Dear members of the Design Review Board,
I live at 785 Gainsborough Dr. and my lot is directly adjacent to 2058 Crestview. I purchased this house just a little less than two years ago and I was well aware of the existence of an empty lot next to me, and that sooner or later, the lot would be developed. At the same time, the potential impact of the proposed plan exceeded even my most pessimistic estimates. I had also studied the prior history of attempts to develop the lot, and concluded that previously rejected plans would’ve had some impact, but by no means a devastating impact on the liveability of my house, which the current proposal has. The new plan is in many ways worse than what was proposed before; it is entirely incompatible with the neighborhood.
I’m going to list what problems I see with the proposal. On a separate note, communication with the neighbors from the lot owner was insufficient, and I only got a chance to see the staking and some renders which were brought to the neighbors meeting. In some ways they are in conflict with each other (for a concrete example, the staking shows that the building would be taller than 2100 Crestview; renders suggest otherwise). In such cases I’m going to use staking as the source of truth.
In my opinion the project has multiple violations of the Laguna Beach Design Review Criteria and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan. There are four main DSCP policies that I find violated:
1. Topic 1 (“Rustic Atmosphere”), Policy 1: “Ensure that proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences ... [have] ... moderate scale and mass with a low-profile design that respects the topography of the land…”. I find that the proposed design stands out among adjacent buildings in terms of the materials used, the shape of the building, and its mass. A lot of mass appears on the right side of the building (as viewed from my lot) directly above Crestview Drive. The natural hill slope is respected in terms of the garage and the first story, but the placement of 2nd and the 3rd stories right on top of the 1st story, as well as the sheer number of stories, creates an appearance of mass and blocks my views.
2. Topic 1, Policy 9: “Preserve existing … view corridors wherever possible”. The proposed design severely impacts my views. From the staking that I observe it appears to me that the design aims at capturing a lot of view for the proposed residence, and no consideration is given to the views from my property.
3. Topic 5 (“Hillside development”), Policy 1: “Require buildings to utilize designs which follow the natural topography while minimizing mass and scale ... and limiting visual intrusion on the natural landscape…”. As viewed from my lot, the building would have massive scale, and would be intrusive to the natural landscape. In particular its right side is a massive wall that would be located right in front of my bedroom windows.
4. Topic 5, Policy 3: “Maximize the preservation of views of canyon and coastal areas from existing residences…”. There is a significant view blockage, including the view of Catalina Island and the horizon line of the view.
Attachment 4
146
I’m going to start with the following example. The Specific Plan suggests:
The project resembles the bottom-left picture the most, where the building is raised for view; from the staking I observe, the proposed roof line is higher than the one of the adjacent structure at 2100 Crestview, despite the fact that the street slopes downwards towards 2058 Crestview, meaning that the new building would start at a lower base level. Worse than that, most of the mass of the building is stacked vertically right on top of the first story, which makes the building appear to have a large mass. On top of that, the building orientation is such that it is oriented towards the ocean, which (a) is incompatible with the natural shape of the terrain (b) further widens its side profile as viewed from my lot and (c) creates privacy issues both for me and for my neighbors. To me these points seem to be fundamental flaws of the design, from which all other problems stem.
147
From the first picture above you can see how the adjacent house at 2100 Crestview is embedded into the terrain, with minimal side profile. The proposed building would have a side profile an order of magnitude larger. They had to connect four long boards together to make a story pole for its right corner. Looking at the right picture (render), the stories are placed on top of each other and there is no effort to embed the structure into terrain. The lowest level of the building starts at the street level, and there is a tall garage + three stories. Even if each level is 11ft (minimal estimate), that is 44ft above the street level, and perhaps some 35ft above the natural grade at its highest point, while the Building Height standard in DCSP Chapter IV, (B)(a) only allows 29ft even for the steepest lots. In addition, DCSP Chapter IV, (B)(4) requires extra setbacks for tall buildings (“where portions of a new building or additions to a building attain a height in excess of fifteen feet above the natural grade of the required front or rear setback, such portions shall maintain, in addition to the required building setback, an additional foot of distance for every foot of height in excess of fifteen feet”), which, I believe, are not respected here; the building takes up the entire width of the lot, being extremely close to 2100 Crestview.
