Okay. It having reached 6.30 p.m. I hear by call the regular meeting of August 27th, 2024 of the Mill Valley Planning Commission to order. Our first item is to go roll call. And so if you would unmute your microphones, fellow commissioners, we'll go take roll call. Commissioner Macris, here, Commissioner Yolas, here, Commissioner Hilderbrand is absent. Commissioner Sarenagle, here, and Chair Scouses here. So we have four members tonight with one absent. Prior to getting, oh, let's see. Let's approve the agenda. Is there a motion? Oh, no, public open time first. Sorry. Out of sorts. This is an opportunity for any member of the public who wishes to speak on items that are not on tonight's agenda to come on up to the lectern and you'll have three minutes to state your name if you wish to give your address and then comment on items that are not on the agenda. Okay, not seeing anyone want to do that. We'll close public open time and may I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Do you need a second? Do we have a paperwork? We got it. Commissioner Mackress motions and I will second it. Okay. All in favor? On mute your microphone. Hi. Hi. Agenda is approved, 4-0. Which brings us to the first item on the agenda, which is a variance application for 220 a Throckmorton Avenue and Miss Allen is there a staff report here? Yes, thank you Chair Skiles and commissioners, Daisy Allen, senior planner. I will be presenting a brief staff report for the proposed variance application. The subject parcel is a 7200 square foot lot in downtown Mill Valley near the corner of Throck-Worten and Ethel Avenue. The parcel is developed with three one-story cabins dating from 1903. The property is not within a city's historic overlay district however and was not identified as a potential historic resource in the city's historic overlay district, however, and was not identified as a potential historic resource in the city's historic resources inventory. Two cabins face the street, addressed to 18 and 220 Throck Wharton, and a third cabin, which is addressed to 20A, Throck Wharton is located in the rear of the parcel. The cabins are non-conforming with side and rear yard setbacks. In particular, the cabin at 220A Throckmorton is set back only one foot and 10 inches from the rear property line where a setback of 7 foot 3 inches is required based on today's zoning code. The photo on the right on this slide illustrates the existing nonconforming condition. The proposed project involves a change to the roof shape of the cabin at 220A Brock Morton. The cabin was built with a gable roof over most of the structure and a shed roof on the west side. The shed roof has failed and the property owner would like to extend the gable roof in additional 8.5 feet rather than rebuild the shed roof. The shed roof height was 9 feet whereas the gable roof height is 14 feet 6 inches. New roofing would match the existing shingles. The project also involves adding a window to the west elevation of the cabin to match the other windows on the home. The roof repair work is partially completed as indicated in the photo on the right of this slide. The applicant had submitted an application for a building permit, but the issuance of that permit is on hold pending review of this variance application. Avarians is required because the roof would add building volume within the rear setback. Staff finds the project to be in compliance with variance findings as detailed and exhibit A of the staff report. The parcel was developed before the establishment of zoning regulations. The cabin is existing. It is not possible to move the structure out of the setback due to the presence of the other two cabins on the property. These small cabins serve an important community role as small one and two bedroom rental housing units in downtown mill valley. Staff finds that the project provides for reasonable use of the site because the change in roof height does not increase the footprint or the square footage of the cabin. In the staff report, I did note that the roof would be partially visible from uphill properties, but since the structure would remain one story and is buffered by landscaping, there wouldn't be an impact to privacy between these properties. And the project would not impact health and safety, public welfare, property or improvements in the neighborhood. Since the staff report was published, we did receive comments from two neighbors, 71 and 69 level, expressing several concerns, which I can address from a staff perspective that the commission has questions. On this slide, I'm just providing an aerial image indicating the location of those properties relative to the proposed project. So with that staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing find that the project is categorically exempt from further environmental review and approve the application's subject to the findings and exhibit A of the staff report as well as conditions of approval and exhibit A of the staff report as well as conditions of approval and exhibit B. That concludes my comments. Great. Thank you very much. Any questions for the staff on this one? No? Seeing none? Okay. We'll move to the applicant and their team. If they like to give a presentation, if there's any member of the applicants team, come on up. You can have 10 minutes. You certainly don't need to use all 10 minutes. I don't think I need to. Just state your name and your relationship with the project. All right. Good evening commissioners and Miss Allen. My name is Michael Orlandi. As my dad Richard Orlandi, we are the owners of 218-222A Thruckmore, Navidad, and Downtown Mavalli. As Miss Allen stated, we are applying for a variance to extend the scabled roof line. The lean-to-roof failed quite dramatically and it was our opportunity at this point to be able to do something different and allow water to shed better for now and for the future of the property lean to part of the roof faces the weather coming in from the west and gets hammered pretty bad in the winter. So we felt like this would be both aesthetically and realistically the best course of action for the property for now and for the future. We feel like the impact to 69, 71, and 73 level would be little if anything as far as their visual obstruction of anything. And we hopefully, if we find in our favor that it's not too big of a problem for the neighbors and the community. Thank you for your time commissioners, Miss Allen. