| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:00:00.08 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not sure. |
| 00:00:00.37 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair, Commissioners, before we call the meeting to order, I'd like to inform commissioners that we have attorney Andreas Buher of BBK Law present as legal counsel to the commission this evening, confirming with Maria that attorney Buher is present virtually. Fantastic. Andreas, welcome. Thank you for being with us this evening. Feel free to introduce yourself. |
| 00:00:28.31 | Andreas Bloor | Hi there, my name is Andreas Bloor. I'm with BBK just filling in tonight. Happy to help you out here tonight. |
| 00:00:37.19 | Director Phipps | Appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 00:01:00.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:01:02.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | December 13, 2000. Turn on the microphone. I'm going to call the Sausalito Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2024, to order. Director Phipps, please call order. |
| 00:01:16.75 | Director Phipps | Good evening, Chair Luxembourg, Vice Chair Saad, Commissioners, staff, members of the public. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sausalito Council Chamber at 420 Litho Street and is open to members of the public. Members of the public may also access this meeting and provide public comment through Zoom. And with that, I will move to call roll. Commissioner Merlot. Present. Commissioner Junius. Present. Commissioner Feller. Here. Vice Chair Saad. |
| 00:01:36.83 | Andrew Junius | and, |
| 00:01:38.41 | Kristina Feller | here. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:40.13 | Director Phipps | THE END OF THE END OF THE Chair Luxenberg. Here. We have achieved quorum. We are all here. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:01:45.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. Look for a motion, please. Thank you. |
| 00:01:50.50 | Nastassya Saad | the movie. |
| 00:01:51.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Director Fitz, please call the roll. |
| 00:01:56.65 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlant. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:02:00.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. Yeah. Next item is public comments for items not on the agenda. Director Phipps, if you could give instructions, please. |
| 00:02:12.57 | Director Phipps | Happily, video or audio public comment participation is limited to three minutes per speaker. If you'd like to make a comment, please submit a speaker card to me and or my colleagues to my right. I think based on the number of folks in the audience this evening, unless it changes, I'll also accept raised hands. And if you'd like to make a comment in the Zoom application, please raise your hand, and you will be called upon when it is your time to speak. To raise your hand from a phone, press star nine, and each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. Thank you. Chair looking to chamber for raised hands. Any submitted speaker cards, Maria or Matthew? No. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, back to you, Chair. |
| 00:02:58.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Fellick. |
| 00:03:01.57 | Kristina Feller | Forgive me, Chair, for the interruption, but I just want to make note on the record that the Commission did receive a number of written comments for items not on the agenda tonight, so I just want to acknowledge those. I think the last time I looked at my email was probably about 4 p.m., but there were several before that time. |
| 00:03:19.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fellows. Next item on the agenda is the Planning Commission meeting minutes for October 23rd, 2024. I'll look for a motion to approve. |
| 00:03:32.27 | Kristina Feller | still moved |
| 00:03:33.38 | Director Phipps | Second. |
| 00:03:34.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any discussion? Seeing none, Director Phipps, please call the roll. |
| 00:03:38.26 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Assad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:41.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. Next item is communications. We'll start with an update from Director Fitz. |
| 00:03:53.21 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair. Two items of communication this evening. Firstly, is a communication related to the proposed project at 605 Bridgeway. This communication is partly in response to exactly what Commissioner Feller just mentioned, a number of letters received by council, commission, and staff generally related to requests to reject the development application at 605 Bridgeway. I'd like to first confirm that the city is still engaged in a review of the proposed project at 605 Bridgeway. Next steps for the city includes sending a letter to the project applicant, identifying provisions of the city's plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, and other similar provisions where the project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity. These identified provisions will be accompanied by an exclamation explanation of the reasons the proposed development is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity. And this letter will be provided to the applicant in compliance with government code section 655895J2. Following that transmittal will begin the sequel process as well as continue to work with the applicant on addressing items relating to inconsistencies with requirements and other similar provisions that are called out in that letter. Second item of communication is related to a request for an update on the beach access improvements on Main Street that were approved as a part of the Valhalla project. CDT staff reached out to the owner of the property following that request from commission and were informed that they are currently working with BCDC on their proposal in order to receive the required permit. And once that permit is received, they will move forward with the project. That does it for staff communications this evening. |
| 00:05:45.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. Any comments or questions from Commissioner on these or any other items? Commissioner Fowler. |
| 00:05:53.44 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, director Phipps. I would just ask that the public comment that we've received is actually posted to the agenda as is standard practice for under item two, excuse me, item three public comments on items not on this agenda. |
| 00:06:10.49 | Director Phipps | We can look into adding those letters if appropriate. |
| 00:06:16.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any other comments, Commissioner Marlach? |
| 00:06:19.09 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yes, I'd also like to ask Director Phipps if there's any update regarding the schedule for adoption of the odds and or the housing element that's relevant for us. |
| 00:06:30.69 | Director Phipps | Certainly, yeah, I can provide a short update. The update is that we're working on developing that timeline. |
| 00:06:37.42 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:06:40.14 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marlotta and the other. |
| 00:06:41.96 | David Marlatt | No further questions. Uh, |
| 00:06:44.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:06:44.56 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:06:44.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Welcome. |
| 00:06:46.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anybody else? |
| 00:06:47.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, we will move on to, |
| 00:06:50.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | through a public hearing portion |
| 00:06:51.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | this evening at this time, I want to ask any commissioners regarding any ex |
| 00:06:56.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | communications. |
| 00:06:57.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | you |
| 00:06:57.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:06:58.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:06:58.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:06:58.63 | Andrew Junius | Commissioner Junius. No such communications, Chair. Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 00:07:04.00 | David Marlatt | I went by the property with MJ Sushi. I did not interact with anyone, but I visited the property. |
| 00:07:11.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, Kalishnu fellow. |
| 00:07:13.63 | Kristina Feller | No ex parte communications to declare. Thank you. |
| 00:07:16.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:07:17.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, God. |
| 00:07:17.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Satsang. Thank you. |
| 00:07:18.66 | Nastassya Saad | Nothing to declare. |
| 00:07:20.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. For me, on 118 West Street, I went by the site, and however, it is greater than 500 feet from my house and less than 1,000, but I don't believe there's any materiality, so I will hear that item, because any decision will not affect either, for my property, any development potential, income-producing potential, highest and best use use character by substantially altering traffic levels and tension abuse parking view privacy noise or air quality or affect the market value of my property so as such pursuant state statute I have no issue with hearing that item with regard to 82 Central Avenue that property is within 500 feet of my property So I will recuse myself for that item With that let's move on to Commissioner miles |
| 00:08:14.62 | David Marlatt | Yeah, sorry, I just neglected to add that I live within 1,000 feet of the properties that are items 6A and 6C greater than 500 feet. I don't think that the outcome of these items will have any material effect on my property or property value, so I intend to participate in those deliberations tonight. |
| 00:08:35.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Marlon. With that, we'll go on to item 6A. Item 6A, applicant Mei-Ling Lee on behalf of the business MJ Sushi is requesting a conditional use permit for the establishment of a formula retail restaurant and a sign permit to locate two wall signs above the respective front and rear entrances of the restaurant, as well as two monument signs on an existing monument frame at 2633 Bridgeway Boulevard. And Ms. Taiki is going to give us a presentation. Thank you, Ms. Taiki. |
| 00:09:14.66 | Ms. Taiki | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. I'm just waiting for our... Thank you. project plans to come up. I guess I can start. Very brief staff report for you tonight. The subject parcel is located near the intersection of Bridgeway and Coloma Street and the northern end of town. It's developed with a 3,800-square-foot restaurant building, which is currently divided into two separate tenant spaces. There's 24 on-site parking spaces, which have been determined to be sufficient to comply with code for the two restaurants. Miling Li on behalf of MJ Sausalito Inc. is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a 60-seat Uh, formula retail restaurant and to install to get a sign permit for installation of their signage. The proposal includes interior and tenant improvements only and does not propose any exterior alteration of the building other than the installation of signage. The proposed tenant, MJ Sushi, is a trademark restaurant franchise and meets the definition of formula retail in our municipal code. Therefore, to approve this restaurant, the commission has to find in the favor of this application under both the conditional use permit findings of SMC 106050 and the formula retail findings of SMC 1044240. As discussed in the written report, staff is recommending conditional approval of the proposed permits. The project cites well situated at the northerly end of Sausalito in the north neighborhood commercial zoning district. The applicant does not propose to alter the exterior of the building, allowing it to remain compatible with its surrounding, um, site and surrounding uses. The proposed formula, the retail establishment will provide a desirable high end product that I keep hearing many people can't wait to try. and will fit well with the range of surrounding uses. With regard to the sign permit, subject to the conditions of approval, requiring a modest reduction in the square footage of the signage proposed in the plans, the proposed signage will meet code. As proposed, the sign design is, as you can see, red and white lettering on a black background. It's an aluminum sign face. Signs are to be installed over each entry and on the shared monument sign, which is compatible with the way signs are typically installed in this area. and businesses. So we have determined that the application should be recommended for approval. And if the commission does find that that is the case, I've prepared for you a resolution with all of the findings and conditions of approval. Except I did happen to admit four standard conditions of approval that I was requested to ask you. to include if you determine the application can be complete or approved. One is a requirement to indemnify and hold the city harmless in case of a lawsuit. The second is defining a process that occurs if any conditions are challenged by the applicant. The third is a requirement that operation of mechanical equipment comply with SMC 1216 130. And a fourth is a requirement that the applicant provide a reasonable project valuation upon building permits middle so we can determine the length of time that should that should be limited to on construction activity. And you can see the conditions there That is the one page of conditions that are proposed for this application in the resolution. And that concludes my report. I hope it was short enough. |
| 00:12:44.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Ms. Taiki. With that, questions of staff, Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 00:12:50.49 | David Marlatt | Oh, okay, thank you. Yeah, and thank you for that presentation. I definitely just a couple questions about how to interpret our design standards for signs. Because they are what they are. And are we, for the front sign, that's on a kind of a gable porch element, Should we be looking at that as an awning sign in terms of just compliance? There's no direct Thank you. |
| 00:13:14.66 | Ms. Taiki | I think technically it's a wall sign. I mean, I don't know what else to qualify it as. It's attached to the building sort of on the entryway. |
| 00:13:14.69 | David Marlatt | References. |
| 00:13:25.09 | David Marlatt | Okay, and is there a clearance requirement under the audit sign? |
| 00:13:27.74 | Ms. Taiki | Eight feet, according to the dimensions on their plan that complies. |
| 00:13:28.93 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Right. OK. Well, I think we'll discuss that a little bit later. And then also on a monument sign, just so I understand, each face of the monument sign is a sign. In other words, a monument sign doesn't count once, it counts twice or three times. |
| 00:13:45.10 | Ms. Taiki | If they're sandwiched together back to back, no more than six inches apart, I think it says. then you can count it as one sign. But because they're separated by multiple feet, they have to be counted separately. |
| 00:13:55.83 | David Marlatt | Okay, so is it, and maybe the applicant can answer this, but is it the intention to remove one of the signs? Because when I was out there today, I noticed that the monument sign was on three faces. |
| 00:14:05.82 | Ms. Taiki | They need to remove the one facing, well, I mean, at least one of them. And I think it was discussed that they would remove the one facing bridgeway. |
| 00:14:13.60 | David Marlatt | I see. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 00:14:18.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:14:18.46 | David Marlatt | Commissioner Phillips. |
| 00:14:19.96 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation and staff report. I just wanted to get a quick clarification from you of these four items that you had left off the resolution. Are these part of our standard items, or have they varied at all, and has legal reviewed them if they have varied? |
| 00:14:39.37 | Ms. Taiki | Legal requested, I put them in, and they're directly out of the same set of findings you'll find on the West Street application in your agenda tonight. |
| 00:14:48.60 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.65 | Director Phipps | They're standard. |
| 00:14:48.77 | Ms. Taiki | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.92 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:14:48.96 | Ms. Taiki | Thank you. |
| 00:14:49.55 | Kristina Feller | They're standard. Okay. I just, I want to make sure that they were. Thank you for that. Sure. And then can you just comment really quickly on the parking and just confirm that the number of parking spaces comply with what this operation is? |
| 00:14:53.75 | Ms. Taiki | Um, |
| 00:15:05.91 | Ms. Taiki | Right. I think it says in the staff report that the adjacent restaurant in the same building requires eight parking spaces based on their seating. And the remaining parking then falls to use of this particular site. So they're limited to 60 seats, which is what their floor plan shows. That's the maximum seating they're allowed and based on the on-site parking. Great. |
| 00:15:28.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Chair. |
| 00:15:31.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Any other questions of staff? At this point, is the applicant going to do a presentation? They have 15 minutes to do a presentation. |
| 00:15:41.12 | Ms. Taiki | Right there. |
| 00:15:43.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can you come up to the podium? Okay. Okay. |
| 00:15:52.96 | Andy | Thank you. |
| 00:15:53.03 | Ms. Taiki | Thank you. |
| 00:15:53.05 | Andy | Take care. it's possible. |
| 00:15:56.44 | Ms. Taiki | He says his wife is the applicant, and he is only here to sort of represent, but he doesn't want to speak. |
| 00:16:02.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, but we have questions. So do you want to answer those questions or you want to wait and you want us to go on to another item? |
| 00:16:13.06 | Kristina Feller | I'm just kidding. Chair, can we have him come to the microphone so people listening at home. |
| 00:16:17.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | THE END OF THE END OF THE you. listening at home. Can you come up to the microphone to answer the question of whether you want us to wait or... |
| 00:16:18.71 | Andy | THE END OF |
| 00:16:24.22 | Andy | Yes, yes. Yeah, my name's Andy. I'm the Mei Ling Li husband. My wife have to take care of the kids from school. That's why I'm here. Yeah, what kind of question they have? |
| 00:16:34.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We may have a series of questions. You're okay with answering those questions? |
| 00:16:39.76 | Andy | I do whatever I can. Yeah. |
| 00:16:42.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, great. That's right. you |
| 00:16:44.01 | Andy | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:16:44.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Anybody want to ask questions? Well, I had a question. |
| 00:16:44.57 | Unknown | Thank you. THE FAMILY. |
| 00:16:44.80 | Andy | Let's move on. |
| 00:16:49.44 | David Marlatt | Well, I had one question. The drawings that we have, the application, shows that the sign that's over the front gable or the wall sign indicates that it's 108 inches clearance. But I was out there today, and I live nearby, and it's actually at 80 inches, 6 foot 8, not 9 feet. Is there an intention to, is that a, Error on the drawings? Or I mean, obviously, there's not an intention to move it, because it indeed looks exactly like that picture. But instead of 108 inches, it's actually 80 inches. And that was my concern about a banner sign and whether an eight foot clearance was relevant to this application. |
| 00:17:34.25 | Andy | I think the science is why, if some things are not wide, we can move wide away. You mean the side order? |
| 00:17:42.52 | David Marlatt | Thank you. The drawing, the image that we have indicates that the bottom of the sign is 108 inches above the walkway. And it's not. It's 80 inches, in fact. Is it 8 the answer? 8-0. |
| 00:18:00.61 | Andy | Hey, y'all. |
| 00:18:04.92 | David Marlatt | So I don't know if that's something, I don't know if you're aware of that or if that's something to be resolved, or whether that's relevant if it's just a wall sign, then maybe there is no clearance requirement. That was the meaning of my first question, whether we treat this as a banner sign or how do we treat this sign. |
| 00:18:25.39 | Nastassya Saad | This might be a better question for staff. |
| 00:18:28.01 | David Marlatt | Yeah, it might be. I was anticipating a presentation. That's why I didn't. |
| 00:18:28.72 | Nastassya Saad | I think we... to work. |
| 00:18:31.47 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Bring that up. |
| 00:18:33.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Taiki, can you do you have an answer with regard to whether the 108 inches, which is on that that photo is the minimum requirement, because I think that staff reports that something along those lines. |
| 00:18:49.32 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Can you talk into the mic just so people at home can hear you too? Thank you. |
| 00:18:51.33 | Ms. Taiki | just so people can- minimum requirement for clearance that I recall from the sign code is 8 feet. So that's 12 times... |
| 00:19:00.78 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Cool. |
| 00:19:01.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:19:01.96 | Ms. Taiki | 96. |
| 00:19:03.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if it's only 80 inches, then that sign definitely has to be marked. |
| 00:19:10.70 | Ms. Taiki | We can condition the action of the Commission on removal and its replacement with a conforming size sign. It would have to be dramatically scaled down. That's a choice they can choose to accept or not. |
| 00:19:27.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Shumal. No other questions. |
| 00:19:28.59 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:19:31.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? My question, which we'll talk about when it comes back to the dais here, but how are you planning to reduce these? Are you, which signs are you planning to reduce? Have you thought about how to change these signs in order to comply? Because they don't comply at the moment. |
| 00:20:02.54 | Andy | I don't quite understand, sorry about that. |
| 00:20:04.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | okay, the signs that you have are too large. They need to be remade and made smaller. So I was wondering which of the signs, maybe you're going to make all of them smaller, but you're going to need to modify the signs. And I was wondering if you had thought, in reading the staff report from Ms. Taiki, of which signs that you would remake. |
| 00:20:32.11 | Andy | I can choose the size I can make smaller. Yeah. I can still try the front side of the sandwich one. I can make them smaller. Is that okay? |
| 00:20:41.05 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Is that okay? |
| 00:20:42.20 | Andy | I can take out one side too. You guys want to take out one side, right? |
| 00:20:42.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I can take |
| 00:20:46.13 | Andy | They have a duicide on the phone. Yeah, I have to take out one side. Make sure to keep the two sides and make them smaller. Make the size you guys give it to me, I can do that. |
| 00:20:56.93 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I guess I'm asking because we're going to probably condition this with reductions in your signs. And if you had a specific preference, that would be helpful. But it sounds like whatever we recommend to you, you'll take care of, I guess. Is that what you're saying? Yes. |
| 00:21:13.37 | Andy | Yes. |
| 00:21:13.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:21:14.68 | Andy | Because I don't know how big the size we need to put. That's why we don't have any good information for us. That's why we make it. And then right now, You guys say too big, we can move to smaller. Whatever we just follow. |
| 00:21:27.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. No, okay. All right, thank you very much. Thank you very much. At this point, we will take public comment. Director Phipps, please. |
| 00:21:32.15 | Andy | Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:38.98 | Director Phipps | Chair looking to the chamber for raised hands, interested speakers. Seeing none, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Sing none back to you. |
| 00:21:51.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, this point we'll close the public hearing, bring it back up to the dais. |
| 00:21:55.69 | Andrew Junius | I'm gonna make a motion to approve this project with the four additional conditions that staff has raised and with the, uh, condi with the obvious condition that any signage has to comply with local code and that the applicant work with the staff to adjust signage accordingly so that the, um, the signage is consistent with the code. |
| 00:22:15.52 | Kristina Feller | Second. |
| 00:22:18.54 | Jeffery Luxenberg | discussion. |
| 00:22:21.44 | David Marlatt | on |
| 00:22:22.17 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marlowe. |
| 00:22:23.10 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I have no problem whatsoever with the use permit for the formula retail. It seems very obvious and a good fit. I guess we could condition, but there's so many things wrong with the sign. I can't see the sign being compatible with the architecture of the building by any stretch of the imagination. Not that the architecture is something great to be celebrated, but still some, some recognition that's in finding four. And then in six regarding the size of the signage, what we've been presented here is just, clearly outside what we would normally accept. So if we want to condition this, that they'll work with staff, but it'll be radically different signage in terms of its size and character, I think. But otherwise, as what's before us here, I would have a lot of trouble on the sign approval wrapping my head around accepting that the findings number four and six |
