Meeting Minutes

MILL VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 7:00 PM
26 CORTE MADERA AVENUE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Steve Geiszler - Chair
Ricardo Capretta - Vice-Chair
Anne Bolen
Frederick Eisenhart
Chris Skelton
(00:05:38)
CALL TO ORDER
(00:05:42)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(00:12:19)
PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR'S ORAL REPORT: Report on items being
considered by the City Council.
1.
2.
Swnmary of the City Council's April 7, 2014 discussion on Development Review and
Construction Oversight.
Chamber of Commerce proposed Sidewa~ Sale dates.
LIAISON REPORTS: None.
(00:24:41)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
It was M/s by Vice-Chair Capretta/Commissioner Eisenhart to approve the agenda. The motion
was carried 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 24, 2014 AND MARCH 10, 2014
It was M/s by Commissioner Eisenhart/Vice-Chair Capretta to approve minutes from
FEBRUARY 24,2014 as written and MARCH 10,2014, as amended. The motion was carried
5/0.
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
1
5/26/2014
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(00:26:24)
1. 500 Miller Avenue- Butler Architecture- Study Session for Design lteview- File
No. PL13-4154 (Svanstrom) A STUDY SESSION for Design Review for a new
mixed residential and commercial development on the site (APN 048-071-46). This
application will be processed as a new application. This site has a current approval
for Design Review, CEQA, and Vesting Tentative Map for a 15,152 square foot
residential building of 9 attached, single-family residential units with a 12,217
square foot parking garage as part of the residential building and a separate twostory 4,948 square foot commercial building.
The proposed project is for 9 attached single-family townhouse-style residential
units totaling 21,126 square feet and built as two buildings, with approximately
4,850 square feet of garage and 6,300 square feet of under-building driveway at the
rear first floor of the buildings. The commercial portion is proposed as a separate
two-story 3,000 square foot building with a separate at-grade parking lot. The
subject property is in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Planned Development
(PD) Combining Zoning District
500 Miller doc
•
(00:26:35)
Staff Presentation from Senior Planner, Kari Svanstrom
(00:49:31)
Presentation from Applicant and Architect, Jeff Butler
(01:25:04)
Public Comment
(1:57:38)
Commission Deliberation
Vice-Chair Capretta began by stating the drawings were very clear and articulate. He said this
project should have always been mixed used to fit into the Miller Avenue dichotomy of
buildings. He said he believes some things were done well with the 2011 approval and some
things could be improved. He also said he doesn't believe 505 Miller, given as an example, is
successful in how it fits into Miller Avenue from a scale and site layout point of view and does
not maintain Miller Avenue's historical character. He noted that several things the Commission
said when it reviewed the plans in May 2013 were not incorporated into the current plans, such
as the scale of the third floor was too large, the plan was too big, and this development would be
better served with more "B units" than "A units", which meant a reduction in square footage and
more of a two-story massing on the street instead of a blunt three-story massing. He said he had
also commented that the commercial should be increased to offer micro-retail to create an
opportunity for smaller retailers and to create a connection between the southern portion of this
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
2
5/26/2014
project and the northern portion. He said he was and is still concerned that there is a "missing
link" in the Miller Avenue experience, because Miller Avenue is commercial and the PD was put
in place to allow mixed use commercial and housing but not to provide attached single-family
residential housing all the way down the street, and that concept was not incorporated. He said
another comment he had made in May 2013 was the retaining wall could be creatively reduced to
20-24 feet and he would support bringing this project to the street, because considering the hill
and size of the retaining wall this would be a site plan where a zero or one-foot setback would be
appropriate, and that also did not get changed. He said he does not support exceptions to City
ordinances for reducing parking. He believes this project can easily meet the City ordinances of
the 35 feet height limit and the proper parking ratios. He said he is fme with nine units although
he would prefer to see more units and more diversity, but his issue is the square footage of the
units is 20% larger than they were in May 2013 and the units are even larger than that in size. He
noted that in May 2013 the Commission recommended more commercial but the current plans
call for less commercial, leading to an unbalanced project in its presentation on Miller Avenue.
He also noted that nothing has changed with respect to the bulkiness of the third floor and he
believes those third floors should be set back significantly so the building reads primarily as a
two-story structure. He said he fmds the project as presented cold and impersonal to the street on
the first floor. He also does not like the color white because it makes the project look even more
massive. He said he does not support the 30-plus foot retaining wall in front of the 12 spaces
because it is too difficult to overcome visually and prefers how the wall was hidden in the
original 2011 approval. By bringing the buildings forward and reducing square footage and
creatively looking at the wall, the wall could becotne shorter and less impactful. Lastly, he noted
the off-haul number has gone up 18.2% from the May 13, 2013 application, which the
Commission had referred to at that meeting as a "huge number," and that should have gone down
rather than up. He said overall although he doesn't love the 2011 approval he could live with it,
however a much different approach should be applied to the site for what is now being presented.