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you for your time commissioners Miss Allen. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you very much. Is there any questions for the applicant and their team? Can you just explain the drainage issue that was brought up in the staff report? Well maybe that's a quick better question for Daisy. I thought it was maybe brought up by you all somewhere that. Oh sure yeah that was my understanding was that there was an issue with the shed roof having a drainage problem but maybe the applicant can speak more into the specific issues. Yeah the the roof that existed prior was almost flat. I don't think in today's world it would have the slope. I didn't measure it, but it was pretty flat and it also had four layers of roof, which maybe made the problem more complex. It had a rollout roof, two comp shingles and then a torch down at some point. So it was in pretty bad shape and had lots of valleys that were holding water. We feel like the gable roof is the most aesthetically pleasing as well as the most reasonable for drainage seeing as how the water sheds better off of that shape roof, especially a lean to roof that's facing the wind, which then just continues to push the water up towards the building where the flat roof meets the wall of the beginning of what is the existing gable roof. Got it. Any other questions for the applicant? I just have one question. What is the interior ceiling height of the, I guess, where the shed roof was? You know, I'm not quite sure off the top of my head. I think it's probably about seven and a half feet. It's probably not a... That's what it looked like to me. Yeah, if you look here, the lean to this part, if you don't mind going back to the microphone, because we're on camera. It was, yeah, of course. The, that part, the lean to part was historically, it's my understanding, the story goes in the family. It was a chicken shack that was attached to the side of the building. And then it was enclosed. And inside, the foundation that we had done back in 2020 or so, or I think, they even, it's offset by about, was like three or four inches, between the main building and that building. And so that height is lost inside. But I think it matches the inside height of the rest of the building. So I think you just lose those few inches and then it's a standard, would be a standard eight foot ceiling inside. Great, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Cernigol? No, I'll do you, John. What's the function in the lean two? It's a bedroom. John? Check each other. What's the function in the lean to? It's a bedroom. Okay. John. I Could ask the neighbors to if they come but do you have enough that those green and maybe purple leaf trees on the Jason property the level property are deciduous or not? I'm sorry. I don't know like do they do you lose their leaves and winter those trees? Oh Dad, do you know I if the the trees, I mean they do lose leaves, but I don't think they're fair. Do they lose all their leaves and winter the bears? They're not going to the winter. I don't think so. I don't remember. Okay. Fair enough. If your neighbors are here, we can ask them. Any other questions for the applicants? Okay. Thank you very much. Have a seat and we'll now open up the members of the public. If any members of the public would like to come on up and speak on the site, I'm just come up, I'm state your name and you'll have three minutes to give us your thoughts and comments. Okay, not seeing anyone from the public who wants to speak on this, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back up here for the commission Okay, not seen anyone from the public who wants to speak on this. I'll close the public hearing and Bring it back up here for the Commission for deliberations and Commissioner Saringal. Why don't we start with you? Well, I think I think In my mind the deliberations sort of come in two categories one is the More sort of the findings going through the ABCD of the findings that make sure that we're checking all the boxes and those requirements are met. Maybe we can circle back to that, but just in terms of the roof form and the repercussions of it, it seems to me that the idea of extending the gable roof is a very simple solution, both aesthetically and functionally. So it makes a lot of sense. The lean-to roof, I think there was one of the letters suggested that perhaps it might get replaced as a lean-to, but make it a steeper angle. I think that's a fairly awkward geometry because the lean tube, the higher it gets, the more it's ends overlap the gable roof. You both get sort of detailing, waterproofing, and the aesthetic awkwardness there. So I think that's a bit of a worry, I think, if it went back that way. The other thing about the Gable roof for the neighboring properties is that the three edges of the lean to stay level with the fascia piece and the highest portion faces to the west, which is an open part of the site. And the roof recedes away from the rear neighbors. So I think letting light in and just visually, it seems although it's higher for