Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mill Valley planning commissioners continue request for taller deck at 316 Hillside Avenue, ask for less‑obtrusive supports
Summary
The commission continued a variance request for a new upper‑level deck at 316 Hillside Avenue that would reach 42 feet, directing the applicants to provide preliminary structural engineering and explore bracing or reduced deck depth to reduce visual mass. The continuance was unanimous; staff said permits will require full engineering review.
Mill Valley planning commissioners on July 8 continued a request by homeowners at 316 Hillside Avenue to replace and enlarge an existing nonconforming upper‑level deck that would exceed local height limits.
Associate planner Michelle Johnson told the commission the project would replace a deteriorated upper deck with a 341‑square‑foot structure (about 130 square feet larger than the existing deck) and requested permission for a maximum height up to 42 feet. "As of today we haven't received any public comment," Johnson said while recommending the project be found categorically exempt under Section 15303 and approved subject to conditions in the staff report.
During public comment, neighbors and homeowners described limited use and minimal neighborhood impacts. Neighbor Christian Helwig said he has a similar high, cantilevered deck and did not expect privacy or noise problems; homeowner Jess said the family has lived with an unsafe deck and is seeking a practical, affordable repair. "We've been saving ... I'm a first‑time homeowner," Jess said, describing cost constraints that make a full cantilever or interior reconstruction impractical.
Commission discussion centered on reducing the deck's visual and structural impact in the setback and height zones. Chair Ernest Sarangel and several commissioners asked the applicants to explore alternatives that would lower the visible mass of vertical supports—such as bracing rather than prominent columns—or to reduce the deck bay that sits in the most nonconforming zone. Commissioners emphasized that a structural engineer would need to certify any approach before permit issuance.
City staff said full engineered plans are required at the building permit stage and that substantial changes to approved entitlement plans might trigger the project to return to the commission for re‑review. Staff noted that continuing the item to a date uncertain would allow the applicants time to develop alternatives with staff and a structural engineer; the commission suggested August 12 as a realistic return date if the applicants choose that timetable.
A motion to continue the item to a date uncertain — with direction that the applicant provide preliminary structural engineering and pursue alternatives that reduce the degree of nonconformity and the visual mass of support structure — was moved, seconded and approved unanimously by the three commissioners present.
The continuance leaves the variance unresolved; staff will work with the applicants on alternatives and a permit‑stage structural review will be required before construction. The commission then completed routine business and adjourned the meeting.
