HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplement #3 ITEM 3.1
•
SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 3
From: Bart Carey
To: Jitze Couoerus;Rich Partridge;Susan Mandl%Kavita Tankha;Jim Abraham
Cc: Jaime McAvov
Subject: Lands of Kalbali 13531 Burke Rd.
Date: Thursday,May 05,2016 3:19:03 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
You will consider the above application tonight,and I want to provide my feedback for your consideration.
You will recall that the currently proposed project is"phase 2"of the combined development on 25608 Deerfield
and 13531 Burke Rd. The application for 25608 Deerfield created significant controversy in our neighborhood,
and town-wide as an example of potentially excess development on a sub-standard lot. Unfortunately this
combined development split a historically larger parcel into 2 legal small,sub-0.5 acre lots. However,we should
appreciate that this time for Burke Rd,the applicants have conforming plans,other than the request for a parking
variance. They have also retained the existing driveway on Burke Rd,which was very important to the Deerfield
neighbors,especially given the confluence of driveways and town streets at the Burke/Deerfield/Fremont
intersection.
I support approval of the plans as submitted for 13531 Burke,including the request for a variance for parking spaces
within the setbacks.
Landscape screening will be important to mitigate the impact of this development on the neighborhood,especially
on this small lot. The landscape screening deposit should be increased in this case to approximately$10K.
As a general comment,I wish to point out again that the staff report presents potentially misleading information in
regard to prior variance approvals on sub-standard lots in the neighborhood,and it might be useful going forward to
present this information more clearly in the public record. More specifically,in 2001 LAH changed ordinances
related to development on sub-standard parcels,and the development area on parcels of less than 0.5 acres was
increased by approximately 30%.Examination of past variance approvals should be divided between pre and post-
2001 approvals,or at least a notation included on the chart.
While I support approval of the proposed project,the timing is no doubt of concern to the developers and the PC,
given the impending further consideration of a FAR of 0.18 for these lots,while this project has a FAR of 0.197.
As a general comment in regard to development on sub-standard lots,I think these projects on Deerfield and Burke
provide important insight. As an 18 year resident of Deerfield Dr(on a lot more than 0.5 acre)and a former LAH
Planning Commissioner,I have seen time and again that our current development standards are not appropriate for
sub-standard lots. Most importantly,imposing setbacks designed for a 1 acre lot on a 0.37 acre lot makes no sense,
not even with the well-intentioned defense of preserving rural character. These setbacks result in the development
of boxy,imposing structures. Slightly relaxing setbacks would be advantageous for neighbors and applicants,and
have no negative impact on our rural character(especially in neighborhoods where many structures already
encroach into setbacks). My timing might be off given your prior deliberations,and I hope I am not going too far
off track while discussing 13531 Burke,but I would urge you to reconsider adjusting setback requirements on sub-
standard lots,in addition to or instead of imposing new requirements such as a FAR.
Thanks you for your consideration.
Bart Carey