| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:35.32 | Nastassya Saad | I'd like to call the planning commission meeting for Wednesday, September 10th. To order, it is 631. Assistant City Manager Phipps. |
| 00:00:46.08 | Phipps | Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening, Vice Chair, Chair, Commissioners, members of the public and staff. Thank you for joining us this evening after our August respite and in our new and improved City of Sal Salido Council Chambers. Happy that we're all here. This evening's meeting is being held at City of Sal Salido Council Chambers 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 just as a reminder if you are joining us from a phone and you'd like to raise your hand from the zoom application press star nine with that chair i will give it back to you |
| 00:01:25.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much and welcome back everybody. It's nice to see everybody in person again. Director, Assistant City Manager Phipps, can we take roll please? |
| 00:01:36.29 | Phipps | Absolutely. Commissioner Merlot. present. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:01:41.23 | Fred Moore | President. |
| 00:01:42.70 | Phipps | Uh, Commissioner Luxenberg. President. Vice Chair Junius. Chair Saad. |
| 00:01:48.20 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. |
| 00:01:48.94 | Phipps | All right, all are present. Back to you, Cher. |
| 00:01:50.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Item two is approval of the agenda. |
| 00:01:54.44 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Before we do that, is there a way to turn this fan? I'm having trouble hearing with the sound of a lower speed. And I'll move approval of the agenda. |
| 00:02:05.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Do we have a second? |
| 00:02:07.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Second? |
| 00:02:08.74 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Assistant City Manager Phillips. |
| 00:02:12.99 | Phipps | Commissioner Merlot. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Genius. Yes. Chair Sod. |
| 00:02:20.70 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:02:20.75 | Phipps | Thank you. Thanks. Motion passed. |
| 00:02:21.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Item three are public comments on items not on this agenda. ACM FIPS, please. |
| 00:02:30.89 | Phipps | Looking to the chamber, I have not received any speaker cards for this item on the agenda. Okay, confirming none. Looking to our Zoom application for raised hands. Seeing none, Chair. Back to you. |
| 00:02:43.96 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Four is approval of the Planning Commission minutes. 4A, these are Saucyda Planning Commission minutes from July 23rd. Any discussion or is there a motion to move forward? |
| 00:02:58.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Ugh. |
| 00:02:58.99 | Phipps | on Luke |
| 00:02:59.55 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:59.73 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE Second. Thank you. IN THE CITY. |
| 00:03:02.97 | Phipps | H.C.M. Phipps. Commissioner Merlatt. Yes. Commissioner Moore. Yes. Commissioner Luxenberg. Yes. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. And Chair Saad. Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:03:04.98 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. Bye. |
| 00:03:11.22 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. Thank you. Item five are communications assistant city manager. Do you have any communications from staff? |
| 00:03:18.77 | Phipps | I do have one communication item this evening. As the commission is aware, the city has a relatively recently adopted and certified amended housing element. And as a part of that process, the city has recently submitted two ballot measures to the county of Marin to assist in the implementation of housing element program four, that's our program of rezoning. To complement and to assist in education of the registered voters in the city of Sausalito, the city plans on distributing four mailers in the coming months leading up to the November 4 election, which will discuss the placement of the measures and provide some specific Q&A-related FAQ responses and special election info, as well as ensure that registered voters are pointed to all of the relevant official documents. And finally, to remind voters, I think just a few days or a week prior to the election that it's coming up. So, registered voters in the city, please look out for those communications. And of course, as always, we are available to answer any questions that members of the public may have. Thank you. |
| 00:04:32.83 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Let me first look to the commission for any communication items. Anybody? I just have two actually, and I'm gonna kick off one for my colleagues. Commissioner, Commissioner Marlott and Vice Chair. Did you have any luck meeting on your working group for the code review? |
| 00:04:56.78 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yes, thank you, Chair. Yes, Commissioner Junius and I had a meeting earlier this week, just kind of organizing our initial approach to the responsibility we're charged with, thinking through some concepts. Nothing specific to report at this time. |
| 00:05:15.10 | Nastassya Saad | okay wonderful we definitely appreciate that effort and look forward to all the contributions And the second communication item, I'm going to ask Assistant City Manager Phipps to essentially check all of the feasibility with each and every one of you to move our meeting times from 630 to 6. So just as a general concept to start a little earlier, ideally for the public, and to end a little earlier, council's now starting earlier. So just in line with that. So if you'd be able to check with each commissioner assistant city manager we'd appreciate it and see if we can do that moving forward |
| 00:05:50.85 | Phipps | Absolutely, Chair. Yeah, thank you. And just to give some background on that, the Historic Preservation Commission, at their meetings, they meet at 6 p.m. The council recently amended its meeting schedule to meet at 5 p.m. with closed sessions starting prior to that. So this would just be a reflection of some of the changes that we've seen at the council level, in addition to coming in line with the same schedule that the Historic Preservation Commission holds. Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.18 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Outside of that, if there are no other communications, I will open up our communications item number five for public comment, Assistant Manager Phipps. Can we see if we have any public comment, please? |
| 00:06:34.05 | Phipps | Yeah, looking to interested speakers in the chamber. No speaker cards received, seeing none. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. Chair saying none. Back to you. |
| 00:06:44.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We're gonna move on to item six right now. This is the public hearing portion for the evening. Item six a, this is for 33 San Carlos Avenue. This is a design review permit with a heightened review findings. Our senior planner, Matthew Mandich, will give us some orientation for this project. |
| 00:07:08.89 | Matthew Mandich | Good evening, commissioners. As you're aware, this item will not be heard this evening. The applicant has requested additional time to put together the documents that were requested of them, including plans and arborist report and tree preservation plans. So we are awaiting those materials. They have assured me they will be with us by the end of this week. So we would request continuance to a date certain of September 24th, please. |
| 00:07:33.67 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Are there questions of Senior Planner Mandage on 33 San Carlos? Okay, thank you very much. We appreciate it. I'm going to open it up for public comment on 33 San Carlos. I believe we have two speakers. We also did receive and notate some public comment for the record that will be attached to the record if it's not already. Assistant City Manager, can you facilitate the public comment for 6A? |
| 00:08:02.13 | Phipps | Absolutely, thank you, Chair. I have three speaker cards in connection with this item. First speaker is Leslie Schofferman. |
| 00:08:12.31 | Phipps | Welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. Please state your address for the record. |
| 00:08:16.85 | Leslie Schofferman | Thank you. Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to speak to this issue. I realize it's been continued to the 24th. However, for purposes of tonight's proposed meeting, my wife and I reviewed a lot of data and sent some slides to discuss some findings that were not completely discussed. and finalized. And I won't discuss those tonight because that issue is to be continued to the 24th. However, As Mr. Mattis just reported, we have continued this because the costuses needed more time to complete the plans. And, uh, Uh, It's interesting to me. that at the last meeting, and I reviewed the video of the last meeting to be certain of this, that in addition to the continuance, with certain conditions. the discussion surrounded that the applicant at 33 would be allowed to continue to protect the materials and to assure safety at the site. And there was a clear discussion about that and that the work order would, the stop work order would continue. However, over the last many days, there's been a lot of rebuilding going on. We have not waited for the new permit. and the new design review of that permit to be completed But for example, there's been new steel beams placed on the south wall, the south part of the structure, which is an issue of my concern. The size and magnitude of the south wall were in the cutting off of our air and light and crowding us out. But we'll discuss that further with slides in the 24th. But for now, I'm just stating that a lot of construction is being done at that site, way in addition to preserving the materials and also creating safety at the site. In fact, the most conspicuous parts that need to be saved is the tree on the edge of their property, which is covered with construction soil and dirt and is choking the roots. But that aside, there's the major thing I wanted to report tonight, and I didn't want to wait till the 24th, was that there was additional absolute construction going on, not just preserving materials. Thank you. |
| 00:11:02.34 | Phipps | Thank you for your public comment. Next speaker is Eric Ledquist. |
| 00:11:08.84 | Phipps | Apologies. |
| 00:11:12.92 | Phipps | Ah, that must be my other speaker card. Yeah, I'm happy to. entertain that if the chair has no issue? That's all right. then Rifkin. Welcome. Thank you for being here this evening. |
| 00:11:23.98 | Len Rifkind | Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Len Rifkind, Rifkind Law and Mediation. And I represent the neighbor, Vicki Abelis, at 25 San Carlos. And you just heard from the other neighbor, well, we've got construction going on, and there's a stop work order. Can we flip to the very last slide, Matthew, please? I think it's the letter. Just flip to the last, then the first one. I'm looking for Mr. Henry's letter. There it is. Okay. What's the day of this letter? It's April 21st. 23 or 13, I can't see it. from this angle. |
| 00:11:57.08 | Phipps | 23. |
| 00:11:57.46 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:11:57.47 | Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:11:57.74 | Len Rifkind | 23, thank you. And if you look at the second paragraph, I mean, what does it say there? It says stop work. It seems it's plain English to me. But it says. uh, Please have the construction workers stop performing construction. That's what it says. That's not happening. not that hard you just heard the neighbors so let's go back to the other slides so you can see the progression if we go to the first one all the way the first july 15 this is what it looks like and um Thank you. You don't see any steel there. Next slide, please. September 3, just a little bit ago, I see steel coming up. Next slide. |
| 00:12:40.25 | Len Rifkind | because the steel that you just saw that shows, you know, and so you can see which ones are up. I don't know what's going on here, But someone at the city needs to tell these folks to stop building. Why? Because your planning process is get planning approval, get a building permit, build according to the plan. That's how it's supposed to work. It's not happening right now. They've got to stop work order. Why? Because they over-demoed. This no longer remodel, it's a new build. And it's over the percentage. I think it's 40% in this town. And so... Please have someone, I'm asking the commission to direct staff to do what they have to do to stop the work. Please. Okay. I think I... killed that one. So now the next one is the September 24th, Staff is recommending September 24 we're not, Let's put it this way. I have the neighbor that's directly above this. this project to be finished. We're not the king of Dr. No here. In fact, we've retained an architect who has a number of proposals We're actually pretty close. We just need them to redesign 300 square feet, I think the commission directed to say, figure out something about 300 feet, a closet and a bathroom. Okay, and so with an architect, it's proposed, and we'll share with the applicant that five different iterations of how that might work so that we can come before the commission. You don't see people squabbling with each other and we can get to yes, which is a much better place to be. But I don't think we can do this by September 24. You just heard this tree. I'm aghast to hear that we don't have the normal protection of a heritage oak tree. I mean, we've got dirt on the roots and construction materials on the roots. Surest way to kill an oak tree. Let's not have that. Madam Chair, may I have 30 more seconds? Thank you for putting a comment. Sorry, we have a strict time for everyone to be equitable. So you want me to sit down and be quiet? Yes. Okay, I'll do it. I think you got my point. |
| 00:14:41.29 | Phipps | I think you heard that. Thank you. |
| 00:14:43.30 | Len Rifkind | Thank you. |
