[0:02] All righty. Welcome to the uh regular meeting of the Larksburg Planning

[0:06] Commission of Tuesday, September 8th, 2026

[0:09] in beautiful downtown Larksburg, California. Uh all right, first let's

[0:14] have a roll call.

[0:19] Uh Commissioner Kingsdale >> here.

[0:22] » Commissioner Chmer's >> here.

[0:24] » Commissioner Zapar >> here. And Chair Swisser uh here. Okay,

[0:28] you have four members present and one absent. You do have a quorum.

[0:31] » Excellent. Good. So, this is the opportunity for any public comment on

[0:35] matters that are not currently on tonight's agenda. Anything that the

[0:38] public wants to address that is not on the agenda. Uh, speak now or forever

[0:43] hold your peace. Do we have anything here?

[0:49] How about on Zoom?

[0:55] » Excuse me. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[0:58] » If you're on Zoom and you'd like to provide a public comment, please raise

[1:01] your hand.

[1:04] » No hand. >> All right. Excellent. All right. So, uh,

[1:08] community development director's reports.

[1:10] » Yes. Good evening. Uh, we just a reminder that Wednesday,

[1:15] September 30th is the planning commissioner training workshop in court

[1:19] of Madera. If you have not um RSVPd, please do so now. um if you wish to

[1:26] attend and there should have been a flyer I think in all of your packets. So

[1:30] um there's no fee. It includes dinner. You're certainly welcome to sign up uh

[1:35] on um through the link in the flyer uh and I can email it to you again if you'd

[1:40] like. [gasps] [sighs]

[1:42] I would love to go, but sadly medicine calls. Um all right. Uh

[1:48] anything else or is that it? >> Yeah. Um the uh

[1:53] » the Mount Tam Racket Club uh application that you considered at your last uh

[1:57] planning commission meeting was appealed >> uh in a timely manner. We received one

[2:02] appeal. Uh and that item is scheduled to be considered by city council at the

[2:07] Crep Center next week on Wednesday at the usual meeting time. Uh so just to

[2:13] let you know that that that is moving forward and uh the agenda packet will

[2:18] get posted by uh the end of this week on Friday.

[2:21] » Great. And it's going to be at the same place that we had.

[2:23] » It will also be at the Crep Center because of course we have no room in

[2:26] here for >> Yeah. 200 size crowd.

[2:29] » Yeah. I'm curious just as a point of uh interest. Um, when something is appealed

[2:36] to the planning commission, do they have to have a specific

[2:39] it goes I know that goes to the city council. Thank you, lawyer. Um, um, when

[2:44] it's appealed, is there a specific point of appeal that they have to have or is

[2:48] it can just be like some general I don't like the decision kind of thing?

[2:52] » Um, it's really at the discretion of the appellant. Um, but, uh, you know, it's

[2:56] good practice to have a reason for the appeal whenever you file one. Um, so

[3:00] that it can be responded to in the hearing. Uh in this instance, the

[3:04] appellant provided a one-page uh uh attachment to the appeal form uh

[3:09] explaining the the the reasons for their appeal.

[3:13] » Okay, great. >> Is that all public record?

[3:16] » Um it it is uh I don't have a copy of it here. It'll be with the agenda packet uh

[3:22] that goes to council and it'll get posted at the end of this week. So,

[3:25] » right. >> You'll certainly see that. And my

[3:27] understanding is that if any members of the planning commission want to attend

[3:31] that meeting, it's allowable. However, not advisable to comment.

[3:35] » Yes. Uh you're certainly all welcome to attend that or watch it in Zoom. Um but

[3:41] uh because you've already decided on the item, um yeah, it would be best just not

[3:46] to >> even as an interested citizen, just keep

[3:49] it keep a lid on it. >> Yeah, you've already you've already made

[3:52] your your deliberations and comments on it. So

[3:55] » great. All right. Wonderful. >> All right. Uh, next, uh, public hearing.

[4:01] So, uh, item 4 A on the agenda is 11:30 Magnolia Avenue, APN020-34-16.

[4:09] Katherine Gian, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, Keon. Applicant, Magnolia

[4:14] Village Homes, LLC owner. Um, public hearing request for a conditional use

[4:18] permit to allow a dog grooming business in the C2 zoning district. Do we have

[4:23] the uh committee staff report? >> Yes. Let me share my screen here. I will

[4:29] keep my comments for you brief this evening. As you've just mentioned, this

[4:32] item before you is use permit 26-003 for the priority at 1137 Avenue,

[4:39] excuse me. Um it is on in the northern Magnolia commercial corridor. Um the

[4:46] site I've highlighted it for you in this orange outline here. It's a multi-tenant

[4:51] commercial space. It currently houses uh the the vacant space uh under

[4:55] consideration this evening, the Gravity Salon, and then Rustic Bakery. And if

[5:00] you're familiar with the Magnolia Village development that is just right

[5:03] next door to it. So, the project proposes requests approval of a

[5:08] conditional use permit to allow a dog grooming facility in the C2 zoning

[5:11] district. Uh that would allow Wolf Gang Bakery and Grooming to occupy the space.

[5:17] And here's just a quick floor plan provided by the applicant to give you an

[5:20] idea of the buildout. Here you've got all the grooming facilities kind of at

[5:24] the rear and then the front of the space would be reserved for a retail area for

[5:28] um all kinds of pet goods to be sold per the application materials. The facility

[5:34] would operate all week Monday through Sunday from 9 to 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

[5:38] and it would start with approximate employee count of four to five employees

[5:43] and as time goes on and and the clientele builds it would rise to a

[5:46] total of 10 once the use has been established. Uh the applicant is

[5:50] proposed to mitigate potential noise associated with the use which be barking

[5:54] dogs obviously uh with the construction of noise attenuation walls on the

[5:58] interior of the existing demising walls. So there would be no exterior changes

[6:02] proposed as a part of this conditional use permit approval. Should exterior ex

[6:07] should exterior changes be proposed. Uh that would require design review

[6:11] entitlement and would come back to this body. Uh the proposed use has been found

[6:16] consistent with the applicable general plan land use designation which is

[6:19] neighborhood commercial which talks about providing uh re retail services

[6:24] for the general populace to use. You have received no public comments on

[6:29] on this item. So with that, I'm going to conclude my remarks here and say that

[6:34] our staff recommendation is that you hold a public hearing, consider public

[6:38] testimony, discuss the project, and adopt planning commission, excuse me,

[6:42] resolution 02-26, 2026, which approves the project subject to findings,

[6:47] conditions of approval, and a class one SQA exemption.

[6:50] » Great. >> So I'm available to answer questions,

[6:52] and the applicant, architect, and landlord are also here for you. Great.

[6:56] Is the applicant here? >> Here, but also she's on our architect's

[7:02] on Zoom. >> Okay. Would you like to uh make a

[7:05] comment about the project? Anything you want to say?

[7:08] » Uh we're excited. >> Fine.

[7:11] » To introd. >> My name is Matt Beer. I'm the um

[7:14] franchisee for Wolf Gang. >> Um love dogs, love animals. Uh love

[7:20] community aspects of this uh location, retail location. reminds me a lot of

[7:25] where I grew up in Los Angeles. Um, we have a lot of ideas of integrating with

[7:30] other businesses nearby, including the Rustic Bakery to do like cross

[7:34] promotional things where say dog treats are designed for dog consumption, but

[7:40] human consumption treats could be designed by rustic bakery and sold back

[7:44] and forth and people can really enjoy, you know, their pet. It's a it's an

[7:48] elevated grooming experience. It's meant to be calm and conducive for the pets so

[7:54] that they enjoy it. And um having worked at um various companies for over 30

[8:02] years through community marketing or to Disney for 10 years um I'm really just

[8:08] excited about this opportunity to kind of um deliver a great customer

[8:12] experience. >> That's great. Thank you.

[8:14] » Yep. uh architect any comments to Katie Kon

[8:19] should be able to unmute and speak. >> Hi, yes, my name is Katie Gian and I am

[8:24] the architect on the project. Um we work on multiple WOF gang locations across

[8:30] the country. So, um it is a national brand. There's over 250 locations and

[8:37] growing. Um they're building many of these stores all over the country

[8:42] currently. And it's one-on-one dog grooming

[8:46] appointments. So it is not um walk-ins. There won't be um you know spare dogs

[8:53] lining up outside or or anything like that. It it's one-on-one with

[8:57] appointmentbased grooming. Um typical grooming appointments are about 90

[9:03] minutes for each dog. And if we can go back to the floor plan, you could see

[9:09] the front is the retail area which sells mostly dog treats, dog accessory items.

[9:15] Um there's a a freezer for some frozen food. Um a typical pet shop, but more

[9:22] specialized for dogs. The second room is the grooming room, which has um tables

[9:27] where the dogs are are placed and groomed. And the back is the wet wash

[9:32] area where they have the dog um wash tubs and the the employee restroom. So,

[9:40] it's a pretty standard build for Woof Gang. Um and I think it could be a great

[9:45] addition to the neighborhood and for all the pet owners um to have this resource.

[9:51] » Awesome. Great. That's fantastic. All right.

[9:56] Any other comments? Do you have any like before we bring it

[10:01] open to the public um any questions for the applicant?

[10:06] » Uh just a question. Um do you have any parking spots that are designated for

[10:10] your store? How's the parking situation there?

[10:18] » Here's the the landlord who works for edge development because the co um for

[10:23] our contract we're going to have one dedicated non-inforcable parking spot in

[10:28] the front. Um and for the our staff there would be one spot in the back.

[10:33] Okay. that that would enable people to they're

[10:38] going to have a scheduled appointment, come in, park, drop their dog off, take

[10:42] off, come back later. >> Got it. Um, with the number of employees

[10:46] that you have, uh, I guess the rest will have to find offsite

[10:51] uh, parking. Yeah. >> Yeah, they'll have to The other thing

[10:55] that, um, we haven't locked in yet is with parking spots available in the back

[11:00] » because there's a couple that are long enough that we think we can stack

[11:03] » can >> cars and Yeah. and get two out of one.

[11:07] » Great. Excellent. [gasps]

[11:10] Um, any any comments, questions, Tasha? No. All right. Are there any public

[11:16] comments here or on Zoom?

[11:21] » You're on Zoom and you'd like to comment, please raise your hand.

[11:27] » No Zoom comments. >> All right. Very good. Um, would anyone

[11:33] like to make a motion?

[11:36] We don't need to discuss it then. Is anyone need to discuss any

[11:40] » discussion? No. >> No. Okay. Then I'll make a motion.

[11:44] » Um, tell me if I get this right. I'll make a

[11:48] motion to approve a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a

[11:52] dog grooming business at 1137 Magnolia Avenue.

[11:55] » I'm going to jump right in here and say your motion should be to adopt planning

[11:58] commission resolution 02-2026. Do

[12:01] » you want me just to stop there at those two? We've made it easy on you. So we

[12:05] started preparing resolutions started reading from the bit of a minute motion.

[12:09] » So moving forward >> unless it's if for most projects unless

[12:12] it's a minor thing we'll we'll approve it by resolution. So um

[12:17] » okay then I'll just approve as planners it also memorializes the approval in a

[12:22] um in a permanent record. So >> okay. So, all I need to do is approve

[12:27] the uh resolution 0226 >> unless you have a motion to change a

[12:33] condition or modify the project. But yes, effectively yes.

[12:37] » And then the other one is going to be 0326. Okay.

[12:43] » Um Oh, there's just one. Okay. Then I'll start again. I'll make a motion to

[12:48] approve adopt the planning resolution planning commission resolution O2-

[12:56] 2026.

[12:59] We need a second. >> I'll second that.

[13:02] » Roll call. >> Okay. Commissioner Kingdale.

[13:05] » Yes. >> Commissioner Chalmer's.

[13:07] » Yes. >> Commissioner Zapar.

[13:09] » Yes. >> And Chair Swisser.

[13:10] » Yes. >> Your motion passes. Four yeses, one

[13:13] absence. Uh, your decision can be appealed. Interested parties can appeal

[13:18] your decision by filing the required form and fee with the city clerk prior

[13:21] to the expiration of the appeal deadline, which is 10 days from this

[13:24] evening. >> Excellent. Congratulations. That wasn't

[13:27] too rough. Get it? Rough. >> All right. See, our bark is not as bad

[13:33] as our bite, right? Or it's worked. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Enough. All right.

[13:40] What more jokes can we make tonight? Alrighty. Next. Uh

[13:47] 4B 2062 Redwood Highway, APN021-261-22,

[13:52] Titan Davis, applicant, Catalyst Real Estate, owner, zoning district, project

[13:57] number PLN26-011. This is a public hearing request for a

[14:01] conditional you to allow a restaurant in the L1 zoning district.

[14:07] Can we have the report, please? >> Yes.

[14:15] All right. Yes. Good evening again. This item is PLN 26-011

[14:21] for 2062 Redwood Highway, more commonly known as the Cost Plus Plaza Shopping

[14:26] Center. It exists just to the east of the 101 highway. Uh, and the space in

[14:31] question is currently occupied by the Vitamin Shop. It's the first, well, I

[14:35] would refer to it as the first commercial space on the property, the

[14:37] closest one to the right of way. Um and that space would be um demised to make

[14:43] room for the new proposed restaurant which is um and you can kind of see here

[14:48] on the site plan. It's just this uh shaded area here would

[14:55] become the the new suite in question. And so the item before you today is

[15:00] another conditional use permit which would allow a restaurant in the L1

[15:03] zoning district, alo known as the light industrial zoning district.

[15:08] And here is just they provided a pretty basic floor plan of the space just

[15:11] showing that the demising walls that they would be putting up

[15:17] and uh for the provided application materials. The facility would operate

[15:21] again all week Monday through Sunday from 10:30 to 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

[15:26] There'd be approximately eight employees per shift up to 12 when they have

[15:29] promotional events. deliveries would be scheduled to occur during off hours, so

[15:34] it doesn't impact uh visitors to the the shopping center or the rest of the

[15:37] tenants. There are no exterior alterations proposed. Similar to your

[15:42] last item, should they be proposed, that would trigger a design review

[15:45] requirement, uh the and again, the proposed use has been found consistent

[15:49] with the applicable general plan land use designation, which in this case is

[15:52] industrial and service commercial. You have received no public comments on

[15:57] this item. And with that, staff recommends that the commission hold a

[16:01] public hearing, consider public testimony, discuss the project, and

[16:04] adopt planning commission resolution 03-2026,

[16:08] which would approve the project subject to findings, conditions of approval, and

[16:11] a class one exemption. And that concludes my remarks, and we have the

[16:15] applicant and landlord here for you. >> All right. And can we hear from the

[16:19] applicant?

[16:25] Good evening. Thanks for having us today. My name is Ari Blum. I'm uh a

[16:29] larkser resident and also uh the owner of Catalyst Real Estate, which manages

[16:35] and represents the entity that owns Costlas Plaza. Um my family constructed

[16:41] the shopping center in 197577

[16:46] somewhere around there. And we've owned and operated the shopping center since

[16:49] that time. As I'm sure you are aware, the nature of retail has changed a lot

[16:56] over that period. And you know, there are just less soft goods type retailers,

[17:01] more shopping centers of this type. Food service is more what the community seems

[17:07] to want and where the demand is for tenants. Um, and in this case, uh,

[17:12] Vitamin Shop was looking to downsize to a smaller amount of square footage,

[17:17] leaving us with the endcap there vacant, and the restaurant use seemed to be the

[17:24] best uh, opportunity for that space and that's uh, the impetus behind our

[17:30] application and happy to answer any questions.