Commissioner Skelton echoed many of Vice-Chair Capretta's comments. He said time had done
the applicant a aisservice because the City has undertaken an updated General Plan since the last
approval and he could not make the finding that this plan is consistent with the new General
Plan. He noted the retaining wall is the driving force of this project and is a catalyst for much of
the public opposition. He agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta's statement regarding the mix
between commercial and residential and that to him the glaring issue is that these houses stand
alone in a commercial area. He believes a balance and blending between commercial and
residential would benefit this project. He stated he deviates from Vice-Chair Capretta in that he
supports modifying or setting a new standard for the PD overlay regarding commercial parking
requirements, especially in light of the revised Miller Avenue Plan and the change of parking
there to accommodate portions of the project's commercial use. He said he would support
incorporating more commercial into the project at the first floor level in order to engage the
street and he could support a reduction in parking requirement for that commercial use if needed.
He noted that in May 20 13 he had suggested breaking the ridgeline a bit more and said the
applicant had done a great job of articulating that, however he clarified he had actually intended
a break up of the ridgeline between a three-story and two-story elements, more of a structural
break than a ridgeline break. He echoed Vice-Chair Capretta in that he supports more than nine
units and noted the new General Plan clearly calls for more than nine units on this site, however
he believes the 22 units it calls for is too high a number. He said he would be in favor of more
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
3
5/26/2014
than nine units so some affordable units could be achieved instead of just an in-lieu fee, which
would force the applicant to generate smaller and more affordable micro-units and create a better
balance of housing stock. He said he doesn't believe this is the appropriate site for nine
consecutive 2,500 square foot townhouses, because as noted by one of the speakers, this area is
not friendly to City services and he is not sure that type of development should be focused in that
area. He also said he is in favor of reducing commercial parking. With respect to setbacks he
agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta that moving the house closer to Miller would give the
opportunity to address the street and have a gr~at commercial presence, especially with the foot
traffic from Tamalpais High School, and it would be an excellent opportunity for the smaller
pop-up style commercial uses. He said he could see a smaller setback on the south side of Miller,
but at Reed Street he would favor a more substantial setback than 8 feet at that commercial
comer, which could create visibility and allow the opportunity for low-lying facilities, such as
bike lockers, that benefit the public but don't interrupt sight lines, knowing that the City allows
for certain types of encroachments to protrude into that setback. He agreed again with ViceChair Capretta regarding height, saying it would take a significant number imposed by FEMA to
convince him that greater than the regular City zoning standards of35 feet is appropriate. Thirtyfive feet is exceptionally high, especially when talking about at-street level and he would like the
applicant to work within that 35-foot height limit. He stated if the applicant decides to continue
with having a dedicated parking area for that commercial space he appreciated the options Mr.
Butler laid out and he supports moving the parking up 10 feet. Lastly, he stated it would be of
great benefit to the City to bring the exposed retaining wall forward and lower it ten feet, and if
two parking spaces are lost, so be it.
Commissioner Eisenhart stated the site could be developed in a way that is consistent with Miller
Avenue being a gateway to the town. He agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta's comment about the
massing of the third floor. He said looking from the street with the story poles gave the project a
canyon feel and it should be reduced to two stories, or if it remained three stories it needed a
setback on the third story. He also agreed that the 30-foot retaining wall is too high, even with
the vegetation. He said the PD overlay mixed-use idea was intended for mixed use all along the
street at the street level. However, this design is substantially residential at the street level with
small commercial space at one end of the project and it does not have the feel of a mixed-use
project but more like two separate projects on one large parcel, which is not in the spirit of the
General Plan. He then said having all large 2,500-plus units is also not consistent with the spirit
of the General Plan that encourages more diversity in housing. He suggested mixing up the size
of the units or having smaller units. He encouraged the applicant to take the opportunity with the
new General Plan to rethink what is best for Mill Valley.
Commissioner Bolen stated there are improvements in the current project from the previous one,
but she could not reconcile the project with the General Plan's goal of diversity of housing. She
said she likes nine units and would not like a high number of units. She also said she likes the
residential parking in the back that is not visible. She stated she shares the opinions of others that
the commercial and residential portions of the project don't tie together. She likes the idea of
street parking dedicated to the project that would lower the wall for the commercial parking. She
agreed with other Commissioners that she didn't like the height of the project and is not in favor
of making exceptions to the codes. She hopes there is a way the wall can be minimized and that
the project can meet the City's goal of diversity of housing. She also likes what she has h~ard
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
4
5/26/2014
about addressing bicyclists and pedestrians, which is an important part of Mill Valley. She said
she very much likes Vice-Chair Capretta's idea about micro retailing.