| 00:23:27.96 | Andrew Junius | Okay, if I might respond to that, Commissioner. So I think that the code controls the size, the number, and location of the signs. And I'm no question that the staff can work with the applicant to make sure that this works. Beyond that, I'm not sure the city has a whole lot of leeway This I would probably guess that if this is MJ Sushi's you know, third or fourth or whatever story. I'm sorry, I don't know how many that's their logo. So I don't think we can touch that. |
| 00:23:58.81 | David Marlatt | I, and perhaps you're right, I was, I tried to look around on the web and find MJ Sushi. I found the corporate website has a very different typeface, totally different. I did see a store in San Ramon or someplace or other that did seem to have the same letters, the same typeface. I'm just worried that, you know, finding four says the proposed color design material location are compatible with the architectural design of the building sorry this is not and the proposed sign is restrained which I think right there this is not in character and is no larger than necessary for adequate identification we can you know I'm a big believer in objective standards in general and empowering staff. So if that's the consensus, I guess I could try to get there. But I think that what we're looking at tonight does not meet those two findings as presented |
| 00:24:58.13 | Kristina Feller | I would just comment. I appreciate your view of this. And as we try not to design from the dais, I actually can make those findings. And I'm extremely confident that staff |
| 00:24:58.40 | David Marlatt | Mr. Feller. |
| 00:25:12.03 | Kristina Feller | can manage to work with this applicant to bring this into a code conformity. And I would say unless there's a different motion on the floor, I would say, I don't know that I'm comfortable modifying the conditions of approval at this time respectfully. So I would either say an alternate motion or let's take a vote. |
| 00:25:40.30 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You want to amend the motion? You want to put an amendment on the floor, Commissioner Marlowe? |
| 00:25:47.70 | David Marlatt | No, I don't think so, because I think there's already a condition that the applicant works with staff to bring the signage within compliance of the sign ordinances. And we're just trusting staff regarding some things that are somewhat subjective, color design material compatible with architectural design. But I don't think I want to blow the thing up. I just want to make the point that I don't think what we've been presented here is meeting those findings in my mind. |
| 00:26:19.85 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner, Vice Chair, started in Germany coming. |
| 00:26:22.05 | Nastassya Saad | No, I think those are fair comments. And I think if there's no alternate motion, you may vote accordingly on the motion that we have on the floor. But I definitely understand and hear what you're saying. |
| 00:26:33.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I think I concur with Commissioner Marlott on this. I have trouble with findings six and four. Also, I think that the, and I guess I'm going to do this for the staff's edification, I think the sign over the door is too large. It doesn't have the proper clearance, so that sign should be smaller. The sign on the back is too large. Of the building should be similar to the fascia board The previous sign was on the fascia board this sticks up. It should be the size of the fascia board the sign on the monument side and facing south I think is fine the sign facing north is Wider and deeper than the one above it. It should be similar size so And I looked on the website also also, don't see that this is not a standard trademark that they're using elsewhere. So I think with those changes that, and it may or may not get to 40 square feet. So our code does allow us, if a sign is not appropriate, to make it appropriate, even if it doesn't get to 40 square feet. So I think that those would be the changes that I would hope staff would do as part of this motion. |
| 00:27:50.32 | Kristina Feller | We can direct staff with those comments, but I'm not sure that's worthy of changing the motion on the floor in that regard. |
| 00:28:01.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that was why I was getting on the record what the comments were, so staff has some guidance, at least from my point of view. If others have suggested guidance, I would entertain that as well. |
| 00:28:12.37 | David Marlatt | Is it fair or appropriate that we ask staff if they feel like they have enough guidance from us? in order to, based on what the discussion does, does staff feel confident that they understand the concerns and can help ensure that those are addressed in the final |
| 00:28:29.91 | Director Phipps | Mr. Merlin, I appreciate you asking the question. I feel great about the direction that we received from the commission this evening. I also feel that our sign ordinance does have a number of objective standards that we would be able to carry forward in a way that would not cause further conflict. with our code and something that we can resolve. |
| 00:28:52.86 | David Marlatt | . |
| 00:28:53.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:28:53.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:28:53.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. With that, I also want to concur that for formula retail, I see no issue with the formula retail. I think this is totally appropriate for the area and what our ordinance is meant to accomplish. So I think formula retail is fine. With that, if there are no more comments, I'll have Director Phipps call the roll. |
| 00:28:53.73 | David Marlatt | Oh. |
| 00:29:14.56 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Genius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:29:18.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:29:23.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Moving on to next item is 6B, 118 West Street. The applicant and owner Cameron Zand and Green Earth Holding LLC is requesting a design review permit and a variance to fully enclose the 50% enclosed exterior perimeter and foundation on the ground floor of a duplex. The proposed full enclosure of this space will add 499 square feet of floor area, therefore exceeding the floor area ratio permitted by the zoning ordinance at 118 West Street. And Mr. Mandich is here this evening. Thank you very much. |
| 00:30:04.00 | Matthew Mandich | Hello Commissioners. Yes. So application before you today is a design review and a variance for 118 West Street. Let's go ahead and jump right in. Next slide please. So here's the location right here. Very small lot at the corner of West and Main kind of a shotgun lot like several of these others that were laid out this time. This is in the R225 multifamily or two-family medium high-density residential zoning district. As you can see, there are several other duplexes and multi-family units in this area next slide please so the project summary here is a request for design reunivariance to fully enclose the existing 50 enclosed ground floor level or foundation level of a duplex, a duplex, excuse me. This will add 499 square feet of new floor area to the multifamily home, which triggers a design review. However, there will be no new building coverage added. This will all be within the existing envelope of the home. It will exceed the floor area ratio for this parcel, which is why a variance is being sought for this project. Next slide, please. The owner and applicant acquired the property in January 2022. The duplex was built in 1962 and in need of renovation. The owner performed seismic upgrades and foundational improvements, which included a new foundation slab, new retaining walls, new drain and system and new shear wall enclosing the space by 50%. That was also to avoid the variance in design review that we're doing today at this time. However, and all this work was carried out under building permit 2023-0733, was completed and finaled by our inspector in April 2024. However, due to the fact that the foundation remains 50% open, the owner cannot find suitable home insurance coverage. They're currently paying two times market rate for their insurance. They talked to 13 providers and 12 of them declined to insure the property. And the insurance is even in jeopardy for next year. He's been threatened with termination of the insurance unless this issue is mitigated. So aside from the insurance issue, there's also some additional hazards, which include wildlife intrusion, um, human intrusion, some squatting, and also potential for water and mud intrusion as well, which we'll talk about a little bit more in a second. Next slide, please. So here's the overall site plan, survey of the property. This is that, again, skinny rectangular lot right here. It's only 30 feet wide, so it is quite a narrow parcel. It is accessed through a concrete parking deck, raised parking deck right here. And then the building itself, the duplex is right here. I know this is quite small, but there's some other images of this that we'll see in a second. And then the back area here is a set of terrace retaining walls, but no development at all. It's all very overgrown vegetation. Here's a couple of sections of the building. You can see tall, thin one unit stacked on top of the other. And here's that parking level deck to access. And we'll see a little bit more in the next slide here. So here is the existing north elevation. Again, West Street is right here. This is the access point. It connects directly to West Street. The property slopes down a parcel here. Here are the two units, unit one, unit two, an existing storage space down here, and the current conditions of the existing open foundation. As you can see, there's a doorway entry here and a large area of the wall that's been left unenclosed. And I have some photos of this too that we'll get into in a second, but just continue to move through the elevations. Next slide, please. So here's the proposed lower elevation, including putting a door right here and closing the rest of this lace space with a window. Next slide, please. Moving around to the back of the property again unit one unit to storage area and exposed foundation area under here 50% enclosed and here's the proposal to have two new sliding glass doors placed in at the bottom here to fill these gaps next slide please. And again, looking at the south elevation here, see the back of the duplex one, two storage area and the existing basement, which is left open right now. And there's a steep slope right here. I have an image, excuse me, I have an image that I'll show you of that in a second, where you can see that there's a lot of mud and earth already starting to pile up against these retaining walls, which are then open to the basement below. Next slide. So here's the proposal to again, then close this space off and then add one window in right there. Next slide, please. So here's the floor plan of the existing space. Again, this was an open foundation, needed a whole new slab, a lot of retaining walls, retrofitting, seismic upgrades that all occurred under here. It was a badly damaged foundation when the home was bought in and completely exposed. So now that it's been redone and 50% enclosed, the applicant is coming back for a full enclosure of the space to prevent wildlife, human, and water intrusion, as well as help get home insurance for the home. Next slide, please. So we'll get into some images here. As you can see, we've got the duplex up here, the entry point of the driveway, which connects to West Street right back here. Walk down some stairs. These are the same stairs that you'll see here. And get down to the bottom level, which, as we said, from the building permit that was finaled earlier this year, it's a 50% enclosed space. So let's take a look inside. Next slide, please. So we walk through. This is what the space looks like currently. You can see the holes, the gaps all around here, here, there. This is the doorway coming in the big post and brace and beam in here and some additional kind of counter things right there for retaining walls and such. Next slide, please. This is the back, the east elevation of the home. This is where those two sliding glass doors would go. This is the same view looking back up towards south towards down towards the city this way property. And then the backyard extends back as we saw in the survey. And it's just all vegetation in the back. Next slide, please. So just a little example of some of the issues this homeowner is dealing with. You can see here they've had bird's nests and other vermin and things like that making homes inside of the insulation. I don't know if you could see it really well right here, but this is some graffiti that's on one of the beams. I kind of blocked it out because, you know, we're in a public hearing. But as you can see, people have gained access to the area down here. And this is actually a pretty nice spot to sleep if you know where it is. So additionally, there is this is what I was talking about before with the very steep slope. This is West Street right up here. So you've got a steep slope coming down, lots of mud and and earth piling up against the side of these retaining walls right there. So during a significant rain event that could definitely penetrate and fall into the foundation or under the new foundation slab. Next slide, please. So zoning consistency. It is a rather small, irregular-shaped, or not irregular-shaped, but irregular-sized parcel, a substandard parcel by our code. Normally, you would have a 5,000-square-foot minimum parcel for the R225 district. This is 3,300 square feet. There's obviously no change to the parcel size. However, because it was laid out before 1963, our code does call it conforming, pursuant to SMC 1040-03-OC. Also, dwelling units, there are two. It should be typically in the R225 that it's one for every 2,500 square feet. However, because of the substandard lot, it's actually one for every 1,500, and you can find that in our code in section 1040-03-O-D2. Moving down to the setbacks, no changes to any of these. However, they are three-foot setbacks because it's a narrow parcel, so it only requires a 10% setback, which brings them from instead of being normally five, they're three. This number right here, 293, could even be like a surveyor's error. It's such a small percentage. You could survey this a different time and maybe get a three out of this i imagine that when the house was originally built it was trying to conform to those three foot setbacks um so this does not conform however it is a legal non-conformity um max zoning height 30 or height for the district 32 it is 28 6 on average natural grade no change there um also no building coverage also is conforming, 50% allowed. It's at 48. The only really significant change that we're seeing here is the floor area being added. The allowance is 0.65. It's currently at 0.52. The addition of roughly 500 square foot, the floor area will bring it to 0.67. So that's why a variance is being sought today. Impervious surface, also in line no change there. And the parking wall nonconforming it is legal nonconforming. Next slide, please. |
| 00:38:01.18 | Unknown | . |
| 00:38:46.67 | Matthew Mandich | So again, as discussed already a little bit through the zoning consistency table, this is a substandard parcel at 3,300 square feet, and the minimum parcel size would be 5,000 for the zoning district. A variance would not be required if this lot were standard size, so that's something to take into account. It is also a very narrow parcel, as already discussed, only 30 feet wide, which requires three-foot setbacks instead of five. The only change requested is to add floor floor within the existing envelope of the existing duplex no addition is being added no added building coverage or impervious surface the max far allowed is 0.65 this project would only come in at 0.67 so 0.02 over the maximum there's no privacy or view impacts as the the subject area is located below street level uh right now it's rather uninsurable with the exposed foundation there's also the issues of wildlife human and water intrusion which are safety issues not only for the homeowner the house and the residents but also for the neighborhood as a whole um and there are certainly some exceptional circumstances this would the granting of this variance would not provide any special privileges not enjoyed by other homes in the area. It would not be detrimental to public welfare. In fact, it would be beneficial. And it definitely preserves the substantial property right of the homeowner, which is to preserve their home and be able to insure it. Next slide, please. So with all that, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00072 for 11, or excuse me, 118 West Street, and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the design review permit and a variance. Staff finds that the proposed project is conformance with all the required findings for design review and for a variance. And of course, the approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the draft resolution. With that, I'd like to open the floor to questions. Thank you. |
| 00:40:30.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Mr. Manjus, thank you for that very thorough report. Just before I turn to the other commissioner, I have a couple of technical questions. The first is on one of the plans it says this is storage and workshop. Do you know what the use is proposed for this? |
| 00:40:46.79 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so the homeowner has told me that the workshop storage space would be for storage to be shared with the apartments that are above, as well as with the owner himself. He lives in San Anselmo, so he's not far away. So he would kind of be using that space a little bit as personal space for storage and workshop, as well as allowing the tenants of the upper units to use it as storage as well. |
| 00:41:07.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so there was a calculation, there's a provision of our code 10.44.330, which indicates that on an R225 lot, the maximum square footage for any one unit, there's a formula, but in this case it would be 0.63. and that's not included with the analysis and looking at the size of unit B looks bigger than it looks like A will not exceed that which would be 2,079 square feet but since there's not a number of square feet for B and A and that this is a shared space, I guess I would strongly encourage, see if this is possible, that when they submit for the building permit, can they just identify what is unit A, what is unit B, and what is shared so that they can meet this provision? I'm just worried about, for the record, for the future that that gets recorded so somebody doesn't go back and say somehow that it didn't meet that provision, because I think it does. It just doesn't explicitly say that because it doesn't define the square footage of each unit. |
| 00:42:17.63 | Matthew Mandich | Got it. So the units are actually identical in size. The one of the units on the plans is depicted as being larger, but that's because it's including that bottom storage area, which is how the house was originally built to have the one unit on top. And then the bottom units have two floors. However, during the renovation, the homeowner closed off that bottom unit. So the two units that exist are identical one and two, I think they're around 535 square feet each. And then that storage area, which used to be part of the lower unit is now excluded from the, the secondary unit. So the units are just two identical same size units. |
| 00:42:51.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So they share the storage below each of the- Yes. They're going to share both plus with the owners. |
| 00:42:53.50 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, |
| 00:42:56.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So again, you can talk, |
| 00:42:58.61 | Matthew Mandich | And you can talk to the owner is here in the applicant, so you can ask him a little bit more clarifying about how he sees that storage space and the sharing of that space working out. But, um, yeah, I can tell you that that second unit, um, is no longer the size that it once was as far as, um, after it was renovated in that storage space being taken out. So they're just too identical one on top of the other. |
| 00:43:18.09 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. Thank you for that. That's helpful. Other questions? Commissioner Mao. |
| 00:43:24.79 | David Marlatt | Sorry, yeah, yeah, thank you, Vin. Actually, I had some similar questions about the use of the space, so that was very, very helpful actually. And it's, again, I don't see any issue per se, but just so that I understand what we're being asked to vote on eventually. If the downstairs room, whether it's storage or workshop, were designated as part of one of the upper units, that would have triggered an additional parking. I'm not familiar enough with the parking requirements. |
| 00:43:52.97 | Matthew Mandich | No, the only time additional parking is triggered for illegal nonconforming parking is when density is being increased. So it would have to be a third unit being added. Yeah, but the lot can't support a third unit. Right. Not at all. |
| 00:44:00.48 | David Marlatt | added Right, not a bad thing. Okay, yeah, so I think it's very important that this be common storage or so forth. The only other thing, and maybe you've seen it in the drawings, I just wanted to point it out, is that there's a discrepancy between the east elevations and the east elevation new and the north elevation. I think that the floor to ceiling height must be about 7 and 1 1 feet. And it's indicated as 6 and 1 1 feet. And I just wanted to point that out maybe in the building permit drawings because legal minimum is 7 feet, and it can't be 6 1⁄2 feet because it's putting a 6-foot-8 door |
| 00:44:42.14 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, no, it's, it would be at the seven and a half. Yeah. There, I mean, the plans that were submitted for a building or primarily the plans that were used for this, um, except for the. |
| 00:44:51.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:51.68 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 00:44:53.30 | Matthew Mandich | the new proposed you know, close offs that I showed in the elevations where you can see the shear wall has been closed. |
| 00:44:59.20 | David Marlatt | That'll get sorted out. I just wanted to point that out. |
| 00:44:59.91 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Yeah. um yeah that might be a discrepancy but those were the plans that were approved and finaled and inspected as part of that building permit so that's what the applicant was using um and then he had some new elevations drawn for what the proposed enclosure would look like |
| 00:45:14.66 | David Marlatt | I see, okay, thank you. We have no other questions. |
| 00:45:17.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Marillott, questions? At this time, we'll have the applicant do a presentation. You'll have up to 15 minutes for your presentations. |
| 00:45:33.02 | Unknown | Good evening, I'm a member of the Society of Planning Commission, and thank you for the opportunity for presenting my variance application. I especially want to thank Matthew for helping me through this whole process. I'm all new for this. With this variance application, as Matthew mentioned, I wanted to emphasize that our primary concerns are the longevity, structural integrity, and safety, and most important, insurability of this building. as you can see you know my wife and i as matthew mentioned purchased this in 2022 was vacant it was in a very bad shape and structurally so we decided to you know cosmatically improve it um you know structurally improve it and i'm able to you know have two um residents in uh that are renting right now and contributed to the you know the inventory of housing in in I'll see you next time. And we're able to have two residents that are renting right now and contributed to the inventory of housing in Sausalito. So we're very happy about that. As you can see, basically our own concern, main concern is, as I mentioned, structural and is insurability. Because our first insurance company dropped us back in January 23. and we just received a letter, and I submitted that letter to Matthew, that they're going to drop us again, this second insurance, just purely because it's an open foundation. They're worried about fire hazards, I guess. As you know, insurance has been very picky in California, and I'm no exception to that. So basically with this application, I just want to make sure that the building is in a good shape, stays in a good shape, and contributes to the neighborhoods. And it's structurally solid and is insurable. So that's the main concern. If you have any questions. |
| 00:47:12.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Questions from commissioners? when you |
| 00:47:15.71 | Unknown | question. |
| 00:47:16.06 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:47:16.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:16.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. No, I just have the same question. So what your intent, you have the unit on top, unit B, then you have unit A, and under that is storage, and is that part of unit A or is it shared? |
| 00:47:28.58 | Unknown | No, it's not. It used to be shared. It was one of those stairs that we took out. Okay. I mean, closed it. That was previous owner. They somehow made it a two bedroom, but it wasn't really working out and it wasn't safe. So we closed it. |
| 00:47:34.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I mean, |