sure, it seems like it has a reasonable, a good relationship to the neighbors to the rear. And then just one other thing about potential solutions here. One thing maybe for us that if for some reason the height and the mass is not working, you know, for the deliberations we have there. If the hip roof were put there, it would, again, the edges would be flat and the roof would recede away from, it would be about half the mass. I don't think it would be as simple and clear a solution as the as the Gabriel Roof, but that is one other way to I think achieve good water proofing and reduce the mass if that becomes an issue and it would be a geometry. So those are my thoughts about that. Maybe we can hear others and come back to the findings thing. I think that's a great idea. Thank you. For your deliberations, Commissioner Eoles, want you go ahead and give us your deliberations. That's probably a architects on this commission. That was very good. That's why I went to them first. That's why I would have gone to you second. That's the other architect on the commission. But I mean, I think those were all great thoughts kind of practically speaking. I mean, you know, big picture, I don't see what's proposed as particularly injurious. I mean, I do hear some concerns on the part of the neighbors and I get that. I think, you know, the fact that it does slope away from them, that it seems like there are trees there that have foliage that I think are gonna block whatever pops up in the first place. If not all year round, probably of least half of the year. Looks like there's a pair of trees there and my guess is that the green leaf tree actually isn't ever green and the other one may not be, but I obviously can't tell for sure. So I think with that buffering combination, I don't think there's gonna be a lot of impact and I totally agree that, I mean, it seems like the work is underway here. So which shouldn't have been the case, but I know that people do sometimes start working out realizing what's actually necessary. I'm not sure exactly how things unfolded, so that they find themselves in this situation. But I think I think a hip-to-roof would have been a nice compromise if this had been processed in a slightly different way. All that said, I mean, I don't think in terms of the findings, A, exceptions and whatnot, I don't have issues with, or I think is acceptable. know they didn't create the hardship but from a technical standpoint I don't think this is you know it is hard to make a the finding for C that it's Necessary to preserve I mean they could Redew if they really wanted to a shit the shed roof that they have I don't understand why that isn't possible I think there's a little bit of slope to it. And as far as D goes, it's a little bit challenging to make all the findings there in that it won't basically have some adverse impacts to their neighbors. So I'm not saying that we need to apply this all technically in light of the relatively limited impact in my view, but there are grounds for denial. I think if that was the way commission chose to proceed. Okay, great. We'll come back and have an opportunity for each of us to talk about the findings and more detail. Those are good points you make about that. Thank you, Commissioner McGrace. Thanks. I won't reiterate you guys have made good points you make about that. Thank you. Commissioner McGrace. Thanks. I won't reiterate you guys have made good points but I'm having a hard time reaching these findings. Any of them really. And granted it's an eight-foot extension of a roof. This is not an earth shattering scale of a problem to deal with, but just going by the rules we are charged with adhering to on A. Are there exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, are conditions applying to the land? And not really. I guess I'd like to understand more your interpretation of B that the hardship is not due to any action on the part of the applicant. Well, it is. They chose to try to extend the roof the way they did rather than just rebuilding. Given that it's already in the setback and two neighbors have raised concerns about it, I could go on in detail with the other two findings as well. But I'm not seeing it. On the other hand, I get the point you made from an architectural from a design standpoint and that is persuasive. And my mind isn't set yet. I'm just having a hard time doing what we're tasked with doing and reconciling it with your points. Okay, great. So I'll just second Commissioner Rice Chair, Serengel's comments about the architecture and the design. I agree with everything you said. With regards to the findings, I'll explain how I went through it and then I'll see, you know, if other folks have thoughts they want to add to this. So as I went through the ones that are in the staff report, I view that A is like there's a non conformity that exists for a long time. That's kind of how I view A. And I think that's most people applying for variances. A is met. And I think this one is true. B, the hardship, I don't view that as the variance is not they're, is not part of their action. It's that the existing non-conformity is not due to their action, which is true. This has existed for a long time. The zoning code came in after this was built. And so the hardship, meaning the setback not being obeyed, is not due to their action. It's due to the, you know, existence structure and new zoning coming in. C is, I think, probably the one that is the most tenuous, in my opinion, and that is that the grantee, the application is necessary. And this is why I think it is. And this is why I'm kind of, I think what tipped me over into saying that I think this does meet the fines for variances, and this is why. If we're serious about wanting people to preserve older