6” and Landscaping??

Wow!! I don’t see how that would help at all. Landscaping takes years (if not decades) to mature to help offset a visual structure and 6” does nothing, but require the home-owner lengthy delays, costing them more money in architectural, structural engineering and other fees.

While I applaud the neighbors rallying together I do not see why this should be changed as the home-owner is already below the FAL and height limits and have been approved by the city staff.

I, too, had to go in front of the council for a use permit being a sub-standard lot and found the whole process to be quite infuriating as I had to submit my plans three times for review because of changes of moving items by less than a foot because the council believed that my neighbors might object to a second floor window may overlook their house (mind you had them testify at the hearing that they had no objections), but to no avail. Also had to show that I would plant shrubbery to block a outdoor water heater that was already enclosed so had to resubmit showing 3 shrubs planted (they are now a 1’ tall and don’t add any additional privacy)

Bottom line if the city council allows a appeal happen, it has to be more more than shaving 6” off the top and requesting more shrubbery. That is a waste of everyone’s time and money.

“The scale of our homes should be derived from the real needs of our daily lives,
Not from vanity, insecurity or a need for public display.
Home should be the setting for life not the measure of it”
James Gauer

If this planned structure conforms to code...no variance or special structure permit...then the homeowner should tell the town and neighbors to shove it and take them to court if necessary.

Ahh, the luxury of first-world "problems."

@LifeLongResident:

The scale of our homes should be derived from the maximum real estate value of our property- to not respect the maximum equity potential of property is both foolish and almost negligent. All of us are no more than temporary caretakers of the land we live on- adding and extracting value throughout our lives. Our property duties are dictated by the market, not our personal spatial whims or family needs.

@ Life Long Res -
James Gauer is known for small homes, many in NYC with a very different environment than Menlo Park.. The large contemporary ones are on much larger lots than those available in MP.

AH HA! I found the permit request: Web Link

Key points:
"a total proposed floor area of 2,717.7 square feet, which is under the 2,800 square-foot floor area limit" = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS

"The house is proposed to be 27 feet, three inches in height, below the maximum permissible height of 28 feet" = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS

"The new house would be located at the required 20-foot front setback" = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS

"The rear setback would be approximately 26 feet" = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS

"The proposed left side setback is approximately seven, four inches at its closest point to the side property line " = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS

Additionally, attachment C shows that the right side setback for the proposed property will be 5.5ft = MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS


Like I said, the property owner should tell the town and neighbors to shove it, bill them for the changes they've already made, and take Menlo Park to court if necessary. These owners are completely following the rules and are not asking for ANY special consideration, unlike their massively entitled neighbors.


If the neighbors find this completely-code-compliant home abhorrent, then they should do the work of advocating for changes in the zoning requirements, instead of acting like oh-so-special entitled snowflakes.