[17:36] » Question. >> Sure. Go ahead.

[17:38] » You have question. >> No, you can ask it.

[17:41] Um, so thanks for coming out. Um, uh, I love Chipotle. It's good, good, good,

[17:47] good food. Um, so how many, if you had to estimate like how many customers

[17:52] would you estimate having come in each on a daily basis, let's say? I don't

[17:58] have the number at the top of my head. Um, I do know that when we did the park,

[18:03] we did a parking study to confirm that we had sufficient and ample parking for

[18:08] the use. and um parametrics did that study and in that study they um did have

[18:15] some kind of assessment of the count but I don't have the number on.

[18:20] » Yeah. No, I I see I see that daily vehicle trips what what they what they

[18:26] estimated based on the square footage of the store. I was wondering if you had a

[18:30] different expectation or any other number that you are I mean you're

[18:34] running a business so you must have some projections.

[18:36] » Yeah. Well, but we just we have projections of what Chipotle will pay us

[18:40] in rent, but like because their credit tenant regardless [clears throat] of how

[18:43] many people come or don't come, um they pay the same rent. So, we didn't really

[18:47] dig into with them exactly like what their counts would be, but I could get

[18:51] that and follow up if it would be helpful.

[18:54] » Yeah. And and then I just want to curious, so you're you're assuming as

[18:58] well that there will be delivery to customers, not just deliveries. I

[19:03] understand the late night deliveries of, you know, products coming into the

[19:07] store, uh, wholesale, but like you're going to do GrubHub,

[19:10] » pick up, you're saying? >> Yeah, pickup. GrubHub and all that sort

[19:13] of thing as well. >> Again, I'm not 100% sure of what the

[19:16] volume would be on that, but I definitely do know that they have a

[19:21] number of parking spaces that they've asked to be made available for

[19:25] short-term parking for uh for customers to come pick up and and and leave.

[19:31] » Who is they? Chipotle. >> Chipotle. But you're going to be owning

[19:35] Chipotle and you also own the shopping center. Is that correct?

[19:38] » Or you're shopping center. But yeah, but we're leasing to Chipotle.

[19:41] » He's not the franchisee. >> I'm not the franchisee.

[19:44] » You're you're not the Oh, you're you're just the landlord.

[19:46] » The landlord. Yeah, >> I get

[19:49] my I thought you were also the uh landlord.

[19:54] » Okay. So Oh, so you've done a parking study then for this?

[19:58] » Yes, I believe so. >> It's in the It's in the pack.

[20:00] » This parametric study? Yes, correct. >> Yeah. No, I I see it here. I see it here

[20:04] that where you calculate the trips generation report. Have you done any

[20:07] other parking studies for this cost plus >> plaza? They have. So, um the cost plus

[20:15] plaza I found that they at their peak that that parking lot is 41.9% occupied

[20:21] » at the peak. >> At the peak.

[20:23] » Oh. Oh. >> It's a total of 291 parking spaces.

[20:28] » Uh >> oh.

[20:30] » Okay. I that's fine. I could I'll leave my comments to the comments. This is

[20:34] just question period because I' i've been to this shopping center many times.

[20:37] I'm sure you have as well. >> Um

[20:40] » but um >> yeah, I mean I guess I would just say

[20:42] about that is that um it's there's a there's a concentration of parking in

[20:47] the area around Trader Joe's, but generally there's quite a bit of parking

[20:52] in the on on like the I guess that's the south side of the parking lot. And so

[20:57] our uh expectation and I think that of parametrics is that that parking will

[21:01] kind of like basically filter south into the lot over time.

[21:08] » Yeah. My only issue with is that people have like there's some crazy thing that

[21:12] Trader Joe's releases into the air which makes people go insane at parking.

[21:16] » Right. >> Oh yeah.

[21:17] » And then the other and it's true. It's be careful of your car there. The only

[21:20] other thing is um leaving that parking lot, making a lefthand turn onto that

[21:24] road I think is really dangerous. Uh and people take their life into their hands

[21:28] sometimes taking a left out of there. So I I kind of wish there was a it's not

[21:31] your issue of course, but it's more the city issue. I wish there was some better

[21:34] way of left turning out of that parking lot cuz it's kind of dicey.

[21:38] » Yeah, we agree. It would be great to have a traffic light there or something.

[21:42] » Yeah, something because Yeah, >> especially bike lane makes me nervous.

[21:46] Yeah, that's one of the >> that I think we do hear about that I

[21:50] assume. Right. But >> yeah,

[21:51] » staff may be able to further describe it, but I think there is a grant in

[21:55] process studying perhaps that area. >> Again, it's not that's not your issue,

[22:00] it's the city's issue. I'm just kind of like,

[22:03] » well, I I mean, I guess I differ a little bit because if if it was if they

[22:07] met a certain threshold, they'd have to do conduct this traffic study that would

[22:12] probably account for the number of vehicles that the difficulty of turning

[22:17] in and out, getting in and out of that shopping plaza, which is

[22:20] » from my experience quite difficult. Um, I I guess I just I look at this study

[22:25] and it and it I understand I've had conversation with staff who explain that

[22:29] this is typical the way that this calculated. I have trouble believing

[22:32] that like because vitamin shop is going to be decreased 2,000 square ft that the

[22:39] number of customers are going to decrease by like 50%.

[22:42] I just don't understand how that how that happens.

[22:45] » Yeah, I don't know. I don't again I don't know if that's necessarily our

[22:47] purview but >> in staff's

[22:52] estimation this this this holds water this this traffic study analysis

[22:57] » it is actually interesting point >> especially like the assumption that

[23:00] we're chopping this up because traffic to that vitamin shop has not been

[23:04] » that's the reason that it doesn't meet the threshold according to this

[23:07] analysis. >> Yeah.

[23:08] » Well there is there is plenty of parking in that. I mean if you go further away

[23:13] from >> there's lot there's lots now. So I I I

[23:15] suspect that it's going to be used more uh you know because it's open late at

[23:20] night. You don't have too many places that are open late there like Chipotle

[23:24] would be open. That'd be a great place for people to go get you know

[23:28] » late night dinner. >> Yeah. Post

[23:30] » kids, >> you know, post um

[23:33] » Yeah, postplanet commission. I was thinking something else, but

[23:38] » Okay. All right. >> And there's no dedicated parking spaces.

[23:42] I thought you were going to ask that, but no. Uh, I think not. I think that

[23:46] there's a couple of spaces that we expect to have signage that says like

[23:50] Chipotle parking, maybe two spaces, I can't remember exactly in the lease.

[23:54] » Um, but not like, you know, that that's for the pickup like the kind of quick,

[24:00] you know, pickup spaces, but broadly the uh the customers will park throughout

[24:04] the lot. >> Are you going to have to do a lot of

[24:06] modification of the building for kitchen use? I mean, like putting in a kitchen,

[24:09] etc. in there. >> Chipotle will do that. our job will be

[24:13] to split the current um 6,000 square foot uh space into two 3,000 square foot

[24:20] spaces >> and that's um you know a pretty big

[24:23] project for us and then Chipotle once we complete that will take it over and then

[24:28] build out the internal kitchen facilities for ourselves.

[24:31] » Okay. All right. Anything else? Okay.

[24:36] » Any more questions? No. >> Do we have any public comments? Thank

[24:39] you. Thank you very much.

[24:44] If you're on Zoom and you'd like to provide a public comment, please raise

[24:47] your hand.

[24:50] » Okie do. Um, all right. Bring it back to the commission. We've already mentioned

[24:55] parking. Is there anything that we want to discuss?

[24:58] » No, I think it's a I think it's a great addition to have a Chipotle in town. I

[25:04] think it's great. I just I hope if this if it's true that there is a grant that

[25:07] the city is working on the traffic analysis because as we've all observed

[25:12] it's getting in and out of that cost plus plaza isn't can be a nightmare

[25:15] especially the 101 traffic and I just mentioned one other thing is that

[25:18] there's a emergency pet uh veterinarian in that plaza and if you need to get in

[25:24] there at peak time which is >> I don't think getting in is the problem.

[25:28] I think getting out is >> both. Yeah. I mean

[25:30] » even driving past is >> Yeah. So maybe we can say just as a as

[25:35] from our forum as planning commissioners since the owners of the shopping center

[25:39] are here. It would be great if there's an opportunity for you to talk and

[25:42] promote and support any kind of traffic study or any kind of I mean that's not

[25:47] part of any decision we make tonight but since we have a dialogue with you it'd

[25:52] be great if you could look into that or support anything that the city does

[25:56] because I do get stuck in that traffic as well. So

[25:59] » yeah, I just want to say we've actually expressed I think directly to the staff

[26:03] that we're really supportive of the study of that area and we very much

[26:08] would love to see um what I think you guys are saying really which is to have

[26:11] some kind of a traffic light. >> Yeah. Or or some, you know, turn

[26:14] corridor safety thing because Yeah. Okay. That'd be great. That sounds good.

[26:18] » Well, thank you. >> All right.

[26:19] » I have no other comments. >> Great. So uh a motion. Do you want to do

[26:23] the >> You want me to I know what I'm doing

[26:24] now. >> Yeah. Now that Natasha knows what she's

[26:26] doing. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, we make a a motion to adopt

[26:30] the planning commission resolution 03 SL uh-2026.

[26:38] That's all I have to say. >> All right. Second.

[26:42] » Second. A second. >> Excellent. All right. Roll call.

[26:46] » Commissioners of Park. >> Yes.

[26:48] » Commissioner Kingsdale. >> Yes.

[26:49] » Commissioner Chalmer's? >> Yes.

[26:51] » And Chair Swisser? >> Yes. Okay.

[26:52] » Your motion passes. Four yeses, zero nos, one absence. Interested parties can

[26:58] appeal your decision by filing the required form and appeal fee within 10

[27:01] days. >> All right. Excellent. Thank you very

[27:04] much. All right. Next

[27:11] 4C 16 Elm Avenue APN021-223-49

[27:16] Pski Pearlstein Architects applicant Michael Folk uh first residential zoning

[27:22] district uh plan 260008 public hearing request for design review

[27:27] to permit demolition of an existing single family residence in the

[27:30] construction of new uh I didn't see how many square foot twotory single family

[27:35] residence with an attached garage uh a floor area ratio exception to permit a

[27:40] property with an F of 0.21 which is 393 ft where.192793

[27:47] is the maximum allowed by the code. Uh slope use permit to permit 283 cubic

[27:52] yards of cut and 79 cubic yards of fill in conjunction with the proposed

[27:57] construction staff report please. >> Yes. One second.

[28:07] Hey, good evening planning commission. The item before you is PLN 26-008

[28:13] for the property located at 16 Elm Avenue that is located just to our east.

[28:18] Um that is on the north side of Elm Avenue and a well landscaped residential

[28:23] neighborhood. I've got an overhead shot for you on the left here again

[28:27] highlighted with the orange boundaries and then a a Google Maps view of it. And

[28:32] the property in question is this tiled roof residence right here

[28:37] in the middle. Uh so the project proposes to demolish

[28:42] the existing residence and construct a new 2970

[28:45] ft two-story single family residence with an attached 175 ft garage/ gym

[28:51] space. As designed, this would require planning commission to approve a design

[28:55] review entitlement, a floor area ratio exception, and a slope use permit.

[29:00] [clears throat] Here's [sighs and gasps] the site plan. The structure in

[29:04] question, the new residence is shown in this dark gray, and it might be easier

[29:09] to see in in the plans in front of you, but the existing residence is shown in a

[29:12] dashed line here. It occupies a somewhat similar footprint, though obviously the

[29:17] new residence will be will have a larger footprint. Um, and then this area in

[29:22] question here, which is on the western portion of the lot, would be the

[29:27] proposed J AU. And then there is a two-story portion of

[29:31] the residence twotory above grade which is at this the rear of the structure.

[29:36] And then there's the property is also developed with an existing ADU at the

[29:40] the rear of the lot and then a small accessory office. And I will point out

[29:44] in the in the staff report I believe the word office is dropped. At one point it

[29:47] says 123 square feet. It should say office. That is what that portion is

[29:52] referring to. So my apologies there. And then I'll get into the floor plans

[29:58] here for you. This is the first level. This is the garage and gym area. So the

[30:01] garage is located at the bottom of this image with the the gym which would be on

[30:07] the western side of the of the floor plan here or the top as you can see it

[30:11] in the slide above. And if you can see this this kind of

[30:15] dashed line here that delineates the areas of the residence on this level

[30:18] that are more than 50% below grade which is why there's a large portion of this

[30:22] residence which does not count against the floor area ratio. So it is all this

[30:27] this garage here that is exempt. There's I think it's 246 square feet uh here and

[30:33] that is included in the floor area ratio.

[30:38] Moving to the first floor, it is again just living area. There's

[30:43] bedrooms at the front, a living area, and then a kitchen at the rear. Um

[30:47] again, this wing here on the western portion of the lot is the junior ADU

[30:51] that's proposed.

[30:56] And pretty much this entire level, I'll I'll

[31:01] discuss the J AU section when we get to the floor area ratio exception, but this

[31:04] this area will count against the allowed floor area ratio.

[31:10] And here is the second story portion. The second story is limited just to the

[31:13] rear of the the residence here. And it is the the primary suite.

[31:19] And then it because of the the slope of the lot, it's going to you'd be able to

[31:23] basically access the backyard here. Um where the the that two-story portion

[31:28] would be grayed at the at the rear of the home.

[31:33] And here are the renderings and elevations here for you. This is the

[31:37] front on the top. Uh it's what you would see from Elm Street. And then the

[31:41] twotory portion is shown kind of this the gray behind it here.

[31:46] Western elevation is just beneath it. And the highest point of the residence

[31:52] would be actually this the peak of the chimney. I believe it's just over 27 ft

[31:56] tall. The peak of the roof it's beneath that it's 25 and change.

[32:04] » Then here are the north elevation just the rear of the home on the top here.

[32:08] And that that is the second story portion. This is just how it would

[32:10] appear from the rear of the lot where again it meets grade.

[32:14] And then beneath it is the eastern elevation. Uh and I will just point out

[32:18] the the staff report does call out a large window and this is the window that

[32:22] it's being that we are discussing in the staff report. And so one of the findings

[32:26] in front of you tonight is that there is not an unreasonable loss of privacy

[32:30] associated with the project. So it was raised in a public comment that this

[32:34] window will face a neighbor. Um so it's up to you if you find that it is does

[32:38] result in an unreasonable loss of privacy. is something you could uh make

[32:42] request modifications to.

