Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2014

MILL VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 7:30PM
26 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Steve Geiszler- Chair
Ricardo Capretta - Vice-Chair
Anne Bolen
Larry Davis
Frederick Eisenhart
(00:00:51)
CALL TO ORDER
(00:01:02)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Time for comments from members of the public on issues
not on this Planning Commission agenda. (Limited to 3 minutes per person.)
LIAISON REPORTS: None.
(00:12:22)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was M/s by Commissioner Eisenhart!Vice-Chair Capretta to approve the agenda. The motion
was carried 5/0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(00:12:37)
1. 0 Tartan Road- Schneider- Study Session for Design Review, Second Unit Permit,
Categorical Exemption and Tree Removal- File No. PL14-4231 (Smith) A STUDY
SESSION for Design Review, Second Unit Permit, Categorical Exemption and Tree
Removal. The proposed project includes a new 3,332 square foot, 4 bedroom home
to include an attached 395 square foot second unit on an existing undeveloped lot.
The application included proposed grading and drainage upgrades to the site of the
proposed home, along with a staggered design to maintain a good scale to form the
existing site. The subject property is in the RS-10 (Single Family Residential10,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District.
Planning Commission
APPROVED
1
9/9/2014
0 Tartan Road doc
(00:12:47)
Staff Presentation from Director of Building and Planning, Vin Smith
(00:18:04)
Presentation from Applicant, Scott Dergantz of Blu Homes
(00:52:58)
Public Comment
(01:18:07)
Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Eisenhart began by stating if the drainage issues can be addressed it appears to be
a buildable lot. He liked that the house was designed in an eco-friendly way. He added he had
concerns about the hillside and the height of the retaining walls that would be needed, or the
slope of the·grade that would be needed to achieve the proposed design. He said in the next
session the Commission would want to see more about how the home would look relative to the
neighbors' homes and have privacy concerns addressed. He said with respect to the cut and fill,
whether 22 or 200 cubic yards of fill, it would translate to a substantial amount of offhaul, which
they generally try to avoid. He suggested not digging so deeply into the hill.
Commissioner Bolen said the site is beautiful, mostly because of the redwood trees. She
applauded the idea of a component home. She agreed with the staff report that complying with
Design Review Guidelines 14 and 15 would save the neighborhood many months of construction
and disruption. She also liked that the applicant makes use of the existing bench area. She said
that she needed to know additional information to evaluate whether the building is sited
correctly, because she is sensitive to the number of trees that would be removed, particularly the
redwoods, and she would like other design alternatives were considered in an attempt to spare as
many trees as possible, particularly redwoods. She stated that it is important to do the due
diligence about CC&Rs and the easement to ensure that the proposal is feasible and other
required approvals are obtained. She said she had some concerns with respect to scale, mass and
height. She noted she generally liked the palette. She further noted the privacy of the neighbors is
an issue. Finally, she commented that as much as possible should be done to preserve the beauty
of the neighborhood and wooded nature of'the site.
Commissioner Davis stated he is concerned that the lower level bedroom floor and the rental
unit, since that is straight excavation and conventional built retaining walls, is not in keeping
with building on hillsides and said the rental unit could be accommodated forward to the street,
adjacent to the garage, where it would work better. With respect to the next level up, he was
concerned with the retaining wall on the southeast side and said he would like it to be eliminated,
because with the deck from the laundry room there would still be the ability to go on the other
side of the house and up the hill. He said in the next session he would like to see the adjoining
houses shown on each side to indicate the proximity. He also said he would encourage reaching
Planning Commission
APPROVED
2
9/9/2014
out to the neighbors by hosting a meeting at the site and explaining how the draining would be
handled.
