ATTACHMENT G
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: APPLICANT COMMENT LETTER/PRESENTATION Dated November 18, 2021
1820 Linda Vista Ave.
(HDP #6838)
Board of Zoning Appeals Presentation November
18, 2021
Area Map
Neighborhood Map
Site Design:
Option #1
• Addition in Front yard adjacent to
Linda Vista Ave.
• This option was rejected since it was
too disruptive to the character of the
streetscape along Linda Vista Ave.
Site Design:
Option #2
• Addition on second level
• Neighbors to the west and south have
impacted view corridors.
• Adding a second story impacts the
views from the appellant’s second
story windows on their north façade.
• Second story addition affects the
street-facing character of Linda Vista
Ave.
Site Design:
Option #3
• Addition in Rear yard on first floor
with no lower level.
• Converts carport to enclosed garage
and existing garage to living space.
• Provides a separate wing to care for
our elderly parents, but does not allow
for their privacy and independence.
• Appellant has impacted views from
first story windows along the east
façade.
• First story views at the appellant’s
north façade are already impacted by
the existing residence and dense
foliage.
Site Design:
Option #4
Selected Option
• Addition in Rear yard on first floor
and a ADU on the lower floor
• Converts carport to enclosed garage
and existing garage to living space.
• Reduces addition to the South on the
first floor to avoid view obstruction
from appellant’s east façade windows.
• Avoids view obstructions from all
neighbors to the maximum extent
feasible.
• Allows for a separate unit to care for
our elderly parents yet still gives them
independence.
Proposed
Changes: Not
Pursued
• Analyzed leaving the carport as-is to move
the project forward.
• Created a worse final project since it
negatively impacts the Linda Vista Ave
streetscape.
• Hodgepodge of architectural styles and
rooflines created the appearance of an
incomplete project and was an eyesore from
the public street.
• Would not function as desired since the
carport has an exterior breezeway and does
not have a direct connection to the house.
• City staff ultimately agreed this change
resulted in a project unfavorable to the
neighborhood and this option was not
pursued.
Existing Carport to
Remain – No Work
Existing Carport to
Remain – No Work
Proposed
Compromises: Not
Accepted
• Offered to reduce the height of the garage
roof by 18-inches.
• Offered to install landscaping at the southern
property line to enhance privacy.
Lowered Roof at
Garage
Proposed Landscaping Along
South Property Line
Existing Chinese Elm Tree
Building Design:
Upper Floor Plan
• 62% of the exterior walls are maintained creating an
ecological re-use solution.
• Provides a main level 3,853 SF of living space.
• Maintains scale of the residence from Linda Vista Ave. • Retained the entry courtyard feature that is unique to the existing building.
• Organized the floor plan to create public/community spaces at the core of the property with taller volumes flooded by natural light, flanked by more intimate private spaces like bedrooms and bathrooms at the edges of the home.
• Large glass expanses to the rear of the property capture sunlight and natural ventilation while taking advantage of the integration with nature.
• Clerestory windows allow additional sunlight into the living spaces and bedrooms from the north and south facades.
• No windows along the south façade at bedroom #1 and the laundry room for enhanced privacy from the appellant’s
residence.
Building Design:
Lower Floor Plan
• Provides a separate unit of only 807 SF instead
of 1,200 SF allowed to care for our parents.
• Allows for their independence and freedom of
movement.
• Captures space below the upper floor that
would otherwise be an open void due to
existing topography changes.
• Provides pool equipment room and additional
storage space captured under the proposed
exterior stair.
Front Elevation (From Linda Vista Ave.)
North Elevation
South Elevation
Rear Elevation
1820 Linda Vista Ave.
(HDP #6838)
Addressing Neighbor’s Concerns
PMC: Hillside Overlay Building
Design Standards
17.29.060.G: View Protection
A proposed structure shall be designed and located so that it avoids blocking views from surrounding properties to the maximum extent feasible, as determined by the review authority, and including, but not limited to, consideration of the following:
1. The feasibility of relocating the proposed structure to another part of the site;
2. The feasibility of modifying the massing of the proposed structure such that views from surrounding properties would not be impacted; and
3. The feasibility of minimizing architectural features that may intrude upon views from surrounding properties.
1. New structures and tall landscaping shall not be centered directly in the view of any room of a primary structure on a neighboring parcel. Views shall be considered from windows of any room in the primary structure. New structures shall avoid blocking the following from any room of a main dwelling on a neighboring property:
1. Culturally significant structures such as the Rose Bowl, Colorado Street Bridge, City Hall, etc.;
2. Downslope views of the valley floor;
3. Prominent ridgelines; and/or
4. The horizon line.
Views of open sky, existing foliage, private yards, and existing structures on surrounding properties shall not be taken into consideration by the review authority.
Figure 2-7—Example of Preferred Locations of a Structure to Preserve Views View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #1
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted by existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
• Story pole views have been incorrectly
depicted by the neighbor
• Ridgeline still visible when the story
pole area is shown correctly
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #2
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
• Story pole views have been incorrectly
depicted by the neighbor
• Ridgeline still visible when the story
pole area is shown correctly
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #3
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #4
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
• Story pole views have been incorrectly
depicted by the neighbor
• Ridgeline still visible when the story
pole area is shown correctly
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #4
• This depicts the perspective where the
previous photo was taken from (upper
right corner of the window from the
interior)
• Existing foliage currently blocks views
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #5
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
• Story pole views have been incorrectly
depicted by the neighbor
• Ridgeline still visible when the story
pole area is shown correctly
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #5
• This depicts the perspective where the
previous photo was taken from (upper
left corner of the window from the
interior)
• Existing foliage currently blocks views
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #6
• Photo not taken “centered” on the
window
• View is already impacted existing
foliage and structures; this is not a
protected view according to
17.29.060.G
View Obstructions:
Neighbor’s Photo #7
• Ridgeline still visible when the story
pole area is shown correctly
• View is mostly impacted from the
existing covered patio
• No windows were added to the
proposed bedroom on the south side
to enhance privacy
Unusual
Circumstances:
Pool and Deck
• There are 6 hillside swimming pools and decks
on the same hillside as the subject property.
• Neighbor directly to the north has an existing
pool and deck.
• His neighbor has a pool and deck much further
down the Arroyo Seco Slope Bank.
Unusual
Circumstances:
Pool and Deck
• There are 14 hillside swimming
pools and decks in the
neighborhood.
• Almost all pools and decks are
downslope, facing east, like our
proposed project.
• The geotechnical engineer has
provided a supplemental letter and
has indicated:
• The original calculations
include a uniform surcharge
pressure of 500 psf, which is
considered conservative to
account for loading from the
proposed improvements and
the infinity edge pool.
Unusual
Circumstances:
Liquefaction
• Appellant submitted an inaccurate and
misleading Liquefaction map exhibit.
• The edge of the liquefaction zone is located
380 feet from the edge of the existing house
and 125 feet into the golf course measured
from the toe of slope.
• No portion of the subject property is located
within an area that is subject to liquefaction.
• Age of the soils and depth of groundwater
further confirm the subject property is not
subject to liquefaction.
Not Accurate