Planning Commission approves design review and setback variance for 253 Oakdale Avenue

The Mill Valley Planning Commission voted to approve design review and a side‑setback variance for an addition at 253 Oakdale Avenue, a 1916 single‑family home, concluding the project is a modest renovation and necessary foundation work.

Wayne Farrens of the Planning Department told commissioners the application (PL25-0050) is for a 6,475‑square‑foot lot and seeks a 424‑square‑foot ground‑level addition and 190 square feet on the second floor; staff recommended the commission "find the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA for section 15301, approve the design review application as proposed, and grant the variance pursuant to the findings proposed in exhibit A and the conditions of approval proposed in exhibit B." Farrens said revised plans were submitted and the department received a single neighbor comment in support.

Architect Andrew Previs of Richardson Previs Architects said the project is "a very modest addition" driven in part by structural needs: "the foundation is in need of repair," he said, and additional excavation is required to bring footings and modern standards into compliance while modestly increasing ceiling height from 7 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 10 inches.

Commissioners asked technical questions about overhanging eaves and airspace ownership, discrepancies between earlier and revised elevation drawings (including removal of a small pantry window and a sliding door on the front deck), the extent of excavation near a corner foundation that sits roughly 9 inches from the property line, and an approximately 600‑square‑foot increase in impervious area. Previs said the impervious increase reflected a waterproofed deck and that the civil engineer will include on‑site retention and drainage measures; he also said contractors can use special foundation drain systems where access is narrow.

Deliberations focused on preserving neighborhood character and mitigating tree loss. One commissioner moved to approve the project with two conditions: require the applicant to plant two trees in the front yard and allow the applicant and staff flexibility to modify the roof form so long as the building remains within the 25‑foot height limit. The motion carried on a 5‑0 vote.

Chair Ernest Sarangel read the appeal procedure: decisions may be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days of the decision, accompanied by a $1,112 appeal fee.

Next steps: the commission’s action is final unless appealed to the council within the 10‑day window.