The same can be observed from the side:
148
Again, the structure is taller than the adjacent building, it “sticks out” of the terrain, and it faces directly at that building’s balconies. To me this seems an attempt to capture as much of the ocean view as possible, ignoring the views and privacy of the neighbors. DSCP Chapter V suggests: “The siting of structures shall take into consideration the size and configuration of the lot so as to avoid the appearance of overbuilding (setback to setback) and overcrowding”.
Placing the building simultaneously so close to 2100 Crestview, making the building taller than it, orienting towards the ocean, and taking the entire width of the lot, creates an effect of overcrowding.
Next I will go in detail through the DCSP Design Guidelines that are violated.
Guideline 1: "REDUCE EFFECTIVE VISUAL BULK OF A STRUCTURE AND AVOID
MONUMENTAL AND EXCESSIVELY LARGE
DWELLINGS BY PLACING BUILDINGS INTO THE HILLSIDE".
149
This guideline comes with the example:
The plan proposes a structure that will have a sizable bulk, mainly because it has 3 stories above the garage and the higher stories are placed essentially on top of the first story, instead of being shifted backwards into the hillside. The garage is tall and massive (see previous pictures).
Guideline 4: “FOLLOW HILLSIDE CONTOURS AND SLOPE WITH BUILDING FORMS,
PARTICULARLY ROOF FORMS, TO
INCREASE THE INTEGRATION OF DWELLING AND SITE.”
The proposal does not follow the slope. Its rightmost part, as viewed from my lot, is just as tall as the leftmost part, which creates bulk, as well as view and privacy problems. The flat roof adds to the monumental view of the building (from DCSP: “Roof design should minimize mass.
Building forms, particularly roof forms, should step to follow the hillside contours and slope to increase the integration of the dwelling and site.”) . This is how the staking looks from my patio:
150
As you can see, the side profile of the building, compared to the existing property at 2100 Crestview behind it, is massive. The wall has an enormous height, and the proposal includes a number of windows on it, which leads to privacy problems.
Guideline 5: “FOLLOW HILLSIDE CONTOURS WITH HORIZONTAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
TO INCREASE INTEGRATION OF
DWELLING UNIT AND SITE.”
151
The proposal makes the building stand out as a major object. I understand that due to the width of the lot, there isn’t much that can be done in terms of spreading its elements to the sides; however, I believe it is still possible to make the building follow the natural terrain by making it go in steps, with higher levels ending much farther away from the street. Total height of the building could also be reduced.
Guideline 6: “AVOID MASSIVE ROOF OVERHANGS AND CANTILEVERS ON DOWNHILL FACES OF BUILDINGS.”
152
The proposed construction has a cantilever on the 3rd story similar to the one shown in the guideline; terracing is limited to the 1st story only:
153
The 3rd story looks completely unnatural to me. It protrudes forward, increasing the effective height and creating the appearance of mass. This is the part of the building that blocks my views the most.
Guideline 9: “EXCAVATE UNDERGROUND OR BELOW GRADE ROOMS TO DRAMATICALLY
REDUCE EFFECTIVE BULK, PROVIDE
ENERGY EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIRABLE SPACE.”
154
The current design appears to put the 2nd and the 3rd stories very high, creating a lot of bulk.
Guideline 23: “PRESERVE EXISTING VIEWS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND ALLOW NEW
DWELLINGS ACCESS TO VIEWS SIMILAR TO THOSE ENJOYED FROM EXISTING DWELLINGS. LOCATE ALL NEW DWELLINGS SO THEY INTERFERE MINIMALLY WITH VIEWS OF ADJACENT DWELLINGS.”
This guideline is violated grossly. The narrow ocean view from my 2nd bedroom is blocked entirely:
155
One might argue that the guest bedroom view is less important, but I still believe that taking the last bit of it is extremely detrimental: the feeling of “air” is essentially destroyed. There are so many ways to design this building to avoid these impacts. I am looking at the proposal in comparison with the existing building at 2100 Crestview, which is by no means small; nevertheless it leaves me the maximal possible amount of view for its size. The proposed building has a much smaller square footage, but it manages to destroy my view because it is tall and poorly placed.