| 00:47:42.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You closed it. So what's happening in the storage in that pool? |
| 00:47:47.01 | Unknown | Right now I got my tools in there. Neighbors, one of them has their bicycles in there. But I have neighbors that have canoes and they wanna, you know, every day they bring some more stuff they wanna store. |
| 00:47:58.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So these spaces are not going to be part of either of the units? No, they're not. Okay, so we have this provision 1044-330. So my only suggestion is when you submit the building plan, just make it clear that none of this is part of that, just so you have it on the record and that doesn't come back to be a problem in the future. We'll do that. |
| 00:48:11.04 | Courtney Davies | Yeah. |
| 00:48:14.97 | Courtney Davies | THE END OF |
| 00:48:21.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Any other questions? With that, you can have a seat. We'll now take public comments. |
| 00:48:27.49 | David Marlatt | I said one quick question. I'm sorry. It wasn't quick enough. I'm sorry, could it just, yeah, and this is more, again, not almost advice rather than a question. Is the upper unit, the front door of the upper unit is on the top floor? Is that correct? Because I can't see. So I guess as this moves forward in your building permits that you'll be de facto creating a four story building. |
| 00:48:32.72 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 00:48:32.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:48:32.82 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 00:48:53.70 | Unknown | it's creating a space underneath. |
| 00:48:56.32 | David Marlatt | But when you enclose the space, it will become probably four. And then you may need to look at the exiting for the upper unit and set something, again, more just an advice because we're not here to talk about the building code. But you or your architect, when you submit your construction drawings, may want to think about... |
| 00:49:07.93 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:49:14.45 | David Marlatt | uh, how you've changed the status of the building from a fire exiting point of view. |
| 00:49:19.65 | Unknown | Yeah, we did have review by the fire department, never approved it. Matthew has all those information. |
| 00:49:27.84 | David Marlatt | OK, well, like I said, we're not here to talk about the building code. That was just more of an observation, I guess. Thank you. |
| 00:49:34.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thanks. Thank you. At this time, we'll take public comment on this item. Director Phipps. |
| 00:49:41.44 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Chair, looking to the chamber for interested speaker with raised hands or speaker cards provided. Seeing none, looking to the Zoom application for raised hands and seeing none. Back to you, Chair. |
| 00:49:54.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | All right, we'll close public hearing. We'll bring it back up to the diocese. Vice Chair, sir. |
| 00:50:00.68 | Nastassya Saad | I'd like to put a motion to approve this project as written. I think this is an excellent use of the variance. I think it's why we have a variance in our code. I think I can agree with all the findings, particularly for just general health and safety for the applicant in the neighborhood. So I fully support this project, and I make a motion to approve. |
| 00:50:24.67 | Andrew Junius | Second, and I'll go on and support it for the exact same reasons. You know, variances are not supposed to be that common, but this is a textbook case of what we need a variance for. There's clearly conditions about the property that you don't control, the size, the slope, things like that. And the variance you're asking for is very small, and clearly you're facing a hardship for all the reasons we've discussed. So I'm very supportive. |
| 00:50:50.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Any further comments? |
| 00:50:53.38 | David Marlatt | Uh, no, just also, I agree with my fellow commissioners that this is kind of an, an obvious and easy, um, case for a variance. So I would also fully support it. Um, no caveats, but just some advice to look at the building code implications, but I do support the variance. Commissioner Filler. |
| 00:51:12.51 | Kristina Feller | Agree with everything that's said, and I'd like to thank the applicant for pouring time and resources into bringing a more dilapidated building back to one that we're all very proud of in your neighborhood in Sausalito, so thank you for that. |
| 00:51:28.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I concur with everything else that has been said. So at this point, if there are any further questions, Director Phipps, if you can call the roll on the motion. |
| 00:51:40.59 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlant. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxembourg. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:51:44.12 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 00:51:44.20 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:51:44.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:51:45.35 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 00:51:46.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. We'll move on to item 6C, which is 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard. Applicant Tessa White on behalf of owner Daniel Morgan request the Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit to change the land use from a restaurant with dedicated off-street parking to recreation and fitness center land use for the establishment of a children's indoor playground business at 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard. Mr. Blair, welcome again this evening. You can do your presentation, please. |
| 00:52:23.27 | Adam Blair | Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the introduction. And good evening, Commissioners, members of the audience. It's a pleasure to present before you all this evening. I'm Adam Blair, Assistant Planner with the Community Development Department. And the item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a conditional use permit to facilitate a change in land use from a restaurant land use with dedicated off-street parking to a recreation and fitness center's land use at 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard. The application is pursued, as you said, to ultimately support the establishment of a children's indoor playground business, the Social Club, at 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard. Next slide. So 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard is located in the Marin Ship commercial area. You can see MLK is not too far from it on the left diagram. It's a rectangular lot totaling 0.39 acres in size. It's currently developed in the existing commercial building totaling about 3,300 square feet. The site is identified by assessor parcel number 063-140-18 and is located in the I Industrial Zoning District per Sausalito's zoning ordinance and general plan. Next slide. project summary so applicant tessa white on behalf of property owner daniel morgan is applying for a conditional use permit to facilitate a change in land use from a restaurant land use to a recreation and fitness centers land use at 2650 bridgeway boulevard as mentioned earlier the proposal is ultimately to establish a children's indoor playground business the social club some general information on the business proposed hours of operation are from 10 a.m to 4 p.m tuesdays through Sundays, business would be closed on Mondays, and the application Some general information on the business. Proposed hours of operation are from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tuesdays through Sundays. Business would be closed on Mondays. And the applicant has expressed that some flexibility on potentially staying open until 6 or 7 p.m. would be ideal to accommodate private events. Maximum occupancy for the existing commercial building is 49 persons. In terms of parking, there are 14 dedicated off-street parking spaces, including two ADA spaces on the site. There's actually 13 existing, but the applicant has indicated in the plans that they're going to paint one new parking space to bring the site into compliance with the parking requirement for recreation and fitness centers land use. Um, the applicant has worked diligently with Southern Marin fire. and the building division to ensure compliance with occupancy and fire safety requirements next slide A little history on the site and the building. 1955, the commercial building that's currently there today was constructed. It was occupied by Marine Commercial Service land use until 1977, in which Conditional Use Permit No. 550 approved a land use change from a Marine Commercial Service land use to a restaurant land use. Since then, the building has been occupied by a number of restaurants over the years, serving cuisine from Indian cuisine to Chinese cuisine, most recently with Fen Young. In 2022, Fen Young unfortunately closed down kind of in the aftermath of the pandemic, and the building's been vacant ever since. Fast forward to 2024, an occupational use permit was received for the Social Club, a children's indoor playground business. Staff reviewed the application and determined that the appropriate land use for this business is a recreation and fitness centers land use. And these land uses are permitted subject to a conditional use permit application, hence why we're here this evening. Next slide. Project analysis, so staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in Sausalito Municipal Code 10.60.050, subsections A through I. As mentioned earlier, Recreation and Fitness Center land uses are permitted in the Industrial Zoning District, subject to a conditional use permit. The proposed use encourages a diverse mix of business and service-oriented uses in the Marin Ship commercial area, which staff finds is consistent with the purposes of the Industrial or I-Zoning District, per Sausalito's economic element of the 2021 general plan as well as Sausalito zoning ordinance. This land use would support a new business which would activate a vacant commercial site, which as mentioned has been vacant for about two years in the Marin Ship commercial area. And the proposed land use is similar in the fact that it's also a service oriented business. A restaurant is a gathering space for people to come together, eat and socialize. The children's indoor playground business is a place for families and children to come together and socialize. And finally, the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or the general welfare of the city. The existing commercial building is set back more than 100 feet from Bridgeway Boulevard, which provides a little buffer and increased safety, especially for children if they happen to run out of the building. At least they have that big parking lot before they reach the street. Um... The business is located off an arterial road, Bridgeway Boulevard, which provides adequate access for visitors and patrons to the northern and southern ends of Sausalito and also has some bus stops, which provides for adequate access to the business. If you take the bus, you can go to other municipalities in Marin County around Sausalito and even San Francisco on those bus routes. And then the site provides adequate off street parking, totaling 14 spaces to support the proposed land use and accommodate visitors in relation to the 49 persons occupancy limit. You can see in the plans, it might be a little hard to see that space number 13, which is kind of in the top, kind of not quite right towards the middle, it's closer to the building, I believe is the proposed space that the applicant has proposed to paint to bring the parking situation into compliance. It is an ADA space, bringing it to two ADA parking spaces. And this was done in connection with correspondence with the building division. And next slide. So with all that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit application, 2024-00107 pertaining to 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard and adopt the attached draft resolution. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in Sausalito Municipal Code 10.60.050 subsection A through I. and Sausalito Municipal Code 10.26 for the Industrial Marinship District. With that, that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:58:43.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Blair. Excellent presentation. Questions? I'm not sure. Commissioner Juniors. |
| 00:58:50.35 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Adam. A quick question, a clarification about the hours of operation. Can you, are there hours of operations that the zoning imposes for any uses here, or could you walk us through that? |
| 00:59:05.28 | Adam Blair | I did not find any sections in the municipal code regulating business or operating hours within the industrial district. So nothing that I could find from a zoning standpoint. Thank you. |
| 00:59:17.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or Commissioner, fellow. |
| 00:59:21.13 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair. And Adam, thank you for the presentation and for the staff report. And these are a couple questions I'm asking for clarification just to get on the record, if you don't mind. The first is, when we're talking about this kind of conditional use permit, does it need to be specific for children? And is there a licensing requirement from the state for that? And as this owner secured that? |
| 00:59:49.09 | Adam Blair | So the conditional use permit, there wasn't a land use that specifically, I guess, children wasn't quite incorporated into the definition, but the most suitable definition was the recreation, I guess, land use. It also combines with fitness centers. In terms of permits, staff was not aware of any additional permits required by the state besides for complying with occupancy and fire safety requirements. It would be a good question for the applicant if there are any additional permits that they may need to obtain. But as far as staff is concerned, we're only aware of fire safety requirements. It would be a good question for the applicant if there are any additional permits that they may need to obtain. But as far as staff is concerned, we're only aware of fire safety and occupancy requirements. |
| 01:00:21.62 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, thank you for that. I was thinking about like a license, usually for children's functions. Many times there's a license that's required, and so that's what I was asking about. So the real underlying question is if this conditional use permit is for recreation, fitness center, what have you, does that give this owner latitude to make this like an adult fitness center? Or does it have to be, is it very specific that it's a children's recreational facility? social club. I don't think I ever had a social club when I was growing up, but can you tell us a little bit about that? |
| 01:01:01.30 | Adam Blair | Sure. So this application would approve a recreation and fitness center land use. So technically, any business moving forward, they could apply for an occupational use permit to, I guess, propose a new business. And as long as it falls under the definition or criteria for a recreation or fitness center, I believe this permit would carry forward and thus staff would be able to review it. And if it complies with our zoning ordinance, then we can approve it. |
| 01:01:28.32 | Kristina Feller | Okay, I'm just trying to figure out what the process is, because if it's a children's business, and there's a license that may or may not be required, I don't know, under this particular conditional use permit, I just want to make sure that this is being presented to us as one thing, and the conditional use permit is theoretically based on what's being presented to us. but it sounds like there's a lot of different options for this conditional use permit that this could be used for if a children's use is not ultimately achieved. |
| 01:01:34.64 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:02:03.65 | Adam Blair | Just to clarify for the record, this, I guess, to lay out the sequencing, when the applicant applied for an occupational use permit, basically under the Recreation Fitness Center's land use, they needed to obtain a conditional use permit first. So basically, if the Planning Commission were to approve this item tonight, the applicant would come back. We would re-review their occupational use permit, and given that the land use associated with the business is approved, then we can move forward with approving the proposed children's indoor playground business. So it would be conditional use permit first, then occupational use permit, then they get their business license and then they can move forward with any building permits they may need for like the interior improvements. |
| 01:02:45.84 | Kristina Feller | My understanding is for like a children's use that there's a required outdoor play area as well. Is that your understanding? |
| 01:02:57.77 | Adam Blair | Not from what I found under the Recreation Fitness Center's land use. I couldn't find another land use in our, I guess, land use table that applied to this business more than the Recreation Fitness Center land use. I mean, ultimately, it's a center for amusement where patrons would pay a fee to enter and they can engage in recreational activities. So that was kind of the staff's rationale by choosing that land use designation. |
| 01:03:24.74 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:25.92 | Andrew Junius | just to follow up on that i mean i think you're asking the right questions commissioner but this isn't and these are probably questions we should be asking the applicant i don't think this is daycare right this is not a daycare situation as far as you know but to the extent the applicant needs permits we're going to ask him about that |
| 01:03:25.95 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:03:41.63 | Andrew Junius | that. |
| 01:03:42.98 | David Marlatt | Again, it's probably for the applicant, but I do a lot of work with schools. So what you're referring to is an educational child care facility, and it does have licensing requirements and outdoor requirements, but I don't believe that's the case here at all. |
| 01:03:57.98 | Adam Blair | Yeah, this is a good question for the applicant, but I would like to clarify. It's kind of similar. |
| 01:04:01.54 | David Marlatt | Kind of similar. |
| 01:04:02.72 | Adam Blair | It's kind of similar to if you've ever seen, there's a place called the Jungle Land in San Jose. It's a similar setup where it's not quite educational. It's just a recreation, indoor recreation facility that's got play structures. Parents bring their kids, they pay, and then the kids can run around. They got toys, climbing walls, you know, kind of different things. |
| 01:04:20.53 | Kristina Feller | Like a jimboree or something like that. |
| 01:04:22.90 | Adam Blair | Kind of like a what? |
| 01:04:23.56 | Kristina Feller | Jimboree. |
| 01:04:25.20 | Nastassya Saad | Our age would know Jim Burry. We know Jim Burry. |
| 01:04:27.53 | Kristina Feller | I'm worried. Adam. |
| 01:04:30.03 | Nastassya Saad | No one knows what Adam is talking about. |
| 01:04:31.16 | Kristina Feller | about it san jose thank you thank you |
| 01:04:31.34 | Nastassya Saad | I don't know. Yeah. |
| 01:04:35.49 | Director Phipps | Yeah, and if I could clarify, and I agree this is something that the applicant can confirm, but one of the kind of factors that dictate additional permits is based on whether or not the children are accompanied by a parent or guardian, and I believe in this case they will be. |
| 01:04:51.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | for other questions. |
| 01:04:53.65 | David Marlatt | One last question, and this one is for staff. And just to help me understand, so if we approve this conditional use, does that replace the restaurant conditional use, or do they both live on? In the future, a restaurant, should there be one, would have to come back for another conditional use? |
| 01:05:06.27 | Unknown | But... |
| 01:05:06.34 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:05:06.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:10.88 | Adam Blair | This would be a new conditional use permit, so it would supersede the restaurant CUP. This would run with the land, so it would be a recreation and fitness center's land use until maybe, say, if the business no longer exists, if a restaurant were to apply, they would need to apply for a new CUP, from my understanding. |
| 01:05:27.33 | David Marlatt | Thank you. That's it. Yeah. |
| 01:05:29.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | to. So I do have a question. I think it's an excellent use for Sausalito. I think this will be a good facility. I just have a sort of theoretical question. As you know, at the last meeting of the commission, we had a study session on the housing element amendment. And as such, we did discuss that the housing element, as approved, has an overlay and then has an underlay, which is the current zoning of whatever is in Sausalito, in this case industrial, and it allows for this. So my question is, is this a case where the underlying zoning is industrial and allows for this use, but does that change the proposed housing amendment because this site is proposed for an estimated 23 units? I mean, obviously that's still within the buffer, and it wouldn't be a loss of use, so I don't see an issue, but I just wondered if that was having any impact. |
| 01:06:33.13 | Adam Blair | Sure. That's a good question to bring up. I did prepare a brief statement on this, just in case someone asked. So to clarify for members of the audience, and this statement is going to be pertaining to no net loss in relation to the proposed housing element. So for members of the audience who may not know what no net loss means, and just to clarify for the record, the purpose of the no net loss law, which is codified in government code section 65863 is to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction's regional housing need allocation also known as rena especially for lower and moderate income households based on this definition staff believes that the re itenanting, so to speak, of 2650 Bridgeway allows for the ability to develop Site 72, which is the site number for 2650 Bridgeway, at the densities proposed in the city's proposed amended housing element. The reason for this is due to the proposed unit count on Site 72, which totals 56 units in terms of realistic capacity in the city's proposed amended housing element the size of the sites that are intended to be combined site 72 consists of two sites as i'm sure you're aware 2650 and 2656 bridgeway both sites if were when combined would total 1.32 acres, which should provide adequate space for developing up to 56 units. And the large areas of the parcels that are relatively unimproved, i.e., they've got ample parking area, so there should still be ample room for development if that were to be proposed in the future. Staff will continue to track changes on this site to ensure that no additional or future issues occur as related to no net loss. And if there is an issue with no net loss that comes to staff's attention, staff will work to either confirm that the housing elements remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet arena by each income level or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet arena for each income category. I hope that answered it. |
| 01:08:44.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so in summary, basically, it's not going to affect the housing. This particular proposal doesn't in any way affect the housing amendment that's in process right now. |
| 01:08:59.05 | Adam Blair | Correct. Yeah, the applicants are just going to be leasing the space from the property owner, and there's going to be no exterior development associated with their new business. |
| 01:09:07.42 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:09:07.87 | Adam Blair | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:09:07.91 | Kristina Feller | It has to be rezoned in. |
| 01:09:08.95 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:09:09.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Um, Yes, but as we discussed last time, if you put an overlay on top, there's still underlining zoning. And so if this had been rezoned, the underlying zoning would allow this use as long as there was no net loss. |
| 01:09:28.29 | Kristina Feller | Right. It's just zoned industrial now. Yeah. Okay. |
| 01:09:31.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But even with an overlay on it, but we have a general plan amendment in the housing element. |
| 01:09:37.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | The same thing. |
| 01:09:39.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Anyway, with that, does the applicant, the one applicant has an opportunity to do a presentation? |
| 01:09:52.52 | Tessa White | Hello, everybody. I'm Tessa. Thank you very much, Adam, for your presentation. I haven't prepared anything, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions. Yes, we are planning. This is my business partner, Tatiana. She's my best friend. It is an indoor playground, not a school. It is not a drop off centre. It is a you bring your beautiful child and come and play with us. We're looking for it to be a very small community driven centre. The idea for any extended hours was purely so that we can actually partner with other people within the community to have talks for mothers and fathers and connection. and a place for people to gather and actually come together and have that third place. To the question of whether we need any licensing or anything, no, we don't need any outdoor space because we are an indoor play centre, not a school. um we don't need any licenses unless we start doing like summer camps or things like that where it would be a drop-off situation and then we would need certain things um obviously everyone will be first aid or those sort of things um and other than that yeah we've looked into we will have a huge amount of insurance um with lots of cameras everywhere to make sure everything is documented. All the equipment will be fully ADA compliant and obviously child safe. incredibly |
