Atherton planning commission continues setback variance and heritage-tree removal requests at 84 Elena Avenue after neighbor concerns

The Atherton Planning Commission on Sept. 24 continued a request for a front setback variance and the removal of two heritage trees at 84 Elena Avenue after lengthy public comment and questions from commissioners about site circulation, lighting and privacy.

Town planner Britney Bennix opened the item by describing the proposal and staff’s recommendation. The application asks for a front setback variance to allow a roofed open area and a detached accessory building the applicant described as a gym. Bennix said the staff recommendation was to deny both the front setback variance and the tree removals. The town arborist told the commission she had identified at least three feasible alternative building locations on the lot and could not support the tree removals based on available alternatives.

The two trees proposed for removal were identified in the staff presentation as heritage specimens: an atlas cedar (tree No. 2) and a deodar cedar (tree No. 3). Bennix said one concern is that the lot is a 1.24-acre flag lot in the R-1A zoning district, and the requested setbacks and tree removals affect an adjacent property’s access to typical rear-yard open space.

Applicants Shweta Siraj Mehta and co-owner Amish Mata told the commission they bought the lot to create a larger backyard and minimize environmental impacts. Mehta said the gym location was chosen to protect a heritage oak on the site and to keep the new buildings single-story and as far from neighbors as possible. She and Mata said utilities, overhead lines and fire-truck turnaround constraints limited other buildable locations and that they plan substantial new plantings on the site to screen neighbors. Architect Paul Schlockter (Apollo Architecture) said the gym and other accessory structures sit lower than or near the fence line and that the design consolidates disturbance to one side of the lot to maximize internal garden space.

Several neighbors who live along the shared fence line spoke in opposition or with concerns. Anne Stevens of 82 Elena said the rear-yard light bleed from existing fixtures on neighboring structures has been significant and that she was worried additional doors, entrances and driveway activity would exacerbate privacy, light and noise impacts. Another neighbor, who identified himself as Dave, described light and headlight intrusions he said already occur when vehicles use an existing gravel driving surface at the rear of the property and said the proposed work could increase traffic, lighting and nighttime disturbance.

Commissioners pressed staff and the arborist on technical points: the arborist said tree No. 2 would be affected if a driveway were routed in the current layout and tree No. 3’s proximity related to the proposed building. The applicants said the circular portion of a prior driveway would be removed in the new design and that they do not intend to install lighting on the rear of the gym. The applicants also said all new buildings were planned as single-story, and they expected to use prefab components to reduce construction duration.

Commissioners said the plans lacked a clear site-circulation diagram showing any driveway alignment and the precise locations of doors and lighting relative to adjacent homes. Several commissioners described the flag lot’s unusual configuration and said that, while they were sympathetic to the applicant’s desire for a compact, single-story design, more detailed plans and further neighbor consultation were required before the commission could make the required variance and heritage-tree findings.

After discussion, Commissioner Lane moved to continue the item to the commission’s October meeting to allow the applicants time to revise plans, provide clearer circulation and lighting details, and consult further with neighbors. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

The continuance preserves the town arborist’s and staff’s ability to review alternatives and gives neighbors and applicants an opportunity to develop screening, planting and circulation solutions for the fence-line impacts.