Ann Christoph
31632 Wildwood Road
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
September 20, 2026
RE: Exhibit A, 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Mayor Orgill and City Council members:
The Council should know some of the background regarding this application.
It has been mentioned that the applicant has been working with the city for 2 years on this submittal. It would be useful to understand some of the reasons why it has been so long. I, of course, don’t know all that has been going on between the architect and city staO, but I have been part of some of the discussions regarding the setback issue.
On November 9, 2024 the architect, Horst Noppenberger, and the applicant, had a neighborhood meeting to review the proposed plans. The stakes were up and the plans were laid out for review. It looked like the stakes were too far out into Wildwood Road. Horst explained, “We reviewed the required setbacks with Planning and have developed this project accordingly, with no variances required.” (see memo of November 11, 2024 where Horst restates his contention.)
He had measured a 20’ front yard setback from the centerline of Wildwood Road and placed the building corner stakes there. Then he added a 4’ deck projection. The deck edge would have been18” into the Wildwood Road right of way/street easement and the building itself would have been 2.5 ‘ into the 5’ required side yard setback along Wildwood.
Since I have been involved with planning for South Laguna since the early 1970s, including working on the South Laguna Specific Plan zoning codes, I knew this was incorrect and explained it to Horst. I followed up with the following memo:
“Unfortunately the staO seems to have misguided you regarding the setbacks.
Please see this provision of the Village Community zone standards.
25.73.070 Property Development standards
(G) Private Streets. Private street areas shall not be included in lot calculations. Regardless of ownership of private street areas, thirty-five feet total (seventeen and one-half feet on each side of the centerline of the street) shall be considered as street width and shall be excluded from lot area calculations and required setbacks.
(1) Dedicated road easements that either bisect or extend across any portion of a lot shall be excluded from building site coverage calculations.
The lot in question is 35’ x 45’ with a 17.5’ street easement for Wildwood Road on your client’s side and 17.5' on your neighbor’s side for a total of 35’. The street easement remains open. The buildable lot is 1575 sq. ft. and the setbacks are 5’ on all sides. My understanding is that a 40% (2’) overhang for roofs etc. is allowed into the 5’ setback.
This is a very important part of the provisions for the Village Community zone.
We spent a lot of time with analyzing how to deal with the small lots and the private street easements. They were created by the early developer in the 1920s and 30s to give access to the small lots that they created by subdividing the original 35' x 125’ lots. There are easement documents that allow for mutual use of the easement areas. For legal access, and assuring open space in these very tightly developed areas it is essential that the street easement areas not be considered as buildable parts of the property even though they are usually owned by the adjacent lot owner. This is why when the VC zone was developed the planning commission and city council needed to specifically assure that there would be no misunderstanding about their status—thus spelling it out in the above provisions.”
Horst, understandably, did not immediately accept this information. I followed up with Director David Contreras and he followed up with planning staO. I later received a phone call from staO agreeing with the interpretation stated above. They said they would work with the architect to straighten this out.
I don’t know what happened from there, but what we can see in the present design is that the proposed building is now 2’ into the sideyard setback, instead of the 2.5’ it had been in the original proposal, and the 4’ deck projection has been removed.
According to the code the building should not be into the setback at all. Was a compromise reached in which staO agreed to recommend a variance to intrude into the side yard setback so that the architect and applicant could agree that they almost had what they wanted originally, even though the misinterpretation had take place?
In recommending the variance staO had to come up with incorrect findings based on assumptions that ignore what is explicitly stated in the code cited above.
“Special circumstances applicable to the property exist. The property is located within the South Laguna Village neighborhood characterized by small "postage stamp"-sized lots averaging approximately 2,500 square feet in area.
The site is further constrained by the presence of a 17.5-foot-wide easement for the property’s contribution to the half-width of Wildwood Road, which substantially reduces the property's buildable area to 1,575 square feet.” As I stated above the property’s buildable area is 1575 sq. ft. It has been since the 1930s and the street easement is for mutual access, not part of the buildable portion of the property as clearly state in the code.
In trying to correct an early misinterpretation staO has now led us all down a path that opens the door to more and more intrusions into the required setbacks in this whole zoning area.
It is time for Council to stop this now, reject the specious special circumstance argument by staO, reject the variance, and require the building to respect the 5’required setback.
I agree with the comments in the SLCA memo explaining how the project can simply apply with the codes and eliminate the need for variances and exceptions to the codes.
