The property is generally associated with the agricultural and rural-residential development of the St. Helena area in the late nineteenth century. Research has not revealed that the property is significant within that or any other historic context. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.
Criterion B/2: The property is not associated with the life of persons important to our history. The families that lived on the property participated in farming, carpentry, and other local pursuits. They were not significant contributors to St. Helena’s development, and research has revealed no important professional accomplishments or lasting impact on local history or on agriculture. It was a property that provided shelter for ordinary people and their families. Therefore, the property lacks the strength of association required for eligibility under Criterion B/2. The property is recommended not eligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.
Criterion C/3: 2126 Madrona Avenue is not significant for its architecture. The house has been substantially altered over the decades, with the enclosure of an original porch and replacement of original siding among the most substantial changes to its historic form. Its size and massing as well as the lack of decorative detail indicate that it was originally a simple vernacular building constructed as shelter and without architectural distinction. Its current appearance gives no indication that it ever possessed the character-defining features of landmark Victorian-era residences. However, research has not revealed historic photographs, plans, or elevations, so the details of its original form are obscure. For these reasons, the property lacks the significance and integrity required for historic listing. It is therefore recommended ineligible to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D/4: In rare instances, buildings themselves can serve as sources of important information about historic construction materials or technologies and be significant under Criterion D/4. 2126 Madrona Avenue Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
is an example of a well-understood type of construction and does not appear to be a principal source of important information in this regard.
Evaluator Qualifications
I meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications for both History and Architectural History. I hold a Master’s degree in Public History and have worked in multiple facets of historic preservation and cultural resource evaluation since 2007. My experience includes municipal preservation planning and working as the lead staff member of a non-profit preservation organization. Since 2012, I have worked full-time as a historical consultant, completing dozens of evaluations for CEQA and Section 106 compliance. Additionally, I have completed local and national register nominations, historic context statements, and HAER recordation. The North Bay is the center of my practice, but I frequently work in the greater Sacramento area and other parts of the Bay Area, and have also completed projects in Southern California, Nevada, Oregon, New York, and Puerto Rico. In addition to my work with historic-period domestic, agricultural, and commercial properties for private clients, I have prepared reports on post offices, military bases, university campuses, hospitals, church properties, national parks, and a NASA site. I am listed as a Historian and Architectural Historian on the California Office of Historic Preservation’s roster of qualified consultants for every county in California.
Please contact me by phone at 707/290-2918 or e-mail at [email protected] with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kara Brunzell, M.A.
Brunzell Historical
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial _____________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings _______________________________________________________________ Review Code __________ Reviewer ____________________________ Date ___________ P1. Other Identifier: 2126 Madrona Avenue
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Sacramento and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T__; R _ _; ___ ¼ of Sec ___; _ ___ B.M. c. Address 2126 Madrona Avenue City St. Helena Zip 94574 d. UTM: (give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) 009-470-010-0000 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The property is located at the intersection of Madrona Avenue and Fir Hill Drive, which is about a quarter mile southeast of the denselydeveloped area of St. Helena. The semi-rural neighborhood is characterized by widely-spaced residential and winery development set within vineyards. The long, narrow parcel of nearly six acres is mostly planted to vineyards, with a house, garage, and ancillary dwelling clustered near Madrona Avenue. The one-story house has a rectangular plan and sits atop a raised basement. It features a medium-pitch hipped roof with medium eaves. There is a hip-roof dormer on the main (southeast) elevation which features a louvered vent. The dormer and house are clad in wide fiber cement lap siding with an applied wood grain pattern. The main entrance on the primary façade is sheltered by a projecting gabled entry porch with exposed rafter tails. Its roof is supported by square wood posts, and the balustrade is wood. The entrance is fitted with a partially glazed paneled wood door and wood screen door and accessed from the side via a tall set of wood steps with a simple open balustrade. There is a small door to the basement on the northwest elevation of the porch structure.
Fenestration consists of double-hung wood-sash and steel casement windows. A secondary entrance on the southwest elevation is fitted with a sliding-glass door. It is accessed via a multi-level deck; a flat-roofed awning topped with corrugated metal shelters the entrance.
There is a two-story addition at the rear of the house featuring a shed roof shed awning over its centered entrance, which is fitted with a partially glazed paneled wood door (continued page 3).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3. Multiple family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #) Photograph 1: 2126 Madrona Avenue,
southeast elevation, camera facing west, November 10,
2021.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
Historic Prehistoric Both
c1883, St. Helena Star
*P7. Owner and Address:
Michael K. Hubbard
2126 Madrona Ave.
St. Helena, CA 94574
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, address)
Kara Brunzell
Brunzell Historical
1613 B St
Napa, CA 94559
*P9. Date Recorded: November 10, 2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other
sources, or enter “none.”) none
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list) __________________
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2126 Madrona Avenue DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name: 2126 Madrona Avenue
B3. Original Use: residence B4. Present Use: residence
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Original construction, c1883 Garage/barn constructed behind the house, c1910s
Original partial-width porch enclosed, front stairs reoriented, steel casement windows installed, rear addition constructed, c1950 Sliding glass door and deck added at side, original cladding replaced with fiber cement, unknown dates after 1980 Original barn demolished, second garage/barn constructed, 2008 *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9. Architect: unknown. b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A
Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
(See Footnotes)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Kara Brunzell
*Date of Evaluation: November 10, 2021
(This space reserved for official comments.)