For my master bedroom and for my backyard, there is a substantial view blockage: half of Catalina Island is blocked, horizon line of the view is blocked, and a large amount of mass is placed in a space which is currently a beautiful view framed by trees on both sides:
156
For my dining room, living room and the patio, there is no ocean view blockage per se, but the building places an aesthetically disturbing amount of mass right in the view foreground. The 157
view of the village below and a beautiful palm tree belonging to one of our neighbors is to some degree blocked, and is replaced by a view of a large wall of the new building. The sense of openness is destroyed:
158
Guideline 25: “VIEWS SHOULD BE PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITHIN REASON; HOWEVER, NOT EVERYONE CAN HAVE A PANORAMIC VIEW. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND 159
THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT OF A NEW DWELLING MUST WORK TOGETHER TO
OBTAIN THE BEST SOLUTION BETWEEN SLOT VIEWS, VIEW CORRIDORS AND PANORAMIC VIEWS. REMEMBER, THE SLOT VIEW IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT AS THE 360 PANORAMIC VIEW IS TO ITS OWNER.” This guideline comes with a specific technique that could be employed to minimize view impact:
The proposed design, instead of slicing a corner that would recover my Catalina Island view, as well as the view from my 2nd bedroom, even extends that corner out a little. The building is also oriented in a way to capture the ocean view by blocking one from my residence:
160
I will also note that slicing that corner as suggested would make perfect sense from the point of view of the natural terrain, as the hill contour on the lot wraps inwards, away from the street:
I believe that it is still possible to orient windows towards the city lights and the ocean by cutting the corner in a stepped manner. In fact, one of the previously proposed designs at 2058 161
Crestview utilized this exact technique:
No attempts have been made by the owner to discuss any of these issues with me, or to try to involve the neighbors in the loop with architects. The plans and renders presented avoid showing the proposed building from my lot, and I believe that not enough consideration (if any) was given to neighbors’ views.
Guideline 26: “VIEW QUALITY IS USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN VIEW QUANTITY….NEARBY ELEMENTS ARE PART OF THE VIEW AND SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED BY BOTH BUILDERS AND NEIGHBORS IN MAKING THEIR COMMENTS AND DECISIONS.”
This guideline comes with an example that closely resembles my existing master bedroom view:
162
The proposal destroys this view by placing a massive wall into it:
This picture is very similar to an example of a “bad” design from the DCSP:
Guideline 28: “THERE MUST BE COMPROMISE BETWEEN CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES OF EXISTING DWELLINGS AND NEW ONES. VIEWS ARE VERY IMPORTANT BUT SO IS PRIVACY.”
163
I believe that the currently proposed profile of the building would severely interfere with my privacy. The massive wall of the building in front of my master bedroom would have windows on it:
The windows on the side of the building are looking at virtually every single ocean-facing window of my dwelling, including the master bedroom, 2nd bedroom, dining room, patio, and living room. (Guideline 16: “CONTROL WINDOW PLACEMENT FOR SUN, PRIVACY AND VIEW … AVOID PLACING WINDOWS WHERE THEY WILL "LOOK RIGHT INTO" SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME.”) Here are the window locations from two viewpoints (patio and 2nd bedroom):
164
Even if the windows are removed, this will still be detrimental to views and aesthetics. From DCSP: “Buildings shall have a desirable visual appearance from all viewpoints, adjoining developments, streets and other view corridors.”. A 3-story-tall wall (whether having windows or not) is an object that doesn’t have a desirable visual appearance. The only solution, in my opinion, is to significantly redesign the building. I acknowledge that this is not the easiest lot to build on, but that only means that more careful planning and more work with the neighbors may be required to achieve view equity, aesthetics, and other desirable properties of the 165
construction. I suggest the Design Review Board reject the proposal and require major changes to the plan before it can be carried out. At the minimum, I suggest moving the upper floors of the building to the left, hiding them behind existing trees and bushes on my lot, creating a stepped structure that doesn’t obstruct my view and creates no possibility for privacy problems, and changing the orientation of the building. I would also support moving the entire structure further back into the lot, reducing its mass and height. I believe there exists a sweet spot between the former proposal where the building was placed in the very back of the lot, and the current one.
Also, the plan is in a significant need for extra landscaping, as the current proposal introduces virtually none.
Guideline 29(b): “HORIZON LINE IS THE MOST SENSITIVE PART OF A VIEW, THEN FOREGROUND, THEN MIDDLEGROUND. IF POSSIBLE, AVOID CUTTING HORIZON LINE OF A NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.”