Sincerely,
Ann Christoph
From: Ann Christoph [email protected]
Subject: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Date: November 9, 2024 at 12:31 PM
To: Horst Noppenberger [email protected]
Cc: Barbara Manalis [email protected], Maewe Brasil [email protected] Bcc: Andrea Adelson [email protected], Dustin Beutin [email protected], Jim Danziger [email protected], Mel Harwell [email protected], James Ward Henry II [email protected], Mary Ives [email protected], Thomas Joliet [email protected], James Joseph [email protected], Cindy Love [email protected], Greg O'Loughlin [email protected], Ramin Pejan [email protected], Ted Reckas [email protected], Scott Sebastian [email protected], John Thomas [email protected] Thank you for inviting the neighborhood to the gathering to discuss the remodel/additions at the McNicol Residence, and thank him for his hospitality.
Unfortunately the staff seems to have misguided you regarding the setbacks. Please see this provision of the Village Community zone standards.
25.73.070 Property Development standards
(G) Private Streets. Private street areas shall not be included in lot calculations. Regardless of ownership of private street areas, thirty-five feet total (seventeen and one-half feet on each side of the centerline of the street) shall be considered as street width and shall be excluded from lot area calculations and required setbacks.
(1) Dedicated road easements that either bisect or extend across any portion of a lot shall be excluded from building site coverage calculations.
The lot in question is 35’ x 45’ with a 17.5’ street easement for Wildwood Road on your client’s side and 17.5' on your neighbor’s side for a total of 35’. The street easement remains open. The buildable lot is 1575 sq. ft. and the setbacks are 5’ on all sides. My understanding is that a 40% (2’) overhang for roofs etc. is allowed into the 5’ setback.
This is a very important part of the provisions for the Village Community zone. We spent a lot of time with analyzing how to deal with the small lots and the private street easements.
They were created by the early developer in the 1920s and 30s to give access to the small lots that they created by subdividing the original 35' x 125’ lots. There are easement documents that allow for mutual use of the easement areas. For legal access, and assuring open space in these very tightly developed areas it is essential that the street easement areas not be considered as buildable parts of the property even though they are usually owned by the adjacent lot owner. This is why when the VC zone was developed the planning commission and city council needed to specifically assure that there would be no misunderstanding about their status—thus spelling it out in the above provisions.
Ann Christoph
From: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Date: November 11, 2024 at 10:34 AM
To: David CD Contreras [email protected]
Bcc: Monica Tuchscher [email protected], Mark Orgill [email protected], James Ward Henry II [email protected], Morris Skenderian [email protected] Good morning David,
Apparently someone on city staff has given Horst incorrect information on the setback requirements in the Village Community zone. I have explained the correct information below, but Horst seems not to believe this information. Will you please get this straightened out before this project goes any further?
He says that staff told him that he can measure a 20’ front yard setback from the center of the private street (Wildwood) and then have a 4’ overhang on the street side. This is incorrect. Please call me to discus.
Thanks,
Ann
Begin forwarded message:
From: Horst Noppenberger <[email protected]>
Subject: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Date: November 11, 2024 at 9:17:21 AM PST
To: Ann Christoph <[email protected]>
Cc: Barbara Manalis <[email protected]>, Maewe Brasil <[email protected]>, Adam McNicol <[email protected]>
Good morning Ann,
Thank-you for attending our site meeting. It was lovely to see you and the others in the neighborhood where I lived with my family for many years. We are delighted to be working with Adam on this project and feel confident that it will be a complimentary addition to this distinctive neighborhood.
We appreciate your thoughts and comments on the project. As I mentioned, prior to starting the project, we reviewed the required setbacks with Planning and have developed this project accordingly, with no variances required.
Be well,
Horst Noppenberger
247a Forest Ave. | Laguna Beach, CA 92651 USA
t +1 949 494 9569 ex.22 |
HORST-ARCHITECTS.com Follow us on Instagram @horst_architect A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step- Confucius From: Ann Christoph <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 12:31 PM
To: Horst Noppenberger Partial <[email protected]> Cc: Barbara Manalis <[email protected]>, Maewe Brasil
<[email protected]>
Subject: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Thank you for inviting the neighborhood to the
gathering to discuss the remodel/additions at the
McNicol Residence, and thank him for his hospitality.
Unfortunately the staff seems to have misguided you
regarding the setbacks. Please see this provision of
the Village Community zone standards.
25.73.070 Property Development standards
(G) Private Streets. Private street areas shall not be
included in lot calculations. Regardless of ownership of private street areas, thirty-five feet total (seventeen and one-half feet on each side of the centerline of the street) shall be considered as street width and shall be excluded from lot area calculations and required
setbacks.