| 00:14:43.34 | Phipps | Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Rivkind. Next speaker is Eric Lundquist. Eric, welcome. Please state your address for the record. You'll have three minutes. |
| 00:14:52.68 | Eric Lundquist | Thank you, Eric Lundquist for 80 Gate 5 Road. I represent the owner of 25 San Carlos. I would just conclude, as the last speaker was, in requesting that the meeting not be continued to the 24th, but a meeting in October. which would allow additional time for the plans to be submitted. reviewed according to city's policies and regulations, have the appropriate story polls installed, Certified. and then have those communications between the neighbors allow additional time for that to occur, as we do believe there is a solution here. Related to the STOP work, Regarding protections, in the past, in my 26 years in public service, what we would require is a protection plan. And it's my understanding that that has not been submitted and the protection plan will be necessary in order to inform city staff on what's being done to protect and then also to make sure that there's transparency in the public. So that's the end of my comments. Thank you very much for the consideration. |
| 00:15:51.02 | Phipps | Thank you for your comments, Mr. Lidquist. That does it for speaker cards received, Chair. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands. And I'll just give it a moment. Signal, back to you. |
| 00:16:04.47 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. So to bring it back up here, we do have the recommendation for the date certain. May I ask Senior Planner Mandich if we could have you on a microphone just to have a quick dialogue, please? |
| 00:16:30.97 | Nastassya Saad | Hello. Can you please confirm that you've worked with the applicant to secure this date and your level of confidence to be able to move to the September 24th date? |
| 00:16:41.46 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so we've been working with the applicant behind the scenes as well. I mean, they've been having discussions with both neighbors that I believe that have been here tonight and are represented here as well. I'm waiting on the final plan sets and I hope to get those by the end of the week. These are minor architectural changes that we're looking at here, and these do not require a ton of additional review by outside departments or, um, And any other department other than planning really. So I think in the review, the changes will be relatively minor to the overall scope of the project. So. Um, We're really just hoping we can get the story pulls up and certified in the 10 day period. And we'd like to continue to a date certain just to keep this thing moving along. If they're unable to provide, we'll have to continue it again to a date certain of another date, but we don't want to leave it open-ended as a date uncertain. We're also pushing up against some timeline issues and things like that with permit streamlining and stuff. So it'd be great just to keep it moving forward with, you know, a date certain. And obviously this depends on the applicant and what they're able to, get um and if they don't have the materials and time for the hearing they don't have the materials and time and we'll have to do it at the next one but |
| 00:17:49.40 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:17:49.43 | Matthew Mandich | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:17:50.55 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that. And then also, are you able to comment on the code enforcement conversation from this evening? |
| 00:17:57.14 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, we're aware of the construction that I believe took place earlier this week or last week when some additional members were laid as shown in the photos there. We have issued a compliance order to the owner concerning that additional work that occurred outside of the scope of the stop work order. So something that we're actively dealing with. |
| 00:18:17.53 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, any other questions for Senior planner manage? Yes. |
| 00:18:23.83 | Unknown | but |
| 00:18:24.04 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.16 | David Marlatt | I'm sorry. |
| 00:18:24.21 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:18:24.37 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yeah, well, thank you, Matthew. One question. Since the last hearing, when we continue this item, has the planning department, I guess, officially received any interim sets of drawings or submittals that normally would take a couple weeks to review? Yes, we... |
| 00:18:40.36 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, we have. We have. We've been looking at stuff. They have not been a formal submission yet, and they haven't declared it as. I've been looking at stuff, plans sets with the architect over, you know, digital meetings, Zoom and whatnot. So, yeah, we've been working on it, but we don't have an official final plan set that they've submitted yet. |
| 00:18:58.32 | David Marlatt | But what you've seen has been complete enough that you feel confident that- Yeah, yes. All issues are being addressed or will be addressed in this next story. |
| 00:19:06.72 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, the, you know, the request of the planning commission really for the alteration of that, you know, some of that third floor massing has is relatively minor. I mean, these are small architectural changes that we're looking at here. This isn't anything large that would affect the project in any significant way as far as you know, fire safety or drainage or anything like that. So |
| 00:19:27.73 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:19:28.29 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:19:29.38 | David Marlatt | I assume that. |
| 00:19:30.03 | Fred Moore | you Just to reiterate, so you're aware of the issues with the additional steel and photos as a city then documented that in a written correspondence to the owner. |
| 00:19:40.59 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, I believe so. Our code enforcement officer has been handling that and he's been on site and has taken photographic evidence issued a compliance order. So yes, there's been documentation. |
| 00:19:50.90 | Fred Moore | The question one of the speakers indicated that there have been some five reiterations of potential architectural changes. Are you aware, or has the applicant indicated that they're working with the neighbor on different architectural changes other than what you've seen? |
| 00:20:04.50 | Matthew Mandich | I was not aware that there had been five iterations from a separate architect outside of the applicant's architect. I know that they have been in discussions with the neighbors and been working to try and to find a solution, but I have not been told that there was an outside architect beyond the architect I've been dealing with that works with the applicant that's been trying up transit plan sets. So that's new information for me. |
| 00:20:27.57 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much, Matthew. So just to bring it back up here, actually point of clarification, assistant city manager, are we taking a vote on the staff recommendation for the date certain? Can you clarify for me, please? |
| 00:20:44.71 | Phipps | I think that would be appropriate. |
| 00:20:46.06 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Okay. I'm going to look for a motion for staff's recommendation, um, to continue, uh, the item, which is 433 San Carlos to a date certain of September 24th. |
| 00:21:04.78 | Fred Moore | I move to support staff recommendation to continue |
| 00:21:08.10 | Andrew Junius | So I can, |
| 00:21:09.10 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:21:09.12 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. And just with a point of discussion just for the public that's here. I think you just heard from um matthew bandage that it is on the applicant to be able to get their materials in time and so in the effort of moving it forward um we do have that motion on the floor but it would be up to the applicant so there's a chance that it won't make the 24th just for you that clarification. Can we take role please on that? Assistant City Manager. |
| 00:21:38.04 | Phipps | Commissioner Moreland. Commissioner Moreland. Commissioner Luxenberg. Vice Chair Janius. Chair Saad. |
| 00:21:47.35 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 00:21:47.37 | Phipps | Yes. Motion passes. |
| 00:21:48.62 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We are now gonna move on to item 6B. This is 16 Glenn Drive. This is a zoning permit and three variances. We have senior planner, Matthew Mandich again for the evening. |
| 00:22:06.12 | Matthew Mandich | Good evening, commissioners, again. Yes, so the project before you this evening is 16 Glen Drive. This is a zoning permit for two rear decks, two-story deck, and requires several variances due to the situation at the lot, which we'll explain a little bit more here. Next slide, please. So here you have the location here. Unfortunately, I don't have my pointer up here with me today. We've got some rearranging going on in the office. But as you can see on the left, the parcel outlined in yellow is the parcel in questions. Bit of a keyhole parcel that's enveloped by the two neighboring parcels on Lower Glen Drive there. You can see that again on the right-hand side outlined in yellow as well. And you can see really how densely built this area is. Thank you very much. How densely built this area is here. It's quite kind of congested in here. Both of the lots next door both have two individual dwelling structures. Um, detached dwelling structures here, one and two, one and two on those lots. And this, you know, looks almost to be somewhat of a carve out. And the lot is pretty much built property line to property line with very little yard area on either side or the rear. Next slide, please. So a little bit of background on this house. This is the survey, as you can see right here. Built originally in 1909, which kind of explains some of the wonkiness that we're seeing here and the nonconforming situation that we have. Heavily remodeled in 1980, so lost a lot of any of its historic merit at that point. It is a legal nonconforming structure. The building exceeds the fall allowance for the lot. It also exceeds the coverages, both building coverage and impervious surface coverage it has non-compliant rear and side setbacks it also has non-compliant parking with one space rather than two and a small portion of the home is built over the property line right there this is a substandard lot as the minimum lot size for the r225 district is 5 000 square feet this lot This lot is 3,185 square feet. It's also nonconforming and substandard with its width, which is less than 30 feet, and the average width, which is less than 50 feet. So a lot of issues with this very small lot. There was also an illegal unit on the lower floor for a while before it was converted to an ADU, which we'll discuss a little bit more. Because the lot, again, is so small, the R225 districts only allows for one dwelling unit for every 2,500 square feet. So there was a second dwelling unit down there, which now since has been converted to an ADU to remedy that situation as well. Next slide, please. So there was some code enforcement here as well. We had a situation. You can see kind of this is the current situation that we have in the backyard here right now. In December 2022, a complaint was received by a concerned neighbor. There was an investigation by the code enforcement department at that time. It turned out there was a need building without permits occurring for a lower-level ADU, interior remodel, as well as the rear deck system that we're discussing today. A code enforcement case was opened at that time. A stop work order was issued, and the property owner came in and worked with our planning department and code enforcement officer to get back to compliance. So as discussed, the work included a lower-level interior ADU, which is this down here. That work was allowed to go forward with an ADU permit, which was submitted, and a subsequent building permit, which is approved. However, because of the situation with the lot and the rear decks, They were gonna require several variances, so they required planning commissioning approval, they were split off from that interior ADU project. Next slide, please. So the proposed project before you today is a remodel to expand the two story rear decks with the addition of stairs right here and a hot tub on the lower level. So this was the preexisting situation and this is the proposed situation down here. Requires, normally this would just require a zoning permit for this type of work, Because... of the situation with the coverage and the impervious surface and the setbacks. It requires several variances. So adding 25 square feet overall, building coverage, this is primarily on the upper level. Um, and covers the lower level, so this is what's being counted as the additional building coverage. And then that combined with the stairs right here is 63 square feet of impervious surface coverage, as well as the addition of the spa at the lower level here. And as discussed, these three variants are triggered for building coverage, impervious surface coverage, and the setbacks. And we'll discuss the setbacks in a second here. Next slide, please. So this is just the zoning table taken from the staff report. Again, just want to discuss, you know, the minimum parcel area, 5,000. This is well below that. It is technically... because the lot was laid out before 1963 and the structure was built before then as well, but it is a substandard lot for the zoning district. As discussed, one dwelling unit per 2,500 square feet. This has two now, but that includes the one ADU, which is, of course, ministerial approval. The setbacks, noncompliant, rear and side setbacks here. I have put 10 inches for the setback on that side. However, that's kind of the maximum setback. The minimum setback would actually be kind of about minus a foot and a half. So I did just put the maximum setback there in this case, which is 10 inches on the right-hand side. Height not changing at all. Building coverage already over the max allowed. The addition will continue to bump it up. So a variance is required. Floor ratio not changing, impervious surface coverage going up a bit as well, so variance is required, and the parking is not changing. