The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/20/2020 Item 2, Goschke Wilbanks, Megan From:Steven Goschke < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Fwd: Comments for project ARCH-0816-2019 Attachments:Final Letter to SLO ARC item ARCH-0816-2019 4-17-20 1pm.pdf I meant April 20th.... not the 10th... Sorry -- Steve Goschke scgoschke@gmail.com 805.286.7980 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steven Goschke < Date: Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:18 PM Subject: Comments for project ARCH-0816-2019 To: <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Cc: Grace Goschke < Attached are my comments for the ARC review committee meeting on April 10th, 2020 -- Steve & Grace Goschke Goschke scgoschke@gmail.com 805.286.7980 -- Steve Goschke scgoschke@gmail.com 805.286.7980 1 1 April 17, 2020 City of San Luis Obispo c/o Architectural Review Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Case #: ARCH-0816-2019 - 1141 Ella Street Members of the Architectural Review Commission: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to provide comments and concerns regarding Case #: ARCH-0816-2019, the proposed development at 1141 Ella Street. I agree with the ARC that the proposed development is subject to review. ARC review may occur when the site is sensitive and/or the scale or character of the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring structures.1 ARC review is also required to ensure the proposed development complies with the Hillside Development Standards.2 I have a number of concerns I would like the ARC to take under consideration when determining whether to approve the project proposed at 1141 Ella: • The size and height of the proposed development; • The steep slope of the lot; • Documented drainage issues and recognized potential for soil erosion; and • Construction impact and access 1. The large size and height of the proposed development would result in a significant contrast with adjacent or neighboring structures and could impact views from Terrace Hill Open Space, in violation of the city’s Community Development Guidelines (CDG). Chapter 5.3 of the CDG states that infill developments should “be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood.” The ARC report describes the proposed development as a new three-story single-family residential structure, made up of a 3,439-square foot, four-bedroom home, a 967-square foot accessory dwelling unit, and a 1,031-square foot, four-car garage. As I mentioned in my comments submitted prior to the cancelled March 16th ARC meeting, this development is very large. The proposed development would be much larger than others in the neighborhood, and would be incompatible with overall character of existing buildings in the neighborhood. 1 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 2.48.050 A(3) and A(4). 2 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.70.090. 2 Chapter 5.3 of the CDG goes on to say that “the height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is desired, an infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on adjacent smaller homes, and to protect solar access.” The proposed construction is more vertically oriented than the surrounding homes and does not follow the contour of the hillside. The applications requests a major exception to the setback requirements. Allowing a minor exception to the setback requirements may be reasonable but the applicant is requesting an exception of almost double what is allowed. The std is 15’ and they are requesting 28’ (stairwell) and 24’ (right wall section) and 12’ retaining walls where the std is 6’. Granting this exception would result in a structure that would not maintain the natural appearance of the hillside. Given the height and size of the proposed development, I am concerned that the home would be inconsistent with surrounding structures, and could impede solar access to neighbors. The home would be incongruous with existing homes in the area, affecting the visual character of the neighborhood. Given the height and size of the proposed development, it is possible the development could negatively impact views from the Terrace Hill Open Space both during and after construction. 2. As proposed, the development does not comply with the city’s Hillside Development Standards. I agree with the ARC that the proposed development must be evaluated against the city’s Hillside Development Standards. The CDG states that “Development on hillsides within the city is generally restricted to elevations below 300 feet and to slopes of 20 percent or less.” The proposed development would occur above 300’ and on slopes of 20 percent or greater. Additionally, Chapter 7.2 of the CDG, Hillside Development Standards, directs the city to evaluate the overall design of projects proposed on a hillside to minimize the impacts of hillside development by assessing the project’s visual impact, including the need for grading. In addition to the steep slope and site elevation, the proposed project would require substantial grading and excavation, and would stand out significantly against Terrace Hill. a. Lot elevation exceeds 300’ and is sloped in excess of 20%: The CDG states that “Development on hillsides within the city is generally restricted to elevations below 300 feet and to slopes of 20 percent or less.” As you can see from the ‘permit view’ clipping below, the top of the 1141 Ella Street lot is at elevation 355’ and the bottom of the lot is 328’ (top of