HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Supplement #2 L SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# J.
Distributed: 12424 I b
To: Suzanne Avila
Subject: RE: Letter to Planning Commissioners
Yi`rl
110
Original Message
From: Alice Rimer [mailto:4bigfoot@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 10:21 AM D506 211$
To: Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Steve Padovan <SPadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov> gbt.1*.S
Subject: Letter to Planning Commissioners %tV 100
Please accept our letter for the PC meeting on December 3, 2015.
Alice and Doug Rimer
1
To Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Regarding FAR proposal
We would like to thank the Subcommittee, Staff, and Planning Commission members
for their efforts to improve the means of regulating floor area on sub-standard lots.
The challenge is one of balancing the replacement of housingstock with the goals of
conserving neighborhood character, encouraging quality design and construction,
and maintaining proper relationships to the land and natural environments. The
proposed recommendation has generated significant consideration and discussion
amongst the neighborhood.
Our hope is to maintain the character of Los Altos Hills by preventing construction
of massive and/or high-density structures on sub-standard lots,while maintaining
reasonable opportunity for landowners to construct high value homes that blend
into the neighborhood. There is significant variance between sub-standard lot sizes,
shapes and surroundings. Accordingly, floor area, roof shape, setback, and
screening all have bearing on appearance of mass and density.
Limiting floor area proportionally to lot size provides the PC with an objective
guideline to influence appearance of bulk and mass. We are supportive of the FAR
methodology.
However, floor area is only one factor that determines the apparent bulkiness of a
structure on a substandard lot. A FAR greater than .16 can still result in a
harmonious structure when multi-pitched or hipped roof shapes are incorporated.
We are supportive of a FAR of up to .20 with complimentary roof shape.
Judicious reduction in setback can also reduce the appearance of bulk in some
situations. We are supportive of a modest reduction to setback(inversely
proportional to lot size) in conjunction with.20 FAR and complimentary roof shape
with provisions for adequate screening.
Aging homes eventually need to be rebuilt. Many existing homes have setback
variances and floor area that potentially exceeds the new maximum. We believe it is
important that pre-existing setback conditions and floor area be allowable criteria
for variances when an existing home is being remodeled or rebuilt.
Respectfully,
Alice and Doug Rimer
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila RECEIVED
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 10:22 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy DEC P 2 2015
Subject: FW: substandard lots-fwd. to Commission
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Original Message
From: Marta Kenehan [mailto:mkenehanftmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:19 PM
To: Suzanne Avila <savilaOlosaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: substandard lots
Suzanne,
It's been brought to my attention that there is a proposal to change the Development
Regulations impacting properties under .8 acres in Los Altos Hills. The report I read states
that ". . .concerns raised by neighbors of several projects on substandard lots.." have
triggered this proposal. While details of those concerns have not been shared, I understand
that the Burke/Deerfield applications raised questions. Can you share why? What specifically
were the concerns which would not be a concern for a larger home? I understand neighbors'
desires to have more space between homes, but the substandard lots are already adhering to
code written for the larger lots. Our (small lot) setbacks are the same, our buildable area
is MUCH smaller, and plans are scrutinized.
Regardless of lot size, new homes can have a negative impact on neighbors. As you know, I
have a neighbor building on an acre and their "accessory structure" (the barn turned rental)
is situated such that it towers over our patio.
As a resident (on and off) of a .44 acre property in the hills for 40 years, I'm concerned
that this change in development regulations is unnecessary and could negatively impact the
value of "substandard" lots. It's a shame if we all have to pay for for what appears to be an
isolated issue. (And I still don't understand the issue.)
Regards,
Marta Kenehan
14555 DeBell Rd
1
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 1:33 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Substandard Lot Proposal
Original Message
From: Barry Smith [mailto:barry_smith@pacbell.net]
Sent:Wednesday, December 02, 2015 1:02 PM
To: Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: Substandard Lot Proposal
Hi Susan/Planning Commission,
I just learned from a neighbor of this Thursday's Planning Commission's"Substandard Lot Proposal" discussion. I expect
that I received notification of this, but must have assumed it was unimportant and tossed as I didn't notice a clear
indication.
As a resident/owner of a substandard (0.45 acre) lot, I was surprised by by what seemed to me to be a sudden change,
for an issue I wasn't aware was a significant problem.As I tried to understand the genesis of this proposal, it seemed to
emerge out of a clearly abusive application from developers at Deerfield and Burke. I hope we are not letting the tail
wag the dog here, and I am interested to learn more by coming to Thursday's meeting.
Regards,
Barry Smith
Barry Smith 125835 Estacada Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 1650.504.1200
1