HomeMy WebLinkAbout3a_Correspondence_Mosher_PA2012-140Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 3, 2013
Comments on Jan. 3, 2012 PC agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
Item No. 3 Wardy Residence (PA2012 -140)
The following comments are referenced to the handwritten page numbers in the 51 page PDF
staff report.
Page 8: In describing the proposed shift in the (Area B) /(Area C) boundary, it would have
seemed helpful to reference the drawing on page 30, which appears to illustrate the proposed
change in an overhead view.
That drawing references a "Variance 162" which apparently set the (Area A) /(Area B) boundary
for this lot 140' from the front property line, rather than requiring the "10 -foot setback from the
top of the existing bluff' specified for this area in Municipal Code Section 20.28.040.D.2.a.(1),
and allowed the house itself to extend down the bluff into what would normally be the restricted
Development Area C (that is, more than 13 feet below curb height).
I was also unable to find in the staff report any clear statement of what the curb elevation is, so
that the proposal can be objectively compared to the normal standard on Irvine Terrace of
setting the B/C boundary "13 feet below the average elevation of the top of the curb adjacent to
the lot" per NBMC Section 20.28.040.D.2.a.(2). One of the captions in the illustration on page
30 indicates the approved 68.09 foot elevation lawn area is alreadyl5 feet below the average
curb elevation (the extra 2 feet possibly being part of Variance 162 ?), suggesting the latter is
around 83 feet.
That illustration further suggests the proposed retaining walls (and therefore, the proposed
Development Area B boundary) would extend down to an elevation of 51 feet, or 32 feet below
curb height.
The above is difficult to reconcile with the statement on page 8 that "The proposed adjustment
would shift the Area B /Area C boundary up to 34 feet downslope" unless that is referring to the
horizontal shift (seen in the overhead view), rather than the vertical shift (seen in elevation).
The vertical shift seems to be up to about 17 feet below the current 15 foot limit.
Page 9: 1 likewise find it difficult to accept staff's assertion that "The proposed Area B /Area C
boundary is consistent with the predominant line of existing accessory structure development on
the adjacent properties." It seems consistent only when viewed from above. Assuming the
intent of the Bluff Overlay restrictions is to prevent development from cascading down the slope
beyond an elevation of 13 feet below curb height, and assuming the other properties have
followed that standard, extending down 32 feet below curb height is not consistent with
extending down 13 feet.
The main justification seems to be that this atypical, and normally unpermitted, encroachment
down the bluff will be screened from view.
Page 12: The assertion that the excess- height retaining wall "will not present a massive wall
surface" because it is perpendicular, not parallel, to Bayside Drive, surely depends on where on
Bayside Drive one is looking from. Being perpendicular minimizes the problem, but doesn't
eliminate it.
Items 1, 2, 3 & 4 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission January 3, 2013
Comments on Jan. 3, 2012 PC agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6
The staff report is unclear as to what "negative impacts to the abutting property" are avoid by
topping the excess - height retaining wall "with a 42- inch -high glass guardrail. "I am guessing the
planner has safety impacts in mind?
Page 17: In Section 1, statement 5 should say "2013" rather than "2012."
Page 18: The opening paragraph of Section 3 cites Municipal Code Section 20.28.040.1, whose
title is "Adjustment of development area boundary." I find nothing in the Resolution that
clearly defines what adjustment to the boundary is being approved or where the new boundary
will be.
The illustration on page 30 of the agenda packet shows what it claims to be the current (Area
"B ") /(Area "C ") boundary (apparently following the 68.09 foot height contour), and a somewhat
arbitrary heavy line (having nothing to do with elevation contours) labeled "Predominant Line of
Existing Development." I assume the intent of the Resolution is to move the "B /C" boundary for
this one lot to that line, but I don't find that clearly stated.
In Fact B -1, the word "that" seems unwanted, making the sentence ungrammatical, at least to
me. I would suggest deleting it.
Page 19: Regarding Fact C -2, see previous comments. The proposed line is consistent with the
existing line only when viewed from above. Also, even when viewed from above, the adjacent
lot to the south (also in the ravine) does not appear to have developed out horizontally to this
limit.
Page 19: In Fact 1 -1, the use of the word "unique" is confusing, making it sound like many (or
all ?) Irvine Terrace bluff -top properties have the same problem. I think you mean the
topography of the project site is unique, in which case "to other bluff properties in Irvine Terrace"
should be deleted. Alternatively you could delete "unique" and say the topography of the project
site is different from (most) other bluff -top properties along Dolphin Terrace.
Page 22: In Fact K -2, the alternative would seem to be fill the area to the 13 foot below curb
level elevation. I assume that would involve building a retaining wall parallel to Bayside Drive,
would be detrimental to the stability of the existing slope, and would probably also require a
modification permit.
ft"01_" Plaza Corona del Mar (PA2010 -061)
The following c nts refer to the January 3, 2013 Staff Report, and the page references are
to the handwritten numbe equivalently, the pages in the 124 page PDF)
Although not relevant to the Commission's t decisions, one of my main concerns with this
project, to echo those expressed by Dan Purcell in t utes of the December 6, 2012
hearing (page 90), is the vacation, without any compensation f6dtheQity, of the public alley
easement at the rear of the Gallo's Deli property. I have not researched ation in the
1990's of the much larger segment that wrapped around the rear of the entire