(1)
Dedicated road easements that either bisect or
extend across any portion of a lot shall be excluded
from building site coverage calculations.
The lot in question is 35’ x 45’ with a 17.5’ street
easement for Wildwood Road on your client’s side
easement for Wildwood Road on your client’s side
and 17.5' on your neighbor’s side for a total of 35’.
The street easement remains open. The buildable
lot is 1575 sq. ft. and the setbacks are 5’ on all
sides. My understanding is that a 40% (2’)
overhang for roofs etc. is allowed into the 5’
setback.
This is a very important part of the provisions for
the Village Community zone. We spent a lot of time
with analyzing how to deal with the small lots and
the private street easements. They were created
by the early developer in the 1920s and 30s to give
access to the small lots that they created by
subdividing the original 35' x 125’ lots. There are
easement documents that allow for mutual use of
the easement areas. For legal access, and
assuring open space in these very tightly developed
areas it is essential that the street easement areas
not be considered as buildable parts of the property
even though they are usually owned by the
adjacent lot owner. This is why when the VC zone
was developed the planning commission and city
council needed to specifically assure that there
would be no misunderstanding about their status—
thus spelling it out in the above provisions.
Ann Christoph
From: Ann Christoph [email protected]
Subject: Re: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Date: November 15, 2024 at 11:58 AM
To: David CD Contreras [email protected]
Thank you.
Ann
On Nov 15, 2024, at 9:40 AM, Contreras, David CD <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Ann,
Thank you for your email. I will connect with the assigned planner next week to discuss this project and get a better understanding of the application of the front yard setback. I will then follow-up with you to schedule a time for us to chat.
Thank you and have a nice weekend,
David Contreras
Director
Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
Phone: (949) 497-0719
Email: [email protected]
<image003.png>
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:34 AM
To: Contreras, David CD <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
[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.]
Good morning David,
Apparently someone on city staff has given Horst incorrect information on the setback requirements in the Village Community zone. I have explained the correct information below, but Horst seems not to believe this information. Will you please get this straightened out before this project goes any further? He says that staff told him that he can measure a 20’ front yard setback from the center of the private street (Wildwood) and then have a 4’ overhang on the street side. This is incorrect. Please call me to discus.
Thanks,
Ann
Ann
<image004.png>
Begin forwarded message:
From: Horst Noppenberger <[email protected]>
Subject: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Date: November 11, 2024 at 9:17:21 AM PST
To: Ann Christoph <[email protected]>
Cc: Barbara Manalis <[email protected]>, Maewe Brasil
<[email protected]>, Adam McNicol
<[email protected]>
Good morning Ann,
Thank-you for attending our site meeting. It was lovely to see you and the others in the neighborhood where I lived with my family for many years. We are delighted to be working with Adam on this project and feel confident that it will be a complimentary addition to this distinctive neighborhood.
We appreciate your thoughts and comments on the project. As I mentioned, prior to starting the project, we reviewed the required setbacks with Planning and have developed this project accordingly, with no variances required.
Be well,
Horst Noppenberger
247a Forest Ave. | Laguna Beach, CA 92651 USA
t +1 949 494 9569 ex.22 |
HORST-ARCHITECTS.com Follow us on Instagram @horst_architect A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step- Confucius From: Ann Christoph <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 12:31 PM
To: Horst Noppenberger Partial <[email protected]> Cc: Barbara Manalis <[email protected]>, Maewe Brasil
<[email protected]>
Subject: 31552 Eagle Rock Way
Thank you for inviting the neighborhood to the
gathering to discuss the remodel/additions at
the McNicol Residence, and thank him for his
the McNicol Residence, and thank him for his
hospitality.
Unfortunately the staff seems to have
misguided you regarding the setbacks. Please
see this provision of the Village Community
zone standards.
25.73.070 Property Development standards
(G) Private Streets. Private street areas shall
not be included in lot calculations. Regardless
of ownership of private street areas, thirty-five
feet total (seventeen and one-half feet on each
side of the centerline of the street) shall be
considered as street width and shall be
excluded from lot area calculations and
required setbacks.
(1)
Dedicated road easements that either bisect
or extend across any portion of a lot shall be
excluded from building site coverage
calculations.