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. So here's just a little bit of an outline again in plan form. You can see the existing deck right here, proposed deck right there, existing lower-level deck right here, and proposed lower-level deck right here with the spa and the stair set leading in. You can see that this is expanding into the required side yard setback, which is right here. We'll see it a little bit more detail in another slide, but this has a very due to the length of the building, which we know the length of building anything over 40 feet. You have to add an additional one foot setback for every five feet it's over. The building is over 66 feet long. So the side yard setbacks are actually eight feet. Normally on a lot this size, it would be three foot setbacks required due to the size, the skinny size of the lot and the 30 foot width. But in this case, through the length of the building, we have an increased setback of eight feet. So next slide, please. And yeah, you can see that here. Here's the rear yard setback right there. This is the 15-foot setback. You'd see really small rear yard area here. Much of the existing home already encroaches into the existing rear yard setback. Here's that extra eight-foot setback here for the side yard. And this is where the additional building coverage is being added. The deck's being extended into that area right here. And then the additional impervious surface coverage you can see with the stairs and the additional deck there. Again, these are the setback lines right there. Next slide, please. So here's that situation on the right-hand side. This is how it presents between the two homes that are right there. Right around this area right here would be about zero lot line. As we get down to this edge right here, this is where you get the 10-inch setback from the property line. And as you can see, the deck was built all the way to the extent of the building wall, so it has currently a 10-inch setback. However, the plans that are before you today, if they are approved, will require this to be cut back to three foot four inches. So it will at least respect the minimum setback for a lot of the size, rather than being all the way up to the extent of the wall there with a 10 inch setback. So this pillar will be moved over in this extent, three feet back would be cut off if the plans are approved today. Next slide, please. Just again, a little bit of the situation that we have there right now. You know, part of the upper deck was already built. You know, there's no railing or anything on there yet, and this is going to have to be moved in a bit. The lower deck's still completely unfinished here. You can see the spa has been delivered. There's been some excavation and things that have occurred for that, but no pipes or anything has been laid. None of the equipment has been installed yet for the spa, so still waiting on Planning Commission approval first and then subsequent building permit approval. Next slide, please. Just to give you an idea of the situation we have here. you I've labeled some of these, these are the starred lots here are all the substandard lots in the area. You can see how tight this area is in particular in Sausalito. Those of you that know lower Glenn drive as well down here, it's a set down about, you know, 10, 15 feet from, from Glenn. So it's very interesting little kind of corner of the city right here. Definitely really tight with minimal setbacks between a lot of these buildings here. So these are all the substandard lots. in that little neighborhood i've also highlighted a bunch of the decks that you can see one two three four five six seven that are all kind of facing this direction this is to take advantage of mount ham and richardson bay views that face out that way so this isn't um you know a special privilege that's being granted to this property over other properties in the area some of the other properties are also all under 5 000 square feet they have rear decks as well and there's really very limited recreation space or outdoor space for this property so the deck as it was was fairly tight and this just allows a little bit more space for the homeowner to enjoy an outdoor area and those bay and mount tam views next slide please So staff recommendation to the Planning Commission is to adopt a reservoir of pollution, proving the zoning permit and the variances to set back building coverage and previous surface coverage for the proposed project at 16 Glen. The proposed project remedies existing code violations and brings the property into compliance. It's also in conformance with the required findings for the variance in SMC 1068050 And the project is subject to any conditions of approval attached to the resolution, as well as any additional conditions added by the Planning Commission this evening. That concludes my presentation and happy to take any questions. Thank you. |
| 00:31:55.06 | Nastassya Saad | you very much matthew for the thorough report um can i just confirm with you uh did you have any public comment received for this item |
| 00:32:02.48 | Matthew Mandich | We had no public comment received for this item. We did have a couple questions from a few neighbors concerned about whether or not there was going to be any view blockage and assured them that there wasn't, given that the deck was totally concealed by the house from the neighbors that were up on Glen, at much higher elevation looking down. So they were totally fine with that, and no one requested to submit any public comment on that. |
| 00:32:23.29 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you for confirming. Okay. Commissioner Marat, do you have any questions for Matthew? |
| 00:32:29.01 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Matthew. Can you just remind us, what was the total length of the building? and I think that's a good thing. |
| 00:32:33.46 | Matthew Mandich | 66 feet and 10 inches, I believe, if I'm not conscious. |
| 00:32:33.48 | David Marlatt | That's what you said. |
| 00:32:37.31 | David Marlatt | And that's what generates. |
| 00:32:38.56 | Matthew Mandich | That's what generates that increased sight-eared setback, yes. |
| 00:32:38.68 | David Marlatt | man. Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Moore. |
| 00:32:44.63 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:32:45.23 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:32:45.26 | Nastassya Saad | Any questions for staff? |
| 00:32:47.39 | Fred Moore | We do have a few. |
| 00:32:48.08 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:32:48.60 | Fred Moore | Um, So the lower staircase, is that accessed only through inside the house, or can you go down the side of the house to get to that lower staircase? |
| 00:32:56.46 | Matthew Mandich | You can go down the left side of the house to get to that lower staircase, not the right side because it's limited by the lot line there. |
| 00:33:02.62 | Fred Moore | So the left side, it sets an improved accessible pathway down there. |
| 00:33:06.00 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, there's actually a side entrance to the ADU down there, and you can work around that to the backyard. |
| 00:33:11.38 | Fred Moore | I didn't see any drainage for the upper deck. Is that captured in a gutter, put into a system, or is it just surface flow off the deck? |
| 00:33:19.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, so we didn't receive any comments from that on DPW. I imagine that'll be something that does pop up in the building permit phase. But yeah, I mean, I'm sure there will be some kind of gutter system and drainage system that will be required for this in order for it to get a building permit. |
| 00:33:33.42 | Fred Moore | So that doesn't have to be on the plans before us tonight. |
| 00:33:35.87 | Matthew Mandich | Well, we didn't get any comments back on it. It was marked complete from that department. |
| 00:33:41.66 | Fred Moore | So has the ADU unit already received its final approvals and inspections so it's done? |
| 00:33:46.82 | Matthew Mandich | So the ADU permits been issued. It's been built. I believe they're still waiting on a final. |
| 00:33:54.94 | Fred Moore | On one of the plans, one of the elevations planned on E1, it shows the east elevation and it shows all the windows that remain in place. But if you look at it, it looks like on the proposed, the doorway and the windows on the existing are gone. Thank you. Can you explain that on A3? |
| 00:34:13.01 | Matthew Mandich | Was it presented in the presentation here? |
| 00:34:16.11 | Fred Moore | It was on the plans that you presented attachment for. It wasn't on your- |
| 00:34:16.25 | Matthew Mandich | THAT'S A GOOD THING. |
| 00:34:19.79 | Matthew Mandich | He wasn't on the presentation there? No. Okay. We could maybe bring the plan set up for that. Yeah. |
| 00:34:21.08 | Fred Moore | No. |
| 00:34:41.22 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:41.24 | Matthew Mandich | you |
| 00:34:41.66 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:41.85 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 00:34:43.55 | Fred Moore | Peace. |
| 00:34:43.87 | Matthew Mandich | It's just loading up on my end. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we'll get them up. |
| 00:34:43.96 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:44.20 | Phipps | Thank you. |
| 00:34:44.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:34:44.36 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:44.38 | Nastassya Saad | Hello. |
| 00:34:44.85 | Fred Moore | I'm not going to be |
| 00:34:49.11 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:34:49.12 | Nastassya Saad | We'll move into another question while we wait. |
| 00:34:51.03 | Fred Moore | Yeah, yeah, sure. And the proposed material is looks like it's redwood. It's not a fire resistant material. Do we have the ability to require fire resistant or Thank you. |
| 00:35:03.40 | Matthew Mandich | I believe I was discussed in the comments. It is fire resistant, right? |
| 00:35:03.67 | Fred Moore | I believe I would... |
| 00:35:07.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, underneath, yeah. I'll let the applicant will have a brief presentation afterwards and I'm sure they could answer that question, touch on that in the review. So. There is... compliant materials in there. |
| 00:35:22.69 | Fred Moore | Um, |
| 00:35:27.72 | Fred Moore | I'll just wait for the comment about the existing East Elevation once you get there, and I'll just move on to someone else. Sure. |
| 00:35:33.86 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. um, Commissioner Luxembourg. you |
| 00:35:39.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, Mr. Manus. for the presentation. I have a question. I don't know where we're heading with this, but I just want to talk about attachment six, which is the attachment six, which has an attachment two conditions of approval. I don't know, is it quicker to bring that up in the drawings? Because that's not a lot of, better. I could just try to smoke. |
| 00:36:06.55 | Phipps | I'm hearing I should pivot to putting up the draft resolution now. |
| 00:36:12.15 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I don't know. |
| 00:36:14.12 | Nastassya Saad | Whatever is your content. |
| 00:36:15.47 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:36:15.52 | Phipps | Have to take direction from commission on this. |
| 00:36:17.85 | Nastassya Saad | So that was your convenience. If you have the plans, we can go there first and see we're loading them, but if not, we can go to the ground. The plans are |
| 00:36:24.84 | Jeffery Luxenberg | many. |
| 00:36:25.38 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. Okay. That's part of the |
| 00:36:25.68 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay, let's go to the plans, and then we can go back to attachment six. Thank you. Very good. |
| 00:36:30.96 | Nastassya Saad | COMMISSIONER MOORE, I'LL LET YOU GO BACK FOR YOUR QUESTION ON THE PLANS. OH, I'M SORRY. OKAY. |
| 00:36:37.59 | Phipps | feel free to direct me, Commissioner Mark. |
| 00:36:40.65 | Nastassya Saad | I mean, you're a little bit like that. |
| 00:36:40.97 | Fred Moore | The East Elevation. |
| 00:36:42.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:36:45.00 | Fred Moore | Do you have a big... |
| 00:36:47.42 | Phipps | the dog up. No, I think. Is this up or down? |
| 00:36:52.51 | Fred Moore | It's right there. Great. So you can see the top elevation is existing, has a window, then it has another window, it has a door to the right. And then the proposed, it eliminates the window down at the bottom, and the door is gone, and it's a part of a building. Yet the note says all windows to remain. So is that just a mistake in the drawing, or? |
| 00:37:12.58 | Matthew Mandich | Well, the, the, the ADU on the lower floor was already approved by a separate building permit. |
| 00:37:18.13 | Fred Moore | Right. Look at the look at the top. See the existing window? at the top |
| 00:37:22.33 | Matthew Mandich | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:37:23.22 | Fred Moore | Look at the bottom, same spot, no windows. |
| 00:37:25.66 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah. |
| 00:37:26.78 | Fred Moore | So... |
| 00:37:28.03 | Matthew Mandich | That was... |
| 00:37:28.09 | Fred Moore | That's as it's proposed. This is. So if it's already completed, the window should have been gone on both. |
| 00:37:35.68 | Unknown | the |
| 00:37:35.83 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:37:35.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:35.88 | David Marlatt | Thank you. These drawings are actually a different set of drawings were submitted. All the windows and doors on the lower level are identical to what the proposed is on existing and proposed. So really what you should be looking at right now is what's existing and proposed should both be identical. And a separate set of drawings was submitted, but it looks like an older set was included in this. Does that make sense? Cause it makes total sense. I apologize for that, but we did submit another set and that was approved under the adu permit the windows and doors. |