[32:46] Okay. And then to speak about the floor area ratio exception, I think we're all

[32:50] familiar with the the floor area rules and how they interplay with the slope of

[32:55] a lot. So the allowed floor area ratio here is 0.19 or 2793

[33:01] square ft. Um the project proposes an F of 0.214

[33:05] or 3,148 square feet. um which is what 0.102

[33:13] below the neighborhood average when you conduct a survey of all the properties

[33:17] within 300 feet. I will just point out and it does say so in in the staff

[33:21] report a number of those properties are much smaller lots which kind of skews

[33:25] the data. There are believe properties of a similar lot size over 10,000 square

[33:30] feet and this would be the fourth largest home of those 11 properties. And

[33:35] then just to kind of make it clear, this is how we've broken out the floor area.

[33:39] So there's 256 ft of the garage that is included there. 1448 is excluded. The

[33:46] first floor uh includes 2007 ft of living space without the JADU and I'll

[33:52] get into that last actually. The second floor totals 705 ft and the rear office

[33:57] building is 123 ft. Now the JADU and ADU are both they meet the provisions of the

[34:04] code to be granted the 800 square foot floor area bonus. The two units together

[34:09] total 857 square ft. So 57 square ft of the combined two units is being included

[34:15] in the floor area. So that's why it says the JADU has a 57 square foot impact on

[34:20] the floor area ratio. So other than that, the the rest of the ADU and the

[34:26] rest of the JADU footprint are not included in that total.

[34:31] And the last entitlement requested is a slope use permit. This is triggered by

[34:35] the cut and or fill of 25 cubic yards or more on a property with a slope greater

[34:40] than 25%. This project proposes a total cut and fill volume of 362 cubic yards

[34:46] which is required to dig the residents into the hillside and then create a

[34:50] landscaped area at the sides and rear of the lot. And this is the the grading

[34:54] plan here for you. And it's also included in the plan set if you want to

[34:57] look at it a little closer. But again, most of it is to access the garage and

[35:02] in there. And then the landscaped area I'm referring to is kind of all back

[35:05] here. There's some terracing that will be done at the rear of the lot.

[35:09] and you have received a total of three public comments on this project. I would

[35:14] say they are generally all opposed to the scale of of the proposed

[35:17] development. There is one from the neighbor directly to the east which is

[35:22] the one with the potential privacy impact based on that kind of large

[35:26] picture window. And with that, I'm going to close out my

[35:30] remarks here. So staff's recommendation is that you hold a public hearing,

[35:33] consider public testimony, discuss the project, and adopt planning commission

[35:37] resolution 04-2026, which approves the project subject to

[35:41] findings, conditions of approval, and a class 2 SQA exemption. And that

[35:45] concludes my report, and the property owner and project architecture are here

[35:48] for you as well.

[35:56] » Uh, first we have to hear the It's not time for your question. It's

[35:59] » got staff questions. Oh, go ahead. Staff question. Sure.

[36:02] » Right. And I had called Alex about this earlier just to understand the square

[36:06] footage, which I do understand now, but I want to make sure cuz what was the

[36:10] number that you had up on the screen the the for the permitted F? No, not the per

[36:16] the requested

[36:24] because cuz here it says 4532

[36:29] » I think >> and then the permitted F is 3093 and

[36:32] what was the number 31 >> I think it may have been the at the time

[36:37] that that was written I think the the 57 square ft had not been included in it.

[36:42] It's the 57 square feet which is why the number is

[36:46] » got it. Okay. So the >> but it is 3,148

[36:50] » square feet. Okay. And then so the way I understood it the entire

[36:56] property is 5,396 ft of which

[37:02] 1,448 is below grade. So you don't have to

[37:06] include that. And then 800 of that is JD, ADU, and

[37:13] ADU. So you don't include that either. So you take 5396 and you take away 1448

[37:20] and you take away another 800. And that's how you get to the 13148.

[37:25] » Yes. >> Okay.

[37:29] Okay. Everyone with me on that?

[37:36] Because what?

[37:42] » Because they're not subject to F, >> right?

[37:45] » The J AU and the AD. >> Okay.

[37:47] » Yes. >> But and everyone's [clears throat] on

[37:49] the same page, right on that? >> Yeah.

[37:51] » Yeah. Okay. Good. >> Um I have a comment or a question to

[37:56] staff. Um the comment the late comment that was received from Miss Lacy Trisha

[38:02] Lacy regarding the existing ED you constructed before July 1st 2023. Can

[38:07] you give me clarification on what the rules are on that?

[38:10] » Uh yeah to touch on that. So that it was an existing accessory structure. It was

[38:15] converted to an ADU in 2024 under a building permit. So staff's

[38:20] interpretation is that that does meet the requirement of the code for the

[38:23] exception. The way it's phrased in the code is ADUs and J ADUs constructed

[38:27] after I'd have to look at it for the >> July 1. Yeah, July 1st, 2023. Um, those

[38:33] are the only units that are eligible. So, the structure did exist, but it was

[38:37] not used as an ADU at that time. So, staff's position is that by converting

[38:42] it to a JADU or excuse me, an ADU in 2024, that's the date that we're using

[38:46] for the the F. Were there a remodel of the building after July 1st, 2023, or

[38:52] did they just not call it that before that and now they're calling it that?

[38:55] » I can't speak to that. that the documentation that I I found in our in

[38:58] our docu in our files was not didn't provide any sort of clue as to whether

[39:04] or not it was an ADU at that or used I suppose used as a guest house or ADU

[39:08] prior to that but it was legally create converted into an ADU

[39:12] » and and then therefore does not go against the

[39:16] » square footage. That is staff's interpretation. The planning commission

[39:20] can choose to interpret it a different way if it wishes.

[39:23] » Okay. All right.

[39:27] Any other questions? But, uh, >> nothing. I mean, I had, maybe this is

[39:30] more for the applicant. I had questions about access to the ADU because I I went

[39:35] to go see it. And I mean, you can't really see much because it's a lot of

[39:39] foliage and vegetation. And um, and I saw lock gates, so I wasn't sure what

[39:44] was going on behind at the back of the property, but it sounds like that there

[39:47] isn't I mean, there is an existing ADU there.

[39:50] » Yeah, there there's two accessory buildings in the rear of the lot. It's a

[39:53] It's a 123 square foot office and needs >> four

[39:58] and the ADU adjacent to it. They're connected by a by a deck.

[40:03] » Okay. But I'm assuming the the ADU needs to be accessed by the street at the from

[40:07] the street level, right? >> I'm sure the owner and architect could

[40:10] tell you exactly how it'll be accessed. I believe it's a path that runs up the

[40:13] um the western side of the propert that you can use to get back there.

[40:17] » Okay. >> All right.

[40:20] » All right. Do we have the applicant?

[40:32] Yes.

[40:43] » While Alex is getting set up, I'll tell you I've scripted this because I want to

[40:46] get a lot of information to you as efficiently as possible. So,

[40:50] » okay. Could you introduce yourself? Sure. My name is Rich Pearlstein. I'm

[40:53] with Bolski Pearlstein Architects and I want to wait until Alex gets a chance to

[40:59] throw that up and

[41:04] Okay, good. Thanks. Okay. Um um our office has worked with Mike Folk

[41:11] for many years on other residential projects. Last year he asked us to begin

[41:15] work with him on the design of his new home. This is a property that Mike has

[41:19] owned for 21 years. He and his wife, his former wife, raised their daughter here.

[41:24] Mike has deep roots in Marin. He decided that he wanted to create a new home for

[41:27] himself and his family. The existing home was built in 1937 as a

[41:32] one-bedroom home. In the 70s, an existing covered patio was fully

[41:36] enclosed to make it a two-bedroom home. Today, it has an F, the house itself, of

[41:41] just under.11, one of the lowest FS in the

[41:44] neighborhood. Even though this property is notably larger than most neighboring

[41:48] lots, given the existing home's Spanish inspired character, Mike wanted to work

[41:53] within the Mission Revival style. Where am I pointing? Where am I pointing?

[41:57] Okay, good. There you go. Uh, with their light stuckco walls, tile roofs,

[42:02] occasional arches, divided light windows, and simple architectural

[42:05] detailing. These would be combined in our design with what we're calling

[42:09] biomodern elements, more contemporary forms with planted

[42:14] green roofs. In this way, we believe that the design would be sensitive to

[42:17] the neighborhood's fabric, maintaining continuity with other similar homes in

[42:21] the area with planted roofs acting as a softening feature and a linkage between

[42:25] the gables. Our site concept was constrained in a

[42:29] few significant ways. Mike wanted to preserve the Chinese

[42:34] pistache tree in the front yard.

[42:39] And the trees uh size and placement dictated the location of the garage and

[42:43] driveway that would be tucked underneath the main floor.

[42:47] And you're familiar with that. Uh as well as the pedestrian approach up to

[42:52] the front door, which is the heavy blue line leading you up behind the tree.

[42:56] Along the western side, the building maintains a greater than minimum setback

[42:59] from the acquired six-foot setbacks varying from 7 to 10 feet as the

[43:03] building jogs along. Towards the rear of the house, the Japanese maple on the

[43:07] western property line dictated that the building remained far enough away from

[43:11] the tree to not affect its root zone. On the uphill, we needed to respect the

[43:17] large oak trees root zone.

[43:24] Went too far. Sorry. There we go.

[43:30] The existing garage behind the house is sided in an excavated cut that was made

[43:34] into the hillside back when the garage was first built. As you can see here,

[43:40] so it seemed logical for us to make use of that cut in extending the main floor

[43:44] back into that area. The property size allowed Mike his desire to substantially

[43:48] have a one-story floor plan for the house's core functions with only the

[43:52] primary suite upstairs. During early schematic uh design,

[44:00] we developed two massing alternatives for an upstairs primary suite. Mike

[44:04] viewed both of these with the neighbors at 20 elm, realizing that they may have

[44:08] a preference as to where it would be located with their preferred location to

[44:12] the northernmost portion of the building.

[44:21] The upper floor roof height varies from about 13 feet to about 21 ft at the

[44:25] ridge along the east elevation. Though of course the first 6 to9 ft above grade

[44:30] are masked by the eastern fence which is this shading block here. So at the north

[44:35] elevation of the upper floor, the building essentially is a single story

[44:38] stepping out to grade. As Alex mentioned, the homeowners at 20 created

[44:43] a photo simulation using the story poles to show a view from their rear yard

[44:47] area.

[44:51] Although note that we've shifted because the AI had the windows in the center, we

[44:55] shifted it so that the photo is a little more accurate.

[44:59] Um, based on the photo simulation, we think that it was taken from a vantage

[45:03] point on their site towards the back of the their deck. Um so the red triangle

[45:11] if you can see that in on the screen represents where the views of East Pac

[45:17] would be hidden behind the proposed upper floor. The east pink east peak

[45:21] would otherwise be visible from the remaining center and southern areas

[45:26] when you're standing more to the middle of the deck. We also however looked at

[45:30] an alternative window configuration for this elevation

[45:36] uh based on the [clears throat] letter that the owners had sent into staff.

[45:41] This would keep the higher windows in the stair hall for morning light

[45:47] then eliminate the middle windows and keep the lower windows so that we could

[45:52] get natural light back into the corner of the dining area on the main floor.

[45:57] While we believe that the larger architectural uh assembly of the windows

[46:02] may be look better, we think that the visual impacts on the neighbors may

[46:06] argue in favor of modification. In the final design, the three

[46:11] traditional gable forms are linked with the biomodern sections of the building.

[46:17] Two gables linked, two gables linked, and two gables linked together.

[46:23] Conceptually as well as practically, the various elements create a well

[46:27] articulated building that we believe is respectful to its location.

[46:30] The landscape design firm put together a series of illustrative images that we

[46:34] think conveys a good sense of how the finished project will feel when

[46:38] landscaped. And these are the landscape drawings that were in your package.

[46:44] In summary, we chose a substantially one-story design that echoes and

[46:48] respects the mission influence of the current house and other homes in the

[46:51] neighborhood. The street facade follows the

[46:55] streetscape as each success successive home coming down Elm is cited comparably

[47:00] lower than the house immediately uphill from it.

[47:04] We're responding to the crossgrade of each property. We believe that the home

[47:07] artfully integrates into the neighborhood with its historic

[47:10] references rather than alternatively just building a purely modern home.

[47:18] And that's all three questions.

[47:26] » Um, yeah. Would you mind answering the question about the ADU at the back and

[47:31] access to the ADU? >> Yes. So, um, you'll notice

[47:36] if you go to your south elevation, it's a little fainter in this perspective.

[47:41] The set of stairs continues up the side of the house. And if I went back to

[47:46] back,

[47:50] if you imagine those stairs are they start up now they're coming up the

[47:55] east side. So behind the sixoot fence the stairs come up. There's a a walkway

[48:00] and then they start to step up and in the new landscape design the stairs will

[48:04] get here and at that point they will start to cut the middle of the site and

[48:08] their existing stairs that they connect to. And that that probably shows up in

[48:11] the landscape site plan if you if you [clears throat]

[48:14] » Yeah, shows on my my site plan as well, I think. So, the intent is that the um

[48:20] the resident of the ADA would go up the east side and then connect to those

[48:24] stairs. >> Okay. So, if somebody's in there and

[48:27] they have to just walk all the way up the stairs to get in

[48:29] » one way or the other. >> Okay. Um and then the other question I

[48:34] had is what is the final parking count? because I understand you have a big

[48:39] garage and some driveway space. >> Yes. So, and one thing I wasn't sure if

[48:44] Alex was going to mention, but if you look at the floor plan at the back of

[48:48] the garage, there is an area that Mike is intending to put an elevator in at

[48:53] some point. So, he's trying to connect so that as he ages in place, as many of

[48:58] us have discussed, aging in place sometimes precludes stairs. And so

[49:04] a a driver of that garage was getting back to where we could actually step up

[49:09] into the elevator for a second floor. So that becomes the southeastern corner of

[49:14] the second floor in the garage up into the closet.

[49:17] Um but so as to your question, if one parked tandem in the garage, you would

[49:22] have two plus two in the garage. And then of course there are at least two in

[49:26] the driveway. And Larksburg's requirement is two plus two.

[49:29] » Okay. But it sounds like you can fit six if you do. If you do tandem.

[49:33] » Yes. And >> in the driveway, given car sizes these

[49:36] days, possibly, but certainly six. >> Okay.

[49:40] Thank you. Anyone?

[49:46] » Um, you comment on again I'm looking at at the bus line and letter uh about the

[49:55] modification of the of the second story to pull back from the property line a

[50:00] bit. Have you guys considered uh the massing of that second story on

[50:06] the property line and whether or not you have some alternative ideas about

[50:10] lowering that a bit? Um so let me get to

[50:21] this. So and I'm not sure this is the letter from the neighbors at 20. Yes. So

[50:28] I guess the question at hand is in in consideration that um Mike had had those

[50:34] discussions early on um whether the masting would have been

[50:39] better there or here which was the other alternative. And so if you think about

[50:46] the height we could say well maybe we'll lower the slope a little bit and that

[50:51] point would come down about a foot. Can you see the pointer? Okay. Okay. Yeah.

[50:55] Um, you know, you could consider that. Um, Michael, as you have may have

[51:02] noticed and you will notice when he stands up, is very tall, 6' 7, eight.

