Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Staff Reports incorrectly states:
"A letter from the Park Forest II Homeowners Association Architectural Committee relaying approval of the
project is included as attachment F.”
In fact, the attached letter does NOT “relay approval” of the proposed changes.
The Staff Report also states:
“The project would also be compatible with the existing architectural style of the overall Park Forest development.”
That is an opinion, not a fact.
Conversion of the current Park Forest style with its setbacks and balconies to a dull, flat slab frontage is not compatible with the existing ambience. And in any case such a determination is the responsibility of the Planning Commission not that of the staff.
When Park Forest was annexed into the City the units all became non-conforming and the owners have NO vested right to increase their livable square footage.
It would be tragic if, one unit at a time, Park Forest is transformed from a diverse collection of modulated front facades and becomes a single monolith of flat front facades with no setbacks.
Cutting down a forest one tree at a time does not change the fact that you are cutting down a forest!
I urge you to deny this application and to consider a moratorium on any further elimination of balconies and reductions in setbacks for all of the Park Forest townhomes.


Peter Carpenter
140 Forest Ln


On Apr 5, 2021, at 11:38 AM, Peter Carpenter > wrote:

Dear Planning Commissioners,

You have before you a request to significantly modify the front facade of 161 Stone Pine Lane.
The Park Forest townhome community has unique architectural features as a result of the manner of its original design and staged construction. Unlike most developments Park Forest was built in small increments and each of the units was built to a slightly different design. As a consequence the end result is a community of some 90 units each with slightly different facades and most with significant setbacks and balconies. This creates a European village style of architecture that is attractive and unique in Menlo Park.
These townhomes are examples of the diverse and modulated front facades:





What is being proposed for 161 Stone Pine is a monolithic facade with no setbacks and virtually no balconies.

Here is an example of how dramatically different a Park Forest townhome facade looks when the balconies and setbacks are eliminated:


It would be tragic if, one unit at a time, Park Forest is transformed from a diverse collection of modulated front facades and becomes a single monolith of flat front facades with no setbacks.

When Park Forest was annexed into the City the units all became non-conforming and the owners have not vested right to increase their livable square footage.
Cutting down a forest one tree at a time does not change the fact that you are cutting down a forest!
I urge you to deny this application and to consider a moratorium on any further elimination of balconies and reductions in setbacks for all of the Park Forest townhomes.



Peter Carpenter
140 Forest Lane
Menlo Park, Ca