The lot in question is 35’ x 45’ with a 17.5’
street easement for Wildwood Road on your
client’s side and 17.5' on your neighbor’s
side for a total of 35’. The street easement
remains open. The buildable lot is 1575 sq.
ft. and the setbacks are 5’ on all sides. My
ft. and the setbacks are 5’ on all sides. My
understanding is that a 40% (2’) overhang
for roofs etc. is allowed into the 5’ setback.
This is a very important part of the
provisions for the Village Community zone.
We spent a lot of time with analyzing how to
deal with the small lots and the private
street easements. They were created by
the early developer in the 1920s and 30s to
give access to the small lots that they
created by subdividing the original 35' x 125’
lots. There are easement documents that
allow for mutual use of the easement areas.
For legal access, and assuring open space
in these very tightly developed areas it is
essential that the street easement areas not
be considered as buildable parts of the
property even though they are usually
owned by the adjacent lot owner. This is
why when the VC zone was developed the
planning commission and city council
needed to specifically assure that there
would be no misunderstanding about their
status—thus spelling it out in the above
provisions.
Ann Christoph
September 19, 2026
Review of Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923 31552 Eaglerock Road
We appreciate that Design Review 2026-0922 and Variance 2026-0923 31552 Eagle Rock Road is being reviewed.
The issues with the approval of this project have brought to light important broader issues in need of review. The city seems to have drifted from staff helping applicants shape their proposed projects to conform to the rules to staff trying to shape the rules to conform to the project.
In this case the project is seeking approval to:
• exceed building site coverage and floor area raJo
• encroach into the required side yard set back
• encroach into the front yard setback for a required on-site parking space • not provide the required second on-site parking space.
Deviations from the code can feasibly be avoided :
• Reduce the building site coverage from 861 to 835 sq. ft. • Reduce the floor area from 1561 to 1420 sq. ft.
• Remove the 2’ encroachment into the side yard setback along Wildwood Road. (54.82 sq. ft. reduction to building site coverage and 99.14 sq. ft. reduction to floor area) • With these changes a second on-site parking space would no longer be required—no variance needed.
Conformity with the code is feasible, and the deviations are not justified.
The approval of variances where conformity is feasible sets a precedent that will lead to even more density in the South Laguna Village neighborhood. This is a densely developed neighborhood, but we can control this intensity of use by abiding by the code.
Design Review Board member MJ Coveny described the considerations in approving deviations from the code:
Where do we draw the line:
"South Laguna is going to continually expand because these homes are the most affordable and people want to stay. So, where do we draw the line on that growth and the opportunity for the homeowner to have what they want?" “...everybody wants what they want, but there’s restrictions, and there’s restrictions for a reason.” Fear of neighborhood transformation:
"...how do we control it so that it doesn't become just so overbuilt and a wall of homes down the street all beyond the setbacks and it starts to look like a condo street and then is Laguna, Laguna?" Long-term concern:
“My concern is the long-term growth of this area. So it's like where do you start to draw a line?..." “I come back just to what my goal is here, which is the criteria. You know, do you meet the criteria? And ultimately in many cases you don’t.”
In the end staff’s justifications persuaded the board to approve the project despite the variances and Coveny’s reservations.
Staff seems not to understand the characteristics and typical conditions of this South Laguna neighborhood. Their variance justifications describe typical conditions as hardships justifying variances. The staff reports do not back up the standards in the code. Instead they describe the code requirements as “inappropriate.” (see p. 15 of the staff report) Those justifications/findings are erroneous because they are based on the faulty premise stated in the staff report on p. 13 and elsewhere:
“Special circumstances applicable to the property exist. The property is located within the South Laguna Village neighborhood characterized by small "postage stamp"-sized lots averaging approximately 2,500 square feet in area. The site is further constrained by the presence of a
17.5-foot-wide easement for the property’s contribution to the half-width of Wildwood Road, which substantially reduces the property's buildable area to 1,575 square feet.” The circumstances of this property are not “special.” They are typical of the lots in Tract 849, which is the tract covered by the Village Community zone. This zone was specifically and uniquely crafted to address the conditions of lots in that zone. The zone features the 50’ wide public streets --Eagle Rock Way (formerly 1st Avenue), 2nd Avenue through 11th Avenue connected by a network of 35’ wide private streets that are created by easements over land usually owned by the adjacent residential lot. The status of those street easements is spelled out in the code.
25.43.070 (G) Private Streets. Private street areas shall not be included in lot calculations.
Regardless of ownership of private street areas, thirty five feet total (seventeen and one half feet on each side of the centerline of the street) shall be considered as street width and shall be excluded from lot area calculations and required setbacks.
Nearly all the lots in Tract 849/Village Community zone connect to a private street easement.