[51:07] So, the height upstairs is just somewhat sensitive, at least in terms of the

[51:10] plate height, the height of the walls. >> And so, the real question, even if you

[51:15] say, well, let's push that back a few feet, I don't know that the perception

[51:20] of it changes that much. So, I guess the way that Mike and I had been discussing

[51:26] it was that as we went through this, if we went about and pulled much of that

[51:32] glazing out so that we're just getting not essentially clear windows dropping

[51:36] light in that that ideally that would take care of the primary concern. But if

[51:45] you imagine that wall pushed back 5 ft, let's say, where it'll take a magic

[51:50] number, it doesn't really appreciably change that wallpap as seen from here.

[51:56] Does that make sense? >> What What about the ceiling heights on

[52:01] the inside? Because there's a living room, right? And then a bedroom.

[52:04] » Yes. And they both of the >> How how high are those?

[52:08] » Uh I'm going from memory. The ceiling height in the bedroom is 9 ft. And this

[52:12] is why I was mentioning as Mike may describe in a few minutes. And I recall,

[52:17] let me flash forward to um looks like living rooms 10 ft.

[52:22] » Actually, Alex, you had that information, didn't you?

[52:24] » It's on the A31's got the elevations.

[52:31] » A31. She looked at

[52:34] » Yeah. So, I believe we're 10 foot floor to floor, which so is my point of puts

[52:39] the kitchen at just under uh 9 ft, which is I don't know that we've built a

[52:45] project of late that went lower than that. So,

[52:51] it's not it's not an unusual number. >> 10.

[52:57] » No, 10. I can't say. It's too small. It's too I can't read it.

[53:03] » But to be clear, the living here. So um

[53:10] Alex, can you switch to the building sections because I have not included

[53:13] those in

[53:16] might be easy.

[53:26] So, while we're waiting for that, so there is the height at the kitchen,

[53:30] which is I'll call it a flat ceiling, which is the floor underneath the the

[53:35] primary suite. And I'm going from memory, Mike recalls, I think we went

[53:39] 10T floor to floor. And so, that puts the ceiling just under 9 ft. The living

[53:45] room is different because it's a higher ceiling space with the green roof over

[53:48] it. So, it sits higher, but it's not really they're they're

[53:53] not tied to each other, if you will. So it's the height of the dining and living

[53:57] area. I think that we're that may be gerine that you're wondering about.

[54:06] » Thank you. So

[54:11] yeah, so from the first floor level to the second floor level in squinting, but

[54:18] I believe that's 10 foot. >> Yeah. So the height here it ends up

[54:24] given the construction it's a little under nine feet 8 foot n 8 foot 10 from

[54:29] here to there

[54:34] » in the catch.

[54:38] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[54:43] » Any other questions?

[54:48] I guess I just want to understand you're showing this this photo from the moose

[54:54] leen or it's a rendering I guess based on the story polls.

[54:58] » Yes. >> Are you saying it's not accurate?

[55:00] » Oh, it was just where whatever system may have built that the size and

[55:05] location of the windows within the gable it that was centered in

[55:09] » the window location. Window location but the other than that the scale is is

[55:13] pretty accurate. Yeah, they were breaking up the the uh story poles,

[55:16] which is a great way to do uh photo rendering. So So the massing of the roof

[55:20] is accurate to the story poles. >> Yeah.

[55:23] » Which is if the window is >> Yeah, the window is a little off, so I

[55:26] just corrected it. >> I see.

[55:27] » Just like the picture of the deck view today versus the deck view with the

[55:30] house. That would be go from green plants all around to large house.

[55:37] Right. >> Sorry. Could you please?

[55:39] » You have no You said no concerns about this one in terms of its accuracy. No, I

[55:43] think that the I'll say the walls. >> Yeah, they're they're tracking the story

[55:47] polls, which is as it should be. >> Cool.

[55:50] » And so what what is behind I'm trying to I can I can't see actually with my eyes

[55:55] can't see the small writing, but on the on the the whole proposed site plan. You

[56:01] have the I see the entry of the house. I see the the rear of the house where the

[56:06] living room and then the primary bedrooms up top and then there's a yard.

[56:10] Yeah. in between [clears throat] there and the ADU is just is just yard.

[56:15] » It's it yeah it's a patio >> patio area.

[56:17] » In other words, within within this area between two wings.

[56:21] » Yeah. Did you consider I mean I think the main issue here is privacy and and

[56:27] bulk and massing. I think you understand that and we have three three pe

[56:32] neighbors who raise that issue. Is there another design that you've considered

[56:38] that wouldn't require a second story right next to their the yard at least of

[56:47] that pushes it back or pushes it forward to the to the front of the house or it

[56:51] pushes it further back on the property? >> Well, I I think the appropriate thing if

[56:55] Mike you want to Yeah, it's great.

[57:05] Uh my name is Mike Folk. I've u been a Larksburg resident for 21 years. Uh

[57:11] served on multiple committees in the city. So I'm been in the community for a

[57:15] long time. Um we raised our family there. Uh so I have

[57:21] a great appreciation for the town and a lot of sensitivity to the neighborhood

[57:26] and how that house would integrate into the neighborhood. Um,

[57:31] so if you look at the uh if you saw that first uh slide that Alex put up showing

[57:37] the neighborhood, um, the property was sort of this remainder piece when they

[57:43] subdivided Elm. They went with 50 foot wide lots, 150 ft long. They were all

[57:49] 7,500 feet, sort of like coming right down the hill until they got to this

[57:53] last piece uh before it kind of it turns onto aacia. and 16 Elm was the

[57:58] remainder. So 16 Elm actually touches seven different properties. Uh it is

[58:05] almost it's 14 and a half thousand ft. So it's almost double uh what the other

[58:09] lots are. Um,

[58:13] so that's that's created an unusual situation, but we wanted to keep the

[58:18] rhythm of sort of stepping down the uh hill and that's why we opted for

[58:22] substantially a one-story house with all the garage tucked underneath and we're

[58:27] digging that out. But really, if you look at the existing house, the floor

[58:31] plate for the existing house is the same floor plate for the new house. So, we're

[58:35] not changing elevation there. And we really wanted to keep that stair step

[58:39] down. Now, obviously, when you add a second story, uh that's going to have

[58:43] some impact. So, my process was to talk to the neighbors early on. So, every one

[58:50] of the every one of the neighbors that uh wrote in um I told them a year ago

[58:55] what we were starting to do. Um but I knew that 20 Emily and Andrew would be

[59:00] the most impacted. And so, that's really where I started. And so last October, I

[59:06] went to them when we were just starting our design phase with only hand sketches

[59:12] and said, you know, there's there's basically two places that we could add a

[59:17] second story. We could either add it more to the middle or we could add it

[59:21] all the way to the north and push it to the back of the property. Um, and they

[59:26] said at the time like, you know, we we'd prefer not to see this, but you know, if

[59:31] all things being equal, we would take the version that pushes the bulk to the

[59:35] back. And I happen to agree like if you're going to you're going to take a

[59:40] slope property and there's an existing cut in it, why don't you move one

[59:44] twotory element deepest into the cut? So that cut, as you saw from that second

[59:51] story, comes out onto grade. So that means that the first story there is

[59:56] substantially below grade. So that that kitchen and dining room are like six

[1:00:01] feet under grade. So um can we go to that one? The eastern view.

[1:00:18] This one's fine. So

[1:00:22] this is the 30 foot uh that's that's the max that can go the 30 foot height line.

[1:00:28] Now clearly we we our goal here was to keep something that was fairly modest

[1:00:33] and really from a street level that's actually what it is and this is

[1:00:37] basically replacing a one-story house with a one-story house. And we uh put

[1:00:41] the twotory element into that cut. So like I said is really from grade here up

[1:00:47] to the uh up to the eaves it's like 9 10 ft and up to the peak I think is 12 or

[1:00:55] 13 total from the grade. Um so that was the thinking like how do we how do we

[1:01:02] minimize that impact and I I understand that certainly from 20 elm there will be

[1:01:08] impact. I mean there's just no there's no getting around that. And that's why I

[1:01:11] started that process early with them. That's why uh we you know they

[1:01:16] registered their um their interests early on and we moved forward from that

[1:01:22] point. And I know that historically the commission has wanted to see neighbors

[1:01:26] work with each other before coming to this forum and then you know you having

[1:01:32] to decide something like that. Um so that's that's the process there. Um, you

[1:01:39] had had questions about the ADU. >> Just out of curiosity, um, have you

[1:01:43] talked to them since the story polls went up?

[1:01:44] » Yes. So, okay. So, >> I I delivered plans to everyone back in

[1:01:48] April when we actually had the full plan set, and that includes not just the

[1:01:53] three that uh that wrote in, but also other neighbors. Uh, and then when these

[1:01:58] story polls went up that day, I texted everyone and said, "I'm available to

[1:02:03] meet and talk." And so, yes, I did go over to uh Andrew and Emily's place and

[1:02:09] looked at it from the backyard. And there's there's no question there was an

[1:02:14] impact. Like, you know, if you put uh you put a property, if you put a

[1:02:18] building there at the setback, there's going to be impact. Um we're happy to,

[1:02:23] as Rich said, we're happy to work with the windows. Um, but if you if you you

[1:02:28] know code allows for up to 30 feet of building height and we're trying to

[1:02:34] minimize that as much as possible and I think we've done a pretty successful job

[1:02:38] there. It doesn't mean that there won't be impact impact but it does because you

[1:02:43] have these lots that are only 50 feet wide. If you look at the rhythm of the

[1:02:47] houses going up Elm and down Elm, everyone's at their setbacks on both

[1:02:51] sides. So if everyone's got five or six foot setbacks,

[1:02:56] you know, as you go up to I think 36 El like I mean these houses are right next

[1:03:03] to each other. They're two stories right next to each other. So that is not

[1:03:06] uncommon in that neighborhood. Anyway, I digress. Um I wanted to answer your

[1:03:11] question about ADUs. So the ADU was actually built in 2014 as a accessory

[1:03:17] structure. It was not a accessory dwelling structure at the time. Clarks

[1:03:22] didn't really allow ADUs. Uh they didn't want to have extra units and as you know

[1:03:27] with the arena numbers that has changed dramatically and so we updated we didn't

[1:03:32] make any changes to the uh the structure itself. It always had sort of a

[1:03:37] kitchenet and that kind of thing. Um but before we rented it out and it is rented

[1:03:42] out now before we rented it out we made it legal. And uh so if you look at that

[1:03:48] application it was strictly a name change. it was going from an accessory

[1:03:52] structure to an accessory dwelling structure so that we could legally uh um

[1:03:58] lease it out and uh it wasn't without significant cost as it turns out um to

[1:04:04] go through the process with Larksburg um but Larksburg got another extra reena

[1:04:09] unit out of it um so you know I think that was generally good and as far as a

[1:04:15] you know the the point of ADUs and the point of the state wanting ADUs is to

[1:04:20] create extra housing and we've done that. We built it and

[1:04:24] we're renting it and so we created that extra housing in the neighborhood. Um,

[1:04:28] so that's kind of the history on the ADU and how it came to be.

[1:04:32] » Got it. >> Um,

[1:04:36] I'm going to I'm going to reserve the rest of my time

[1:04:40] just so that if there's someone that comes up and I can address a neighbor's

[1:04:44] concern directly, I'm happy to do that. Um, but you know, I could tell you all

[1:04:49] sorts of things about like why this is our, you know, 30, 40year home and how

[1:04:54] you make a a house work like that and you know, why I think doing something

[1:04:59] that's mission inspired but biomodern, having this sort of these three gabled

[1:05:05] sections linked by a meadow is, I think, pretty progressive and uh takes into

[1:05:10] account the kind of thing that the kind of thing that Larksburg would like to

[1:05:14] see as opposed to a modern white box or another modern farmhouse or that kind of

[1:05:19] thing. So, we work hard on that.

[1:05:22] » Yeah, I mean the the design looks beautiful for sure. Um, I do want to

[1:05:25] jump back to Andrew's question real quick and I wasn't sure if I I missed

[1:05:28] it, but basically I'm going to hold up uh C2.1 which kind of has this uh

[1:05:34] » the paper area there. >> Oh, yeah.

[1:05:36] » Um and right now there's no there's no house there.

[1:05:39] » Um obviously it's a patio, it's enjoyable. Is there any design that

[1:05:43] would remove the need for the second floor, preserve the same square footage

[1:05:46] you have, and then move part of the house into there? Is that not

[1:05:50] » basically you move that square footage into that? So, if you're if you're

[1:05:54] taking the mission style as kind of your vernacular, you know, having a courtyard

[1:05:59] is standard. Um, that's also the view of Tam. So, we're organizing that courtyard

[1:06:06] around a view. Um, if you take that second story and drop it right in the

[1:06:10] middle, what you've got is sort of a uh setback to setback, one big flat yard,

[1:06:16] it doesn't it doesn't really it's it's not a great design.

[1:06:20] » Wait, I don't think he means you didn't mean this area here, did you? You meant

[1:06:24] this area, >> right?

[1:06:26] » Yeah. I mean, >> didn't you better address? Yeah.

[1:06:31] » Yeah. Right behind the >> You're talking backwards.

[1:06:35] which just goes goes higher up the hill. >> I think Pearl Stein was thinking coming

[1:06:39] in. >> I was actually asking that I understand

[1:06:42] your question. >> Okay.

[1:06:42] » I I thought you were talking about that area

[1:06:44] » about what's in between >> two separate areas.

[1:06:47] » I think that's what >> Andrew was saying. [laughter]

[1:06:53] » The the main question is like is there a place where it's not a second floor? Cuz

[1:06:58] like you said, you've built this beautiful patio around a tam view. Um,

[1:07:04] and the only way you can achieve that is by

[1:07:07] taking away someone else's tan view. If >> that's not true.

[1:07:10] » Okay. >> Um, if you we'll uh let me go back to

[1:07:16] the uh view from 20. >> If I change it from taking away

[1:07:20] someone's tan view to materially impacting someone's tan view, would that

[1:07:24] Okay. Yeah. >> So like if someone were to build next to

[1:07:26] you and materially impact your cam view, would that would you oppose that or

[1:07:32] would you support that? >> I mean

[1:07:35] » hypothetical. Okay, that's fair enough. That's right. Yeah.

[1:07:40] » I I guess the question they're asking maybe is this being asked right now is

[1:07:43] is there a way that you can spread the property out more along the property

[1:07:48] along the land as opposed to going up you go along the property? And that's

[1:07:53] what what you're asking, right? >> Yeah,

[1:07:55] » it's a fair question. >> Uh I think it was slide number

[1:08:00] two.

[1:08:08] Go back.

[1:08:30] » Go back.

[1:08:38] two or three I don't remember the one that basically shows the uh

[1:08:42] » the cut and how the bill six act

[1:08:52] » no >> yes

[1:08:58] so if you're if our interest was to build

[1:09:04] only in the cut um and not not cut further into the hill. And so, you know,

[1:09:12] at least historically, larks larks has been very opposed to sort of regrading

[1:09:18] uh especially slope properties. And so, we've worked within the cut and that's

[1:09:24] that's essentially this one. You can see the uh grade actually up there, but this

[1:09:29] is the existing cut and conraints on the property.

[1:09:36] So that's where we put the house, but there are these trees that also

[1:09:41] constrain the property, too. So it's not if you move the mass farther up the

[1:09:45] hill, then you've moved right into a heritage oak. And so that's problematic.