The proposed design not only cuts the horizon view from my master bedroom, but also blocks the view entirely for another bedroom.
Guideline 29(d): “BLOCKAGE OF ANY IMPORTANT OBJECTS IN THE VIEW (CATALINA ISLAND, CITY LIGHTS, ETC.) IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAN BLOCKAGE OF OTHER, LESS WELL-KNOWN ELEMENTS.”
As shown in the pictures above, the proposed design blocks Catalina Island, which directly violates this guideline.
Since my letter is getting too long, I will only briefly mention other issues, you can observe them from the pictures I attached:
- My property has a lot of greenery on it: trees, bushes, other plants – to isolate me from the neighbors and the neighbors from me; to frame views and create a sense of living in harmony with nature. I don’t see any substantial landscaping in the proposal. The proposed plan doesn’t attempt to introduce visual barriers in order to achieve privacy, or to soften the rough visual appearance of the house. DCSP: “Landscaping shall be used to preserve and frame the scenic view "windows" of hillsides, parks and ocean from adjacent lots”. ”LANDSCAPING IS, AFTER THE FORM OF THE DWELLING, THE
MOST VISIBLE, THEREFORE IMPORTANT, PART OF THE DWELLING UNIT PROJECT. GOOD VIABLE LANDSCAPES ENHANCE THE DWELLING, SOFTEN THE
EFFECT OF IT UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SCREEN IT FROM VIEW, SCREEN OTHER HOMES FROM VIEW BY THE OCCUPANTS.”
- From the renders I see, the building would be covered by white siding that is not up to the standards of the neighborhood. It is bright and reflective. DCSP: “A harmonious mixture of materials, color and forms shall be used to blend with the natural hillsides.”; “Colors are critical to maintain the rustic character of the neighborhood and shall be neighborhood sensitive. The use of colors shall be sensitive to the neighborhood and shall enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood.”; “Surface materials shall be 166
rough textured to blend with the coarseness of landscaping and natural vegetation.
Textured stucco, wood, earth tone brick and coarse block are appropriate.” – all of these guidelines are violated in the proposed design.
- The massive wall violates yet another two design guidelines: “12. DO NOT USE LARGE EXPANSES OF A SINGLE MATERIAL ON WALLS, ROOFS OR PAVING AREAS.” “13.
USE NATIVE AND NATURAL MATERIALS WHICH BLEND WITH THE HILLSIDE WHERE POSSIBLE. USE SYNTHETIC OR COMPOUND MATERIALS (CONCRETE, STUCCO, METAL, PLASTICS, GLASS) WITH MODERATION AND CARE.” The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan states that “all new development shall conform to the requirements of the Design Guideline component of this Plan and the City's Hillside Development Guidelines”. Since numerous Design Guidelines are violated, I cannot support this project. I urge the DRB to reject the proposal and request a redesign of the structure to conform to the Guidelines: reduce the scale and mass of the building, follow the hillside terrain, remove blockages of views from my residence, and respect the privacy of neighbors. –
Sincerely,
Evgenii Krasko
167
Re: Providing comments on a project
Evgeniy Krasko <[email protected]>
Tue 4/30/2024 9:34 AM
To:Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>;Khan, Shehriyar <[email protected]> Cc:Dulalia, Michelle CD <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Amber, Shehriyar,
I would like to provide some extra commentary on 2058 Crestview. Over the weekend I studied the prior history of the project in more detail. As you might be aware, the prior rejection was challenged in court (with no success): https://casetext.com/case/czajkowski-v-city-of-laguna-beach. As it can be read from the case text, perhaps the biggest single objection from the neighbors and the DRB was siting of the project close to the rear lot line. The court confirmed this was the problem that led to privacy issues. It may seem that at least on paper, the current plan addresses this issue, because the building is now located in the center of the lot. During the neighbors meeting, the Applicant also stated to me that this resolution of the Board is what drove the siting in his new design. However, I want to draw your attention to the following. The lot is 133 feet deep. I've printed one of the plans that were shown by the Applicant to me:
It is 133ft printed in 2 1/8 inches so the scale is about 1:750. The building starts at 3/4 inches, that would be approximately 46-47 feet from the rear lot line. That's my approximate estimate before I am shown complete plans; the number should be confirmed. Now (from the case text), the previous attempt was first to build "10.5 feet from the rear" then "the rear setback was increased by 2.33 feet", and the neighbors only stated that "moving the Structure 15 feet down the hill would open up the site". The current plan moves the structure an extra 15-20 feet more from what was asked, which directly contributes to a view blockage. From the note about 15 ft I conclude that there would be no issues with having the upper stories of the building shifted backwards to remove view blockages, and move the windows facing my master bedroom behind the existing trees (ideally adding extra landscaping of its own). The stories of the building should not be vertically stacked, but rather follow the hillside.