| 00:38:08.99 | Matthew Mandich | I can explain some words. So yeah, we went over this aspect, Sean and I. All of the windows and doors, everything existing was, it should, everything should match, proposed existing, proposed existing for the windows. However, right before last week, we got an additional, I had some last minute changes to the zoning data table on the front page of this that were submitted. And we might've had a little bit of a, snafu there with some of the plans that This might be an older set for the cover sheet that was reviewed. I don't know. We can. Yeah, I don't know what you want to do about that, but it's already all built. They all match. |
| 00:38:46.72 | Fred Moore | That's, |
| 00:38:47.16 | Matthew Mandich | Absolutely. |
| 00:38:47.50 | Fred Moore | So the other question I guess would be on... I wasn't able to locate it. So the width of the existing upper deck, do you have the dimensions for that? I know the proposed is six feet something, but I didn't see one for the existing width of the deck. |
| 00:39:02.50 | Matthew Mandich | Well, so we can scroll up to the... |
| 00:39:03.70 | Fred Moore | We can see. |
| 00:39:08.03 | Matthew Mandich | the floor plan of the deck. |
| 00:39:10.85 | Fred Moore | I didn't see a dimension for the existing. |
| 00:39:12.96 | Matthew Mandich | What do you mean? |
| 00:39:15.38 | Fred Moore | You have an existing upper deck right there. Exactly. |
| 00:39:17.43 | Matthew Mandich | Right there, exactly. |
| 00:39:18.50 | Fred Moore | that width of that. Thank you. the depth yeah sorry |
| 00:39:27.49 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean, the deck, all the information on what the size of the deck was previously is in the cover sheet, and they were all measured via Bluebeam, so. |
| 00:39:39.07 | Nastassya Saad | So may I ask Commissioner Moore, would you mind holding, these are very specific, they're great questions for the applicant. |
| 00:39:47.17 | Matthew Mandich | These are the changes right here. Yep. |
| 00:39:48.91 | Nastassya Saad | about just my be helpful. |
| 00:39:53.34 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 00:39:54.04 | Nastassya Saad | No problem. Thank you. I'm going to go back to Commissioner Luxembourg, but |
| 00:39:54.26 | Fred Moore | Is that okay? |
| 00:40:01.58 | Nastassya Saad | I think we need to address the fact that we might have a discrepancy here with the plans. |
| 00:40:06.27 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, looks like there was something that was switched out when the plans were loaded up onto the agenda. |
| 00:40:13.02 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah, which is unfortunate. Why don't you go ahead and ask whatever question that you might have that, I don't know if will be plan related, but that might have to start the approach. |
| 00:40:21.64 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, interestingly enough, it's exactly plan related in that regard. ACM, I guess. ACM, Phipps, could you put up attachment number six? |
| 00:40:23.30 | Nastassya Saad | THAT. |
| 00:40:39.57 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Go to attachment number two, conditions of approval. |
| 00:40:54.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if we stop there, it's very important, which we always bring up, is whatever we see are the plans that we're approving. So the first paragraph, these conditions apply to the project at 16 Glen Drive, and it says, replace existing nonconforming year decks at McGuire Residence, received August 20th, 2025. I know in the past the staff has had received dates, but I looked at the plans. There are no received dates that I could find. And even if we're going to use them, I think we should use the plans that I saw would be plans dated 9-1-2024 and have a revision date of 5-10-2025. That's what's on the physical plans. Most of the Thank you. 2024 and have a revision date of 5-10-2025. That's what's on the physical plans. There's most of the plans say 9-1-24, and a few of them have bubbles with that revision date. So we need to tie whatever we approve, and it sounds like there's another set of plans that we need to tie it to, but whatever it is, I'd like to, if we get to a point of approval change that first paragraph in a similar vein looking at number two which does live into that detail first of all this is the mcguire residence not the pappas casaras residence so we need to change the that And then again, the dates that I have are July I'm sorry September 1 2024 and July 5, 10, 2025 are revision dates. But whatever, the wording needs to match, and we're going to find out what plans, if you have later plans, we'll ask the architect what the latest plans are. But anyway, it's number two should have the right title and the right dates. And if you want to add in a received date, that's okay. But I think the dates on the drawing is the dates we see, not this received date. So those are my thoughts. |
| 00:42:54.08 | Matthew Mandich | Yep. Yep. Thank you, commissioner for pointing those, uh, Mistakes out there. Appreciate it. |
| 00:43:03.22 | Nastassya Saad | Vice Chair. Any questions from one second? |
| 00:43:06.53 | Jeffery Luxenberg | No, I'm not. Thank you. |
| 00:43:08.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:43:08.74 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Sure. |
| 00:43:09.65 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, Matthew, I saw some pictures in your presentation. It looked like they actually started work without the permit, right? Is that pretty clear? Yeah, correct. Yeah, this was a code enforcement. That was the genesis of this whole situation. Okay, I'll be curious that the applicant explained how that happened, but thank you. |
| 00:43:25.33 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, I don't have any questions for you, Matthew, so why don't we hang tight and we can go to the applicant. Yep. |
| 00:43:30.05 | Andrew Junius | Yeah. |
| 00:43:31.59 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. If you want to come up to the podium, if you can please state your name for the record, you're going to have 15 minutes. If we stop you for questions, we won't count against your time. Otherwise, you can reserve any time you want for post public comment if there is any. |
| 00:43:45.61 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I didn't think I would need that much time. I thought it was a pretty straightforward project, but it looks like the elevations got switched out. I'd like to point out that the elevations are kind of irrelevant as far as the decks go, because the windows and doors on the upper and lower level are identical in the proposed. Basically, proposed should be the same. And we did submit those drawings. I don't know what the snafu, if it was us or something else that happened, but you guys do have them, or at least the city of Sausalito has them. So I apologize for that. But that is not what we're at, that's that question today, are the doors and the windows. It's literally the decks. And the decks in and of themselves are changing very little. I'll give the exact numbers right now. Lower existing deck is 74 square feet. The upper deck is 121 square feet existing. What's proposed is to almost double the size of the deck on the lower deck from 74 square feet to 146 square feet. And then to add about 25 square feet to the upper deck. So this is a really, really small change. And if you look at the lot, I don't know if you can show that one slide, Mr. Mandich, that I sent you, at the end of the purple, |
| 00:45:07.57 | David Marlatt | We've got a pointer here. I do. |
| 00:45:12.42 | David Marlatt | The last slide, I think it is. I can use this one. This is fine. I think what's really important to notice is this yellow lot is a lot in question and it's kind of wedged in between two other lots and it's really built out as our other homes in the area. And really what Mr. McGuire is trying to do is just give a little bit more outdoor recreation space and do what's similar to all the other homes there. And so while the elevations are not that you're seeing are not correct, It's really just about the decks and adding very little square footage and drainage is important. It actually is being addressed. Um, and, and as far as the fire question, um, we had them remove all the siding when I, when I went out there originally, and put in Um, basically like DROC, which is a one hour rating. It's actually a dense class, excuse me. And that is underneath the wood siding. So it's got its fire rating and And we had them redo a lot of the things, both interior, exterior, the building permit for the ADU is all but done. It just needs to be signed off. And so that should not be an issue. And this deck was the last piece. And that because of the size of the lot, and literally there is no real outdoor space in there. He's just trying to give himself some outdoor space, both for the ADU and the upper unit. And with that, I can take any questions that you have. |
| 00:46:40.24 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. We'll stop the clock at 12.07. Thank you, Maria. And Commissioner Moore, let me give it back to you. If you'd like to start, would you like to start with your, any questions on the plans? |
| 00:46:51.78 | Fred Moore | you |
| 00:46:51.79 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 00:46:51.96 | Fred Moore | How is the drainage addressed? |
| 00:46:53.14 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:46:53.16 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:46:53.68 | David Marlatt | So the drains there are going to be gutters and downspouts that ties into an existing drainage system. |
| 00:46:59.74 | Fred Moore | So there is existing drainage system down on the front of the, or the back, I guess, of the house there that, and that drains where it drains back to the street? |
| 00:47:06.95 | David Marlatt | It I don't it there's an existing drainage system. I didn't, you know, basically go on there and camera to see exactly where it's going, but it's tied into the existing drainage system. |
| 00:47:16.35 | Fred Moore | I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON THE PLAN. IS THAT GOING TO BE ON ANOTHER SET OF PLANS OR A WORKING DRAWING? IS THAT GOING TO SHOW UP? |
| 00:47:20.01 | David Marlatt | Bye. The drainage is already signed off by building for pretty much the whole property. But if you want to see the drainage, the drainage really isn't changing because the deck's already had drainage. And we're literally just adding a little bit extra square footage. So we're not changing the drainage patterns or anything that's going on out there. |
| 00:47:40.06 | Fred Moore | So there's existing gutters that you're going to have existing gutters that already exist to go into an underground drainage system. |
| 00:47:42.03 | David Marlatt | and existing. |
| 00:47:46.25 | David Marlatt | Correct. |
| 00:47:46.45 | Fred Moore | All right. What's the depth of the existing upper deck? The depth of it? Yeah. Is it four feet, five feet? Because I know your proposed deck is six feet plus. So what's the existing... Oh, you mean the depth? |
| 00:47:59.60 | David Marlatt | Thank you. the depth into the backyard. |
| 00:48:01.81 | Fred Moore | the depth of the upper deck. |
| 00:48:03.60 | David Marlatt | You mean into the backyard, the wet? |
| 00:48:05.64 | Fred Moore | from the |
| 00:48:05.98 | David Marlatt | HAPPY. |
| 00:48:06.16 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 00:48:06.77 | David Marlatt | FORM. It's actually shrinking down. It's coming back about a foot. |
| 00:48:13.01 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:48:13.03 | Nastassya Saad | So do you know the total depth? I don't see. |
| 00:48:14.55 | David Marlatt | I don't have it on the top. Hold on one second. I'll see if I can pull it up off the drawings myself. |
| 00:48:18.90 | Fred Moore | Yeah. |
| 00:48:18.99 | David Marlatt | Yeah. |
| 00:48:19.04 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:48:19.14 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:48:19.19 | Nastassya Saad | We can put it up on the screen for you since I'm sure it's hard to see on your mobile and would like probably the public to be able to see. |
| 00:48:19.38 | David Marlatt | WE CAN. |
| 00:48:29.21 | David Marlatt | If I can pull it up over there, yeah. |
| 00:48:29.23 | Nastassya Saad | If I can pull up. |
| 00:48:30.70 | Fred Moore | Well, if you have to look at A2-1, it does not look like the proposed deck is being shrunk in depth. It looks like it's being extended away from the house further than the existing deck. |
| 00:48:43.78 | David Marlatt | OK, let me pull it up. |
| 00:48:45.65 | Nastassya Saad | We have a big screen if you want to look there. |
| 00:48:48.08 | David Marlatt | I'm going to come over here. We don't have a minimum on the site. |
| 00:48:54.68 | Fred Moore | I ask questions. |
| 00:48:57.16 | David Marlatt | I think it's six or seven feet for the project. So I could get a minute and a minute later. |
| 00:49:02.68 | Fred Moore | Well, it has dimensions for the proposed deck on another area. It's like six foot. Another page has it at six foot some inches. I was asking for the existing, what's currently there. Correct. |
| 00:49:17.27 | Fred Moore | you |
| 00:49:17.29 | Nastassya Saad | And may I not too... |
| 00:49:19.03 | Nastassya Saad | make you go back and forth like I really were, but we do need you to speak into the microphone just so everybody can hear. That's all right. So just for the record, it's not clear that we have the existing depth of the deck. |
| 00:49:25.14 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:49:31.45 | Matthew Mandich | I believe the issue might be because that deck was illegally demoed without permit. So the deck is gone. And the existing deck that's there is the one that's being represented. So that older deck has been demolished. Yeah, it was gone when I got there too, so. |
| 00:49:46.40 | Nastassya Saad | So I think the difficulty here, and probably I would articulate it for the public, is we can only go on what we see and what is on our public record and what is available to us. So the questions we're asking is based on the plans that are in front of us, unfortunately. I understand. |