[1:09:50] If we're pushing out, we're pushing out to the uh west, then we're into a

[1:09:55] Japanese maple. If we're pushing out to the south, well, we've got a front yard

[1:10:00] setback and we got a tree there. So, um, unless we're building something up here,

[1:10:07] which would be very obvious from a lot of properties, you know, really you're

[1:10:12] trying to put the mass into the cut and keep it as low as possible. And that's

[1:10:18] why we built essentially a one-story house with this small two-story element.

[1:10:23] And that upstairs is, you know, we put the gable end uh toward Andrew and

[1:10:29] Emily's side. So, it goes longer. It's I think the I don't know what the width is

[1:10:34] there, but um you know, if you're putting a rectangle there, you're

[1:10:37] putting the short end toward your neighbor and you're putting the long end

[1:10:39] on your property. Um and that's what we did. And we and we actually um

[1:10:47] so this this mass here, we actually cut this corner back here. It's sort of an

[1:10:52] odd odd shape. Get to that uh the story pole planner.

[1:10:59] » But we really we really made an effort to minimize the effect of

[1:11:07] Yeah. So right there we actually cut this corner right here so that it would

[1:11:12] impact them less. Um this is their backyard and you can see from most of it

[1:11:19] you can see tan from this corner. Um you you lose a bit of tan. Um so

[1:11:27] and I'm I'm again I'm not in any way suggesting there's not an impact. There

[1:11:31] is an impact. Um, but it's also,

[1:11:37] you know, to say that they've lost all their TAM view is not true. Actually,

[1:11:43] from most of their backyard or for a good portion of certainly the majority.

[1:11:47] Um, it still maintains a TAM view and it's not a remote portion. It is the

[1:11:51] central portion. Um, so and I said before like I think the commission would

[1:12:00] choose to have neighbors that try to work their problems out before they get

[1:12:03] here and that's absolutely we did um starting a year ago.

[1:12:07] » Okay, great.

[1:12:11] Great. Can we uh any other real good >> watch?

[1:12:15] » All right. Excellent. I will address. So there are two other letters that you got

[1:12:20] » u from tan elm gave uh and their concern is um because they sit lower and they're

[1:12:28] also on a about a 3500 foot lot. So it's a very small lot that our project sort

[1:12:33] of looms over them. Definitely a concern. I get it. Um

[1:12:39] when we when we removed our driveway up the west side and pushed the building

[1:12:44] out, the building still still a single story there got closer to the fence. So

[1:12:49] what I've offered up and what we sort of agreed upon was uh we would put a

[1:12:53] trellis on top of the fence that would uh cut down that sense of like looming

[1:12:58] over. >> So more vegetation

[1:13:00] » more veget more vegetation higher. That's right.

[1:13:03] » Okay. Um, and it would allow our windows to clear and not look down into their

[1:13:06] property. Um, and then for 110 Elm, uh, 110 110 Acacia,

[1:13:14] um, we did a render there. I can show it to you later. Uh, but I would say their

[1:13:20] view from the back of their house to that two-story element in our house is

[1:13:24] about 140 ft. Um, so it's not not right next door. It's it's a ways away. And

[1:13:31] then and the last thing I'll leave you with is F.

[1:13:36] Um, as I mentioned, there are seven

[1:13:39] properties that touch uh 16L. Um, we are by far the lowest current F and

[1:13:48] the lowest requested F. Um, so ours is uh allowable 19. Uh, we're asking for

[1:13:56] 21.4. It's 112% of F. Um, our neighbors are 90% 213% 136 136 185 213 and 454%

[1:14:09] of F. Our average neighbor that touches our property is 203% of F.

[1:14:17] So, you know, yes, we have a large lot, but that's the standard that is in our

[1:14:24] neighborhood. So,

[1:14:27] um, yeah, great. >> Any questions? Appreciate

[1:14:31] » it. No, we're good. You're good. All right.

[1:14:36] So, public comment. >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:14:48] » I am not nearly as tall as Michael. [laughter]

[1:14:51] Um, for sake of efficiency, I just prepared something. Um, so my name is

[1:14:55] Emily Leiden. Um, and me and my husband, Andrew Busy, lived at 20 Elm. Um, which

[1:15:01] is right next door to the project. It's our first home. Um, we moved in about a

[1:15:05] year ago. Um, and then we had submitted a letter with some of the photos and

[1:15:09] some of the fancy AI rendering that my husband did. Um, and we really want to

[1:15:14] echo what Michael had said. appreciate him engaging with us from like the very

[1:15:19] beginning of um the project and really want him to build his dream home and his

[1:15:24] forever home here. Um but we do have concerns as you've seen by the photos of

[1:15:29] the overall um size of the structure and where it's placed on the property line.

[1:15:34] Um particularly just the second story um there really impacts our experience of

[1:15:39] the backyard. Um, and as has been commented on before, our stretch of Elm,

[1:15:44] um, all the houses are on relatively small lots, but kind of thoughtfully set

[1:15:48] back from each other, which kind of preserves the views from everyone's

[1:15:52] houses and from the backyards um, of Mount Tam and also the surrounding ridge

[1:15:57] line and how amazingly green and beautiful it is there. Um, but this

[1:16:01] design, especially mainly just the second story, kind of breaks that

[1:16:05] pattern and puts like the tallest part of the house, no other way to describe

[1:16:09] it besides looming um over our backyard. Um, and right next to our property line

[1:16:16] alongside the deck. Um, and then one of the things we love about living in Larks

[1:16:21] uh is how amazing the weather it is every year. Um, and throughout the

[1:16:26] entire year. Um, and the deck truly is one of our living spaces. Um, and our

[1:16:33] main place that we spend spend time and entertain. Um, and when the story poles

[1:16:38] went up, we just walked out back and really just towered over our fence and

[1:16:43] um, and did from parts of the backyard kind of block our view of Mount Tam.

[1:16:48] Though I agree with Michael that from different areas of the yard, we still do

[1:16:51] have a view. But the whole structure definitely does loom and it's the first

[1:16:55] thing you see when you walk out into our backyard. um which is included in some

[1:17:00] of the photos. Um so this house would be a lot bigger than ours. Ours is 1100

[1:17:04] square feet. Um and it is asking for an exemption to go above what is requested.

[1:17:10] And we know that exemptions are approved all the time for like very good and good

[1:17:14] reasons. Um but I think this one is being used and massing the largest part

[1:17:22] of the house kind of in a way that does impact us and our experience of our

[1:17:25] home. um and just

[1:17:30] makes us feel a little bit enclosed in our backyard and blocks our view. Um so

[1:17:34] I think we appreciate that Michael came to us with kind of two options when he

[1:17:40] was first starting this, but I think regardless of where a second story was

[1:17:43] placed, it was always going to be um impacting our experience of our backyard

[1:17:47] where we spend so much time. So, obviously want him to get a a his plans

[1:17:53] approved um to build a home there, but I think maybe a thoughtful redesign of how

[1:17:59] big that second story structure is or even ideally not having it entirely

[1:18:04] because I don't think there's a world where there's a second story there that

[1:18:06] doesn't significantly impact our um our experience of our home. So, thanks.

[1:18:14] » I've got a question. >> Yeah. How would you redesign it if you

[1:18:16] were to not um if you were not in your ideal world?

[1:18:22] » I mean, I think you guys have made some good suggestions of

[1:18:28] I mean, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have that second story at all. The house

[1:18:31] is already quite sizable if you take into account the

[1:18:36] basement area not being counted the far, the junior ADU, the additional ADU in

[1:18:40] the back. Um, I obviously have no idea how Michael's intending to use it or

[1:18:44] family come in or rent out the ADUs, but um,

[1:18:49] but yeah, there is a big patio area. Ideally, keeping it to one story, I

[1:18:54] think, would be ideal from our standpoint, knowing that

[1:18:58] of course there needs to be a a middle ground. But I think even if you I think

[1:19:02] Michael made the good point of even if you push it out a few feet, it's still

[1:19:06] going to look the same and feel the same from

[1:19:09] from our view in the backyard. >> Okay.

[1:19:13] » Yeah. >> All right. Thanks.

[1:19:15] » Thanks.

[1:19:26] » Hi, my name is Trisha Lacy. My husband and I live at 110 Acacia Avenue and

[1:19:31] we've lived in Larksburg for almost 11 years now. Um I did submit a letter. A

[1:19:36] number of the things have already been discussed. Um I want to begin with

[1:19:41] saying um that I really like the modern interpretation of the California Mission

[1:19:46] style. Um, I love the planted green roofs and um I appreciate um that they

[1:19:55] will be preserving the three heritage trees and in particular the valley oak

[1:20:00] and the maple in the backyard um are very important because it's something

[1:20:03] that we see from our backyard and it provides the maple in particular

[1:20:08] provides important screening between the two properties. Um I do have some

[1:20:13] concerns. one um we've discussed which is the ADU um and I I really question

[1:20:22] that um reszoning something is the same as it

[1:20:27] being constructed. It seems to me that the laws or the I don't know if law is

[1:20:31] [clears throat] the right word, but that the code specifically says that the ADU

[1:20:36] must be constructed after July 1st of 2023. And that is not what happened. So

[1:20:41] I I question that that ADU should not be counted towards the total F

[1:20:47] um the application of the 800 square foot ADU Junior ADU allowance. So Alex,

[1:20:54] thank you for correcting that and I want to make sure that um that new number of

[1:20:59] the 3148 is reflected in um the exemption application or whatever the

[1:21:07] exact terminology is. so that he's he's applying for the right thing. Um, in

[1:21:13] terms of floor area ratio, exception, and overall scale,

[1:21:17] um, I understand what Michael shared about neighboring properties. I do want

[1:21:23] to point out that I don't know that any of the neighboring properties have a ADU

[1:21:29] or a junior ADU on the property. And so when you consider that there's this from

[1:21:36] what we see living below, I see the the ADU and then the office unit of 123

[1:21:43] square feet and they're attached with a deck. The the net impact in in our

[1:21:48] visual is nearly 600 square ft of building. And then now you're talking

[1:21:54] about another junior ADU and this space that's underground. There is quite a lot

[1:21:59] of building space and just not all of it is being reflected in the floor area

[1:22:04] ratio. Um, in regards to the height of the second story window, yet or the

[1:22:10] second story bedroom wing, yes, from our home, we are from our actual residence,

[1:22:16] we are quite far away. And I recognize that we do at the back of our property,

[1:22:21] it's the way that we're able to utilize the capture the tam view, there's a

[1:22:25] deck. And so when you are on that upper deck and you turn around and and you see

[1:22:29] the story poles, it it was quite dramatic. And so and also because of the

[1:22:34] sloping from our perspective, we do see that 27 foot high roof line. And so um

[1:22:43] or I guess it's 25 foot roof line with the three-foot um chimney. And so I

[1:22:50] wonder if the chimney height could be reduced, if the overall pitch of the

[1:22:54] roof could be reduced. I understand that he's trying to echo the pitch of all

[1:22:59] three, but this one has a different orientation. So, if it was slightly

[1:23:04] different, I don't think that's something that would be picked up um

[1:23:08] when you're viewing it. So, I I do think that there's an opportunity to at least

[1:23:12] bring down the height of that roof line. Um, and then finally, I just want to

[1:23:17] make sure that there is true protection of these heritage trees, especially the

[1:23:24] oak, which I think has a 42 foot diameter. Um, but that wouldn't be

[1:23:30] right. 42 in and um and also the maple tree because there's going to be a

[1:23:36] significant amount of earth work and I just worry about the um roots being

[1:23:42] disturbed and then in particular as it relates to the seconds story bedroom. Um

[1:23:47] it will require some significant pruning of that oak tree and I know you can only

[1:23:53] safely prune a certain amount at a time. So if nothing else I think that work

[1:23:57] might need to be staged. Um, so thank you.

[1:24:03] » Thanks very much. All right. Are there any comments on

[1:24:08] Zoom? >> If you're on Zoom and you'd like to

[1:24:10] comment, please raise your hand.

[1:24:15] » No hands. >> Okay, great. All right, let's bring it

[1:24:18] back to the commission.

[1:24:24] Um, sure. Do you have any objection? Anybody? No. Go ahead.

[1:24:35] I know he doesn't like that. Too bad. >> Um I totally agree on the trees. That

[1:24:39] was you know a primary motive for us to keep those trees. So protection pruning

[1:24:44] 100% there. >> Um I do think there's with our ADU and

[1:24:49] office um we we rent them together. So those are are a combined unit. I would

[1:24:54] say I would argue that they're really one ADU and not two different buildings.

[1:24:58] But from a bulk and massing standpoint, um, our property is 200 f feet in

[1:25:04] length. The distance from the house up to the ADU and office is another 100

[1:25:11] and change. Um, so when you're looking at any one of the structures, whether

[1:25:15] it's the ADU in its office or the house, that that bulk and massing is completely

[1:25:21] separated. like it's not, you know, you're not looking at x number of

[1:25:25] thousands of feet >> the way you do with most houses, right?

[1:25:28] This is a big lot. And I've been asked many times like, "Why'd you make the ADU

[1:25:33] so far away?" Um, it was always intended to be like a different thing. And most

[1:25:38] of the time when we have people come over, they look up and they're like,

[1:25:40] "Oh, isn't that the neighbor?" They don't even recognize them and they don't

[1:25:44] connect them. >> Yeah.

[1:25:45] » So, I don't I don't think that was the issue

[1:25:48] as much. was just whether it was just a question of F and and I think these

[1:25:52] they've already decided that your ADUs are illegal and that's again not our our

[1:25:57] area to discuss >> making the connection. Yeah, that's all.

[1:26:00] » Okay, great. Thank you so much. >> All right, [clears throat]

[1:26:06] let's bring it back sir.

[1:26:10] Um I'll admit I I do have concerns a little bit about some of the privacy

[1:26:14] impact. um if that's one of the findings we're supposed to find. I don't know if

[1:26:19] I could plainly come up with that finding

[1:26:22] » is it I if I can jump in for you. The one you are referencing I believe is

[1:26:27] finding B uh for design review. >> Y

[1:26:30] » compatibility with neighbors and the sentence in question reads

[1:26:34] » further the proposed structure or addition avoids significant and

[1:26:37] unreasonable loss or interference with privacy light solar access and

[1:26:41] prominence and abuse. It's up to the commission whether or not

[1:26:44] the impact is significant and unreasonable in order to meet that

[1:26:48] finding. >> Okay. So, but like if I was saying I

[1:26:53] think it would be unreasonable, you'd say that that would be enough to say

[1:26:56] that doesn't meet the finding or I don't understand if I

[1:26:59] » Oh, I'm just pointing out that that the language in the finding is that it is a

[1:27:02] significant and unreasonable loss of privacy. It's not that there is any

[1:27:05] impact. >> Totally. Totally understood. Understand

[1:27:07] certainly up to the discretion. I think that's where I'm trying to that's where

[1:27:10] I'm trying to figure out like what becomes unreasonable loss of privacy or

[1:27:15] um view. Um >> there's there's no set standard

[1:27:18] established in the in the code for that. It's up to your discretion.

[1:27:23] » Cool.

[1:27:26] It's not a state law. >> No.

