10/16/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Merrill stated that the revised condition #6 prejudiced the lot by its language; the lot would not be objectively reviewed by a future Planning Commission. He did not believe Lot A was a substandard lot; therefore, it should not require a conditional development permit. Mr. Merrill was not opposed to some language that addressed the Council's concerns about this lot but he did not agree with the language of a conditional development permit. He further stated that Lot A could be developed with limited tree removal and there were enough trees to mitigate the development of the lot. Jerry Clements, applicant's civil engineer, commented on the slope density ordinance and the development of the lot. He distributed a new plan which showed the trees in relationship to the house. He believed the house fit the topography of the land. Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Company, stated that he had walked the property and he believed that the trees could be preserved without a lot of loss. Some of the trees were subdominate trees which would have to be removed anyway. Mr. Huntington also noted that the drawing presented to Council was a rendering; it was not the actual house that would be built. He understood the house would fit in when it was finalized. IOW Hubbard noted that a standard for Los Altos Hills lots was a 160' building circle but in this case the driveway went through the circle. He also commented that they had seen people work on plans who had not received full information about a lot. Tryon discussed the stipulations that could be placed on the lot at this time and asked the applicant if he would rather they reduced the amount of the allowed development on the lot now rather than placing a conditional development permit on it. Tryon also noted that this land was presently in the County (within the Town's Urban Services Area) and she asked what development would be allowed under County regulations. The Director of Public Works responded that this lot was not subdividable under County regulations. Johnson referred to the restrictions placed on a subdivision such as Lands of McCulloch. Casey commented that the only buildable site on the lot because of the steepness on the other side of the driveway was where Mr. Merrill was planning to build. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, commented that Lot A was a substandard lot in the sense that access of one lot crosses the other lot. She also noted that saving the trees was an issue and the total amount of hardscape was important. She asked if the existing driveway had been counted in the development area of the lot and suggested that the types of foundations and footings be stipulated. October 16, 1991 5