HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Supplement #4 41 SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM#
Jaime McAvoy
Distributed: (24 5//6
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 1:54 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW:AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1-503 AND 10-1.1007 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD
LOTS
From: Ray Strimaitis [mailto:raystr@yahoo.com]
Sent:Wednesday, December 02, 2015 1:06 PM
To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Steve Padovan <SPadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Bart Carey<bcarey@careyvision.com>; Scott Akiyama <scott.akiyama@gmail.com>; Alice Rimer
<4bigfoot@sbcglobal.net>;Judy&Stewart Krakauer<judystewk@gmail.com>; Monica Richter-Maupile
<monica@maupile.com>;Thierry Maupile <tm58@maupile.com>;Vita Strimaitis<vitastrim@yahoo.com>
Subject:AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1-503 AND 10-1.1007 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS
Dear LAH Planning Commissioners,
We understand that modifications to the town's conditional development permit guidelines are being considered and
is on the agenda for the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting. As a residents/homeowners on Deerfield
Drive, we are familiar with the challenges facing the commission in striking a proper balance between competing
interests between developers, homeowners and the town. Accordingly, we offer the following comments as the
commission further considers how to implement any such changes to balance those interests:
- Planning Commission discretion: That any modified regulations give the Planning Commission
discretion to make decisions based on a holistic review of all criteria, including reasonable
discretion/use of variances. While the current draft introduces the concept of using a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) as a measure to limit overall size, existing MFA and MDA guidelines could suffice—as
these do not represent entitlements to homeowners/developers to maximum values and could be
used to limit over-development of substandard lots. Nevertheless, if adopted, the FAR should only
be a guideline and not be the only consideration in determining overall size/design.
- Overall size: The Staff Report proposes adopting the FAR as alternative measure to determine the
maximum allowable size of a structure for substandard lots. The report proposes to peg the
maximum FAR at .16. In the event that the FAR is adopted to limit overall size of building, we
strongly recommend a FAR of at least .20.
- Setbacks: That the current setbacks for substandard lots be relaxed to something less than the
40/30/30/30 feet. While these setbacks are appropriate for typical, 1 acre, lots—strict application of
those same setbacks to substandard lots typically results in "boxy" or otherwise "awkward" building
designs on substandard lots. Proportionately relaxing setbacks for substandard lots could address
both objections about aesthetic structural designs along with maintaining the semi-rural character of
Los Altos Hills. We also support giving the Planning Commission greater discretion in granting
variances within setbacks (e.g. parking, gates/fences, etc.) on substandard lots.
1
- Existing structures: That existing Maximum Floor Area allowances, overall heights and setbacks
for existing structures be maintained. This is especially important in instances where an owner
chooses to either add onto; or tear town a house/structure and rebuild. As properties in Los Altos
Hills begin to age, this is a very real scenario. We should avoid cases in which existing homeowners
are faced with the prospect of not being able to replace an existing home with a similar, newer home
of the same size, height and footprint. Otherwise, the scenario would not only constitute an unjust
taking to affected homeowners, the facts are ones that would certainly make the town the target of a
lawsuit. However, any such "grandfather" allowances should not be applicable to adjacent
properties, previously being used as a single residence/site with subsequent plans to develop
separately—as unique circumstances may be associated with those properties (e.g. affecting overall
size, setbacks, etc.).
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Ray & Vita Strimaitis
25561 Deerfield Drive
2
Jaime McAvoy
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:23 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS
From:Thierry Maupile [mailto:tmaupile58@gmail.com]
Sent:Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:39 PM
To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Steve Padovan<SPadovan@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Monica Maupile<monica.maupile@gmail.com>
Subject:AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1-503 AND 10-1.1007 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS
Dear LAH Planning Commissionners,
As residents and owners of the property located at 25731 Deerfield Drive, we do agree and support the
comments/recommendations sent to your attention by Ray and Vita Strimaitis.
In addition, we would like to add the following points:
- We do require that the present rights we enjoyed as current owners be preserved and protected(grandfather
rule).
- If new rules/guidelines are implemented, existing owners should be able to use either the current MFA
calculation or the new FAR(whatever is more favorable). A minimum FAR ratio of.20 is more appropriate.
- We do recommend that a revision of the setbacks ratio should be done in conjunction with MFA or FAR.
We are available for additional comments if necessary.
We trust you will take into account our concerns and recommendations.
Yours Sincerely,
Thierry &Monica Maupile
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 2, 2015, at 13:06, Ray Strimaitis <raystr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear LAH Planning Commissioners,
We understand that modifications to the town's conditional development permit guidelines are being
considered and is on the agenda for the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting. As a
residents/homeowners on Deerfield Drive, we are familiar with the challenges facing the commission
in striking a proper balance between competing interests between developers, homeowners and the
town. Accordingly, we offer the following comments as the commission further considers how to
implement any such changes to balance those interests:
- Planning Commission discretion: That any modified regulations give the Planning
Commission discretion to make decisions based on a holistic review of all criteria,
including reasonable discretion/use of variances. While the current draft introduces
1
the concept of using a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a measure to limit overall size,
existing MFA and MDA guidelines could suffice—as these do not represent
entitlements to homeowners/developers to maximum values and could be used to
limit over-development of substandard lots. Nevertheless, if adopted, the FAR
should only be a guideline and not be the only consideration in determining overall
size/design.
- Overall size: The Staff Report proposes adopting the FAR as alternative measure to
determine the maximum allowable size of a structure for substandard lots. The
report proposes to peg the maximum FAR at .16. In the event that the FAR is
adopted to limit overall size of building, we strongly recommend a FAR of at least
.20.
- Setbacks: That the current setbacks for substandard lots be relaxed to something
less than the 40/30/30/30 feet. While these-setbacks are appropriate for typical, 1
acre, lots—strict application of those same setbacks to substandard lots typically
results in "boxy" or otherwise "awkward" building designs on substandard
lots. Proportionately relaxing setbacks for substandard lots could address both
objections about aesthetic structural designs along with maintaining the semi-rural
character of Los Altos Hills. We also support giving the Planning Commission
greater discretion in granting variances within setbacks (e.g. parking, gates/fences,
etc.) on substandard lots.
- Existing structures: That existing Maximum Floor Area allowances, overall heights
and setbacks for existing structures be maintained. This is especially important in
instances where an owner chooses to either add onto; or tear town a house/structure
and rebuild. As properties in Los Altos Hills begin to age, this is a very real
scenario. We should avoid cases in which existing homeowners are faced with the
prospect of not being able to replace an existing home with a similar, newer home of
the same size, height and footprint. Otherwise, the scenario would not only
constitute an unjust taking to affected homeowners, the facts are ones that would
certainly make the town the target of a lawsuit. However, any such "grandfather"
allowances should not be applicable to adjacent properties, previously being used as
a single residence/site with subsequent plans to develop separately—as unique
circumstances may be associated with those properties (e.g. affecting overall size,
setbacks, etc.).
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Ray &Vita Strimaitis
25561 Deerfield Drive
2