02/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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