buildings, because they're really important for the character of the neighborhoods, they have to be able to have them reasonably meet the standards of modern buildings. And that would be water proofing which you described, which you absolutely would never do a West facing shed roof with a slow slope into a sidewall condition. That's just not, that's like a technical way of saying they can't reasonably enjoy a weathertight building. And then the other thing is that the ceiling height, I think, seven foot is low. I don't think that's really a modern acceptable standard. And so having it be gable to allow it to be low at the plates, but then higher in the center, which I think is acceptable for like a residential structure. And so that's why I think it is kind of important that they're preserving a building. We want people to preserve buildings and this is the way they're making it like acceptable and enjoying their reasonable rights. And then the definding I think seeing this in three dimensions rather than an elevation. It just as Commissioner Saringle and Yolos have said, the building roof form recedes from the nearest property line. The vegetation does disguise it and hide it. And so I feel that there's pretty sturdy ground to stand on to grant this variance. That's my opinion. So you want to talk about the findings? Because I don't think you've talked about the findings yet. No, I've just had that the relationship maybe that if you could put the aerial photograph up, I think also the relationship of where the neighboring buildings are relative to this extended roof. You know, 73 is about as far away as you can get because the house is up towards the north and the open space that they have is a that appears to be, you know, significant amount of space and then 71 is to the side of where this change is happening. So the relationships of, they're there, but it's not right there. And if the houses were directly adjacent to this, I think I'd be more worried about the impact on the neighbor. So I just wanted to sort of put that into the mix of how we relate that to the findings. Okay. Commissioner Ellis, you want to talk about it? I understand. No, I really appreciate your interpretation, Commissioner Skiles, and I mean, I think you're right. I think you can interpret these findings to support a variance. I would say, with respect to the concerns that have been expressed, I mean, first, just as far as, I think there was some communication, based on the written correspondence that was submitted where I think there was a misunderstanding of what was said, and I just want to acknowledge for people here or listening that the way of hearing like this comes together, there isn't usually a notification that goes out until 10 days before the hearing documents usually aren't available until right before the hearing, at least not in their final form. So I think it's a pretty common place that communication would not have been as smooth and information like final information would not have been shared or known until the end, because that's just kind of typical. And yeah, I'm just going to restate that I do think that the impacts to adjacent neighbors in light of the trees and the roof that slips away is going to be minimal and I think somebody even stated they actually might have somebody say that it actually could be beneficial for them. Others maybe said perhaps to view in sunlight but I think that's going to be nominal. Commissioner Mackerson, any further thoughts on findings? No, I think it's interesting that your interpretation is so different from mine that there's subjectivity even in the interpretation of these findings. I thought it was sort of cut and dry when I first read it. And I may be in the minority. It sounds like you guys are ahead. And we need to be aware we've got four people here today. So I think to the letter of the findings, I'm still having a hard time, but that may not matter. Okay. Well, it did sound to me like there was three votes in support. So if someone would like to make a motion, we probably can do that at this time. Sure. I will make a motion to approve the variance application for 228th Rock Morton Avenue. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have motion by Commissioner Yolos and second by Vice Chair Saringle. If you want to unmute your mic, I'll just go roll call, go down the line. Commissioner Mackress? No. Commissioner Yolos? Aye. Commissioner Saringle? Yes. And Chair Scouse aye. So thatollas. Aye. Mr. Saringle. Yes. And Chair Scalz-Eye. So that passes 3-1. Sorry. I need to get readers. 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 and building director department within 10 calendar days following the date of the decision describing the basis for the appeal and accompanied by the $1,083 appeal fee. Okay. And that was our only item tonight. We now have approval of minutes from June 9th and August 13th is our next item on the agenda. Let me flip to these and see if everybody was here. Yeah, I was not here July 9th. Okay, let's do them separately. In fact, I said June 9th, I meant July 9th. It's July 9th and I believe Commissioner Macris and Yolus were absent, so we're actually going to have to punt this because two of us can't approve minutes. So Daisy, do you mind making a note that the July 9th minutes will have to come back for the next meeting when Hilda Brand is back? Okay. But the August 13th minutes. So can I make a motion to approve the minutes of August 13th? Okay, is there a second? Seconded. Okay. Commissioner Macros has made a motion. Commissioner Sarengill has seconded all in favor. Aye. Okay, that carries a follow. And we do not have a report from the building director tonight. So we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you all very much.