What's happening: A Mill Valley homeowner's bid to replace a backyard cottage with a two-story accessory dwelling unit turned unusually contentious Tuesday night when the Planning Commission heard from neighbors, reviewed a packet of private text messages submitted as evidence and ultimately told the applicant to scale back the design. No vote was taken. The session was a study session only, but the commission's direction was unambiguous: the two-story design as submitted does not have the votes.
The proposed ADU footprint overlaid on the existing cottage location. (City of Mill Valley Planning Department staff report)
Why it matters: Three of the five commissioners were present Tuesday, and all three were clear that a two-story structure nearly four feet above the city's 16-foot ADU height limit is not supportable at this location. "If you come back with a two-story, I don't think you're going to get past us," said interim chair Ernest Cirangle. Commissioner Eric Macris said he doubted the full commission would be more receptive. "I'm not sure you got three votes," he told the applicant's architect.
The context: The owner is seeking to replace a 288 square foot backyard cottage with a 1,096 square foot two-story detached ADU on a Roque Moraes Drive property. Staff had advised against the height and floor area exceptions before the hearing, and an earlier version of the application did not advance past the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Director referred the revised project to the full commission because of the scope of the exceptions requested and concerns from adjacent neighbors.
The debate: The commission offered two paths forward. Build an 800 square foot single-story ADU by right and bypass the commission entirely, or return with a one-story design at up to 1,000 square feet and seek a floor area exception. Commissioner Francis Gough said a one-story unit at 1,000 square feet could accommodate a two-bedroom unit. "You could do a very nice one-story ADU with two bedrooms at 1,000 square feet," he told the architect. "Done."
The hearing became unusually contentious. The owner had submitted materials that included private text message exchanges with an adjacent neighbor as documentary evidence in support of the application. That neighbor, whose home is the closest of three opposing properties to the proposed ADU, told the commission he was surprised to find the personal correspondence in the public planning file and disputed characterizations in the submitted document. The commission set the dispute aside and focused on the design.
Subscribe to read the rest
Become a paying subscriber of the daily edition to get access to this post.
UpgradeA subscription gets you:
- Everything shaping life in Mill Valley
- Five days a week, in your inbox at 6am