| 01:11:37.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Just a quick question. Maybe this is premature, but in your vision, I saw the photograph that was on your website with sort of the wood structure. I have seen some of these that are like, you know, not bouncy houses, but padded things where you climb up multiple levels. Is that something you're also looking at, or what is your vision for the inside? |
| 01:11:58.02 | Tessa White | Yeah, we do have one gross motor skill structure that we have had designed specifically for us, where we are not having a massive ball pit that's only going up in the top so that we don't have the hygiene issues and balls flying everywhere. and we don't have anything that's bouncy or anything like that. Everything's pretty. stable and the the idea is not to create kind of like a jumpy fun house type thing it's a far more calm tranquil zone whilst obviously it'll be a little bit loud with children tearing around it in circles but just yeah it's not the same concept of like Being at a fair where everyone goes wild, there is a lot more of a Montessori based thought pattern around what we're doing. |
| 01:12:52.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you for that. Thank you. |
| 01:12:53.34 | Tessa White | Thank you. |
| 01:12:53.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Questions? |
| 01:12:55.25 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:12:55.35 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Junior. |
| 01:12:56.97 | Andrew Junius | A question about the hours of operation. Yes. Would you, as you heard from staff, there's really no requirements that you have any posted hours by law. It would seem to me you'd want, to the extent that we as the commission would condition your use at all, you'd want as much as possible within reason. I mean, you wouldn't want to have to come back here and say, gosh, people would like an evening opportunity to come and hear parenting talks. Absolutely. So, I mean, if you had no hour restrictions, you'd probably be just fine with that, right? |
| 01:12:59.38 | Tessa White | Thank you. |
| 01:12:59.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:12:59.77 | Tessa White | THE FAMILY IS NOT |
| 01:13:06.06 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 01:13:06.10 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:13:27.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:13:27.55 | Tessa White | Absolutely, yeah. |
| 01:13:32.03 | Tessa White | We would totally be fine with that. |
| 01:13:40.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | additional questions I was trying to look up is, well, I'll bring it later. I was looking to see if that was in the conditions. So any further questions of the applicant? Seeing none, thank you. We're going to open this up for public comment. Director Phipp. |
| 01:14:02.54 | Director Phipps | Mr. Merlin. Oh, excuse me. Excuse me. Oh, I thought we had more progress than I thought. Looking to the chamber for raised hands. No submitted speaker cards received. Looking to the Zoom application. Seeing no hands raised. Back to you. |
| 01:14:06.66 | Unknown | Excuse me. Excuse me. |
| 01:14:08.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:14:08.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:09.11 | Courtney Davies | progress. |
| 01:14:09.63 | Unknown | Oh, yeah. |
| 01:14:09.85 | Courtney Davies | Yeah. |
| 01:14:21.01 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. We'll close public comment and bring it back up to the commission. |
| 01:14:27.38 | Kristina Feller | I'd like to make a motion to approve 2650 Bridgeway Boulevard conditional use permit, which is project ID 2024-00107 as presented to the commission this evening. |
| 01:14:44.16 | David Marlatt | I'll second that. I'll second it. |
| 01:14:46.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | or say, |
| 01:14:46.52 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:14:46.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:14:47.16 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:14:47.35 | Nastassya Saad | Just want to confirm that there are no hours in the conditions of approval in the report. |
| 01:14:53.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's what I'm looking at right now on this. |
| 01:14:56.86 | Andrew Junius | Can the staff confirm there's no conditions on the hours, right? |
| 01:15:03.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:15:03.28 | Director Phipps | confirmed. |
| 01:15:03.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. There are none. There are none. Yes. |
| 01:15:06.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. Any additional discussion? Seeing none, can Director Phipps please call the roll? |
| 01:15:13.67 | Director Phipps | Yes, how about a call roll now? Commissioner Merlot? Yes. Commissioner Junius? Yes. Commissioner Feller? |
| 01:15:18.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. |
| 01:15:18.89 | Director Phipps | Vice Chair Saad? Yes. Chair Luxenberg? Yes. |
| 01:15:19.70 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Yes. We'll move on to item 6D, which is 11 Marion Street. Applicant Michael Rex Architects, on behalf of the owner, Inga Eximit, I apologize if I didn't pronounce that correctly, is requesting a variance and a zoning permit to construct an elevated one-car parking deck, associated vehicle gate, connecting stairs and fences off of the north side of marion avenue private roadway as the parking deck proposed is over two feet above natural grade and is located in a rear yard setback a variance is required pursuant to smc 10.44.020.e for the proposed project at eleven b marion avenue uh apm zero six five dash three one one dash two two and welcome back mr mandich |
| 01:16:18.57 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you, commissioners. Good to see you again. All right, so as chair has already gone ahead and given the description of the project there. I'll just repeat again, this is a zoning permit and variance application for 11 B Marion Avenue for the construction of a single car elevated parking deck in the rear yard setback next slide please. So. Doing the location here, this is very much on the very south side of Sausalito, the border of the city right here. This is a private road, Marion Avenue, which doesn't even appear on the Marin map slide right there. You can see it a little bit better here on Google Earth. It dead ends at one Marion right here, so a very short private road with the same name as Marion Avenue, the public right away, which is below. The subject parcel is right here, which is composed of two structures, 11 Marion and 11 a and B. And then the parcel next door is seven Marion, which is owned by the same owner. We'll get into that in a little bit second, but the subject parcel here is outlined in blue and highlighted here. And it is the structure for this to the east. Next slide, please. So project summary again, elevated one-car parking deck with a car turner, a mechanical vehicle gate, connecting stairs, and associated fences. As the parking deck will be partially located within a rear yard setback off a private road and will be over two feet above natural grade, a variance is required pursuant to SMC 1044-020E, which states, off-street parking spaces may occupy required rear yard areas provided the parking area's height above natural grade does not C 10 44. Oh, two O E, which states off street parking spaces may occupy required rear yard areas provided the parking areas height above natural grade does not exceed two feet as the structure in question in the proposed project has a height slightly above about three and a half feet above natural grade. It does require a variance for construction. Next slide, please. So just a little bit of brief background on the site. In 2021, the owner legalized an existing illegal ADU at the lower level of 11 Marion via an amnesty ADU program. There was an appeal filed by a neighbor as no parking was originally provided for this ADU. I believe this appeal was heard by this commission or a similar composition of this commission. Parking was not required per the amnesty ADU program. And if the ADU were to be proposed today, parking would also not be required due to existing state law. And the appeal against this ADU and the legalization of this existing ADU was denied. The owner of 11 Marion, as discussed, is also the owner of 7 Marion, which is a vacant parcel next door. A lot line adjustment was completed by staff in January of 2024 this year. It transferred 874 square feet from 7 Marion to 11 Marion. This was done to bring the existing structures, including some decks that were protruding from the house, into conformance with required setbacks. This also created a bit more of a gap between 11 and 7, which is now also being used for the proposed parking deck. Originally, the applicant applied for a zoning permit in August of 2024 for the parking deck. However, upon a deeper reading of the code and looking into that section that I just talked about 1044 for accessory structures and parking areas and rear yard setbacks, it was determined that a variance is required due to that height restriction previously discussed. Next slide, please. So here's just a little bit of an overview of the site. Again, this is a very, very interesting part of the city, high up on a hill, very south side of town, borders the GGNRA, borders the border of the city. It's a private road that bounces off right here of Marion, goes up this way, and as I said, dead ends right around here at 1. There are multiple easements that run through the property, which have been highlighted here in this image. Here's the road itself, another access easement to property above, and then another small easement down here that could have possibly originally been laid out for a stair set. As you can see, the area in yellow is the net parcel area, and then the gross parcel area with the easements is what's highlighted here in the image. Next slide, please. |
| 01:19:52.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:52.46 | Courtney Davies | Yeah. |
| 01:20:33.71 | Matthew Mandich | So here's the proposed site plan for the project. Again, as discussed, the two structures on site, 11A and 11B. The ADU is located on the lower level of this structure here, and the proposed parking deck is located in this corner of the property right there. I know it's a little bit difficult, but I hope that you all reviewed the plans I provided along with the project. You could see a little bit more detail there. But as you can see, the private road comes up here. there's an oblique angle to park the car on the deck right here the car turner is also on the deck right here which allows the car to pull in spin a 180 and then come out facing forward as to be able to back down 200 feet down to this on a very steep narrow driveway was not something that dpw thought was acceptable or safe so the car tuner solution is what we have in front of us. And here is a small image depicting that, but we'll see some other images of it in a second. Next slide, please. Okay. |
| 01:21:25.66 | Unknown | um, |
| 01:21:26.93 | Matthew Mandich | So here are the elevations. This is the existing elevation right here. I believe this is the south side of the property. Can't really see. But you can see right here that the house itself is a little bit below grade of the roadway. Some windows and doors highlighted here. Fencing right here. The change that you would see from this side, very minimal. Just the addition of this gate extending off the, the parking deck, which you can see kind of superimposed in the background here, um, from this angle, you wouldn't even see the car or the deck from the private road. Next slide, please. Here's a kind of a better angle to show the parking deck. This is looking at seven towards the north. You could see that this is the current existing conditions right here below. And then this is the addition of the parking deck here. Again, parking deck largely hidden from view behind the proposed fencing. Stair set dropping down, connecting in. This is the lower level where the 11B Marion access would be. So this would provide access directly up to the parking deck here. And next slide. You'll see what it looks like with the fences that will be constructed on the property line. You could see this is probably the, this is actually the only part right here that's sticking out. It's a little bit of the deck and some of this air set. However, this is the border of seven and 11, which is owned by both same owners. So very minimal privacy or view impacts and zero view impact at all. And very minimal privacy impact. Hardly even see it behind the fencing. Next slide. So here we go again. Sorry. Yep. This is the north. That was, that was the east. Apologies, but this is the north side elevation right here. This is current conditions as seen. This is an image of the house as it is today. A little bit hard to see in the, that's this photo, but you can see how it lays out here, the lower level ADU down here. And then this is the proposed addition of the parking deck coming off of the private road, which runs in the rear of the house, which is again, it's quite irregular, not having the access road being the front of the property, but rather in the rear. The parking deck coming off of the private road, which runs in the rear of the house, which is again, it's quite irregular, not having the access road being the front of the property, but rather in the rear. The parking deck here, stair set leading down, new stair set proposed, connecting in, and then associated fences. So this is the area of work that we're discussing. Next slide, please. This is just a little bit of a highlight of the parking deck and the profile of the driveway. So you would come off the private road at a slightly oblique angle. There'd be a little up, bump, down, and then you'd end up on the parking deck. And this is what the parking deck looks like in plan view. And then the parking deck would be able to turn a 180 and move the car back off. Next slide, please. So here's just, again, a little bit more highlight of that, some images of the car turner itself, what it looks like in action. Again, plan view, section view. It's very low profile, can be constructed almost anywhere. And it's an interesting solution that people have been using in a lot of communities in California where there's very tight spaces and you have these difficulties with being able to turn a car. So this provides kind of a unique, interesting solution to that. Next slide, please. |
| 01:24:27.56 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:24:28.44 | Matthew Mandich | All right, so moving on to zoning consistency, just blew up some of the numbers that are already in this box for you here, but you can see the highlights. This is existing building coverage. This would be added building coverage. The max allowed for the site, 50%, which is 7,600 square feet. With the addition of the parking deck and some of the stairs, which are highlighted here, those that go two feet above natural grade, you're going to be at a total of 4,425 square feet. So it complies with the, uh, with the building coverage, uh, for the parcel and for the zoning district. Next slide, please. And then same as impervious surface. Again, you see here, the two structures, their adjacent garage and parking deck, the impervious surface of the private road, And then the addition of the impervious service, driveway. the parking decks, stair sets and accompanying fences. The max allowed for this site is 75%, which is 11,400 square feet. Again, both building coverage and impervious surface are taken from the gross of the lot, not the net. So those easements are included in this calculation. And the total with the additions would bring it up to 8,382, which is well under the max allowed. So again, complies with impervious surface coverage as well. Next slide, please. So we had, you may have seen there's some late mail, different things going on, construction staging plan. There's been a lot of discussion between the neighbors on this, which I'm sure we'll get into a little bit more after my presentation. But the original construction staging plan listed right here discusses a number of things, including location of construction materials on the parking deck, location of a porta potty, a fence to be put up between 11-7 and 1 Marionion this is one marion's property right here in this little section um and then another a number of other conditions that the applicants propose to um you know keep the the construction work all on 11 and not any trespassing on one to do this construction work and those conditions are listed and i basically transform these conditions that were provided by the applicant into the conditions of approval that are currently on um their draft resolution however we did get some late mail next slide please in response to some of the concerns of the neighbors and a number of additional uh conditions were also added which can be added to the draft resolution if the commission sees fit to add those conditions as well. There's also some corrections that the applicants provided that they would like to see to the existing draft resolution and the draft conditions of approval. So this is something we can talk through a little bit more tonight. Fortunately, I was going to read these to you, but now that I see how far away I am and how little they are, I'm not going to be able to do that. But we can certainly come back to that document later and look at those conditions that they've even added to flush this out a little bit more and try to meet the neighbors on some of their valid concerns. Next slide, please. So just touching on some of those neighborhood concerns that were shared from some of the neighbors. I believe some of them are here today and also on Zoom, so they will get their time to speak. But it is a private road shared by 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11 Marion. Very tight, narrow road, 16 feet wide. There's some definite construction fatigue going on in this very tight space. 3 Marion has been under construction for multiple years now. There's concern over trespassing, you know, this is a private road shared, property lines cut through the road. The idea of, you know, easements being used, but also abused and trying to keep that in line. There's certainly safety concerns about it being a one way in one way out, emergency access, fire access, all that stuff, wildfires, being able to evacuate. So there's definitely some concerns there by the neighbors, which are valid. They would like greater detail in the construction plan that was provided. And some of that's already been accomplished through the revisions that were submitted by the applicant as late mail. And they're also looking for greater coordination requested between the neighbors concerning road closures, deliveries and the work to be done. And again, some of those things were provided in the revised construction plan and those details very much addressing coordination and things of that nature, which we can touch on a little bit. But those are the neighborhood concerns we've seen some of those were included in the staff report as public comment. And then some were also added as subsequent public comment after the publishing of the agenda, as well as the late mail received from the applicant. Next slide, please. So discussion, taking it back to just the overall project itself, without the variance requested for the over two foot in height, this is a project that would only require a zoning permit. It's compliant with all other sections of the zoning code. Discretionary review would not be required for this project, except for the fact that it does require variance to go over that two foot height limit in the rear yard setback for parking. There are no privacy or view impacts to speak of. This is certainly an exceptional and unique circumstances with the fact that we're on a private road, shared, very narrow, steep. There's no on street parking available or allowed on the road. And it's a road that runs through the rear yard of a property when typically roads are in the front. And if this were a situation where the road were in the front, again, a variance would not be required. The project also provides much needed off-street parking in this area. There's only a few, very few public parking spaces that you can find on Edwards and Marion down below, and those are significant walk up to the site. So it definitely provides much valued and needed parking in the area and the applicants have submitted revised and original construction staging plan which trying to address the concerns of the neighbors with that and of course additional conditions of approval can also be applied to mitigate neighbor concerns by the commission this evening next slide please so with all that in mind staff recommends that the planning commission approve this application for 11b marion avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the zoning permit and the variance just to remind again when commission hears a variance or any discretionary permit even if there's a zoning permit attached which is typically a staff administrative permit it does go up to the level of the Planning Commission to approve or deny or continue that permit. So with that said, staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the requirements in the zoning ordinance to issue the zoning permit. And staff finds that the proposed project is in conformance with the required variance findings. Of course, this approval is subject to the draft conditions of approval and any additional conditions of approval that are added this evening. Thank you very much and happy to open the floor to questions. |
| 01:31:01.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manjic. Again, very thorough, as always. With that question, Commissioner Moeller. Thank you. |
| 01:31:09.40 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Matthew, for the very complete presentation. I just had one clarification, and I may have misunderstood. So the parking platform variance is triggered because, of course, it's greater than two feet above the grade. And did you say that it was about 3 and 1 1 feet above the grade? |
| 01:31:15.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | it's a good thing. |
| 01:31:26.33 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So the full parking deck itself is actually not entirely within the rear yard setbacks, only a portion of the parking deck that's in the rear yard setback and at its highest point. And then I think the applicant can add a little bit more detail on that, but I believe it's around three, three and a half feet above natural grade below. And again, this is a height measurement that in the code is not taken from average natural grade, which is how our height is often measured, but the codes are very clear that it says natural grade below, no average natural grade, but just the grade existing below. |
| 01:31:41.85 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:31:41.87 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:31:56.18 | David Marlatt | I see, I see, the average national, okay. So then, yeah, I was gonna point out |
| 01:31:59.91 | Matthew Mandich | If it were average natural grade, the parking deck as design would actually comply with the two foot if we were doing average natural grade, but because we're doing a direct measurement from the parking deck where it is in the setback direct measurement below to grade, it's over two feet and not by much. |
| 01:32:14.07 | David Marlatt | OK, I see. Thank you. Thank you for that. |
| 01:32:17.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | that. Mm-hmm. Oh, no. Commissioner Fellowship. |
| 01:32:21.90 | Kristina Feller | Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Matthew, for another excellent staff report and presentation. I just wanted to ask a couple questions about some of the written comment that we've received from some of the neighbors and ask what you've been able to discern from some of that. And the first in particular was the... the lot line adjustment that was made between 11 and 7. And that was done sort of in CDD, it was a ministerial thing. It did not come to this commission. So, I understand that the purpose of that would likely be to make 11, you know, A and B and 11, bring that into conformance, but there was discussion that uh, that there would be no additional building being done on lot 11. And so I don't know if that is true or not, and I wanted you to comment on that to see what you've been able to figure out. |
| 01:33:35.20 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. So that was a zoning administrator hearing. Uh, I was not the planner that brought that project forward at the time. Um, so I was, and I was not at the hearing, so I, I really am not a hundred percent sure what happened, um, there and what was said or what was, what was not said, but I do know that the lot line adjustment that was carried out was done to the letter of the code and that it was a legal lot line adjustment. And, Properly vetted by our zoning administrator and by the staff that was working on it at that time. What the intentions were for that lot line adjustment, I cannot say. I know that the original intention was to make the existing property more conforming with the zoning code because the setback that existed on that side of the home was non-conforming. And so by moving the property line over, it did create a conforming side yard setback. Of, of course that lot line adjustment is now being used for the location of this parking deck. And I don't know if there were any promises made or what, what occurred at that hearing. Um, but. That doesn't, you know, whatever was said or wasn't said doesn't really restrict the right of the applicant to develop their property. |
| 01:34:40.48 | Kristina Feller | Understood. I just, because it was done ministerially, I didn't know if there was anything documented. Just wanted to be clear on that. because it wasn't clear when I was reading the material |