This is typical, not a special circumstance.
The 31552 Eagle Rock Way lot is one of hundreds in Tract 849 which was subdivided in 1927.
The standards of the Village Community Zone are unique to Tract 849. They were written when South Laguna was in the County in order to bring the building on these very small lots under control. (They are 35' x 40’ and 35' x 45’) There was rampant building, even without permits and the height limit was 35’. The Village Community zone reduced the height limit to 25’, required a 5’ minimum setback on all sides around the houses and instituted a floor area limit.
This has been in effect since before South Laguna was annexed in 1987.
The requests for deviations from the code involve separate issues, yet the staff report presents them as one single variance (2026-0923) The findings discussions are lumped together as if there is a single request. Each issue is unique, and should be treated as a separate request, and all required findings should need to be made for each request. Since multiple variances are lumped together as if there was one mega-variance, for this and because of staff’s faulty analysis of the code and the characteristics of the neighborhood stated above, the required findings for the variances for 31552 Eagle Rock cannot be made.
The report presents specific information about other properties used for comparison. The statement in Section 4 Page 7 of the proposed Resolution 2026-0922 that justification for finding #1 states, “Several similarly situated properties in the immediate vicinity have also received discretionary relief…” This is not adequate justification. What were the specific findings made in granting other variances?
For example, the house at 31632 Wildwood Road was listed as a precedent-setting variance.
That property is on the historic register and sought a variance to connect the upper and lower levels with a stairwell. This extension into the setback comprises only a small portion of the frontage. Variances like this which enable a historic structure to be preserved are part of the incentive program in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 31632 Wildwood with addition. Stairwell needed a variance 31552 Wildwood Road, while originally a 1930s cottage, has already been remodeled with a contemporary theme and thus is no longer eligible for the historic preservation program and there is no comparable need for the encroachment into the side setback. Their encroachments merely make the rooms in the proposed addition 2’ bigger.
Were each of the other “similarly situated properties” granted variances? What were the justifications for those variances? That information is not presented in the staff report. The mere fact that there may be other encroachments into setbacks, of unknown authorization, is not a reason to continue to allow even more.
This is not the first time that staff and DRB have minimized the need to conform with the South Laguna zoning code. (See SLCA objections to previous variance requests, attached.) Instead they recommend approval of variances on items where conforming with the standards is achievable within the code.
The staff does not seem to understand the benefits of upholding the code. They are using houses permitted (or not) under the County as examples that allow new applicants to build more of the same. Their decisions recommending approving variances exacerbate the deficiencies In our neighborhood. Upholding the standards would help bring order and provide a minimum amount of open space between the houses.
Staff’s approach is the opposite of what it used to be. Staff used to strongly encourage applicants to design within the zoning code. They would say if the applicants can design within the standards they had to. Variances were only for exceptionally difficult situations. Now staff seems to encourage violating achievable standards, basically because the applicants want what they want. Have they taken Council direction to expedite the approval process to mean “Give the applicants what they want”?
Why has this changed? Has there been a change in the code that led to this? Is this a directed change? Or has there simply been an unintentional drift in course? The city seems to have deviated from the code as well as past city practices, and that is the reason for the review. Making course corrections now should help minimize future cases where applicants end up in disputes like this. If a key goal is to improve the city processes, why isn’t the most appropriate course to have clear rules and to have staff encourage applicants and their consultants to conform to those rules?
In addition to the issue of deviations from the code, staff is overly generous in evaluating the design review criteria and compatibility with neighborhood character. On page 8 of the staff report regarding articulation, they state that the proposal conforms because of the use of “varied wall planes, wall heights, building materials and window openings.” In fact, a view of the Wildwood Road facing façade shows a tall, flat wall, going straight up from the street, with none of the elements described as creating “articulation”—“separation, offsets, terracing,” etc. which is characteristic of the other houses on the street.
Articulation on another house on Wildwood Lack of articulation on proposed addition The illustration on the right shows the location of the front property line, shaded orange, which shows how densely this property will be developed. The landscape plan will not help. Most of the landscaping is in the public right of way.
Public
ROW
The landscape plan will not buffer the tall, plain façade. It is a simple preliminary diagram and does not meet the criteria for an approvable landscape plan.
Staff and the DRB need council redirection.
Thus the importance of this review.
Redirect staff and DRB
Staff should strongly encourage applicants to comply with code. Variances should only apply in exceptional circumstances.
Require this project to be redesigned to be neighborhood compatible and without code deviations.