Chair Geiszler stated he appreciates that the applicant recognizes what was originally approved
may not be the best project and he has brought it back in hopes of creating a better one. He noted
there have been significant improvements over the previously approved project, although there
·
are some areas that are not improved. He said the current design has benefits in parking
separation for the commercial' use and with it not stepping up the hillside and having the masses
broken up. However, he doesn't believe the design goes far enough and he would like to see twostory masses in front and would definitely want to see the ends of any buildings be two-story
masses, which will reduce the floor area. He said while he is in favor of increasing the number of
units, he is not in favor of increasing the overall size. He said like his fellow commissioners he is
in favor of added commercial along the street frontage and he would be willing to look at
parking relief to facilitate small commercial spaces there. He feels that the units are too much in
a line and too much the same as they present themselves to Miller and he would like to see some
variation. With respect to the height, he believes the project could be lowered and suggested the
10-foot garage ceiling height could be lowered 2 feet and he noted that the living room is 10-feet
and the bedrooms are 8.5 feet. He said Mr. Butler had done a nice job of breaking up previous
massing and the materials are better, however it has a way to go. He also said he is fme with
stand-alone commercial at the end as long as there is more commercial integrated into the overall
project. He noted he had expressed concerns about the wall at the previous meeting and he is still
concerned. He disagreed with Vice-Chair Capretta and others and said he would not want to see
the residential buildings moved forward because they would provide a landscape buffer between
the sidewalk and the buildings as proposed. However, he would be fine with adding more
commercial to the project and having the commercial portion stepped forward toward Miller
while the residential entries remain set back with landscaping around them. He stated he is
confident that through consultants and peer review they will get a project that will work
hydrologically, geotechnically, and geologically and suggested the geotechnical reconnaissance
that was done on the site for the previous project be reintroduced, because it will be an issue on
this site and he would like to get it in front of the Commission right away. He stated the off-haul
number is huge because the size of the project has increased and that much of that number would
go away if the project were decreased. He said that whatever project goes on that site he would
rather it be tucked down into the hillside as opposed to stepping up the hillside so that less of it
would be seen. He applauded the strategy of putting the parking in the rear and hoped something
could be done to keep that. He said he was happy that the number of curb cuts had been reduced
and said that was a big deal through there for bikes and pedestrians. He said he would like to see
some information on the number of parking spaces being eliminated based on the number of curb
cuts and asked if the spaces were wider would some be eliminated. Lastly, he said he would be in
favor of relaxing some of the parking given street parking and the services that are around it and
asked the opinions ofhis fellow commissioners.
Vice-Chair Capretta said the first questions are "how is the parking being used" and "how much
would be allocated"? If it was for residents or people working there all day he believes it would
be appropriate to continue with the City policy of applying for a permit. He said if there is excess
parking there, then yes, they could look at relaxing it, but if the parking is being used they need
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
5
•
5/26/2014
to understand what that is and try to understand the implications of taking it away from
whomever is using it now.
Commissioner Skelton said he agreed witp. Chair Geiszler in that he is in favor of applying a
different standard with the PD overlay for the commercial spaces and said he likes that the
residential parking is tucked away and separated from commercial. However, he is not in favor
of street parking dedicated to any commercial use and sees it more as a free for all scenario.
Commissioner Bolen said she'd like to find out more about the current parking, but she is in
favor of doing whatever could be done to reduce the number of spaces required on the site to
make it more attractive and appealing. She also said she doesn't like a high number of units and
thinks there could be potential traffic problems if the number of units were in the twenties.
However, she is interested in diversity and she would be open to more units to get that.
Commissioner Skelton said with respect to floor area that he is in favor of increasing the number
of units but not increasing the size over the original approval, which would force the applicant to
create more affordable or diverse units.
Vice-Chair Capretta agreed with Commissioner Skelton regarding the floor area of the units.
Commissioner Eisenhart said he believes it would be a good thing to reduce the size of the
residential units with the aim of having more units, which could create some affordable units. He
stated that with respect to reducing or not reducing parking, if there is better use of the space for
commercial using some of the off-street parking requirements in exchange for on-street space
this could be done.
(03:05:37)
2. 862 E. Blithedale Avenue- Polsky-Perlstein Architects- Study Session for Design
Review- File No. PL14-4175 (Zanarini) A STUDY SESSION for Design Review
construction of a new two-story, multi-family dwelling with two 1,477 square foot
units and six uncovered parking spaces on a 7,288 square foot lot. The subject
property is in the RM-3.5 (Multi-Family Residential- 3,500 square feet of lot size
per dwelling unit) Zoning District.
862 E. Blitheda/e doc
(03:05:47)
Commissioner Bolen recused herself from the study session.
