Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners push applicant to rethink third-floor addition at 18 Hooters Lane
Summary
At a May 13 study session, Mill Valley planners and commissioners gave detailed feedback on a proposed renovation at 18 Hooters Lane, urging the applicant to avoid a height variance, clarify ADU details and entrances, and explore shifting more program into conforming footprint rather than adding a third story in the front setback.
The Mill Valley Planning Commission on May 13 reviewed a study‑session presentation for a comprehensive renovation at 18 Hooters Lane that would add a third‑floor primary suite, rebuild a rear deck and create a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU).
Senior planner Daisy Allen told the commission the site is nonconforming in lot size and several standards and that the proposal would require multiple variances, including for a 0‑foot front setback and increased floor area. "Staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing and provide feedback to the applicant regarding the approvability of the project as proposed," Allen said during the presentation.
Architect Jack Otho, representing the owners, said the project aims to retain as much of the existing 1918 structure as possible, to avoid mass demolition and to design around existing retaining walls. "We are actually at 17 feet 8 inches directly along the edge of the property," Otho said when explaining how the house interacts with the road and why he is seeking design flexibility to keep the project within allowable heights where possible.
Commissioners focused on three practical issues: the project's vertical scale facing the street, the lower‑level ceiling heights and the long‑term regulatory implications of labeling the lower unit a JADU rather than a full ADU. Several commissioners urged the team to avoid seeking a height variance. One commissioner said the proposal "seems to add mass in the nonconforming setback," and urged the applicant to explore whether the needed program could be achieved by expanding footprint into conforming areas or reconfiguring the plan without a third story.
On accessory dwelling questions, staff clarified that a JADU may be allowed up to 500 square feet and that ADU/JADU rules differ about interior connections and separations. Commissioners recommended the applicant consider designing the lower unit as a full ADU if that would better prevent future additional units on the lot.
The commission did not take a formal vote. Instead, members provided guidance — including tightening roof and facade articulation, ensuring required separate exterior ADU/JADU entrances, addressing privacy impacts for the neighbor at 15 Hooters Lane, and producing accurate natural‑grade measurements to resolve whether a height variance would be necessary. The applicant was instructed to return with engineering data and revised plans if the project proceeds to a formal design‑review application.
The planning staff will incorporate the commission’s feedback into the environmental review and a future entitlement hearing if the applicant files for formal approval.