| 00:49:53.67 | David Marlatt | Yes. |
| 00:50:05.60 | David Marlatt | I understand. |
| 00:50:06.40 | Nastassya Saad | Yeah. So, okay, with that, Commissioner Moore, do you have any more specific questions on the plans? It's a good line of questioning. I do not. Okay. Thank you very much. |
| 00:50:12.84 | David Marlatt | I do not. Can I make one statement about what you said? |
| 00:50:16.98 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:50:17.03 | David Marlatt | So one of the hard parts about doing something like this, and I've done a lot of these in Sausalito, for some reason I get all the stuff that's been built illegally and try to legalize it, is piecing, it's like an investigative process. It's piecing it together and figuring out what was existing, what wasn't, and sometimes we don't have all the information. And we do the best that we can. |
| 00:50:37.45 | Nastassya Saad | Yes, we understand. Thank you very much for the comment. Commissioner Merlot, do you have any questions? |
| 00:50:42.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you, Chair. So going back again to the discrepancy in the drawing set, and Commissioner Moore had pointed out one discrepancy with the sheet A 3.0. So we're looking at the set that's dated May 10, 2025. And the set we should be looking at is what would be the |
| 00:51:04.41 | David Marlatt | It's newer than that, yes. |
| 00:51:05.68 | David Marlatt | is newer than that. So this is maybe from memory or you've been tracking this. Are there other things that we should be aware of between these two drawings? |
| 00:51:12.66 | David Marlatt | You know, |
| 00:51:13.51 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:13.59 | David Marlatt | on the |
| 00:51:13.76 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:13.81 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 00:51:13.93 | David Marlatt | The deck has increased very little. The only thing that we want to drawing with the windows and no, the windows and doors. It was always the elevations. And what was confusing was the windows and doors were approved under the adu. That's literally it. So when we did existing and proposed originally, we showed the changes. And then when we did for the for the decks, we removed it. And there's a set that's out there somewhere that shows that they're identical now. |
| 00:51:19.30 | David Marlatt | between the two drawings. |
| 00:51:41.45 | David Marlatt | there are no other changes. |
| 00:51:43.02 | Matthew Mandich | I can confirm that we do have the appropriate plans on file. However, unfortunately, it was not attached to this agenda. So, you know, the commission can do what they will with that, but we will get you the proper plan set when the time comes. |
| 00:51:56.17 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Matthew. |
| 00:51:56.99 | David Marlatt | you Thank you. And I'd just like to address, I know that I think Commissioner Junius will have some questions to this. You weren't part of the original client's efforts to build without a permit, I guess is what I understand. No, I'm usually hired. |
| 00:52:11.64 | David Marlatt | No, but I'm usually hired to fix the problems. Right. |
| 00:52:14.34 | David Marlatt | Exactly. I do appreciate that. What poor much of the existing deck but now the now existing deck the new deck the now existing deck is already built and we're trying to legalize it and how much are we potentially potentially authorizing to be built |
| 00:52:28.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:52:28.96 | David Marlatt | that you're |
| 00:52:33.68 | David Marlatt | So the existing deck is already, well, what we're trying to get approved is already built. And it got a stop work order. The ADU got a stop work order. The deck got a stop work order. And then I was brought in. They had a few different architects, designers, and then I was brought in. I'm a licensed engineer, a licensed contractor, a certified building official. I've been doing this kind of stuff for a long time. And there's a lot of moving parts because it's not just architectural, it's structural, it's drainage, it's all kinds of things. And so I was brought in to legalize everything that was built illegally. And some of it meant we actually did have them tear open things, redo things. So the deck is built, but the client, Mr. McGuire, knows he's gonna have to cut the deck back on the right side as he faced the house, as Mr. Mandich stated, and I've already informed him of that, but he's waiting to see what comes from this commission. |
| 00:53:31.18 | Nastassya Saad | Okay. |
| 00:53:31.38 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:53:32.03 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. I do not envy your position. |
| 00:53:35.16 | David Marlatt | I get these all the time. |
| 00:53:36.68 | Nastassya Saad | In Luxembourg. |
| 00:53:38.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you, I took parts. What you know about why this was done without a permit in the first place. And the second is this new set of plans, which we haven't seen, will show the proposed deck as bigger, and then the existing deck is bigger, and then the proposed is cutting back, because Mr. Mandich showed that there was a beam that was gonna be cut back. Um, Is that what's on that? |
| 00:54:08.01 | David Marlatt | Thank you. It's on the plans now, I believe. That shows the right size. The decks are the right size on the plans. The only difference are the elevations. The proposed is the safer existing proposed. That's the only difference in the plans for the elevations. |
| 00:54:24.35 | Matthew Mandich | Sean and I went over that back and forth. There were an earlier plan set had the discrepancy of the elevations, and we did correct that again. The plan set that was uploaded to the agenda is the incorrect plan set. |
| 00:54:35.28 | Jeffery Luxenberg | But the one that was uploaded is the incorrect one. |
| 00:54:38.52 | Matthew Mandich | That's correct. |
| 00:54:39.37 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Oh, good. |
| 00:54:39.38 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, we have plans that show the matching existing proposed. All that work's already been done, it's already been signed off, and we do have that plan set on file. |
| 00:54:48.19 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the ones that we just saw that were on the screen, which is the incorrect ones, but the ones we saw show that beam that's gonna be removed. Thank you. |
| 00:54:57.19 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, everything with the decks on that plan set is fine. It was the elevations that there was an issue was, and I caught that with him. He fixed it a while ago. He fixed it and gave me the new plan set. However, that unfortunately did not make it onto the agenda. |
| 00:54:57.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 00:55:10.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the plans that, the new plans, show this, the decks are identical. Yes. So what's in this plans and what's in those plans. |
| 00:55:21.96 | Matthew Mandich | Correct. The only difference that you would see in the other plan set is those elevations matching existing proposed match because it doesn't do |
| 00:55:28.07 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Because it was done as part of the ADU. Correct. Okay. Now, going back to you were brought in, you must have gotten something from the owner of why this happened. I mean, were there plans? Did somebody draw, was there an architect that drew up plans, who didn't bother to get a permit? I mean, what's the genesis of this? Because some of it's been built. |
| 00:55:49.16 | David Marlatt | I don't want to get too personal because sometimes this has to do with personal things in someone's life, but I will just say that they did have an architect. They were going through a permanent process, and there was a divorce, and things got messy, and I'll just leave it at that. |
| 00:56:06.12 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that. I think we should just steer slightly clear of that line of questioning. As a code enforcement, it might end up before us as well. Okay. Yeah, thank you. |
| 00:56:13.29 | Unknown | Oh, God. |
| 00:56:17.44 | Nastassya Saad | Any other questions? Do you need us to bring up the plans, Commissioner Luxembourg, for any other reason? |
| 00:56:22.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And No, I mean, at some point, can we see the plans that we are supposedly wanting to replace what was put on the agenda with new plans? You have the plans. They're in your files. Can we bring them up and we can see what the dates are so that if we get to a point, we'd have that information? |
| 00:56:43.11 | David Marlatt | Mr. Commissioner, if I may, actually, I might have a solution right now that will help everybody here to clarify this elevation issue. Online right now is Jaime Romero, who works with me, and he can show the correct elevations if you'd like to see them. |
| 00:56:48.43 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Bye. |
| 00:57:00.16 | David Marlatt | that we submitted. It's up to you. |
| 00:57:04.39 | Nastassya Saad | All right. Thank you. appreciate it I just don't think it's appropriate in the way that the Commission works also you know we're posted to the agenda the public has to have an opportunity to review it I don't know if it's going to make a difference here I have a feeling we're going to end up with a continuance personally but if it's useful to the Commission we can we can I'd be open to your feedback but otherwise I don't know if it would be an appropriate move Commissioner Moore |
| 00:57:35.90 | Fred Moore | Yeah, I did not bring up the issue of the difference in elevations to sidetrack us away from the decks. I fully understood the deck situation and the elevations are not part of the approval. It was just concerning looking at the plans and seeing the notes there that the windows are going to stay and the windows are gone in the proposed. So that's the only reason I brought that up. But I do want to make sure we're clear. On Section 8.2.1, the existing deck as of today is illegally built deck that spans the entire front of the house. On the plans before us, what shows as the existing situation appears to be the upper deck prior to its demo and construction of an illegal deck across the entire building. So when I was asking a question of what the depth of the existing deck was, I was referring to the existing per the plans, not the existing illegally built deck across the entire front. And I was only asking that question to get an understanding of how much increased depth the new proposed quote existing deck is versus what was there before it was demoed. So that was my question. And apparently, since it was gone before you got involved, you don't know. Yes. Okay. |
| 00:57:55.03 | David Marlatt | I get it. |
| 00:57:55.47 | Attorney Otto | Thank you. |
| 00:58:43.45 | Unknown | I got you. |
| 00:58:50.55 | Attorney Otto | No. |
| 00:58:52.66 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 00:58:55.90 | Nastassya Saad | Senior planner, Amanda, are you bringing up some form of plans. Shall we be waiting for you? |
| 00:59:03.07 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 00:59:04.05 | Nastassya Saad | Sure, thank you. In the meantime, Commissioner Marla, do you have any other questions? |
| 00:59:08.29 | David Marlatt | Just following up on Commissioner Moore's question. So if I understand correctly, |
| 00:59:08.32 | Nastassya Saad | That's right. |
| 00:59:13.13 | David Marlatt | On A2.1 drawing 01, existing main floor, where it shows the existing deck that is in fact gone, that's to put it harshly, speculation, to the best |
| 00:59:26.19 | David Marlatt | To the best of our knowledge, yes. you |
| 00:59:28.15 | David Marlatt | So we don't know. So even if we had a dimension, we don't know. |
| 00:59:30.53 | David Marlatt | And it looks like it's fairly accurate from what we can see was, was there before. But yes, that's the best to the best of our knowledge. We don't, we don't. Yeah. |
| 00:59:39.39 | David Marlatt | Okay. My second question that I think we're done with the drawings is, are you saying that, do I understand correctly that literally the only erroneous information on these drawings in comparison to the drawings that Planner Mandich is calling up his sheet A3.0. every other sheet should be- The elevations. That's correct. That one sheet. Yes. So should the commission choose to, in a motion, if possible, just not consider that sheet as part of a motion, as a condition, that could be a solution for the- |
| 00:59:56.11 | David Marlatt | the elevator. you Yeah. |
| 01:00:11.60 | David Marlatt | It looks like the correct elevations up right now. |
| 01:00:14.57 | Nastassya Saad | So is this, can we just confirm, Senior Planner Mandich, is this the new set of plans? Thank you. Okay, so just for members of the public, anybody online and the whole commission, this is the updated, correct set of plans. So this does show that same elevation with the windows matching. Thank you for pulling it up. |
| 01:00:34.86 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I stand and look? Yeah. |
| 01:00:43.46 | Unknown | Are there daytime plans? That's what I was saying. on the particular plan. You read that what that made |
| 01:00:51.29 | Phipps | Right. or it's on the planet. |
| 01:00:53.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:00:57.06 | Nastassya Saad | So just for public record, we're looking for the dates on the plans. of sheet 8-3. |
| 01:01:03.04 | David Marlatt | Revision dates up at the top. There should be a date in the right corner and a revision. Right there. Yep. |
| 01:01:06.83 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:01:06.85 | Nastassya Saad | Right? |
| 01:01:06.90 | Jeffery Luxenberg | right? |
| 01:01:07.34 | Nastassya Saad | there. |
| 01:01:07.63 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. |
| 01:01:08.05 | David Marlatt | It's got, it just, Right there. Can I, let me see if I can read that. |
| 01:01:17.20 | Nastassya Saad | I'd like to thank you. |
