Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Armax Corp
500 Miller Avenue - Study Session Observations and Commentary
The following letter has been sent to the Mill Valle Planning Commissioners and the Planning Department to memorialize and comment on the decisions made and discussions at the recent Study Session for development proposals for the property at 500 Miller Avenue.
September 28, 2018 - MEMORANDUM
Subject: Planning Commission Study Session for Design Review - 500 Miller Avenue September 25, 2018 - Summary Observations and Commentary
To Members of the Planning Commission:
Following please find my understanding of the Planning Commission’s direction given to the applicant in response to the 19-unit proposal. I understand that Staff will prepare minutes for Planning Commission review and approval but want to document what I heard to provide additional commentary for your consideration and to provide a summary report for distribution to others in the community.
1. Volume – Gross Floor Area / Section 20.66.045
The PC supported (4-0) a total allowable Gross Building Area (including residential, commercial, parking and ancillary areas such as lobbies, circulation and gym) at 30,600 sf to be consistent with the Gross Building Area of the approved Von der Werth project. The PC recognized project history and the appropriate application of Section 20.66.045.
Commissioner Skiles later noted that he would not include the parking area. No one did the math at the time, but 30,600 sf + parking at 12,217 sf = 42,817 sf – a “volume” 40% larger than the agreed upon Gross Building Area. I assume a misunderstanding, since the Von der Werth Gross Building Area included the parking.
2. Density – Number and Size of Units
The PC supported (4-0) the proposed unit count of 19 units, provided the mix included smaller units and the units could be accommodated successfully within the prescribed maximum Gross Building Area of 30,600 sf.
A Development Standard density range of 17 to 29 units per acre, when calculated based on a reduced site area of 26,000 sf, as per Section 20.66.045, yields 10-17 units – generally consistent with the 19 units proposed.
3. Affordability
The PC supported (4-0) inclusion of the code-required 5 affordable units – 25% of 19 units, and not the developer-proposed 3 lower-income units. The PC further supported an alternative mix of unit types and sizes – smaller, more diverse and “attainable” units.
4. Design Guidelines & Development Standards or PD
The PC supported (3-1) that any design alternative to the Von der Werth approved proposal abide by the new Multi-Family Residential, Downtown Residential, & Mixed-Use Design Guidelines & Development Standards and that it would be inappropriate to proceed with a PD as a given. The majority recognized that a PD could be considered in the future if the process produced a design judged to justify Development Standard (i.e. Zoning) and / or Design Guideline exceptions.
Commissioner Skiles supported a PD to allow some exceptions characteristic of the approved Von der Werth scheme, such as height.
I would not recommend beginning with exceptions found acceptable in the prior design as a basis for a yet unknown final design proposal. That would side-step and undermine our Development Standards, Design Guidelines and Design Review process.
5. Parking / Stackers
The PC voted 4-0 to eliminate mechanized parking stackers for several practical / functional reasons.
In addition, parking stackers require a floor-to-floor height of approximately 14’ to allow for the stackers themselves, structure (slab thickness) and space for the transfer of piping and mechanical systems from the residential above. Standard parking can be accommodated in a floor-to-floor dimension of 10’. So, elimination of parking stackers reduces building height by approximately 4’ – a significant reduction in height, volume and massing.
The PC expressed a willingness to consider exceptions to code-required parking counts in consideration of shared parking, smaller units (less demand), Zip Cars, etc.
The PC also recognized neighborhood parking concerns, including Chamber of Commerce requests for the retention of business patron and employee street parking, a parking management plan, and adequate, convenient on-site residential and commercial parking.
6. Commercial Space
The PC was divided concerning commercial space (retail and / or office). Some were in favor of eliminating commercial space in that location and to utilize that square footage for additional residential space. Others felt the commercial space was consistent with Design Guidelines and important to the street experience.
7. Roof Form
The PC supported roof forms consistent with the Design Guidelines (4-0).
8. Materials
The PC felt the material palette was “urban” and should be “warmer.”
9. Waterfall, Jacuzzi, Clepsydra
The PC did not support the waterfall / Jacuzzi considering drought conditions and the probability of maintenance and operational challenges.
The PC was divided on the Clepsydra. In general, support of the Clepsydra will be contingent on water use, size / height and placement.
10. Green
The PC supported the incorporation of additional green features (4-0).
11. Landscape / Retaining Wall
The PC supported the proposed landscape at the street/street parking and incorporation of landscape to “hide” otherwise visible portions of the retaining wall.
12. CEQA
The PC proposed that a traffic and parking study be undertaken. However, it should be noted that CEQA requirements are defined by law and are not the purview of the Planning Commission or the City Council. Those requirements are triggered when there is a change in a proposed "project" and those changes could result in new and potentially significant unmitigated "impacts”, as defined in the regulations. When a new CEQA process is triggered, all environmental impacts must be assessed (aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, etc.).
There is no question that alternative Options 1 and 2 presented at the hearing, which increase the number of units and building size, and vary significantly from the originally approved 9-unit project, trigger a new CEQA process and impacts assessments. The nature of that process and the documentation included is to be defined, depending on circumstances, as prescribed in the Regulations.
Subsequent to the Study Session the Marin Independent Journal quoted the developer as questioning the City’s “desire for affordability in Mill Valley.”
Reference: Developer scraps high-density design, questions desire for affordability in Mill Valley - Marin Independent Journal - September 26, 2018
That claim is patently false and disingenuous.
The Planning Commission’s direction was consistent with the 12-year history of Planning Commission and City Council direction, approvals and conditions. The PC directed the developer to increase the number of affordable units from 3 to the code-required 5 units, and to provide more diverse, smaller and more attainable units. Every speaker supported affordable housing and pressed for those changes.
The City should correct the record – the developer proposed 16 large, luxury, market-rate units at twice the approved project size with a gratuitous 3 affordable units. The City wanted more diversity and affordability. So, how does that translates into the City not wanting affordable housing?
The developer was given a clear mandate. He seems to have rejected direction given and intends to build a version of the approved Von der Werth project.
The Study Session was well-run, and direction given well-considered.
Thank you.