Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds appeal, approves 25‑foot ADU at 333 Bella Vista after de novo review
Summary
After a de novo review of a planning commission decision, the Belvedere City Council granted an appeal and removed two conditions (a 2‑foot height reduction and a vague landscaping requirement), allowing a proposed 1,200‑square‑foot detached ADU proposed at 25 feet to proceed with staff oversight on final landscaping.
The Belvedere City Council voted 5–0 to grant an appeal of the Planning Commission’s 05/20/2025 approval of a design review and conditional‑use permit for a 1,200‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit at 333 Bella Vista Avenue, removing the commission’s conditions that would have required a two‑foot height reduction and additional north‑side landscaping.
Planning staff had described the commission’s approval and the conditions imposed, noting the property’s zoning and how the proposed project sits within the site’s steep slope. The applicant argued the height condition was arbitrary and unsupported by the record, saying lowering the ADU would require substantial excavation, create drainage problems and make the home inaccessible to the intended occupants. “The height and mass are consistent with surrounding structures and the topography,” the applicant’s representative said in presenting the appeal, urging the council to approve the design as proposed.
Project architect Sean Bailey explained the design trade‑offs, including the use of a clerestory to deliver daylight to a small living space and the difficulty of reducing roof assembly depth without major structural changes. He told the council the site’s dug‑down lawn and 40% slope make a strict 16‑foot plane impractical in this location.
Several council members said they had visited the site, reviewed the planning record and considered precedent concerns. One council member said the planning commission’s deliberations were reasonable but had reached a different conclusion; another said staff and the applicant had persuasively argued the project met design review findings and that the proposed height was reasonable on this steep lot. Council gave direction that the standard staff language for a landscape plan shall be reviewed by the planning chair and director prior to building permit issuance; otherwise the appeal removed the two contested conditions.
The council’s action confirms design review and conditional‑use permit approval for the ADU at the proposed height. Staff will incorporate the council’s findings into a final resolution and coordinate the landscaping review prior to issuance of a building permit.