| 01:34:50.65 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:34:50.94 | Kristina Feller | We certainly did get a lot of late mail, and I did my very best to read absolutely everything. But again, I stopped looking at about four o'clock today. So I don't know if anything else came in after that. Nothing added. |
| 01:35:02.33 | Matthew Mandich | Nothing added today. |
| 01:35:03.17 | Kristina Feller | If it did, I did not have a chance to read it. Um, Have you had ample time to really study and analyze the constructability and the logistics plan for the construction? |
| 01:35:17.08 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I have. I've been working on this project with the applicants and with the neighbors for a number of months now, back and forth, trying to get to a point where everyone is on the same page. I don't think we're quite there yet, and I hope that the meeting tonight can help bring everyone closer and try to have people meet each other halfway, but we'll see how that goes. But I think that obviously it's it's a tight space. It's it's a tight space. It's, um, it's a steep space. Um, it's something that's going to take some ingenuity and some careful planning to accomplish. I don't think it's impossible. I know that the applicant, Michael Rex Architects has put a lot of time and energy into making sure it is constructible, getting civil drawings, soils reports, things like that, doing their due diligence. But I do agree that it's a tight space. And if we're not having any trespassing on one, that's going to make things probably, you know, a little bit more difficult for the applicants. But I don't think it's impossible. And, you know, at the end of the day, if, if they can do the gymnastics required to make this work, then, you know, that's something that I can support. |
| 01:36:30.70 | Kristina Feller | Okay. And just one last question for the moment, and that is in that the construction logistics and plan that was put together and that we received as late mail. I obviously noticed the lay down area for materials and things like that, which is a great first start, but there really wasn't any indication where anybody's trucks would be. And that does concern me. I was over there yesterday and had been over there before when we were looking at Three Marion. |
| 01:37:01.89 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:37:02.21 | Kristina Feller | So did I miss something or did have you commented on that? Are you comfortable that there's nothing identified for, you know, construction trucks? |
| 01:37:15.27 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, well, there's clearly no on street parking on the private road itself. So any construction worker that would be parking anywhere would have to park on either the part, the parking deck, which is where they've said that they're going to have that staging area and where at least, you know, one car will be able to park. It does say in the revised construction staging plan, they added some language. They're saying that, you know, the workers would either park on the deck or down on the public streets below, whether that's Edwards or Marion, wherever they can, can find a spot and they would have to then, you know, walk up from there. |
| 01:37:46.25 | Kristina Feller | And I didn't notice that there was any use of the garage. |
| 01:37:52.43 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, not in the staging plan that I've received. There's nothing that stipulates that that second garage attached to the 1111B parcel would be used for construction, but you can ask the applicant that for more detail. |
| 01:38:04.87 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:38:07.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. I also have some questions. |
| 01:38:11.80 | Andrew Junius | Just a quick question. Thank you, Chair. Just a follow-up on Commissioner Marlott's question about the slope. So I guess I'm still not clear why this triggers this. Under the rule for this specific parking deck, you measure every point under the deck, and if any of it's more than three feet above the actual slope, even an inch wide that's more than three feet. That's why we're here. Yeah. |
| 01:38:34.58 | Matthew Mandich | That's why we're here. yep two feet and that's why we're here two feet sorry yep that's it that's the that's the section of code uh as i said in the report and here as well i mean overall the parking deck complies with the zoning um and and the setback so uh yeah it can it can also only take up 25 percent of the rear setback for parking in and but we have a very large rear setback here so there's no issue with that at all okay thank you but yeah it's a accessory structure section yeah it's |
| 01:38:57.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:57.64 | Director Phipps | Oh. |
| 01:38:57.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:39:02.53 | Director Phipps | And I'll just quickly note, based on a previous question, the lot line adjustment was approved on January 31, 2024, by myself, the zoning administrator, senior planner manager, just correct, a different planner was present. However, in the approval, the conditions don't restrict any further development. The condition states the approval is limited to the lot line adjustment and does not include any construction tree removal alteration or other improvements. So I can imagine why this follow-on permit is being applied for. Thank you. |
| 01:39:29.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I'm not sure. I have some clarifications also if we could bring up the easement plan that was in your presentation. |
| 01:39:54.05 | Unknown | I think it's back a little bit. earlier in the slide deck. Thank you. |
| 01:40:02.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There we go. Yeah, next one. There we go. Okay, perfect. Okay, so when when they transferred this land from parcels, I'll call it parcel seven, but it's seven, the address seven to the address 11. They did not transfer because the garage, the garage has to back out into this narrow street, which is obviously a problem in this turntable. |
| 01:40:26.41 | Matthew Mandich | That's the garage that we're speaking about, yes? |
| 01:40:28.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | backs on to where the orange is. Yep. When they added the land from, because the owner owns both of it. Yep. There's obviously an easement on the frontage there, but they didn't transfer the easement to use right in front of that garage, because that's not labeled orange. Maybe this is an applicant. |
| 01:40:30.68 | Matthew Mandich | Yep. Thank you. |
| 01:40:34.67 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:40:46.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:46.98 | Matthew Mandich | application. |
| 01:40:47.52 | Unknown | question. |
| 01:40:47.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We'll be right back. |
| 01:40:48.00 | Matthew Mandich | achievement. |
| 01:40:48.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you see the orange? It appears in reading all this, and I read a couple times, that there's an easement for that orange area. That's the private road. Then there's a different easement that goes all the way to one myriad. |
| 01:40:56.89 | Matthew Mandich | That's the private road. |
| 01:41:03.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And that's why there's a different color. |
| 01:41:05.46 | Matthew Mandich | So this is where one Marion starts, right where my red pointer is. That's the property line between 11 and one. |
| 01:41:11.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And does 7 million have a right to use where your pointer was a second ago? |
| 01:41:11.06 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:41:15.47 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, it does. |
| 01:41:16.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Okay, so when they transferred this land to 11, they didn't transfer the ability to use the land right in front of |
| 01:41:24.85 | Matthew Mandich | No, they did not. So the access to this point right here on 11, 11 does not enjoy the easement that seven does. So once you cross onto 11, you can only go to seven. I mean, sorry. Once you cross onto one, you can only go to seven from one. The easement does not work to allow you to go from one to 11. |
| 01:41:33.17 | Unknown | I'm good. |
| 01:41:33.46 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 01:41:43.38 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I see. That's a little strange. I mean, that's, yeah. |
| 01:41:46.60 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, that's, yeah, but that's the way. So, yeah, there's a title report that I also did share with Commissioner Feller and that we can get you as well if you'd like a copy of that. But, yeah, the easements are pretty clear in the sense that this easement, obviously, is within the parcel of 11 and allows access to one, but it does not allow access to seven, and one does not allow access to 11, but it does to seven. I know it's a little bit of a complicated, I mean, this is a, is a very, um, kind of messy area up there. It's, these are not public right away. So these are, this is a private road. So it has its own kind of rules and regulations in the city. |
| 01:42:11.31 | Courtney Davies | That's, it's a good thing. is a very... |
| 01:42:22.90 | Matthew Mandich | Uh... |
| 01:42:23.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Hence the angle of which it needs to come out at. Yeah. Let me ask you this. In the additional language that is being proposed by the applicant, they wanted some language added, which was on that slide you showed. Maybe this is for the applicant, but I'll just ask you if you know. Are they intending to use the 7 Marion parcel for construction materials and access it through 11B? Because that's what the change seems to imply. |
| 01:42:23.69 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:42:34.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:42:57.14 | Matthew Mandich | So Ideally, no. There's a very strong request from the owner of one not to have seven be part of the access to 11. They like the construction to all occur on 11 on 11's parcel. |
| 01:43:00.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | There's a very... |
| 01:43:00.80 | Courtney Davies | I'm sorry. |
| 01:43:11.44 | Matthew Mandich | And they believe that if any construction were to go across the property line, And from one to 11, that would be trespassing. So. which legally it would be. So they want all of the work to be done that's on 11 from 11. Thank you. |
| 01:43:25.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, I'm suggesting that the language I read |
| 01:43:26.12 | Matthew Mandich | That's their request. |
| 01:43:29.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | in the revised |
| 01:43:30.37 | Matthew Mandich | in the revised construction. |
| 01:43:31.36 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Why is that not that they're going to use the access road, but that they might store materials on seven seven? Yeah, bring it to 11 without using the road, right? Is is that something that they're proposing because that seems to be why they're deleting some language? |
| 01:43:37.17 | Matthew Mandich | On seven. On seven. Yeah. |
| 01:43:38.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:38.59 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:43:46.55 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that seems to be the case, and I can let the applicant clarify on that a little bit. That's something that I think we need to discuss this evening and try to get to the bottom of how that is going to work. But yeah, as far as moving between the two parcels owned by the same owner is one thing, but going through here... Going to one and going to seven to do 11 is not going to be something that's going to be supported by the neighbor. |
| 01:44:09.89 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But going into the thing from the orange and then just storing the materials on seven, is that something, that's what I'm, what appears they might want, they might've been wanting to do that. Yeah, potentially. |
| 01:44:19.76 | Courtney Davies | WHAT IS THE FEDERAL? |
| 01:44:19.85 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 01:44:20.06 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 01:44:23.02 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, potentially I'm going to let the applicant clarify on that. Cause I actually can't answer that without having their statement on it. So I don't. |
| 01:44:31.12 | Matthew Mandich | I'm sorry. |
| 01:44:31.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:44:31.22 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:44:31.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I just, if, |
| 01:44:32.05 | Matthew Mandich | But yeah, there's definitely, there's a lot going on with, there's a lot of, you know, discussion and concern over how this little area right here that we're looking at is going to be used and where access is going to go. |
| 01:44:32.08 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But yeah. |
| 01:44:42.76 | Matthew Mandich | Who's going to move from where and how? |
| 01:44:44.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. My last question is more theoretical, just so I can understand this variance for this three feet. If they were to build a garage, now it might cause some other problems, but a building in this location, is that a shed or a garage, is that restricted to three and a half feet? Or you could build a building, but you can't build a parking deck? Is that what I'm thinking? |
| 01:45:05.69 | Matthew Mandich | Well, if it's a parking area, then yes. Because the code says parking area. |
| 01:45:09.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because they're... Parking area can't be over three feet. |
| 01:45:12.34 | Matthew Mandich | Two feet in a rear yard set. |
| 01:45:13.71 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But what about a garage or a shed? |
| 01:45:15.75 | Matthew Mandich | I would still call a garage a parking area. A shed, if it wasn't used for a car, would just mean accessory structure, at which point it's used, you know, you would use the accessory structure, height requirements and setbacks and things like that. |
| 01:45:26.48 | Jeffery Luxenberg | It just seems strange that the code won't allow something over two feet that's a parking area, but might allow a shed, which would be even higher is what I'm struggling with. That's correct. Other questions from commissioners of... |
| 01:45:27.46 | Matthew Mandich | A whole different book. |
| 01:45:40.29 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:45:40.36 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 01:45:40.41 | Unknown | and you're going to be |
| 01:45:44.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:45:44.26 | David Marlatt | I do have a couple just |
| 01:45:44.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Miller. |
| 01:45:47.88 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Thank you. Come back one more time to the height of the three and a half feet height. So is that measured from the average great plane to the deck itself or because normally it's to the guard, because the guard rail, according to the drawings, it's seven and |
| 01:46:02.63 | Matthew Mandich | Actually, Maria, can we move a couple of slides through and I'll try to |
| 01:46:06.82 | David Marlatt | I just want a clear record. It's not that I'm... |
| 01:46:07.71 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. to the elevations. One more. There we go. So I know it's very difficult to see on here. I don't know if we can make it any bigger. Maybe we can zoom in on this portion a little bit. |
| 01:46:15.25 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 01:46:18.58 | David Marlatt | I don't know. Yeah, it's going to be hard to do. |
| 01:46:21.40 | Matthew Mandich | I'm not. Yeah. |
| 01:46:23.73 | David Marlatt | But on the applicant's drawings, there's the great plane, and it's dimensioned 7 1⁄2 feet to the top of the guardrail of the car terminal. |
| 01:46:32.13 | Matthew Mandich | Right. So that's outside of the rear yard setback. So if we can go one slide forward, please. Thank you. |
| 01:46:36.75 | David Marlatt | but it's- |
| 01:46:36.79 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. you're talking about this on the outside here, right? Yes. I would imagine this to here to there, something like that. It's hard to see. |
| 01:46:41.73 | David Marlatt | Yes. I would imagine this to here to there. It's so hard to see. Something like that. It's hard to see. Over on the left side, where the grade plane, that average grade plane is established. Yeah. To the top of the guard rail, it's labeled 7 feet 5 inches. |
| 01:46:50.17 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 01:46:56.29 | Matthew Mandich | So I'm not exactly sure what. So what I'm talking about here, here's the bottom of the parking deck, and I know it's very hard to see. Right. This distance between the bottom of the parking deck and the grade below cannot exceed two feet. And it does. |
| 01:46:57.14 | David Marlatt | Not exactly. |
| 01:47:08.38 | David Marlatt | OK, so the bottom of the parking deck. So the guardrail doesn't count as height. Thank you. |
| 01:47:12.36 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 01:47:12.71 | David Marlatt | Okay, because in a building- That's for the- That would be for the structure, but- Guardrail with- |
| 01:47:14.37 | Matthew Mandich | That's for the structure, but the parking area itself is the parking deck. |
| 01:47:20.17 | David Marlatt | OK, not the guardrail that keeps you from falling off the parking deck. |
| 01:47:23.97 | Matthew Mandich | No. |
| 01:47:24.24 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Okay. All right, that's fine. |
| 01:47:27.83 | Matthew Mandich | The intent, yeah, here we go. There we go. So that's great. Thank you, Maria. Because usually we define |
| 01:47:29.66 | David Marlatt | Yeah. Because usually we define the top of a guardrail. |
| 01:47:34.73 | Matthew Mandich | it's the parking area two feet above from here. And it exceeds, and that's the rear yard setback, this dashed line, that's where the rear yard setback actually ends. So this point right here to here exceeds two feet. If it were average natural grade, |
| 01:47:50.73 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 01:47:51.14 | Matthew Mandich | It would be right below. |
| 01:47:52.93 | David Marlatt | So then my, Thank you. |
| 01:47:54.38 | Matthew Mandich | but that's not how the code reads, so. |
| 01:47:54.44 | David Marlatt | It's not. Thank you. And then my other question, and this really does get to how staff interprets side yards and rear yards. If we can come up to the plan, I think it's A1.1. This might be hard to describe, but I can see, I can figure out, that on the south side of the property is the rear yard. Mm-hmm. Correct. Let's call that the south side. Then as we get to the east side, crossing Marion, it becomes the side yard for five feet. And then when it jogs back to the east, it becomes the rear yard again. And so staff doesn't interpret the side yard as having the ability to zigzag. You see what I mean? Because that decision, the car turner itself is in the rear yard |
| 01:48:20.99 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 01:48:21.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:48:50.12 | David Marlatt | surrounded by the side doors. |
| 01:48:50.66 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, if you go up to the top of the plans, Maria, if we could scan through a little bit more. Yeah, this is depicted. Move down a little bit. One more, one more. |
| 01:49:00.41 | Unknown | to the next episode. |
| 01:49:05.81 | Matthew Mandich | We'll be right back. |
| 01:49:05.98 | Unknown | more. |
| 01:49:06.35 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:49:07.18 | Unknown | Yeah. So here's the rear yard area. Right. And then this is counted as rear yard. It jogs. |
| 01:49:10.62 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 01:49:11.16 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:49:11.18 | David Marlatt | And then- JOGS. So that's my question is, why is that counted as rear yard? Because it becomes rear yard, then it's side yard as it crosses Marion. And then it becomes rear yard, and then it becomes side yard. |
| 01:49:24.05 | Matthew Mandich | because this is rear and side. You have five yard here. |
| 01:49:27.04 | Unknown | Five foot here. |
| 01:49:28.17 | David Marlatt | Well, Why isn't it all strange? |
| 01:49:30.19 | Unknown | So these are parallel lines. |
| 01:49:30.63 | David Marlatt | Because if it was all side yard, probably no variance would be required. |
| 01:49:35.66 | Unknown | Well, we determined this is a rear yard. |
| 01:49:35.75 | David Marlatt | But what? |
| 01:49:36.03 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We did. |
| 01:49:36.37 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | and then, |
| 01:49:40.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Where is the front yard? Because obviously. |
| 01:49:41.85 | Unknown | Front is here. The front property line is right here. |
| 01:49:47.81 | Unknown | I think. |
| 01:49:47.88 | Kristina Feller | High Vista. |
| 01:49:48.00 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:49:48.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:49:48.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | even though it's not on, even though it doesn't have a |
| 01:49:48.88 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. like then. |
| 01:49:50.41 | Matthew Mandich | No. Thank you. Thank you. So the decision was made to, to this, this property has been through a number of permits and ADUs and something like the decision was made a long time ago that that's the rear yard and this is the front. And once you make a decision and start issuing permits based on that decision, you can't just flip it around and say, now it's the front yard and this is the back. |
| 01:50:05.38 | David Marlatt | Yeah. I understand because the front yard is the side with the public way, and the rear yard has a private driveway through it. So I understand that. And it's just mostly maybe even for future similar cases that there's some consistency because even in the side yard up at the, I guess it would be the northern end of the property, you're coming back five feet, then you jog over to the right in the picture, and you're still calling that a side yard. And then it jogs back down, and it's the side yard. And then when it jogs over where the car turner is, it becomes a rear yard. |
| 01:50:38.42 | Matthew Mandich | Well, the way I'm interpreting it, this is a rear yard, that's a rear yard, this is a side yard, that's a side yard. |
| 01:50:42.93 | David Marlatt | then why isn't, if we move up the plan, why isn't that a front yard? It's hard for me to point. |
| 01:50:48.66 | Kristina Feller | But what the car? |
| 01:50:48.83 | Unknown | front yard, there is zero front yard setbacks. |
| 01:50:50.89 | Kristina Feller | Hasn't this already been determined? |
| 01:50:52.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:52.70 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:50:52.71 | David Marlatt | Well, |
| 01:50:52.93 | Unknown | I guess. |
| 01:50:53.25 | Kristina Feller | I guess based on the I don't know. We're not going to be changing that now. |
| 01:50:53.59 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:50:53.64 | Unknown | YOU KNOW. |
| 01:50:53.88 | David Marlatt | I mean, I think it's a great thing. Thank you. |
| 01:50:54.77 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 01:50:55.21 | David Marlatt | I, |
| 01:50:55.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:55.46 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:50:55.48 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:50:55.55 | David Marlatt | We're not going to be changing. |
| 01:50:59.36 | David Marlatt | I guess it's a way of interpreting our code. Maybe it speaks to our code needs more clarity. |
| 01:51:03.38 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, the rear yard just, it jogs. And again, before the lot line adjustment, it just went over a little bit and right down. And now the lot line brought it all the way over to here. And it goes down like that. |
| 01:51:14.35 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.40 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.41 | David Marlatt | Okay. |
| 01:51:14.50 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:51:14.53 | David Marlatt | Thank you. So because of the previous history, the permit history, it was determined that that should be designated. That's the rear yard, yeah. |
| 01:51:18.80 | Matthew Mandich | That's the rear yard, yeah. That's been determined to be the rear yard of the property. Probably a lot, too, because a lot of these structures, the two homes here, are very close to the lot line right here. So if they were all considered rear yard, they'd all be nonconforming rear yard. So I imagine the decision was made to call this the front yard a long time ago to avoid any nonconformities with their rear yard. |
| 01:51:41.11 | David Marlatt | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:51:44.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | questions of stuff yes Commissioner Phil |
| 01:51:48.22 | Kristina Feller | You know, something as Commissioner Marlott was going through that, a question came to my mind. Would this solution work if the parking disk, the mechanical parking element was out of commission? |
| 01:52:10.22 | Matthew Mandich | So, yeah, that's a great practical question to ask. If the parking turner were unable to turn the car and spin 180, then, of course, the car would have to reverse out down the hill 200 feet, which is not illegal, but something that DPW didn't think was safe. And they weren't going to approve a car deck that required that to happen every time. But yes, obviously if the car turner became inoperable for whatever reason, I think that would be the only option. |
| 01:52:38.86 | David Marlatt | Um, I'm not sure. |
| 01:52:39.19 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, I mean, I've, you know, |