Greg O’Loughlin, President
Other addresses for further information:
31860 8th Ave. and 31922 Virginia Way (see attached letter) Public
ROW
Design Review Board 10/23/25
Comments on Design Review Items for October 23, 2025
Please add this to the comments for each of the projects addressed in this letter. 31860 8th Avenue
The staff report justifies a variance to build a deck that extends 5’ into the 5.21’ front yard setback: yet these justifications are improperly applied to the zone and the property. Approving this request would set new precedents that will severely alter the character of the Village Zone if applied similarly going forward.
For context, the lot is a corner lot that is 35’ x 45’, the typical size for corner lots throughout Tract 849 which is the South Laguna Village Area. According to the Village Community zone, those lots are to have 5’ setbacks on all four sides.
Tract 849 (the South Laguna Village area) was subdivided in 1927. The original lot sizes for most of the tract were 35’ x 125’ fronting on the numbered streets. The small streets, like Seaview and Meadow Lane were created later (1930s) when the real estate people in charge of the tract decided they could sell more lots if they were smaller. So they divided most of those lots into 3—making 35’ x 45’ on the corners, and 2-35’ x 40’ lots further back, accessed from the smaller streets they created from neighboring lots (in this case Seaview and Meadow).
The staff report states several incorrect justifications for a variance in this case. ● “It does not meet the minimum lot area standard.” The minimum lot size given in the code of 4375 sq. ft. is for the purpose of preventing any remaining 35’ x 125’ lots from being subdivided into the smaller lots as was forbidden by the County in 1936. It is not to be used as justification for not complying with setback requirements on existing smaller lots. If that justification could apply to the smaller lots all the detailed standards in the code for regulating the smaller lots would be moot. ● The lot “is further constrained by its corner location.” As stated above the corner lots are 5’ longer than the interior (non-corner) lots. Corner lots, by being able to take access from either the side or the front are at an advantage. They are not “further constrained.” ● “The parcel’s small size restricts the owner’s ability to exercise the same development rights as neighboring properties.” This lot is larger than other non-corner lots.
Development potential is similar for all the lots in this zone. This lot is no different.
This lot is not unusual in this zone. It is typical. Nearly all the corner lots are the same dimension. This zone provides for lots as small as 1600 sq. ft. (35’ x 40’ Another staff statement says the variance is justified because the property doesn’t have landscaped space in front and instead uses it for parking. Whatever hardship this imposes is due to prior decisions on making improvements on the lot. It is not inherent in the lot itself and therefore can’t be used as justification.
We point out these improperly applied justifications because they are precedent setting. There was a recent proposal for an addition to a similarly situated property and that architect likewise wanted to intrude into the required 5’ setback. Staff advised him that that was a violation of the code. The code was carefully crafted to allow reasonable development on this whole neighborhood of very small lots. We should not be fostering intrusions into the prescribed setbacks, which would make the neighborhood even more crowded. 31922 Virginia Way
Similarly the staff report provides for approval of the applicant’s exceeding the floor area limits in the zoning code, finding that the limit is “inappropriate due to existing neighborhood development patterns.” Yet this lot is larger than most neighboring lots, and no evidence is given that other houses in the neighborhood exceed limits that could be applied to their proposals.
This is an arbitrary finding that doesn’t respect the intent of the zoning code. These floor area limits are one way to prevent over-development on the lots in the Village Community zone.
Approving this justification opens the door to subsequent applicants who may assume the same weak arguments will satisfy the Board when they request larger houses than allowed. There is no reason why the limits can’t be applied in this case. The standard would allow them a large house—3421 sq. ft. They are requesting a special finding so they can exceed that to 3763 sq. ft. This is exactly the kind of proposal for which the standards were written.
Also the Board should consider the safety issues for adding a driveway to 8th Avenue.
This is a very constrained corner, and the access DRB finding cannot be made, especially since the property already has a functional and much safer driveway with access from Virginia Way. 31565 Eagle Rock Way
There are clearly issues with neighborhood compatibility related to the size, bulk , lack of articulation, and severely modern style of this proposal, and we support neighborhood concerns in that regard.
Our overall community commentary relates to the landscape plan and the heritage Red flowering Eucalyptus trees (Corymbia ficifolia) on Eagle Rock that are a community landmark. It is important that the planting be recognized and fostered, and there are gaps in the continuity of the street tree pattern. The landscape plan should provide for planting one of these trees in the public street part of the landscape.
Thank you for responding to these concerns in your deliberations.
Greg O’Loughlin
President