[1:27:29] » Yeah. There's no no constitutional right to a good view or good privacy. Well,

[1:27:34] city some cities do have a uh view obstruction ordinance. Larksburg does

[1:27:39] not. >> Yep. Great.

[1:27:40] » And this comes up very frequently in planning commission meetings when we

[1:27:44] have second story additions that excuse me that look out onto neighbors etc.

[1:27:49] We've litigated this issue on many many many occasions. And so I guess the main

[1:27:54] question is is this a significant and is it unreasonable? Um, and that that's

[1:27:59] what is up to our discretion to to discuss is whether it is and you

[1:28:03] certainly can think you in your opinion whether it is or not. That's up to you

[1:28:07] to make that decision whether it's significant and unreasonable.

[1:28:11] » Again, our our job isn't to redesign the house.

[1:28:14] » Totally. Yeah, understood that. >> Yeah.

[1:28:16] » Yeah. >> Cool.

[1:28:20] » Okay. >> Me to go. Um

[1:28:25] just want to make a comment to one of the uh public comment people about the

[1:28:29] existing ADU and and can staff correct me if I'm wrong but when we reddrafted

[1:28:35] the law here in Luxbor about the ADUs um this was required for it was required

[1:28:42] for us to do this by state law and this I'm not sure what the exact language

[1:28:47] says I don't have it to memory but the spirit of the law was to encourage ADUs

[1:28:53] and we are not allowed to to account for them. So I don't think it really in the

[1:28:58] end end of the day makes any difference when it was built right. Um I mean maybe

[1:29:03] there's something in the language I think staff is discussing

[1:29:10] » you know ADUs have a special status under state law

[1:29:15] » and the state says that we have to accommodate the legalization of ADUs.

[1:29:20] Um that date is not common among every city. I mean it's not necessarily every

[1:29:26] agency has adopted the same standard. Um it is our interpretation

[1:29:32] uh that of the law that this you know how did you word it meets our

[1:29:39] yeah it's our interpretation that the ADU was constructed

[1:29:44] after July 12. The ADU did not exist pre July 1, 2023. It existed after July 1,

[1:29:50] 2023 and is therefore eligible for the F bond.

[1:29:54] » What do you mean it didn't exist? >> Well, it wasn't an ADU.

[1:29:58] » It wasn't. >> You know, and the thing is we don't have

[1:30:01] good documentation of what structures were used for historically. I mean,

[1:30:06] » you know, people don't come out and say, "Oh, yeah, I have all this documentation

[1:30:09] that says on this day it started existing as an ADU." So,

[1:30:13] » I don't even think it was relevant, right? because my my my my recollection

[1:30:17] was that if it's an ADU, it's an ADU. We just we the this what we were trying to

[1:30:21] do was in encourage more ADUs to be built in the city.

[1:30:25] » It's an issue of spirit versus letter of the law. And I think that the way that

[1:30:29] this the state >> and the city wants to encourage as you

[1:30:33] say ADU use that the spirit of the law is that it is an ADU now and it has was

[1:30:39] after that and you've litigated that and certainly if someone objects to that

[1:30:42] from a legal standpoint they certainly could take that up with the city

[1:30:46] » and they and but the burden of proof is on yeah

[1:30:48] » the the applicant or the appellant if they're challenging that.

[1:30:51] » Yeah. It's not a planning commission issue. It's more of a legal issue that

[1:30:55] the city attorney and the city would be dealing with if someone were to sue

[1:30:59] saying that it was not that. >> Right. I just wanted to add that comment

[1:31:02] and just address it because maybe if you read the language that's

[1:31:07] exactly what it says, but my recollection of what we were trying to

[1:31:10] discuss at the time was to encourage the ADUs. So that's where that came from.

[1:31:15] Um, but back to this particular property. Um,

[1:31:21] you know, I'm I'm a little kind of challenged as to what to do here because

[1:31:25] I think the the one-story portion of it is actually beautiful and I really

[1:31:29] enjoyed listening to your thought process and the fact everything you've

[1:31:34] tried to do to make this a very beautiful property, including preserving

[1:31:38] the trees and how you've looked at the whole street as a design um is is really

[1:31:43] good to hear. I don't love the sort of I call it kind

[1:31:47] of the tower. It just looks a little bit like a tower at the back. Um

[1:31:54] but I mean strictly speaking, you're not really doing anything wrong there. I

[1:31:58] mean you're within the height, you're within the stepbacks. So um

[1:32:05] I wasn't really sure which way to go on this. I mean I'm kind of finding it a

[1:32:09] really hard decision. Um, I I don't I think it's a real shame that

[1:32:14] it impacts the property next door. I mean, both sides. And I I wouldn't ne

[1:32:18] want to look at that either and have them looking down on you. And I think if

[1:32:22] this commission approves it, then you should definitely go with the the

[1:32:26] altered window design. Um,

[1:32:32] I mean, the one actually the one thing that kind of struck with me was the F

[1:32:36] exception. I mean we have as a commission

[1:32:39] agreed to a lot of F exceptions but in those cases it was a very very clear

[1:32:45] reason where there just wasn't a lot of room and it was a very steep slope and

[1:32:49] there were really good reasons to why we had to agree to that. This is a really

[1:32:53] large property. Um and the STO the slope is not that steep

[1:33:00] and um so I was kind of looking at that and saying gosh should we force you to

[1:33:06] reduce the F and therefore reduce the size of the the second story just to

[1:33:11] reduce kind of bulk and mass on that. Um but I actually don't know. So, I'm I

[1:33:18] haven't made a decision yet, and I guess I'll just hear what my last two

[1:33:21] commissioners are going to say.

[1:33:26] » Okay, >> you next.

[1:33:33] » Um, yeah, I would echo that a lot of that. You have you have to appreciate

[1:33:37] the the the the style, the design and and the uh bio roof I think is

[1:33:43] wonderful. I think it's a this the style is very compatible with the uh with the

[1:33:49] neighborhood I drove by earlier. Um but it's um it really comes down to I think

[1:33:56] this standard which u merits you know reading aloud for the for the design uh

[1:34:06] review which is the proposed structure or addition avoids significant and

[1:34:11] unreasonable loss or interference with privacy light solar access and prominent

[1:34:17] scenic views i.e. views of hillsides, Mount Tam,

[1:34:22] San Francisco Bay. Um, and and the standard is significant and unreasonable

[1:34:28] as as Commissioner Swisser said. So, you have to define both of those. Um, and I

[1:34:33] think there's no question that it's significant. I think that the um, you

[1:34:39] know, even applicant has admitted that there's is is there is an impact here

[1:34:43] and um, and certainly the visuals show that it's fairly significant. The

[1:34:49] question is is it unreasonable

[1:34:53] and that's where I get stuck. Um you know I would just note that for

[1:34:58] the F exception they all there is a similar similar question which is that

[1:35:03] uh you know the technique or culmination of techniques results in a design design

[1:35:08] that blends with a neighborhood or is of a unique architectural design that is

[1:35:13] sensitive to the immediate neighbors and compatible with the overall neighborhood

[1:35:17] character. So in both but for both uh

[1:35:23] standards, you know, you really have to factor in the the neighbors. And I guess

[1:35:27] what I've seen this commission do in my short I mean I'm don't have a lot of

[1:35:31] experience but I've seen a few um and and

[1:35:35] from what I've seen when you ask a an applicant to go back to the drawing

[1:35:42] board often they can come up with a with some sort of solutions with a feedback

[1:35:48] that that you know it maybe there's there's got to be a way to

[1:35:53] get the house that you want that's going also minimize make this make this impact

[1:35:59] on the neighbors less significant. So I think that's where I would I would lean

[1:36:03] is to say um you know please please go back to the drawing board. I love that

[1:36:08] you talk to your neighbors. Unfortunately your neighbors didn't

[1:36:11] really weren't on board. It sounds like I mean it's one thing to it's great you

[1:36:16] got to talk to your neighbors but the whole point is you you want to try to

[1:36:19] get some consensus here and I think that there isn't any consensus as it appears.

[1:36:24] Um, so that's where I'm leaning, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

[1:36:30] » All right. So, I think that uh I like the fact that you

[1:36:36] worked with the neighbors. Um, let me Well, first off, let me say that the

[1:36:39] design of your architectural firm is always

[1:36:43] elegant and beautiful and it's a beautiful design. It's really, really

[1:36:46] nicely done. Uh, the tower, it does have a little bit of a tower element on that

[1:36:50] second story. The issue is whether or not you can build a second story without

[1:36:54] doing that. Uh and I don't think you can. I think that you have a right to

[1:36:59] build a second story. That we've gone through this many many times with people

[1:37:03] doing second stories. If there's going to be a second story, how do you

[1:37:06] mitigate it such that it does not impact the neighbors? Sorry, I've got to

[1:37:12] cancel planning commission. Sorry, I'll talk to

[1:37:15] you later. My wife is in Tucson with my daughter

[1:37:18] right now. Um, so

[1:37:22] I I don't think that you could put a second story here and not impact the

[1:37:26] neighbors. And the question is, uh, again, as we've talked about it, is it

[1:37:30] significant and is it unreasonable? Uh, it is somewhat significant, I think,

[1:37:35] because really from the back of the lot is or from the your deck, the neighbors

[1:37:40] is where you're seeing the blockage and you know, from your house, you are not

[1:37:44] you are still seeing Mount Tam. Uh, and I think that the issue is you're not

[1:37:48] going to make everybody happy all the time. And I think it is would be

[1:37:53] unreasonable if the entire second story obstructed your view out of every window

[1:37:57] of your house. To come off of your deck and see that, yeah, it's a bit of a

[1:38:02] bummer, but this is something we've done many, many, many times. Um, and I think

[1:38:07] that if you go down William Avenue, this issue has happened a lot. People lost

[1:38:11] their Mount Tam views entirely because the House did that. Uh, so in my

[1:38:15] opinion, this is somewhat significant, but not unreasonable. Um, and I do think

[1:38:21] it is a beautiful design. I like your courtyard. I think it it complies with

[1:38:25] the mission. I was in Tucson this last weekend, and there's a lot of uh mission

[1:38:28] houses like that that have that element that are really beautiful. Um, I think

[1:38:32] you have the right to build the house you want to build. Um, again, without

[1:38:35] significant and unreasonable impact, and I don't believe that this does that. Um

[1:38:40] so I think um I would um favor approval of this um as as it is with the one

[1:38:47] exception that you do modify the window design so it is not um violating a loss

[1:38:52] of privacy which it would be both on both sides by the way on yours as well

[1:38:56] as your neighbors that it would do that. Uh I think this is a hard call and it's

[1:39:00] tough because no one's going to be happy all it's like a solommonic decision that

[1:39:04] you know not everybody's going to be happy with it. Uh but I think that

[1:39:07] you're well within the allowed height. you're well within the allowed setback.

[1:39:11] You're within allowed setback and that it is a beautiful design. So, I think

[1:39:15] that it does improve the neighborhood and I think it does comply with larks

[1:39:19] design standards and that's where I would stand on this.

[1:39:24] So, any other comments?

[1:39:30] » Oh, then it's two and two or it's three in one. It's the waiters.

[1:39:36] Gosh. I mean, >> part of me thinks, what if you had to

[1:39:38] choose between building a different design and and

[1:39:42] keeping the tree? I mean, do you know what I mean? It's

[1:39:46] like I'm just kind of almost, you know, it's there's some something has to give

[1:39:51] at some point. So, either you lose your view. I'm talking more to the neighbors

[1:39:54] here. It's like you don't want to lose the tree, but on the other hand,

[1:39:58] um, where else is the second story going to go? It's this is this is hard. I I do

[1:40:03] agree with Commissioner Swiss that this is actually a really hard one to to um

[1:40:08] come to a decision on. >> Can I uh can I staff a real quick

[1:40:12] question uh more point of order? Um how far away does one need to live from the

[1:40:17] house to make sure they're not in a conflict of interest? I live on Elm

[1:40:20] Avenue, so I want to make sure brought that up at the beginning.

[1:40:23] Apologies. Kind of thought that would be one thing

[1:40:26] you guys monitored, but I'm just thinking through

[1:40:29] » feet is the standard. There is a difference.

[1:40:31] » Is the crow flies or is the >> Yeah. Yeah. And

[1:40:35] » anyone know off top of their head how far? I think it's far enough because

[1:40:38] it's a half a mile drive. But >> where where on where on Elm are you?

[1:40:42] » 355. >> I'm sorry. You want to check?

[1:40:46] » 355. Let me think about that for a second.

[1:40:48] » It's I was thinking more of the It's pretty much from 106

[1:40:52] » 500 ft. >> Okay. Golden. Awesome.

[1:40:55] » We didn't catch that when you know >> Golden like again this is like my fourth

[1:41:00] meeting. I just want to make sure I'm not like

[1:41:01] » we get to the end of it and I'm like, "Oh, no."

[1:41:03] » Nice of you to ask before you vote. So, >> yeah, you're you're outside of F.

[1:41:07] » Golden. Cool. >> Um, okay. So, any further discussion?

[1:41:18] Someone like

[1:41:22] » You got >> Well, you have to make a decision.

[1:41:25] That's why you're here. [laughter] >> You could

[1:41:32] Can I ask maybe to Jeff like what what would become unreasonable?

[1:41:37] » Well, I think again unreasonable would be in my opinion, this is my opinion,

[1:41:40] you know, versus I have the same vote as everybody else.

[1:41:44] My idea of unreasonable would be is if the house uh the the views from the

[1:41:49] windows of the house was obstructed by the thing where it's now looming over,

[1:41:54] you know, your living room window, which you had a view of Tam, now you don't.

[1:41:57] That's not the case here. This is a case where a portion of the deck you don't

[1:42:00] have a view and it's a partial view of town. You still maintain a partial view,

[1:42:04] » but it it is it is an impact. I mean, you know, again, I I know several

[1:42:08] properties on William where people went up second story and completely blocked

[1:42:12] people's view. Yeah. >> Of Tam, and those have been approved.

[1:42:15] So, >> they should be.

[1:42:17] » Well, except we've done it. >> Well, I mean, I

[1:42:20] didn't just to be clear, but >> yeah, there's no Well, put it this way.

[1:42:23] There is no rule in larks. There's no law that says you cannot obstruct

[1:42:28] another person's view. There are places in this county like Tibber or or

[1:42:33] Belvadier where that is in fact the case. This is not the case in LSP.

[1:42:36] » Does that become more true though when we're like if if say we're just doing a

[1:42:40] second story but not exceeding F. >> I think I think you're right. Like it

[1:42:44] doesn't exceed F. Second story. It's kind of like well I mean

[1:42:48] » that there's still designer view when you do a second story there. But but in

[1:42:52] that case the designer view is different I think than

[1:42:54] » than the separate issues to be considered.