| 01:52:39.23 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:52:41.84 | Kristina Feller | dealt with those a lot and they're a little finicky. Their technology is certainly a lot better and this is the solution so I'm not here to to argue the mechanics of it. But I'm just very aware, having been there yesterday, even before it rained, there's just quite a lot of debris coming down from the hillside. |
| 01:52:50.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:04.39 | Kristina Feller | And it's not because of rain. It's not because of anything. It's just, you know, very fragile. And most of those mechanical parking devices are very finicky. So I'm just curious about it. Not here to debate it. Just curious if you looked into that. |
| 01:53:09.87 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:53:23.00 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that would be a question better, I think, suited for the applicant. |
| 01:53:26.68 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:53:26.78 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:53:26.80 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:27.24 | David Marlatt | I think that's the answer to that, but in the car turner product information, I don't believe that it requires electricity to turn. I mean, it has a motor, and maybe the applicant can speak to that, but I believe they can be turned by hand should there be a power outlet. |
| 01:53:42.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, that was my question, whether it had to be powered. I don't believe it does. Could it be like a cable car turnaround where they can manually do it? I think you can use momentum to. |
| 01:53:46.14 | David Marlatt | But I... I don't believe it. |
| 01:53:52.53 | Matthew Mandich | If it's balanced, it's actually. Yeah. But obviously if there's something jamming the system, that'd be a different story. But lack of power, I don't think is a major issue. |
| 01:53:52.57 | David Marlatt | If it's balanced, it's actually. |
| 01:53:58.57 | David Marlatt | you |
| 01:53:58.61 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:53:58.83 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:54:02.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:04.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions of staff? At this time, we can have the applicant do a presentation. You've got, Mr. Rex, you've got 15 minutes to present. |
| 01:54:10.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:54:17.56 | Michael Rex | Hello, I'm Michael Rex, architect representing the property owners, uh, Inca Aximet and. Steve Mullen. We've been at this for a long time and I have Sam. Thank you, Matthew for such impressive presentation and hard work. And It shouldn't be this complicated to get parking in a tight neighborhood. For a second, I want to go off script based on what Commissioner Mallett said. Can you pull up the site plan, Maria? And I got a pointer here. Yeah. The one with the color. I think it said site plan. |
| 01:55:09.55 | Michael Rex | Yeah. The one with, how about the one with the show, the rear yard setback that we just had up here, I guess. |
| 01:55:23.12 | Michael Rex | I got to come around so I can see it a little better. Um, |
| 01:55:31.54 | Michael Rex | Well, I'm losing valuable time here, so. Thank you. Would you please? Yeah. OK. This suggestion is why is this a rear yard and why it isn't a side yard is a very good question. because one could make an argument It should be a sight yard. Um, while this rear yard was precedent setting when the buildings were built and the city's policy is, Once a setback's been established, you stay with it. And we We have no access down here anyway. even though it's the front yard, if this became the rear yard, the buildings would be nonconforming. So this has to remain in the rear yard. This does not because there's no precedent here. just created this last year. because this was part of Lot 7. And if we look at being consistent with developments throughout town over decades, when we have lots of jogging property lines. and consistently The city has said the side yard follows a jog until it gets to the rear yard. So this is kind of a light bulb going off in my head. Why are we changing? that tradition. I THINK I'M GOING TO BE maybe Commissioner Mallett's absolutely right that This Side yard. this five foot setbacks, you just follow around until it gets to the rear yard. In fact, that has also been the tradition in Sausalito, that a side yard, Whatever shape or length or direction it takes, it goes from the front yard To the Rayar. So I could argue that what we have here is a mistake. that there should be a side yard and we don't need a variance at all. And we can talk about that if you want. I wasn't prepared to talk about it until Commissioner Marlotte pointed it out, okay? But in fact, that might be the best solution. if we don't need a variance, let's stay with the code and let's be consistent with how we do land development in Sausalito, because that's how it has been done. Why didn't I bring that up sooner? I wish I had. Okay, now I'll go back to script. Why are we here for variance? because of a very, restrictive, quirky, missing word in our ordinance. The word all structures in Sausalito are measured from average grade, not natural grade. except that one section of the code that says if it's a parking area and it's in a rear yard, it has to mirror the gray slope. Okay. We didn't realize that when we first submitted it. Matthew pointed that out. We're actually surprised by that because it's so quirky. And that's one of the reasons for variance is when a strict application of code creates, is due to its usual condition and it creates a hardship, which those findings can be made and I can explain why. So it's almost absurd. when you imagine we can put a building there a shed, not a parking area. That would be much higher, and we don't need a variance. So we're almost tripping over some nuance in our code, and we don't need to argue why it's like that. It just is that way. And I don't blame staff for applying it in a literal way because you should read the code literally. Okay. So here we are with the variants because it's completely impossible. to, put a parking area in this rear yard, if we call that the rear yard, on a 30% slope. We even showed on page six of the project narrative that we turned in, We can put it in a giant retaining wall, but we can't get a driveway down to it. So without a variance, we can't get parking. And parking is so needed in this area that one of the neighbors appealed this application. when we submitted to legalize an existing ADU, because parking's so needed. And the only reason it was, and we couldn't provide it, because we didn't have a place to put it. until we did the lot split. or the lot line adjustments. Why didn't we ask for it then? Because we didn't think it was possible because We didn't have an access season to get onto it. We asked for one. and it was denied. And our attorney said, yeah, Thank you. You don't have a right. to build and access this lot from this lot across this easement that serves the vacant lot. because it's only to serve the vacant lot. So we were stuck. We did put a jog in it, so if this property ever sold and we had a neighbor who was willing to sell us an easement, we wanted that opportunity because we, too, would like to have parking for the ADU because, like all the other neighbors, parking is so difficult. The furthest away to park, you have to go... 475 feet to the first parking, except there is one little space right down here at the bottom of Marriott. But other than that, it's a football and a half hike up a very steep hill. So and all I'm actually surprised of the three neighbors that are being impacted by this that share this easement are objecting to having parking for this ADU. they all know how tight parking is in the neighborhood. They're concerned about trespassing there'll be no trespassing. That's illegal, okay? we object to the proposed condition that we can't access between these two lots that are co-owned by the same property owner. We have every right to do that. In fact, to add that condition is probably illegal. We ask that that condition be modified. uh, Uh, to say, that, to emphasize there'll be no access for construction or to the parking across this part of the land we don't own or have an hizman on. Do we intend to use the vacant lot seven to build this parking deck? We don't really plan on it. Frankly, it's pretty steep to store materials. But we don't have a contractor yet because we don't know we can build this yet. And the contractor may want to somehow shore up and have some material because it'd be a hell of a lot easier dragging materials from here to here than coming from here up to here. Okay. Okay. We will be submitting a much more robust construction management plan as a condition of our building permit. But we need a contractor first, and the contractor is the one who prepares that. Um, So I just want to, the findings clearly can be made. The odd lot shape, the fact that We're accessing from a rear yard is terribly unusual. It makes sense practically to put the parking space right at the entry to the ADU so it'll be utilized by that occupant. We did want one more change to the conditions. The conditions say all our construction staging will be on the stack, including parking trucks. Construction management planned for Lot 3 to build a brand new house, and the city approved that those trucks could park down on public streets down below. So why should we be treated differently? And we're asking that condition be changed to give us that opportunity. Commissioner Feller said, hey, how come you're not using the garage for staging? I thought that was a good question. I'd like to ask my client that. maybe they can park their car down on the public streets and let the builder have more room here. I think that's a great idea. I'll ask that question. I can't offer it right now because they're not here. They were hoping to be here and couldn't make it tonight. Um, What else can I add here? Still got a few more minutes. I think I'm going to save. some time for rebuttal because I know some neighbors want to speak. I want you to know we reached out to all three neighbors Two of them are objecting tonight. One is not. I just want to point that out. And We submitted a very detailed rebuttal in your packet to the complaints from number one, but I'm here to respond to those questions, and I'm going to save time for any rebuttal, okay? And I'm here for any questions you have. In fact, I'll answer them now if I can, if you have them now. |
| 02:04:15.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Rucks. At this point, we will have commissioners asking any questions of you. Thank you. Let me see if any commissioners have questions. |
| 02:04:20.00 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:04:20.01 | Andreas Bloor | Thank you. |
| 02:04:20.50 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:04:23.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Commissioner Merlot. Yeah. |
| 02:04:24.55 | David Marlatt | Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Rex. Just a quick question, and I apologize if this has been said previously. But the lot seven has access to the easement that's running through lot one for access. So should one build on lot seven, their driveway would come off of Marion just as the other lots. |
| 02:04:44.57 | Michael Rex | That's right. Lot 7 has an easement across number 1. to get to it and to build from it. |
| 02:04:50.00 | David Marlatt | There are a lot of easements shooting around the room here, so I just wanted to... |
| 02:04:53.15 | Michael Rex | I just wanted to be clear on that. This is really complicated. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. |
| 02:04:55.97 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:04:56.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:04:56.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:04:58.72 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:04:58.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Other questions? Thank you. Not seeing any. Thank you, Mr. X. Thank you. At this point, we will have public comment on this item. Director Phipps, if you could call on public comment. Thank you. |
| 02:05:01.59 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 02:05:01.96 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 02:05:16.24 | Director Phipps | Looking to the chamber for raised hands. No submitted speaker cards received. Looking to the Zoom application. Oh, I do see a raised hand. Sir, please come on down. Please state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:05:30.97 | Courtney Davies | My name is Courtney Davies. I am the owner of Five Marion. And good to see some familiar faces here. And thank you, Commissioners, for some of your observations, which I think are very you know, similar to some of the concerns of the neighbors. I just want to put a strong opposition, you know, not from myself, also from the neighborhood. Upper and Lower Marion are going to be significantly affected by this. This is on the back of a three-year construction project at Three Marion, which we've seen tremendous disruption, you know, on that road. You know, a lot of design efforts got into this project and some smart thinking. But one wonders, you know, is the juice worth the squeeze? The sustainability message is very weak, as I think is the zoning application. The variance on the plans does not represent the constructability on a very, very steep slope. There's no apparent consideration for a narrow and already overburdened road. nothing representing emergency access. I've spoken to the fire department. They're very concerned about the road and the failing slope. It's going to be extremely difficult to construct. I think everyone can agree on that. The logistics are insane. Case in point, the staging area proposed is 30 feet away from the actual site being constructed. And, you know, that's going to be, pretty burdensome on any general contractor. Case in point, 3 Marion's going through that same thing right now. There are workers up and down that street. all day long, you know, carrying, you know, heavy tools. Again, is the juice worth the squeeze? But that all said, The justification of the denial, you know, should really go back to the lot line adjustment, which I think on public record, and I came here for that hearing myself, so I think, you know, you'll see it. There's probably reams of paper of documentation on this case. We were very concerned about the lot line adjustment being a precursor to build something else, specifically a parking deck. And I looked at Mr. Phipps, who will probably recall the nature of that conversation. We documented that on public record, you know, with the owners on Zoom supporting it. And I think one would question the integrity of those comments now, given the short time frame between when that statement was made to where we're at now. Only by happen chance with owners of 7 and 11 can you make a lot line adjustment to make this work. So while It's been pointed out that it would be impossible to build without this lot line adjustment. I think that's true. And that should be the basis of denial. One last point after talking. My question is, why is the parking deck so important? Actually, I don't think it's about the parking deck in this particular instance. The owner shared with me that they have an ADU with access through bedroom. They'd rather have access through the main living room. Perhaps the compromise here is no parking deck. And I'll do. |
| 02:08:39.35 | Director Phipps | Thank you for your comments, sir. All these are three minutes is up. |
| 02:08:44.23 | Courtney Davies | And then we go with the steps to access through the library. |
| 02:08:44.98 | Director Phipps | the stance to access through the line. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other interested speakers in the chamber this evening? Okay, seeing no raised hands, I will turn to the Zoom application. First raised hand that I see is Debbie Messimer. Debbie, welcome. You'll have three minutes to speak. |
| 02:09:17.23 | Jim Messmer | Yes, this is actually Jim Messmer. We're using Debbie's computer. Let me also underscore what Courtney just said to Brandon. I actually had a lengthy discussion after the lot line readjustment with Brandon afterwards. And we discussed the concerns that I had for the parking deck being put in there based on everything that's been discussed. uh, I don't know. Commissioner Feller, I thank you for coming up. and looking closely at the very compromised conditions that we are experiencing up on Marion Avenue as the submission was done by Michael Rex's group. He stated that it's one of the most narrow roads in all of Sausalito. And we do have, and it's no issue for 11, Marion, we are under construction fatigue up there. And we've really been compromised our safety, being able to exit and enter based on 3MARIAN. But my request tonight is I don't know how there could be a recommendation for approval by the planning commission. I think the big omission here, and I thank Mr. Rex responding to my letter and providing some updates on the construction plan but I'm gonna ask for this to be a condition that a general contractor has brought in is looks at the entirety and scope of what Michael Rex's team has developed and really puts together a construction plan because based on, not just the narrow road, but the small property of 11 Marion. I don't see how you can drive pillars, do reinforcement, retaining walls, poor concrete materials, everything else to the one commissioner. uh you may be able to store materials, but you can't use seven to do construction for 11, because 11 does not enjoy an easement being granted by one Marion. Once three's done, our road's been destroyed up there. Three Marion's going to be replacing it. That's one of the reasons why we don't want anyone on that road and damaging it. But I really think you should seriously consider they should engage a general contractor. General contractor needs to put a plan together, needs to present it to you folks and the Um, and the Planning Commission. see if it's even a viable project, preventing them from having unnecessary costs, getting halfway into this and not being able to build it. And I would urge everybody to go up and visit the area. |
| 02:12:22.30 | Director Phipps | Thank you, Mr. Messamere for your comments. Looking to the Zoom application for additional raised hands. Going once. point twice and I am seeing none, sure. |
| 02:12:34.96 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Director Phipps. We'll now bring it back up to the dais. Oh, no, we have additional, you have five minutes left, I believe, to respond to any comments. I apologize. |
| 02:12:43.23 | Michael Rex | Yes, thank you. Okay. Oh, that's quite all right. I just want to respond to neighbors' comments here, okay? Um, I can understand construction fatigue. The house at number three, Marion, has been going on for three years. It takes a long time to build a new house. This is not a big house. It's a little tiny deck. It won't take nearly as long, and we shouldn't be punished for somebody else's activities. Fire department, they looked at this. They gave us conditions of approval. They're in your packet, and we agree with them. Okay. So there's no issue with the fire department. I'm not sure if you're not We never said during the line adjustment that we'd never build. In fact, I told you tonight, We wanted to reserve the right to be able to build this deck should the ownership one Marion change someday in the future. And we can go to that new owner who might grant us or might sell us an easement. But at the time. We had no intention of pursuing a deck because we didn't think it was feasible because we didn't have an easement. In fact, it was Steve Mueller who came up with the idea of the turntable. And suddenly we realized, because the Department of Public Works says, no, we won't let you back down. that far. So we thought we had to have an easement to build the deck. When Steve proposed a turntable and suddenly it looked feasible, are, We fast forward with the parking deck. We don't have to wait till one Marion changes, OK? So there's a suggestion that we had some ulterior motive or devious behavior, and none of that's the case. we made it absolutely clear we're not going to trespass. This question of can we build so close to a property line without trespassing. Good question. Let me tell you, we do it all the time. We all know how tight construction is in Sausalito in these tiny little lots, and believe me, we know how serious this issue is about trespassing with this particular property owner, okay? Um, We actually agree, and I already said it tonight, we're going to come back with a very robust, more detailed, fully rounded out, and staff will review our construction management plan that's prepared by a contractor, just like Mr. Messer requested. We agree with that. We'll do that. We want to do that because we do. have no intention of trespassing. But we don't have that expertise. That information has to come from a builder. But we know it's possible because we do it all the time. OK? How am I doing? Time. Got a couple more comments here. By the way, turntables, they go back to the horse and buggy days and the Kale cars. And I think the technology has improved a lot. And we reviewed our plans with the turntable company who we specced. And they thought it was completely doable. I just wanted to persuade some concerns there. Um, I also want to point out that during the lot line adjustment, discussions. There were never any conditions ever applied that we could never build. on that portion of the property. So to remove that opportunity now, that doesn't seem right, and it's unnecessary. Let me see if I have anything else. Yeah. In terms of moving back and forth between 7-11, I already addressed that, that we have a right to do that. And as long as we don't get on to... on Marion's property, there shouldn't be an issue. whether we use it or not for construction activity to do seven, we have a right to do that. I just whether we use or not, we shouldn't give away our rights and we should give our builders some flexibility to help ensure that we don't trespass. Okay. So thank you for that. And I'm actually ahead of time. That's pretty rare. I remember this day. |
| 02:16:53.16 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Rex. Yes, I'm shocked. |
| 02:16:57.04 | Michael Rex | I'm going to go. |
| 02:16:58.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I didn't know it was possible myself. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing portion of this project and bring it up to the dais. What folks want to do? Commissioner Peller. |
| 02:17:15.33 | Kristina Feller | Well, thank you. I think this was actually an interesting discussion this evening. And I I certainly recall being on the commission when we approved three Marion and some of the conditions that we put on that in terms of, um, any damages to that full easement of the drive, as I call it, the road, they would... pay for. And so I think that's something to think about. It's just a data point, if you will, I'm not really comfortable with approving this this evening. I do want to say this property owner has every right to build on their property, and that is not something that certainly I have any intention to impact. However, I don't think that the rush nature of getting a lot of this constructability and staging and logistics to us is thought out enough. And I really want to ask this applicant to try one more time with these neighbors to try to reach some resolution and provide some comfort. There was a comment by one of the neighbors, which is something I was thinking of before he spoke. It is very common that contractors are brought in to assess projects like this for their constructability order of magnitude pricing to make sure it's even viable. That this is not unusual. This is done every day. all over the world. And I think that might be a very important step to take to provide some comfort with neighbors without impacting this property owner's right to build. I also am not very comfortable with some of the staging. I don't think it makes sense in reality. We all know. Your contractor shows up. parks his truck wherever he's got to unload, reload. do all that kind of stuff. I mean, that's an important element to any construction project. And to think that that they're all going to park down on Edwards, I don't think is realistic. You know, maybe sometimes, but not all the time. And it's always the Murphy's Law, the one time that neighbors need to get back and forth on that road. So I would really ask this applicant to, try one more time with these neighbors to provide a little bit more detail and substance behind the idea And come back here Happy to continue this to a date certain even but I'm just not comfortable enough moving forward this evening. Thank you chair |
| 02:20:11.04 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. Commissioner Junior. |
