Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues decision on variance for 105 Wildemar Street after asking for redesign to reduce height and setback impacts
Summary
The Planning Commission continued a variance and fence‑permit application for 105 Wildemar Street to a date uncertain, urging the applicant to redesign the stair and roof to minimize a height variance and side‑yard encroachment; the motion to continue passed 3-0.
The Mill Valley Planning Commission continued consideration of a variance and fence‑permit application for 105 Wildemar Street after commissioners offered detailed design guidance and asked the applicants to return with revised plans. The motion to continue the item to a date uncertain passed 3-0.
Planning staff described the site as an 8,700‑square‑foot lot in the RS‑10 zoning district (the district minimum is 10,000 square feet) with a 2,200‑square‑foot house built about 1954. Staff said the proposed three‑story addition would add roughly 379 square feet, reduce setbacks to about 7 feet 11 inches on the Wildemar side and 2 feet 8 inches on the south property line, and would match an existing ridge at about 27 feet (the 25‑foot district limit was cited). Staff noted the finished‑floor‑to‑point height would be a little over 29 feet and emphasized that while the addition would improve access and safety, the access improvements were not strictly necessary because two existing entries remain.
“I'm going to say yes — I do think a variance is going to be required to accomplish what you want to and I want to give you a path towards that,” Chair Kevin Skiles said, summarizing the commission’s inclination to find a way forward if the applicants can demonstrate a minimal, reasonable variance and responsive design changes. Staff (Mr. Ross) told the commission they were not recommending approval as submitted and advised the commission to discuss the design and return with findings for approval or denial.
Commissioners repeatedly urged the project team to prioritize minimizing both the height variance and the amount of encroachment into the side setback. Suggestions included rotating or flipping the stair to move the stair volume north by a foot or two, reducing the dormer projection, and breaking down the massing with a plinth line and material differentiation. The commission also recommended clearer 3‑D massing views from the southwest and lighter presentation graphics for the next review.
The item was continued so the applicants can return with revised plans and findings. No formal variance findings were adopted at this meeting; staff will prepare written findings for any future action.