Another issue is with the orientation of the building. Right now as viewed from my master bedroom, the building would be at 45 degree angle, so its visual footprint is as large as it can theoretically be. It would also hang over the balconies and the patio of 2100 Crestview. On top of that, the backyard of 168
the proposed construction, one of the activity areas, is directly adjacent to my master bedroom. All of that comes from the poorly chosen orientation of the building.
I want to emphasize one more point from the case text: Nor do we agree with plaintiff's characterization of Mr. Parker's response to a question from the Board chair. She suggested that if the Structure was moved farther downhill, he would have "view impacts" and Mr. Parker agreed. Plaintiff maintains he would have then objected on that basis. But the context of the colloquy does not support that. Mr. Parker went on to state that "I think it'll be different." "[I]nstead of looking at the side of a structure" "you're looking over it.". Mr. Parker is the previous owner of my home. As you can see, the idea of suggesting to move the building downhill was not to accept view blockages (while gaining some privacy; which the current plan doesn't achieve either), but rather to achieve view equity, because the thinking was that the view would be over the building. As demonstrated by the photos I attached to my previous comments, this has not been achieved in the current design. In fact it's quite the opposite. There would be a massive wall of the structure right in front of my master bedroom, blocking Catalina Island view. Looking at the previous plan from 2012-2013 and the current plan, here's why this happens. The old plan included a garage, then a gap, and then two stories. The new plan is a taller garage plus three stories on top of it. So, the building was moved not downhill, but rather simply forward. It's still at a comparable height, it just protrudes from the hill much more.
Somehow even with 3 stories and a flat roof it's still taller than 2100 Crestview, which is 3 stories, slanted roofs, and higher up the street. If the plan kept it at two stories, then I'd be looking over the building as Mr. Parker noted. But with 3 stories stacked on top of each other it's very different. It's leading to a worsened, rather than improved situation with respect to the previously observed issues.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Sincerely,
Evgenii Krasko
169
FW: Litigation History Around Project at 2058 Crestview Dr. Concept Review 4/25 Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>
Mon 4/8/2024 7:40 AM
To:Khan, Shehriyar <[email protected]>
Cc:Caron, Martina CD <[email protected]>
Please read and lets discuss.
From: matt lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 6:44 PM
To: Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>
Subject: Litigation History Around Project at 2058 Crestview Dr. Concept Review 4/25 Importance: High
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Amber, I just received the notice of Concept Review on this project now scheduled for April 25, 2024.
This project has a history dating back more than 20 years, during which time the same Applicant has been attempting to obtain entitlement for what has been basically the same design, with pretty much the same result.
This unfortunate history was summarized by the judge in his opinion when this Applicant unsuccessfully sued the City after his most recent appeal to Council was rejected. Link:
https://casetext.com/case/czajkowski-v-city-of-laguna-beach.
Hopefully, the Staff Report will review this history with respect to the current project design. I don't believe that the citywide standards of review for DR have changed since this project was last before the Board, nor has the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan been amended. What has changed is that the immediate neighbors who dealt with this project previously have moved on and the current residents may not be as familiar with this history nor with their rights under the City's DR process.
In fairness to the Applicant, it's also possible that the designed/project siting has been altered sufficiently to comply with all applicable City requirements, but a casual look at the staking doesn't suggest that has occurred.
I currently don't have the bandwidth to get directly involved in this matter but wanted to call out the historical context to your attention. We trust that CD staff will be able to vet the project sufficiently to provide solid decision support to the Board members. none of whom were on the Board last time this project came up more than a decade ago. Thank you once again for your service to our community.
Cordially, Matt
5/2/24, 9:19 AM Mail - Khan, Shehriyar - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU4NzIxMDM5LWY3ZmItNDg1Yi1hNjQyLTlmNDEzZDEwODViNwAQAPAUQ4Krx1NCojSZJs1AoQA%3D?n… 1/1 170
Edward Sotto
2100 Crestview Dr
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
I am Edward Sotto, our family lives at 2100 Crestview Dr, next door, right of the property proposed for new development.