| 01:01:17.63 | David Marlatt | pieces. Thank you. 5, 10, 25. 2020. Which is the data set that's been uploaded. So the date's not changed. |
| 01:01:19.54 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:01:25.72 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So you submitted a new set of plans, but you didn't put revision dates on them? |
| 01:01:28.25 | David Marlatt | I mean, THE END OF |
| 01:01:34.00 | David Marlatt | We usually do, but I don't know if that was missed or not, so. |
| 01:01:38.41 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, we appreciate Thank you. your time you have 12 minutes left i'm going to go ahead and open I won't take any more time. Because I also do see somebody waiting on the line. We will most likely call you back up after public comment, but you will also have a chance to continue. Thank you very much. Assistant City Manager Phipps, would you mind hosting public comment, please? |
| 01:01:45.31 | David Marlatt | I won't take any more questions. |
| 01:01:45.97 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:01:46.09 | David Marlatt | I'm not sure. |
| 01:01:53.71 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:02:01.71 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:02:01.96 | Phipps | public. |
| 01:02:02.32 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 01:02:02.49 | Phipps | Thank you. |
| 01:02:02.54 | Nastassya Saad | So, |
| 01:02:02.89 | Phipps | you |
| 01:02:03.89 | Nastassya Saad | hosting. |
| 01:02:04.55 | Phipps | Yes, happy to, happy to chair. Looking to the chamber for interested speakers, and I have not received any speaker cards in this item. Looking to the Zoom application for raised hands chair, and seeing none, back to you. I did see a hand earlier, all notes. Understood, but that hand is part of this group here, and it has been lowered. |
| 01:02:28.49 | Nastassya Saad | AND IT'S NOT. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So we're gonna go ahead and close public comment. In the interest of following protocol, sir, you do have another 12 minutes. Okay. We're getting indication from the applicant that he's going to forego his time. I'm going to bring it back up to the dais and look for some direction here. I think I've got my own opinion, but let me |
| 01:02:53.18 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I'm like, |
| 01:02:53.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:02:53.77 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. |
| 01:02:53.79 | Nastassya Saad | Nice chair. |
| 01:02:54.23 | Andrew Junius | I'd like to start by saying this is just your typical little mess here in Salido. It does. It always concerns me when somebody's done illegal work and I would have loved to get a little bit of a better explanation, but we're not gonna get that tonight. I don't think this is a huge deal. Clearly, the lot's small. Clearly, you know, the owner here should be entitled to these decks. It just seems like a very minor issue. |
| 01:03:15.66 | Attorney Otto | Um, |
| 01:03:22.64 | Andrew Junius | minor issue and I would very much be in favor of figuring out a way to move this along. Yeah, you know, notwithstanding the errors with the plans and whatnot, there really should be a way for us to figure this out. I'm very supportive and would looking to construct a motion where we could do that. |
| 01:03:39.15 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. |
| 01:03:39.97 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:03:41.66 | Nastassya Saad | Commissioner Marlon. |
| 01:03:42.71 | David Marlatt | Yes, thank you, Chair. Well, I basically asked three things here. And on the building coverage and the impervious surface, given the sort of rule, for lack of a better word, that we apply of looking at it if it had been a fully legal lot, I not have any issues with supporting that. I'd be interested in the others' feelings, though, about the setback. I do struggle a bit with that. The lot is relatively flat as it gets out to the backyard. So having access to public space and so forth, the yard is also a public space, and it's being covered up. So I struggle with that. What is the justification for the side yard and the rear yard? But I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on that. |
| 01:04:30.75 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Moore. |
| 01:04:35.39 | Fred Moore | I agree. This is a kind of unique situation. If this came before us, the very beginning, it looks like a natural progression, have the deck across the front of the house on both uppers and lower. What I struggle with is Commissioner Murlock, the encroachment of the setback. Clear this lot, it's built over the property line in one area, it's encroaching in other areas, it's violating the setbacks in other areas, it's like a messed up lot. And we're asked now to grant a variance to allow another side yard violation in the setback. So I'm struggling with how we justify and find the findings to justify allowing that to occur. Again, it looks, and I look around Sausalito and you see a bunch of decks, some of them super narrow, you go, why is that so narrow? Or they're triangled or they have an area cut off. And I think the reason is the majority of times it's a lot line issue or a setback issue. So they weren't able to have a square large deck to enjoy the view. In this situation, it's not as if the applicant doesn't already have a second story deck. There was one at one time that they were able to enjoy the views. They just want to make it bigger. I totally understand it's extremely small area, 25 square feet, not a big deal. Unfortunately, 25 feet goes into a setback area. So we have to find extraordinary circumstances, which may change when the code gets updated by our two excellent commissioners here to make it easier to find these findings. But I'm looking for help how to justify the findings to grant the variance to encroach into the setback versus cutting that upper deck all the way back so it stays outside the setback more in line with where it was before it was taken down. |
| 01:06:27.26 | David Marlatt | Thank you very much. And can I just add very quickly? I'm sorry, I just realized, I thought to just add to that, if it's important for the other commissioners, the portion of the proposed deck that is within five feet of the property line needs to be one hour fire rated. So that in fact, when it gets to building permanent stage, will have to become an opaque Well, It's within five feet of the setback unless the building is sprinklered, but I don't believe it's sprinklered So just if that affects anyone's thinking about the opacity of the deck that's being proposed Thank you very much. |
| 01:07:00.13 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:07:00.26 | David Marlatt | in Luxembourg. |
| 01:07:01.73 | Jeffery Luxenberg | before I get to my comments, that's on the lower level or the upper level? |
| 01:07:07.18 | David Marlatt | Well, it's on an upper level up to a 42 inch parapet height. |
| 01:07:10.29 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:07:10.41 | David Marlatt | It's on the lower level and then the upper level up to the 42 inch height of the |
| 01:07:14.24 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So next, |
| 01:07:15.10 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:07:15.22 | Jeffery Luxenberg | world spa. |
| 01:07:15.99 | David Marlatt | Correct. Next to the spot and down. |
| 01:07:18.88 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I have three issues, two are more global, which are first was a co-enforcement issue something was built without permits. They're coming to us because they had a code enforcement and we seem to separate out code enforcement from what we're here to do. But I can't sort of dislodge those two things. They're coming at us to solve a problem. Once we solve the problem, the code issue should go away because we're approving whatever it is. So if the code issue is gonna keep going, and then later, I mean, the whole point of this, I think, is to solve the problem once and for all. The grand variance is the code issue should go away, and we should try to get code issues solved here. And so I get worried when I'm hearing that, well, the code issue's over there. So that's my first thing. The second thing is we have a set of plans which aren't necessarily the right plans, and then we have a new set of plans. And now I'm hearing that we're going to put a wall in when it gets to the building permit stage, which might change what we're thinking about now, which means that we've got to get plans. One, we have to know what plans we're approving. We have to post them. And then we have to know what the dates are, and we know what gets built. Because it comes to us, and then we make changes, and I don't know if they'll get into the plans, and then it gets to the building stage, and then something seems to be built later on that didn't match what we thought we approved. So as we're going forward globally, I'd like to make sure that we have the right plans, that we understand that those are the plans and that if there are things that they're missing per code, like a wall, that we know what that is and we get that approved. So having said all those two things are most I think relate to this project and all projects going forward so I'm sort of more doing that for staffs edification uh it is I agree with Commissioner Junius this is uh Vice Chair Junius this is a small lot this is a neighborhood where this is not a typical condition and it is a problem because these were built in the early 1900s. So I recognize the problem. I guess I'm focusing on we got to know what we're approving to be built and then somehow make it go forward. So I mean that's where I am on this. |
| 01:09:44.41 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Commissioner Luxenberg, Vice Chair. |
| 01:09:47.01 | Andrew Junius | Thank you, Chair. Uh, Commissioner Luxembourg, I think raised some really good issues. It is, it does seem to be a bit strange that we are presented with you know, the solution to a problem and we're not really told much about the problem. And I apologize. So, You know, that, I think the city, we've had several of these, I think recently where there's a violation out there and this is the current. but we're not really supposed to be talking about the violation or the origins of the violation, which I think is just kind of backwards, but that's the process we have here. You know, one of my favorite debates is a debate about a variance and the findings and the different kind of ways you get there. I don't have any problem with variants here. There's no question in my mind that the hardships, well, there's no question that there's exceptional circumstances here, right? Unique lot. You know, the comparison, I think Matthew did a great job putting up the slide with all the different. you know, people squished in back there. And if you look at the you know, what was kind of stunning to me, I've walked by that little block a lot. I used to live very close to that little part of Glen. And the house next door has actually got like a house in the backyard. I mean, it's like there's, you know, one of them is so non-compliant. That is just like ridiculous, right? So... Um, I don't know. It, it, I hear you. The variances are supposed to be, um, you know, gingerly granted and not, you know, not given out, you know, willy nilly. You know, but this one here just seems, notwithstanding the fact that it did origin, there were the origins with the code violation, I just don't really have a problem with making a finding across the board that the lot is awkward, the house is old, the house doesn't have any real, you know, open space, this is the open space. It seems, my opinion for me, that I'm going to be able to make those findings pretty easily. I'm still a little concerned about it. the code violation. |
| 01:11:45.79 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you, Vice Chair. Um, I appreciate what everyone said, especially Commissioner Luxembourg. Thank you, because, of course, we all know we need to have the correct plans. I'm sure it was just a small mistake, so it's just a little bit too bad. I know there's a lot going on for staff. So that oversight being said, I still separately, I agree with Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Marlott. I'm having an issue with the variance on the setbacks. So separate from all the plan debacle. So I'm just not sure it's necessarily warranted in the way that it's being presented. So I'm not sure if I'm going to make the findings there, but it sounds we're like a little bit of two camps. I'll wait to see if we don't have a motion, and I might make one. But do we have any form of any motion on the floor right now for anything, really? |
| 01:12:41.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question of the applicant? Just a clarification. My issue on the setbacks is, I don't know if it's good or bad, if it's in the setback and they're gonna put a wall in the setback, the wall might reduce the noise, so that's a good thing in that setback. But so it would be good to know if there needs to be a wall. So I just wanna ask the applicant if he thinks that a wall is gonna be required. |
| 01:13:10.48 | Nastassya Saad | can't because |
| 01:13:10.62 | Jeffery Luxenberg | because that's a change in the plan. |
| 01:13:10.97 | Nastassya Saad | because it's a treat. Potentially ask, uh... Matthew, as a starter, is that something you can comment on? |
| 01:13:20.41 | Matthew Mandich | We didn't receive any comments from fire requesting a wall to be built there. |
| 01:13:27.93 | David Marlatt | It would come from buildings. Thank you. |
| 01:13:30.16 | Phipps | Yes, staff have received no indication or have engaged in any discussions with the separate fire district as a separate agency in connection with the requirement for a wall. But the comments that have been provided make no mention. |
| 01:13:46.82 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, so that's not necessarily clear that that will in fact be a requirement or come back. Can you comment on that, Commissioner? |
| 01:13:55.00 | David Marlatt | Yeah, it's it's not a fire code issue. It's a building code issue. So it'd be the Forley for the building official not again |
