Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Special Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves special‑structures permit for proposed 13,000‑sq‑ft residence on Queens Court
Summary
The Atherton Planning Commission voted 3–2 to approve a special‑structures permit allowing a proposed 13,000‑square‑foot residence on a merged 2.38‑acre lot at 2 and 60 Queens Court, subject to findings and standard conditions. Staff cited extra setbacks and proposed screening in support of the permit.
The Atherton Planning Commission voted to approve a special‑structures permit that would allow a new roughly 13,000‑square‑foot single‑family residence on a merged lot at 2 and 60 Queens Court.
Assistant planner Jerry Martin summarized the application and staff recommendation, saying the project proposes a top‑of‑roof height of 34 feet and a sidewall height of 26 feet and that “for every 1 foot increase in building height, you’re required to do an extra 5 foot increase in the setback” (staff noted the applicant’s 4‑foot height increase triggers a 20‑foot additional setback requirement). Martin told commissioners the merged lot will be about 2.38 acres and that staff believe the three findings for approval — impacts to privacy and view, compliance with development standards, and consistency with the general plan — can be met with the proposed setbacks and screening.
Applicant representative Guy Adepola of Sterling Project described the design approach as classical French‑chateau style and said the team plans perimeter walls and a heavily planted buffer to protect neighbor privacy. “We plan for it to be heavily wooded, yes, outside of the building footprint,” Adepola said.
A commissioner who opposed the permit argued that precedent for height variances has led to houses that “loom” over neighboring yards and cited an existing nonconforming house as an example of the neighborhood‑character risk. Despite that objection, the motion to approve — made, seconded and carried by roll call — passed with a 3–2 outcome in favor.
The approval is subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and standard certificate provisions; planning staff noted that final landscape and arborist review normally occur at the building‑permit stage.
Next steps: the applicant will proceed with the building‑permit process, during which staff expect final landscape plans and detailed arborist review to be submitted and evaluated.