My wife chose Diamond Crestview 2 years ago, not just because it’s where she found the perfect home, but the higher design standards the city established for this special zone. The homes nestled into the hillsides, surrounded by landscape with views of both canyon and ocean. This gave us comfort as the guidelines are a protection and quite specific. We love our neighbors and feel Crestview is special.
Having said that, when this new project emerged, the beautiful landscape was replaced by mud and story poles, we were more than curious and met with the builder in his required neighborhood review.
Even though plans existed, only some selected views of his concept in crude 3D renderings were shared with all of us, but even then, we sensed the potential impact and design intent of his concept.
My reason for making this statement, is that after reviewing what he was willing to share and discuss with us that the city should pay extremely close attention to what is being proposed, as in our opinion, the concept was not developed in compliance with the Crestview guidelines, but almost in defiance, “shoehorned” into a difficult pie wedged site. As the city, of course you are the final word.
As his attempts to build on this site higher up the hill have failed twice, the project has now moved down up against our home. In order to wedge the project in, his driveway glances across our property. The builder told us that our permit would need to be revoked, the street redesigned, our stone facade retaining wall partially removed, costing us two parking spaces due to shortening our driveway.
Essentially losing our setback. I’m an architectural designer by trade and changes like this are HUGE.
Our “sense of place” is established by tapered angled
retaining walls on each side defining the property. The left wall balances the visual weight of the right stair. 171
The wall establishes our driveway boundary and “sense of place,” and removing it ruins the symmetrical composition of the exterior. I left thinking, since when does building another’s home destroy the facade of yours?
The Crestview guidelines depict how homes should be embedded in the hillside, not perched atop of it as he shows, blocking views of the canyon from our only upper patio with a wall a few feet away. Out of context, the structure exudes a look of urban density, not diverse homes nestled in green. The materials shown do not seem to be compliant with the contextual quality of the surrounding homes. Minimalism depends on quality finishes. Even in concept, it does not seem to be context driven, it appears budget driven.
Needless to say, this project affects all of Diamond Crestview. Construction staging is in a hairpin turn congests the only access to the entire neighborhood. Years of drilling foundations and street closures await everyone here as there is little to no place for trucks and heavy equipment. Noise, vibration, and dirt removal will be disruptive for years. Not to mention safety if a disaster occurred.
Mike has had this property longer than we have (1998) and in fact, could have raised issues of design review and variance when our home was being planned. Revoking our permit to build his home and impacting the design to wedge something in seems absurd, but I think good design could prevail if only he was flexible in his thinking.
A home can be built here, but it needs to driven by compliance with the high standards and impact to the area, which means embedded much deeper into the hillside, centered more between the other homes, and access designed in such a way as to not alter the existing homes and street. The concept we were shown does NONE of that. Simply put, it needs to enhance the Diamond Crestview experience, not degrade it.
Thank you.
Recent 9-4pm Crestview closure for underground cabling. This hairpin turn is the only way in or out of the entire neighborhood. The city should weigh the safety and disruption of years of drilling, dirt removal and other staging issues. 172
Note how close this new home is to our own in comparison with other complaint homes.
Shared driveway on a redesigned street. Its so close, our revokable permit would have to be changed and driveways joined to accommodate this. Passersby ask me if it’s an addition to our home!
ISSUES OF SITING AND DESTROYING SENSE OF PLACE.
173
The retaining wall proposed
between us is shorter, but somehow shown rebuilt at an angle that actually blocks our driveway. (See RED square) These images are very deceiving until examined closely. So if you did cut the wall back far enough to allow our car to back out, it would it the wall as shown below. This destroys the symmetry of the facade of our home and “sense of place”. His home is angled across our property and far too close to our existing home. Contrary to the scale of the cars in the renderings, the driveway work out to be less than a car length to the revised street.
Wall is 90 Degrees from
New Wall angles across
driveway and is shorter,
shorting the driveway costing
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
Area to be modified.
174
Lost view, privacy to our main patio, just a few
feet away.
Most of the upper level experience is looking
into the side of his home.
PATIO
No Privacy at all between levels.
PRIVACY AND VIEWS
175
176