- Vice-Chair Capretta applauded the short time frame for building and not impacting the streets,
however, he thought because of the massive foundation the house ends up being a half custom
house and half modular house, which compromises a lot of that good benefit. He said that in
general the governing guideline is how the house fits in the neighborhood. He liked the ecoperspective, and also liked the materials, except the glass garage door. He said, however, that the
Commission did not get a material board or color elevation. He noted the application was fairly
incomplete and encouraged the applicant to review the Design Review Checklist and also the
Study Session Checklist, from which the applicant was missing many items. He noted that on the
neighborhood plan they could not tell where the neighbors are and said the Commission wanted
to see the lots and as many of the outlines of homes as possible, with the addresses. He also
noted, neighbor footprints, and the measured setbacks were missing from the site plan. He said
the concept grading plan and concept drainage plan were both missing. He also said the
landscape plan needs to show basic labeling of landscaping and some texture of ground cover,
trees, etc. for some general areas. He also noted that a color elevation was missing. He stated the
zoning table is missing all the allowed information and needs to be filled out properly to show
what is allowed per code and then show what is being providing in the proposal. He said this is a
massive amount of cut and fill and noted that when an application has a lot of cut and fill that the
Commission encourages showing section drawings or showing plans where that cut and fill
would go. He said there is an FAR issue on the square footage where there is a two-story element
on the third floor next to the stair. The open area on the third floor would be a height area that is
taller than 14 feet and so would have to be calculated per the penalty for spaces taller than 14
feet. He encouraged the applicant to read the code carefully ahd get the FAR square footage
right. He noted that the impervious calculation does not have decks included, and also that if
semi-pervious pavers are shown the impervious portions of those pavers need to be counted. He
further said it seems there is a significant hydrology/geology issue and that it needs to be
carefully addressed on the design review application. With respect to the retaining wall in the
southwest comer mentioned by Commissioner Davis, he noted the plan shows it as 10-11 feet,
however, the Commission does not encourage or approve walls that tall and the wall should be
not taller than six feet. He said how the water coming down the hill toward the retaining wall,
surface and otherwise, would be drained needs to be addressed. He also said that the location for
the stair that is shown on the plan was not ideal, because the retaining wall it will probably have
a gutter swale. But he said the most critical thing is that comer has a 10-11 foot tall wall if one
looks at the :(inished floor and the grade on the right. In summary, he said there is way too much
cut and fill and agreed with Commissioner Davis that the bedroom on the first floor is almost a
dungeon. He added this is a hillside with redwood trees, whose roots grow very far horizontally,
so applicants typically use are pier and beam foundations so the site is pierced instead of using
massive excavation which would take out a lot of redwood roots. He said there is too much
development on this site, with too much house and too much construction, considering the
unique conditions. He referred the applicant to Section 20.66.045, which was written to address
sites such as this one. He added that when there are sites that are large, but have unique natural
features that reduce the developability of the site, these are the types of site where the
Commission does not want to see max houses. He said there is too much hardscape in the front
and suggested more landscaping in that area. He asked that the applicant show the trees that are
Planning Commission
APPROVED
3
9/9/2014
to be removed on the site plan. He finished by saying the applicant should speak to the USPS,
but he believes the address is really 5 Tartan.
Chair Geiszler referred to several of the neighbor concerns, starting with the neighbor who had
asked where the house was versus the patio. He said the story poles will tell some of that story,
but the retaining wall height will need to be addressed. He agreed with Commissioner Davis
about doing a neighborhood outreach and encouraged the applicant to do that after getting more
information from a hydrology engineer, a soils engineer and an arborist so he can respond to the
neighbors' fears. He added that CC&Rs definitely need to be addressed and they would not want
to see the application again until it conforms to all the CC&Rs, because that would certainly be a
condition of approval. Another neighbor was concerned about a steep bank and retaining walls,
which speaks to a neighborhood plan, which the Commission has not received, but would help it
to understand the relationship of this house in its view corridors to other homes in the immediate
area. He said the rest of the neighbor comments concerned drainage and how the pipes would be
handled, so that needs to be addressed at the neighborhood meeting. He referred to
Commissioner Davis's comment regarding a fenced construction site and noted that would be
part of the required construction management plan. He said he lik~ the approach and the green
aspect of it being built off-site, although he said in this case he didn't think that meant less
impact to the neighborhood because of the amount of grading. He added this is clearly a flat lot
design placed on a very steep hillside and all the concerns expressed have to do with how the
house sits on the hillside, such as retaining wall heights, amount of grading, steepness of
driveway, etc. He asked if conceptually this is the right approach to this house? He pointed out
that the design guidelines say a house should be stepped with the hillside; however, this proposed
home has a three-story fa~ade, and because it is on an uphill site it is very looming. He suggested
if the plan had more flexibility the living room could be dropped a few feet from the other areas
of the house to create some stepping. He said while he appreciates the approach of the whole
system, he wondered if this is the best application for it. He agreed with his fellow
commissioners regarding a drainage plan and said he also would want to understand the tributary
effect of drainage on the other lots as it comes down through this lot, because this is a gathering
point for a lot of water and will need to be addressed so it is not concentrated and dumped
elsewhere. He said while he liked the idea of siting the house on the bench, the bench was done
such a long time ago its fill is probably loose and would need soil compaction mitigation and that
there wouldn't be any bench left by the time it is pulled and recompacted. He said that as part of
the drainage plan he would want to know whether the bench would need to be completely
rebuilt. He reiterated that off haul is a huge concern and spoke of the City's conflict with taking a
long term approach of pushing the houses down in the hillside to mitigate impact, but the short
term impact is a lot of dump trucks, so they have encouraged applicants to do a more balanced
cut and fill while pushing the house down, which are, however, at odds. He said the mention of a
white roof makes him a little nervous, although he understands why it is proposed from a climate
control perspective. He noted there are hiking trails above the site and it would not be appealing
to look down on a white roof. He pointed out that the hillside design guidelines call for natural
materials and colors~ With respect to the floor area, he noted a double deduction at the staircase
and said because the applicant is at the floor area max he needs to ensure that that is done
correctly. He seconded Vice-Chair Capretta's direction to the City's floor area codes and
restrictions that say anything over 14 feet gets counted 1.5 times. In summary, he said while he
Planning Commission
APPROVED
4
9/9/2014
appreciates the design and environmental aspect of this house, it is designed for a flat lot and is
maxing floor area on a lot that he does not believe ought to be maxed out.
