REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF The Larkspur Planning Commission was convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers by Acting Chair Kunstler. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Chair Daniel Kunstler, Monte Deignan, Mark Sandoval, Todd Ziesing Laura Tauber Senior Planner Kristin Teiche OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION Ms. Cindy Winter, Greenbrae, stated she attended the recent workshop held by the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM)- it provided a wonderful look into the future of transportation. She talked about some ideas about the SMART extension to Larkspur. PLANNING DIRECTOR S REPORT The City Council will be considering amendments to Title 9 ( Public Peace, Morals and Safety ) to limit the use of gas powered leaf blowers and limit the hours of operation. The Council is not considering a complete ban. The Council will be discussing the Bon Air Bridge Project. The Public Works Director has recommended rejection of all bids- they came in well over the estimated cost. One of the prime considerations is the closure of the bridge for up to two years to reduce construction costs. Commissioner Ziesing stated he heard about a company called Mean Green Mowers that makes blowers that can be charged and last for 48 hours. The company makes battery powered lawn-care equipment. Acting Chair Kunstler asked when the blower ordinance might take effect. Senior Planner Teiche stated an ordinance requires a first and second reading and then it becomes effective in 30 days. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. DR #17-01; 5 Baltimore Avenue (APN: 021-182-18): Kathleen Helmerman, Polsky Perlstein Architects, Applicants; Cynthia Niven, Property Owner; R-1 (First Residential) Zoning District. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow the demolition of an existing 705 sq. ft. detached carport/storage structure and construction of a new 790 sq. ft. detached two car garage and storage room, with a maximum height of 14 feet 9 inches at the roof peak. Senior Planner Teiche presented the staff report. Acting Chair Kunstler opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Cindy Niven, applicant, made the following comments: She referred to her late mail letter where she responded, in writing, to some of the concerns of the neighbors. There are some misunderstandings. She would like to replace the carport with this carefully thought-out design. They designed the project to have minimal impact from the street. 1
Story poles are difficult to understand due to the varied roof line- it will not be one big mass. It would have a number of points to compliment the house and make it less massive. The view to the street is smaller and narrower. The front yard fence will be removed so views of the garage front are unobstructed. Windows have been incorporated into the building to provide natural light. Some may open and some may be stationary. These details have yet to be decided. The roof design will not impact the neighbor s house and would provide a much better situation. She recently removed a tree at the neighbor s request. She is reluctant to compromise the design since it looks good from all sides. Chopping off a piece will not improve much. Ms. Jared Polsky, architect, made the following comments: There is a tall fence at the lower floor. Any light coming into the lower floor windows of the neighboring house is compromised by the existing fence and carport. The sill of the window of the second floor is roughly at the peak/ridge of the garage and he does not see how it blocks the light or air. A 15 ridgeline meets the height permitted by code would still allow the neighbors light, air, and privacy. Commissioner Sandoval acknowledged the fence but asked if the added height of the roofline would darken the area of the adjacent home on the ground floor, particularly the morning light. Mr. Polsky stated Larkspur s ordinance allows for a 15-foot ridge height. He does not see an impact to the lower floor. It might slightly darken the lower floor window. Commissioner Sandoval stated the length of the structure would be 41 feet and he asked if they explored other options aside from the continuous roof. Mr. Polsky stated it was important to make the statement towards the house and the street. It will not be one big wall as the cross gables break up the façade dramatically. Commissioner Deignan referred to the possible impact to the light at the first floor of the neighbors home and asked Mr. Polsky if he did any shadow or lighting study. Mr. Polsky stated no, but he could do that type of study. Acting Chair Kunstler asked if they have given any thought to rotating the existing design 90 degrees. There appears to be space to do this. Mr. Polsky stated the distance between the house and the garage door is at a minimum to be able to get in and out. They wanted to avoid a suburban pattern of large exposed garage door, but instead turned the garage doors towards the house to show a nicer narrower façade to the street. Ms. Jenny Wai, owner of 9 Baltimore, made the following comments: They have owned the house for over 25 years. The drawings do not reflect the view from her first floor, dining room, and living area. This massive wall will block light into her first floor area. That side of the house is already dark. The proposed height is not necessary for a garage. Mr. James Holmes, Larkspur, made the following comments: This is a very attractive building. He would like to see consideration to the neighbors. This is one of the required findings. The problem may be where the building is located. This type of large accessory structure is not typical, as historically, accessory structures have been much smaller. A reasonable compromise could be obtained by reducing the height or moving the structure further back on the lot. 2