driveway is right at 320’). The slope, at least from my rough calculations, is 27’/100 = 27% (west side of lot is only 79.51’ which calculates out to 27’/79.51’= 33.9%, an even greater percentage).3 3 The Staff Report calculates the slope at 19.6%, which seems low based on my calculations. I have requested the actual calculation from the City to see why it differs so greatly from my ca lculations. I have not received a response from the city. 3 b. Based on the lot’s percent average cross slope, the proposed development would violate the City’s Construction and Fire Code: The City’s Construction and Fire Code4 sets forth the ‘percent of site that is to remain in its natural state”, depending on the “percent average cross slope.” The City code provides a table (copied below) that indicates the ‘percent of site that is to remain in its natural state”, depending on the “percent average cross slope.” To comply with city standards, a lot with an average cross slope in excess of 20% would require that 80-90% of the lot remain in its natural state. As planned, the proposed development would keep only a much smaller percentage of the site in its natural state, in violation of the City code. Can you clarify if the square footage of the ADU is included in the percentage of the site coverage? Table J101.6 Special grading standards. The topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be allowed. In all cases, the average cross slope of a site shall be determined prior to any grading operations or approval of any grading plan. Where a site does not slope uniformly, the building official or city engineer shall determine average cross slope by proportional weighting of the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas. 4 http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4408. 4 c. The height of the proposed development may be inappropriate for hillside development adjacent to Terrace Hill. The proposed development is located directly adjacent to Terrace Hill Open Space. City design guidelines state that development adjacent to parks or other public open spaces should be designed to provide maximum visibility of these areas. The height of the proposed development may impact views from or views of Terrace Hill Open Space. The ARC should consider where the design of the proposed development is appropriate for its location, given its proximity to Terrace Hill. 3. The lot has documented drainage issues and recognized potential for soil erosion A major concern we have with the development proposed for the 1141 Ella Street lot is with soil/drainage. The previous owner, who built the house we are living in, talked extensively about the money spent on the foundation and drainage system due to the nature of the soil and the unstableness of the hill (he related stories of historical mudslides into Ella Street). Acquaintances of ours that live in Leland Terrace have shared stories with us regarding wall cracks, and other problems requiring remedy due to the nature of the soil. Down the street from us water seeps out onto Ella street and we have experienced mud and water running down our driveway during storm events. The soil and drainage concerns are not just anecdotal. A Custom Soil Resource Report was prepared for Terrace Hill using the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys. The Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation plan describes the soils on Terrace Hill as having severe erosion potential, especially given the 15- 50% slopes. Public comments on the Terrace Hill Open Space Plan indicate that many see drainage and erosion from Terrace Hill an issue. Development on the hill will have to consider the serious threat of soil failure. If approved, will there be stipulations about grading/construction work during the wet season? As neighbors directly downslope from the proposed development we would ask the ARC to ensure that downhill neighbors are protected from mass failure, erosion, and flooding both during and after construction. Code section 1804.3.1.2 Drainage, requires that provisions shall be made for the control and drainage of surface water and requires that drainage impacted by improvements and land contour changes shall not drain onto or across adjacent properties except in recorded drainage easements or natural waterways. We would ask that the ARC investigate how the proposed development intends to address these soil and drainage issues. 4. Construction Impact and Access: One additional concern we have is construction and construction access. How much cut/fill is associated with this project? How many truckloads of soil will have to be removed and how many truckloads of concrete, rebar, and all the other building materials will be required to construct this 4500 sq ft+ single family/ADU complex? There is only1 narrow, shared 20’ 5 driveway. Is there a plan for how long construction will be allowed to go on? Construction at 1205 Ella Street has been going on for years, causing inconvenience to all Ella Street users. The proposed development seems inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan, Community Development Guidelines (specifically Chapter 7.2. Hillside Development), Zoning Regulations and other City of San Luis Obispo development policies. Therefore, I request that the ARC not approve the development proposed at 1141 Ella Street. Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Steve & Grace Goschke 805-286-7980 1131 Ella Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401