(01:44:18)
2.
164 Lovell Avenue- KCS, INC.- Design Review and Categorical ExemptionFile No. PL14-4200 (Kilgariff) A DESIGN REVIEW AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMYfiON. Remodel of an existing 1,691 square foot home and attached 265
square feet garage. A 1,351 square foot addition will be added to the home to
create a 4 bedroom and 3.5 bathroom 3,499 square foot home with an adjusted
floor area ratio of 2,810 square feet. The applicant proposes a complete exterior
remodel as well through the use of stucco and wood features. The subject
property is in the Zoning district RS-6 (6,000 square foot minimum lot size).
164 Lovell doc
(01:44:25)
Staff Presentation from Director of Building and Planning, Vin Smith
(02:03:34)
Presentation from Applicant, Joe McGuire of KCS, INC.
(02:30:51)
Public Comment
(02:43:34)
Commission Deliberation
Vice-Chair Capretta began by stating the story poles were measured to the deck but need to be
measured to natural grade. He noted that in areas the story poles go over 25 feet. He said the
elevations needed better measurements, that some dimensions are missing, and since this is
sloping there should be the lowest and highest dimensions for every elevation. He added that the
story poles were not all connected on the ridge. He also said some of the plans were turned 90degrees compared to other plans. The said the grading plan was incomplete because it shows the
existing contours but needs to also show how the contours change. He also said the plans need to
show off-street parking. He directed the applicant to go through the checklist and complete the
items that are missing. He said this area has wonderful character with older home and that the
existing home has beautiful character, but it is being significantly modified. He said he would
prefer a remodel that takes the character of the existing house and expands it. He stated there is
· too much house and bulk on this site and that not only is the house close to the rear setback, but
there are decks added, which he does not believe should be there. He recalled that during the
study session the Commission advised that the glass railing be eliminated and an effort made to
mitigate the glazing on the side that faces the neighbor and the street, which is also a light issue,
but the applicant has elected to keep the glass railing. He said something not 100% glass there
would help temper the lantern effect on that side, because that side faces Lovell and at night
could be quite glaring. He said he is still not happy with the rooflines, particularly the front
elevation where on the right side some of the traditional forms have been kept, but suddenly
Planning Commission
APPROVED
5
9/9/2014
there is a modern angled form. He noted that also on the back of the house there is an odd form
attached to the dining room. He said the applicant had made progress on the roof, but it still
needed work. He didn't like the colors with the dark mullions and the dark gray with the wood.
With respect to the FAR coverage numbers and the setback infringements, if there are any walls
in the side yard setback they cannot go an inch over 18 inches, but it looks like it may be 2-2.5
feet in a couple of areas. The Commission had directed at the study session that the stairs be
removed from the City encroachment, but that did not happen. He said he would like the
applicant to meet with the neighbor at 28 Cornelia to address his concerns regarding screening
and the window issue. He thought some green gesture on the roof south facing would be good. In
summary, he said the plans are better than at the study session, but there is still work to do.
Commissioner Davis commended the applicant for working with the neighbors and resolving
many issues. He said the treatment of the covered area over the deck on the main level is odd. He
said he would like a good management plan that addresses parking to be part of the conditions.
Commissioner Bolen also commended the applicant on his neighborhood outreach. She agreed
that the construction management principles need to be strongly adhered to and she would want
them in conditions of approval. She said she would like parking to be modified so that trucks
may not park as long as 72 hours. She agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta that there is a lot of
coverage on the site that detracts from the feel of the neighborhood and it should be reconsidered
whether all the decks should be on the property. She noted there are a lot of windows facing
Lovell and is concerned there could be a lantern effect. She appreciated that the roof had been
dropped and the gable removed, but thought there could be more done to soften the design to
blend better with the character of the neighborhood. She said the applicant had done a lot to
address existing concerns, but needs to do more, and he also needs to supply the Commission
with more detail on the plans.