[1:42:57] » Can I ask a separate question? >> It's actually for the architect. I know

[1:43:01] we've closed the public hearing part of this but can um is is there a way um and

[1:43:08] the problem is you are very tall. So I I I I this is going to be challenging that

[1:43:13] you can bring down the um the second story or the ground floor or even the

[1:43:19] garage just to bring the height of the building down by a foot or two. Um this

[1:43:25] one yeah the garage the height of the garage is set currently um so that where

[1:43:32] the new curb cut would be the driveway would be it's more or less level into

[1:43:36] the garage. Maybe your question is could we slope down into the garage and

[1:43:40] excavate out that much more >> or the roof? I mean I don't know if

[1:43:42] there's a standard I'm sorry I'm not an >> architect. I'll talk through it. So if

[1:43:46] if we assumed okay we're going to go level in which is rational way to build

[1:43:50] and then from the garage the height in there it's a little over 8 ft. So I

[1:43:55] think I've got >> because of the slope of the garage it's

[1:43:57] a little over 9 ft from the garage to the main floor. Nine and a maybe nine

[1:44:01] and a half. Um because we set the main floor where the existing house is and

[1:44:06] then from there to the second floor as we discussed earlier where the kitchen

[1:44:10] is and the main floor to that to the primary floor is 10T so that you get a

[1:44:16] little under 9 ft in the kitchen and again talking about Mike's height. So

[1:44:20] that was how we set all the heights. Could we take the entirety of it and

[1:44:24] just push it into the ground further? We could add a cost of excavation,

[1:44:29] concrete, everything else. And then when you walk out to grade right now,

[1:44:33] » the new walk more or less out to the courtyard more or less where it is now

[1:44:38] because we kind of match the grades within inches.

[1:44:43] There's always a way. So I don't know if that answers your question.

[1:44:46] » I mean that that's what I was thinking is I think it because when I look at it,

[1:44:50] I see sort of a tower and I was just wondering if there's a way to or even

[1:44:54] you bring the roof down. in the roof and then

[1:44:58] » I don't know if that wouldn't be that. >> Could you bring the plate height down

[1:45:01] one foot? Let's just say would that be would that be an insubstantial would

[1:45:05] that be substantially alter your design to bring the plate height down one foot

[1:45:09] » cuz I have like 8 foot ceilings like in my house and we live with it and it's

[1:45:13] fine. So, >> yeah,

[1:45:14] » I know you're 67, but >> yeah.

[1:45:18] » Um, the garage ceilings at 8 ft. The ceiling above the kitchen's at 9 ft, but

[1:45:24] that's a big room. So, if you brought it down to 8 ft, it'd feel weird in a

[1:45:28] larger room to have a nine less than an 8 foot ceiling.

[1:45:32] » And at the um, you know, the whole the whole design here is three gabled

[1:45:38] sections to give you this mission style. I mean that is the standard mission

[1:45:43] vernacular >> uh a gable roof. Um and so

[1:45:49] we have a 9 foot plate height on the second story. So to answer I think where

[1:45:55] you're going with this if it all came down a foot or a foot and a half or two

[1:46:00] feet would that make a difference? And my honest assessment is not really. I

[1:46:05] mean, what I think the impact on Andrew and Emily is not necessarily the very

[1:46:12] top. It's the mass. >> Yeah. The mass. So,

[1:46:15] » it's the mass that drops down another foot. It's still that mass.

[1:46:19] » It is still that mass, but it's less of a mass.

[1:46:21] » Yeah. >> And so, I think a reasonable compromise

[1:46:25] would be to bring it down one foot on the upper floor. I wouldn't touch the

[1:46:30] lower floors because I think then you have that problem of it being cavelike

[1:46:33] in that first floor. But in the in the upper floor, I mean a lot of mission

[1:46:37] houses, etc. have a a shorter ceiling in in or you know lower ceiling on that

[1:46:43] third on that second floor >> and it it wouldn't be that

[1:46:48] huge an impact but I do think it would make a big psychological impact as well

[1:46:52] as an impact on the massing of that structure.

[1:46:54] » Put it this way when trying to find ways to make this work. I mean the other

[1:47:00] solution that comes out is can you redesign something?

[1:47:04] Can you redesign something to >> I guess if we had a a clear

[1:47:10] Commissioner Swisser kind of put it well as far as like you know we have the

[1:47:13] right to build a second floor. It does have um some impact um but I don't think

[1:47:19] it's unreasonable. >> Could we bring it down a foot? Yeah, we

[1:47:24] could. I think maybe you're right. It maybe it's a psychological I don't think

[1:47:29] it'll have a appreciable difference. I think it the only reason I'm saying is I

[1:47:33] think if we were to continue this and you were to come back with a one foot

[1:47:37] redesign I think that you would make a lot of parties happier. Um, and I think

[1:47:42] that it would go much I'm looking at just I'm listening to what my other

[1:47:45] commissioners are saying here and I think that's their their main issue and

[1:47:49] and again I'm trying to you know kind of like tow you know some line where

[1:47:54] everybody you know no one's ever going to be totally happy but could we make

[1:47:57] people happier and still >> here's my solution then that if that is

[1:48:02] if the commission has generally agreed that that would be the thing that would

[1:48:05] kind of get this over the line. Yeah. >> Here's what I would propose.

[1:48:08] » Okay. We have a 9 foot plate height on that second floor. If we reduced it to 8

[1:48:14] foot6, there's six inches of it. We have a 6 and 12 roof right now. If we bring

[1:48:21] that down to a five and 12 roof, and we'd actually do five and 12 on all I

[1:48:25] mean, you have to have a consistent >> Yes.

[1:48:27] » all the gables. Yes. >> Um that gives us another 8 in out of the

[1:48:32] um out of that peak. So, combined that's 14 in.

[1:48:35] » Yeah. >> Um

[1:48:37] » I think that would go a long way. So if I So I would say if you can approve it

[1:48:42] stipulating that it has the 86 512 um

[1:48:48] » on all the roofs and we change that window design.

[1:48:50] » Yeah. >> Yeah, we certainly can make that kind of

[1:48:52] motion. But you don't speak. >> No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm just saying

[1:48:58] » we could agree to that and we could make that

[1:49:00] » we could make that motion made. >> Um

[1:49:04] » I I would kind of be curious like what are the neighbors

[1:49:07] » Yeah. I mean I mean >> thank are we gonna keep going into a

[1:49:10] » I don't but I'm saying I wouldn't reopen it but

[1:49:14] I'm saying I personally think looking out that that would make a big issue. I

[1:49:18] mean this is I mean this is a deliberative body obviously we're

[1:49:21] deliberating right now. >> So I have a question for staff actually

[1:49:24] don't go anywhere yet. So, if we were to come to, and I don't wish to speak for

[1:49:28] anyone else on the commission here, um, if we were to come to some kind of

[1:49:33] agreement where they would lower the roof, um, or the side I'm I'm butchering

[1:49:38] all the words here. So, >> I think they they appreciate what I'm

[1:49:42] trying to say. >> Is this something they can do working

[1:49:45] with staff or do they have to come back to commission? How does that work? If

[1:49:50] you are very specific in your feedback, we can certainly process it as staff. If

[1:49:54] it's going to be general, please lower the height of the residence, then we

[1:49:58] would want it to come back to >> Got it. Okay.

[1:50:01] » So, we could, in other words, we could say very specifically, we would like to

[1:50:05] see the roof roof pitch changed to 5 and 12 and a plate height reduced by 6 in uh

[1:50:12] and make that as part of the additions for approval. We would impose that as a

[1:50:16] condition of approval, but it would be based on your motion.

[1:50:19] » You would oppose that as >> impose that oppose that. Impose that.

[1:50:24] » Impose that. And that would save us the issue of having to

[1:50:27] » because your motion is adding a condition of approval.

[1:50:30] » There we go. Good. Correct. All right. >> Wait, what what do you guys think? I

[1:50:34] have >> I'm bumped to hear the that's the way it

[1:50:37] would go. And I I don't I'm trying to think if that like would that

[1:50:43] meaningfully change it >> and it may not. I mean

[1:50:50] » I I do get a little I don't know trying to think of

[1:50:54] » your opinion too.

[1:51:02] » Um yeah I think I think the there it is. Um, I think that's a

[1:51:08] reasonable compromise. You know, from what I hear, it's

[1:51:13] it's various factors. It's not just it's not just the the mass. There's privacy,

[1:51:18] which we can address through the windows, the loss of a scenic view, as

[1:51:23] you said, you know, there's been many cases like

[1:51:26] this in the past, and it's not a complete loss. And uh you know I think

[1:51:31] if you buy a house on a slope till this is like some this is sort of the the the

[1:51:36] risk that you take. So I can I can >> and I guess maybe to the privacy side

[1:51:38] those windows are staircase windows right? They're not even living area

[1:51:42] windows. Yep. >> Yeah. All right. So let me make a motion

[1:51:45] then. Um, I move to approve 16 Avenue uh per

[1:51:51] the I don't know how you guys want to word it with per the recommendations

[1:51:55] with the condition that the plate height of the second story is reduced by six is

[1:52:02] it 6 in and that the pitch of the roofs are decreased from the current 6 and 12

[1:52:08] to 5 and 12

[1:52:12] » and the window >> and the window uh and the windows are

[1:52:15] redesigned as per the discussion. to include that. So,

[1:52:20] » okay. >> As a motion and then we will also modify

[1:52:25] the findings in the resolution about those

[1:52:28] » impacts, right? Accordingly, is that included in your motion?

[1:52:32] » Yes. >> Okay. And that will include that in the

[1:52:34] motion as well. >> Okay. And this is there something in the

[1:52:38] in the plans about they're keeping those three trees that was raised by one of

[1:52:42] the neighbors. >> No, no, no. They're they're

[1:52:44] » they're keeping it. They will they'll preserve those three

[1:52:47] » not affected. >> Okay. Not okay.

[1:52:49] » We have an arbitr that's all. >> Okay.

[1:52:52] » It's not part. >> So and and to improve approve the F

[1:52:56] exception as again as as written. >> Okay. Would you like us to repeat that

[1:53:00] those two conditions that you added? >> No.

[1:53:03] » I think we got it.

[1:53:08] » All right. Thank you. Carry on. >> Uh a second. Right.

[1:53:13] » Let's have a roll call. Commissioners apart.

[1:53:19] » Do you mind if I go last? Is that a thing I can say or no? It's okay to say

[1:53:22] no. But >> you can say no.

[1:53:24] » Staying is the other one. >> Discretion chair to

[1:53:27] » Sure. You can whatever you can. You can >> come back to skip. Okay. So, let's go to

[1:53:31] the other side. >> Okay. I'm going to start with

[1:53:33] Commissioner Chalmer's. >> Oh. Oh, yes.

[1:53:35] » Commissioner Kingdale. >> Yes.

[1:53:37] » Chair Swiss. >> Yes.

[1:53:38] » And Commissioner Zuck. >> Um, yes.

[1:53:43] So, your motion passes with four yeses, zero nos, and one absence. Your decision

[1:53:48] is subject to a 10-day appeal period. Interested parties can appeal your

[1:53:52] decision by filing the required form and fee with the city clerk prior to 5:00

[1:53:56] p.m. on the 10th day. >> Thank you. And I would like to make a

[1:53:59] note to the individual, I forget, I'm sorry, your your name. Um Emily, yeah,

[1:54:03] about the um issue of the affair. If you do have a question from a legal

[1:54:06] standpoint, please bring it up with that.

[1:54:10] » Yeah. then then the city council or the city attorney would be the person to

[1:54:13] bring that up with if you do have a you know question on that.

[1:54:17] Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you all.

[1:54:23] » Use my gavvel. All right. Tough one.

[1:54:26] » Hey. >> All right. Andrew may interrupt the

[1:54:30] meeting for one second. >> You may interrupt the meeting for one

[1:54:32] second. >> Andrew. So I my phone has died. I my

[1:54:36] kids are at home with another kid. So, I got to find a way to get my phone. I

[1:54:41] think is there charging everywhere? Did >> you feel something?

[1:54:44] » Yeah, they're right behind you. >> Yeah, but it just didn't work.

[1:54:47] » I'm sorry. >> What about

[1:54:51] use my phone to call your phone? >> No, I just just have another cable

[1:54:55] somewhere. >> I'm sorry for interrupting.

[1:54:58] » Let's do the cere here. >> I did not plug it into the wall though.

[1:55:03] I only plugged it into this set. >> Yeah, I know. I tried it.

[1:55:06] » You want save? >> No, I didn't do it. Okay. All right.

[1:55:10] Well, I'll just continue here while we're figuring out the phone issue. Uh,

[1:55:14] all right. Next item on the agenda is

[1:55:19] uh item D, two Palm Avenue, APN021-102-06.

[1:55:25] Uh, city of Barksburg applicant Mark Bartendor Mitch owner R1 residential

[1:55:30] general plan conformity finding adopt a resolution finding the vacation of a

[1:55:34] 3,47 foot portion of Palm Avenue of rightway

[1:55:37] is in conformance with the Larksburg general plan. We have a report on that.

[1:55:41] » Okay, this is just a really brief item so I'll try to make it quick. So, as you

[1:55:46] know, from time to time, the planning commission votes on uh or makes um

[1:55:52] findings of conformity with the general plan on various items. Most recently,

[1:55:56] you did this for the annual capital improvement programming. Um I think it

[1:56:02] was two meetings ago when you voted on that uh to make uh conformity findings.

[1:56:07] In this instance, we had a fire at two Palm Avenue. Um, since that time, the

[1:56:13] home was reconstructed. But while they were obtaining building permits to

[1:56:16] rebuild their home, uh, a survey revealed that their freestanding garage

[1:56:21] and driveway, which survived the fire, were located within the public rideway.

[1:56:25] Um, it was sort of a surprise to everyone. Um, this portion of Palm

[1:56:30] Avenue is a one-way street. It is a very windy part of town, a very hilly, steep

[1:56:34] part of town. Um the applicant or this the property owner has exhausted other

[1:56:40] potential avenues for resolution. Um and uh they are pursuing a quiet title

[1:56:46] action with the city to acquire the land under the existing garage and driveway.

[1:56:51] It is a um 3,47 square foot uh crescentshaped portion of

[1:56:57] property along the side of Palm Avenue. Um, you can see the images up there on

[1:57:02] the screen of the uh existing garage and the the driveway approach. It's

[1:57:07] obviously been there for a very very long time. It's probably constructed

[1:57:11] many years ago. Um, the concrete looks quite old. There's an old retaining

[1:57:16] wall. So, um, this part of town along Madrron Canyon has a lot of these

[1:57:20] situations where the there's no standard rightway width. We have lots of streets

[1:57:25] of varying widths. Um lots of uh public rights of way that are of varying widths

[1:57:30] and sizes. Um none of them are uniform. And uh we also, as you probably know,

[1:57:35] have properties where there are garages in the public right away right now that

[1:57:39] were built many many years ago um before we had uh regulations for this sort of

[1:57:45] thing. So these are very old. Many of these are very old legacy structures. Um

[1:57:50] and so in this instance after exhausting all avenues um public works and the city

[1:57:55] agreed to initiate the vacation process. Um this is uh sort of a a first initial

[1:58:01] step of that process is to make findings um that it is in conformance with the

[1:58:06] general plan. There is a general plan policy and action item for these various

[1:58:10] circumstances in in the in the general plan. Um so it does consider these types

[1:58:16] of situations. We already have that in there. We're just asking the planning

[1:58:20] commission to uh uphold that and make that finding as identified in the

[1:58:24] attached resolution to the staff report. Um after this step, the um the item

[1:58:30] would be scheduled at a future meeting for city council uh consideration. Um

[1:58:36] that requires two separate meetings of the city council to discuss the item

[1:58:40] where they would discuss the merits such as you know um do we want to do this? Uh

[1:58:46] do we want to attach a value to it? those kinds of questions. In this

[1:58:49] instance, the planning commission's purview is limited to just does it

[1:58:52] conform with the uh general plan, the vacation of the rightway. And we have

[1:58:57] found that it does. There are general plan policies to this effect. And so um

[1:59:01] we're here because of state law. It does require this step in the process. Um

[1:59:05] anytime you lease property or sell property that is publicly owned or have

[1:59:10] a capital improvement program, you have the planning commission has to come up

[1:59:14] with findings uh that it conforms the general plan. And this is just one of

[1:59:17] those items that we see from time to time. So, um I will leave it with that.