(03:06:11)
Staff Presentation from Interim Director of Building and Planning, Vincent Smith
(03:13:38)
Presentation from Applicant, Bill Love
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
6
5/26/2014
(03:26:06)
Public Comment
(03:28:30)
Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Eisenhart began by stating that with respect to parking it looks like all one would
see is cars from the street and wondered if the applicant considered moving the building up and
having parking behind it, or if moving the building up would be too close to the front and out of
character with the other buildings in the area. He said he would like a plan that uses landscaping
to mask the cars from the street. He said he,s concerned about the bright white color that would
stand out. He also said since the much of the site would be covered with building and paving that
for drainage purposes the use of permeable pavers would make sense.
Commissioner Skelton stated his biggest concern is ensuring that the residents not back out onto
East Blithedale, which can be treacherous. He said it does not matter that the retaining walls do
project into the setback because they are not accessory structures, however what does matter is
that the walls prevent the opportunity for landscape mitigation. He said he would like the
applicant to consider side yard mitigation. He noted there is only 2 feet between the retaining
wall and a chain link fence and suggested that removing the fence, which is an eyesore, could
capture some space. He also suggested planting two or three trees along the back of the property
for privacy. He said when he visited the site he noticed standing water in the southeast comer of
the lot and that a design feature would be needed to address the drainage. He said he would
promote a 4-foot high limit on a front yard fence to allow for increased visibility. He stated the
project feels monumental and like a cube and he would like to see more variety to break up the
symmetry as well as the large expanse of single material planes. These are most obvious on the
sides of the building, which need a design feature to break up the two stories.
Vice-Chair Capretta stated when the applicant comes back for design review the Commission
would want to see a landscape drawing with drainage incorporated and more details on the walls.
He recommended the 19-foot spaces be made 18 feet, which would provide an extra foot of
landscaping on both sides and take away less pervious surface. The project would still have 9x20
spaces but credit would be given for a 2-foot overhang over the landscape. He noted that the
spaces closest to the house need a turnaround bulb, because those spaces have nowhere to back
out. With respect to off-haul, the grading could be raised a foot to reduce some cut and fill and
the height of the retaining walls in the back yard, which would save money and look nicer. He
agreed with Commissioner Eisenhart regarding using landscaping to mask the cars from the
street, and suggested also adding landscaping on the south side adjacent to the street behind and
the multi-family units. He agreed again with Commissioner Eisenhart that the Commission
would like to see something semi-pervious in the parking area and added the applicant needs to
do something to mitigate the amount of pervious surface for the project. He said the Commission
would like to see a roof plan. He encouraged the use of green features such as solar. He stated
the north side elevation is fine, but as noted by Commissioner Skelton, the east, west, and south
sides have too much massing. He likes that wood has been introduced. He suggested the colors
used not be so harsh and should blend in better. He noted the elevation where the Hardi-Board
meets the Hardi-Plank is drawn so it appears the middle part is inset, but it is not, adding that the
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
7
5/26/2014
middle needs to be recessed or the ends popped out to break it up better. He said the scale of
40/30 is okay. He said he'd like to a nice fence put up and the chain link fence removed. He also
said he'd like to see the retaining walls plastered with an integral color or plastered and painted,
but they don't want to see large CMU retaining walls back there.
Chair Geiszler stated he agreed with the comments of his fellow commissioners and offered
further refinements. He said screening at the parking will be critical along Blithedale and there
will be a safety issue regarding where that screening starts and stops. Close attention will also
have to be paid to how high the fences are. He said he's not sure the driveway needs to be 20 feet
wide going in because there are only two houses and suggested the applicant meet with Public
Works and try to minimize the width so the view corridor into the parking area is minimized. He
wondered why the rear yard retaining wall is up in the air so much, 3.5 feet in the front and 2.5
feet in the back. He said it seems like the building could be brought down 1.5 feet or so. He also
noted it steps down off the deck and goes flat out into the yard and then has a 7-foot tall retaining
wall as opposed to having the yard come up and meet that deck at the same plane and then have
the yard slope up maybe 1.5 feet over that distance to reduce the 7-foot retaining wall to a 4 feet
wall, which would save money and gives the option of using a gravity wall, which would be
cheaper and better looking. He stated he agrees with his fellow commissioners on the semipermeable parking area and landscape. He also agreed with Vice-Chair Capretta on the recess
where the Hardi is, but he could be easier on that since it is the rear of the house. He agreed with
Commissioner Eisenhart that the white color is too bright, however he does like the cedar and the
charcoal and the dark window frames. He said it is imperative that there be some variation in the
two story walls of the east and west facades. He also said keeping the house lower from the
Blithedale side is paramount and the hillside in back should have some grading done so it doesn't
go straight up the retaining wall, which will also reduce the off-haul by a lot. He ended his
comments by saying it is a nice building that is handsomely designed.
(03:51:51)
ADJOURN
It was M/s by Commissioner Skelton/Vice-Chair Capretta to adjourn. The motion was carried
4/0.
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
8
5/26/2014