| 01:14:02.26 | Phipps | Yeah, and we look forward to dealing with that in the case that this is approved at the planning commission level at the building permit level. |
| 01:14:09.09 | David Marlatt | So of course, what we don't know is bottom line. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:14:12.87 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So to that point, my thought on this changes if there's gonna be a wall or not be a wall. So without knowing if there's gonna be a wall, I can't comment on the setback because the wall affects the setback. So we need to either, can I ask the applicant whether he thinks to, I've asked the commission, I don't need to ask staff. Can the commission allow me to ask the applicant that question? |
| 01:14:37.96 | Nastassya Saad | Absolutely. Can you please approach the microphone so we can all hear you for the record? |
| 01:14:44.16 | David Marlatt | if we can maybe go back to the plans for a second, just to clarify that. And I actually just want to point something because I heard you talk a lot about variances. And just to let you know, like I've actually worked on your side. A lot. in my professional career. I actually don't tell people, typically I tell them you're not going to get a variance. This lot to me, is a definition of a variance. in every way. It's a funky lot. It's small. The setbacks, the way the house is built. I actually tell clients not to go for it unless I think there's a good chance. And so that's probably 90% of the time for variances because it has to be a true hardship. Just want to put that out there. So, Typically for fire code. if you're within three feet, you have to have a firewall. Now there are exceptions, like if you're the new code says five feet, you have to have, you have to be five feet away and then you can have windows and openings and all that stuff. But there are exceptions for three feet. And I have to double check this to see, you know, usually get a certain percentage. If you're less than three feet or I mean, certain percentage of your three feet or more and then at five feet, you have to, is usually the standard definition for building code in terms of having openings and all that stuff. So we could end up with a firewall. It's a good question. And I can figure that one out, but that has not come up. We did not show that because we were three feet away |
| 01:16:16.46 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can we see the lower level too, where the spot is? |
| 01:16:34.98 | Phipps | from the direction as well, Commissioner, if you're not seeing what you want to see. |
| 01:16:38.92 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah, I wanna see where the proposed spot and where it relates to the side yard setbacks. |
| 01:16:49.44 | David Marlatt | It's 10 feet away. |
| 01:16:53.88 | Phipps | If you've got a sheet number or up or down, you know, I'm pretty responsive. |
| 01:16:56.31 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 01:16:56.32 | Jeffery Luxenberg | I'm going to be responsive. It's an integral 0. Up, I guess. Is that? There we go. And then go to the right and zoom in. Yes. Thank you. So this is 3 foot 6 also. |
| 01:17:02.55 | Unknown | that. |
| 01:17:12.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | And so... I don't know if the neighbor, when they looked at these plans, if they looked at these plans, thought it was being built there. But whatever is going around the spa, if it's going to be built differently when it gets to the building stage, that bothers me. That they would have thought it was going to be one thing. I don't know, good or bad. But whatever it is, if it's going to be different, it would be nice to know. Do you think that whatever you have on these plans in the elevations around that spa is going to change based on what Commissioner Marlott said? |
| 01:17:45.51 | David Marlatt | It's probably gonna be a firewall right there. That's probably correct. Yes. And that's not on the plans right now. It is not, no. |
| 01:17:50.59 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. I know. Right. |
| 01:17:54.76 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you very much. So I'm gonna look for a motion and I'm probably gonna encourage a continuance at this stage, but to each their own. Do we have a motion on the floor one way or another on this item? |
| 01:18:09.04 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.05 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.58 | Fred Moore | What kind of says one more one a clarification from somebody. I thought the information said the spa was supposed to be had to be 10 feet from the property line. But this drawing right here, it's clearly not 10 feet. to the back, not this, but the back probably line, not this side. |
| 01:18:28.66 | Nastassya Saad | I think we need to engage with Matthew at this point. Can you ask that question one more time, Commissioner Moore for Matthew? |
| 01:18:35.60 | Fred Moore | I apologize, Matthew, I should have asked this during your presentation. When I read the information, I wasn't sure if the 10 feet distance that the spot had to be, was that from the side in the rear yard or just the rear yard? |
| 01:18:48.19 | Matthew Mandich | So it's a 10 foot setback for the equipment and it's from either side or rear. For the equipment. For the equipment. As you can see, there's a specific area called out for the equipment that's bubbled right there. That is 10 feet away from the property. |
| 01:19:02.60 | Nastassya Saad | Okay, thank you. Okay, that's a great question. |
| 01:19:06.55 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:19:06.56 | Andrew Junius | I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion. |
| 01:19:07.81 | Nastassya Saad | Please, Vice Chair. |
| 01:19:08.69 | Andrew Junius | I know this is probably not going anywhere, but just for the record, I do, again, I think the applicant made a great statement that I will reaffirm. this is the kind of, lot in the kind of home where pretty much anything you do, you need a variance because you're always building in some setback that shouldn't be there. The house is old. The lot is small. This is the classic case for a variance. I can make all the findings, so I'm going to move to approve as recommended by staff with the notations and adjustments regarding the correct plan set, as we've discussed here tonight. |
| 01:19:44.67 | Nastassya Saad | Exactly. |
| 01:19:44.97 | Nastassya Saad | to see. |
| 01:19:45.04 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:19:45.06 | Nastassya Saad | second. |
| 01:19:51.23 | Nastassya Saad | Is there an alternate motion? I don't know. |
| 01:19:54.29 | David Marlatt | I'll attempt an ultimate motion. I would move to the variances for the surface and lot coverage and disapprove, not approve, the variance application for the side yard and rear yard setbacks. |
| 01:20:14.91 | David Marlatt | It's time. |
| 01:20:15.89 | Nastassya Saad | Is there a second? Can you reiterate that one more time, please, for me? |
| 01:20:21.34 | David Marlatt | Thank you. Yes, my motion would be to approve the variance application for the impervious surface increase in building coverage and not approve the variance application for the side and rear yard setbacks. |
| 01:20:22.13 | Attorney Otto | Um, Thank you. |
| 01:20:37.69 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Can I ask a question regarding this? Sure. So what does that mean as far as the spa and the deck? What's going to change if that motion were to approve? |
| 01:20:49.55 | David Marlatt | Well, they would have to not construct the spa. I'm sort of pretending that it's not there currently. They would have to find another solution, another place to put the spa or no spa or place the spa on the ground in the yard because it's just a few feet lower than the deck. That would be, I'm not trying to. prescribe a solution for their spa, but they would have to demolish the encroaching work in that case. |
| 01:21:19.45 | Nastassya Saad | Is do we have counsel on is Kylie here? |
| 01:21:25.34 | Phipps | Yes, Attorney Otto is present. |
| 01:21:27.23 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Good evening. Hi, attorney Otto. Welcome. Can you please, um, weigh in on the motion that was just stated by commissioner Marlott. If, um, I don't think it sounds like we're bifurcating anything, but to make a motion to improve two parts and deny one part Can you just comment on anything surrounding that? |
| 01:21:54.40 | Attorney Otto | Well, from a legal perspective, that is of course the Commission's purview to do, my concern is from a practical standpoint, whether or not the project can go forward with, two out of the three and I would need to seek factual information from staff to determine Is it possible to maintain the setbacks? And does that still, you know, do they still need the other two variances if we try and accomplish the set, you know, the setbacks are denied, which would mean they have to keep the setbacks at the minimums of what is required under the code. I don't know that even the other two are necessary. I think it's some factual questions we need to ask staff. |
| 01:22:44.76 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. Does staff want to weigh in there? Was that? too much, um, |
| 01:22:51.29 | Matthew Mandich | No, I can absolutely weigh in on that. I mean, if you deny the setback variants are denying the project outright, there's no reason that you would get rid of the setback. The entire edition is in the setback. |
| 01:22:56.32 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:23:02.53 | Matthew Mandich | the existing deck or pre-existing deck was in the rear setback as well. So, I mean, without the setback variance, there is no deck. |
| 01:23:08.89 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. That is what my conclusion was. I wanted to hear it from staff directly. Commissioner Moore, did you... want to comment or ask a question. |
| 01:23:17.87 | Fred Moore | No, I just want to reiterate what Mr. Maddox said that, right, if we approve the building coverage but deny the setback, the building coverage is not necessary. So you're right, it would be turning the whole project upside down. I guess I was, maybe, Matthew, you can kind of explain. I was focusing on the side yard setback. I thought it was consistent with the rear yard setback. So I thought the only issue was the variance was with the side yard, because like that drawing right there, it's only three feet. It should be eight feet with a dotted line there. And the same thing if you move up. You can see like the setback goes almost not in the middle of the spot, but pretty close to it. So if it was within the setback, you would lose another three, four feet from the bottom, and you would lose about the same on the top. Because it's an eight-foot setback, so I guess five feet or a little less than five feet. So you could still build the upper deck. You could still build the lower deck. You would just lose another five feet and then you would be totally within the setback, correct? |
| 01:24:21.23 | Matthew Mandich | you'd need to be eight feet away from the property line. So you need another five feet back. So if you want to go to maybe the existing |
| 01:24:24.37 | Fred Moore | That's not it. |
| 01:24:29.20 | Fred Moore | But isn't that dashed line? That's the eight foot. Oops, he went back. |
| 01:24:32.42 | Matthew Mandich | She went back. That's the lower. Let's see if we can get the upper. That's actually the end of the day. |
| 01:24:38.48 | Fred Moore | The dash line on that prior pitcher was the eight-foot setback. |
| 01:24:43.17 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, I mean. |
| 01:24:43.20 | Fred Moore | And it went through a little bit of the spa. |
| 01:24:47.17 | Matthew Mandich | Yeah, if we can, does this mouse, yeah. All right, can we go back to that image? Yeah. Yeah. And then back to where the spot was. Thank you. So yes, this is the eight foot setback right here. |
| 01:24:59.47 | David Marlatt | Right. |
| 01:24:59.81 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. this line. So yeah, that's it right there. So it would, I mean, that's basically what the expansion is. The original deck was just a little bit inside of that. |
| 01:25:12.02 | Fred Moore | So it would have to be cut off another four feet, six inches, then it would be within the setback. So you would lose four feet, six inches from the upper deck and the lower deck, and then you'd be entirely within the eight-foot setback. |
| 01:25:25.07 | Matthew Mandich | Yes, however, by extending even a little bit, you'd still be extending into the rear yard setback. |
| 01:25:32.95 | Leslie Schofferman | That's what I'm doing. Thank you. |
| 01:25:34.10 | David Marlatt | right here. the design from the dais but if i can offer a comment um the The second floor deck could be what is existing, what is there previously. They have a certain amount of right to a grandfathered second floor deck that they're destroying. |
| 01:25:51.63 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. So the existing second floor deck was also nonconforming. It's partially in the rear setback. It was. So, yeah, I mean, you'd be pivoting to pretty much a completely different project as far as trying to preserve an existing nonconforming. You'd be requiring a nonconforming permit. Nonconforming. But it could. |
| 01:25:57.76 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:25:57.77 | Unknown | What? |
| 01:26:05.57 | David Marlatt | Nonconformative. But it could exist. And for the lower deck in the spa, if they were just to lower the deck two steps, one step or two steps, that entire deck would be less than 24 inches above the ground, and they can cover the whole rest of the lot with no permit. Is that correct? Because right now it's about three feet off the ground. I'm going to go. Uh, |
| 01:26:24.30 | Matthew Mandich | Bye. |
| 01:26:24.34 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:26:24.35 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:26:24.45 | David Marlatt | according to the drawing. |
| 01:26:25.47 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. |
| 01:26:25.50 | David Marlatt | Thank you. |
| 01:26:25.55 | Matthew Mandich | Thank you. No. So, I mean, even a patio that's raised up cannot be in that side yard setback. |