[1:59:22] The staff report kind of describes all of the details. It is exempt from uh

[1:59:26] SQUA. There are two sections that apply in this instance, including uh surplus

[1:59:32] government property sales. And so, um we recommend the commission

[1:59:36] hold the hearing, consider any testimony, and adopt the uh resolution

[1:59:41] finding that the vacation uh is in conformity with the general plan.

[1:59:47] Okay. Any discussion with that? I didn't see

[1:59:50] that anything that would indicate that it was not a conformity with the gyro

[1:59:54] plan. Just in my reading of it, >> there's no presentation by the owners or

[1:59:58] anything. It's just you guys. >> They're not even here because I do

[2:00:01] remember this one when it burnt down and we approved the the building of that

[2:00:05] house. Um >> there'll be two hearings like I said at

[2:00:08] city council on the vacation. But um >> you know I had little I had more tr I

[2:00:13] always have trouble with these when they come in because I just feel like it's

[2:00:17] the land is so valuable and expensive and

[2:00:22] » people are just getting land and giving the city is just giving it up.

[2:00:27] » Um I know I've agreed to it in the past because I can see that there's the city

[2:00:32] can't really do very much with it. In this case,

[2:00:37] it I know it says here that this serves no public benefit. This is a really

[2:00:41] really narrow road and it's in um and that house burnt down. So should, God

[2:00:49] forbid, it should happen again and you need to get a fire engine up there or

[2:00:52] something. I mean I it just seems at some point in the future, you may need

[2:00:58] to widen that road. And why are we just handing over like fee

[2:01:05] title? Why are we why are we just gifting it over whereas or even if they

[2:01:08] there's a value charge to it? I don't know what's going to happen with what

[2:01:11] the city council decides as opposed to just having some kind of short-term

[2:01:18] encroachment um or something which at some point

[2:01:21] could be reversed. If this was in a different part of the

[2:01:26] city, I think it would be less of a concern. But given it's such a narrow

[2:01:29] road in a really fireprone part of the city, given that's why we're here

[2:01:33] because of fire, that was my thought. So where it said it serves no public

[2:01:37] benefit, I sort of that's where I had I I struggled with

[2:01:44] um and I know we we don't comment on any value on this. That's a city council

[2:01:49] thing, right? But it seems like 3,000 square feet. not even about

[2:01:53] » that, you know, because it's not really within the purview tonight. And that's

[2:01:57] something that the council would discuss when they go through that uh vacation

[2:02:01] process >> and um there's a very specific process

[2:02:05] under state law and what that involves. So I'm I'm sure they'll have that

[2:02:09] discussion when the time comes. >> But um you know you are certainly within

[2:02:14] your purview to to make a finding differently but

[2:02:20] » or make a comment on this >> criminality. This is not something

[2:02:23] that's >> but it's a difference between giving up

[2:02:26] the actual ownership to just doing an encroachment.

[2:02:29] » Is there any reason why there's not something

[2:02:31] » there there is a reason why they're doing this process? Um and it it's my

[2:02:36] understanding that they've exhausted all avenues and that was not one of the

[2:02:39] available options. Um to have a private property in the public rightway is has

[2:02:45] its own set of problems. So >> do you know what what were the other

[2:02:49] avenues? I mean I I won't go there but let me just ask this. We're we're not

[2:02:54] really throwing that in here because it's not really

[2:02:57] » we when we say um make a finding that that this is a private property on

[2:03:06] public land that is um

[2:03:11] sorry the exact language here um is has has been maintained by these

[2:03:18] adjacent owners by the adjacent property. I don't think that would

[2:03:22] change in the the the abatement process or the findings or the council's

[2:03:26] decision-making path. It we're just simply looking at the general plan as it

[2:03:31] applies to the vacation of a right >> portion of the public right away.

[2:03:35] » We have to make a finding that this property, this piece of parcel has

[2:03:39] served no public benefit. >> Uh no, that would be the city council's

[2:03:44] position process. This is the finding that it's

[2:03:49] in conformance with the large per general plan.

[2:03:52] » Yeah. But says that such areas serve no public benefit.

[2:03:56] » Um what the general plan says. >> Yes, it does say that. Yes. And you

[2:04:00] could I mean if you disagree with that, you could make that statement and say

[2:04:04] that you feel it provides a public benefit. Um but in its current situation

[2:04:09] having the path that you just described would uh present a liability to the city

[2:04:15] and that is why they can't just create an easement for a private structure.

[2:04:21] » So if they if if we say like no perview you could certainly

[2:04:27] » the next step would be tear down the garage and rebuild it on their own

[2:04:29] property or >> um possibly. I mean again public works

[2:04:35] has agreed to go to bring this to council and go down that path but it is

[2:04:39] within the purview of the the planning commission to find otherwise if they

[2:04:43] feel that if you feel that this does serve uh this portion of rightway does

[2:04:48] serve a public benefit as you said you know concerns about fire access and

[2:04:52] width um you know that is certainly within your purview tonight.

[2:04:58] Uh >> I mean you talked about an easement. I

[2:05:00] was talking about encroachment. That's the way I've seen it.

[2:05:02] » I'm sorry. Well, encroachment or it would require an easement as well. I

[2:05:06] mean if you wanted to allow someone to have private structures in public

[2:05:11] property as an encroachment, it does necessitate creation.

[2:05:14] » I feel like I see that a lot in marine because bits of houses and bits of like

[2:05:20] front yards and fences always on flights away and then you just get an

[2:05:24] encroachment. It it's my understanding that because it's a a you know a garage

[2:05:31] and it's a private garage it would present um some some degree of

[2:05:35] liability. There was a reasoning behind this process

[2:05:38] » liability. >> You know it's a three-part finding.

[2:05:41] There's there's the no public benefit. There's also presents a liability to the

[2:05:46] city and is better maintained by the adjacent property owners. Do we have

[2:05:50] anything? Do we have know anything about like how they are they going to are they

[2:05:55] maintaining this garage? How are they maintaining it? Is it a fire hazard?

[2:05:58] » They've assumed that this was their p their own garage for you know longer

[2:06:02] than we we didn't know about. >> So it was probably built the same time

[2:06:05] at the house burn the house that burned down was built.

[2:06:08] » Yeah. I mean we the city really this wasn't even on our radar. We just

[2:06:11] assumed that this was private property until we looked at the house fire hazard

[2:06:15] as the house was. >> It could what? just as much of a fire

[2:06:18] hazard. >> Well, it did survive. It didn't It was

[2:06:21] not affected by the fire, obviously. So, >> yeah. No, the house is way up the hill.

[2:06:25] I saw that. >> Yeah. But again, this wasn't on our

[2:06:28] radar. We did not know that this condition existed and it only came to

[2:06:31] light when they came in for building permits and had a um a survey done that

[2:06:35] showed otherwise. And so, um that's how this process was kicked off.

[2:06:43] » Right. Well, >> at at a certain point was will the fire

[2:06:46] department be consulted on this? >> Yes.

[2:06:48] » When what stage does that happen? >> Um, if they have not already, they they

[2:06:53] absolutely will very soon. I cannot say whether or not they have yet already,

[2:06:59] but yes, that is also required as a part of the the formal vacation process.

[2:07:04] » Okay. >> Which we have not begun yet. So,

[2:07:09] » can we make a motion? >> Sure. Make a motion.

[2:07:11] » No, I'm not going to make it. Oh, you have to take public comments.

[2:07:15] » Oh, public comments. Public comments on this issue. No, not on Zoom.

[2:07:19] » What about on Zoom? >> No,

[2:07:20] » I'm kidding. >> Would somebody like

[2:07:23] you want to make a motion? >> Go ahead.

[2:07:27] » I'm

[2:07:34] Oh, I don't want to make a because I'm going to

[2:07:39] Can I make a motion and then not agree to it?

[2:07:42] I don't >> Maybe you can't.

[2:07:44] » No, you cannot. >> No, I'm not going to make the motion.

[2:07:47] » Anyone ask? I'm sorry. >> I make a motion. I don't know.

[2:07:51] » Trying to be helpful. >> All right. Well,

[2:07:53] » you could you can make a motion to not adopt the resolution, though, right?

[2:07:57] » I make a motion that we not adopt the resolution.

[2:07:59] » Certainly make a motion to not adopt the resolution or to deny a resolution

[2:08:04] » or the find that the findings cannot be made.

[2:08:06] » Yeah. Or you can make a motion that differs from what the resolution states.

[2:08:10] » That is the thing. We don't know what the I don't without I don't know what

[2:08:14] the alternative is. Like I don't know what the impact now you're saying

[2:08:17] there's a liability on the city if >> that's what that's my understanding. I

[2:08:21] mean obviously because there's a private garage being used in city rightway that

[2:08:25] is that is inherently liability but >> but it's like it I you know

[2:08:32] in the last case this happened it was like a water a path of water remember

[2:08:36] that one and actually was some liability there and I could see things going wrong

[2:08:40] and I could see why we didn't want to maintain that and keep it clear.

[2:08:43] » This one I'm I'm struggling with more. I mean, if there's

[2:08:48] more information that you see, you can certainly come back with that.

[2:08:51] » Yes. So, here's then what I would say is, is it possible, please, to see if we

[2:08:56] could get an encroachment instead? And if there's a reason, well, let us know

[2:09:00] if if the encroachment path is a is a feasibility.

[2:09:04] » We certainly can have I mean, this is a this is an item that we're doing on

[2:09:07] behalf of public works. We can certainly follow up with them and uh come back at

[2:09:11] a future meeting. >> Okay.

[2:09:13] » And if you could let us know if the fire department has weighed in.

[2:09:15] » Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, what they've come.

[2:09:17] » So, if you wanted that sounds like it, from what I'm hearing a potential motion

[2:09:21] for a continuation. >> Yes, let's do that. I'm going to make as

[2:09:25] chairman. Can I make a motion? Yes. I I I would like to make a motion to

[2:09:28] continue this item uh pending further reports from the fire department and and

[2:09:34] potentially the attorney. Um what's that?

[2:09:36] » Public works. >> Public works regarding u safety issues

[2:09:40] uh and rightway issues >> and altered. Yeah. Whether we can do it

[2:09:44] in Okay. Second >> roll call.

[2:09:51] » Sure. >> Uh, Commissioner Zapar,

[2:09:53] » yes. >> Commissioner Kingdale,

[2:09:55] » yes. >> Commissioner Chalmer's,

[2:09:56] » yes. >> And Chair Swisser,

[2:09:58] » yes. >> Okay. Motion, four yeses, zero nos, and

[2:10:01] one. >> That's good.

[2:10:05] » Well, I understand why they I understand why they want to, but yeah, you're

[2:10:08] right. It's it's it's a safety issue that needs to be. Okay. Next item five,

[2:10:12] business items. uh to approve the August 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting

[2:10:17] minutes. Uh this was the meeting in which we did discuss the one larks per

[2:10:22] plaza. Is that correct? >> If it's helpful at all, there was a um

[2:10:27] an individual that spoke that I saw you didn't have a last name and I have the

[2:10:31] last name for you. If you want, it's Jill Marte. M A R T A

[2:10:36] Y. The second one down.

[2:10:43] I know that one, but I didn't know the others.

[2:10:46] » Okay.

[2:10:49] » Otherwise, I can make a motion to approve the minutes from August 11,

[2:10:54] 2026. >> Okay. Second.

[2:10:58] » Yes. Oh, sorry. I jumped it. >> Sure.

[2:11:01] » Let's just do by acclamation. >> I

[2:11:04] » I >> I

[2:11:06] » Okay. All right. Uh are there any planning commissioner reports? I I need

[2:11:10] to add one item that I received um in the middle of the hearing from our

[2:11:15] public works director. >> You want to throw that up there?

[2:11:21] » Um >> you're adding it to the agenda.

[2:11:23] » No, I was going to I was going to provide this during the um community

[2:11:28] development director's report, but I wasn't able to until and I just received

[2:11:32] this um from our public works director in the middle of the hearing. So, uh, I

[2:11:37] just want to announce that there we, you know, one of the items, remember the

[2:11:41] last time we voted on a general plan conformity for the capital improvement

[2:11:45] projects, um, one of those capital improvement projects was the Magnolia

[2:11:49] Avenue corridor study. Um, and the, uh, Magn and I would just want to announce

[2:11:54] that the Magnolia Avenue corridor study uh, will be having a community input

[2:11:59] workshop on Tuesday, October 6 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the library. I just

[2:12:04] wanted to let you all know and make that add that to my u list of announcements.

[2:12:08] You're certainly welcome to attend that if you wish.

[2:12:10] » Great. >> Where would the southern city limit?

[2:12:13] » Um that would be the stretch of Magnolia going down to the southern city limits

[2:12:17] which would be court of Madera's uh bound the boundary of Madara.

[2:12:21] » Yes, Magnolia does >> extend.

[2:12:25] » So I just wanted to add that. I'm sorry to interrupt your your item.

[2:12:28] » Great. Thank you for adding that. All right. Uh the next item on the agenda is

[2:12:33] adjournment. >> We had no commissioner reports.

[2:12:36] » No, there was no commission. >> And when the next meeting is

[2:12:40] » be October 13th >> October 13.

[2:12:43] » Uh yeah. So the so this this uh the agenda is incorrect. It says the next

[2:12:47] regular committee is on September. >> No, this is Yeah.

[2:12:50] » No, this that's that's wrong. >> Rise double header.

[2:12:54] » And now the next one starts. >> This is Groundhog Day. The next

[2:12:59] commission. It's It's not going to be September. It's gonna be October what

[2:13:02] now? >> October 13th.

[2:13:03] » 13th. Okay. >> And there's no planned interlude

[2:13:06] meeting, right? No. No. Okay. Great. >> And reminder uh of the city council

[2:13:11] meeting regarding one larks plaza is the 16th.

[2:13:13] » It would be Yes. It' be this coming Wednesday the 16th.

[2:13:17] » Next Wednesday the 16th. >> Yes. Not tomorrow. Sorry. A week from

[2:13:20] tomorrow. >> A week from tomorrow is the 16th at the

[2:13:23] conference conference center >> 395.

[2:13:26] » Very good. So motion for adjournment. I'll make a motion to adjurnn.

[2:13:31] » All right. By acclamation, I >> I

[2:13:34] » All right. Excellent. Thank you everybody.

Larkspur Planning Commission Meeting September 8, 2026

Transcript