Commissioner Eisenhart also complimented the applicant for his work with the neighbors and
noted a lot had been done to address their concerns raised at the last meeting. He agreed with
Vice-Chair Capretta's concern that the FAR be correct with applicable accessory structures
addressed, as well as heights and technical issues. He agreed with Chair Geiszler's comment ·
regarding minimizing the impervious surfaces and believed the driveway in particular would be a
good opportunity for that. He suggested having the landscape plan and construction management
plan being agreeable to the neighbors would be a good condition of approval. He said overall the
house design is attractive with varied materials with the colors muted in an attractive way ~at
isn't adverse to the neighborhood.
Chair Geiszler echoed his fellow commissioners regarding the neighborhood outreach. He said
he finds the neighborhood to be eclectic with older and newer houses and does not believe the
neighborhood character is so strong would prevent a design such as this going in. He said given
the color selected the stucco becomes a background material and would match vegetation. He
said he also wants to see a strong construction management plan. He added that leaving any
equipment in the City right-of-way more than eight hours is a burden on the neighborhood. He
agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta regarding the story poles needing to be measured at natural
grade. He said he too thought there was an awful lot of decking and structure on the property and
thought it would help if where there is a deck there were a landscape element rather than a wood
Planning Commission
APPROVED
6
9/9/2014
structure. He stated he'd like the driveway to be pervious. He added he also would want to see a
strong condition regarding working with the neighbors for landscaping. He said the windows
looking out to a public street don't bother him, adding that the lantern effect is really cross
canyon. He noted this is a dense area, so he doesn't find the windows facing Lovell
objectionable, given that it's a comer lot. Lastly, he thought the covered deck area and wood
screen seemed to increase the bulk of the building, and if the screen and a lot of the roof were
removed the house would diminish in bulk dramatically.
Chair Geiszler asked his fellow commissioners if the application could be approved with
conditions, or did the Commission want to see it again.
Commissioner Eisenhart said the issues he brought up: double checking the FAR, story pole
heights, pervious surfaces, construction plan, etc., could be handled with conditions.
Commissioner Bolen said the issues she is concerned about are FAR and details on plans being
shown accurately, but she thought they could work with conditions of approval.
Commissioner Davis shared Chair Geiszler concern with the covered deck area and thought the·
mass needed to be reduced. He said it such an odd deck he didn't see how an approval could be
conditioned.
Vice-Chair Capretta agreed with Commissioner Davis and said he is also concerned about the
roof area of the dining room, which he finds similar to the front comer of the building, and he
would like that to be looked at. He said it is also important to be able to see the encroachments
one last time to ensure everything is right within the setback and walls. He said staff could
handle everything else as far as working out the numbers.
Chair Geiszler agreed the covered roof area would be difficult to condition and the Commission
would have to see it again, but that staff could handle the rest of the Commission's comments.
He recommended a continuance to the applicant.
Chair Geiszler said Public Works should weigh in on the stairs and if they find the amount of
encroachment is acceptable and that they would need an encroachment permit, then he would be
okay with it.
Vice-Chair Capretta said if there are structures in the City right-of-way and it's not a burden to
take them out when a major project is being done, it's a good policy for the City to clean up its
rights-of-way. He said the stairs are being rebuilt anyway, so why not reconstruct them to the
property line.
Chair Geiszler said the stairs should be looked at in a slightly different location or configuration,
because they don't have to run straight up, they can run parallel to a contour and be more in the
landscape.
Planning Commission
APPROVED
7
9/9/2014
Commissioner Eisenhart agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta that if it is not overly impractical to
keep the stairs out of the right-of-way based on the configuration of the property, and that there
are other ways to 'do it rather than additional grading and retaining walls.
Commissioner Bolen agreed with her fellow commissioners regarding the stairs, that as a matter
of policy she would like to get it out of the right-of-way and would like to explore another way
to do it that overcomes the issue of higher walls.
It was agreed by consensus that the Commission wanted to see a reconfiguration of the stairs.
(03:17:11)
It was M/s by Commissioner Davis/Commissioner Bolen to continue the application for 164
Lovell Avenue to a date uncertain.
The motion was carried 5/0.
(03:17:51)
PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR'S ORAL REPORT: Report on items be~g
considered by the City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 26, 2014
No approved Minutes from AUGUST 26,2014, carried to September 23,2014 Meeting
(03:36:41)
ADJOURN
It was M/s by Vice-Chair Capretta/Commissioner Eisenhart to adjourn. The motion was carried
5/0.
Any decision made by the Planning Commission on the above items may be appealed to the City
Council by filing a letter with the Planning Department within 10 calendar days describing the
basis for the appeal accompanied by the $250 appeal fee.
Planning Commission
APPROVED
8
9/9/2014