Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mda Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues retroactive MDA variance for 12000 Kate Drive, asks for corrected calculations
Summary
The planning commission continued a retroactive variance request to allow 1,110 square feet beyond the allowable MDA and a walkway encroaching on the 30‑foot setback at 12000 Kate Drive. Commissioners flagged inconsistent worksheet math and unaccounted artificial turf and asked the applicant to return on March 5 with stamped, corrected MDA calculations and reductions or offsets.
The Los Altos Hills Planning Commission on Jan. 27 continued a retroactive variance request for 12000 Kate Drive (File Variance 25‑0012), asking the applicant to return on March 5 with corrected, stamped Maximum Development Area (MDA) calculations and demonstrable reductions.
Staff planner Jonathan Fox described the application as a retroactive request to ratify hardscape and a flagstone walkway constructed within the town’s 30‑foot side setback and to resolve the parcel’s development area accounting after a permitted detached ADU was built in 2024. Staff said prior permits and historic approvals left the parcel in a condition that exceeded the current MDA; the current proposal would grant a retroactive MDA of 18,060 square feet but staff and EDPC identified inconsistencies in worksheet calculations and missing line items, particularly the addition of turf that should count as 10% MDA and more than 20 pathway lights in setbacks.
Designer Hasham (applicant representative) said some turf was removed and that the design team would rework the calculations. Commissioners repeatedly asked for a professional, stamped MDA worksheet and urged removing unapproved path lighting and unapproved artificial turf or otherwise offsetting hardscape to bring the property close to compliance. Neighbors and EDPC members urged accuracy and consistent figures; EDPC also noted that the site is well screened from off‑site view.
Because commissioners could not make the required findings with the record as presented — and because the arithmetic in the worksheet did not add up — the body voted unanimously to continue the matter to March 5 and directed staff to work with the applicant on specific corrections. No final approvals or legalizations were granted at the meeting.