| 02:20:15.64 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. We were on a roll there. We had three quick, easy ones, and now we've got a tough one. Let me start by just saying that I do find it unfortunate and uncomfortable that private roads and easements and private property owners can't work things out. and we at the city, and kind of the royal we, the staff and the commission and everybody, are put in a position where we're basically having to mediate your own private dispute. And I find that somewhat too very distasteful. It really shouldn't be the city's problem. That said, I kind of agree. Every property owner has a right to build on their property so i just think it's unfortunate that um and this is you know this is not the first private road we've seen this is not the first easement you know mega conflict and just you know what appears to be just an irreconcilable never going to get resolved people can't get along people can't figure it out it's just unfortunate but it's you know but it's what comes with private property ownership and these kind of arrangements so whether it's a homeowners association that's dysfunctional and doesn't get you know stuff repaired or this kind of situation it's just kind of comes with the territory and the real property world um so i'll just stop my soapbox right there. I do, I also just want to say, you know, in almost like a comical way, that the bizarre back and forth between the applicant and the commission, especially the commission Marlott, with respect to the side yard, rear yard, front yard, It just goes to show how absurd our code has become. in this world that we live in in Sausalito. It's just amazing. that we still have these concepts you know, that were derived in rectilinear, you know, square lots, rectangular lots, you know, streets with 90 degree angles. And we continue to kind of apply them in a city like Sausalito. It just makes me laugh. And I'm not going to get into that. So you guys can figure that out. But I do, I do find it, you know, also interesting that, you know, Mr. Rex, who's got an extraordinary amount of experience is still surprised at times as I am with my practice in San Francisco all the time. I'm like, why didn't I think of that? So... It keeps it very interesting. You know, I'm kind of, I don't really have a strong position on a continuance or not. I think I'm a little, you know the lot land adjustment situation i think every property owner that has two pieces of property probably has the absolute right under the subdivision map act and local codes to adjust their lot lines to create you know more consistent provision or more consistent lots or or however that works out and you know i'll be on oftentimes people do lot land adjustments for this exact purpose so i don't think i I'm surprised that this happened, whether what was said to people or not. So I don't know, those are just some comments. I'm open to motions and whatnot, but I don't feel strongly about a continuance. I do generally support the concept. It seems like a rational one, and I'm sorry about the construction fatigue, but that's kind of what the owners have been living with and what they bought into when they bought the property. So anyway, that's all I have to say. |
| 02:23:37.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Commissioner Junius. Commissioner Marlin. |
| 02:23:41.15 | David Marlatt | Thank you. And thank you to my fellow commissioners for their comments. I'm also very sympathetic with construction fatigue and, of course, small roads and just all of the inconvenience. Inconvenience sounds like almost too trivial a word for what some of the homeowners are going through. But as Commissioner Junius pointed out, we're looking at the facts of the variance, the findings of the variance, and we hope that the neighbors can work things out as best they can. And of course, we want to ensure basic public safety, but I'm prepared to support a variance conditioned on a robust construction management plan. We can talk about whether what's been proposed is robust enough as a condition. And frankly, I'm not even convinced that a variance is required. But that can be discussion for another day. about how it was derived that this should be the rear yard. So being that I'm not sure that a variance is required, I support a variance if that's the route that the applicants want to go. |
| 02:24:47.82 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Vice Chair Saad. |
| 02:24:51.16 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Chair. I think based on the literal reading of our code of variance is required, purely based on how it's written, although I understand the quirk here, but that it's what we're here to discuss. I do agree with Commissioner Feller. I think a continuance makes sense, and I think having some understanding from her suggestion would be great to see. I think it's almost there. And construction fatigue... Having some understanding from her suggestion would be great to see. I think it's almost there. And construction fatigue is annoying, for sure. I know it very well. I have a neighbor that had gone on for 10 years while my other neighbor on the other side also started construction. So I totally get it. it is very very frustrating but I don't think it's a precursor to to punish any other homeowner from being able to construct what they want. it is very, very frustrating, but I don't think it's a precursor to punish any other homeowner from being able to construct what they want or need as well. So just to sympathize wholeheartedly, but I don't think that's a factor in this decision at all. But just from a feasibility point, it is a tight area. And I think if nothing more, just to your point, Commissioner Junius, I mean, we sometimes have to play, you know, the lawyer of the group. And in that respect, it would be great to get some more of the neighborhood on board with this. It is always going to be an issue when anyone wants to do any form of construction for any reason, it's a tight road. People have to park somewhere, construction has to happen somewhere, but the staging plan could be further. further mapped out, but I would hope we would come back and see what Commissioner Feller asked for, and we would be able to approve it with everyone in a more comfortable state. So I would definitely support if there's a motion to continue, perhaps Mr. Rex can pick a date certain and we can get it over the line correctly. So just with that forethought, I'd be happy to support that. |
| 02:26:50.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Vice Chair Saad. All right, first of all, as I said previously, when this ADU was being amnesty time, and we had a, I believe it was a subdivision plan on this. So this has been before. I've been up to this neighborhood many times. And we approved parcel three. I do believe, especially in this neighborhood, an ADU should have parking. So I start with that. So the idea that they want to solve a problem that exists, which is the idea that building on the top of a hill and not near transit without providing parking for buildings is a bad idea. So I said that previously when this came before us prior so i start with the idea is a good one uh i also question the front yard rear yard but we had a project a couple years ago i won't go into detail on that and i tried to argue that the rear yard was it was it was something that they were calling with side yard was a rear yard but it had been ongoing for two years, and I lost that battle. So the decision is, I think, the decision, so I don't think we want to revisit that. I also understand construction fatigue. We live on a street where a project's been going on for two years, and we're on one of those streets that was in the materials that's not much wider than Miriam, although it's not private, it's public, but it's a problem. It's an issue. Having said that, I looked at the conditions that are being added, which I might be misconstruing something, but I think they're the conditions that the neighbors are asking for, which is all the construction is built on the project and that they don't block the road and they only drop materials off. And so I'm not sure that a contractor can build it, but if they can build it and meet all those conditions, I'm not sure what conditions we would add at a future time because the conditions seem to be there. So I, you know, and if a contractor comes in and can't meet all these conditions, then continuing it until we have that plan or them, if they can't build it, they won't build it. It just won't get built. And if they can build it, then I'm not sure what we're going to do in the future. And I really believe this is a case like some others that we've had that the staff can work with the applicant. And when the building pyramid comes in, once they, and this is sort of a chicken and the egg, like we talked about in another project earlier tonight, whereas we needed to approve it so they could go back and, in that one, it was a case of the use. But I think we need to approve this with all of these conditions that I think all the neighbors have asked for. And the neighbors are really asking for |
| 02:27:41.97 | Courtney Davies | of, |
| 02:27:56.52 | Courtney Davies | with the |
| 02:29:54.51 | Jeffery Luxenberg | the commitment on behalf of the applicant that they'll meet all those conditions and i believe that the applicant has added those conditions in to the revised version that uh uh mr mandage provided so i'm not sure you know all due respect commissioner fellow the benefit of continuing this when when they when those conditions are there |
| 02:30:16.68 | Kristina Feller | So, So as this is deliberations between us and not the rest of the audience here, we've seen many times when uh to commissioner junius's point you know we are not sort of the the neighborhood police here um but but you know it is important that you you enter into dialogue and at least get to some consensus, even if you agree to disagree or or whatever, and I think part of what What the neighbors are asking for, and I think is actually quite legitimate, is some evidence and dialogue of that, and not just pawn it off to staff. That's why it's up here in front of the commission. We have suffered appeals because we have not taken these steps and given applicants one last chance at this point, at this stage, to move forward with that. And it is for that reason that I do want to give this opportunity to the applicant to engage one last time with their neighbors. Their neighbors understand that this applicant has the right to build on this property however they are you know in tight constraints here and frankly i personally don't see enough evidence with the staging constructability that in in my opinion we're sort of put together very quickly in a rushed way and handed to us without you know much meat there so for that reason i am making a motion to continue item. I'm happy to do that to a date certain. We will ask the applicant, should there be a second to my motion to a date certain. |
| 02:31:59.67 | Andrew Junius | It's a further comment, Chair. You know, I'm very much sympathetic and very well could support a continuance here, I think. But I do want to make a couple more comments. You know, you said that the applicant has a right to build here. No question. But in this case, with this application before, they need a variance, even if it's a really weird little variance. So, you know, we are kind of stuck. I really don't, I'll repeat, I really don't like being the mediator for these kinds of private disputes in a way. And I think it's unfortunate that the easements are, are as such. I'm curious, um, of the, of the conditions that have been put forth by the, um, by the neighbors, does one of them include the applicant not in any way using lot seven? Because I don't, I definitely agree with Mr. Rex on that. I don't think we have a right to prohibit you know, crossing property lines that people own. I mean, it just seems silly. So, okay, that's not going to be an issue. |
| 02:32:52.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Just to be technical, the conditions that Mr. Mandage added implied that you couldn't use Lot 7, and then the applicant, in response to that, was asking to take out a section. Okay, that's, yeah, okay, well... |
| 02:33:10.33 | Andrew Junius | Okay, that's, yeah, okay, well, I would, and this may be just for a later discussion if we end up being continued here, but I'm not going to support anything that prohibits a property owner from crossing their property line from one lot to another that they own under any circumstances, so. |
| 02:33:12.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I would. |
| 02:33:26.20 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so just to clarify, the draft resolution language does have some wording in there that prohibits movement from 11 to 7. But in the revised conditions of approval that were submitted by the applicant and revised construction plan submitted by the applicant, that language had been tweaked to allow there to be movement between 7 and 11. But again, never will there be movement from 11 through one to seven back to 11. It would just be from seven to 11. So, yeah, as far as the new revised conditions, not those in the draft resolution, but those that would be imposed on the project that has been addressed. |
| 02:33:51.45 | Andrew Junius | just |
| 02:34:00.06 | Andrew Junius | Appreciate that. So with that, I mean, again, I'm very 50-50 on a continuance. I understand where both of you are coming from. I'm not sure we're going to get a lot farther with more time. I'm curious what Mr. Rex has to say on behalf of his client. So I'll just wait to hear. |
| 02:34:14.97 | Kristina Feller | So is there a second to the motion |
| 02:34:16.96 | Nastassya Saad | I'm leaning in for the second to the motion of Commissioner Feller and to your I completely agree with you Commissioner Juniors. There's no way we're going to restrict any property owner from crossing their own property line. So down the road, we'll look for those other conditions, but I definitely second your motion. |
| 02:34:33.11 | Kristina Feller | I agree with that. |
| 02:34:34.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Do you want to, Commissioner Fowler, do you want us to ask Mr. Rex the question about a date search? |
| 02:34:40.12 | Kristina Feller | Yes, please. |
| 02:34:42.34 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Rex, could you answer just that specific question? |
| 02:34:46.93 | Michael Rex | Is the question do I agree to a continuance? to it. |
| 02:34:49.65 | Kristina Feller | No, do you want to date certain? |
| 02:34:51.71 | Michael Rex | Oh, a date certain. what if if it if your motion passes. |
| 02:34:57.46 | Kristina Feller | Correct. Would you like to be- |
| 02:34:58.46 | Michael Rex | That's an easy answer. Absolutely. Date certain. I'd suggest 30 days. If we can get in before Christmas, that'd be nice. Thank you. |
| 02:35:07.25 | Nastassya Saad | We have one more planning commission meeting for the remainder of the year, which I believe is on December. 13th. December 11th. December 11th. |
| 02:35:07.28 | Michael Rex | We have a... |
| 02:35:14.22 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:35:14.24 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:35:14.27 | Michael Rex | Is that right? |
| 02:35:14.49 | Director Phipps | 11. |
| 02:35:14.86 | Michael Rex | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:35:15.45 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:35:15.74 | Michael Rex | Okay. |
| 02:35:15.96 | Nastassya Saad | You're going to love it? |
| 02:35:16.92 | Michael Rex | That would be my choice if your motion passes. |
| 02:35:20.58 | Kristina Feller | just just a moment so staff when would you need additional material from mr rex and the applicant Let's just make sure the time frame works for you. |
| 02:35:32.08 | Michael Rex | Yeah, and I have a point of order. It used to be the tradition that you ask the applicant if they would agree to a continuance or if they want to vote tonight. Um, Does that tradition still stand? |
| 02:35:43.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Let's ask the first question and we can see if we can address the second one. Okay. |
| 02:35:50.70 | Director Phipps | Yeah, I think staff can accept all materials provided two weeks prior to the hearing date. |
| 02:35:52.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:35:57.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if it's the 11th, you would want materials no later than the 27th, the day before Thanksgiving. |
| 02:36:06.91 | Michael Rex | Is that? November 27th? Yes. Um, Yeah, that's an example. |
| 02:36:12.02 | Nastassya Saad | That's an exactly two weeks to the day. |
| 02:36:13.40 | Michael Rex | to the day. That's just two weeks away. |
| 02:36:19.80 | Michael Rex | I'm out of town all next week. We have to get a contractor lined up. That's probably tough. |
| 02:36:27.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 02:36:28.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | What would be the one after the 11th? We have not set a calendar, but in looking at a normal course of events in January, and because of the weird, Wednesday starts on it, it doesn't matter, but we're likely to have the first meeting in January and the 15th. The 15th? The 15th of January would be the next meeting. |
| 02:36:51.44 | Michael Rex | We were hoping to be under construction early spring and so I do all the working drawings and |
| 02:36:52.11 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, |
| 02:36:52.33 | Kristina Feller | No. |
| 02:36:52.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:36:52.67 | Kristina Feller | Peace. |
| 02:36:53.26 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 02:36:55.81 | Kristina Feller | So. So we also, at our next hearing, which is the 11th of December, which will be the last hearing of calendar year 2024, we do set a calendar. for starting in January. So we will know that date |
| 02:37:09.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:37:09.97 | Courtney Davies | Right. |
| 02:37:10.03 | Michael Rex | Okay. |
| 02:37:10.22 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 02:37:12.48 | Kristina Feller | what those dates would be and certainly staff can communicate that to you and get you on that agenda |
| 02:37:17.07 | Michael Rex | Yeah. Can I suggest this? We could make December 11th. date certain, and with our client, they'll be in the lead to pick a contractor, let's give them the opportunity with my staff, because my staff will be here, to see if we can meet that due date of November 27th with the materials we need. |
| 02:37:42.06 | Nastassya Saad | November 27th. |
| 02:37:45.91 | Michael Rex | If we can do that, great. If we can't, you can always postpone to the next hearing. Can we do it that way if your motion passes? |
| 02:37:52.75 | Kristina Feller | So if the motion passes, what we can do is we can do it a date certain to December 11th. Right. In the case that you can't get that material together, even if it's agendized. for the 11th, we can also continue it at that point. |
| 02:38:05.98 | Michael Rex | Right, at that time. At that time. |
| 02:38:06.85 | Kristina Feller | At that time. That's what I request. |
| 02:38:07.59 | Unknown | I know. |
| 02:38:07.68 | Michael Rex | And that's what I request. Thank you. |
| 02:38:10.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:38:10.31 | Michael Rex | And. |
| 02:38:10.61 | David Marlatt | Could we clarify for the benefit also of the applicant what materials are exactly expected? I mean, I understand a more robust construction management plan maybe showing better staging area resolution, but it sounded like we also expect further communication or agreement or lack of non-agreement with the neighbor. Are we expecting evidence of that? I mean, it's a very tight deadline. So can we be clear about what is our expectation here? Are they expected in two weeks coming up on the holidays to actually select the general contractor when I suppose that they have no bids at this point? No. That's why I'd like to clarify. What is the expectation? |
| 02:38:44.30 | Kristina Feller | So. You can enter into conversations with a general contractor. They'll, you know, always happy to come look at something for free and probably give you ideas of constructability and so on. This is very standard practice. You've been doing this, you know, many years, so you know how to do that. I'm sure you have relationships in the industry. I think specifically what I had articulated is I think you need to go back and do another round at least with these neighbors and provide them some evidence based on the constructability logistics and so on that you're addressing their concerns. So I think that is the best way to move forward. We've seen many times on this dais and on this commission |
| 02:38:59.81 | Courtney Davies | So. |
| 02:39:34.92 | Kristina Feller | where it does get contentious. And I'm with Commissioner Junius. We are, you know, this is not like the People's Court or Judge Judy here. We really, really, We really encourage neighbors to try to find some common ground. You're never going to make everybody happy, but I think a lot of that material that was even put forth to us was not in the original package, so it seemed to have been put together very last minute, and I think we need to give the opportunity to really think through that and provide some of that comfort and continue that dialogue with the neighbors. So at least we're sure that every effort has been made and that even if there's an agreement to disagree, beyond construction fatigue, like this applicant you know, it's a reality, but this applicant can't totally control that either. And I appreciate that and certainly appreciate what the neighbors are going through. I think that you really need to put together better information that this is viable and that this is a real solution and that you're really addressing Some of the things that we know are going to happen with construction vehicles and so on and so forth, or how you're actually going to get this built. And I don't think that we're there yet. And that is why I made a motion to continue it. It may or may not pass, but now we know that it's a date certain to December 11th, and I think we can move on. |
| 02:41:08.63 | Michael Rex | Thanks for the clarity, though. Can I respond to Commissioner Marlon? |
| 02:41:08.76 | Kristina Feller | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:41:09.19 | Nastassya Saad | Thanks for the clarity. MAKING THEM. I'm sorry, we actually can't respond at this point. Oh, yeah, excuse me. |
| 02:41:17.54 | Kristina Feller | at this point. |
| 02:41:19.04 | David Marlatt | So, |
| 02:41:19.33 | Kristina Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:41:19.38 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:41:19.43 | Kristina Feller | This is the deliberation time. You can, Commissioner Fowler. This is not a time to get back into discussion. |
| 02:41:22.15 | Nastassya Saad | You can commission the file. |
| 02:41:25.44 | David Marlatt | So my question is just to clarify what is expected for November 27. So if I'm hearing right, it's evidence of further engagement with the neighbor, not necessarily a commitment of an agreement, but at least further engagement, evidence of engagement with one or two or potential general contractors with some opinion about feasibility, and a more robust construction management plan. Those are the three things. I just want to make it clear. Yes, those are what we're expecting. |
| 02:41:50.02 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Yes, those are what we're expecting. |
| 02:41:52.64 | David Marlatt | is in the motion. |
| 02:41:53.36 | Kristina Feller | This isn't the time for dialogue, this is deliberation. |
| 02:41:55.58 | David Marlatt | I was trying to clarify for the benefit of the applicant. |
| 02:41:58.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I agree. I want to clarify what it is that they would have to do because if they don't, I mean if they're not hiring a general contractor, then somebody's giving them advice and then if I understand the process right, once the general contract, once this is all approved and deal periods end and all that, they will go out and get a general contractor and then that general contractor will actually develop the final construction management plan, correct? |
| 02:42:27.17 | Kristina Feller | Yeah, they'll actually... |
| 02:42:29.66 | Jeffery Luxenberg | This is not a problem. |
| 02:42:30.84 | Kristina Feller | This is a very standard process of designing construction. Very, very standard. It's very standard that you would have experts in constructing and staging weigh in on something that is a complex issue here. You don't have to hire somebody to do that to get opinions. It's sort of a pre-bid situation. And so we're not asking anybody to hire a contractor before you come back here. |
| 02:42:31.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 02:43:00.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, but what I'm asking is, because I believe I understand the process. We've been doing this for several years. We require a construction management plan submitted with the building permit. And that construction management plan is submitted by the actually selected contractor. So we are not going to get the actual construction management plan as a result of this. But the way I read. |
| 02:43:23.00 | Courtney Davies | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:43:24.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | what the neighbors want is they really want that detailed construction management plan. And that's why I want to, whether we do it now or December 11th or whatever, I want to make sure that the staff has the tools needed to work with that general contractor when they do the building permit to make sure that the issues of the abutters are addressed. And I don't think that's what we're gonna get out of what we're asking for the December 11th. |
| 02:43:56.17 | Nastassya Saad | I think the intent of what the ask is would be to help appease the neighbors and to help provide this commission with a deeper understanding of how this is all going to work. So it's a stepping stone to get us over the line. |
| 02:44:14.66 | Kristina Feller | I don't know that I'd say appease the neighbors. I think that they're asking very valid questions here. |
| 02:44:17.78 | Nastassya Saad | I mean. I mean, THE END OF THE END OF THE Yes, right. But it is also in a concerted effort to help help bring that neighborhood together, which they're currently not right now under these circumstances. |
| 02:44:26.34 | Kristina Feller | bring that neighborhood together. on these circumstances. I think let's go one more round with this. Let's get the information. that we need. Let's have the applicant enter into that dialogue to provide some comfort and some understanding of how this is actually going to work. This is, I think we're in a circular conversation here and I'm not sure. We're able to say more. |