| 01:26:32.48 | David Marlatt | If it's under 24 inches. Thank you. |
| 01:26:33.97 | Matthew Mandich | Yes. |
| 01:26:38.04 | David Marlatt | I'll defer to you on that, but I don't, because it can be built without a permit, so. Thank you. |
| 01:26:44.84 | Matthew Mandich | Not in this situation, no. There's a, there's a specific code section on it. Um, in the accessory structures chapter 10 44. regulates decks. You can see that. |
| 01:26:56.19 | David Marlatt | All right. |
| 01:26:56.31 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you. |
| 01:26:56.33 | David Marlatt | Okay. Okay. |
| 01:26:57.38 | Nastassya Saad | Oh, |
| 01:26:57.43 | David Marlatt | Thank you. heard you on. |
| 01:26:58.05 | Nastassya Saad | I'm going to look for an alternate motion since we have no second. And I think from councils weighing in, I do have any other alternate motions on the floor that will, that we can entertain. |
| 01:27:12.44 | Andrew Junius | Mr. Moore, did you have a? |
| 01:27:15.04 | Fred Moore | Well, I apologize. I was focusing primarily on their side yard setback. So as Mr. Maddock pointed out, you're right, the existing deck was clearly within the rear yard setback. The proposed deck is, and now we're talking about a variance for the side yard. So now we have the deck that's violating rear and side yards. But even if you moved it back, it would still be violating the rear yard setback, which I think Commissioner Marlock indicated it would probably be grandfathered in because it's been there forever. So if Commissioner Julius remade his motion, I would second it. |
| 01:27:52.19 | Andrew Junius | Yeah, and I'll get it just one. I'm going to try one more time to convince more commissioners about the validity of the variance. Could you bring up the one slide that shows the block, the photograph, the aerial photograph that shows the cramped nature here? I do think it's important to just really look at this and You know, we also we don't have anybody. There's no opposition. There's been no public comment at all. I don't think the neighbors care at all about this because it's such a small rear yard. And if we see who's the adjacent people that might actually be affected, that might help us. get a little more comfortable that this is worthy of a variance and that we shouldn't be too concerned about about the side yard setbacks. |
| 01:28:45.66 | Andrew Junius | There it is right there. Thank you. Back up one more. We don't want to see that one. That's the problematic picture. You know, so... I mean, in some respects, the neighbor on the left with the two structures, I think that's a garage in front and a house in back. Is that what that one is, the one on the left? or is it two homes? I mean, those people are already staring at what used to be a deck that's now gone and illegally demolished and removed. And that was really a huge mistake. But they did it and we're stuck with that. I mean, if anybody's going to be upset, it would be them or the folks next door. And the folks next door have a lot more space, you know, look at how far back there their lot goes I It does look like, yeah, this is kind of the flag lot to the left. This lot backs up into that lot. I mean, it's just like a puzzle. And, um, I just, I, It just seems to me. that You know, notwithstanding, you know, people's reluctance regarding variances. you can't do anything in this house without a variance. You know, the whole, most of the rear, there is no rear yard, the house is in the rear yard. It just seems like we're arguing over something really small and that we should let this one go. And I'm going to make a motion again to approve the project as recommended and make all the findings as recommended by staff to grant the three variances. with the appropriate plan references in terms of the deck sizes. |
| 01:30:19.10 | Fred Moore | Is there a second? Could you clarify your last point about the clarifications on the deck? You're talking about the potential need for a wall. |
| 01:30:25.77 | Andrew Junius | No, no, no, I'm talking about the early discussions we had regarding the confusion about the plans. So with the understanding that the staff knows that the correct plans have been submitted, they're in possession of the staff, and that the changes are correctly shown, both in those plans and the plans we've seen here today, that the only error was about elevations that are irrelevant. So that's the only clarification I was making. |
| 01:30:44.68 | Fred Moore | I'll second that. |
| 01:30:45.49 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Thank you. Well, let me ask a question regarding the plans. And my understanding is there is likely now to be a wall that's not shown on the plans, so that the plans as shown are not the plans that will eventually be That's the problem I have with this. I mean, I would like to, we get plans and then things get changed at the building permit stage and then people wonder why something got built or whatever, and something starts to go up and it doesn't seem to be what we approved, and it isn't what we approved. So if there's going to be a wall, I mean, I don't have a problem with the rear setback. I'm a little, I agreed with Commissioner Moore on the side setback, since it's a spa, since it's going to have a wall, since we don't know what it is. That's my concern. I almost would like to see what the, I almost, I'm beginning to get on board with the idea of a continuance so that we can see the proper plans. And when you come in, the attachment will say, these are the plans. There's a wall here. It's going to go like this. And then my only question is whether we have them move the spa a couple feet or not. I don't have a problem with the rear setback. It's the side setback because we really don't know. The abutter next door was noticed, and do you know if the abutter next door is an owner or was sent to a peripheral address? |
| 01:32:12.50 | Matthew Mandich | So the Butternet store has lived there, I believe, since 1976. She called me on the phone. She was very eager to get this project approved because she's tired of staring at a construction site. |
| 01:32:22.25 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Okay. |
| 01:32:22.96 | Phipps | No, thank you. And I just want to reiterate for the record that this notion of the wall, it's genesis was from the commission this evening. Staff has had no mention of this wall because we have had no mention of this wall from our fire district. So as far as, I appreciate that the commission goes to approve plans that are based on what we have received and what's been submitted and what is planned for construction. This is what's planned for construction in this moment. Now, fortunately for us, we have a process by which the Commission may have the ability to re-review this project. Let's just say the fire district says they need to have a castle next to their deck. in order to make it work. That would be a change to an approved project. We bring that back to you. You'd consider the castle. Same goes for the wall. So again, the genesis of this wall, staff have had no mention of this wall. We have had no discussion with the district as related to a wall. The genesis of the wall is from the commission. |
| 01:33:16.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:24.98 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So if we amend the motion that says that it must be built exactly on plans and any changes, including walls, need to come back to the commission, you're okay with that. |
| 01:33:35.42 | Phipps | Yes, and this process is already embedded in our code. If, I'm going to take a swelped at what the specific language is, but if a change to an approved project gets at or, you know, encompasses something that was explicitly discussed and conditioned by the commission at this hearing, staff is required to bring it back to the commission. We may not approve that administratively. So we already have that process set in our code. If you want to reiterate it in a condition, I have no issue with that, Commissioner. |
| 01:34:03.27 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, the statement that I brought up on number two, the end of that says the community development director is authorized to administratively approve minor modifications to the approved plans. In an enormous situation, I would have thought a slight change of that would be a minor modification. That's why I'm making it clear that that would not be in this particular case, given the side yard setbacks. But normally, I would think that would be a minor modification, which is why I'm raising it. |
| 01:34:31.75 | Matthew Mandich | So, yes, it's in Section 1050, I believe, 50080 for changes to an approved project. The community development director does have the ability to make minor changes to an approved project, unless that change is a change that was specifically discussed by the commission or a condition of the project, for example, as this case would be. If that were the case, it has to go back to the commission for that change to be approved. So we do have a system already in place, a process within our municipal code that really gets right at the issue that you are, concerned about. |
| 01:35:06.31 | Nastassya Saad | I appreciate that, Commissioner Luxembourg. We have a motion. We do not yet have a second. Sorry, do we? Who seconded it? thank you i'm sorry i've lost the plot okay so we have a motion we have a second may i just um note that because commissioner luxembourg brought this up almost at the start um is your motion uh accepting of um items on the conditions of approval um Number two, we would have the edit, of course, of the correct title of the plans. And also for Commissioner Luxembourg, I might ask your help. I was trying to write down in terms of the received date, |
| 01:35:51.81 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Well, the words I had, the project shall be designed and constructed as shown in the set of plans titled McGuire Residence dated September 1, 2024 and updated on May 19, 2025 and received on I thought August 20th, 2025, but now there's a later one that was received. So that is the later one, even though it doesn't say that. You've stamped that one with the proper elevations, August 20th, 2025. Is that my understanding? Is that what you, |
| 01:36:28.07 | Matthew Mandich | The only changes to the final plan set were to the cover sheet where there was a typographical error, numerical error on the cover sheet that was requested to be changed. And I think there might have been a mix-up with the plans at that point about which version was attached when that occurred. So we definitely have an accurate plan set on file. Everything you've seen in this plan set tonight regarding the decks is all identical to everything else. The only thing that changed was the elevations. And frankly, the elevations really don't have anything to do with the variance of the zoning permit. And those elevations, the house that's already all constructed, building permit issued, everything's done. So no one's trying to slip in a window or do anything like that here. I can confirm that from staff's perspective. |
| 01:36:28.10 | Jeffery Luxenberg | Yeah. |
| 01:37:08.99 | Jeffery Luxenberg | So the language would be, as I just said, and shall be received as received on August 2025, parentheses attachment three, and then pursuant to SMC 105180B, the community development is authorized to administratively approve minor modifications to the approved plans. I would add a sentence that says, any additional modifications to the decks shall require resubmittal to the planning commission. |
| 01:37:39.69 | Andrew Junius | Thank you. I'm fine with that amendment. |
| 01:37:42.25 | Nastassya Saad | And stop clear on that. Thank you very much. Um, Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. If there's no other, |
| 01:37:49.27 | Andrew Junius | I think Commissioner Moore has to be second to amended motions. |
| 01:37:52.55 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:37:53.00 | Fred Moore | Thank you. I'll second that. Just a point of clarification though, I mean, again, assuming we believe AI and Commissioner Marlott here with respect to the firewall, how is that going to be addressed at building plans? I mean, I'm surprised the architect didn't put it on the plans if, I mean, the applicant also agreed that it's most likely a requirement and that does change the plans. So. |
| 01:38:01.07 | Attorney Otto | Yeah. |
| 01:38:21.05 | Andrew Junius | Well, then we're going to be back here. It's going to come back. |
| 01:38:22.23 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:38:22.33 | Nastassya Saad | going to come back. So to what? Yes. Thank you. To staff's point, that would be considered a modification that would bring it back before us. |
| 01:38:23.26 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:38:30.75 | Fred Moore | Okay, great. So who is gonna be, I mean, how is the process to determine whether, I mean, if he doesn't change the plans, it doesn't go there, but who's gonna tell him, oh, by the way, we need to check that out and you do need to add it. |
| 01:38:42.58 | Phipps | The fire district will conduct the review of the building permit. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. The fire district will conduct the review of the building permit when submitted. If the district determines a wall is needed, they will require it. |
| 01:38:42.63 | Fred Moore | That was great. |
| 01:38:57.77 | Nastassya Saad | Can we please take roll? |
| 01:38:59.32 | Phipps | Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Merlot. |
| 01:39:02.83 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:39:04.08 | Phipps | night when |
| 01:39:06.12 | Fred Moore | Thank you. |
| 01:39:06.14 | Nastassya Saad | Yes. |
| 01:39:06.48 | Phipps | Thank you. Commissioner Luxembourg. Yes. Vice-Church-Unius. Yes. Chursant. |
| 01:39:12.32 | Nastassya Saad | No. |
| 01:39:13.28 | Phipps | Motion passes. |
| 01:39:15.20 | Nastassya Saad | Thank you very much. Final item of the evening is adjournment. Okay, thank you all. |
| 01:39:22.42 | Phipps | Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, staff. Thank you, members of the public. Have a good evening, and we will see you next time. |