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ *P3a. Description: (continued):
Photograph 2: 2126 Madrona Avenue, southeast and northeast elevations, camera facing southwest, November 10, 2021.
Photograph 3: 2126 Madrona Avenue, northeast and northwest elevations, camera facing southeast, November 10, 2021.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 4: 2126 Madrona Avenue, northwest elevation, camera facing southeast, November 10, 2021.
Photograph 5: 2126 Madrona Avenue, northwest and southwest elevations, camera facing northeast, November 10, 2021.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 6: 2126 Madrona Avenue, southwest elevation, camera facing north, November 10, 2021.
A gravel driveway on the north side of the house leads to a double garage behind the residence. It has a front-gabled corrugated metal roof with exposed rafter tails. Cladding is primarily wide vertical boards, but there are areas of plywood and horizontal boards. Two vehicle openings on the north elevation are fitted with metal rollup doors. There is a large covered patio with shed roof attached to its east elevation. A human-scale entrance at the southeast elevation is fitted with a flat wood door.
Photograph 7: 2126 Madrona Avenue garage, northeast elevation, camera facing south, November 10, 2021.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 8: 2126 Madrona Avenue garage, southwest and southeast elevations, camera facing northwest, November 10, 2021.
A second garage is a few feet to the west has been converted to a dwelling. It has a front-gabled roof and it is clad in wide vertical board siding. Its sliding vehicle door is top-mounted and it has a human-scale entrance with a partially glazed paneled wood door. Windows are horizontal sliding-sash.
Photograph 9: 2126 Madrona Avenue second garage, southwest and southeast elevations, camera facing northwest, November 10, 2021.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.1.
*Recorded by Kara Brunzell *Date: November 10, 2021 Continuation Update DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ____________________________________________ Photograph 10: 2126 Madrona Avenue garages, northwest and southwest elevations, camera facing northeast, November 10, 2021.
B10. Significance (continued):
St. Helena
The first European to settle in the St. Helena area was Dr. Edward Bale, an English physician who received the Carne Humana rancho as a grant from the Mexican government in 1839. The huge land grant encompassed northern Napa Valley, including what would become the towns of Calistoga and St. Helena. California statehood in 1850 drew land speculators to Napa Valley, and in the early 1850s Henry Still purchased 100 acres on the north side of Sulphur Creek from Bale. In partnership with a Mr. Walter, Still erected the first building in St.
Helena in 1853, and by the middle of the decade Still and Walter were donating Main Street lots to anyone who would agree to open a business.1
Early agricultural activities in Napa Valley focused on cattle-grazing and grain production, but beginning in the late 1850s farmers began experimenting with wine grapes. St. Helena’s position as a center of agriculture was consolidated when the railroad arrived in 1868. By the 1870s, much of the land surrounding the growing village had been converted to wine production. St. Helena was incorporated as a city in 1876, and reincorporated in 1889.2
The population of Napa Valley doubled between 1870 and 1880, and by 1880, St. Helena was home to 1,500 residents. The St. Helena district (the area between Yountville and St. Helena) by this time had 7,000 acres of grapevines. As the nineteenth century progressed, St.
Helena became the upper valley’s most important shipping and commercial center. It also became more diverse as Chinese and then German and Italian immigrants arrived to work in the vineyards.3 Napa Valley was America’s premier wine region by 1890, but a downturn in prices and an infestation of the phylloxera root louse nearly destroyed the wine industry at the turn of the century. Many growers pulled out wine grapes in the early decades of the twentieth century, replacing them with prunes and walnuts. In 1919, the wine business suffered a further blow when the Volstead Act outlawed the
1 Lyman L. Palmer, History of Napa and Lake Counties, California, San Francisco: Slocum, Bowen, & Company, 1881, p. 55. 333; C. A. Menefee, Historical and Descriptive Sketchbook of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino, Napa City: Reporter Publishing House, 1873, p. 186. 2 City of St. Helena, Historic Resources Inventory, Prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., August, 2006, p. 7; Palmer, p.335. 3 William F. Heinz, Wine Country, A History of Napa Valley, Capra Press, Santa Barbara: 1990, p. 162; City of St. Helena, p. 8.
Agenda Item #5.2.