| 02:44:56.02 | Andrew Junius | I'm not. So let me just clarify my position here. If if this sliver of road that everybody's talking about was a public right away, I would not be supporting a continuance. OK, the problem here is that everything we're talking about happens on private property. and it really should be resolved completely by these people with respect to all the stuff we're talking about here. So now we're trying to come in and being forced to do, you know, to do things that we probably would be more appropriately be done if this was a public right-of-way, but it's not. So, I mean, it's really unfortunate, and I suppose I'm on the fence here on a continuance, you know, to help us along, but, you know, I also don't, I think maybe to Commissioner Marlott's point, I don't know what we're gonna really get in a couple weeks or even in 30 or 40 days, because we all know there's a serious parking problem up there that's not gonna be resolved, except to say we promised to not park up here. But again, I'm not sure we can condition a lot of this stuff on private access roads and easements that are not public property. I mean, I just think it's kind of, we're in a mess. |
| 02:46:02.73 | Kristina Feller | I understand. Thank you. What I'm asking is not inconsistent from exactly what we asked of Three Marions. |
| 02:46:04.53 | Andrew Junius | THE END OF So, yeah. |
| 02:46:10.22 | Andrew Junius | Okay, well, then I wasn't here for three marions. But I have seen a few of these. There are a number of these situations, some even worse, longer roads, longer private roads with 15 or 20 houses on them. And it's the same situation. It's like you're putting the planning commission and the city staff in a place where, you know, we – it's just – I think we're at the edge of our legal, you know, abilities to condition things and tell people what to do on private property. We grant permits. We don't regulate easement access or resolve disputes between owners about private property use and boundaries and easement areas. So that's just the lawyer talking here. |
| 02:46:51.51 | Nastassya Saad | Those are all. Thank you. |
| 02:46:52.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:46:52.51 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:46:52.52 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was going to say, we're going in circles, so why don't we move the |
| 02:46:54.57 | Nastassya Saad | They wish to take a vote. question. Thank you. I was just going to say, I think, you know, we have a motion on the floor with a second, so it's worth a shot. |
| 02:47:02.31 | Jeffery Luxenberg | That's the same as move the question. So let's think about Director Phipps, can you call the roll? |
| 02:47:03.44 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 02:47:09.15 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. No. Commissioner Junius. No. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Chair Luxenberg. No. Motion does not pass. |
| 02:47:13.67 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yes. Thank you. |
| 02:47:15.56 | Kristina Feller | Yes. |
| 02:47:15.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:47:20.71 | Kristina Feller | Do you guys have an alternative motion? Alternative motion? Huh? |
| 02:47:25.38 | David Marlatt | I would make a motion to accept the variance with the conditions proposed by staff and in addition with the amendments proposed by the applicant with respect to crossing between the lot 7 and 11. |
| 02:47:41.95 | Andrew Junius | I would second that and make sure that everybody's clear about what those are, because I honestly haven't read in detail the two comparisons. |
| 02:47:50.41 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask, Mr. Mandage, can you bring up on the screen, because in addition to that one change, there are, I think, three other changes. So we just want to make sure which ones the staff is recommending we include. You may have to read them because they're a little hard to Yes, yes. They were attached to the agenda though. Thank you. |
| 02:48:18.74 | Matthew Mandich | Can you hear me all right? Okay. So I'm reading from the revised construction staging plan, as well as the adjusted conditions of approval. So the construction staging plan notes have been made a little bit more robust from what was originally provided, but I'll go ahead and read those out here. All construction will be done directly from and on the 11 Marion parcel. There will be no crossing to 11 Marion over the 1 Marion parcel. No site access for construction is anticipated from the 7 Marion parcel. Any access between 7 and 11 Marion will be directly from 11 Marion and not across 1 Marion, nor via the Axis easement for 7 Marion, which crosses 1 Marion, which I think we've covered all that in detail. Construction staging for this project will be the same as was done for the 2022 remodel of the ADU at 11B Marion as described below. All materials and construction equipment will be stored on the right east side of the existing 11A Marion parking deck and a porta potty will be installed at the northeast corner of the 11A Marion parking deck. Construction workers will park only on this parking deck or in the public street parking on Edwards Avenue. No pedestrian access from parking to the site shall be across one Marion or the easement on one Marion. All material deliveries will only be done when project staff are on site. A construction fence has already been installed to prevent accidentally stepping on one Marion. That's also on the construction staging plan. Neighbors at one, three, and five Marion shall be notified in advance of any necessary temporary road closures, such as for receiving any large deliveries or heavy construction work like a concrete pour. Owner will work with neighbors to establish an agreed-upon plan for such notification and shall follow that plan, and every effort will be made to keep any closure or deliveries on the private road to an absolute minimum. At the end of each workday, when applicable, the following tasks shall be completed. the construction staging area on the private road to an absolute minimum at the end of each workday when applicable the following tasks shall be completed the construction staging area on the existing parking deck of 11 a marion shall be tidied up and be in general in general and shall be maintained in a clean and safe condition as per dpw condition of approval number six and that is a standard boilerplate condition i'm very long i'm I'm not going to read it all out, but they're agreeing to that, which is required for almost every project. And finally, the shared private road shall be left clear of all construction debris and shall be run over with a magnet roller in an effort to prevent flat tires from nails, screws or other metals. So all of that, all those conditions will be added into the conditions of approval for the project. |
| 02:51:00.91 | Jeffery Luxenberg | all those |
| 02:51:05.58 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And is that, you're reading what's on the left |
| 02:51:08.37 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. |
| 02:51:08.79 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, and then on the right... The right is... |
| 02:51:11.14 | Matthew Mandich | Right is slight adjustments to the wording in the draft resolution that I accept and can be changed as as as noted they mirror very much what's written already in the construction staging plan. These are based on the original construction staging plan. The new conditions provided to the left are much more robust than what I originally had here so these will be adjusted accordingly. |
| 02:51:34.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right, so my point was of the four red boxes, the bottom right says we should delete this condition, and we are not suggesting that. |
| 02:51:45.09 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so the four red boxes really do pertain to what is on the left, and they've just been kind of added in and adjusted to what was in the original language of the draft resolution. In fact, what's on the left is even more robust. It repeats what's on the right and is even more robust than that. |
| 02:51:59.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Right. I'm saying that we're accepting the three red boxes, the two on the top and the one on the left. We are not accepting the note on the right, which says delete this condition. That's what I that's the clear. Yes. |
| 02:52:13.39 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, so the note is |
| 02:52:15.40 | Jeffery Luxenberg | says we don't think this is necessary, |
| 02:52:17.81 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, no, we will not delete any. No. Not deleted. Yeah, we'll take the changes and we'll do the addition. |
| 02:52:23.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so what we're proposing is everything on the left, which includes three of the four boxes on the right. Correct. Okay, and that's what the motion is? Did somebody make a motion? |
| 02:52:30.80 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:52:30.83 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 02:52:34.45 | Kristina Feller | can i ask a question did you did you consult the conditions of approval for three marion Matthew. |
| 02:52:46.28 | Unknown | The conditions of approval for 3 Marion are very... |
| 02:52:49.97 | Matthew Mandich | long. |
| 02:52:50.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:52:50.97 | Matthew Mandich | Uh, |
| 02:52:51.66 | Kristina Feller | So you consulted them or no? |
| 02:52:53.51 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I had a look at them, yeah. |
| 02:52:54.97 | Kristina Feller | Okay. Because, I mean... |
| 02:52:56.77 | Matthew Mandich | I'm aware of the conditions for that project. I actually did a changes to an approved project for them based on those conditions. So yeah, I'm familiar with that site. |
| 02:53:04.20 | Kristina Feller | Right, because we require that they refurbish the road because of all their construction material. Obviously, it's a bigger project than what we're talking about here, but I think we should. |
| 02:53:09.14 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:53:19.89 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, that's something to maybe be touched on as far as that condition. I mean, I know Mr. Messimer is getting that road redone, paid for at the expense of three Marion as part of that condition. When that occurs, I think is, again, between property owners to determine. |
| 02:53:35.20 | Jeffery Luxenberg | You don't know, but do you have any idea of when that might occur? Thank you. Thank you. the word. |
| 02:53:40.73 | Matthew Mandich | The word that I'm hearing is, I think he wants it done sooner than later, and that's kind of, again, what I've been told, but I... I don't know exactly. |
| 02:53:51.02 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm trying to ascertain whether this works |
| 02:53:52.31 | Matthew Mandich | I mean, I don't think that's going to get done until three Marion is finaled. I'll put it that way. I mean, practically speaking, I don't think you're redoing the road while that project's still underway. |
| 02:54:01.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I was just trying to ascertain whether this turntable, which is a much smaller project, would be done before Three Marion gets done? That's a great question. I can't answer. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 02:54:09.37 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 02:54:09.49 | Unknown | That's a good one. |
| 02:54:09.71 | Matthew Mandich | QUICKLY. |
| 02:54:09.98 | Unknown | Call me. |
| 02:54:10.97 | Matthew Mandich | answer. |
| 02:54:12.76 | Michael Rex | you |
| 02:54:13.18 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. that. |
| 02:54:13.57 | Michael Rex | Thank you. |
| 02:54:13.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:54:13.98 | Matthew Mandich | study. |
| 02:54:17.08 | Michael Rex | All right, let's move on. |
| 02:54:18.21 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:54:18.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so we had a motion. Yes, I made a motion. Was there a second? |
| 02:54:20.35 | Michael Rex | Do we have a motion? Yes. |
| 02:54:22.02 | Andrew Junius | You had a motion? of those conditions and I seconded it. Thank you. |
| 02:54:25.45 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, so any discussion? any further discussion? No. So therefore, Director Phipps, call the roll. |
| 02:54:34.65 | Director Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Filler. No. Chair Saad. No. Chair Luxenberg. |
| 02:54:38.33 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No. No. |
| 02:54:42.24 | Director Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 02:54:45.23 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, the next item is item 6E. I'm gonna take a one minute recess so that I can recuse myself because as I said, this project is within 500 feet of my property. |
| 02:55:02.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:55:03.00 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 02:55:04.99 | Unknown | you |
| 02:55:37.42 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. He's like, yeah, I do too. We can call some movers. You need to. |
| 02:55:41.94 | Jeffery Luxenberg | We can call some movers. You need a computer. You need all these things. |
| 02:55:47.48 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 02:55:47.56 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Well, |
| 02:55:54.97 | David Marlatt | Have a Thanksgiving. |
| 02:56:02.25 | Nastassya Saad | Good night, Jeffrey. |
| 02:56:05.59 | Adam Blair | Thank you, Jerry. |
| 02:56:09.64 | Nastassya Saad | Turn over to you, Adam. |
| 02:56:12.66 | Adam Blair | Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair. And again, good evening, Commissioners and members of the audience who are still with us. For those of you just joining in, I'm Adam Blair, Assistant Planner with the Community Development Department. The item before you this evening is an application requesting approval of a variance and zoning permit application to facilitate a 176-square-foot rear addition, as well as a residential interior remodel at 82 Central Avenue. And we dive in i'm similar to senior planner mandage's recent project pursuant to solicit a municipal code 10.50 point 020 subsection e the planning commission shall review and approve the zoning permit which is typically an administrative or ministerial permit as part of the entire proposal since the zoning permit is bundled with a variance application which requires planning commission review and approval next slide |
| 02:56:35.47 | Courtney Davies | Thank you. |
| 02:57:06.13 | Adam Blair | So here's a location map showing the location of 82 Central Avenue. The parcel is identified by assessor parcel number 065-202-05. It is located in the R-1-6 single-family medium-low-density residential zoning district per Sausalito zoning ordinance and general plan. And I just wanted to point out that the address in Marin map, for some reason it gives it two numbers. There's 82, which is blocked by the assessor parcel number on the screen, and 78. Um... they have not or planning was not able to staff was not able to find any documentation showing that there was ever a second unit there to begin with uh with the address 78 central avenue so not 100 sure why that's there but just to clarify it's an existing single family residence addressed 82 central avenue next slide |
| 02:57:59.10 | Adam Blair | Project summary, so applicant Heather Wright Foy on behalf of property owners Evan Goldschmidt and Laura Gelston are requesting approval of two variances, which are requesting relief from floor area ratio and building coverage limits pursuant to Sausalito Municipal Code 10.22.040, table 10.22-2, bit of a mouthful. And then the zoning permit is proposed to facilitate a 176 square foot rear residential addition, as mentioned earlier, and interior remodel. The proposed addition would be located on the lower level underneath an existing second level deck. 30.4 square feet of this addition would protrude beyond the existing upper deck with a new roof deck on the addition connecting to that existing upper deck. So it serves as a bit of an extension. The request is brought forth since the existing property currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area ratio and building coverage. And as I'll get into on the next slide, the existing residence is located on a legal substandard lot. And with that, next slide. dining into the diving into the zoning data table a bit um as i said earlier parcels in the r-1-6 single-family residential district with a minimum parcel size of 6 000 square feet per salzolito zoning ordinance the existing lot is 2 790 square feet which is less than half of the minimum parcel standard in this zoning district as mentioned earlier going through there's one existing dwelling unit site. That's not changing. The existing residence is an existing non-conforming structure with regards to setbacks. It currently has two feet, one and a quarter inch setback for the rear side property line, and then three feet, two and three quarters of an inch setback from the left side these are both within the five foot side yard setback so it's non-conforming however the proposed addition in the rear the applicants work to design it so that it was set outside of the five foot side yard setback so the addition itself is compliant but the residence is existing non-conforming Um, height, the building is compliant at 26 feet, three inches. That height is not changing. Moving to building coverage, one of the two variances being requested. The current residents before accounting for the addition is at 43.6%, which is above the 35% permitted in that zoning district per our zoning ordinance. The building coverage would go up just a little bit, 0.6%, from 43.6% to 44.2%. This is largely because that addition is underneath that existing deck, so looking top to bottom, it doesn't protrude. all that much but regardless in relation to building coverage it's not compliant hence why the variance is needed moving to floor area again existing residents is non-compliant it's at 75.2 percent which is much higher than the 45 percent that is allowed in that zoning district floor area ratio will change by 5.3 percent from 75.2 percent to 80.5 percent Again, this could be attributed to the fact that it's on a legal substandard lot, but basically that, Property is not compliant and hence that's why the second variance is being requested to accommodate the addition since the floor area would increase and then impervious surface. The property is clear. It would still be compliant. And then just to touch on parking briefly, the property as it is now does not have any off street parking spaces. So it's an existing nonconforming in relation to parking. But if you look at the table, it's kind of hard to read in the top right. This is from our nonconforming section, 10.62.050. The project, as it's proposed, consists of voluntary partial demolition for a remodel project. So you can see those Xs are highlighted, remodels highlighted. So besides for the zoning permit and the variance to address the zoning aspects, typically a building permit will be required for this addition following the zoning review and approval. And as indicated in the table table this kind of remodel would not trigger the need for them to provide additional off-street parking I mean the site couldn't do it anyway So. And with that, next slide. Diving into the first requested variance for floor area ratio. Again, it's proposed, or it's requested because the residence is on a legal substandard lot. The floor area ratio would increase by 147 square feet. This was measured with the addition. And again, some of the reasons for the variance request is that the lot size is less than half the size of the minimum parcel size in the R-1-6 zoning district. And the applicant's worked to propose a design which increased the utility of the existing single family residence while minimizing impact to step forms, mass, bulk, and density in relation to surrounding homes. And this would be more visible in a rendering that I have on the next slide. And we can actually jump there next. So the second variance is being requested for relief from building coverage standards. Again, for the proposed design, it's a very minimal impact for building coverage. It increases by 17.72 square feet, which results in only a 0.6% increase over what it is currently. Again, the proposed design maintains the residential character of the neighborhood. You can even see in this Google Earth image, the home, it's got like a red location marker on it. You can see that just how it is in terms of size in relation to other properties around, it's pretty consistent in terms of its multi-level scale. And even with the proposed addition, which would be popping out that bottom left side, you could even see the neighbors to the left, which I believe are 74 and I think that's 72 Central. already have existing bump outs that come out so the residential or I guess the character of the neighborhood would not be negatively impacted by this proposed development. And again, the applicant works diligently to try to comply with the municipal code where they could, for example, proposing the. addition outside of the five foot setback so that they weren't extending the nonconforming wall of the main residence. So the applicants did work diligently to do their best to comply with whatever aspects of the municipal code they could. Next slide. diving into the zoning permit portion of this application the zoning permit is requested to facilitate the actual construction of the 176 square foot rear residential addition again as stated earlier it's located underneath the second level deck 30.4 square feet will protrude and the interior remodel will consist of approximately 374 square feet of existing finished storage space inside the main residence that will be converted to living area. The interior layout will be reconfigured with a new laundry room, bedroom, bathroom. And the reason why this didn't require an additional permit, like, say, a design review permit, despite the square footage threshold, is because that storage space is already counted as floor area pursuant to municipal code 10.40.040. So it was all just remodeling on the inside. It's not like they were doing a new addition of an extra 300 square feet, which would thus trigger design review. Next slide. So with that being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve application 2024-00128 for 82 Central Avenue and adopt the attached draft resolution approving the variance and zoning permit application. Staff finds the proposed project is in conformance with the criteria listed in Sausalito Municipal Code 10.68.050, subsection A through F, and Sausalito Municipal Code 10.52, Zoning Permits. And with that, I conclude my presentation and open to any questions. Thanks. |
| 03:06:07.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Adam. Another great report for the evening. Thank you for staying with us. I will look to the commission. Any questions? None. Okay. Is the applicant going to give a presentation? Would you like to speak? You'll have 15 minutes if you can just come up and state your name and address for the record. |
| 03:06:31.19 | Megan Matthews | I'm actually Megan Matthews. I'm not Heather Foy. I'm her business partner. She wasn't able to be here tonight. And we are We have designed this on behalf of the owners, Evan and Laura. I think Adam did a very excellent job going through the numbers. |
| 03:06:45.72 | Nastassya Saad | I'm sorry to interrupt you. Can I just get you to speak a little closer to the microphone? |
| 03:06:45.86 | Megan Matthews | Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Um, Did you hear all that? you know, this is a very modest change to the existing home in terms of mass and bulk. And we've worked very hard to get, um, to have it be consistent with the neighborhood. And we've been working on this project for quite a while. The numbers speak for themselves. It's a very, very small change to the existing home in terms of additional square footage. So if you have any questions, we're happy to answer them. |
| 03:07:27.05 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, I'm going to assume you have about 13 minutes left. |
| 03:07:33.04 | Megan Matthews | It's late, we'll keep it short. |
| 03:07:33.07 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. Does anybody have any questions? Amen. none. Okay, can we open it up for public comment? Director Phipps, please. |
| 03:07:43.70 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Looking to the chamber for raised hands, seeing none. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none. Back to you, Chair. Thank you. |
| 03:07:52.68 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. All right, going to look for a discussion, maybe a motion. |
| 03:08:00.12 | Andrew Junius | Move to approve. |
| 03:08:02.07 | Nastassya Saad | Second. And we take role, Director Phipps. |
| 03:08:07.74 | Director Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Merlot. Commissioner Junius. Yes. Commissioner Feller. Yes. Vice Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. Let the record show. Jeffrey has recused for this item. |
| 03:08:12.80 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Yes. |
| 03:08:19.36 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. |
| 03:08:20.90 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:08:21.86 | Nastassya Saad | Going to make a move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. OK, going to do it. I want to hit it. There we are. |
| 03:08:27.95 | Director Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:08:27.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:08:27.99 | Director Phipps | Bye. |
| 03:08:28.19 | Nastassya Saad | Have a good night. |
| 03:08:29.15 | Director Phipps | Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Congratulations to the project applicants. Have a good evening, and we'll see you next time on December 15th. |
| 03:08:41.47 | Unknown | you |
Jim Messmer — Against: Neighbor using Debbie Messimer's computer raised safety and access issues on the narrow private road, expressed construction fatigue from 3 Marion, and asked that a general contractor be required to create a detailed construction plan before approval, doubting feasibility given the site constraints. ▶ 📄