Ms. Sydney Gardner, Baltimore Avenue, made the following comments: She provided photographs of what her first floor view would be. A lot of her downstairs windows are eye-level and not low. The proposal would block the light to the downstairs of her home. The upstairs view of the Palm trees and bike path would be blocked. They would lose the natural light to her common spaces- living room, dining room, family room, and kitchen She asked the Commission to consider the height of the project and perhaps push it back. Acting Chair Kunstler closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Ziesing provided the following comments: This is an iconic property in Larkspur. He could see both sides of the issue. He understood the property owner s interest in taking a key historic site in Larkspur and removing and replacing an existing element. He understood the impact that the structure will have on the neighboring property. He has to boil it down to details. The structure itself is compliant. It is moving the setback back further which should create more light between the two properties. The setback on the other side of the house (9 Baltimore) is comparable. He did not see any impact to views. Although the light would be impacted, it would not be a significant or unreasonable loss of light. He referred to the bulk and massing and noted the structure was long. The bib height of the current roof and the gutter height of the proposed structure are equal. There will be some impact and a lighting analysis would be helpful. The bulk has been designed as adroitly as it can without cutting the roof off. Flattening the roof could diminish the building design and make the structure ugly. He encouraged the applicant to modify the roof structure but he could support the application in its current state. Commissioner Sandoval provided the following comments: He is sympathetic to both sides. He is troubled by the overall mass of the structure. There are certain devices used that achieved some benefit- the lower-pitched roof over the storage area and locating the height of the gable closer to the house. This provides a little bit more light to the neighbor. He is troubled by the gables in the garage area. He asked them to re-examine those two gables. He referred to the north elevation and asked them to bring that mass back over the garage. This would allow more light to the neighbors. Historically, these types of structures are usually smaller because they are subordinate elements. There are a lot of details that are very charming but may be a bit excessive. He did not want them to try to create a false history. Things could be done to allow for more light to the neighbors. Commissioner Deignan provided the following comments: A lighting study would indicate if a real shadow was being cast into the first floor area of the adjacent property. This is one of the findings for Design Review. A 790 square-foot garage is pretty large. There could be other ways to achieve the applicant s storage needs. 3
He asked them to look at something to address the light issue- change of roof, layout, etc. They might not want to try to move it back because it would conflict with other features such as the patio, paving, etc. It is a handsome structure. He wants to see more details before approval. Acting Chair Kunstler provided the following comments: He agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. The design is very attractive and well thought-out. It would be an enhancement to the property. He is not sure what the impact to the neighbors would be. He is sympathetic to both parties. A lighting study would be very helpful. Commissioner Deignan provided the following comments: A lighting and shadow study done during the different seasons would show the effect the height of that ridge would have on the first floor. The study might encourage the architect to make some changes to address the impacts. Commissioner Ziesing provided the following comments: The roof is not a flat line. Some parts are pushed back and some are pushed up. A lighting study would be very helpful. It is hard to measure the movement of the setback- this opens up more space. Acting Chair Kunstler identified the possible options to move forward. He asked the applicant if they would prefer a continuance to allow time for a light study. The applicant and property owner agreed to this action. Senior Planner Teiche asked if the Commission would like the architect to propose changes if the study shows impacts to the neighbors. The Commission stated yes. M/s, Deignan/Sandoval, motioned and the Commission voted 4-0-1 (Chair Tauber absent) to continue DR #17-01, 5 Baltimore Avenue, to a date uncertain, based upon the comments made by the Commission about a light study and possible changes to address the impact to 9 Baltimore. BUSINESS ITEM 1. Adoption of findings and conditions of approval for application No. DR/SUP/HTR #16-42; 85 Elm Avenue (APN: 022-235-07); Daniel Holbrook- Feldman Architecture, applicant; Kurland Family Trust, property owners; R-1 (First Residential) Zoning District. This application was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2017 M/s, Sandoval/Ziesing, motioned and the Commission voted 3-0-2 (Deignan abstained, Chair Tauber absent) to adopt the findings and conditions of approval for application No. DR/SUP/HTR #16-42, 85 Elm Avenue. 2. Adoption of findings and conditions of approval for DR/FAR/SUP/V/FHE #16-60 (Amending Application #14-05): 9 Arch Street (APN: 021-103-12); David Hendsch, applicant and property owner; R-1 (First Residential0 Zoning District. This application was approved by the Planning Commission on February 14, 2017. M/s, Deignan/Kunstler, motioned and the Commission voted 2-0-3 (Sandoval and Ziesing abstained, Chair Tauber absent) to adopt the findings and conditions of approval for DR/FAR/SUP/V/FHE #16-60 (Amending Application #14-05) for 9 Arch Street. 4
3. Commissioner Reports There were no reports. 4. Approval of minutes of Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2017 and February 14, 2017. M/s, Ziesing/Sandoval, motioned and the Commission voted 4-0-1 (Chair Tauber absent) to approve the January 10, 2017 as submitted. M/s, Deignan/Kunstler, motioned and the Commission voted 2-0-3 (Sandoval and Ziesing abstained, Chair Tauber absent) to approve the February 14, 2017 minutes as submitted. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Toni DeFrancis, Recording Secretary I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Larkspur Planning Commission on March 28, 2017. Neal Toft, Planning & Building Director 5