Laserfiche WebLink
The Planning Director reported that at the 10/29/97 Joint Meeting the Council and Planning <br />Commission had discussed up to Item DA on the agenda. This meeting was a continuation of <br />that discussion. <br />Casey referred to the Lands of Godino and believed it was wrong of the Planning Commission <br />to change the ordinance regarding chimneys as it related to this project. Gottlieb stated that the <br />chimney was larger on the second set of plans that the Planning Commission reviewed and it <br />blocked the view of the neighbors. Siegel stated that chimneys should be the height required by <br />the building code and not excessive obtrusive heights. Hubbard stated that the reasons for <br />design changes should be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. <br />Council and Planning Commission addressed the issues of three story facades and single stories. <br />Gottlieb commented that three story was permitted as long as the house was stepped down and <br />did not look like three stories. The goal was to reduce the bulk and mass of the project. Casey <br />recommended that applicants go through site analysis before they begin their project to avoid <br />disappointment. Siegel suggested that the Commission and staff arrive at specific numbers for <br />height limitations for highly visible lots, i.e. a single story house shall not exceed in <br />height. Casey thought it would be difficult to define `a highly visible lot' and Dauber believed a <br />definition was needed for how the attic area was counted. <br />On the subject of `challenged lots' it was noted that currently the allowed development was <br />limited to the point where variances were often requested. The Planning Director commented <br />that more often than not these projects were the best designed because the owners and designers <br />had to work within a more difficult framework. Jinkerson believed that the requirement for a <br />fourteen foot wide driveway negatively impacted the available outdoor living areas. Dauber <br />commented that grass crete could be used for the required fourteen foot turnarounds for fire <br />safety and grass crete did not count toward development area. Council agreed that the Planning <br />Director should bring a recommendation back to the Commission and Council on allowed <br />development for challenged lots. <br />The issue of carports and garages was discussed. Dauber noted that currently carports were not <br />counted as floor area but garages were. Siegel however did not think the Town should be <br />encouraging carports. Jinkerson believed that garages were better but did not think that carports <br />should be prohibited. It was agreed that staff should bring a recommendation back to the <br />Commission and Council on carports and garages and how they could be more equitably <br />counted as development/floor area in a project. <br />Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, referred to the issue of `challenged lots' and did not believe <br />the development area for these lots should be increased. Anyone purchasing such a lot would be <br />advised of the limitations of these lots. <br />Bill Masten, William Masten Architect and Associates, commented that in Portola Valley a <br />subdivision was requiring carports but this decision was recently changed because it was felt <br />they were unsightly and reduced the property value. <br />Robert Molinari, 12133 Foothill Lane, believed applicants should be given a choice between <br />carports and garages. He also wondered if the Council and the Commission represented the <br />opinion of the majority of residents. It seemed they were expressing their own opinions. <br />Lalla Carsten, 13761 La Paloma, did not concur with requiring two car garages. <br />February 10, 1998 <br />Adjourned Regular Meeting <br />